How Good Were the '98 Jazz?

[Catchall]

The best Jazz team that didn't make any real noise was the '95 team. We won 60 games and ran into a newly healthy Rockets team in the 1st round. Had we won that series I think that team could've won it all.

If David Benoit didn't clank like 5 open jumpers, the Jazz would have won it that year. They were up by 11 points at home in the 4th quarter of the series-deciding game against the Rockets.

[wickywack]

Depth was terrible back then.

Guys like Keefe, Ostertag, Foster, Carr (36) were terrible players.

On the Bill's, Wennington, Burrell, Brown, Buchelor wouldn't get near an NBA roster.

The top 7 players in the series were old as ****. Malone, Stockton, Hornacek, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman.

Talent and athletic levels were nowhere near what they are today.

The guys you named were all good roles players who knew what their skills were and how to execute. All of the top players were around 34/35 old but not ancient who all had excellent conditioning. The game was also much more physical and defense oriented.

If you drop the GSW or some modern team into 1998 rules and tell them they'll need to get past Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, and Shaq to get to the finals, they'd drop 3-4 players from their roster and add the likes Ostertag, Foster, Carr, etc.

[LakerLegend]

Depth was terrible back then.

Guys like Keefe, Ostertag, Foster, Carr (36) were terrible players.

On the Bill's, Wennington, Burrell, Brown, Buchelor wouldn't get near an NBA roster.

The top 7 players in the series were old as ****. Malone, Stockton, Hornacek, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman.

Talent and athletic levels were nowhere near what they are today.

The guys you named were all good roles players who knew what their skills were and how to execute. All of the top players were around 34/35 old but not ancient who all had excellent conditioning. The game was also much more physical and defense oriented.

If you drop the GSW or some modern team into 1998 rules and tell them they'll need to get past Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, and Shaq to get to the finals, they'd drop 3-4 players from their roster and add the likes Ostertag, Foster, Carr, etc.

Funny thing is, everyone called Ostertag a scrub back then too, but he was a solid defensive player who had his moments. There was this whole story about how Malone stayed on him to make sure he made something of himself.

Keefe, Foster were pretty irrelevant players too.

[wickywack]

The guys you named were all good roles players who knew what their skills were and how to execute. All of the top players were around 34/35 old but not ancient who all had excellent conditioning. The game was also much more physical and defense oriented.

If you drop the GSW or some modern team into 1998 rules and tell them they'll need to get past Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, and Shaq to get to the finals, they'd drop 3-4 players from their roster and add the likes Ostertag, Foster, Carr, etc.

Funny thing is, everyone called Ostertag a scrub back then too, but he was a solid defensive player who had his moments. There was this whole story about how Malone stayed on him to make sure he made something of himself.

Keefe, Foster were pretty irrelevant players too.

They were mostly relevant for their 6 fouls each.

[HotelVitale]

In the '98 regular season they won 62 games, and their most used starting lineup (34 games) was Stockton, Hornacek, Adam Keefe, Karl Malone and Greg Foster. 2.5 of those players probably wouldn't even make the league today - Keefe was essentially playing SF next to Malone and Foster, and he didn't even attempt a 3-pointer in 80 games played..

Might help to remember that the league was far less efficient than it is now, which masks how masterfully efficient the Jazz offense was. The average TS% that year was 51% (compared to 56% this year), and the 6 players that played the most minutes on the Jazz were all 5-12% over that. ALL of them. For context, that would be like every player in your rotation (except your defensive specialist) shooting 61-68% TS this year. An efficient team like the Bucks this year comes nowhere close to that--their top seven guys have two stars about 5% above league average TS%, 3 players below it, and two other players at or a point above average. The guys like Keefe, Russell, and Shandon Anderson that you're saying are mega scrubs were contributing their 8-12 pts per game far more efficiently than almost all of today's good offense-first role players like Bogdanovic, Hield, Jingles, etc. That's a crazy accomplishment, testament to both the Stockton-Malone machine and the power of having good fits.

