Peak Kevin Durant added to Michael Jordan's NBA Finals opponents.

[MavsDirk41]

So Utah was a geriatric squad with 34 year old Malone/Hornacek and 35 year old Stockton but the Bulls were some young whipper snappers with 36 year old Rodman, 34 year old Jordan/Harper, and 32 year old Pippen and Kerr? Realgm at it again lol

[TheGeneral99]

Probably 0 or 1 at most...you are adding a top 15 player of all-time and a top 5 scorer of all-time to a contender...

It's not like the Bulls swept every finals...with the exception of the 1991 finals every other finals went to 6.

You can probably say with certainty, there is no way the Bulls beat the 1993 Suns, the 1996 Sonics and the 1997-98 Jazz if Durant is there...those teams needed an elite iso scorer and still pushed the Bulls to 6.

[ScrantonBulls]

So Utah was a geriatric squad with 34 year old Malone/Hornacek and 35 year old Stockton but the Bulls were some young whipper snappers with 36 year old Rodman, 34 year old Jordan/Harper, and 32 year old Pippen and Kerr? Realgm at it again lol

^notice how he doesn't mention 29 year old future HOFer Toni Kukoc, arguably their 3rd best player. Mavdirk at it again.

[mdonnelly1989]

Too many of the games Bulls won were too close for this to be a discussion

Bulls aren’t winning any and probably getting swept in quite a few

Swept for sure against the Suns, Jazz and Sonics

[Wingy]

What if we added peak Space Jam Bugs Bunny to the Jordan era Chicago Bulls?

Shall I start a thread?

[lessthanjake]

That Jazz team was so weak that they swept a Lakers team with 26 year old Shaq that was two years away from starting their 3-peat and beat a Duncan/Robinson Spurs team in 5 that was one year away from starting their dynasty. The two teams that owned the "Lebron era" could only take a combined one game off of that "geriatric" Jazz squad.

Damn. And that’s checkmate.

Yeah, think about how old that Spurs starting lineup was that crushed Miami, if we want to use his logic with a reverse uno.

That’s a checkmate?

Shaq had no legitimate number 2 on that lakers team, Kobe wasn’t Kobe yet.

Duncan was a rookie and the Jazz were a bad matchup for the Spurs.

It’s not the gotcha you think it is. It’s just another out of context post that can easily be picked apart with the least bit of critical thinking, something you clearly aren’t capable of doing.

Shaq had no legitimate number 2 on the 1998 Lakers??? He had prime Eddie Jones—who was a multi-time all star (and, if anything, should’ve made it more times) and made all-NBA a couple years later. While Kobe eventually became better, Kobe in 2000 really wasn’t actually better than Eddie Jones in 1998. For reference, if we take a look at three-year RAPM from that era (on TheBasketballDatabase), Eddie Jones ranked 5th in the NBA in RAPM from 1998-2000, and 10th in the NBA from 1997-1999. He also ranked 14th in five-year RAPM from 1997-2001.

Meanwhile, the rest of that 1998 Lakers supporting cast was loaded with quality players. You had guys like Horry, Fisher, and Fox—all good or very good role players that were important parts of the 2000-2002 three-peat team. Kobe wasn’t Kobe yet, but he was already a positive player that improved the supporting cast. They also had Nick Van Exel, whose all-star selection that year overrates him IMO, but was still a solid player (though he found it very difficult against that Jazz team). Elden Campbell was their 8th man and was well overqualified for that role.

The reality is that the 1998 Lakers had prime Shaq, a top-10 RAPM all-star guard alongside Shaq, and a host of good role players in the supporting cast. They were an extremely good team and had a great regular season. The Jazz simply spanked them anyways, because the Jazz were really good.

Also, regarding the Spurs, it’s worth noting that Duncan actually had a higher BPM and better on-off in 1998 than he did in 1999. He came in very NBA-ready and wasn’t really meaningfully better in 1999 than he was in 1998. I think it’s fair to say that the 1999 Spurs clicked more as a team than the 1998 Spurs did (after all, they did better in the 1999 regular season than they did in 1998), but the biggest factor here is just that the Jazz were better than them and were great at dealing with Robinson. It’s not quite the same as it would’ve been to beat the 1999 Spurs, but it does reflect very well on the Jazz as a team.

