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

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]I watched the series when it happened, thank you very much, as well as the entire championship run. The point is that everyone acts as if Jordan would torch whatever poor, hapless, unfortunate soul who had the misfortune of being matched up against him. He didn't do it in the season in question on the biggest stage, so why does everyone assume he'd blow anyone else out of the water? That was his worst Finals by far, and if not for Rodman's offensive rebounding--which made up for no one being able to make a shot, the Bulls would've lost that series. So why does everyone act like they were invincible and couldn't possibly be defeated by any team in history, when it took record rebounding performances by Rodman to keep them from losing to Seattle, who aren't an all-time great team? That's all I'm saying. A little objectivity rather than simply making a blanket statement that no team in history could compete with the Bulls, and that Jordan would decimate his defender.[/QUOTE]

I agree with the general sentiment, but I just think it's faulty reasoning to say, "hey, he shot 42% in the '96 Finals, so we can assume that he might have shot that way against any other good/great defender." That series was an anomaly in terms of his Finals performances, and that was due to the reasons I cited -- reasons which we could not assume would have come to pass in other hypothetical series. I just think it's better to go by the totality of evidence (Jordan's general playoff/Finals dominance) rather than an isolated instance.

I dont think that the 89 pistons should be on the top 10 list....they beat a laker team in the finals without Magic, Worthy and Scott....if they were all healthy and the Pistons played them then maybe I would consider them....


Honorable mention

one of the Spurs teams (exclude the 98-99 team) has to be on this list (4 championships in 9 years)

[QUOTE=Loki]I agree with the general sentiment, but I just think it's faulty reasoning to say, "hey, he shot 42% in the '96 Finals, so we can assume that he might have shot that way against any other good/great defender."[/QUOTE]

As I said, the point was to show that when talking about the 1995-96 Bulls vs. whoever, it's not a given that Jordan's going to destroy whoever he's up against, since it didn't actually happen in real life during that season, against a team which doesn't compare to the all-time great teams that Bulls team is compared against.

[QUOTE=Loki]That series was an anomaly in terms of his Finals performances, and that was due to the reasons I cited -- reasons which we could not assume would have come to pass in other hypothetical series. I just think it's better to go by the totality of evidence (Jordan's general playoff/Finals dominance) rather than an isolated instance.[/QUOTE]

You can't just do that, because you're talking about a specific period in time. The 1995-96 Bulls are being discussed here, which means the 1995-96 Jordan, not the 1988-89 Jordan, or the '90-91 Jordan, or the '91-92 Jordan, etc. Just like if you're matching them up against the '85-86 Celtics, it means the '85-86 Bird, not the sum totality of Bird's career. If you're going against the '86-87 Lakers, it means the '86-87 Magic as well as the '86-87 Kareem, rather than say, the '79-80 Kareem where he was the MVP of the league and dropping 32/12 in the playoffs. You don't get to pick and choose, you get those players and what they did in that particular year.

No one ... *no* one was going to beat the Bulls that year.

The Sonics going down 3-0 kinda made it anti-climactic. The Bulls kinda eased up after that and Seattle was able to save face by winning 2 in a row, before the inevitable.

Yeah I would also put the 96 Bulls as the Greatest Team of All-Time. They were amazing that year.


And really, Payton really did a great job on Jordan. Jordan shot 42% for the series, but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, [B]Jordan shot only 39%[/B]. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%.
Seattle had great overall perimeter defense to help out Payton, but overall, it was Payton's main defender and he did a terrific job slowing down Michael Jordan.


And really, the Sonics had a shot to win the series as well. The Bulls weren't playing their best that series, if the Sonics had brought their best game in, they would've won the series. However, the Sonics didn't, they played neutral.

And even though the Bulls were up 3-0, after it got 3-2, the pressure actually did reach the Bulls. Even all over the media everyone was getting tensed up for the Bulls. So it wasn't easy all along type series for the Bulls.

[QUOTE=Glove_20] but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, [B]Jordan shot only 39%[/B]. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%. [/quote]

To this day, though I've asked you several times, you've [b]never[/b] provided a source for the above statistic. Either put up or shut up.

[quote=Glove_20]Yeah I would also put the 96 Bulls as the Greatest Team of All-Time. They were amazing that year.


And really, Payton really did a great job on Jordan. Jordan shot 42% for the series, but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, [B]Jordan shot only 39%[/B]. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%.
Seattle had great overall perimeter defense to help out Payton, but overall, it was Payton's main defender and he did a terrific job slowing down Michael Jordan.


And really, the Sonics had a shot to win the series as well. The Bulls weren't playing their best that series, if the Sonics had brought their best game in, they would've won the series. However, the Sonics didn't, they played neutral.

