1990s NBA teams vs Current teams.

[Rakim Allah]

Damn breh, I never knew Mahmoud had fans out chea like this, you got all his games on deck. I salute your loyalty

My coli name was going to be either Rakim Allah or Mahmoud Abdul Rauf. I get my Stanley on with them two. Great talents who refused to sell out. Still remember seeing that McDonalds High School All American game with Mahmoud as a kid. After his Frosh season he became my favorite player over Magic.

 

[Rakim Allah]

This is how Mahmoud would look if he played in today's game.

 

[sportscribe]

Stop acting like the 80s and 90s was filled with a murderers row of low post dominance. The biggest reason low post play was so important was because of the rule set and secondarily the relative lack of ball handling at the guard spot. Even a terrible team with bad scorers at the high or low post would be stupid not to take advantage of it.

Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing, Malone, O'Neal, Barkley vs. D. Jordan, Howard, M. Gasol, P. Gasol, Griffin

Hibbert is a two-time all star in this era breh. He is not as good as Rik Smits.

Pau's defense on Dwight was the biggest reason LA dominated them. Dude went from shooting 60%+ with a team ORTG in the 110s to trash. They beat the Celtics because of Garnett being injured, and their shooters didn't really just die in the Finals. Dwight got neutered, and SVG played broke down Jameer instead of letting Rafer stay hot.

That's my point. The superior post play from the 90s isn't just about the offense, it's about defense as well. If Gasol was able to neutralize Howard to that extent, what would Mutombo or Zo do?

 

[ghostwriterx]

The high screen from these PG's now is extremely dangerous, because of the fact that if you try and go under it they will fire away, and if you switch on it your PG is now defending a PF who will just go into the post. You ask what PF's put the ball on the floor and not many, but plenty will immediately take a smaller player into the post when there's a switch. That 3 point shooting effects damn near every aspect on the offensive end, it is really dangerous and has essentially made a 6'3" skinny light bright dude the most unguardable player in the league.

The Bulls were the best, but their roster from 91-93 was not equipped to play small. They could put Grant at the 5, but then there's absolutely nothing they could do with their 4 man because that squad didn't have really anything after him. The point is, roster changes would need to be made, and that is the real point, almost every thread on here got somebody living in the past and saying that the Pacers/Knicks could beat the Warriors or some shyt. Like the non-elite teams from those days have any hope vs the non-elite teams today, but because they played in the 90s they are given a bonus.

I was thinking of the second 3peat team

Pip, Rodman, Kukoc etc. Small ball lineup of Rodman at the 5, Pip at the four, Kukoc at sf. Jordan and Harper or Kerr in the backcourt.

Better yet mid-season trade of Harper for JR and Shump

And nobody has been able to say how a team that takes 10 threes a game and makes 3 could hang with one that takes 28 and makes 12.

That's 42%, tough for anybody to beat a team shooting that well.
Memphis took half as many 3s as Portland in the 1st round and beat them in 5.

 

[LV Koopa]

What is the relevance of continually bringing up the shortened three point line? If the three point was shortened in today's game, then you would see the top three-point shooting teams today easily make over 1000 threes. Long distance shooting has improved in the today's NBA, I think that has been established. Even PFs have range now, and I have mentioned this in a previous post. What is lacking (and it is very much a relevant point here) is efficient low-post scoring. If you have a player like Shaq on your team that is going to give you 30 points a game at near 60% shooting, the need to shoot as many threes becomes greatly reduced. I have given you an example already of a championship Spurs team that was bottom in the league in three pointers made, but won due to their elite post play and stellar team defense.

Robinson, Olajuwon, Ewing, Malone, O'Neal, Barkley vs. D. Jordan, Howard, M. Gasol, P. Gasol, Griffin

Hibbert is a two-time all star in this era breh. He is not as good as Rik Smits.

Do them dudes make up all the good players from that era?

Yall always act like the 80s and 90s had every team filled with dominant scorers when most of the league couldn't get on TV, and yall didn't have the ability to watch a team that didn't show up on NBC if it wasn't a highlight reel. Lets stop frontin. Hibbert not being as good as Smits means what? If you put Hibbert in the 90s they'd just give the ball to him on the block no matter how terrible his offense looks in the modern league: he'd have all day to isolate and jump hook to his heart's content with no fear of missing where the help comes from.

That's my point. The superior post play from the 90s isn't just about the offense, it's about defense as well. If Gasol was able to neutralize Howard to that extent, what would Mutombo or Zo do?

