Could the '96 Bulls Go Undefeated in this 2013 NBA Season?

[Foster5k]

If Lebron + Bosh basically can destroy the league, would Jordan and Pippen go undefeated all the way through the season and playoffs to win the championship?

[fpliii]

If they couldn't do so during an expansion season, how could they this year? The East may be down but you still have to play the games.

[shallehalle]

Could the 2011-2013 Bobcats go undefeated in 50's and 60's?

[chips93]

could the dream team beat the 2012 kentucky wildcats, playing in the 50s?

[Sharmer]

If Lebron + Bosh basically can destroy the league, would Jordan and Pippen go undefeated all the way through the season and playoffs to win the championship?

We would win but go undefeated all the way through the season.......

http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff403/cawkmeatsandwich/LULS/0073_1nbe.gif

[Bigsmoke]

yall old ****** need to stay in yall lanes

[The Choken One]

They'd probably beat the regular season record, that's for sure.

[#number6ix#]

Not if they had to play the heat I'm sure we could win attests one game against the great and all powerful bulls... N

[The Choken One]

Not if they had to play the heat I'm sure we could win attests one game against the great and all powerful bulls... N
:oldlol: :oldlol:

ps. The Bulls would smash on the Heat.

[Bigsmoke]

:oldlol: :oldlol:

ps. The Bulls would smash on the Heat.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603240TOR.html

shit can happen.

[kNicKz]

Not if they had to play the heat

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqq947UOup1qb9pa3o1_400.gif

[plowking]

:oldlol: :oldlol:

ps. The Bulls would smash on the Heat.

No they wouldn't.

[shallehalle]

:oldlol: :oldlol:

ps. The Bulls would smash on the Heat.
great analysis

[kNicKz]

great analysis


Phil Jackson, NBA Coach of the Year
Michael Jordan, All-NBA First Team
Michael Jordan, All-Star Game MVP
Michael Jordan, NBA MVP
Michael Jordan, NBA Finals MVP
Michael Jordan, NBA All-Defensive First Team
Michael Jordan, Regular season leader, Field Goals (916)
Michael Jordan, Regular season leader, Field Goal Attempts (1850)
Michael Jordan, Regular season leader, Total Points (2491)
Michael Jordan, Regular season leader, Scoring Average (30.4 points per game)
Scottie Pippen, All-NBA First Team
Scottie Pippen, NBA All-Defensive First Team
Dennis Rodman, NBA All-Defensive First Team
Dennis Rodman, Regular season leader, Rebounds Per Game (14.9)
Dennis Rodman, Regular season leader, Offensive Rebounds (356)
Dennis Rodman, Regular season leader, Rebound Rate (26.6)
Toni Kukoc, NBA Sixth Man of the Year


/discussion.

[Duncan21formvp]

The Bulls are the best team, but how the hell do you expect them to go undefeated in a season or any team for that matter? They would still win 70+ games though.

[Jasper]

Could a championchip franchise of Kobe , Gasol , Nash and Howard barely get into the playoff's :confusedshrug:

http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff403/cawkmeatsandwich/LULS/0073_1nbe.gif

[DMAVS41]

The Bulls are the best team, but how the hell do you expect them to go undefeated in a season or any team for that matter? They would still win 70+ games though.

Probably not actually.

The league is better overall today than it was in 96. League was pretty watered down that season.

[ZMonkey11]

Probably not actually.

The league is better overall today than it was in 96. League was pretty watered down that season.

This. If they couldn't do it then, they definitely aren't doing it now.

[ballinhun8]

73-9 or better.



Nobody in this league is mentally strong enough to go head-to-head against a pissed off MJ determined to take back the Undisputed GOAT crown.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Probably not actually.

The league is better overall today than it was in 96. League was pretty watered down that season.

However many games the Heat end up winning, the '96 Bulls would have at LEAST 3-4+ more.

[kNicKz]

The Bulls are the best team, but how the hell do you expect them to go undefeated in a season or any team for that matter? They would still win 70+ games though.

They wouldn't go undefeated but would comfortably beat the Heat in a big hyped up regular season game. Honestly, the Heat would have trouble with the Knicks and Magic... Ewing/Oak/Starks and Shaq/Penny match up well with the big 3. Those would be great games to watch

[DMAVS41]

However many games the Heat end up winning, the '96 Bulls would have at LEAST 3-4+ more.

Maybe, maybe not.

All I know is that the league was not as good then as it is now. Maybe the Bulls were still good enough to win 72 today, but they would have had a harder time.

My point was that it would just be dishonest for anyone to claim that the competition isn't better today.

[Alan Ogg]

I hope you're trolling. If the Bulls lost to an undermanned '96 HEAT team playing just 7 players, they're not getting through unscathed 2013.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199602230MIA.html

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Maybe, maybe not.

All I know is that the league was not as good then as it is now. Maybe the Bulls were still good enough to win 72 today, but they would have had a harder time.

My point was that it would just be dishonest for anyone to claim that the competition isn't better today.

There is no maybe. The '96 Bulls were simply a better team.

The league is pretty watered down today as well. Because of injuries, the Eastern conference is a joke.

[Just2McFly]

However many games the Heat end up winning, the '96 Bulls would have at LEAST 3-4+ more.
Not really.

[SilkkTheShocker]

They couldn't even beat the expansion team Raptors

[PJR]

I hope you're trolling. If the Bulls lost to an undermanned '96 HEAT team playing just 7 players, they're not getting through unscathed 2013.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199602230MIA.html

:oldlol: I remember watching this game on TV. Riley told the media he wasn't likely to make a deadline deal, and then BOOM the Hardaway trade happened.

Rex Chapman. :bowdown:

[Pointguard]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603240TOR.html

shit can happen.

Wow, interesting. Only two maybe three of Toronto's starters could be in this league. At that was with Jordan and Kukoc having very good games. But that had to be a let down game.

[KOBE143]

96 Bulls would be 6th-8th seed in the East at best and probably non PO team in the West.. Dont be deceive by their record but instead look at how weak their competition was.. Theres a reason why they called that era, a watered down era.. Any PO team today would easily get 65+ win in the late 90s.. If you convert the 96bulls 72-10 record in todays league that would be equivalent to 45 wins.. Still a PO team in the east tho.. :applause:

[Pointguard]

I'll tell you one thing.... Next years Heat is going for that record and it won't be an expansion year.

[Pointguard]

Anybody know the expansion rules? What, you could only protect seven players right?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Probably not actually.

The league is better overall today than it was in 96. League was pretty watered down that season.

The league is not better today. Stop it lol. The Bulls would FEAST on teams today. 72+ wins no question.

[Dragonyeuw]

96 Bulls would be 6th-8th seed in the East at best and probably non PO team in the West.

0/10 on the trolling, you're slipping.

[guy]

The league is better overall today than it was in 96. League was pretty watered down that season.

Arguably so, arguably not. Either way, the difference isn't significant enough to actually say they would do better, worse, or equal. What the Bulls did in 96 had way more to do with their determination to win every game, not as much the quality of their opponents since they were better then all of them anyway, just like they would be better then all of them today except for maybe the Heat.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

DMAVS41 - are you saying the ENTIRE 90's era was watered down OR just '96? I actually think '98 and '99 were worse. The worst of the decade easily.

[DMAVS41]

DMAVS41 - are you saying the ENTIRE 90's era was watered down OR just '96? I actually think '98 and '99 were worse. The worst of the decade easily.

In terms of overall...the league just wasn't as good back then.

I am shocked people are actually claiming the league was better back then. Are you guys ****ing nuts? Sorry...it is better today. It may not impact a team as great as the 96 Bulls all that much, but you are ****ing high if you can't admit that the league is better top to bottom today.

[guy]

In terms of overall...the league just wasn't as good back then.

I am shocked people are actually claiming the league was better back then. Are you guys ****ing nuts? Sorry...it is better today. It may not impact a team as great as the 96 Bulls all that much, but you are ****ing high if you can't admit that the league is better top to bottom today.

You should give a reason as to why you think that it is inarguably better.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

In terms of overall...the league just wasn't as good back then.

