Steph Curry: "2017 Warriors would win in 6 against the 96 Bulls"

[imagge]

So if I put the Warriors in 96 with the Bulls with the hand checking with physical play the Warriors don't make the finals. KD, Steph and Klay need freedom of movement to play their game, there was no freedom of movement in 96. Nobody could stop Jordan and they were allowed to put their hands on him all over the court along with extreme physical play. If played today I think the series is a toss up because Jordan would go crazy.

Jordan averaging 27ppg on 41% shooting (23.7ppg after Payton started guarding him) in the 96 Finals definitely proves your assertion.

Geez, imagine what he’d do to Andre Iguodala, Draymond Green, Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson & Livingston. All guys who are ill-equipped to handle Jordan’s godness.

Especially under the zone defense rules with elite snipers like Rodman, Harper & Longley surrounding him.

So how well do you think Steph Klay and Durant would score with hands pushing them off their spot with no foul?? If you believe MJ would not kill in this era of no contact when he killed in an era of extreme contact you and I can not discuss basketball.

Jordan Pip and Rodman with 96 NBA play would destroy KD Steph and Klay.....They won't get off shots specifically Steph and Klay. Your point about GP is the very point of why MJ would kill in this era. GP was a great defender within the physical rules of the game....without the physical rules how do you defend great offensive players.....the answer is you don't and you have a player like Steph become a superstar because he is a great shooter with freedom of movement. MJ is the greatest perimeter scorer this game has seen meaning you can't stop him from scoring, he will either score or get to the FT line if you can't put your hands on him.

[IamSam]

If Steph said something along the lines of 'well, I think it would be tough but I see us edging them out", I could see that take coming from a current MVP candidate. But, he said they'd take the '96 Bulls in 6; I think that is just a bit disrespectful. At least afford another dynasty team the respect for being competitors...

[Wallace_Wallace]

While I don't believe anyone can guard Durant, Pippen is the closest player to challenging Durant from a defensive perspective. Rodman would manhandle Draymond and the Bulls would dominate the glass. Would the Bulls have an answer for Steph and Klay from 3? I don't believe so, but with Harper and Jordan covering these two, they could at least limit them. Offensively, Jordan would score on almost every possession or get fouled. GS could win, but would need to shoot lights out and the margin for error would be slim. I would give it to the Bulls because I don't see how the Warriors stop MJ. MJ with modern rules is a cheat code.

The thing is, what about the non Jordan minutes? There were stretches where you felt the Cavs could compete with the Warriors (IE game 2 and 3 of the 2017 finals, game 1 of the 2018 finals) when LeBron went super saiyan. As soon as he rests though, the Warriors just outclassed their opposition. Rim runs (McGee/Durant/Thompson), mid range (Durant/Livingston) & outside (no need to mention their shooters are), the Warriors ran whatever offense they wanted.

It's very possible that even someone like Shaun Livingston would cause the Bulls a problem because a Steve Kerr and Randy Brown can't matchup with him. It would force one of Harper/MJ/Pippen to defend a bench guy; they already would have their hands full with Curry/Thompson/KD. McGee would probably cause matchup problems too cause no one can run end to end with him (Salley is too old at that point), Rodman may have to run with him for several possessions. The top end talents of both teams are on par with each other, but the difference in role players might be too much overcome. We cannot expect MJ/Pippen/Rodman to play 48 minutes and expect them to score efficiently as well as playing shut down defense.

[Nate505]

I could see them beating the Bulls. I could also see Jordan ripping their hearts out. Nobody on that Warriors team was the assassin like Jordan was, though to be fair to them, nobody in NBA history is the assassin like Jordan was.

[wegotthabeet]

I could see them beating the Bulls. I could also see Jordan ripping their hearts out. Nobody on that Warriors team was the assassin like Jordan was, though to be fair to them, nobody in NBA history is the assassin like Jordan was.

The Warriors don't have the mental fortitude to win 4 in my opinion. I just can't see guys like Durant & Curry taking that extra step when needed. They the type to blow 3-1 leads, not beat the best team ever with the best player ever. That's the difference regardless of rules or which era, the Jordan led Bulls would win. No question in my mind.

