What would the 72-10 Bull's record look like playing this year?

[jongib369]

http://www.tremendousupsidepotential.com/img/holytrio.jpg

Not an original question but still....Perfect storm of a situation before or do they come close?

[guy]

Probably something like 67-73 wins.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It would a win or two less or more. They had a few nights where they didn't perform (lost to Damon Stoudamire's Raptors) but were on almost every game and when they were on they were better than anyone. The only team with a combo in the modern era that comes close is Miami, but Wade has been down, James isn't clutch like MJ and Rodman would give Bosh a hard time.

[swi7ch]

quick facts about that team:

* nba title
* 72-10 record in the regular season
* 15-3 record in the playoffs
* all-star mvp, regular season mvp, and finals mvp in jordan
* phil jackson won coach of the year award
* kukoc won the 6th man award
* jordan's 30.4 ppg led the league (was 3rd in steals at 2.2)
* rodman's 14.9 rpg led the league
* jordan and pippen were named to the 1st team all nba team
* jordan, pippen, rodman were named to the 1st team all defensive team
* kerr was second in the league in 3 pt percentage

roster:

http://i.imgur.com/9IAl1.png

[fpliii]

somewhere between 62-65 wins IMO

[selrahc]

doubt they would get anymore than 50 wins

[KOBE143]

Between 50-55 wins.. Actually there's no competition for them that time and today teams are far better than team in the 90s.. Even the Wizards can easily make the playoff in the 90s.. That's how shitty their competition was..

[CeltsGarlic]

40ish

[guy]

somewhere between 62-65 wins IMO

The 2011 Bulls won 62 games and with significant injuries to key players. The 96 Bulls should win 5 more at a minimum.

[fpliii]

The 2011 Bulls won 62 games and with significant injuries to key players. The 96 Bulls should win 5 more at a minimum.

Well personally I like the high end of that range a little more (so 64-65), but they were designed to comete with teams of that era. I think if you transplant them into today's league, they'd still be very good and would be strongly favored to win the title, but they'd have some trouble adapting early on.

If we're assuming that that wouldn't be an issue, and basing this just on skillsets/talent level, then I'd probably say 67-68.

[Jasper]

Most of ISH were infants :D

I watched them oftem , so I'll say they would have 7-8 losses and maybe 1 loss in the playoff's

They were a well oiled machine.

[guy]

Well personally I like the high end of that range a little more (so 64-65), but they were designed to comete with teams of that era. I think if you transplant them into today's league, they'd still be very good and would be strongly favored to win the title, but they'd have some trouble adapting early on.

If we're assuming that that wouldn't be an issue, and basing this just on skillsets/talent level, then I'd probably say 67-68.

I really don't see how they'd have trouble adapting. Actually, they might even be better in this era because they don't have to play their centers as much and could play Kukoc more who was their 4th best player. They could play their 5 best players i.e. Rodman/Kukoc/Pippen/Jordan/Harper lineups more often.

[hitmanyr2k]

It wouldn't be any different. The majority of teams today are so stupid and undisciplined they would get run out of the building by a high IQ, highly skilled, defensive oriented team like the '96 Bulls.

I think even the '96 Orlando Magic would absolutely MURDER this league today.

[copper]

It would a win or two less or more. They had a few nights where they didn't perform (lost to Damon Stoudamire's Raptors) but were on almost every game and when they were on they were better than anyone. The only team with a combo in the modern era that comes close is Miami, but Wade has been down, James isn't clutch like MJ and Rodman would give Bosh a hard time.
A hard time? he would rape Bosh and quite possible embarass Bosh into quitting the game entirely. Bosh would be curled up behind the bench in the fetal position trying to find his " happy place"

[blablabla]

72-10


like this probably

[fpliii]

I really don't see how they'd have trouble adapting. Actually, they might even be better in this era because they don't have to play their centers as much and could play Kukoc more who was their 4th best player. They could play their 5 best players i.e. Rodman/Kukoc/Pippen/Jordan/Harper lineups more often.

Eh, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then. We're not terribly far off, though.


It wouldn't be any different. The majority of teams today are so stupid and undisciplined they would get run out of the building by a high IQ, highly skilled, defensive oriented team like the '96 Bulls.

I think even the '96 Orlando Magic would absolutely MURDER this league today.

Hmmmm, gonna have to call you out on this. Shaq is my all-time favorite player, and I watched a lot of those early to mid-90s Magic squads (started watching the NBA in 91). Didn't see anything that would lead me to think this.

[DuMa]

73-9

[hitmanyr2k]

Hmmmm, gonna have to call you out on this. Shaq is my all-time favorite player, and I watched a lot of those early to mid-90s Magic squads (started watching the NBA in 91). Didn't see anything that would lead me to think this.

The '96 Magic had all of the ingredients for success in today's league. A great frontcourt with Shaq (he would be even more dominant in this horrible big man era) and Horace Grant, a damn good wing player in Penny, and 3 point shooters to stretch the floor in Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson. They were a well-balanced team that could beat you inside and out.

[fpliii]

The '96 Magic had all of the ingredients for success in today's league. A great frontcourt with Shaq (he would be even more dominant in this horrible big man era) and Horace Grant, a damn good wing player in Penny, and 3 point shooters to stretch the floor in Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson. They were a well-balanced team that could beat you inside and out.

They'd contend, but to me 'murder' = they'd win 65+ games, and would be a heavy favorite to win every round in no more than 5 games (and would have to be a better than even money favorite in Vegas to win it all from the offset of the season).

[Dragonyeuw]

Between 50-55 wins.. Actually there's no competition for them that time and today teams are far better than team in the 90s.. Even the Wizards can easily make the playoff in the 90s.. That's how shitty their competition was..

Proving your dumbassery one post at a time. This years Knicks team look poised to get at least that record. You're trying to tell me the 96 Bulls wouldn't get anymore wins than this year's Knicks team is likely to get?

[madmax17]

Apparently the same as the Lakers will have this year :lol

[imdaman99]

Prob 64 wins. Knicks beat them 104-72. I remember because sadly, that was one of the happiest moments of my knicks rooting life :oldlol: they should still win the championship. Want to see him against OKC.

Does Pippen shut down KD? Doubt it, too many screens. But I'm sure Durant does not go off outside a game or 2. Westbrook would be key... lol

[97 bulls]

Also factor in that they no longer would have to worry about illegal defense today. Jordan and Pippen would be even better defensively today. Especially Pippen.

Id say 75 wins

[KOBE143]

Proving your dumbassery one post at a time. This years Knicks team look poised to get at least that record. You're trying to tell me the 96 Bulls wouldn't get anymore wins than this year's Knicks team is likely to get?
You're comparing two teams in a different era.. :facepalm Im referring to the competition dumbass.. Today competition is far better and tougher than in the water down 90s.. That doesnt mean that the knicks are better than the 96 bulls..

[97 bulls]

Prob 64 wins. Knicks beat them 104-72. I remember because sadly, that was one of the happiest moments of my knicks rooting life :oldlol: they should still win the championship. Want to see him against OKC.

Does Pippen shut down KD? Doubt it, too many screens. But I'm sure Durant does not go off outside a game or 2. Westbrook would be key... lol
Why only 64? The Magic are playing 500 ball with Davis, Aflalo, and Nelson as their best players. The Heat just lost to the Wizards without Wall.

Whats more. The two best teams in the league this year (Heat and Thunder) have worse bigs than the Bulls.

[Just2McFly]

They would win 55-62 games.

People really forget that was the expansion era.

[chips93]

Also factor in that they no longer would have to worry about illegal defense today. Jordan and Pippen would be even better defensively today. Especially Pippen.

Id say 75 wins

any rule changes would have benefited them and hurt them pretty much equally.

yeah, they dont have to worry about illegal defense, but other teams that are playing them dont have to worry about it either

it works both ways

in fact, loading up the strong side would be a pretty good defensive strategy against jordan.

[97 bulls]

You're comparing two teams in a different era.. :facepalm Im referring to the competition dumbass.. Today competition is far better and tougher than in the water down 90s.. That doesnt mean that the knicks are better than the 96 bulls..
Really? Didn't the Bobcats set the record for fewest wins in a season just last year? The Magic have nobody and are still winning games

[97 bulls]

any rule changes would have benefited them and hurt them pretty much equally.

yeah, they dont have to worry about illegal defense, but other teams that are playing them dont have to worry about it either

it works both ways

in fact, loading up the strong side would be a pretty good defensive strategy against jordan.
It doesn't hurt anyone else. It sure as hell aint gonna hurt Jordan. Compound that with the fact that now you have a huge issue or not being able to box out Rodman. Seattle tried to do somting similar. And Rodman had record setting offensive rebounding games

[SacJB Shady]

The Bulls would win just as many games. Dennis Rodman was a beast on the boards. Also, the Bulls had some length at that center spot. Pippen, Jordan, and Harper, and Rodman was some epic defense. Ultimately, nobody could stop Jordan either.