I am shocked people are actually claiming the league was better back then. Are you guys ****ing nuts? Sorry...it is better today. It may not impact a team as great as the 96 Bulls all that much, but you are ****ing high if you can't admit that the league is better top to bottom today.

'96 watered down? I can agree w/ that. '98 and '99 worse than ANY season of the 2000's? Sure. Why not? Saying the 90's, OVERALL, was weaker than today....nah, that's just silly man.

[DMAVS41]

'96 watered down? I can agree w/ that. '98 and '99 worse than ANY season of the 2000's? Sure. Why not? Saying the 90's, OVERALL, was weaker than today....nah, that's just silly man.

I didn't say the 90's were overall weaker.

I said 96 was weaker.

[DMAVS41]

You should give a reason as to why you think that it is inarguably better.

Didn't have the current level of great players playing in their primes for starters. But it's a bit difficult to explain without doing a bunch of research...I just thought it would be pretty much universally accepted that the league in 96 was a bit watered down. I know it's a pretty common opinion. I've heard Kerr state that a number of times...heard Simmons say it.

Why do you think it was better back then?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I didn't say the 90's were overall weaker.

I said 96 was weaker.

Well, I asked if you thought the entire era was weaker OR just '96, and you replied with "in terms of overall".

Anyway, I don't have a problem w/ anyone thinking '13 is better. Top to bottom there is more talent...just too many injuries.

[DMAVS41]

Well, I asked if you thought the entire era was weaker OR just '96, and you replied with "in terms of overall".

Anyway, I don't have a problem w/ anyone thinking '13 is better. Top to bottom there is more talent...just too many injuries.

I mean the overall league that year. And the late 90's as well. The league is pretty strong right now imo.

Just look at the Wizards with Wall...pretty solid team. There are just more teams and guys in the league that can beat you now.

[guy]

Didn't have the current level of great players playing in their primes for starters. But it's a bit difficult to explain without doing a bunch of research...I just thought it would be pretty much universally accepted that the league in 96 was a bit watered down. I know it's a pretty common opinion. I've heard Kerr state that a number of times...heard Simmons say it.

Why do you think it was better back then?

I don't think its better or worse. I don't really know, but there's nothing that tells me one is clearly better then the other.

Playing in their primes doesn't matter as much as just how great they are at the time in general. If we were just looking at primes, then that would count Jordan out despite him still playing at an all-time great, and we would count out players like Kobe, Pierce, Dirk, Duncan, arguably even Wade. Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Malone, Pippen, Barkley, Payton, Kemp, Hill, Penny, Stockton, Miller, Zo, Deke, Drexler, Richmond, Rodman etc. in 96 is in no way definitely worse then Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Wade, Howard, Westbrook, Melo, CP3, Rondo, Z-Bo, Bosh, Chandler, Noah, Deron, Love, Griffin, Harden, Parker etc today. It would be laughable to suggest that. I don't know if you're doing the same thing that I've seen many other people do, but big names get smaller as the years go by, so what may seem star-studded today won't be as star-studded 15 years from now. The names of Tyson Chandler, Joakim Noah, and Deron Williams probably won't resonate as much 15 years from now as they do today just like the names of Rod Strickland, Juwan Howard, and Vin Baker don't resonate as much today as they did back in 96.

[DMAVS41]

I don't think its better or worse. I don't really know, but there's nothing that tells me one is clearly better then the other.

Playing in their primes doesn't matter as much as just how great they are in general. If we were just looking at primes, then that would count Jordan out despite him still playing at an all-time great, and we would count out players like Kobe, Pierce, Dirk, Duncan, arguably even Wade. Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Malone, Pippen, Barkley, Payton, Kemp, Hill, Penny, Stockton, Miller, Zo, Deke, Drexler, Richmond, Rodman etc. in 96 is in no way definitely worse then Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Wade, Howard, Westbrook, Melo, CP3, Rondo, Z-Bo, Bosh, Chandler, Noah, Deron, Love, Griffin, Harden, Parker etc today. It would be laughable to suggest that. I don't know if you're doing the same thing that I've seen many other people do, but big names get smaller as the years go by, so what may seem star-studded today won't be as star-studded 15 years from now. The names of Tyson Chandler, Joakim Noah, and Deron Williams probably won't resonate as much 15 years from now as they do today just like the names of Rod Strickland, Juwan Howard, and Vin Baker don't resonate as much today as they did back in 96.

It's not about the names of players. It's about the amount of stars capable of winning games somewhat on their own. Deron Williams might not resonate 15 years from now, but I think there are more guys like him in the league today.

In my opinion, there are more teams / players that can challenge you on a nightly basis in the league today. Again, I'm not saying it would change anything for a great team like the Bulls. Never said that. All I said was that I thought the league was better today and that 96 was a bit watered down. Which honestly, I thought was pretty universally accepted by people that have watched both.

[Kurosawa0]

Well, Miami is certainly better than any team besides Chicago that year. It's up for grabs on if you think the 1996 Sonics were better than this year's OKC team.

1996 Orlando would be a tough team with Shaq. Not really an equal today.

The 2013 Spurs have no equal. Maybe the 1996 Rockets, but that was a team that added Barkley. Had trouble mixing. The Spurs have excellent chemistry. Maybe the 2013 Clippers would be a better comparison.

Honestly, if you go back and look at it, the NBA in 2013 is a tougher league. Maybe much so. Still, the Bulls would beat Miami in a series, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went 7.

[ThaRegul8r]

No team will ever go undefeated during an 82-game season. Such talk is silly.

[guy]

It's not about the names of players. It's about the amount of stars capable of winning games somewhat on their own. Deron Williams might not resonate 15 years from now, but I think there are more guys like him in the league today.

In my opinion, there are more teams / players that can challenge you on a nightly basis in the league today. Again, I'm not saying it would change anything for a great team like the Bulls. Never said that. All I said was that I thought the league was better today and that 96 was a bit watered down. Which honestly, I thought was pretty universally accepted by people that have watched both.

Okay, and there were more guys like Rod Strickland in 96 that people don't remember much of. Same thing.

I don't really know how you can measure how more teams can challenge a great team in one era or another. Its possible that the Bulls just feasted on worst teams back then there are today, which could explain their record. Its also possible that the competition was equal to today, and they were just THAT much better then everyone else, which would also explain their record. For example, look at the Spurs. They're 53-17, and would probably finish with 63-65 wins assuming Pop doesn't predictably rest his stars for the last 5 games or so. This is despite the fact that Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili have all missed more then 10 games each, even if it wasn't for injury, and not one of them is a top 5 player, and neither of them are better then either Jordan OR Pippen. That's part of the reason why I think its still very likely that with the same determination the Bulls could still do the same thing today.

Now back to teams challenging them every night, thats always been the case, even with bad teams. The Bulls lost to bad, mediocre, and good teams in that run. The contenders today are the Heat, Pacers, Knicks, Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets. The contenders back then were the Bulls, Magic, Pacers, Knicks, Sonics, Jazz, Spurs, and Rockets. I don't really see much of a quality difference between the two teams. The same thing can be said comparing the good, mediocre, bad, and real bad teams.

I know its been accepted as a worse era or something, but there's really not much substance/proof behind that claim. It could very well be worse, but not to the point that its even worth mentioning, just like its probably not worth mentioning that 2008-2011 may have been worse years then 2012-2013.

[juju151111]

I mean the overall league that year. And the late 90's as well. The league is pretty strong right now imo.

Just look at the Wizards with Wall...pretty solid team. There are just more teams and guys in the league that can beat you now.
PG get more freedom today because of handchecking. Tim hardaway would be greater today then back then. The rules defiantly help smaller players especially the PG position. Cp3 who gets slightly bomb today flys isn't getting passed defenders who use forearm full.court. I don't see how the 96 bulls can't win 69+ gms no problem. Its even about the teams really its about focus. A expansion team beat them back then and they were garbage. So a expansion team put a L on the way superior team.

[Harison]

Undefeated - no.
Beat 72 wins record - highly possible.

[DMAVS41]

Okay, and there were more guys like Rod Strickland in 96 that people don't remember much of. Same thing.

