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

[AIRJ23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Real2KInsider

As long as you don't say something like Buck Williams > Chris Webber I think you'll be fine.

I will say Buck Williams > Roy Hibbert though

Or Buck Williams > Steven Adams

[AIRJ23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Real2KInsider

Ball Handle, Passing, Shot Creation, Rolling, Driving (Eurosteps, Floaters, etc), Contact Finishing, Man Defense / Switching If none of those were important enough for Hakeem to learn (i.e. non-essential), maybe think about what that means... Giannis through Age 28 2x MVP, 1x Finals MVP, 1x DPOY 7x All-NBA (5-2-0), 5x All-Defense (4-1), 7x All-Star 79 Playoff Games (1x Champion, 1x Conf Finals, 2x Second Round, 4x First Round): 8-6 Series Record Hakeem through Age 28 0x MVP, 0x Finals MVP, 0x DPOY 6x All-NBA (3-2-1), 5x All-Defense (3-2), 6x All-Star 50 Playoff Games (1x Finals, 1x Second Round, 5x First Round): 4-7 Series Record To suggest Hakeem couldn't learn something from a player who has accomplished more at a younger age is frankly, ignorant. I know it's hard to imagine from everyone's keyboard but these guys are world-class athletes. Hakeem wasn't born Hakeem, he meticulously studied and worked and had his mentors, teachers, coaches, etc to reach that level. Speaking of which, Hakeem wasn't even a good passer until Rudy Tomjanovich joined the Rockets in 93 (Age 30). Unlocking that aspect of his game is what allowed him and the Rockets to hit greater heights.

Giannis started playing basketball at, what, 15 years old? I have little doubt that if Hakeem started playing in the modern age, he’d be a point center of some sort. Point being, if Giannis can learn a decent handle, so could most big men of the past if they played in a small ball era.

Quote: Originally Posted by sirdez

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

I didn’t present it in itself as proof. I think the 90’s was stronger because players had to play through tougher conditions and rules to score. I think it goes without saying that those players dropped into a modern age with better shoes, tech, and so many rules introduced yearly to make scoring easier, they’d do well. According to coaches, players, etc. they used to practice harder as well which shows up in availability and durability.

Remember you don’t HAVE to have a good 3 point shot to thrive today. Giannis, Luka etc. do not.

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

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.

Understood on the definition of “evolution.” Sure, the game changed. But every single ounce of that change was to openly make scoring easier and points go up. So that in itself to me negates a valid argument for “improvement.” I think of the 98 spurs who lost to the Jazz 4-1 after those Jazz swept Shaq and the lakers, and I have a hard time thinking many of any modern teams could snatch enough rebounds to bear the twin towers.

I wouldn’t say MJ had trouble with the 98 pacers. He averaged 32 ppg. And those pacers at older age gave prime Shaq/Kobe duo combo trouble too. That’s my point. I’d say that team is sorely underrated because two of the top 3 best teams of the last 30 years were in their way.

Also I agree about how historically weak the East was in the 2000’s. The modern Heat could hang back then for sure. But the 90’s East? I don’t think a team with Gabe Vincent as the third leading scorer would beat the 98 Heat, 98 Bulls, nor the 98 Pacers who had a talent like Jalen Rose coming off the bench.

My main point with the “rik smits would be Brook Lopez” analogies is that you can spin that in reverse and say “Kyrie would be Rod Strickland in the 90’s.” That’s why I use hyperbolic examples like that to highlight that hyperbole.

And btw, don’t think there isn’t any accuracy in that. Strickland had absolute game. Another player who played in the wrong era is Abdul Rauf. Watch his clips and blink and you might think you saw Steph.

https://youtube.com/shorts/JKFeKoKxx...cD5OxqGpZ1hJpE

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by AIRJ23

Understood on the definition of “evolution.” Sure, the game changed. But every single ounce of that change was to openly make scoring easier and points go up. So that in itself to me negates a valid argument for “improvement.” I think of the 98 spurs who lost to the Jazz 4-1 after those Jazz swept Shaq and the lakers, and I have a hard time thinking many of any modern teams could snatch enough rebounds to bear the twin towers.

You're not entirely wrong with the bolded but you're not entirely right either. The primary driving force of the rule changes were to "open the game up." To move the primacy away from lumbering bigs and towards athletic guards. Doing that you would expect to see an increase in scoring and pace 'baked in' just off common sense, run your offense thru fast athletic guards vs slow footed big bruisers, which would result in more possessions and by extension more shots? Yeah they wanted scoring to increase but it wasn't the only or primary driving force. Most of all they wanted to change how the bulk of the scoring was done.

