Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

[AIRJ23]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

[inaccuracies].

I’m gonna add two more points to poke gaping holes in those canned arguments.

If dray wasnt an offensive liability, why did Kerr take him out during playoff and finals runs openly because he was an.. offensive liability.

And if players are “running more now” then explain why players in the 60’s or 70’s who either matched or outpaced todays game were getting injured less wearing CHUCKS!! CHUCKS! Put them in today’s shoes and allow them to carry the ball all over without getting called and they’d look like wizards too. lol.

80’s pacing was crazy fast too. They weren’t getting injured in layup lines or landing even though they didn’t have landing zone rules back then to protect them like they do now.

KD didn’t return the season AFTER he tore his Achilles. He missed an entire season. Nique didn’t miss an entire season. He came back the next season. And averaged 30.

I’ll give you one thing, player’s bank accounts sure have evolved. Work ethic, not so much. Or not at all really. You have guys who played in one era and coached another, or coached both eras telling you players today don’t work out or train nearly as hard. But go off. Looking at advanced stat sheets all day I’m sure makes you know better than them.

Again, do your research. Watch the games. You’re wrong on way too many points.

[jd@os]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Heatlifer mentioned a team that should be thrown in the mix more--the 1987 Lakers. That was a fun team to watch. On a side note, Roundball Rock is alright, but I messed with that NBA on CBS theme hard. If 2K24 can have Roundball Rock in the errr, Kobe Era, then throw the CBS theme in the Magic vs Bird Era. That might make me play 2K24.

But speaking of that team that I did watch: they certainly did not walk the ball up the court every possession. Well, many teams didn't walk the ball up the court every possession back then, but hey.

Disclaimer: no one said this, so I'm not trying to prove a point; it just got me wondering:
Like bulls96 is doing with this thread/series, people often play the trade game. I wonder if Draymond isn't just Pippen's position but he is Pippen, could he have led the '94 Bulls like Pippen did? I didn't say he was Pippen--it just got me thinking if he was Pippen, could he have done that.

bulls96: I think when you're done with this series and maybe have time, consider playing as the '17 Warriors in this same series and see what happens. Either way, love what you're doing.

AIRJ23: you owe me a pair of slacks--I spit my tea out when I read the last sentence of your last post.

[jd@os]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

^Post #104 that is.

[sirdez]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Some incredible romanticism of 90s basketball going on in this thread.

Very few sports, if any, were of a higher standard 30 years ago, as much as nostalgia would like us to believe that.

[bulls96]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Thanks guys. I am enjoying this thread too!

Sent from my Surface Duo 2 using Tapatalk

[ggsimmonds]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Some incredible romanticism of 90s basketball going on in this thread.

Very few sports, if any, were of a higher standard 30 years ago, as much as nostalgia would like us to believe that.

Its nostalgia run amok. In general all sports evolve and as a rule of thumb, teams of today>teams from the past.

One of the reasons why is that sports are becoming more of a science over an art form and this is more apparent in basketball and soccer. I think sports are funner to watch when its more of an art over science. Take for example the midrange jumper. The math tells us thats a bad shot so most of the NBA outside of the top bigmen don't have a midrange game and thats a shame imo. To me personally, Kobe's highlights are more enjoyable to watch over LeBron's or Steph's because of that midrange game he used. Kobe was gonna score but you didn't know how he was going to score.

Then we add the culture of the game on top. Today's players don't need the NBA in the same way players from past eras did. Today's NBA players view it more like a job I think. Thats great for the players, but I do miss the emotion from the past.

But what those two above points contribute to is the special nostalgia we see in the NBA compared to other professional sports. You don't see such passionate debate in the NFL or MLB. And since we will never know the actual outcome of any of these hypothetical discussions, people from both sides can get away with "you don't know basketball" whenever someone disagrees.

I think its simple, in a series played in the 90s rules that favored size/strength the Bulls win because they had more size and strength. If the series used today's rules that prioritize skill the Warriors win because they had more skill.