And even though the Bulls were up 3-0, after it got 3-2, the pressure actually did reach the Bulls. Even all over the media everyone was getting tensed up for the Bulls. So it wasn't easy all along type series for the Bulls.[/quote]

please correct me if i am wrong

payton wasnt the primary defender on mj until game 4. i blame karl for not going with this matchup

we didnt get nate back from his minor injury until game 4

i think that if these two things didnt happen, the series would have been much different; perhaps not the outcome, but a game seven isnt out of consideration in this scenario

the bulls had no answer to monster kemp during that whole series

[QUOTE=RainierBeachPoet]the bulls had no answer to monster kemp during that whole series[/QUOTE]

No, they didn't. In fact, there was talk at the time as to whether Kemp should be the second player to win Finals MVP from the losing team, because he was the best player in that series.

Here's a website that also argues that the 95-96 Bulls were not the best team ever.
[link] [url]http://pweb.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/donut.htm[/url] [/link]

I disagree with the website- I guess some people have forgotten the games they have played. I mean, the Bulls defense that year was incredible - I've never seen anything like it. The Magic were having trouble just getting the ball up to midcourt, and also having lots of trouble just inbounding the ball! It was crazy. And the Magic was a very good team that year- if Shaq wasn't injured during the beginning of the season, they could have easily approached the 65-70 win mark. That Bulls defense was suffocating!

The two games they lost to the Sonics- well, I bet some of it could be attributed to Dennis Rodman's partying in Seattle. He recently admitted that he was pretty buzzed from drinking when he was playing (He said he was drinking and then said 'feeling pretty nice' I think were his exact words).

[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]

Simmons spoke THE HONEST TRUTH. 96 bulls = most overrated team in the league history. They're good but not all that. The 90s is the weakest era in the league history.

[QUOTE=TheHonestTruth]Simmons spoke THE HONEST TRUTH. 96 bulls = most overrated team in the league history. They're good but not all that. [B]The 90s is the weakest era in the league history.[/B][/QUOTE]

Woah. Don't get ahead of yourself. League history? If the entire decade was weak at all in a sense, don't you think you're taking it to the other extreme?

Jordan himself said that that particular team had the best chemistry he had ever played with from any Bulls team (sourced from [I]For the Love of the Game - My Story by Michael Jordan[/I]) If the man himself, who had played with a great team like the '92 Bulls, can classify them above that, than that must count for something. Someone who doesn't know too much about how great a team is might say that the '96 Bulls were the GOAT Team (no shots at anyone, so please don't take it as such), but to people who are smarter than that know that that's not true, but how could you take a team that played such great rhythm basketball for the course of a season, lost only 10 games, beating the competition by such a wide margin, and not put them in the top-10 all-time, just because the league wasn't as strong as other years? Absolutely not fair to the talent, coaching staff, and intelligence of the players (or at least the overall focus), when some kind of credit is due for being as consistant as they were throughout the season, playing great team ball, and, above all, winning the championship, and posting a 15-3 record in the playoffs. Just because some fanatics overrate that team doesn't mean you should underrate them to balance.

I agree that the 96 Bulls arent the best team ever. That was the 92 Bulls. But not in the top ten is pure crack smoking garbage. And the weak league. I also agree the league had a lot of weak teams but it also had a strong ass Knicks team, great Sonics team and one of the best teams Ive ever seen in the Magic. Not to mention other strong ones like the Pacers etc. And all of them were wiped out by the Bulls with ease.

I just saw this...
[QUOTE]The 90s is the weakest era in the league history[/QUOTE]

That is truly amazing. This person must either be 90 or 9. Possibly the most off base coment Ive ever seen.

RBP, Karl put Payton on Jordan primarily from Game 3 and on. So they 2-2 in that stretch.


[QUOTE=Loki]To this day, though I've asked you several times, you've [b]never[/b] provided a source for the above statistic. Either put up or shut up.[/QUOTE]


I've asked you numerous amounts of times if you want links


I've also asked you to check your memory or re watch the series. The Sonics game with a game plan of double teaming Jordan whenever he gets the ball, and having their DPOY guard Pippen. Jordan wasn't stopped Games 1 and 2, so it didn't work. Pippen though was limited to 41%.

So Karl then at Game 3 decided to put Payton on Jordan. And from that point on, Jordan was held to 39% shooting.

[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]

That's just dumb. the '01 Shaq would have killed his '96 self. And '01 Horace Grant would have bested his '96 self. '01 Brian Shaw...oh forget it.

The [B]Heat[/B] didn't have a team until after the All-Star break. They added 5 new players got in by 1 game and got swept in the first round of the playoffs. [B]Utah[/B], [B]Houston[/B] and [B]Seattle[/B] were good but they were on the left coast which meant they'd only see the Bulls two times each (They all lost). [B]Pacers[/B] Split with the Bulls that year so that's a wash. The [B]Magic[/B] were good, going 60-22 with Shaq missing 22 games with injury but they were first class choke artists three years running. IMO the Simmons claim is at least worth discussion. It ain't out of the question.

