Isiah Thomas: Bad Boy Pistons could easily beat these Dubs/Celts

[zombiesonics]

Warriors would destroy all those coked out boomer teams. Average player looked like a crackhead back then.

[Deez]

Bulls beat both these teams.

Not a freaking chance.

Nobody stops Jordan or even close and Pippen Rodman and Jordan would D These teams up. Don’t be ridiculous. If they are playing 80-90’s rules then absolutely. However styles have changed and nobody knows how teams would do if they concentrated on threes as religiously as they do now.

[Deez]

Neither of these teams are anything special though. Boston kinda fluked their way to the Finals IMHO, and the Warriors are basically Curry + lesser versions of Klay & Draymond. It’s not like this is the Warriors with KD, or the 73 win Warriors.

That's how big the gap between the modern era and Jordan's era is.

"Meh" title-winning/contending teams in 2022 would beat *legendary* 80s/90s teams by 20-30 points per game (straight across).

Much like the worst team in 1991 would beat the Mikan Lakers by 100 points a game.

Get off the fucking crack

[Sudanese Sensation]

Ask yourself if the undefeated 1972 Dolphins could beat the defending SuperBowl Rams. It's all a question of how much you believe athletes and professional sports has evolved.

[Robceltsfan]

Ask yourself if the undefeated 1972 Dolphins could beat the defending SuperBowl Rams. It's all a question of how much you believe athletes and professional sports has evolved.

Thirty years is a long time.....Fifty is even longer. Every generation of athlete gets a little bigger....a little faster....a little leaner....starts a little younger....was trained a little more intensely from a younger age.

This is the natural progression.

[vcsgrizzfan]

Ask yourself if the undefeated 1972 Dolphins could beat the defending SuperBowl Rams. It's all a question of how much you believe athletes and professional sports has evolved.

I was being serious when I said just go watch "Classic NBA" and watch some Bulls vs. Knicks (or whoever you choose) playoff games and try to imagine that against the Warriors or even a middling NBA team now. As much as I loved to watch it at the time, it is painfully obvious it is a less evolved brand of the game. Far fewer players can shoot, especially from range, far fewer have good handles, there are tons and tons of guys who have no hope of successfully switching a screen and roll and so on and so forth. There is no reason to be defensive about this. It is natural.

[Robceltsfan]

Ask yourself if the undefeated 1972 Dolphins could beat the defending SuperBowl Rams. It's all a question of how much you believe athletes and professional sports has evolved.

I was being serious when I said just go watch "Classic NBA" and watch some Bulls vs. Knicks (or whoever you choose) playoff games and try to imagine that against the Warriors or even a middling NBA team now. As much as I loved to watch it at the time, it is painfully obvious it is a less evolved brand of the game. Far fewer players can shoot, especially from range, far fewer have good handles, there are tons and tons of guys who have no hope of successfully switching a screen and roll and so on and so forth. There is no reason to be defensive about this. It is natural.

I've said it many times....it's not about the greats. The greats are very likely to be great and adapt in any era. Many of them were great because they had skills or athleticism that outpaced their peers.

It's the 3rd guy....the 4th guy....the first three bench players. On average, they're all noticeably less polished, less athletic players than what we have today. And that's in any sport with the possible exception of baseball. I think the curve is much flatter in that sport. Same for golf.

[Bush4Ever.]

However styles have changed and nobody knows how teams would do if they concentrated on threes as religiously as they do now.

Sure we do.

They didn't "concentrate on threes" because they couldn't shoot threes a quarter as good as today and weren't capable of raising their game.

If they tried to implement a modern offensive strategy in 1990 it would have failed because it would have been brick city.

The first three-peat Bulls...who is hitting tons of threes with loads and loads of work and a philosophical shift? Bench player Craig Hodges? Sure. BJ Armstrong? Probably. Maybe John Paxson?

In 1992, those guys combined for about 58 minutes played per game. That's basically the equivalent of one and a half starter minutes.

[vcsgrizzfan]

However styles have changed and nobody knows how teams would do if they concentrated on threes as religiously as they do now.

Sure we do.

They didn't "concentrate on threes" because they couldn't shoot threes a quarter as good as today and weren't capable of raising their game.

If they tried to implement a modern offensive strategy in 1990 it would have failed because it would have been brick city.

