How Good Were the '98 Jazz?

Moderators: Domejandro, jamaalstar21, zimpy27, BombsquadSammy, GeorgeMarcus, Goudelock, Prez, bwgood77, ken6199, Dirk

Liam_Gallagher
Junior
Posts: 493
And1: 615
Joined: Nov 05, 2019

How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#1 » by Liam_Gallagher » Fri May 22, 2020 7:26 pm

Looking at their roster, they look pretty horrible outside of Stockton and Malone, and even they were in their mid-30's. I don't intend to bash them or discredit the Bulls for winning it all - obviously the Jazz had really good chemistry but their rotations look confusing and bad.

In the '98 regular season they won 62 games, and their most used starting lineup (34 games) was Stockton, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Karl Malone and Greg Foster. 2.5 of those players probably wouldn't even make the league today - Keefe was essentially playing SF next to Malone and Foster, and he didn't even attempt a 3-pointer in 80 games played. Their second most used starting lineup was the same as the first except Ostertag in for Foster.

Why didn't Sloan just go with a traditional SF next to Malone and Foster/Ostertag? He started Russell in the playoffs but maybe if he started him in the regular season their chemistry would've been a lot better.

Just so many scrubs in that rotation and I don't see any sense in it.
HoopsterJones
General Manager
Posts: 9,619
And1: 6,723
Joined: Feb 22, 2014

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#2 » by HoopsterJones » Fri May 22, 2020 7:41 pm

Good enough to sweep a 61 win Lakers team with 4 all stars in the WCF (including a 35 point blowout in game 1).
2019-2020 Bulls Prediction:

Regular Season: 35-47
1 All Star: Markkanen or LaVine
All Rookie 2nd Team: Coby White
reapaman
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,751
And1: 1,202
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
       

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#3 » by reapaman » Fri May 22, 2020 7:45 pm

The whole league was bad that year and not enough talent to go around. So they had no choice, but to have a old team that had a lot of scrubs on it.

As for the rotations. Russell started the year before and for a few games at the beginning of the 97/98 season, but Sloan moved him to the bench to balance out scoring because the bench was poo. At least you have someone that can score once the starters are resting.
BRING JAMAAL FRANKLIN TO UTAH!!!!!
Hellcrooner
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,682
And1: 1,216
Joined: Aug 04, 2014
         

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#4 » by Hellcrooner » Fri May 22, 2020 7:53 pm

two aging stars and a botload of crap.
as usual
the only decent rival bulls faced in the finals were the sonics.

other than that the true finals were always those on the ecf or second rounds.
User avatar
LakerLegend
RealGM
Posts: 11,717
And1: 5,935
Joined: Jun 15, 2002
Location: SoCal

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#5 » by LakerLegend » Fri May 22, 2020 8:00 pm

Liam_Gallagher wrote:Looking at their roster, they look pretty horrible outside of Stockton and Malone, and even they were in their mid-30's. I don't intend to bash them or discredit the Bulls for winning it all - obviously the Jazz had really good chemistry but their rotations look confusing and bad.

In the '98 regular season they won 62 games, and their most used starting lineup (34 games) was Stockton, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Karl Malone and Greg Foster. 2.5 of those players probably wouldn't even make the league today - Keefe was essentially playing SF next to Malone and Foster, and he didn't even attempt a 3-pointer in 80 games played. Their second most used starting lineup was the same as the first except Ostertag in for Foster.

Why didn't Sloan just go with a traditional SF next to Malone and Foster/Ostertag? He started Russell in the playoffs but maybe if he started him in the regular season their chemistry would've been a lot better.

Just so many scrubs in that rotation and I don't see any sense in it.


Those guys would make the league, they know how to play their roles. There's plenty of bums who are only in the league based off of talent or potential, these guys had basketball IQ.

The Jazz were built off of beating teams with execution, the whole team would be putting up better numbers today without the physicality and slow pace of 98.
RGM_SU
Senior
Posts: 621
And1: 852
Joined: Mar 03, 2016

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#6 » by RGM_SU » Fri May 22, 2020 8:00 pm

Liam_Gallagher wrote:Looking at their roster, they look pretty horrible outside of Stockton and Malone, and even they were in their mid-30's. I don't intend to bash them or discredit the Bulls for winning it all - obviously the Jazz had really good chemistry but their rotations look confusing and bad.

In the '98 regular season they won 62 games, and their most used starting lineup (34 games) was Stockton, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Karl Malone and Greg Foster. 2.5 of those players probably wouldn't even make the league today - Keefe was essentially playing SF next to Malone and Foster, and he didn't even attempt a 3-pointer in 80 games played. Their second most used starting lineup was the same as the first except Ostertag in for Foster.

Why didn't Sloan just go with a traditional SF next to Malone and Foster/Ostertag? He started Russell in the playoffs but maybe if he started him in the regular season their chemistry would've been a lot better.

Just so many scrubs in that rotation and I don't see any sense in it.