The rule changes that are always at the heart of these debates were the right changes to make imo. It made the game better. I just hate that shortly after those rule changes analytics started driving the game alongside rule changes that weren't actually rule changes. In that Thinking Basketball video that talks about the evolution of offense, most of those things aren't actual changes to the rulebook, its just a change in how officials call or enforce the rules. And those changes are for the worse.

[jd@os]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

....But what those two above points contribute to is the special nostalgia we see in the NBA compared to other professional sports. You don't see such passionate debate in the NFL or MLB. And since we will never know the actual outcome of any of these hypothetical discussions, people from both sides can get away with "you don't know basketball" whenever someone disagrees.

I think its simple, in a series played in the 90s rules that favored size/strength the Bulls win because they had more size and strength. If the series used today's rules that prioritize skill the Warriors win because they had more skill....

I believe Michael Jordan is partly to "blame". When you have someone challenging for GOAT status saying he's chasing that ghost in Chicago...well that ghost retired years ago. Even though baseball is, imo, kind of stuck in the past as a sport, basketball, imo, is kind of stuck in the past on its players. When we discuss top players in the NBA, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Jabbar, Russell, Chamberlain, etc come up--but when we put Lebron in that mix, we're again reminded that a lot of those players are from way back when (and NO, I'm not saying that's my list--that's what I often hear).

Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes--recent. Nadal, Djokovic, Federer--recent. Trout and Ohtani--current. But yes, basketball ghosts keep entering the discussion and seem to keep basketball linked to the past (and no, I'm not saying it's the only sport that does it--just saying it tends to happen).

[AIRJ23]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Some incredible romanticism of 90s basketball going on in this thread.

Very few sports, if any, were of a higher standard 30 years ago, as much as nostalgia would like us to believe that.

Well let’s break it down:

Giannis, arguably the league’s best player, is going to a 60 year old Hakeem for lessons. Don’t think nostalgia has a part in that. More so skill.

You can’t say the game has evolved when players today play under far more easy and favorable circumstances.

You can’t hand check. You can’t sit in the paint for more than 3 seconds. You have landing zone rules. Take foul rules. Better shoe tech. Etc etc. Playerss are allowed to take 3-4 steps now, carry the ball, etc. Imagine if Isiah Thomas was allowed to carry? Imagine if Hakeem or Kemp could pretty much take steps from the 3 point line when attacking.

Recency bias will negate actual facts and render any questioning of today’s game (largely considered the softest it’s ever been and if you read comments, many also have the opinion the most boring it’s been) as “nostalgia.” The highest ratings in NBA history occurred in the 98 finals.

Is there a player today with the size, strength and athleticism of a prime Shaq? Is there a 6’6 guard in today’s league with Jordan’s 48” vertical (NBA record or close to it), 4.3 40 yard dash, footwork and enormous massive hands? Imagine if Michael Jordan, who dunked on Mutombo, played in this era of no hand checks, 3 second paint rule and centers practically his height, flops being rewarded, etc.? Who’s stopping him? How do you stop him?

I mean there’s video of Cutino Mobley at his current age absolutely cooking last year’s Rockets roster.

How would Shaq be stopped in todays league? He’d have entire teams fouled out. You can’t even camp the paint to prevent him from stomping in there. You think Robert Williams would be able to handle him?

Rendering logic as “nostalgia” just states there’s no argument. Look it at point by point. There isn’t a team today with a Shaquille O’Neal and 6’7 PG Penny Hardaway duo. Not even close.

[AIRJ23]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

I believe Michael Jordan is partly to "blame". When you have someone challenging for GOAT status saying he's chasing that ghost in Chicago...well that ghost retired years ago. Even though baseball is, imo, kind of stuck in the past as a sport, basketball, imo, is kind of stuck in the past on its players. When we discuss top players in the NBA, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Jabbar, Russell, Chamberlain, etc come up--but when we put Lebron in that mix, we're again reminded that a lot of those players are from way back when (and NO, I'm not saying that's my list--that's what I often hear).