The team also staggered minutes a lot, their top 10 guys all played at least 14mpg in the playoffs that season.

[LakerLegend]

This is the team the Jazz wiped the floor with in the playoffs two years in a row(8-1)

Watch on YouTube

[HotelVitale]

Almost lost also in the first round against the 41-41 Houston Rockets.

Cheap, empty point. Yes, the series technically went 5 games but they didn't come remotely close to 'almost losing' to them. They lost 2 of the first 3 games to the Rockets (including one nail-biter) and then totally smoked them in the final two games. Ran them off the court both at home and on the court, the sports talk at the time was all about how impressed everyone was at their show of force. Margin of victory for their 3 wins was 17pts, was not a close series.

[LakerLegend]

Almost lost also in the first round against the 41-41 Houston Rockets.

Cheap, empty point. Yes, the series technically went 5 games but they didn't come remotely close to 'almost losing' to them. They lost 2 of the first 3 games to the Rockets (including one nail-biter) and then totally smoked them in the final two games. Ran them off the court both at home and on the court, the sports talk at the time was all about how impressed everyone was at their show of force. Margin of victory for their 3 wins was 17pts, was not a close series.

Not to mention that record is very deceiving considering the injuries the Rockets had during the regular season.

[Danny1616]

They were an excellent team.

Stockton was a top 5 point guard, and arguably the best defensive point guard with Gary Payton.

Malone at the time was arguably the best big man in the league.

The chemistry between Stockton and Malone on the pick and roll was also arguably the best in the league.

Hornacek was the perfect 3 + D type player with good size, Ostertag was a nice traditional center, Byron Russell was a solid two way player. They lacked depth, but their starting line-up was just as good as anyone.

[Danny1616]

Depth was terrible back then.

Guys like Keefe, Ostertag, Foster, Carr (36) were terrible players.

On the Bill's, Wennington, Burrell, Brown, Buchelor wouldn't get near an NBA roster.

The top 7 players in the series were old as ****. Malone, Stockton, Hornacek, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman.

Talent and athletic levels were nowhere near what they are today.

The guys you named were all good roles players who knew what their skills were and how to execute. All of the top players were around 34/35 old but not ancient who all had excellent conditioning. The game was also much more physical and defense oriented.

If you drop the GSW or some modern team into 1998 rules and tell them they'll need to get past Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, and Shaq to get to the finals, they'd drop 3-4 players from their roster and add the likes Ostertag, Foster, Carr, etc.

GSW would absolutely clobber those teams.

They would not have answer to Curry and Klay on the pick and roll. Their guards wouldn't know what to do with Curry and Klay coming off screens and shooting ridiculously wild 3 pointers.

You forget that the league had to adjust to GSW, not the other way around.

The death of the traditional center did not lead to GSW, GSW led to the death of the traditional center.

The league changed because GSW figured out the cheat code...3s are better than 2s. It didn't hurt that Curry is the GOAT shooter ever and you can probably make an argument for Klay being in the top 5 ever.

[LakerLegend]

The guys you named were all good roles players who knew what their skills were and how to execute. All of the top players were around 34/35 old but not ancient who all had excellent conditioning. The game was also much more physical and defense oriented.

If you drop the GSW or some modern team into 1998 rules and tell them they'll need to get past Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, and Shaq to get to the finals, they'd drop 3-4 players from their roster and add the likes Ostertag, Foster, Carr, etc.

GSW would absolutely clobber those teams.

They would not have answer to Curry and Klay on the pick and roll. Their guards wouldn't know what to do with Curry and Klay coming off screens and shooting ridiculously wild 3 pointers.

You forget that the league had to adjust to GSW, not the other way around.

The death of the traditional center did not lead to GSW, GSW led to the death of the traditional center.

The league changed because GSW figured out the cheat code...3s are better than 2s. It didn't hurt that Curry is the GOAT shooter ever and you can probably make an argument for Klay being in the top 5 ever.

No, you have it backwards.

By taking physicality out of the game the league made it easier for the Warriors system promoting freedom of ball and player movement.

