Printable View
Who wins in a best of 7 series?
[img]https://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SonicsBulls_Playoff2-780x495.jpg[/img]
[img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/SaJGev9J6l8IAyI7bpTzNW0SXTI=/0x0:2738x1825/1200x800/filters:focal(1150x694:1588x1132)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/68793458/usa_today_15543758.0.jpg[/img]
The 1996 Supersonics were an underrated team, they could beat the 2018 Warriors(not 2017 but 2018 surely). They lost to the Bulls so many people dont remember how good they were, while the 2018 Warriors defeated the Cavs so they were remembered as one of the best teams in the league history.
Sonics shutdown/contained Jordan. Do you think they would be scared of somebody like Donovan Mitchell? With Payton and Kemp plus great depth that is a team that could have adapted against any style of play.
what rules are they playing with?
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14280529]what rules are they playing with?[/QUOTE]
Current rules
The one that doesn't come from the watered-down era.
[QUOTE=Lebron23;14280531]Current rules[/QUOTE]
Jazz
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14280554]Jazz[/QUOTE]
Perkins, Payton, Schrempf, Hawkins, and McMillan could all shoot the 3. Why would would Utah win under the current rules, especially when Payton can neutralize Mitchell and Kemp on Gobert?
[QUOTE=Kiddlovesnets;14280521]The 1996 Supersonics were an underrated team, they could beat the 2018 Warriors(not 2017 but 2018 surely). They lost to the Bulls so many people dont remember how good they were, while the 2018 Warriors defeated the Cavs so they were remembered as one of the best teams in the league history.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there's any difference between the 2017 and 2018 Warriors, really. The difference in reality is that the 2018 Warriors faced a better team in the Rockets, but that's about it.
Kemp and Payton will be the two best players on the court so I'd go with them
The Sonics' third (or maybe fourth) best player outscored Michael in one of the Finals games.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14280605]Perkins, Payton, Schrempf, Hawkins, and McMillan could all shoot the 3. Why would would Utah win under the current rules, especially when Payton can neutralize Mitchell and Kemp on Gobert?[/QUOTE]
Payton won't be able to touch anyone like he used to. He can bark at them all he wants. Payton and Kemp will be left open. They'd have to make Utah pay
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14280643]Payton won't be able to touch anyone like he used to. He can bark at them all he wants. Payton and Kemp will be left open. They'd have to make Utah pay[/QUOTE]
It's interesting you mention that. I remember Chris Carter having a debate with Nick Wright about MJs defense, hand checking, and LeBron. Nick Wright proceeded to claim that "LeBron would have been allowed to hand check, too!!!" CC responded by saying that MJ was a great defender because he was great defensively, not because of hand checking.
The same with GP. GP had great instincts and an overall defensive IQ. A guy like Derek Harper was great defensively [I]because[/I] of hand checking. Harper used to squeeze the waist of those he was defending at times and was really annoying to have to deal with. I remember Matt Guokas talking about it in the 1994 finals where he identified Harper as one of those guys who had David Stern and the league talking about eliminating hand checking.
Harper was a great defender by being allowed to touch his opponents, but probably just a good defender without it. GP was just great, period.
The Sonics would get buried under endless threes.
They would have never seen anything like what the Jazz would do against them in terms of taking 43 threes per game and making 40% of them.
I think they would be literally stunned and get blown out. They would need more time than a series offers in order to figure out how to defeat that.
They would need to advance through the league's 25 years of evolution over 7 games and I don't see that happening.
The sonics had 3pt shooters themselves but I am sure if you just let them timetravel with no practice, no preparation, no background and the rules explained during the last minute, the Jazz will obliterate the Sonics.
[QUOTE=light;14282362]The Sonics would get buried under endless threes.
They would have never seen anything like what the Jazz would do against them in terms of taking 43 threes per game and making 40% of them.
I think they would be literally stunned and get blown out. They would need more time than a series offers in order to figure out how to defeat that.[/QUOTE]
This is a good point. Do these teams from the past have any time to prepare or study film of their opponent? Forget the rule changes, if you just throw the '96 Sonics into the league today, they would be absolutely floored by how many 3's their opponent took, it'd be incomprehensible to them
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14282308]It's interesting you mention that. I remember Chris Carter having a debate with Nick Wright about MJs defense, hand checking, and LeBron. Nick Wright proceeded to claim that "LeBron would have been allowed to hand check, too!!!" CC responded by saying that MJ was a great defender because he was great defensively, not because of hand checking.
