1996 Chicago Bulls vs 2001 Los Angeles Lakers

[10x91= 5 Rings]

Let`s just say that the Lakers profited from the dismantling of the Bulls.

[Boston C's]

I agree with the first 2 parts, but I have the Bulls winning that series.

The Lakers were unbelievable as long as Shaq and Kobe were getting along, but what happens when they face a team that challenges them? That's why i don't trust them vs Chicago.

Grant's value is severely diminished as well when going against a team like Chicago rather than Portland, Sacramento and San Antonio where he made his impact guarding Sheed, Webber and Duncan.

This... although most ppl who were saying kobe is the second best player in this series are mistaken
1. Shaq
2. Jordan
3. Kobe
4. Pippen

I agree with the bolded especially and I also think its important to who has phil jackson this series lol that could really swing the outcome as well

[Micku]

My guess would be the 96 Bulls. It would interesting to see what will happen in how they would defend the Lakers 01. While the Bulls did play the 90s Lakers and everything, the 01 Lakers would be a bit different.

The Bulls will see similar plays like their own, and they have two superstars on the team that they have to contain. They had Rodman going against Shaq in 96, and Rodman will definitely help fight the boards against him. Rodman actually may be one of the best at guarding Shaq.

I also wonder if Jordan and Pippen could contain Kobe. And if the Lakers could contain Jordan. And the Bulls had some good roleplayers too.

So, it would be a fun matchup.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Bulls easily.

Rodman & Luc Longley had good games against Shaq.Rodman did pretty good job guarding Shaq when they head to head from detroit years to Bulls.Shaq couldn't have big series against Bulls.

2001 Kobe couldn't play well against Eric Snow.96 Pippen would do more damage both defense and offense to Kobe than Eric Snow.

Who is gonna guard Jordan or Pippen?

Bulls bench is better than Lakers as well.

It would not be 7 game.If Bulls take it seriously, it would end 4-0,4-1 or 4-2 at best.

Why do people use logic like "Well Kobe only did this against Snow so he'd be even worse against Pippen?" That's something you can't predict, it all depends on the series.

And lets look at that Philadelphia, series, after a horrendous game 1 which brought his averages down a lot, Kobe played quite well after that. The chances of slowing down both Shaq and Kobe in the same series are very slim.

Game 1 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 44 points, 20 rebounds, 5 assists, 4 turnovers, 17/28 FG, 10/22 FT
Kobe- 15 points, 3 rebounds, 5 assists, 6 turnovers, 7/22 FG, 1/1 FT

Game 2 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 28 points, 20 rebounds, 9 assists, 8 blocks, 5 turnovers, 12/19 FG, 4/10 FT
Kobe- 31 points, 8 rebounds, 6 assists, 2 turnovers, 11/23 FG, 8/8 FT

Game 3 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 30 points, 12 rebounds, 3 assists, 4 blocks, 3 turnovers, 11/20 FG, 8/9 FT
Kobe- 32 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists, 3 turnovers, 13/30 FG, 6/6 FT

Game 4 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 34 points 14 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 turnovers, 13/25 FG, 8/16 FT
Kobe- 19 points, 10 rebounds, 9 assists, 4 turnovers, 6/13 FG, 7/12 FT

Game 5 vs Philadelphia
Shaq- 29 points, 13 rebounds, 2 assists, 5 blocks, 5 turnovers, 10/18 FG, 9/19 FT
Kobe- 26 points, 12 rebounds, 6 assists, 3 turnovers, 7/18 FG, 10/11 FT

And of course, there wasn't really a series in the first 2 rounds where either were contained and they won every game in those series.

You might be able to contain one or the other, but I think that would require so much energy and defensive attention that the other would go off. The Bulls might have the personnel with Longley and Rodman to slow down 2001 Shaq a bit, but he was much more of a force on the boards than 1996 Shaq and much more active defensively as well as a better offensive player.

And even though 2001 Horace Grant was nowhere near the player that 1996 Grant was, he was at least healthy in 2001 as opposed to 1996 when he pretty much missed the entire series except game 1 when he had 0 points and 1 rebound.

I have the Bulls winning, but at you thinking that Shaq "can't have a big series" and then acting like Kobe will be shut down at the same time.