[lilgodfather1]

Zone defense would be the key here. Make Pip/Jordan shoot outside jumpers, and you will win the game. Of course that sounds incredibly simple, but it obviously wasn't/wouldn't be. A poor mans Pip/Jordan was destroyed by the zone in 2011, so if you could do the same to the real Pip/Jordan then I could see a similar result if the shots don't fall.

That said at minimum 66 wins. No expansion teams, although the Raptors, Cavs, and Wizards are playing like it.

If the Cavs can get 66 then I see no reason that Bulls team couldn't do the same.

[Micku]

Hmmmm, gonna have to call you out on this. Shaq is my all-time favorite player, and I watched a lot of those early to mid-90s Magic squads (started watching the NBA in 91). Didn't see anything that would lead me to think this.

Really? Not only do they have great talent, they would be the best frontcourt in the league. They would give mismatches with Penny as their PG like they did back then and Shaq is always hard to stop. Their defense isn't really all that, but they had more talent than the 90s Lakers IMO. The Magic would definitely be top tier as they were back then.


As for the Bulls? I don't know. Both teams, 96 and 97 could've won more if Rodman played a bit more. And 98 Pippen was missed 38 games, and they still got 62 wins with the injuries and old age. They might win the same amount if they played this year, or a bit less. Especially if the of 2010-11 Bulls could win 62 wins, I think the Bulls of 95-96 would do better.

[fpliii]

Really? Not only do they have great talent, they would be the best frontcourt in the league. They would give mismatches with Penny as their PG like they did back then and Shaq is always hard to stop. Their defense isn't really all that, but they had more talent than the 90s Lakers IMO. The Magic would definitely be top tier as they were back then.


As for the Bulls? I don't know. Both teams, 96 and 97 could've won more if Rodman played a bit more. And 98 Pippen was missed 38 games, and they still got 62 wins with the injuries and old age. They might win the same amount if they played this year, or a bit less. Especially if the of 2010-11 Bulls could win 62 wins, I think the Bulls of 95-96 would do better.

Again, as I said before they (the Magic, that is) would be contenders, but they wouldn't 'murder' the league IMO:


They'd contend, but to me 'murder' = they'd win 65+ games, and would be a heavy favorite to win every round in no more than 5 games (and would have to be a better than even money favorite in Vegas to win it all from the offset of the season).

[Nero Tulip]

In that Eastern conference? They'd still get pretty close to 72.

[Nero Tulip]

Zone defense would be the key here. Make Pip/Jordan shoot outside jumpers, and you will win the game. Of course that sounds incredibly simple, but it obviously wasn't/wouldn't be. A poor mans Pip/Jordan was destroyed by the zone in 2011, so if you could do the same to the real Pip/Jordan then I could see a similar result if the shots don't fall.

That said at minimum 66 wins. No expansion teams, although the Raptors, Cavs, and Wizards are playing like it.

If the Cavs can get 66 then I see no reason that Bulls team couldn't do the same.

Zones get destroyed by good ball movement and teamwork. That Bulls team would've been pretty good against a zone, provided they get to practice against it a bit.

[guy]

Zone defense would be the key here. Make Pip/Jordan shoot outside jumpers, and you will win the game. Of course that sounds incredibly simple, but it obviously wasn't/wouldn't be. A poor mans Pip/Jordan was destroyed by the zone in 2011, so if you could do the same to the real Pip/Jordan then I could see a similar result if the shots don't fall.

That said at minimum 66 wins. No expansion teams, although the Raptors, Cavs, and Wizards are playing like it.

If the Cavs can get 66 then I see no reason that Bulls team couldn't do the same.

You realize Jordan was one of the greatest jumpshooters ever right? And it wasn't the zone that beat Lebron and Wade. It was Lebron being shook as sh*t that lost that series more then anything.

[TheMan]

That 96 Bulls team would absolutely kill in this league, MJ with today's perimeter friendly rules would be unstoppabull (pun intended). Today's league is slightly more athletic and a lot more BBall IQ retarded. The only team that would bother them would be Miami but the Bulls would handle them in 5. Rodman would have a field day with that marshmellow FC.

[TheMan]

You realize Jordan was one of the greatest jumpshooters ever right? And it wasn't the zone that beat Lebron and Wade. It was Lebron being shook as sh*t that lost that series more then anything.
Making MJ shoot jumpers=bad strategy, I agree, LBJ and Wade are nowhere near MJ in the midrange game...if anything, body up on MJ and force him to drive in hopes of him maybe getting worn out at the end of the game, this is mid 30s MJ we're talking about. It's a risky move but a lot better than letting MJ shoot open Js.

[TheMan]

Zone defense would be the key here. Make Pip/Jordan shoot outside jumpers, and you will win the game.
:facepalm

That's as bad as saying, "make Bird shoot jumpers":lol

[tmacattack33]

A little less. Maybe 68 wins.

I believe that year was the first or second year for two expansion teams (Toronto and Vancouver). Both of them were very easy wins.

But I don't know, there are less good big men in the game today, and that was Chicago's biggest "weakness". Luc Longley might even be considered a pretty good center today lol, but back then he was below average.

[fpliii]

A little less. Maybe 68 wins.

I believe that year was the first or second year for two expansion teams (Toronto and Vancouver). Both of them were very easy wins.

But I don't know, there are less good big men in the game today, and that was Chicago's biggest "weakness". Luc Longley might even be considered a pretty good center today lol, but back then he was below average.

not that I agree/disagree, but.... (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603240TOR.html)

[97 bulls]

not that I agree/disagree, but.... (http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603240TOR.html)
Its as if people dont think when they post. Just for emphasis, the Bulls LOST to the expansion Raptors once in 96.

Again, one of the Bulls LOSSES was to the Raptors who were an expansion team

The Bobcats set the record for worst Win% last year. What makes 96 any less competitive?

[1987_Lakers]

65-67 wins. They won't be able to dominate with their perimeter defense like they did in '96 because of all the rule changes and guards in general are better now. The NBA now is stronger than it was during the mid 90's - mid 00's. I also think with the 3 point line a bit farther now than it was in 1996 will hurt the Bulls.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

They would win around the same amount, it really comes down to luck/circumstance to win that many games no matter how good you are. Winning more than that just doesnt seem possible due to focus issues.

But damn... the logic in this thread really shows the idiots. Its a different league/ zone defenses/ make them shoot outside/ blah blah... wtf. What team in the league today has even remotely the offensive execution that the Bulls had? What team is on par defensively with the bulls? Where is the logic in coming up with these conclusions?

[97 bulls]

65-67 wins. They won't be able to dominate with their perimeter defense like they did in '96 because of all the rule changes and guards in general are better now. The NBA now is stronger than it was during the mid 90's - mid 00's.
Again. How would the rule changes hurt the 96 Bulls? I see no reason why they wouldnt be able to adjust just like every other player. And they would be able to move freely on defense because they would have to worry about illegal defense.

Not to mention anything they'd lose as far as man defense, they get back because defenders wouldn't be able to play them physical either.

And what makes the NBA stronger now than in the 90s?

[mehyaM24]

considering the league is better now than it was in 1996, i'd say somewhere between 65-70 wins.

[97 bulls]

They would win around the same amount, it really comes down to luck/circumstance to win that many games no matter how good you are. Winning more than that just doesnt seem possible due to focus issues.

But damn... the logic in this thread really shows the idiots. Its a different league/ zone defenses/ make them shoot outside/ blah blah... wtf. What team in the league today has even remotely the offensive execution that the Bulls had? What team is on par defensively with the bulls? Where is the logic in coming up with these conclusions?
Great post. I only disagree with the notion that what the Bulls did could be written off as luck because they followed up that 72 win season with 69 with Kukoc, Longley, and Rodman missing anywhere from 20 to 30 game's. Then won 62 in spite of Pippen missing 38 games. For all intents and purposes, essentially that same team won won 55 games without Jordan. Thats hardly luck

[Money 23]

For all intents and purposes, essentially that same team won won 55 games without Jordan. Thats hardly luck
They weren't going to do that in 1995, though when teams were prepared for them.

