I see your fakkit ass just wanted some attention.and u said my comment was limp wristed u sound like a hurt nerd
Ron Harper: 1997 Bulls Would Sweep the Warriors
- Thread starter Big Boss
- Start date
What part of they wouldn't sweep the Warriors ARE YOU not getting?What part of the Bulls are significantly better than either the Cavs or Grizz are you not getting?It's not just greater physicality, it's also a greater, more experienced, and smarter players and coaches.
I'm not suggesting that the 97 Bulls aren't better than the Cavs or the Grizzlies - although the gap isn't as large you're making it out to be.
You're not saying anything here. Nor does this prove your undisclosed take on "physical play" and how it would affect this current Warriors team more than a 90s team in an environment where they'd have to deal with "illegal" defense. The difference in physicality and how much contact you could get away with in the '97 Playoffs to the '15 Playoffs is slim to the point where the influence it'd have on a team whose offense is built around player movement and ball movement pales in comparison to a team that would have to deal with major defensive rule changes.
We're talking about the mid/late 90s though.
Handchecking WOULDN'T have a major impact on this Warriors team - they're a jumpshooting who move the ball/come off picks.
Well considering that Bulls squad had absolutely no experience playing against zone defenses, yes it would take time for them to adjust. They wouldn't just come out and figure it out in the first game, especially against one of the greatest defensive teams since the zone has been in regulation. We're not talking about the Bulls trying to score against the Lakers' zone scheme, this is the Warriors who have a more equipped defensive unit than every single team that 97 Bulls squad faced, by a significant margin.
It's one thing figuring out how to best generate offense against a zone, it's another thing actually putting a plan into action and having consistent success against it - not only that but also working out how to equalize the Warriors 3-pt shooting - meaning not trading 2-pt for the 3-pt shots.
How would the Bulls deal with elite 3-pt shooting perimeter defense and the Warriors purposefully letting them shoot long twos? They only made 5.6 threes per game in the playoffs at around 31-33%, which isn't nearly good enough to match the Warriors' 11.4 threes per game at around 35-37%.
By the time the Bulls actually figured out and the time in which they'd need to match the Warriors 3-pt shooting, that's the possibility of leaving a few games hanging in the balance.
That's the thing, you haven't. All you've done is wave the handchecking rule and physical play flags all about without actually using evidence behind these claims. You haven't addressed how the handchecking rule would affect this Warriors team, and you haven't addressed this fallacy on how the late 90s playoffs were a lot more physical than last season's playoffs.
The irony. You haven't once explained how either of these environmental changes would affect either team. You've put on your rose-colored glasses and regurgitated the same ole bullshyt that these back-in-my-era biased idiots do.
What is it do you think I'm trying to make an argument for?
I've already stated this series would probably go the full distance, and that Jordan would be the difference in the end (depending on what rules they played under - thus not ruling the possibility of a Warriors series win out of the equation). How the hell is this Bulls team suppose to sweep this current Warriors squad when they couldn't sweep menial teams in the Eastern conference? How the hell is this Bulls team suppose to sweep this current Warriors squad, when they had limited scoring outside of Jordan/Pippen in the 97 playoffs -
Are we suppose to believe that somehow that those same players wouldn't be less effective against a far greater defense with the addition of playing and figuring out how to deal with a zone defense?
Kukoc/Harper were their third/fourth best scoring option (at a horrible 36% and 40% might I add), and you don't think the Warriors wouldn't design their defense on limiting Pippen and Jordan - letting the role players beat them?
Curry/Klay actually had a better shot to point production (TS%) over Jordan and Pippen (1st and 2nd options), and they also had far superior scoring after them as well.
Last edited:
jaydolf spitler
Superstar
Nah I'm tryna help you out breh there's so many ways you could be spending your time improving yourself and your life instead of running back simulations of 2k between the 96 bulls and the present day warriors with ur composition notebook observations and hypotheses. Help me help u
What, you mean these players -
The Ron that played in Chicago, wasn't the same one who played in LA. All those knee injuries took a toll on his offensive game. He was basically Livingston status in 1997.
