OT: 1996 Bulls vs. 2016 Warriors

[NineOneSeven]

Wrong.

I feel like I'm in Jeter to the HOF argument.

Jeter, seriously?? The HOF??

He's never been MVP, he has NO shot at the Hall.

Yeah... no.

 

[OttoMets]

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

Thanks for posting this, interesting read that never came to my attention when it was written.

Can't believe how candid Phil was about a number of things, including this line: "If people don't know by now that Dennis is mentally handicapped, what can I say?"

 

[Alsacs]

Thanks for posting this, interesting read that never came to my attention when it was written.

Can't believe how candid Phil was about a number of things, including this line: "If people don't know by now that Dennis is mentally handicapped, what can I say?"

Phil was ridiculously candid with that piece. He basically told the Lakers he wanted their job and Shaq for the triangle. He was brutal on Del Harris.

Phil held those 1998 Bulls by strings. Pippen wanted out, Rodman's timebomb was close to exploding, Michael Jordan was wearing down and Phil hated Jerry Krause.

 

[Phillymoose]

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.

Somewhere, perhaps in another universe, Charles Smith just got his shot blocked again.

 

[KaiserUEO]

Somewhere, perhaps in another universe, Charles Smith just got his shot blocked again.

youre dead to me.

if one of our photo-shoppers could replace Khan with Smith, this was a picture of me after that series of layup misses, while eating dinner with my then girlfriends parents at a pub, right before I slammed my fist on the table, catching the side of a half eaten bowl of soup...thus sending its contents over her mother.

good times, good times.

 

[Bayside44]

Wrong.

I feel like I'm in Jeter to the HOF argument.

Jeter, seriously?? The HOF??

He's never been MVP, he has NO shot at the Hall.

If he didn't play for the Yankees he'd just be another guy...

 

[IthacaMatt]

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 love that Celtics team, but they were slow. I think they would have a hard time keeping up with Golden State on defense.

 

[IthacaMatt]

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.

One could also argue that the median player today has weaker passing skills and weaker shooting skills than players from the 60s, 70s or 80s. I think the skill level started going down in the NBA when they started drafting high school kids and eventually one-and-done players. I also think the importance of AAU ball to college recruiting has hurt team play, passing and skills development. Look at the kids coming out in recent drafts versus "classic" drafts from the 70s, 80s or 90s. No comparison in depth of talent, because kids stayed in college long enough to become "finished" players.

 

[Knicks411]

working my way through the Jackson piece linked earlier; fascinating stuff.

 

[NYCorange]

If he didn't play for the Yankees he'd just be another guy...

Yeah in fact, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig were also mostly products of the "Yankee aura". They wouldn't have sniffed the MVP awards without the east coast bias.

 

[Knicks411]

I'm not going to get into defending Derek Jeter, but the dude was a hell of a player. Overrated because he was a yankee? Sure. But a great player. And probably should have won the 99 MVP

 

[Cusefan0307]

One could also argue that the median player today has weaker passing skills and weaker shooting skills than players from the 60s, 70s or 80s. I think the skill level started going down in the NBA when they started drafting high school kids and eventually one-and-done players. I also think the importance of AAU ball to college recruiting has hurt team play, passing and skills development. Look at the kids coming out in recent drafts versus "classic" drafts from the 70s, 80s or 90s. No comparison in depth of talent, because kids stayed in college long enough to become "finished" players.

If the skill level has gone down, how do you explain the fact that FT% was 75% in 1970, remains 75% today. How do you explain that FG% in 1970 was 45% remains 45% today? How do you explain 3pt% that was 28% in its first year is 35% today? How do you explain the decrease in turnover percentage from 16.5% to 13% today?

 

[IthacaMatt]

Yeah in fact, Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig were also mostly products of the "Yankee aura". They wouldn't have sniffed the MVP awards without the east coast bias.

You've gotta be kidding with this, right? I won't even bother defending Ruth because of his obvious impact in revolutionizing the game. But Gehrig hit .340 over a 17 year career and hit 49 homers twice, had a high of 185 RBI one year, and had two more years of 173 RBI. He led the league in OBP 5 times and got 400 total bases 5 times.

 

[SWC75]

I think there's a more interesting general question here: what is the "best by" date for great sports teams?

In the 1890's baseball had the original Baltimore Orioles, who won three straight pennants in the middle of the decade. Baseball historians debate about whether they were really the best team of the era: the Boston Beaneaters, (Braves) won five pennants in that decade. But the Orioles produced a number of prominent 20th century managers, including John McGraw of the Giants, Wilbert Robinson of the Dodgers and Hughie Jennings of the Tigers. There was less knowledge of prior generations then than there is now and these managers created the image people had of the era. the orioles were the not only greatest team of their time: they were the greatest team of all time and invented everything in the game, etc. etc. As subsequent great teams and dynasties came along,: The Cubs, the Athletics, the Red Sox the Giants and the Yankees, these aging men explained to younger sportswriters why the Orioles of the 1890's were superior to each of them. Then came the 1927 Yankees and Wilbert Robinson was asked how the 1890's Orioles would have done against them. His reply: "They'd have killed us!"

