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

Moderators: KingDavid, jamaalstar21, Harry Garris, Dirk, ken6199, infinite11285, Domejandro, bisme37, bwgood77, zimpy27

Would the 2017 Warriors win against the 96 Bulls?

Yes
135
48%
No
144
52%
 
Total votes: 279

TheLand13
Junior
Posts: 367
And1: 263
Joined: Aug 31, 2021
     

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

Post#221 » by TheLand13 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:11 pm

Backcountry wrote:The 2017 Warriors might not have even gotten past San Antonio in the WCF if Kawhi doesn't get injured in game 1. So I have a hard time believing that they'd beat the '96 Bulls with MJ the GOAT, let alone in 6 games...


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Alright, I'm done with this thread.
chefo
Rookie
Posts: 1,143
And1: 2,116
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

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

Post#222 » by chefo » Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:13 pm

TheLand13 wrote:
chefo wrote:The 96 Bulls wouldn't be able to guard shooters--is that argument for real? If anything, they made the life of every guard/wing they went against (outside of Penny) utter misery that year.

Harper and Starks on the Knicks. Tim Hardway, Chapman and Danilovic on the Heat. Hawkings and Payton on the Sonics.


I'm not reading the rest of your post. Those guys do not, in any way shape or form, compare to Curry, Thompson and Durant. Again, holy **** at some of these takes. These are next level bad takes we are seeing here.

Another big thing that a lot of the people picking the Bulls aren't pointing out is how the bench units matchup, which is another big advantage for the Warriors. You think the Bulls bigs are going to do much against Javal McGee? What about Shaun Livingston? Y'all really think Steve Kerr is going to be able to guard someone like him? Or even be able to shoot at a decent percentage with Livingston defending him? I don't think people understand how difficult of a team the 2017 Warriors are to matchup with. There are only a select few that have the personal to matchup properly with them. The 96 Bulls aren't one of them. Hell, the first three peat Bulls would match up better and they'd still probably get slaughtered.


If you're not going to read, then why bother to comment? You don't have to answer-- I can tell by your posts.

As to your points:

I couldn't care less about the bench of the Dubs--why? Because back in the day, the main stars played 40+ minutes a game, unlike the time-managed players of today. Kerr was the only mid-minutes rotational player under 6'6 on the Bulls. Old man Livinsgton was going to have to go against guys his size or bigger. To bring him up when the Bulls had Toni who was 6'11 in shoes and could play 1-4 on O and 1-3 on D waiting on the bench... yeah, I don't think the Bulls cared much about a 6'6 PG with shot knees trying to post up any of their regulars.

As for Kerr being unable to shoot as well--only shows lack of understanding of how he got his shots. He wasn't prancing around doing crossovers and then launching. He got his looks when MJ and Pip got double or triple teamed. One or two passes later and he had an open shot as often as not. It mattered little who was defending him because that guy was either the help, or the rotating help. That jacking up of contested 3's is a fairly new thing. People hunted for the best shot and the Bulls usually got it.

As for guys not comparing to Curry, Klay and Durant--Durant, sure; he's a special kind of beast. Klay, not so much. There have been a lot of Klay's in the history of the NBA, including ones the Bulls faced. Steph--maybe, but as great a shooter as he is, he is uniquely benefitting from the defense being prohibited from getting real physical with both ball handlers AND shooters, neither of which were the case in the mid-to-late 90s.

Also, you're doing Tim Hardway and his Miami sidekicks quite a disservice because you either never watched them, or you're dissing them just because they happened to get steamrolled by the Bulls.

In his Heat prime, Tim was a 20/10 point guard with great handles who liked to launch 6-7 3's per game. Rex shot 6 3's a game at 37%; Sasha shot over 4 3's per game at 44%. Walt Williams shot 4.5 3's a game at 46%. Just in case you're counting, that's over 20 3's per game at near 40% shooting (ahem, the Dubs shot 38% as a team). How did these sharpshooters do against the Bulls? They couldn't get a shot up because the Bulls did not double Zo and played hyper-aggressive man-to-man D on the outside.

That same team + old Majerly won 61 games the next year, which is more games than the 18 Dubs, BTW. You seem to refuse to accept that launching a 3 with a very athletic and dialed-in 6'6-6'8 guy that has a 7 foot wingspan in your shorts is not the easiest thing the world, especially if they know you're hunting for that shot. Durant can maybe pull it off every once in a while, but it's not that easy.

