All prime 1996 Bulls or the 2019 Warriors (not in primes, just their 2019 versions)?

[eminence]

Well do you want them well rested? If so 38 minues is good. Or you could play them 40 or above. But it can be good to give players good rest. I would probably play Jordan 40 minutes per game.

The 5 starters at ~38 minutes sounds about right (Curry/Dray/KD/Klay all had 37-39 in the playoffs last season), leaving ~50 minutes a night, easily absorbed by 20 for Iggy, 15 for bench guard #1, 15 for bench big #1. The additional depth is nice for injury, but you don't need them to keep the stars rested.

Cousins isn't playing 38 a game in the playoffs. Too foul prone to expect a consistent number over 32-35. Minor difference but every couple minutes does count. Also not sure Iggy is a 20 minute a game guy next year. We'll see.

I mean... he averaged 36+ last season, we routinely see a meaningful uptick in minutes come playoff time, so I'd say 38 is fairly realistic if on the high end. Iggy averaged 27 mpg last playoff run. Obviously it's all a little rough, but the point is the playoff rotation would almost assuredly have 5 high minutes guys and 3 mid minutes bench guys with others getting crumbs.

[dhsilv2]

The 5 starters at ~38 minutes sounds about right (Curry/Dray/KD/Klay all had 37-39 in the playoffs last season), leaving ~50 minutes a night, easily absorbed by 20 for Iggy, 15 for bench guard #1, 15 for bench big #1. The additional depth is nice for injury, but you don't need them to keep the stars rested.

Cousins isn't playing 38 a game in the playoffs. Too foul prone to expect a consistent number over 32-35. Minor difference but every couple minutes does count. Also not sure Iggy is a 20 minute a game guy next year. We'll see.

I mean... he averaged 36+ last season, we routinely see a meaningful uptick in minutes come playoff time, so I'd say 38 is fairly realistic if on the high end. Iggy averaged 27 mpg last playoff run. Obviously it's all a little rough, but the point is the playoff rotation would almost assuredly have 5 high minutes guys and 3 mid minutes bench guys with others getting crumbs.

That's fair if we're in an optimal world. The warriors seem to have more injuries/technical foul issues than most teams. I'd slot in a few missed games from the key rotation guys as almost a given.

[eminence]

Cousins isn't playing 38 a game in the playoffs. Too foul prone to expect a consistent number over 32-35. Minor difference but every couple minutes does count. Also not sure Iggy is a 20 minute a game guy next year. We'll see.

I mean... he averaged 36+ last season, we routinely see a meaningful uptick in minutes come playoff time, so I'd say 38 is fairly realistic if on the high end. Iggy averaged 27 mpg last playoff run. Obviously it's all a little rough, but the point is the playoff rotation would almost assuredly have 5 high minutes guys and 3 mid minutes bench guys with others getting crumbs.

That's fair if we're in an optimal world. The warriors seem to have more injuries/technical foul issues than most teams. I'd slot in a few missed games from the key rotation guys as almost a given.

You can run the numbers yourself sometime, but the Warriors are right around average health for a team in this era come playoff time last I checked.

Edit: But probably more importantly your point kind of defeats the purpose of these hypotheticals.

[dhsilv2]

I mean... he averaged 36+ last season, we routinely see a meaningful uptick in minutes come playoff time, so I'd say 38 is fairly realistic if on the high end. Iggy averaged 27 mpg last playoff run. Obviously it's all a little rough, but the point is the playoff rotation would almost assuredly have 5 high minutes guys and 3 mid minutes bench guys with others getting crumbs.

That's fair if we're in an optimal world. The warriors seem to have more injuries/technical foul issues than most teams. I'd slot in a few missed games from the key rotation guys as almost a given.

You can run the numbers yourself sometime, but the Warriors are right around average health for a team in this era come playoff time last I checked.

Edit: But probably more importantly your point kind of defeats the purpose of these hypotheticals.

Is it wrong for me to assume health issues for the warriors, in their 2019 form? I bake that into how I think about the team. I also expect cousins and dray to be bad influences on each other and refs in terms of techs. Perhaps just how my mind approaches these questions.

[eminence]

That's fair if we're in an optimal world. The warriors seem to have more injuries/technical foul issues than most teams. I'd slot in a few missed games from the key rotation guys as almost a given.

