Bill Simmons: "96 Bulls are not a top-10 All-time and are worse than the '01 Lakers"

[QUOTE=Soundwave]You can argue the '96 Bulls aren't the best ever (though you'd be in the minority)[/QUOTE]
What??? Showtime and 80s Celts are definitely better than the 96 Bulls.

[QUOTE=joe]You guys are just so in love with MJ and his legacy that you're afraid to admit that he would ever faulter to any team. you didn't even listen to his arguments, which were basically..

The league was falling apart that year, talent wise. All the good teams were on the downside of their "prime," and MJs bulls were the best team left.

Furthermore, while you're busy defending the greatness of MJ, bill simmons even said that the 92 Bulls were a great team, just that he didn't think the 98 bulls were a top-10 team

You guys are so, so, so competely sickening with your MJ homerism. Just stop, everyone on this site. Just stop.

When someone states that they think MJ's Bulls could be beaten by a Prime-Shaq led Championship team that went 15-1 in a VERY tough western conference finals... and you are actually OFFENDED and say that that person has lost all credibility, i think you need to see a therapist. its very sad, some of the MJ love that goes on here.[/QUOTE]

Great post. Saying that the Bulls weren't the "best ever", is not equivalent to denying MJ GOAT status.

[QUOTE=Chrono90]jordan was unstoppable and shaq was unstoppable, but i take the bulls over chicago because they won more regular season games[/QUOTE]


How can that happen????

tht's an interesting take, looking at other team rosters at the time i can certainly see where he would come to that conclusion...
lol at all the guys who suddenly are qouting holinger when half the time anyone posts stats they scream "stats don't tell the story"

I would say the majority of basketball fans if polled would pick the 96 Bulls as the best team ever (now whether you want to debate against that is your perogative, but it wouldn't change that you're likely in the minority).

But to not even put them in the top 10 ... obviously this is a piece written to get attention for shock value because no one would read it otherwise.

The NBA being watered down in 1996 is so laughable as well. The NBA was a lot stronger in 1996.

Saying those Lakers from '01 were better than the Bulls in '96 isn't going out on a limb or anything.

I mean we're talking about an absoulute prime Shaq here. Some say at his best he was better than Jordan at his best. Very good supporting cast. One of the best sidekicks ever. I truly believe the supporting casts do not give the Bulls, or the Lakers, a clear advantage.

I think it comes down to how effective both Michael and Shaq played. My money would be on Shaq. I think it's an open and shut case that Shaq outplays a past prime Jordan.

In the end, that's the difference.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Bill Simmons: Read my article. Please read my article. I'll add more controversey.

You can argue the '96 Bulls aren't the best ever (though you'd be in the minority), but not even top 10 ... gimme a break.

The NBA was soft in 1996? The '96 Orlando Magic or the '96 Sonics would tear the 2007 NBA apart. The '96 Jazz, Rockets, Pacers, Knicks, and Suns were nothing to scoff at either ... all of those teams if put into 2007 would have a pretty strong shot at getting to the Finals. The 95-96 Miami Heat who were the 8th seed in the 1996 Eastern Conference could probably be the no.1 or no.2 seed in the 2007 NBA Eastern Conference.

Teams like the 2007 Lakers or Warriors wouldn't even make the playoffs in 1996, and half the East at least wouldn't make it.[/QUOTE]


:roll: :roll: He's not comparing it to 2007! He's comparing the best years the league has ever had. For all the MJ love, Shaq was still 3-4 years away from his prime, Kemp was too young, and Malone was too easy to frustrate.

MJ is one of the greats to ever play the game, but by no means is he that much more significant in a matchup than LARRY BIRD. MJ+Pippen is a killer combination, one of the best ever, but the depth of the team is a joke compared to the all time teams.

The MJ apologist response might be:[I] well, the 90's Bulls played together better than any team ever, that's why the won the most games, and MJ simply wanted it more than anyone else!!![/I]

I say bullcrap. All the best teams play as a team and have the ability to take it to the next level, THAT's WHY THEY'RE THE BEST TEAMS! Once you get rid of that block you have to look at the lineups.

To use an example of a team that would have toyed with the 96 Bulls, I'll go with the 85-86 Celtics:

PG Dennis Johnson - 9 time all defensive team, (6 time first team), two time all NBA, 5 all-star games, Finals MVP --> DJ > Ron Harper

SG Danny Ainge - clear disadvantage here (MJ would destroy Ainge), but Ainge is comparable to Steve Kerr --> MJ > Ferry

SF Larry Bird- don't need to go into specifics, way better than Pippen, same competitive instincts as MJ (Larry Legend just had to go against harder competition)

PF Kevin McHale - one of the best PF's to ever play the game. Comparable to Duncan in the post (Kevin wasn't as good a rebounder though). Rodman was a good defender and top 3 rebounder of all time: but McHale was a 6 time all defensive team member, all NBA first team, 7 time all star, one of the better shot blockers of the 80's, and always had one of the best shooting %'s in the league --> McHale > Rodman

