OT- The Last Dance documentary

[rtblues]

My favorite Jordan quote from #LastDance
"Well, I mean, I would have to loved to have won it at home, but it didn't happen. Everyone thought I could make the shot, and that's the beauty of the game. For 1.1 seconds everybody was holdin' their breath. Which is kinda cute"

[Red8911]

Horace Grant was on ESPN radio dissing MJ. He hates him and claimed the documentary is all fake. Grant is still salty with whatever happened then but he really should be appreciating being a part of history playing along side the greatest ever. Without MJ, Grant is a forgotten former player that no one knows or mentions ever again. He should stop talking like that and have some respect.

[prolific passer]

Out of the 6 titles. 3 were won at home in 92, 96, and 97. 3 were won on the road in 91, 93, and 98.

[Chi town]

1. JR is so cheap he couldn't swallow winning a 7th title while "overpaying" market value for MJ's cast.

2. There is no way the Bulls come back and win a 4th in a row. MJ didn't have it in the tank. Everyone else was declining. The emotional exhaustion was too heavy for too long to do it.

[Red8911]

1. JR is so cheap he couldn't swallow winning a 7th title while "overpaying" market value for MJ's cast.

2. There is no way the Bulls come back and win a 4th in a row. MJ didn't have it in the tank. Everyone else was declining. The emotional exhaustion was too heavy for too long to do it.

JR is so cheap he didn’t want to pay Jimmy the Supermax, so he made Paxson trade him.

JR is so cheap he never wanted to hit the luxury tax and ran the bulls like a small market team.

JR is so cheap he kept trading players for cash.

So many more examples of his cheapness over the years don’t feel like writing them all here but yeah I’ve been saying this that it’s mostly his fault that the dynasty bulls broke up for at least one more year. He does what he does and let’s the gm take the blame(Krause) and he did the same exact thing with Paxson, a lot of the bulls big moves were decided by Reinsdorf himself.

[prolific passer]

Reinsdorf isn't just cheap with the bulls. His beloved White Sox only have 1 playoff appearance since winning it all in 2005.

[troza]

I won't say that he didn't just go for the rebounds on that season during the regular season but on the playoffs it didn't seem like it. And about the regular season, I'm pretty sure there was praise for him while Pippen was away.

They covered in the doc that he was great while Pippen was out but started falling off and slipping once Pippen came back and he felt he wasn't as important and needed to go on his Vegas break in the middle of the season.

He still played 80 games at 35.7 minutes a game with 36 years old. The stars today doing 80 games is crazy...

Again, I'm not saying that it was a sure thing that he could go on. But it is not as simple as everyone is making it saying that he was over.

Yeah, I can't say I know what they could or could not have done or remember FA real well in 99 or paid that much attention to what other teams were doing. I know they wouldnt' have had a lot in terms of resources, but the desirability of the situation may have gotten them some okay guys to fill out the depth at the minimum.

In the end, the Spurs had a higher SRS (Simple rating system) number in 99 than the Bulls did in 98, and everyone on that 98 team was basically in decline outside of Kukoc and almost all had very significant decline. If you say that 70% of that decline was just due to changing situations, and only 30% of that decline was due to actual players declining (and most were at the age where decline is expected as they would have been Jordan 35, Pippen 33, Rodman 37, Harper 35 etc), then you would still say mathematically the Bulls would have been the underdog.

I think the Bulls would have come out of the East for sure though. The Knicks upset the Heat in the first round, the Pacers fell off the map in terms of their defense, there was no one else to challenge them in the East really the way it played out. It's just that Spurs team would have been a matchup nightmare for them.

On basketball reference:
Bulls' SRS in 97/98 regular season: 7.24
Spurs' SRS in 98/99 regular season: 7.12

I can't find the stats for the playoffs but I would believe that the dominant run for the Spurs in 99 would give a bigger result than the Bulls in 98.

But... what was that value for the Jazz in 98? They did an amazing run into the finals... just to loose it all again.

About the matchup... yes, Robinson/Duncan vs Longley/Rodman/Kukoc (we would need more big men as Wennington would have been destroyed). But Pippen/Jordan/Harper vs Elie/Elliot/Johnson was in our favour. It would have been great. Sprewell and Houston gave the Knicks around 47 points per game... wouldn't Jordan and Pippen give more?

And the bench of the Spurs wasn't a big deal at that time. Jaren Jackson, Malik Rose and Steve Kerr were the only bench players that had significant minutes in the finals and Jerome Kersey on the rest of the playoffs.

I would say that it would depend on who would return and who would we get for the bench. Kerr, Rodman/Kukoc, Burrell, Wennigton were our main contributors on the playoffs in 98 and that is like that Spurs bench: not a big deal, mainly when one of the ones we have from the bench (either Rodman or Kukoc) was mainly a starter.

We would have a good chance... but again... if Phil Jackson came back. And for me, after all the talking about the dynasty thanks to the documentary, it seems that it was the main action that really ended any chance to go for another.