You can run the numbers yourself sometime, but the Warriors are right around average health for a team in this era come playoff time last I checked.

Edit: But probably more importantly your point kind of defeats the purpose of these hypotheticals.

Is it wrong for me to assume health issues for the warriors, in their 2019 form? I bake that into how I think about the team. I also expect cousins and dray to be bad influences on each other and refs in terms of techs. Perhaps just how my mind approaches these questions.

It's not wrong, but you don't seem to be doing it in a balanced way at all. I see pretty much a 0% chance Dray/Cousins have any serious tech problems playing under '96 rules.

[dhsilv2]

You can run the numbers yourself sometime, but the Warriors are right around average health for a team in this era come playoff time last I checked.

Edit: But probably more importantly your point kind of defeats the purpose of these hypotheticals.

Is it wrong for me to assume health issues for the warriors, in their 2019 form? I bake that into how I think about the team. I also expect cousins and dray to be bad influences on each other and refs in terms of techs. Perhaps just how my mind approaches these questions.

It's not wrong, but you don't seem to be doing it in a balanced way at all. I see pretty much a 0% chance Dray/Cousins have any serious tech problems playing under '96 rules.

Against Rodman?

[eminence]

Is it wrong for me to assume health issues for the warriors, in their 2019 form? I bake that into how I think about the team. I also expect cousins and dray to be bad influences on each other and refs in terms of techs. Perhaps just how my mind approaches these questions.

It's not wrong, but you don't seem to be doing it in a balanced way at all. I see pretty much a 0% chance Dray/Cousins have any serious tech problems playing under '96 rules.

Against Rodman?

Can you name players who Rodman got suspended?

[dhsilv2]

It's not wrong, but you don't seem to be doing it in a balanced way at all. I see pretty much a 0% chance Dray/Cousins have any serious tech problems playing under '96 rules.

Against Rodman?

Can you name players who Rodman got suspended?

Drawing two techs in a game? Or getting players to foul out early? I suppose suspended is a bit unlikely in that era.

[eminence]

Against Rodman?

Can you name players who Rodman got suspended?

Drawing two techs in a game? Or getting players to foul out early? I suppose suspended is a bit unlikely in that era.

Any of the above. Name any player it happened to in a meaningful game.

And you're right, while Rodman was with the Bulls only twice was a player suspended for game action for 6+ games. It was Rodman both times.

[dhsilv2]

Can you name players who Rodman got suspended?

Drawing two techs in a game? Or getting players to foul out early? I suppose suspended is a bit unlikely in that era.

Any of the above. Name any player it happened to in a meaningful game.

And you're right, while Rodman was with the Bulls only twice was a player suspended for game action for 6+ games. It was Rodman both times.

I get your point and to that, you're right in that I wasn't fully addressing 96 rules vs. today. I do recall Kemp fouling out twice in the finals and frankly I think Kemp was more mature than cousins which is saying something. Still cousins is exceptionally childish and rodman imo could very easily get into his head.

[KyletheDingbat]

The 96 Bulls were a celebration of basketball, and the season was basically a rock concert for them. The 18 Warriors sputtered and almost flamed out in the playoffs. If Cousins is healthy, that's admittedly a problem, as I do think he's going there for sort of a re-birth and might fall in line. Defensive matchups:

Jordan - Curry
Harper - Thompson
Pippen - Durant
Rodman - Cousins
Kukoc - Dray

Yeah I guess you have Salley who could start on Dray as well. The Warriors ball-movement stopped against the Rockets facing much worse defensive pressure than this 96 Bulls team could, and I don't think Cousins positively impacts that ball movement. The Bulls are fielding three of the arguably greatest defenders of all time at their positions, and a couple more who have positive impact as well.

Offensively I think the Warriors have a tough time. Harper himself was a star scorer, and would overpower either Klay or Curry with his athleticism. No need to talk about Jordan.

I'm seeing Bulls with a pretty decisive win. They'll have an easier time disrupting what the Warriors do than vice versa.

[Antinomy]

Are you kidding me? You trying to say that I say that a team that won 62 games in 2011 can't beat a team that hasn't even played a game in 2019 nor that we even know will actually win the championship is considered trolling?

That is the point of the post, the 2019 Warriors haven't done anything nor won anything.

Spoiler:

Trolling would be saying something like the 2011 Bulls beating the 2019 Warriors by 50+ points a game. But I said nothing of such.