[MavsDirk41]

Average age of the 97/98 Chicago Bulls 31.7
Average age of the geriatric 97/98 Utah Jazz 28.9

[OdomFan]

That Jazz team was so weak that they swept a Lakers team with 26 year old Shaq that was two years away from starting their 3-peat and beat a Duncan/Robinson Spurs team in 5 that was one year away from starting their dynasty. The two teams that owned the "Lebron era" could only take a combined one game off of that "geriatric" Jazz squad.

Damn. And that’s checkmate.

Yeah, think about how old that Spurs starting lineup was that crushed Miami, if we want to use his logic with a reverse uno.

That’s a checkmate?

Shaq had no legitimate number 2 on that lakers team, Kobe wasn’t Kobe yet.

Duncan was a rookie and the Jazz were a bad matchup for the Spurs.

It’s not the gotcha you think it is. It’s just another out of context post that can easily be picked apart with the least bit of critical thinking, something you clearly aren’t capable of doing.

The 1998 Lakers were one of the most loaded teams in the NBA during that time. You may not call Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel good enough by your standards, but both were important pieces on why the team won as many games as they won that year. Which was a lot. Not just Shaq, Kobe may not have been Kobe yet but h was a very popular rising star who was contributing.

Tim Duncan may have been a rookie but he was still a star player. Heavily giving Malone and the other top Power Forwards in the league a run for their money right there in that 1st season. Winning rookie of the year for a reason. Utah beat a very good team in that round.

So yes, checkmate.

[BallHound]

......

[Iwasawitness]

The 1998 Lakers were one of the most loaded teams in the NBA during that time. You may not call Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel good enough by your standards, but both were important pieces on why the team won as many games as they won that year. Which was a lot. Not just Shaq, Kobe may not have been Kobe yet but h was a very popular rising star who was contributing.

No, they weren't. Shaq was the only deserving all star on that team. It was, at best, an MVP candidate in Shaq surrounded by role players, no different from a LeBron James Cavaliers team in the later stages of his first stint with the team. They weren't loaded by any stretch of the imagination and it showed in the post season.

Tim Duncan may have been a rookie but he was still a star player. Heavily giving Malone and the other top Power Forwards in the league a run for their money right there in that 1st season. Winning rookie of the year for a reason. Utah beat a very good team in that round.

So yes, checkmate.

I didn't say Duncan wasn't very good that year. But it's important to understand the context of the post here.

The poster said these were the same teams that went on to dominate the NBA in the 2000s. That obviously wasn't the case. Duncan was a rookie. If you're telling me rookie Duncan is the same player as 2003 Duncan, you might as well log off and never return to this site. Shaq didn't start winning in the finals until Kobe became a superstar caliber player, which he wasn't yet. These weren't those same teams and you are out of your mind wrong to even suggest otherwise.

So no, it's not a checkmate. Do some actual research and read before you comment on things like this.

[OdomFan]

The 1998 Lakers were one of the most loaded teams in the NBA during that time. You may not call Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel good enough by your standards, but both were important pieces on why the team won as many games as they won that year. Which was a lot. Not just Shaq, Kobe may not have been Kobe yet but h was a very popular rising star who was contributing.

No, they weren't. Shaq was the only deserving all star on that team. It was, at best, an MVP candidate in Shaq surrounded by role players, no different from a LeBron James Cavaliers team in the later stages of his first stint with the team. They weren't loaded by any stretch of the imagination and it showed in the post season.

Tim Duncan may have been a rookie but he was still a star player. Heavily giving Malone and the other top Power Forwards in the league a run for their money right there in that 1st season. Winning rookie of the year for a reason. Utah beat a very good team in that round.

So yes, checkmate.

I didn't say Duncan wasn't very good that year. But it's important to understand the context of the post here.

The poster said these were the same teams that went on to dominate the NBA in the 2000s. That obviously wasn't the case. Duncan was a rookie. Shaq didn't start winning in the finals until Kobe became a superstar caliber player, which he wasn't yet. These weren't those same teams and you are out of your mind wrong to even suggest otherwise.

So no, it's not a checkmate. Do some actual research and read before you comment on things like this.

