1998 Bulls vs. 1999 Spurs

[Djoker]

Try to explain your choice.

Both teams may be slightly underrated historically. The 1998 Bulls were obviously weaker than the previous two years but still a really strong team. The 1999 Spurs have one of the best defenses ever.

[shakes0]

this isn't that complicated. I'm going with the guy who is the GOAT and was 6-0 in Finals appearances and had just won 2 in a row coming into the year in question.

[One_and_Done]

Spurs easily.

[magicman1978]

If Scottie was healthy I can see the Bulls taking this, but with him hurt and Rodman on his last legs - I don't think they can overcome the Duncan/Robinson duo.

[SHAQ32]

If Scottie was healthy I can see the Bulls taking this, but with him hurt and Rodman on his last legs - I don't think they can overcome the Duncan/Robinson duo.

Don't count out the two-headed monster that was Longley and Wennington.

[AEnigma]

The 1998 Spurs were worse and more injured and still played the 1998 Jazz tight.

[OhayoKD]

Try to explain your choice.

Both teams may be slightly underrated historically. The 1998 Bulls were obviously weaker than the previous two years but still a really strong team. The 1999 Spurs have one of the best defenses ever.

1999 Spurs were a statistically better team in the rs and playoffs and a worse version of themselves played the jazz tight injured the previous year.

Think I'd pick the Spurs without too much thought.

[homecourtloss]

Try to explain your choice.

Both teams may be slightly underrated historically. The 1998 Bulls were obviously weaker than the previous two years but still a really strong team. The 1999 Spurs have one of the best defenses ever.

1999 Spurs were a statistically better team in the rs and playoffs and a worse version of themselves played the jazz tight injured the previous year.

Think I'd pick the Spurs without too much thought.

Spurs easily.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Try to explain your choice.

Both teams may be slightly underrated historically. The 1998 Bulls were obviously weaker than the previous two years but still a really strong team. The 1999 Spurs have one of the best defenses ever.

1999 Spurs were a statistically better team in the rs and playoffs and a worse version of themselves played the jazz tight injured the previous year.

Think I'd pick the Spurs without too much thought.

What statistics are you specifically referring to with "statistically better"?

The 98 Bulls have a marginally higher SRS(7.24 vs 7.12) and a marginally higher winning percentage while playing more games(62/82=.756 vs 37/50=.740).

The Spurs have a higher Net Rtg(+9.0 vs +7.9). Looking further, the Spurs have a higher rel DRtg(-7.2 vs -5.2) while the Bulls have a higher rel ORtg(+2.7 vs +1.8).

I don't know what the playoff stats look like, other than that the Spurs lost fewer games.

The regular season stats look very comparable to me, and I don't think it's an easy win for either team(assuming Pippen is healthy).

The reason to lean towards the Spurs more than anything else if that it might simply be a bad matchup for the Bulls, as they weren't really well-equipped to guard Duncan AND Robinson. On the other hand, 6'6' Ron Harper on 5'11' Avery Johnson is a mismatch I'd look to take advantage of on the other side.

[TheGOATRises007]

The 1998 Spurs were worse and more injured and still played the 1998 Jazz tight.

It's not always linear like this though

[Ferulci]

this isn't that complicated. I'm going with the guy who is the GOAT and was 6-0 in Finals appearances and had just won 2 in a row coming into the year in question.

Thank you. Sometimes I don't get that weird obsession of this board downplaying Bulls team, like the 99 spurs or 94 rockets would beat them handily. Sure, Robinson/Duncan would destroy Bulls frontcourt. But what do you think would happen when you put Jordan (and Pippen, and Kukoc) would do to Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott offensively AND defensively? It would be murder. And you've got a team on its way to 3-peat versus one who (by that time) didn't win the title yet.

The 1998 Spurs were worse and more injured and still played the 1998 Jazz tight.

If by tight you mean losing 4-1, then sure. Some of the games were close indeed but the Jazz were clearly the superior team and not in any risk of losing the series.

[AEnigma]

this isn't that complicated. I'm going with the guy who is the GOAT and was 6-0 in Finals appearances and had just won 2 in a row coming into the year in question.

Thank you. Sometimes I don't get that weird obsession of this board downplaying Bulls team, like the 99 spurs or 94 rockets would beat them handily. Sure, Robinson/Duncan would destroy Bulls frontcourt. But what do you think would happen when you put Jordan (and Pippen, and Kukoc) would do to Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott offensively AND defensively? It would be murder.

… We saw them go up against a team with heavily overmatched wings in 1997 and 1998, and it very much was not murder. That is the point. You glorify these teams abstractly without actually considering how they won.

And you've got a team on its way to 3-peat versus one who (by that time) didn't win the title yet.

The Spurs blitzed the entire league that postseason. Imagine saying this as a reason to take the 2022 Warriors over the 2023 Nuggets, because hey, the Warriors had so much more experience!