[DonaldSanders]

Not to mention, those numbers are irrelevant because they shot on a middle school 3pt line in the 96 season. Unless he thinks GS would shoot worst on a shorter 3pt line.

Curry would put up 12-13 3PA by himself — before we even talk about Durant only having take a step back from his normal mid-range zone & Klay being able to launch from anywhere.

What about Draymond who shot 41% from 3 during the 2017 playoffs?

If you put both teams on the court with no scouting report, the Bulls get blasted off the floor.

Oof, I forgot about the short 3 in 96. Warriors no question then, KD/Steph/Klay would absolutely feast with a short 3 in a 90s rules scenario.

The Bulls team to challenge them is really the first 3-peat team with younger Jordan/Pip plus Grant who was much more of an offensive threat. The Bulls have a problem with Rodman because he was actually awful on offense. Rodman would be fine in the 90s rules games but in modern rules games would be tough to play vs. the Warriors. Draymond in 2017 was a decent offensive player, big difference. In modern rules games the Warriors could just leave Rodman allowing Draymond to roam. Bulls couldn't do the same thing.

[Knightfall]

cult of Mike has shown up, lol. ya u cant have any kind of discussion regarding him. 96 Mike was extremely limited by Gary Payton. He wasnt some deity in 96 that no defense could ever figure out, lol

I'm wondering who this fool thinks is in the warriors that is as good as the glove defensively.

[chefo]

People discuss this like it's some sort of Minny Lakers with George Mikan vs. the Dubs.

You can watch the Sonics/Bulls finals on Youtube. If you haven't, I suggest you do.

After watching a couple of said games, tell me if anybody nowadays plays D like these two squads did in these finals. Half-court press, traps, jumping off-ball screens, hand-checking galore and most importantly no such thing as freedom of movement, and no moving screens allowed. You play by these rules, I frankly don't see how the Dubs compete because so much of what they are relies on Steph being able to do as he pleases sans anybody being in his shorts all game. The Bulls had 3 absolute freaks of nature (4 if you count Toni) manning the 2/3/4 for 40 minutes a game, plus Harp who a great wing defender in his own right.

That Sonics team they faced was jacking up 20 3s a game (George Karl had inverted the offense with Perkins spacing out, letting Glove and Kemp post up) and was one of the best defensive teams of its time. Hersey Hawkings did not have the volume of the modern day, but he was all-time great shooter. Detlef was also a very good tall shooter. Guess what happened to that otherwise really good Sonics O when the Bulls put the clamps down on Payton and Hawkins? Pace slowed down to a crawl, shot volume from deep went down, and efficiency went down because many had to be tightly contested heaves.

With rules where you couldn't touch the Dubs off-ball and on-ball, Durant, Steph and Klay would be very, very difficult to guard for any team in the history of hoops.

However, in an era where Durant could be checked, pushed and bumped every time he tried to cut across the lane before he even got the ball (and you know the Bulls were going to do it--if for no other reason than to get into his head) and Steph could be picked up by a stud defender that has 3-4 inches on him full-court with a hand on his hip the whole distance, all-game long no less--well, that just wrecks the Dubs' very style of play. The Dubs' shooters would have absolutely no legs left come the 4th.

I've never seen the Dubs play D with that kind of maniacal intensity. You can argue they never had to because they just out-scored people, but what happens when the Bulls unleashed the Doberman D on them for most of the game?

To me, of all the all-time great teams, the 96 Bulls are by far the worst matchup for the 17 Dubs. One could argue the mid 80s Celtics and Lakers had more overall talent that the 96 Bulls, but the 96 Bulls had the GOAT 2/3/4 defenders still in their late primes plus another great wing defender in Harper to throw at what is exclusively a perimeter-oriented Dubs O.

The only players the Bulls struggled with were dominant post scorers because Phil refused to double out of principle. With no post threat to speak of, with a team that needs free-flowing movement and airspace to make their style work--well, I don't see the Dubs holding up under that kind of pressure for all 48.