It'd be an interesting series as far as match ups. My guess would be that the Bulls assign Pippen to Kobe more because of how much Jordan scored for them, and because Pippen had guarded Penny more in the '96 ECF. But who the Lakers would put on Jordan is interesting.

Fisher would have to guard Harper, which would leave Bryant and Fox to deal with Jordan and Pippen. Pippen's size might cause problems for Kobe, but then again, you don't really want Kobe to have to use up so much energy guarding Jordan when he was 1 of only 2 Laker players who could create their own offense and the Lakers only real playmaker.

[97 bulls]

1994- That was Shaq's second year, he was not the player he was in 2001, and that was his first playoff series. Had a poor series, disappointing in fact, but this means very little when discussing what Shaq in 2001 would do, especially when Shaq played much better vs the same team the next season.

1995- Hakeem in his prime/peak isn't just any center. Besides, Shaq played well against him, especially compared to Ewing and Robinson. Hakeem had a much tougher time scoring than he did against Robinson(an all-time great defensive player). It was also Shaq's first extended playoff run as a 23 year old and most of Orlando's key players first extended playoff run, aside from Horace Grant. And if you're going to use Rik Smits as some kind of obstacle, he beat Smits team in the ECF to get to Houston.

1996- I thought this was about Shaq not being able to beat teams with centers? So how are the Bulls some example when their center play was not that great? Actually, Longley was a better match up vs Shaq than most because he had more size, which is more important vs Shaq than just being a "better center". Shaq played pretty well that series anyway, he didn't dominate, but he didn't choke and wasn't the reason his team lost. And since when are a 60-22 team expected to beat a 72-10 team?

1997- Shaq had a poor series, but again, lost to a team with a better record(Utah was 64-18, LA was 56-26). And what happened to this better center crap you were spewing before? Shaq destroyed Sabonis in the first round who was a much better center than Ostertag, once again proving this theory is crap.

1998- Take a look at Shaq's cast that series.

Jones- 15 ppg, 4 rpg, 3.3 apg, 41.2 FG%
Kobe- 10 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1 apg, 36.7 FG%
Fox- 9.8 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.3 apg, 40.6 FG%
Van Exel- 9 ppg, 2 rpg, 4 apg, 23.8 FG%
Fisher- 5.5 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.8 apg, 34.8 FG%
Horry- 4.5 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 1.8 apg, 36.4 FG%
Corie Blount- 2.3 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 0.5 apg, 50 FG%

That's everyone of Shaq's teammates that played over 20 mpg that series. Shaq didn't defend and rebound as well as he could've, but that's simply not enough offensive support to win. Shaq was the only one providing it at 32 ppg on 56% shooting.

here are quotes from that series. From game 3...





http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...rebounds&hl=en

From game 4



And once again, I thought your point was about Shaq not being to beat real centers? He destroyed Sabonis in 1998 once again, who was much better than Utah's centers.

1999- Yes, he played poorly vs San Antonio. But once again, this isn't 2001 Shaq. 1999 Shaq was lazy anyway, probably his laziest prime year. Not the same force we saw once Phil took over. And again, your point was that he couldn't beat real centers, but you're ignoring that he annihilated Hakeem(who was still a 19/10, 2.5 bpg center that year) in the first round. And he beat Robinson/Duncan in the 2001 WCF.

Once again, the point that Shaq couldn't beat real centers wasn't proven here.

If the point was, that Shaq has lost some series that he could've played a lot better in, then sure, who hasn't?

You always post what the "help" failed to do offensively during shaq non championship runs. But truth be told, aside from 01, the lakers core players never really had great playoff runs. Even when they won their championships. I just wouldn't take shaq over any version of jordan when he won his championships. Shaq really won cuz the bulls team were dismantled. He had opportunities to win over a great bulls team, and got destroyed. And that orlando team was much better than the laker teams.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You always post what the "help" failed to do offensively during shaq non championship runs. But truth be told, aside from 01, the lakers core players never really had great playoff runs. Even when they won their championships. I just wouldn't take shaq over any version of jordan when he won his championships. Shaq really won cuz the bulls team were dismantled. He had opportunities to win over a great bulls team, and got destroyed. And that orlando team was much better than the laker teams.

