Bulls >>>>>> Warriors is such a bad look from guys like Jordan and Ron Harper, and the argument that the Riley era Knicks and the BadBoys would have beaten up the Warriors is an even worse look.

I feel strongly that Curry, and the Warriors as a whole, would destroy the rumble tumble era of the NBA, even under the rumble tumble rules, until the league had time to adjust. 3 pointers were basically uncontested shots back then, and nobody in the league defended against teams shooting threes in transition. That aspect of Curry's game would be even more lethal. Hard fouls would not be an issue. Allowing hard fouls favors the ambidextrous, because ambidextrous guys can shield the ball with their bodies and still get the ball on the rim. Curry is highly ambidextrous.

Also, the main effect of hand checking is to diminish the advantage that highly explosive players have over less explosive players. Again, this would work to Curry's advantage, especially when defending guys like Rustle. (The corollary of this is that Jordan would have benefitted quite a bit from today's rules. It's counterintuitive, but I think the Bulls would have fared better against the Warriors under today's rules than under the rules when Jordan played.)

And LOL at any suggestion that Curry or the Warriors are not tough enough for the old NBA. There is nothing in Curry's past to suggest that he is a blueberry when it comes to getting hit, and even if goons were required in the old NBA, Bogut and Draymond would have excelled as goons. Frankly, I can't think of a single player in the NBA who reminds me more of that era than Bogut.

Did Reggie Miller end up in the hospital back then? He was far more frail than Curry.

I think any argument regarding the physicality is pretty silly. Of course theyre "tough" enough.

What's more silly is you arguing that the teams would just let the warrior shoot threes. Of course the bulls would adjust

Eventually yes, but that transition takes time. You can't just wake up in the morning and decide to extend your defense by five feet. That's why the Warriors are killing the NBA right now. Even after a couple of years, teams have not made the adjustment fully yet, either in terms of philosophy or personnel.

Also, it is virtually impossible to defend completely against transition 3s.

Warriors vs Bulls from 25 years ago containment thread please.

i find it funny that all those debates start with the hypothesis that players would be the same and would be playing the same if shifted in another era

Or that you want to leave 1996 Jordan open to shoot threes

But ill stop now

Wtf Jordan's 3P% is so weird.

In just 4 seasons ('89, '92, '95 and '96) he had 1032 of his 1778 career 3PA. In those years he averaged 38.2% on 3.1 3PA/g which is pretty solid.

In his other 11 seasons, he attempted only 746 3s and made 186, at 24.9% on basically 1 per game. Such a weird distribution.

Draymond is so thinskinned. He'd want to retire and go into hiding after a series against THE WORM.

Shortened 3p line plays a big role in the latter two of those seasons. '89 surprised me though.

I gotta imagine that Jordan is such an insane egomaniacal competitor that if he was playing under new rules (and really the new realization/attitude of how important 3PT shots are) he'd be tearing up the 3PT line. Even if he was a bad 3PT guy for much of his career, there's no way he doesn't become good if he realized it was important. Just imo.

Pete Maravich is probably the most interesting one as far as era-translation is concerned. In the actual era he played, he was an overrated showman like Iverson who was nowhere near as good for winning basketball games as his reputation suggested but he would've been a sick Curry/Nash combo with the 3-point line.

warriors definately dont beat the bulls. they couldnt beat dellavadova ffs.

+1

MJ is an insane monster of a person

1996 Jordan shot .427 from 3 on 3.2 attempts per game and .834 from the line on 8.0 FTAs per game.

Anyone gonna say the volume on both wouldn't rise in today's NBA for an efficient 35 PPG?

That was a short 3 year. It was 22'6" I believe. Basically, the short corner distance all the way around.

You're comparing pre MIP Curry with post MIP Curry, big difference

Got an SC update on the book saying Pop doesn't like 3s and called them circus shots. Expert troll?

Yeah but I'm with Danny on this:


He would exploit every tactic to getting fouled that he would be less guardable. Nit sure what wins out between the skills of Klay/Iguodala and MJ's drive to ridicule opponents, but betting against the latter never went well. And that drive wasn't mystical. He was a phenomenal game theorist. Not saying he would def be better because he'd be defending more athletic wing players so maybe that evens out.

A Warriors-Bulls containment thread would be nice. This is a really cool thread and this is all a bit off topic.

No, he thinks there shouldn't be a 3 pt shot not he doesn't like his players taking them, which makes sense

http://www.theonion.com/article/area...ich-again-6994

Why are we so obsessed with comparing Staps? Is it because he's white, let alone the trite rush to find other white guys to compare him to?

Why not just call his body and skill set what it is: extraordinary, no matter what his production averages out at. I've never seen a player like him.

This is nothing new.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/bal...urn=nba,wp1146

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/8...-heat-vs-spurs

That can't possibly be right