How would the '96 Bulls be in today's game with the growth of the 3 point shot?

[Mean_Streets]

For those who don't know, that particular Bulls team won its 72 games when the league as a whole didn't value the 3 pointer as much and not only that, but during the 1995-96 season the NBA had a shortened 3 point line, Jordan and Pippen took advantage of that and had career years from 3 point land. The league would put the 3 point line back to its original spot during the 1997-98 season.

How could Chicago adjust to today's game considering they didn't have many knock down shooters?

Ron Harper - Career: 29 3pt%
Michael Jordan - Career: 33 3pt%
Scottie Pippen - Career: 32 3pt%
Toni Kukoc - Career: 33 3pt%
Steve Kerr - Career: 45 3pt%

As you can see, Kerr who came off the bench was the only legit 3 point shooter on the team. Today the average 3 pt% is 35%, everybody on the Bulls excluding Kerr shot below that. I'm guessing that Chicago team would be a below average 3 point shooting team in today's NBA. How would that effect them? Considering that in today's NBA it seems like championship contending teams have good 3 point shooting or at least above average.

[FrontPageNews]

Let it go. The Bulls era is long over.

[amcfad27]

Still champs /thread

[homecourtloss]

They wouldn't be as dominant but still very, very good. There's just more variance from game to game based on teams getting hot; the only hedge against it is being the best shooting team and the best at defending it. The Bulls would be good at defending it (6th best in 1995-1996), and might be even better knowing that they would have to be. They were always good at shooting the three, in even in the years in which the line wasn't shortened.

They would still have 5 plus defenders as starters and be great at rebouding, the two things that led them to that record.

[atlantabbq99]

Bulls played small ball before it was in style. the Bulls dominated all the elite 7 footers, Shaq, Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, Mourning, with just a trio of scrub centers. Think if the Bulls played today and all they had to worry about was Cousins and Howard. Bulls would dominate more today then in the 90s and i have then sweeping the Warriors in a series.

G: Pippen
G: Jordan
G: Harper
F: Kukoč
F: Rodman

Jordan would take a Tony Parker type of role where he would go iso on the top of the key with all the shooters camped out on the arch. I can see Pippen, Harper, and Kukoc becoming elite 3pt shooter with all the open looks they would get from zone defense. well all know that Rodman would dominate the boards, but people forget how amazing Rodman was at running the floor after ever defensive rebound.




They are all 6'7 exept for Kukoc who is 6'9 and all are lighting fast.... Now that is small ball.

[Johnny Firpo]

They would do extremely well with their versatile small ball lineup. Main favorites obviously, also it's not like they wouldn't sign some shooters, as well as becoming a better three point shooting team in this era.

[yitur]

Bulls played small ball before it was in style. the Bulls dominated all the elite 7 footers, Shaq, Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, Mourning, with just a trio of scrub centers. Think if the Bulls played today and all they had to worry about was Cousins and Howard. Bulls would dominate more today then in the 90s and i have then sweeping the Warriors in a series.

G: Pippen
G: Jordan
G: Harper
F: Kukoč
F: Rodman

Jordan would take a Tony Parker type of role where he would go iso on the top of the key with all the shooters camped out on the arch. I can see Pippen, Harper, and Kukoc becoming elite 3pt shooter with all the open looks they would get from zone defense. well all know that Rodman would dominate the boards, but people forget how amazing Rodman was at running the floor after ever defensive rebound.




They are all 6'7 exept for Kukoc who is 6'9 and all are lighting fast.... Now that is small ball.

This is actually pretty funny to me. Yes GSW Death Squad has been done before, so was the strecth 4(Robert Horry rang any bell?). People just like to create these trends if someone wins with it. If GSW didn't win like Suns no one would be thinking "ohhh small ball is so efficient though.".

[ThaRegul8r]

Who knows?

They played the game as it was at the time that they played. They had no reason to be concerned with how the game would be nearly 20 years into the future. Which they had no possible way of knowing.

[gold_leader64]

For those who don't know, that particular Bulls team won its 72 games when the league as a whole didn't value the 3 pointer as much and not only that, but during the 1995-96 season the NBA had a shortened 3 point line, Jordan and Pippen took advantage of that and had career years from 3 point land. The league would put the 3 point line back to its original spot during the 1997-98 season.

How could Chicago adjust to today's game considering they didn't have many knock down shooters?

Ron Harper - Career: 29 3pt%
Michael Jordan - Career: 33 3pt%
Scottie Pippen - Career: 32 3pt%
Toni Kukoc - Career: 33 3pt%
Steve Kerr - Career: 45 3pt%

As you can see, Kerr who came off the bench was the only legit 3 point shooter on the team. Today the average 3 pt% is 35%, everybody on the Bulls excluding Kerr shot below that. I'm guessing that Chicago team would be a below average 3 point shooting team in today's NBA. How would that effect them? Considering that in today's NBA it seems like championship contending teams have good 3 point shooting or at least above average.