They could have a night of hot shooting or two, and the Bulls could have an off-night or two as well, so I don't think it would be a sweep, or anything of the sort, but I don't see the Dubs being able to beat that Bulls team 4 out of 7 under 90s rules. Under modern rules, I'd actually take the 92 Bulls over the 96 Bulls because all you had to do was sit old man Cartwright and the rest of the 7 foot stiffs (no point in playing him as there's no HOF waiting to drop 50 if you don't have a 7 foot stiff in the middle) and play Horace at C and you'd open up minutes for Hodges, Paxson and BJ who'd likely be bombing way more than they were back in the day. It's not like that Bulls team lacked for shooting.

By the way, I'm not a Dubs hater--I love how Steph and Klay move off-ball; add Durant and that was about as unstoppable of a team under the current rules as there could be. However, they are great in the context of what the NBA is today where the rules were explicitly changed to allow smaller/perimeter players to flourish.

[DonaldSanders]

cult of Mike has shown up, lol. ya u cant have any kind of discussion regarding him. 96 Mike was extremely limited by Gary Payton. He wasnt some deity in 96 that no defense could ever figure out, lol

I'm wondering who this fool thinks is in the warriors that is as good as the glove defensively.

Draymond Green is a better all around defender than Payton ever was. Draymond would be helping a LOT because Rodman can be left unguarded frequently. He wouldn't be the primary defender but he would make a huge impact.

[jc23]

2022 Grizz in 4

[VanWest82]

cult of Mike has shown up, lol. ya u cant have any kind of discussion regarding him. 96 Mike was extremely limited by Gary Payton. He wasnt some deity in 96 that no defense could ever figure out, lol

He was also limited by Phil Jackson who got completely outcoached by Karl in the 2nd half of that series. First 3 games, Mike shuts down GP and it wrecks the Sonics entire offense. This was the biggest reason Bulls went up 3-0.

In game 4, Sonics get Nate McMillan back and Karl moves GP off ball. New plan is have GP run Mike through a hundred screens to tire him out, and it worked. Everyone focuses on what GP did on the defensive end but it was actually their strategy on the offensive end that made all the difference. All Bulls had to do was move to a switching scheme or put MJ on Nate and the series would've ended in 5. Nope. But if we're being real it was over once Bulls went up 3-0 anyway.

As for OP, Warriors had better depth and basketball evolution is a thing. I could see 96 Bulls winning the first game, maybe two, because Warriors would be star struck by Mike, but eventually their 3PT shooting would be too much.

[art_tatum]

Multiple teams in the past decade would beat the 96 bulls.
And i think MJ is goat.

[northoakland510]

I doubt MJ and Scottie could chase Steph and Klay around for a 7 games series.

[KembaWalker]

I doubt MJ and Scottie could chase Steph and Klay around for a 7 games series.

Harper, Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman is probably the best personnel to guard the Warriors death lineup of any in history

regardless, this is only even close because the Bulls guys happened to peak as a team years after they had all peaked physically which gives the room for arguments like this, whereas the Warriors happened to hit physical prime and roster talent peak in the same window

[rtiff68]

Here is why I consider these discussions pointless...

People who seriously believe that a top team from the '90's could hop out of a time machine and take on a top team from 20+ years later are out of their minds. Sports, athletes, medicine, sports-science, etc. all evolve over time, and new generations build upon the groundwork laid by past generations.

If you put the dynastic '60's Celtics with Russell, Hondo, Cousy, etc. in a time machine and put them in a 7 game series against the '80's Celtics or Lakers, the former would get steamrolled.

If you put the dynastic '96 Bulls in a time machine and put them in a 7 game series against the 2017 Warriors, the Bulls would get absolutely mauled, and if you really believe differently you are being completely unrealistic.

If all of the players on all of the aforementioned teams all grew up in the same era...who in the hell knows how that would shake out? There are so many variables in that scenario that making an intelligent prediction is basically impossible.

