Did MJ really go against tougher competition?

[NbaAllDay]

You probably should have read the thread because that's incorrect. You guys keep saying the Warriors are better than this or that team from the 90s without giving any logical explanation to show that you know anything about the teams that you're claiming these Warriors are better than and it all just makes you sound very silly.

No winning 73 games in a season does not mean that team would just run over everybody in NBA history.

what's your logical explanation that shows the 73-win warriors are not better than teams from the 90's?

for what it's worth, relative to their league, the warriors of today are better than any team from the 90's except maybe peak bulls. i'd say the impetus would be on you to show that the nba of the 90's as a whole is significantly stronger than the nba of today, since things like MOV would show that unless this is the case you cannot make an argument against gsw.

My logical explanation? How about the fact that multiple teams from the 90s can simply match up well with these modern Warriors and cause problems.

The 1998 Utah Jazz were a very smart and talented team with a good mix of youth and Veteran players who knew the game well enough to defend all types of styles of basketball imaginable and because of this they were able to sweep a Laker team who also had 4 all star players and if you put them on the floor with the Warriors there's no doubt in my mind that they'd be able to do Defeat them as well.

No Draymond Green will not just cook 3's in Karl Malone and Antonie Carr's face all game long, and I refuse to believe that Steph Curry would just do anything he want with Stockton guarding him. Hornacek and Stockton were one of the greatest backcourts in the NBA so they'd surely be a hell of a challenge for the splash brothers in general on both ends of the floor. The only real shot Warriors have is if K.D absolutely goes off but even if that happens there's still a good chance that Utah still wins because they were that good of an overall team.

Same with the 93 Suns, 95 Magic, 98 Pacers, Bulls themselves, 95 Rockets and 96 Sonics to name a few. When it comes down to it the Warriors won 73 games in a completely different era which proves nothing at how well they'd stack up in a actual game against any of those teams from the 90s.

Too many peopela re too busy trying to compare a 90s team to a 2010s team. It simply doesn't work.

The NBA was vastly different and the amount of hypotheticals you'd have to throw up is completely pointless.

When we talk about 'tough competition' would we not look at it comparatively to the teams of Lebron and Jordan and how strong they were in THEIR OWN era?

I think most people can argue that the teams Lebron has faced, comparative to the league (the benchmarks of the league, since the 90s did have a lot of bottom end teams) Its seems relatively clear that Lebron has faced teams that were superior in their respective years.

GSW and the Spurs are a fairly strong example. The fact they both have had dynasties throughout the 00s and 10s says a lot.

When we talk about '73 win teams' it's pretty obvious thats short version of 'dominating the league'.

The only team that dominated the league in the 90s were...the Bulls.

Could one not make a strong argument that the competition someone like Lebron faced was greater than Jordan?

Or are people going to use that as a reason to say Bulls were x great because of Jordan and Lebron just wasn't good enough?

[zimpy27]

MJ was definitely against weaker competition. The draft's from 1988 to 1991 was the worst drought of talent the NBA has seen, on top of that, they had two expansion drafts then as well.

Top 20 all-time players MJ went against in the playoffs: Malone, Shaq and Magic. Out of them only Malone was in his prime.

[OdomFan]

Well again the Warriors won 73 games against completely different competition so you can't not use that to prove that they'd just run over every team from the 90s or any other era from the past unless you do go into the conversation on individual matchups.

i don't see how the individual match-ups are pertinent. we know how the warriors performed relative to 2016 / 2017 nba. we know how teams like the bulls and sonics and whoever performed relative to 1995 / 1996 nba. warriors performed better, with the 1996 bulls being the only team to seriously challenge this.

the question is not whether or not the warriors could 'match-up' against those teams. that's nonsense. different eras, valuing different elements of play, to take advantage of different rules. the question is whether or not there is evidence that the nba of the 90's was, as a whole, stronger than the nba of today. strong enough to make up for the MOV advantage modern warriors have over any team from the 90's save the 1996 bulls.

i haven't seen any convincing evidence. and i'm not even sure how you would go about showing that.

