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

[michaelm]

I can't stand questions like this.

We're talking two different eras of basketball entirely. If the 2017 Warriors suddenly had to play with 1996 defense and physicality, they'd get beat up. If the 1996 Bulls suddenly had to play with 2017 run and gun rules, they'd foul out and/or be gassed.

Stop trying to debate something that can't be debated. Recognize both teams for how great they were, when they were, and move on.

[OdomFan]

I can't stand questions like this.

We're talking two different eras of basketball entirely. If the 2017 Warriors suddenly had to play with 1996 defense and physicality, they'd get beat up. If the 1996 Bulls suddenly had to play with 2017 run and gun rules, they'd foul out and/or be gassed.

Stop trying to debate something that can't be debated. Recognize both teams for how great they were, when they were, and move on.

Two different eras that have different rules, but those rules don't change the fact that it's still basketball. So yeah, both teams would very much be able to go out on a court whether it be 1996 or 2017 and make a series competitive against the other. So no people aren't going to stop debating it just because you want them to. If it bothers you that much you don't have to be a part of it.

[TheLand13]

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.

[DwayneSchintzus]

Those Bulls would have a huge math problem with the Warriors.

[ccvle]

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.

As I was saying before, no offense to the bulls. That team was constructed perfectly to play against the 90s teams. All the teams back then had one superstar scorer with so so sidekicks ( offensively speaking). No teams could beat the bulls because the bulls were just as good defensively as any 90s teams. If you try to play grind it out against the bulls , it basically came down to MJ/Pippen vs Ewing/Starks or Malone/Stockton or Miller/Rik Smith, etc.

[ccvle]

Those Bulls would have a huge math problem with the Warriors.

That's what it basically what it comes down to. Jordan would still be the best player in today's league or at least top 3. PIppen may even be deadlier in today's small ball. Rodman would atleast in my mind have similar impact as Draymond Green. However, that team collectively in today's game wouldn't be as effective. That bulls team had three players with close to non existent offense (Harper, Longley and Rodman). Having one player that can't provide spacing is already an liability. That bulls had three. I don't doubt MJ can get his 35-50 pts. I just don't think the other players on the team can contribute enough.

[michaelm]

We are only dealing with 10 point per game difference, and being this would be one of the best perimeter defenses matched up against one of the best perimeter scoring teams, I would not buy into the Bulls losing in 6.

3 or no 3, the warriors averaged 115 points per game. Does not matter how they got there, that's what they score.

The Bulls averaged 105

What do you think is more likely?

a) Jordan and Pippen are going to score less points now that they don't have to deal with Shaq, Alonzo Morning and Patrick Ewing in the paint? On top of now having a 3 second rule to clear the lane for them??

or

B) Some how Curry, KD and Klay are going to do better then their average against Jordan(96 all defensive 1st team), Rodman(96 all defensive 1st team), and Pippen(96 all defensive 1st team). Honestly is not even the 1st team defense, you are dealing with 3 historically GREAT defenders.

One set of these stars actually does have it easier.

Now Factor in the Warriors are likely going to get absolutely CRUSHED on the glass. Your most likely starters on the Warriors average 42 rebounds per 100pos, and your most likely starters for Chicago (meaning not playing Longley) average 55 (if you put Longley back in the rebounds go up to nearly 57). That something that could have a cascading effect on the game.

Yeah sorry, I don't buy the warriors in 6.

Small ball with Rodman very likely out rebounds anybother small ball line up in NBA history.

Draymond Green was not the primary rebounder for the 2017 GSW team however.

Its a hell of a what if,

Drop out Iggy and put in Zaza for rebounding to much and the Bulls might be able to start fouling out defenders. I closed those tabs down earlier, but i think Jordan took 67 free throws in that final series. Chicago had 169? that series, for comparison Durant lead the Warriors with something like 44 and the Warriors had 130ish? FTs.

