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

[rodman91]

I wish Bill Russell was there too next to jordan with 11 rings

[purplch0de]

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.

Except that's not what this thread is about... and Shaq would easily take on any player from 96 bulls. Look at shaq's 4th quarter points in the playoffs... he shows up where it counts which is why he's arguably GOAT center.

[eliteballer]

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.

Maybe if you were older than 12 you would understand that expansion with 4 teams in 88 and 89 is what diluted the league on top of the two added in 96.

[1987_Lakers]

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.

By frontline I mean C & PF. Kareem, Green, McAdoo or Thompson is superior to Longley & Rodman. And it's not only the frontline size that would hurt the Bulls, the Celtics' bigs are just much more skilled. Parish AND Walton are better than Longley, McHale > Rodman, & Bird > Pippen. If Rodman couldn't contain Shawn Kemp what makes you think he can slow down a peak Kevin McHale? Pippen is a great defender, but we are talking about a peak Larry Bird here, and both of the Celtics centers (Parish & Walton) are better than Longley. And Rodman isn't going to outrebound Parish, Walton, & McHale by himself, that is ludicrous.

[97 bulls]

Maybe if you were older than 12 you would understand that expansion with 4 teams in 88 and 89 is what diluted the league on top of the two added in 96.

Well as you said, the leage expanded in 88. Why didn't the lakers get even close to 70? In 89, the lakers won 63 games and I remember magic saying that was the most talented laker team he had been on, why didn't they win 70?

And more athletes were playing basketball by 96 so while I agree that expansion netted the bulls some xtra wins, it by no means diluted the talent. If you knew math you would know this.

[eliteballer]

There is a huge difference between adding two teams and adding 6, and really...saying the talent pool increased by a number large enough to offset that in a 6 year period is the height of stupidity, only confirmed by the fact that your the one spewing it.

[NugzHeat3]

The league was extremely weak in 1996. The second three-peat Bulls team is ridiculously overrated.

This whole Jordan thing is a marketing scheme for 2K12. Jordan doesn't actually believe the 1996 team is the best ever. He's said he's partial to the first three-peat Bulls.

[D-Wade316]

67 Sixers
71 Lakers

[guy]

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

This means nothing at all.

[eliteballer]

It means a lot, it means that there were tons of bottomfeeding to average teams for the few good ones to feast on.

[NugzHeat3]

The Bulls were so far and above their competition in 1996 that it's ridiculous.

The NBA is so weak once you get past the top half-dozen teams that even the Bulls can't really enjoy their incredible record through the first two months of the season.

"The record doesn't mean a thing," Dennis Rodman says. "The league is so watered down we can beat anyone. We can win 68, 69 games and it don't mean . . . if we don't get the job done in the playoffs."

"One thing I'm waiting to see is when they expand again," says Larry Bird, who is about as traditional as they come about the game. "Then if you have one great player and four mediocre players, you might be able to make it to the Finals.

"Just look at how things are now. (A team like) Utah has two All-Stars. Their other players are good, but they're not All-Stars. And they're going to win 55 or 60 games. They have a good team, but the league is a little watered down."

A little? A team like Cleveland, which overachieves and has a great coach, would be contending for a home-court advantage in the first round of the playoffs if this were April. And the Cavs are not a talented team by anybody's calculations.

Bird said the Celtics' second team of the mid-'80s, with Bill Walton, Scott Wedman and others, would "win 50 games now, if they could stay healthy."

The Portland Trail Blazers admitted in October they were in a rebuilding season. And yet they were tied for the final playoff spot in the West coming into the weekend.

After 27 games last season, Detroit was 9-18. This season, they were 13-14. Did they get that much better? No.

Is the league that much worse? Maybe.

Charlotte, Washington, Miami, Boston, Denver and the LA Lakers. All are marginally talented teams who can't get over the .500 hump.

"There is a lot of parity," says Kevin McHale, Minnesota's GM. "Right now, there are three to four teams, for whatever reason, who are at the bottom of that level in terms of the record. We fit in there.

"But right now, talent-wise, I feel we're right about in the middle of that group. In that group, there is no one team that is clearly more talented than the others. It's a group where everyone has got a few good players."

So what is causing the problems? Mainly, there are too many teams and not enough good players to fill them. But there are other factors.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/ar...d=1995_1316238

[97 bulls]

By frontline I mean C & PF. Kareem, Green, McAdoo or Thompson is superior to Longley & Rodman. And it's not only the frontline size that would hurt the Bulls, the Celtics' bigs are just much more skilled. Parish AND Walton are better than Longley, McHale > Rodman, & Bird > Pippen. If Rodman couldn't contain Shawn Kemp what makes you think he can slow down a peak Kevin McHale? Pippen is a great defender, but we are talking about a peak Larry Bird here, and both of the Celtics centers (Parish & Walton) are better than Longley. And Rodman isn't going to outrebound Parish, Walton, & McHale by himself, that is ludicrous.