Again the evidence is the competitiveness of the conferences. Now days we all know the Warriors are more than likely going to be representing the West in the Finals and winning it. It was not like that in the 90s. Sure looking back at it its easy to say oh but Jordan's team won year after year but during those times those Western Conference squads all had a legit chance just as the Magic, Knicks, Pacers had at beating the Bulls to reach the Finals however when it came down to it the Bulls pulled it of.

If that's not enough "evidence" for you than I don't know what else to to tell you.

[OdomFan]

what's your logical explanation that shows the 73-win warriors are not better than teams from the 90's?

for what it's worth, relative to their league, the warriors of today are better than any team from the 90's except maybe peak bulls. i'd say the impetus would be on you to show that the nba of the 90's as a whole is significantly stronger than the nba of today, since things like MOV would show that unless this is the case you cannot make an argument against gsw.

My logical explanation? How about the fact that multiple teams from the 90s can simply match up well with these modern Warriors and cause problems.

The 1998 Utah Jazz were a very smart and talented team with a good mix of youth and Veteran players who knew the game well enough to defend all types of styles of basketball imaginable and because of this they were able to sweep a Laker team who also had 4 all star players and if you put them on the floor with the Warriors there's no doubt in my mind that they'd be able to do Defeat them as well.

No Draymond Green will not just cook 3's in Karl Malone and Antonie Carr's face all game long, and I refuse to believe that Steph Curry would just do anything he want with Stockton guarding him. Hornacek and Stockton were one of the greatest backcourts in the NBA so they'd surely be a hell of a challenge for the splash brothers in general on both ends of the floor. The only real shot Warriors have is if K.D absolutely goes off but even if that happens there's still a good chance that Utah still wins because they were that good of an overall team.

Same with the 93 Suns, 95 Magic, 98 Pacers, Bulls themselves, 95 Rockets and 96 Sonics to name a few. When it comes down to it the Warriors won 73 games in a completely different era which proves nothing at how well they'd stack up in a actual game against any of those teams from the 90s.

Too many peopela re too busy trying to compare a 90s team to a 2010s team. It simply doesn't work.

The NBA was vastly different and the amount of hypotheticals you'd have to throw up is completely pointless.

When we talk about 'tough competition' would we not look at it comparatively to the teams of Lebron and Jordan and how strong they were in THEIR OWN era?

I think most people can argue that the teams Lebron has faced, comparative to the league (the benchmarks of the league, since the 90s did have a lot of bottom end teams) Its seems relatively clear that Lebron has faced teams that were superior in their respective years.

GSW and the Spurs are a fairly strong example. The fact they both have had dynasties throughout the 00s and 10s says a lot.

When we talk about '73 win teams' it's pretty obvious thats short version of 'dominating the league'.

The only team that dominated the league in the 90s were...the Bulls.

Could one not make a strong argument that the competition someone like Lebron faced was greater than Jordan?

Or are people going to use that as a reason to say Bulls were x great because of Jordan and Lebron just wasn't good enough?

The Bulls are the only team in the 90s and in NBA history until recently that won over 70 games but their have been many teams in the 90s who won over 60 games which imo shows that they too were dominate despite not winning the championship.

You say the game changes but I always look at veteran players like Malone, Duncan and Kareem who played at a high level for many years and to me if they can do that against the younger players in their later years than there's no reason why a full team from a past era wouldn't be able to defeat a modern team.

[ils411]

I wonder why there's a need to try and discredit the past era vs the current one and vice versa. They're not comparable. Teams back then were built taking into consideration the players, style of play and the general environment during that time. In the same vain, current teams are constructed for the present.

Sure, there are talent that will transcend eras, but lets not kid ourselves, these talent are very rare and far in between. Grab any average guard in the past and slap them in todays league and they get blown away. In the same manner, grab any average guard in the present and put them in the past, they'd get pummeled.

Different rules, different play style, a whole different monster. I'm of the opinion that each team in each era are facing the same level of tough competition with respect to their own era.

