RGM GOAT Debate Thread

[bledredwine]

Totally disagree on Kawhi being a better defender.

Jordan had a substantially larger impact on the overall game on the defensive end.

But clearly, people have forgotten or are unaware.

Watch on YouTube

[bledredwine]

Im of the opinion MJ shouldn't have been on Magic for the majority in the first place later on in the series. He was way more effective defensively when off him hunting on the outside/passing lanes and coming in quick with his blinding speed

Shutdown by himself in OT is a myth it was a tandem effort, Lakers point blank misses from great passes and a couple of egregious plays by him

Jordan literally pushed Magic in the back with both hands on the transition break.... No foul I kid you not

In actuality Jordan should not have been in the game because he picked up his 5th shortly there after

I know the statless count in OT

Jordan didn't actually neutralise Magic at all by himself he was fantastic for the most part. This was still the time Jordan had a bad habit of reaching causing defensive structural breakdowns

That is rose coloured glasses talking

Magic was just too big, and too GOATED of a passer to be effected that way (defensively I wish he was a more of a factor in his career but that's a different discussion altogether)

Stop BS, I'll call it out because its bullsh*t

This is the Jordan Mythos that needs to die. Because unless it does reasonable discussion can't hope to even be fair.

Watch on YouTube

From 1980 onwards all playoff games and series are out there for the world to see. The religious cult like behaviour is frankly embarrassing it actually greatly detracts from any point you're trying to make.

lol what is this ridiculous post? I get that you're not a fan, but you can't rewrite history.
You didn't follow, because Jordan had given Magic trouble on more than one occasion before that finals.
Well guess what, I actually watched the 91 finals, and Jordan did shut down Magic... he also gave Magic trouble long before that.

Here's your proof of that OT

Watch on YouTube

Here, see for yourself,

"Mythos" is just laughable. It's been the opposite- reinventing a false history and ignoring how dominant he was
as a defensive player as well. If you can't admit that or didn't watch 80s-early 90s Jordan, then I don't know what to tell you.
But I did and I know exactly what the narrative was: he was in the conversation for best defender in the league at almost all times
(I have Hakeem, but my point stands), and that's in a league stacked with defensive talent.

Watch on YouTube

Jordan can't give Magic problems because of his length and passing? Nice idea, but false. Here's some reality and
as cute as your rose tinted glasses comment is, you can refer to it as a "reality check" instead.

And as for Jordan mythos? How's this commentary from Magic Zeke etc..... sure seems like the mythos
you refer to that we all speak about

Watch on YouTube

[DCasey91]

Jordan Stans are worse than Lebron ones

Next game he has 4 reach ins in the first quarter alone and up to nine for the game


.... But but but

I'm out.

[DCasey91]

posting.php?mode=quote&f=64&p=108148411

I decided to watch the 1991 Finals and track Jordan's plus-minus as well as his defense on Magic and in general. I graded his defense using letter grades as follows:

A - great
B - good
C - average
D - subpar
F - terrible

There were a few instances when time on the clock wasn't shown so I couldn't see exactly when MJ was substituted in or out but the error shouldn't be more than 5 seconds. It's also notable that minutes in a few games don't match the minutes on BRef although the series average is accurate at ~44 mpg.

Game 1

Plus-Minus:
Jordan ON 41:20: -3
Jordan OFF 6:40: +1

Defensive Grade: F (terrible)

MJ got absolutely cooked by Magic here having spent almost the whole game on him. He committed a woeful 5 shooting fouls on Magic. Just gambled for steals way too much and kept reaching for the ball. He also didn't do well on a few possessions when switched on to Worthy and Divac.

With MJ as primary defender:

Magic 12 points (1/2, 9/10)
Worthy 4 points (2/3, 0/0)
Divac 2 points (1/1, 0/0)

Game 2

Plus-Minus:
Jordan ON 37:05 : +25
Jordan OFF 10:55: -4

Defensive Grade: B (good)

Jordan spent half of the first quarter on Magic. He committed one non-shooting foul and drew one charge on the Magic man. Then Pippen spent much of the rest of the game on Magic. Jordan spend a few minutes on Magic in the 3rd quarter and committed a shooting foul leading to two free throws. MJ registered a nice block on Worthy, a steal on Teagle and drew a charge on Divac. All in all he was very active as a help defender compared to Game 1 even though he spent most of this game off of Magic.