They'd probably kill him because they are All Time Great defenders. But Howard's shaky post offense isn't the highlight of this era. Better question would be how would Mutombo or Zo deal with Garnett/dirk/Bosh type forwards who would just pick n pop them to death while also being a threat as the ball handler?

@ghostwriterx why would you play Pippen at the 4? Pippen was terrible as a scorer. If you put him at the 4 while having him play defense on guys he can't dominate you're just killing yourself.

 

[MrFantastic]

What is the relevance of continually bringing up the shortened three point line? If the three point was shortened in today's game, then you would see the top three-point shooting teams today easily make over 1000 threes. Long distance shooting has improved in the today's NBA, I think that has been established. Even PFs have range now, and I have mentioned this in a previous post. What is lacking (and it is very much a relevant point here) is efficient low-post scoring. If you have a player like Shaq on your team that is going to give you 30 points a game at near 60% shooting, the need to shoot as many threes becomes greatly reduced. I have given you an example already of a championship Spurs team that was bottom in the league in three pointers made, but won due to their elite post play and stellar team defense.

As for your second point, I'm pretty sure SVG built the very team you're describing around D12. Howard had nothing but shooters around him; Lewis, Turkoglu, Redikk, Nelson, Pietrus, Lee . They got to an NBA Finals, but all those threes couldn't help them when they were faced with the superior post play of the Lakers. Are you spotting the trend yet?

Thats all need to be said...shooting a high rates of threes mean nothing when you got a post play and D...

And this the first finals where there isnt one post plAyer ever...

 

[ghostwriterx]

Do them dudes make up all the good players from that era?

Yall always act like the 80s and 90s had every team filled with dominant scorers when most of the league couldn't get on TV, and yall didn't have the ability to watch a team that didn't show up on NBC if it wasn't a highlight reel. Lets stop frontin. Hibbert not being as good as Smits means what? If you put Hibbert in the 90s they'd just give the ball to him on the block no matter how terrible his offense looks in the modern league: he'd have all day to isolate and jump hook to his heart's content with no fear of missing where the help comes from.





They'd probably kill him because they are All Time Great defenders. But Howard's shaky post offense isn't the highlight of this era. Better question would be how would Mutombo or Zo deal with Garnett/dirk/Bosh type forwards who would just pick n pop them to death while also being a threat as the ball handler?

Those guys aren't centers though. Didn't the Celtics win a title with Perkins at center. Bogut or Mozgov is about to be the starting center on a championship team.

@ghostwriterx why would you play Pippen at the 4? Pippen was terrible as a scorer. If you put him at the 4 while having him play defense on guys he can't dominate you're just killing yourself.

Pippen was terrible as a scorer?
He was the leading scorer on a 55 win team.

 

[LV Koopa]

Pippen was terrible as a scorer?
He was the leading scorer on a 55 win team.

And? How does this means he's a good scorer?

Pippen was below league average for most his career. He was an excellent playmaker which boosted his offensive contribution but lets not act like Points Per Game tells you how good someone is as a scorer. Or are you one of those dudes?

EDIt: Actually I misread what you said. Thought you meant he was a good scorer at the 4. Eat breh

 

[h2o_proof]

It evolution and the game will continue to evolve once everyone starts mimicking whats been successful.

-Stretch 4's are the new fad now, but what happens when everybody has a stretch 4? You'll see a return of low post play and 20/20 Centers because its no longer advantageous to take your defender away from the basket.

-What happens when everybody starts putting up 15 3's a game? The next innovation, and I already think we're seeing glimpses of it with players like Corey Brewer; the pre-transition leak man (commonly confused with the "cherrypicker"). If the opposition hits 1 out of every 3 from behind the arc, that's an opportunity to leak out twice and get 4 points to trump that made 3.

-Another evolution from the 3 point barrage is improved perimeter defense. You'll start to see teams with lineups where no player on the court is under 6'5 due to the need to rotate constantly due to the frequency with which offenses swing the ball looking for the open man. For as much as we're in a renaissance period where there's at least 20 elite PGs in the league right now, 10 years from now the true PG may be obsolete. Don't think it can happen? Hell there's only 5 Centers in the league now and in the 90's every playoff team had a true center, and those with wack centers had 3 or 4 bum 7 footers on the roster just to compete.

NBA just keeps getting better and better.

