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

No doubt.

I actually own the Ultimate Jordan DVD with that particular game on it from '86 and it's just beyond me how somebody could say he was at his best; aside from looking at a boxscore - which that poster probably did because many people talk out of their you know what around here. :oldlol:

His game was so raw back then compared to what it evolved into.

First off, whether a team faces inferior competition or not is irrelevant. The important thing is domination over the competition that is available. A team has no control over the competition. All they can do is beat whoever comes in front of them. Bulls had a +10.6ppg point differential in the playoffs. It wasn't like they were barely winning in the regular season or playoffs. There's no way to prove that they couldn't beat if there were better teams.

Second, the competitive balance would be about the same for every team. Some years, there are more than one great teams and some very bad teams. Some years there are no great teams and less very bad teams. No sudden jumps happen in [I]overall [/I]difficulty around the league in just one year.Meaning that, if there were more BAD teams in 1996, then it would mean that there were also more GOOD teams for the Bulls to play.

So, if you are a .800 team like the Bulls, which is easier? Beating two different .500 teams or beating a .700 team plus a .300 team?

they are a top 10 team of all time, but the 1986 celtics were better and always will be the greatest NBA team ever esembled..

[QUOTE=IBLEEDGREEN43]they are a top 10 team of all time, but the 1986 celtics were better and always will be the greatest NBA team ever esembled..[/QUOTE]

I would say a few of the Russell teams may have been better..... and an argument could be made for the Jerry West laker team that won 69 or whatever it was

[QUOTE=teflon don][url]http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16169[/url]

Wow. Just wow.

But seriously, is there anything more enjoyable than seeing a critically-acclaimed sports writer lose all bodily credibly in just one sentence. Wow.

Let's get this future 10-page thread started.[/QUOTE]


Hey, I don't agree, but saying "the 01 lakers could have beaten the 96 bulls" is HELL LOT more reasonable than the ass clowns claiming Tony Parker is more unstoppable than Jordan or "no one on the Bulls could handle Tony Parker" on that other Jordan thread.

So 72-10 doesn't mean anything??? Not better than the 2001 Lakers? Is that a freaking joke or what?

[QUOTE]also, he said that the league was at one of its absolute weakest eras from 96-98.[/QUOTE]

Jazz, Magic, Rockets, Sonics, Knicks, Pacers, Heat were "weak"? Who the f is this guy? I'd even take those Magic teams with Shaq, Horace Grant and Hardaway over the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe.

[QUOTE=ConanRulesNBC]Jazz, Magic, Rockets, Sonics, Knicks, Pacers, Heat were "weak"? Who the f is this guy? I'd even take those Magic teams with Shaq, Horace Grant and Hardaway over the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe.[/QUOTE]


Come on, be resonable. 2001 Shaq would own 96 Shaq, and 2001 Kobe was the best "team player Kobe". That was when his skills was reaching superstar level AND he was still willing to play second fiddle because his ego hadn't blown up yet. Saying the 2001 team could beat the 96 Bulls IS NOT THAT OUTRAGEOUS. I don't agree, but still, it's not. PRIME SHAQ+Kobe before his ego blew up+very, very good role players.

Now in hindsight, Kobe and Shaq may not have had super talents around them but they had guys with high basketball IQ and smart vets.

Fisher, Fox, Horry, all three of these guys knows how to flop, knows how to play "dirty", knows how to rough up mentally weak guys to take them out of their game, they are VERY good role players. They are smart.

the 01 team also had guys like JR Rider, Horace Grant, Lindsay Hunter (very good on ball defender) AND Ron Harper.

They were a damn good team.

BUt still, no one beats a angry Jordan. Plus Jordan would have extra motivation to kill Horace Grant. hahah

[QUOTE=G-train]I would say a few of the Russell teams may have been better..... and an argument could be made for the Jerry West laker team that won 69 or whatever it was[/QUOTE]

maybe.. but as far as talent on a roster.. the 86 celtics own the crown

this is what happened to Shaq when he crossed paths with MJ

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8g40udNBfM[/url]

I know he wasn't in his prime but MJ would still posterize his ass all night long...

[B][I][U]Bill Simmons: Yes. Emphatically. I think they won the most games ever. I would not have them in the top-10. You're telling me they could have beaten the 2001 Lakers in a series? Or the '86 Celtics? Or the '85 Lakers? or the '83 Sixers? Gimme a break.
[/U][/I][/B]
uh ...what...WTF Stupid, stupid thing to say. Truly. I am no Bulls fan but damn anyone who has been alive long enough to see the last couple of decades plus of basketball should no better. 96 Bulls are the top of the heap as far as championship teams go.

[QUOTE=teflon don][url]http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=16169[/url]

Wow. Just wow.

But seriously, is there anything more enjoyable than seeing a critically-acclaimed sports writer lose all bodily credibly in just one sentence. Wow.

Let's get this future 10-page thread started.[/QUOTE]


Bill's on crack thats why ;)

[QUOTE=IBLEEDGREEN43]they are a top 10 team of all time, but the 1986 celtics were better and always will be the greatest NBA team ever esembled..[/QUOTE]
ummmm, no. no they are not.

Well hell, you could also make an arguement that the 2001 Lakers would beat the 80s Celtics or Lakers too.

Or the 1990 Pistons could also have taken both.

But here come the Bird/Magic "apologists" now I guess.

My personal feeling is in a 7 game series defense > offense just about every single time.