What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jordan's Bulls vs the Warriors of the past 3 years (1 Viewer)

TobiasFunke said:
1. The technology has changed a ton on basketball fitness, training and practice.  SportVU data, improvements to film study thanks to DVR tech and whatnot, VR for injured players, the body monitoring stuff explained here, and God knows what else that an outsider like me doesn't know about.
Click to expand...
And it's fair to assume all this moon-man language would be too much for a team like the 96 Bulls to digest.

 
TobiasFunke said:
1. The technology has changed a ton on basketball fitness, training and practice.  SportVU data, improvements to film study thanks to DVR tech and whatnot, VR for injured players, the body monitoring stuff explained here, and God knows what else that an outsider like me doesn't know about.

2. If you want to measure athletic progression Olympic records are a crappy metric.  It measures only one athlete every four years in varying circumstances.  If you look at the top 100 performances annually in quantifiable sports you'd see consistent improvement across the board.
Click to expand...
On a completely hilarious and somewhat related note, a recently retired former NBA player told me that one of the biggest positive changes for keeping players out of the trouble they used to get into is Tinder.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
And it's fair to assume all this moon-man language would be too much for a team like the 96 Bulls to digest.
Click to expand...
That's why I said you gotta define your terms.  If you bring the 1993 Bulls here in 2014 and give them a couple years to get with the program they might have a chance to hang, maybe steal a game.

Also I can't believe you guys didn't want any of my "Jordan at the gym" stories.  I mean they are totally boring, but you didn't know that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, & Chicago in 5. 

Not match ups, but talent wise:

Jordan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Durant

Pippen >>>>> Curry

Wennington >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone else :)

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Didn't read through, hopefully it was mentioned:

Love to see Rodman punch Green in the face. 
Click to expand...
Green can try that kicking bull#### with Rodman and see how it goes.  I can't count how many times 2-3 Bulls had to tackle Rodman and drag him away from a fight to keep him from being ejected.

 
Henry Ford said:
Green can try that kicking bull#### with Rodman and see how it goes.  I can't count how many times 2-3 Bulls had to tackle Rodman and drag him away from a fight to keep him from being ejected.
Click to expand...
I think he would know better. 

I'd like to see a Ron Artest / Rodman throwdown though.

 
I'd be more curious to see a mid '90's Rockets team... who the hell would check Olajuwon?  And if they collapsed to do so, pop it out to a perimeter HoFer ... who could as easily then drive to the hoop.

Hell, even a far less talented Knicks team would be an interesting matchup... no one to stop Ewing (but himself, again) and the physicality is something that this generation has never even faced.

 
Koya said:
I'd be more curious to see a mid '90's Rockets team... who the hell would check Olajuwon?  And if they collapsed to do so, pop it out to a perimeter HoFer ... who could as easily then drive to the hoop.

Hell, even a far less talented Knicks team would be an interesting matchup... no one to stop Ewing (but himself, again) and the physicality is something that this generation has never even faced.
Click to expand...
I'd just like to see the Bad Boy Pistons make them all cry.

 
TobiasFunke said:
1. The technology has changed a ton on basketball fitness, training and practice.  SportVU data, improvements to film study thanks to DVR tech and whatnot, VR for injured players, the body monitoring stuff explained here, and God knows what else that an outsider like me doesn't know about.

2. If you want to measure athletic progression Olympic records are a crappy metric.  It measures only one athlete every four years in varying circumstances.  If you look at the top 100 performances annually in quantifiable sports you'd see consistent improvement across the board.
Click to expand...
The premise of this thread is who would win in a game between Jordans Championship winning Bulls teams and the Warriors of the last three years--and one of the pillars of your arguments for Golden State winning are that current day athletes are "better'. Please watch the following videos and tell me any player on the current Golden State squad that can meet or exceed this athleticism. Seriously--name one Warrior that meets or exceeds this athleticism. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BSme4QmiLcs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UruofXufVuo

While I have zero problem with people thinking that the Warriors would beat the Bulls--I do have an issue with people using inaccurate and false premises to support their argument.   The current Golden State Warriors team is not a team that wins because of athleticism.  They win because of being stacked with amazing shooters. If anything--athleticism and rim protection is probably one of the biggest weaknesses of the Warriors of the last three years.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jvdesigns2002 said:
The premise of this thread is who would win in a game between Jordans Championship winning Bulls teams and the Warriors of the last three years--and one of the pillars of your arguments for Golden State winning are that current day athletes are "better'. Please watch the following videos and tell me any player on the current Golden State squad that can meet or exceed this athleticism. Seriously--name one Warrior that meets or exceeds this athleticism. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BSme4QmiLcs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UruofXufVuo

While I have zero problem with people thinking that the Warriors would beat the Bulls--I do have an issue with people using inaccurate and false premises to support their argument.   The current Golden State Warriors team is not a team that wins because of athleticism.  They win because of being stacked with amazing shooters. If anything--athleticism and rim protection is probably one of the biggest weaknesses of the Warriors of the last three years.  
Click to expand...
And that's Pippen. Jordan had a measured 48" vertical at his peak. 46" in his draft measurables. 