Now MJ, well, he was the one everyone else had to overcome, but no one did. Now, lets see if the Warriors will be the one everyone needs to overcome but never will.

[NbaAllDay]

My logical explanation? How about the fact that multiple teams from the 90s can simply match up well with these modern Warriors and cause problems.

The 1998 Utah Jazz were a very smart and talented team with a good mix of youth and Veteran players who knew the game well enough to defend all types of styles of basketball imaginable and because of this they were able to sweep a Laker team who also had 4 all star players and if you put them on the floor with the Warriors there's no doubt in my mind that they'd be able to do Defeat them as well.

No Draymond Green will not just cook 3's in Karl Malone and Antonie Carr's face all game long, and I refuse to believe that Steph Curry would just do anything he want with Stockton guarding him. Hornacek and Stockton were one of the greatest backcourts in the NBA so they'd surely be a hell of a challenge for the splash brothers in general on both ends of the floor. The only real shot Warriors have is if K.D absolutely goes off but even if that happens there's still a good chance that Utah still wins because they were that good of an overall team.

Same with the 93 Suns, 95 Magic, 98 Pacers, Bulls themselves, 95 Rockets and 96 Sonics to name a few. When it comes down to it the Warriors won 73 games in a completely different era which proves nothing at how well they'd stack up in a actual game against any of those teams from the 90s.

Too many peopela re too busy trying to compare a 90s team to a 2010s team. It simply doesn't work.

The NBA was vastly different and the amount of hypotheticals you'd have to throw up is completely pointless.

When we talk about 'tough competition' would we not look at it comparatively to the teams of Lebron and Jordan and how strong they were in THEIR OWN era?

I think most people can argue that the teams Lebron has faced, comparative to the league (the benchmarks of the league, since the 90s did have a lot of bottom end teams) Its seems relatively clear that Lebron has faced teams that were superior in their respective years.

GSW and the Spurs are a fairly strong example. The fact they both have had dynasties throughout the 00s and 10s says a lot.

When we talk about '73 win teams' it's pretty obvious thats short version of 'dominating the league'.

The only team that dominated the league in the 90s were...the Bulls.

Could one not make a strong argument that the competition someone like Lebron faced was greater than Jordan?

Or are people going to use that as a reason to say Bulls were x great because of Jordan and Lebron just wasn't good enough?

The Bulls are the only team in the 90s and in NBA history until recently that won over 70 games but their have been many teams in the 90s who won over 60 games which imo shows that they too were dominate despite not winning the championship.

You say the game changes but I always look at veteran players like Malone, Duncan and Kareem who played at a high level for many years and to me if they can do that against the younger players in their later years than there's no reason why a full team from a past era wouldn't be able to defeat a modern team.

Although I understand where you are coming from when you mention, Malone, Duncan and Kareem, you are mentioned some of the GOAT big men. Of course they can adapt accordingly. When you want to compare the level of competition and talent, i don't think the 90s matches up at all.

Not to discredit Jordan, he is still the GOAT, but he honestly did not have the level of competition (not even close) at the SG and SF position than current NBA players. The top end in the 90s was strong but there were some drastic drops in talent.

You can say there were better players at the PF and C position ( I'd agree) but the plethora of Stars has always been in the 1,2 and 3 position. I honestly don't see how any of these elites big's would hold up in the NBA today (as in, their impact around a run and gun 3 point shooting team like GSW would be harder to measure) I also don't see any of the standard SG and SF from the 90s making much of an impact today either. The game is vastly different and there are far too many variables.

One could say 'if the players from the 90s grew up today they would adapt to the game (eg 3 point shooting, spaced D etc)

Others would argue that there skill set just wouldn't match up with today's players.

I tent to agree with the latter.

I understand that people hate to move past their golden era of NBA. I imagine in 15 years time i'll look back at the 00s and 10s as a golden era for myself with some of my favorite players.