The first three-peat Bulls...who is hitting tons of threes with loads and loads of work and a philosophical shift? Bench player Craig Hodges? Sure. BJ Armstrong? Probably. Maybe John Paxson?

In 1992, those guys combined for about 58 minutes played per game. That's basically the equivalent of one and a half starter minutes.

It was also in a time when the 3 point shot was barely defended compared to today and most often just a spot up shot that didn't require much to set up. A little different now.

[Bush4Ever.]

Incidentally, one of my earliest hoops memories (IIRC I was 6) was watching Craig Hodges hit like 19 (?) three-pointers in a row during the three-point contest. Obviously, I was extremely young, but I remember the adults in the room acting like this was some sort of black magic at the time:

[Sudanese Sensation]

Incidentally, one of my earliest hoops memories (IIRC I was 6) was watching Craig Hodges hit like 19 (?) three-pointers in a row during the three-point contest. Obviously, I was extremely young, but I remember the adults in the room acting like this was some sort of black magic at the time:

Steph Curry drains 105 consecutive 3-pointers in incredible video from Warriors' practice. Steph Curry made one 3-pointer at the Golden State Warriors' practice Saturday in Chicago. Then, he made another and another and another until he made 105 consecutive 3-pointers.Dec 27, 2020

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 052972001/

[Bush4Ever.]

Steph Curry drains 105 consecutive 3-pointers in incredible video from Warriors' practice. Steph Curry made one 3-pointer at the Golden State Warriors' practice Saturday in Chicago. Then, he made another and another and another until he made 105 consecutive 3-pointers.Dec 27, 2020

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 052972001/

Yes, that was insane. A little different going from empty ("empty") gym to competitive shootout to game situations, but still...that's crazy.

I remember in one of Larry Bird's books I read as a young teen, he said he would hit like 75 midrange-level shots in a row during warmups not entirely infrequently. I didn't believe it...but now it seems incredibly believable.

Another one was watching the Pacers play the Jazz at the Fieldhouse when I was in high school. During warmups I saw sleepy Sam Perkins hit about 20-25ish threes in a row with minimal effort, jumping like five inches off the ground and probably not even opening his eyes all the way. He also hit like five or six threes that night.

Suffice it to say...NBA players are amazing

[vcsgrizzfan]

Steph Curry drains 105 consecutive 3-pointers in incredible video from Warriors' practice. Steph Curry made one 3-pointer at the Golden State Warriors' practice Saturday in Chicago. Then, he made another and another and another until he made 105 consecutive 3-pointers.Dec 27, 2020

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/n ... 052972001/

Yes, that was insane. A little different going from empty ("empty") gym to competitive shootout to game situations, but still...that's crazy.

I remember in one of Larry Bird's books I read as a young teen, he said he would hit like 75 midrange-level shots in a row during warmups not entirely infrequently. I didn't believe it...but now it seems incredibly believable.

Another one was watching the Pacers play the Jazz at the Fieldhouse when I was in high school. During warmups I saw sleepy Sam Perkins hit about 20-25ish threes in a row with minimal effort, jumping like five inches off the ground and probably not even opening his eyes all the way. He also hit like five or six threes that night.

Suffice it to say...NBA players are amazing

As I've stated many times, I was a fan of the NBA beginning around 1970. In the "faulty memory" department, I remember a guy called World B. Free (given name Lloyd and the name he used when he joined the NBA) and I remembered him as a great long range shooter who would chuck it up a ton from really deep. Well, I went a checked his stats and he never had a single season where he averaged 3 attempts per game and only averaged 1.1 3 point attempts for his career?? And he only shot 33% for his career, so he wasn't exactly making a ton of them, especially since most were wide open looks. Funny how the mind plays tricks on us. I could have sworn he averaged at least 3-4 attempts per game and was making them at a much better clip.

[Bush4Ever.]

When I was a kid and played 1 on 1 with my father, lots of times when he got a long rebound and went to what our unofficial three-point line was (basically our neighbor's property line/driveway) he would say "downtown Freddie Brown" and shoot it.

Mr. Brown hit 39 threes the first year in the line was introduced, although at a 44 percent clip, leading the league.

To be fair, he seemed (by stats) to be a little bit past it at that point, and from what I can tell was actually a pretty accurate long two-pointer shooter before the line, not to mention FTs in the high 80s some years.

