OT: 1996 Bulls vs. 2016 Warriors

[RF2044]

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.

But guess what it's been like for the last / previous 10 years of general ineptitude from the T-Wolves? For all of the talk about how amazing the NBA game is today, it sure wasn't the case here.

And I daresay that is the same experience for all but a handful of teams that are playoff quality or contenders. There is some great basketball being played in the NBA right now, no argument there. There's also some terrible basketball being played which is either overlooked or not discussed because everyone is preoccupied with what Golden State is doing right now. If you are team agnostic and just watch NBA coverage on Sundays and in the playoffs, I can see why you'd be enthused. If you're the fan of a losing team [and just to be clear, I am NOT a Minnesota fan] or a team that is consistently bad, then the NBA is more of a grind and far less enjoyable.

Sitting in CNY and watching the Miami Heat because you're fair weather and like Lebron--great experience. Lakers fan the past few years--not so great. I just got back from Houston for the final four. Their season went south early and the local fanbase is distraught [given that they were in the Western finals last year].

 

[pfister1]

I would take any team with Michael Jordan on it. The guy is simply one of the greatest competitors of all time. He would find a way to be better that his competition and drag the rest of his teammates along with him if he had to.

 

[Knicks411]

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.

But would they have beaten the Pacers?

But more seriously; the arrow goes both ways; MJ never won without Scottie.

 

[Alsacs]

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.

Jordan retired because he knew Pippen wasn't coming back. Pippen was a FA and was pissed at Krause. It was in a book I have to find. It is pretty well known if Pippen stayed Michael would have considered strongly coming back as he did with the Wizards in 2002.

Pippen was pissed at Krause for not paying him and Scottie Pippen was basically bullied by Jordan to play in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals. Pippen was seriously hurt in his back and didn't want to risk his FA and first major payday but Jordan got him to play thru the pain and be a decoy.

Pippen stupidly took the money from Houston over the LA Lakers after lockout. The Rockets offense was an awful match for him and both sides regretted that deal. Houston had to deal him to Portland to clear the salary.

 

[RF2044]

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.

I assume you mean the "mean" player instead of median? ; )

There's better nutrition now than 20 years ago, there's more of a concerted effort on weight lifting earlier, etc. So maybe they are better athletically, maybe not. I'm pretty sure that Dwight Howard is a better athlete than Hakeem Olajuwon, but that wouldn't prevent Olajuwon from 20 years ago from curb stomping him, the same way he did to a bigger, stronger Shaq in the mid-90s. So is simply being a "superior athlete" ostensibly a big advantage?

I sure don't buy the premise that the mean player from today is superior from a skill perspective. The rules changes are what account for the difference, IMO. The game is much freer / more cleanly played than it was back then. It took the NBA making a concerted effort to clean the game up from an officiating standpoint for the changes to stick. Thank god they did [and I wish NCAA basketball could follow suit].

But at the end of the day, I see far less difference between the 90s and today's players than I do of the comparison between 60s players and 90s players [per the post above]. I think that the vast majority of players from the 90s would have little difficulty transitioning to the modern game / playing in the NBA. Certainly not the top end talent. Every league has marginal performers / end of bench guys who are fringe and might not make the cut.

 

[Alsacs]

But guess what it's been like for the last / previous 10 years of general ineptitude from the T-Wolves? For all of the talk about how amazing the NBA game is today, it sure wasn't the case here.

And I daresay that is the same experience for all but a handful of teams that are playoff quality or contenders. There is some great basketball being played in the NBA right now, no argument there. There's also some terrible basketball being played which is either overlooked or not discussed because everyone is preoccupied with what Golden State is doing right now. If you are team agnostic and just watch NBA coverage on Sundays and in the playoffs, I can see why you'd be enthused. If you're the fan of a losing team [and just to be clear, I am NOT a Minnesota fan] or a team that is consistently bad, then the NBA is more of a grind and far less enjoyable.

Sitting in CNY and watching the Miami Heat because you're fair weather and like Lebron--great experience. Lakers fan the past few years--not so great. I just got back from Houston for the final four. Their season went south early and the local fanbase is distraught [given that they were in the Western finals last year].

The Joe Smith deal killed the T-Wolves during Garnett's prime. The TWolves mismanaged KG's prime. He was good the whole time but until they brought in Cassell and Sprewell they never won a playoff series.

KG should have made a couple of conference finals in Minnesota but that was on McHale. Then McHale did his buddy Danny Ainge a solid and basically gave Boston the 2008 title.

After McHale 2 words for Minnesota's incompetence David Kahn. Kahn was awful. He ruined that team. Knicks would have been a better GM than Kahn.