If the league still let teams play physical and grind it out the Warriors would be less effective.

[AussieCeltic]

Why does everyone underrate role players in the 90's but overrate current teams role playesr?

The best team in the league right now has Giannis/Middleton and then a bunch of crap. I mean I'm supposed to believe Wes fricken Matthews is great but Jeff Hornacek sucks? Come on

[Danny1616]

If you drop the GSW or some modern team into 1998 rules and tell them they'll need to get past Hakeem, DRob, Duncan, and Shaq to get to the finals, they'd drop 3-4 players from their roster and add the likes Ostertag, Foster, Carr, etc.

GSW would absolutely clobber those teams.

They would not have answer to Curry and Klay on the pick and roll. Their guards wouldn't know what to do with Curry and Klay coming off screens and shooting ridiculously wild 3 pointers.

You forget that the league had to adjust to GSW, not the other way around.

The death of the traditional center did not lead to GSW, GSW led to the death of the traditional center.

The league changed because GSW figured out the cheat code...3s are better than 2s. It didn't hurt that Curry is the GOAT shooter ever and you can probably make an argument for Klay being in the top 5 ever.

No, you have it backwards.

By taking physicality out of the game the league made it easier for the Warriors system promoting freedom of ball and player movement.

If the league still let teams play physical and grind it out the Warriors would be less effective.

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

[DoItALL9]

I'd take them to win the East today.
In the West, top 3 team

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

[The Corey's]

GSW would absolutely clobber those teams.

They would not have answer to Curry and Klay on the pick and roll. Their guards wouldn't know what to do with Curry and Klay coming off screens and shooting ridiculously wild 3 pointers.

You forget that the league had to adjust to GSW, not the other way around.

The death of the traditional center did not lead to GSW, GSW led to the death of the traditional center.

The league changed because GSW figured out the cheat code...3s are better than 2s. It didn't hurt that Curry is the GOAT shooter ever and you can probably make an argument for Klay being in the top 5 ever.

No, you have it backwards.

By taking physicality out of the game the league made it easier for the Warriors system promoting freedom of ball and player movement.

If the league still let teams play physical and grind it out the Warriors would be less effective.

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

A guy like Jeff Hornacek was a role player at best.

Hed be a superstar in today's league with his sharpshooting.

People just ignore "evolution" and all it entails.

[Danny1616]

No, you have it backwards.

By taking physicality out of the game the league made it easier for the Warriors system promoting freedom of ball and player movement.

If the league still let teams play physical and grind it out the Warriors would be less effective.

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

A guy like Jeff Hornacek was a role player at best.

Hed be a superstar in today's league with his sharpshooting.

People just ignore "evolution" and all it entails.

Lol what?

So why aren't guys like Reddick, Korver, Ilyasova, Ellington, Otto Porter Jr., Ingles superstars?

Guys like Ingles, Ilyasova, and Korver have really good size and are excellent shooters, but they are still role players, not superstars.

Terrible analysis. Just because you have good size, can defend and can shoot doesn't mean you are a star player, even today.

One thing I can't stand is people thinking that anybody who was a great 3 point shooter in the 90s would be a superstar today. Yeah Dell Curry was a fantastic 3 point shooter, but he would basically be Kyle Korver today, not a superstar.

[The Corey's]

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

A guy like Jeff Hornacek was a role player at best.

Hed be a superstar in today's league with his sharpshooting.

People just ignore "evolution" and all it entails.

Lol what?

So why aren't guys like Reddick, Korver, Ilyasova, Ellington, Otto Porter Jr., Ingles superstars?

Guys like Ingles, Ilyasova, and Korver have really good size and are excellent shooters, but they are still role players, not superstars.

Terrible analysis.

That video pulled atrocious calls to dismiss a myth that the league back then was tougher than today.

When lebron james came walk the ball 8 feet without a travel being called because of how hard the refs cradle superstars today in comparison.

Those players maxed out their skills in era that followed Jeff's.

Curry is free to shoot 50 threes a game if he wanted to.