[QUOTE=Glove_20][B]Yeah I would also put the 96 Bulls as the Greatest Team of All-Time[/B]. They were amazing that year.


And really, Payton really did a great job on Jordan. Jordan shot 42% for the series, but when Gary Payton was the primary Defender on Jordan, [B]Jordan shot only 39%[/B]. I believe without Gary on Jordan, Jordan shot almost 50%.
Seattle had great overall perimeter defense to help out Payton, but overall, it was Payton's main defender and he did a terrific job slowing down Michael Jordan.


And really, the Sonics had a shot to win the series as well. The Bulls weren't playing their best that series, [B]if the Sonics had brought their best game in, they would've won the series[/B]. However, the Sonics didn't, they played neutral.

And even though the Bulls were up 3-0, after it got 3-2, the pressure actually did reach the Bulls. Even all over the media everyone was getting tensed up for the Bulls. So it wasn't easy all along type series for the Bulls.[/QUOTE]


so if the sonics had played their best, they would have beaten the greatest team of all time? wouldn't that make THEM the greatest team of all time? and really...doesn't a GOAT team have to bring their best in order to be considered as such? otherwise, a team who is GOAT would be unbeatable in a debate under the "didn't bring their best game" argument...

not tryin to start anything...the logic just seems a little condradictory

The 1995-96 Orlando Magic if they were in the NBA right now, IMO would've beat the Spurs or Cavs (or anyone else) decidedly IMO and won the title easily if you put them in 2007 NBA.

Penny would average at least Wade like numbers in the modern NBA (breathe on a 2-guard ... foul) and Duncan would not be able to stop even a 1996-era Shaq (too big ... Shaq actually was in shape and could jump back then).

And the '96 Bulls *swept* that team. So I dunno what that says about the NBA today.

I'd say bull**** on the 90s being weak. Today's NBA is weak. No one plays defense and there are big men that really dominate the paint every night anymore.

[QUOTE=Admiral]so if the sonics had played their best, they would have beaten the greatest team of all time? wouldn't that make THEM the greatest team of all time?[/QUOTE]

No, it wouldn't. It would simply mean that the Bulls weren't the greatest team of all time. The 1972-73 Boston Celtics won 68 games in the regular season and lost to the New York Knicks in the Eastern Conference Finals, so now you never hear of them when people talk about the greatest single-season teams of all time because they didn't get it done.

The Bulls manhandled the Sonics to a 3-0 lead, after sweeping Orlando on top of that, I think they just sort of eased off the accelerator a bit. Everyone thought it any team could possibly beat the Bulls it would be Orlando, when they collapsed and then Seattle couldn't even win one of the first three, it was getting ugly.

I remember a lot of people at time in Chicago wanted the Bulls to win the title at home at the United Center, there was almost zero doubt they'd win game six.

I think Jordan's game was a bit off, mentally I think being so close to being back on the mountain maybe started to screw with his head a bit. Winning it on Father's Day .... I'd have to say that was pretty much meant to be.

I'll be honest I think the 1998 Utah Jazz came the closest to beating the Bulls. If Jordan doesn't single handedly win game 6 there ... game 7 ... Pippen hurt, who knows what happens.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]No, it wouldn't. It would simply mean that the Bulls weren't the greatest team of all time. The 1972-73 Boston Celtics won 68 games in the regular season and lost to the New York Knicks in the Eastern Conference Finals, so now you never hear of them when people talk about the greatest single-season teams of all time because they didn't get it done.[/QUOTE]

i wasn't necessarily claiming them to be the best of all time, i was just saying, glove called them the GOAT but said that, had the sonics played their best, they would have beaten the team he specifically called the GOAT...i don't really think the 96 bulls were the GOAT, but i absolutely think they were top 10 all time, and i think the sonics they played were more debatable about top-10 status than those bulls...that was my point...

[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]

:applause:

[QUOTE=Soundwave]The Bulls manhandled the Sonics to a 3-0 lead, after sweeping Orlando on top of that, I think they just sort of eased off the accelerator a bit. Everyone thought it any team could possibly beat the Bulls it would be Orlando, when they collapsed and then Seattle couldn't even win one of the first three, it was getting ugly.
.[/QUOTE]

I watched most of that Orl-Bulls series and I still have no clue how Chicago won it. Shaq really was a beast inside and Rodmon, while a good defender, gave up 100lbs on Shaq easily.

They even had plenty of big 2's to matchup with Micheal.

How did that happen?

The 1996 Chicago Bulls are the best team ever.

Michael Jordan is the greatest player of all time.

Why do these threads keep appearing?

