2001 Lakers V 1996 Bulls but with Peak Kobe

[JRoy]

Bulls and not close.

[KirkHinrich12]

Bulls in 4 or 5

[ReddoverKobe]

Bulls in 4 or 5

How lol. 96 was seattle my bad. Still, you would favor the lakers over seattle

[ReddoverKobe]

Bulls and not close.

wrong season. 96 was seattle.

[JustBuzzin]

Peak Shaq vs end of prime MJ.

I'm taking the Lakers they would have the best player in the series Shaq. Kobe is also better than Pippen.

[JRoy]

Peak Shaq vs end of prime MJ.

I'm taking the Lakers they would have the best player in the series Shaq. Kobe is also better than Pippen.

I hated both teams and I’m taking the best team.

[tamaraw08]

I asked this a few years back. Who had the better supporting cast 1996 Bulls MJ/Scottie or 01 Shaq/Kobe.

A vast majority of the votes went to 1996 Bulls had the better supporting cast outside of the two stars. I wasn't old enough at the time but from what I have heard and read in 11 Rings they sounded fairly equal!?

Tough call. I think I'd say the Lakers, because Kobe was better as #2 than Pippen (personality clashes and all), and then that year, they had Fox/Horry/Fisher, but also Grant and Madsen and like half a season of Ron Harper, etc, etc, etc. They had real depth that year, which was missing in seasons thereafter.

It's amazing for me to believe that the 2000 Lakers had more depth with Fox, Fisher, Horry, Shaw on the bench all ready to contribute.
Sure AC and Harper were old but those 4 role bench players were pretty solid IMO.
Now I am not sure those guys got better after 1 year because of bigger roles etc esp Fox and Fisher though.

[Bad Bart]

The 2001 Lakers was the best basketball team I've ever seen play, I'm taking them over any team in history. And Kobe may have been wiser and all that later in his career, but 2001 Kobe was a force of nature on both sides of the ball. Most importantly is Shaq, because if this is a Finals series then we know we're getting the big fella at his best, and there was no one on the Bulls to slow him down.

[tsherkin]

The difference between '01 Kobe & let's say '06-'08 Kobe is so minimal the distinction isn't even notable. The guy averaged 29/7/6 in the playoffs while having to share the rock with peak Shaq, the peak version of Kobe isn't playing noticeably better than that.

It isn't about statistical production. Kobe in 01 averaged that 29/7/6. Over half a decade of learning, coupled to getting over his need for scoring titles and trying to do everything himself, led to him being a smarter player. That's sort of inevitable.

Yeah what you're talking about is the intangibles. Those don't always show up in the box score. It is fascinating though given that Kobe lost Ahtleticism by then. The smarter more experienced Kobe V the younger more explosive Kobe does make it for different dynamics and a good conversation.

I get what you are saying. But Kobe was playing like 2008 Kobe for the first half of 2006-07. At the All-star break he was averaging 29/5/5 on 59%TS on 20 shots per a game. His scoring went up because of injuries to the roster in the second half. If I remember correctly, Phil told him he needed to be more assertive.

I think Kobe got "it" as early as 2005. The roster just needed to be better.

I definitely don't agree with that. I think Kobe had a lot to learn and a lot to work out after Shaq's departure, for sure. Obviously, the roster context demanded certain things as well, though.

It's amazing for me to believe that the 2000 Lakers had more depth with Fox, Fisher, Horry, Shaw on the bench all ready to contribute.
Sure AC and Harper were old but those 4 role bench players were pretty solid IMO.
Now I am not sure those guys got better after 1 year because of bigger roles etc esp Fox and Fisher though.

Yeah, the depth on the first two title teams was very impressive. It bled off, and that is what ultimately killed them, among other things.

[tsherkin]

Bulls and not close.

That isn't a defensible position at all, particularly given that they never faced anyone as good as Shaq in the playoffs, and never faced a perimeter star as good as Kobe in the playoffs either, let alone together.

[The Laker Kid]

You should re-phrase your question to: "2001 Lakers vs. 1996 Bulls but with wise Kobe". Peak Kobe (pre-Colorado) was selfish, and didn't really think about teamwork. I think 2009-2010 Kobe was the best version. He had accumulated wisdom at that point and was willing to sacrifice to win championships. That version, with prime Shaq can absolutely beat the 96 Bulls.

[Rust_Cohle]

I think 2001 team were a little overrated, but nobody from 96 Bulls could guard Shaq, even though no one from 2001 Lakers could guard MJ. Kobe would have a tough go with Pippen guarding him.

Lakers never faced an offensive threat as incredible as MJ, not a perimeter defensive player as good as Pippen.