[Deez]

However styles have changed and nobody knows how teams would do if they concentrated on threes as religiously as they do now.

Sure we do.

They didn't "concentrate on threes" because they couldn't shoot threes a quarter as good as today and weren't capable of raising their game.

If they tried to implement a modern offensive strategy in 1990 it would have failed because it would have been brick city.

The first three-peat Bulls...who is hitting tons of threes with loads and loads of work and a philosophical shift? Bench player Craig Hodges? Sure. BJ Armstrong? Probably. Maybe John Paxson?

In 1992, those guys combined for about 58 minutes played per game. That's basically the equivalent of one and a half starter minutes.

Actually, no we don’t. If that’s how the game was back then and they decided to shoot 50 threes a game then they would have evolved and used that in their offense but that’s not how it was played back then. They actually had true centers who pounded down low. Todays game evolves around chucking threes all game long, teams today wouldn’t stop good bigs from back then. Draymond green defending 7-0” centers back then, lol. They would score at will. Jordan would put up 40 a game. I swear sometimes I question the actual basketball knowledge by some here.

[Bush4Ever.]

Actually, no we don’t. If that’s how the game was back then and they decided to shoot 50 threes a game then they would have evolved and used that in their offense but that’s not how it was played back then. They actually had true centers who pounded down low. Todays game evolves around chucking threes all game long, teams today wouldn’t stop good bigs from back then. Draymond green defending 7-0” centers back then, lol. They would score at will. Jordan would put up 40 a game. I swear sometimes I question the actual basketball knowledge by some here.

In observable reality, they failed at an *easier* task in shooting threes (shooting virtually nothing but open, premium threes against a fairly unguarded line), compared to the modern day.

It's not like they only shot a few premium open threes a game, but hit 40 or even 35 percent of them (about what the NBA shoots now with many handfuls more attempts with more difficulty against a more heavily guarded line). If you want to talk about how players like Larry Bird were held back by the time, that's fine...because he (KC Jones onward) succeeded with the shots he *was* taking. Not so with either the Bulls or Pistons.

You are basically saying the student who got a C- in Physics 101 in the Fall of 2022 could be reasonably expected to get an A in graduate-level physics in the Spring of 2023. Nutso talk.

Moreover, we are talking about the Bad Boy Pistons and Jordan Bulls. Where are all these mega-scoring interior offensive players coming from? Luc Longley? Bill Cartwright? Bill Laimbeer, who ironically was fairly outside pick/pop/fade oriented in his scoring?

Finally, it's interesting you and people like you pretend like the old school could seamlessly adapt to the modern, but the modern would be completely helpless to adapt to the old, which generally amounts to "hey throw the ball into the post more, and hit people on defense...oh and you can HAND CHECK now".

Imagine having a team like the Warriors or Celtics trying to figure out the complexity of "The Jordan Rules".

1. If he's at the top, make him go left and double him.
2. If he's on the left side of the court, send a double from the point
3. If he posts up, send a big to double
4. Hit him as hard as you can reasonably get away with, every time you can.

Wow! Who could possibly keep up with that level of complexity?

[Deez]

Actually, no we don’t. If that’s how the game was back then and they decided to shoot 50 threes a game then they would have evolved and used that in their offense but that’s not how it was played back then. They actually had true centers who pounded down low. Todays game evolves around chucking threes all game long, teams today wouldn’t stop good bigs from back then. Draymond green defending 7-0” centers back then, lol. They would score at will. Jordan would put up 40 a game. I swear sometimes I question the actual basketball knowledge by some here.

In observable reality, they failed at an *easier* task in shooting threes (shooting virtually nothing but open, premium threes against a fairly unguarded line), compared to the modern day.

It's not like they only shot a few premium open threes a game, but hit 40 or even 35 percent of them (about what the NBA shoots now with many handfuls more attempts with more difficulty against a more heavily guarded line).

You are basically saying the student who got a C- in Physics 101 in the Fall of 2022 could be reasonably expected to get an A in graduate-level physics in the Spring of 2023. Nutso talk.

Moreover, we are talking about the Bad Boy Pistons and Jordan Bulls. Where are all these mega-scoring interior offensive players coming from? Luc Longley? Bill Cartwright? Bill Laimbeer, who ironically was fairly outside pick/pop/fade oriented in his scoring?

