1998 Los Angeles Lakers vs. 1998 Chicago Bulls in a best of 7 series

[QUOTE=The Immortal]Bulls would toy with them.. they were just on another level vs their competition.

It was a weak (expansion) era in general and the league finally picked up sometime in the early 2000's (thanks to players and teams maturing).

2001 Lakers, [B]any version of the LeBron's Heat[/B], and the 2014 Spurs would demolish the 98 Bulls.[/QUOTE]

:biggums:

You wish. :oldlol:

I swear kids are getting more and more stupid with the passing of time. :facepalm :oldlol:

[QUOTE=JT123]:facepalm Mourning and Mutombo were defensive players. Calling them dominant is laughable.[/QUOTE]
Mourning could play some offense. But wait just defenders ... aren't you the same breed of LeStan that props up Roy Hibbert for his defensive impact down low? Mourning, and Mutombo take a steaming dump on him in those regards. Still MJ went through Ewing, and Shaq. It doesn't get better than that ...

The Bulls were a better team no question, but the Lakers overachieved so much that season. They had a 45-50 win team, not a 61 win team. It's no longer the Jazz swept them.

[QUOTE=dreamwarrior]The Bulls were a better team no question, but the Lakers overachieved so much that season. They had a 45-50 win team, not a 61 win team. It's no longer the Jazz swept them.[/QUOTE]
But Shaq also missed a ton of games, was lazy, and still at that point an unmotivated leader. That Laker team was totally a 60 caliber win team given the amount of talent, and size on that team. Shaq by that point was the best player in the league with a 35 year old Jordan winding down.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Is this a serious question? :lol

The Bulls wax them even worse than Utah did and the Jazz brought out the brooms on them. That Lakers team was fun to watch, but nowhere near that level. [B]And are people acting like there's really a difference between '96 Shaq who the Bulls shit on and '98 Shaq who the Jazz shit on[/B] that would make the difference in a Bulls-Lakers series? :biggums:[/QUOTE]
:facepalm Shaq dominated both of those teams, especially the Jazz in 98. But much like Lebron in this year's Finals, he was basically playing 1 on 5. :no:

[QUOTE=JT123]But much like Lebron in this year's Finals, he was basically playing 1 on 5.[/QUOTE]
Karma for the Heat having to go 4 on 5 in 2011.

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]But Shaq also missed a ton of games, was lazy, and still at that point an unmotivated leader. That Laker team was totally a 60 caliber win team given the amount of talent, and size on that team. Shaq by that point was the best player in the league with a 35 year old Jordan winding down.[/QUOTE]
Shaq was the only guy who shot over 20ppg. Elden Campbell was their #2 and Kobe was only putting up 15ppg. This was the IDGAF team.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQUyi4ldnmo[/url]

[QUOTE]No one is beating Jordan in the Finals.. No one.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=fpliii]:facepalm[/QUOTE]
Why is this comment facepalm worthy???

A facepalm reaction (as if the comment is completely ludicrous) makes it seems as if someone DID beat him in the Finals or that Jordan WASN'T thoroughly dominant anytime he needed to be in the Finals....

Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?

Is this not true?.... So why would that comment be facepalm-worthy (ridiculous)?
.

Another thing - why is there any notion at all that a dominant big man would give the Bulls problems?

The Bulls defeated NUMEROUS all-time great centers - Shaq/Penny... Ewing's Knicks who showed they were championship-level by snap-making the Finals both times Jordan retired in 94' and 99'.... and Riley's 61-win Alonzo Mourning/Tim Hardaway team that was rated 2nd in the league defensively.

This idea that the Bulls would have trouble with bigs is amazingly illogical and has ZERO basis - if it DOES have any basis, please explain what that basis is.

As if Ostertag (that swept the Lakers) has any advantage over Luc Longley... he's at a [I]disadvantage[/I] actually - he only gets to play with Stockton/Malone instead of MJ/Scottie.
.

[QUOTE=3ball]Why is this comment facepalm worthy???

A facepalm reaction (as if the comment is completely ludicrous) makes it seems as if someone DID beat him in the Finals or that Jordan WASN'T thoroughly dominant anytime he needed to be in the Finals....

Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?