I'd never take ANY team that's solely perimeter focused over the 96 Bulls because I watched them completely demolish/destroy so many players and teams just by preventing them from getting into their O, when they turned up the intensity in the playoffs. Magic in 91, Porter, GP, young prodigy Toni in the Olympics, Hardway, Jackson, Harper, Blaylock, even prime Penny.

These guys didn't turn their back at the rim at halfcourt or earlier because they enjoyed chatting up the fans in the front rows. You either never saw the Bulls turn up the heat on ball-handlers half/full court, or you have selective amnesia. MJ and Scottie were not just stellar 1-on-1 defenders--they were arguably the best full-court-pressure tandem (especially when on the court with Harper, Toni and Rodman) in the history of the NBA. That Bulls team was the best high-pressure D on ball-handlers AND shooters EVER. Better than the Riley Knicks, better than the Riley Heat, better than the champion Pistons with Billups, Prince and Lindsey Hunter.

Of course people who were born post 2000 were still in daycare the last time anybody even tried playing D like that for a small portion of the game. Steph Curry, as great as he is, got harassed into a poor series by Matthew effin' Dellavedova the previous year, who's like a homeless-man version of any of the Bulls' 3 main ball-hawks. I remember all the complaints at the time that he was too rough with Steph. Can you imagine MJ, Pip and Harper hounding him for 90 feet every time down the floor for 40 minutes a night instead? Yeah, sure, he'd be just as efficient as going against Kyrie who's never fought over a screen in his life and is a bottom tier defender in a league that's bad at guarding anybody outside by design.

Bottom line is, in their 96 playoff run, the Bulls completely shut down 3 teams that shot as well from 3 that year (38%) as the Dubs in 17 + the Sonics who were just a tad worse. Volume, down. %, down near 10% from these teams' baselines. They swept a 60-win Magic team with prime Shaq and Penny + shooters, and beat a 64-win, 2nd best D team in the Sonics that had prime Glove and prime Kemp + shooters. They beat the 2nd, 4th and 6th best defense and the 2nd and 3rd best offense.

Who did the Dubs beat in 17 in comparison?

The .5 Blazers that were one of the worst D's in the league? The 51-win Jazz sans their starting PG and second leading scorer? The Spurs without their only star and MVP-level player in Kawhi? The 21st ranked D on an underachieving, 51-win Cavs team?

Objectively, apart from having to face LeBron and his matadors in the finals, that playoff run was about as much of a cake-walk as any ever.

Again, I really like watching the Dubs, they play the best Euro ball of any team ever, but they are mostly a function of the modern-day rules that were put in place to make life easier for shooters and ball handlers. Kudos to Kerr for putting a system that exploited that to the absolute fullest.

But, that's the final destination of the long process from the late 80s when the league started fishing for guards and wings to promote, including MJ (the infamous 'Pat Ewing doesn't sell shoes'). Enjoy watching them, but if you shut down, or even slow down Steph, Durant's not beating the 96 Bulls going after Pip, Harper, MJ, Rodman and Toni by himself, no matter how talented he is. Just too much athleticism, too much quickness, too much length, too many active hands and waaaay too much basketball IQ on that Bulls team, to go with MJ's maniacal drive to crush anybody and everybody.

If that's a bad take--at least it's from an eye-witness who watched both. You can disagree as much as you want.
User avatar
Antinomy
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,528
And1: 5,118
Joined: Mar 18, 2017
 

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

Post#223 » by Antinomy » Fri Jan 14, 2022 7:38 pm

I’ll just say it again: the Bulls don’t have the offensive firepower to beat the 2017 Warriors in a series.

The 87 or 01 Lakers would be much better matchups.

87 Lakers could run a “small” lineup of:

Magic
Scott
Cooper
Worthy
Kareem

01 Lakers could run:

Fisher/Rider
Kobe
Fox
Hurry
Shaq

Both of those squads could matchup defensively & offensively, could push the pace, they didn’t have liabilities like Rodman, Longley & Harper AND they had a big man who couldn’t be played off the floor in Shaq & Kareem.

The Bulls would struggle beating the 17 Cavs, let alone the Warriors.
SelfishPlayer
Veteran
Posts: 2,832
And1: 1,101
Joined: May 23, 2014

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

Post#224 » by SelfishPlayer » Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:01 pm

Wasn't that Warriors team known for the midrange?
InsideInfo
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,362
And1: 695
Joined: Mar 25, 2008

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

Post#225 » by InsideInfo » Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:10 pm

It would be close, but a lot of those guys from the Bulls are pushing 60 years old now.
TimRobbins
General Manager
Posts: 8,138
And1: 2,231
Joined: Nov 15, 2014

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

Post#226 » by TimRobbins » Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:38 pm

Warriorfan wrote:I'm a warrior fan and think Chi would win at best 5 probably 6 . Curry and Thompson would be made inefficient by Pippen and Jordan but not vise versa. Curry and Klay maybe have one unconscious shooting game each.

