nbablogjob Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Before this article gets started, let’s get one thing straight: Kobe Bryant is not better than Michael Jordan, and never will be. Even if Kobe goes on to win two more rings giving him seven, one more than MJ, he still falls short in comparison. There will never be another Michael Jordan. The legacy he left will never be matched and it may be taboo to even compare with another player’s. Winning was not enough, he had to bury his competition. Do not let Kobe’s glare/under bite growl fool you, it is a front, and an attempt by Kobe to patent a facial expression like MJ’s tongue wag. Let us please squash this debate before some people begin to take it seriously. Kobe is not better than MJ, however, his Lakers may just be better than Jordan’s Bulls. The rest at: http://nbablogjob.blogspot.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 comparing the 96 Bulls to the 2010 Lakers is a joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenIverson#1fan Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Like seriously. Bulls by a landslide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Nitro Posted July 22, 2010 Popular Post Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 A few major issues I have... -Yes, Fisher and Harper's numbers were close in the years you specified, but Harper was a MUCH better player. He was bigger, more versatile and created matchup problems. Not to mention you completely ignored FG % and only look at 3pt %. Harper shot 9% better overall from the field than Fisher, and that is a much bigger difference than Fisher's edge in 3pt shooting. Also, Harper took a greatly reduced role with the Bulls. He was a 20/6/5 player the year before he joined Chicago. To give you an idea, the Hawks gave Joe Johnson the biggest contract out of any FA this summer for virtually the same production. Harper was a much better player than Fisher. -How in the world is Artest a better defender than Pippen? Pippen was arguably the best perimeter defender in NBA history. When Artest was in his prime you might have some ground to say that, but he's not the same defensive player he once was. Even though awards are overrated, in 1996 Pippen was in the middle of a string of 7 straight All-Defensive First Team selections. Meanwhile Artest has made only one All-Defensive team in the last 4 seasons (and that was only a 2nd Team selection). Artest is also NOWHERE NEAR the offensive player Pippen was. Pippen is what made the offensive attack so versatile and dangerous. Artest doesn't make anywhere near the impact Pippen did, and so the advantage for the Bulls in this matchup is enormous. -I would say Rodman/Gasol is a push. You are severely underrating Rodman's defense just because he didnt block shot. He was arguably the greatest defender and rebounder in NBA history. Even though he was undersized, he would have given Gasol fits with his speed, toughness, hands and IQ. Not to mention he dominated the glass more than any player currently in the league ever has, including Dwight Howard. That alone would help take away one of LA's biggest strength. -I would have given the Bulls bench the edge. Much more consistent and the 3pt shooting was lethal (Kukoc over 40% from 3, Kerr at over 51%). You never knew what ANY of the Lakers bench players would give the team on a nightly basis. With the Bulls, there was stability. Look, I understand the Lakers have talent, but we are comparing them to a team that was #1 in offense and #1 in defense the same year. We're talking the most dominant single-season team in NBA history. Some stats from the Bulls' 1996 season... -The Bulls outscored teams by THRITEEN(!) points per game.-The Bulls outrebounded teams by over SIX boards per game.-The Bulls averaged FIVE more assists than opponents.-The Bulls forced 3 more turnovers than they gave up. -The Bulls shot 48% from the floor and 40% from 3.-Three of the five starters were selected to the All-Defensive First Team in 1996.-Against Shaq's Magic, Zo's Heat and Ewing's Knicks in the playoffs, the Bulls lost one combined game. It goes on and on and on... 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenIverson#1fan Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 A few major issues I have... -Yes, Fisher and Harper's numbers were close in the years you specified, but Harper was a MUCH better player. He was bigger, more versatile and created matchup problems. Not to mention you completely ignored FG % and only look at 3pt %. Harper shot 9% better overall from the field than Fisher, and that is a much bigger difference than Fisher's edge in 3pt shooting. Also, Harper took a greatly reduced role with the Bulls. He was a 20/6/5 player the year before he joined Chicago. To give you an idea, the Hawks gave Joe Johnson the biggest contract out of any FA this summer for virtually the same production. Harper was a much better player than Fisher. -How in the world is Artest a better defender than Pippen? Pippen was arguably the best perimeter defender in NBA history. When Artest was in his prime you might have some ground to say that, but he's not the same defensive player he once was. Even though awards are overrated, in 1996 Pippen was in the middle of a string of 7 straight All-Defensive First Team selections. Meanwhile Artest has made only one All-Defensive team in the last 4 seasons (and that was only a 2nd Team selection). Artest is also NOWHERE NEAR the offensive player Pippen was. Pippen is what made the offensive attack so versatile and