As someone said the Bulls had the perfect roster from which to form a close to perfect small ball squad, not unlikely to be better than even the renowned GSW small ball squad, although a near prime Andre Iguodala was close to the perfect player for a small ball squad.

The physicality thing was more what I was addressing, ZaZa was a clumsy oaf imo but probably not particularly susceptible to physical intimidation, and who exactly is going to take David West out, on the Bulls or any other team ?.

As has been discussed it would probably come down to a small ball matchup, for which the Bulls are hardly ill equipped as above.

[dhsilv2]

Those Bulls would have a huge math problem with the Warriors.

That's what it basically what it comes down to. Jordan would still be the best player in today's league or at least top 3. PIppen may even be deadlier in today's small ball. Rodman would atleast in my mind have similar impact as Draymond Green. However, that team collectively in today's game wouldn't be as effective. That bulls team had three players with close to non existent offense (Harper, Longley and Rodman). Having one player that can't provide spacing is already an liability. That bulls had three. I don't doubt MJ can get his 35-50 pts. I just don't think the other players on the team can contribute enough.

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.

[michaelm]

Deleted

[draftnightsuit]

The poll changed once Jordan stans got off from work.

Please avoid insulting people as "stans." It is perfectly reasonable for people to like Michael Jordan without having pejoratives thrown in their direction.

[Raps in 4]

I can't stand questions like this.

We're talking two different eras of basketball entirely. If the 2017 Warriors suddenly had to play with 1996 defense and physicality, they'd get beat up. If the 1996 Bulls suddenly had to play with 2017 run and gun rules, they'd foul out and/or be gassed.

Stop trying to debate something that can't be debated. Recognize both teams for how great they were, when they were, and move on.

When I answered this question, I wasn't even thinking about the different styles of play. I was simply looking at it from a talent perspective, and the '17 Warriors simply had more talent on their roster than the '96 Bulls. If we could somehow "adjust" for era, that's all it would come down to, who has more talent.

Comparing styles is silly because both styles were a product of the rules at the time.

[dhsilv2]

I can't stand questions like this.

We're talking two different eras of basketball entirely. If the 2017 Warriors suddenly had to play with 1996 defense and physicality, they'd get beat up. If the 1996 Bulls suddenly had to play with 2017 run and gun rules, they'd foul out and/or be gassed.

Stop trying to debate something that can't be debated. Recognize both teams for how great they were, when they were, and move on.

When I answered this question, I wasn't even thinking about the different styles of play. I was simply looking at it from a talent perspective, and the '17 Warriors simply had more talent on their roster than the '96 Bulls. If we could somehow "adjust" for era, that's all it would come down to, who has more talent.

Comparing styles is silly because both styles were a product of the rules at the time.

But who's the more adaptable and creative coach? For me that's the end of the debate. Phil is still anti 3 point shooting.

[KembaWalker]

gonna run it in whatifsports and see what I get for a 7 game series
https://www.whatifsports.com/locker/

Bulls get homecourt with the better season record
GAME 1 @ Chicago: GSW wins 112-104
Warriors overcome 30 rebounds from Rodman and 32/27 pts from MJ and Pip thanks to 6/8 3s from Curry and McGee+West cooking Chicagos bench

GAME 2 @ Chicago: CHI wins 106-92
GSW has a cold shooting night from 3, 8/31
Rodman is the difference maker with 19 boards, 9 of them offensive to go with 17 points
23 OREBs total for Chicago nets them a bunch of possessions

GAME 3 @ GSW: CHI wins 110-90
this ones funny..MJ goes into early foul trouble and only gets 25 minutes for the game for 14pt, luckily for them Durant puts up an all time finals stinker with 6 points on 3/11 shooting, with Scottie torching him for 28/7/6. Curry and Klay put up 25/18 but its not enough

