Can Warriors beat Bulls 72-10 record?

[theFRANCHISE]

Warriors will come back down to reality, they had a lot of games against bad teams. Kudos to them for winning those games. They'll go (5-3) in their next 8

[NZB2323]

I don't think people truly realize how hard it is to go 72-10, and just how good that 96 Bulls team was.

This Warriors team is very, very good. But I'd be surprised if they won more than 66 games.

[Chris1]

[inquisitive]

too much depth in the west nowdays...not gonna happen...most they will win is 60 games....likey 55-60 ...their MVP needs to get healthier...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Rusty_SFChron/status/544994555519434752[/tweet]

[timglick01]

I predicted the Warriors to go 71-11 before the season started

[dautjazz]

The '96 Bulls are a very overrated team.

While yes, it is impressive to go 72-10, back then it was a team full of a ton of expansion teams, watered down, and no back to backs (which is HUGE).


I don't even think the 96 Bulls were the best Bulls team, personally.

Really we're doing this? How is the league having 2 expansion teams then (Raptors and Grizzlies), different then teams tanking today like Philly and NY? Then we still have some other awful teams today like Detroit, Minnesota, and so on. The Raptors ironically beat the Bulls. The team was loaded, the GOAT, Pippen at the top of his game, Rodman in his best rebounding years, and a great sixth man that would start on most teams in Kukoc, then not to mention Phil Jackson. Not to mention MJ must have been pissed off after losing the last year to the Magic. I'm tired of hearing that the league was watered down then, I believe there was more stars then than now, and today there is an extra team, so the talent is spread out among even more teams.

[dautjazz]

The '96 Bulls are a very overrated team.

While yes, it is impressive to go 72-10, back then it was a team full of a ton of expansion teams, watered down, and no back to backs (which is HUGE).


I don't even think the 96 Bulls were the best Bulls team, personally.

Really we're doing this? How is the league having 2 expansion teams then (Raptors and Grizzlies), different then teams tanking today like Philly and NY? Then we still have some other awful teams today like Detroit, Minnesota, and so on. The Raptors ironically beat the Bulls. The team was loaded, the GOAT, Pippen at the top of his game, Rodman in his best rebounding years, and a great sixth man that would start on most teams in Kukoc, then not to mention Phil Jackson. Not to mention MJ must have been pissed off after losing the last year to the Magic. I'm tired of hearing that the league was watered down then, I believe there was more stars then than now, and today there is an extra team, so the talent is spread out among even more teams.

I would take the 92 Bulls over the 96 Bulls. The 96 Bulls had a bunch of players in their 30's who were fantastic but again, I would take today's competition way more over what the 96 Bulls had to face. If those Bulls on those older legs had to do back to backs the way teams do now it'd be a different story.

Also there is far more depth with great teams in today's league (especially out West) than what MJ went through in 96.


There was a superb post about this from a couple years ago that nails it nicely:





I'll tell you how... people are dazzled by the 72 win total, and they forget key factors that make the 92 Bulls MUCH better than the 96 Bulls.

1996 Chicago Buls = 72-10
1992 Chicago Bulls = 67-15

So five win difference. Not even significant to begin with. Now consider this:

1. The 1996 Bulls won 6-7 games against the FIRST year expansion Raptors and Grizzlies. That severely waters down their win total. Give the 92 Bulls 7 games against teams led by Damon Stoudamire and Brian Reeves, and that win total is probably at least 70 right off the bat.

2. Disparity in the 92 and 96 league. Here is a FACT! The 1996 fifth seed in the East was the Cleveland Cavaliers. Their leading scorers?

Terrell Brandon
Danny Ferry
Chris Mills

If that doesn't say it all about how weak the 96 league was compared to the 92 league, I don't know what does.

In 1992 the fifth seed in the East was the Detroit Pistons.. Isiah Thomas played 78 games, Dumars played 82, Laimbeer played 82, Rodman played 81. They still had Agguire, Woolridge and Salley.. And they were the FIFTH seed.

The league was a much deeper league in 1992.

In 92 the Pacers were a 40 win seventh seed. They had Reggie Miller, Chuck Person, Dale Davis, Rik Smits... basically a YOUNG version of the teams that did so well when they were OLD from 98-00.

3. The ages of the Bulls.... In 1992 Jordan was 29, Pippen was 26 and Grant was 26. They had something called the Pippen and Jordan fourth quarter show every night in 1992... the Bulls would sick the "Doberman Defense" on opponents. That defense involved Jordan, Pippen and Grant in college-style fullcourt pressure... and it led to a 12 minute long barrage of fast break dunks that just ruined teams.

No team, before or since, has been able to run the floor like that, with athletes of that size-athleticism duo caliber. It was literally a quarter long dunk contest. The Bulls would be down 3 to the Cavaliers in the fourth quarter and win the game by 15.