So Rodman and KD would be the key match up.


Not seeing Jordan chasing Klay over the 3pt line. He had trouble with guts like Reggie Miller. Bulls just weren't built to play this high-paced game.
User avatar
Johnny Bball
RealGM
Posts: 34,429
And1: 34,570
Joined: Feb 01, 2015
 

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

Post#227 » by Johnny Bball » Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:45 pm

90's rules, not a hope in hell. Current rules, maybe. No point in disucssing without knowing which one.
User avatar
OKCfanSinceSGA
RealGM
Posts: 25,622
And1: 25,657
Joined: Sep 19, 2015
 

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

Post#228 » by OKCfanSinceSGA » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:23 pm

Wow. I’m doing a 2K game on superstar setting just to see how they match up. I’m the Bulls and I’m up 59 to 25 over the 17 Warriors early 3rd quarter. Just a bad matchup defensively.

Harper
Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Kukoc

I’m able to hit 3s with this lineup, outrebounding them 27-10, and Curry/KD are getting locked up. 2K says it’s this way, so Bulls easy. The rebounding edge and FT edge is eye opening and more than makes up for Warriors edge in 3s.

Edit:
Kerr+Kukoc going off from 3, now up by 42.
“This kid reminds me of a 6-6 Chris Paul. He wants to win everything.”

Olin Simplis- SGA’s trainer.
User avatar
ccvle
Head Coach
Posts: 6,021
And1: 1,465
Joined: Aug 03, 2002

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

Post#229 » by ccvle » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:33 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
ccvle wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
I mean the bulls just swap out Longley for Toni in today's era and that mostly fixes this. Harper was not a zero on offense...he could easily slot into a corner 3 guy with good enough handles and enough speed to drive into space. And while Kerr is not defensive expert, he's an elite spot up shooter, perfectly suited for today's game.

The bulls loose because phil would refuse to adapt...he still doesn't believe in 3 point shooting. But the bulls aren't as nearly stuck with poor pieces to at least compete here.


Harper was a 28% three point shooter in his career that never really got any better later in his career.


He wasn't shooting from the corner...


He's a **** terrible three point shooter. He's terrible shooter in general. He's barely a 30% three point shooter even from the corner.
Wallace_Wallace
Analyst
Posts: 3,222
And1: 4,063
Joined: Jul 28, 2017
     

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

Post#230 » by Wallace_Wallace » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:38 pm

OKCfanSinceSGA wrote:Wow. I’m doing a 2K game on superstar setting just to see how they match up. I’m the Bulls and I’m up 59 to 25 over the 17 Warriors early 3rd quarter. Just a bad matchup defensively.

Harper
Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Kukoc

I’m able to hit 3s with this lineup, outrebounding them 27-10, and Curry/KD are getting locked up. 2K says it’s this way, so Bulls easy. The rebounding edge and FT edge is eye opening and more than makes up for Warriors edge in 3s.

Edit:
Kerr+Kukoc going off from 3, now up by 42.

;list=PLVknSjv5hAFL6W1PyspTgYzZXCIOpm0NP&index=82

Once upon a time, Chris Smoove won a championship with the 2013-2014 Phoenix Suns. I think that team can beat the Bulls with MJ/Pippen/Rodman/Rose :nod:
dhsilv2
RealGM
Posts: 30,372
And1: 14,069
Joined: Oct 04, 2015

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

Post#231 » by dhsilv2 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:39 pm

ccvle wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
ccvle wrote:
Harper was a 28% three point shooter in his career that never really got any better later in his career.


He wasn't shooting from the corner...


He's a **** terrible three point shooter. He's terrible shooter in general. He's barely a 30% three point shooter even from the corner.


He shot 36% from the corner in the years we have data....
User avatar
OKCfanSinceSGA
RealGM
Posts: 25,622
And1: 25,657
Joined: Sep 19, 2015
 

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

Post#232 » by OKCfanSinceSGA » Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:46 pm

Wallace_Wallace wrote:
OKCfanSinceSGA wrote:Wow. I’m doing a 2K game on superstar setting just to see how they match up. I’m the Bulls and I’m up 59 to 25 over the 17 Warriors early 3rd quarter. Just a bad matchup defensively.

Harper
Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Kukoc

I’m able to hit 3s with this lineup, outrebounding them 27-10, and Curry/KD are getting locked up. 2K says it’s this way, so Bulls easy. The rebounding edge and FT edge is eye opening and more than makes up for Warriors edge in 3s.