I see the 90s as a bit overrated due to Jordan's international impact on the NBA

The top 10-20 players today are comparative to the 90s.
I don't see the rest being even close to as strong, and the rest makes a big difference.

[NbaAllDay]

I wonder why there's a need to try and discredit the past era vs the current one and vice versa. They're not comparable. Teams back then were built taking into consideration the players, style of play and the general environment during that time. In the same vain, current teams are constructed for the present.

Sure, there are talent that will transcend eras, but lets not kid ourselves, these talent are very rare and far in between. Grab any average guard in the past and slap them in todays league and they get blown away. In the same manner, grab any average guard in the present and put them in the past, they'd get pummeled.

Different rules, different play style, a whole different monster. I'm of the opinion that each team in each era are facing the same level of tough competition with respect to their own era.

Now MJ, well, he was the one everyone else had to overcome, but no one did. Now, lets see if the Warriors will be the one everyone needs to overcome but never will.

Although I understand your opinion, there really is no basis for this opinion. You can look back at any Sport and quite easily see that the 'level of competition' across ears can be very different.

Now, you can only play what is ahead of you but you can't just assume the competition is the same. What you could argue is, everyone in the 90s is brought up under the same conditions (90s conditions) and therefore their skill set comparative to the league is equalized. I just don't see how a team such as the GSW, with the advanced metrics, conditioning, coaching etc etc wouldn't over run the 90s. Nor do I see an average NBA player today getting pummeled in the the 90s.

There are also Eras that produce stronger teams and stronger players. Most people can look back at the 90s, with the expansion teams, the older dynasties falling off late 80s early 90s (Lakers and Boston), Jordan facing 5 different teams in his 6 championship runs (compare that to the Spurs and Warriors since 2012), I just don't see how Jordan faced tougher competition.

Jordan reigned supreme after the Lakes + Boston dynasty and before the Spurs + lakers dynasties of the 2000s.

You could argue Jordan was a reason other 'dynasties' didn't pop up, but I honestly think he hit his peak at a perfect time comparative to the league.

We also need to remember that his TEAM was extremely strong. Without him they were still a 50 win team who were a few shots from an ECF.

People think all this is to knock Jordan, it's not, it's just a healthy discussion but people need to be real about it.

[homecourtloss]

You probably should have read the thread because that's incorrect. You guys keep saying the Warriors are better than this or that team from the 90s without giving any logical explanation to show that you know anything about the teams that you're claiming these Warriors are better than and it all just makes you sound very silly.

No winning 73 games in a season does not mean that team would just run over everybody in NBA history.

what's your logical explanation that shows the 73-win warriors are not better than teams from the 90's?

for what it's worth, relative to their league, the warriors of today are better than any team from the 90's except maybe peak bulls. i'd say the impetus would be on you to show that the nba of the 90's as a whole is significantly stronger than the nba of today, since things like MOV would show that unless this is the case you cannot make an argument against gsw.

My logical explanation? How about the fact that multiple teams from the 90s can simply match up well with these modern Warriors and cause problems.

The 1998 Utah Jazz were a very smart and talented team with a good mix of youth and Veteran players who knew the game well enough to defend all types of styles of basketball imaginable and because of this they were able to sweep a Laker team who also had 4 all star players and if you put them on the floor with the Warriors there's no doubt in my mind that they'd be able to do Defeat them as well.

No Draymond Green will not just cook 3's in Karl Malone and Antonie Carr's face all game long, and I refuse to believe that Steph Curry would just do anything he want with Stockton guarding him. Hornacek and Stockton were one of the greatest backcourts in the NBA so they'd surely be a hell of a challenge for the splash brothers in general on both ends of the floor. The only real shot Warriors have is if K.D absolutely goes off but even if that happens there's still a good chance that Utah still wins because they were that good of an overall team.

Same with the 93 Suns, 95 Magic, 98 Pacers, Bulls themselves, 95 Rockets and 96 Sonics to name a few. When it comes down to it the Warriors won 73 games in a completely different era which proves nothing at how well they'd stack up in a actual game against any of those teams from the 90s.

