Game Thread GAME# 78: BLAZERS @ WARRIORS - APRIL 3, 2016 - SUNDAY, 5:00 PM (PDT), KGW & NBATV

[KingSpeed]

That's weak even by your rosy standards. We have a day off then a back to back against Sacto and OKC, both of which are must wins. We had virtually no chance of beating a GS team fresh off their first home loss of the year and still chasing the best record of all time. If we lose either of the upcoming games, it's a major fail on Stotts' part not resting them tonight.

In the final 10 days before the playoffs, we have 2 games. At home. That's 8 days off for the whole team. Obviously, there will be practices but for players who need to rest injuries, they will have EIGHT DAYS. How many times do I have to say this? As for the upcoming 2 games, we have a day off tomorrow. We are fine. These are professional athletes. Jordan played all 82. Even Pop had Duncan play all 82 when he was Dame's age.

 

[kjironman1]

In the final 10 days before the playoffs, we have 2 games. At home. That's 8 days off for the whole team. Obviously, there will be practices but for players who need to rest injuries, they will have EIGHT DAYS. How many times do I have to say this? As for the upcoming 2 games, we have a day off tomorrow. We are fine. These are professional athletes. Jordan played all 82. Even Pop had Duncan play all 82 when he was Dame's age.

To be fair neither Jordan or Duncan ever had to carry the team the way Lillard has but yes i agree they are professional athletes that will have time to rest their boo boos before the playoffs start. The point still remains they were not going to win that game and resting a few players might make winning one of the next 2 a little more plausible.

 

[SIeepwalker]

CJ killed our momentum each time it started to shift our way. He was horrible last night.

 

[B-Roy]

How is it irrelevant? If you're matching up the two teams, you have to consider that the Bulls had three of the greatest players to ever play the game.

You know what other team had a bunch of future hall of famers? The 03 Lakers.

 

[BrunoSOC]

I hope we make the 5seed. We can make.

 

[BBert]

I hope we make the 5seed. We can make.

Definitely going to make fifth seed.

 

[Sinobas]

... You literally described it.

The Blazers don't even have a bandwagon my love.

 

[Sinobas]

I'm doing real world stuff while listening to the game. What are you doing?

Oh, so you technically watched 0 quarters. I watched more of the game than you did.

 

[BonesJones]

You know what other team had a bunch of future hall of famers? The 03 Lakers.

Don't forget the 2012 Lakers.

 

[STOMP]

The Bulls had three HOFers.

How many will the Warriors have after it's all said and done?

Curry is 28, Klay & Draymond are 26, all 3 are signed to reasonable long term deals. Unless someone's career is derailed by injury, this run of theirs isn't stopping any time soon.

Spoils go to the victors & those 3 Warriors are well on their way to the Hall.

STOMP

 

[cardova08]

The argument isn't really Bulls vs Dubs. It's quite possible that the Bulls would beat the Warriors in a 7 game series, they did after all have the greatest player of all time. I think we're going to eventually look at Steph as the greatest shooter of all time, but certainly a lot has to be proven before that claim can be made.
The original argument was that the Warriors should have an asterisk by the record if they were to break it because the league isn't as good as it was in 1996. The Lakers, Celtics and Pistons were all cited as better teams that the Bulls had to beat than the teams in the league right now. Well the Pistons won 46 games that year, the Celtics won 33 and the Lakers won 53. Certainly no world beaters. There were 4 teams that won at least 59 games (Bulls, Magic, Sonics, Spurs) whereas this season will likely only see 3 teams hit that mark (and the Cavs have to finish 4-1 to reach 59). You could make an argument for a more competitive league if less teams are winning around 60 games.
There were 18 teams that finished above or around .500 in 1996 and there are 19 teams that will finish above or around that mark this season. The current 76ers and Lakers would have been 2 of the 3 worst teams in the league in 1996. So maybe more bottom feeders but slightly more average to above average teams.
There were 4 different MVPs in the 6 seasons before 96 (including 2 years where the best player on the planet MJ did not play either at all or for a full season) and there have been 4 different MVPs in the 6 seasons preceding the current one. Very difficult to say which league had more talent especially as the argument could be made that the best player in the league does not play for the Warriors (LBJ). No such argument could have been made in 1996.
The big difference for me is when franchises were founded. The last NBA franchise to be founded currently is the Pelicans who were founded in the 2002-2003 season. In the 13 years before 1996, a total of 6 teams were started from scratch. There were significantly less well established teams than there are today.
None of this mentions analytics and other data more available today, giving opponents plenty of information on how to beat teams. You could also say that more tanking occurs in the current league but that's more speculative.
So all in all it was tough for the Bulls to win 72 in 96, and it's been tough for the Dubs to win 69 this year. If they break the record they should be celebrated as the greatest regular season team in history.

 

[handiman]

I think we're going to eventually look at Steph as the greatest shooter of all time, but certainly a lot has to be proven before that claim can be made.

Like what? Longevity is the only thing I can see that's left to be proven, and he's already pretty solid in that category.

 

[Natebishop3]

Charles agrees with me.