Unlike with Kevin Garnett the Wolves cashed Kevin Love in for a nice player in Andrew Wiggins. Along with Karl Anthony Towns they will be a good team. Towns is a franchise player.

 

[Cusefan0307]

https://www.google.com/url?url=http...jAAUAE&usg=AFQjCNH2jrC4le-UbXUJkDtztB4aPZ5Kuw

Here's a good breakdown by Amin El Hassan..

 

[Eric15]

But would they have beaten the Pacers?

But more seriously; the arrow goes both ways; MJ never won without Scottie.

Whoops I confused the 2000 and 2001 seasons. But yes I think they would have beat Indiana.

 

[Knicks411]

Jordan retired because he knew Pippen wasn't coming back. Pippen was a FA and was pissed at Krause. It was in a book I have to find. It is pretty well known if Pippen stayed Michael would have considered strongly coming back as he did with the Wizards in 2002.

Pippen was pissed at Krause for not paying him and Scottie Pippen was basically bullied by Jordan to play in Game 6 of the 1998 Finals. Pippen was seriously hurt in his back and didn't want to risk his FA and first major payday but Jordan got him to play thru the pain and be a decoy.

Pippen stupidly took the money from Houston over the LA Lakers after lockout. The Rockets offense was an awful match for him and both sides regretted that deal. Houston had to deal him to Portland to clear the salary.

I'll cop to not remembering the timeline on this: i assumed MJ was driving the decision making process but that was a complete guess.

I assume you mean the "mean" player instead of median? ; )

There's better nutrition now than 20 years ago, there's more of a concerted effort on weight lifting earlier, etc. So maybe they are better athletically, maybe not. I'm pretty sure that Dwight Howard is a better athlete than Hakeem Olajuwon, but that wouldn't prevent Olajuwon from 20 years ago from curb stomping him, the same way he did to a bigger, stronger Shaq in the mid-90s. So is simply being a "superior athlete" ostensibly a big advantage?

I sure don't buy the premise that the mean player from today is superior from a skill perspective. The rules changes are what account for the difference, IMO. The game is much freer / more cleanly played than it was back then. It took the NBA making a concerted effort to clean the game up from an officiating standpoint for the changes to stick. Thank god they did [and I wish NCAA basketball could follow suit].

But at the end of the day, I see far less difference between the 90s and today's players than I do of the comparison between 60s players and 90s players [per the post above]. I think that the vast majority of players from the 90s would have little difficulty transitioning to the modern game / playing in the NBA. Certainly not the top end talent. Every league has marginal performers / end of bench guys who are fringe and might not make the cut.

Point taken, but Hakeem might have been a better athlete anyway; dude was nimble as all hell.
I agree on the comment about players from the 90's to today; I think they are likely better athletes, but I don't think it's a massive difference. (Look at Tim Duncan for instance, if there was a huge difference from say 1998 (when he was a rookie) to today, then he wouldn't be able to even play in the league right now. That's obviously not the case.

Skill level? Might be difficult to tease out raw skill level from what the rules allowed; but I'm favoring evolution and saying skill level is probably a little higher than it was 20 years ago, but not massively so.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I'll cop to not remembering the timeline on this: i assumed MJ was driving the decision making process but that was a complete guess.



Point taken, but Hakeem might have been a better athlete anyway; dude was nimble as all hell.
I agree on the comment about players from the 90's to today; I think they are likely better athletes, but I don't think it's a massive difference. (Look at Tim Duncan for instance, if there was a huge difference from say 1998 (when he was a rookie) to today, then he wouldn't be able to even play in the league right now. That's obviously not the case.

Skill level? Might be difficult to tease out raw skill level from what the rules allowed; but I'm favoring evolution and saying skill level is probably a little higher than it was 20 years ago, but not massively so.

Well, there's over 100 more European players now than there was in 96. That means 100 less Americans have NBA jobs. Bigger talent pool to pick from now than their was then.

 

[sufandu]

Why do people act as if today's rules would only benefit Golden State? If Jordan and Pippin got to the basket with the old rules how much easier would it be for them today? Jordan averaged 30 with the hand check, he'd average 40 without it. Regardless, that wasn't even the best Bulls team. The '91-93 teams were better.

 

[44cuse]

There isn't anyone in this current generation of the NBA that would stand up to the Lakers/Celtics of the 80's or the Bulls of the 90's. Game has been watered down both in talent and in the rules.

That said it would not be a sweep but I cannot see it getting to a game 7. Bulls in 6.

Absolutely no way. The game is not watered down in terms of talent nor was there much defense played by those teams.