The 1998 Spurs were worse and more injured and still played the 1998 Jazz tight.

If by tight you mean losing 4-1, then sure. Some of the games were close indeed but the Jazz were clearly the superior team and not in any risk of losing the series.

The Jazz won game 1 by a point and game 2 in overtime. Literally two baskets away from being down 3-0.

[Ferulci]

this isn't that complicated. I'm going with the guy who is the GOAT and was 6-0 in Finals appearances and had just won 2 in a row coming into the year in question.

Thank you. Sometimes I don't get that weird obsession of this board downplaying Bulls team, like the 99 spurs or 94 rockets would beat them handily. Sure, Robinson/Duncan would destroy Bulls frontcourt. But what do you think would happen when you put Jordan (and Pippen, and Kukoc) would do to Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott offensively AND defensively? It would be murder.

… We saw them go up against a team with heavily overmatched wings in 1997 and 1998, and it very much was not murder. That is the point. You glorify these teams abstractly without actually considering how they won.

It was murder. Hornacek/Stockton both averaged 10 pts or less, Stockton and well under their season average against the Bulls. Go back to the games if you want and you'll see that Stockton was bothered a lot by Pippen and Harper. What do you think would happen with Avery Johnson?
And you act like MJ didn't dominate each of those finals.

The Spurs blitzed the entire league that postseason. Imagine saying this as a reason to take the 2022 Warriors over the 2023 Nuggets, because hey, the Warriors had so much more experience!

What a bizarre take. It is absolutely a factor. Obviously it's not everything (Pistons crushed Lakers who were a year removed from three-peat) but acting like having championship experience with the same core against a new team (led by a sophomore + David Robinson who was maligned, often unfairly for choking.)
You realized it mattered in the 2022 finals as well? It is pretty much accepted that Celtics were the better team but Warriors experience and Curry brillance got them to the title.

The Jazz won game 1 by a point and game 2 in overtime. Literally two baskets away from being down 3-0.

I love that type of logic! Let's assume that Utah, an absolute homecourt fortress, would lose 2 home games in a row and that it would change nothing on what happened next.
If you take 2 baskets to the 2012 Heat and give it to OKC, Thunders sweep the finals. Too bad they lost in 5.
Were the games competitive? Sure and it showed that Duncan was already a superstar.
But the Spurs lost the series convicingly. Watching those games back in the day, you could see that Spurs were figured out by game 4 and that Utah was clearly the better, more seasoned team.

[AEnigma]

Thank you. Sometimes I don't get that weird obsession of this board downplaying Bulls team, like the 99 spurs or 94 rockets would beat them handily. Sure, Robinson/Duncan would destroy Bulls frontcourt. But what do you think would happen when you put Jordan (and Pippen, and Kukoc) would do to Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott offensively AND defensively? It would be murder.

… We saw them go up against a team with heavily overmatched wings in 1997 and 1998, and it very much was not murder. That is the point. You glorify these teams abstractly without actually considering how they won.

It was murder. Hornacek/Stockton both averaged 10 pts or less, Stockton and well under their season average against the Bulls. Go back to the games if you want and you'll see that Stockton was bothered a lot by Pippen and Harper. What do you think would happen with Avery Johnson?
And you act like MJ didn't dominate each of those finals.

Yeah, and the Bulls barely won. That is what matters, not whether Sean Elliott manages to be productive or Jordan puts up points.

The Spurs blitzed the entire league that postseason. Imagine saying this as a reason to take the 2022 Warriors over the 2023 Nuggets, because hey, the Warriors had so much more experience!

What a bizarre take. It is absolutely a factor. Obviously it's not everything (Pistons crushed Lakers who were a year removed from three-peat but acting like having championship experience with the same core against a new team (led by a sophomore + David Robinson who was maligned, often unfairly for choking.)
You realized it mattered in the 2022 finals as well? It is pretty much accepted that Celtics were the better team but Warriors experience and Curry brillance got them to the title.

There is a difference between “it is a factor” and “it swings a series against a dominant opponent” (which the Celtics decidedly were not).

The Jazz won game 1 by a point and game 2 in overtime. Literally two baskets away from being down 3-0.

I love that type of logic! Let's assume that Utah, an absolute homecourt fortress, would lose 2 home games in a row and that it would change nothing on what happened next.
If you take 2 baskets to the 2012 Heat and give it to OKC, Thunders sweep the finals. Too bad they lost in 5.

Hilariously bad math aside, yes, the Thunder were much more competitive than a 4-1 loss would otherwise suggest.

Were the games competitive? Sure and it showed that Duncan was already a superstar.
But the Spurs lost the series convicingly. Watching those games back in the day, you could see that Spurs were figured out by game 4 and that Utah was clearly the better, more seasoned team.

Yep, but the 1999 Spurs were significantly better, were fully healthy, and obliterated a Blazers team that similarly handled a one-year-older version of that Jazz team, despite all the “experience” the Jazz had going for them and the relative lack of any for the Blazers.