Jeff be lucky if they let him shoot 3.

Evolution. because a guy like jeff exist a guy like Reddick has a superior career.

Because a guy like reggie exist a guy like curry can have a superior career.

You can't just say you know what the warriors could do to the jazz because you dont think the 1990s nba would affect their ability to play the way they want to then dismiss the opposite for the jazz.

If jeff and Stockton spent their entire summer, every summer working on their 3 point game and nothing else then whatever it is we know they could do based on reality can be argued that they would be better had they been allowed to play the same way.

Warriors getting alot of praise for their 5 year run but they dont even have a player within 75% of what malone was.

[The Corey's]

That's absolute bull crap.

I saw scrawny, skinny guards like Price, KJ, Iverson, Stockton, Thomas absolutely dominate the late 80s and 90s.

This video is pretty good at ending the myth that the 80s and 90s were so much more physical. Handchecking was banned in 1979. The main difference between today and then is the introduction of flagrant fouls in 1991. Before that, there was no difference between a regular foul and a really hard foul, which is what helped the Pistons. In 1991, the NBA changed the rule to make a flagrant foul and automatic 2 shots and the ball.

People always glorify the past as way better then it actually was. Literally people were saying the same thing about the Bulls in the early 90s that they were about the Warriors. Lots were complaining Jordan was getting ticky tack superstar fouls when players were barely touching him.

I guarantee in 10 years the current players will be talking about how much better basketball was in the 2010s compared to that new era.

Watch on YouTube

A guy like Jeff Hornacek was a role player at best.

Hed be a superstar in today's league with his sharpshooting.

People just ignore "evolution" and all it entails.

Lol what?

So why aren't guys like Reddick, Korver, Ilyasova, Ellington, Otto Porter Jr., Ingles superstars?

Guys like Ingles, Ilyasova, and Korver have really good size and are excellent shooters, but they are still role players, not superstars.

Terrible analysis. Just because you have good size, can defend and can shoot doesn't mean you are a star player, even today.

One thing I can't stand is people thinking that anybody who was a great 3 point shooter in the 90s would be a superstar today. Yeah Dell Curry was a fantastic 3 point shooter, but he would basically be Kyle Korver today, not a superstar.

You've edited over your post.

Your last paragraph is all we need to know about how you feel.

Great shooters of the 1990s wouldnt be better players in today's league but great shooters of today's game would still dominate in the 90s

Over a myth that the defense was better in the 90s.

The defense was better there is no defense today.

No one said thst there wasnt ridiculous fouls.

You arent playing within the parameters of variables. You assume everything is equal and everything can not be.

[Danny1616]

A guy like Jeff Hornacek was a role player at best.

Hed be a superstar in today's league with his sharpshooting.

People just ignore "evolution" and all it entails.

Lol what?

So why aren't guys like Reddick, Korver, Ilyasova, Ellington, Otto Porter Jr., Ingles superstars?

Guys like Ingles, Ilyasova, and Korver have really good size and are excellent shooters, but they are still role players, not superstars.

Terrible analysis. Just because you have good size, can defend and can shoot doesn't mean you are a star player, even today.

One thing I can't stand is people thinking that anybody who was a great 3 point shooter in the 90s would be a superstar today. Yeah Dell Curry was a fantastic 3 point shooter, but he would basically be Kyle Korver today, not a superstar.

You've edited over your post.

Your last paragraph is all we need to know about how you feel.

Great shooters of the 1990s wouldnt be better players in today's league but great shooters of today's game would still dominate in the 90s

Over a myth that the defense was better in the 90s.

The defense was better there is no defense today.

No one said thst there wasnt ridiculous fouls.

You arent playing within the parameters of variables. You assume everything is equal and everything can not be.

Terrible reasoning.

What makes guys like Curry, Klay, KD etc. great players are not simply the fact that they are all-time shooters, it's that they are elite offensively.

