There's a few things people forget when comparing the two teams. The game has changed so much.

1. Players these days don't play defense like they did back then. Nearly every team had decent defense back then, there might be 5-6 teams with good defense these days. Now players are to afraid to get posterized. If people moved out of the lane when someone was driving back in the day, we would be pulling his man card.

2. Referees call the game much differently now. People had to earn their way through the lane back then. now if a guy gets reathed on too hard they call a foul. The NBA has a bias towards offense right now because people get excited by big time scoring. LBJ is going to crush the record for FTA when its all said and done.

3. You have to create athletic skill sets on a baseline. Players in this day are generally bigger, faster , and stronger. I'm pretty certain the average height of players has increased over the years. Its easy to say the 12 team is better because they are more athletic, but the average of the athleticism in the league is also higher. the 92 dream team excelled athletically over their competition in relation to the time period. For example. Bill Russell would probably not make it in todays game because he is not longer taller, bigger, faster, stronger etc. Does that mean Bill Russell is not one of the greatest ever? no. So you would create a baseline of where the average physical stats were back then and find out where he stood in relation to those averages.

In order to make the comparison between these two teams, you have to create baseline and comparisons. In other words take todays players and place their physical abilities with relavence to the time period and vice versa. Under these circumstances, athleticism would be a lot closer than you realize and all that would leave left is actual skills. 92 dream team would smash any other team in actual skills.

Imagine Jordan with noone able to hand-check him in his prime.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 7/13/2012 1:31:00 PM (view original):
Imagine Jordan with noone able to hand-check him in his prime.

Ehh, Mike got his share of superstar calls as it was anyway.  And in my opinion, the '92 team would have taken the '12 team behind the woodshed.

and he could drive to the hoop and get a foul call as often as LBJ does with no elbows flying in his face. Remember these are the days when hack a shaq was a viable defensive technique when they could not stop a player.

Poncho, the question, brought up directly by Kobe and Jordan, is which team would win if they were able to play one another.  That is absolutely not a baseline-related question.  It is an absolute question.  Not "who would win if you somehow normalized all the players to one another's eras?" but simply "who would win?"  You can't ignore the fact that the 2012 team is actually not bigger, but is certainly faster.  I'd also say it's hard to argue that the 2012 players aren't better jump shooters.  I'm not saying that a few of those guys from the Dream Team weren't very good shooters, because obviously they were.  But I do believe that nobody on that team can compete with Durant (who can?), Harden, or Kobe when it comes to the jump shot.  And then you look at the 2012 team and there are so many other guys who can also shoot it very well - Melo, both PGs, Love, Iguodala...

Posted by emy1013 on 7/13/2012 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 7/13/2012 1:31:00 PM (view original):
Imagine Jordan with noone able to hand-check him in his prime.

Ehh, Mike got his share of superstar calls as it was anyway.  And in my opinion, the '92 team would have taken the '12 team behind the woodshed.

emy you're right, MJ did get his fair share of calls, but I made a comparison and LBJ blows MJ out of the water in FTA.

Posted by dacj501 on 7/13/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 7/13/2012 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 7/13/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 7/13/2012 11:59:00 AM (view original):
... people really, really, underestimate Stockton wildly ... so much so its ridiculous.  Act like all he did was get assists to Malone.   Who is the career leader in steals, for example ... Stockton.  Consistently on all-defensive teams.  Career over fifty percent shooter and 38%plus from three.  Poor defending?  Thats a joke, and not a very good one.  Mainly not first team because of Jordan, Dumars and Alvin Robertson ...

Stockton is the best pure pg I've seen in my lifetime...but he must have been hurt or something - he only played in half the games that summer and didn't have a lot of stats...

Be that as it may, uttering the phrase 'weak defending stockton' is ludicrous.  and a pure, non scoring point guard is a perfect option for a team full of scoring stars.

I'm totally agreeing with you ab - and those who say he was a weak on ball defender, you are wrong - remember you could hand check in the NBA back then...