Edit:
Kerr+Kukoc going off from 3, now up by 42.

;list=PLVknSjv5hAFL6W1PyspTgYzZXCIOpm0NP&index=82

Once upon a time, Chris Smoove won a championship with the 2013-2014 Phoenix Suns. I think that team can beat the Bulls with MJ/Pippen/Rodman/Rose :nod:


93-44 final score. My play through was 100% realistic unlike Chris Smoove. Tale of the tape: rebounding 45 to 21, 41 to 14 points in the paint, 60% shooting to 30%. Locked up.
“This kid reminds me of a 6-6 Chris Paul. He wants to win everything.”

Olin Simplis- SGA’s trainer.
User avatar
ccvle
Head Coach
Posts: 6,021
And1: 1,465
Joined: Aug 03, 2002

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

Post#233 » by ccvle » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:03 pm

chefo wrote:
TheLand13 wrote:
chefo wrote:The 96 Bulls wouldn't be able to guard shooters--is that argument for real? If anything, they made the life of every guard/wing they went against (outside of Penny) utter misery that year.

Harper and Starks on the Knicks. Tim Hardway, Chapman and Danilovic on the Heat. Hawkings and Payton on the Sonics.


I'm not reading the rest of your post. Those guys do not, in any way shape or form, compare to Curry, Thompson and Durant. Again, holy **** at some of these takes. These are next level bad takes we are seeing here.

Another big thing that a lot of the people picking the Bulls aren't pointing out is how the bench units matchup, which is another big advantage for the Warriors. You think the Bulls bigs are going to do much against Javal McGee? What about Shaun Livingston? Y'all really think Steve Kerr is going to be able to guard someone like him? Or even be able to shoot at a decent percentage with Livingston defending him? I don't think people understand how difficult of a team the 2017 Warriors are to matchup with. There are only a select few that have the personal to matchup properly with them. The 96 Bulls aren't one of them. Hell, the first three peat Bulls would match up better and they'd still probably get slaughtered.


If you're not going to read, then why bother to comment? You don't have to answer-- I can tell by your posts.

As to your points:

I couldn't care less about the bench of the Dubs--why? Because back in the day, the main stars played 40+ minutes a game, unlike the time-managed players of today. Kerr was the only mid-minutes rotational player under 6'6 on the Bulls. Old man Livinsgton was going to have to go against guys his size or bigger. To bring him up when the Bulls had Toni who was 6'11 in shoes and could play 1-4 on O and 1-3 on D waiting on the bench... yeah, I don't think the Bulls cared much about a 6'6 PG with shot knees trying to post up any of their regulars.

As for Kerr being unable to shoot as well--only shows lack of understanding of how he got his shots. He wasn't prancing around doing crossovers and then launching. He got his looks when MJ and Pip got double or triple teamed. One or two passes later and he had an open shot as often as not. It mattered little who was defending him because that guy was either the help, or the rotating help. That jacking up of contested 3's is a fairly new thing. People hunted for the best shot and the Bulls usually got it.

As for guys not comparing to Curry, Klay and Durant--Durant, sure; he's a special kind of beast. Klay, not so much. There have been a lot of Klay's in the history of the NBA, including ones the Bulls faced. Steph--maybe, but as great a shooter as he is, he is uniquely benefitting from the defense being prohibited from getting real physical with both ball handlers AND shooters, neither of which were the case in the mid-to-late 90s.

Also, you're doing Tim Hardway and his Miami sidekicks quite a disservice because you either never watched them, or you're dissing them just because they happened to get steamrolled by the Bulls.

In his Heat prime, Tim was a 20/10 point guard with great handles who liked to launch 6-7 3's per game. Rex shot 6 3's a game at 37%; Sasha shot over 4 3's per game at 44%. Walt Williams shot 4.5 3's a game at 46%. Just in case you're counting, that's over 20 3's per game at near 40% shooting (ahem, the Dubs shot 38% as a team). How did these sharpshooters do against the Bulls? They couldn't get a shot up because the Bulls did not double Zo and played hyper-aggressive man-to-man D on the outside.

That same team + old Majerly won 61 games the next year, which is more games than the 18 Dubs, BTW. You seem to refuse to accept that launching a 3 with a very athletic and dialed-in 6'6-6'8 guy that has a 7 foot wingspan in your shorts is not the easiest thing the world, especially if they know you're hunting for that shot. Durant can maybe pull it off every once in a while, but it's not that easy.