I don't really know how you can measure how more teams can challenge a great team in one era or another. Its possible that the Bulls just feasted on worst teams back then there are today, which could explain their record. Its also possible that the competition was equal to today, and they were just THAT much better then everyone else, which would also explain their record. For example, look at the Spurs. They're 53-17, and would probably finish with 63-65 wins assuming Pop doesn't predictably rest his stars for the last 5 games or so. This is despite the fact that Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili have all missed more then 10 games each, even if it wasn't for injury, and not one of them is a top 5 player, and neither of them are better then either Jordan OR Pippen. That's part of the reason why I think its still very likely that with the same determination the Bulls could still do the same thing today.

Now back to teams challenging them every night, thats always been the case, even with bad teams. The Bulls lost to bad, mediocre, and good teams in that run. The contenders today are the Heat, Pacers, Knicks, Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Grizzlies, and Nuggets. The contenders back then were the Bulls, Magic, Pacers, Knicks, Sonics, Jazz, Spurs, and Rockets. I don't really see much of a quality difference between the two teams. The same thing can be said comparing the good, mediocre, bad, and real bad teams.

I know its been accepted as a worse era or something, but there's really not much substance/proof behind that claim. It could very well be worse, but not to the point that its even worth mentioning, just like its probably not worth mentioning that 2008-2011 may have been worse years then 2012-2013.

You seem to be confusing my point. I never said that the Bulls couldn't do it now...they may have been so great a team that it wouldn't matter...and of course any team with MJ on it can do special things.

I just have to disagree with your take on the state of the leagues. It's just a sense I get from thinking back to the league in 96 to now. You don't get that sense and I'm fine with it. I never said it was a huge difference, but we do disagree because I think it is enough to mention.

Just like I do think it is worth mentioning how much easier it was to win the title in 07 compared to 11 or 12 or this year. Is the difference huge? Maybe, maybe not...but certainly worth mentioning.

[Dragonyeuw]

The best teams from 96 would be equally good today. Magic, Spurs,Sonics, Jazz,Rockets,Pacers would all be upper echelon teams, easily on par with 2013 Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Nuggets. Then you had teams like the Knicks,Hawks,Portland, easily on par with today's middle of the road playoff teams.

Orlando would absolutely destroy today's NBA and they got merked by the Bulls in the playoffs that year.

[guy]

You seem to be confusing my point. I never said that the Bulls couldn't do it now...they may have been so great a team that it wouldn't matter...and of course any team with MJ on it can do special things.

I just have to disagree with your take on the state of the leagues. It's just a sense I get from thinking back to the league in 96 to now. You don't get that sense and I'm fine with it. I never said it was a huge difference, but we do disagree because I think it is enough to mention.

Just like I do think it is worth mentioning how much easier it was to win the title in 07 compared to 11 or 12 or this year. Is the difference huge? Maybe, maybe not...but certainly worth mentioning.

I know you're not saying the Bulls couldn't have done it. But it does sound like you're implying that it would've been significantly harder for them to do it because of the quality of competition. I definitely disagree with that, and I refer to the Spurs as my example. I could obviously refer to the Heat as well, because I think if they were as determined today as they were earlier in the season, they could've definitely challenged the record, but that could just be cause they're possibly better then the 96 Bulls. But the Spurs are clearly inferior. I also actually refer to teams on a certain tier from then that are basically on the same level of teams today from the same tier.

I don't think its worth mentioning. Why would it be? All it tells me is that maybe the 2007 Spurs don't win a title in 2011 or 2012 or that a team doesn't win as much in those seasons. So what? Every season except for 1 in NBA history is harder or easier then another, which means only 1 team in history would win a title in every single year of history. Its one thing if the makeup of the league was significantly different to another year we're comparing i.e. number of teams, talent pool, etc. but I don't see it as much different. If you want to compare the 2013 Heat to the 96 Bulls, that's fine. But I fail to see how using the quality of competition as evidence really matters cause there's really not much of a difference, and nothing that says otherwise. At the same time, I fail to see how using W-L record is good evidence either.

[DMAVS41]

I know you're not saying the Bulls couldn't have done it. But it does sound like you're implying that it would've been significantly harder for them to do it because of the quality of competition. I definitely disagree with that, and I refer to the Spurs as my example. I could obviously refer to the Heat as well, because I think if they were as determined today as they were earlier in the season, they could've definitely challenged the record, but that could just be cause they're possibly better then the 96 Bulls. But the Spurs are clearly inferior.

I don't think its worth mentioning. Why would it be? All it tells me is that maybe the 2007 Spurs don't win a title in 2011 or 2012 or that a team doesn't win as much in those seasons. So what? Every season except for 1 in NBA history is harder or easier then another, which means only 1 team in history would win a title in every single year of history. Its one thing if the makeup of the league was significantly different to another year we're comparing i.e. number of teams, talent pool, etc. but I don't see it as much different.

Well...I'm not saying it would be significantly harder, but I do think it would be harder.

Just like saying the 07 Spurs would have a tougher time winning it this year. Doesn't mean they wouldn't or couldn't, but it would be harder.

Yes, determination and effort is probably the most important thing to winning in the regular season if you have talent. Look at the Mavs in 07 and the Cavs in 09. Not that talented, but they came to play hard every single night.

My opinion is basically this;

In todays league, there are more games that a team looking to win 72 could potentially lose even if they come ready to play and play well. It's not a 10 game difference or something. But I do think that if I had to put a number on it, that overall the league today might be 2 to 3 games harder.

[SilkkTheShocker]

The 2013 Heat would absolutely slaughter the 96 Sonics. Im not saying they would also do the same to the Bulls. But lets keep things in perspective. It would be a battle. That Chicago team had defenders to match Miami. But they didn't have one big that could make them pay offensively.

[scm5]

Not undefeated, but since there are really no dominant Centers in the league, they could beat their own 72-10 record.

If you think about it, the only three teams that might pose problems to them are the Heat, Thunder, and Spurs.

Heat - Lebron would see both Pippen and Rodman and those two are better, mor aggressive defenders than anyone else in the league currently. They also happen to be two of the most athletic SF/PF's the league has seen and could keep up with Lebron. MJ would dominate Wade no problem, and Bosh would be covered by Rodman or Pippen as well, whoever is resting from guarding Bron. The matchup is heavily in the Bulls favor.

Thunder - Westbrook could kinda be checked by Kobe, which means MJ would fare really well defending him. Again, like the Heat, Durant would see both Pippen and Rodman and Ibaka would be defended by whoever isn't defending Durant. Rodman and Pippen are athletic and long enough to defend Durant well, both are possibly better equipped to defend Durant than anyone else in the league currently.

Spurs - This might be their worst matchup considering Duncan and Parker would be hard for them to check. Parker is likely too fast for even MJ to stay in front of. Duncan would have problems with Rodman on him, but he would still be able to score well enough. Kawhi on MJ sounds not too bad, and the Spurs play such great team ball that anything could happen. They only play each other twice in the regular season.

Everyone else in the NBA would be a relative cake walk for the 96' Bulls.

[guy]

Well...I'm not saying it would be significantly harder, but I do think it would be harder.

Just like saying the 07 Spurs would have a tougher time winning it this year. Doesn't mean they wouldn't or couldn't, but it would be harder.

Yes, determination and effort is probably the most important thing to winning in the regular season if you have talent. Look at the Mavs in 07 and the Cavs in 09. Not that talented, but they came to play hard every single night.

My opinion is basically this;

In todays league, there are more games that a team looking to win 72 could potentially lose even if they come ready to play and play well. It's not a 10 game difference or something. But I do think that if I had to put a number on it, that overall the league today might be 2 to 3 games harder.

I consider significant as worth mentioning and I really don't see how the league "MIGHT" be to 2 to 3 games harder without any solid evidence or examples is really worth mentioning, especially when like I said, competition has alot less to do with how much more difficult it would be then other factors such as determination, durability, etc.

[DMAVS41]

I consider significant as worth mentioning and I really don't see how the league "MIGHT" be to 2 to 3 games harder without any solid evidence or examples is really worth mentioning.

