2019 Toronto Raptors vs 1998 Chicago Bulls

[Lebron23]

Who do you think wins in a best of 7 series?

[BurningHammer]

Even I'm a Raptors fan, this is a dumb question.

[MrFonzworth]

Bulls shitstomp

[pandiani17]

The '19 Raptors were the typical Championship team that needed everything to go its' way to win the ring (Kawhi's shot vs Sixers, Warriors injuries, etc.), like the 2006 Heat, for example. The '98 Bulls were a dynasty, the last year of a proven team that won 3 rings together and a franchise that won 6 titles in 8 years. The answer is obvious.

[iamgine]

98 Bulls were about equal with 98 Indiana Pacers.

19 Raptors were about equal with 19 Philly

Who'd win, 98 Pacers or 19 Philly?

[pandiani17]

98 Bulls were about equal with 98 Indiana Pacers.

19 Raptors were about equal with 19 Philly

Who'd win, 98 Pacers or 19 Philly?

What a stupid comment. :facepalm The 2001 Sixers were the only team that won against the Lakers in '01. However, that doesn't make them a better team than the Spurs or Kings of that year. Just to give you an example.

[iamgine]

What a stupid comment. :facepalm The 2001 Sixers were the only team that won against the Lakers in '01. However, that doesn't make them a better team than the Spurs or Kings of that year. Just to give you an example.

Anyone can steal one game but having a 7 game close series means they're about equal.

[HunterSThompson]

mods. this is getting out of hand

[1987_Lakers]

It's obviously closer than some people are making it out to be, Bulls were running on fumes in '98, it was their worst team of the 6 chips. I can see it being a great series. That Raptors team not only had a superstar in Kawhi, but it was loaded with a quality supporting cast.

Lowry
Siakam
D. Green
Ibaka
M. Gasol (before he fell off a cliff)
VanVleet

Hard to find a 7 man rotation as good as that.

[Kawhi_Why_Not]

Raptors would have the best player on the court in kawhi. It's just a matter of how Lowry plays. If we get 2nd round lowry, bulls in 6. If we get conference finals Lowry then raptors in 6 of 7

[Kawhi_Why_Not]

It's obviously closer than some people are making it out to be, Bulls were running on fumes in '98, it was their worst team of the 6 chips. I can see it being a great series. That Raptors team not only had a superstar in Kawhi, but it was loaded with a quality supporting cast.

Lowry
Siakam
D. Green
Ibaka
M. Gasol (before he fell off a cliff)
VanVleet

Hard to find a 7 man rotation as good as that.

Marc gasol averaged 8PPG on 48% TS in the conference finals. That is falling off a cliff. I remember laughing at how fat he was his last season in Memphis

Vanvleet in the 2nd round averaged 2 points on 12% FG hahahahahah

[97 bulls]

It's obviously closer than some people are making it out to be, Bulls were running on fumes in '98, it was their worst team of the 6 chips. I can see it being a great series. That Raptors team not only had a superstar in Kawhi, but it was loaded with a quality supporting cast.

Lowry
Siakam
D. Green
Ibaka
M. Gasol (before he fell off a cliff)
VanVleet

Hard to find a 7 man rotation as good as that.

I don't know about that. I mean that they had the best record in the NBA with Pippen missing half the season. How many games do they win if Pippen plays the 75 of thos games? Maybe 67? 68?

[ShawkFactory]

It's obviously closer than some people are making it out to be, Bulls were running on fumes in '98, it was their worst team of the 6 chips. I can see it being a great series. That Raptors team not only had a superstar in Kawhi, but it was loaded with a quality supporting cast.

Lowry
Siakam
D. Green
Ibaka
M. Gasol (before he fell off a cliff)
VanVleet

Hard to find a 7 man rotation as good as that.

That was an incredibly deep team.

[1987_Lakers]

Marc gasol averaged 8PPG on 48% TS in the conference finals. That is falling off a cliff. I remember laughing at how fat he was his last season in Memphis

Vanvleet in the 2nd round averaged 2 points on 12% FG hahahahahah

Gasol also held Embiid to 37 fg% in that same playoff run, they don't win that series without him.