dangerous. Artest doesn't make anywhere near the impact Pippen did, and so the advantage for the Bulls in this matchup is enormous. -I would say Rodman/Gasol is a push. You are severely underrating Rodman's defense just because he didnt block shot. He was arguably the greatest defender and rebounder in NBA history. Even though he was undersized, he would have given Gasol fits with his speed, toughness, hands and IQ. Not to mention he dominated the glass more than any player currently in the league ever has, including Dwight Howard. That alone would help take away one of LA's biggest strength. -I would have given the Bulls bench the edge. Much more consistent and the 3pt shooting was lethal (Kukoc over 40% from 3, Kerr at over 51%). You never knew what ANY of the Lakers bench players would give the team on a nightly basis. With the Bulls, there was stability. Look, I understand the Lakers have talent, but we are comparing them to a team that was #1 in offense and #1 in defense the same year. We're talking the most dominant single-season team in NBA history. Some stats from the Bulls' 1996 season... -The Bulls outscored teams by THRITEEN(!) points per game.-The Bulls outrebounded teams by over SIX boards per game.-The Bulls averaged FIVE more assists than opponents.-The Bulls forced 3 more turnovers than they gave up. -The Bulls shot 48% from the floor and 40% from 3.-Three of the five starters were selected to the All-Defensive First Team in 1996.-Against Shaq's Magic, Zo's Heat and Ewing's Knicks in the playoffs, the Bulls lost one combined game. It goes on and on and on...Whattta great post........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbablogjob Posted July 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 A few major issues I have... -Yes, Fisher and Harper's numbers were close in the years you specified, but Harper was a MUCH better player. He was bigger, more versatile and created matchup problems. Not to mention you completely ignored FG % and only look at 3pt %. Harper shot 9% better overall from the field than Fisher, and that is a much bigger difference than Fisher's edge in 3pt shooting. Also, Harper took a greatly reduced role with the Bulls. He was a 20/6/5 player the year before he joined Chicago. To give you an idea, the Hawks gave Joe Johnson the biggest contract out of any FA this summer for virtually the same production. Harper was a much better player than Fisher. -How in the world is Artest a better defender than Pippen? Pippen was arguably the best perimeter defender in NBA history. When Artest was in his prime you might have some ground to say that, but he's not the same defensive player he once was. Even though awards are overrated, in 1996 Pippen was in the middle of a string of 7 straight All-Defensive First Team selections. Meanwhile Artest has made only one All-Defensive team in the last 4 seasons (and that was only a 2nd Team selection). Artest is also NOWHERE NEAR the offensive player Pippen was. Pippen is what made the offensive attack so versatile and dangerous. Artest doesn't make anywhere near the impact Pippen did, and so the advantage for the Bulls in this matchup is enormous. -I would say Rodman/Gasol is a push. You are severely underrating Rodman's defense just because he didnt block shot. He was arguably the greatest defender and rebounder in NBA history. Even though he was undersized, he would have given Gasol fits with his speed, toughness, hands and IQ. Not to mention he dominated the glass more than any player currently in the league ever has, including Dwight Howard. That alone would help take away one of LA's biggest strength. -I would have given the Bulls bench the edge. Much more consistent and the 3pt shooting was lethal (Kukoc over 40% from 3, Kerr at over 51%). You never knew what ANY of the Lakers bench players would give the team on a nightly basis. With the Bulls, there was stability. Look, I understand the Lakers have talent, but we are comparing them to a team that was #1 in offense and #1 in defense the same year. We're talking the most dominant single-season team in NBA history. Some stats from the Bulls' 1996 season... -The Bulls outscored teams by THRITEEN(!) points per game.-The Bulls outrebounded teams by over SIX boards per game.-The Bulls averaged FIVE more assists than opponents.-The Bulls forced 3 more turnovers than they gave up. -The Bulls shot 48% from the floor and 40% from 3.-Three of the five starters were selected to the All-Defensive First Team in 1996.-Against Shaq's Magic, Zo's Heat and Ewing's Knicks in the playoffs, the Bulls lost one combined game. It goes on and on and on... We never said Artest was better than Pippen. Not once. Yes the Bulls dominated, but they dominiated a polarized league. Outside of Rodman, the Bulls had 0 answer for the Laker front court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleed Green Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Wow, great post by Nitro. But the thing for me that sets this Lakers teams apart from other teams in the league is there size. With two seven footers in the starting lineup, and a talented 6'10 power forward off the bench, do you think the Bulls would have enough size to matchup with them? The Celtics had a lot of size in Kevin Garnett, Kendrick Perkins, Rasheed Wallace, and Glen Davis, and they couldnt handle the Lakers bigs. Makes it hard for me to believe 6'7 Dennis Rodman and two white 7 footers could get the job done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erick Blasco Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 