No one knew what to expect out of them in '94 w/o Jordan, and they were all extremely motivated to prove they weren't just background dancers.

So that isn't accurate, either. The '96 and '97 Bulls both lost 2 to 3 winnable games that season too. You could have feasibly increased both records for those two seasons by 2 or 3 games.


I also think with the 3 point line a bit farther now than it was in 1996 will hurt the Bulls.
It made no difference in their first three peat, or in 1998?

The league as stated otherwise on average is slightly more athletic, but in terms of basketball IQ is down right a short yellow bus in comparison. And I'd say the league is maybe slightly better than it was in 1996. MAYBE.

I don't know if they win 72 games, but 62 - 69 wins is probable.

LOL @ lilgodfather saying zone up on MJ and Pip like what was done to LJ and Wade. MJ is the best shooter and off the ball player out of all of them.

That means cutting, etc. Plus his superior post game, no one is stopping Jordan. Who is like current Kobe in terms of skill footwork, but with more athleticism, IQ, better shot selection, durability, and quickness to get to the rim.

Rodman would be more effective on young boys in today's league, than he was antagonizing grown men in the 80's and 90's. He'd have a field day.

[Poetry]

Zone defense would be the key here.

Synergy Sports has show that teams across the board play zone from 0-10% of the time. How would it be the key? Almost no one plays it.

Man-to-Man is played 90-99% of the time by most teams.


Funny i was just looking into this too, apparently it isn't employed by many teams, from what i've read. Man to Man is still the primary defense for almost every team in the league since teams aren't able to play true zone, they're wary of the pitfalls that come with playing it.

Synergy Sports tracks the numbers, but i can't find a list of percentages for all the teams.

Here are some of the numbers though:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-01-17/zone-defense-has-found-its-place-in-the-nba/52657598/1

Zone is weird, for instance here a quote from the article:

"The Heat are ranked 20th against the zone, according to Synergy. They are No. 4 against a man-to-man."

Yet 4 months later:

"But here’s reality: The Heat have played against a lot of zone this season, and they have done quite well against it. Only three teams — Utah, Charlotte and Oklahoma City — faced zone defenses on a larger percentage of their possessions than Miami did, according to a report prepared for SI.com by the statistics- and video-tracking service Synergy Sports. The Heat shot 48.3 percent against zones (112-of-232), the third-best mark in the league, behind only Sacramento and Orlando, which went against a zone less often than any other team. The Heat scored more efficiently against zones, in terms of points per possession, than they did overall for the season, per Synergy."

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/29/celtics-zone/

So at most, we're looking at 0 to 4.8 minutes of zone defense per game on average.

[swi7ch]

I just simmed this in 2K13. Bulls won 68 games so there you go, folks! Only a -4 difference!!! :bowdown:

[lilgodfather1]

You realize Jordan was one of the greatest jumpshooters ever right? And it wasn't the zone that beat Lebron and Wade. It was Lebron being shook as sh*t that lost that series more then anything.
Didn't say he wasn't did I? If I did can you point it out for me...

You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.

[1987_Lakers]

It made no difference in their first three peat, or in 1998?

Teams back then didn't utilize the 3 point shot like they do today, so it didn't hurt the Bulls. Teams today use the 3 point shot more and are more efficient from there. Notice how the Bulls dropped to 32% from 3 point land when the league moved the 3 line back to it's original spot, Chicago would have been ranked near the bottom in that category if they played in 2012, They really didn't have any consistent 3 point shooters other than Kerr, Kukoc was OK from downtown.

[Legends66NBA7]

They would be best team in the league, no doubt. I think it's possible they could win 70+ games again, as I don't see many teams stopping 96 Jordan on a nightly basis.

Some might bring up the rule changes on defense that wouldn't make the perimeter defenders of the Bulls use handchecking and be more physical overall, but that goes for the opposing teams too. Jordan not being touched ? How do teams scrimmage against a man who still very quick of the first step ? He'd still get around 30+ on high efficiency. I think Pippen would excel very well in this era too.

96 Bulls would dominate and really... there are still a lot of bad teams in the Eastern Conference, much like most want to bring up the expansion teams the Bulls went up against during their season.

[Dragonyeuw]

You're comparing two teams in a different era.. :facepalm Im referring to the competition dumbass.. Today competition is far better and tougher than in the water down 90s.. That doesnt mean that the knicks are better than the 96 bulls..

You're probably the same dumbass who thinks Jordan would be a scrub in this era. Aren't you 15? You were a tadpole swimming around in your dad's nuts when the 96 team was playing, so what the fcuk would you know about the competition back then?

Bottomline is, the 96 Bulls would be at the top of the league today so your 50-55 win claim is retarded, then again so are you.

[Dragonyeuw]

Make Pip/Jordan shoot outside jumpers, and you will win the game. Of course that sounds incredibly simple, but it obviously wasn't/wouldn't be.

I see, make one of the great jumpshooters in league history shoot jumpers,sound strategy sir. :lol This ain't Dwayne 'one season I can shoot midrange, the next I can't' Wade we're talking about here. The difference between Jordan and Wade/Lebron is that he will crucify you in any number of ways, including the free throw line.

[swi7ch]

You're probably the same dumbass who thinks Jordan would be a scrub in this era. Aren't you 15? You were a tadpole swimming around in your dad's nuts when the 96 team was playing, so what the fcuk would you know about the competition back then?

Bottomline is, the 96 Bulls would be at the top of the league today so your 50-55 win claim is retarded, then again so are you.
His username is KOBE143 (143! LOL!!!). Did you really expect him to think highly of Jordan and the Bulls over Kobe and the Lakers?

[Dragonyeuw]

Didn't say he wasn't did I? If I did can you point it out for me...

You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.

2nd threepeat Jordan was still a very effective slasher, in addition to being a great post player and great midrange shooter, plus he was excellent at playing off the ball. Neither Wade or Lebron are great off the ball players, neither are prolific jumpshooters, and neither can get you 30 points just operating out of the post.

[Money 23]

2nd threepeat Jordan was still a very effective slasher, in addition to being a great post player and great midrange shooter, plus he was excellent at playing off the ball. Neither Wade or Lebron are great off the ball players, neither are prolific jumpshooters, and neither can get you 30 points just operating out of the post.
:pimp:


I see, make one of the great jumpshooters in league history shoot jumpers,sound strategy sir. This ain't Dwayne 'one season I can shoot midrange, the next I can't' Wade we're talking about here. The difference between Jordan and Wade/Lebron is that he will crucify you in any number of ways, including the free throw line.
:pimp:

[DatAsh]

I don't think anything below about 67 wins really makes sense here. Consider the fact that last years Bulls won the equivalent of 62 games, and they're no where near as talented as the 96' Bulls.

Also consider the fact that Lebron's Cavs were winning 66 games just a few years ago.


They won't be able to dominate with their perimeter defense like they did in '96 because of all the rule changes and guards in general are better now. T

This is a positive, not a negative. The Bulls weakness was teams that featured a strong inside presence(7 of their 10 losses were against teams with a strong offensive inside presence). Their strong perimeter defense feasted on teams that relied heavily on outside play, which is the majority of the teams in the league today.

The key to beating that Bulls team was having a good big man(offensively), and a solid perimeter defense that could slow down Jordan/Pippen.

I'd say it's more likely that they win more than it is that they win less - given that there biggest weakness is somewhat lacking in todays league. However, anything could happen, and we'll never know for sure.

Best guess? 70-76?

[madmax]

Between 50-55 wins.. Actually there's no competition for them that time and today teams are far better than team in the 90s.. Even the Wizards can easily make the playoff in the 90s.. That's how shitty their competition was..

:applause:
Mid to late 90's were the most watered down era in NBA history with all new teams entering NBA and future dynasties (Lakers, Spurs) still being too young and not ready for the limelight. Perfect time for vultures like the Bulls were to pick up the scraps

[DatAsh]

Didn't say he wasn't did I? If I did can you point it out for me...

You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.

If we're talking 96' Jordan, then yes. You're better off bodying him up and contesting his shots than you are zoning him and letting him shoot open jump shots.

[Money 23]

:applause:
Mid to late 90's were the most watered down era in NBA history with all new teams entering NBA and future dynasties (Lakers, Spurs) still being too young and not ready for the limelight. Perfect time for vultures like the Bulls were to pick up the scraps
First of all, Spurs are no dynasty.

