The Golden State Warriors’ phenomenal playoff run now sees them mentioned in the same breath as Michael Jordan’s Bulls. But just how good would they be against the all conquering 1995-96 Chicago team?
A lot has been made recently of the hypothetical match-up of this season’s all conquering Golden State Warriors and Michael Jordan’s 72-10 Chicago Bulls, with odds makers all over the world even coming up with what prices they would offer if a best-of-seven series eventuated.
It is a legitimate question, the sheer dominance of the Warriors over the past three seasons is quite remarkable.
There is even some parallels to be made in both teams off seasons leading into the years in question.
With both teams already stacked with talent, the Bulls brought in volatile All-Star and future Hall-of-Famer Dennis Rodman, just as the Warriors brought in Kevin Durant.
Both of these men made huge contributions to their new teams, helping to take them to new heights.
To give the Warriors credit, they are making a team built around this generation’s greatest player, LeBron James, look like fools during these NBA Finals.
But the ’96 Bulls are a different kettle of fish.
To even get to the NBA Finals, Jordan’s Bulls needed to go through Alonso Mourning’s Miami Heat, fierce rivals the New York Knicks, led by Patrick Ewing and John Starks – and the Shaquille O’Neal and Anfernee Hardaway-led Orlando Magic, the previous year’s Eastern Conference champs.
Despite these All-Star led opponents, the Bulls lost only once on their march to the NBA Finals, a three point overtime defeat in a raucous Madison Square Garden, despite a 46-point offensive performance by Jordan.
(AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill)
On the flip side of the coin, the Warriors faced a Portland team highlighted by C. J. McCollum and Damian Lillard, Gordon Hayward’s Utah Jazz coming off the back of a seven game series against the LA Clippers and a San Antonio Spurs team that lost Khawai Leonard for the entire series in game one.
I think Lillard, Hayward and Leonard are great players, but they are not in the same league as Mourning, Ewing or Shaq – not yet at least.
But the players on court are only as good as their coach. Steve Kerr, as well as stand-in coaches Larry Brown and Luke Walton have been phenomenal for the Warriors. But they’d be going up against Phil Jackson at one of the heights of his career, that’s a lot different than going up against Tyronn Lue or David Blatt.
The Bulls weren’t just great, they were great at a time of unbelievable talent in the NBA.
They had the man who would become the mould for two-way players for decades to come in Scottie Pippen.
(AP Photo/Tony Dejak)
They had one of the best rebounders and post defenders of all time in Dennis Rodman
And the trump card, they had arguably the greatest player in the history of basketball, who did not miss a game all season on their side in his royal airness, Michael Jordan.
I would love if it was possible to get both of these teams to play each other in their primes, it would be phenomenal basketball.
But I’m sorry, to say the Warriors and the Jordan led super-team Bulls, give me the Bulls every day of the week.
JGK
Roar Guru
Indeed. Silly comment from Big J.
Bobbo7
Guest
Spot on. If both teams played as they were / are the Warriors would dominate. Too hard to compare eras though. I think one of the few that everyone can agree on over eras is Don Bradman as no one then or something nice has come close. Very arguably the greatest sportsman in histoy. Not sure how his 3 shooting was though.
Osama Bin Haroon
Roar Rookie
The Chicago Bulls of 1995-96 had probably the greatest starting front five with MJ, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Steve Kerr and Dennis Rodman. Rodman would knock off all the boards from Zaza easily while MJ would outmuscle Steph abd KD in the paint with points. Pippen would control the flow of the game despite being heavily guarded by Klay Thompson. Bulls in SIX!
astro
Guest
Yep, agreed. The rules under which this hypothetical game is played would have a huge impact. Its really worth revisiting this article from Zach Lowe from a few years ago. He was amazingly accurate in his assessment of where the league was going, and he also explains how the league has evolved multiple times to adjust to the introduction of the zone: http://grantland.com/features/packing-paint-nba-defensive-strategy-forcing-coaches-rethink-their-offense/ It really highlights just how much the NBA has evolved since Jordan's Bulls. On the point of the impact of the zone, it shows how teams today, particularly the Warriors, are adept at covering both the paint and the perimeter. The versatility of Green, Durant and Thompson in particular is really amazing.
ojp
Guest
they did indeed win by a big margin on average over the course of the series; but Kawhi was injured in the 3rd quarter of game 1; the spurs were well ahead at the time, up 20 points, but (post Kawhi injury) were subsequently outscored 58-33 the rest of the way and lost 113 - 111. How about 'the GSW made the Spurs, minus their best player, injured MVP candidate Kawhi, look like a d league team ?' because in the small sample size we have from when he was on the floor, the Spurs were +20.