The same Kukoc that only averaged 6 ppg in the playoffs right? What a great threat he was.
The same Dele that only averaged 6 ppg in the playoffs?
The Warriors would let whoever wanted to shoot the long twos (not named Jordan), open all day.
What part of they wouldn't sweep the Warriors ARE YOU not getting?
I'm not suggesting that the 97 Bulls aren't better than the Cavs or the Grizzlies - although the gap isn't as large you're making it out to be.
You're not saying anything here. Nor does this prove your undisclosed take on "physical play" and how it would affect this current Warriors team more than a 90s team in an environment where they'd have to deal with "illegal" defense. The difference in physicality and how much contact you could get away with in the '97 Playoffs to the '15 Playoffs is slim to the point where the influence it'd have on a team whose offense is built around player movement and ball movement pales in comparison to a team that would have to deal with major defensive rule changes.
We're talking about the mid/late 90s though.
Handchecking WOULDN'T have a major impact on this Warriors team - they're a jumpshooting who move the ball/come off picks.
Well considering that Bulls squad had absolutely no experience playing against zone defenses, yes it would take time for them to adjust. They wouldn't just come out and figure it out in the first game, especially against one of the greatest defensive teams since the zone has been in regulation. We're not talking about the Bulls trying to score against the Lakers' zone scheme, this is the Warriors who have a more equipped defensive unit than every single team that 97 Bulls squad faced, by a significant margin.
It's one thing figuring out how to best generate offense against a zone, it's another thing actually putting a plan into action and having consistent success against it - not only that but also working out how to equalize the Warriors 3-pt shooting - meaning not trading 2-pt for the 3-pt shots.
How would the Bulls deal with elite 3-pt shooting perimeter defense and the Warriors purposefully letting them shoot long twos? They only made 5.6 threes per game in the playoffs at around 31-33%, which isn't nearly good enough to match the Warriors' 11.4 threes per game at around 35-37%.
By the time the Bulls actually figured out and the time in which they'd need to match the Warriors 3-pt shooting, that's the possibility of leaving a few games hanging in the balance.
That's the thing, you haven't. All you've done is wave the handchecking rule and physical play flags all about without actually using evidence behind these claims. You haven't addressed how the handchecking rule would affect this Warriors team, and you haven't addressed this fallacy on how the late 90s playoffs were a lot more physical than last season's playoffs.
The irony. You haven't once explained how either of these environmental changes would affect either team. You've put on your rose-colored glasses and regurgitated the same ole bullshyt that these back-in-my-era biased idiots do.
What is it do you think I'm trying to make an argument for?
I've already stated this series would probably go the full distance, and that Jordan would be the difference in the end (depending on what rules they played under - thus not ruling the possibility of a Warriors series win out of the equation). How the hell is this Bulls team suppose to sweep this current Warriors squad when they couldn't sweep menial teams in the Eastern conference? How the hell is this Bulls team suppose to sweep this current Warriors squad, when they had limited scoring outside of Jordan/Pippen in the 97 playoffs -
Are we suppose to believe that somehow that those same players wouldn't be less effective against a far greater defense with the addition of playing and figuring out how to deal with a zone defense?
Kukoc/Harper were their third/fourth best scoring option (at a horrible 36% and 40% might I add), and you don't think the Warriors wouldn't design their defense on limiting Pippen and Jordan - letting the role players beat them?
Curry/Klay actually had a better shot to point production (TS%) over Jordan and Pippen (1st and 2nd options), and they also had far superior scoring after them as well.
For starters which Bulls team we talking here? I been referring to the 70 win Bulls only. I explained how the Bulls would respond to zone and how they all had experience. If u wanna keep acting like zone is a new, foreign concept u can feel free to do so alone. That Warriors role players shyt the bed against Cleveland and would do the same against the Bulls. Bulls would provide even better defense and better offense as well. So yeah if Cleveland can come that close to 3-0 the Bulls can sweep.