I don't buy the players being over when everything is showing otherwise for the majority of the main contributors and I also don't buy we not getting any good players for our bench to improve our team.

Jason Caffey would have also helped a lot but I think that trade was could have been already a showing off that this was indeed the last dance with no chance of getting back.

1. JR is so cheap he couldn't swallow winning a 7th title while "overpaying" market value for MJ's cast.

2. There is no way the Bulls come back and win a 4th in a row. MJ didn't have it in the tank. Everyone else was declining. The emotional exhaustion was too heavy for too long to do it.

This is so simplistic view. JR is so cheap yet he paid Jordan 30 million+ in his last two seasons with the Bulls, offered Jackson a big contract for him to stay, got Pippen back in 2003... somethings just doesn't add up with him being cheap at that time. Now it would have been wise to offer Pippen the contract he got for the sign and trade for the Rockets for him to stay on the Bulls and see him loose value? Maybe not although it would give us fans the closure we wanted... Funny thing is that we might have been talking now about a rebuild sooner that it was.

MJ didn't have in the tank is also something that I don't buy. I think that is a narrative created later when the mentality changed and all those talks about GOAT came out. He was on top and it, had to go for a new team with 35 years old or be with a team that would have a new coach that would be unable to replicate what Jackson did to manage all the egos.

Remember that this was way before players chasing rings and changing teams demanding stuff like Lebron done 3 times now. Times were different. So... what would your decision be? Change teams at that time? Be on a team going through a rebuild (when you hate loosing)?

When I think about it, he did what most of us would have done.

[wickywack]

Yeah, I can't say I know what they could or could not have done or remember FA real well in 99 or paid that much attention to what other teams were doing. I know they wouldnt' have had a lot in terms of resources, but the desirability of the situation may have gotten them some okay guys to fill out the depth at the minimum.

In the end, the Spurs had a higher SRS (Simple rating system) number in 99 than the Bulls did in 98, and everyone on that 98 team was basically in decline outside of Kukoc and almost all had very significant decline. If you say that 70% of that decline was just due to changing situations, and only 30% of that decline was due to actual players declining (and most were at the age where decline is expected as they would have been Jordan 35, Pippen 33, Rodman 37, Harper 35 etc), then you would still say mathematically the Bulls would have been the underdog.

I think the Bulls would have come out of the East for sure though. The Knicks upset the Heat in the first round, the Pacers fell off the map in terms of their defense, there was no one else to challenge them in the East really the way it played out. It's just that Spurs team would have been a matchup nightmare for them.

Not sure what numbers you are looking at, but:

Bulls 98 SRS: 7.24
Spurs 99 SRS: 7.12

And, that's with Pippen missing half the regular season.

If you think the Spurs would be a matchup nightmare, you might enjoy this 98 game in San Antonio:

Watch on YouTube

The Bulls' centers were all out (aside from token Joe Kleine minutes). They had Kukoc tip center against Robinson and Rodman on Duncan. And still dominated the boards in a fairly easy win.

A 99 Bulls team would have been worse, but they had room to drop and still win.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Horace Grant was on ESPN radio dissing MJ. He hates him and claimed the documentary is all fake. Grant is still salty with whatever happened then but he really should be appreciating being a part of history playing along side the greatest ever. Without MJ, Grant is a forgotten former player that no one knows or mentions ever again. He should stop talking like that and have some respect.

Based on the documentary, sounds like there's a lot of animosity over all the guys thinking Grant was the leak for Sam Smith's book and Grant still denying it.

[dougthonus]

Not sure what numbers you are looking at, but:

Bulls 98 SRS: 7.24
Spurs 99 SRS: 7.12

And, that's with Pippen missing half the regular season.

If you think the Spurs would be a matchup nightmare, you might enjoy this 98 game in San Antonio:

Watch on YouTube

The Bulls' centers were all out (aside from token Joe Kleine minutes). They had Kukoc tip center against Robinson and Rodman on Duncan. And still dominated the boards in a fairly easy win.

A 99 Bulls team would have been worse, but they had room to drop and still win.

Think I just misread the numbers, good point about Pip missing so much of the season too.

[dougthonus]

Horace Grant was on ESPN radio dissing MJ. He hates him and claimed the documentary is all fake. Grant is still salty with whatever happened then but he really should be appreciating being a part of history playing along side the greatest ever. Without MJ, Grant is a forgotten former player that no one knows or mentions ever again. He should stop talking like that and have some respect.

Didn't hear the radio, not sure what you would say is all fake. Almost everything in it was well documented to be true at the time it happened. This is a cinematic display of facts. There's absolutely a bias to the presentation in terms of some things being omitted or whatever else, but there's definitely nothing fake here.

[HomoSapien]

I posted my case for the 1999 Bulls a few weeks ago on the General Board, but given the direction of this thread I think it's worth posting here too.

I realize this has been discussed to death in several threads, but as a die hard Bulls fan who lived, breathed, and ate everything that was related to the 98 Bulls, I felt like offering my perspective on why I think the 1999 Chicago Bulls would have won their 4th straight championship against the Spurs. This is a long post, so thanks in advance if you take the time to read it.