Curry is one of the greatest off-ball players in NBA history and has one of the quickest releases of all time and can keep his efficiency up despite crazy range. The guy has incredible endurance, great awareness of where to go, and uses screens, is deadly on the pick and roll, uses head fakes very well, footwork etc. as good as anyone that has ever played. His ball-handling is also elite and he is very good at getting to the basket, and has an assortment of floaters that keep the defense worrying about what he's going to do. Not to mention that Curry is a very, very good passer, so it's difficult to double team him because he'll always usually make the right play. Not to mention that Curry is incredibly shifty as a player. This is what makes Curry a superstar player, not simply that he can just shoot. If you think Curry is just a great shooter, you really don't understand basketball that well.

That is why guys like Ingles, Korver, Ilyasova etc. are role players today even though they have great size and are excellent shooters.

So no, guys like Hornacek or Dell or Kerr etc. wouldn't be great players in today's game.

On the other hand, you hand excellent shooters like Mark Price, who was barely 6 feet tall, and wasn't athletic, dominate the NBA in the late 80s. Price was an elite 3 point shooter, who had a deadly mid-range game, was amazing on the pick and roll, had great ball-handling skills, was very shifty etc.

If there is no defense today then how did the Raptors win the championship last year? Also, defense was pretty bad throughout the 80s, and teams were scoring at a very, very rate. The most defensive era in NBA history was in the early 2000s.

[The Corey's]

Lol what?

So why aren't guys like Reddick, Korver, Ilyasova, Ellington, Otto Porter Jr., Ingles superstars?

Guys like Ingles, Ilyasova, and Korver have really good size and are excellent shooters, but they are still role players, not superstars.

Terrible analysis. Just because you have good size, can defend and can shoot doesn't mean you are a star player, even today.

One thing I can't stand is people thinking that anybody who was a great 3 point shooter in the 90s would be a superstar today. Yeah Dell Curry was a fantastic 3 point shooter, but he would basically be Kyle Korver today, not a superstar.

You've edited over your post.

Your last paragraph is all we need to know about how you feel.

Great shooters of the 1990s wouldnt be better players in today's league but great shooters of today's game would still dominate in the 90s

Over a myth that the defense was better in the 90s.

The defense was better there is no defense today.

No one said thst there wasnt ridiculous fouls.

You arent playing within the parameters of variables. You assume everything is equal and everything can not be.

Terrible reasoning.

What makes guys like Curry, Klay, KD etc. great players are not simply the fact that they are all-time shooters, it's that they are elite offensively.

Curry is one of the greatest off-ball players in NBA history and has one of the quickest releases of all time and can keep his efficiency up despite crazy range. The guy has incredible endurance, great awareness of where to go, and uses screens, is deadly on the pick and roll, uses head fakes very well, footwork etc. as good as anyone that has ever played. His ball-handling is also elite and he is very good at getting to the basket, and has an assortment of floaters that keep the defense worrying about what he's going to do. Not to mention that Curry is a very, very good passer, so it's difficult to double team him because he'll always usually make the right play. Not to mention that Curry is incredibly shifty as a player. This is what makes Curry a superstar player, not simply that he can just shoot. If you think Curry is just a great shooter, you really don't understand basketball that well.

That is why guys like Ingles, Korver, Ilyasova etc. are role players today even though they have great size and are excellent shooters.

So no, guys like Hornacek or Dell or Kerr etc. wouldn't be great players in today's game.

On the other hand, you hand excellent shooters like Mark Price, who was barely 6 feet tall, and wasn't athletic, dominate the NBA in the late 80s. Price was an elite 3 point shooter, who had a deadly mid-range game, was amazing on the pick and roll, had great ball-handling skills, was very shifty etc.

If there is no defense today then how did the Raptors win the championship last year? Also, defense was pretty bad throughout the 80s, and teams were scoring at a very, very rate. The most defensive era in NBA history was in the early 2000s.

Raptors won the finals because the elite offensive players you've mentioned more than once finally broke down physically after playing what equates to 1.2 seasons worth of playoffs in the 5 seasons combined.

And did so only so barely.

The rest of the stuff were just gonna disagree on.