[QUOTE=Admiral]so if the sonics had played their best, they would have beaten the greatest team of all time? wouldn't that make THEM the greatest team of all time? and really...doesn't a GOAT team have to bring their best in order to be considered as such? otherwise, a team who is GOAT would be unbeatable in a debate under the "didn't bring their best game" argument...

not tryin to start anything...the logic just seems a little condradictory[/QUOTE]

I was just saying the 96 Bulls in the Finals weren't playing their best. And if the Sonics had played their very best they could've beat a 96 Bull team that wasn't playing their best. The Bulls could've played better and the Sonics had a chance to win the series...

getting back to the original claim, i had to look up what simmons said:

[B]Brian (Worchester):[/B] WOAH WOAH WOAH! Are you saying the 1996 Bulls aren't the best team ever? I HATE the Bulls but I still have to respect their alltime greatness!

[IMG]http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif[/IMG] [B]Bill Simmons: [/B]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.


he listed FOUR teams that he believes would have beaten the 96 bulls

who are the other SIX that would knock the 96 bulls out of the top ten?

[QUOTE=WoGiTaLiA1]Chicago went through a better East and then played a real team in the finals to boot. The NBA's decline may have started around 96 but it went into full steam ahead in 99 and has gotten worse with each passing year to the point where the league is pretty much a joke.[/QUOTE]

The third best team in the East was what the Pacers? Hawks? the Heat? What are you talking about? The East was that good that year at all.

[QUOTE=Loki]Payton's defense, while huge, was by no means solely responsible for Jordan's shooting in the '96 Finals. He was bricking [b]wide open[/b] baseline 17-footers, layups, and offensive putbacks, which are usually automatic for him. His shot was just off the entire series for whatever reason. He wouldn't have shot 50% or anything had he not been ice cold on top of Payton's great defense (and Seattles constant swarming traps on MJ), but I'd say about 45-47% from having watched the series.

Honestly, I wish people would just watch the series rather than assuming that Payton did some sort of job on Jordan. He played excellent defense, probably the best one could. But it was a combination of the constant doubles/traps, Payton's defense, Jordan being ICE cold, and his teammates being ice cold as well, which allowed Seattle to keep pressure on Jordan because no one else was making them pay (Pippen/Kukoc/Kerr were a combined 36% from the field that series). All these things conspired to produce a relatively poor performance (by Jordan's standards).



Yeah, we remember it. 49 followed by 63 followed by a 19 point near triple-double (19/10/9) against a perennial first team defender and the best defensive team in the league, with no help. Sounds like a pretty good series to me.[/QUOTE]


He's not saying that Payton was the god defensively only that MJ was vulnerable that season which he was.....That makes it even more possible that another team could have beaten them....

To me the 1980 Lakers were too Crazy ...Norm Nixon Jamal Wilkes...Michael Cooper..Did that Have Bob Macadoo yet? Early 80's Laker teams.....Nasty

And 1983 Sixers? Damn serious teams man

i gotcha glove, sorry i misunderstood

[quote=Glove_20]RBP, Karl put Payton on Jordan primarily from Game 3 and on. So they 2-2 in that stretch.





I've asked you numerous amounts of times if you want links


I've also asked you to check your memory or re watch the series. The Sonics game with a game plan of double teaming Jordan whenever he gets the ball, and having their DPOY guard Pippen. Jordan wasn't stopped Games 1 and 2, so it didn't work. Pippen though was limited to 41%.

So Karl then at Game 3 decided to put Payton on Jordan. And from that point on, Jordan was held to 39% shooting.[/quote]

thanks for the correction glove20

and another factor was nate mcmillan was back from his injury by game 4 by that time which added a certain emotional lift for the sonics

I can't say the 1996 Chicago Bulls are the best team of all-time. And I think alot of knowledgeable and historic fans of the game would likely disagree with this statement. Growing up in Chicago, as a Bulls fan, the 1996 wasn't the best Bulls team I saw. The best Chicago Bulls teams were either 1991-1992 or 1992-1993. And the latter didn't show it record wise, but when they buckled down and retained focus ... they were the best Bulls team I ever saw take the floor.

What a retard.

[QUOTE=joe;908645]if you actually read Bill Simmons chat, you'd see that he has issues with the forumula John Hollingre used to come to that conclusion, mainly the fact that it didnt take into account the quality of the league for the year Given Team won the championship.

his argument was that shaq-kobe lkaers from 2001 went through an extremely talented western conference, along with the sixers who had Iverson and Mutumbo during his prime.

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

The 01 Western Conference wasn't that great. LA's first round opponent, Portland, was in basket case mode by the playoffs. That team totally collapsed, and there was no way they would win a game. Their second round opponent, Sacramento, didn't have Bibby yet. And, San Antonio, their WCF opponent, had a banged up Admiral, and DA was missing.

Also, Mutombo wasn't in his prime in 2001. That Sixer team was one of the worst to make the Finals.