And in the Finals Vanvleet averaged 14 ppg on 61 TS%.

That team was loaded, there is a reason why they finished with the 2nd best record in the NBA without Kawhi the next year.

[1987_Lakers]

I don't know about that. I mean that they had the best record in the NBA with Pippen missing half the season. How many games do they win if Pippen plays the 75 of thos games? Maybe 67? 68?

I mean, the Pacers took them to 7 games, the Jazz made it a competitive series against them as well, there is no doubt the Raptors would have given them some trouble.

[97 bulls]

I mean, the Pacers took them to 7 games, the Jazz made it a competitive series against them as well, there is no doubt the Raptors would have given them some trouble.

The Knicks took the Bulls to 7 games in 93.

Let's not forget Pippen was hurt in 98. This is always ignored. Not to mention the Bulls one of the Bulls four wins vs the Jazz in 98 was a record setting blowout. Many feel they would've won in 98 had they not been broken up.

[1987_Lakers]

The Knicks took the Bulls to 7 games in 93.

Let's not forget Pippen was hurt in 98. This is always ignored. Not to mention the Bulls one of the Bulls four wins vs the Jazz in 98 was a record setting blowout. Many feel they would've won in 98 had they not been broken up.

If you want to talk injures, wasn't Reggie Miller also playing on a sprained ankle vs the Bulls?

[97 bulls]

If you want to talk injures, wasn't Reggie Miller also playing on a sprained ankle vs the Bulls?

Yes. But the Bulls beat the Jazz with Pippen having a bad back. The Pacers lost. Were talking about the overall closeness of that Jazz series.

[AirBonner]

MJ never faced a defender like Kawhi

[1987_Lakers]

Yes. But the Bulls beat the Jazz with Pippen having a bad back. The Pacers lost. Were talking about the overall closeness of that Jazz series.

What about in '97 with a healthier Pippen and the Jazz still made it a competitive series vs the Bulls? 3 of the games the Bulls won were decided by 4 points or less. I'm aware Pippen had a bad foot, but he still produced pretty well in that series and was much healthier compared to '98.

This is why I don't put too much stock in how many games the Bulls won during the regular season in those years, their competition was obviously weak compared to other eras and there were some unremarkable teams that gave them some problems in the playoffs.

[HoopsNY]

What about in '97 with a healthier Pippen and the Jazz still made it a competitive series vs the Bulls? 3 of the games the Bulls won were decided by 4 points or less. I'm aware Pippen had a bad foot, but he still produced pretty well in that series and was much healthier compared to '98.

This is why I don't put too much stock in how many games the Bulls won during the regular season in those years, their competition was obviously weak compared to other eras and there were some unremarkable teams that gave them some problems in the playoffs.

Chicago had a 67 win pace with a healthy Pippen. The Jazz gave them competition because the Jazz were a great team.

The Jazz made it out of the Western Conference, beating teams like the Spurs, Lakers, and Rockets. There is nothing "weak" about them as competition, though I do agree by 1998, the league as a whole was weaker than it had been in many decades.

Despite that, I think Chicago beats Toronto in 6.

[1987_Lakers]

Chicago had a 67 win pace with a healthy Pippen. The Jazz gave them competition because the Jazz were a great team.

The Jazz made it out of the Western Conference, beating teams like the Spurs, Lakers, and Rockets. There is nothing "weak" about them as competition, though I do agree by 1998, the league as a whole was weaker than it had been in many decades.

Despite that, I think Chicago beats Toronto in 6.

I don't buy the Jazz being a great team, this is a team that had their core of players most of the 90's and they never even reached the Finals until '97. What makes the '97 Jazz that much different than say '95 when they lost in the 1st round?

I think a '98 Bulls matchup with that Raptors team would be a dogfight.

[HoopsNY]

I don't buy the Jazz being a great team, this is a team that had their core of players most of the 90's and they never even reached the Finals until '97. What makes the '97 Jazz that much different than say '95 when they lost in the 1st round?

I think a '98 Bulls matchup with that Raptors team would be a dogfight.

They weren't a great team? They absolutely demolished the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers. The '97 Bulls were a 69 win team (probably win 72 games if their guys were all healthy during the reg season), and were taken to 6 games by Utah.