44cuse

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I assume you mean the "mean" player instead of median? ; )

There's better nutrition now than 20 years ago, there's more of a concerted effort on weight lifting earlier, etc. So maybe they are better athletically, maybe not. I'm pretty sure that Dwight Howard is a better athlete than Hakeem Olajuwon, but that wouldn't prevent Olajuwon from 20 years ago from curb stomping him, the same way he did to a bigger, stronger Shaq in the mid-90s. So is simply being a "superior athlete" ostensibly a big advantage?

I sure don't buy the premise that the mean player from today is superior from a skill perspective. The rules changes are what account for the difference, IMO. The game is much freer / more cleanly played than it was back then. It took the NBA making a concerted effort to clean the game up from an officiating standpoint for the changes to stick. Thank god they did [and I wish NCAA basketball could follow suit].

But at the end of the day, I see far less difference between the 90s and today's players than I do of the comparison between 60s players and 90s players [per the post above]. I think that the vast majority of players from the 90s would have little difficulty transitioning to the modern game / playing in the NBA. Certainly not the top end talent. Every league has marginal performers / end of bench guys who are fringe and might not make the cut.

I do think the type of athlete was influenced by the rules. You needed big physical players in the 90s. I think many of them wouldn't be able to play in today's game. Their strength was their physicality which isn't needed today, especially at guard. And vice versa with today's players. The star players are star players. They would be fine. But the rule differences is similar to style differences in the college game. 2000s Pitt guys wouldn't be as good playing in our system. And many of our players wouldn't be able to play in Pitt's system. IMO the same can be said for the average NBA player in each era.

 

[Alsacs]

I'll cop to not remembering the timeline on this: i assumed MJ was driving the decision making process but that was a complete guess.



Point taken, but Hakeem might have been a better athlete anyway; dude was nimble as all hell.
I agree on the comment about players from the 90's to today; I think they are likely better athletes, but I don't think it's a massive difference. (Look at Tim Duncan for instance, if there was a huge difference from say 1998 (when he was a rookie) to today, then he wouldn't be able to even play in the league right now. That's obviously not the case.

Skill level? Might be difficult to tease out raw skill level from what the rules allowed; but I'm favoring evolution and saying skill level is probably a little higher than it was 20 years ago, but not massively so.

Pippen was leaving. Before the Sonics traded Kemp to Cleveland. Chicago almost traded Pippen for Kemp before Michael Jordan said HELL NO.
I recommend you read this.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page...oric-1998-season-part-1-espn-magazine-archive

 

[NashvilleOrange]

Attended the Grizzlies - Warriors game Saturday night. Midway through the 4th quarter it really looked like GS was gassed but what's remarkable about this team is that they find so many different ways to adjust and counter every team that they play. Curry and Thompson both had off nights and they managed to pull it out.
Yesterday's defense was amazing and it never really felt like the Spurs had a chance. I was a bit young to remember the 96 Bulls in detail but the balance that this Warriors team has makes me believe that it would be near impossible for any past team to beat them in a 7 game series.

 

[RF2044]

I do think the type of athlete was influenced by the rules. You needed big physical players in the 90s. I think many of them wouldn't be able to play in today's game. Their strength was their physicality which isn't needed today, especially at guard. And vice versa with today's players. The star players are star players. They would be fine. But the rule differences is similar to style differences in the college game. 2000s Pitt guys wouldn't be as good playing in our system. And many of our players wouldn't be able to play in Pitt's system. IMO the same can be said for the average NBA player in each era.

Agree to disagree. The 90s players were athletic as hell, too. It isn't accurate to paint them otherwise. Were the physical players? Sure. There are today, too--plenty of them [see: Randolph, Zach]. And there are fringe guys from the 90s who wouldn't be able to make it in today's game, just like there are fringe guys today who wouldn't make it in the 90s. I'd be willing to bet that if we took the entire NBA from the 90s and magically transplanted them to today, that 95% or more of those guys would be able to make teams today if the roster numbers somehow worked out. Maybe more.

I'm not sure that your example of system fit extrapolates to the rules. Those eras weren't defined only by the way games were officiated. But at the end of the day, just a difference of opinion and certainly not worth arguing.

 

[OrangeDW]

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

Chicago in 6 or 7. Would be close, but at the end of the day I'm going with the team Jordan is on.

Pippen's "we would sweep them" is just dumb. They weren't even sweeping most teams back then.

Sick of these old-timers taking shots at the Warriors all year. You had your time, sit your old butts down and let GS have their time.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Agree to disagree. The 90s players were athletic as hell, too. It isn't accurate to paint them otherwise. Were the physical players? Sure. There are today, too--plenty of them [see: Randolph, Zach]. And there are fringe guys from the 90s who wouldn't be able to make it in today's game, just like there are fringe guys today who wouldn't make it in the 90s. I'd be willing to bet that if we took the entire NBA from the 90s and magically transplanted them to today, that 95% or more of those guys would be able to make teams today if the roster numbers somehow worked out. Maybe more.