There’s a lot of misconceptions about the 98 Bulls, primarily that they were running on fumes and on their last legs. This notion primarily exists for two reasons. 1): The Bulls got off to a poor start during the 98 season and looked vulnerable early on. 2): The Bulls had a tough playoff series against the Pacers and Jazz.

Myth 1: The Bulls Were On Their Last Legs
While the Bulls may have gotten off to a slow start, they still tied with Utah for the best record in the entire league. This is a pretty remarkable feat considering they were hammered with injuries during the season. Scottie Pippen famously missed 38 games, but Luc Longley also missed 24 games and Steve Kerr in a freak accident missed 32 games as well (Derrick Coleman fell on him and broke his collar bone). These injuries contributed to their lackluster start, however, when Pippen returned they were nothing short of dominant. The Bulls were 36-8 with Scottie Pippen and a staggering 25-2 after the All-Star break. Teams that are running fumes, just don’t go on runs like that. What’s further impressive about this run, is that Scottie Pippen was more or less his usual steady-all-around self without an off-season to prepare. The Bulls were dominating teams without their second-best player in his best form. In other words, the Chicago Bulls were still winning 82% of their games when relatively healthy. Assuming they could play at that level during the 1999 season, they would have won 41 games during the lockout season, which would have resulted in the best record in the league and home-court advantage throughout the playoffs (Note: The Bulls only lost two games at home during the 98 playoffs, by an average of two points).

That begs the question, could the 1999 Bulls have stayed healthy? The key to this question, in my opinion, is Scottie Pippen. While Pippen never fit in with Houston, his health had fully returned. He didn’t miss a single game for the next two seasons and played an impressive 40.2 minutes per game (6th in the league) for the Houston Rockets. Despite not being utilized properly on offense, Pippen still made the All-Defensive First team that year while posting 6.5 rebounds, 5.9 apg, and 2.0 spg. Talk of Pippen’s decline that year has always been greatly exaggerated. Toni Kukoc remained healthy in 1999 and posted great numbers on a depleted Bulls team (19ppg, 7rpg, 5apg). Steve Kerr only missed 6 games for the Spurs and Luc Longley played 78% of his games that year, compared to 70% in 98. Dennis Rodman played 80 games in 98 and proved that he was still a rebounding force in his short stints with the Lakers and Mavericks. The biggest question remaining is Jordan and the cigar cutting injury to his finger. None of us truly know the extent of that injury and when he would have actually returned, but we do know that a 39-year-old rusty Jordan was able to average 25, 5, and 5 before he tore his meniscus, so it seems fair to assume that a 36-year-old Jordan would fare even better.

Myth 2: The Bulls Were Shaky In The 98 Playoffs
To me, this is one of the bigger misconceptions. The Bulls were 15-6 in the playoffs. Four of their losses came on the road, three came from one team, and they lost by an average of 2.3 ppg (including one loss to a Reggie Miller game-winning three and a OT loss to Utah). In their 15 wins, the Bulls won by an average of 10.7 ppg. In other words, when the Bulls lost they barely lost and when they won they typically convincingly won. When people say the Bulls were running on fumes, they’re unfairly minimizing how good that Indiana Pacers team was. The playoffs aren’t supposed to be easy and the Pacers were two deep at every single position. Every rotation player, besides Dale Davis could create offense (and Dale Davis, to his credit, was great at getting in position for lobs and putbacks). Reggie Miller was one of the best playoff performers of all-time. Mark Jackson is an underrated floor general. Mullins was a top 50 player who at that age still knew how to make an impact. Smits was an incredibly skilled big man with an inside-outside game. The Davis boys were dependable and physically exhausting players with their strength and toughness. Rose, Best, Mckey, and Perkins all provided depth, veteran savvy, and a variety of skillsets. This team was just stacked and there’s no shame being pushed to the limits by them. The Jazz, who I have tremendous respect for, did not push the Bulls to the same limits. Chicago took care of them in 6 games, including a 42-point blowout in the NBA Finals! Utah was also unable to beat the Bulls in game six, despite Pippen being rendered almost useless because of a back injury. The idea that the Jazz nearly beat the Bulls has always been exaggerated.

Myth 3: The Bulls Couldn't Beat The Spurs
In 1998, the Bulls beat a Robinson/Duncan team in both of their matchups. In the first game, they beat them without Scottie Pippen. In the second game, they beat them by 10 without Luc Longley. Toni Kukoc was defended by Duncan and arguably won the individual matchup (Kukoc had 21 and 6. Duncan, who was defended primarily by Rodman, had 14 and 12, and 5 turnovers). What the Bulls discovered that game was that Kukoc’s ability to spread the floor took Duncan out of the paint and weakened the Spurs' interior defense. This allowed Jordan to comfortably post up, and he shot 55% that game.