Quote: Originally Posted by AIRJ23

I wouldn’t say MJ had trouble with the 98 pacers. He averaged 32 ppg. And those pacers at older age gave prime Shaq/Kobe duo combo trouble too. That’s my point. I’d say that team is sorely underrated because two of the top 3 best teams of the last 30 years were in their way. Also I agree about how historically weak the East was in the 2000’s. The modern Heat could hang back then for sure. But the 90’s East? I don’t think a team with Gabe Vincent as the third leading scorer would beat the 98 Heat, 98 Bulls, nor the 98 Pacers who had a talent like Jalen Rose coming off the bench.

The bolded is the only part I want to address here. Back in '98 people would have spoke of Jalen Rose the same way you speak of Gabe Vincent.

Quote: Originally Posted by AIRJ23

My main point with the “rik smits would be Brook Lopez” analogies is that you can spin that in reverse and say “Kyrie would be Rod Strickland in the 90’s.” That’s why I use hyperbolic examples like that to highlight that hyperbole. And btw, don’t think there isn’t any accuracy in that. Strickland had absolute game. Another player who played in the wrong era is Abdul Rauf. Watch his clips and blink and you might think you saw Steph. https://youtube.com/shorts/JKFeKoKxx...cD5OxqGpZ1hJpE

Personal style I guess lol. I rather avoid battles of hyperbole. That said my most unpopular opinion is that guys like Kyrie and even Steph would not be anywhere close to as effective in the 90s as they are today. As mentioned above the rule changes were specifically designed to allow guys like that to shine because they couldn't shine previously.

But then the inverse is equally true -- guards from back in the day don't have nearly the same skillset or deep of a bag as guards today. One example if you want to be a scoring guard today a step-back game is mandatory and thats a skill 90s guys just didn't have because the game they played didn't allow them to develop it.

Anytime people have this discussion we always kind of go back and forth on one point -- are we magically transporting Giannis as he exists now back to an earlier era or are we dropping a younger Giannis back even further and considering the option of tailoring his skillset to that era? Like I said, we tend to be wishy-washy on this front.

Finally I want to touch on the topic of Hakeem. Hakeem and Kobe are the two GOATs when it comes to footwork. No one is touching them in that category. Beyond that there are some real reasons why footwork today isn't what it use to be particularly among big men and in the post:

1. A domino effect. Rule changes put the spotlight on guards so kids eventually started idolizing and imitating those guards.

2. The downfall of the college game. Maybe downfall is a bit dramatic, but it doesn't really matter as much nowadays. I was watching Gilbert Arenas' podcast last week and they were talking about Duncan vs KG and a hypothetical scenario of them swapping teams. Gil said that the Spurs were a 50 win team before Duncan was drafted and really emphasized that a 50 win team was getting the college national player of the year. Back then guys came up after putting time in the college ranks and thats where the "big fundamental" was born. College taught guys fundamentals like footwork and how not to travel (tongue firmly in cheek) and players coming into the NBA today don't get that. Instead of spending hours with a credible and respected coach doing drills these players are spending hours working on their shot. You don't need a individualized coaching plan to improve your shot. How many guys across all eras came into the league with a wackyass shooting motion and they were left alone because it worked for them? During that podcast conversation someone asked who won player of the year last year and not one of them knew the answer to that. It was quite jarring to see in a single exchange how the prestige of college accomplishments just fell off a cliff over the past 20 years.

The fall of the college game and its impact on the NBA product could be a much larger conversation but its one few have, even though it is very much relevant in these cross era conversations

