Stockton and Malone - The Original Trash Bro's

[NBAGOAT]

I would tend to go with the idea that Jordan and Pippen were younger, healthier and more athletic versions of their 2nd 3peat selves. I suppose the case could be made for 2nd 3peat MJ/Pippen being more experienced and savvy but.....you're talking prime/peak MJ for the first 3peat. Scottie was a better leader from 96-98, but was really bad offensively in the playoffs and was hobbled for much of the 98 season(missed 38 games and his back was shot for game 6 of the finals, hence MJ's 45 point bailout performance). In 91-93 he provided much better offensive help to MJ while still offering superior defense. I would take 96 Rodman over Grant, but by 98 Rodman was coming off the bench for most of the playoffs and his numbers were declining( check his finals numbers in 98 for example). Benches were more or less a wash, maybe a slight edge to 96-98 because of Kukoc but.... I just feel like 91-93 MJ/Pippen cover any deficits that version of the team has compared to 96-98.

Furthermore, after 95 the league was not only bloated out from expansion, but was transitioning with the 80's stars aging( Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Drexler etc) while the younger, up and coming stars were still figuring out how to win( Shaq, pre-injury Penny, Grant Hill, etc) with the 00's stars like Kobe, Garnett, Duncan coming in at the latter end of the decade. The first 3peat squad played in a league that featured a number of all-timers right in their primes( Barkley, Ewing, Admiral, Malone, Drexler) and before the talent pool was further diluted by the 2 Canadian teams joining in 95.

i cant disagree with most of what you said. Agreed on MJ being better during the first 3peat. Not as sure about Pippen but his playoff play is worse, I prefer to just kind of downplay 98 in a comparison. It feels like definitely the worst Bulls title team. Also seems like the late 90s might've been a harder offensive era because of pace, not sure.

I'm surprised you have rodman over grant. I'm not sure his rebounding is enough to make up grant's advantages as a scorer. It's not as big a factor during the playoffs too. I kind of see grant like his era's 2015 draymond before he developed his insane playmaking. Tbf to rodman, he was useful specifically vs Utah because he's the only one who could cover Malone well.

I like the 96-98 supporting cast more however even outside Kukoc who I think gets a little undervalued and should be included in a "big 4". He doesnt have the raw stats because of minutes played but he can shoot and pass which is great on talented teams, seems like one of the better 3rd guys in the league. There are 3rd guys who scored more like scott or hornacek but I think the only ones i'm definitively taking over him is detlef and 97 drexler.

Edit: i'll throw this out there for 97 since it's an ok sample size. Bulls 50-7 with kukoc, 19-6 without him. Tbf, may be some overlap with rodman

[Phoenix]

i cant disagree with most of what you said. Agreed on MJ being better during the first 3peat. Not as sure about Pippen but his playoff play is worse, I prefer to just kind of downplay 98 in a comparison. It feels like definitely the worst Bulls title team. Also seems like the late 90s might've been a harder offensive era because of pace, not sure.

I'm surprised you have rodman over grant. I'm not sure his rebounding is enough to make up grant's advantages as a scorer. It's not as big a factor during the playoffs too. I kind of see grant like his era's 2015 draymond before he developed his insane playmaking. Tbf to rodman, he was useful specifically vs Utah because he's the only one who could cover Malone well.

I like the 96-98 supporting cast more however even outside Kukoc who I think gets a little undervalued and should be included in a "big 4". He doesnt have the raw stats because of minutes played but he can shoot and pass which is great on talented teams, seems like one of the better 3rd guys in the league. There are 3rd guys who scored more like scott or hornacek but I think the only ones i'm definitively taking over him is detlef and 97 drexler.