I'd never take ANY team that's solely perimeter focused over the 96 Bulls because I watched them completely demolish/destroy so many players and teams just by preventing them from getting into their O, when they turned up the intensity in the playoffs. Magic in 91, Porter, GP, young prodigy Toni in the Olympics, Hardway, Jackson, Harper, Blaylock, even prime Penny.

These guys didn't turn their back at the rim at halfcourt or earlier because they enjoyed chatting up the fans in the front rows. You either never saw the Bulls turn up the heat on ball-handlers half/full court, or you have selective amnesia. MJ and Scottie were not just stellar 1-on-1 defenders--they were arguably the best full-court-pressure tandem (especially when on the court with Harper, Toni and Rodman) in the history of the NBA. That Bulls team was the best high-pressure D on ball-handlers AND shooters EVER. Better than the Riley Knicks, better than the Riley Heat, better than the champion Pistons with Billups, Prince and Lindsey Hunter.

Of course people who were born post 2000 were still in daycare the last time anybody even tried playing D like that for a small portion of the game. Steph Curry, as great as he is, got harassed into a poor series by Matthew effin' Dellavedova the previous year, who's like a homeless-man version of any of the Bulls' 3 main ball-hawks. I remember all the complaints at the time that he was too rough with Steph. Can you imagine MJ, Pip and Harper hounding him for 90 feet every time down the floor for 40 minutes a night instead? Yeah, sure, he'd be just as efficient as going against Kyrie who's never fought over a screen in his life and is a bottom tier defender in a league that's bad at guarding anybody outside by design.

Bottom line is, in their 96 playoff run, the Bulls completely shut down 3 teams that shot as well from 3 that year (38%) as the Dubs in 17 + the Sonics who were just a tad worse. Volume, down. %, down near 10% from these teams' baselines. They swept a 60-win Magic team with prime Shaq and Penny + shooters, and beat a 64-win, 2nd best D team in the Sonics that had prime Glove and prime Kemp + shooters. They beat the 2nd, 4th and 6th best defense and the 2nd and 3rd best offense.

Who did the Dubs beat in 17 in comparison?

The .5 Blazers that were one of the worst D's in the league? The 51-win Jazz sans their starting PG and second leading scorer? The Spurs without their only star and MVP-level player in Kawhi? The 21st ranked D on an underachieving, 51-win Cavs team?

Objectively, apart from having to face LeBron and his matadors in the finals, that playoff run was about as much of a cake-walk as any ever.

Again, I really like watching the Dubs, they play the best Euro ball of any team ever, but they are mostly a function of the modern-day rules that were put in place to make life easier for shooters and ball handlers. Kudos to Kerr for putting a system that exploited that to the absolute fullest.

But, that's the final destination of the long process from the late 80s when the league started fishing for guards and wings to promote, including MJ (the infamous 'Pat Ewing doesn't sell shoes'). Enjoy watching them, but if you shut down, or even slow down Steph, Durant's not beating the 96 Bulls going after Pip, Harper, MJ, Rodman and Toni by himself, no matter how talented he is. Just too much athleticism, too much quickness, too much length, too many active hands and waaaay too much basketball IQ on that Bulls team, to go with MJ's maniacal drive to crush anybody and everybody.

If that's a bad take--at least it's from an eye-witness who watched both. You can disagree as much as you want.


Bulls never faced someone like klay as the third option. It is a joke that you even tried to compare him and Rex Chapman in terms of shooting. All those stats that you provided came from the 96 season when the three point line was shortened. Chapman, while a decent player, was barely an average three point shooter. It is insulting to even bring up Tim Hardaway in the same conversation as Curry. There was a reason why the heat struggled even against the Knicks.
Kvothe22
Sophomore
Posts: 219
And1: 303
Joined: Aug 27, 2020
 

Re: Steph Curry: 

Post#234 » by Kvothe22 » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:27 pm

Antinomy wrote:
SecondTake wrote:
Raps in 4 wrote:100%

The Warriors had 2x top-5 players and 2x top-20 players. The Bulls would be badly outclassed.
Bulls have the best player of all time though. MJ is equivalent in value to KD plus Steph. So it comes down to the rest of the roster which is close

Sent from my SM-G950W using RealGM mobile app


This is why there’s no point in discussing anything with MJ nostalgia acts.


Some athletes becomes like Gods, Mythical creatures over time.