With MJ as primary defender:

Magic 2 points (0/0, 2/2)

With Pippen as primary defender:

Magic 12 points (4/13, 4/4)

Magic had a far worse game here not just because Pippen was on him. Magic actually shook Pippen quite a few times but Pip didn't foul and the Bulls rotated better at the rim.

Game 3

Plus-Minus:
Jordan ON 50:52 : +7
Jordan OFF 2:08: +1

Defensive Grade: B (good)

Jordan and Pippen pretty much split their time on Magic. Jordan did a good job contesting Magic and was patient for the most part. He committed one shooting foul on Magic and another on Teagle. MJ forced Divac into a backcourt violated by pressing him and contested two more of his shots at the rim. He also registered a nice block on Teagle.

With MJ as primary defender:

Magic 6 points (2/5, 2/2)

With Pippen as primary defender:

Magic 16 points (5/10, 6/7)

Pippen just kept getting beat off the bounce by Magic and didn't do well here. MJ also gambled on Magic once but a good rotation at the rim prevented a collapse.

Game 4

Plus-Minus:
Jordan ON 45:36 : +14
Jordan OFF 2:24: +1

Defensive Grade: D (subpar)

The bad tendencies from Game 1 reared their ugly head again. MJ spent about half of the game on Magic and committed two shooting fouls and allowed a few blow-bys by gambling. He also had one nice block on Teagle but wasn't too active on defense in this one.

With MJ as primary defender:

Magic 9 points (3/3, 3/3)

With Pippen as primary defender:

Magic 13 points (3/10, 7/7)

Pippen also kept getting killed by Magic but Magic missed a few easy attempts at the rim and/or got bothered by Grant.

Game 5

Plus-Minus:
Jordan ON 48:00 : +7
Jordan OFF 0:00: 0

Defensive Grade: A (great)

MJ played the full 48 minutes here and was fantastic on D. Spend a big part of the game on Magic and just gave him a super hard time. Magic scored 5 points on 2 shots including a tough contested shot and a 3-pointer but MJ forced him into several turnovers. And he played smart without fouling and made it tough for Magic to receive the ball or get into his offense. MJ also got 5 steals, two on Magic and one each on Divac, AC Green and Teagle and got 2 blocks including one from behind on Green.

With MJ as primary defender:

Magic 5 points (2/2, 0/0)

With Pippen as primary defender:

Magic 11 points (2/10, 6/6)

The Bulls' team defense did a good job limiting Magic as in Game 4. Pippen was just solid but not spectacular.

Series Summary

Plus-Minus:
Jordan ON 222:53 : +50 (+12.6 Net Rtg)
Jordan OFF 22:07: -1 (-2.5 Net Rtg)

MJ had a bit of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde performance on defense. He was terrible in Game 1 and bad in Game 4. Those two games he didn't move his feet well and just gambled way too much going for steals and committed dumb fouls and allowed Magic to blow by him. At least in Game 4 he was a bit more active as a help defender so it was a slightly better performance.

But then in Game 2, Game 3 and especially Game 5, MJ made his impact felt on the defensive end. His energy and activity led to a ton of deflections and he blew up a lot of plays directly. He also committed a grand total of 3 shooting fouls on Magic in those three games combined and was just more patient and calculated with his gambles.

I actually found Horace Grant's defense in the finals to be absolutely fantastic. He was tough on the defensive boards and offered strong resistance at the rim without fouling much. He was just very disciplined and a workhorse. If I had to rank the Bulls defensively in this series I'd say Grant >> Jordan > Pippen. Levingston off the bench was also very positive on defense and a good shotblocker.

The Bulls' team defense became suffocating after Game 1 and forced LA into a lot of tough looks. But despite popular belief it was the Bulls offense that won this series even more so than the defense. LA had the 5th best DRtg in the league at 105.0 but the Bulls registered a 115.7 ORtg in the Finals, a phenomenal +10.7 over opponent defense.

Great job Djoker.


Though I do grade game 4 as a D-. Most of his good stuff basically came when the game was dead. It was Bush league stuff. I counted nine reach ins

But you are bang on it was certainly Jekyll and Hyde

Grant and Pippen were awesome and Paxson could not miss

[ScrantonBulls]

Jordan Stans are worse than Lebron ones

Next game he has 4 reach ins in the first quarter alone and up to nine for the game


.... But but but

I'm out.

