IMO: if youre under 35, cannot compare Warriors and Bulls

quote:

---

The problem is the older generation of "experts" aren't really experts

---

You an expert?

So someone who was 13 years old during the Bulls season is unqualified to have an opinion?

frick yes... The first positive thing about being 35

quote:

---

It's just a built in nostalgia that people want to assume the past is automatically better than the present.

---

The exact opposite can be said as well

Lebron wins a ring, he's the GOAT!!!

Someone makes a game winner, BEST GAME EVER!!!

quote:

---

Look at the box scores back then of games... NBA Finals games had scores like: 84-82, 77-69, 96-54, etc

---

Scoring was higher as a whole in the 90s if I'm not mistaken

If you're 32 years old, you have a vague recollection of the 95-96 Bulls when you were 12, and busy hanging out with friends and probably getting introduced to smoking pot and starting to like girls.

It works both ways pal

quote:

---

But if you're under 35, shut the frick up with your Bulls knob slobbering. It's just a built in nostalgia that people want to assume the past is automatically better than the present.

---

Well I am OVER 35 and have seen both teams play.... The rules would dictate the outcome more than anything... If these Warriors played the BUlls in the 90's, it would be a massacre.. The Bulls would crush them with ease... NOW If they played today in their primes I would still give the edge to The Bulls... But the series would go at least 6 games... Sorry Fellas... MJ was just THAT GOOD....

quote:

---

he rules would dictate the outcome more than anything.

---

do you not think the Warriors could adjust? Not in one series, like they played full seasons in the 96 rules.

Lets just assume the NBA never changed, do this warriors team just fold because teams can hand check?

quote:

---

Scoring was higher as a whole in the 90s if I'm not mistaken

---

Uhhh, no. The pace was much slower in the 90's and scoring was low. In fact, it's one of the reasons they changed the illegal defense rules.

In the 80's, the game was very fast-paced. Teams would go up and down without taking much time off the shot clock. Scoring was way up. Very little defense was played overall. It's known as the worst defensive era in the NBA.

In the 90's, the pace slowed down considerably. Teams worked the clock, and they had some good defenses, but a lot of the low scoring had to do with many teams playing a lot of isolation basketball.

People thought it was stale, so the league felt they had to make a change. So they changed the illegal defense rules.

Before 2001-02, players had to stick to one man. They could not sag off of him. They had to follow him around the court like a puppy dog. This meant a lot of 1-on-1 basketball. If a player got too far off of his man, illegal defense was called. This made for boring basketball, so the NBA decided to make "zone" defense legal in 2001-02. They eliminated the illegal defense rules because it would force teams to pass the ball and run the floor.

It worked. It sped up the game and made it more exciting for fans. And that's where we're at today. Exciting basketball where both offense and defense is valued.

quote:

---

Lets just assume the NBA never changed, do this warriors team just fold because teams can hand check?

---

It's crazy how much people talk about the hand check like it's some unstoppable kryptonite move. I mean, it makes things a little tougher but it's not going to stop a great offensive player at all.

Scorers would much rather allow hand-checking but reinstate the illegal defense rules so they can get their defender on an island instead of having to peel through layers of defenders like they have to now.