Yes they were, Eddie Jones was far from some "role player". He was a all star caliber player. Very explosive on offense, great slasher. Very good defender. Very much a starting caliber shooting guard which is why he had to go as Kobes development improved more and more. Eddie Jones absolutley showed even more how good he was over in Charlotte after that, and remained good in Miami. The only time I'd call him a role player was later on when he played for the Miami Heat Shaq and Wade.

Nick Van Exel had some flaws, but he was most definitely not a role player. Another all star caliber player, and he continued to be good as a Denver Nugget after leaving Los Angeles.

The 1998 Spurs weren't the same as the 00s, but they were still a very good team who got the job done literally 1 year later with the same core group. Duncan being a rookie takes nothing away from how good he was that season. That man was NBA ready before even getting to the NBA, and he delivered. Again, the Jazz beat a good team.

[Iwasawitness]

The 1998 Lakers were one of the most loaded teams in the NBA during that time. You may not call Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel good enough by your standards, but both were important pieces on why the team won as many games as they won that year. Which was a lot. Not just Shaq, Kobe may not have been Kobe yet but h was a very popular rising star who was contributing.

No, they weren't. Shaq was the only deserving all star on that team. It was, at best, an MVP candidate in Shaq surrounded by role players, no different from a LeBron James Cavaliers team in the later stages of his first stint with the team. They weren't loaded by any stretch of the imagination and it showed in the post season.

Tim Duncan may have been a rookie but he was still a star player. Heavily giving Malone and the other top Power Forwards in the league a run for their money right there in that 1st season. Winning rookie of the year for a reason. Utah beat a very good team in that round.

So yes, checkmate.

I didn't say Duncan wasn't very good that year. But it's important to understand the context of the post here.

The poster said these were the same teams that went on to dominate the NBA in the 2000s. That obviously wasn't the case. Duncan was a rookie. Shaq didn't start winning in the finals until Kobe became a superstar caliber player, which he wasn't yet. These weren't those same teams and you are out of your mind wrong to even suggest otherwise.

So no, it's not a checkmate. Do some actual research and read before you comment on things like this.

Yes they were, Eddie Jones was far from some "role player". He was a all star caliber player. Very explosive on offense, great slasher. Very good defender. Very much a starting caliber shooting guard which is why he had to go as Kobes development improved more and more. Eddie Jones absolutley showed even more how good he was over in Charlotte after that, and remained good in Miami. The only time I'd call him a role player was later on when he played for the Miami Heat Shaq and Wade.

Nick Van Exel had some flaws, but he was most definitely not a role player. Another all star caliber player, and he continued to be good as a Denver Nugget after leaving Los Angeles.

The 1998 Spurs weren't the same as the 00s, but they were still a very good team who got the job done literally 1 year later with the same core group. Duncan being a rookie takes nothing away from how good he was that season. That man was NBA ready before even getting to the NBA, and he delivered. Again, the Jazz beat a good team.

None of what you just said explained why they weren’t role players, which they absolutely were. They got in during a time when the competition was weak. Fact of the matter is that they weren’t on that level. Again, the Lakers were pretty much just like the 09 and 10 Cavaliers teams. Very reliant on their lone superstar and not enough else to compensate. And even if what you were saying is true, they still aren’t the same as those dynasty lakers teams.

You seem to be misunderstanding in general what I mean about these two teams with your last line of “a, the Jazz beat a good team”. Yeah, no ****. I never said they weren’t good teams. That was never the argument I was making. What I have been saying from the start (and I made it very clear multiple times, I don’t know why I need to keep repeating it) is that the person I quoted originally said the Jazz beat the same teams that dominated the LeBron era (btw that isn’t even true either). No, they didn’t.

[lessthanjake]

The 1998 Lakers were one of the most loaded teams in the NBA during that time. You may not call Eddie Jones and Nick Van Exel good enough by your standards, but both were important pieces on why the team won as many games as they won that year. Which was a lot. Not just Shaq, Kobe may not have been Kobe yet but h was a very popular rising star who was contributing.

No, they weren't. Shaq was the only deserving all star on that team. It was, at best, an MVP candidate in Shaq surrounded by role players, no different from a LeBron James Cavaliers team in the later stages of his first stint with the team. They weren't loaded by any stretch of the imagination and it showed in the post season.