Brady, Rodgers, Mahomes--recent. Nadal, Djokovic, Federer--recent. Trout and Ohtani--current. But yes, basketball ghosts keep entering the discussion and seem to keep basketball linked to the past (and no, I'm not saying it's the only sport that does it--just saying it tends to happen).

This is a good point as to why I think the NBA doesn’t get viewed as an evolved sport and why the past is so highly regarded. Because football and baseball do look like the same sport as they used to. They evolved.

But the NBA went through such drastic changes to artificially make the league higher scoring, it got so soft, stuff like flops and injuries and load managing went rampant. The game went from more multi dimensional and physical to 50 threes launched a game, it just arguably doesn’t look at fundamental. More analytical (which can be viewed as soulless). Which is one reason why full games aren’t watched as much now. No one in good faith can say the game today looks like a better version of yesterday’s game. Because it isn’t a version of yesterday’s game. It’s a different game in many ways. Rendering which era is better as pure opinion.

As for your question of Draymond vs Pippen. That’s a great question. Absolutely no way is Dray leading the 94 Bulls. Lol. Pippen wasn’t a great offensive line layer either but he did average around 21 that year. No way in HELL is draymond ever averaging 21 PPG. Especially not in the mid 90’s where big men are in the paint and they’d be able to bang his smallness around. Dray’s career high is 14ppg. And that was an outlier. lol

[ggsimmonds]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Well let’s break it down:



You can’t say the game has evolved when players today play under far more easy and favorable circumstances.

Bro...

You can’t hand check. You can’t sit in the paint for more than 3 seconds. You have landing zone rules. Take foul rules. Better shoe tech. Etc etc. Playerss are allowed to take 3-4 steps now, carry the ball, etc. Imagine if Isiah Thomas was allowed to carry? Imagine if Hakeem or Kemp could pretty much take steps from the 3 point line when attacking.

Thats evolution

For the rest of your post, Shaq is the most dominant big man in history and Jordan is the GOAT. Not many would disagree with that (I mean yeah you could argue Wilt is the most dominant big man ever but realistically most don't include pre-1980s in these discussions).

You're cherry picking specific players. Someone who favors today's game can easily counter that the 90s didn't have a big like Jokic. The problem with that is we are not counting 99% of the league at their respective times.

Its not an honest discussion because at that point we are searching for cherry picked players that would help make our point.

[sirdez]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Well let’s break it down:

Giannis, arguably the league’s best player, is going to a 60 year old Hakeem for lessons. Don’t think nostalgia has a part in that. More so skill.

That doesn't make Hakeem a better player, it just means he has a skillset that Giannis wants to learn off. Learning from someone doesn't make them better than you.

You can’t say the game has evolved when players today play under far more easy and favorable circumstances.

This is a lazy and subjective trope which is influenced by your 90s bias.

You can’t hand check. You can’t sit in the paint for more than 3 seconds. You have landing zone rules. Take foul rules. Better shoe tech. Etc etc. Playerss are allowed to take 3-4 steps now, carry the ball, etc. Imagine if Isiah Thomas was allowed to carry? Imagine if Hakeem or Kemp could pretty much take steps from the 3 point line when attacking.

These are all generalisations though based on your biases. There's nothing to suggest star players of today wouldn't have been stars in the 90s. If anything, I'd argue rosters are a lot deeper with talent than they were 30 years ago.

Recency bias will negate actual facts and render any questioning of today’s game (largely considered the softest it’s ever been and if you read comments, many also have the opinion the most boring it’s been) as “nostalgia.” The highest ratings in NBA history occurred in the 98 finals.

What does any of this have to do with how a great modern team would fare against a great team from 30 years ago?