Ppl tend to have unrealistic picture about them, its in other sport also.
KembaWalker
Head Coach
Posts: 7,045
And1: 4,835
Joined: Dec 22, 2011
   

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

Post#235 » by KembaWalker » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:42 pm

I'm watching 96 Bulls vs Sonics game 1 rn at the suggestion of some other posters. laugh at me if you want, I honestly think if the Warriors went small they would have some trouble with Luc Longley getting whatever he wants at the basket. that guy is freaking massive and has some soft touch around the rim. i looked it up and this was his best game of the series at 19pt so might be biased.
He's absolutely bulldozing Shawn Kemp
Image
User avatar
ccvle
Head Coach
Posts: 6,021
And1: 1,465
Joined: Aug 03, 2002

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

Post#236 » by ccvle » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:44 pm

dhsilv2 wrote:
ccvle wrote:
dhsilv2 wrote:
He wasn't shooting from the corner...


He's a **** terrible three point shooter. He's terrible shooter in general. He's barely a 30% three point shooter even from the corner.


He shot 36% from the corner in the years we have data....


Please tell me what does your Data says about the actual number of three attempted or made in a season.
chefo
Rookie
Posts: 1,143
And1: 2,116
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

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

Post#237 » by chefo » Fri Jan 14, 2022 10:48 pm

ccvle wrote:
chefo wrote:
TheLand13 wrote:
I'm not reading the rest of your post. Those guys do not, in any way shape or form, compare to Curry, Thompson and Durant. Again, holy **** at some of these takes. These are next level bad takes we are seeing here.

Another big thing that a lot of the people picking the Bulls aren't pointing out is how the bench units matchup, which is another big advantage for the Warriors. You think the Bulls bigs are going to do much against Javal McGee? What about Shaun Livingston? Y'all really think Steve Kerr is going to be able to guard someone like him? Or even be able to shoot at a decent percentage with Livingston defending him? I don't think people understand how difficult of a team the 2017 Warriors are to matchup with. There are only a select few that have the personal to matchup properly with them. The 96 Bulls aren't one of them. Hell, the first three peat Bulls would match up better and they'd still probably get slaughtered.


If you're not going to read, then why bother to comment? You don't have to answer-- I can tell by your posts.

As to your points:

I couldn't care less about the bench of the Dubs--why? Because back in the day, the main stars played 40+ minutes a game, unlike the time-managed players of today. Kerr was the only mid-minutes rotational player under 6'6 on the Bulls. Old man Livinsgton was going to have to go against guys his size or bigger. To bring him up when the Bulls had Toni who was 6'11 in shoes and could play 1-4 on O and 1-3 on D waiting on the bench... yeah, I don't think the Bulls cared much about a 6'6 PG with shot knees trying to post up any of their regulars.

As for Kerr being unable to shoot as well--only shows lack of understanding of how he got his shots. He wasn't prancing around doing crossovers and then launching. He got his looks when MJ and Pip got double or triple teamed. One or two passes later and he had an open shot as often as not. It mattered little who was defending him because that guy was either the help, or the rotating help. That jacking up of contested 3's is a fairly new thing. People hunted for the best shot and the Bulls usually got it.

As for guys not comparing to Curry, Klay and Durant--Durant, sure; he's a special kind of beast. Klay, not so much. There have been a lot of Klay's in the history of the NBA, including ones the Bulls faced. Steph--maybe, but as great a shooter as he is, he is uniquely benefitting from the defense being prohibited from getting real physical with both ball handlers AND shooters, neither of which were the case in the mid-to-late 90s.

Also, you're doing Tim Hardway and his Miami sidekicks quite a disservice because you either never watched them, or you're dissing them just because they happened to get steamrolled by the Bulls.

In his Heat prime, Tim was a 20/10 point guard with great handles who liked to launch 6-7 3's per game. Rex shot 6 3's a game at 37%; Sasha shot over 4 3's per game at 44%. Walt Williams shot 4.5 3's a game at 46%. Just in case you're counting, that's over 20 3's per game at near 40% shooting (ahem, the Dubs shot 38% as a team). How did these sharpshooters do against the Bulls? They couldn't get a shot up because the Bulls did not double Zo and played hyper-aggressive man-to-man D on the outside.

That same team + old Majerly won 61 games the next year, which is more games than the 18 Dubs, BTW. You seem to refuse to accept that launching a 3 with a very athletic and dialed-in 6'6-6'8 guy that has a 7 foot wingspan in your shorts is not the easiest thing the world, especially if they know you're hunting for that shot. Durant can maybe pull it off every once in a while, but it's not that easy.

I'd never take ANY team that's solely perimeter focused over the 96 Bulls because I watched them completely demolish/destroy so many players and teams just by preventing them from getting into their O, when they turned up the intensity in the playoffs. Magic in 91, Porter, GP, young prodigy Toni in the Olympics, Hardway, Jackson, Harper, Blaylock, even prime Penny.