Again, you seem to be unaware of the existence of Eddie Jones. From 1998-2003, Eddie Jones was ranked as follows in BPM: 19th, 15th, 13th, 16th, 20th, and 11th. From 1998-2000, he was ranked 5th in the league in RAPM (according to TheBasketballDatabase), and he was 10th from 1997-1999, with multiple other three-year spans in the top 15. He was 14th in five-year RAPM from 1997-2001, and he had multiple other similarly ranked spans. In that 1998 season, he was ranked 9th in the NBA in RAPTOR, and would be ranked 10th and 5th the next two seasons. He was ranked between 14th and 19th for four straight years in DPM in this timeframe. And, it’s worth noting, his playoff BPM in these prime years averaged 5.7—which was even higher than his regular season BPM, and for reference, is actually higher than Kobe’s playoff BPM in the three-peat years (as well as Kobe’s regular season BPM in those years).

The idea that Eddie Jones was not a “deserving all star” is complete nonsense. He deserved more recognition than he got actually, and probably should’ve made more than just one all-NBA team. He was probably better than Kobe was in 2000.

And, of course, on top of that, the rest of the team’s playoff rotation was Robert Horry, Nick Van Exel, young Kobe, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, and Elden Campbell. Robert Horry was in his prime and is one of the best role players in NBA history and a huge boon to a team. Nick Van Exel made the all-star team that year, and while he didn’t actually deserve that IMO, he was a good player. Young Kobe wasn’t nearly what he became, but he was still really good to have as a supporting cast player. Derek Fisher and Rick Fox are obviously good role players that were both starters on multiple title teams. And then the Lakers had as their 8th man a guy in Elden Campbell who started 671 games in the NBA and was right in the heart of his prime at age 29—ridiculously overqualified to be an 8th man.

That team was absolutely stacked. They were actually a better team than the 2000 Lakers IMO, except that Shaq was a little better in 2000. And the Jazz absolutely smoked them. That happened because the Jazz were a historically great team. It’s just that Jordan still managed to beat those Jazz while Jordan was at the tail end of his prime, with a geriatric team (including an injured Pippen and a truly end-of-his-career Rodman) and a feuding team organization. It is the type of scenario that people spawn lots of excuses for LeBron for, when LeBron inevitably loses. And, to be fair, people probably would spawn lots of excuses for Jordan if he hadn’t won. They’d have been justified. Jordan just doesn’t need them because he still won.

Tim Duncan may have been a rookie but he was still a star player. Heavily giving Malone and the other top Power Forwards in the league a run for their money right there in that 1st season. Winning rookie of the year for a reason. Utah beat a very good team in that round.

So yes, checkmate.

I didn't say Duncan wasn't very good that year. But it's important to understand the context of the post here.

The poster said these were the same teams that went on to dominate the NBA in the 2000s. That obviously wasn't the case. Duncan was a rookie.

But if Duncan was just as good as a rookie as he was in 1999—which everything from BPM to on-off to one-year RAPM says that he was—then this isn’t a meaningful distinction.

The 1998 Spurs did take a bit of time to gel with Duncan. They started the season 10-10. But then after that, they won at a 60.84 win pace, actually even slightly better than the 1999 Spurs win pace (which was a 60.68 win pace). And, in the first round in 1998, the Spurs easily beat a 56-win Suns team, outscoring a 4.44 SRS team by 7.5 points a game. They had a +13.3 relative net rating in that series, which actually compares favorably with the 1999 Spurs +11.4 relative net rating in the playoffs. In other words, after starting 10-10 in their first 20 games with Duncan, the 1998 Spurs actually played slightly *better* than the 1999 Spurs did, right up until the point that the Jazz beat them in 5 games. Our conclusion here should be that the Jazz were an incredible team, not to try to draw some distinction between how good the 1998 and 1999 Spurs were.

[OdomFan]

No, they weren't. Shaq was the only deserving all star on that team. It was, at best, an MVP candidate in Shaq surrounded by role players, no different from a LeBron James Cavaliers team in the later stages of his first stint with the team. They weren't loaded by any stretch of the imagination and it showed in the post season.



I didn't say Duncan wasn't very good that year. But it's important to understand the context of the post here.

The poster said these were the same teams that went on to dominate the NBA in the 2000s. That obviously wasn't the case. Duncan was a rookie. Shaq didn't start winning in the finals until Kobe became a superstar caliber player, which he wasn't yet. These weren't those same teams and you are out of your mind wrong to even suggest otherwise.