 

[NormanConnors]

These anti 90 nikkaz then rolled up to the drawbridge with a battering ram(@Malta )

They really wanna tear our 90's down

But....hey can't take away what we where, man.

 

[Raheem95]

my favorite 90's teams were the Knicks when they had John Starks, Patrick Ewing, Anthony Mason, Charlotte Hornets when they had Muggsy Bogues, Orlando Magic when they had Penny Hardaway and Shaq, Lakers when they had Kobe and Shaq, Philadelphia when they had Iverson, Utah Jazz when they had John Stockton, and the Bulls with Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Steve Kerr.

 

[NYC Rebel]

I do find it funny how people are trying to argue that teams from the 90s would adapt to this era yet they are the same guys who would say so and so player from this era would suck back then because " the league was so tough." Players from this era can't adapt but entire teams from that era would

 

[sportscribe]

Do them dudes make up all the good players from that era?

Yall always act like the 80s and 90s had every team filled with dominant scorers when most of the league couldn't get on TV, and yall didn't have the ability to watch a team that didn't show up on NBC if it wasn't a highlight reel. Lets stop frontin. Hibbert not being as good as Smits means what? If you put Hibbert in the 90s they'd just give the ball to him on the block no matter how terrible his offense looks in the modern league: he'd have all day to isolate and jump hook to his heart's content with no fear of missing where the help comes from.

The funny thing is that in this era, other than LeBron and Durant (and Melo) , there aren't really any dominant scorers. In the 90s you had Jordan, Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, O'Neal ( with Iverson coming along in the late 90's). Unlike a lot of stat fillers in this era, these guys were actually winning. You're letting social media influence your rationale. Look at substance instead of hype. These Deandre Jordan players with unreal athleticism and inferior skills would be eaten alive in the 90s. You have a player like Tim Duncan that is still among the top big men today at the age of 39.

They'd probably kill him because they are All Time Great defenders. But Howard's shaky post offense isn't the highlight of this era. Better question would be how would Mutombo or Zo deal with Garnett/dirk/Bosh type forwards who would just pick n pop them to death while also being a threat as the ball handler?

Mutombo and Zo are centers, so I'm not sure why they would be dealing with any stretch 4 in the first place. Besides that, Dirk and Garnett are not players from the current era of basketball.

Anyway, let's just agree to disagree...no need to belabor the point any further. As I said from the get go, this argument is coming across more like just a preference of eras

 

[labelplant]

Gotta speak on this a bit.

You had guys like Del Harris playing stretch 4s more than 20 years ago. Hell, even when Dirk first came into the league he was slotted as a SF and they instantly knew there was a problem with him playing as a conventional big or as a typical wing. KG was a midrange monster by his 3rd year and there was real talk that he should have been shooting 3s. Of course he was under shyt management that was dumb, but KG did not want to play inside early on because he felt he could dominate with his guard skills (and he was right).

The biggest reason this didn't happen for them nor for earlier years? The rules. You didn't need a stretch big "that" much because illegal defense rules allowed a team to accomplish the same thing. Put a big at the 3 pt line and he has to be defended whether he can shoot or not. Let your post up man isolate for free all day one on one with no hope of a double coming that can work. Aside from the 94-96 years with the shortened 3pt line, teams didn't need a stretch 4 as much primarily because of the rules. Lack of dominant shooting bigs outside of the typical Perkins, Horry, Dirk, Schrempfs was amplified by the lack of coaches able to take advantage of the few of them in the league.

Can you explain exactly in what way the "old rules" made a stretch 4 less, umm, i guess efficient? Less useful or w/e you wanna call it?

 

[LV Koopa]

Can you explain exactly in what way the "old rules" made a stretch 4 less, umm, i guess efficient? Less useful or w/e you wanna call it?

The appeal of a stretch 4 is for spacing purposes. A big that can shoot 3s brings the big guarding him out of the paint. In the older era where illegal defense was a violation, teams could achieve the same thing by just parking their big on the 3pt line - whether he could shoot or not was irrelevant. If the guy guarding your big at the 3 left his man the refs would blow the whistle.

Of course, this was magnified by the fact there was no prerotating on defense allowed in the NBA. So if someone did double, the big with the ball knew exactly where it came from. Add in the faster pace and this is why you see such dominant numbers from the All Timers of that era. Why would you even care so much about a 3pt shooting big when you can get any potential help out of the paint and let your Barkleys and Hakeems go 1vs1 anyway? When they are shooting in the 58-60%+ range its probably a better bet.