No, I am not kidding you. Given your colorful history on this board and your own admission in the past that you mostly post to get a reaction out of others, saying that the 2011 Bulls would beat the 2019 Warriors with a healthy Cousions as the OP stipulates is absolutely trolling. You really have no leg to stand on given your well-known shtick at this point.

I would like to ask, are you kidding me by really saying that the 2011 Bulls would beat the Warriors? Because that is some epic level of under the radar posting meant to elicit reactions (which is why you post mostly) and then we are left to deal with the fallout of these outrageous posts which have no basis in reality.

While I agree that the 2011 Bulls beating the 2019 Warriors is ludicrous, saying you’ll warn someone for just posting that is absurd.

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Especially when we have mods with vendettas against certain posters.

[Clyde Frazier]

No, I am not kidding you. Given your colorful history on this board and your own admission in the past that you mostly post to get a reaction out of others, saying that the 2011 Bulls would beat the 2019 Warriors with a healthy Cousions as the OP stipulates is absolutely trolling. You really have no leg to stand on given your well-known shtick at this point.

I would like to ask, are you kidding me by really saying that the 2011 Bulls would beat the Warriors? Because that is some epic level of under the radar posting meant to elicit reactions (which is why you post mostly) and then we are left to deal with the fallout of these outrageous posts which have no basis in reality.

While I agree that the 2011 Bulls beating the 2019 Warriors is ludicrous, saying you’ll warn someone for just posting that is absurd.

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Especially when we have mods with vendettas against certain posters.

PSA TO ALL:

This has been made abundantly clear in the past: if you have a problem with one of us, contact another mod via PRIVATE MESSAGE to discuss it. Publicly attacking mods will not be tolerated at all. And yes, if you have a long history of trolling, you aren't going to be given much benefit of the doubt relative to posters who consistently contribute positively to this board. That's more than fair.

Stop this *now* unless your goal is to ultimately be banned permanently from this board.

[Franco]

While I agree that the 2011 Bulls beating the 2019 Warriors is ludicrous, saying you’ll warn someone for just posting that is absurd.

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Especially when we have mods with vendettas against certain posters.

PSA TO ALL:

This has been made abundantly clear in the past: if you have a problem with one of us, contact another mod via PRIVATE MESSAGE to discuss it. Publicly attacking mods will not be tolerated at all. And yes, if you have a long history of trolling, you aren't going to be given much benefit of the doubt relative to posters who consistently contribute positively to this board. That's more than fair.

Stop this *now* unless your goal is to ultimately be banned permanently from this board.

I sleep well knowing I didn’t attack anyone here, and probably won’t anytime soon.

But so mods are allowed to call posters “trolls”, threaten them for having an opinion, and said posters can’t even answer in a civilized manner? Ok.

EDIT: Also, I DID PM him, just didn’t even receive an answer, so that’s the reason for the quote here.

[Antinomy]

While I agree that the 2011 Bulls beating the 2019 Warriors is ludicrous, saying you’ll warn someone for just posting that is absurd.

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Especially when we have mods with vendettas against certain posters.

PSA TO ALL:

This has been made abundantly clear in the past: if you have a problem with one of us, contact another mod via PRIVATE MESSAGE to discuss it. Publicly attacking mods will not be tolerated at all. And yes, if you have a long history of trolling, you aren't going to be given much benefit of the doubt relative to posters who consistently contribute positively to this board. That's more than fair.

Stop this *now* unless your goal is to ultimately be banned permanently from this board.

How come you didn’t say anything to the mod who was overstepping his bounds by literally threatening to give a guy a strike for saying he thought one team would beat another?

People can’t have unpopular opinions around here either, otherwise it’s “trolling”?

Are you gonna give me a strike for responding to you too?

There was only one person doing any attacking around here.

[PaulieWal]

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Especially when we have mods with vendettas against certain posters.

PSA TO ALL:

This has been made abundantly clear in the past: if you have a problem with one of us, contact another mod via PRIVATE MESSAGE to discuss it. Publicly attacking mods will not be tolerated at all. And yes, if you have a long history of trolling, you aren't going to be given much benefit of the doubt relative to posters who consistently contribute positively to this board. That's more than fair.

Stop this *now* unless your goal is to ultimately be banned permanently from this board.

