 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Three's company Determining NBA's best three-peat is tough call to makePosted: Friday June 14, 2002 1:03 PMUpdated: Friday June 14, 2002 3:23 PM
EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- The Lakers' three-peat is in the books. But where does it rank in NBA history? "People will be talking a lot about it," Lakers forward Robert Horry said. "We swept, so they're going to say we didn't have as much competition. But it's hard to get to this point. We had the most dominant player to play the game. Nobody can stop Shaq, so people will compare the two, but I don't think even if we played the [old] Bulls they could have stopped Shaq." Michael Jordan might disagree. After all, Jordan's 1996 Bulls team swept Shaq's Orlando Magic out of the playoffs en route to their second three-peat. Meanwhile, Celtics legend Red Auerbach would probably choke on his cigar at the suggestion that either team could hold a candle to his old Boston squads. The Celtics three-peated twice, consecutively, from 1959 to 1964. Then they tacked on two more for good measure. Eight straight titles? How can the Lakers or Bulls even dare to compare? Picking the best all-time three-peat is like picking the best piece of art in the Louvre. It's really a matter of taste. They're all masterpieces. In terms of overall talent, the Celtics' three-peats win hands-down. Boston's 1962-63 squad featured eight future Hall of Famers (Bill Russell, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, Frank Ramsey, K.C. Jones and Clyde Lovellette). Not exactly two stars and a bunch of role players, like today's champions. However, Boston played in an era when there were only eight teams (nine starting in '61) and the postseason lasted just two rounds. Auerbach's Celtics never had to face the grueling playoff death march teams do today. Boston won its first three-peat by going 24-10 overall and its second by going 24-13 overall; the Bulls (45-13 both times) and the Lakers (45-13) had far more pitfalls to navigate. In terms of athletic ability, there's no way the '60s Celtics could compete with the '90s Bulls or this year's Lakers. Other than Russell (6-foot-10) and Heinsohn (6-foot-7), Boston would be considered a bunch of smurfs by today's standards. They might have been able to run a mean three-man weave and box out, but they would have been overmatched physically by today's giants and greyhounds. As for the Bulls vs. Lakers, it's a close call. The Bulls had to go against Magic Johnson and James Worthy in '91, against Clyde Drexler in '92, against Charles Barkley in '93, against Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp in '96 and against Utah's Karl Malone and John Stockton in '97 and '98. Jordan was tested by the league's best, men his own size or bigger, and came through with flying colors. By comparison, Shaq has enjoyed the benefits of a league devoid of centers. Is he really that dominant, or are there just so few true big men out there to make him work? The only two teams that had legit centers, the Blazers (Arvydas Sabonis) and Kings (Vlade Divac), gave the Lakers their biggest scares during their three-peat years. Give Shaq's Lakers the edge over the latter Bulls of Luc Longley and an aging Jordan, but not the Bulls' first three-peat group of 1991-93. With an in-his-prime Jordan to check Kobe Bryant and 7-foot-1 Bill Cartwright to defend Shaq, Chicago would have kept L.A.'s 1-2 punch in check. Meanwhile, Scottie Pippen would have been free to wreak defensive havoc, double-teaming Shaq from all angles while not having to worry about Rick Fox. The matchup of a young and athletic Horace Grant against Horry also would have gone in Chicago's favor, while John Paxson and Derek Fisher would have been a wash. Even Lakers assistant Jim Cleamons, who was on Phil Jackson's staff during Chicago's title runs, says the Bulls' defense would have been able to contain Shaq. "With Michael and Scottie, we didn't let you get into your offense," he said. "They took away your first and second options." The current Lakers do own the clear distinction of being the most dominant three-peat team. During the past two title runs, they have gone 30-5, including last year's record 15-1 stampede to the title. While they might not have had the strongest competition in the Finals (Indiana, Philly, New Jersey), it was the best the league had to offer. Besides, the Lakers aren't through yet. If they were to win a fourth consecutive title next year, they just might put the argument to rest. As Bryant says, "We really have to stand the test of time. I think it's a little too early right now." Marty Burns covers pro basketball for CNNSI.com. Click here to send Marty a question or comment.
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
