Those Bulls teams had two of the greatest perimeter defenders of all time. Kind of weird to ignore that and rest on the Warriors easily taking today's rules over the Bulls just because they can hit 3's in your analysis.
In my analysis, I clearly stated the Bulls have the better make up and better overall defenders but what you have to take into account is how hard it is to play defense in today's game. You can't even touch a guy anymore today so as great as MJ, Pippen, and Rodman were as defenders, who really knows how well they could defend under the rules today. None of them are great shot blockers and relied on quickness and handchecking/body positions. As I noted, with Jordan on Klay, Klay would basically be ineffective even in today's game. Sorry, Ron Harper is not stopping Curry and Pippen, as good as he was, is not stopping Durant. In 96-97 with a 22' 3 pt line, yes the 3pt would favor the Warriors even more. The hard defense and fouls works more against guys who drive or post. Defense has rarely ever worked well against shooters regardless of the era, that's a fact and can be easily proven.
Look at Reggie Miller. Here's a guy who, at his core, is a catch and shoot player. Does not have anywhere near the skill level of a Durant or Curry nor the range. He didn't have the driving, dribbling, nor finishing ability of either Curry nor Durant.
In Miller's career against the Michael Jordan's Bulls where he was mostly defended by Jordan, his regular season career averages against the MJ's Bulls were
19.1ppg, 46.7% from the field and 35.8% from the three point range. Against all other teams in Millers career (and I'm even excluding his last 3 seasons from '03-'05), he averaged
19.3ppg, 46.8% from the field and 36.1% which is basically a wash.
In Miller's post season averages against MJ's Bulls were 17.4ppg, 41.6% from the field, and 43.6% from the 3 point range which further illustrates my point; So while Miller's overall shooting percentage was down, his 3pt percentage was actually a full 7.8% higher in the playoffs against the Bulls. So in all actuality, even against the Bull's stout defense and the rules of the 90s, Miller only averaged
1.7ppg less in the playoffs against than Bulls than the regular season. The 90s rules for defense was so effective because of how the game was played, favoring inside play, going outside, to inside and kicking it back out. The post was where the physicality really took its toll. The Warriors don't play that brand, they don't drive much and are a predominantly jump shot heavy team.
And not being able to really guard MJ? Sorry, that's a huge problem. It's conceivable he could average a lot more than 40ppg in today's finals. Scottie could score too and that might also be an issue along with Kukoc and the Bulls overall length.
Jordan averaged 31.5 ppg in his regular season career (and that's even excluding his stint with the Wizards). In the Playoffs, Jordan averaged 33.4ppg which is basically 1 additional basket more. Additionally, for all of Jordan's greatness, his was never a great 3pt shooter. Outside of the 3 seasons where the 3pt line was shortened, Jordan only shot better than 35% from three point range twice in his career. If you take out the three seasons where the 3pt line wasn't shortened,
Jordan's career 3pt shooting percentage would only be 29.4%. So it if it was under 90s rule, Jordan would be scoring the same and if it was under today's rule with the longer 3 pt line, it would be realistic to say he's score an average of maybe 2-3 more shots per game but definitely less 3s made on average as well. 40ppg would be a fair and realistic assessment. Could he conceivably score average more than 40ppg, sure it's possible but it could also be possible that he scores less than 40ppg. This is all guessing at best.
Pippen was a very good scorer too but like Jordan, quite poor from the 3pt line. Guarding Durant, I don't see Durant necessarily losing more than maybe 1 basket a game if we're being realistic. He may average 1 less bucket made but with Durant's length, Pippen would likely lose at least 1 shot a game as well regardless of the era.
Essentially you're taking a team that got it done in a more difficult era and dropping them right into a situation where they wouldn't have to work as hard. I'm not saying it's a sweep for the Bulls, but I would lean towards the Bulls in either era given the former statement.
It depends on what you mean by difficult. Offensively, it was much more difficult in the 90s but at the same time, defense was much easier to play so when you look at it that way, it's almost a wash. In today's game, offense is much easier but playing great defense is much more difficult. You can't hand check, put two hands/arms on a guy, and shooting fouls are now touch fouls.
That's why I would favor the Bulls under the 96-97 rule and the Warriors under the current rules but I think the Bulls would honestly be in more trouble playing today's game than the Warriors playing in the '96-97 rules. All the physicality gets minimalized because the Warriors rarely ever go inside and are really a pure jump shooting team.
All in all, it's just conjecture at best and fun banter. And yes, I was born in 1979, grew up idolizing MJ and believe MJ is the GOAT and that no one else is really that close to dethroning MJ at the GOAT so if there are any biases here, it would be toward MJ but I'm looking at it as unbiasedly as possible.