The same with GP. GP had great instincts and an overall defensive IQ. A guy like Derek Harper was great defensively [I]because[/I] of hand checking. Harper used to squeeze the waist of those he was defending at times and was really annoying to have to deal with. I remember Matt Guokas talking about it in the 1994 finals where he identified Harper as one of those guys who had David Stern and the league talking about eliminating hand checking.
Harper was a great defender by being allowed to touch his opponents, but probably just a good defender without it. GP was just great, period.[/QUOTE]
Sure they would probably still be great but defensive players are at the mercy of offensive players today. He wouldn't be as effective. The rules don't allow it
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14280605]Perkins, Payton, Schrempf, Hawkins, and McMillan could all shoot the 3. Why would would Utah win under the current rules, especially when Payton can neutralize Mitchell and Kemp on Gobert?[/QUOTE]
Payton .328
Schrempf .408
Hawkins .384
Perkins .355
McMillan .380
Askew .337
Kemp (garpbage)
An era where they only shot when they were WIDE Open against...
Mitchell .399
Oneale .414
Bogey .384
Conley .421
Ingles .491
Niang .395
Clarkson .352
Oni .388
Ummm...yeah definitely Utah
To those who think the Jazz would win how about we give the Sonics a season to familiarize with the rules and style of play before they battle in a playoff series, who wins then?
Or do you guys really think spamming pick and rolls, dribble drives, drive and kick etc enroute to threes is such an advanced tactic that nobody from past eras would figure it out lol.
Those Sonics would be handicapped defensively but it would still be the best defense the Jazz will face in the whole Nba anchored by arguably the goat perimeter defender in Payton, all defense guy in Nate Mcmillan, Hersey Hawkins and with Kemp protecting the paint.
[QUOTE=Callystarr;14282504]Payton .328
Schrempf .408
Hawkins .384
Perkins .355
McMillan .380
Askew .337
Kemp (garpbage)
An era where they only shot when they were WIDE Open against...
Mitchell .399
Oneale .414
Bogey .384
Conley .421
Ingles .491
Niang .395
Clarkson .352
Oni .388
Ummm...yeah definitely Utah[/QUOTE]
3 guys shoot it good. The others would be left wide open Ricky Rubio style. They might crash the offensive glass like teams did then and the Jazz would be able to run. They'd struggle in the half court without those 2nd chances and get killed in transition without them. They'd get some points in transition because the Jazz give that up anyway going for extras offensive boards themselves. Now the Sonics would have to chase guys around the perimeter like they've never done before. Kemp might do alright on Gobert at the rim actually. Payton and McMillan on Conley and Mitchell might be ok though they've never had to guard anyone pulling up for 3's from anywhere anytime or seen a Eurostep or step back or a crossover that would have been illegal then. Others would be open. Seattle would have to hope some guys are missing shots
[QUOTE=light;14282362]The Sonics would get buried under endless threes.
They would have never seen anything like what the Jazz would do against them in terms of taking 43 threes per game and making 40% of them.
I think they would be literally stunned and get blown out. They would need more time than a series offers in order to figure out how to defeat that.
They would need to advance through the league's 25 years of evolution over 7 games and I don't see that happening.[/QUOTE]
It's amazing how fans like yourself give no credit to teams in the 90s based on such logic. What makes you think that the Nets would drain threes, but Seattle wouldn't? Seattle shot 36% in 1996 from deep, albeit with a shortened line.
But here's the thing; in 1998, Seattle led the league in 3 point shooting at [B]40%[/B], with the [I]regular[/I] line. Here are some of the guys who were on the '96 team and their three point percentages in 1998.
[U]1998 Sonics
[/U]
[B]Payton: 34%
Hawkins: 42%
Schrempf: 42%
McMillan: 44%
Perkins: 39%[/B]
So there's no reason to believe that the '96 team doesn't get to shoot threes at an insane rate when they literally shot at a similar clip just two seasons later.
What goes for one team, goes for the other. If you relax perimeter rules, then Seattle gets to benefit from it, also.
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14282368]Sure they would probably still be great but defensive players are at the mercy of offensive players today. He wouldn't be as effective. The rules don't allow it[/QUOTE]
So why has Kawhi been effective? GP's instincts are very much similar, as was his basketball IQ. Remember how GP would guard guys like Iverson in the late 90s? Or even Kobe? His instincts were unmatched. Quite frankly, there are very few that were as good with perimeter defense as he was. Kawhi is one of them.