So no, it's not a checkmate. Do some actual research and read before you comment on things like this.

Yes they were, Eddie Jones was far from some "role player". He was a all star caliber player. Very explosive on offense, great slasher. Very good defender. Very much a starting caliber shooting guard which is why he had to go as Kobes development improved more and more. Eddie Jones absolutley showed even more how good he was over in Charlotte after that, and remained good in Miami. The only time I'd call him a role player was later on when he played for the Miami Heat Shaq and Wade.

Nick Van Exel had some flaws, but he was most definitely not a role player. Another all star caliber player, and he continued to be good as a Denver Nugget after leaving Los Angeles.

The 1998 Spurs weren't the same as the 00s, but they were still a very good team who got the job done literally 1 year later with the same core group. Duncan being a rookie takes nothing away from how good he was that season. That man was NBA ready before even getting to the NBA, and he delivered. Again, the Jazz beat a good team.

None of what you just said explained why they weren’t role players, which they absolutely were. They got in during a time when the competition was weak. Fact of the matter is that they weren’t on that level. Again, the Lakers were pretty much just like the 09 and 10 Cavaliers teams. Very reliant on their lone superstar and not enough else to compensate. And even if what you were saying is true, they still aren’t the same as those dynasty lakers teams.

You seem to be misunderstanding in general what I mean about these two teams with your last line of “a, the Jazz beat a good team”. Yeah, no ****. I never said they weren’t good teams. That was never the argument I was making. What I have been saying from the start (and I made it very clear multiple times, I don’t know why I need to keep repeating it) is that the person I quoted originally said the Jazz beat the same teams that dominated the LeBron era (btw that isn’t even true either). No, they didn’t.

What I said explained exactly why they weren't role players. If you can't understand why a allstar caliber player who made a all star game isn't a role player then I can't help you. Eddie Jones in 1997 and 1998 was very much a rising star in the NBA with great potential. Far from a role player. Same with Nick Van Exel. Those guys were allstars plain and simple.

I said quite clear that I'm aware that the 1998 Spurs are not the same as the Spurs roster that played in the Lebron era. That is just common sense. That roster was from 6 years before Lebrons rookie season even happened, and by the time he arrived with the 03 draft class, only a hand full of the 98 roster were even still active in the NBA. so yes. if someone else actually said that those two rosters are the same, then youre correct that they were not the same...however your continuously saying that Duncan was just a rookie is quite random because of how good he was in his rookie season. The Jazz beat a very good 1998 Spurs team.

[ShootersShoot]

Yes they were, Eddie Jones was far from some "role player". He was a all star caliber player. Very explosive on offense, great slasher. Very good defender. Very much a starting caliber shooting guard which is why he had to go as Kobes development improved more and more. Eddie Jones absolutley showed even more how good he was over in Charlotte after that, and remained good in Miami. The only time I'd call him a role player was later on when he played for the Miami Heat Shaq and Wade.

Nick Van Exel had some flaws, but he was most definitely not a role player. Another all star caliber player, and he continued to be good as a Denver Nugget after leaving Los Angeles.

The 1998 Spurs weren't the same as the 00s, but they were still a very good team who got the job done literally 1 year later with the same core group. Duncan being a rookie takes nothing away from how good he was that season. That man was NBA ready before even getting to the NBA, and he delivered. Again, the Jazz beat a good team.

None of what you just said explained why they weren’t role players, which they absolutely were. They got in during a time when the competition was weak. Fact of the matter is that they weren’t on that level. Again, the Lakers were pretty much just like the 09 and 10 Cavaliers teams. Very reliant on their lone superstar and not enough else to compensate. And even if what you were saying is true, they still aren’t the same as those dynasty lakers teams.

You seem to be misunderstanding in general what I mean about these two teams with your last line of “a, the Jazz beat a good team”. Yeah, no ****. I never said they weren’t good teams. That was never the argument I was making. What I have been saying from the start (and I made it very clear multiple times, I don’t know why I need to keep repeating it) is that the person I quoted originally said the Jazz beat the same teams that dominated the LeBron era (btw that isn’t even true either). No, they didn’t.