Hilarious things I've read on this last page:

1. Not only is Jordan is a better defender than Kwahi, but he had SUBSTANTIALLY more impact on the defensive end.
2. There is no such thing as the Jordan mythos, if anything it is the OPPOSITE. People don't give Jordan enough credit
3. Jordan was in the discussion for best defender in the league every season he played. Nevermind the fact that he was either the 2nd or 3rd best defender in his team during his championships...

You can't make this stuff up. The Nike marketing campaign worked wonders on that poster.

[DCasey91]

Jordan Stans are worse than Lebron ones

Next game he has 4 reach ins in the first quarter alone and up to nine for the game


.... But but but

I'm out.

Hilarious things I've read on this last page:

1. Not only is Jordan is a better defender than Kwahi, but he had SUBSTANTIALLY more impact on the defensive end.
2. There is no such thing as the Jordan mythos, if anything it is the OPPOSITE. People don't give Jordan enough credit
3. Jordan was in the discussion for best defender in the league every season he played. Nevermind the fact that he was either the 2nd or 3rd best defender in his team during his championships...

You can't make this stuff up. The Nike marketing campaign worked wonders on that poster.

It's funny it's exactly the behavioural effect of a religious cult, a narcissistic attitude, or just a plain delusional state of mind when critical thought when opposing comes in which all ties together

Which in of itself further proves itself regardless of agenda or narrative. Outside perspective it would be clear evidence just by the responses alone.

The Jordan effect still exists. Said before got no dog ill call a spade a spade it's damning how easy it is to cement minds to the point of no return. Even today literally not too long ago something horrible happened in a big place publically with a mob like attitude towards Krause's significant other I was gobsmacked.
If that's not cult like well I don't understand a lick of English.

Anyway I had Jordan 3rd best defensively in the Playoffs. (Grant or Pippen)

In my personal opinion I think defensively in the Finals would be bottom when grading

General Playmaking A+
Passing A+ (would give it triple A if I could or 99/100)
Scoring A
Rebounding A (want to give it A+ but missed a couple of difficult O rebounds still fantastic)
Defense B- Got to to take the great, the good with the bad and the ugly

Watched that series 3 times over many years apart he still had that bad habit which he did dial back later on

[bledredwine]

I guess that when you have nothing factual to say or contribute,
just posture conjecture.

you can say "well for meee I found Jordan's defense 3rd best after Grant"
try the high schooler trick of talking about me in third person,
and refer to Jordan's legacy as "myth" as a defense mechanism

But those videos and stats exist. Not only does the 1988 DPOY exist, but the unanimous voting and years Jordan came in second in the 90s as well. Like it or not, once upon a time, his reputation in the league was that myth you speak
about. I'm sorry you youngbloods just don't know.

And now a post from the terrible PC forum everyone here makes fun of?

Funny thing is I find your last couple of posts quite comforting, after the quick skim.
You can often sense what one's truly communicating, and they're both devoid, empty.

[bledredwine]

it's exactly the behavioural effect of a religious cult, a narcissistic attitude,

Haha, alright, now I know not to take your posts seriously.

That's textbook deflection-

1. nothing to do with subject
2. insult
3. uses high schooler language (referring to others in 3rd person, demeaning factual posts with dramatic defense mechanisms)

I'm going to call you out or bold whenever you use a defense mechanism, or any of the above to show the quality of your posts.
This'll be really fun, since you came in to do this rather than talk basketball

[lessthanjake]

Totally disagree on Kawhi being a better defender.

Jordan had a substantially larger impact on the overall game on the defensive end.

But clearly, people have forgotten or are unaware.

Watch on YouTube

That is a remarkable game in terms of defense, and I’d like to use that as a launching point to discuss some things regarding Jordan defensively, and how we have good reason to believe he had defensive impact similar to elite rim protecting big men.

I think when assessing Jordan’s defense, some people get too hung up on what is normally true in the NBA as a whole, without accounting for the fact that Michael Jordan (as well as many of his Bulls teams) is just objectively a huge outlier in general.

A lot of the lukewarm assessments of his defense basically come down to people applying two assumptions to suggest Jordan couldn’t possibly have had elite defensive impact: (1) rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players, and (2) players gambling for steals isn’t a smart play overall (and, since Jordan did a good deal of that, they conclude that it must not have been impactful overall even if it led to high steals stats).

These two assumptions may well generally be true (though I think the second one is not entirely clear). But that doesn’t mean they’re true of Michael Jordan specifically.

