Which Chicago Bulls 3Peat Team Was Better?

[Black Mamba 24]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

Second one. They were like Rockstars then. And the second threepeat was when Pippen took over the team.

I wouldn't say Pippen took it over, more like finally became the equal they always envisioned him to be.

[ScottVdub]

i think 91-93 they had the better team.

[Hakeem]

I think the top-level competition was significantly worse during the Bulls' second three-peat.

Some of those early '90s sides that didn't win were terrific. Like the Drexler-Porter-Kersey-Cliff-Buck-Duckworth-Ainge Blazers. And the Jazz, who featured a prime Malone and Stockton and that other Malone and a bunch of good defenders. And the Magic-led Lakers. And the incredibly deep Sonics. And the Run TMC Warriors. And an awesome offensive team in the Barkley-KJ Suns. And Riley's Knicks, possibly the best defensive team in NBA history. And the Spurs, featuring a young David Robinson (who was named DPOY in a year in which the league was thick with great candidates), a young Sean Elliott, a young Rod Strickland, a young Avery Johnson, and Terry Cummings. And that Rockets side that finished the '93 season 41-11, blowing out most of the aforementioned teams in the process, including the Bulls and the Suns twice.

In '96 you had the brilliant but dysfunctional Shaq-Penny Magic that had been swept in the Finals the previous year. A deep Pacers side led by Reggie Miller and Rik Smits. Pretty much the same Spurs side, only older and with Rodman instead of Cummings. A similar Jazz side (better at SG, worse at C, and with Stockton starting to decline). And a brilliant Sonics team. That's it. Oh, there was also the Lakers, whose best players were Cedric Ceballos (a bench player on the '93 Suns) and Magic making his short-lived comeback.

The Bulls of the first three-peat had Jordan in his absolute prime. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were about to become All-Stars. And Pippen wasn't really any worse than he was in '96.

[ChiBron]

Originally Posted by Black Mamba 24

The first 3-peat took down some of the best team's ever in its path. Those included: 80's Celtics

How can the Bulls beat the 80's Celtics when they 3-peated in the 90's? The only time an MJ-led Bulls team faced the Celtics was in the '86 and '87 playoffs, and they got swept both times.

Barkley's 76ers

I hope this is a joke. Barkley's 76ers were always a low seed and Bulls defeated them handily in '90 and '91.

John Paxson / BJ Armstrong > Ron Harper / Steve Kerr
More Electric Michael Jordan > Older MJ
Scottie Pippen < Scottie Pippen
Horace Grant > Dennis Rodman
Bill Cartwright > Luc Longely

Umm, whatever happened to Kukoc? The 1st 3peat had nobody like Kukoc and the only definite edge it has is Prime MJ>'95-98 MJ.

[Adol]

Originally Posted by futuristxen

And the second threepeat was when Pippen took over the team.

Poppycock.

[Black Mamba 24]

You mean to tell me, Bill Cartwright isn't better than Luc Longely?

[JPSeraph]

This is always a difficult topic since both sides have good arguments. The first three-peat was my favorite due to Michael being in his prime as a player. I don't know if, say, the 92 squad was really better than the 96 squad, but it's definitely not as simple as comparing W-L records.

Suffice to say, I believe that the 92 Bulls could have three-peated from 96-98 and the 96 Bulls could have three-peated from 91-93. Once MJ, Pip, and PJ tasted blood, they weren't going to make it easy for anybody else.

Seeing the Bulls play Hakeem's Rockets during the 93-96 period would have been great. Or facing off against some of the more recent championship teams like the Shaq-Kobe Lakers or Duncan's Spurs; both of whom I believe were superior to the teams Chicago faced in the Playoffs during their dual three-peats.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally Posted by Black Mamba 24

Not true. That first 3 peat squad played in a MUCH more difficult, and physical league.

Bulls record
1991: 61-21
1992: 67-15
1993: 57-35

Is that not dominating? they had the best record in the league for every year, except the in 1993. The Bulls in the second three peat, literally got bored with themselves because the competition wasn't as stiff. The firs three-peat dominated in a VERY, VERY strong NBA era.

Wrong.

The Blazers had the best league record in 91.

It's hard to compare the two threepeat teams.

On paper the first threepeat team looks better but the second threepeat team had the best chemistry of any Bulls team I have watched.

I also wouldn't say that the first threepeat was in a very strong era.

When the Bulls won 67 games in 92 the East was going through a transition. The Pistons were no longer a powerhouse. The Celtics were aging. The Knicks were finally coming into their own.

In the West, Magic retired. The Blazers were loaded with talent, Jazz were younger, Warriors were pretenders, the Suns still pre-Barkley.

In 96' when the Bulls won 72 games the East were an emerging conference. The Magic had an unforgettable starting lineup but were young and immature, Pacers were coming into their own, Knicks were no longer a powerhouse.

You could argue though that the West was stronger. The Sonics were loaded and finally overcame the underachiever postseason label, DRob finally got help by the name of Elliot, Jazz were maturing, Magic came back from retirement, Rockets still lethal despite winning 48 games (1 more than the previous season when they won the championship).

Honestly I don't think there was that huge of a discrepency. I will also say the 90s league was stronger but not overwhelmingly stronger. It is not like the Bulls were facing the former powerhouses Pistons and Celtics. Those two teams had declined by then due to aging and injuries. Plus in 97 when the Bulls won 69 games, 6 teams in the East had 50+ wins. The West was also stronger than the year before with Shaq trading sides. I actually think their 69 win season is more impressive than their 72 win season especially when you consider Rodman and Kukoc missed 32 games combined. Fact is the 2nd threepeat team was so good that even in 98 when Pippen missed 38 games they still won 62 games. The Bull's first threepeat team was also good considering they won 55 games minus MJ with the core team still intact in 94'.

Both threepeat teams are close. I think most people often side with first threepeat because of a prime MJ and it is hard to argue against that.

[Hoopla]

Even though the 1995-96 team had the better record, I always felt the 1991-92 version was the best Bulls team I saw.

[ChiBron]

Originally Posted by Hoopla

Even though the 1995-96 team had the better record, I always felt the 1991-92 version was the best Bulls team I saw.

That team lost 7 games in the postseason though. None of the other 5 champions lost that many.

[Minstrel]

I have trouble selecting against the second threepeat team, considering it's one of the only times in any sport that a team winning the championship was almost a foregone conclusion.

The Bulls from 1995-96 through their breakup simply tore through the league, to the extent that, if healthy, they seemed only to lose due to disinterest (their losses often came to teams like the Raptors or Nuggets). I've rarely seen dominance on that level. The first threepeat team, while fantastic, was just a dynamic team with a great chance. It wasn't their championship to lose, like it was for the Bulls in the second threepeat.

I don't think the league difficulty was considerably different, to account for the vast difference in dominance.

[dwade3]

[QUOTE=SPMJ]How can the Bulls beat the 80's Celtics when they 3-peated in the 90's? The only time an MJ-led Bulls team faced the Celtics was in the '86 and '87 playoffs, and they got sweptQUOTE]

yeah but then they beat the detroit pistons who beat the celtics......see, its a cycle....

[Hakeem]

Originally Posted by Minstrel

The Bulls from 1995-96 through their breakup simply tore through the league, to the extent that, if healthy, they seemed only to lose due to disinterest (their losses often came to teams like the Raptors or Nuggets).

They also often struggled against teams with good big men. Rodman wasn't the defender he was earlier in his career (wasn't very consistent, and he was better at guarding smaller guys, anyway), and Luc Longley didn't play much defense at all (or rebound, for that matter). Fortunately for the Bulls, most of the good centers and power forwards were declining and/or not on very good teams.

In '96, 9 of their 10 regular season losses were to such teams -- Orlando (Shaq), Seattle (Kemp), Denver (Mutombo), Phoenix (Barkley), Miami (Mourning), Charlotte (Larry Johnson), and Indiana, twice (Smits).

In '97, 10 of their 13 losses came that way -- Utah (Malone), Atlanta (Mutombo), Houston (Olajuwon), Lakers (Elden Campbell -- he wasn't on the level of some of these other guys, I know, but he appears to have killed them), Washington (Webber and Howard), Detroit (Otis Thorpe and Terry Mills), and Miami and New York, twice each.

'98 is even more striking -- 19 of their 20 losses were to teams with very good big men or above-average big men who played very well against them in those games.

