RealGM

The Bulls went 62-20 and won the nba title, their third straight.

Longley
Rodman
Pippen
Jordan
Harper
Bench: Kukoc, Kerr, Wennington, Burrell, Randy Brown, Jason Caffey.

The Lakers went 67-15 and won the nba title, their first with that group.

Shaq
A.C. Green
Glen Rice
Kobe
Harper
Bench: Rick Fox, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Brian Shaw, Devean George.

Which team would win in a matchup of the 2 teams?

Remember, the Bulls are very experienced and playoff tough. They had excellent physicality and savvy. The Lakers, though inexperienced when it came to winning titles as a group, had gone through their playoff lumps and paid their dues the years prior. They had a nice mix of veterans with a history of winning (Green, Horry, and Harper), a guy who thought he needed a title (Shaq), and young guys to compliment them (Kobe and Fisher).

Lakers. That Bulls team was easily the worst of the six and struggled with the Pacers and, to a lesser extent, the Jazz- both of those teams I consider worse than that Lakers squad. The Bulls could certainly win the series, but not as often as the Lakers would.

Yup, exactly. I'd take the the '00 Lakers too, that was Shaq's best defensive season (though in the playoffs I'd argue '01 Shaq was better defensively). He was absolutely a monster on both ends, and with Longley on him, he'd go off for something like 35/18 (with a couple of 40 pt games).

I'll actually go with the Lakers too. As Farm Raid said, that was definitely the worst of the Bulls championship teams. Jordan was still the best player in the league, and Pippen was still a good player, but he was always hampered by back problems and was never be the same again. Rodman was a great rebounder still, but I felt his defense had definitely slipped a few notches. That team won it all not because of its talent, but because of Jordan's ability to will them to victory. On paper, I'd have to go with the Lakers.

I'd take the Bulls 50-60% of the time, actually. 1998 Bulls vs. 2001 Lakers, when Kobe was substantially better, would be a different story.

Farm Raid wrote:Lakers. That Bulls team was easily the worst of the six and struggled with the Pacers and, to a lesser extent, the Jazz- both of those teams I consider worse than that Lakers squad. The Bulls could certainly win the series, but not as often as the Lakers would.

Yeah, but the very same Pacers team that took Chicago to 7 took LA to 6 games two years later (read: their key players were all older).

Lakers in 4.

^^^^
LMAO

Yeah, every single team they faced that postseason took them to 5 games at a minimum (including Portland, who took them to 7 games and who were nowhere near as good as the Bulls), but somehow they'll sweep Chicago. Okay.

Shame on all of you for doubting MJ.

Bulls in 6.

Although the 98 Bulls were easily the worst of the 6, I'd take them. If it wasn't for arguably the biggest choke-job in history, the Blazers losing a 15-point lead in game 7 of the 4th quarter, the Lakers would've given up a 3-1 lead and not even make it to the finals. If they were that close to losing to the Blazers, I would take the Bulls

Honestly I'd give the nod to MJ on this 1. By that time the Bulls were a well oiled machine. They really only seem to struggle with teams from being bored & the Lakers hadn't won anything yet so experience would have played a big roll in that series

bullzman23 wrote:Shame on all of you for doubting MJ.

Bulls in 6.

But that Lakers had the Prime Shaq.