That scrub team beat the 56-win Spurs with Robinson and rookie Duncan (that would win the championship the following year) in 5 before sweeping the 61-win Lakers that had 4 all-stars with O'Neal, Eddie Jones, teenager Kobe Bryant and Nick Van Exel. Their lineup isn't impressive, but by 98 the core that had played together for so many years reached a level of chemistry that played bigger than the sum of their parts. Everybody knew what the Jazz would do, but almost nobody could stop it.
BigtimeNBAfan
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,840
And1: 1,812
Joined: Feb 11, 2014

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#7 » by BigtimeNBAfan » Fri May 22, 2020 8:12 pm

Well they were a fluke Steve Kerr rebound away in game 2 and an Eisley 3 taken off the board in game 6 from beating the Bulls. Even with the bad call the Bulls only won by 1 point on a Malone turnover and Jordan heroics. They were very close to winning a title.
BigtimeNBAfan
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,840
And1: 1,812
Joined: Feb 11, 2014

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#8 » by BigtimeNBAfan » Fri May 22, 2020 8:14 pm

Hellcrooner wrote:two aging stars and a botload of crap.
as usual
the only decent rival bulls faced in the finals were the sonics.

other than that the true finals were always those on the ecf or second rounds.

Those Jazz teams came a lot closer to beating the Bulls than the Sonics did. 3 of the 4 Bulls wins over Seattle were blowouts and the Sonics were never a threat to win that series. The Jazz/Bulls series were nailbiters with several monumental games.
User avatar
pace31
Rookie
Posts: 1,052
And1: 1,269
Joined: Aug 27, 2007
   

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#9 » by pace31 » Fri May 22, 2020 8:53 pm

Hellcrooner wrote:two aging stars and a botload of crap.
as usual
the only decent rival bulls faced in the finals were the sonics.

other than that the true finals were always those on the ecf or second rounds.


Image

Hilariously bad take, the '98 Pacers were the only eastern team to push the Bulls from '96 - '98
User avatar
Galloisdaman
Starter
Posts: 2,386
And1: 1,172
Joined: Mar 17, 2011

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#10 » by Galloisdaman » Fri May 22, 2020 9:05 pm

Hornacek was a really solid SG. His daughter (who is a knockout) makes some incredible basketball shots as well.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. :D
Catchall
RealGM
Posts: 10,715
And1: 4,380
Joined: Jul 06, 2008
     

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#11 » by Catchall » Fri May 22, 2020 9:17 pm

Hellcrooner wrote:two aging stars and a botload of crap.
as usual
the only decent rival bulls faced in the finals were the sonics.

other than that the true finals were always those on the ecf or second rounds.


Are you like 12?
Catchall
RealGM
Posts: 10,715
And1: 4,380
Joined: Jul 06, 2008
     

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#12 » by Catchall » Fri May 22, 2020 9:19 pm

Jeff Hornacek was an elite shooter.
Bryon Russell was a good 3D wing who took tough defensive assignments.
Adam Keefe was a very solid rebounder and decent defender.
Howard Eisley was a decent backup point guard.
Greg Ostertag was a legit defensive presence and rim protector.
Antoine Carr was a versatile two-way big.

They could have used another player, sure, but their role players weren't crap either.
dautjazz
RealGM
Posts: 11,069
And1: 6,304
Joined: Aug 01, 2001
Location: Miami, FL
 

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#13 » by dautjazz » Fri May 22, 2020 9:31 pm

RGM_SU wrote:
Liam_Gallagher wrote:Looking at their roster, they look pretty horrible outside of Stockton and Malone, and even they were in their mid-30's. I don't intend to bash them or discredit the Bulls for winning it all - obviously the Jazz had really good chemistry but their rotations look confusing and bad.

In the '98 regular season they won 62 games, and their most used starting lineup (34 games) was Stockton, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Karl Malone and Greg Foster. 2.5 of those players probably wouldn't even make the league today - Keefe was essentially playing SF next to Malone and Foster, and he didn't even attempt a 3-pointer in 80 games played. Their second most used starting lineup was the same as the first except Ostertag in for Foster.

Why didn't Sloan just go with a traditional SF next to Malone and Foster/Ostertag? He started Russell in the playoffs but maybe if he started him in the regular season their chemistry would've been a lot better.

Just so many scrubs in that rotation and I don't see any sense in it.

That scrub team beat the 56-win Spurs with Robinson and rookie Duncan (that would win the championship the following year) in 5 before sweeping the 61-win Lakers that had 4 all-stars with O'Neal, Eddie Jones, teenager Kobe Bryant and Nick Van Exel. Their lineup isn't impressive, but by 98 the core that had played together for so many years reached a level of chemistry that played bigger than the sum of their parts. Everybody knew what the Jazz would do, but almost nobody could stop it.