     OK I was caught in the moment. For the first half of his career Stockton was a bad on-ball defender. As he got older he became  an above average defender (he was never better than that). Now pointing to the poor 3 pt. shooting #'s, this was a time when a lot of people shot a lot of 3's and they missed them. One year Isiah was 2nd in 3pt shooting % and he shot 28%! That is a flawed argument to make.
      Isiah was better for several reasons 1. He was clutch (16 pts. in 91 secs. in the '84 knick series to keep the Pistons in a big game and the 25 point quarter against the lakers). Stockton was not at all clutch (people will point to '97 and '98 where he was somewhat clutch but he was going up against scrubs like Van Exel, Matt Maloney, Darrick Martin, Steve Kerr, and Avery Johnson).  And he was Gary Payton's B*tch.  2. Isiah controlled the game and his teammates remarkably well (handled Rodman, turned Vinnie Johnson into a huge scorer, made Dantley/Agguire much more effecient scorers, made Dumars a much better scorer.) The guy Elevated his teammates like Stockton could not. 3. And Isiah just had this tough as nails competetive streak about him. Stockton was a great player (he was very tough as well, was a great passer, but he wasn't clutch, he couldn't win a Championship as the best player on a team, and Isiah could and he did) but Isiah was a much better player in his prime, BUT Isiah's career was only slightly better than stockton's career. 

Why are we talking about how clutch stockton is when he was the 3rd option on the Jazz offense for most of his career? It's like saying Scottie Pippen was terrible because he wasn't clutch; well of course when Jordan took all the final shots. Or saying Jason Kidd sucked because he never scored much in his career. Stockton was never the focal point of the Jazz offense.

Stockton was the best player on his team!?!?! Karl Malone would argue differently, considering how he was averaging 25-30ppg. 

If you want to talk about offensive efficiency, it's not even close. Stockton was a career 52% shooter from the field. Isiah Thomas is like Allen Iverson with less volume, but AI went to the line like a competitive eater at the buffet. 

Oh come on.  You are stretching.  Statistically, you can't support Thomas being better than Stockton>  it really isn't even a close argument.  In other words "The actual evidence on the court doesn't support me, so I'll just ignore it"

 

Posted by m4284850 on 7/13/2012 2:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 7/13/2012 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 7/13/2012 12:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 7/13/2012 12:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by a_in_the_b on 7/13/2012 11:59:00 AM (view original):
... people really, really, underestimate Stockton wildly ... so much so its ridiculous.  Act like all he did was get assists to Malone.   Who is the career leader in steals, for example ... Stockton.  Consistently on all-defensive teams.  Career over fifty percent shooter and 38%plus from three.  Poor defending?  Thats a joke, and not a very good one.  Mainly not first team because of Jordan, Dumars and Alvin Robertson ...

Stockton is the best pure pg I've seen in my lifetime...but he must have been hurt or something - he only played in half the games that summer and didn't have a lot of stats...

Be that as it may, uttering the phrase 'weak defending stockton' is ludicrous.  and a pure, non scoring point guard is a perfect option for a team full of scoring stars.

I'm totally agreeing with you ab - and those who say he was a weak on ball defender, you are wrong - remember you could hand check in the NBA back then...

OK I was caught in the moment. For the first half of his career Stockton was a bad on-ball defender. As he got older he became  an above average defender (he was never better than that).  Isiah was better for several reasons 1. He was clutch (16 pts. in 91 secs. in the '84 knick series to keep the Pistons in a big game and the 25 point quarter against the lakers). Stockton was not at all clutch (people will point to '97 and '98 where he was somewhat clutch but he was going up against scrubs like Van Exel, Matt Maloney, Darrick Martin, Steve Kerr, and Avery Johnson).  And he was Gary Payton's B*tch.  2. Isiah controlled the game and his teammates remarkably well (handled Rodman, turned Vinnie Johnson into a huge scorer, made Dantley/Agguire much more effecient scorers, made Dumars a much better scorer.) The guy Elevated his teammates like Stockton could not. 3. And Isiah just had this tough as nails competetive streak about him. Stockton was a great player (he was very tough as well, was a great passer, but he wasn't clutch, he couldn't win a Championship as the best player on a team, and Isiah could and he did) but Isiah was a better player.  Now pointing to the poor 3 pt. shooting #'s, this was a time when a lot of people shot a lot of 3's and they missed them.  One year Isiah was 2nd in 3pt shooting % and his he shot 28%! That is a flawed argument to make.