Second of all :oldlol:

'95 - '99 was stronger than 2000 - 2005

[jamal99]

68-72 and would win the title.

[OldSchoolBBall]

They easily win 68+ games, with 70+ a VERY real possibility. Anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves. These young, inexperienced teams today aren't prepared for a disciplined, potent team like the '96 Bulls who just keep coming at you, never say die, and give 100% every game.

Do people realize that of their 10 losses in 1996, 8 were by 7 or less points, and 3 were by 1 point? That team came to play EVERY night and was in EVERY game save for ONE game all season. They only lost a SINGLE GAME by more than 10 points all year. They could have legitimately won 75+ games. But yeah...this league is ready for them. :oldlol:

[atljonesbro]

65 games. The talent level today is much higher people REALLY need to disregard nostalgia, let go of their childhood heroes, and come into this thread with an unbiased mindset. ESPECIALLY 97 Bulls. Oh my god I've never seen a bigger homer in my life it's literally pathetic.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Anywhere between 67-72 seems feasible.


They easily win 68+ games, with 70+ a VERY real possibility. Anyone saying otherwise is kidding themselves. These young, inexperienced teams today aren't prepared for a disciplined, potent team like the '96 Bulls who just keep coming at you, never say die, and give 100% every game.

Do people realize that of their 10 losses in 1996, 8 were by 7 or less points, and 3 were by 1 point? That team came to play EVERY night and was in EVERY game save for ONE game all season. They only lost a SINGLE GAME by more than 10 points all year. They could have legitimately won 75+ games. But yeah...this league is ready for them. :oldlol:

Good post - and ALL of that was w/ Dennis missing 18+ games. :eek:

[KungFuJoe]

96 Bulls would make sweet rape on the entire league today.

[Money 23]

They only lost a SINGLE GAME by more than 10 points all year. They could have legitimately won 75+ games.
That's what I'm saying. And the '97 Bulls could have easily won 3 - 4 more games.

[DatAsh]

65 games. The talent level today is much higher people REALLY need to disregard nostalgia, let go of their childhood heroes, and come into this thread with an unbiased mindset. ESPECIALLY 97 Bulls. Oh my god I've never seen a bigger homer in my life it's literally pathetic.

How can you be so sure you're not guilty of the very same thing you accuse others of?

I was 35 years old in 1990. My opinion of them has nothing to do with "childhood heroes".

[Legends66NBA7]

Good post - and ALL of that was w/ Dennis missing 18+ games. :eek:

You know what's a crazy stat ?

When the Jordan-Pippen-Rodman-Longely-Harper lineup started, their record was 76-10 (37-3 in 96; 27-4 in 97; 12-3 in 98). Imagine if Dennis didn't miss games so much in 96 and 97 and Pippen in 98 ?


That's what I'm saying. And the '97 Bulls could have easily won 3 - 4 more games.

I think because of the competition of the teams in 97, you could argue the 97 Bulls were better than the 96 Bulls.

[Just2McFly]

I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts so inane like they only lost by 10+ once for the whole year. The team with the highest amount of victories in NBA History wasn't blown out much? :eek: Say it aint so.

[PHILA]

You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.

In '95-'96 he averaged more post ups per game than drives, and twice as many jumpers. But yes, obviously you don't want him in the paint. Remember there has been a defensive 3 second rule in the NBA since 2001.


http://i.imgur.com/BBhxH.png

http://i.imgur.com/gbJZ7.jpg

[Leviathon1121]

65 games. The talent level today is much higher people REALLY need to disregard nostalgia, let go of their childhood heroes, and come into this thread with an unbiased mindset. ESPECIALLY 97 Bulls. Oh my god I've never seen a bigger homer in my life it's literally pathetic.

As is easily seen by the increased amount of talented big men in the league today...oh wait...

[LBJFTW]

You're comparing two teams in a different era.. :facepalm Im referring to the competition dumbass.. Today competition is far better and tougher than in the water down 90s.. That doesnt mean that the knicks are better than the 96 bulls..

This is one of the worst myths in NBA history. If anything, today's game is watered down compared to the 90's.

Bulls in 75 and it's not even close.

[Asukal]

I love how these youngsters think. It seems athletes from 10-20 years ago or more are inferior to today's athlete. Bigger faster stronger right? :roll:

On topic, I'd say at least 67 and if totally motivated like they were back then they'd win 70+ no question. That team was on a mission to prove something after losing in 95 and it showed the next three years despite having injuries and all.

[LBJFTW]

I love how these youngsters think. It seems athletes from 10-20 years ago or more are inferior to today's athlete. Bigger faster stronger right? :roll:

On topic, I'd say at least 67 and if totally motivated like they were back then they'd win 70+ no question. That team was on a mission to prove something after losing in 95 and it showed the next three years despite having injuries and all.

Would you expect anything less? Look at some of the posts on here. You can't really value an opinion from some kid who's balls haven't even dropped yet. :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

65 games. The talent level today is much higher people REALLY need to disregard nostalgia, let go of their childhood heroes, and come into this thread with an unbiased mindset. ESPECIALLY 97 Bulls. Oh my god I've never seen a bigger homer in my life it's literally pathetic.
Lol

How am I being a homer? What did I say that was far fetched? These guys had record setting seasons with key players missing large amounts of games. But im supposed to believe they dont win more if their core stays relatively injury free?

Ive asked this question three times now. What makes the league better now than then?

[Just2McFly]

Ageism clearly present, once again.

[LBJFTW]

What makes the league better now than then?

Some kid saying so even though all evidence proves otherwise? :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

That's what I'm saying. And the '97 Bulls could have easily won 3 - 4 more games.
Just think what they wouldve did with Brian Williams for a whole season. A guy that was comming off a 16/9 season with the Clippers. If that team played today, on a nightly basis, their bigs would be better than the oppositions. Luc Longley would be considered a solid center today. Their biggest weakness back then would be a strength today. Just put Nene and Kendrick Perkins on the heat with Andrea Bargnani (Kukoc) and youd have the 97 Bulls

[97 bulls]

I just checked the missed games of the core players of the Wilt led Sixer team that won a then record 68 games. Their core missed a total of One game. The 72 lakers that btoke the record with 69 wins? Their core missed 9.

The Bulls in 96? Their core miss 44. In 97? A whopping 70 plus. And thats mot counting Brian Williams only playing 9 games during the regular season

[Legends66NBA7]

I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts so inane like they only lost by 10+ once for the whole year. The team with the highest amount of victories in NBA History wasn't blown out much? :eek: Say it aint so.


Ageism clearly present, once again.

Is this RaininTwos-PowerGlove-phoenix18 ?

[Money 23]

Is this RaininTwos-PowerGlove-phoenix18 ?
Read my mind :oldlol:

[Legends66NBA7]

Read my mind :oldlol:

Ive been thinking this for a while, since I know he is in Raptor threads and have not seen RaininTwos post for that period of time.

[scandisk_]

Man forget about MJ, let's talk about Pip. Scottie in today's league? DAMN!

[Money 23]

Ive been thinking this for a while, since I know he is in Raptor threads and have not seen RaininTwos post for that period of time.
That too, but the age agenda thing makes it more than obvious.

[Micku]

Teams back then didn't utilize the 3 point shot like they do today, so it didn't hurt the Bulls. Teams today use the 3 point shot more and are more efficient from there. Notice how the Bulls dropped to 32% from 3 point land when the league moved the 3 line back to it's original spot, Chicago would have been ranked near the bottom in that category if they played in 2012, They really didn't have any consistent 3 point shooters other than Kerr, Kukoc was OK from downtown.

I agree that the Bulls probably won't be as good as a 3pt shooting team as they were in with the shorten 3pt line.

I don't think teams who would shoot the 3 would hurt the bulls that much though. Despite the shorten 3pt line and the regular one back in 98, the Bulls were one of the top teams in the league at defending the 3. They also face the Indiana Pacers in 98, who shot at 39% from 3 along with one of the best shooters ever with Reggie Miller and Chris Mullen shot 44% from 3 that year. So, they are capable of defending it.

But, teams now shoot the 3 a bit more though. That's for sure. Even in the playoffs, teams shoot the 3 more than back then.

[Legends66NBA7]

Man forget about MJ, let's talk about Pip. Scottie in today's league? DAMN!

