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

[JT123]

They faced a dominant center in the conference finals in Ewing.

I swear Ewing becomes more overrated with each passing year. Comparing his impact to that of prime Shaq? Really?

[TheMan]

Great argument. You sure convinced me.
The second regular season meeting, in which the Lakers blew out the Bulls, is much more indicative of how a series would have gone. The Bulls only won the first meeting that year because Shaq didn't play. The Bulls never had any answers for Shaq in those days, and the Lakers had him surrounded with young talent and elite 3 point shooters. Lakers would likely have won that series in 6 games.

You're actually basing this off regular season games

So when the Rose Bulls would regularly merk LeBeron's Heat in the regular season, why didn't that translate to in the playoffs

You can't judge a playoffs match ups to regular season games, they are two totally different beasts, if I need to explain this then all I can say is, welcome to NBA basketball n00b The whole game planning, atmosphere and intensity is on whole other level.

The Bulls would beat those Lakers 5, now the 00-03 Lakers, that would've been a fun series to watch but the 98 Bulls weren't their best version either. 96 Bulls beat any version of the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

[TheMan]

I swear Ewing becomes more overrated with each passing year. Comparing his impact to that of prime Shaq? Really?

The Bulls smashed Shaq in 96

[JT123]

You're actually basing this off regular season games

So when the Rose Bulls would regularly merk LeBeron's Heat in the regular season, why didn't that translate to in the playoffs

You can't judge a playoffs match up to regular season games, they are two totally different beasts, if I need to explain this then all I can say is, welcome to NBA basketball n00b

The only year in which Rose's Bulls "merked" Lebron's Heat in the regular season was during Miami's first year together. And even so I would hardly call winning 3 games by a combined 5 points merking someone. Totally different scenario.
When the Bulls played the Shaq led Lakers they would struggle to even keep the games competitive. In Jordan's last 2 seasons in Chicago he lost 2 of 3 games against Shaq's team, with both loses being blow outs. His one win against Shaq's Lakers was kind of fluky as the Lakers blew a 20 point 4th quarter lead and lost in overtime. Those Laker teams just had too many match up advantages against the Bulls.

[Da_Realist]

Great argument. You sure convinced me.
The second regular season meeting, in which the Lakers blew out the Bulls, is much more indicative of how a series would have gone. The Bulls only won the first meeting that year because Shaq didn't play. The Bulls never had any answers for Shaq in those days, and the Lakers had him surrounded with young talent and elite 3 point shooters. Lakers would likely have won that series in 6 games.

Playoffs are a much different animal than the regular season. Reg season is for the young guys trying to prove themselves. The Bulls were pacing themselves for the "real" season. The Lakers clearly cared more about those reg season matchups than the Bulls did. The 98 Jazz beat the Bulls both times in the reg season and then got smashed by 54 points in the Finals.

Playoffs favor intelligence and strategy more than emotion. Tough to beat a team on emotion four out of seven games. Especially a two time defending champion let by Michael Jordan. Precision, focus, discipline is more important than youth, athleticism and energy. The Jazz proved that by sweeping the Lakers in 98.

[TheMan]

The only year in which Rose's Bulls "merked" Lebron's Heat in the regular season was during Miami's first year together. And even so I would hardly call winning 3 games by a combined 5 points merking someone. Totally different scenario.
When the Bulls played the Shaq led Lakers they would struggle to even keep the games competitive. In Jordan's last 2 seasons in Chicago he lost 2 of 3 games against Shaq's team, with both loses being blow outs. His one win against Shaq's Lakers was kind of fluky as the Lakers blew a 20 point 4th quarter lead and lost in overtime. Those Laker teams just had too many match up advantages against the Bulls.

Did you check Miami/Bulls regular season record since 2011? They are essentially tied. The Bulls have managed to beat the Heat without Rose and some starters at times

My point is and everyone here at ISH basically agrees, it's tough judging how a series will go by RS games, they do not resemble playoffs game in the least. Whole different game planning, minutes management, player match ups etc...

You're basing the outcome of how a Finals series would go by a game the Bulls lost to the Lakers in February through a West Coast swing

[TheMan]

Playoffs are a much different animal than the regular season. Reg season is for the young guys trying to prove themselves. The Bulls were pacing themselves for the "real" season. The Lakers clearly cared more about those reg season matchups than the Bulls did. The 98 Jazz beat the Bulls both times in the reg season and then got smashed by 54 points in the Finals.

Playoffs favor intelligence and strategy more than emotion. Tough to beat a team on emotion four out of seven games. Especially a two time defending champion let by Michael Jordan. Precision, focus, discipline is more important than youth, athleticism and energy. The Jazz proved that by sweeping the Lakers in 98.

Yeah, apparently having Ostertag was that much of a difference that the Jazz smashed the Lakers but the Bulls wouldn't be able to

[Jay-B]

I actually remember that year before the conference finals started, hoping to see a Bulls/Lakers finals. Too bad the Jazz swept LA, it would of been very entertaining but I think it would of been Bulls 4-2....Lakers were way too young.

[SamuraiSWISH]

The Bulls never faced a dominant center in their Final runs

Yea, I know.

Besides:

Shaq - '96
Ewing - '91, '92, '93, '96
Mourning - '95, '97
Mutombo - '97

[JT123]

Yea, I know.

Besides:

Shaq - '96
Ewing - '91, '92, '93, '96
Mourning - '95, '97
Mutombo - '97

Mourning and Mutombo were defensive players. Calling them dominant is laughable.

[guy]

The Jazz swept the Lakers in the western conference finals, but styles makes fight.

The Jazz destroyed them. What exactly was the advantage they had over the Lakers that the Bulls wouldn't have had?

Bulls would've easily beaten them.

[Legends66NBA7]

Mourning and Mutombo were defensive players.

Mourning wasn't just a defensive player. He was a 20/10 player for 6-7 seasons.

[DonDadda59]

Is this a serious question?

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. 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 that would make the difference in a Bulls-Lakers series?

[DonDadda59]

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).

Early 2000s was the worst era for basketball since the 70s. Back to back finals appearances for the Nets?

2001 Lakers, any version of the LeBron's Heat, and the 2014 Spurs would demolish the 98 Bulls.

'01 Lakers were a fluke team, they were ranked 21st in defense and were dysfunctional during the regular season because of Bean and Shaq's diva antics. They just got hot at the right time. And you really think a team that lost to the Mavericks is beating the Bulls? '14 Spurs were taken to 7 by an 8 seed.

[Asukal]

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, any version of the LeBron's Heat, and the 2014 Spurs would demolish the 98 Bulls.

You wish.

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