Mind you its not just about Rodman taking opportunities away by grabbing the rebound himself. There will also be times when him boxing out prevents Draymond for getting the board which is just as important and won't necessarily show up under Rodman's boxscore. Draymond getting the board and leading the break is one of the main things that separates him from other bigs. Now we can quibble about how important, but there will be definitely be less opportunities which is significant against a team with a great half court defense.
While I can agree with this - it's only going to be a few missed opportunities to run the break a game. I mean Draymond will find other ways to get his points and/or run the break, push the ball and initiate the offense. My point being, if that's the only way Rodman can have any hope in stopping SOME of Draymond's impact, it really won't have an effect on his game at all - as there's plenty other ways that Draymond contributes to his team's offense. I mean shyt he doesn't even need to start a fastbreak off a rebound - if the Bulls were to score quickly in transition or if they weren't set on defense on a quick outlet pass he could easily run the fastbreak that way.
Not only that but if Rodman is guarding Draymond, he's not going to be near the rim all the time - so whenever Green is spotting up from behind the arc, passing to Curry from behind the arc or running an offensive set - Rodman won't be near the rim. And if Rodman isn't guarding Draymond, and wants to just hang around the rim to grab rebounds - all the more easy for Draymond to work his magic with nobody guarding him.
Revisiting my initial stance, Rodman has no hope in stopping Draymond as he's currently playing this season. He won't be chasing him all around the court, he won't be chasing him off the 3-pt line, he won't be hanging with him when he drives in the lane, he won't be contesting Draymond's shots at the rim, and he most certainly won't have an effect on Draymond setting his teammates up.
Draymond "torches' his opposite every night, and it isn't from scoring points - it's all the things he does on the court.
With that said it's just as dishonest to compare this Warriors team now at the apparent peak of their powers with a "default" version of those Bulls teams. I mean the Bulls started out 41-3 in 95-96. Should we take them from that point? If both teams are "fresh" that figures to favor an older Bulls team more right?
Why should it favor the Bulls if both teams are "fresh"? It'd be more beneficial to them to get more rest, but not to the point where they'd have more energy than the Warriors would. I mean I take it they're both getting the same amounts of rest?
I'm taking how Draymond is now and comparing him to the best Rodman was during his Chicago days (which besides his last season - there isn't much difference as he had already reached his peak in Detroit and was declining in Chicago). It's not like Draymond, who's still improving.
Agreed, that's why I noted what Green did against guys like Randolph and Smith who were definitely worse defensively than Rodman. Granted that was Green of last year, he may be significantly better now or could just be taking on more of load with Barnes out.
Green didn't just do it against Randolph and Smith, he did against all types of defenders and defenses throughout the playoffs.
Look what he did against Davis - scoring on him down low, passing out of the low post, running the break, shooting 3s over him, scoring on cuts. Rodman ain't doing shyt to stop all that.
The best type of defender to handle Draymond is someone who has the same attributes and abilities as he does. A younger Rodman would've probably been it - but the one in Chicago? Not a chance.
Another example of why these comparisons are hard.
Why are we just assuming in this scenario that the Phil and the Bulls have never seen the Warriors plays/never faced them before? We know the Warriors have seen the Bulls play. Hell their coach was on the team and took a lot of their coaching philosophies and adapted them. How do we account for that?
When asked about this matchup Kerr asked are we playing under 90s rules?
If so, throw the Warriors entire small ball defensive strategy out the window.
I know that would also mean a shorter 3 point line, but I'm choosing to ignore that for sanity's sake and more importantly it hurts my argument
Because they wouldn't have. Not only is the Warriors' system a motion-based offense centered around shooting 3s - but a large influence is from Kerr's time in San Antonio and the Spurs' system from the 2000s-2010s (as mentioned earlier Diaw being the blueprint for Draymond) - which at the point obviously didn't exist. There wasn't a team in the league in the mid/late 90s that had this type of scheme. It would be all new territory for Jackson and the Bulls.
Rules would be another thing to weigh into account - it would probably have be some type of amalgam that was fair to both teams. Which again would mean that there'd be a shorter 3-pt line because it'd hardly be fair to the Bulls to use the extended-line that the Warriors were accustomed to.
Pip was near his peak powers at the time and still in his physical prime. There's no reason to think he would be "drained" on defense.
Pippen had quite a few series where his defensive workload took a toll on his offensive production. It's no coincidence his FG% took a huge drop in the postseason during the Bulls 3-peat - 39% in '96, 41% in '97 and 41% in '98. Can you imagine if he was chasing Klay or Curry around all game as well as acting as the defensive anchor to stop dribble penetration and help hedge/trap Curry?
For all the talk of Rodman's defensive lapses/obsession with rebounding etc. his advanced defensive stats still look pretty good and he had the best defensive rating on the team. You're also conveniently ignoring the Bulls also have two of the best perimeter defenders in the history of the game.
It won't all be on Rodman.
