ESPN Presents: The Last Dance, a 10-part documentary on 97-98 Chicago Bulls

[ojandpizza]

I'm not arguing an element of fatigue/rust didn't exist, I'm arguing that it was way overblown in terms of being the reason they lost. Jordan wasn't the reason they lost, whatever percentage we want to label him as compared to his 96 self he was still dominant for most of that series and more so the reason they were winning rather than not winning. He was the outright scoring leader in 4 of those 6 games, I think it was more so the fact that he wasn't as rusty as he probably should have been was the only reason they weren't swept.

I didn't claim Jordan was supposed to essentially do anything, I was just saying that I'm not even sure dropping 96 Jordan on to that squad where there is no fatigue/rust would have changed the outcome. They made plenty of mistakes doubling Shaq and leaving Horace, he killed them. They had front line defensive issues, rebounding issues, the issues of Jordan never playing with Harper, Luc, Kerr, Toni, Wennington, it was a whole new team for him adjusting to them and them adjusting to him. Jordan being 70, 80, 90, 100% whatever we want to say he was doesn't change any of that. Even having Harper in place of BJ was a massive change in how they were able to defend Orlando's back-court.

And I still feel just Horace being healthy the following year would have made it a highly likely 6 game series like the Seattle one instead of a sweep. Bulls would have still won, they were far better than them that next season regardless of what happened to Nick Anderson.

[ProfessaPackMan]

What’s the difference between overblown and way overblown?

And when you say that it’s overblown, are you talking about now or at the time it was overblown?

[ehh]

Jordan didn't have his normal legs in '94-'95. It was clear. Not only impacting his offense but his defense as well. Does swapping the '96 version of MJ onto that team make CHI win? Tough to say but they would have won Game 1, they won Game 2 and 4 IRL which would have given them a 3-1 lead. They absolutely destroyed Orlando the following postseason and Rodman was the only big addition, not to short change that, but going from losing 4-2 to winning 4-0--Rodman's impact wasn't THAT big. But they also had a chance to build chemistry in '96 and the non-original-3Peat players got used to playing with MJ.

I do agree with OJ and whoever brought it up in the documentary--I think it was Horace Grant--but they made a great point that the '95 team was never going to win it all because of the rebounding/defense gap at the 4. It was post-Horace and pre-Rodman. Kukoc was obviously a very good but very different player, he wasn't bringing those things to the table and this was in the 90s where defense and rebounding were paramount to winning a championship. I think Chicago could have come out of the East but probably wouldn't have beaten Houston. It's interesting that for all the great centers in the 90s--and granted he vanquished the ones in the East--MJ never faced a legendary center in the Finals. It would have been fun to see him go against Hakeem.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by ehh

They absolutely destroyed Orlando the following postseason and Rodman was the only big addition, not to short change that, but going from losing 4-2 to winning 4-0--Rodman's impact wasn't THAT big. But they also had a chance to build chemistry in '96 and the non-original-3Peat players got used to playing with MJ.

See I feel Rodman's addition was that big, that paired with the built chemistry, and Harper's new role as another big defender. But even if Rodman was the only addition we were factoring in Orlando still lost the guy who was giving them 18 & 11 the previous year as well.. The loss of Grant replacement with Koncak was a bigger loss than Chicago's addition of starting Rodman over Toni.. The addition of Rodman also meant he and Luc didn't require doubling Shaq, and also meant Shaq wasn't seeing 30 minutes of action a night with Wennington or Perdue on him as well.

It's easy to say Rodman was the only addition, but both of those teams were completely different from 95 to 96 all things considered.

I do agree with your point about game 1, maybe they take that game as it's the only game MJ really didn't play up to par, and that could have changed everything. I watched game 6 a few weeks ago when I was going through my old game kick, and all these years later he still didn't feel as if I was watching some shell of himself version of him. Like I said we can argue the level of rust, and sure his legs weren't 100% where they would be the next year, but I don't at all buy that it's the only reason they lost the series. I never have believed that, like I said before I feel like he's more so the reason they weren't swept.

[ojandpizza]

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessaPackMan

What’s the difference between overblown and way overblown? And when you say that it’s overblown, are you talking about now or at the time it was overblown?

I'm talking about after the fact, how it's been talked about over the years since it's happened. I've posted about it in the past here plenty of times over the years. Just the documentary brought it back up again and made it relevant.

I'm in a way the opposite of how most look at it though. A lot of people want to bring up that Jordan lost, and then the Jordan side want's to write it off as him being rusty. But I feel like he actually was great for the most part, and the fact that he was as close to his old self as I felt he was should be looked at as greatness rather than just trying to label him as rusty to fight the haters, and it's just as silly for the haters to blame him for a loss when he was the only reason they were even there and likely would have been swept without him anyways.

I just feel like the whole "he was rusty from baseball" line really diminishes 1.) how good he actually looked, 2.) the impact of both Rodman and Grant, 3.) Just how good the 96 team was in general.

To me it wasn't "man MJ just doesn't have the legs", it was "holy **** the best player in the world is back".. It's just the particular team was pretty meh in general.. Remember they were basically a .500 team before he came back, so I thought what he brought to that team was insane.

[jeebs9]

I have a stupid question. Which MJ do you think is the best MJ? I'm talking about of the 6 championship seasons. I'm sure most would pick 1988 as the best stat wise. But only championship seasons.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[jfsolo]

Quote: Originally Posted by jeebs9

I have a stupid question. Which MJ do you think is the best MJ? I'm talking about of the 3 championship seasons. I'm sure most would pick 1988 as the best stat wise. But only championship seasons. Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

To me it's 1991 Mike easily. He could still dominate both ends of the court all game every game, finish over the top of anyone at the rim, double, triple pump and finish in the paint, between multiple defenders, lockdown individual D, steal and block rate still elite, first full season where his turnovers were under 3 a game. By 1992 there was the start of the slippage in the athletic ability that makes 91 peak MJ, IMO.

I also think that the 1991 team is the best Bulls title team. Some pick '92 which I can see, most pick '96, which I strongly disagree with. I know this sounds crazy, but I think that the '91 team would beat, the '96 team in 5 games.

[DamnYanks2]

That 86-87 MJ that scored 37 a game! While scoring efficiently. That's my pick. I understand he was young and ringless, not quite as cerebral at the time. But that's just insane with that said barely even shooting any 3 pointers.

I mean thats just on a whole nother level.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk