The Lies About the 90s Bulls
One of the most frustrating things about modern basketball discourse is the way it’s devolved into dishonest, mean-spirited, belittling matches. I remember a time where I used to debate my friends and fellow NBA fans and the aim was to speak highly of my team or my favorite player in a way that convinces you that they are the best. But nowadays, people think that isn’t enough. In the minds of modern fans, what’s more important than building up a case for their guy is manufacturing a case to tear down yours. These disingenuous approaches have slowly built up a lot of false narratives about many teams and many players across every era. And unfortunately, after these lies have been regurgitated so many times, it slowly becomes the common belief among the basketball community. Now, I would love to turn this into a series where I expose the lies about things like ‘ 60s basketball, ‘8s basketball, and yes, even the modern NBA. But today, we’re looking specifically at a couple of lies about the Bulls dynasty. One of the narratives you constantly hear from fans that want to belittle the Bulls is that their competition wasn’t that strong. They quote never beat a super team. They think that’s a legitimate claim. But even if it was, it’s not the win that they think it is. Because the truth is, the Bulls beat the teams that beat the super teams. At the start of the 1996 to 1997 season, the Houston Rockets had formed one of the scariest teams ever seen on paper up until that point. When Charles Barkley joined Aake Elijahan and Clyde Drexler, just one year removed from their most recent championship. Elijahan was still putting up strong numbers on both ends of the court while finishing seventh that season in the MVP voting. Charles Barkley was still a 20 points per game scorer while finishing second in the league that season in rebounds per game, averaging a monstrous 13.5. Clyde Drexler was an all-star as well with very impressive averages for a third option of 18 points, six rebounds, six assists, and two steals. This was a legitimate super team. And a lot of people thought that Houston would be representing the Western Conference once again in the NBA Finals. And the truth is, contrary to popular belief, they came very, very close. After sweeping Kevin Garnett and the Minnesota Timberwolves in the first round, they then eliminated the defending West champions, the Seattle SuperSonics, in a seven-game battle. Then they pushed the Utah Jazz to a sixth game. And it almost went even further, but John Stockton hit a game-winning three at the buzzer to send Utah to the NBA finals. Now, people try to discredit this Rockets team, saying they were old and they never stood a real chance. But that’s one of the silliest things that someone could possibly say, and it proves that they lack the proper context. For one, the whole league was old at that point. The 96 to97 NBA season is tied for the third oldest year in NBA history. This was possible because the pace of play had slowed down to the slowest it had ever been in the game’s history. This meant that older veteran players could pace themselves better and last longer into the season in their top form. Yes, Hakeim Elijahan was 34, Clyde Drexler was 34, and Charles Barkley was 33, but the two teams who made it to the finals were practically the same as the Jazz were led by the 34year-old John Stockton, Carl Malone, who was 33, and Jeff Hornosk, who was also 33. Then for Chicago, Michael Jordan was 34, Scotty Pippen was 31, and Dennis Rodman was 35. Basically, all of the best teams in the league were old and led by stars in their mid30s. So to then use that against Houston as a way to discredit them as a legitimate threat is completely nonsensical and shows a tremendous amount of bias. Now, here’s something that might sound even crazier. It wasn’t the Jazz or the Rockets who were the Western Conference preseason favorites to make it to the finals in 1997. No, that was actually the Los Angeles Lakers who just added a prime age Shaquille O’Neal to an already strong 53 win playoff roster. The core of Los Angeles was a 25-year-old Shaq who averaged 26,12, three assists, and three blocks. Their shooting guard was the all-star Eddie Jones, who was one of the best two-way wings in the entire league. Their point guard was Nick the Quick Van Exel, who was one of the most clutch shot makers in the league. He had an incredible handle and was the dazzling main attraction for a couple of years before Shaq showed up. And off the bench, they had a promising young rookie named Kobe Bryant. Even with all of this firepower, the Jazz eliminated these preseason favorite Lakers in the second round in just five games. And yet, the Lakers came back the following season even stronger. Now, Kobe’s game had improved significantly as he finished second in the six-man of the year voting. Shaq was as good as ever, and even Nick Vanexel and Eddie Jones had improved. This Lakers team won 61 regular season games and their top four players were all selected to be all-stars. Consider this. This is the only Lakers team in NBA history to have four allstars on the team simultaneously. The championship expectations had grown even stronger in Los Angeles. And what happened? They ended up getting swept in the Western Conference Finals once again at the hands of the Utah Jazz. This Jazz team who kept knocking out super teams was the same Jazz squad that lost to the Bulls in the NBA Finals in six games in back-to back seasons. So, yes, the competition the Bulls had at the end of their dynasty was incredibly fierce, regardless of what infantile critics want you to believe. The funny thing is some of the criticisms they make about age they also try to apply to the beginning of the Bulls dynasty as well. After three straight years of being eliminated by the Detroit Pistons, Chicago had finally developed their roster to a point where they were ready to overthrow the Bad Boy Pistons. In the 1991 Eastern Conference Finals, the Bulls sent a message by sweeping the Pistons out of the playoffs with an average margin of victory of 11.5 points. The thing is, biased critics and even some of the Detroit Pistons players try to use the excuse that Detroit was old and their time was up. So, in other words, the Bulls took advantage of an easy opportunity, but that’s just simply not true. Their best player, Isaiah Thomas, was 29. And their second best player, Joe Dumar, was 27, which means that their star tandem that led them to back-to-back championships were in the prime ages of their careers. Dennis Rodman had just won his second straight defensive player of the year award, and he was just 29 as well. Sure, Bill Lambir was 33 and Mark Aguire was 31, but even that is not that old. by the NBA standards. Now, sure, you can make the excuse that it wasn’t really about their age, but it was about their wear and tear of going deep into the playoffs year after year. But what I would say to that is that the 1960 Celtics never needed that excuse. The San Antonio Spurs dynasty never needed that excuse, and even the Chicago Bulls who beat them never needed that excuse, as they remained elite well into their mid30s. The reality is people will continue to try to reframe it and use revisionist history to discredit the Chicago Bulls dynasty of the 1990s. But the truth is that their level of competition in that era was incredibly fierce and formidable. They just happened to dominate so hard that it makes it easy to believe that it wasn’t. So, what do you guys think? What is a lie told about a certain aspect of the NBA? I look forward to hearing your thoughts in the comment section below. And I’m going to say it every video, shout out to the members for saving this channel. Thanks for watching. As always, make sure to like and subscribe for more basketball content. And I’ll see you guys in the next video.