I'm not sure that your example of system fit extrapolates to the rules. Those eras weren't defined only by the way games were officiated. But at the end of the day, just a difference of opinion and certainly not worth arguing.

Agreed. Elite athletes will adapt.

 

[Knicks411]

Chicago in 6 or 7. Would be close, but at the end of the day I'm going with the team Jordan is on.

Pippen's "we would sweep them" is just dumb. They weren't even sweeping most teams back then.

Sick of these old-timers taking shots at the Warriors all year. You had your time, sit your old butts down and let GS have their time.

On the starters podcast, they were talking about the Warriors player most likely to be the guy in 30 years downplaying the achievements of the current teams. Has to be Draymond I think

 

[OrangeDW]

They're both such all time great teams. The Warriors really have no flaws. You want to run and go fast? Good luck. You want to slow it down and grind it out? Good luck. You want to go small? Nope. You want to go big? Nope. The key really would be how does Jordan guard Steph. Is he going to be guarding him out at about 35 feet? If so they have a chance. Who guards Jordan? It would be an epic 6-7 game series thats for sure. I just think 1-5 the warriors have way too much shooting and would go small and spread the Bulls out too thin.

In Jordan, Pippen, and Harper, the Bulls had 3 outstanding perimeter defenders. If anyone was equipped to guard these Warriors it was those Bulls. Plus Rodman on Draymond. The Bulls would get after teams full court too.

 

[OrangeDW]

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.

All of those guys are/were(in Kerr's case) part of the sports media.

 

[OrangeDW]

I'll cop to not remembering the timeline on this: i assumed MJ was driving the decision making process but that was a complete guess.



Point taken, but Hakeem might have been a better athlete anyway; dude was nimble as all hell.
I agree on the comment about players from the 90's to today; I think they are likely better athletes, but I don't think it's a massive difference. (Look at Tim Duncan for instance, if there was a huge difference from say 1998 (when he was a rookie) to today, then he wouldn't be able to even play in the league right now. That's obviously not the case.

Skill level? Might be difficult to tease out raw skill level from what the rules allowed; but I'm favoring evolution and saying skill level is probably a little higher than it was 20 years ago, but not massively so.

Howard was stronger and jumped higher. Olajuwon was better in every other phase of athleticism(speed, coordination, balance, timing, flexibility, hands, hand-eye coordination, footwork, etc.)

 

[KaiserUEO]

Props to everyone for their even-keeled thoughts. I was praying the thread wouldn't get taken over by the "The Bulls would defeat anyone by infinity points" meatheads from my generation.

I don't think there has been anyone more annoying in my life than the 90s Jordan-bulls fans.

give me the 00s redsux fans anyday over that group of delusional front-running misfit tools of a fan.

I don't mind losing to a bunch of chowda heads who been with a loser for their entire life, but when I see a bunch of morons in Jordan jerseys, who were likely all Knick fans 3 years ago, going bonkers for another title...I just wanted to punch them as hard as could and then kick them when theyre down.

their closet is filling up, for in addition to that hasnt been worn jersey in 15 years, an 00s Kobe, and early 10s LeBron heat both hang...for they are now all wearing Curry jerseys.

them.

 

[Knicks411]

In Jordan, Pippen, and Harper, the Bulls had 3 outstanding perimeter defenders. If anyone was equipped to guard these Warriors it was those Bulls. Plus Rodman on Draymond. The Bulls would get after teams full court too.

Yeah they did have amazing perimeter defenders; one thing though is those guys were all taller dudes. It would be difficult to chase Steph around for 40 minutes a night.

Howard was stronger and jumped higher. Olajuwon was better in every other phase of athleticism(speed, coordination, balance, timing, flexibility, hands, hand-eye coordination, footwork, etc.)

Right. Dwight might have been a better pure athlete, but I would say Hakeem was a superior "basketball athlete"; if that's a thing.

 

[OrangeDW]

Yeah they did have amazing perimeter defenders; one thing though is those guys were all taller dudes. It would be difficult to chase Steph around for 40 minutes a night.



Right. Dwight might have been a better pure athlete, but I would say Hakeem was a superior "basketball athlete"; if that's a thing.

Yeah, I would say if you have multiple good perimeter defenders, none of whom are the clear perfect guy to put on Curry, then you're best off rotating which one is guarding Curry.

Hakeem, I believe, was a soccer player growing up who picked up basketball late. He was a heck of an athlete. I think people often say "athleticism" when they really mean a guy jumps high. I'd say Hakeem had more overall athleticism, and yeah definitely a better "basketball athlete".