What I said explained exactly why they weren't role players. If you can't understand why a allstar caliber player who made a all star game isn't a role player then I can't help you. Eddie Jones in 1997 and 1998 was very much a rising star in the NBA with great potential. Far from a role player. Same with Nick Van Exel. Those guys were allstars plain and simple.

I said quite clear that I'm aware that the 1998 Spurs are not the same as the Spurs roster that played in the Lebron era. That is just common sense. That roster was from 6 years before Lebrons rookie season even happened, and by the time he arrived with the 03 draft class, only a hand full of the 98 roster were even still active in the NBA. so yes. if someone else actually said that those two rosters are the same, then youre correct that they were not the same...however your continuously saying that Duncan was just a rookie is quite random because of how good he was in his rookie season. The Jazz beat a very good 1998 Spurs team.

Yea I am a bit confused. The lakers and spurs were 61 and 56 win teams respectively. You have to be a very good team to essentially sweep both let alone do it with a bunch of 35 yr olds.

[iggymcfrack]

No, they weren't. Shaq was the only deserving all star on that team. It was, at best, an MVP candidate in Shaq surrounded by role players, no different from a LeBron James Cavaliers team in the later stages of his first stint with the team. They weren't loaded by any stretch of the imagination and it showed in the post season.



I didn't say Duncan wasn't very good that year. But it's important to understand the context of the post here.

The poster said these were the same teams that went on to dominate the NBA in the 2000s. That obviously wasn't the case. Duncan was a rookie. Shaq didn't start winning in the finals until Kobe became a superstar caliber player, which he wasn't yet. These weren't those same teams and you are out of your mind wrong to even suggest otherwise.

So no, it's not a checkmate. Do some actual research and read before you comment on things like this.

Yes they were, Eddie Jones was far from some "role player". He was a all star caliber player. Very explosive on offense, great slasher. Very good defender. Very much a starting caliber shooting guard which is why he had to go as Kobes development improved more and more. Eddie Jones absolutley showed even more how good he was over in Charlotte after that, and remained good in Miami. The only time I'd call him a role player was later on when he played for the Miami Heat Shaq and Wade.

Nick Van Exel had some flaws, but he was most definitely not a role player. Another all star caliber player, and he continued to be good as a Denver Nugget after leaving Los Angeles.

The 1998 Spurs weren't the same as the 00s, but they were still a very good team who got the job done literally 1 year later with the same core group. Duncan being a rookie takes nothing away from how good he was that season. That man was NBA ready before even getting to the NBA, and he delivered. Again, the Jazz beat a good team.

None of what you just said explained why they weren’t role players, which they absolutely were. They got in during a time when the competition was weak. Fact of the matter is that they weren’t on that level. Again, the Lakers were pretty much just like the 09 and 10 Cavaliers teams. Very reliant on their lone superstar and not enough else to compensate. And even if what you were saying is true, they still aren’t the same as those dynasty lakers teams.

You seem to be misunderstanding in general what I mean about these two teams with your last line of “a, the Jazz beat a good team”. Yeah, no ****. I never said they weren’t good teams. That was never the argument I was making. What I have been saying from the start (and I made it very clear multiple times, I don’t know why I need to keep repeating it) is that the person I quoted originally said the Jazz beat the same teams that dominated the LeBron era (btw that isn’t even true either). No, they didn’t.

The '97 and '98 Lakers were NOTHING like the '09 and '10 Cavs. Shaq missed 52 games those 2 seasons. The Lakers went 32-20 without him. When LeBron missed games from 2008-2010, the Cavs went 1-13. That's a 62% winning percentage for the Lakers without Shaq and a 7% winning percentage for the Cavs without LeBron. If you want to compare Shaq's supporting cast in '97 and '98 to a LeBron supporting cast, your best comparison would be the Heat from 2011-2013.

[Iwasawitness]

Yes they were, Eddie Jones was far from some "role player". He was a all star caliber player. Very explosive on offense, great slasher. Very good defender. Very much a starting caliber shooting guard which is why he had to go as Kobes development improved more and more. Eddie Jones absolutley showed even more how good he was over in Charlotte after that, and remained good in Miami. The only time I'd call him a role player was later on when he played for the Miami Heat Shaq and Wade.

Nick Van Exel had some flaws, but he was most definitely not a role player. Another all star caliber player, and he continued to be good as a Denver Nugget after leaving Los Angeles.