You realize the only reason Utah doesn't have two championships right now is because of MJ?

[97 bulls]

What about in '97 with a healthier Pippen and the Jazz still made it a competitive series vs the Bulls? 3 of the games the Bulls won were decided by 4 points or less. I'm aware Pippen had a bad foot, but he still produced pretty well in that series and was much healthier compared to '98.

This is why I don't put too much stock in how many games the Bulls won during the regular season in those years, their competition was obviously weak compared to other eras and there were some unremarkable teams that gave them some problems in the playoffs.

I'm only responding to your assessment that the 98 Bulls were on their last leg. The 97 Bulls won 69 games with Rodman and Kukoc missing roughly 30 games each. And as I always say, Brian Williams would've been huge had he played the whole season.

As far as the weak competition argument, I obviously disagree. The Bulls beat the Lakers and Pistons in 91. And they only got 1 game off them with that one game being a last second 3 by Sam Perkins. And nobody feels that 91 team was the Bulls best team. Even if you want to say the Lakers missed Kareem and Cooper (an old Kareem) they mollywhomped the Pistons who had their players. And they weren't old.

So your weak competition argument doesn't hold any type of weight

[97 bulls]

They weren't a great team? They absolutely demolished the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers. The '97 Bulls were a 69 win team (probably win 72 games if their guys were all healthy during the reg season), and were taken to 6 games by Utah.

You realize the only reason Utah doesn't have two championships right now is because of MJ?

Exactly

[HoopsNY]

The '98 Spurs had Duncan, Johnson, and Robinson. That team won 56 games and was gentlemen swept by Utah. The very next season, SA nearly swept their way through the Western Conference Playoffs, going 11-1, sweeping a Lakers team with prime Shaq-Kobe-Rice, and eventually winning the championship.

[1987_Lakers]

They weren't a great team? They absolutely demolished the Rockets, Spurs, and Lakers. The '97 Bulls were a 69 win team (probably win 72 games if their guys were all healthy during the reg season), and were taken to 6 games by Utah.

You realize the only reason Utah doesn't have two championships right now is because of MJ?

Again, if they were such a great team why didn't they make a Finals prior to '97? It's no secret that the West was filled with alot of good teams, but none of them were great. Spurs, Supersonics, Jazz, & Suns were always losing to each other, even the Rockets who won back to back chips in the mid 90's to this day are not considered an all-time great team.

You in the other thread pointed out how the 2017 & 2018 Warriors are basically the same team, what makes the '95 & '97 Jazz that much different from each other? Their 3 best players are the same, similar production from role players, and their statistics as a team are pretty much the same all across the board, offense & defense. And the '95 team lost in the 1st round.

[HoopsNY]

Again, if they were such a great team why didn't they make a Finals prior to '97? It's no secret that the West was filled with alot of good teams, but none of them were great. Spurs, Supersonics, Jazz, & Suns were always losing to each other, even the Rockets who won back to back chips in the mid 90's to this day are not considered an all-time great team.

You in the other thread pointed out how the 2017 & 2018 Warriors are basically the same team, what makes the '95 & '97 Jazz that much different from each other? Their 3 best players are the same, similar production from role players, and their statistics as a team are pretty much the same all across the board, offense & defense. And the '95 team lost in the 1st round.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. If you want to be consistent, then at least rely on two similar data samples (the '97 Jazz with the '98 Jazz), not a team from two years prior. That's a tad bit inconsistent.

And my comparison between the '17 and '18 Warriors was to show how beatable they were against another great team, not to dispute their actual greatness, which still transcends nearly every other team in league history (and can be stated that they were in fact the greatest team in league history).

The '97 and '98 Jazz were great in part because they beat great teams during the playoffs. The West was stacked and the Jazz not only made the finals in back to back years, but they did so in convincing fashion.

[1987_Lakers]

You're comparing apples to oranges here. If you want to be consistent, then at least rely on two similar data samples (the '97 Jazz with the '98 Jazz), not a team from two years prior. That's a tad bit inconsistent.

And my comparison between the '17 and '18 Warriors was to show how beatable they were against another great team, not to dispute their actual greatness, which still transcends nearly every other team in league history (and can be stated that they were in fact the greatest team in league history).