Based upon all of the above, the only way we can reliably judge players/teams is by comparing them to their peers. When we do that, the '96 Bulls still have a solid case for the best team of all time. I don't necessarily agree, but it's an easy case to make...

...but stop with the hypothetical match-ups and trying to break down how a team could leap decades into the future and beat the crap out of the best of the best in that time period.

It's ridiculous.

[TheLand13]

Come on man.. how old are you?

39. MJ is the GOAT, I watched every chip, there is just more talent on the 2017 Warriors w/ KD.

In a vacuum maybe but that's too simplistic an argument to make for them beating Chicago in a seven game series.

No it's not. Sometimes other teams are just far too talented for the other to be able to hang with them. That's literally what would happen in this case. People who are saying the talent level here is close are out of their minds.

[slick_watts]

People who seriously believe that a top team from the '90's could hop out of a time machine and take on a top team from 20+ years later are out of their minds.

i remember the 90's. players were smoking cigarettes on the bench, hardly anyone lifted weights, nobody knew what vegetables were. teams played these guys into the ground and by the time the playoffs arrived everyone was tired and worn down. modern nba players have teams of scientists honing their bodies and conditioning.

[TheLand13]

I don't want to hear anyone ever complaining about LeBron stans ever again. The fact that this poll is even close is sad, and some of the arguments here for why the Bulls would be able to beat the Warriors are just coma inducing due to laughter. I mean, look at this post.

Some of the things I have seen posted was

1) Bulls wouoldnt play in this era because they didnt shoot the three and wasnt good at it.

Kerr 51% on 3 attempts
Buchler 45% on 1.,5 per
Jordan 42% on 3.5
Kukoc 40% on 3
Scottie 37.5 on 5.5

Yeah, and you know why? Because the three point line was shortened that season. There's a reason they didn't come close to matching those same kind of percentages the following season.

Unless you were able to match the Warriors in terms of offense (and that simply is not going to happen with a team that thrives on three point shooting and pace), you weren't going to beat them, period. The only time we saw a team come close to beating them was when Houston was able to almost replicate it with their style of play and unique personal that was a problem for Golden State to deal with. It's very hard to do and not every team can do it.

2) The Defense of the Warriors that year was 18th in the league @107.6. Not great. Bulls was number 1 @101.8
Bulls had 3 of the greatest defenders of all time.

Buddy, the Warriors in 2017 were an excellent defensive team. Their opponents PPG was that high due to the pace they played, not because of they weren't great at that end. In terms of actual defensive rating (funny that you conveniently left that out), they were 2nd in the league. They were absolutely loaded in that regard, and would definitely give the Bulls some problems at that end. They were stock piled with multiple lengthy and versatile defensive players who were elite in that regard. They were a nightmare to score on.

Curry would not be shooting over mike

Have you ever watched a single Stephen Curry game in your life?





[img]https://media1.giphy.com/media/26BoDMQXfViMzHfEY/giphy.gif?cid=790b76116d576bbc7c0c931bf1e34f9ffad31fce466a181c&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g[/quote]

EDIT: ^ It's another brilliant crossover, you get the point.

Michael Jordan is one of the greatest one on one defenders of all time, but expecting him to be able to keep Curry in check is laughable. Curry would have some trouble, but the thing is, if you put Jordan on Curry, then that opens up Klay to just pick apart Harper. The only one who can realistically stay attached to Klay is Jordan. So Phil would most likely just have the players guard their respective positions and leave it at that.

Klay with Scottie and Rodman would be all over Durant. Durant would not be able to deal with the physicality that Rodman would have brought.

Lmao.

First off, Dennis Rodman would not be guarding Kevin Durant. Durant's far too tall and lengthy of a player for Rodman to have any realistic impact on in terms of his shooting ability. And even if he did, that would mean that Rodman is being kept away from the paint, thus giving the Warriors potential rebounds that he would normally feast on. This would put the Bulls at a severe disadvantage, as their elite rebounding was one of the main keys to their success. If you put Rodman on Durant, a 4-0 sweep for the Warriors doesn't just become a possibility, but it becomes the most likely outcome.