Jordan’s Bulls were a complete defensive anomaly

Let’s take that first assumption. One of the main pieces of evidence backing the idea that rim-protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players is that the best defensive teams in NBA history are basically all teams with elite rim-protecting big men. That’s very good evidence! But is there an exception to that rule? Well, yes there is. It’s actually Jordan’s Bulls! The Bulls did not have an elite rim protecting big man. Yet, the second-three-peat Bulls had the 3rd best three-year playoff rDRTG of any team in NBA history. And the two teams above them (led by Duncan/Robinson and Kareem) aren’t ahead by much and didn’t go nearly as consistently deep in the playoffs as the Bulls in the years in question, so it’s definitely very arguable that the best three-year playoff defense in NBA history was the 1996-1998 Bulls. And this was no playoff fluke, since they were also a fantastic regular season defense in that timespan (31st all time in three-year regular season rDRTG, with essentially every team ahead of them being one with a rim-protecting big man—mostly Russell, Duncan, Ewing, and Ben Wallace). And that’s despite the fact that, unlike the vast majority of the top defenses in history, those Bulls were also an elite offensive team, which combined with great defense naturally led to huge leads, which we know causes teams to let up. That puts downwards pressure on the rDRTG, which other top defensive teams in history did not have. If the 1996-1998 Bulls regular season offense had only been as good as the offenses of other top regular season defenses of all time, then the Bulls’ rDRTG would surely have been even better (probably closer to their playoff rDRTG—as playoff rDRTG is less quickly mitigated by great offense, since you’re playing good opponents). In other words, the best regular season defenses and best playoff defenses of all time are essentially just a sea of teams with elite rim protecting big men…and then Jordan’s Bulls are sitting there alongside them (and arguably being the best of all when it comes to the playoffs).

We can infer Jordan was the primary reason the Bulls were a defensive anomaly

So how did the Bulls reach defensive heights that are otherwise essentially exclusively reserved for teams with elite rim protecting big men? I think when there’s an exception in the evidence for a rule (i.e. an exception to the evidence that elite rim protectors have the most defensive impact), then there’s likely a serious reason for that, which should be assessed instead of blindly assuming the rule is applicable even to the exception. Of course, a lot of people would say that the reason the 1996-1998 Bulls were so good defensively is not really about Jordan, but rather that they also had Pippen and Rodman. But what’s interesting here is that both of those guys actually missed quite a lot of games in that timeframe. Pippen missed almost half the season in 1998…and the Bulls defense had a better rDRTG in the games Pippen missed than in the games Pippen played. Meanwhile, Rodman missed a lot of games over those three years…and the Bulls *barely* had a worse rDRTG in the games Rodman missed. So we don’t have much indication that either of those guys were the secret sauce that made the Bulls the exception to the rule that historically elite defense requires an elite rim protecting big man. They were a historically elite defense for large stretches with or without each of those guys. The Bulls were, however, not an historically elite defense without Jordan, when he retired. They were a good defense, but not historically elite and were actually a pretty mediocre defense in the one playoffs without Jordan.

In other words, Jordan’s Bulls were the notable exception to the rule that historically elite defenses must have elite rim protecting big men. And they still played at that historically elite defensive level in a whole bunch of games without Pippen and a whole bunch of games without Rodman, but did not play at that level in the absence of Jordan. I think one can draw a pretty clear inference here that Michael Jordan was the primary cause of the Bulls being essentially the only historically elite defense without an elite rim protecting big man. Which would suggest that Jordan may be the exception to the rule that elite rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players!

Of course, that’s just an inference. But, notably, that inference is consistent with contemporaneous perception of Jordan’s defense, which had him placing in DPOY voting essentially every year of his prime. It is also consistent with the signals we have in other years, where, for instance, in Jordan’s absence the 1986 Bulls were amongst the worst defensive teams in history but were way better in the surrounding years with Jordan (and also way better in the games where Jordan actually played remotely normal minutes in 1986). In other words, we can look at team results and infer that Jordan had the defensive impact of an elite rim protecting big man, and we can look at contemporaneous recognition and see that people at the time thought the same thing. This suggests we are on the right track.

