Jordan - "You think there is a better team than the 96 bulls ? Prove it."

[guy]

In terms of scheduling and absolute domination, the '71-72 Lakers were probably the most dominant team of all-time. They played in a 17 team league and played EVERY team a minimum of four games, and as many as six. And they outscored them by a 121.0 to 108.7 ppg margin (+12.3 ppg), as well as outshooting their opponents by a .490 to .432 margin, and outrebounding them 56.4 rpg to 52.3 rpg. Including the post-season, they went 8-2 against the 48-34 Knicks (and their FIVE HOFers), 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics, 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls, 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors, 5-1 against the 47-35 Sonics, 4-2 against the 49-33 Suns, and 8-3 against the defending champion 63-19 Bucks.

What does that really matter for?

[zay_24]

2001 Kobe led Lakers

[Theoo's Daddy]

2001 Kobe led Lakers

Not close.. the 96 bulls went 84-13 for the whole season including the playoffs.. The 2001 lakers were 72-27 for the whole season including the playoffs.

[guy]

Not close.. the 96 bulls went 84-15 for the whole season including the playoffs.. The 2001 lakers were 72-27 for the whole season including the playoffs.

84-13 actually.

[asdf1990]

In terms of scheduling and absolute domination, the '71-72 Lakers were probably the most dominant team of all-time. They played in a 17 team league and played EVERY team a minimum of four games, and as many as six. And they outscored them by a 121.0 to 108.7 ppg margin (+12.3 ppg), as well as outshooting their opponents by a .490 to .432 margin, and outrebounding them 56.4 rpg to 52.3 rpg. Including the post-season, they went 8-2 against the 48-34 Knicks (and their FIVE HOFers), 4-1 against the 56-26 Celtics, 7-1 against the 57-25 Bulls, 5-1 against the 51-31 Warriors, 5-1 against the 47-35 Sonics, 4-2 against the 49-33 Suns, and 8-3 against the defending champion 63-19 Bucks.

70s basketball

[Theoo's Daddy]

84-13 actually.

Opps my bad, just edited it.

[magnax1]

There are teams that are better then the 96 at some things, but I don't think there is a more complete team. If I remember correctly, they lead the league in offensive and defensive rating, and rebound differential.
The 86 Celtics, which seem to have become the popular choice for the greatest team ever, had a real athleticism disadvantage to most teams even at the time, and I think would be much greater against a team that played a decade later when weight training was much much more common. I'll say they're the most fun team to watch, and the smartest team ever, but I have a hard time even seeing a case for a team with such an athleticism disadvantage beating out many other all time great teams.

[Dizzle-2k7]

2011 mavericks, 2008 celtics, 2003 or 2005 spurs, 2001 lakers.. all on par with 96 Bulls.

[OldSchoolBBall]

2011 mavericks, 2008 celtics, 2003 or 2005 spurs, 2001 lakers.. all on par with 96 Bulls.

at all of them, but especially the bold.

[eliteballer]

Uhhh let's see:

Diluted league

Short 3 point line that played to Jordan's strength

The fact that there were like 3 other 60 win teams proves the weakness of the overall league at that point.

[Carbine]

at all of them, but especially the bold.

2001 Lakers would give the 96 Bulls a considerably tough match-up. I'm not sure Jordan would be the best player in that series due to match-ups, Shaq would have his way with anyone and everyone.

[97 bulls]

Even with Pippen, the Celtics are the more complete team, the Bulls have three guys in their starting line-up who can't create their own shot offensively, Longley, Rodman, & Harper by '96 lost his athleticism & was an average shooter at best. The only starter on the Celtics who couldn't create his own shot was Ainge, but he was an excellent shooter, but ultimately the Celtics size would wear out the Bulls in a 7 game series. Parish/McHale/Walton vs Longley/Rodman/Wennington is a huge mismatch on paper, & Dennis Johnson is better than any of the Bulls' guards not named Jordan.

The showtime lakers frontline is about equal to the 90s bulls and the lakers handed the celtics their ass on a hot plate 2 out of the trhee times they played each other. In fact, I think the 90s bulls frontline was better

Rodman was better than ac green
Pippen was better than worthy
Longley loses to jabaar though.

And I fail to see how the celtics size would hurt the bulls. The bulls had the better rebounders, hell rodman alone could just about out rebound the celtics frontline by himself.

[97 bulls]

Uhhh let's see:

Diluted league

Short 3 point line that played to Jordan's strength

The fact that there were like 3 other 60 win teams proves the weakness of the overall league at that point.

Using the diluted league theory is nonsense. The bulls without jordan won 55 games before expansion took place in 96. And that's not accounting that they upgraded pf when they picked up rodman. And kukoc improved from his rookie season too.

[purplch0de]

Arguably 2001 lakers > 96 bulls

[97 bulls]

2001 Lakers would give the 96 Bulls a considerably tough match-up. I'm not sure Jordan would be the best player in that series due to match-ups, Shaq would have his way with anyone and everyone.

Jordan would still be the best player on the floor. Mainly because shaq is all but worthless offensively in the mid to late 4th quarter. Then it turns into jordan and pippen vs kobe.