[AIRJ23]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

You're not entirely wrong with the bolded but you're not entirely right either. The primary driving force of the rule changes were to "open the game up." To move the primacy away from lumbering bigs and towards athletic guards. Doing that you would expect to see an increase in scoring and pace 'baked in' just off common sense, run your offense thru fast athletic guards vs slow footed big bruisers, which would result in more possessions and by extension more shots? Yeah they wanted scoring to increase but it wasn't the only or primary driving force. Most of all they wanted to change how the bulk of the scoring was done. The bolded is the only part I want to address here. Back in '98 people would have spoke of Jalen Rose the same way you speak of Gabe Vincent. Personal style I guess lol. I rather avoid battles of hyperbole. That said my most unpopular opinion is that guys like Kyrie and even Steph would not be anywhere close to as effective in the 90s as they are today. As mentioned above the rule changes were specifically designed to allow guys like that to shine because they couldn't shine previously. But then the inverse is equally true -- guards from back in the day don't have nearly the same skillset or deep of a bag as guards today. One example if you want to be a scoring guard today a step-back game is mandatory and thats a skill 90s guys just didn't have because the game they played didn't allow them to develop it. Anytime people have this discussion we always kind of go back and forth on one point -- are we magically transporting Giannis as he exists now back to an earlier era or are we dropping a younger Giannis back even further and considering the option of tailoring his skillset to that era? Like I said, we tend to be wishy-washy on this front. Finally I want to touch on the topic of Hakeem. Hakeem and Kobe are the two GOATs when it comes to footwork. No one is touching them in that category. Beyond that there are some real reasons why footwork today isn't what it use to be particularly among big men and in the post: 1. A domino effect. Rule changes put the spotlight on guards so kids eventually started idolizing and imitating those guards. 2. The downfall of the college game. Maybe downfall is a bit dramatic, but it doesn't really matter as much nowadays. I was watching Gilbert Arenas' podcast last week and they were talking about Duncan vs KG and a hypothetical scenario of them swapping teams. Gil said that the Spurs were a 50 win team before Duncan was drafted and really emphasized that a 50 win team was getting the college national player of the year. Back then guys came up after putting time in the college ranks and thats where the "big fundamental" was born. College taught guys fundamentals like footwork and how not to travel (tongue firmly in cheek) and players coming into the NBA today don't get that. Instead of spending hours with a credible and respected coach doing drills these players are spending hours working on their shot. You don't need a individualized coaching plan to improve your shot. How many guys across all eras came into the league with a wackyass shooting motion and they were left alone because it worked for them? During that podcast conversation someone asked who won player of the year last year and not one of them knew the answer to that. It was quite jarring to see in a single exchange how the prestige of college accomplishments just fell off a cliff over the past 20 years. The fall of the college game and its impact on the NBA product could be a much larger conversation but its one few have, even though it is very much relevant in these cross era conversations

I agree with most of that. And I agree that Steph and kyrie would be mitigated with the older rules as the new rules were specifically designed to excel their styles of play. Also I’m sure kyrie would get called for traveling constantly as let’s face it, the nba really doesn’t call carrying anymore.

Guys did do step backs back then but you’d just get called on travels a lot so many didn’t do those dramatic lunges backwards cause they weren’t allowed to, as you touch on. Also guys did euro steps like Dominque and Rod, but got called for traveling.

https://youtu.be/kZyqMgbDzt8?si=RpoD-tqNvtROjBqj

I’d say that also points to those guys in yesterday’s era able to utilize those moves in their bag would make them very effective as well.

I dunno about the Jalen rose comparison. Rose was a key figure on the fab 5 and was definitely seen as a potential star. And he definitely wasn’t the 3rd highest scorer on that team like Vincent was.

And you’re right about how the rule changes affected the game. The nba states how they specifically wanted to coerce the game to be played. But I dunno about you, but when I play ball I’d WAY rather play in a format where no one can hand check me and the paint is wide open and the closest guy to it is 6’8 floor spacer. Guys like Bill Wennington might get made fun of now for being big and lumbering but the imagine trying to attack the paint on those Bulls with MJ and Pip and Rodman hand checking, bumping you while massive piece of meat Wennington is zoning the paint ready to hit you with that mass. It takes tons of skill and toughness to score on that. I’d say far more than it takes to beat a sub par defender like Steph at the perimeter who can’t touch you then attack the rim where the paint is barren and the biggest guy near it is draymond green. It’s just hard for me to call guys more skilled now simply cause their games are more saucy because the game style allows it.

—————

"Our current rules are designed to allow players to penetrate for high percentage shots. It's also allowed for higher quality perimeter shots as well, because of how much easier it is to penetrate today."
- Stu Jackson, VP of NBA Basketball Operations. May 3, 2007
1998 ЗРТ%: .346
1999 ЗРТ%: .354
2022 3РТ%: .354
"WHAT THE NBA IS TRYING TO DO IS PROMOTE UNIMPEDED MOVEMENT FOR DRIBBLERS AND CUTTERS.
WITHOUR CURRENT RULES, IT'S NOW MORE DIFFICULT TO GUARD THE QUICK WING PLAYERS WHO CAN ALSO HANDLE THE BALL. BACK THEN, DEFENSES AND DEFENSIVE PLAYERS IN GENERAL, COULD USE THEIR STRENGTH TO CONTROL OFFENSIVE PLAYERS. BUT OUR NEW RULES HAVE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE.
- ROD THORN, FORMER NBA EXEC. VP OF OPERATIONS & RULES EXPERT: "THE DEATH OF DEFENSE" BY ROLAND LAZENBY, OCT 20, 2006

