The 1991 NBA Finals - Who was favored back then?

TheGOATRises007 · Post #1 » by **TheGOATRises007** » Wed May 31, 2017 11:44 pm

I was too young to watch these finals live. I've seen the games/highlights since then on YouTube.

I recall a Bill Simmons article in which he referenced the finals and actually mentioned him picking LA to win it as most of the media did because of "experience."

So if anyone here is old enough to remember, who was favored back then? Bulls or Lakers?

LakerLegend · Post #2 » by **LakerLegend** » Wed May 31, 2017 11:48 pm

I mean everyone had different opinions. The Lakers weren't even expected to make the Finals, the Blazers were.

If Worthy is healthy from the start of the series and Scott plays the whole Finals, it definitely is more competitive.

giberish · Post #3 » by **giberish** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 1:22 am

Lakerfan17 wrote:I mean everyone had different opinions. The Lakers weren't even expected to make the Finals, the Blazers were.

If Worthy is healthy from the start of the series and Scott plays the whole Finals, it definitely is more competitive.

Portland chocked badly in the WCF that year. They would have been about a toss-up with Chicago, maybe even favored (IMO Chicago was a little better in 1992 while Portland was worse). With Worthy injured and well less then 100% for the later WCF games Portland should have comfortably won. They played like they had a mental block against the Lakers where they just couldn't believe they were the better team (they didn't have to beat LA in 1990 as Phoenix beat them in the 2nd round).

At full health it would have been close to a toss-up. Chicago with more talent, but LA with experience. With Worthy limited the overall talent advantage Chicago had made them clear favorites.

karkinos · Post #4 » by **karkinos** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 1:40 am

by vegas standards, iirc lakers were favorites to win in 1991

GermanFan120 · Post #5 » by **GermanFan120** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 1:46 am

Lakers.

CarMalone · Post #6 » by **CarMalone** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:00 am

The Bulls had been slowly improving in the past several years and were still regarded as being a year away. Most expected them the Lakers to win the series and the Bulls to win the following year, but nobody would have been surprised if the Bulls won.

Speaking generally, people probably would've given the Lakers 60% chance of winning.

rzzzzz · Post #7 » by **rzzzzz** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:22 am

Lakers were aging and beat up. no one surprised to see them crumble. but were they favored? maybe.

Triples333 · Post #8 » by **Triples333** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 2:36 am

The Lakers were favorites in the Finals (though not the Western Conference Finals). I don't recall, but the Suns in '93 may have been as well. They had HCA with the games best offense and their hype was significant. Bulls had made a major comeback down 0-2 to the Knicks in the prior series as well. Knicks had HCA there also.

guy1 · Post #9 » by **guy1** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 3:44 am

karkinos wrote:by vegas standards, iirc lakers were favorites to win in 1991

Link? And anyone know where you can get historical Vegas odds dating back that far?

LakersLegacy · Post #10 » by **LakersLegacy** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 4:14 am

Lakerfan17 wrote:I mean everyone had different opinions. The Lakers weren't even expected to make the Finals, the Blazers were.

If Worthy is healthy from the start of the series and Scott plays the whole Finals, it definitely is more competitive.

How much better would Magic have been if he didn't have HIV in the Finals?

Lakers won game 1. Then the Bulls got the Lakers game plan from the trash. Wiped off the chew tobacco and taped it together. Then they never lost another game. Lakers were stupid. They really didn't think the Bulls wouldn't do it because oohhh gross and it would take hours. Phil Jackson wanted to win!!!!!

homecourtloss · Post #11 » by **homecourtloss** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 6:06 am

karkinos wrote:by vegas standards, iirc lakers were favorites to win in 1991

I'm 99% certain Vegas had Chicago as favorites. Vegas was using things that sre commonly used now by lay people to see who should be favored (point differentials, quasi SRS, etc.)

There's no chance a team that didn't have home court, a worse record, a worse NET rating, and only the second best player in the series would be favored by Vegas. None.

homecourtloss · Post #12 » by **homecourtloss** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 6:09 am

giberish wrote:
Lakerfan17 wrote:I mean everyone had different opinions. The Lakers weren't even expected to make the Finals, the Blazers were.

If Worthy is healthy from the start of the series and Scott plays the whole Finals, it definitely is more competitive.

Portland chocked badly in the WCF that year. They would have been about a toss-up with Chicago, maybe even favored (IMO Chicago was a little better in 1992 while Portland was worse). With Worthy injured and well less then 100% for the later WCF games Portland should have comfortably won. They played like they had a mental block against the Lakers where they just couldn't believe they were the better team (they didn't have to beat LA in 1990 as Phoenix beat them in the 2nd round).

At full health it would have been close to a toss-up. Chicago with more talent, but LA with experience. With Worthy limited the overall talent advantage Chicago had made them clear favorites.

Yeah, Portland choked that WCF badly. It would have been a much better series in the finals with the Blazers.

That said, two of the games the Lakers lost at home were very close and could have gone either way. It's a credit to them that they were able to put up a fight given Worthy's injuries. Vlade Divac was then (even at 22) and is now one of the most underrated players in NBA history.

As you watched the series, there was an inevitability to it, though. You knew Chicago was the better team.

Hello Brooklyn · Post #13 » by **Hello Brooklyn** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 6:14 am

Was Jordan the underdog in any Finals except '91?

Maybe '98? Can't find the Vegas odds.

Wolfy1983 · Post #14 » by **Wolfy1983** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 6:29 am

How was Worthy doing performance wise, prior to him getting hurt?

Tabasco · Post #15 » by **Tabasco** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 6:39 am

Chicago was favored, and i'm pretty sure they were fairly heavy favorites. I don't know why people keep saying the lakers were favored, it's just not true. Magic was old by then, and the Bulls were dominant.

Tabasco · Post #16 » by **Tabasco** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 6:43 am

Hello Brooklyn wrote:Was Jordan the underdog in any Finals except '91?

Maybe '98? Can't find the Vegas odds.

You're right about '98, the Jazz were small favorites and I remember the Bulls players seemed to relish being considered the underdogs for once. I still can't watch the replay of Jordan stealing the ball from Malone and hitting the shot to win it without feeling sick inside.

Snake3 · Post #17 » by **Snake3** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 7:37 am

Tabasco wrote:Chicago was favored, and i'm pretty sure they were fairly heavy favorites. I don't know why people keep saying the lakers were favored, it's just not true. Magic was old by then, and the Bulls were dominant.

Magic just won MVP the year prior and was the second running MVP that year. He was only 31.

When Larry Bird was 31 he had 30 ppg/9/8 on 53% shooting.

And there were plenty of stars that competed and played at high level at that age. Dr. J, Moses Malone, Kareem and etc.

I could understand if you were to say that Magic wasn't at his peak or the Lakers weren't healthy. But Magic performed at a high level.

homecourtloss · Post #18 » by **homecourtloss** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 9:17 am

Hello Brooklyn wrote:Was Jordan the underdog in any Finals except '91?

Maybe '98? Can't find the Vegas odds.

He wasn't the Vegas betting underdog in '91 nor in '98 (close to even perhaps with the Jazz).

karkinos · Post #19 » by **karkinos** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 10:43 am

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-06-03/sports/1998154026_1_utah-jazz-jazz-chicago-bulls

chicago was the underdog going into the 1998 nba finals

lipstickonface · Post #20 » by **lipstickonface** » Thu Jun 1, 2017 10:47 am

I was quite worried in '98
- Jazz were rested (Bulls 7 games in ECF)
- Jazz had home court
- Jazz wanted revenge

And Utah took game 1. They truly blew it in 1998