And you are providing nothing by your opinion as your evidence. Why? Because this isn't really a concrete thing.

Look. We disagree. Just leave it at that...unless you really want to go break down each team. My guess...is that we'll come away thinking there are more potential losses in the league today than there were back then.

At this point you are just choosing to argue. You said even 07 to 13 isn't worth mentioning. Which is absurd. So much easier to win the title in 07. That would be worth mentioning. Don't see how it isn't.

[Dragonyeuw]

The 2013 Heat would absolutely slaughter the 96 Sonics.

What about the 2013 Heat and 96 Magic?

[SilkkTheShocker]

What about the 2013 Heat and 96 Magic?

Heat in 6 at most.

[guy]

And you are providing nothing by your opinion as your evidence. Why? Because this isn't really a concrete thing.

Look. We disagree. Just leave it at that...unless you really want to go break down each team. My guess...is that we'll come away thinking there are more potential losses in the league today than there were back then.

At this point you are just choosing to argue. You said even 07 to 13 isn't worth mentioning. Which is absurd. So much easier to win the title in 07. That would be worth mentioning. Don't see how it isn't.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "solid" because you're right, it doesn't need to be concrete since its not a concrete thing. I did provide significant examples like the top 15 players aren't clearly better then the top 15 players back then and the top 8 teams today aren't clearly better then the top 8 teams back then. I provided examples where its hard to argue against.

There's no point of breaking down each team because every game is a potential loss. If it wasn't, then we'd never see bad teams ever beat good teams.

[DMAVS41]

Maybe I shouldn't have said "solid" because you're right, it doesn't need to be concrete since its not a concrete thing. I did provide significant examples like the top 15 players aren't clearly better then the top 15 players back then and the top 8 teams today aren't clearly better then the top 8 teams back then. I provided examples where its hard to argue against.

There's no point of breaking down each team because every game is a potential loss. If it wasn't, then we'd never see bad teams ever beat good teams.

Of course any team can win at any time, but if you are going to discuss the differences between the leagues...then the relative strength of teams matter.

And you just gave your opinion. That is all.

[guy]

Of course any team can win at any time, but if you are going to discuss the differences between the leagues...then the relative strength of teams matter.

And you just gave your opinion. That is all.


Right, I provided my opinion about strength of teams and supported it with examples. I never claimed anything factual. You on the other hand provided nothing like that, didn't refute my examples, and instead just stated thats what you believe and you thought that it was universally accepted.

[DMAVS41]

Right, I provided my opinion about strength of teams and supported it with examples. I never claimed anything factual. You on the other hand provided nothing like that, didn't refute my examples, and instead just stated thats what you believe and you thought that it was universally accepted.

LOL

I disagree with your opinion. You gave the opinion that it isn't worth mentioning. I disagree. You gave your opinion that the best players and teams don't pose any difference. I disagree.

I thought it was obvious that I believed the opposite of you...haha.

[TheCorporation]

The Heat have won 27 in a row, and are only projected to win a total of 68
games, and that's assuming they win out.

The Bulls never even came close to winning 27 in a row, so no, they would not even come close to 82 in a row. Their win streak was too weak to sniff 27.

[Legends66NBA7]

They won't go undefeated but they would be the best team in the league today. Would be fun to watch the Harper-Jordan-Pippen line in today's perimeter friendly rules. Rodman's versatility and Kukoc coming off the bench, they would definitely contend for 60-70+ wins again.

[Anaximandro1]

The best teams from 96 would be equally good today. Magic, Spurs,Sonics, Jazz,Rockets,Pacers would all be upper echelon teams, easily on par with 2013 Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Nuggets. Then you had teams like the Knicks,Hawks,Portland, easily on par with today's middle of the road playoff teams.

Orlando would absolutely destroy today's NBA and they got merked by the Bulls in the playoffs that year.

Magic,Sonics,Spurs,Jazz,Pacers or Rockets would dominate today's NBA

Magic (60-22) Shaq 26/11 Penny 22/7 Scott 17/4 Anderson 15/5 Grant 13/9 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/ORL/1996.html)

Sonics (64-18) Kemp 19/11 Payton 19/7 Schrempf 17/5 Perkins 12/4 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SEA/1996.html)

Spurs (59-23) Robinson 25/12 Elliot 20/5 Avery 13/9 Vinny 14/4 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1996.html)

Jazz (55-27) Malone 25/10 Stockton 15/11 Hornacek 15/4 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/UTA/1996.html)

Pacers (52-30) Miller 21/3 Smits 18/7 Dale Davis 10/9 Jackson 10/8 Mc Key 12/5 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/IND/1996.html)

Rockets (48-34) Hakeem 27/11 Drexler 19/7 Cassell 14/4 Horry 12/6 Elie 11/3 (http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1996.html)

[guy]

LOL

I disagree with your opinion. You gave the opinion that it isn't worth mentioning. I disagree. You gave your opinion that the best players and teams don't pose any difference. I disagree.

I thought it was obvious that I believed the opposite of you...haha.

So you think the top 15 players and top 8 teams between these two eras are significantly different? You can't elaborate on that? I'd like to know why you think that because I don't really see much of a difference.

I don't really see what's so funny? You say something as extreme as a person saying the league was better back then must be nuts or high, I then provide examples and reasoning as to why someone would disagree with that strong of a position, you then just simply disagree with your reasoning being that's what most people think and then you question my intent in this debate, and I'm unreasonable here? :oldlol: sorry I must be in the wrong place cause apparently this isn't an Internet forum.

[juju151111]

LOL

I disagree with your opinion. You gave the opinion that it isn't worth mentioning. I disagree. You gave your opinion that the best players and teams don't pose any difference. I disagree.

I thought it was obvious that I believed the opposite of you...haha.
You make no sense. You won't elaborate on what your talking about. The league in 96 had some great teams. Just because it had a couple of expansion team(one that beat the bulls) doesn't mean anything. Look at the freaking bobcats. They are still horrible

[DMAVS41]

So you think the top 15 players and top 8 teams between these two eras are significantly different? You can't elaborate on that? I'd like to know why you think that because I don't really see much of a difference.

I don't really see what's so funny? You say something as extreme as a person saying the league was better back then must be nuts or high, I then provide examples and reasoning as to why someone would disagree with that strong of a position, you then just simply disagree with your reasoning being that's what most people think and then you question my intent in this debate, and I'm unreasonable here? :oldlol: sorry I must be in the wrong place cause apparently this isn't an Internet forum.

Look. I don't understand what your issue is. I clearly think the league is better now. Quite frankly, I don't really think it should be up for debate. All you have done is make opinion claims no different than mine.

Your claim is...is might be different, but it's not worth noting. I even gave you the 07 year in response to your earlier claim..and your response..."the difference between now and 07 isn't worth mentioning"

So what do you expect me to say after that? I could not disagree more. I think the current league is absolutely more difficult than it was in 07...and as I think more about it, the difference is probably larger than I earlier gave credit to.

So take a moment and calm down and think. If I think the difference between now and 07 was big...and you don't even think it's worth mentioning...then what is the point of going back and forth? We are way too far apart on that alone. So going back 17 years is pointless. You'll mention guys and teams I don't value and you clearly do....

Hence...OPINION. Yes, I do think it is somewhat nuts to claim the league difference between now and 07 isn't worth mentioning...and I feel the same way about now to 96.

You offering your opinion that the 15 best players or teams or whatever you said earlier about no name players that aren't remembered...means nothing to me...and I don't mean that in a mean sense...I would imagine anyone that shares your opinion would think very highly of certain players and teams. Again, I thought that would be obvious.

[97 bulls]

I think Guys point is considering you feel the league is "clearly" better now, and even go so far as to question the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with that opinion, Im kinda baffled as to why you cant back up or elaborate on your opinion Dmavs 41.

[guy]

Look. I don't understand what your issue is. I clearly think the league is better now. Quite frankly, I don't really think it should be up for debate. All you have done is make opinion claims no different than mine.

Your claim is...is might be different, but it's not worth noting. I even gave you the 07 year in response to your earlier claim..and your response..."the difference between now and 07 isn't worth mentioning"

So what do you expect me to say after that? I could not disagree more. I think the current league is absolutely more difficult than it was in 07...and as I think more about it, the difference is probably larger than I earlier gave credit to.