Since GP's time, only Tony Allen and Kawhi remind me of him as far as defensive instincts and defensive IQ are concerned on the perimeter.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14282659]It's amazing how fans like yourself give no credit to teams in the 90s based on such logic. What makes you think that the Nets would drain threes, but Seattle wouldn't? Seattle shot 36% in 1996 from deep, albeit with a shortened line.
But here's the thing; in 1998, Seattle led the league in 3 point shooting at [B]40%[/B], with the [I]regular[/I] line. Here are some of the guys who were on the '96 team and their three point percentages in 1998.
[U]1998 Sonics
[/U]
[B]Payton: 34%
Hawkins: 42%
Schrempf: 42%
McMillan: 44%
Perkins: 39%[/B]
So there's no reason to believe that the '96 team doesn't get to shoot threes at an insane rate when they literally shot at a similar clip just two seasons later.
What goes for one team, goes for the other. If you relax perimeter rules, then Seattle gets to benefit from it, also.[/QUOTE]
36% would be inefficient by today's standards though. When they shot 40% they were no where near the volumome of attempts of today. Payton would be left alone like he was Ricky Rubio
Toody would be helpless against Shawn Kemp.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14282661]So why has Kawhi been effective? GP's instincts are very much similar, as was his basketball IQ. Remember how GP would guard guys like Iverson in the late 90s? Or even Kobe? His instincts were unmatched. Quite frankly, there are very few that were as good with perimeter defense as he was. Kawhi is one of them.
Since GP's time, only Tony Allen and Kawhi remind me of him as far as defensive instincts and defensive IQ are concerned on the perimeter.[/QUOTE]
He might still be a great defender but he would still be at a disadvantage like all defensive players are in today's game. He couldn't get up on someone. They'd throw their arms into him for a foul
[QUOTE=RRR3;14282674]Toody would be helpless against Shawn Kemp.[/QUOTE]
Why is that? He wouldn't be shooting 3's. Rudy would be near the paint. Please explain your thinking if there is such a thing?
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14282677]Why is that? He wouldn't be shooting 3's. Rudy would be near the paint. Please explain your thinking if there is such a thing?[/QUOTE]
I’ve noticed Toody is helpless with all skilled big men.
[QUOTE=RRR3;14282683]I’ve noticed Toody is helpless with all skilled big men.[/QUOTE]
but you notice a lot of things that aren't true. Maybe you should see a doctor about that? The Trump virus is supposed to give people head issues
No sure I'd call Kemp that skilled. He was a great athlete
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14282672]36% would be inefficient by today's standards though. When they shot 40% they were no where near the volumome of attempts of today. Payton would be left alone like he was Ricky Rubio[/QUOTE]
Seattle shot .364% in 1996. The league average today is .367%. How is that "inefficient"? Furthermore, they shot 40% in 1998, which led the league, with no shortened line. Utah is 2nd in the league this year in three point shooting, but they were 2nd in the league last year, too. How did that fair them in the playoffs?
To make it seem like they would beat the Sonics off of the strength of that alone is quite odd, especially when Seattle has their own share of shooters.
As far as volume is concerned, History has shown us otherwise. Players shoot more threes as seasons went on and their three point percentages actually improved. It happened with Bird, MJ, Magic, etc. Why wouldn't it happen with the Sonics?
It happened with LeBron, Embiid, and even guys like Rondo. Rondo's first [B]9[/B] seasons in the league, he averaged [B]0.8[/B] attempts and shot [B]26%[/B]. The last [B]6[/B] seasons, he's averaging [B]2.3[/B] attempts and shooting [B]35%[/B]. Coincidence?
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14282692]Seattle shot .364% in 1996. The league average today is .367%. How is that "inefficient"? Furthermore, they shot 40% in 1998, which led the league, with no shortened line. Utah is 2nd in the league this year in three point shooting, but they were 2nd in the league last year, too. How did that fair them in the playoffs?
To make it seem like they would beat the Sonics off of the strength of that alone is quite odd, especially when Seattle has their own share of shooters.
As far as volume is concerned, History has shown us otherwise. Players shoot more threes as seasons went on and their three point percentages actually improved. It happened with Bird, MJ, Magic, etc. Why wouldn't it happen with the Sonics?
