HERE IS WHY THE 96 BULLS WOULD BEAT THE WARRIORS

Coach David Heeb
Jun 11, 2017
7 min read

If you love basketball, I hope you enjoy reading this. I started to write it to prove a point to my brother (keep reading LOL), but it became a study of basketball and how it is constantly changing.

One of the highlights of my coaching career was getting to coach two of my younger brothers, Randy and Toby. Now Toby is also a varsity basketball coach. We talk about basketball everyday. Most of the time we agree with each other. Every now and then we disagree. When we do, there are a lot of long, thoughtful, and sometimes hilarious texts that fly back and forth.

Recently, we've been having a heated debate. These Warriors versus my favorite team ever, the 1996 Chicago Bulls. Toby actually thinks the Warriors would win that series. I think he's wrong, and as is the norm for our arguments, I couldn't just tell him that he is wrong. I had to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I started my research. I got on Basketball Reference (I love this site, call me a basketball nerd if you want to LOL). My two main goals: to prove my brother wrong, and to defend the honor of my favorite childhood team. What ended up happening was me learning some things about how the game is in a constant state of change, and I really enjoyed that.

So to begin, let's boil the game of basketball down to three simple points. These three factors are really what ultimately determines the winner and loser of any basketball game:

1) How well can your team shoot? This one is pretty self explanatory, but it has evolved over time with more teams shooting threes today. We'll explore that phenomenon in detail and ask the question "are teams actually scoring more today, or just shooting more?"

2) How well does your team prevent the other team from making shots? If you've ever played basketball, you know there are nights you missed open shots, and there are nights the other team made you miss open shots. How good is your team at making the other team miss?

3) How many extra plays or extra shots per game does your team create? In other words, if you miss your first shot, can you get a rebound to try to get a second attempt? Can you steal it from the other team before they can even get a chance to shoot, which would negate a good shooting team's chance to even score? Vice versa, how many times do you throw the ball away, which prevents you from ever getting a chance to take a shot?

To demonstrate my point, for example, if the Bulls and Warriors both had the ball 100 times, and neither team had any turnovers (which take shot chances away) or any offensive rebounds (extra shot chances), the team that made the most shots would always win. If the Bulls made 48 shots, and the Warriors made 45 shots, the Bulls would theoretically win. They made more shots and scored more points. That's how you win a basketball game, by scoring more than the other team, right?

Don't start screaming "what about the fact threes are worth more than twos!" Not yet. We'll get there in just a minute.

Taking the same example of 100 possessions, now imagine that the Bulls had 15 turnovers (minus 15 shot chances = 85 shots) and the Warriors had 20 turnovers (minus 20 shot chances = 80 shots), and the Bulls also had 15 offensive rebounds (plus 15 shot chances =100 shots) and the Warriors only had 10 offensive rebounds (plus 10 shot chances = 90 shots). Through "hustle," the Bulls have now created 10 more shots than the Warriors get to take. So the Bulls could shoot 45% (making 45 shots) and the Warriors could shoot 50% (making 45 shots) and the two teams would score the exact same number of points, if every shot was a two pointer.

NOW we will also factor into our hypothetical game the fact that threes are worth more than twos. This is called "effective field goal percentage." In other words, if we factor in each team's two point field goal percentage times two points, and their three point field goal percentage times three points, and figure up how many twos and threes they attempt to shoot... it gets complicated... but it gives us a more accurate field goal percentage, because threes are worth more than twos.

These three factors, shot making (effective field goal percentage), defense (your ability to stop them from making shots), and creating extra shots (through size, athletic ability, hustle, etc.) are how you win a basketball game. This is true today, and it's always been true.

For decades, the team that could create more chances (better plus/minus on rebounding and turnovers) had a huge advantage. What is amazing about Golden State is they have made creating these "extra shots" less important than ever before in the history of the game of basketball. Golden State can shoot it so well that they don't need extra chances, which speaks to their greatness.