As you know, you can NEVER go on advanced defensive stats to value a player's worth on that end. I've watched those mid/late 90s Bulls playoff and regular season runs, and Rodman wasn't great defensively. He showed up on that side of the ball when he felt like it - although in saying that he hardly ever got bullied on the block. But anywhere else on the floor his defensive presence wasn't that great. Especially since he'd often stay too far in the paint on certain matchups and look to grab rebounds (or not guard his man at all and hope for a miss) - forcing other Bulls players to help out on his man.
Which I don't think is talked about enough. I mean we all pretty much know Jordan and Pippen were the
real defensive anchors of that team, but their defensive abilities actually allowed Rodman to get away with mainly focussing on rebounds and boxing out players. He wouldn't be able to get away with that against this Warriors squad. Not when with all their moving parts on offense, the ball movement and player movement. Most of those 90s offenses had maybe one-two guys moving without the ball, and a lot of methodical ISO plays where players would just stand around and double team once in awhile. Whereas this Warriors team are constantly moving and moving the ball - it's constant chaos.
I think last year's Finals presents a pretty good starting point for how this series could go. We've spent a lot of time discussing Rodman and Draymond Green's impact.
, but little to none on perhaps the best duo in the history of the game.
Moz/TT, Lebron, Shump, Smith and Delly went 2-3 against the Warriors.
Are we really saying that lineup is better than Luc/Rodman, Toni, Pip, Jordan and Harper?
The same?
Now we're just veering off course. Our initial discussion was centered around Draymond v Rodman. Team vs team is another thing altogether. I am of the opinion that Draymond will have his way with Rodman, but I'm not of the opinion the Warriors will walk over the mid/late 90s Bulls just the same. It would probably be a seven-game series which could either way.
Toni Kuckoc coming off the bench was better than anybody on that Cleveland roster not named LeBron and its really not close either.
LeBron shot 39% from the field.
in part because his jumpshot is broke and in part because nobody else on the team could create or hit a shot.
That won't be the case with Jordan and the Bulls.
The Cavs basically had a 7 man rotation and one of those 7 was the corpse of James Jones.
The Cavs defense was great in the Finals. Held Golden State to 43% shooting, 36% from 3.
But the Cavs shot 38% from the field and 29% from 3.
While you can make an argument the Cavs defense would be marginally better than the Bulls (I'm still skeptical considering the upgrade on the perimeter), I don't see anyway to the argue that the Bulls offense would be even close to that bad even if we play under today's rules.
Again, I don't think you can simply go off ONE series, especially since the Warriors were a better team for that Finals series (I mean shyt the Bulls had terrible offensive performances in series against defenses that weren't even close to this Warriors squad). If they were to run that series again with the exact same personnel - the Warriors would be much more dominant as they'd just run the same lineup they did in the latter half of the series when they won three in a row (Blatt didn't have a counter move due to a lack of players). Actually come to think of it, the latter half of that series would be a better scale for how they'd play the Bulls right now - because that was them at their best during that series.
Game 4 - Warriors had a 57 TS% and held the Cavs to a 40 TS%
Game 5 - Warriors had a 52 TS% and held the Cavs to a 50 TS%
Game 6 - Warriors had a 53 TS% and held the Cavs to a 48 TS%
I think you focus a little too much on the small ball lineup. Its one part of the equation. In a matchup between the Spurs it turns into a game of who blinks first. The Cavs couldn't stay big, not just because of their defense but because of their offense as well. It wasn't efficient enough with TT and Moz on the floor especially with no Kyrie or Love for spacing/shooting.
I'm not because the Warriors have multiple small ball lineups. LMA and Duncan aren't mobile enough to run this team off the 3-pt line or contest at the rim on drives. The Cavs had TT to trap and hedge and switch on guards - besides Diaw who clearly can't give the same performance at this stage of his career, there really isn't anyone else. Which is not to say that everyone else can't pick up the slack and help out - it's just that having a LMA and Duncan frontcourt and no mobile big to contain GS ball-handlers and switches is a potentially a problem.
That won't be the case with Duncan, LA and Kawhi. The Spurs will try to dominate inside/on the glass and force Kerr to bring in Ezeli or Bogut and in that scenario Draymond definitely doesn't have an advantage offensively.
Of course Draymond has an advantage offensively. Nobody besides Diaw (who's not going to play the same minutes) can guard Draymond, and it's as if they're going to take their best defender and put him on Draymond if Curry and Klay are on the court. If you're willing to entertain that the Spurs will dominate inside/on the glass - you always have to entertain the notion that a younger, faster Warriors team has the ability to control the game too. You'd probably need to favor the Warriors in controlling the contest as they have the two best scorers and a better overall offense.
The Spurs can also go small with Leonard at the 5 and put Diaw or LA on Iggy.
For all Leonard's abilities, he can't guard big men. There's no chance in hell he could play the 5. I've seen bigs go to work on him regularly on switches or in the post. And LMA and guarding shyt outside the post (which he's good at). He's not running to keep up with Draymond on cuts, drives or running around the perimeter.
At the end of the day Draymond scoring is a good thing for the opponent. The more shots he takes the less Steph and Klay take.
He'd be taking a lot of shots and running freely around with the ball with Rodman camped in the paint looking for rebounds, that's for sure.