You ever think that Shaq won with less talent from 2000-2002 because he had become a better player from age 27-30 then he was in his early/mid 20's? That's usually the case, or that he had a better coach? Or that while his casts had less weapons and less overall talent/depth, they performed better under pressure? And that Shaq was better playing under pressure due to experience and maturing?

Shaq really didn't have an opportunity to beat Chicago in 1996 either. Certainly not with the injuries to his team while facing the team with the best record ever.

I can't think of any series from the Lakers 3peat, aside from maybe the 2000 finals(and even then Kobe had the big game 4 and came up big when Shaq fouled out), where Shaq got as little help as he did in the '98 WCF. Even if that was just due to Kobe being a consistent 20-25 ppg even in his "bad" series, he still showed up pretty consistently.

I mean think about this for example, how much different is the momentum in the 2002 WCF if Horry misses that 3? Or how much different is it in '95 if Anderson hits just 1 free throw to close out that game?

[97 bulls]

You ever think that Shaq won with less talent from 2000-2002 because he had become a better player from age 27-30 then he was in his early/mid 20's? That's usually the case, or that he had a better coach? Or that while his casts had less weapons and less overall talent/depth, they performed better under pressure? And that Shaq was better playing under pressure due to experience and maturing?
I think this is something were just gonna have to agree to disagree on. Shaqs game never evolved as much as your trying to make it seem. Sure he developed a nice jumphook, but his game was still power and brut force. And to me, pre 00s shaq was much more in shape and athletiic.

Shaq really didn't have an opportunity to beat Chicago in 1996 either. Certainly not with the injuries to his team while facing the team with the best record ever.

I can't think of any series from the Lakers 3peat, aside from maybe the 2000 finals(and even then Kobe had the big game 4 and came up big when Shaq fouled out), where Shaq got as little help as he did in the '98 WCF. Even if that was just due to Kobe being a consistent 20-25 ppg even in his "bad" series, he still showed up pretty consistently.

I mean think about this for example, how much different is the momentum in the 2002 WCF if Horry misses that 3? Or how much different is it in '95 if Anderson hits just 1 free throw to close out that game?

Well never know about either outcomes if the scenarios change. But what we do know is that even with grant, the bulls would've trounced the magic. Maybe ill give them one game. And even without grant, the magic had a better team than the lakers.

Don't get me wrong shaqattack. Shaq would be the most dominant player in this matchup, but he's not the best player. That's still jordan. And kobe and pippen are a wash. They have noone to keep rodman off the boards, they have noone to stop kukoc, and the bulls have very good jumpshooting centers to pull shaq away from the paint. And shaq is a non factor in the 4th. So it becomes jordan and pippen vs kobe.

[lefthook00]

2001 Shaq > 1996 MJ
2001 Kobe > 1996 Pippen

It doesn't always work out like that.

Wade+LeBron > Dirk+who ever, who won the ring?

Shaq+Kobe > Any two of the pistons, who won the ring?

I can't pick a winner, either team in 7 games. But I'm rooting for the Lakers.

[Eric Cartman]

LA couldn't even beat Portland properly, on the other hand that Chicago team doesn't have anything atleast to slow down Shaq.

My guess is your thinking 2000-2001 Lakers. 2001-2002 Lakers beat the sh*t out of everyone in dominating style.

[d.bball.guy]

Ron Harper and Phil Jackson wins.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well never know about either outcomes if the scenarios change. But what we do know is that even with grant, the bulls would've trounced the magic. Maybe ill give them one game. And even without grant, the magic had a better team than the lakers.

Don't get me wrong shaqattack. Shaq would be the most dominant player in this matchup, but he's not the best player. That's still jordan. And kobe and pippen are a wash. They have noone to keep rodman off the boards, they have noone to stop kukoc, and the bulls have very good jumpshooting centers to pull shaq away from the paint. And shaq is a non factor in the 4th. So it becomes jordan and pippen vs kobe.

Shaq certainly wasn't in better shape in 1996 than 2001. 1996 was the first year Shaq bulked up and he reported to camp at 332 pounds and spent a good chunk of the season injured.

Shaq as a scorer was pretty close. He always had the jump hook, but the short one-handed turnaround he added and continued to get better at made him a better scorer in his Laker days.