So take a moment and calm down and think. If I think the difference between now and 07 was big...and you don't even think it's worth mentioning...then what is the point of going back and forth? We are way too far apart on that alone. So going back 17 years is pointless. You'll mention guys and teams I don't value and you clearly do....

Dude, I don't have an issue. I'm arguing with you on a message board and asking you to back up your opinions with clear examples, which happens all the time on here, and you seem to be getting sensitive over it and would rather waste your time arguing with me over things that aren't relevant to the topic. How am I the one with the issue?

I don't think the difference between 07 and today is worth mentioning when it comes to the overall strength of the league top to bottom. Today isn't so much more talented then back then. Sure, the top contenders are better today, but really only 1 team is probably better then the 07 champs, and 3 teams are clearly better then the 2nd best team of 07.




Hence...OPINION. Yes, I do think it is somewhat nuts to claim the league difference between now and 07 isn't worth mentioning...and I feel the same way about now to 96.

You offering your opinion that the 15 best players or teams or whatever you said earlier about no name players that aren't remembered...means nothing to me...and I don't mean that in a mean sense...I would imagine anyone that shares your opinion would think very highly of certain players and teams. Again, I thought that would be obvious.

What do you mean it means nothing to you? Is it because you don't have a valid argument against it? Is it because you didn't watch back then and you would rather just rely on what other people have said often? Do you even know who those no name players are? I mean, if you have an argument, its not hard to use it. If you think Lebron>Jordan, Kobe>Hakeem, Durant>Shaq, Wade>Robinson, Howard>Malone, Melo>Barkley, Westbrook>Pippen, 13 Heat> 96 Bulls, 13 Thunder> 96 Sonics, 13 Spurs> 96 Magic, 13 Knicks>96 Knicks, 13 Pacers>96 Pacers, or whatever its okay to say that.

Look, no need to get sensitive. But if you say something like people are nuts or high for thinking a certain way, then someone comes at you respectfully with valid arguments and examples as to why they probably aren't nuts or high, and all you can really respond with is that you disagree while not offering any more depth to your argument, maybe you shouldn't have said something as extreme as someone is nuts or high for thinking 1996 may have been a better league then 2013 in the first place.

[97 bulls]

For the life of me, I cant understand why the people claiming the 90s was watered down cant answer why the Bulls were able to win 55 games in 94. Pre expansion, without Jordan, with A rookie Kukoc.

Why us it so far fetched to say that adding the greatest player ever, and an uograde at the PF spotbin Rodman wouldn't net another 20 wins

[TheBigVeto]

Simple answer in 2 words: **** NO.

[guy]

I think Guys point is considering you feel the league is "clearly" better now, and even go so far as to question the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with that opinion, Im kinda baffled as to why you cant back up or elaborate on your opinion Dmavs 41.

Well put, and exactly what I'm saying. :cheers:

[DMAVS41]

I think Guys point is considering you feel the league is "clearly" better now, and even go so far as to question the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with that opinion, Im kinda baffled as to why you cant back up or elaborate on your opinion Dmavs 41.

My god. I said it early on in this thread and repeatedly. It is my opinion I got from watching in 96 and feeling the competition was kind of weak...and watching this year and thinking the competition is pretty strong.

I even said that "backing it up" would take me to do research I don't want to do.

But there is no difference in someone saying "I think there isn't any difference worth noting"...and me saying there is a difference worth noting. It's not backing it up to make a claim that has to be true if your point is accurate. Meaning...saying that the best players back then were as good as the best players now isn't evidence. It's an opinion that has to be your opinion if you think there is no difference.

And I do question the intelligence of someone saying that the difference between this year and 07 is not worth noting. What is the point of arguing with someone that says that...because I think the difference between 07 and now is actually greater than 96 and now.

[DMAVS41]

Dude, I don't have an issue. I'm arguing with you on a message board and asking you to back up your opinions with clear examples, which happens all the time on here, and you seem to be getting sensitive over it and would rather waste your time arguing with me over things that aren't relevant to the topic. How am I the one with the issue?

I don't think the difference between 07 and today is worth mentioning when it comes to the overall strength of the league top to bottom. Today isn't so much more talented then back then. Sure, the top contenders are better today, but really only 1 team is probably better then the 07 champs, and 3 teams are clearly better then the 2nd best team of 07.




What do you mean it means nothing to you? Is it because you don't have a valid argument against it? Is it because you didn't watch back then and you would rather just rely on what other people have said often? Do you even know who those no name players are? I mean, if you have an argument, its not hard to use it. If you think Lebron>Jordan, Kobe>Hakeem, Durant>Shaq, Wade>Robinson, Howard>Malone, Melo>Barkley, Westbrook>Pippen, 13 Heat> 96 Bulls, 13 Thunder> 96 Sonics, 13 Spurs> 96 Magic, 13 Knicks>96 Knicks, 13 Pacers>96 Pacers, or whatever its okay to say that.

Look, no need to get sensitive. But if you say something like people are nuts or high for thinking a certain way, then someone comes at you respectfully with valid arguments and examples as to why they probably aren't nuts or high, and all you can really respond with is that you disagree while not offering any more depth to your argument, maybe you shouldn't have said something as extreme as someone is nuts or high for thinking 1996 may have been a better league then 2013 in the first place.

I will try to answer this more clearly.

1. I completely disagree with you about 07. The 07 Mavs are not winning 67 games in the league today. It was a down year overall with some of the best players on poor teams. KG, Pierce, Kobe, Lebron (even though he made the finals), Wade, the Pistons were down...etc.

Honestly, when you expressed your take on 07 to now...I lost interest because I don't see how anyone can claim the difference is nothing of note.

2. Now, as I said earlier and have repeatedly, I don't care to "back up" my opinion with evidence because it would take time going back and researching things. I stated my opinion off my take of watching back then and remembering thinking that it was a watered down year. I didn't feel like there were many good teams...some good to great players, but not many great teams...and I lot of bad teams in my opinion. I stated that early on in this thread.

It was 17 years ago and I am not able to rattle off every player on every team. Again...this is exactly why I haven't provided "evidence"...I never intended to and still don't. And have no issue with you saying anything. I am just choosing to not participate in that part of it.

I do have an issue with you claiming that 07 is no different than now...because that is readily accessible in my mind. And I'd be happy to debate that with you as I would nave no need to even think about it.

I do agree with you on the time passing issue. However, I feel like it would have the opposite affect. I could see someone 17 years from now arguing how strong the league this year was because a team with Kobe/Howard/Nash/Gasol could barely make the playoffs and then lost in the first round or some nonsense like that. Like the Rockets...Hakeem was still really good obviously, but the Rockets weren't. I want to say Drexler was hurt, but again I don't remember. But that Rockets team was just not that good. But I can totally see someone who didn't live through that year start talking about how a team with Hakeem and Drexler and Cassell and Horry and Elie or whomever the **** they had...would trounce many teams now. And for anyone that watched the league in 96...they know that the Rockets kind of sucked and got their shit kicked by the Sonics in the playoffs.

It's hard with the time passing to recapture the feeling that, as I said before, was pretty much common at the time in NBA circles...it felt like a weak year.

And by the way, look at the thread title. It alone implies that the league is easier now.

[guy]

I will try to answer this more clearly.

1. I completely disagree with you about 07. The 07 Mavs are not winning 67 games in the league today. It was a down year overall with some of the best players on poor teams. KG, Pierce, Kobe, Lebron (even though he made the finals), Wade, the Pistons were down...etc.

Honestly, when you expressed your take on 07 to now...I lost interest because I don't see how anyone can claim the difference is nothing of note.

2. Now, as I said earlier and have repeatedly, I don't care to "back up" my opinion with evidence because it would take time going back and researching things. I stated my opinion off my take of watching back then and remembering thinking that it was a watered down year. I didn't feel like there were many good teams...some good to great players, but not many great teams...and I lot of bad teams in my opinion. I stated that early on in this thread.