Actually, the rodman reference was a joke. But remember, this isn't one on one basketball. In a team concept, its a matter of who is able to stop who. Or who will do a better job ay doing what they do best. Would any of the lakers frontline be able to keep rodman off the boards?

would 175lb michael cooper be able to defend jordan in the post? And if not, who's gonna come over and double? If riley sends kareem, now you leave longley wide open for a 15 foot jumper. Scott and worthy are good enough and then your leaving pippen and kerr open. You could send magic, but remember how that faired for the lakers when they did that in 91. He made paxson look like larry bird. If he sends green/mcadoo, then rodman is gonna kill the lakers offensively with xtra possesions. Similar to what he did against the sonics. And while were on the sonics, statistically kemp had a great series. But most of his points came when the bulls had those games well in hand. Rodman had him visibly flustred. He was a TO machine and was always in foul trouble. Classic case of stats not telling the story

The same holds true with the celtics. The bulls obviously are gonna attack using jordan. And the celtics will more than likely put DJ on him. 6'4 johnson vs 6'6 jordan in the post is a mismatch in favor of the bulls. The celtics rover was bird. Which would leave pippen open. Haper would play ainge to a standstill. And the same scenario holds true vs the celts as what I said vs the lakers.

[guy]

Not really. Its a function of where talent is distributed, which doesn't have much to do with expansion. No matter what, the average record in the league is 41-41. It doesn't have much to do with expansion. Put it like this. Put the 1992 Dream Team in their prime in today's league in place of a team like the T-Wolves and they probably go 82-0, and every other team has 2-4 more losses. Does that make the league weaker now?

I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. But thats horrible reasoning. You can't use the team records in the league as a way of saying a league is weak or not. Some teams are just better then others, no matter how good those other teams are.

And I find it funny that what people completely ignore when it comes to expansion is that EVERY TEAM is effected by it. While the Bulls' competition may have been better if there was never any expansion, the Bulls would ALSO be better. Here's an example:

In the 88 draft, the Bulls had the 11th pick right behind San Antonio, Miami, and Charlotte. Miami and Charlotte were expansion teams. Charlotte picked Rex Chapman, then Miami picked Rony Seikaly, and then San Antonio picked Willie Anderson. Lets say Miami and Charlotte aren't there anymore, and then San Antonio picks Rex Chapman. Chicago would've then been able to take Rony Seikay, a 15/10 player from 1989-1999 who would've clearly been the starting center on the Bulls, which was clearly there most glaring weakness despite being one the greatest teams ever.

In the 89 draft, the Bulls had the 6th pick behind Charlotte and Miami again. Miami picked Glen Rice, Charlotte picked JR Reid, and the Bulls settled for Stacy King. They could've had an all-star and 27 ppg scorer in his prime in Glen Rice if Miami and Charlotte didn't exist and they had the 4th pick instead.

So in the end, there superiority over there competition is probably the same. Like I said, some teams are just better then others.

[97 bulls]

It means a lot, it means that there were tons of bottomfeeding to average teams for the few good ones to feast on.

Did you see the records of the teams out west during the 80s. Come on. Talk about bad teams. And good teams feeding on bottom feeders.

[1987_Lakers]

Actually, the rodman reference was a joke. But remember, this isn't one on one basketball. In a team concept, its a matter of who is able to stop who. Or who will do a better job ay doing what they do best. Would any of the lakers frontline be able to keep rodman off the boards?

would 175lb michael cooper be able to defend jordan in the post? And if not, who's gonna come over and double? If riley sends kareem, now you leave longley wide open for a 15 foot jumper. Scott and worthy are good enough and then your leaving pippen and kerr open. You could send magic, but remember how that faired for the lakers when they did that in 91. He made paxson look like larry bird. If he sends green/mcadoo, then rodman is gonna kill the lakers offensively with xtra possesions. Similar to what he did against the sonics. And while were on the sonics, statistically kemp had a great series. But most of his points came when the bulls had those games well in hand. Rodman had him visibly flustred. He was a TO machine and was always in foul trouble. Classic case of stats not telling the story

The same holds true with the celtics. The bulls obviously are gonna attack using jordan. And the celtics will more than likely put DJ on him. 6'4 johnson vs 6'6 jordan in the post is a mismatch in favor of the bulls. The celtics rover was bird. Which would leave pippen open. Haper would play ainge to a standstill. And the same scenario holds true vs the celts as what I said vs the lakers.

I like how you tried to change it to a Lakers vs Bulls argument, but I agree the Bulls match up much better vs the showtime Lakers than the Celtics. If the Bulls control the boards vs the Lakers I can actually see them winning, Jordan is way too strong for Cooper & Scott, Pippen is better than Worthy, and they have a big defensive guard in Ron Harper on Magic. The Lakers don't have the frontline to contain Rodman on the boards, but the Bulls have nobody who can contain Kareem from scoring. I believe the Lakers are more talented, but the matchups slightly favor the Bulls.

But in case of the '86 Celtics, I don't see the Bulls having the advantage. Yes, Jordan would get his even with DJ guarding him, but DJ was way stronger than Cooper & Scott, DJ use to bully his opponents. Like I said in my previous post, the Celtics just have the superior frontcourt & the NBA is also about matchups & the Celtics matchup better.