I put Rodman over Grant because Rodman was vital in defending guys like Shaq, Mourning, and Malone in those playoff matchups. Without that the Bulls have a much harder time those series. I do think Rodman's rebounding gives him a decisive edge because Grants scoring was more of a bonus than a necessity. He wasn't really counted on for scoring like Rodman was counted on for rebounding. Also, MJ and Scottie being in their primes the first go-around meant they could go all out on both ends whereas they had to pick their spots as they closed out the 2nd 3peat. I think the first 3peat MJ/Pippen/Grant doberman defensive trio were more tenacious overall.

And if you think about it, if you think Grant was better than Rodman that's actually an argument for the first 3peat team since as you agree, MJ/Pippen duo were better as their younger, more dynamic selves. I do think its an interesting comparison, and I would take the 96 team over 91 obviously and mayyyybe 92. I would take the 93 team over any of the 2nd 3peat teams and to think, MJ retiring robbed us of seeing the 93 team with Kukoc coming in and bench roster upgrades. The 94 team could have been the best of the lot has MJ not left unexpectedly.

[NBAGOAT]

I put Rodman over Grant because Rodman was vital in defending guys like Shaq, Mourning, and Malone in those playoff matchups. Without that the Bulls have a much harder time those series. I do think Rodman's rebounding gives him a decisive edge because Grants scoring was more of a bonus than a necessity. He wasn't really counted on for scoring like Rodman was counted on for rebounding. Also, MJ and Scottie being in their primes the first go-around meant they could go all out on both ends whereas they had to pick their spots as they closed out the 2nd 3peat. I think the first 3peat MJ/Pippen/Grant doberman defensive trio were more tenacious overall.

And if you think about it, if you think Grant was better than Rodman that's actually an argument for the first 3peat team since as you agree, MJ/Pippen duo were better as their younger, more dynamic selves. I do think its an interesting comparison, and I would take the 96 team over 91 obviously and mayyyybe 92. I would take the 93 team over any of the 2nd 3peat teams and to think, MJ retiring robbed us of seeing the 93 team with Kukoc coming in and bench roster upgrades. The 94 team could have been the best of the lot has MJ not left unexpectedly.

I think I might just value kukoc a little more than you. That's an interesting take about 93 but I can see it too. 93 team was pretty good in the playoffs. I think it hurts I'm not as high on the knicks as some and they did give the Bulls a super competitive series but that might just be offensive bias.

Like the grant injury in 96 wouldnt have made a difference results wise but series would be more competitive and people would view the magic more fondly as an east opponent(my opinion they might've been the best one even with an average defense and no bench). Offensive bias again could be a factor here however, in terms of offensive talent they're head and shoulders above the others in the east those 6 years.

If you believe that 93 was the best team, then the 93 Suns are likely at the top of the list. The 93 knicks would be above a lot of Finals team too which some people in this thread are arguing for.

[ArbitraryWater]

stockton's playoff stats are lowkey just bad. Malone gets way too much of the blame for underachieving. Tbf, stockton did play better in 97 which was a Finals run.

16/12 on 47.4% over a 10-year stretch


not sure what youre saying

[ArbitraryWater]

the 98 team never should have won


Utah got robbed badly, refs apologized to them next year

[Showtime80']

Here you go equating "athletic measurements" as proof of toughness and physicality tpols. LeBald is one of the most imposing physical figures in HISTORY while at the same time also being a soft, perimeter oriented flopper who has second year teammates shoving him in the back to play defense, LOL!!!

NOBODY messed with Karl Malone, he may have choked at times but nobody stepped up to him physically on a basketball court, same goes for guys like Stockton, Ostertag, Foster, Russell and Carr on that team. They were a TOUGH bunch, just ask the 1998 Lakers again.

If you want to see impressive measurements again check out the 98 Lakers:

Nick Van Exel 6-1 170- 26 y/o
Kobe Bryant 6-6 212- 19 y/o
Rick Fox SF 6-7 230- 25 y/o
Robert Horry PF 6-9 220- 27 y/o
Eddie Jones SG 6-6 190- 26 y/o
Shaquille O'Neal C 7-1 325- 25 y/o
Elden Campbell C 6-11 215- 29 y/o

That's an athletically imposing, young and tall 7 man rotation tpols!!! Capped off by the MOST DOMINANT monster in NBA history in Shaq who came off dropping 31 ppg on 63%FG , 10 rbs, 4 assists and 4 blks on the Sonics heads.