Coming from somebody who actually watched them play:

They didn't take many 3's because they didn't need to take many. What a lot of people don't understand about TS% and other advanced metrics is that it doesn't take into account the potential points scored by the opposition on missed opportunities. We all know that a miss off of a longer shot is more likely to result in a longer rebound. This, in turn, is more likely to result in a transition, and as we all know, transition buckets are usually a huge offensive advantage. So it stands to reason that the advantage of the extra point in a made 3 pointer is reduced if many are attempted, as the opposition has a higher probability of scoring in transition off of misses. This is lessened by higher % shooting teams, but it exists nonetheless.

The thing about MJ, and that bulls team, is that they shot a high % of shots for that era, where it was more difficult to get to the FT line than it is in today's game with the factors such as the restricted zone in the lane, continuation rules, flagrant calls, clear-path rule, etc etc. They shot .496 from inside the arc in a tougher era, and that would have been 11th best last season. Considering the difference in rules, I'd imagine Jordan and Pippen would get to the line far more, resulting in teams making it difficult to adjust. Just look at how players like Durant, Harden, a younger Wade, etc have done drawing calls. It would be insane for guys like MJ who already was getting superstar treatment at that time. The lack of 3pt shooting wouldn't have been as important because they would get more calls anyway.

Additionally, as a team they shot .403 from deep that season, which would have been league-leading this year. Yes, the attempts were far less, but the fact is that not having to rely on the deep shot and getting to the FT line at an insane clip would have resulted in them not needed to take many 3's even today. Additionally, there's no reason to think that even if guys like Kerr, Tony, and Scottie took a few more deep shots a game that they wouldn't be able to have a comparable season, as all of those guys were respectable deep threats.

"But what about zones?" I keep hearing this and for the life of me I don't understand why people can't grasp the reality of a zone defense. Zones are not world-beaters. If zones are so freakin' awesome, then why does every team in the game not play a zone as their primary defense? Zones are used sparingly and as an adjustment in certain circumstances. Zones can be beaten by bigs positioning themselves in certain positions and moving the ball to exploit rotations and create gaps. Kukoc and Longley could definitely move the ball and exploit weaknesses if they faced one of today's zones.

Lastly, I will say that their defense and pace could be adjusted to play quick or fast, and we've seen teams like the Spurs and Grizz be successful by slowing the game down, lessening the possessions of opponents (which reduces the 3pt threat), controlling the glass, and making teams play their game. The bulls would have had the greatest rebounder in the league, and 3 of the best defenders at their respective positions to ever lace them up in MJ, Pippen, and Rodman. There's no reason why they wouldn't have been able to impose their will on teams.

Overall, they may have had to make a few adjustments, but they wouldn't have had to take a ton of 3's to keep up with today's team, nor would they be handicapped. Their ability to draw fouls at an insane rate would have resulted in teams being unable to compete with Jordan and Pippen (hell, an old MJ on the Wizards was still embarassing defenders), and they would have definitely controlled the glass and impose their will with regards to pace and defense. Now, can we please stop this agenda?

[903124]

They didn't take many 3's because they didn't need to take many. What a lot of people don't understand about TS% and other advanced metrics is that it doesn't take into account the potential points scored by the opposition on missed opportunities. We all know that a miss off of a longer shot is more likely to result in a longer rebound. This, in turn, is more likely to result in a transition, and as we all know, transition buckets are usually a huge offensive advantage. So it stands to reason that the advantage of the extra point in a made 3 pointer is reduced if many are attempted, as the opposition has a higher probability of scoring in transition off of misses. This is lessened by higher % shooting teams, but it exists nonetheless.

Three points shot led to a higher OREB% than a midrange. http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

Moreover Bulls in not very good in drawing free throw even in 95-96 season. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1996.html

Also I think you miss some point in zone defense. I agree with you that Bulls can attack zone defense today but today NBA defense is not zone defense -- it is unrestricted man and man defense. Overfill strong side defense is forbidden in 90s.

[gold_leader64]

They didn't take many 3's because they didn't need to take many. What a lot of people don't understand about TS% and other advanced metrics is that it doesn't take into account the potential points scored by the opposition on missed opportunities. We all know that a miss off of a longer shot is more likely to result in a longer rebound. This, in turn, is more likely to result in a transition, and as we all know, transition buckets are usually a huge offensive advantage. So it stands to reason that the advantage of the extra point in a made 3 pointer is reduced if many are attempted, as the opposition has a higher probability of scoring in transition off of misses. This is lessened by higher % shooting teams, but it exists nonetheless.

