3 ms·
It seems like a fairly common sentiment when comparing the '96 Bulls to '16 Warriors is that the Bulls would win under '96 rules and the Warriors would win unde
by ssharp 10y ago
It seems like a fairly common sentiment when comparing the '96 Bulls to '16 Warriors is that the Bulls would win under '96 rules and the Warriors would win under '16 rules.
There were also players who shot the ball extremely well before the three-point line took effect. Steph is averaging around 30 points per game with 5 three's a game. Without the additional point, it drops him to 25 points per game. Still good but probably not an MVP shoe-in anymore.
- ben_jones 10y agoRemoving the three point line would also detract from Durant, James (his shooting has been a big part of his game the second half of the season), and Westbrook. I think Curry would still be a major contender.
- ssharp 10y agoThey all utilize the three, but none of them feature it quite like Curry. KD has a lot of shooting in his game, but Westbrook and Lebron are both relatively poor three-point shooters and don't shoot close to KD's volume, let alone Curry's. Lebron and Westbrook's effectiveness of offense are largely based on getting to the rim. In fact, San Antonio has faced Lebron in three NBA finals and each time they deployed a strategy designed to tease Lebron into taking jumpers rather than drive or play inside. Doing that against Curry would be a death wish.
- kmkemp 10y agoI think historical comparisons like this are just generally nostalgia. In general, players get better over time. There is more competition for a limited amount of slots, so the competition is more fierce. Players start training with better intelligence from an earlier age. They push harder. All things being equal (they seem to be on paper), the more recent team would have the advantage.