I know, I know "bu...bu...but maybe they would shoot better and zone >>>"
Well, considering there isn't that much difference between the two teams (all my points still apply), I'm going by the OP. I honestly haven't looked to see whether or not SLAM got those two seasons mixed up. In fact the numbers and playoff performances of the previous postseason, favor the Warriors handling this matchup even more -
Bulls - 6.1 three point makes per game at 30% in the playoffs
Warriors - 11.4 three points makes per game at 37% in the playoffs
No actually you haven't. You haven't gone into detail in how the Bulls would score on the Warriors defense (equal the Warriors per shot production), especially since the Bulls' #2/#3/#4 options were inefficient from the field in the playoffs. How would they fare generating offense against an elite zone defense when they couldn't even be efficient against a man-to-man defense which their offense was built to have success against?
I'm not acting like the zone is a new or foreign concept, and that the Bulls would have absolutely no knowledge on how to handle it. However as a unit, when you're playing 82 games and playoff games, season after season and you have an offense which functions through attacking man-to-man defense - going straight from that to one series where you have to deal with a zone scheme - you can't possibly think this wouldn't have a significant impact on the Bulls offense. It literally changes everything within their offense. Especially since this Warriors defense is greater in just about every aspect than every defense the Bulls faced. This is again, all without mentioning them also having to deal with trying to equalize the Warriors' 3-pt shooting. That's TWO major changes to their offense where they'd need to adapt in order to win - no reasonable person could expect them to win every game with these challenges.
If they only make six threes at a game at 30% against defenses that didn't focus on guarding the 3-pt shot, how the hell are they going hit more threes at a similar rate against an elite defense which is GREAT at limiting three-point makes?
Warriors held teams to 33% on 21 three-pt attempts last season (#2= in the league)
Warriors hold teams to 27% on 19 three-pt attempts this season (#1 in the league)
Now how long do you think it'd take for the Bulls to put a plan into action to take more threes, and actually having success with it? How long would it take for them to guard the Warriors 3-pt attempts before having success?
That was only in the first three games, the other three games they rose to the occasion. And let's not act like that Bulls role players weren't inconsistent during said postseason either. Even Pippen was inconsistent - 17 ppg on 47 TS% (Klay despite his up-and-down postseason averaged 18.6 ppg on 55 TS%). Kukoc had 11 ppg on 48 TS% shooting. Harper had 9 points on 52 TS%
Thompson, Iggy, Barnes and Green all averaged double digit scoring on considerably higher points per shot efficiency.
Pippen shot 33%, Harper shot 36%, Kukoc shot 20% and Longley shot 37% all against the Knicks in the playoffs. Yet who's to say they wouldn't also perform poorly on the offensive end against a better defensive team? Why are you only acting as if the Warriors role players were the only ones to "shyt the bed'?
It's not as simple as that, and no you can't use implausible reasoning of what may have happened with the Cavs going up 3-0 - because i) it didn't happen ii) the pace, style and calls would be different against the Bulls. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that the Bulls had the offense to match the Warriors at their best? I'd also like to know how you came to the conclusion the Bulls defense would be able to defend the Warriors 3-pt offense to a degree in which would have them win every game?
I'm convinced that you're willingly ignorant to how impactful 3-pt shooting and zone defense is. No rational person would think the Bulls could just adapt at a flick of a switch to zone rules against one of the best defensive teams in the modern era, and have success to the point where they'd win every game. It's simply NOT happening.
Last edited:
The dumbest thing you could ever do is try to press this Warriors team. Open threes all day.i don't even think the Warriors could hang with that 92 bulls teams.
Lord when they put that full court press Doberman defense on curry and them boys for a series. A young Pip, MJ and Horace pressing folks........
Well, considering there isn't that much difference between the two teams (all my points still apply), I'm going by the OP. I honestly haven't looked to see whether or not SLAM got those two seasons mixed up. In fact the numbers and playoff performances of the previous postseason, favor the Warriors handling this matchup even more -
Bulls - 6.1 three point makes per game at 30% in the playoffs
Warriors - 11.4 three points makes per game at 37% in the playoffs
No actually you haven't. You haven't gone into detail in how the Bulls would score on the Warriors defense (equal the Warriors per shot production), especially since the Bulls' #2/#3/#4 options were inefficient from the field in the playoffs. How would they fare generating offense against an elite zone defense when they couldn't even be efficient against a man-to-man defense which their offense was built to have success against?