It happened with LeBron, Embiid, and even guys like Rondo. Rondo's first [B]9[/B] seasons in the league, he averaged [B]0.8[/B] attempts and shot [B]26%[/B]. The last [B]6[/B] seasons, he's averaging [B]2.3[/B] attempts and shooting [B]35%[/B]. Coincidence?[/QUOTE]
The top teams are near 40% including Utah. Seattle vs Utah remember?
Jazz lost in the playoffs because of defense. They are top 3 at defense this year. It's not the only reason they would beat them. The Jazz team is designed for today's game. Seattle was designed for their time. It the Jazz go back to '96 they probably lose though their best player Gobert would be even more equipped for that time. Seattle starts hunting 3's I can't imagine their % going up. I'd guess most of their 3's were wide open at that time
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14282695]The top teams are near 40% including Utah. Seattle vs Utah remember?
Jazz lost in the playoffs because of defense. They are top 3 at defense this year. It's not the only reason they would beat them. The Jazz team is designed for today's game. Seattle was designed for their time. It the Jazz go back to '96 they probably lose though their best player Gobert would be even more equipped for that time. Seattle starts hunting 3's I can't imagine their % going up.[/QUOTE]
But why wouldn't Seattle's 3's go up when that appears to be the general trend across time? Just look at three point shooting historically. It has improved over time as volume as gone up.
[QUOTE]I'd guess most of their 3's were wide open at that time[/QUOTE]
And Utah's percentages aren't reflective of similar? Look at the contested shot breakdown for some of their shooters
[U]0-2 Feet (Very Tight)
[/U]
O'Neale: 0%
Conley: 0%
Mitchell: 0%
Ingles: 100%
Clarkson: 33%
[U]2-4 Feet (Tight)
[/U]
O'Neale: 33%
Conley: 29%
Ingles: 25%
Mitchell: 32%
Clarkson: 33%
[U]4-6 Feet (Open)
[/U]
O'Neal: [B]36%[/B]
Conley: [B]34%[/B]
Ingles: [B]53%[/B]
Mitchell: [B]36%[/B]
Clarkson: [B]36%[/B]
[U]6+ Feet (Wide Open)
[/U]
O'Neale: [B]42%[/B]
Conley: [B]50%[/B]
Ingles: [B]50%[/B]
Mitchell: [B]49%[/B]
Clarkson: [B]37%[/B]
Now look at the frequency of attempts from each category ([I]Very Tight, Tight, Open, Wide Open[/I])
O'Neal: 0.4%, 1.2%, 4.3%, [B]67%[/B]
Conley: 0.4%, 3.1%, [B]21.7%[/B], [B]27.2%[/B]
Ingles: 0.3%, 6.2%, [B]28.0%[/B], [B]37.1%[/B]
Mitchell: 0.6%, 6.5%, [B]18.7%[/B], [B]17.0%[/B]
Clarkson: 1.3%, 15.6%, [B]23.1%[/B] [B]17.8%[/B]
Look at the data. What does this tell you? These guys are shooting the majority of their shots wide open+ and their best percentages, by far, come in those situations. In fact, their shots being contested at a very tight level is almost non-existent.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14282732]But why wouldn't Seattle's 3's go up when that appears to be the general trend across time? Just look at three point shooting historically. It has improved over time as volume as gone up.
And Utah's percentages aren't reflective of similar? Look at the contested shot breakdown for some of their shooters
[U]0-2 Feet (Very Tight)
[/U]
O'Neale: 0%
Conley: 0%
Mitchell: 0%
Ingles: 100%
Clarkson: 33%
[U]2-4 Feet (Tight)
[/U]
O'Neale: 33%
Conley: 29%
Ingles: 25%
Mitchell: 32%
Clarkson: 33%
[U]4-6 Feet (Open)
[/U]
O'Neal: [B]36%[/B]
Conley: [B]34%[/B]
Ingles: [B]53%[/B]
Mitchell: [B]36%[/B]
Clarkson: [B]36%[/B]
[U]6+ Feet (Wide Open)
[/U]
O'Neale: [B]42%[/B]
Conley: [B]50%[/B]
Ingles: [B]50%[/B]
Mitchell: [B]49%[/B]
Clarkson: [B]37%[/B]
Now look at the frequency of attempts from each category ([I]Very Tight, Tight, Open, Wide Open[/I])
O'Neal: 0.4%, 1.2%, 4.3%, [B]67%[/B]
Conley: 0.4%, 3.1%, [B]21.7%[/B], [B]27.2%[/B]
Ingles: 0.3%, 6.2%, [B]28.0%[/B], [B]37.1%[/B]
Mitchell: 0.6%, 6.5%, [B]18.7%[/B], [B]17.0%[/B]
Clarkson: 1.3%, 15.6%, [B]23.1%[/B] [B]17.8%[/B]
Look at the data. What does this tell you? These guys are shooting the majority of their shots wide open+ and their best percentages, by far, comes in those situations. In fact, their shots being contested at a very tight level is almost non-existent.[/QUOTE]
Yes they are wide open thanks to their big man that supposedly sucks! Seattle has 3 good shooters. Even if they do shoot them at the same % on higher volume they will be easier to guard than 4 out. Their best players Payton and Kemp will be left to shoot or challenge Gobert.