The '97 and '98 Jazz were great in part because they beat great teams during the playoffs. The West was stacked and the Jazz not only made the finals in back to back years, but they did so in convincing fashion.

Not apples and oranges at all, in fact the '95 Jazz might have been better considering Stockton, Malone, & Hornacek were younger. I just find it strange how they didn't make the Finals until they got older, you're telling me they improved as a team in '97 as their main players hit their mid 30's? I'm not buying it.

[97 bulls]

Again, if they were such a great team why didn't they make a Finals prior to '97? It's no secret that the West was filled with alot of good teams, but none of them were great. Spurs, Supersonics, Jazz, & Suns were always losing to each other, even the Rockets who won back to back chips in the mid 90's to this day are not considered an all-time great team.

You in the other thread pointed out how the 2017 & 2018 Warriors are basically the same team, what makes the '95 & '97 Jazz that much different from each other? Their 3 best players are the same, similar production from role players, and their statistics as a team are pretty much the same all across the board, offense & defense. And the '95 team lost in the 1st round.

Sometimes it's just dumb luck. They lost to the Rockets twice in 94 and 95. I'm not sure that they lose to the Rocketss in 95 if the Rockets don't get Clyde Drexler. They lost in the WCF in 96 to the Sonics and then lost twice in the Finals to the Bulls. Let's not act like the Jazz were an 8th seed barely making the playoffs and then suddenly they came out of nowhere to find themselves in back to back finals

[97 bulls]

Sometimes it's just dumb luck. They lost to the Rockets twice in 94 and 95. I'm not sure that they lose to the Rocketss in 95 if the Rockets don't get Clyde Drexler. They lost in the WCF in 96 to the Sonics and then lost twice in the Finals to the Bulls. Let's not act like the Jazz were an 8th seed barely making the playoffs and then suddenly they came out of nowhere to find themselves in back to back finals
Just to give what I stated here some added scale. In six seasons, the Jazz lost to the NBA Champion 4 times. And to the WC Champion twice.

[HoopsNY]

Not apples and oranges at all, in fact the '95 Jazz might have been better considering Stockton, Malone, & Hornacek were younger. I just find it strange how they didn't make the Finals until they got older, you're telling me they improved as a team in '97 as their main players hit their mid 30's? I'm not buying it.

They were up against peak Hakeem, who was (in my estimation) a top 10 player of all-time. Utah aged like wine as the mid 90s rolled around. The thing that stood out the most was how potent their offense had become. Also, Bryon Russell was a just a bench player in '95 and hadn't developed into a good defensive player and shooter as he did in '97 and '98.

But another thing you have to consider; the '95 Jazz were a great team, too. They faced the eventual champions in Houston. In all honesty, they shouldn't have been facing Houston because Houston's record didn't indicate how great they were as a team. Houston added Clyde mid-season and went 17-18 with him, causing their record to drop. It was expected earlier on given that they had a lot of chemistry issues and dealing with Vernon Maxwell's mental issues. So the fact that they lost in the 1st round isn't indicative of their abilities as a team, especially when the series went to 5 games (1st round was a best of 5 series).

In addition to adding Russell to the starting lineup, Utah added Howard Eisley and Shandon Anderson off the bench. Those guys were key in the 1998 season, especially in the absence of John Stockton.

In 18 starts, Eisley put up 11/2/6/1 on 47/52/83. Not to mention, Eisley did this in less than 30 minutes a game. They're not stellar numbers, but you had to see the Jerry Sloan system to see how well guys like Anderson and Eisley played, especially on both sides of the ball.

If Eisley plays a full 36-38 mpg in '98, what's he doing? 15/4/8/2 on slightly lower efficiency? And keep in mind, these are numbers in a very slow era. Adjust for pace relative to 2017 or 2018 numbers, and what's he doing? Maybe 17/5/10/2 on 47/40/80, at least for that season?

Lastly, Utah went to the WCF 5 times in the '90s. They lost to the eventual champions 4 times. They were basically one step away from winning it all. I'm not sure what you expect out of a "great team" that doesn't win a championship, especially when this team was doing it in a stacked conference.