Of course, it was a different story in the playoffs, but still, it suggests that the Bulls of the second three-peat did have a significant weakness. Who knows how they would have fared against the early '90s Suns, Rockets, Knicks, Spurs, Blazers, Cavs, Hawks and Jazz?

[Gilgamesh]

Originally Posted by Hakeem

They also often struggled against teams with good big men. Rodman wasn't the defender he was earlier in his career (wasn't very consistent, and he was better at guarding smaller guys, anyway), and Luc Longley didn't play much defense at all (or rebound, for that matter). Fortunately for the Bulls, most of the good centers and power forwards were declining and/or not on very good teams.

In '96, 9 of their 10 regular season losses were to such teams -- Orlando (Shaq), Seattle (Kemp), Denver (Mutombo), Phoenix (Barkley), Miami (Mourning), Charlotte (Larry Johnson), and Indiana, twice (Smits).

In '97, 10 of their 13 losses came that way -- Utah (Malone), Atlanta (Mutombo), Houston (Olajuwon), Lakers (Elden Campbell -- he wasn't on the level of some of these other guys, I know, but he appears to have killed them), Washington (Webber and Howard), Detroit (Otis Thorpe and Terry Mills), and Miami and New York, twice each.

'98 is even more striking -- 19 of their 20 losses were to teams with very good big men or above-average big men who played very well against them in those games.

Of course, it was a different story in the playoffs, but still, it suggests that the Bulls of the second three-peat did have a significant weakness. Who knows how they would have fared against the early '90s Suns, Rockets, Knicks, Spurs, Blazers, Cavs, Hawks and Jazz?

That was certainly a weakness. The Bulls never had a strong center on either threepeat team. It was always the biggest criticism against the teams.

But those losses you listed during their 72 win season:

Rodman did not play in their loss against the Magic and Sonics.

Longley did not play in their loss against the Nuggets, Suns, and Hornets.

In their 69 win season:

Rodman did not play in their loss against the Rockets, Lakers, Bullets, Pistons, Heat (Apr 14), and Knicks (Apr 19).

Longley did not play in their loss against the Heat (Dec 7) and Hawks.

It was a weakness that the Bulls managed to overcome in the playoffs especially when you look at the teams they beat to get to the championship but Rodman and Longley missed a number of those games in which they lost against teams with good big men.

I'm not sure how well the first threepeat Bulls minus a Horace Grant due to injury would fare as well. In the 96 and 97 season, Rodman missed a total of 45 games in the regular season due to suspensions and injuries. When he was on court the team was 105-14 (.882). Longley missed 43 games in 96-97 and 67 games 96-98.

Fortunately for the first threepeat Bulls' teams Grant only missed 10 games in 91-93. Cartwright missed 40 games in 91-93.

It's speculation how the second threepeat team would fare against those early 90s teams you listed but we know is they did play very well against the Spurs (who still had a prime Admiral), destroyed the Magic in the 96 playoffs and they did beat the Jazz in two finals (during Malone's MVP years). Even among some of the teams you listed in their losses in the 96' and 97' seasons they still had a record of:

2-0 vs Spurs (I only listed their 96' record since Admiral was injured in the 97' season)
3-1 vs Rockets
3-1 vs Magic (I only listed their 96' record since Shaq left the next season)
3-1 vs Sonics
5-3 vs Heat
3-1 vs Lakers
7-1 vs Hornets (The Hornets still had quality big men in 97 in Divac and Mason)
3-1 vs Jazz
6-1 vs Bullets
5-3 vs Knicks
6-2 vs Pacers

That is a combined regular season record of 46-15 (.754). So even though it was a weakness they still pretty much dominated against teams with good big men.

[ChiBron]

Originally Posted by Hakeem

Who knows how they would have fared against the early '90s Suns, Rockets, Knicks, Spurs, Blazers, Cavs, Hawks and Jazz?

But we do know how they fared in the early 90's against those teams - they beat 'em ALL. An MJ-led Bulls team never lost to the Knicks, Blazers, Cavs and the Suns in the playoffs. All of 'em had very good inside players. Their overall record against those teams during the 2nd 3peat is very good too(as Gilgamesh pointed out). They also beat MVP-level Malone in '97 and '98 in the playoffs. So we KNOW how they fared.