I'm not acting like the zone is a new or foreign concept, and that the Bulls would have absolutely no knowledge on how to handle it. However as a unit, when you're playing 82 games and playoff games, season after season and you have an offense which functions through attacking man-to-man defense - going straight from that to one series where you have to deal with a zone scheme - you can't possibly think this wouldn't have a significant impact on the Bulls offense. It literally changes everything within their offense. Especially since this Warriors defense is greater in just about every aspect than every defense the Bulls faced. This is again, all without mentioning them also having to deal with trying to equalize the Warriors' 3-pt shooting. That's TWO major changes to their offense where they'd need to adapt in order to win - no reasonable person could expect them to win every game with these challenges.
If they only make six threes at a game at 30% against defenses that didn't focus on guarding the 3-pt shot, how the hell are they going hit more threes at a similar rate against an elite defense which is GREAT at limiting three-point makes?
Warriors held teams to 33% on 21 three-pt attempts last season (#2= in the league)
Warriors hold teams to 27% on 19 three-pt attempts this season (#1 in the league)
Now how long do you think it'd take for the Bulls to put a plan into action to take more threes, and actually having success with it? How long would it take for them to guard the Warriors 3-pt attempts before having success?
That was only in the first three games, the other three games they rose to the occasion. And let's not act like that Bulls role players weren't inconsistent during said postseason either. Even Pippen was inconsistent - 17 ppg on 47 TS% (Klay despite his up-and-down postseason averaged 18.6 ppg on 55 TS%). Kukoc had 11 ppg on 48 TS% shooting. Harper had 9 points on 52 TS%
Thompson, Iggy, Barnes and Green all averaged double digit scoring on considerably higher points per shot efficiency.
Pippen shot 33%, Harper shot 36%, Kukoc shot 20% and Longley shot 37% all against the Knicks in the playoffs. Yet who's to say they wouldn't also perform poorly on the offensive end against a better defensive team? Why are you only acting as if the Warriors role players were the only ones to "shyt the bed'?
It's not as simple as that, and no you can't use implausible reasoning of what may have happened with the Cavs going up 3-0 - because i) it didn't happen ii) the pace, style and calls would be different against the Bulls. I'd like to know how you came to the conclusion that the Bulls had the offense to match the Warriors at their best? I'd also like to know how you came to the conclusion the Bulls defense would be able to defend the Warriors 3-pt offense to a degree in which would have them win every game?
I'm convinced that you're willingly ignorant to how impactful 3-pt shooting and zone defense is. No rational person would think the Bulls could just adapt at a flick of a switch to zone rules against one of the best defensive teams in the modern era, and have success to the point where they'd win every game. It's simply NOT happening.
The Bulls would have played at an even slower pace and were more efficient than the Cavs offensively with more options and they got calls.
Being down 3-0 is far different from being down 2-1. I think that demoralizes the role players even further and they fold.
The Bulls were a ridiculously efficient offense based on the pace they played and they didnt rely on threes. How u get your points isnt as important as actually getting them. Bulls were better in that department than the Grizz and Cavs.
Man it's so awesome to see at least few people realizing how today's game is much better than that 90s grindfest
MJ stans are worse than Eminem stans, they are that much brainwashed by the glory and fairytale stories from the 90s that they can't look clearly at anything from todays game.
MJ stans are worse than Eminem stans, they are that much brainwashed by the glory and fairytale stories from the 90s that they can't look clearly at anything from todays game.
Amphibious
Land, water, wherever.
About 8-10 teams would of swept the Warriors back in 1995-2000.
When I type this, I mean EACH season. Not 8-10 TOTAL.
You young fakkits have no clue how shytty these players are in modern times.
Steph Curry would be a role player back then.
When I type this, I mean EACH season. Not 8-10 TOTAL.
You young fakkits have no clue how shytty these players are in modern times.
Steph Curry would be a role player back then.