These guys didn't turn their back at the rim at halfcourt or earlier because they enjoyed chatting up the fans in the front rows. You either never saw the Bulls turn up the heat on ball-handlers half/full court, or you have selective amnesia. MJ and Scottie were not just stellar 1-on-1 defenders--they were arguably the best full-court-pressure tandem (especially when on the court with Harper, Toni and Rodman) in the history of the NBA. That Bulls team was the best high-pressure D on ball-handlers AND shooters EVER. Better than the Riley Knicks, better than the Riley Heat, better than the champion Pistons with Billups, Prince and Lindsey Hunter.

Of course people who were born post 2000 were still in daycare the last time anybody even tried playing D like that for a small portion of the game. Steph Curry, as great as he is, got harassed into a poor series by Matthew effin' Dellavedova the previous year, who's like a homeless-man version of any of the Bulls' 3 main ball-hawks. I remember all the complaints at the time that he was too rough with Steph. Can you imagine MJ, Pip and Harper hounding him for 90 feet every time down the floor for 40 minutes a night instead? Yeah, sure, he'd be just as efficient as going against Kyrie who's never fought over a screen in his life and is a bottom tier defender in a league that's bad at guarding anybody outside by design.

Bottom line is, in their 96 playoff run, the Bulls completely shut down 3 teams that shot as well from 3 that year (38%) as the Dubs in 17 + the Sonics who were just a tad worse. Volume, down. %, down near 10% from these teams' baselines. They swept a 60-win Magic team with prime Shaq and Penny + shooters, and beat a 64-win, 2nd best D team in the Sonics that had prime Glove and prime Kemp + shooters. They beat the 2nd, 4th and 6th best defense and the 2nd and 3rd best offense.

Who did the Dubs beat in 17 in comparison?

The .5 Blazers that were one of the worst D's in the league? The 51-win Jazz sans their starting PG and second leading scorer? The Spurs without their only star and MVP-level player in Kawhi? The 21st ranked D on an underachieving, 51-win Cavs team?

Objectively, apart from having to face LeBron and his matadors in the finals, that playoff run was about as much of a cake-walk as any ever.

Again, I really like watching the Dubs, they play the best Euro ball of any team ever, but they are mostly a function of the modern-day rules that were put in place to make life easier for shooters and ball handlers. Kudos to Kerr for putting a system that exploited that to the absolute fullest.

But, that's the final destination of the long process from the late 80s when the league started fishing for guards and wings to promote, including MJ (the infamous 'Pat Ewing doesn't sell shoes'). Enjoy watching them, but if you shut down, or even slow down Steph, Durant's not beating the 96 Bulls going after Pip, Harper, MJ, Rodman and Toni by himself, no matter how talented he is. Just too much athleticism, too much quickness, too much length, too many active hands and waaaay too much basketball IQ on that Bulls team, to go with MJ's maniacal drive to crush anybody and everybody.

If that's a bad take--at least it's from an eye-witness who watched both. You can disagree as much as you want.


Bulls never faced someone like klay as the third option. It is a joke that you even tried to compare him and Rex Chapman in terms of shooting. All those stats that you provided came from the 96 season when the three point line was shortened. Chapman, while a decent player, was barely an average three point shooter. It is insulting to even bring up Tim Hardaway in the same conversation as Curry. There was a reason why the heat struggled even against the Knicks.


I don't remember the exact circumstances, but wasn't Klay pretty abysmal that entire playoff run? Maybe he was injured or something, but it was the Steph and Durant show as far as I remember.

But in principle yes--regular season Klay's better than any third option the Bulls faced in the finals. One can also argue '17 playoff Klay was actually way worse than a bunch of 3rd options they faced during the 2 three-peats.

My point is of a much simpler variety--you have the GOAT disruptive team with the 3 of the best, most physical and physically-gifted wing defenders of all time starting, with the GOAT PF defender behind them going against a team that relies exclusively on pace, motion and shooting to win games.

With their pressing D, the 96 Bulls slowed down the second and third best offenses in the entire league that year almost to a complete stop. 85 and 89 points per game. There was a game where the prime Shaq/Penny/Scott/Anderson Magic couldn't break 70 points. Didn't that Bulls team also hold the Stockton/Malone Jazz to fifty something points another finals game? Yes, Hornacek is not Klay, but he was a career 50/40 shooter in his own right who was putting up 20/game as a first option just some years prior. In 96, Scott was scoring 18/game shooting 8 3's at 43%. He couldn't get a shot up in the ECF, MJ and Harper were so stifling on the outside while Scottie was guarding Penny.