Now let’s look at how the Bulls fared against the Spurs from 94-96 (Note: I’m using this span because it includes most of the 2nd three-peat Bulls players. I’m also not including the season where the Spurs were injured and tanked).

1994-95
- Bulls beat Spurs 94-92. Key notes: Jordan is still retired during this game and Luc Longley didn’t play. Spurs obviously don’t have Duncan, but they do have Rodman.
- Spurs beat Bulls 104-102 in OT. Key notes: Pippen was ejected after 13 minutes, Jordan was still retired, Jud Bucheler played 38 minutes.

1995-96
- Bulls beat Spurs 103-94. Key notes: This victory came without Dennis Rodman.
- Bulls beat Spurs 106-87. Key notes: This is the only matchup during the second-three peat that the Bulls were at full-strength.

One other point, Phil Jackson would face the Spurs in the playoffs regularly. In 2001 he beat them in the WCF 4-1. In 2002 he beat them in the WC Semi-finals 4-3. He lost to them in the semifinals (2-4) in 2003, but then beat them again in 2004 (4-2).

Does any of this mean that the Bulls would definitively beat the San Antonio Spurs? Obviously not. But it does suggest two things. 1.) There’s no evidence that the Bulls were overwhelmed by the Spurs’ size. 2.) Phil Jackson and the Triangle Offense has a track record of being able to beat Pops and the Spurs in the playoffs.

As far as matchups go, most seem to focus on how big of a mismatch Robinson and Duncan vs Longley and Rodman is, but I think people are overlooking the bigger mismatch of Jordan and Pippen against Elie and Elliot. Their wings were pretty unathletic and they couldn’t run with the Bulls. This Spurs team was very good, but they’ve been romanticized quite a bit. It’s important to remember that this wasn’t the Manu, Parker, Duncan Spurs. The reason so many fans are upset the Bulls were dismantled in 1999 is in part because that Spurs team was never seen as unbeatable. They had very clear limitations. David Robinson had declined considerably. His back injuries had robbed him of a lot of his athleticism and mobility and he was only averaging 15.8 ppg that season. It’s hard for me to imagine him dominating the Bulls offensively, because he was no longer being used that way by the Spurs. For what it’s worth, he only scored more than 16 points once against the Knicks in the Finals. Their third-leading scorer was Sean Elliot, who was coming off a kidney transplant and had clearly lost a few steps (his TS%, PER, 3pt%, scoring had all taken significant dips). Furthermore, at 11.4 points per game he was a pretty weak third option. By comparison, Luc Longley averaged 11.4 ppg for the 98 Bulls as their 4th option. It’s also worth mentioning that Dennis Rodman, who hated the Spurs, may have come in extra-motivated to play well in this matchup.

The Bulls bench would absolutely destroy the Spurs, who had no depth. The Bulls 6th man was Toni Kukoc, a guy who arguably belongs in the Basketball Hall of Fame. The Spurs 6th man was Jaren Jackson who averaged 6 points a game. Malik Rose and Antonio Daniels had not established themselves as true rotation players yet, and their bench would be even weaker without Steve Kerr on their roster. Much is made about the Bulls age, but the Spurs outside of Duncan were an old team. Robinson was 33, Elliot was 30, Johnson was 33, Elie was 35, Jackson was 31, Perdue was 33, Kersey was 36. And again, Rose and Daniels weren’t key rotation players yet.

The Bulls were masters at exploiting mismatches, and Avery Johnson would have been eaten alive by the tall, long-armed Bulls. Scottie Pippen would be giving him the Mark Jackson full-court press treatment (He called this smothering defense "cutting the head off the snake"), while Ron Harper would defend Sean Elliot, the Bulls would preserve Jordan’s energy by matching him up against Mario Elie (Note: Jordan averaged 42.5 points per game against the Rockets in 98, with Elie guarding him quite a bit those games). Avery Johnson, could not shoot the three so Pippen would smother him up and down the court and then sag off him in the half-court so that he could double team Duncan or Robinson in the post. His ability to rotate back to Johnson off the double team would likely be even more successful than this strategy was against Mark Jackson and the Pacers. On top of that, with Avery Johnson at 5’10", you have to assume they would get a few easy post-ups for the 6-6 Ron Harper. The Bulls disrespected Johnson so much on defense that they even used to post up BJ Armstrong against him back in the day as well.

The thing about the Bulls that gets forgotten is that you never really felt like Michael Jordan could lose once he got to the top. It’s one thing beating Latrell Sprewell and Allan Houston, but the mental edge the Bulls have over the Spurs during their first finals appearance cannot be overlooked. Regardless, it’s a damn shame we never got to see this matchup.

[HomoSapien]

Horace Grant was on ESPN radio dissing MJ. He hates him and claimed the documentary is all fake. Grant is still salty with whatever happened then but he really should be appreciating being a part of history playing along side the greatest ever. Without MJ, Grant is a forgotten former player that no one knows or mentions ever again. He should stop talking like that and have some respect.

