Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As we all know, Jordan and the Bulls won a ship in 98 and walked into basketball history as probably the greatest dynasty in the history of the NBA (yes, I know about Bill Russell's run).
The next year, in 99, the Spurs went on a historical 15-2 run to win their first title with the Duncan and Robinson.
If MJ and the Bulls stay together, do they win in 99 as well?
Eventually they would have had to lose at some point because father time is undefeated. Would that have been the year they were finally taken, or would they have won number 7?
I say no. You look at 98, the Pacers took them to their limit in the ECF. Pippen had back surgery in the summer of 98 after the 6th title, and was never the same after that. Jordan was still Jordan but there were signs( albeit minor) of slippage. My feeling is the Spurs would have beat them in 99. The Duncan-Robinson combo would have neutralized Jordan's greatness with a diminished Pippen and an otherwise aging roster.
That is part of the Bulls mystique; unlike other notable dynasties they were broken up as Champions so there was no natural 'right of passage' where the young up and comers took them out in route to a title.
i agree with greg
the spurs that year were arguably the best defensive team to ever win a title. duncan and robinson were beasts on defense, and their offense was great as well. the spurs had clutch players like sean elliott (as homer as he is), avery was passing, stealing, defending. duncan and robinson averaged 5 blocks per game in the playoffs combined, not to mention their 21.4 rebounds per game to go with their 38.8 ppg.
rodmans defense and rebounding was still very good but not the top of his game, pippen was great as well, but as stated, he was a shell after that off season. jordan was still jordan and would be good to win a game alone but he couldnt carry an entire series vs the spurs like that, that late in his career. the 1998 playoffs was jordans worst for assists, 2nd worst for rebounding, 2nd worst for ft %, lowest for steals
Quote:
A forgotten great team because of the lockout, the Spurs began the year 6-8 … and then went 46-7 the rest of the way, with nary a losing streak. An awesome defensive squad led by big men David Robinson and Tim Duncan, San Antonio's 84.7 points allowed per game is far and away the least of any of these 70 squads. That 15-2 postseason mark ain't too shabby either, including sweeps of the Blazers and Lakers. So stingy was the defense that only twice in 17 playoff games did San Antonio's opponent muster 90 points.
The Spurs would have owned the front court with guys like Tim Duncan and David Robinson and having an injured Scottie Pippen would have put tremendous pressure on Micheal Jordan. It's not like Jordan couldn't handle the pressure but he probably would've had to score at least 40+ points a night just to win. The Spurs would have most likely double or triple teamed Jordan every possession. I predict the Spurs would've won the series in 6 or 7 games.
Seriously doubt it. The 1999 season was a shortened one and IIRC there were a lot of back-to-back games, regular season and playoffs, and there wasn't much of a training camp. The 1998 Bulls barely got by Indiana and in game 6 of the finals, Jordan pretty much carried the team to a one point win. Also, that team got off to a very slow start at the beginning of the regular season, they were barely above .500 in the early stages due to Pippen sitting out. It wasn't until he returned that the Bulls started their winning ways again.
So if there was ever a "right of passage" as Greg1977 put it, 1999 would in all likelihood been the season.
The power in the league shifted to the Western Conference in 99, even with the beginning of Utah's decline, the Spurs rose to prominence along side Portland followed by the Lakers and Sacramento. The fact that Chicago struggled against Indiana in 98 doesn't really convince me of their supposed "decline". Matchups mean more than anything in the NBA and teams that appear weak on the surface may matchup perfectly against one of the best and stretch the series longer than people thought possible. I think the Spurs would have beaten the Bulls in 99 also. The thing I don't like about the Bulls in the 90's is that people think they can just roll over any and everyone. I argued with my friend one day because he said the 90's Bulls would "roll" over the Showtime Lakers, the Bird-McHale Celtics and the 76ers from the early 80's. That's why I usually cringe when I'm coerced into a discussion involving the Bulls or Michael Jordan. Because I know it's impossible to argue with a Jordan fan. Sorry to rant, lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
