90s vs 00s, which was the best decade?

[Haymaker]

90's and it's not even close.

[NugzHeat3]

1990-1995 and 1997 was better than anything in the 00s.

I'll take the late 00s over 1996, 1998 and 1999. 1996 was incredibly lame becasue the Bulls running everyone over was extremely tiring; in retrospect, they had no real threat to be honest. As someone who prefers parity, I didn't quite like that.

But that's not the only thing. The playoffs were absolute trash, there wasn't a single competitive series except for the Jazz vs Sonics WCF. Top to bottom, that's one of the worst playoffs I've seen. And I'll take this time to say Utah was better than Seattle. Seattle just got a break with Stockton being brutally injured (elbow and hamstring) which was a rare occurence and they took advantage of that by focusing on the wounded animal (threw traps at him for all angles). Stockton was putting up Rafer Alston-type numbers in that series for the first five games or so. I'd say Utah wins with a healthy Stockton, hell they may have won as it is if Malone didn't let the crowd get to him at the FT line in game seven.

1997 was a little better because of a great rookie class and especially because the playoffs were a lot better, more competitive, fierce rivalries and great battles (NYK vs MIA, ORL vs MIA, CHI vs UTA, UTA vs HOU, HOU vs SEA, DET vs ATL, SEA vs PHO, LAL vs UTA). I see 1997 as the last hurrah of the 90s. 1997 was actually better than anything today.

1998 was lame and the type of basketball played was garbage. Someone earlier in the thread nailed it (ISO ball). Its actually amazing that the 1998 Jazz made the finals. That team doesn't make the finals in 1997. They don't make the finals in any of the prior years. Stockton was a shell of his former self after the microfracture. They just got by because they actually played like a team, were well coached and executed their game plan to perfection. There's a reason an 8th seeded vet , banged up squad like Houston gave them more trouble than the uber-talented Lakers that got swept. There were a lot of dumb players in the L at the time. The only good thing that year was IND vs CHI. Pacers were the second best team that year. Extremely well rounded and deep.

1999 was trash, all things considered. No need to even expand.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

1990-1995 and 1997 was better than anything in the 00s.

I'll take the late 00s over 1996, 1998 and 1999. 1996 was incredibly lame becasue the Bulls running everyone over was extremely tiring; in retrospect, they had no real threat to be honest. As someone who prefers parity, I didn't quite like that.

But that's not the only thing. The playoffs were absolute trash, there wasn't a single competitive series except for the Jazz vs Sonics WCF. Top to bottom, that's one of the worst playoffs I've seen. And I'll take this time to say Utah was better than Seattle. Seattle just got a break with Stockton being brutally injured (elbow and hamstring) which was a rare occurence and they took advantage of that by focusing on the wounded animal (threw traps at him for all angles). Stockton was putting up Rafer Alston-type numbers in that series for the first five games or so. I'd say Utah wins with a healthy Stockton, hell they may have won as it is if Malone didn't let the crowd get to him at the FT line in game seven.

1997 was a little better because of a great rookie class and especially because the playoffs were a lot better, more competitive, fierce rivalries and great battles (NYK vs MIA, ORL vs MIA, CHI vs UTA, UTA vs HOU, HOU vs SEA, DET vs ATL, SEA vs PHO, LAL vs UTA). I see 1997 as the last hurrah of the 90s. 1997 was actually better than anything today.

1998 was lame and the type of basketball played was garbage. Someone earlier in the thread nailed it (ISO ball). Its actually amazing that the 1998 Jazz made the finals. That team doesn't make the finals in 1997. They don't make the finals in any of the prior years. Stockton was a shell of his former self after the microfracture. They just got by because they actually played like a team, were well coach and executed their game plan to perfection. There's a reason an 8th seed bet squad like Houston gave them more trouble than the uber-talented Lakers that got swept. There were a lot of dumb players in the L at the time. The only good thing that year was IND vs CHI. Pacers were the second best team that year. Extremely well rounded and deep.

1999 was trash, all things considered. No need to even expand.

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true.

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?

[305Baller]

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true.

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?

see my "Pippen and Jordan stole from each other" thread.

[ConanRulesNBC]

Um... the decade that had prime Michael Jordan winning championships.

[ConanRulesNBC]

Which one has Michael Jordan? Yeah I'll take that one.

[Smoke117]

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true.

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?

Frankly the only reason they even went to 6 games with the Sonics was because of how beat up Pippen was and how he couldn't do anything off the dribble because of his ankle and knee.