But sure, today's players are just so much more physically capable than those Bulls. 

 
Henry Ford said:
And that's Pippen. Jordan had a measured 48" vertical at his peak. 46" in his draft measurables. 

But sure, today's players are just so much more physically capable than those Bulls. 
Click to expand...
Totally---the second clip features some Jordan stuff--so I'm with you.  The notion that somehow the Warriors would win because of "athletic superiority" is just false.  Athleticism is an argument that completely would favor Jordans Bulls.   Anybody that thinks the Warriors would win (which by the way is not completely off base--I don't agree--but I could understand how people would pick the Warriors)--should point to a team that will end up with 3 of the best long range shooters in NBA history once their careers are over.  The answer to the question is subjective to whether or not somebody believes that the Warriors superior shooting is good enough to overcome the athletic and defensive superiority of the Bulls.  Saying that the Warriors are somehow athletically superior than the Bulls solely because they are more "modern" is just a false narrative. 

 
Just Win Baby said:
Actually, Rodman would be better than that. He would goad Green into punching him and getting suspended for 3 games.
Click to expand...
Late in Game 2 of a close game in the 1996 Finals, there was a key Rodman v Kemp jump ball that SEA needed to control to stay in the game.  Given Worm was a great second jumper but not Superman like Kemp was at the time, the expectation was Rodman to fall back and try to pick off the tip if Kemp tried to knock it forward.  But when the ball went up, Rodman reached across the lane and bumped Kemp before he could jump.  No whistle.  Totally threw Kemp off.  Rodman jumped and won the tip easily.  Ball game, Bulls.  

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
The premise of this thread is who would win in a game between Jordans Championship winning Bulls teams and the Warriors of the last three years--and one of the pillars of your arguments for Golden State winning are that current day athletes are "better'. Please watch the following videos and tell me any player on the current Golden State squad that can meet or exceed this athleticism. Seriously--name one Warrior that meets or exceeds this athleticism. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BSme4QmiLcs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UruofXufVuo

While I have zero problem with people thinking that the Warriors would beat the Bulls--I do have an issue with people using inaccurate and false premises to support their argument.   The current Golden State Warriors team is not a team that wins because of athleticism.  They win because of being stacked with amazing shooters. If anything--athleticism and rim protection is probably one of the biggest weaknesses of the Warriors of the last three years.  
Click to expand...
Athleticism and awesome dunking are not the same thing.  Shooting is an athletic feat. Defending 1-5 is an athletic feat. 

And in any event, if you were to pick a single basketball player in the current game who offers an athletic package that nobody in 1996 could match, it would be Kevin Durant. Even LeBron could kind of be described as what would happen if someone combined Karl Malone and Magic in a lab.  Durant is an alien.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Athleticism and awesome dunking are not the same thing.  Shooting is an athletic feat. Defending 1-5 is an athletic feat. 

And in any event, if you were to pick a single basketball player in the current game who offers an athletic package that nobody in 1996 could match, it would be Kevin Durant. Even LeBron could kind of be described as what would happen if someone combined Karl Malone and Magic in a lab.  Durant is an alien.
Click to expand...
Shooting is not an athletic feat--shooting is a basketball skill.   As a guy that has played basketball for 25 years--I can personally tell you that I'm less of an athlete now than I was 20 years ago--even though my long distance shot is much better.   Jordan, Pippen, Rodman and Harper are all better defenders than anybody on the current Warriors with the exception of maybe Draymond Green.   We all understand your position that the Warriors would win--I have no problem with that.  However--your arguments for your position are inaccurate or innacurately said.     Durant is not a freakish  "athletic package"--he's a typical world class athlete that happens to be super tall with very long arms that is very skilled at shooting.  If Durant were 6 foot 6--he would not be anywhere close the player that he is.  Relative to the world NBA basketball--Durant is not great because of his athleticism--he's elite because of his body type and his skilled shooting.   Durant has nowhere near the athleticism that guys like Pippen and Jordan had.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
And in any event, if you were to pick a single basketball player in the current game who offers an athletic package that nobody in 1996 could match, it would be Kevin Durant.
Click to expand...
Is Durant's "athletic package" really that different from Garnett's? Garnett was playing in the NBA in 1996.

