NBA Dynasties and 1999 Title

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.

These types of things don't really have a clear cut definition. I would say they are. Especially if they win the title again this year. Then again, I consider the A's team that won 3 consecutive titles in the 70s to be a dynasty. If you can string together that many titles in a span then you're good enough in my book.

No. Lakers=bad. Spurs=bad. All other teams=decent. Mavs=good.

Steve Kerr said the 2001 Lakers team COULD beat the 1996 Bulls. Everyone at Sportsline interpreted that as saying the 2001 Lakers were a better team. It's bull.

The Bulls had 3 first team all-NBA defenders in Ron Harper, Scottie Pippen, and Michael Jordan. They had a better rebounder in Dennis Rodman, and a 6th man of the year in Toni Kukoc. Steve Kerr also admitted that the 96 Bulls would sweep the 2004 Lakers...which I agree with him wholeheartedly.

What it boils down to is how the teams would match up:

The two best players on each team would probably more or less cancel each other out, except for the fact that we're talking about Michael Jordan. In his absolute prime, he could lead a half-rate team to a title.

After you get past those great players, you looks down the roster. I cannot remember who played for the 2001 Lakers beside Fisher and Horry, and honestly, I'd take Rodman, Kukoc and Kerr over any collection of second-rate "talent" the Lakers had.

Most importantly: Phil Jackson, though a bit overrated, would be coaching the Bulls, not the Lakers. I say this with supreme confidence, take Jackson out of LA and the Lakers don't win more than one title at most. Any other coach put in that position that Jackson assumed when he came to LA would have more than likely had a heart attack. Yet Jackson gets them to play together more often than not.

Jordan's Bulls would've beaten the 2001 Lakers in 5 or 6.

Take care all.