OT: 1996 Bulls vs. 2016 Warriors

[Guinness]

Basketball is supposed to be a graceful, fluid and high-scoring game.

Like the 'Cuse in the late 80s, early 90's! Watching our offense now is so painful but I digress ..

 

[alphaorange]

The '96 Bulls had 3 NBA 1st team All Defense players on it. People thinking the Warriors would light up the score board like they are now, are nuts. It was very hard to get a mis-match on the Bulls from switching, hard to get out ahead of them for easy baskets, and hard to beat them 1 on 1. Curry would score because he has such range but I really think the Bulls win in 5. Jordan would average 35 and Rodman would average 17 or 18 boards. Warriors are great in todays NBA but the Bulls were great in any time.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

The Pistons, hand-checking, etc. was just absolutely horrible for the sport, in my opinion. Basketball is supposed to be a graceful, fluid and high-scoring game.

I agree with this. But it hasn't happened until the last few seasons. It is interesting that the scoring started going down in 1996. Teams scored more in the early to mid 90s. Only three years ago the ppg minus FTs in the NBA was 81.4 compared to 1996 being at 80 ppg. So with a more open game we were seeing the average team score only 1.4 more points in play.

The dark ages were really 1997 to 2007. All 11 of those season teams scored less points from baskets than in 1996. The last 3 years have been great as teams have averaged about 3 more points per game each. It is interesting that of the last 25 seasons 1993 was 2nd best compared to this season being the best.

 

[rrlbees]

How do people see a hypothetical series between these two all-time great teams playing out? Chicago: Harper Jordan Pippen Rodman Longley Bench: Kerr, Wennington, Brown, Buechler, Salley Golden State: Curry Thompson Barnes Green Bogut Bench: Iguodala, Livingston, Barbosa, Ezeli, Rush

GS is a great team. Curry is a great player. But I'd go with the team that has that Jordan guy and the better defense. Bulls in 5-6.

 

[Knicks411]

Isn't the right answer here probably that if the game happens under 96 rules the Bulls win and in 2016 rules the Warriors do? I think the Bulls would struggle to make 3's. They had great defenders, but I'm not sure who chases Steph around. And all of their centers would be unplayable (which might actually help them)

A lineup where the bulls went Harper/Jordan/Pippen/kukoc/Rodman against the Warriors death lineup of Steph/Klay/Iggy/Barnes/Draymond would be amazing.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

Isn't the right answer here probably that if the game happens under 96 rules the Bulls win and in 2016 rules the Warriors do? I think the Bulls would struggle to make 3's. They had great defenders, but I'm not sure who chases Steph around. And all of their centers would be unplayable (which might actually help them)

That Bulls team shot 40.3% from three. Someone in the media should ask Kerr if he thinks as a player he would be more effective in today's game. The dude shot 50% from three every year. Yes he was only taking 3 shots per game but still.

 

[Alsacs]

Disagree with this entirely. I watched game 7 of the 84 Finals a couple of weeks ago, and the way the Celtics/Lakers played defense in that game, Steph would of scored 70 against them. Nobody guarded anyone outside of 15 feet. The only player on the court during that game that had any sort of shooting ability to match today's players was Bird.

The 1986 Celtics would eat these teams up today.

Their frontline was Bird, McHale, Parrish and their guards were Dennis Johnson and Danny Ainge. They would be able to post these teams up and score a boatload in the paint.

Dennis Johnson was a lockdown defender. The games were different because defense wasn't emphasized as teams ran for the first 3 quarters and then played tough defense mainly in the 4th quarter.

If Bird played today he would like Dirk Notwizki. He would have sot a lot more 3 pt attempts than he did in the 80's. Bird could shoot but didn't attempt that many 3's.

1996 Bulls could beat the Celtics because of Pippen with Jordan.

These Warriors are special because the league as a whole is a lot better than it was in 1986 or 1996 but I would take those teams because of their elite talent.

 

[Knicks411]

That Bulls team shot 40.3% from three. Someone in the media should ask Kerr if he thinks as a player he would be more effective in today's game. The dude shot 50% from three every year. Yes he was only taking 3 shots per game but still.