Even with all those advantages, the Jazz were TOUGHER than the Lakers and would be tougher than 100% of the pussified teams of today. Also keep in mind that the Jazz TROUNCED THE LAKERS WITHOUT the pseudo zone the NBA came up with which allows you to hide weak slower defenders. It was mano and mano back then which benefited more athletic players!

The problem for the 98' Lakers and the NBA teams of today if you could put them in that era is that the NBA STILL ALLOWED physically imposing tough defense in the late 90's and that would be the biggest nightmare of the finesse oriented, rule enhanced, defensively neutered teams of today. Here's your boy Donkey talking about this earlier in the year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAU7XlAPYSU

Klay, little Stephie and Durant are not built for 90's rules, they are a direct product of today's rule tinkering Disney owned NBA. The only avalanche you would see against the Jazz are the elbows by Malone and Ostertag for anybody who came down the middle and the grappling hand checking of the perimeter defenders sticking to the Warriors guards like glue.

By the way, how many fouls do Green and/or Durant accumulate before halftime guarding 1998 Karl Malone ?!?! Here's what he did against prime Shaq in the WCF:

30 ppg on 51%FG
10 rbs
5 assts

Good luck with that!

[Phoenix]

I think I might just value kukoc a little more than you. That's an interesting take about 93 but I can see it too. 93 team was pretty good in the playoffs. I think it hurts I'm not as high on the knicks as some and they did give the Bulls a super competitive series but that might just be offensive bias.

Like the grant injury in 96 wouldnt have made a difference results wise but series would be more competitive and people would view the magic more fondly as an east opponent(my opinion they might've been the best one even with an average defense and no bench). Offensive bias again could be a factor here however, in terms of offensive talent they're head and shoulders above the others in the east those 6 years.

If you believe that 93 was the best team, then the 93 Suns are likely at the top of the list. The 93 knicks would be above a lot of Finals team too which some people in this thread are arguing for.

93 Knicks were legit imo. I'd have picked them over the Suns had they beaten the Bulls, because I think their frontline of Ewing/Oakley/Smith/Mason would have neutralized Barkley, and the Suns had no answer for Ewing. The backcourt matchups between Majerle, Ainge and KJ against Starks, Rivers, Greg Anthony and Blackman mostly comes out to a wash. I think the Knicks physicality that series makes the difference.

[NBAGOAT]

16/12 on 47.4% over a 10-year stretch


not sure what youre saying

wat the 10 season stretch he averaged 16, doesnt sound right. pretty sure his scoring volume dropped from rs to ps. Also significant efficiency drops, maybe 5% ish in his prime years so comparable to malone there.

[NBAGOAT]

93 Knicks were legit imo. I'd have picked them over the Suns had they beaten the Bulls, because I think their frontline of Ewing/Oakley/Smith/Mason would have neutralized Barkley, and the Suns had no answer for Ewing. The backcourt matchups between Majerle, Ainge and KJ against Starks, Rivers, Greg Anthony and Blackman mostly comes out to a wash. I think the Knicks physicality that series makes the difference.

yea i've seen that said too. It's one problem with comparing teams just by matchups, some teams just matchup well vs other teams. I feel like the 93 Knicks could definitely win vs the Suns but I feel like the Suns are better overall and would win more vs other great teams.

[Phoenix]

yea i've seen that said too. It's one problem with comparing teams just by matchups, some teams just matchup well vs other teams. I feel like the 93 Knicks could definitely win vs the Suns but I feel like the Suns are better overall and would win more vs other great teams.