I realize that Durant has greater shooting range, but IMO your stance that shooting is an "athletic feat" is not the common take; IMO the more common view is that shooting is a skill, whereas things like running, jumping, dunking, blocking shots, etc. are more commonly viewed as "athletic feats" in basketball.

But this is kind of a weird statement by you anyway IMO. The player in today's game who offers an "athletic package" that nobody in 1996 could match is quite obviously Lebron. Nobody in any year in the history of the NBA could match his "athletic package".

 
I'm enjoying both the idea that there's a narrow, objective definition of the notoriously broad and subjective idea of "athleticism" and the idea that it basically can be determined based on how well you dunk.  Great news for the 2017 T-Wolves, apparently our era's answer to the 96 Bulls.

 
Whoops, my bad.  On first read I didn't see the part where you said that a 31 year old Ron Harper and 32 year old MJ were both clearly better defenders than Klay Thompson and were arguably better than Draymond Green.  

Now I see it and thus I see you were joking/trolling.  My bad, everyone.

 
Just Win Baby said:
Is Durant's "athletic package" really that different from Garnett's? Garnett was playing in the NBA in 1996.

I realize that Durant has greater shooting range, but IMO your stance that shooting is an "athletic feat" is not the common take; IMO the more common view is that shooting is a skill, whereas things like running, jumping, dunking, blocking shots, etc. are more commonly viewed as "athletic feats" in basketball.

But this is kind of a weird statement by you anyway IMO. The player in today's game who offers an "athletic package" that nobody in 1996 could match is quite obviously Lebron. Nobody in any year in the history of the NBA could match his "athletic package".
Click to expand...
I would argue that someone with Durants physique also showing quickness and a shooting touch and other abilities requires more athletic ability than someone who is 6'4" doing the same things.  But I appreciate that you acknowledged it's subjective and tried to define it for discussion, and I guess I agree based on your definition.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm enjoying both the idea that there's a narrow, objective definition of the notoriously broad and subjective idea of "athleticism" and the idea that it basically can be determined based on how well you dunk.  Great news for the 2017 T-Wolves, apparently our era's answer to the 96 Bulls.
Click to expand...
I'm enjoying you making up other people's positions to knock down. So I guess we're both having a good time. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Athleticism and awesome dunking are not the same thing.  Shooting is an athletic feat. Defending 1-5 is an athletic feat. 

And in any event, if you were to pick a single basketball player in the current game who offers an athletic package that nobody in 1996 could match, it would be Kevin Durant. Even LeBron could kind of be described as what would happen if someone combined Karl Malone and Magic in a lab.  Durant is an alien.
Click to expand...
Durant is Roy Tarpley and Jack Sikma combined in a lab.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm enjoying both the idea that there's a narrow, objective definition of the notoriously broad and subjective idea of "athleticism" and the idea that it basically can be determined based on how well you dunk.  Great news for the 2017 T-Wolves, apparently our era's answer to the 96 Bulls.
Click to expand...
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You are the one that brought out the concept of "athleticism" favoring the current Warriors.  The current Warriors are not an athletic team--they are an elite shooting team.  Own your mistakes man.  There are guys that are in their 60's and 70's that can hit free throws at a 90+ percent rate shooting granny style--and that doesn't make them "athletic".  It makes them skilled free throw shooters.   Anybody that can throw a basketball 25 feet long, 10 feet in the air is "athletic" enough to shoot a 3 point shot. However--for a person to jump from the free throw line and dunk a basketball REQUIRES elite athleticism.   If you are going to argue for a team--at least know what makes that team strong--and know the proper diction for it.    

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
You are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You are the one that brought out the concept of "athleticism" favoring the current Warriors.  The current Warriors are not an athletic team--they are an elite shooting team.  Own your mistakes man.  There are guys that are in their 60's and 70's that can hit free throws at a 90+ percent rate shooting granny style--and that doesn't make them "athletic".  It makes them skilled free throw shooters.   Anybody that can throw a basketball 25 feet long, 10 feet in the air is "athletic" enough to shoot a 3 point shot. However--for a person to jump from the free throw line and dunk a basketball REQUIRES elite athleticism.   If you are going to argue for a team--at least know what makes that team strong--and know the proper diction for it.    
Click to expand...
Again, athleticism is subjective. My argument was that athletes today are better than athletes 20'years ago so it's fair to assume that 15 elite athletes today are, on average, stronger/faster/quicker/better conditioned than 15 from 20 years ago. I stand by that no matter what dunks two guys can do.