A look at some of the Bulls competition in the 1990s, and exposing the lies about their success.
NBA Basketball is my passion, and on my channel, I make documentaries and tell Basketball stories about NBA History.
On my channel, you’ll learn new things about Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Wilt Chamberlain, Steph Curry, LeBron James, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and more!
Subscribe to my channel for more NBA History and Stories.
#nba #basketball #nbahistory
26 comments
What is popular or semi-popular narrative that is flat out LIE?
The first four the second best team in the league were also in the east.
They were my first super team. I remember when they got Harper and rodman and then Toni. I was like this team is unreal and it was a super team and there weren't any other
Barkley was overrated. He might be the worst player to ever win an MVP. Charles was never even the best forward in the league let alone the best all around player
You should definitely extrapolate 90 numbers to today's
They are really scary taking defense into account
Same logic can be applied to the eastern conference during Lebron's dominance. I won't say every team he faced was amazing or anything, but there were some legitimately good teams in there that get discredited because Lebron's team didn't let them see the finals
They beat everyone on the way to six. Hard enough to win one but they 3PEAT twice. Best player, great rosters, and great coaching.
Why is every one hating on the bulls …or the goat Jordan
The whole rockets super team wasn't going to be anything special. They were old and we knew it at the time. I usually agree with most of your opinions but not on this. The league was diluting itself with expansion teams thinning out assembling talent loaded teams. The 80s celtics had 4 or 5 hall of famers, lakers had 3, 76ers had 4. The 90s bulls never had to deal with a loaded team, it's as simple as that. Jordan and the bulls did rule the 90s but the resistance they had to go against was nothing like the greatest age in basketball which was the 80s.
Bulls 96 forever the best one
The funny thing is that Bill laimbeer was a very good 3 points shooter and today would be very good
Everybody
They beat the best teams the NBA had to offer. Specifically those 2 Jazz teams, Pacers, and Sonics, who had all built up experience over years of letdowns.
Playoffs come down to matchups and execution and coaching so often. As a Sonics fan I hated it when that Lakers coach torched GK. Still find it remarkable in 96 they were starting 3 6'10 + players and guards 6'3 and 6'4. They matched well v Stockton and Hornacek but poorly v Harper and Jordan.
Very entertaining years regardless of 0 rings, miss the Sonics.
They beat any team any era period. Bulls wins and sweep.
Thank you. This is the definitive dunk on the haters.
Bro u need to debate Shannon sharp, Nick wrong and Gilbert arenas
Jordan is the goat, the 96 bulls were the best, the 90"s bulls beat some great teams. The Blazers, Jazz and suns were all stacked stacked. The Knicks and Pacers were very tough as were the defending back to back champion pistons.
The biggest lie of all is that Jordan did it by himself. There were 3 other HOF players on those teams. Patrick Ewing deserves more credit because he may not have won in all but he drug his team to the brink over and over practically by himself
who'd they beat????? EVERYBODY!!!!! You're right, 6 in a row isn't very good.
Don't let these people move the narrative. I remember and watched all those finals, and the Bulls competition was stellar. It's a crock of bull whoever is saying different
Thanks for this analysis on the 90's NBA…at the end you referenced the Pistons ages…wow. The defense and playmaking were on display. 👍🏽
This is the result of Clutch Sports and LeBron trying to destroy the history of the league.
Rockets start with 20 wins and 2 losses, best team in the NBA, ahead the Bulls. Injuries and weak support have been the problems in Houston. Behind the big three, some of them are old. Eddie Johnson, Kevin Willis. Or too weak to play in the starting five, Matt Maloney.
You ought to be making the kind of money Stephen A. Smith makes for the gospel you have been preaching. Thank you Mr. Arnett and Godspeed
Thats suns 1993 team was weak.
Today's mba blows