By 1996, Jordan was 33, Pippen 30, and Rodman was 35. While they were effective in a watered down BAD league.. they had no wherewithall to pull of the athletic feets the 92 team could pull off. In 92, Pippen and Jordan were both jumping 40+" on the breakaway combined with lightning quickness and floor speed... they just couldn't do that in 96. Nobody can do that at 33 and 30.

To this you often get "but they were so much smarter in 96." No they weren't... first off all, the difference between the very very very very saavy Bill Cartwright and the stupid lumbering moronic Luc Butterhands Longley is enough right off the bat. But, in 1992, they were already the smartest SG and SF in the league. So you lose a step and a half and you're gonna offset it by going from the smartest to the "double smartest"...?

4. The biggest fallacy ever regarding the 96 Bulls. That Dennis Rodman at age 35, was vastly superior to a 26 year old Horace Grant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rodman's perceived difference from Grant is more glitter than substance. He played to the people ten times better, and that's about it. Here are the stats:

Horace Grant 1992 - age 26
14.2 PPG 10.0 RPG 2.7 APG 1.23 SPG 1.62 BPG 57.8% FG 74.1% FT

Dennis Rodman 1996 - age 35
5.5 PPG 14.9 RPG 2.5 APG 0.56 SPG 0.42 BPG 48.0% FG 52.8% FT

a) The myth that Rodman is so superior defensively... They used Grant to press fullcourt, you couldn't dot hat with Rodman. Grant had an extra 0.67 SPG and 1.20 BPG. Grant had younger legs. Rodman was far superior to Grant in 1990. At that time, Dennis was an all-time top 5 defender, and Grant was just "very good." In 92 Grant was still very good and by 96, Rodman was living off of reputation. Still pretty good, no longer great.

b) Rodman is a better rebounder. But if you let me choose between:

Better rebounder, equal defender, VERY inferior offensive player (Rodman often was so bad that his defender cheated off of him)

or

Inferior rebounder, equal defender, VASTLY superior offensive player

I'll take the latter every time. My god there is a full 10% disparity in FG% and 21% in free throws.

At the very least, it's not some gimme that Rodman is way better than Grant.

The 96 Bulls got their win total in a very opportunistically overexpanded league, a bad league, with older legs, and a power forward living off of reputation.

Are the 96 Bulls BAD? No. They're still a top 10 team all time. They probably win 60 games in 1992. But they're just not as good as the media and sports people play them up to be. That's all.

The 1995-96 Bulls had 23 back-to-backs. You think this team would 12 less games just 4 years earlier? You know that the Hornets, Magic, and Heat were much better in 1996 than they were in 1992, which was their 4th season, or how about the Wolves being in their 3rd season. I'd like to hear why you think in 1992 the 96 Bulls team would lose an additional 12 games.

[timglick01]

The '96 Bulls are a very overrated team.

While yes, it is impressive to go 72-10, back then it was a team full of a ton of expansion teams, watered down, and no back to backs (which is HUGE).


I don't even think the 96 Bulls were the best Bulls team, personally.

There were no back to back games then?

[jamesnamida]

Well until the dubs rack up 11 loses it's still possible xD

[coldfish]

I apologize about the back to backs I could've sworn there was a quote from Phil Jackson about why the 72 wins would be near impossible to duplicate because of back to backs but perhaps I am getting mixed up.

I think the '92 Bulls would beat the '96 Bulls in a series. As for the '96 Bulls playing things out in the '92 season I think they would do a great job obviously but I still say the top 10 teams of '92 were better than the top 10 teams of 96. 96-98 was a weak era and I thought the 92 Bulls faced much stiffer competition in the playoffs than the 96 Bulls would.

While you say the Hornets/Magic/heat were better in 96 you could say the Knicks/Cavs/Celtics as well.


Also the 92 Bulls were only 5 games off the 72 Bulls. You have younger core players and a better team from the 92 squad.


Jordan was on a mission in 96, no doubt, but the quality of the teams in '96 was probably one of the 2 or 3 weakest of the past 25 years.

A few comments:
- I still think you need to look at the losses. The 67 win team effectively lost 50% more times than the 72 win team did. You just have to be perfect to do that.
- Bill Cartwright was awful as a Bull. Just awful. Jordan was right to hate him. Longley was no stud either but there was no major difference.
- I was a huge Bulls fan for both teams. I remember just dreading whenever the bench came on for the early 90's team. They got killed frequently. The 72 win team had that Kukoc guy coming off the bench. They also had Kerr, who was a better shooter than any of the early 90's guys. They also had several other people who were competent.
- The 96 Jordan wasn't as dynamic as the 92 one but he had that killer fadeaway that he just used whenever the team needed a bucket.

Overall, starting 5 on starting 5, I think the 96 and 92 teams were dam close. I might take the 92 team. When you add in the bench time, I think that is how the 96 team was able to win so much. The starters didn't have to be perfect every night for them to win.

People tend to forget that the 97 team won 69, which included losing their last 2 games with people resting.

[dautjazz]

I apologize about the back to backs I could've sworn there was a quote from Phil Jackson about why the 72 wins would be near impossible to duplicate because of back to backs but perhaps I am getting mixed up.