[NugzHeat3]

Excellent post as usual, Nugz. I enjoyed reading that because it's so true.

Being a fan of both Michael and Scottie during the 1995-96 season had to be swell though, you gotta admit. Pipp had HUGE all-around games, some of which included 21 double-double's, 3 tripe-double's, and 7 games over 30+ points on 60+% shooting, as well as receiving MVP recognition. Meanwhile Jordan finally got his first offseason since the retirement to re-tool and vamp his skillset - and it showed as he himself accumulated 12 double-double's, 59 games of 30+ points on 50+% shooting, 29+ games of 35+ points on 50%+ shooting, 9 games of 40+ points on 50%+ shooting, and one 50 point game (~53 to be exact--on 75% shooting) vs. Detroit. Hell, and Rodman? His defensive presence speaks for itself. The '96-98 Bulls were the original 'big three'.

I for one was happy to see Chicago win with Jordan yet again proving his naysayers wrong, winning another title in what was a different league with new superstars and powerhouses (Orlando, Houston, Seattle and Utah to name a few).

But yes, the postseason could have definitely panned out better. What for you made '90-95 "the best" per se?

Thanks.

That is all true BTW about how dominant Jordan and Pippen were that year. But its just it got boring and redundant after awhile.

Certainly, a Bulls' fan perspective would be different but as a NBA fan first, I hated how far above they were from the rest of the league. Given your reasoning (Jordan answering the critics), I can see why you liked that year though. I remember it got to a point where I just watched them to see who'd beat them. But a lot of their games followed the same pattern, the it would be somewhat close around the half but they'd break it lose in the 3rd after making adjustments.

1990-1995 was good because for one, the talent pool was better at the time as opposed to the 00s or late 1990s. Those mid 80s draftees really peaked around that stretch plus the playoffs (intensity, competitivne match ups) were great for the most part. There was also a good balance between offense and defense as opposed to the slow paced, ugly defensive games of the late 90s or the uptempo, offensive-minded games of the 80s. I would say it was also more team-oriented and less egomaniacs running around. That time in the mid 90s that saw the players' salaries boom because of the massive increase in revenue is also a reason I think the game was focusing more on the individual at the time. That Juwan Howard contract in Miami (thank God didn't happen) that was terminated is a perfect example.

Those 1989-1994 ish draftees that didn't quite pan out (though there were guys like Shaq, C-Webb, Kidd ect that did) and the effect of that as well as the effect of Toronto and Vancouver gaining franchises hurt the league in the late 90s, imo. But till about 1995 or so, those dominant 80s stars carried the league well.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Thanks.

That is all true BTW about how dominant Jordan and Pippen were that year. But its just it got boring and redundant after awhile.

Certainly, a Bulls' fan perspective would be different but as a NBA fan first, I hated how far above they were from the rest of the league. Given your reasoning (Jordan answering the critics), I can see why you liked that year though. I remember it got to a point where I just watched them to see who'd beat them. But a lot of their games followed the same pattern, the it would be somewhat close around the half but they'd break it lose in the 3rd after making adjustments.

1990-1995 was good because for one, the talent pool was better at the time as opposed to the 00s or late 1990s. Those mid 80s draftees really peaked around that stretch plus the playoffs (intensity, competitivne match ups) were great for the most part. There was also a good balance between offense and defense as opposed to the slow paced, ugly defensive games of the late 90s or the uptempo, offensive-minded games of the 80s. I would say it was also more team-oriented and less egomaniacs running around. That time in the mid 90s that saw the players' salaries boom because of the massive increase in revenue is also a reason I think the game was focusing more on the individual at the time. That Juwan Howard contract in Miami (thank God didn't happen) that was terminated is a perfect example.

Those 1989-1994 ish draftees that didn't quite pan out (though there were guys like Shaq, C-Webb, Kidd ect that did) and the effect of that as well as the effect of Toronto and Vancouver gaining franchises hurt the league in the late 90s, imo. But till about 1995 or so, those dominant 80s stars carried the league well.

Great input, agreed.

Good call on the draftees. The Ewing, Hakeem, Stockton, Malone, Jordan, Barkley, Drexler, and Nique's played an intregal part of the success in the 90's. The bit about offense and defenses couldn't be more true. That middle ground welcomed some of the greatest rivalries of all time a la NY/IND, CHI/NY, DET/CHI, HOU/PHX, SA/HOU, etc. So much nostalgia, wow.

It was just a better brand of basketball being played then.

[Round Mound]

90s < 80s but 90s > 00s