Didn't hear the radio, not sure what you would say is all fake. Almost everything in it was well documented to be true at the time it happened. This is a cinematic display of facts. There's absolutely a bias to the presentation in terms of some things being omitted or whatever else, but there's definitely nothing fake here.

I didn't hear it either, but Grant's been pissed about Jordan saying he was Sam Smith's mole so chances are it's related to that.

[The Explorer]

Why is this marked OT - isn't this a Chicago Bulls forum?

[MrFortune3]

Horace Grant was on ESPN radio dissing MJ. He hates him and claimed the documentary is all fake. Grant is still salty with whatever happened then but he really should be appreciating being a part of history playing along side the greatest ever. Without MJ, Grant is a forgotten former player that no one knows or mentions ever again. He should stop talking like that and have some respect.

Based on the documentary, sounds like there's a lot of animosity over all the guys thinking Grant was the leak for Sam Smith's book and Grant still denying it.

Something is way off about that. It seems a lot of the team feels he was the leak and he denies. They don't seem to take his word as face value so there must be some truth to his frustration of not getting credit.

[HomoSapien]

Over the years we've heard that Jordan was offered the chance to pick his own coach (Frank Hamblen was pitched) and he supposedly turned that proposition down. Reinsdorf's last quote (below for reference) doesn't really make it seem like Jordan was ever approached with this possibility. Jordan himself sort of contradicts that notion by saying that he would have accepted a one year deal to come back in 99.

I think if the Bulls did everything in their power to keep Jordan that they would have had a good chance of keeping Jordan. It would have involved bringing everyone back including Phil, but they probably could have done it. Should they have done everything in their power to keep Jordan? Yeah, of course! Did they? No.

At the same time, Jordan aggrandizing himself and overselling the "forced out" thing because he thinks it makes him look better. He was probably asked a 1000 times about coming back and would never commit to wanting to come back. He could have forced the Bulls hand with absolutely no effort into bringing everyone back.

He could have just gone to play with another team if he wanted to keep playing at that moment. He could have threatened it and the Bulls would have caved faster than you could blink. It was reported that the Bulls made efforts to keep him and that Jordan wasn't interested. His actions also show he wasn't interested that interested. His self-serving speech 22 years later doesn't change that.

I don't know if I would say the Bulls needed to thread a needle to convince him to stay, but they definitely had to work hard for it, and they should have done that work, and in retrospect, any team acting today would absolutely do that work, but Jordan wasn't dying to play. He was burnt out. If he was dying to play then he would have played. We saw multiple times that he was just willing to walk away because he was burnt out, and that's not something we've seen from any athlete of his caliber. That might actually be the biggest chink in his armor as GOAT athlete of all time.

I'd never really thought about it before, but I wonder what happens if instead of Krause telling Jackson he could go 82-0 he told him and the team "You've all earned the right to be with this franchise as long as you want." Maybe Phil still retires, but there's a better chance Jordan's open to Frank Hamblen or even Tim Floyd coaching in 99.

Reinsdorf's been out trying to do some damage control. Here's some interesting new tidbits to come from that (the whole article is an interesting read):

So a few days into what would become a protracted NBA lockout, he scheduled a meeting with Michael Jordan to pitch him on one more last dance.

"Don't say anything now," Reinsdorf told Jordan. "We're in a lockout. We don't know how long this lockout is going to go. Let's get to the end, and maybe I can talk Phil [Jackson] back into it. Maybe after ... maybe he'll change his mind. So don't say anything."

"The thing nobody wants to remember," Reinsdorf said, "during lockout, Michael was screwing around with a cigar cutter, and he cut his finger. He couldn't have played that year. He had to have surgery on the finger, so even if we could've brought everybody back, it wouldn't have made any sense."

Jordan contends that he wouldn't have been messing around with the cigar cutter (at a golf tournament in January) if Reinsdorf had already secured a commitment from Jackson to come back.

To me the bolded part is particularly interesting, because while this isn't a direct quote this is the first time I've heard this sentiment come from Jordan that he wouldn't be cutting a cigar under normal circumstances.

"I know in Episode 10, [Jordan] says, 'They all would've come back for one year.' But there's not a chance in the world that Scottie Pippen would've come back on a one-year contract when he knew he could get a much bigger contract someplace else."

Pippen ended up getting a five-year, $67.2 million offer from the Houston Rockets in January 1999 (consummated by a sign-and-trade with the Bulls).

So why not just give Pippen the contract he deserves? We've overpaid for a ton of older players since then, and been able to trade most of them down the road. Plus the $67.2 million was a favor we did for Pippen. Without the sign and trade, the Rockets could afford to offer him much less, so we could have theoretically retained him at a lower value.

"I didn't choose anybody," Reinsdorf said. "I went to Phil and said, 'This is a mismatch, you against Krause. Why don't you back off? Why don't you get the players to back off?'

"I told Krause, 'Take Phil for what he is. We're winning. We're winning, so forget about it; the important thing is the winning. You don't have to like each other.'

"I didn't get through to either of them."

That choice -- not to make a choice between Krause and Jackson -- is perhaps the only thing that could have changed the course of history, because the two men never reconciled.

