Dingo Jellybean
05-17-2004, 03:37 PM
Okay, is it just me or do I have a hard time finding this Lakers team a true dynasty?
By definition, they probably are since they'll practically win the 4th title in 5 years...but isn't that because the rest of the league is so bad? Which brings me to the 1999 NBA title won by San Antonio.
They went 37-13 during the 50 game regular season and 15-2 in the playoffs. They were dominant for that year. But it was a strike shortened season and the Bulls were completely dismantled. I was discussing this on the CBS Sportsline forums (my nick is dingojbean) and a few people think it was half a championship because of the strike season. Personally, I thought it wasn't a completelt title because of the shortened season, but when the Spurs won the title last year, it helped reinforce that 1999 title because you still had Kerr, Robinson, and Duncan that beat the 3 time champs in the Lakers. So if San Antonio didn't beat LA last year, yes, I would've thought it wasn't a complete championship.
Saying that, if the 1998 Bulls team were kept intact, would San Antonio beat them? My answer is no. Although yes, Kerr was in SA, he would've been in Chicago. Out west that year, no one would have stopped San Antonio, even during the full regular season year (remember folks, San Antonio SWEPT a Kobe and Shaq LA team). You also have to remember, the quality of play is down since 1998. No more great centers like Mourning, Olajuwon, Robinson, or Ewing. You loss great PGs in John Stockton, Magic, and Isiah Thomas. Pippen was no longer great, and Bird and Jordan had already retired. Now you have ill-legit high school players who couldn't rebound in a tight game for the life of them. If the 2004 Lakers would've played any of the 6 Bulls championship teams, they would've been swept or been beaten in 5 games.
So yeah...thoughts would be nice.
By definition, they probably are since they'll practically win the 4th title in 5 years...but isn't that because the rest of the league is so bad? Which brings me to the 1999 NBA title won by San Antonio.
They went 37-13 during the 50 game regular season and 15-2 in the playoffs. They were dominant for that year. But it was a strike shortened season and the Bulls were completely dismantled. I was discussing this on the CBS Sportsline forums (my nick is dingojbean) and a few people think it was half a championship because of the strike season. Personally, I thought it wasn't a completelt title because of the shortened season, but when the Spurs won the title last year, it helped reinforce that 1999 title because you still had Kerr, Robinson, and Duncan that beat the 3 time champs in the Lakers. So if San Antonio didn't beat LA last year, yes, I would've thought it wasn't a complete championship.
Saying that, if the 1998 Bulls team were kept intact, would San Antonio beat them? My answer is no. Although yes, Kerr was in SA, he would've been in Chicago. Out west that year, no one would have stopped San Antonio, even during the full regular season year (remember folks, San Antonio SWEPT a Kobe and Shaq LA team). You also have to remember, the quality of play is down since 1998. No more great centers like Mourning, Olajuwon, Robinson, or Ewing. You loss great PGs in John Stockton, Magic, and Isiah Thomas. Pippen was no longer great, and Bird and Jordan had already retired. Now you have ill-legit high school players who couldn't rebound in a tight game for the life of them. If the 2004 Lakers would've played any of the 6 Bulls championship teams, they would've been swept or been beaten in 5 games.
So yeah...thoughts would be nice.