I think the '92 Bulls would beat the '96 Bulls in a series. As for the '96 Bulls playing things out in the '92 season I think they would do a great job obviously but I still say the top 10 teams of '92 were better than the top 10 teams of 96. 96-98 was a weak era and I thought the 92 Bulls faced much stiffer competition in the playoffs than the 96 Bulls would.

While you say the Hornets/Magic/heat were better in 96 you could say the Knicks/Cavs/Celtics as well.


Also the 92 Bulls were only 5 games off the 72 Bulls. You have younger core players and a better team from the 92 squad.


Jordan was on a mission in 96, no doubt, but the quality of the teams in '96 was probably one of the 2 or 3 weakest of the past 25 years.

A few comments:
- I still think you need to look at the losses. The 67 win team effectively lost 50% more times than the 72 win team did. You just have to be perfect to do that.
- Bill Cartwright was awful as a Bull. Just awful. Jordan was right to hate him. Longley was no stud either but there was no major difference.
- I was a huge Bulls fan for both teams. I remember just dreading whenever the bench came on for the early 90's team. They got killed frequently. The 72 win team had that Kukoc guy coming off the bench. They also had Kerr, who was a better shooter than any of the early 90's guys. They also had several other people who were competent.
- The 96 Jordan wasn't as dynamic as the 92 one but he had that killer fadeaway that he just used whenever the team needed a bucket.

Overall, starting 5 on starting 5, I think the 96 and 92 teams were dam close. I might take the 92 team. When you add in the bench time, I think that is how the 96 team was able to win so much. The starters didn't have to be perfect every night for them to win.

People tend to forget that the 97 team won 69, which included losing their last 2 games with people resting.

Oh that 97 was just as good, if not better, but Rodman and Kukoc missed a lot of games, and in 1998, Pippen missed a lot of games. 1996-98 teams IMO were no question better than the 1991-93 teams.

[theFRANCHISE]

The '96 Bulls are a very overrated team.

While yes, it is impressive to go 72-10, back then it was a team full of a ton of expansion teams, watered down, and no back to backs (which is HUGE).


I don't even think the 96 Bulls were the best Bulls team, personally.

who told you there weren't any back 2 backs? there were only 2 expansion teams that came during that season
Vancouver Grizzlies and Toronto Raptors and the Raptors gave the Bulls one of their 10 losses.

[GameTag]

The '96 Bulls are a very overrated team.

While yes, it is impressive to go 72-10, back then it was a team full of a ton of expansion teams, watered down, and no back to backs (which is HUGE).


I don't even think the 96 Bulls were the best Bulls team, personally.

During the regular season, they were the:

#1 Offensive Team
#3 Defensive Team

The league was very competitive then no different from today with more veteran leaders. If anything, they were underrated. The team went 41-3 before injuries to Rodman, Longley, Pippen, Wennington during that stretch.

[lilojmayo]

Talk about jumping the gun

[oikosnomos]

:lol:

Talk about jumping the gun

Happens every year. Whoever has the hottest start gets asked if they can beat the Bulls record. Last year it was the Pacers.

[Workforce250]

As for the watered down theory.

Please bare in mind that the league was MUCH more physical. Curry's layups would have been met with what is now flagrant fouls.
Hand checks were legal and so were charging fouls in the restricted zone.

What Jordan had to endure was nothing short of a battery and still kept attacking above the rim. Curry would be relegated to shooting threes like his Pops. No disrespect.

But staying on the subject, it's a question of a team tasting success to a team that were wiley championship veterans. No comparisons and highly doubtful.

[FerreroRocherrr]

Next year = Can the Cavs beat the Bulls 72-10 record?

[Egg Nog]

What Jordan had to endure was nothing short of a battery and still kept attacking above the rim. Curry would be relegated to shooting threes like his Pops. No disrespect.

Crazy exaggeration.

[oikosnomos]

What Jordan had to endure was nothing short of a battery and still kept attacking above the rim. Curry would be relegated to shooting threes like his Pops. No disrespect.

Crazy exaggeration.

The nature of it. The older legends get, the more amazing they become. However, I can go back and watch almost any game now. It was obviously rougher and more physical, but it was not battery.

[RedBulls23]

The Bulls were 41-3 heading into February.

41-3!

18-2 is good and all, but those Bulls had many things going for them (ignoring the "watered down" factor):

-They were hungry and pissed off because of their loss the previous year
-They had the GOAT with something to prove
-They had the perfect balance of offense and defense AND the perfect coach to channel it
-Their main players were all experienced at winning
-MJ was at his peak mentally and leader-ship wise
-The whole team clicked at a level I've never seen before or since

So it was a perfect storm of great players, great leaders great coaching, all the right reasons to dominate the league.

And if you believe the watered down thing, there's that as well.

So no, GS will NOT beat 72-10. I'm willing to put money on it.

Not only perfect balance, they flat out had the best offense AND best defense that year.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1996.html