The 1998 Spurs weren't the same as the 00s, but they were still a very good team who got the job done literally 1 year later with the same core group. Duncan being a rookie takes nothing away from how good he was that season. That man was NBA ready before even getting to the NBA, and he delivered. Again, the Jazz beat a good team.

None of what you just said explained why they weren’t role players, which they absolutely were. They got in during a time when the competition was weak. Fact of the matter is that they weren’t on that level. Again, the Lakers were pretty much just like the 09 and 10 Cavaliers teams. Very reliant on their lone superstar and not enough else to compensate. And even if what you were saying is true, they still aren’t the same as those dynasty lakers teams.

You seem to be misunderstanding in general what I mean about these two teams with your last line of “a, the Jazz beat a good team”. Yeah, no ****. I never said they weren’t good teams. That was never the argument I was making. What I have been saying from the start (and I made it very clear multiple times, I don’t know why I need to keep repeating it) is that the person I quoted originally said the Jazz beat the same teams that dominated the LeBron era (btw that isn’t even true either). No, they didn’t.

The '97 and '98 Lakers were NOTHING like the '09 and '10 Cavs. Shaq missed 52 games those 2 seasons. The Lakers went 32-20 without him. When LeBron missed games from 2008-2010, the Cavs went 1-13. That's a 62% winning percentage for the Lakers without Shaq and a 7% winning percentage for the Cavs without LeBron. If you want to compare Shaq's supporting cast in '97 and '98 to a LeBron supporting cast, your best comparison would be the Heat from 2011-2013.

Huh, good point.

I stand corrected.

With that said though, no, Heat from 2011-13 would not be a good comparison.

[MavsDirk41]

Yes they were, Eddie Jones was far from some "role player". He was a all star caliber player. Very explosive on offense, great slasher. Very good defender. Very much a starting caliber shooting guard which is why he had to go as Kobes development improved more and more. Eddie Jones absolutley showed even more how good he was over in Charlotte after that, and remained good in Miami. The only time I'd call him a role player was later on when he played for the Miami Heat Shaq and Wade.

Nick Van Exel had some flaws, but he was most definitely not a role player. Another all star caliber player, and he continued to be good as a Denver Nugget after leaving Los Angeles.

The 1998 Spurs weren't the same as the 00s, but they were still a very good team who got the job done literally 1 year later with the same core group. Duncan being a rookie takes nothing away from how good he was that season. That man was NBA ready before even getting to the NBA, and he delivered. Again, the Jazz beat a good team.

None of what you just said explained why they weren’t role players, which they absolutely were. They got in during a time when the competition was weak. Fact of the matter is that they weren’t on that level. Again, the Lakers were pretty much just like the 09 and 10 Cavaliers teams. Very reliant on their lone superstar and not enough else to compensate. And even if what you were saying is true, they still aren’t the same as those dynasty lakers teams.

You seem to be misunderstanding in general what I mean about these two teams with your last line of “a, the Jazz beat a good team”. Yeah, no ****. I never said they weren’t good teams. That was never the argument I was making. What I have been saying from the start (and I made it very clear multiple times, I don’t know why I need to keep repeating it) is that the person I quoted originally said the Jazz beat the same teams that dominated the LeBron era (btw that isn’t even true either). No, they didn’t.

The '97 and '98 Lakers were NOTHING like the '09 and '10 Cavs. Shaq missed 52 games those 2 seasons. The Lakers went 32-20 without him. When LeBron missed games from 2008-2010, the Cavs went 1-13. That's a 62% winning percentage for the Lakers without Shaq and a 7% winning percentage for the Cavs without LeBron. If you want to compare Shaq's supporting cast in '97 and '98 to a LeBron supporting cast, your best comparison would be the Heat from 2011-2013.

No it wouldnt. The 98 Lakers won with a superstar player and depth while the Heat were top heavy with 3 star players. Eddie Jones was very good but i dont think he was ever at the level of Bosh and Wade. That Lakers team was very deep.

[AmIWrongDude]

MJ is legitimately a mythological figure around here. If adding one of the best players of all time in KD to his opponents doesn’t make a difference, then MJ’s opponents were weak as hell.

Make your choice lol

[fansse]

The MJ stans are ridiculous..