And don't start with me about knowing the teams. You just tried to argue that four guys, all in their early to mid 30s at the time, were ALL unequivocally better defenders than the second-best defender on the league's current best defense and arguably better than that team's best defender who is also likely the league's defensive MVP.  Come on. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Whoops, my bad.  On first read I didn't see the part where you said that a 31 year old Ron Harper and 32 year old MJ were both clearly better defenders than Klay Thompson and were arguably better than Draymond Green.  

Now I see it and thus I see you were joking/trolling.  My bad, everyone.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Klay Thompson is seriously overrated as a defender.  He's good on isos which is where his rep comes from, but he adds little away from the ball (gets eaten by screens way too much), doesn't generate turnovers, and is a lousy rebounder for a guy his size.

Draymond is one of the best defensive players in the league and his ability to play above his height is a tremendous asset to his team.  

 
Bruce Dickinson said:
To be fair, Klay Thompson is seriously overrated as a defender.  He's good on isos which is where his rep comes from, but he adds little away from the ball (gets eaten by screens way too much), doesn't generate turnovers, and is a lousy rebounder for a guy his size.

Draymond is one of the best defensive players in the league and his ability to play above his height is a tremendous asset to his team.  
Click to expand...
Perhaps.  

Interesting also to see that the old guys on the 96 Bulls were considered elite defenders- looks like three on the first team all defense? I'm sure they were good, and of course Pippen was sublime, but it's interesting that since the advent of advanced stats and everyone having league pass you almost never see old guys on the all-defense teams any more.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Perhaps.  

Interesting also to see that the old guys on the 96 Bulls were considered elite defenders- looks like three on the first team all defense? I'm sure they were good, and of course Pippen was sublime, but it's interesting that since the advent of advanced stats and everyone having league pass you almost never see old guys on the all-defense teams any more.
Click to expand...
If you had the metrics supporting the claim of Klay Thompson as an elite defender, you would post them.  You haven't posted them.  His rep isn't supported by the numbers.  

The 96 Bulls were 1 in O-Rating and D-Rating that season.  That's a big reason why they went 72-10 and had three guys first-team All-Defense.  After adding Durant, this era of GSW finally got over the 96 Bulls O-Rating (115.6 to 115.2), but their D-Rating of 104.0 isn't as stingy as the Bulls' 101.8.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
Perhaps.  

Interesting also to see that the old guys on the 96 Bulls were considered elite defenders- looks like three on the first team all defense? I'm sure they were good, and of course Pippen was sublime, but it's interesting that since the advent of advanced stats and everyone having league pass you almost never see old guys on the all-defense teams any more.
Click to expand...
Oh wow--so now you are a fan of advanced stats?  Advanced stats from fivethirtyeight (one of the most respected sources of advanced stats) used advanced stats to establish that the 95-96 Bulls are the best of all time--followed by the 96-97 Bulls in second place.  Also--you know how Jordan and Pippen were both on the all defensive teams that late in their careers? It's because they were elite althletes that took pride in being dominant on both sides of the court.  In any case--we'll just have to agree  to disagree on this particular topic.  

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/the-7-best-nba-teams-of-all-time.html/?a=viewall

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
Oh wow--so now you are a fan of advanced stats?  Advanced stats from fivethirtyeight (one of the most respected sources of advanced stats) used advanced stats to establish that the 95-96 Bulls are the best of all time--followed by the 96-97 Bulls in second place.  Also--you know how Jordan and Pippen were both on the all defensive teams that late in their careers? It's because they were elite althletes that took pride in being dominant on both sides of the court.  In any case--we'll just have to agree  to disagree on this particular topic.  

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/the-7-best-nba-teams-of-all-time.html/?a=viewall
Click to expand...
I assume the 538 rankings were based on the teams' performance relative to league at the time ... mostly because it would be impossible to gauge performance across eras. Same way you can measure Ruth's OPS+ vs Bonds', but you can never measure how Ruth would do against the kind of pitching Bonds faced or vice versa. I have zero problem with someone saying the 96 Bulls were the best team ever, or even that they would beat the Warriors if that collection of players had all played in the modern NBA their entire careers. My argument was that if they got in a time machine to present day and challenged the Warriors to a series they'd get killed.

Anyway, agree to disagree works for me.  Enjoyed the discussion today with everyone in here, nice to take a day off from politics for me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
And that's Pippen. Jordan had a measured 48" vertical at his peak. 46" in his draft measurables. 