Yeah, I touched on that in my previous post. He would be great for todays game.


That too, but the age agenda thing makes it more than obvious.

True, but there was also the "I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts..." line. I notice him and Mr.Im so Rad do that a lot in Jordan related threads.

[Money 23]

True, but there was also the "I know we are talking about Jordan when people are gushing over facts..." line. I notice him and Mr.Im so Rad do that a lot in Jordan related threads.
Yup.

Still remember that "MJ Overrated" thread a few weeks back where he got clowned.

It's him RaininTwos never took any kind of sabbatical from these boards, and like RRR3 was one of those higher ups in post counts on a daily / weekly / monthly basis.

I don't believe he just disappeared or something.

[atljonesbro]

Lol

How am I being a homer? What did I say that was far fetched? These guys had record setting seasons with key players missing large amounts of games. But im supposed to believe they dont win more if their core stays relatively injury free?

Ive asked this question three times now. What makes the league better now than then?
Dude you are FAR AND AWAY with ABSOLUTE EASE the biggest homer on this site. I'm not even joking at all it pisses me off every single time I see you post. You had the fu*king audacity once to say Scottie Pippen was better than LEBRON JAMES. You literally think every single player who played on that Bulls team is god's gift to earth. EVERY SINGLE THREAD about the Jordan Bulls is the ONLY threads you post in and you say something rediculously stupid at least once in all of them.

[oh the horror]

Lol

How am I being a homer? What did I say that was far fetched? These guys had record setting seasons with key players missing large amounts of games. But im supposed to believe they dont win more if their core stays relatively injury free?

Ive asked this question three times now. What makes the league better now than then?



Absolutely nothing.



Im sorry but the sample size some of these kids here have to work with, is pretty small.


I've been watching ball since 92'. The league didnt just get magically better, and more athletic over the course of the last 20 years. That's ridiculous.

[Legends66NBA7]

Dude you are FAR AND AWAY with ABSOLUTE EASE the biggest homer on this site. I'm not even joking at all it pisses me off every single time I see you post. You had the fu*king audacity once to say Scottie Pippen was better than LEBRON JAMES. You literally think every single player who played on that Bulls team is god's gift to earth. EVERY SINGLE THREAD about the Jordan Bulls is the ONLY threads you post in and you say something rediculously stupid at least once in all of them.

Can you show me a link where he said Pippen was better than James ? Not that would surprise me or anything (I believe he has said Pippen is better than Magic, Bird, Kobe, Wade, and so on... Stockton is better pure point than Magic...), but I have never seen him type that out directly.

[Just2McFly]

What agenda do I have this time? I'm waiting.

[atljonesbro]

Absolutely nothing.



Im sorry but the sample size some of these kids here have to work with, is pretty small.


I've been watching ball since 92'. The league didnt just get magically better, and more athletic over the course of the last 20 years. That's ridiculous.
The didn't get magically wore than either. I hate when idiots so "Oh ho ho if he were playing TODAY he'd average 97.43 ppg 16.72 rpg, and 45.77 APG." No that's not how it works, well maybe for ignorant people with the intelligence of a spider.

[TheBigVeto]

They would be 73-9 just the Lakers would.

Oh wait...

[atljonesbro]

Can you show me a link where he said Pippen was better than James ? Not that would surprise me or anything (I believe he has said Pippen is better than Magic, Bird, Kobe, Wade, and so on... Stockton is better pure point than Magic...), but I have never seen him type that out directly.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196830&page=3 scroll down a little and you'll see it. Then proceded to see him defend Pippen to the DEATH :cheers:

[Legends66NBA7]

What agenda do I have this time? I'm waiting.

Wait, so this is RaininTwos ?

I was curious, so I asked.

[Just2McFly]

Wait, so this is RaininTwos ?

I was curious, so I asked.
Yeah, it's me.:D

[Legends66NBA7]

Okay, cool. Did you just want to start over on a new account ?

atljonesbro - Thanks.

[Just2McFly]

Okay, cool. Did you just want to start over on a new account ?

atljonesbro - Thanks.
I've been eyeing this username for over a year.

[Marikina]

The 72-10 Bulls were the very definition of a team on a mission. Today's mental midgets are only going to get run over if they get in the way of that freight train.:rockon:

[fpliii]

somewhere between 62-65 wins IMO

I got negged for this just now? :lol

[97 bulls]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196830&page=3 scroll down a little and you'll see it. Then proceded to see him defend Pippen to the DEATH :cheers:
That was three years ago. James is better than Pippen.

[Leviathon1121]

The didn't get magically wore than either. I hate when idiots so "Oh ho ho if he were playing TODAY he'd average 97.43 ppg 16.72 rpg, and 45.77 APG." No that's not how it works, well maybe for ignorant people with the intelligence of a spider.

Aspects of the game have most definitely gotten worse. Take the leagues best center, he has no post game :roll:

[DatAsh]

What agenda do I have this time? I'm waiting.

new > old

The same as it's always been, assuming you really are RaininTwos.

[BlueandGold]

In all honestly it would be 68 games mininum wins.. that team was exactly what one poster said.. the perfect storm. they had the perfect amount of scoring, rebounding, defense and bench production. they were perfectly balanced offensively and defensively and MJ was pretty much like Deion Sanders in the 90s, he was good enough to be the difference in nearly every close game the bulls had that season.

[97 bulls]

Can you show me a link where he said Pippen was better than James ? Not that would surprise me or anything (I believe he has said Pippen is better than Magic, Bird, Kobe, Wade, and so on... Stockton is better pure point than Magic...), but I have never seen him type that out directly.
I actually said players on that level, as far as skill, theres not much difference. Only situations.

I said Magic and Pippen were similar as far as scoring skillset. Their ability to put the ball in the basket.

Ad far as Bird. I believe that was a conversation that began when someone asked who would win in a game of 1 on 1.

I feel Wade and Pippen are on the same level. Id even give a slight edge to Pip

[Just2McFly]

new > old

The same as it's always been, assuming you really are RaininTwos.
Say something of value.

[DatAsh]

Say something of value.

Why did you ask the question if the answer was of no value to you? Was it rhetorical?

[Just2McFly]

Why did you ask the question if the answer was of no value to you? Was it rhetorical?
I asked the question because people assumed that I had an agenda.

Your rumblings mean nothing. If my agenda was ever new>old, why would I predict the Bulls to win anywhere from 55-65 games?

You guys assume and pretend that you know it all and it's all meaningless. Your whole view of me is hollow with no facts to back it up. You have a couple posts here and there recently that you reach to say that I hate the old school, yet I have thousands upon thousands where I praise the greats of various generations.

If I wasn't so bored I wouldn't even respond.

[DatAsh]

If my agenda was ever new>old, why would I predict the Bulls to win anywhere from 55-65 games?


In other words, you think they'd do considerably worse in this era than they did in their own. Hence, new > old.

Your agenda has been obvious for quite some time. It's not as obvious as it is with others on this site, but it's there. Do you deny it?

[Just2McFly]

In other words, you think they'd do considerably worse in this era than they did in their own. Hence, new > old.

Your agenda has been obvious for quite some time. It's not as obvious as it is with others on this site, but it's there. Do you deny it?
:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.

[DatAsh]

:facepalm
Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.


Do you think last years Bulls team was better than the 96' Bulls team?


:facepalm
I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.


There is some validity behind that reasoning. Had this been your only post on the matter, I'd have no reason to believe you were pushing any agenda. It's your consistency that gives it away; not any one post.

[Legends66NBA7]

I actually said players on that level, as far as skill, theres not much difference. Only situations.

I said Magic and Pippen were similar as far as scoring skillset. Their ability to put the ball in the basket.

Ad far as Bird. I believe that was a conversation that began when someone asked who would win in a game of 1 on 1.

I feel Wade and Pippen are on the same level. Id even give a slight edge to Pip

Eh, I don't have any problems with those analogies, bro. I probably read you wrong and if so, my bad.

:cheers:

[Legends66NBA7]

:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.

While I disagree with your view on what the Bulls would do today (the expansion era being the reason why they would do worse of wins-losses wise), I don't think you have an agenda (if I implied that, it wasn't the case).

[Just2McFly]

Do think last years Bulls team was better than the 96' Bulls team?
Nope.

Was gonna respond to other part but I don't even care at this point. I'll let you guys have your nostalgic threads and take part in ones that deal with the present day completely.