Is there a player today with the size, strength and athleticism of a prime Shaq? Is there a 6’6 guard in today’s league with Jordan’s 48” vertical (NBA record or close to it), 4.3 40 yard dash, footwork and enormous massive hands? Imagine if Michael Jordan, who dunked on Mutombo, played in this era of no hand checks, 3 second paint rule and centers practically his height, flops being rewarded, etc.? Who’s stopping him? How do you stop him?

Imagine Steph and Klay playing in an era where there is less emphasis on tight perimeter defense and more outside shots are afforded. Imagine Jokic in an era where, outside the top 5-6 centers, teams were running tall stiffs in the middle. Imagine teams with lumbering 4s and 5s trying to defend modern teams playing small ball and transition offense.

It works both ways. But you're so wedded to the idea of the 90s being the strongest era of basketball that you can't acknowledge the other side.

I mean there’s video of Cutino Mobley at his current age absolutely cooking last year’s Rockets roster.

What does this even mean? I don't think any current NBA team is going to start Cutino Mobley because he hit a few shots in a practice session. At least try to argue in good faith.

How would Shaq be stopped in todays league? He’d have entire teams fouled out. You can’t even camp the paint to prevent him from stomping in there. You think Robert Williams would be able to handle him?

Teams would go smaller and run him out of the gym and stretch fives would make him come out to the perimeter. Again, it works both ways.

Rendering logic as “nostalgia” just states there’s no argument. Look it at point by point. There isn’t a team today with a Shaquille O’Neal and 6’7 PG Penny Hardaway duo. Not even close.

The problem is your version of logic is completely shrouded in bias.

[AIRJ23]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

Bro...


Thats evolution

For the rest of your post, Shaq is the most dominant big man in history and Jordan is the GOAT. Not many would disagree with that (I mean yeah you could argue Wilt is the most dominant big man ever but realistically most don't include pre-1980s in these discussions).

You're cherry picking specific players. Someone who favors today's game can easily counter that the 90s didn't have a big like Jokic. The problem with that is we are not counting 99% of the league at their respective times.

Its not an honest discussion because at that point we are searching for cherry picked players that would help make our point.

But that’s kinda my point. How can you say the game evolved when players yesterday didn’t have the opportunity to play under the rules and conditions of players today. Maybe I worded it wrong. The game evolved as rule changes are technically evolution I guess (for the worse imo as I prefer to see scoring made harder, not easier) but we can’t factually say players evolved as players now aren’t doing what players yesterday did and vice versa for that matter.

It’s also hard to say players have evolved when they haven’t had to deal with anyone near Shaq. I mean honestly just imagine Shaq and Penny in today’s game. Or Shaq and Kobe. I don’t think the 23 Heat are sniffing a finals with a duo like that in a league. Of course now there are lots of players now doing things they weren’t really doing then, mainly because no team would have a center bring a ball up court or serve as primary playmaker. But I would love to see what a Chris Webber or Hakeem would do in today’s game. I think both would be designated to do something close to a possession dominant big man.

Of course there’s no real answer here. But it’s fun to debate.

[AIRJ23]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

That doesn't make Hakeem a better player, it just means he has a skillset that Giannis wants to learn off. Learning from someone doesn't make them better than you.



This is a lazy and subjective trope which is influenced by your 90s bias.



These are all generalisations though based on your biases. There's nothing to suggest star players of today wouldn't have been stars in the 90s. If anything, I'd argue rosters are a lot deeper with talent than they were 30 years ago.



What does any of this have to do with how a great modern team would fare against a great team from 30 years ago?



Imagine Steph and Klay playing in an era where there is less emphasis on tight perimeter defense and more outside shots are afforded. Imagine Jokic in an era where, outside the top 5-6 centers, teams were running tall stiffs in the middle. Imagine teams with lumbering 4s and 5s trying to defend modern teams playing small ball and transition offense.

It works both ways. But you're so wedded to the idea of the 90s being the strongest era of basketball that you can't acknowledge the other side.



What does this even mean? I don't think any current NBA team is going to start Cutino Mobley because he hit a few shots in a practice session. At least try to argue in good faith.