Yeah I was just looking at their stats; 40% from 3, but 2 things to keep in mind

1) the line was shorter that year; 22 feet all the way around instead of where it is now. That takes some air out of those numbers.
2) They took 17 3's per game. They'd be 28th in the league in 3PA per game; the Warriors basically take twice as many 3's.

 

[Eric15]

That Bulls team shot 40.3% from three. Someone in the media should ask Kerr if he thinks as a player he would be more effective in today's game. The dude shot 50% from three every year. Yes he was only taking 3 shots per game but still.

I like Steve Kerr, but I feel like he's chronically overrated as a player. Has there ever been a player who never averaged more than 9 ppg in a single season that gets remembered as much as him?

 

[Knicks411]

The 1986 Celtics would eat these teams up today.

Their frontline was Bird, McHale, Parrish and their guards were Dennis Johnson and Danny Ainge. They would be able to post these teams up and score a boatload in the paint.

Dennis Johnson was a lockdown defender. The games were different because defense wasn't emphasized as teams ran for the first 3 quarters and then played tough defense mainly in the 4th quarter.

If Bird played today he would like Dirk Notwizki. He would have sot a lot more 3 pt attempts than he did in the 80's. Bird could shoot but didn't attempt that many 3's.

1996 Bulls could beat the Celtics because of Pippen with Jordan.

These Warriors are special because the league as a whole is a lot better than it was in 1986 or 1996 but I would take those teams because of their elite talent.

I think the athletes today are much better than they were 30 years ago; it would be very interesting to see that Celtics team try and play the way most of the teams do today. I bet Parrish would sit a lot.

 

[Knicks411]

I like Steve Kerr, but I feel like he's chronically overrated as a player. Has there ever been a player who never averaged more than 9 ppg in a single season that gets remembered as much as him?

Is he? I feel like he's considered an incredible shooter (which he was) and not much else. But I could be off on how he's viewed.

 

[Eric15]

Is he? I feel like he's considered an incredible shooter (which he was) and not much else. But I could be off on how he's viewed.

NBATV had a show a few months ago with all these stars just sharing anecdotes and reminiscing about their experiences in the league. It was like Shaq, Reggie Miller, Barkley, Grant Hill, and a couple other stars, and then Steve Kerr. I just didn't understand why he was there.

 

[Knicks411]

NBATV had a show a few months ago with all these stars just sharing anecdotes and reminiscing about their experiences in the league. It was like Shaq, Reggie Miller, Barkley, Grant Hill, and a couple other stars, and then Steve Kerr. I just didn't understand why he was there.

Full Court? They take all the guys they have under contract (must have been a few years ago) and have them BS for a while. It's a great show.
And Kerr is generally real good on those, from what I remember.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Science makes athletes better. Science develops over time.

 

[Alsacs]

Kerr won rings with Phil Jackson (3) and Greg Popovich(2). I don't find him overrated. He had the game winning shot in one NBA Final decisive game(G6 1997) and he helped the Spurs close out the Mavericks in G6 2003 WCF.

I would say he and Robert Horry are the two most successful role players of alltime. Along with Michael Cooper.

 

[Knicks411]

Kerr won rings with Phil Jackson (3) and Greg Popovich(2). I don't find him overrated. He had the game winning shot in one NBA Final decisive game(G6 1997) and he helped the Spurs close out the Mavericks in G6 2003 WCF.

I would say he and Robert Horry are the two most successful role players of alltime. Along with Michael Cooper.

Was trying to figure out what role player won the most titles on the Russell Celtics; looks like Satch Sanders maybe? He won 8. KC Jones also won 8, as did Heinsohn. Tommy was too good though, 6 time all star. So probably Satch Sanders or KC Jones.

 

[Alsacs]

I think the athletes today are much better than they were 30 years ago; it would be very interesting to see that Celtics team try and play the way most of the teams do today. I bet Parrish would sit a lot.