If someone were to offer you $1,000,000 if you correctly picked the winner of a series between 2017 GS and ANY of those teams you mentioned, you know as well as I that you’d take Golden State.

If they play 10games at playoff intensity:

‘98 Jazz win 1 or 2, maybe, though would not surprise me one bit if GS wins all 10
‘93 Suns win maybe 1 or 2
‘95 Magic win 1 or 2
‘95 Rockets win zero or 1
‘96 ‘Sonics win 2 maybe 3
‘98 Pacers win 1 or 2

You wrote: “When it comes down to it the Warriors won 73 games in a completely different era which proves nothing at how well they'd stack up in a actual game against any of those teams from the 90s.”

NO TEAM was EVER able to win that many games in any era and that alone tells us they are special. They have ran a 10+ SRS for three consecutive seasons which has never happened before. There have only been TEN total seasons that teams posted a 10+ SRS and these Warriors have three of them in a row. What ELSE do they have to do to show that they are superior in many ways to any team ever especially in the three-point era?

[OdomFan]

Like I said the Warriors would not have won 73 games in the 1990s so no I would not choose the Warriors team over them for no million dollars. I know how well those teams I mentioned played and I'm confident that they can compete with today's players as well as they ever in their own time. If that's what you want to believe than you go right ahead and lose out on that money because I'll be the one walking away with it.

You clearly just don't know anything about those teams

[homecourtloss]

Well again the Warriors won 73 games against completely different competition so you can't not use that to prove that they'd just run over every team from the 90s or any other era from the past unless you do go into the conversation on individual matchups.

i don't see how the individual match-ups are pertinent. we know how the warriors performed relative to 2016 / 2017 nba. we know how teams like the bulls and sonics and whoever performed relative to 1995 / 1996 nba. warriors performed better, with the 1996 bulls being the only team to seriously challenge this.

the question is not whether or not the warriors could 'match-up' against those teams. that's nonsense. different eras, valuing different elements of play, to take advantage of different rules. the question is whether or not there is evidence that the nba of the 90's was, as a whole, stronger than the nba of today. strong enough to make up for the MOV advantage modern warriors have over any team from the 90's save the 1996 bulls.

i haven't seen any convincing evidence. and i'm not even sure how you would go about showing that.

Again the evidence is the competitiveness of the conferences. Now days we all know the Warriors are more than likely going to be representing the West in the Finals and winning it. It was not like that in the 90s. Sure looking back at it its easy to say oh but Jordan's team won year after year but during those times those Western Conference squads all had a legit chance just as the Magic, Knicks, Pacers had at beating the Bulls to reach the Finals however when it came down to it the Bulls pulled it of.

If that's not enough "evidence" for you than I don't know what else to to tell you.

What’s more statistically likely: Entire conferences are weaker or stronger or that one team is head and shoulders above every other team?

I grew up watching ‘80s and ‘90s NBA (I turned 40 this year). The Bulls were clearly better than every team in the east with the exception of 1993 (Knicks) and 1998 (Indy) but they possibly could be defeated as games were close the Bulls didn’t have an overwhelming advantage everywhere with the most paths to victory like the Warriors have. With the Warriors, you just watch them and can only hope that hey miss shots and that’s you’re only chance. NONE of the teams and “tough competition” Jordan supposedly faced in the East could hope to ever defeat them in a best of 5 or 7. None of them. None of them could ever make it close.

[homecourtloss]

Like I said the Warriors would not have won 73 games in the 1990s so no I would not choose the Warriors team over them for no million dollars. I know how well those teams I mentioned played and I'm confident that they can compete with today's players as well as they ever in their own time. If that's what you want to believe than you go right ahead and lose out on that money because I'll be the one walking away with it.

You clearly just don't know anything about those teams

I sincerely hope you’re a parody poster because this is just laughably ridiculous. If someone offered you $1,000,000 to pick the winner between ‘95 Houston or ‘98 Jazz or ‘98 Pacers or the ‘93 Suns and the 2017 Warriors, you would pick one of those other teams after you saw this GS team destroy everyone? And they did it in an era of greater in game variance due to the volatity of the three point shot and STILL they were able to hedge against that variance and basically lose only once over the final three months? You would bet ago at that team?