[Colbinii]

You realized it mattered in the 2022 finals as well? It is pretty much accepted that Celtics were the better team but Warriors experience and Curry brillance got them to the title.

Except the Celtics outplayed the Warriors [Outscored] with Robert Williams III on the court and the Celtics win the Finals if he isn't injured and on a minute restriction.

I don't think it had much to do with experience, but injuries.

The team with the versatile, young and fresh big man was winning the 2022 Finals--same for 1999 Spurs vs 1998 Bulls

[OhayoKD]

Try to explain your choice.

Both teams may be slightly underrated historically. The 1998 Bulls were obviously weaker than the previous two years but still a really strong team. The 1999 Spurs have one of the best defenses ever.

1999 Spurs were a statistically better team in the rs and playoffs and a worse version of themselves played the jazz tight injured the previous year.

Think I'd pick the Spurs without too much thought.

What statistics are you specifically referring to with "statistically better"?

The 98 Bulls have a marginally higher SRS(7.24 vs 7.12) and a marginally higher winning percentage while playing more games(62/82=.756 vs 37/50=.740).

The Spurs have a higher Net Rtg(+9.0 vs +7.9). Looking further, the Spurs have a higher rel DRtg(-7.2 vs -5.2) while the Bulls have a higher rel ORtg(+2.7 vs +1.8).

I don't know what the playoff stats look like, other than that the Spurs lost fewer games.

The regular season stats look very comparable to me, and I don't think it's an easy win for either team(assuming Pippen is healthy).

Spurs are a bigger outlier though: In 1999 there were three other teams above +5 and the highest team was +5.67. In 1998, there were 5 times above +5, three other teams above +6, and the highest team was at +6.88. Adding the postseason(they dont have it rs specific), the 98 Bulls were + 1.98 standard deviations while the 99 Spurs were 2.22 standard deviations. Suprisingly though, the bulls actually posted a slightly higher PSRS despite losing twice as any games. The standard deviation score I listed does give 3/4th playoff weighting, but I guess it's closer statistically than I thought.

The reason to lean towards the Spurs more than anything else if that it might simply be a bad matchup for the Bulls, as they weren't really well-equipped to guard Duncan AND Robinson. On the other hand, 6'6' Ron Harper on 5'11' Avery Johnson is a mismatch I'd look to take advantage of on the other side.

Yeah.

[eminence]

I've got the '99 Spurs relatively confidently. Slightly better team, notably better matchup for them. I'll say 4-2.

[HomoSapien]

This is 98 Bulls, correct ... not the Bulls in 99 if they don't break up the dynasty?

If it's the 98 Bulls, I've got them. Everyone remembers this Bulls team as limping to the finish line, but that's been exaggerated to a large extent.

1.) The Bulls were 36-8 during the season with Pippen in the lineup, and a staggering 25-2 after the all-star break. Even with their slow start, the Bulls finished with a slightly higher winning percentage than the 99 Spurs.

2.) The Bulls weren't even shakey in the playoffs, despite being pushed to 7 games by Indiana. Overall, they went 15-6. Four of the losses came on the road, and the Bulls would have home-court advantage over the Spurs. The losses were extremely close, as they only lost by an average of 2.3 PPG. On the other hand, they won by an average of 10.7 points. So when they lost, they barely lost and when they won they convincingly won. For what it's worth, the Jazz both years had a better winning percentage than the Spurs and obviously lost to the Bulls twice.

3.) Not that regular season ultimately means much in the playoffs, but the Bulls did beat SAS in both their matchups in 97. Once they did it without Pippen and in the second game they did it without Longley. Kukoc appeared to give Duncan some defensive problems, and won that individual matchup.

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. 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 is also significantly stronger than that Spurs team's bench. Kukoc is in the HOF. The Spurs 6th man was... Jaren Jackson Sr? Plus, they presumably don't get Steve Kerr in this match.

Age wise, both are ancient teams outside of Duncan.

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.

[The Explorer]

Try to explain your choice.

Both teams may be slightly underrated historically. The 1998 Bulls were obviously weaker than the previous two years but still a really strong team. The 1999 Spurs have one of the best defenses ever.

Is the series played in 1999 or are transporting the 99 Spurs back to 1998 to play Chi instead of Utah?
If we are transporting the 98 Bulls to play in 99 with a lockout shortened season, I gave them a big advantage having that much rest with an older roster.

[oaktownwarriors87]

Try to explain your choice.

Both teams may be slightly underrated historically. The 1998 Bulls were obviously weaker than the previous two years but still a really strong team. The 1999 Spurs have one of the best defenses ever.

1999 Spurs were a statistically better team in the rs and playoffs and a worse version of themselves played the jazz tight injured the previous year.

Think I'd pick the Spurs without too much thought.

The Spurs had an SRS of 7.12 and the Bulls had an SRS of 7.24.

The Spurs also lost 1-4 to the Jazz.