C Robert Parish - Chief clowns on anyone the Bulls have here

and 6th man of the year: Bill Walton- While the Bulls calling card might be the strength of the team as a whole under the leadership of MJ, Bill Walton is one of the better [B]team[/B] players the game has ever seen. Bill and Tony might have both been 6th men of the year, but Bill is on a whole other level. Bill wasn't a defensive liability, and was more than serviceable at the offensive end. He was one of the better rebounders in the league even after his numerous surgeries. He was an experienced veteran who had previously been a star, the same could not be said for Kukoc. --> Walton > Kukoc

-----

Then there are the intangibles like home crowd, desire (street hunger), energy, motivation and such. While MJ was one of the most dedicated players to ever play the game, and the Bulls as a group carried a sort of bravado, Larry and the Celtics would match them at every opportunity. So if you look at the matchups and the intangibles, the Bulls cleary take it.

Even MJ at his all time individual greatest (averaged 44 points a game against the Celtics that year in the playoffs) couldn't top a Celtics team [B]just[/B] getting started on their playoff run.

LOL, Jordan in '86 was no where even close to his individual greatest. He had absolutely no support on that team at all, if the Celtics didn't win that series that'd be utterly pathetic.

Does any one even actually believe the '96 Bulls aren't even a top 10 all-time team?

*crickets*

The guy is writing a fluff piece based on sensationalism. The fact is he probably wouldn't get as much attention if he wrote the '96 Bulls would sweep the 80s Celtics and then the 80s Lakers back to back. He knows the '96 Bulls are the consensus pick of the best team ever by the general public and a lot of hardcore basketball fans ... you can tell people aren't paying much attention to basketball these days when writers are stooping to write these kinds of pieces.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]LOL, Jordan in '86 was no where even close to his individual greatest.

Does any even actually believe the '96 Bulls aren't even a top 10 all-time team?

*crickets*[/QUOTE]

Really, then what was his INDIVIDUAL BEST performance? I'm not talking about winning, I'm talking about playing out of his mind. Sure he was not quite in his prime yet, he would get more mature and manage games better, but when did he ever put a more sublime game or series together?

His game peaked around '90-'92 in my opinion; certainly not back in '86.

[QUOTE=BlackMoses]Really, then what was his INDIVIDUAL BEST performance? I'm not talking about winning, I'm talking about playing out of his mind. Sure he was not quite in his prime yet, he would get more mature and manage games better, but when did he ever put a more sublime game or series together?[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I think Jordan was capable of doing that (scoring 40,50, even 60) whenever he really felt like it.

It wasn't great team basketball though and he wasn't required to do it as much later on in his career.

I would say some of his performances vs. the Knicks later on in the playoffs, game 1 of the 1992 finals, the game he played sick vs. the Jazz, the 1988 season when he won MVP, scoring title, AND defensive player of the year, his last game as a Bull, etc. are more impressive performances.

Just because he had a higher point total in those certain games doesn't IMO make those his best games. Otherwise the 69 point game vs. Cleveland should be his best game ever (which it isn't).

[QUOTE=Carbine]His game peaked around '90-'92 in my opinion; certainly not back in '86.[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

Seriously -- how can a player's game peak in their second season? Jordan's game management, skills/athleticism, balancing of team/individual play, and basketball IQ peaked from '90-'93.

The flu game is regarded by many to be overrated, but believe me... under those circumstances, it was incredable. I recently had flu like symptoms, nothing that required IV's but anyway, it was VERY difficult to play a semi-run basketball game on courts that were 3/4 the NBA size. Everything from the jumpshot, to mental focus, etc were effected.

I have great respect for that individual effort put forth by MJ.

His game against PHX in the finals where he scored 55 (or 56, I can't remember) was one of my favorites to watch.

Not really sure why you quoted me there Loki, but whatever.

I agree 100% with you.

I dont see how the league was weak enough in 96 to discredit the Bulls team greatness. It was a weak time, mainly due to a surge in strategy that limited scoring. Some rule changes has eliminated this. Talent wise, the centres and power forwards are on a different level now compared to now. And a case can be made for the guards. Do the research and check out the talent.

I mean, that 96 team with veteran smart (yet most effective) Jordan, prime Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc, Harper (an excellent defender and a smart offensive player who lost his slashing skills due to injury) is definitely top ten.

Look at this and understand. It is better than young athletic jordan, young pippen, grant, cartwright and paxson and that team destroyed the pistons who had competed with the prime lakers/ celts.

[QUOTE=Carbine]Not really sure why you quoted me there Loki, but whatever.

I agree 100% with you.[/QUOTE]

I was agreeing with you too. I'm not sure how anyone could think that Jordan's game peaked in his sophomore season.