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

[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.

The 2007-2008 Lakers are better than the Portland TrailBlazers and Zach Chokester.

Wow, truly an idiot. They swept Shaq's Magic that year.

[QUOTE=LakerWarrior12]The 2007-2008 Lakers are better than the Portland TrailBlazers and Zach Chokester.[/QUOTE]


Kobe will no longer win any championship rings unless he played as a role player in some future powerhouse team in the NBA. Maybe a sidekick of OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose and Michael Beasley once the LA LAKERS became a lottery team next season.

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.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


^^^^^ sums up the majority's reaction.

[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]



bullsh!t. MJ = GOAT

end of story

wtf??!?!?

they are the number one team in all of history

[B]this is john hollinger from espn.com [/B]

[QUOTE] Hands down, the greatest team of all time. How can you choose another when these guys won 72 regular-season games and 14 of their first 15 in the postseason? The Bulls were so good they were first in both offensive and defensive efficiency, and outscored their opponents by 12.2 points per game.

With names like Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and Toni Kukoc, not to mention a coach like Phil Jackson, this team was pretty much unbeatable -- in fact, seven of its playoff wins were by 17 points or more. The only nit to pick was the Bulls' consecutive losses to the Sonics in the Finals, but they were up 3-0 by then and seemingly bored with how good they were. [/QUOTE]

[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]

put the crack pipe down.

[QUOTE=wTFaMonkey]wtf??!?!?

they are the number one team in all of history

[B]this is john hollinger from espn.com [/B][/QUOTE]


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.

in terms of overall talent that bulls team wasn't as good as a lot of teams, HOWEVER, jordan was unstoppable, everyone else fed off of him and made their shots, and they played the best defense you ever saw. so they're always in any series against any team because with mj drawing doubles or scoring at will, everyone else gets to just do what they do and then they go down the other end and defend as well as anyone can.

so if you wanna rank them player by player or in terms of potential, they aren't close to number 1. if you want to rank them on what they accomplished and how well they competed no matter the opponent, then you can rank them all the way at the top if you want.

[QUOTE=Lakerz_Forever]bullsh!t. MJ = GOAT

end of story[/QUOTE]

did i ever, at any point, in ANY post that i've EVER made on this or ANY web site, say that MJ is not the GOAT? NO.

what i said was, the fact that you guys are so threatened by the mere mention of an MJ-led team being beaten, especially by a team that was so talented (Like the 2001 Lakers), might mean that it's time you get some help for your complete homerism of MJ.

And you are a prime example of this. You probably scanned my post, seen that it was Anti-MJ, or at the very least Anti-Bulls, and immediately jumped to the Aid of your Idol, defending his status as GOAT. well guess what buddy? I never said he wasn't GOAT.

jordan was unstoppable and shaq was unstoppable, but i take the bulls over chicago because they won more regular season games

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=joe]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 [B]absolute weakest eras[/B] from 96-98.[/QUOTE]

weak??!? can you explain "weak"??

[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.

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