1990s NBA teams vs Current teams.
- Thread starter Malta
- Start date
Long Live The Kane
Tyrant Titan
Just seems like a nonsensical way to think of things, don't think "better" is right word here. ..moreso just different.. today's teams exist in a basketball landscape that didn't exist in the 90s...playing styles and coaching philosophies have changed countless times over the years ...you judge teams in the context of how they succeeded in the era they played ...you start saying teams 25 years ago aren't good in comparison to teams today who play the way they do based on decades of response and evolution to previously successful strategies, and we start to enter this weird ( and ultimately meaningless) basketball chicken/egg paradox
Last edited:
The problem with this hypothesis is, this landscape DID exist in the 90s - the scoring system is exactly the same - we're not entering murky waters with a juxtaposition of today and the 1950s (where the 3-pt line didn't exist). If philosophies changed by trending towards maximizing PPP by playing the percentages (in the same cycle), by using the same tools that teams in the 90s had use of, how isn't it better?
imgaine Kareem playing in this era. imagine Kareem surrounded by 3 point shooters 
Illin Degenerate
All Star
possibly but a lot of the talk of their defensive shortcomings is way over the top. they got progressively worse in the years following but the 92-93 team that made it to the finals wasnt one of the worst defensive teams ever. they were 17th in fg% defense, but they were 9th in defensive rating, 9th in steals, 11th in blocks, 6th in rebounding and 11th in 3 pt pct defense. then theres mark west and oliver miller, you laugh but that would probably be a better combo of rim protectors than any on one team in these entire playoffs.
while the current teams could pack the paint and zone up they still wouldnt have the rim protection or the rebounding or with the restricted area the likelihood of taking as many charges as those teams faced. on the other side the 90's teams would have the rim protection and not have to worry about as many post threats. there are advantages and disadvantages for either side.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
This whole analysis seems based on the 3 pt shot. Are we supposed to believe that today's players are naturally better 3 pt shooters, or are they just..practicing the 3 pt shot more? A guy like Ibaka is obviously able to shoot the three, but it would prob not even have been an option back then because he could also develop post moves. yes, three > two, but 50 % > 35 %.
Next to the three pointer being a bigger part of the game today, I don't see how players today would be more talented. Better jump shooters yes, but that's just one aspect of the game.
Using the Knicks as an example of a team winning a lot of games while not being talented is pointless, because as we all know by watching basketball games you can win a lot games with effort, consistency and (drumroll) defense. When you watch the 90s Bulls tons of game they won was because of their D and effort. Now teams win or lose depending if the shots are falling or not. So no maybe they didn't have 3 guys who could score 20+ and drain 4 or 5 three-pointers per game, but they could win games back then of other aspects of the game. Lebron's Cavs pre 2010 won tons of regular season games, so how does that fit in the "90s-current" analysis?
I don't understand the point about Atlanta...they're in the East, it's no suprise that a good (not very good) basketball team would win tons of games in the Leastern. I don't believe anyone seriously thought they could go all the way tho (I didn't even bother watching a game in the ECF tbh).
And the point about saying that a 90s team would get washed playing a current team under the current rule is flawed imo, because the current teams are built ACCORDING TO the current rules. So it's self-evident that they compete better under said set of rules.
Next to the three pointer being a bigger part of the game today, I don't see how players today would be more talented. Better jump shooters yes, but that's just one aspect of the game.
Using the Knicks as an example of a team winning a lot of games while not being talented is pointless, because as we all know by watching basketball games you can win a lot games with effort, consistency and (drumroll) defense. When you watch the 90s Bulls tons of game they won was because of their D and effort. Now teams win or lose depending if the shots are falling or not. So no maybe they didn't have 3 guys who could score 20+ and drain 4 or 5 three-pointers per game, but they could win games back then of other aspects of the game. Lebron's Cavs pre 2010 won tons of regular season games, so how does that fit in the "90s-current" analysis?
I don't understand the point about Atlanta...they're in the East, it's no suprise that a good (not very good) basketball team would win tons of games in the Leastern. I don't believe anyone seriously thought they could go all the way tho (I didn't even bother watching a game in the ECF tbh).