[AIRJ23]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

You're not entirely wrong with the bolded but you're not entirely right either. The primary driving force of the rule changes were to "open the game up." To move the primacy away from lumbering bigs and towards athletic guards. Doing that you would expect to see an increase in scoring and pace 'baked in' just off common sense, run your offense thru fast athletic guards vs slow footed big bruisers, which would result in more possessions and by extension more shots? Yeah they wanted scoring to increase but it wasn't the only or primary driving force. Most of all they wanted to change how the bulk of the scoring was done. The bolded is the only part I want to address here. Back in '98 people would have spoke of Jalen Rose the same way you speak of Gabe Vincent. Personal style I guess lol. I rather avoid battles of hyperbole. That said my most unpopular opinion is that guys like Kyrie and even Steph would not be anywhere close to as effective in the 90s as they are today. As mentioned above the rule changes were specifically designed to allow guys like that to shine because they couldn't shine previously. But then the inverse is equally true -- guards from back in the day don't have nearly the same skillset or deep of a bag as guards today. One example if you want to be a scoring guard today a step-back game is mandatory and thats a skill 90s guys just didn't have because the game they played didn't allow them to develop it. Anytime people have this discussion we always kind of go back and forth on one point -- are we magically transporting Giannis as he exists now back to an earlier era or are we dropping a younger Giannis back even further and considering the option of tailoring his skillset to that era? Like I said, we tend to be wishy-washy on this front. Finally I want to touch on the topic of Hakeem. Hakeem and Kobe are the two GOATs when it comes to footwork. No one is touching them in that category. Beyond that there are some real reasons why footwork today isn't what it use to be particularly among big men and in the post: 1. A domino effect. Rule changes put the spotlight on guards so kids eventually started idolizing and imitating those guards. 2. The downfall of the college game. Maybe downfall is a bit dramatic, but it doesn't really matter as much nowadays. I was watching Gilbert Arenas' podcast last week and they were talking about Duncan vs KG and a hypothetical scenario of them swapping teams. Gil said that the Spurs were a 50 win team before Duncan was drafted and really emphasized that a 50 win team was getting the college national player of the year. Back then guys came up after putting time in the college ranks and thats where the "big fundamental" was born. College taught guys fundamentals like footwork and how not to travel (tongue firmly in cheek) and players coming into the NBA today don't get that. Instead of spending hours with a credible and respected coach doing drills these players are spending hours working on their shot. You don't need a individualized coaching plan to improve your shot. How many guys across all eras came into the league with a wackyass shooting motion and they were left alone because it worked for them? During that podcast conversation someone asked who won player of the year last year and not one of them knew the answer to that. It was quite jarring to see in a single exchange how the prestige of college accomplishments just fell off a cliff over the past 20 years. The fall of the college game and its impact on the NBA product could be a much larger conversation but its one few have, even though it is very much relevant in these cross era conversations

Your point on college hoops is enlightening and really explains what I’ve thought about the disparity between old and new eras. This era is more saucy obviously and personal taste can call that more or less entertaining, but when I watch older games the thing that really stands out is how much more fundamentally sound teams play. Players make a lot less mistakes because they don’t play nearly as much hero ball. In today’s nba I’m constantly yelling at the screen wondering why some teams play like a pickup street ball game. Just chucking threes after threes. The lakers warriors series was a perfect example of that where Klay, Poole and co. took some incredibly dumb shots. Draymond was looking so nervous when he got the ball he was playing hot potato with it or missing open layups.

For better or worse (personal opinion), the “Duncan game” is long gone in this era. And the almost eradication of college hoops does explain that.

It’s as enlightening as me getting some clarity on why players get injured so much nowadays, aside from training less hard according to Kevin Garnett and in my opinion, the money spoiling players which naturally softens them (compare to Dominique Wilkins who said he refined the test after popping his Achilles and playing hard as ever because he had no choice. That was his winning. That’s a warrior mindset). It’s because so many players start playing at such a young age, by the time they’re 25 their “body mileage” is so high they start to break down. Apparently body mileage is very much a thing. Not coincidentally guys like Giannis who started playing basketball in his teenage years don’t get injured as often.

[JAY_D1]

Really cant wait for the next session of the 1996 bulls...

Remember guys, we all have different viewpoints and opinions. Its also okay to agree to disagree. We will never know what Kyrie does in the 90s or if Hakeem could be better than Giannis at this time.

[jd@os]

Quote: Originally Posted by JAY_D1

Really cant wait for the next session of the 1996 bulls... Remember guys, we all have different viewpoints and opinions. Its also okay to agree to disagree.

Couldn’t agree more, and can’t say it enough myself. AIRJ23 and ggsimmomds express their differing opinions in a way that’s productive to the thread. It was the name calling, insults and projection that aren’t needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bulls96]

I love the discussion in this thread!

WHo do you want me to play in another Best-of-7 series guys?