Three points shot led to a higher OREB% than a midrange. http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

Overall it seems to be about 23% from deep vs 21% midrange. However fast break opportunities happen more often with deeper rebounds than closer ones, and any team that pushes the pace will focus on the transition game no matter where the ball is rebounded. My point is that a missed shot = better scoring chance by the opposition due to defenses not being set and the possibility of a fast-break, so in the end, fewer missed shots = better overall, and that isn't factored into advanced metrics of scoring. The idea that "this stat better represents the player's offensive contributions" ignore the counter that they may, in fact, be creating better opportunities by the opposition to score. In the end, all that matters is which team has more points.

Moreover Bulls in not very good in drawing free throw even in 95-96 season. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1996.html

Which is why I was speaking in the context of today's game.

Also I think you miss some point in zone defense. I agree with you that Bulls can attack zone defense today but today NBA defense is not zone defense -- it is unrestricted man and man defense. Overfill strong side defense is forbidden in 90s.

Zones are legal but not used all that often. I wasn't saying teams use zones, in fact, I said that no team uses it as their primary defense. Man on man is still the primary defense used today. I brought up zones because that is often an argument brought up about the change in defensive rules then vs now.

[mysticOscar]

For those who don't know, that particular Bulls team won its 72 games when the league as a whole didn't value the 3 pointer as much and not only that, but during the 1995-96 season the NBA had a shortened 3 point line, Jordan and Pippen took advantage of that and had career years from 3 point land. The league would put the 3 point line back to its original spot during the 1997-98 season.

How could Chicago adjust to today's game considering they didn't have many knock down shooters?

Ron Harper - Career: 29 3pt%
Michael Jordan - Career: 33 3pt%
Scottie Pippen - Career: 32 3pt%
Toni Kukoc - Career: 33 3pt%
Steve Kerr - Career: 45 3pt%

As you can see, Kerr who came off the bench was the only legit 3 point shooter on the team. Today the average 3 pt% is 35%, everybody on the Bulls excluding Kerr shot below that. I'm guessing that Chicago team would be a below average 3 point shooting team in today's NBA. How would that effect them? Considering that in today's NBA it seems like championship contending teams have good 3 point shooting or at least above average.

Well as a basic guide, comparing 3pt% in the 90s compared to today is comparing apples to oranges

[GimmeDat]

This is how I look at these era to era comparisons - the game is an ever evolving one, and teams strategies, as well as individual skill-sets, grow to adapt the game. That's why you can never truly compare the Bulls to the Warriors, or any other cross-era comparison. You can only ever really look at what that team achieved within their era. The Warriors would struggle with the physicality of the earlier game, just as much as the Bulls would struggle with the shooting aspect.

The 90's Bulls were a more dominant and successful team than this era Warriors have been to this point, but right now, the Warriors are nailing what it takes to dominate in the current NBA and are in the midst of possibly raising the bar for seasonal dominance. Both are amazing teams to watch and it will be interesting to see how far they can take this.

[mysticOscar]

This is how I look at these era to era comparisons - the game is an ever evolving one, and teams strategies, as well as individual skill-sets, grow to adapt the game. That's why you can never truly compare the Bulls to the Warriors, or any other cross-era comparison. You can only ever really look at what that team achieved within their era. The Warriors would struggle with the physicality of the earlier game, just as much as the Bulls would struggle with the shooting aspect.

The 90's Bulls were a more dominant and successful team than this era Warriors have been to this point, but right now, the Warriors are nailing what it takes to dominate in the current NBA and are in the midst of possibly raising the bar for seasonal dominance. Both are amazing teams to watch and it will be interesting to see how far they can take this.

+1 Couldn't have stated it better myself.

[juju14]

Didn't the Heat superstars barley took any 3s in 2012.

[ShazaamLion]

[baldur]

probably yes. they had decent 3 pointers like toni kukoc and scottie pippen and legendary ones steve kerr and michael jordan.

[bwgood77]

They'd still be the 2nd best team in the league and give the Warriors a very tough time in the finals. But the small ball teams here could never match up the offensive efficiency of the Warriors. As good as the Bulls were defensively, the Warriors move the ball too well to stop open 3s.

[bledredwine]

Uh, they'd still kill everyone with their defense/breaks alone.
They didn't just beat teams, they crushed them.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[mysticOscar]

They'd still be the 2nd best team in the league and give the Warriors a very tough time in the finals. But the small ball teams here could never match up the offensive efficiency of the Warriors. As good as the Bulls were defensively, the Warriors move the ball too well to stop open 3s.

I would still bet the Bulls would win a close series in the finals where theres a bit of more freedom of physicality on and off the ball even in todays era. Bulls won't stop the open 3pt shots, but those rims don't look too big when your worn down. My opinion might change depending how well they do in the playoffs.