[OdomFan]

I stand by exactly what I said. Moving on now. Clearly all you see is that 73 win record and think the Warriors can just run over everyone in history. Honestly that's the only thing laughable here but hey, you think what you want to think guy.

[JordansBulls]

The Warriors expected win-loss was 65-17 in 2016 while it was 67-15 in 2017 which is exactly what they won. In 2015 there expected win loss was 65-17 as well. In 1996 the Bulls expected win-loss was 70-12 and in 1997 it was 68-14 and in 1992 it was 66-16

[Tommygriffin]

I stand by exactly what I said. Moving on now. Clearly all you see is that 73 win record and think the Warriors can just run over everyone in history. Honestly that's the only thing laughable here but hey, you think what you want to think guy.

Its not just the 73 number. Its the fact that a 73 win team added an mvp (and arguably the best shooter in the league) to their team. And now you can add in the fact that they have the deepest bench in the league

[slick_watts]

Again the evidence is the competitiveness of the conferences. Now days we all know the Warriors are more than likely going to be representing the West in the Finals and winning it. It was not like that in the 90s.

can you please support this statement with actual evidence? what evidence do you have that the conferences were more competitive? i don't mean anecdotal evidence, but some actual data that supports your stance.

[OdomFan]

Again That still doesn't mean they can run over every team in NBA history... They have a great team but there have been many teams in history that can match up well and defeat them despite all this "great" stuff that they've done in this era. If you don't believe that than you honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[JordansBulls]

Again the evidence is the competitiveness of the conferences. Now days we all know the Warriors are more than likely going to be representing the West in the Finals and winning it. It was not like that in the 90s.

can you please support this statement with actual evidence? what evidence do you have that the conferences were more competitive? i don't mean anecdotal evidence, but some actual data that supports your stance.

Well one thing we know is they haven't faced any teams with dominant bigs either, so that changes things for them.

[slick_watts]

Again That still doesn't mean they can run over every team in NBA history... They have a great team but there have been many teams in history that can match up well and defeat them despite all this "great" stuff that they've done in this era. If you don't believe that than you honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

i'm not contesting whether or not they can run over every team in nba history. i don't even really care about the warriors, specifically. i care about the topic and whether or not the nba during jordan's career had tougher competition than today. the warriors happen to be a point of reference since, like the 90's bulls, they are at the top.

do you have anything else to add besides arguments from authority?

[NbaAllDay]

Again That still doesn't mean they can run over every team in NBA history... They have a great team but there have been many teams in history that can match up well and defeat them despite all this "great" stuff that they've done in this era. If you don't believe that than you honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about.

i'm not contesting whether or not they can run over every team in nba history. i don't even really care about the warriors, specifically. i care about the topic and whether or not the nba during jordan's career had tougher competition than today. the warriors happen to be a point of reference since, like the 90's bulls, they are at the top.

do you have anything else to add besides arguments from authority?

I doubt it. His honestly hasn't said anything constructive or meaningful yet. Surface level retorts and logical fallacies aren't going to help his cause.

He is welcome to an opinion. It would just be nice if it had some depth. Then maybe replying wouldn't seem like such a waste of time.

[mysticOscar]

MJ's competition is vastly overrated. Imagine LeBron facing the Clippers (with CP3) every year in the finals. That is the level that those Jazz teams were.

What a silly post. If you make baseless stupid claims...why dont u just go all the way and say the Brooklyn Nets?

I can make a claim that there is furry unicorns in the planet neptune. Its stupid, but hey since u cant prove im wrong...then i guess it must be true

Is this where we really are with some if these young new fans? The great teams like the Sonics and Jazz is only as good as the 2nd rd fodder Clippers. Im sorry but i feel dumber the more i read some of these ignorant posts