All-90s C) Hakeem Olajuwon PF) Charles Barkley SF) Scottie Pippen SG) Michael Jordan PG) Gary Payton C) Patrick Ewing PF) Karl Malone SF) Grant Hill SG) Clyde Drexler PG) John Stockton SG) Reggie Miller C) David Robinson Best of The Rest C) Wilt Chamberlain PF) Tim Duncan SF) Larry Bird SG) Kobe Bryant PG) Magic Johnson C) Kareem Abdul-Jabbar PF) Bill Russell SF) Lebron James SG) Julius Erving PG) Oscar Robertson SG) Jerry West C) Shaquille O'Neal The latter team has superior depth, but could the '90s guys upset them in a short 3 or 5 game series riding the backs of Dream and MJ?
I think 90's would get beat. Duncan's offense > Barkley's defense Magic>>Payton Bird would space the floor nicely I bet Wilt would hold his own against Hakeem Kobe and MJ would be a bit of a wash but a fun matchup to watch
Barkley at his peak would make Timmy cry. Magic might fit better with the second unit, and give them a nightmarish running attack with LB/Dr.J on the wings.
All-Time would win. 90s might get overrated a bit because the players are from recent memory...but if Kobe can somewhat keep up with MJ, the rest of the cast will do its work against the 90s.
Once you have players like that on the floor, the question who has superior talent becomes irrelevant. Who wins would just be a matter of how these teams were coached, etc. As far as the individual matchups go, I don't think you could have Wilt and TD on the floor at the same time against quick forwards like Barkley and Pippen. I'd start Russell instead.
Good point. Also, the '90s guys may have better chemistry since they're not such a Frankensteinian mash-up in comparison.
Game was too different back then to tell. Wilt probably had the same level of skill as Ben Wallace. More than likely would get dominated by the mid 90s super skilled centered.
The 90s players could win a 7 game series. It was that good of a generation. Especially if they played a physical game like they did. The defense on that starting 5 would be killer.
He was much taller then Ben, and had to have been a great offensive player, but he certainly wouldn't be as dominant without the massive size advantage he enjoyed during his career.
For the 90's to win Hakeem and MJ would have to play the whole game. You can't depend on Ewing or Robinson to deal with the backup center in Kareem or Shaq. You basically got 2 guys in the first group who won titles and mvp's and who know how to carry a team thru the playoffs, while in the second group you got like 8 guys who have done that.
It doesn't make sense that Hill is in the 90's yet Shaq is an all-time. Shaq should also be in the 90's.
The OP acknowledges the talent gap, but it should be noted that those two guys are the very reason there aren't other champions on the roster.
That's arguable. First of all, if taken as a whole, his 90's career is more impressive than his 00's career. Secondly, he may have peaked in the 00's, but that may have been the result of diminished competition as opposed to personal improvement.
I would put AI over GP at PG. Just because hes declined recently, people don't remember how dominant he was.
Talking about Shaq? He made the finals in 1995, and didn't make it back until 2000 and ended up winning 4 titles and making 5 finals in the 00s.
Yeah, Shaq is the wild card. I think he should almost be on the 90s team, and that's when was really at his best, made his name, and had his toughest competition. He was already the premier center in the league, before the 2000s came and he's arguably the 2nd best center of the decade. I still think part of his best years were in Orlando, he was then at his most athletic peak and his prime, defensively. Shaq did win four titles in this decade, but his 90s numbers are much better.
Jordan was probably the best shooting guard of the 80s and put up monster numbers back then, but if you had to slot him into one decade, there's no way you put him there instead of the 90s. I realize most great players transcend and overlap decades, but for the sake of this exercise, Shaq is an 00s guy.