"Years later, when Phil was coaching the Lakers and they were coming to Phoenix, I'd have lunch with him," Reinsdorf said. "At one of those lunches, he said, 'I'd really like to bury the hatchet with Jerry,' and he asked me to be the middleman."

Reinsdorf reached out to Krause, and, "Jerry said, no, he wouldn't do it."

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29187153/did-1998-the-last-dance-michael-jordan-bulls

[HomoSapien]

Why is this marked OT - isn't this a Chicago Bulls forum?

Someone started an OT thread for The Last Dance before the documentary aired even though another Last Dance thread existed. I merged the threads and for some reason the newer "OT - The Last Dance Documentary" became the title over the older thread. For whatever reason I'm unable to edit the title even though the opening post doesn't have it in it's title. I edited it out of the initial "OT - The Last Dance Documentary" post too but it wouldn't disappear. I guess we're stuck with it, but it annoys me too.

[dougthonus]

To me the bolded part is particularly interesting, because while this isn't a direct quote this is the first time I've heard this sentiment come from Jordan that he wouldn't be cutting a cigar under normal circumstances.

I don't know if it would be that he wouldn't use a cigar cutter normally (seems unlikely) but he might not have been in the bahamas partying if he was preparing for a season. Butterfly effect and all.

Great quotes after about Phil/Jerry burying the hatchet. Though I think Krause had a right to not want to bury the hatchet. He was demonized and Phil was lionized at that point in time. I can see why Phil would want to fix things at this point and Jerry would be pissed and not want to.

[troza]

I posted my case for the 1999 Bulls a few weeks ago on the General Board, but given the direction of this thread I think it's worth posting here too.

Just to correct one thing: Perkins was not on the Pacers in 98.

About the rest: amazing post.

[MrSparkle]

I posted my case for the 1999 Bulls a few weeks ago on the General Board, but given the direction of this thread I think it's worth posting here too.

I realize this has been discussed to death in several threads, but as a die hard Bulls fan who lived, breathed, and ate everything that was related to the 98 Bulls, I felt like offering my perspective on why I think the 1999 Chicago Bulls would have won their 4th straight championship against the Spurs. This is a long post, so thanks in advance if you take the time to read it.

There’s a lot of misconceptions about the 98 Bulls, primarily that they were running on fumes and on their last legs. This notion primarily exists for two reasons. 1): The Bulls got off to a poor start during the 98 season and looked vulnerable early on. 2): The Bulls had a tough playoff series against the Pacers and Jazz.

Myth 1: The Bulls Were On Their Last Legs
While the Bulls may have gotten off to a slow start, they still tied with Utah for the best record in the entire league. This is a pretty remarkable feat considering they were hammered with injuries during the season. Scottie Pippen famously missed 38 games, but Luc Longley also missed 24 games and Steve Kerr in a freak accident missed 32 games as well (Derrick Coleman fell on him and broke his collar bone). These injuries contributed to their lackluster start, however, when Pippen returned they were nothing short of dominant. The Bulls were 36-8 with Scottie Pippen and a staggering 25-2 after the All-Star break. Teams that are running fumes, just don’t go on runs like that. What’s further impressive about this run, is that Scottie Pippen was more or less his usual steady-all-around self without an off-season to prepare. The Bulls were dominating teams without their second-best player in his best form. In other words, the Chicago Bulls were still winning 82% of their games when relatively healthy. Assuming they could play at that level during the 1999 season, they would have won 41 games during the lockout season, which would have resulted in the best record in the league and home-court advantage throughout the playoffs (Note: The Bulls only lost two games at home during the 98 playoffs, by an average of two points).

That begs the question, could the 1999 Bulls have stayed healthy? The key to this question, in my opinion, is Scottie Pippen. While Pippen never fit in with Houston, his health had fully returned. He didn’t miss a single game for the next two seasons and played an impressive 40.2 minutes per game (6th in the league) for the Houston Rockets. Despite not being utilized properly on offense, Pippen still made the All-Defensive First team that year while posting 6.5 rebounds, 5.9 apg, and 2.0 spg. Talk of Pippen’s decline that year has always been greatly exaggerated. Toni Kukoc remained healthy in 1999 and posted great numbers on a depleted Bulls team (19ppg, 7rpg, 5apg). Steve Kerr only missed 6 games for the Spurs and Luc Longley played 78% of his games that year, compared to 70% in 98. Dennis Rodman played 80 games in 98 and proved that he was still a rebounding force in his short stints with the Lakers and Mavericks. The biggest question remaining is Jordan and the cigar cutting injury to his finger. None of us truly know the extent of that injury and when he would have actually returned, but we do know that a 39-year-old rusty Jordan was able to average 25, 5, and 5 before he tore his meniscus, so it seems fair to assume that a 36-year-old Jordan would fare even better.