It was 17 years ago and I am not able to rattle off every player on every team. Again...this is exactly why I haven't provided "evidence"...I never intended to and still don't. And have no issue with you saying anything. I am just choosing to not participate in that part of it.

I do have an issue with you claiming that 07 is no different than now...because that is readily accessible in my mind. And I'd be happy to debate that with you as I would nave no need to even think about it.

:oldlol: Dude, it really doesn't take much time to research. It didn't take me much time to put my points together, which means it shouldn't have taken you much time to refute them. You literally wasted more time saying why you didn't do any research and other stuff that wasn't relevant to the topic then it would've taken for you to just do the research and that makes you look kinda ridiculous.

[DMAVS41]

:oldlol: Dude, it really doesn't take much time to research. It didn't take me much time to put my points together, which means it shouldn't have taken you much time to refute them. You literally wasted more time saying why you didn't do any research and other stuff that wasn't relevant to the topic then it would've taken for you to just do the research and that makes you look kinda ridiculous.

It takes me minutes to write these. And you've made no points. You've just expressed your opinion on which teams / players are better. And I already told you I disagree with many of them.

I gave you my take on the Rockets above.

I'll tell you what. I'll take the time to respond in depth if you give me your arguments as to why the league in 07 was as strong as it is today...because I'm in need of some good material to laugh at.

[97 bulls]

For the life of me, I cant understand why the people claiming the 90s was watered down cant answer why the Bulls were able to win 55 games in 94. Pre expansion, without Jordan, with A rookie Kukoc.

Why us it so far fetched to say that adding the greatest player ever, and an uograde at the PF spotbin Rodman wouldn't net another 20 wins

[Rasheed1]

No they wouldnt be undefeated.. Thats ridiculous

There hasnt been an undefeated team, and I doubt there ever will be. 82 games is way too many to be on top of your game every single night.

these threads get dumber every day :facepalm

[DMAVS41]

For the life of me, I cant understand why the people claiming the 90s was watered down cant answer why the Bulls were able to win 55 games in 94. Pre expansion, without Jordan, with A rookie Kukoc.

Why us it so far fetched to say that adding the greatest player ever, and an uograde at the PF spotbin Rodman wouldn't net another 20 wins

I don't understand this post. Wouldn't that be evidence that it was weaker?

[97 bulls]

No they wouldnt be undefeated.. Thats ridiculous

There hasnt been an undefeated team, and I doubt there ever will be. 82 games is way too many to be on top of your game every single night.

these threads get dumber every day :facepalm
Lol true.

[97 bulls]

I don't understand this post. Wouldn't that be evidence that it was weaker?
Or maybe they were just THAT GOOD. Theres a reason they were virtually unbeatable.

I remember a person saying, it woukdve been better fir the Bulls to lose a championship or two. Its sad, but Im starting to believe that.

I think this is just a case of the glass being half full vs half empty

[poido123]

Bulls would go better in this league. Few would be mentally tough enough to overcome the ruthlessness of that 96' Bulls team. Let's see, Bulls main competition Heat, Jordan goes to Wade, Pippen goes to Lebron, and Rodman on sissy Bosh? bahahaha Heat aren't beating that bulls team, Rodman would literally eat up offensive rebound after offensive rebound on that weak ass frontline. Let's not forget Jordan would f**k with Wade's head to the point he would literally call for a wheelchair again.

What young guys on ISH fail to realise is, those Bulls teams didn't just beat you with talent, they had the perfect mix of players to get in your head and take you off your game. You look at the Clippers, they would crumble mentally, only team I would give half a chance to would be the Spurs as they are a well drilled team with tough minded players who have made clutch shots in the big moments with a great coach. The rest of the league would bend over and beg for mercy.

Call me nostalgic and old, however I have watched part of the 80's, right through to this current day and I can tell you that Bulls in 96' would surpass the 72-10 record in today's league. Win every game? no. Any team can get hot one game and win. Sure, there were years like 96 where the competition wasn't as strong, but you could say that about the league today, with the eastern conference weakened significantly. Bulls through the 90's played teams that could also be considered the best in the league now. When I hear the 90's was a watered down league, it is partly true, hwoever there were some awesome teams that Bulls played that would win titles in todays league too.

[juju151111]

I don't understand this post. Wouldn't that be evidence that it was weaker?
How does that make them weaker and can u tell me what your basing 96 being weaker on? Teams records?

[DMAVS41]

Or maybe they were just THAT GOOD. Theres a reason they were virtually unbeatable.

I remember a person saying, it woukdve been better fir the Bulls to lose a championship or two. Its sad, but Im starting to believe that.

I think this is just a case of the glass being half full vs half empty

But I'm not saying that the Bulls wouldn't win 72. I even went out of my way to say exactly what you just did. That the Bulls might have been great enough for it not affect them. Hell, I wouldn't be against the argument that they would win more just off the less physical play alone.

But that doesn't have any bearing on my opinion of the league then to now overall.

[DMAVS41]

How does that make them weaker and can u tell me what your basing 96 being weaker on? Teams records?

I'm not saying it does...but using Pippen's 94 Bulls as evidence of a strong league wouldn't be the way to go. I was just pointing that out.

Can you not read my posts? I've based it on watching the league then and now. The feeling I got in 96 was that is was weak. It was shared by many people back then...and it is shared now. I'm not using that as evidence, but just merely pointing out that it isn't some crazy notion to say that 96 was watered down.

17 years is a long time. And, as I talked about above with the Rockets, that team was just not very good. But I can totally see someone looking back at that team that really didn't pay attention in 96 and go on and on about Hakeem and Clyde and Cassell and Horry....they just weren't very good that year for one reason or another. Similar to the Lakers this year...although not as bad of course. Things like that get lost when this much time passes.

I think this happens to be a strong year competition wise in the NBA. And again, I thought 96 was weak at the time.

[97 bulls]

I don't understand this post. Wouldn't that be evidence that it was weaker?
And another thought, the argument has always been, that the only reason the league was weak was because the talent was diluted. If the Bulls were capable of winning 55 games before expansion in 94, why wouldn't they be able to win 70+ with the GOAT joining them

[atljonesbro]

I hate these threads. No they wouldn't be magically better. The league wasn't as good in the 90s as it is now. They would probably struggle with zone defense.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'm not saying it does...but using Pippen's 94 Bulls as evidence of a strong league wouldn't be the way to go. I was just pointing that out.

Can you not read my posts? I've based it on watching the league then and now. The feeling I got in 96 was that is was weak. It was shared by many people back then...and it is shared now. I'm not using that as evidence, but just merely pointing out that it isn't some crazy notion to say that 96 was watered down.

17 years is a long time. And, as I talked about above with the Rockets, that team was just not very good. But I can totally see someone looking back at that team that really didn't pay attention in 96 and go on and on about Hakeem and Clyde and Cassell and Horry....they just weren't very good that year for one reason or another. Similar to the Lakers this year...although not as bad of course. Things like that get lost when this much time passes.

I think this happens to be a strong year competition wise in the NBA. And again, I thought 96 was weak at the time.

What years, IF ANY, during the decade do you feel were better than today? :confusedshrug:

[DMAVS41]

What years, IF ANY, during the decade do you feel were better than today? :confusedshrug:

Of what decade?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Of what decade?

The 90's.

[DMAVS41]

The 90's.

Nothing 94 on...the early years I'd have to think about.

[The_Yearning]

I'll tell you one thing.... Next years Heat is going for that record and it won't be an expansion year.

I'll tell you one thing... every time subconsciously goes for that record. Who the hell plays to lose? I'll lend you on another secret... they're not beating that record.

[DMAVS41]

And another thought, the argument has always been, that the only reason the league was weak was because the talent was diluted. If the Bulls were capable of winning 55 games before expansion in 94, why wouldn't they be able to win 70+ with the GOAT joining them

The league being a little watered down or weaker does not mean the Bulls still couldn't win 72.

Again...I'm a bit confused as to your point.

[Micku]

I'm not saying it does...but using Pippen's 94 Bulls as evidence of a strong league wouldn't be the way to go. I was just pointing that out.

