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

[QUOTE=tmacattack33]A little less. Maybe 68 wins.

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

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

[URL="http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603240TOR.html"]not that I agree/disagree, but....[/URL]

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

Again, one of the Bulls [B]LOSSES[/B] was to the Raptors who were an expansion team

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]65-67 wins. They won't be able to dominate with their perimeter defense like they did in '96 because of all the rule changes and guards in general are better now. The NBA now is stronger than it was during the mid 90's - mid 00's.[/QUOTE]
Again. How would the rule changes hurt the 96 Bulls? I see no reason why they wouldnt be able to adjust just like every other player. And they would be able to move freely on defense because they would have to worry about illegal defense.

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=97 bulls]For all intents and purposes, essentially that same team won won 55 games without Jordan. Thats hardly luck[/QUOTE]
They weren't going to do that in 1995, though when teams were prepared for them.

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

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

[quote=1987_Lakers]I also think with the 3 point line a bit farther now than it was in 1996 will hurt the Bulls.[/quote]
It made no difference in their first three peat, or in 1998?

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=lilgodfather1]Zone defense would be the key here.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet 4 months later:

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

[url]http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2012/05/29/celtics-zone/[/url][/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Money 23]


It made no difference in their first three peat, or in 1998?[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=KOBE143]You're comparing two teams in a different era.. :facepalm Im referring to the competition dumbass.. Today competition is far better and tougher than in the water down 90s.. That doesnt mean that the knicks are better than the 96 bulls..[/QUOTE]

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

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

[QUOTE=lilgodfather1] Make Pip/Jordan shoot outside jumpers, and you will win the game. Of course that sounds incredibly simple, but it obviously wasn't/wouldn't be. [/QUOTE]

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

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

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

[QUOTE=lilgodfather1]Didn't say he wasn't did I? If I did can you point it out for me...

You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers]They won't be able to dominate with their perimeter defense like they did in '96 because of all the rule changes and guards in general are better now. T[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

Best guess? 70-76?

[QUOTE=KOBE143]Between 50-55 wins.. Actually there's no competition for them that time and today teams are far better than team in the 90s.. Even the Wizards can easily make the playoff in the 90s.. That's how shitty their competition was..[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=lilgodfather1]Didn't say he wasn't did I? If I did can you point it out for me...

You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.[/QUOTE]

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

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

Second of all :oldlol:

'95 - '99 was stronger than 2000 - 2005

68-72 and would win the title.

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

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

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

Anywhere between 67-72 seems feasible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy]Good post - and ALL of that was w/ Dennis missing 18+ games. :eek:[/QUOTE]

You know what's a crazy stat ?

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

[QUOTE=Money 23]That's what I'm saying. And the '97 Bulls could have easily won 3 - 4 more games.[/QUOTE]

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

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

[quote]You want Jordan taking a jump shot vs. him getting into the paint.[/quote]

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


[img]http://i.imgur.com/BBhxH.png[/img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/gbJZ7.jpg[/img]

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

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

[QUOTE=KOBE143]You're comparing two teams in a different era.. :facepalm Im referring to the competition dumbass.. Today competition is far better and tougher than in the water down 90s.. That doesnt mean that the knicks are better than the 96 bulls..[/QUOTE]

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

Bulls in 75 and it's not even close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ageism clearly present, once again.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]What makes the league better now than then?[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Money 23]That's what I'm saying. And the '97 Bulls could have easily won 3 - 4 more games.[/QUOTE]
Just think what they wouldve did with Brian Williams for a whole season. A guy that was comming off a 16/9 season with the Clippers. If that team played today, on a nightly basis, their bigs would be better than the oppositions. Luc Longley would be considered a solid center today. Their biggest weakness back then would be a strength today. Just put Nene and Kendrick Perkins on the heat with Andrea Bargnani (Kukoc) and youd have the 97 Bulls