Finally, it's interesting you and people like you pretend like the old school could seamlessly adapt to the modern, but the modern would be completely helpless to adapt to the old, which generally amounts to "hey throw the ball into the post more, and hit people on defense...oh and you can HAND CHECK now".

Imagine having a team like the Warriors or Celtics trying to figure out the complexity of "The Jordan Rules".

1. If he's at the top, make him go left and double him.
2. If he's on the left side of the court, send a double from the point
3. If he posts up, send a big to double
4. Hit him as hard as you can reasonably get away with, every time you can.

Wow! Who could possibly keep up with that level of complexity?

Your physics analogy is a terrible comparison. Yes, Longley would even pound the fuck out of the post today and that’s telling a lot about the bugs today. You seem confused about the three ball back then. What part of the game back then confuses you? If the three ball was as big back then and they ran offenses relying on the three 50 times a game, teams would have increased their percentage and shot better. They weren’t playing like today, that’s because no teams were. Jordan and the bulls would have a hay day today with the soft rules. No touch, hand checking, Jordan would be unguardable. Bulls with 90’s rules would beat either team, nothing against either team but they aren’t the bulls.

[Bush4Ever.]

Your physics analogy is a terrible comparison. Yes, Longley would even pound the fuck out of the post today and that’s telling a lot about the bigs today.

Rightttt...Luc Longley is going to light it up while also not giving up his contribution (and a lot more) defensively trying to guard the line, switch onto wings and maybe even points sometimes, etc...

Look what happened to Gobert in the Dallas series...now imagine a big lummox like Longley (who averaged 10 points on 46 percent shooting during the second threepeat) in that position. It would be a highway fatality lol

And it's a perfect comparison. The Pistons/Bulls failed on an EASIER version of a task compared to the modern day. That's what we saw, and it's not debatable.

You seem confused about the three ball back then. What part of the game back then confuses you? If the three ball was as big back then and they ran offenses relying on the three 50 times a game, teams would have increased their percentage and shot better.

So basically you are saying "if you took the Bulls, made them younger and in the modern era, and remade them into something entirely dissimilar to the Bulls, they would be competitive with modern teams".

Okay. That's not what Isiah's quote is referencing or what old heads like you claim in the first place. You claim "pluck the Pistons/Bulls of that era, and drop them straight into the modern game today and they win or even dominate (at least with muh 90s rules)". That's an entirely different claim.

If they go head-to-head directly, they are going to be forced to adjust in real time to all these issues. Either they would hammer away with their old game (and be inefficient by comparison in makes 2 to 3) or try to keep up with the modern game (and be inefficient by bricking 70-75 percent of threes).

They weren’t playing like today, that’s because no teams were. Jordan and the bulls would have a hay day today with the soft rules. No touch, hand checking, Jordan would be unguardable. Bulls with 90’s rules would beat either team, nothing against either team but they aren’t the bulls.

Just as piece of logic, you understand basketball is a two-sided game, right?

If you claim the 90s rules made everything tougher on offenses, you MUST concede it also made everything easier on defenses.

So adjusting to the modern, the old school would (theoretically) see an offensive increase ALONG WITH a defensive decrease (because now they can't punch, kick, maim, stab offensive players like they used to in the old days of 1985-1993, and 1996 to 1998---at which point everything became soft and beta).

[thedangerouskitchen]

The first 3-Peat Bulls (not using the second 3-Peat because of the shortened line) averaged .347% shooting from long-range... but-but-but, according to some message board geniuses they would get destroyed by today's superior NBA teams that averaged .354% shooting from deep this year.

[Bush4Ever.]

The first 3-Peat Bulls (not using the second 3-Peat because of the shortened line) averaged .347% shooting from long-range... but-but-but, according to some message board geniuses they would get destroyed by today's superior NBA teams that averaged .354% shooting from deep this year.

Yes, they shot a lower percentage and hit 2.2 threes a game during the time span (the *worst* team in 2022 hit 10.5, the average team hit 12.4).

They literally shot worse on completely wide-open, unguarded premium threes, hitting about 18 percent as many threes as the average team in 2022, who accumulated those percentages/makes against defenses that actually made an effort to guard the line and switch effectively.

You are like a HS kid who thinks an A in "business math" should be equally weighed in GPA to an A in AP Calculus.