And the point about saying that a 90s team would get washed playing a current team under the current rule is flawed imo, because the current teams are built ACCORDING TO the current rules. So it's self-evident that they compete better under said set of rules.
What relevance does this have - has the ruling on 3-pt attempts/makes changed since the 90s?
sportscribe
Superstar
Part of the reason these teams are shooting this many threes in the first place is lack of efficient post play.
The 2000-01 Lakers shot less threes than every single team in the NBA this season except two. You don't need to shoot threes when you have a dominant big man that will score on nearly every possession when he's in the right position.
Case in point is the 2004-05 Spurs that literally made the LEAST threes out of any team in the league that season, and they went on the win an NBA Championship. What those two teams have in common is dominant big men - Shaq and Duncan. The 90's era Bulls did not have a dominant big man, but they did have the greatest NBA scorer of all time, along with elite wing defense (as did the Spurs with Bowen).There are no dominant big men today that are going to get you points in the paint and mid-range like your Robinsons, Olajuwons, Ewings, Malones, Barkleys etc were able to. The likes of Rik Smits would be a multiple-time all-star today based on statistics. At the end of the day, when the pace of the game is slowed in the playoffs and teams get into their half court sets, team defense becomes the most important aspect of the game. In that regard, the 90's Bulls would smother Curry's Warriors. Curry and Klay are good perimeter defenders, but they are no Jordan and Pippen. Draymond Green is a good role player and workhorse, but he is no Rodman. None of these 2010 era teams would know what to do with a Prime Shaq. The Grizzlies are the closest thing to a 90s era team, and they have been very effective in this era, but lack a dominant scorer - or any scorer for that matter. If they had just one, they would be a Championship contender.
That Seattle Supersonics team that you've listed is pretty solid, and would give most teams in the league today a run for their money. The Knicks team you listed held opponents to 95 pts/game that season, you should really frame some of these points in the right context. While I will agree with the OP that spreading the floor with good perimeter shooters has revolutionized the game somewhat, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is now superior (perhaps offensively it is). These teams still lack the post presence that would force their opponents to double on their dominant center and make their defense collapse.Teams from the 90s had inferior shooting on the wings, but they did have superior post play and defense and the greatest teams have usually been built on that. I guess I will disagree with the premise of this thread, and chalk it up simply to it being a preference for eras. But I am not seeing anything convincing enough to conclude that teams in this era are better than teams from the 90s.
As for this whole nostalgia debate in sports; no one has any problem calling Manning and Brady the greatest QBs of all time or Messi the greatest soccer player of all time, or Federer the greatest tennis player of all time. I think people genuinely feel that the 90s were the golden era of basketball. It's an era that was stacked with Hall of Fame greats and not one where James Harden is a consensus top 3 player in the league.
The 2000-01 Lakers shot less threes than every single team in the NBA this season except two. You don't need to shoot threes when you have a dominant big man that will score on nearly every possession when he's in the right position.
Case in point is the 2004-05 Spurs that literally made the LEAST threes out of any team in the league that season, and they went on the win an NBA Championship. What those two teams have in common is dominant big men - Shaq and Duncan. The 90's era Bulls did not have a dominant big man, but they did have the greatest NBA scorer of all time, along with elite wing defense (as did the Spurs with Bowen).There are no dominant big men today that are going to get you points in the paint and mid-range like your Robinsons, Olajuwons, Ewings, Malones, Barkleys etc were able to. The likes of Rik Smits would be a multiple-time all-star today based on statistics. At the end of the day, when the pace of the game is slowed in the playoffs and teams get into their half court sets, team defense becomes the most important aspect of the game. In that regard, the 90's Bulls would smother Curry's Warriors. Curry and Klay are good perimeter defenders, but they are no Jordan and Pippen. Draymond Green is a good role player and workhorse, but he is no Rodman. None of these 2010 era teams would know what to do with a Prime Shaq. The Grizzlies are the closest thing to a 90s era team, and they have been very effective in this era, but lack a dominant scorer - or any scorer for that matter. If they had just one, they would be a Championship contender.