Teams would go smaller and run him out of the gym and stretch fives would make him come out to the perimeter. Again, it works both ways.



The problem is your version of logic is completely shrouded in bias.

- Let’s just say a young Hakeem wouldn’t take skill lessons from a 60 year old Giannis. I’d say Hakeem is a better player in ever respect than Giannis. But that’s me, and I suspect about any fan or analyst poll would agree with me.

- You act as if teams wouldn’t play tighter perimeter defense on Steph and Klay. They actually had the tools to body up shooters back then. They could hand check, and there was no landing zone. Look up what Payton said about how he had to sag off shooters after the 04 hand check ban. Literally every player who played through the 04 rule changes say how much their hands were tied on defense afterwards.

-Why do you assume Shaq would be ran out of the gym? He was the most athletic big man in his young prime. Why do you think a literal slow poke who by his own admission can’t jump in Jokic, would be a better perimeter defender? Jokic is a complete defensive liability himself. Shaq could adapt his game well imo. And on offense there would be not one player in the league to stop him. Embiid? No way. He’s of course score at will on Jokic.

You can render it as bias all you want. I can say the same. But I think the logic holds up.

Here’s young Shaq running a fast break. No man has this strength and athleticism today. Nobody.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cx8TOQdshK8/?igshid=MWZjMTM2ODFkZg==

[sirdez]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

We'll never know if Hakeem would take lessons from Giannis because he played 20 years before him. You can't present that at some sort of proof rhe 90s was stronger lol

[ggsimmonds]

Re: Its the NBA FINALS: '96 Bulls vs '17 Warriors - Who will win a 7-game series?

But that’s kinda my point. How can you say the game evolved when players yesterday didn’t have the opportunity to play under the rules and conditions of players today. Maybe I worded it wrong. The game evolved as rule changes are technically evolution I guess (for the worse imo as I prefer to see scoring made harder, not easier) but we can’t factually say players evolved as players now aren’t doing what players yesterday did and vice versa for that matter.

It’s also hard to say players have evolved when they haven’t had to deal with anyone near Shaq. I mean honestly just imagine Shaq and Penny in today’s game. Or Shaq and Kobe. I don’t think the 23 Heat are sniffing a finals with a duo like that in a league. Of course now there are lots of players now doing things they weren’t really doing then, mainly because no team would have a center bring a ball up court or serve as primary playmaker. But I would love to see what a Chris Webber or Hakeem would do in today’s game. I think both would be designated to do something close to a possession dominant big man.

Of course there’s no real answer here. But it’s fun to debate.

This is why other posters have said you don't argue in good faith though.

1. You link to a video entitled "Evolution of the Rules"
2. You then say "can't really say evolution"

It comes off as not trying to have a genuine discussion but instead trying to win an argument. Like anything that could be remotely perceived as a threat to Jordan's greatness triggers your Jordan defense protocols. Jordan had the most trouble with the '98 Pacers, ergo you overrate the hell out of the '98 Pacers lol. With the evolution bit it was like as soon as you registered that evolution could be used to imply teams are superior today you went "hmm no, can't have that. No evolution"

Shaq is a problem in any era he plays. Thats what makes him an all time great. To your comment about today's Heat would not sniff a finals if the league had Shaq and Kobe...bro do you not remember how bad the East was during that Laker 3peat? The 76ers and Nets weren't exactly top tier historical playoff squads.

And even when you seemingly offer a concession to the modern era you immediately handicap that concession, e.g. "Of course now there are lots of players now doing things they weren’t really doing then, mainly because no team would have a center bring a ball up court or serve as primary playmaker."

Jordan is/should be the undisputed GOAT. We don't need to prop him up by overstating the level of the league as a whole during his prime.

Last point: "but we can’t factually say players evolved as players now aren’t doing what players yesterday did and vice versa for that matter. "
We actually can factually say that because that is exactly what evolution means. It means change, not improvement.