 

[Natebishop3]

You know what other team had a bunch of future hall of famers? The 03 Lakers.

That team didn't set the win record though, did it? It was a team that was hastily put together with aging superstars. Malone wasn't even close to still being one of the best players in the league. Payton was past his prime as well.

The Bulls had three future Hall of Famers who were arguably the best at their positions at that time, and were exceptional defenders.

Is Klay the best shooting guard in the league? Is Draymond the best power forward in the league? I find it laughable that Klay would ever make it to the hall. Maybe Draymond if he keeps up this production.

 

[illmatic99]

Charles agrees with me.

Not really a ringing endorsement then. hehe

 

[Natebishop3]

Not really a ringing endorsement then. hehe

Well, there's a number of videos discussing the topic on ESPN, and I think most of them agree that the Bulls would win in a series. The disagreement is over how many games it would take.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

A good point made by the RipCityMornings guys this morning: This year's Warriors are inarguably a better team than the '96 SuperSonics, and those Sonics took 2 games off the Bulls in the finals. I think it's fair to say that the Warriors would likely also lose in 6. Although, who knows if not having Kerr available would hinder the Bulls in that series, since he'd be busy coaching the opposition...

 

[Natebishop3]

A good point made by the RipCityMornings guys this morning: This year's Warriors are inarguably a better team than the '96 SuperSonics, and those Sonics took 2 games off the Bulls in the finals. I think it's fair to say that the Warriors would likely also lose in 6. Although, who knows if not having Kerr available would hinder the Bulls in that series, since he'd be busy coaching the opposition...

Kerr would be there.... because in this paradox we're talking about Jordan at age 32, Pippen was 30, and Rodman was 34.

The Sonics that year were an interesting matchup because they had Kemp, who presented a difficult defensive matchup for Chicago, and Payton (who is arguably the greatest defensive point guard of all time.) The Warriors don't have Kemp. Their best player is Curry, and I think that Bulls team was built to defend wing players. They held Payton to 17 ppg in that series, which was 3 ppg less than his playoff average in 1995-1996.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Kerr would be there.... because in this paradox we're talking about Jordan at age 32, Pippen was 30, and Rodman was 34.

The Sonics that year were an interesting matchup because they had Kemp, who presented a difficult defensive matchup for Chicago, and Payton (who is arguably the greatest defensive point guard of all time.) The Warriors don't have Kemp. Their best player is Curry, and I think that Bulls team was built to defend wing players. They held Payton to 17 ppg in that series, which was 3 ppg less than his playoff average in 1995-1996.

Obviously I was joking about the Kerr comment. I think the Kemp point is significant; the Warriors don't have anyone anywhere near as physically imposing or dominant as what Kemp was at the height of his powers. Also, I think that with Jordan/Pippen/Rodman all having been all NBA 1st team defensive players, people overlook or undersell the impact that Ron Harper and Luc Longley had defensively, but those guys were excellent as well. I think it's fair to argue that defensively, the Bulls' best 3 could basically lock down the Warriors' best 3 (Jordan would take stopping Curry as a personal mission, and he'd succeed due to his general Jordan-ness), and Harper/Longley would be more than adequate on whoever else is out there. On the flip side, even if the Warriors assigned Iguodala and Green to Jordan and Pippen, I don't see that being sufficient to stop the Bulls.

 

[Natebishop3]

Obviously I was joking about the Kerr comment. I think the Kemp point is significant; the Warriors don't have anyone anywhere near as physically imposing or dominant as what Kemp was at the height of his powers. Also, I think that with Jordan/Pippen/Rodman all having been all NBA 1st team defensive players, people overlook or undersell the impact that Ron Harper and Luc Longley had defensively, but those guys were excellent as well. I think it's fair to argue that defensively, the Bulls' best 3 could basically lock down the Warriors' best 3 (Jordan would take stopping Curry as a personal mission, and he'd succeed due to his general Jordan-ness), and Harper/Longley would be more than adequate on whoever else is out there. On the flip side, even if the Warriors assigned Iguodala and Green to Jordan and Pippen, I don't see that being sufficient to stop the Bulls.

Kemp might be the most athletic player to ever play in the NBA. I know that's a lofty bar to set for anyone, but the guy was a freak. It's truly sad what happened to him in Cleveland.

To me, if you can shut down Curry (which has proven to be extremely difficult to do), you can shut down the Warriors, and looking at some of the teams over the past 15-20 years, the Bulls had the length and athleticism to do it, even with today's rules.

I would pay good money to see Curry play against the Riley Knicks or the Bad Boy Pistons though, with the rules of that time.

 

[handiman]

That team didn't set the win record though, did it? It was a team that was hastily put together with aging superstars. Malone wasn't even close to still being one of the best players in the league. Payton was past his prime as well.

Malone absolutely was still a juggernaut, and there was nothing hastily put together about that team. People forget that Malone was injured and that's what derailed them. They were still really, really good despite Payton being a bad fit in the triangle.

 

[Draco]

A good point made by the RipCityMornings guys this morning: This year's Warriors are inarguably a better team than the '96 SuperSonics, and those Sonics took 2 games off the Bulls in the finals. I think it's fair to say that the Warriors would likely also lose in 6. Although, who knows if not having Kerr available would hinder the Bulls in that series, since he'd be busy coaching the opposition...