Opinions with reasoning and a joke= agenda, now.:roll:

[Just2McFly]

While I disagree with your view on what the Bulls would do today (the expansion era being the reason why they would do worse of wins-losses wise), I don't think you have an agenda (if I implied that, it wasn't the case).

There is literally no way I could have had an agenda on MJ, that's why I am waiting for Money 23's answer. He remembers so much about but doesn't remember our PM's where I talked about being named after Mr. Jordan himself because my mom watched him against the Knicks at MSG before I was born.:lol

This shit is just comical now.

[DatAsh]

Nope.


Yet you think they'd win less games than last years Bulls?


Was gonna respond to other part but I don't even care at this point. I'll let you guys have your nostalgic threads and take part in ones that deal with the present day completely.

Opinions with reasoning and a joke= agenda, now.:roll:

Like I said, it's not any one post that gives it away. It's the consistency, and it's somewhat subtle. You don't push it anywhere near as hard as some of these single player fanatics do, but you and I both know it's there.

[Just2McFly]

Yet you think they'd win less games than last years Bulls?



Like I said, it's not any one post that gives it away. It's the consistency, and it's somewhat subtle. You don't push it anywhere near as hard as some of these single player fanatics do, but you and I both know it's there.

Could I at least get a couch before you take your role as ISH's shrink so seriously?

You need to work on your math bro.

55-65 games at it's high end has a better win pct than the Bulls of last year. Nice try though.

[DatAsh]

Could I at least get a couch before you take your role as ISH's shrink so seriously?

That actually made me laugh.




You need to work on your math bro.

55-65 games at it's high end has a better win pct than the Bulls of last year. Nice try though.

You don't think I realized that? Saying you think they would win 55-65 games is equivalent to saying that you believe they could win any number of games within that range. Both last years Bulls and the previous years Bulls won the equivalent of 62 times - given an 82 game season. Seven of the eleven numbers within your range fall below that number. In other words, you think it's more likely that the 96' Bulls win less games than the 11' or 12' Bulls than vice versa.

[Just2McFly]

That would make a lot more sense if that was the context of my prediction going in. I just gave a 10 game gap because I wanted to. :lol

It's that simple. I wanted to give a gap just so I wouldn't be argued against and it still happens.

See what I mean about face value instead of reaching to validate your slightly creepy thoughts on my ulterior motives?

[97 bulls]

:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.
But expansion is your only excuse. Several posters have given plenty of different reasons as to why the Bulls would still dominate today.

Saying that, allow me to present another point. In 94, the Bulls won 55 games without Michael Jordan. Mind you, this was pre expansion of 96. And with a lesser pf in Grant instead of Rodman. And Pippen missed 10 games that season causing the Bulls to go 3-7. If they were able to win 55 games under that situation, how many wins does that Bulls team get with Rodman and Jordan and Pippen playing all 82 games?

[BlueandGold]

:facepalm

Yes I do think that they would considerably worse in this era. That has nothing do with new greater than old, you are reaching once again just like you always do.

I gave one line of reasoning which I mentioned the expansion era. I think that there are more competitive teams in existence now that would beat the Bulls in the regular season.

How that translates to being an agenda I will never know.

Funny thing is, I shouldn't even need that reasoning, the fact that everyone here is SO SURE they would make history again with such confidence is telling.

The expansion era argument has been discussed at length on this forum. The argument is that since the NBA drastically increased, the number of teams as well as the market of the NBA that the teams were somehow less talented or competitive as compared to the 00s.

This statement to me is ridiculous to me and i'm sure for anyone who's watched basketball in the 90s. This isn't like the 60s where steals and blocks weren't even counted stats. Every single regular season and playoff game that jordan played in past 85 or something whenever the NBA signed that huge TV deal has been documented. The level of play was noticeably more physical/violent. Flagrant fouls didn't exist.. players essentially got a flagrant thrown on them every time they drove to the paint. Remember the "no-layup" rule that Riley implemented? Or how about the Jordan rules with the pistons?

Like i stated before that bulls team was constructed perfectly. Not only was that team insanely talented but they were insanely talented at just the right skill/talent sets with no overlap of skills. Rodman was and still is the GOAT defensive and rebounding specialist. Rodman out-rebounded Shaq by an average of 5 rebounds per game in the 96 ECF. Pippen was and still is the ultimate swingman and glue-guy who nearly led the bulls to a finals berth without MJ. They also had the goat scoring threat off the bench in Kukoc.. essentially the precursor to manu ginobli except not utilized as much as manu. Finally there was the perfect if not only coach that could fully utilize the incredibly diverse and ego-driven personalities that were on the team in Phil Jackson, in what arguably was his best coaching performance of all time that year.

It wasn't only that this team was talented it was because the talented meshed so well together. There have been arguably equally as talented teams that didn't get anywhere near as far as that bulls team. Just look at the 2011 heat vs the dallas mavs.

[scandisk_]

too good

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HSn1zjRNtV0/T84IdNK12DI/AAAAAAAAJDM/K9ZYj0w1TZM/s640/031097jordanbullsgood_large.jpg

[Legends66NBA7]

too good

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HSn1zjRNtV0/T84IdNK12DI/AAAAAAAAJDM/K9ZYj0w1TZM/s640/031097jordanbullsgood_large.jpg

That's one of my favourite SI covers.

:applause:

[Cladyclad]

Luc longley is not starting in todays NBA im sorry guys
Ron harper is not guarding Paul, Westbrook, Williams, Wall, Rose, Rondo etc... Its not realistic for him to be able to guard those guys. Pip nor Jordan either. To be honest idk how good they would be, but 70 wins is not possible how that was constructed in the 90's in todays game.

[Shepseskaf]

Luc longley is not starting in todays NBA im sorry guys
Ron harper is not guarding Paul, Westbrook, Williams, Wall, Rose, Rondo etc... Its not realistic for him to be able to guard those guys. Pip nor Jordan either. To be honest idk how good they would be, but 70 wins is not possible how that was constructed in the 90's in todays game.
Everything you posted is wrong.

Have you looked at the current list of starting centers? Are you actually saying that Longley wasn't more skilled than any of them? :oldlol:

Ron Harper is one of the best defenders at the guard position -- long, athletic, long arms, quick hands, and very, very smart. I'm not saying he would lock down every player on your list, but would definitely hold his own. Saying that he couldn't "guard" them is ridiculous.

Apparently, you never saw the 72-10 Bulls in action.

[Just2McFly]

But expansion is your only excuse. Several posters have given plenty of different reasons as to why the Bulls would still dominate today.

Saying that, allow me to present another point. In 94, the Bulls won 55 games without Michael Jordan. Mind you, this was pre expansion of 96. And with a lesser pf in Grant instead of Rodman. And Pippen missed 10 games that season causing the Bulls to go 3-7. If they were able to win 55 games under that situation, how many wins does that Bulls team get with Rodman and Jordan and Pippen playing all 82 games?
55-65 is still domination, I really don't know what world you guys live in to be honest.

[LeBird]

That was three years ago. James is better than Pippen.

It's actually about 2 years and ago; even though 3 years ago he was still better than Pippen.

Anyway, That Bulls team was a great team, without a doubt, but played in a watered down league. It would not post the same record. The league is better now - although not as competitive as the 80s. I'd say 65-69 is the right guessing range.

[TheMan]

As is easily seen by the increased amount of talented big men in the league today...oh wait...
This

These youngsters don't use logic very much...they love to say that today's athletes are bigger, stronger and faster, if that's true then where are the 7ft freaks of nature big men? Almost every team would have a Wilt or a Shaq or a KAJ if athletes have evolutionized as much as these young cats love to say.

The best big man today, D12, wouldn't even be a top 5 center in the 80s/90s:facepalm

[97 bulls]

It's actually about 2 years and ago; even though 3 years ago he was still better than Pippen.

Anyway, That Bulls team was a great team, without a doubt, but played in a watered down league. It would not post the same record. The league is better now - although not as competitive as the 80s. I'd say 65-69 is the right guessing range.
Why does the same nonsense continue to be regurgitated? Ill ask younthe samenquestion I asked Mcfly. If expansion had that much of an effect on the Bulls record, how do you rationalize them winning 55 in 94 without Jordan, a rookie Kukoc, and a downgrade in Grant instead of Rodman and Pippen missing 10 games in which they went 3-7. Pre expansion mind you.


And what makes the 80s so competive? You essentially had two teams go to the championship every year.