I sleep well knowing I didn’t attack anyone here, and probably won’t anytime soon.

But so mods are allowed to call posters “trolls”, threaten them for having an opinion, and said posters can’t even answer in a civilized manner? Ok.

Literally none of what you have said happens on this board (and no, saying something like 2011 Bulls beat the 2019 Warriors isn't a valid opinion when you have a long and rich history of dropping such comments all across RealGM, not just this board, and you have been warned multiple times by multiple mods for that). You have literally been told 3 times now that posters with long histories of trolling are not getting the benefit of the doubt and if we already know the MO of certain posters with long histories, there will be no leniency shown.

At this point, if you have further comments or concerns about any of this PM a mod (any mod). You have derailed this thread twice with your backseat modding.

[Antinomy]

PSA TO ALL:

This has been made abundantly clear in the past: if you have a problem with one of us, contact another mod via PRIVATE MESSAGE to discuss it. Publicly attacking mods will not be tolerated at all. And yes, if you have a long history of trolling, you aren't going to be given much benefit of the doubt relative to posters who consistently contribute positively to this board. That's more than fair.

Stop this *now* unless your goal is to ultimately be banned permanently from this board.

I sleep well knowing I didn’t attack anyone here, and probably won’t anytime soon.

But so mods are allowed to call posters “trolls”, threaten them for having an opinion, and said posters can’t even answer in a civilized manner? Ok.

Literally none of what you have said happens on this board (and no, saying something like 2011 Bulls beat the 2019 Warriors isn't a valid opinion when you have a long and rich history of dropping such comments all across RealGM, not just this board, and you have been warned multiple times by multiple mods for that). You have literally been told 3 times now that posters with long histories of trolling are not getting the benefit of the doubt and if we already know the MO of certain posters with long histories, there will be no leniency shown.

At this point, if you have further comments or concerns about any of this PM a mod (any mod). You have derailed this thread twice with your backseat modding.

That’s just silly.

He can’t say a historically great defensive team would challenge the Warriors otherwise it’s trolling?

He can’t have an unpopular opinion because he’s had unpopular opinions before?

[PaulieWal]

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Especially when we have mods with vendettas against certain posters.

PSA TO ALL:

This has been made abundantly clear in the past: if you have a problem with one of us, contact another mod via PRIVATE MESSAGE to discuss it. Publicly attacking mods will not be tolerated at all. And yes, if you have a long history of trolling, you aren't going to be given much benefit of the doubt relative to posters who consistently contribute positively to this board. That's more than fair.

Stop this *now* unless your goal is to ultimately be banned permanently from this board.

How come you didn’t say anything to the mod who was overstepping his bounds by literally threatening to give a guy a strike for saying he thought one team would beat another?

People can’t have unpopular opinions around here either, otherwise it’s “trolling”?

Are you gonna give me a strike for responding to you too?

There was only one person doing any attacking around here.

This, again, is quite false. Nobody gets warnings for unpopular opinions. What people get warnings are for dropping lines like that in question when the poster(s) in question have admitted that they drop such lines to get a reaction out of other people.

When you are admittedly posting to get a reaction out of others and have a long and colorful history of baiting others, it's a very fair warning.

[Franco]

Anyway: I’d go with the 96 Bulls. Way too much defense, athleticism and they actually match the Warriors stunningly well.

The “Prime 2019 Warriors” would squash them IMO, though.

[Clyde Frazier]

This forum is becoming ridiculous. Especially when we have mods with vendettas against certain posters.

PSA TO ALL:

This has been made abundantly clear in the past: if you have a problem with one of us, contact another mod via PRIVATE MESSAGE to discuss it. Publicly attacking mods will not be tolerated at all. And yes, if you have a long history of trolling, you aren't going to be given much benefit of the doubt relative to posters who consistently contribute positively to this board. That's more than fair.

Stop this *now* unless your goal is to ultimately be banned permanently from this board.

How come you didn’t say anything to the mod who was overstepping his bounds by literally threatening to give a guy a strike for saying he thought one team would beat another?

People can’t have unpopular opinions around here either, otherwise it’s “trolling”?

Are you gonna give me a strike for responding to you too?

There was only one person doing any attacking around here.

That's all explained in the post you're responding to here. Re-read it one more time.

Locking this thread as it's been derailed far too much.