Myth 2: The Bulls Were Shaky In The 98 Playoffs
To me, this is one of the bigger misconceptions. The Bulls were 15-6 in the playoffs. Four of their losses came on the road, three came from one team, and they lost by an average of 2.3 ppg (including one loss to a Reggie Miller game-winning three and a OT loss to Utah). In their 15 wins, the Bulls won by an average of 10.7 ppg. In other words, when the Bulls lost they barely lost and when they won they typically convincingly won. When people say the Bulls were running on fumes, they’re unfairly minimizing how good that Indiana Pacers team was. The playoffs aren’t supposed to be easy and the Pacers were two deep at every single position. Every rotation player, besides Dale Davis could create offense (and Dale Davis, to his credit, was great at getting in position for lobs and putbacks). Reggie Miller was one of the best playoff performers of all-time. Mark Jackson is an underrated floor general. Mullins was a top 50 player who at that age still knew how to make an impact. Smits was an incredibly skilled big man with an inside-outside game. The Davis boys were dependable and physically exhausting players with their strength and toughness. Rose, Best, Mckey, and Perkins all provided depth, veteran savvy, and a variety of skillsets. This team was just stacked and there’s no shame being pushed to the limits by them. The Jazz, who I have tremendous respect for, did not push the Bulls to the same limits. Chicago took care of them in 6 games, including a 42-point blowout in the NBA Finals! Utah was also unable to beat the Bulls in game six, despite Pippen being rendered almost useless because of a back injury. The idea that the Jazz nearly beat the Bulls has always been exaggerated.

Myth 3: The Bulls Couldn't Beat The Spurs
In 1998, the Bulls beat a Robinson/Duncan team in both of their matchups. In the first game, they beat them without Scottie Pippen. In the second game, they beat them by 10 without Luc Longley. Toni Kukoc was defended by Duncan and arguably won the individual matchup (Kukoc had 21 and 6. Duncan, who was defended primarily by Rodman, had 14 and 12, and 5 turnovers). What the Bulls discovered that game was that Kukoc’s ability to spread the floor took Duncan out of the paint and weakened the Spurs' interior defense. This allowed Jordan to comfortably post up, and he shot 55% that game.

Now let’s look at how the Bulls fared against the Spurs from 94-96 (Note: I’m using this span because it includes most of the 2nd three-peat Bulls players. I’m also not including the season where the Spurs were injured and tanked).

1994-95
- Bulls beat Spurs 94-92. Key notes: Jordan is still retired during this game and Luc Longley didn’t play. Spurs obviously don’t have Duncan, but they do have Rodman.
- Spurs beat Bulls 104-102 in OT. Key notes: Pippen was ejected after 13 minutes, Jordan was still retired, Jud Bucheler played 38 minutes.

1995-96
- Bulls beat Spurs 103-94. Key notes: This victory came without Dennis Rodman.
- Bulls beat Spurs 106-87. Key notes: This is the only matchup during the second-three peat that the Bulls were at full-strength.

One other point, Phil Jackson would face the Spurs in the playoffs regularly. In 2001 he beat them in the WCF 4-1. In 2002 he beat them in the WC Semi-finals 4-3. He lost to them in the semifinals (2-4) in 2003, but then beat them again in 2004 (4-2).

Does any of this mean that the Bulls would definitively beat the San Antonio Spurs? Obviously not. But it does suggest two things. 1.) There’s no evidence that the Bulls were overwhelmed by the Spurs’ size. 2.) Phil Jackson and the Triangle Offense has a track record of being able to beat Pops and the Spurs in the playoffs.

As far as matchups go, most seem to focus on how big of a mismatch Robinson and Duncan vs Longley and Rodman is, but I think people are overlooking the bigger mismatch of Jordan and Pippen against Elie and Elliot. Their wings were pretty unathletic and they couldn’t run with the Bulls. This Spurs team was very good, but they’ve been romanticized quite a bit. It’s important to remember that this wasn’t the Manu, Parker, Duncan Spurs. The reason so many fans are upset the Bulls were dismantled in 1999 is in part because that Spurs team was never seen as unbeatable. They had very clear limitations. David Robinson had declined considerably. His back injuries had robbed him of a lot of his athleticism and mobility and he was only averaging 15.8 ppg that season. It’s hard for me to imagine him dominating the Bulls offensively, because he was no longer being used that way by the Spurs. For what it’s worth, he only scored more than 16 points once against the Knicks in the Finals. Their third-leading scorer was Sean Elliot, who was coming off a kidney transplant and had clearly lost a few steps (his TS%, PER, 3pt%, scoring had all taken significant dips). Furthermore, at 11.4 points per game he was a pretty weak third option. By comparison, Luc Longley averaged 11.4 ppg for the 98 Bulls as their 4th option. It’s also worth mentioning that Dennis Rodman, who hated the Spurs, may have come in extra-motivated to play well in this matchup.