Can you not read my posts? I've based it on watching the league then and now. The feeling I got in 96 was that is was weak. It was shared by many people back then...and it is shared now. I'm not using that as evidence, but just merely pointing out that it isn't some crazy notion to say that 96 was watered down.

17 years is a long time. And, as I talked about above with the Rockets, that team was just not very good. But I can totally see someone looking back at that team that really didn't pay attention in 96 and go on and on about Hakeem and Clyde and Cassell and Horry....they just weren't very good that year for one reason or another. Similar to the Lakers this year...although not as bad of course. Things like that get lost when this much time passes.

I think this happens to be a strong year competition wise in the NBA. And again, I thought 96 was weak at the time.

You're not wrong. I watched some interviews where they did argued and stated that the league was weak because of the expansion. It still doesn't really take away what the Bulls actually did. They were consistently the best. The following year they won 69 wins and the year after they won 62 wins being old as dirt and Pippen missing half of the season basically.

Will they win 72 wins today? They have a good chance. I think you can argue that it could be tougher or easier. Tougher because the league itself could be better. Easier because the rules gives the perimeter players more space to operate. The bulls don't have a offensive big guy, but they had one of the best rebounders ever, great defense with some good shooters at that time.

[ILLsmak]

Wow, I definitely feel the league is not as good today especially considering all of the injuries.

how many great players are still playing? There are a lot of young buck players that are really talented but aren't really in it. I think a lot of players were prime or closer to prime in 96. The Bulls were destined to win 70 because the league wanted a story. I think they def got some calls.

But that team was good, too. You can't just look at talent. People are more talented these days, but the teams aren't better. Think about the Jazz, great example. They had Karl Malone and Stockton then a bunch of guys who people would say are "below average" starters in today's league. But having someone who is more capable is not the same as having someone who fits/understands his role.

Plenty of terrible teams are doing insanely well this year. The Nuggets, while not being a terrible team... are not really a good team. The Celtics are a terrible team without their best player and without a legit C, yet they are hovering above .500. Then you have teams out there that look like they are trying to lose.

There were more good vets, that's basically what it comes down to. Many of the good vets are really slipping into past prime territory now.

-Smak

[Young X]

They'd definitely go undefeated in the east, that's for sure.

[Legends66NBA7]

They'd definitely go undefeated in the east, that's for sure.

No, I don't think that happens either. They would dominate their conference, but a team from the east would defeat them at least once.

[Nevaeh]

My god. I said it early on in this thread and repeatedly. It is my opinion I got from watching in 96 and feeling the competition was kind of weak...and watching this year and thinking the competition is pretty strong.



That's the catch 22 of being dominant in any particular era. If you're on the "Winning" end of the era, then that era was "weak". However, if you're on the "losing" end of the era, then that era had the "toughest competition". Funny how that works.

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif


With that, this era is weaker to me, by virtue of guys not being allowed to play any real defense, in a league that pretty much coddles players into Super Stardom. Not judging, just calling it like I see it.

[Legends66NBA7]

I hate these threads. No they wouldn't be magically better. The league wasn't as good in the 90s as it is now. They would probably struggle with zone defense.

Zone defense isn't effecting the 96 Bulls. The wing players they have can easily thrive in these playing conditions and zone defenses. Jordan and Pippen would probably doing something similar or even better than what James and Wade are doing in Miami with their transition game and passing. Jordan would also pass out of Zone's or hit them with the mid-range.

Then you have Harper as your PG and Kukoc (who was the 6th man of the year) coming off the bench. I think Kukoc might be the hardest to stop in a zone because of his overall arsenal on offense.

[raprap]

Some of yall are really underrating the talent that the league has now. :facepalm And no, 96 bulls wont go undefeated, they would still win 70 though.

[Graviton]

This year's talent and competition is betetr than anything in the past decade. Next year will be even better with healthy superstars coming back.

Can anyone really name another season in last 10 years that had more quality and quantity?


Before it was just Lakers/Spurs with some Boston teams in 2008-2010. Now you got Heat, Spurs, OKC, Clippers, Denver, Grizzlies all playing at a high level and all with a chance at the Finals. When did we have so many great teams with talent performing so well?

[Micku]

This year's talent and competition is betetr than anything in the past decade. Next year will be even better with healthy superstars coming back.

Can anyone really name another season in last 10 years that had more quality and quantity?


Before it was just Lakers/Spurs with some Boston teams in 2008-2010. Now you got Heat, Spurs, OKC, Clippers, Denver, Grizzlies all playing at a high level and all with a chance at the Finals. When did we have so many great teams with talent performing so well?

I think you are living in the moment too much if you do not believe there were championship contenders in previous years.

In 2009, you had the Cavs, Lakers, Celts, Magic, Rockets and Denver. The Cavs were favored to go to the Finals, but they lost to the Magic in a upset. The Rockets and the Denver gave the Lakers a huge run for their money. And you can't forget the Celts-Bulls series, which was probably the best first round series ever.

In the early 00s, the western conference were more a wild west to win the finals. In this case you would have a point because the east sucked. But the top teams did rocked. You had the Lakers, Kings, Spurs, and Mavs were usually at the top of the food chain. The Wolves cracked in there for a year, Portland and the Jazz were always contending and shouldn't be slept upon depending on the year.


There have always been championship contending teams. But the difference is that the East got soo much better than the early 00s.

[Overdrive]

This year's talent and competition is betetr than anything in the past decade. Next year will be even better with healthy superstars coming back.

Can anyone really name another season in last 10 years that had more quality and quantity?


Before it was just Lakers/Spurs with some Boston teams in 2008-2010. Now you got Heat, Spurs, OKC, Clippers, Denver, Grizzlies all playing at a high level and all with a chance at the Finals. When did we have so many great teams with talent performing so well?

And '96 just had the Bulls?

[Kovach]

Maybe, maybe not.

All I know is that the league was not as good then as it is now. Maybe the Bulls were still good enough to win 72 today, but they would have had a harder time.

My point was that it would just be dishonest for anyone to claim that the competition isn't better today.
Not really, worst teams of the 96 season are still stronger than the worst teams now.

[Doctor Rivers]

Bulls would go better in this league. Few would be mentally tough enough to overcome the ruthlessness of that 96' Bulls team. Let's see, Bulls main competition Heat, Jordan goes to Wade, Pippen goes to Lebron, and Rodman on sissy Bosh? bahahaha Heat aren't beating that bulls team, Rodman would literally eat up offensive rebound after offensive rebound on that weak ass frontline. Let's not forget Jordan would f**k with Wade's head to the point he would literally call for a wheelchair again.

What young guys on ISH fail to realise is, those Bulls teams didn't just beat you with talent, they had the perfect mix of players to get in your head and take you off your game. You look at the Clippers, they would crumble mentally, only team I would give half a chance to would be the Spurs as they are a well drilled team with tough minded players who have made clutch shots in the big moments with a great coach. The rest of the league would bend over and beg for mercy.

Call me nostalgic and old, however I have watched part of the 80's, right through to this current day and I can tell you that Bulls in 96' would surpass the 72-10 record in today's league. Win every game? no. Any team can get hot one game and win. Sure, there were years like 96 where the competition wasn't as strong, but you could say that about the league today, with the eastern conference weakened significantly. Bulls through the 90's played teams that could also be considered the best in the league now. When I hear the 90's was a watered down league, it is partly true, hwoever there were some awesome teams that Bulls played that would win titles in todays league too.

you are nostalgic and old

LeBron (2013) > second three-peat Jordan

[Kovach]

Wow, interesting. Only two maybe three of Toronto's starters could be in this league. At that was with Jordan and Kukoc having very good games. But that had to be a let down game.
All of them could be, assuming we are talking about a bit younger version of Robertson. Miller, Tabak and Rogers if nothing else get in because of the lack of bigs, and the first two were pretty decent ones. Murray was beasting in the late 90's, he dropped 50 once and Damon was by no means a worse player than Wall or Irving. Oh, and their 2nd bench player was a starter for the title contender 10 years ago, if you remember.

[guy]

It takes me minutes to write these. And you've made no points. You've just expressed your opinion on which teams / players are better. And I already told you I disagree with many of them.