Looking at their attempts by category, the following spread is a percentage of either Wide Open or Very Wide Open three point attempts.
O'Neale: 98%
Conley: 92%
Ingles: 91%
Mitchell: 84%
Clarkson: 71%
Yet Utah isn't shooting wide open threes?
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14282741]Looking at their attempts by category, the following spread is a percentage of either Wide Open or Very Wide Open three point attempts.
O'Neale: 98%
Conley: 92%
Ingles: 91%
Mitchell: 84%
Clarkson: 71%
Yet Utah isn't shooting wide open threes?[/QUOTE]
yes they are because of their elite big. Seattle with only 3 good 3 point shooters wouldn't have that spacing. Everyone else would be left open
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14282755]yes they are because of their elite big. Seattle with only 3 good 3 point shooters wouldn't have that spacing. Everyone else would be left open[/QUOTE]
Wait, what? So Gobert's massive post dominance (sarcasm) is the catalyst for their wide open threes? He's kicking out the ball to so many open teammates who are draining threes, yet he's averaging [B]1.2 assists[/B]?
Yet Shawn Kemp, who was a superior post player and passer, wouldn't get the ball out to his shooters?
I've seen you debate in several threads, and I think you're highly intelligent. But this topic has declined on your end. None of what you're saying is adding up, or maybe I'm just completely misinterpreting you?
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14282766]Wait, what? So Gobert's massive post dominance (sarcasm) is the catalyst for their wide open threes? He's kicking out the ball to so many open teammates who are draining threes, yet he's averaging [B]1.2 assists[/B]?
Yet Shawn Kemp, who was a superior post player and passer, wouldn't get the ball out to his shooters?
I've seen you debate in several threads, and I think you're highly intelligent. But this topic has declined on your end. None of what you're saying is adding up, or maybe I'm just completely misinterpreting you?[/QUOTE]
Gobert is a top roll threat and the best screener in the game. You can stop him from dunking or you can stop them from shooting 3's. Hard to stop both. So yes he's a big reason they get a lot of open 3's between his screens and his rim running. Sure Kemp could try to get it to the 3 shooters that the Jazz would consider a threat but more likely it's going to someone open that isn't a great threat from 3. I saw this plenty when Rubio and Favors were spotting up in the corner instead of someone that could shoot.
[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14282801]Gobert is a top roll threat and the best screener in the game. You can stop him from dunking or you can stop them from shooting 3's. Hard to stop both. So yes he's a big reason they get a lot of open 3's between his screens and his rim running. Sure Kemp could try to get it to the 3 shooters that the Jazz would consider a threat but more likely it's going to someone open that isn't a great threat from 3. I saw this plenty when Rubio and Favors were spotting up in the corner instead of someone that could shoot.[/QUOTE]
Your arguments are descending from bad to worse. How do you draw comparisons with Seattle's top shooters like Hawkins, Schrempf, or McMillan, with guys like Rubio or Favors?
Favors isn't a three point shooter and barely has any volume, shooting 21% with Utah from the distance career-wise. Rubio with Utah in his career shot 32%.
You're gonna compare those guys to someone like Hersey Hawkins who shot the three at an almost 40% mark for his career? Heck, in 1998 when Seattle led the league in three point shooting, GP shot 34%.
You don't see the flaws in your arguments? We've heard so far in this thread, from numerous posters, that:
1) Seattle can't shoot threes (evidence suggested otherwise)
2) Seattle only shot wide open threes (evidence shows that's exactly what Utah does)
3) Gobert is an elite big man (but Kemp wasn't?)
4) Seattle couldn't guard them on the perimeter (despite explaining how GP was a great defender regardless of hand checking)
5) Seattle's shooters compare to Rubio and Favors (evidence clearly showed otherwise)
All are debunked, yet you're still holding onto this weak premise. I don't understand why.