I don't think Parrish would sit. The guy could shoot from the elbow in and he shot the ball really well. Parrish was the perfect role player on that stacked team. Parrish could post, play good D, and wasn't high maintence demanding a lot of shots.
Parrish was on the 1997 Bulls team that won 69 games.

 

[RF2044]

If we're talking college basketball, I certainly agree. But the idea that the NBA has regressed in skill level over the past 30 years is something I definitely disagree with.

Just the raw athleticism and versatility of athletes today would give players from the 80s fits. I can't fathom Dennis Johnson trying to keep Russell Westbrook in front of him.

Eric, I disagree with your assertion. That might be true of a small group of the best teams in the league, but it certainly isn't true of the ENTIRE league. Warriors / Spurs / etc. -- those are great teams with highly skilled players who play outstanding team basketball.

Not sure that the same is true of Minnesota, Philly, and many, many other teams.

Just a pet peeve of mine--some posters often discuss today's NBA as though it is a gilded age where all of the players are bigger, stronger, more athletic, better skilled. Some of them are, but not all of them. Some of today's teams are better than 20 years ago, but not all of them.

 

[Knicks411]

I don't think Parrish would sit. The guy could shoot from the elbow in and he shot the ball really well. Parrish was the perfect role player on that stacked team. Parrish could post, play good D, and wasn't high maintence demanding a lot of shots.
Parrish was on the 1997 Bulls team that won 69 games.

I think they might struggle defensively with Bird/Parish/McHale all seeing the court together.

Eric, I disagree with your assertion. That might be true of a small group of the best teams in the league, but it certainly isn't true of the ENTIRE league. Warriors / Spurs / etc. -- those are great teams with highly skilled players who play outstanding team basketball.

Not sure that the same is true of Minnesota, Philly, and many, many other teams.

Just a pet peeve of mine--some posters often discuss today's NBA as though it is a gilded age where all of the players are bigger, stronger, more athletic, better skilled. Some of them are, but not all of them. Some of today's teams are better than 20 years ago, but not all of them.

Sure. I think the average player of today is better than the average player of (pick your time period of choice) due to any number of factors, but really bad teams are still really bad. (I hesitate to even include the Sixers as an NBA team at this point).

I'm pretty sure the good players of 1986 or 1996 or 1976 would be able to play in the current NBA. There would be an adjustment, but they'd manage.

 

[Eric15]

Just a pet peeve of mine--some posters often discuss today's NBA as though it is a gilded age where all of the players are bigger, stronger, more athletic, better skilled. Some of them are, but not all of them. Some of today's teams are better than 20 years ago, but not all of them.

It would obviously be irrational to say that all players today are more athletic than players from 20 years ago. But certainly the median player in today's league is a superior athlete to the median player in the league decades ago.

 

[Cusefan0307]

The average fan makes 2 mistakes when analyzing this matchup. They overvalue Golden States offense and overvalue Chicago's defense. Per 100 possessions Golden State's D is similar to Chicago's without the handcheck rules. That Bulls team scores as efficiently as Golden State does, but they just didnt play a fast pace. That Chicago team actually shot a higher percentage from 3 in 96 than Golden State has this year. The reason Kerr was so valued is because he shot 51% from three in 96 and for his career he is 45%.

 

[Knicks411]

The average fan makes 2 mistakes when analyzing this matchup. They overvalue Golden States offense and overvalue Chicago's defense. Per 100 possessions Golden State's D is similar to Chicago's without the handcheck rules. That Bulls team scores as efficiently as Golden State does, but they just didnt play a fast pace. That Chicago team actually shot a higher percentage from 3 in 96 than Golden State has this year. The reason Kerr was so valued is because he shot 51% from three in 96 and for his career he is 45%.

I said this before, but the 3 point line being nearly 2 feet shorter helped the Bulls shoot 40% from 3. Plus taking much fewer shots from deep.

But we're talking about 2 of the greatest teams of all time. They're both pretty much awesome at everything.