Jordan’s unique defensive deterrence explains why he caused the Bulls to be a defensive anomaly

But how would that be? How could Jordan be that impactful defensively, when he’s just a perimeter player? I think the answer to this actually goes to Assumption #2 above. Jordan did actually “gamble” a lot for steals. And, unlike the vast majority of players who do that and are ineffective overall, Jordan was extremely good at it, because of a unique combination of anticipation, basketball IQ, quickness, hands, and wingspan. Crucially, the effect of this isn’t just encompassed by the steals stat, just like the effect of a big man’s rim protection isn’t just encompassed by the blocks stat. Rather, in both these cases, the impact ends up mostly being a constant deterrent effect that is in place a ton of the time and deters opponents from even trying to make higher-percentage plays. You can’t make a high-value pass for an easy bucket if you’re too worried a defender is just going to get his hand on the ball. You can’t take that extra dribble in the post to get better position or take an extra dribble on a drive to get closer to the basket if you’re too worried about being stripped. So you settle for a lower-percentage play, just like players settle for a lower-percentage play to avoid an elite rim protector. This is something players from that era have talked about regarding Jordan, even talking about him being unique in this regard. For instance, Kenny Smith has said: “If you look at Michael, he’d have the correct hand in the passing lane. Defensively, he’s the only guy, he’s the Deion Sanders of basketball, where you wouldn’t run a play on his side of the court because he could defensively stop that side of the court” (see 9:50 of this video: https://youtu.be/HcTT5X5BCns?si=kjhIdGSbyWe8ioxi). It’s clear that Jordan’s capacity to disrupt defense plays was a unique deterrent to teams. And I think this unique deterrence is why he was able to uniquely exert defensive impact that was comparable to the rim deterrence of elite big men.

[bledredwine]

Totally disagree on Kawhi being a better defender.

Jordan had a substantially larger impact on the overall game on the defensive end.

But clearly, people have forgotten or are unaware.

Watch on YouTube

That is a remarkable game in terms of defense, and I’d like to use that as a launching point to discuss some things regarding Jordan defensively, and how we have good reason to believe he had defensive impact similar to elite rim protecting big men.

I think when assessing Jordan’s defense, some people get too hung up on what is normally true in the NBA as a whole, without accounting for the fact that Michael Jordan (as well as many of his Bulls teams) is just objectively a huge outlier in general.

A lot of the lukewarm assessments of his defense basically come down to people applying two assumptions to suggest Jordan couldn’t possibly have had elite defensive impact: (1) rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players, and (2) players gambling for steals isn’t a smart play overall (and, since Jordan did a good deal of that, they conclude that it must not have been impactful overall even if it led to high steals stats).

These two assumptions may well generally be true (though I think the second one is not entirely clear). But that doesn’t mean they’re true of Michael Jordan specifically.

Jordan’s Bulls were a complete defensive anomaly

Let’s take that first assumption. One of the main pieces of evidence backing the idea that rim-protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players is that the best defensive teams in NBA history are basically all teams with elite rim-protecting big men. That’s very good evidence! But is there an exception to that rule? Well, yes there is. It’s actually Jordan’s Bulls! The Bulls did not have an elite rim protecting big man. Yet, the second-three-peat Bulls had the 3rd best three-year playoff rDRTG of any team in NBA history. And the two teams above them (led by Duncan/Robinson and Kareem) aren’t ahead by much and didn’t go nearly as consistently deep in the playoffs as the Bulls in the years in question, so it’s definitely very arguable that the best three-year playoff defense in NBA history was the 1996-1998 Bulls. And this was no playoff fluke, since they were also a fantastic regular season defense in that timespan (31st all time in three-year regular season rDRTG, with essentially every team ahead of them being one with a rim-protecting big man—mostly Russell, Duncan, Ewing, and Ben Wallace). And that’s despite the fact that, unlike the vast majority of the top defenses in history, those Bulls were also an elite offensive team, which combined with great defense naturally led to huge leads, which we know causes teams to let up. That puts downwards pressure on the rDRTG, which other top defensive teams in history did not have. If the 1996-1998 Bulls regular season offense had only been as good as the offenses of other top regular season defenses of all time, then the Bulls’ rDRTG would surely have been even better (probably closer to their playoff rDRTG—as playoff rDRTG is less quickly mitigated by great offense, since you’re playing good opponents). In other words, the best regular season defenses and best playoff defenses of all time are essentially just a sea of teams with elite rim protecting big men…and then Jordan’s Bulls are sitting there alongside them (and arguably being the best of all when it comes to the playoffs).