Swampy
Guest
You love bashing me so my turn. Why would Steve Kerr guard Klay Thompson much? A. He didn't start regularly (ie. Not at all during the 72-10 season) and was a point guard. B. He's 6'3" and the rest of the Bulls were 6'6" or taller. The starting lineup was Ron Harper, Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman and Luc Longley. A couple of good defenders there (eg three hall of fame defenders) and Harper was good too It's all good from the security of your keyboard until you say something silly.
Old School
Roar Rookie
That was a good read about the evolution of defense, he makes some good arguments for his points, but it may be possible for someone else to make equally convincing arguments about 90s D. I started reading this article thinking "How on earth would the Bulls compete against the 3 point barrage from the Warriors?", but after reading some insightful comments I realize the original question is pointless - who would win, the Bulls or Warriors? Impossible to say without defining what rules they're playing under. The biggest change in the rules from 90s to now must be the zone defense. The zone makes it harder to score in the key and it makes the perimeter weak - one dimensional post-up centres have disappeared and 3 point shots are being taken in record numbers.
Swampy
Guest
Agreed - not saying there is no possibility curry would have survived the 90's - his dad managed. Just raising the hypothetical that he may not have been the same player in that era. Curry had durability issues early in his career. It is not drawing a long bow to suggest he may have struggled in his first year or two to impact the league as it was in the 90's (&80's). How that pans out for his future stardom we'll never know. Coaches for one weren't encouraging guys to shoot from 30'. All I'm saying is it is impossible to say this team would beat that team decades apart. Curry is a player for now. He is the perfect player. Durant & Thompson I think would have been just as good but I can't see Draymond being as effective. Same argument for the Bulls. They wouldn't recruit a Longley or Scott Thompson and maybe Paxson is way too slow. I'm still on the fence. And staying there.
BigJ
Roar Guru
Sounds like a top ten nba players list would cause an intersting debate
Swampy
Guest
May not does not equal would not.
Mushi
Guest
To be fair I have the warriors in 6/7 which means that I can also see the bulls winning. But this "no chance" stuff is ignoring they are pimp slapping the League
Braintrust
Guest
Kerr wan;t better than Jordan at 3 point range, he just waited till he was wide open to shoot whereas Jordan was the one always forcing the play. Ingles was leading the 3 point percentages this season mid way.
Mushi
Guest
Can you read your own post "Steph Curry may not make the NBA in 1995" Atleast have the integrity to stand behind your post
Mushi
Guest
They won by an average margin of above 15... If it is harsh it is only by "a bit"
astro
Guest
I'll just leave this here: https://thelasttimeout.com/2016/05/19/the-evolution-of-defense-in-the-nba/
astro
Guest
I hear you mushi...And maybe I am having a case of "better in my day"-itis! For me, the rules are the big difference. There are so many subtle differences in what is allowed on defense particularly, that my belief is that the team playing under their own eras set of rules, would have a massive advantage. Of course, I'm assuming this hypothetical game puts the Warriors in a time-machine and they go back to 1996, suit up and walk onto the court to play the Bulls. Or the Bulls travel forward in time and play the Warriors...but either team wouldn't have time to adjust to the rules/regulations of the era they're travelling to. But my head is starting to hurt thinking about the details of this thing...All I know is the "four horsemen of the basketball apocalypse" is brilliant...and I'm stealing it.
Brian
Guest
Agreed the GSW would destroy the Bulls, Sure Jordan better then Curry but c'mon Klay Thompaons & Green versus say Rodman & Harper. Luc Longley on Igaudala? GSW by 25 points. Likewise Real Madrid would destroy the Brazil 1970 side, so too the 3 peat Hawks against the 3 peat Lions, dare I say even Bradman would not average 40 with the skillset he had then, training part time etc.
Dan Helson
Roar Rookie
I am leaving Curry and Durant out of this equation. They are phenomenal players, but they should not be compared to the all time greatest. Curry is without a doubt the greatest shooter the game has/may ever see and Durant is a freak, but they are not in this echelon of players and I am not sure they will make it.
Mathew Langdon
Roar Pro
I umm'ed and ahh'ed really hard on putting Duncan and Kobe on the list. Could easily see Tim on the list but Haqueem would have to be the one to go. Funnily enough, Robert Horry gave his take on the Hakeem Olajuwon and Tim Duncan debate and said: "They had nobody that could guard Dream [Olajuwon's nickname]. They had nobody that could guard Dream. I'm gonna say that twice because Dream was just that dominant. When we played San Antonio one time, Tim was killing me on the block, and [then-Lakers coach] Phil [Jackson] refused to double-team Tim to get the ball out of his hands. And Dream is 20 times better than Tim Duncan."
astro
Guest
no Duncan???