[Teanett]

Ron harper is not guarding Paul, Westbrook, Williams, Wall, Rose, Rondo etc... Its not realistic for him to be able to guard those guys. Pip nor Jordan either.

hahaha
if thabo sefolosha can guard tony parker, then ron harper or pippen will do just fine.
hahaha

[Dragonyeuw]

Luc longley is not starting in todays NBA im sorry guys


Yeah, because this era is certainly the golden age for centers. It's not like the 90's had Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Mutumbo, or anything.....

[DatAsh]

The expansion era argument has been discussed at length on this forum. The argument is that since the NBA drastically increased, the number of teams as well as the market of the NBA that the teams were somehow less talented or competitive as compared to the 00s.

This statement to me is ridiculous to me and i'm sure for anyone who's watched basketball in the 90s. This isn't like the 60s where steals and blocks weren't even counted stats. Every single regular season and playoff game that jordan played in past 85 or something whenever the NBA signed that huge TV deal has been documented. The level of play was noticeably more physical/violent. Flagrant fouls didn't exist.. players essentially got a flagrant thrown on them every time they drove to the paint. Remember the "no-layup" rule that Riley implemented? Or how about the Jordan rules with the pistons?

Like i stated before that bulls team was constructed perfectly. Not only was that team insanely talented but they were insanely talented at just the right skill/talent sets with no overlap of skills. Rodman was and still is the GOAT defensive and rebounding specialist. Rodman out-rebounded Shaq by an average of 5 rebounds per game in the 96 ECF. Pippen was and still is the ultimate swingman and glue-guy who nearly led the bulls to a finals berth without MJ. They also had the goat scoring threat off the bench in Kukoc.. essentially the precursor to manu ginobli except not utilized as much as manu. Finally there was the perfect if not only coach that could fully utilize the incredibly diverse and ego-driven personalities that were on the team in Phil Jackson, in what arguably was his best coaching performance of all time that year.

It wasn't only that this team was talented it was because the talented meshed so well together. There have been arguably equally as talented teams that didn't get anywhere near as far as that bulls team. Just look at the 2011 heat vs the dallas mavs.

A lot of the talent argument boils down to what we're talking about. Guard play and ball handling have clearly improved since then; meanwhile, off ball play and passing skills have declined.

I would guess that the league is slightly more talented overall now, based mainly on the influx of international players. However, I don't think that would necessarily translate into a worse record for the 96' Bulls. Like I mentioned earlier, the Bulls were weak against teams like Orlando and the Knicks who featured great big men. The outside-in style of play today would play right in to the Bulls strengths.

[DatAsh]

That would make a lot more sense if that was the context of my prediction going in. I just gave a 10 game gap because I wanted to. :lol


That's understandable. Given that information, would you say that it's more likely or less likely that the 96' Bulls win more games than the 12' Bulls? What about the 09' Cavs who won 66' games. Were they better or worse than the 96' Bulls?

[Just2McFly]

That's understandable. Given that information, would you say that it's more likely or less likely that the 96' Bulls win more games than the 12' Bulls? What about the 09' Cavs who won 66' games. Were they better or worse than the 96' Bulls?
Let's put it this way, the 08 Celtics were way, way better than the 09 Cavs and 07 Mavs even though their records are similar.

[DatAsh]

Let's put it this way, the 08 Celtics were way, way better than the 09 Cavs and 07 Mavs even though their records are similar.

Agreed, but the Cavs played harder in the regular season.

[Just2McFly]

Agreed, but the Cavs played harder in the regular season.
Way harder. They went all out for whatever reason, but I didn't fall for it. I chose the Magic in ECF.

[DatAsh]

Way harder. They went all out for whatever reason, but I didn't fall for it. I chose the Magic in ECF.

The Bulls were the same way though. They went all out every game. That regular season effort - that most teams just don't have - combined with their level of talent resulted in 72 wins.

I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.

[Just2McFly]

The Bulls were the same way though. They wen't all out every game. That regular season effort - that most teams just don't have - combined with their level of talent resulted in 72 wins.

I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.
Valid points there. I might have to change my prediction now.:oldlol:

Plus with the Knicks and the Heat playing so well, the Bulls will be busting their ass to get home court advantage.

[Cladyclad]

hahaha
if thabo sefolosha can guard tony parker, then ron harper or pippen will do just fine.
hahaha


Ron harper was past his prime. Pippen never guarded Isisah, Hardaway or KJ so i doubt Phil would put him on these superfast athlethic pg's. the Bulls would have to tweak their starting lineup in todays g

[LeBird]

Why does the same nonsense continue to be regurgitated? Ill ask younthe samenquestion I asked Mcfly. If expansion had that much of an effect on the Bulls record, how do you rationalize them winning 55 in 94 without Jordan, a rookie Kukoc, and a downgrade in Grant instead of Rodman and Pippen missing 10 games in which they went 3-7. Pre expansion mind you.

And what makes the 80s so competive? You essentially had two teams go to the championship every year.

Ironically, it is your nonsense that keeps getting repeated. Better teams often get worse records and sometimes good teams have great records. It's not a mathematical formula. You may need a lot of things to go for you and lots to not go against you (luck, even). Why did Bulls without Jordan only go a couple games worse and then in another year go almost 20 games better?

If the bolded has to be asked then I should seriously stop engaging you because your Pippen fanboyism was ludicrous enough.

[LeBird]

I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.

But this part is absolutely irrelevant. The question is how would they do NOW. Not in 09.

[guy]

The Bulls were the same way though. They went all out every game. That regular season effort - that most teams just don't have - combined with their level of talent resulted in 72 wins.

I just find it unlikely that they'd win less than the 09' Cavs. They were a much better team - talent wise - and they played just as hard, if not harder in the regular season.

This. Competition and Talent isn't as much of a driving factor as just overall focus. I don't think there's ever been a more talented team that was ever that focused, which is the main reason I think they won 72 games. If teams that were clearly not that talented but were very determined and focused like the 2007 Mavs, 2009 Cavs, and 2011 Bulls were then a team thats clearly more talented and probably even more focused like the 96 Bulls has a great shot of still winning 72 games in this era.

[97 bulls]

Ironically, it is your nonsense that keeps getting repeated. Better teams often get worse records and sometimes good teams have great records. It's not a mathematical formula. You may need a lot of things to go for you and lots to not go against you (luck, even). Why did Bulls without Jordan only go a couple games worse and then in another year go almost 20 games better?
It's well documented that Pippen and Grant kinda coasted through the 93 season. That's why they went from 67 wins in 92 to 57 in 93. That effort returned in 94. and thus the 55 wins. Along with Kukoc joining the team, and them getting new blood in Kerr for Paxson and Longley for Cartwright. When it's all factored in, their record is legit. And expansion didnt inflate their record. Especially when they lost to one of those teams. They just had a great team with onviously a lot of depth


If the bolded has to be asked then I should seriously stop engaging you because your Pippen fanboyism was ludicrous enough.
You set this precedent. You're the one that continues to preach the dogma that all other generations of basketball is inferior to the golden 80s. I feel the talent level of the NBA is so high that its too hard to make that kind of assumption. And that goes for any era. They all haven their strengths and weaknesses. Its a classic cases of the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Now I've answered your question. Now answer mine. How do you explain the Bulls winning 55 games pre expansion in 94. And how many games would they have won in 94 if intead if Pete Myers, they had Jordan, and Rodman over Grant?

[LeBird]

Now I've answered your question. Now answer mine. How do you explain the Bulls winning 55 games pre expansion in 94. And how many games would they have won in 94 if intead if Pete Myers, they had Jordan, and Rodman over Grant?

I am not sure if you're blind or ignoring my point. If you know what I posted; you would know I would have said: I don't know. You cannot predict why or why not. Why did the 91 Bulls not win 72?

Your reply in the quote is also nonsense. You can only stipulate as to why...you cannot legitimately hold that they are the exact reasons. Who knows how much more a Pippen/Grant tried or didn't try and how that is calculable to 10 games. It's conjecture at best. Are the 92 Bulls, who did 'try', only 1 game worse than the 09 Cavs, per your retarded cross-comparisons? It's a ludicrous argument.

I don't even think the 72 win Bulls would win 72 games if they had to play the same teams in the same condition 10 years in a row, where they remain ageless, etc (which is a heck of a hypothetical, but illustrates my point). A lot of things have to happen, and happen exactly right for a team to have such a season.

