Game Thread GAME# 78: BLAZERS @ WARRIORS - APRIL 3, 2016 - SUNDAY, 5:00 PM (PDT), KGW & NBATV

The argument isn't really Bulls vs Dubs. It's quite possible that the Bulls would beat the Warriors in a 7 game series, they did after all have the greatest player of all time. I think we're going to eventually look at Steph as the greatest shooter of all time, but certainly a lot has to be proven before that claim can be made.
The original argument was that the Warriors should have an asterisk by the record if they were to break it because the league isn't as good as it was in 1996. The Lakers, Celtics and Pistons were all cited as better teams that the Bulls had to beat than the teams in the league right now. Well the Pistons won 46 games that year, the Celtics won 33 and the Lakers won 53. Certainly no world beaters. There were 4 teams that won at least 59 games (Bulls, Magic, Sonics, Spurs) whereas this season will likely only see 3 teams hit that mark (and the Cavs have to finish 4-1 to reach 59). You could make an argument for a more competitive league if less teams are winning around 60 games.
There were 18 teams that finished above or around .500 in 1996 and there are 19 teams that will finish above or around that mark this season. The current 76ers and Lakers would have been 2 of the 3 worst teams in the league in 1996. So maybe more bottom feeders but slightly more average to above average teams.
There were 4 different MVPs in the 6 seasons before 96 (including 2 years where the best player on the planet MJ did not play either at all or for a full season) and there have been 4 different MVPs in the 6 seasons preceding the current one. Very difficult to say which league had more talent especially as the argument could be made that the best player in the league does not play for the Warriors (LBJ). No such argument could have been made in 1996.
The big difference for me is when franchises were founded. The last NBA franchise to be founded currently is the Pelicans who were founded in the 2002-2003 season. In the 13 years before 1996, a total of 6 teams were started from scratch. There were significantly less well established teams than there are today.
None of this mentions analytics and other data more available today, giving opponents plenty of information on how to beat teams. You could also say that more tanking occurs in the current league but that's more speculative.
So all in all it was tough for the Bulls to win 72 in 96, and it's been tough for the Dubs to win 69 this year. If they break the record they should be celebrated as the greatest regular season team in history.

 

Like what? Longevity is the only thing I can see that's left to be proven, and he's already pretty solid in that category.

 

Charles agrees with me.

 

That team didn't set the win record though, did it? It was a team that was hastily put together with aging superstars. Malone wasn't even close to still being one of the best players in the league. Payton was past his prime as well.

The Bulls had three future Hall of Famers who were arguably the best at their positions at that time, and were exceptional defenders.

Is Klay the best shooting guard in the league? Is Draymond the best power forward in the league? I find it laughable that Klay would ever make it to the hall. Maybe Draymond if he keeps up this production.

 

Not really a ringing endorsement then. hehe

 

Well, there's a number of videos discussing the topic on ESPN, and I think most of them agree that the Bulls would win in a series. The disagreement is over how many games it would take.

 

Kerr would be there.... because in this paradox we're talking about Jordan at age 32, Pippen was 30, and Rodman was 34.

The Sonics that year were an interesting matchup because they had Kemp, who presented a difficult defensive matchup for Chicago, and Payton (who is arguably the greatest defensive point guard of all time.) The Warriors don't have Kemp. Their best player is Curry, and I think that Bulls team was built to defend wing players. They held Payton to 17 ppg in that series, which was 3 ppg less than his playoff average in 1995-1996.

 

Kemp might be the most athletic player to ever play in the NBA. I know that's a lofty bar to set for anyone, but the guy was a freak. It's truly sad what happened to him in Cleveland.

To me, if you can shut down Curry (which has proven to be extremely difficult to do), you can shut down the Warriors, and looking at some of the teams over the past 15-20 years, the Bulls had the length and athleticism to do it, even with today's rules.

I would pay good money to see Curry play against the Riley Knicks or the Bad Boy Pistons though, with the rules of that time.

 

Malone absolutely was still a juggernaut, and there was nothing hastily put together about that team. People forget that Malone was injured and that's what derailed them. They were still really, really good despite Payton being a bad fit in the triangle.

 

I dunno about that; Kemp outplayed Jordan in that series with Rodman defending him. Kemp was unbelievable that year. He'd run circles around Draymond or a small ball Barnes. The Glove would be better defensively than Avery Bradley on Steph.

Some of these matchups are like the classics in boxing; or rock paper scissors where just because you handily beat one team doesn't mean you won't get swept by the other. Kenny Smith always said that with his Rockets they could manhandle the Jazz but were terrible against the Sonics while the Jazz could easily beat the Sonics. Just depended how the teams were seeded.

 

Eh, he only averaged 13 and 8 that season. Obviously still very solid, but not what I would consider a juggernaut.

 

No he wasn't a "juggernaut" but Malone was very effective until he got hurt. How many shots do you think were available with a prime Shaq; not to mention a ball hog Kobe? I wouldn't hold the 13 points against him. He averaged 20 the year prior.

 

I'd love to have a team that gets to the finals without facing an elimination game be considered a massive underachiever and disappointment. Sheesh.

That's similar to our best season in the last 40 years.

 

Yeah, but my point was that he wasn't one of the best players in the league anymore. Not that he wasn't still effective or a solid player.

 

You make it sound like he was just an average player. If Malone wasn't one of the best players in the league still, a borderline all-time great team wouldn't have fallen apart in the wake of his injury. A role player should have been able to fill in just fine.

 

The Pelicans have been around since the 80s when they were called the Charlotte Hornets.

Billups destroyed Payton in the 2004 NBA Finals and Payton was a non-factor on offense.

 

Pretty sure there was more to it than just that. They had horrible chemistry on that team with Shaq and Kobe feuding openly.

 

That was true every year they played together.