If ALL you can resort to is 'intangibles' you don't have much of an argument.  If you have some tangibles AND intangibles to go WITH them, talk to me.  But ...

And if three pointers were so inefficient ... why the heck was he shooting so many of them? Seems like poor decision making to me.n 'But everyone else is doing it' isn't really much of an excuse.

Yeah, I don't get it.  Nothing personal, m-numbers, but the following quote comes to mind: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."

Posted by dahsdebater on 7/13/2012 1:46:00 PM (view original):
Poncho, the question, brought up directly by Kobe and Jordan, is which team would win if they were able to play one another.  That is absolutely not a baseline-related question.  It is an absolute question.  Not "who would win if you somehow normalized all the players to one another's eras?" but simply "who would win?"  You can't ignore the fact that the 2012 team is actually not bigger, but is certainly faster.  I'd also say it's hard to argue that the 2012 players aren't better jump shooters.  I'm not saying that a few of those guys from the Dream Team weren't very good shooters, because obviously they were.  But I do believe that nobody on that team can compete with Durant (who can?), Harden, or Kobe when it comes to the jump shot.  And then you look at the 2012 team and there are so many other guys who can also shoot it very well - Melo, both PGs, Love, Iguodala...

I'm not saying that in general you are wrong - this 2k12 team has some great shooters. But you went a step too far when you said "nobody on that [Dream Team] can compete with Durant...Harden or Kobe when it comes to the jump shot." This team may be better overall, but none of those guys you mentioned (or anyone else on this team) can hold a candle to Chris Mullin when it comes to jump shooting.

More than that;  Stockton could nail jump shots with the best.  MUllin, check.  Jordan at that point in his career coudl hit shots from wherever he damn well pleased ...

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/13/2012 2:47:00 PM (view original):
Why are we talking about how clutch stockton is when he was the 3rd option on the Jazz offense for most of his career? It's like saying Scottie Pippen was terrible because he wasn't clutch; well of course when Jordan took all the final shots. Or saying Jason Kidd sucked because he never scored much in his career. Stockton was never the focal point of the Jazz offense.

Stockton was the best player on his team!?!?! Karl Malone would argue differently, considering how he was averaging 25-30ppg. 

If you want to talk about offensive efficiency, it's not even close. Stockton was a career 52% shooter from the field. Isiah Thomas is like Allen Iverson with less volume, but AI went to the line like a competitive eater at the buffet. 

1. Not really, Stockton was just a bad playoff player for the most part (it's not clutch when you get worse when it matters) Isiah got better when it mattered (EXAMPLE: '90 finals- Averaged a 28-5-7, and shot 11-16 for 3!  Now Isiah's all time playoff averages- 20-9-5 (111 Games) Stockton's playoff averages- 13-10-4  (182 games). The Blazers eliminated the Jazz in '91 and '92, Stockton shot 6 for 25, getting outplayed by TERRY PORTER (averaged 26-8 for the series)!  There's plenty more examples, but I'd rather not do the research (please don't make me do the research ;)!

2. Never said Stockton was the best player on the team, he wasn't. I said if he was, the team probaly wouldn't be very good. What I'm saying is if you replaced Isiah with Stock on those championship piston teams, they wouldn't have been champions. Isiah was a much more valuable player in his prime than stockton was.

3.If you remove the 3 pointers (b/c when he was in his prime basically everybody was missing 3 pointers so you can still blame him, but he kind of has an excuse, Example: league average in 1983 is 24%. 3's didn't start to look somewhat effecient until 1987 (league average about 30%) so Isiah was in the horrible 3 pt shooting era for 6 years, as his FG % got butchered. He was actually a career 47% shooter from 2.