That is why I stick to my general and vague response because of the myriad of factors. The league is stronger now than what it was in the 72 win season. Rodman himself said that it'd never happen in the 80s - acknowledging the expansion and era difference in terms of competition. These days there are multiple stacked teams and the competition is higher in general. The Bulls don't win 72 in my opinion - and definitely don't win more than 72 as you seem to suggest.

I also didn't set the precedent of your cockamamie theories re Pippen or here now. That's all your doing. Own it.

[97 bulls]

I am not sure if you're blind or ignoring my point. If you know what I posted; you would know I would have said: I don't know. You cannot predict why or why not. Why did the 91 Bulls not win 72?
Because they weren't good enough.


Your reply in the quote is also nonsense. You can only stipulate as to why...you cannot legitimately hold that they are the exact reasons. Who knows how much more a Pippen/Grant tried or didn't try and how that is calculable to 10 games. It's conjecture at best.

Are the 92 Bulls, who did 'try', only 1 game worse than the 09 Cavs, per your retarded cross-comparisons? It's a ludicrous argument.
Thats not a fair comparion because the Bulls won the championship. The Cavs didnt even get out of the second round.

I don't even think the 72 win Bulls would win 72 games if they had to play the same teams in the same condition 10 years in a row, where they remain ageless, etc (which is a heck of a hypothetical, but illustrates my point). A lot of things have to happen, and happen exactly right for a team to have such a season.
This may be true. But consider that they followed that up with 69 wins in spite of Rodman missing almost 30 games, then 62 with Pippen missing half the season. That 72 win season was legit.


That is why I stick to my general and vague response because of the myriad of factors. The league is stronger now than what it was in the 72 win season. Rodman himself said that it'd never happen in the 80s - acknowledging the expansion and era difference in terms of competition.
You misquoted Rodman. That comment was made in the middle of the season. And he said that Bulls team couldnt be compared to the great Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics of the 80s because THEY HADN'T WON ANYTHING. And since you take what Rodman says as gospel, you must also agree with his statement that Larry Bird is overrated.


These days there are multiple stacked teams and the competition is higher in general. The Bulls don't win 72 in my opinion - and definitely don't win more than 72 as you seem to suggest.
So this isnt conjecture? There were multiple stacked teams in the Bulls era. The Sonics? Magic? Jazz? Heat? Knicks? Rockets? Pacers?

I also didn't set the precedent of your cockamamie theories re Pippen or here now. That's all your doing. Own it.
Im not talking about Pippen. Im talking about the Bulls. And youre notion that the only reason the Bulls won that many games was because of a lack of talent in the league.

Again you gloss over my point and question. You my friend are the one claiming the only reason the Bulls won that many games in 96 is because of expansion. When I smack that point in the face, you dismiss it as conjecture. And that may be true. But this is all conjecture. You feel the 86 Celtics would beat the 96 Bulls in a series. Can you prove that without a shadow of doubt? No. But that doesn't keep you from voicing youre opinion. What makes youre opinion any more relevant than mine. Get off you high horse

[TheFan]

55 - 60 wins maybe less... Jordan wouldn't be by far the best SG in the league... the league is more competitive right now.

[LeBird]

Because they weren't good enough.


Oh really, so if I said "the 72 win Bulls would win less games because they weren't good enough" that'd cut it for you? Hah.


Thats not a fair comparion because the Bulls won the championship. The Cavs didnt even get out of the second round.


Irrelevant; we are talking about a regular season record.


This may be true. But consider that they followed that up with 69 wins in spite of Rodman missing almost 30 games, then 62 with Pippen missing half the season. That 72 win season was legit.


No one is claiming it was cheated or not legit. My point was that I find it unlikely to repeat it if they were a team competing in this season. And as I said, I don't think they'd have repeated it if all the same conditions could be simulated again and again, in their own era.


You misquoted Rodman. That comment was made in the middle of the season. And he said that Bulls team couldnt be compared to the great Pistons, Lakers, and Celtics of the 80s because THEY HADN'T WON ANYTHING. And since you take what Rodman says as gospel, you must also agree with his statement that Larry Bird is overrated.


Who said what he says is always gospel? Everyone and their uncle knew that expansion had weakened the league. Get over it and stop making yourself look silly by arguing the opposite.


So this isnt conjecture? There were multiple stacked teams in the Bulls era. The Sonics? Magic? Jazz? Heat? Knicks? Rockets? Pacers?


Haha, ridiculous. You're comparing short-lived, and not-as-talented teams, to more competitive eras. You just keep stooping.


Again you gloss over my point and question. You my friend are the one claiming the only reason the Bulls won that many games in 96 is because of expansion. When I smack that point in the face, you dismiss it as conjecture. And that may be true. But this is all conjecture. You feel the 86 Celtics would beat the 96 Bulls in a series. Can you prove that without a shadow of doubt? No. But that doesn't keep you from voicing youre opinion. What makes youre opinion any more relevant than mine. Get off you high horse

You don't smack it in the face, no more than the question of whether the Cavs of 09 would equal their run in the 90s. And, of course, I know it is all conjecture. Which is why I find your direct comparisons of records in other seasons absolutely silly. Which is why I stick to a generic reason and give a tentative prediction. On the other hand, you are trying to prove that they'd win even more games. How utterly silly.

[97 bulls]

Oh really, so if I said "the 72 win Bulls would win less games because they weren't good enough" that'd cut it for you? Hah.
That makes no sense. They showed they were capable by winning 72 games


Irrelevant; we are talking about a regular season record.



No one is claiming it was cheated or not legit. My point was that I find it unlikely to repeat it if they were a team competing in this season. And as I said, I don't think they'd have repeated it if all the same conditions could be simulated again and again, in their own era.



Who said what he says is always gospel? Everyone and their uncle knew that expansion had weakened the league.
No, Laker and Celtic fans feel the NBA was watered down in the 90s in an effort to diminish the Bulls dominance.

Get over it and stop making yourself look silly by arguing the opposite.



Haha, ridiculous. You're comparing short-lived, and not-as-talented teams, to more competitive eras. You just keep stooping.
And how can you prove this? Again, why is your conjecture better than anyone elses?


You don't smack it in the face, no more than the question of whether the Cavs of 09 would equal their run in the 90s. And, of course, I know it is all conjecture. Which is why I find your direct comparisons of records in other seasons absolutely silly. Which is why I stick to a generic reason and give a tentative prediction. On the other hand, you are trying to prove that they'd win even more games. How utterly silly.
Your lack of comprehension is incredible. This conversation began based solely on your assumption that the Bulls only won that many games because of playing in a watered down era. Thats were you're wrong. You can dismiss this as conjecture all you want. But if you follow sports, you'd have to know that talent translates to wins. If theyre capable of winning 55 games pre expansion without key player's is it unreasonable to draw the conclusion that drastic upgrades in talent is gonna improve their win total?

[Poochymama]

LeBird getting exposed once again. Decent writing skills won't cover up your lack of knowledge and bias.

[Teanett]

[QUOTE=Cladyclad]Ron harper was past his prime. Pippen never guarded Isisah, Hardaway or KJ so i doubt Phil would put him on these superfast athlethic pg's. the Bulls would have to tweak their starting lineup in todays g

[KOBE143]

hahaha
they played the hardaways, kj, mugsy bogues, terell brandon, iverson...
ron harper, mj and pippen did just fine.
hahaha
If I remember, they almost lost to sixers lead by a rookie AI and that game MJ almost break his ankle guarding AI.. Imagine prime AI, DRose, Westbrook, CP3, Rondo, Irving, DWill, Wall etc. playing against them? They would send Harper and MJ into an early retirement becos of fk up ankle..

[Teanett]

If I remember, they almost lost to sixers lead by a rookie AI and that game MJ almost break his ankle guarding AI.. Imagine prime AI, DRose, Westbrook, CP3, Rondo, Irving, DWill, Wall etc. playing against them? They would send Harper and MJ into an early retirement becos of fk up ankle..

see, that's where you young guys err.

-yes, iverson crossed jordan once and hit a jumper and that's it.
-iverson had a great game but the bulls won.
-the bulls were 55-8 at that point, the sixers were 16-46

is there any indication that the sixers were the better team, or even in the same class than the bulls? the sixers and ai shouldnt be in the same league at that point and there is also no reason to believe that there has been any version of iverson and the sixers that would give the 96 bulls trouble.

john wall my ass...

[TheMan]

LeBird getting exposed once again. Decent writing skills won't cover up your lack of knowledge and bias.
This

Easily one of the worst posters here.