GAME 4 @ GSW: CHI wins 108-98
player of the game is Pippen again with 29/10/3 and again holding Durant to a horrible game, 9pts on 4/10. Curry goes 6-19 on 3/12 3pt shooting. Draymond almost puts up a 5x5, just needing 2 more steals and 1 block
Rodman with 27 rebounds, 9 offensive. He's been an absolute monster on the boards in this series

GAME 5 @ CHI GSW wins 112-103
Durant player of the game with 22/8/4, Klay goes 11/19 for 28pts
MJ got not much help this game, 13/26 for 35/6/8 but needed more help from Pip, and 0 points for Kukoc killed Chicagos already bad bench

GAME 6 @ GSW Bulls win 118-111

going down big early with a 15-31 1st quarter deficit the Bulls go nuclear to score 46 in the 3rd quarter
MJ gets player of the game in the last game of the series with 32/8/5/4stl
Kukoc off the bench makes up for his donut with 19/3/5 in 26 minutes
Curry drops 28, Durant 22, Klay has a rough 4/15 night

Bulls win in 6

in the end, it means absolutely nothing but I had fun looking at the box scores and imagining. the only insight I pulled from it is that I think people might be underestimating Rodman in here. he got 10+ offensive rebounds 3 times in the series and its hard to overstate how valuable that was. you can shoot a few percentage points less in TS% and still win when you get that many more possessions

[Backcountry]

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...

[Hitachi77]

I'm not sure the Bulls would beat the '17 Cavs, let alone the '17 Warrs. Bulls-Cavs matchup is much closer than Bulls-Warrs.

[Hitachi77]

Let's discuss Bulls vs Cavs, and note how close that matchup actually looks. That might return this thread to sanity.

[ccvle]

Those Bulls would have a huge math problem with the Warriors.

That's what it basically what it comes down to. Jordan would still be the best player in today's league or at least top 3. PIppen may even be deadlier in today's small ball. Rodman would atleast in my mind have similar impact as Draymond Green. However, that team collectively in today's game wouldn't be as effective. That bulls team had three players with close to non existent offense (Harper, Longley and Rodman). Having one player that can't provide spacing is already an liability. That bulls had three. I don't doubt MJ can get his 35-50 pts. I just don't think the other players on the team can contribute enough.

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.

[meekrab]

Those Bulls would have a huge math problem with the Warriors.

That's what it basically what it comes down to. Jordan would still be the best player in today's league or at least top 3. PIppen may even be deadlier in today's small ball. Rodman would atleast in my mind have similar impact as Draymond Green. However, that team collectively in today's game wouldn't be as effective. That bulls team had three players with close to non existent offense (Harper, Longley and Rodman). Having one player that can't provide spacing is already an liability. That bulls had three. I don't doubt MJ can get his 35-50 pts. I just don't think the other players on the team can contribute enough.

Harper was a 20 ppg scorer for like half a decade before he joined the Bulls, what is this "non existent offense" you speak of?

[dhsilv2]

That's what it basically what it comes down to. Jordan would still be the best player in today's league or at least top 3. PIppen may even be deadlier in today's small ball. Rodman would atleast in my mind have similar impact as Draymond Green. However, that team collectively in today's game wouldn't be as effective. That bulls team had three players with close to non existent offense (Harper, Longley and Rodman). Having one player that can't provide spacing is already an liability. That bulls had three. I don't doubt MJ can get his 35-50 pts. I just don't think the other players on the team can contribute enough.

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...

[dhsilv2]

in the end, it means absolutely nothing but I had fun looking at the box scores and imagining. the only insight I pulled from it is that I think people might be underestimating Rodman in here. he got 10+ offensive rebounds 3 times in the series and its hard to overstate how valuable that was. you can shoot a few percentage points less in TS% and still win when you get that many more possessions

Teams went away from those offensive rebounds because while you get say 10 more chances to score, you also often give up 10 transition plays. It just wasn't worth it to have guys like Rodman so focused on the offensive glass vs getting back on defense. That kind of play is how that 17 warriors could have a 50 point 3rd quarter to just shell shock that bull's team.