I dunno about that; Kemp outplayed Jordan in that series with Rodman defending him. Kemp was unbelievable that year. He'd run circles around Draymond or a small ball Barnes. The Glove would be better defensively than Avery Bradley on Steph.

Some of these matchups are like the classics in boxing; or rock paper scissors where just because you handily beat one team doesn't mean you won't get swept by the other. Kenny Smith always said that with his Rockets they could manhandle the Jazz but were terrible against the Sonics while the Jazz could easily beat the Sonics. Just depended how the teams were seeded.

 

[Natebishop3]

Malone absolutely was still a juggernaut, and there was nothing hastily put together about that team. People forget that Malone was injured and that's what derailed them. They were still really, really good despite Payton being a bad fit in the triangle.

Eh, he only averaged 13 and 8 that season. Obviously still very solid, but not what I would consider a juggernaut.

 

[Draco]

Eh, he only averaged 13 and 8 that season. Obviously still very solid, but not what I would consider a juggernaut.

No he wasn't a "juggernaut" but Malone was very effective until he got hurt. How many shots do you think were available with a prime Shaq; not to mention a ball hog Kobe? I wouldn't hold the 13 points against him. He averaged 20 the year prior.

 

[Draco]

I'd love to have a team that gets to the finals without facing an elimination game be considered a massive underachiever and disappointment. Sheesh.

That's similar to our best season in the last 40 years.

 

[Natebishop3]

No he wasn't a "juggernaut" but Malone was very effective until he got hurt. How many shots do you think were available with a prime Shaq; not to mention a ball hog Kobe? I wouldn't hold the 13 points against him. He averaged 20 the year prior.

Yeah, but my point was that he wasn't one of the best players in the league anymore. Not that he wasn't still effective or a solid player.

 

[handiman]

Yeah, but my point was that he wasn't one of the best players in the league anymore. Not that he wasn't still effective or a solid player.

You make it sound like he was just an average player. If Malone wasn't one of the best players in the league still, a borderline all-time great team wouldn't have fallen apart in the wake of his injury. A role player should have been able to fill in just fine.

 

[KingSpeed]

The argument isn't really Bulls vs Dubs. It's quite possible that the Bulls would beat the Warriors in a 7 game series, they did after all have the greatest player of all time. I think we're going to eventually look at Steph as the greatest shooter of all time, but certainly a lot has to be proven before that claim can be made.
The original argument was that the Warriors should have an asterisk by the record if they were to break it because the league isn't as good as it was in 1996. The Lakers, Celtics and Pistons were all cited as better teams that the Bulls had to beat than the teams in the league right now. Well the Pistons won 46 games that year, the Celtics won 33 and the Lakers won 53. Certainly no world beaters. There were 4 teams that won at least 59 games (Bulls, Magic, Sonics, Spurs) whereas this season will likely only see 3 teams hit that mark (and the Cavs have to finish 4-1 to reach 59). You could make an argument for a more competitive league if less teams are winning around 60 games.
There were 18 teams that finished above or around .500 in 1996 and there are 19 teams that will finish above or around that mark this season. The current 76ers and Lakers would have been 2 of the 3 worst teams in the league in 1996. So maybe more bottom feeders but slightly more average to above average teams.
There were 4 different MVPs in the 6 seasons before 96 (including 2 years where the best player on the planet MJ did not play either at all or for a full season) and there have been 4 different MVPs in the 6 seasons preceding the current one. Very difficult to say which league had more talent especially as the argument could be made that the best player in the league does not play for the Warriors (LBJ). No such argument could have been made in 1996.
The big difference for me is when franchises were founded. The last NBA franchise to be founded currently is the Pelicans who were founded in the 2002-2003 season. In the 13 years before 1996, a total of 6 teams were started from scratch. There were significantly less well established teams than there are today.
None of this mentions analytics and other data more available today, giving opponents plenty of information on how to beat teams. You could also say that more tanking occurs in the current league but that's more speculative.
So all in all it was tough for the Bulls to win 72 in 96, and it's been tough for the Dubs to win 69 this year. If they break the record they should be celebrated as the greatest regular season team in history.

The Pelicans have been around since the 80s when they were called the Charlotte Hornets.

Malone absolutely was still a juggernaut, and there was nothing hastily put together about that team. People forget that Malone was injured and that's what derailed them. They were still really, really good despite Payton being a bad fit in the triangle.

Billups destroyed Payton in the 2004 NBA Finals and Payton was a non-factor on offense.

 

[Natebishop3]

You make it sound like he was just an average player. If Malone wasn't one of the best players in the league still, a borderline all-time great team wouldn't have fallen apart in the wake of his injury. A role player should have been able to fill in just fine.

Pretty sure there was more to it than just that. They had horrible chemistry on that team with Shaq and Kobe feuding openly.

 

[handiman]

Pretty sure there was more to it than just that. They had horrible chemistry on that team with Shaq and Kobe feuding openly.

That was true every year they played together.