We never said Artest was better than Pippen. Not once. Yes the Bulls dominated, but they dominiated a polarized league. Outside of Rodman, the Bulls had 0 answer for the Laker front court. Luc Longely and Bill Wennington were also exceptionally good interior defenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) We never said Artest was better than Pippen. Not once. Yes the Bulls dominated, but they dominiated a polarized league. Outside of Rodman, the Bulls had 0 answer for the Laker front court. I never said that you said Artest was a better player. But you did say he was a better defender, and then in your arguement seem to think the comparison is close. He's not a better defender, and the comparison isn't close at all. As for the league being watered down, it doesn't matter much because the level of dominance is so enormous. The '96 Bulls destroy this Lakers team in EVERY statistical category. Point differential, rebounds, assists, forced TO's, FG %, 3pt %, PPG, allowed PPG, etc.... If the Oklahoma City Thunder were within 1 tip-in from taking the Lakers to 7, and a very old Boston Celtics were within 4th quarter collapse of beating the Lakers, do you REALLY think the 2010 Lakers are better than the greatest single-season team in NBA history? Edited July 22, 2010 by Nitro1118 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owner Real Deal Posted July 22, 2010 Owner Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Scottie Pippen is one of the greatest perimeter defenders in league history. Rodman is the greatest defender of all-time (at least according to me and many others who watch basketball). Harper is a better defender than Fisher, by miles, and a better overall player. The 1996 Jordan and today's Kobe...it's a wash. Andrew Bynum barely contributed in the Finals, had trouble in the WCF. The bench? Not even close. Los Angeles had one of the worst benches in the league. I love our team, but it doesn't touch the 1996 Bulls. Gasol would absolutely hate trying to play against Rodman, and because Rodman is also one of the greatest rebounders in league history, our rebounding advantage wouldn't be as significant, and that's a big problem when Bynum isn't healthy. Can't pretend like he's 100% either, because he just isn't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkr Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 A few major issues I have... -Yes, Fisher and Harper's numbers were close in the years you specified, but Harper was a MUCH better player. He was bigger, more versatile and created matchup problems. Not to mention you completely ignored FG % and only look at 3pt %. Harper shot 9% better overall from the field than Fisher, and that is a much bigger difference than Fisher's edge in 3pt shooting. Also, Harper took a greatly reduced role with the Bulls. He was a 20/6/5 player the year before he joined Chicago. To give you an idea, the Hawks gave Joe Johnson the biggest contract out of any FA this summer for virtually the same production. Harper was a much better player than Fisher. -How in the world is Artest a better defender than Pippen? Pippen was arguably the best perimeter defender in NBA history. When Artest was in his prime you might have some ground to say that, but he's not the same defensive player he once was. Even though awards are overrated, in 1996 Pippen was in the middle of a string of 7 straight All-Defensive First Team selections. Meanwhile Artest has made only one All-Defensive team in the last 4 seasons (and that was only a 2nd Team selection). Artest is also NOWHERE NEAR the offensive player Pippen was. Pippen is what made the offensive attack so versatile and dangerous. Artest doesn't make anywhere near the impact Pippen did, and so the advantage for the Bulls in this matchup is enormous. -I would say Rodman/Gasol is a push. You are severely underrating Rodman's defense just because he didnt block shot. He was arguably the greatest defender and rebounder in NBA history. Even though he was undersized, he would have given Gasol fits with his speed, toughness, hands and IQ. Not to mention he dominated the glass more than any player currently in the league ever has, including Dwight Howard. That alone would help take away one of LA's biggest strength. -I would have given the Bulls bench the edge. Much more consistent and the 3pt shooting was lethal (Kukoc over 40% from 3, Kerr at over 51%). You never knew what ANY of the Lakers bench players would give the team on a nightly basis. With the Bulls, there was stability. Look, I understand the Lakers have talent, but we are comparing them to a team that was #1 in offense and #1 in defense the same year. We're talking the most dominant single-season team in NBA history. Some stats from the Bulls' 1996 season... -The Bulls outscored teams by THRITEEN(!) points per game.-The Bulls outrebounded teams by over SIX boards per game.-The Bulls averaged FIVE more assists than opponents.-The Bulls forced 3 more turnovers than they gave up. -The Bulls shot 48% from the floor and 40% from 3.-Three of the five starters were selected to the All-Defensive First Team in 1996.