I've made several points. I've made the point that the top 15 players and top 8 teams were arguably better in 1996 then they are today. Sure, its an opinion, but its a valid opinion until someone can provide a valid case that there should be no argument at all. You clearly haven't done that, and for the most part would rather just argue with me over nonsense. Unless someone can make a valid case that the top players, top teams, or other factors are inarguably better today then they were in 96, its moronic to suggest that today is so much better then 96 to the point that someone having the opposite opinion must be crazy or on drugs.



I gave you my take on the Rockets above.

Yes, finally you've brought some substance. I definitely don't think they were as bad as you make them out to be, and I would consider them contenders that year, just not one of the top contenders. They just suffered from alot of injuries that year with basically every significant player they had missing some time due to injuries, and they also ended up losing all 8 games they had vs. the 3 top teams, who were clearly great teams. I'd probably say they're about on the level of the Pacers or Knicks of this year who are probably one of the top 8 contenders this year, with a good chance of beating any team on any given night.



I'll tell you what. I'll take the time to respond in depth if you give me your arguments as to why the league in 07 was as strong as it is today...because I'm in need of some good material to laugh at.

I never said it was as strong. I'm pretty sure I was the one that brought up it wasn't as strong. I can argue why I don't think there's such a huge gap like you make it out to be.

Lets see here, as far as top talent goes, I don't see how Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Wade, Howard, CP3, Rondo, Westbrook, Harden, Melo, Bosh, Chandler, Z-Bo, Parker, Griffin, Curry, Noah, Kyrie, Love of today is so much better then Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Nash, Kidd, Shaq, Yao, T-Mac, AI, Melo, Vince, Gilbert, Howard, Baron, Parker, Ginobili, Amare of 2007.

As far as top teams go, sure clearly its more top heavy today then it was back then. But I'd say only 3 teams today in place of the 2007 Spurs would definitely win it all and thats the Heat, Thunder, and Spurs, and only 1 team would most likely win it all if they were in place of the 2nd best team in 2007, IMO the 2007 Suns, and thats the Heat.

Either way, top teams are much better. However, this isn't just about the top teams, but the overall strength of the league from top to bottom. IMO the worst teams today are really bad. In 07, there was only 3 teams that won less then 30 games. Today, there's 8 teams on pace to win less then 30 games. Now, you can say that its just all relative to the competition, but I'm not sure thats all there is to it. In 07, the bad teams were the Celtics, Bucks, and Grizzlies, which at least had all-star level players like Pierce, Redd, and Gasol. Today, out of the 8 teams, the Cavs have Kyrie and Wolves have Love , but I'm sure alot of people couldn't even name a player on the Pistons, Bobcats, Magic, Suns, Hornets, or Kings. They're that bad. Thats why I don't think there's some huge difference. While the top teams are much better, the talent in 07 was spread across the league much more evenly then it is today, so top to bottom, I wouldn't say there's a significant difference.

Now can we get back on topic?

[CeltsGarlic]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/F-Yo-Thread.gif

[DMAVS41]

I've made several points. I've made the point that the top 15 players and top 8 teams were arguably better in 1996 then they are today. Sure, its an opinion, but its a valid opinion until someone can provide a valid case that there should be no argument at all. You clearly haven't done that, and for the most part would rather just argue with me over nonsense. Unless someone can make a valid case that the top players, top teams, or other factors are inarguably better today then they were in 96, its moronic to suggest that today is so much better then 96 to the point that someone having the opposite opinion must be crazy or on drugs.



Yes, finally you've brought some substance. I definitely don't think they were as bad as you make them out to be, and I would consider them contenders that year, just not one of the top contenders. They just suffered from alot of injuries that year with basically every significant player they had missing some time due to injuries, and they also ended up losing all 8 games they had vs. the 3 top teams, who were clearly great teams. I'd probably say they're about on the level of the Pacers or Knicks of this year who are probably one of the top 8 contenders this year, with a good chance of beating any team on any given night.



I never said it was as strong. I'm pretty sure I was the one that brought up it wasn't as strong. I can argue why I don't think there's such a huge gap like you make it out to be.

Lets see here, as far as top talent goes, I don't see how Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Wade, Howard, CP3, Rondo, Westbrook, Harden, Melo, Bosh, Chandler, Z-Bo, Parker, Griffin, Curry, Noah, Kyrie, Love of today is so much better then Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Duncan, KG, Dirk, Nash, Kidd, Shaq, Yao, T-Mac, AI, Melo, Vince, Gilbert, Howard, Baron, Parker, Ginobili, Amare of 2007.

As far as top teams go, sure clearly its more top heavy today then it was back then. But I'd say only 3 teams today in place of the 2007 Spurs would definitely win it all and thats the Heat, Thunder, and Spurs, and only 1 team would most likely win it all if they were in place of the 2nd best team in 2007, IMO the 2007 Suns, and thats the Heat.

Either way, top teams are much better. However, this isn't just about the top teams, but the overall strength of the league from top to bottom. IMO the worst teams today are really bad. In 07, there was only 3 teams that won less then 30 games. Today, there's 8 teams on pace to win less then 30 games. Now, you can say that its just all relative to the competition, but I'm not sure thats all there is to it. In 07, the bad teams were the Celtics, Bucks, and Grizzlies, which at least had all-star level players like Pierce, Redd, and Gasol. Today, out of the 8 teams, the Cavs have Kyrie and Wolves have Love , but I'm sure alot of people couldn't even name a player on the Pistons, Bobcats, Magic, Suns, Hornets, or Kings. They're that bad. Thats why I don't think there's some huge difference. While the top teams are much better, the talent in 07 was spread across the league much more evenly then it is today, so top to bottom, I wouldn't say there's a significant difference.

Now can we get back on topic?


This is my exact point. Why get back on topic about something 17 years ago when we can't even remotely agree about something a handful of years ago.

You thought the Rockets were contenders. Well...I didn't...I thought they would get rocked...and they did. See, that is the exact reason why I don't want to go down this road...like you said, time changes things. You see Hakeem and Drexler and go...Wow! But that team just wasn't very good and people knew it that year.

Back to 07 to now. The difference? Almost all of the best players outside a few are on better teams. You had a ton of stars on poor teams like I said before. You had a Mavs team winning 67 games and then losing to the Warriors...and then that Warriors team getting trounced by the Jazz. Hell, as bad as the Lakers are this year...they are still more formidable than they were in 07.

The best players are either better or on better teams for the most part...and the competition with teams that aren't elite are better as well. And it is relative to the competition...the best teams are better today and there are more of them. So of course that is going to impact the records of the worst teams. Even if we say there were only 3 terrible teams back then and we say there are 8 terrible teams now. That still wouldn't make up the difference when comparing teams like the 07 Jazz to the current Thunder, Grizzlies, Clippers, Nuggets, Spurs. Wade and Shaq were hurt all year pretty much. There weren't any good teams in the East...so the wins were spread around, but that isn't an indication of a bunch of average to good teams...it's an indication of literally no good teams at all. The Pistons, Cavs, and Raptors were just not very good. In fact, the current Heat, Knicks, Pacers, and Nets are all better than any team in the East in 07. Maybe the Cavs back then were better than the Nets...maybe the Pistons as well, but I'd probably take the Nets in a playoff series. And then you have teams like the Celtics, Hawks, and Bulls that are all decent and better than the comparable teams in the East in 07. Just don't see the argument really.

So I ask again. What is the point of discussing this stuff when I think the league is clearly better today than it was in 07...and you don't think it's worth mentioning? Then you want to go back 17 years? And just like I thought...you claim the Rockets were contenders...and I didn't think they were at all at the time. That is point...it's useless going back and forth because all we are going to do is tell each other we are wrong and it's going to be far too based on opinion with that much time passing. That is why I said earlier that I thought all of it was just obvious that I don't think the teams and players were as good back then. And it's obvious you think they were as good or better. Otherwise we would have different opinions.

07 was clearly a down year for the NBA in terms of overall competitiveness both in the regular season and playoffs imo. And anyone that thinks there was no difference worth mentioning just sees the game much different than me and debating it is useless.