In order to compare teams, we have to adjust for pace of play so that we can account for the fact that in different eras the game was played faster or slower. In a faster era, offenses looked better than they really were and defenses looked worse than they really were. In a slower era, vice versa, offenses looked worse than they really were and defenses looked better than they really were.

The point is, offense and defense are always proportional, and they are directly related to pace of play. You can't say "the Warriors would shoot them out of the gym" when the Warriors are allowing more points than the very worst defensive teams in the 90's. Offense and defense are a byproduct of the three factors that we discussed(shooting, defense, creating extra chances) and pace of play.

This Warriors team wouldn't even rank in the top 10 scoring teams all time. The NBA used to actually be a lot faster than it is right now. The "pace" (average number of possessions) for the 2016-2017 season was 96.4, the fastest since 1993. It's still not nearly as fast as the 80's, where it hovered between 102-103, with the Showtime Lakers running around. Then in the early 90's, with much more physical play (the "Jordan Rules," very physical, the only way to defend him), the game slowed way down.

The point is, we have to adjust for pace of play to understand the offensive and defensive numbers.

If two teams played, and they each had the ball 100 times, how many offensive rebounds did each team get? How many turnovers did each team commit? That tells us how many shots each team would get. Now how well does each team shoot, taking into account for two's and three's? How well does each team play defense, taking into account two's and three's?

So I looked at 10 championship caliber teams throughout history. This isn't a "Top 10" necessarily. I just wanted to look at different teams from different eras of play to see where they stacked up. I did try to include the best five, six, or seven teams that I could think of, as well as some more recent teams to compare them to.

Here are the 10 teams (NOT a top 10, but close)...

What the numbers tell us is actually kind of shocking. The Bulls, compared to their era of play, were actually a better offensive team than the Warriors are in today's NBA. Meanwhile, the Warriors are a slightly better defensive team in today's NBA than the Bulls were compared to the teams in the mid 90's. Most people, just going by the eyeball test, would have probably guessed the opposite. I know I would have.

Digging even deeper, the Bulls actually outscored teams by 11.69%, where as the Warriors are outscoring teams by 10.01%. Again, compared to their competition, the Bull were actually a better offensive team than these Warriors. So my question is, what would the Warriors do if they couldn't handcheck Jordan? Scary thought! Would he average 40? 45? I'm being serious. It would be fun to watch.

The Bulls outrebounded teams by a whopping 14.8%, where as the Warriors are barely outrebounding teams by 1.8%. The Bulls generated 19.78% more steals than opponents. The Warriors generate 10.41% more steals than opponents.

Again, this speaks to the greatness of the Warriors shooters. The Bulls were basically a very good offensive team the created a lot of extra shooting chances, which elevated them to a great offensive team. The Warriors are easier to understand. They are a great offensive team because they are the greatest shooting team we've ever seen.

I followed the data, and this is where it led me. Not only did the 96 Bulls come out on top, but the 92 Bulls also edged out the Warriors. Like I said above, I think if the Warriors stay together, they could eventually make it to the top of this list. They haven't gone through the wars yet the way those Bulls teams did. Give them another year or two, and I really do believe they'll be even better, which is scary!

Of course, we don't really know if those Bulls would have the same kind of defense against the Warriors offense. We also don't know how the Warriors defense would be able to handle guarding Michael Jordan without being able to touch him. Since the Warriors aren't a great rebounding team, how would they handle Dennis Rodman, a historically unique player? Would foul trouble be a factor, since the Warriors probably are deeper than the 96 Bulls team was?

I plugged all of these questions into my formula... what would that Bulls team do to this Warriors defense? What would the Warriors offense do against the Bulls defense? The score it spit out if we went by today's rules/pace, Chicago 108, Golden State 101.

Of course, we'll never know. It's fun to argue about. I know the games would be close, because both teams were great. And with the game on the line, I wonder how this guy would come through in the clutch?