We can infer Jordan was the primary reason the Bulls were a defensive anomaly

So how did the Bulls reach defensive heights that are otherwise essentially exclusively reserved for teams with elite rim protecting big men? I think when there’s an exception in the evidence for a rule (i.e. an exception to the evidence that elite rim protectors have the most defensive impact), then there’s likely a serious reason for that, which should be assessed instead of blindly assuming the rule is applicable even to the exception. Of course, a lot of people would say that the reason the 1996-1998 Bulls were so good defensively is not really about Jordan, but rather that they also had Pippen and Rodman. But what’s interesting here is that both of those guys actually missed quite a lot of games in that timeframe. Pippen missed almost half the season in 1998…and the Bulls defense had a better rDRTG in the games Pippen missed than in the games Pippen played. Meanwhile, Rodman missed a lot of games over those three years…and the Bulls *barely* had a worse rDRTG in the games Rodman missed. So we don’t have much indication that either of those guys were the secret sauce that made the Bulls the exception to the rule that historically elite defense requires an elite rim protecting big man. They were a historically elite defense for large stretches with or without each of those guys. The Bulls were, however, not an historically elite defense without Jordan, when he retired. They were a good defense, but not historically elite and were actually a pretty mediocre defense in the one playoffs without Jordan.

In other words, Jordan’s Bulls were the notable exception to the rule that historically elite defenses must have elite rim protecting big men. And they still played at that historically elite defensive level in a whole bunch of games without Pippen and a whole bunch of games without Rodman, but did not play at that level in the absence of Jordan. I think one can draw a pretty clear inference here that Michael Jordan was the primary cause of the Bulls being essentially the only historically elite defense without an elite rim protecting big man. Which would suggest that Jordan may be the exception to the rule that elite rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players!

Of course, that’s just an inference. But, notably, that inference is consistent with contemporaneous perception of Jordan’s defense, which had him placing in DPOY voting essentially every year of his prime. It is also consistent with the signals we have in other years, where, for instance, in Jordan’s absence the 1986 Bulls were amongst the worst defensive teams in history but were way better in the surrounding years with Jordan (and also way better in the games where Jordan actually played remotely normal minutes in 1986). In other words, we can look at team results and infer that Jordan had the defensive impact of an elite rim protecting big man, and we can look at contemporaneous recognition and see that people at the time thought the same thing. This suggests we are on the right track.

Jordan’s unique defensive deterrence explains why he caused the Bulls to be a defensive anomaly

But how would that be? How could Jordan be that impactful defensively, when he’s just a perimeter player? I think the answer to this actually goes to Assumption #2 above. Jordan did actually “gamble” a lot for steals. And, unlike the vast majority of players who do that and are ineffective overall, Jordan was extremely good at it, because of a unique combination of anticipation, basketball IQ, quickness, hands, and wingspan. Crucially, the effect of this isn’t just encompassed by the steals stat, just like the effect of a big man’s rim protection isn’t just encompassed by the blocks stat. Rather, in both these cases, the impact ends up mostly being a constant deterrent effect that is in place a ton of the time and deters opponents from even trying to make higher-percentage plays. You can’t make a high-value pass for an easy bucket if you’re too worried a defender is just going to get his hand on the ball. You can’t take that extra dribble in the post to get better position or take an extra dribble on a drive to get closer to the basket if you’re too worried about being stripped. So you settle for a lower-percentage play, just like players settle for a lower-percentage play to avoid an elite rim protector. This is something players from that era have talked about regarding Jordan, even talking about him being unique in this regard. For instance, Kenny Smith has said: “If you look at Michael, he’d have the correct hand in the passing lane. Defensively, he’s the only guy, he’s the Deion Sanders of basketball, where you wouldn’t run a play on his side of the court because he could defensively stop that side of the court” (see 9:50 of this video: https://youtu.be/HcTT5X5BCns?si=kjhIdGSbyWe8ioxi). It’s clear that Jordan’s capacity to disrupt defense plays was a unique deterrent to teams. And I think this unique deterrence is why he was able to uniquely exert defensive impact that was comparable to the rim deterrence of elite big men.

Bro, what a relief, someone who gets it. Before the sour grapes, Pippen in an interview literally credited a lot of his defensive tenacity from Jordan insisting on Pippen guarding him in practices and pushing him. But people don’t want to know that. They don’t know Jordan and his game, really.

[ScrantonBulls]

Totally disagree on Kawhi being a better defender.

Jordan had a substantially larger impact on the overall game on the defensive end.

But clearly, people have forgotten or are unaware.