It's always about the matchup. Hell, the main reason the Bulls were even able to handle the Knicks physicality is because the Pistons gave them plenty of experience on their way to the top. The Suns were built around faster paced open court western style ball and were able to get out of the west in 93 with that method as well as Barkley's MVP level play.

[Showtime80']

Great exchange GOAT and Phoenix!


The first 3 peat Bulls overwhelmed teams with speed and athleticism as they were all in their physical primes and Cartwright proved to be a great backline defender if you somehow got away from the Dobermans. The second 3 peat teams were older, more cerebral and deeper and equally as lethal but the league had already started it's downward spiral in the mid 90's (continuing to today) and they could just beat the crap out of teams with experience and smarts!

To me the greatest Bulls team of the 90's we NEVER saw would've been the 1994 team with Michael Jordan playing a full season. They would've probably won between 72-75 games and stomped their way to the title. What do you guys think?

[NBAGOAT]

It's always about the matchup. Hell, the main reason the Bulls were even able to handle the Knicks physicality is because the Pistons gave them plenty of experience on their way to the top. The Suns were built around faster paced open court western style ball and were able to get out of the west in 93 with that method as well as Barkley's MVP level play.

true but I was making another point with that comment lol. Let's take a random situation with say the 96 Bulls, 86 Celtics and other great teams. I have the Bulls losing to the Celtics in a what if matchup hypothetically but have them beating all the other great teams of all time.

I have the Celtics losing to a few others however(let's just say 87 Lakers and 83 Sixers as a hypothetical, I dont necessarily feel this way). Which team is greater all time then?

[NBAGOAT]

Great exchange GOAT and Phoenix!


The first 3 peat Bulls overwhelmed teams with speed and athleticism as they were all in their physical primes and Cartwright proved to be a great backline defender if you somehow got away from the Dobermans. The second 3 peat teams were older, more cerebral and deeper and equally as lethal but the league had already started it's downward spiral in the mid 90's (continuing to today) and they could just beat the crap out of teams with experience and smarts!

To me the greatest Bulls team of the 90's we NEVER saw would've been the 1994 team with Michael Jordan playing a full season. They would've probably won between 72-75 games and stomped their way to the title. What do you guys think?

they wouldnt go that hard during the rs because there's no point in going that hard after 3peating. Feels like a playoff run where they lose like 2-3 playoff games however

[Phoenix]

To me the greatest Bulls team of the 90's we NEVER saw would've been the 1994 team with Michael Jordan playing a full season. They would've probably won between 72-75 games and stomped their way to the title. What do you guys think?

If they got off to a hot start and decided to 'go for it', sure. I think it depends really on how hard MJ pushed for it and whether his play suffered any( or if he paced himself) in the aftermath of his father's untimely demise. On paper, I could see it. MJ was just coming off the best statistical season since 90( 33/7/6). Pippen was a fully realized and mature superstar at 28 in his apex. Grant and BJ were championship saavvy and tested coming into their own. Then you bring in Kukoc to shore up the becnh. The potential for 70+ was there before we saw it 2 years later.

[Showtime80']

I don't know GOAT, after having a subpar regular season in terms of wins in 1993 (mainly because MJ and Scottie were drained after Barcelona) I think they would've come out with a vengeance in 94'.

Remember that was Pippen and Grant's absolute peak period along with adding new players like Kukoc, Kerr, Wennington and Longley who blended nicely with the veterans Armstrong and Cartwright. They still had guys like Paxson, Williams and King with championship experience at the end of the bench if needed.

Michael would've been in devastating form from the start in 94 and being the last season in Chicago Stadium they would've definitely gunned for 70+ wins and the title to cap it off. Their main comp in the east would've been the Knicks, Pacers and Hawks which they always owned and the would've EATEN ALIVE the 94 Rockets in 4 or 5 games in the Finals.

The question is, does Jordan return for 95 and beyond if they fourpeat?