His passing definitely improved, he was already good at that by his 3rd year in Orlando and showing signs in his second year, but ask Phil, he'll tell you how much Shaq improved his passing when he coached him.

He was also a better defensive player during the 3peat and he was more committed to rebounding in 2001 than 1996.

Shaq averaged 11 rpg in 36 mpg in 1996 and had a TRB% of 17.8%. While he didn't improve that much in the 2001 regular season averaging 12.7 rpg in 39.5 mpg for a TRB% of 18.1%, look at the difference in the playoffs.

1996- 10 rpg, 16.5 TRB% 38.3 mpg
2001- 15.4 rpg, 19.8 TRB%, 42.3 mpg

And that's while averaging nearly 5 more ppg. And if you want to talk about opposing big men, he definitely faced better big men in his 2001 run than 1996.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was better in 2001, his game was better and he was more durable that year.

As far as athleticism? His first 2, maybe 3 seasons in the NBA were his most athletic, but the noticeable decline didn't really come until after his second championship. For a guy 7'1" and between 325-340 pounds, he was running and jumping very well in 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymhEWrLDXYA#t=3m10s

As far as most dominant? To me, that means the same thing as best, which is why I don't call Shaq the most dominant ever, because I don't think he's the best player ever. But I do think that 2001 Shaq was a better player than 1996 Jordan.

[97 bulls]

Shaq certainly wasn't in better shape in 1996 than 2001. 1996 was the first year Shaq bulked up and he reported to camp at 332 pounds and spent a good chunk of the season injured.

Shaq as a scorer was pretty close. He always had the jump hook, but the short one-handed turnaround he added and continued to get better at made him a better scorer in his Laker days.

His passing definitely improved, he was already good at that by his 3rd year in Orlando and showing signs in his second year, but ask Phil, he'll tell you how much Shaq improved his passing when he coached him.

He was also a better defensive player during the 3peat and he was more committed to rebounding in 2001 than 1996.

Shaq averaged 11 rpg in 36 mpg in 1996 and had a TRB% of 17.8%. While he didn't improve that much in the 2001 regular season averaging 12.7 rpg in 39.5 mpg for a TRB% of 18.1%, look at the difference in the playoffs.

1996- 10 rpg, 16.5 TRB% 38.3 mpg
2001- 15.4 rpg, 19.8 TRB%, 42.3 mpg

And that's while averaging nearly 5 more ppg. And if you want to talk about opposing big men, he definitely faced better big men in his 2001 run than 1996.

I think it's pretty obvious that he was better in 2001, his game was better and he was more durable that year.

As far as athleticism? His first 2, maybe 3 seasons in the NBA were his most athletic, but the noticeable decline didn't really come until after his second championship. For a guy 7'1" and between 325-340 pounds, he was running and jumping very well in 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xREPAcRSpE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymhEWrLDXYA#t=3m10s

As far as most dominant? To me, that means the same thing as best, which is why I don't call Shaq the most dominant ever, because I don't think he's the best player ever. But I do think that 2001 Shaq was a better player than 1996 Jordan.

Your comparing stats that are 5 years apart. Shaq should had a better rebounding % cuz his competition was a lot worse.

And domminant doesn't mean the best. That just the way he played. Think of tyson (shaq) and ali (jordan). Tyson was more domiant, but ali was the better fighter.

[dee-rose]

Ron Harper and Phil Jackson wins.

Smart man.

In all honesty though, I'd take the Bulls in 6-7.
There's no way of stopping Shaq but Pippen would do a great job on Kobe and Mj would get his. Everyone talks about the two best players but it goes a lot further then that. Toni Kukoc > everyone on the lakers not named Shaq/Kobe

[97 bulls]

Smart man.

In all honesty though, I'd take the Bulls in 6-7.
There's no way of stopping Shaq but Pippen would do a great job on Kobe and Mj would get his. Everyone talks about the two best players but it goes a lot further then that. Toni Kukoc > everyone on the lakers not named Shaq/Kobe

And don't forget rodman. The lakers don't have an answer for four guys. The bulls 1.

[DuMa]

i just have this feeling if phil jackson was ever going to get the opportunity to coach against himself in a playoff series, he would find the certain irony in the matchup. the winner would be determined in collusion of both jacksons, for their personal preference of players. and its pretty evident phil likes MJ more.