I was a fan of the 1972 Dolphins, (Larry Csonka was a boyhood hero), who went 17-0 and would have won the Super Bowl by that highly appropriate score if not for Garo Yepremian. Garo's flub became the most enduring image of that team and that plus the fact that the AFC East was a flat division that year, (no one else had a winning record), led many people to downgrade the Dolphin's achievement. I was always defending them and my ace in the hole was that the Fish's two tight ends were Marv Fleming who had been the tight end on those two Packer teams that won the first two Super Bowls and Jim Mandich, who became a back-up tight end for the 1978 Steelers, generally considered the best of the four Steel Curtain Super Bowl winners of that decade. Both had publicly stated that the '72 Dolphins were the best team they'd ever played on. That took care of two of the major contenders for the bets team ever and most of the others were way before that.

Along came 2007 and the Patriots were setting scoring records and going 16-00. Mandich was asked how the '72 Dolphins would have done against the Patriots and he said exactly what Wilbert Robinson had said 80 years before "They'd have killed us." I had to acknowledge that history had simply passed my beloved Dolphins by. Comparing them to the 2007 patriots was like comparing the the 1937 Redskins, who beat the Bears for the NFL title in Sammy Baugh's first year, 35 years before 1972, to the Dolphins. I certainly wouldn't entertain the notion that the '37 Redskins would have been competitive with the '72 Dolphins so why would I think the '72 Dolphins could hang in there with the '07 Patriots. Their achievement was just as great but the days when they could have been expected to line up against a 'modern' NFL team and win were over.

So what is the shelf life of a great team. if it's not 35 years, what is it? Does it vary from sport to sport? We are debating whether the '16 Warriors could beat the '96 Bulls. Would the 2015 Broncos have beaten the 1996 Packers? Is it obvious that they were better? How about the 2015 Royals against the 1996 Yankees? The 2015 Black Hawks against the 1996 Avalanche? I do't see anything obvious there.

Does it become longer as sports develop because their development will decelerate and plateau at some point? The NBA has had four great dynasties: The Mikan Lakers of the 50's, the Russell Celtics of the 60's, the Showtime Lakers of the 80's and the Jordan Bulls of the 90's. I doubt anyone thinks the Mikan Lakers would have beaten the Russell Celtics. As much respect as we have for the Russell Celtics, I think most people would heavily favor the Showtime Lakers and Jordan Bulls over them. The real great debate is the Showtime Lakers vs. the Jordan Bulls, (they did play in the first year Chicago won but that wasn't the realm "Showtime" Lakers). Is it obvious that the 2016 Warriors would have beaten either of those teams? I don't think so. Certainly the gap wasn't as great as that between the Showtime Lakers/Jordan Bulls and the Mikan Lakers/Russell Celtics. I think the game and the players playing it changed more form the 60's to the 80's than it has since.

So what is the 'best buy' date for great sports teams? Is it 20 years? 35? Some point between? Does it differ from sport to sport? And does it inflate as sports mature?

 

[Alsacs]

I compare teams like this. Anything before is just a different sport era.
NBA 1984 onward is the modern NBA. salary cap was started and Magic and Bird.
NFL 1993 onward which is when the salary cap and parity ERA starts.
MLB 1969 onward as the mound was lowered.
NHL 1995 as the New Jersey Devils neutral zone trap ruined the NHL.

The sports have gone thru changes but overall those are the starting points of modern ERAs for myself.

I think the 2016 Warriors are a damn good team but their top guy Steph Curry isn't as valuable as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, or Larry Bird.

They are all legends of the game but their teams were more stacked than the 2016 Warriors are. Put Kevin Durant on the Warriors next year and then the power tilts to these Warriors.

 

[Knicks411]

I compare teams like this. Anything before is just a different sport era.
NBA 1984 onward is the modern NBA. salary cap was started and Magic and Bird.
NFL 1993 onward which is when the salary cap and parity ERA starts.
MLB 1969 onward as the mound was lowered.
NHL 1995 as the New Jersey Devils neutral zone trap ruined the NHL.

The sports have gone thru changes but overall those are the starting points of modern ERAs for myself.

I think the 2016 Warriors are a damn good team but their top guy Steph Curry isn't as valuable as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, or Larry Bird

See I think I disagree a little here. There's an argument Steph Curry is having the greatest season of all time. He's obviously not as good year in and year out as those other guys, but he's been off the charts this year. 66.6% true shooting!! Putting up a 50-45-90. To me he is absolutely right there with any player ever.

 

[Alsacs]

See I think I disagree a little here. There's an argument Steph Curry is having the greatest season of all time. He's obviously not as good year in and year out as those other guys, but he's been off the charts this year. 66.6% true shooting!! Putting up a 50-45-90. To me he is absolutely right there with any player ever.