Is this not true?.... So why would that comment be facepalm-worthy (ridiculous)?
.[/QUOTE]
Yea, I didn't quite understand that reaction either. Sometimes fpliii can be really logical, other times it seems like praise for the one player who deserves it ... where myth is the reality, upsets him then he makes an illogical emotional reaction. Probably the bitterness of being a Laker fan, knowing the greatest ever played elsewhere. Spoiled brats Laker fan are.

[QUOTE=3ball]Why is this comment facepalm worthy???

A facepalm reaction (as if the comment is completely ludicrous) makes it seems as if someone DID beat him in the Finals or that Jordan WASN'T thoroughly dominant anytime he needed to be in the Finals....

Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?

Is this not true?.... So why would that comment be facepalm-worthy (ridiculous)?
.[/QUOTE]


Future repped.

Anyone that thinks the 98 Lakers would've won must've not been watching the NBA at the time. Lakers were clearly a very talented team, but were extremely hot-headed and immature. No one watching at the time would've picked them over the Bulls. Barely anyone was even picking them over the Jazz.

[QUOTE=3ball]Didn't Michael Jordan come through virtually 100% of the times his team needed it in the Finals?[/QUOTE]
Not saying he wouldn't. As a matter of fact, I'd expect him to in any series. I think they beat the 98 Lakers season handily, but it's silly to act as if there are no circumstances under which MJ's team loses a Finals.[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]Yea, I didn't quite understand that reaction either. Sometimes fpliii can be really logical, other times it seems like praise for the one player who deserves it ... [B]where myth is the reality[/B], upsets him then he makes an illogical emotional reaction. Probably the bitterness of being a Laker fan, knowing the greatest ever played elsewhere. Spoiled brats Laker fan are.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: No way brah, not bitter. MJ is probably the best ever, and if he isn't, it's a Celtic, not a Laker. But disagreeing with the bolded doesn't make me illogical or a hater. Just means I'm of a different opinion.

I give Jordan his due plenty, and the only time I speak against him is when things go overboard. As I've said before, I missed his peak seasons, but from watching those seasons after the fact, and from watching him from 92-93 on, I can obviously tell he was a beast.

[QUOTE=3ball]Another thing - why is there any notion at all that a dominant big man would give the Bulls problems?

The Bulls defeated NUMEROUS all-time great centers - Shaq/Penny... Ewing's Knicks who showed they were championship-level by snap-making the Finals both times Jordan retired in 94' and 99'.... and Riley's 61-win Alonzo Mourning/Tim Hardaway team that was rated 2nd in the league defensively.

This idea that the Bulls would have trouble with bigs is amazingly illogical and has ZERO basis - if it DOES have any basis, please explain what that basis is.

As if Ostertag (that swept the Lakers) has any advantage over Luc Longley... he's at a [I]disadvantage[/I] actually - he only gets to play with Stockton/Malone instead of MJ/Scottie.
.[/QUOTE]

Not only this. The teams that had these dominant centers the Bulls didn't face, also lost to teams that didn't have dominant centers and they were obviously lesser teams then the dynasty Bulls. Hakeem's Rockets lost to the Sonics and Jazz multiple times. Robinson's Spurs lost to the Blazers, Warriors, Suns, and Jazz. Shaq's Magic who actually did lose to the Bulls, lost to the Pacers one year as well, and then Shaq's Lakers got destroyed twice by the Jazz. And although they weren't part of the same era, they are sometimes brought up, Duncan's Spurs lost to the Mavs, Suns, Grizzlies, Thunder, and Heat. So yes, the argument is absurd. These weren't anywhere close to unbeatable teams to begin with, but now its the Bulls that were lucky to have not faced them? :oldlol: What a joke.

[QUOTE=Element]I don't think Chicago would've been able to deal with Shaq over a 7 game series.

[/QUOTE]

The Utah Jazz were able to overcome Shaq that year enroute to a sweep, with the two Gregs (Ostertag and Foster) in the middle. But somehow the Bulls wouldn't be able with Longley and Wennington, plus Rodman as a defensive tormentor/pest? And MJ/Pip on the wings neutralizing Kobe and Eddie Jones. In the playoffs?

Ok.