[mdonnelly1989]

Bulls and not close.

That isn't a defensible position at all, particularly given that they never faced anyone as good as Shaq in the playoffs, and never faced a perimeter star as good as Kobe in the playoffs either, let alone together.

Yes, this is true.

2000s Shaq > 1992 Barkley / 97 Karl Malone > Patrick Ewing >> Shawn Kemp

Also Kobe > John Stockton > Gary Payton > Clyde Drexler

Also the 97 Pacers pushed the Bulls to a game 7 and I doubt anyone on earth would say that Pacers team is in the same universe as 2000s Lakers. 2000 Lakers in 5 or 6 over the 96 Sonics.

[Rust_Cohle]

Bulls and not close.

That isn't a defensible position at all, particularly given that they never faced anyone as good as Shaq in the playoffs, and never faced a perimeter star as good as Kobe in the playoffs either, let alone together.

Yes, this is true.

2000s Shaq > 1992 Barkley / 97 Karl Malone > Patrick Ewing >> Shawn Kemp

Also Kobe > John Stockton > Gary Payton > Clyde Drexler

Also the 97 Pacers pushed the Bulls to a game 7 and I doubt anyone on earth would say that Pacers team is in the same universe as 2000s Lakers. 2000 Lakers in 5 or 6 over the 96 Sonics.

2000 Lakers got pushed to 6 by an even worse Pacers team.

[tsherkin]

2000 Lakers got pushed to 6 by an even worse Pacers team.

2000 != 2001. That's probably a good place to start.

Kobe had taken strides, they weren't playing Glen Rice, and the Pacers gave the Bulls a 7-games in 1998, so I don't know if you want to yark on them too hard...

[JRoy]

Bulls and not close.

That isn't a defensible position at all, particularly given that they never faced anyone as good as Shaq in the playoffs, and never faced a perimeter star as good as Kobe in the playoffs either, let alone together.

How many top 3 all time players did that LAL team beat?

[Hair Jordan]

Peak Kobe would pull the same sh-t he did in 2004 against the Pistons. Not only would he be obsessed with winning the FMVP, he’d be obsessed about beating his idol (Jordan) in order to do it. It would be a recipe for disaster though. I see him chucking up a ton of shots to the detriment of his team and shooting an even worse percentage than the 38.1% he put up against Detroit. Bulls in 5 or 6.

[ropjhk]

2000 Lakers got pushed to 6 by an even worse Pacers team.

2000 != 2001. That's probably a good place to start.

Kobe had taken strides, they weren't playing Glen Rice, and the Pacers gave the Bulls a 7-games in 1998, so I don't know if you want to yark on them too hard...

1998 Bulls != 1996 Bulls

So we could probably just discard the Pacers angle altogether. This thread is about 1996 vs 2001, not 1998 vs. 2000, though that might be an interesting discussion as well.

[taikibansei]

Bulls and not close.

That isn't a defensible position at all, particularly given that they never faced anyone as good as Shaq in the playoffs, and never faced a perimeter star as good as Kobe in the playoffs either, let alone together.

How many top 3 all time players did that LAL team beat?

Just one: Prime Duncan

How many "top 3 all-time" players did that 1996 Bulls team play in the playoffs, by the way?

The Lakers also played (and swept) teams with:

David Robinson
Chris Webber
Peja Stojaković
Vlade Divac
Rasheed Wallace
Scottie Pippen
Arvydas Sabonis

Not saying the Lakers would definitely beat the 1996 Bulls, but comparative strength of schedule wouldn't be my argument of choice.

[Hair Jordan]

Bulls and not close.

That isn't a defensible position at all, particularly given that they never faced anyone as good as Shaq in the playoffs, and never faced a perimeter star as good as Kobe in the playoffs either, let alone together.

Why is it not a defensible position? Also, how can you say the ‘96 Bulls never beat anyone as good as Shaq in the playoffs? The ‘96 Bulls BEAT SHAQ IN THE PLAYOFFS (Bulls vs Magic - ECF) The ‘97 and ‘98 Bulls beat the same Utah team that demolished the Shaq / Kobe Lakers 4-1 and 4-0. The 2000 Lakers were a 4th quarter Blazers choke job away from elimination and the 2002 Lakers needed the refs and a thousand FT’s to get by Sacramento. The Lakers were a shaky 3-peat team if there ever was one. In 2001, Iverson and a bunch of bums took game 1 off of the Lakers in LA. Those Shaq / Kobe teams lost twice to Utah, lost to San Antonio, lost to Detroit and SHOULD have lost to Portland and Sacramento. The ‘96 Bulls would do just fine. I can see then winning this matchup 4-1 or 4-2.