Second, I thought where you were going with this was that Harper would be the one guarding Klay, not Pippen. Pippen would have a lot of trouble following Thompson around the floor. I'm not denying Pippen's excellent defense, but you can't expect him to cover that much ground. This is Klay Thompson we are talking about here. The guy is a genius off the ball. You will want someone who has the athleticism and defensive IQ that can keep up with him as he looks for his spots. That player is Jordan, not Pippen. Pippen was much better suited in a help defense role. To guard Thompson requires you to be glued to him constantly.

Odds are, in this scenario, Ron Harper would be tasked with guarding Curry, while Jordan would be tasked with Klay and Pippen would be the one guarding Durant. Pippen is the only one who has the size and length to make Durant work harder for his shots. And even then, Durant is still going to get his points. Rodman would be guarding Draymond, and while you might think that's a waste of Rodman as a defender, it's actually the best spot to put him at. Rodman was excellent at getting in opponents heads, and out of all the people on the Warriors, Draymond is the easiest to piss off. That's the one legitimate matchup advantage the Bulls would have in this series.

Otherwise though, this is not looking good at all for the Bulls.

3) Offense
GSW had the number 3 ranked offense @ 113.6
Bulls #1 @115.2. Bulls had the better, more efficient offense. GSW played with a higher pace, that was it. But when teams score, your pace goes down because the team that scores has a chance to set up the defense.,

I can't. I just can't with arguments like this. You are now trying to compare ranked offenses that are almost 20 years apart to determine which one is better offensively. I guess by that logic, the 2009 Cavaliers were a better defensive team than any of the first three peat Bulls.

And a team like the bulls scored on more possessions than the Warriors, meaning that some of the greatest defenders of all time had a chance to get set before Curry/Klay/Durant could get running.

I honestly don't know why I'm bothering at this point. Do you really think this is how basketball works? That it's just something as simple as "the Bulls scored on more possessions in a different era, so in this particular matchup it would play out the same way"?

[KembaWalker]

Here is why I consider these discussions pointless...

People who seriously believe that a top team from the '90's could hop out of a time machine and take on a top team from 20+ years later are out of their minds. Sports, athletes, medicine, sports-science, etc. all evolve over time, and new generations build upon the groundwork laid by past generations.

If you put the dynastic '60's Celtics with Russell, Hondo, Cousy, etc. in a time machine and put them in a 7 game series against the '80's Celtics or Lakers, the former would get steamrolled.

If you put the dynastic '96 Bulls in a time machine and put them in a 7 game series against the 2017 Warriors, the Bulls would get absolutely mauled, and if you really believe differently you are being completely unrealistic.

If all of the players on all of the aforementioned teams all grew up in the same era...who in the hell knows how that would shake out? There are so many variables in that scenario that making an intelligent prediction is basically impossible.

Based upon all of the above, the only way we can reliably judge players/teams is by comparing them to their peers. When we do that, the '96 Bulls still have a solid case for the best team of all time. I don't necessarily agree, but it's an easy case to make...

...but stop with the hypothetical match-ups and trying to break down how a team could leap decades into the future and beat the crap out of the best of the best in that time period.

It's ridiculous.

its not that big of a gap. theres literally players still in the NBA right now that played against Karl Malone. We're a year removed from Vince Carter who played against MJ himself and had Hakeem Olajuwon as a teammate. The game has changed but not as much as you think. The mid 90s weren't the 50s lol. Tim Grover was MJs guy and he's still training NBA players today

[mademan]

cult of Mike has shown up, lol. ya u cant have any kind of discussion regarding him. 96 Mike was extremely limited by Gary Payton. He wasnt some deity in 96 that no defense could ever figure out, lol

I'm wondering who this fool thinks is in the warriors that is as good as the glove defensively.

You romanticize the past so much that you think the difference between Payton and Iguodala defensively is Jordan being severely limited to Jordan dominating. Iggy is an elite defender in his own right and is likely a fantastic matchup against a less explosive older 96 MJ