That Seattle Supersonics team that you've listed is pretty solid, and would give most teams in the league today a run for their money. The Knicks team you listed held opponents to 95 pts/game that season, you should really frame some of these points in the right context. While I will agree with the OP that spreading the floor with good perimeter shooters has revolutionized the game somewhat, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is now superior (perhaps offensively it is). These teams still lack the post presence that would force their opponents to double on their dominant center and make their defense collapse.Teams from the 90s had inferior shooting on the wings, but they did have superior post play and defense and the greatest teams have usually been built on that. I guess I will disagree with the premise of this thread, and chalk it up simply to it being a preference for eras. But I am not seeing anything convincing enough to conclude that teams in this era are better than teams from the 90s.
As for this whole nostalgia debate in sports; no one has any problem calling Manning and Brady the greatest QBs of all time or Messi the greatest soccer player of all time, or Federer the greatest tennis player of all time. I think people genuinely feel that the 90s were the golden era of basketball. It's an era that was stacked with Hall of Fame greats and not one where James Harden is a consensus top 3 player in the league.
OG Talk
Archived
The 90's had Michael Jordan
Close thread
Close thread
nomoreneveragain
Superstar
You put those teams in today settings, they would have adapted.
Harden is a consensus top 3 player now?
Last edited:
I know your rebuttal will be that Patrick, Payton & D-Rob were HOFers and that is correct, however these teams would get completely and utterly washed in a series by the Hawks, Warriors, Spurs, Rockets, Clippers, Cavs and so on. You know why? Because they made 193, 242 and 249 threes on the entire season. For comparisons sake, the worst 3 point shooting team in the league this year hit 406 and everyone says they can't shoot. Teams would handle the Knicks, Sonics & Spurs just like they do the Grizz, shrink the floor, give up 2s and beat them with 3s on the other end, and the Grizz may as well be the Warriors with the shooting compared to these 90s teams. Against the 90s Jazz, Knicks, Cavs, Suns, Hornets, etc teams today would just pack the paint and dare them to win games from outside because they straight up and down couldn't do it. Even the mighty 91-93 Bulls..their highest total during that 3 year stretch was 244.
I think you're over emphasizing the importance of the 3pt shot a tad. I know it's a big shot in today's NBA but it wasn't the case back then. I don't see how you can automatically assume teams wouldn't adjust to that accordingly. The 3pt shot back then wasn't used as a weapon today because it was a bad shot and it was a low% shot. MJ had an interview during the 92 finals where he said he didn't want to shoot 3's because it wasn't a great shot to use and it would stop his aggressiveness. My feelings are teams adjust, but some teams will do what got them there. To your grizzly point, i remember you posting that they would win the title if teams couldn't shoot 3's because they were built like a 90s team. I look at their series vs the dubs and despite injuries to their PG and best perimeter defender, they were still up 2-1 on a team that's 5 games away from winning a title. You look at a team like the Sonics as you posted who had shooters on their team (detlef, pierce, hersey hawkins big smoove,) i see no reason why they wouldn't be able to beat GS when they had more than enough capable shooting to go along with a PG like GP, and a low post threat in sean kemp.
There has been a shift in the league, and alot of those 90s teams you all praise so much would not last long in the current NBA. I won't really address the seasons from 94-97, mainly because they had the short 3 point line and you started to see teams firing them shyts up with no regard. That said, you cannot beat the teams in the NBA today without ample 3 point shooting because they are all good at taking advantage of the zone principles thanks to Tom Thibodeau, they want you to take long 2s, they want you to dribble in and take that mid-range jumper rather than shooting the corner 3. You might say "Pat/D-Rob gonna go for 50!" yeah on 20-41 while his teammates would get 30, while opposing teams today hoist up 35 threes making 12 of them.
there is no true (college) zone in the NBA. Thibbs plays strong side defense (or overload) a side of the court to force a particular type of shot. How many teams today employ "zone" defenses or play it on enough possessions for it to have an impact on the game like that. The mavs play the most zone in the league. You play zone against great nba teams and it's going to get chewed up, wide open shots (2pointers) especially they're going to make you pay. You also have to look at how zone will allow a team to dominate on the boards offensively and get extra possessions in a game.