The Bulls bench would absolutely destroy the Spurs, who had no depth. The Bulls 6th man was Toni Kukoc, a guy who arguably belongs in the Basketball Hall of Fame. The Spurs 6th man was Jaren Jackson who averaged 6 points a game. Malik Rose and Antonio Daniels had not established themselves as true rotation players yet, and their bench would be even weaker without Steve Kerr on their roster. Much is made about the Bulls age, but the Spurs outside of Duncan were an old team. Robinson was 33, Elliot was 30, Johnson was 33, Elie was 35, Jackson was 31, Perdue was 33, Kersey was 36. And again, Rose and Daniels weren’t key rotation players yet.

The Bulls were masters at exploiting mismatches, and Avery Johnson would have been eaten alive by the tall, long-armed Bulls. Scottie Pippen would be giving him the Mark Jackson full-court press treatment (He called this smothering defense "cutting the head off the snake"), while Ron Harper would defend Sean Elliot, the Bulls would preserve Jordan’s energy by matching him up against Mario Elie (Note: Jordan averaged 42.5 points per game against the Rockets in 98, with Elie guarding him quite a bit those games). Avery Johnson, could not shoot the three so Pippen would smother him up and down the court and then sag off him in the half-court so that he could double team Duncan or Robinson in the post. His ability to rotate back to Johnson off the double team would likely be even more successful than this strategy was against Mark Jackson and the Pacers. On top of that, with Avery Johnson at 5’10", you have to assume they would get a few easy post-ups for the 6-6 Ron Harper. The Bulls disrespected Johnson so much on defense that they even used to post up BJ Armstrong against him back in the day as well.

The thing about the Bulls that gets forgotten is that you never really felt like Michael Jordan could lose once he got to the top. It’s one thing beating Latrell Sprewell and Allan Houston, but the mental edge the Bulls have over the Spurs during their first finals appearance cannot be overlooked. Regardless, it’s a damn shame we never got to see this matchup.

I'm with it.

I basically think the chemistry of that team was so perfect that it didn't matter they were all 40yo - so long MJ was playing, they had a good chance to win titles until 2001 IMO, kind of how the Spurs kept hanging around long after you thought they were on the decline (honestly - who expected Manu and Duncan to squeeze two more runs at their ages in 13 & 14?).

And we all know the Wizards situation was a mess. I think Collins was a bad coach (I've kind of maintained this opinion for a while - seems like a great guy and great basketball mind, but you want someone who'll coddle your HOFer and not get the best of the 4-10 roster? That's Doug- Krause had a lot of balls and fore-sight to replace him with Phil back in the day). But I think if MJ had his familiar structure and buddies (Phil, Pippen, Kukoc, Kerr, Harper), they could've still gotten it done.

And you look at the Warriors - they have kind of an upbeat situation due to the FRP and health returning, but simultaneously they're kind of a mess. Klay is gonna make more money than ever after a brutal ACL tear, Dray is going to make more than ever after coming off a career-low season, and Wiggins isn't even a replacement for Iguodala, let alone Durant. But you know what? They did the right thing in every way. Let that core get paid after years of getting underpaid. Once they're healthy, they'll still be in contention even into their old age. It made take a lucky draw like Kawhi for the Spurs, but **** happens.

The fact is that Krause and Reinsdorf basically sold themselves on a bad investment - rebuilding. They didn't do anything whatsoever to consider trying to beg/reward/compensate the dynasty for a late run. JR re-affirmed it in the doc ; "market-value."

Come on man - Pippen brought you 6 chips on $1.5m salary while guys like Juwan Howard are making $18m, Danny Manning and Elden Campbell, and you're scared of paying Pippen a 5-year max? That was a clear-and-clear bad blood situation where the bosses refused to budge and make things right. It was a unique FO where the majority owner and GM honestly thought they were equal or more important to the success than MJ, Pippen and Phil. It's crazy.

Any other competent franchise would've buttered them out and made things right in the end. Just look at LAL, SAS, MIA and the way they treat their long-time stars. Riley is a good example of a guy who doesn't make it a point to make enemies in negotiations. Wade was soured by his refusal to match market value, but all it took was 2 years to bring him home and make amends.

Anyway, granted the Kobe/Shaq Lakers and rest of the Wild West was coming... but here's the thing: the West was a gauntlet that took a lot of energy, and only one survived. Look at the East: sure I think the Pacers might've beat the Bulls once, but I bet they'd come back and beat them again. Sixers, Nets... Come on - even in 2002, WAY past everybody's prime, I think a Pippen/Jordan/Kukoc core could've possibly contended. I'll make comparison to that really old Celtics squad that made the finals in 2010. KG's injuries kinda declined his game early, but they were on their last legs.

Anyway, interesting hypothetical. I know people will call me crazy, but besides those 2000 Pacers, I don't think there was one team in the East until the double-Wallace Pistons that could take even a seriously old MJ Bulls team (and of course at the point every Bulls player was retired). And mind you, a smart GM signs ring-chasers and uses summer MLEs/drafts to fill depth.

The documentary makes a pretty decent point that never mind the physical fatigue, the FO/player-tension was mentally draining. It makes you wonder what it would've been like if the GM and coach loved each other from 96-98 and shared scouting sessions together.