-Against Shaq's Magic, Zo's Heat and Ewing's Knicks in the playoffs, the Bulls lost one combined game. It goes on and on and on...TREMENDOUS post. +1 for you, would give more if I could Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbablogjob Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 I never said that you said Artest was a better player. But you did say he was a better defender, and then in your arguement seem to think the comparison is close. He's not a better defender, and the comparison isn't close at all. As for the league being watered down, it doesn't matter much because the level of dominance is so enormous. The '96 Bulls destroy this Lakers team in EVERY statistical category. Point differential, rebounds, assists, forced TO's, FG %, 3pt %, PPG, allowed PPG, etc.... If the Oklahoma City Thunder were within 1 tip-in from taking the Lakers to 7, and a very old Boston Celtics were within 4th quarter collapse of beating the Lakers, do you REALLY think the 2010 Lakers are better than the greatest single-season team in NBA history? Why does it have to be termed a "collapse," why not say the Lakers came back and took it away? Boston's team was better than any team the the Bulls beat in 1996. The level of dominance is remarkable, but still you must factor in the amount of relevant teams in the league. The NBA is much much better now. I honesty thnk the best team in NBA history may be Magic's showtime Lakers. In realitty I think we all know that the 96 Bulls are better than the 2010 Lakers. I wrote that article for the sake of the argument. Now if the Lakers go to beat the Miami Heat next year...this argument is not as definitive.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorilla Dog Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 You don't know need a long [expletive] post for this topic. Showtime Lakers > 1996 Bulls >> 2010 Lakers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 You don't know need a long [expletive] post for this topic. Showtime Lakers > 1996 Bulls >> 2010 Lakers.Is this serious? lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorilla Dog Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Is this serious? lol. Yes, the Showtime Lakers would beat the 1996 Bulls in a series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YugoRocketsFan Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Yes, the Showtime Lakers would beat the 1996 Bulls in a series. Would? Its ok to be confident but to say something is official because you think it is? The Rockets did always own the Bulls barely before the championship area but I cant say they would beat them in a playoff series because its a whole different monster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Why does it have to be termed a "collapse," why not say the Lakers came back and took it away? Boston's team was better than any team the the Bulls beat in 1996. The level of dominance is remarkable, but still you must factor in the amount of relevant teams in the league. The NBA is much much better now. I honesty thnk the best team in NBA history may be Magic's showtime Lakers. In realitty I think we all know that the 96 Bulls are better than the 2010 Lakers. I wrote that article for the sake of the argument. Now if the Lakers go to beat the Miami Heat next year...this argument is not as definitive.. Losing a 13pt lead in the 4th quarter is a collapse. Notice how I didn't say the Celtics choked? If I did, then I'd be discrediting the Lakers. And don't make it seem like we're comparing the NBA in 2010 to the NBA in 1965. 1996 was only 14 years ago. I agree the league has more talent nowadays and the top teams are generally stronger, but it doesn't make up for the massive gap in dominance between the 2010 Lakers and 1996 Bulls. And even if you ignore all the stats proving the Bulls dominance, we can use your method of head-to-head comparison that will also show why the Bulls are clearly the better team. Edited July 23, 2010 by Nitro1118 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted July 23, 2010 Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 If the Oklahoma City Thunder were within 1 tip-in from taking the Lakers to 7, and a very old Boston Celtics were within 4th quarter collapse of beating the Lakers, do you REALLY think the 2010 Lakers are better than the greatest single-season team in NBA history? This is something I really have to agree with here. Now if we're talking about the 2000-2001 Lakers then maybe we would have something to talk about and debate here.. But the 2010 Lakers, great.. I gve that. But exceptional? Negative. Nothing in NBA history can touch the 1996 Bulls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbablogjob Posted July 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2010 Losing a 13pt lead in the 4th quarter is a collapse. Notice how I didn't say the Celtics choked? If I did, then I'd be discrediting the Lakers. And don't make it seem like we're comparing the NBA in 2010 to the NBA in 1965. 1996 was only 14 years ago. I agree the league has more talent nowadays and the top teams are generally stronger, but it doesn't make up for the massive gap in dominance between the 2010 Lakers and 1996 Bulls. And even if you ignore all the stats proving the Bulls dominance, we can use your method of head-to-head comparison that will also show why the Bulls are clearly the better team. I hear ya man, the article was written for the sake of debate. Who would really win? probably the Bulls. I just wanted to put the Lakers in context, because they really are one of the most talented teams ever put together. There size would give the Bulls alot of trouble. enought to win? probably not. However, watch the 2011 Lakers. Just added Barnes, Blake and Ratliff. The defending champion just bolstered their size, 3p shooting and depth.. The full debate here: http://nbablogjob.blogspot.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.