Switch 2016 Steph Curry with 2016 Isiah Thomas an all-star on the Celtics. I don't think the Celtics can beat the Cavaliers. I think the Warriors would be 2nd or 3rd in the West. Curry isn't Lebron yet. I need to see the Warriors in 4 or 5 Finals before I can say he is a Jordan/Bird/Lebron/Magic player.

Switch 1996 Michael Jordan with 1996 Dell Curry(this is funny because he is Steph's dad) and I think that Hornets team become the odds on NBA title favorite for that season. With Glen Rice, Larry Johnson, Kenny Anderson and Matt Geiger. I would say more but its all opinions. I think that Charlotte team for sure wins the NBA title that year.

I would same the same things with Bird and Magic in the 80's. They would get their teams to the Finals and face each other.

Curry is the obvious MVP this year but he wouldn't be my best player in the league if I could choose one guy.

I would take Lebron James first, Anthony Davis second, and then Steph would be in a discussion for me with Kwahi Leonard, Russell Westbrook or Kevin Durant.

 

[Knicks411]

I don't know, I think you're underrating what Steph has accomplished this year. His shooting has almost broken the game. He hasn't done it year in and year out, so I get that, but I'd pretty much put this season up with anyone of all time.

I was making the argument before the year that Steph was the best player last year, but I still considered Lebron the best player overall in the league; if i had to win a game I'd take him, etc. Now that Steph has put up another year even better than last year, I'm beginning to go the other way on it. 67% true shooting%!!

 

[Doc5120]

You've gotta be kidding with this, right? I won't even bother defending Ruth because of his obvious impact in revolutionizing the game. But Gehrig hit .340 over a 17 year career and hit 49 homers twice, had a high of 185 RBI one year, and had two more years of 173 RBI. He led the league in OBP 5 times and got 400 total bases 5 times.

I'm fairly certain the poster was being sarcastic.

 

[Alsacs]

I don't see Curry in the league of Jordan/Magic/Lebron/Bird. Being a tier below is nothing to be sad about.

Spurs-Warriors WCF will be must see TV.

 

[Cusefan0307]

There is no doubt in my mind that people look at Steph and see a rather physically unimposing guy and they just can't believe what their eyes see. They don't think he should be that good.

As far as Steph vs Lebron, Lebron is definately playing better than last year, but Steph has had more value than Lebron on defense for 3 years and more value than Lebron does on offense for two years. I don't see that trend changing going forward.

 

[retro44]

What was the leagues overall scoring average then and now.I bet the average was higher back then.

 

[Cusefan0307]

What was the leagues overall scoring average then and now.I bet the average was higher back then.

Scoring Average is higher now. Offensive efficiency was higher in 95-96 though. The scoring average is higher now because there are 4 more possessions per game than there was in 95-96. FG% and 3pt% was higher in the NBA that year as well, but don't forget the three point line was 22 feet all around that season.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

I compare teams like this. Anything before is just a different sport era.
NBA 1984 onward is the modern NBA. salary cap was started and Magic and Bird.
NFL 1993 onward which is when the salary cap and parity ERA starts.
MLB 1969 onward as the mound was lowered.
NHL 1995 as the New Jersey Devils neutral zone trap ruined the NHL.

The sports have gone thru changes but overall those are the starting points of modern ERAs for myself.

I think the 2016 Warriors are a damn good team but their top guy Steph Curry isn't as valuable as Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, or Larry Bird.

They are all legends of the game but their teams were more stacked than the 2016 Warriors are. Put Kevin Durant on the Warriors next year and then the power tilts to these Warriors.

I think that is even too simple. Especially the NFL. Matt Stafford has FIVE 4000 yard seasons. That is more than Elway, Young, Aikman, and Kelly combined. The blocking and defensive rules have made it very easy to pass the ball. Baseball has changed with the smaller ball parks and station to station offense. Few teams are willing to play small ball, guys don't steal bases, and it is ok to strike out 200 times a year. It is now impossible for a pitcher to get 30 wins and hard to even get 20. They don't pitch more than 100 pitches or 7 inns max. Mangers will start matching up in the 6th like it is a game 7. It is a vastly different game today than it was 20 years ago.

 

[Alsacs]

Scoring Average is higher now. Offensive efficiency was higher in 95-96 though. The scoring average is higher now because there are 4 more possessions per game than there was in 95-96. FG% and 3pt% was higher in the NBA that year as well, but don't forget the three point line was 22 feet all around that season.

NBA rule changes have increased the possessions per game. If a foul is committed under 14 seconds in the NBA the shot clock isn't put back on 24 it just put to 14.
The elimination of hand-checking has increased fouls and more FTs.

From 2005-2006 onward the NBA has fixed a lot of rules that bogged the game down and made it slow. From 2006 till now the game is a lot higher.

In 1996 one thing that helped the Bulls was expansion. The NBA went from 27 teams in 95 to 29 teams in 96.

The NBA talent was thinned out in 1996 and that helped the Bulls.

What the Warriors did was amazing they went the whole year without losing back to back games. First time in NBA history.