Kobe was voted in, he only averaged 8.7ppg 1.9rpg 1.5apg in the playoffs, and in the regular season he averaged 15.4ppg but with pretty mediocre shooting. Kobe really deserved to be an All-Star in his 4th or 5th season. Either way, yeah the Lakers were a good team and they surprised people when they swept them, even if they were favorites.
NickAnderson wrote:
How old are you, just curious.

by gomeziee on 21 Jul 2013 00:53

im 20, and i did grow up watching MJ play in the 90's.
Hellcrooner
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,682
And1: 1,216
Joined: Aug 04, 2014
         

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#14 » by Hellcrooner » Fri May 22, 2020 9:36 pm

Catchall wrote:
Hellcrooner wrote:two aging stars and a botload of crap.
as usual
the only decent rival bulls faced in the finals were the sonics.

other than that the true finals were always those on the ecf or second rounds.


Are you like 12?

12 what?
12 elfs?
12 Budweisers.
12 ocean,s?

12 cigarretes?
User avatar
GSP
General Manager
Posts: 9,835
And1: 3,780
Joined: Dec 12, 2011
     

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#15 » by GSP » Fri May 22, 2020 9:38 pm

Galloisdaman wrote:Hornacek was a really solid SG. His daughter (who is a knockout) makes some incredible basketball shots as well.


He was like a rich mans Ingles without the size

As for the thread the 97 and 98 Jazz were both really good.

I and many others thought theyd beat the Bulls in 98. I think Vegas mightve even favored the Jazz slightly to win it was def close to even odds either way.
User avatar
Galloisdaman
Starter
Posts: 2,386
And1: 1,172
Joined: Mar 17, 2011

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#16 » by Galloisdaman » Fri May 22, 2020 9:43 pm

GSP wrote:
Galloisdaman wrote:Hornacek was a really solid SG. His daughter (who is a knockout) makes some incredible basketball shots as well.


He was like a rich mans Ingles without the size

As for the thread the 97 and 98 Jazz were both really good.

I and many others thought theyd beat the Bulls in 98. I think Vegas mightve even favored the Jazz slightly to win it was def close to even odds either way.


He would be a very very rich man Ingles. He was close to a 20ppg all star type player at one time. Was traded for 2 pretty good players. He wasn't all NBA but was a very solid starter.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point. :D
User avatar
Cactus Jack
RealGM
Posts: 18,460
And1: 9,179
Joined: Feb 25, 2015
Location: PNW
     

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#17 » by Cactus Jack » Fri May 22, 2020 10:30 pm

Liam_Gallagher wrote:Looking at their roster, they look pretty horrible outside of Stockton and Malone, and even they were in their mid-30's. I don't intend to bash them or discredit the Bulls for winning it all - obviously the Jazz had really good chemistry but their rotations look confusing and bad.

In the '98 regular season they won 62 games, and their most used starting lineup (34 games) was Stockton, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Karl Malone and Greg Foster. 2.5 of those players probably wouldn't even make the league today - Keefe was essentially playing SF next to Malone and Foster, and he didn't even attempt a 3-pointer in 80 games played. Their second most used starting lineup was the same as the first except Ostertag in for Foster.

Why didn't Sloan just go with a traditional SF next to Malone and Foster/Ostertag? He started Russell in the playoffs but maybe if he started him in the regular season their chemistry would've been a lot better.

Just so many scrubs in that rotation and I don't see any sense in it.

Hornacek was a lights out shooter. Very underrated player. Russell was solid. The remaining roster wasn't great. But Stockton & Malone were as good as advertised. Sloan was a hell of a coach too.
Dominater wrote:Damn Cactus jack takin over

Roddy wrote:- The NBA without Seattle is not the real NBA
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 15,418
And1: 5,079
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#18 » by MrSparkle » Fri May 22, 2020 10:30 pm

Utah had great 1-5 chemistry and a deep bench. Pretty much every single player on the roster was a + defender, and they had high-IQ two-way shooters. In no era ever could you win 60+ NBA games with 2 good old players and a bunch of scrubs.

To put it simply, they weren't scrubs.
Pythagoras
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,940
And1: 1,425
Joined: Aug 15, 2012
Location: KC, Mo
     

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#19 » by Pythagoras » Fri May 22, 2020 10:39 pm

They were really damn good. Top 5 player + top 15ish player + top 10 “3rd banana” + outstanding coach + solid supporting cast. There was a reason they won 60+ games 3 times in 4 years.
Numbers rule the universe.
LofJ
General Manager
Posts: 8,774
And1: 6,068
Joined: Mar 29, 2014
   

Re: How Good Were the '98 Jazz? 

Post#20 » by LofJ » Fri May 22, 2020 10:40 pm

Galloisdaman wrote:
GSP wrote:
Galloisdaman wrote:Hornacek was a really solid SG. His daughter (who is a knockout) makes some incredible basketball shots as well.


He was like a rich mans Ingles without the size

As for the thread the 97 and 98 Jazz were both really good.

I and many others thought theyd beat the Bulls in 98. I think Vegas mightve even favored the Jazz slightly to win it was def close to even odds either way.


He would be a very very rich man Ingles. He was close to a 20ppg all star type player at one time. Was traded for 2 pretty good players. He wasn't all NBA but was a very solid starter.


The OP brushing off Hornacek made this thread a failure from the start.

Return to The General Board