But sure, today's players are just so much more physically capable than those Bulls. 
Click to expand...
Love those highlights where Jordan has to drop his head to keep from hitting it on the rim.

 
This is how the 1996 Bulls would translate to the NBA today:

Harper = George Hill

Jordan =  Derozan

Pippen = Khris Middleton

Rodman = Bismack Biyombo

Longley = Cole Aldrich

 
This is how the 1996 Bulls would translate to the NBA today:

Harper = Ben McLemore

Jordan =  Andrew Wiggins

Pippen = Kelly Oubre

Rodman = Markieff Morris

Longley = Cole Aldrich

 
Funny how people in this thread are trying to act like they have basketball IQ comparing Michael Jordan to a current day Demar Derozan and Andrew Wiggins.  Jordan was first team all defense and both Wiggins and Derozan are among the worst defenders in the league in regards to efficiency.   The closest thing that there is in the league to Michael Jordan right now is Kawhi Leonard. In the year Michael Jordan was out 1993-94--Pippen averaged 22-8.7rebs-5.6a-nearly 3 steals per game--which would probably put him closer to a guy like Paul George today. Rodman would be like a far more defensive version of Tristan Thompson today. Would not need many or any plays diagramed for him--but would be a beast on the boards--and many of his points would come off of the offensive glass. 

 
Plus anybody could play defense back then when you could grab and hand check all over the place.  Jordan mostly won all those all defensive team awards because of his offense (Rafael Palmeiro, anyone?)

 
Frostillicus said:
You mean like, more sensitive to criticism?
Click to expand...
Meh--your attempt at a smart sounding snarky comment failed pretty miserably in my opinion. Nothing you can say will make you sound smart in regards to basketball when you compare Jordan to Derozan and Pippen to Kris Middleton.  Rodman was a guy that went after every rebound he could with a vigor--and used his undersized body to play far bigger than he was. Tristan is probably the closest thing to that today. I get why so many people think that the Warriors would beat the Bulls today--but many of the comparisons and fabricated rational to how they support their opinions is completely void of basketball IQ.   Seriously--it's as easy as the Warriors would win because at the end of the day they will go down as the best or one of the best shooting teams in basketball history. That's the only reason why. Saying that the Warriors are an athletically superior team--and that Jordan is a modern day Derozan is intellectually dishonest. 

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
Meh--your attempt at a smart sounding snarky comment failed pretty miserably in my opinion. Nothing you can say will make you sound smart in regards to basketball when you compare Jordan to Derozan and Pippen to Kris Middleton.  Rodman was a guy that went after every rebound he could with a vigor--and used his undersized body to play far bigger than he was. Tristan is probably the closest thing to that today. I get why so many people think that the Warriors would beat the Bulls today--but many of the comparisons and fabricated rational to how they support their opinions is completely void of basketball IQ.   Seriously--it's as easy as the Warriors would win because at the end of the day they will go down as the best or one of the best shooting teams in basketball history. That's the only reason why. Saying that the Warriors are an athletically superior team--and that Jordan is a modern day Derozan is intellectually dishonest. 
Click to expand...
It's a ridiculous question, and anyone who thinks they have a definitive answer is the very definition of intellectually dishonest.

 
jvdesigns2002 said:
Funny how people in this thread are trying to act like they have basketball IQ comparing Michael Jordan to a current day Demar Derozan and Andrew Wiggins.  Jordan was first team all defense and both Wiggins and Derozan are among the worst defenders in the league in regards to efficiency.   The closest thing that there is in the league to Michael Jordan right now is Kawhi Leonard. In the year Michael Jordan was out 1993-94--Pippen averaged 22-8.7rebs-5.6a-nearly 3 steals per game--which would probably put him closer to a guy like Paul George today. Rodman would be like a far more defensive version of Tristan Thompson today. Would not need many or any plays diagramed for him--but would be a beast on the boards--and many of his points would come off of the offensive glass. 
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I'm not completely familiar with those players' bodies of work. Has Thompson ever ninja kicked Paul George in the face?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kiddnets
How did you become a fan of your favorite team(s)?
2 3
Replies
108
Views
2K
ConstruxBoy
ConstruxBoy
Deepster
Attending the Ryder Cup - Tips or advice?
Replies
6
Views
280
TLEF316
TLEF316
Joe Bryant
  • Poll Poll
Clickbaity vs Boring Subject Lines - What do you think?
Replies
32
Views
501
Phil Elliott
Phil Elliott

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top