It's kind of crazy the Bulls had a slightly better offensive efficiency than the Warriors, despite relying a lot less on the 3, which you'd think all else being equal, would increase offense. If you look at the four factors of offense, (Effective FG%, TO%, OR%, and FT/FG) this is how they ranked

Bulls (in order from above)
4th, 1st, 1st, 26th
Warriors
1st, 20th, 20th, 25th

So they were both about the same at drawing fouls (not very good) but the Bulls protected the ball and crushed the offensive glass. The Warriors are only above average at one of the 4, but A) it's the most important one, and B) they're miles ahead of everyone else.

 

[Alsacs]

Eric, I disagree with your assertion. That might be true of a small group of the best teams in the league, but it certainly isn't true of the ENTIRE league. Warriors / Spurs / etc. -- those are great teams with highly skilled players who play outstanding team basketball.

Not sure that the same is true of Minnesota, Philly, and many, many other teams.

Just a pet peeve of mine--some posters often discuss today's NBA as though it is a gilded age where all of the players are bigger, stronger, more athletic, better skilled. Some of them are, but not all of them. Some of today's teams are better than 20 years ago, but not all of them.

Your local team the Timberwolves are like the 2009 OKC Thunder right now. Next year they will be a bottom seed playoff team and a scary opponent. Then 2 years from now they will be a top half Western team.

Towns and Wiggins duo has been impressive. They are just young right now. Philly is an embarrassment to NBA basketball the last 3 years.

The problem today is there are 30 teams and a salary cap. In the 80's you had 23 teams, 90's 27 teams, today 30 teams and the talent is stretched out. If today's salary cap was around the Celtics couldn't afford to keep Bird/Parrish/McHale together or the Lakers keeping Magic/Kareem/Worthy together.

The Bulls drastically underpaid Scottie Pippen and that is why he left after 1998. He was pissed at them for paying Tony Kukoc and not redoing his contract. The Bulls won because they had Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen. They would be fine now because of Max contracts and really only needing to pay those 2 guys which today you can afford to do and build a championship team.

 

[Knicks411]

Your local team the Timberwolves are like the 2009 OKC Thunder right now. Next year they will be a bottom seed playoff team and a scary opponent. Then 2 years from now they will be a top half Western team.

Towns and Wiggins duo has been impressive. They are just young right now. Philly is an embarrassment to NBA basketball the last 3 years.

The problem today is there are 30 teams and a salary cap. In the 80's you had 23 teams, 90's 27 teams, today 30 teams and the talent is stretched out. If today's salary cap was around the Celtics couldn't afford to keep Bird/Parrish/McHale together or the Lakers keeping Magic/Kareem/Worthy together.

The Bulls drastically underpaid Scottie Pippen and that is why he left after 1998. He was pissed at them for paying Tony Kukoc and not redoing his contract. The Bulls won because they had Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen. They would be fine now because of Max contracts and really only needing to pay those 2 guys which today you can afford to do and build a championship team.

I think Pippen really left because Jordan retired and the whole team was basically breaking up. There was no reason for him to stay and win 20 games. (Though the Bulls underpaying him probably didn't help, but I bet if Jordan played in 99 Pippen would have run it back with them)

On the talent being stretched; I think the talent pool is much larger than it's ever been, and a lot larger than say in the 80's when you had 23 teams. There is just much more foreign talent, a lot more people playing basketball than at that time.

On the Wolves; Towns is scary good. I love Porzingis but I wish we had finished last and been able to take him. He's a true franchise changer.

 

[Eric15]

I think Pippen really left because Jordan retired and the whole team was basically breaking up. There was no reason for him to stay and win 20 games. (Though the Bulls underpaying him probably didn't help, but I bet if Jordan played in 99 Pippen would have run it back with them)

On the talent being stretched; I think the talent pool is much larger than it's ever been, and a lot larger than say in the 80's when you had 23 teams. There is just much more foreign talent, a lot more people playing basketball than at that time.

On the Wolves; Towns is scary good. I love Porzingis but I wish we had finished last and been able to take him. He's a true franchise changer.

I always really wanted that 2000 Blazers team to win it all, just to show that Pippen didn't necessarily "need" MJ to succeed. They blew that huge lead in Game 7 against LA and then probably would have beaten Philly.