Hell the knicks used to illegally zone jordan during those 92 and 93 playoff series.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K-qGWkiKvQ
"But Malta, you the low post fan!"
your favorite player just won his 5th ring 12 months ago
Yes, and eventually this new style of play is going to lead to a devastating post player with a team built around him that can shoot. You could catch glimpses of how hard it is to stop with the 94-95 Rockets and Magic to a lesser extent, they were the first step in the evolutionary ladder that has brought on this style of play. Once the Rockets got rid of Thorpe and gave Horry the start at PF, they almost always had 4 floor spacers out there with Hakeem. I welcome all these 3s with open arms because I know that the evolution of the game will then call for someone who can get you 2 when you need it, and what better way to build a 3 point shooting team than with a big you can run offense through who will be going 1 on 1 with his defender because his 4 teammates are waiting for that open 3.
That rocket team got swept in 96 by the same sonic team everyone tries to shyt on and use against jordan. The bulls swept the same orlando team in 96. So you can say that style lasted one year. But yes the rockets and magic were revolutionary, but it didn't last especially with the influx of PFs that didn't allow you to have a SF playing the position and trying to guard someone 40 lbs heavier and taller.[/b[
Basically watching yall constantly overrate the 90s is disgusting, you can't even give me a realistic argument how some of these teams would overcome the massive shooting disadvantage. No team that's making 3-4 threes a game is beating one that makes 10-12, period. You can talk about handchecking and how tough they were, but from a team standpoint the vast majority of squads today are straight up humiliating those from the 90s. @Jplaya2023 please help me understand how your vaunted 90s teams would beat teams today, how would they get them out of the faux zone which is built around the purpose of limiting points in the paint, giving up long 2s and limiting corner 3s..which they didn't even shoot
The grizzlies team were 2 key injuries away from going to the finals this year.
You can't faux zone nba guys and not expect to get chewed up. It's a gimmicky type of defense in the league, hence few teams even playing zone. Coaches would adjust and guys would have open shot after open shot per game.
Jordan was being zoned by the knicks and pistons (when it was illegal) and it didn't stop the bulls.
You underrate the ability to reroute players (handchecking) on the perimeter
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JttE4UT74k
Are you gonna discredit the great hubie brown?
It's easier to score today because the rules made it so. All these 3pt shooting teams would struggle (not be stopped) to score because of the amount of physicality on the perimeter back then and the rules weren't catered to them.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMZ1lUz9rI
@Malta and others, my question to you guys is do you think the GS warriors if we transplanted them to 1992 would have an easier time scoring today or harder. Explain your position.
Defense is better because of technological advancements where you can use technology to scout a player and build a scheme around stopping said player. In the 80s and 90s you had booklets or slides. Now you got ipads, bball sites with player data, blu rays on player tendencies etc.. The technology has made it better.
I don't think players are better shooters today then what they were 20 years ago, it's just more of an emphasis was placed on shooting (especially corner 3s ) now then 20 years ago.
Case in point, look at the 3pt shooters in the 95 3pt contest and compare them to the shooters in the 2015(prob the best collection of shooters in the contest in a long time) contest do you think 2015 would blow them out of the water on some wash shyt?
1995
Glen Rice
Reggie Miller
Scott Burrell (lol)
Chuck Person
Steve Kerr
Nick Anderson
Dana Barros
Dan Majerle
These guys would kill in the league from 3, just kill. These guys were snipers and miller is 2nd best shooter ever behind ray and steve has the highest 3pt% ever.
2015
Curry
Kyrie
Klay
Wesely Matthews
Korver
Marco B
Reddikk
Harden
you would honestly take the 2012 dream team over one of these teams (Since you said top 3) 92, 96, 08???