All I'm saying is that if you disrupt the Dubs motion O with hyper-aggressive handling of Steph, who makes the whole thing go, it takes away a LOT away from the way the Dubs play. I don't think these Dubs were nearly good enough on D to win a grind-it-out series against these Bulls because it was the Bulls D that controlled the tempo.

The other thing people tend to forget is that the Bulls were not just the best O and D on aggregate--they were the best offensive rebounding team (thanks to Rodman) and the best in the league in not turning it over, while being one of the best at turning the other team over. There's math here in play as well. You maximize your possessions and minimize the ability of the other team to run or dictate the pace.

Anyhow, these hypotheticals are fun to think about but kinda' pointless. There's no way to know. MJ or Scottie twists an ankle, and it's over. Same goes for Durant or Steph. In the end, nobody's changing anybody else's mind. My bias is spelled out above--the Bulls wing defenders were effin' animals when locked in. It's like having 3-4 Kawhi's out there on the floor. I don't see any team that doesn't have one or more all-time bigs beating them in a series.
twyzted
Rookie
Posts: 1,113
And1: 1,139
Joined: Jun 01, 2018
 

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

Post#238 » by twyzted » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:28 pm

draftnightsuit wrote:
KembaWalker wrote:I see a lot of people worrying about how the Bulls are gonna guard the splash bros
I'm wondering who the hell is gonna guard Michael Jordan... Klay Thompson with Draymond at the rim? he's either dropping 60 (depending on the pace the game goes) or half the "death lineup" is gonna be on the bench with foul trouble


Michael Jordan had trouble dealing with Reggie Miller but somehow he’s gonna average 60 against Klay who is better than Reggie in every way.


Jordan meet Miller once in the playoff in 98 ecf

Miller through first 2 rounds:
9 games 40mpg 43fg% 38%3pt 90%ft 2rpg 2apg 1.3spg 0.3bpg 2.1topg 22ppg

Vs bulls
7 games 42fg% 44%3p 91%ft 1.6rpg 2apg 1spg 17ppg

Jordan dropped
32ppg 6rpg 4apg 2spg on 47fg% 40%3pt 81%ft

As millers primary defender at age of 35.

jerok wrote: Since MJ can't rest on defense cause he and Harper will be chasing Steph or Klay around. Offensively he might take a dip.


He was chasing miller through screens for 7 games.
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness particularly because he couldn't handle criticism well.


freethedevil wrote:Jordan would statpad both his overall and "clutch" stats in blowout wins
twyzted
Rookie
Posts: 1,113
And1: 1,139
Joined: Jun 01, 2018
 

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

Post#239 » by twyzted » Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:52 pm

toodles23 wrote:
KembaWalker wrote:I see a lot of people worrying about how the Bulls are gonna guard the splash bros
I'm wondering who the hell is gonna guard Michael Jordan... Klay Thompson with Draymond at the rim? he's either dropping 60 (depending on the pace the game goes) or half the "death lineup" is gonna be on the bench with foul trouble

Good lord the MJ deification is absolutely insane. The last time in his career he scored 60 was in 1993 against a lottery team, but somehow he's going to drop 60 against the most talented team of all time stacked with great defenders and with a far better understanding of how to defend star players than any team he played in his career, and without the illegal defense rules?

In the 1996 Finals MJ averaged 23.7 ppg on 36.7% from the field in the last three games once George Karl finally put Payton on him as the primary defender. He was not some unstoppable god, especially second 3peat MJ who was clearly a couple steps removed from his GOAT level peak around 1991.


So because a top3 guard defender got Jordan down to 24ppg on 37% fg for 3 games of 1200 games he is stobbable? Because of a 0.002% sample size

Look if Lebron dropped 34ppg on that team Jordan would be around his 93 final statline.

But arguing that 99.998% of the time Jordan was unstobblable is somehow an insane take :lol:

Image
Pennebaker wrote:Jordan lacks LeBron's mental toughness particularly because he couldn't handle criticism well.


freethedevil wrote:Jordan would statpad both his overall and "clutch" stats in blowout wins
User avatar
bearadonisdna
RealGM
Posts: 15,363
And1: 3,271
Joined: Jul 07, 2012

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

Post#240 » by bearadonisdna » Sat Jan 15, 2022 12:20 am

This team lost to the Toronto Raptors .
A historically insignificant title team .
Not even a discussion .
Oh injuries ?
You ever hear 96 the bulls talk about injuries .
Not their problem .

Return to The General Board