Watch on YouTube

That is a remarkable game in terms of defense, and I’d like to use that as a launching point to discuss some things regarding Jordan defensively, and how we have good reason to believe he had defensive impact similar to elite rim protecting big men.

I think when assessing Jordan’s defense, some people get too hung up on what is normally true in the NBA as a whole, without accounting for the fact that Michael Jordan (as well as many of his Bulls teams) is just objectively a huge outlier in general.

A lot of the lukewarm assessments of his defense basically come down to people applying two assumptions to suggest Jordan couldn’t possibly have had elite defensive impact: (1) rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players, and (2) players gambling for steals isn’t a smart play overall (and, since Jordan did a good deal of that, they conclude that it must not have been impactful overall even if it led to high steals stats).

These two assumptions may well generally be true (though I think the second one is not entirely clear). But that doesn’t mean they’re true of Michael Jordan specifically.

Jordan’s Bulls were a complete defensive anomaly

Let’s take that first assumption. One of the main pieces of evidence backing the idea that rim-protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players is that the best defensive teams in NBA history are basically all teams with elite rim-protecting big men. That’s very good evidence! But is there an exception to that rule? Well, yes there is. It’s actually Jordan’s Bulls! The Bulls did not have an elite rim protecting big man. Yet, the second-three-peat Bulls had the 3rd best three-year playoff rDRTG of any team in NBA history. And the two teams above them (led by Duncan/Robinson and Kareem) aren’t ahead by much and didn’t go nearly as consistently deep in the playoffs as the Bulls in the years in question, so it’s definitely very arguable that the best three-year playoff defense in NBA history was the 1996-1998 Bulls. And this was no playoff fluke, since they were also a fantastic regular season defense in that timespan (31st all time in three-year regular season rDRTG, with essentially every team ahead of them being one with a rim-protecting big man—mostly Russell, Duncan, Ewing, and Ben Wallace). And that’s despite the fact that, unlike the vast majority of the top defenses in history, those Bulls were also an elite offensive team, which combined with great defense naturally led to huge leads, which we know causes teams to let up. That puts downwards pressure on the rDRTG, which other top defensive teams in history did not have. If the 1996-1998 Bulls regular season offense had only been as good as the offenses of other top regular season defenses of all time, then the Bulls’ rDRTG would surely have been even better (probably closer to their playoff rDRTG—as playoff rDRTG is less quickly mitigated by great offense, since you’re playing good opponents). In other words, the best regular season defenses and best playoff defenses of all time are essentially just a sea of teams with elite rim protecting big men…and then Jordan’s Bulls are sitting there alongside them (and arguably being the best of all when it comes to the playoffs).

We can infer Jordan was the primary reason the Bulls were a defensive anomaly

So how did the Bulls reach defensive heights that are otherwise essentially exclusively reserved for teams with elite rim protecting big men? I think when there’s an exception in the evidence for a rule (i.e. an exception to the evidence that elite rim protectors have the most defensive impact), then there’s likely a serious reason for that, which should be assessed instead of blindly assuming the rule is applicable even to the exception. Of course, a lot of people would say that the reason the 1996-1998 Bulls were so good defensively is not really about Jordan, but rather that they also had Pippen and Rodman. But what’s interesting here is that both of those guys actually missed quite a lot of games in that timeframe. Pippen missed almost half the season in 1998…and the Bulls defense had a better rDRTG in the games Pippen missed than in the games Pippen played. Meanwhile, Rodman missed a lot of games over those three years…and the Bulls *barely* had a worse rDRTG in the games Rodman missed. So we don’t have much indication that either of those guys were the secret sauce that made the Bulls the exception to the rule that historically elite defense requires an elite rim protecting big man. They were a historically elite defense for large stretches with or without each of those guys. The Bulls were, however, not an historically elite defense without Jordan, when he retired. They were a good defense, but not historically elite and were actually a pretty mediocre defense in the one playoffs without Jordan.

In other words, Jordan’s Bulls were the notable exception to the rule that historically elite defenses must have elite rim protecting big men. And they still played at that historically elite defensive level in a whole bunch of games without Pippen and a whole bunch of games without Rodman, but did not play at that level in the absence of Jordan. I think one can draw a pretty clear inference here that Michael Jordan was the primary cause of the Bulls being essentially the only historically elite defense without an elite rim protecting big man. Which would suggest that Jordan may be the exception to the rule that elite rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players!

Of course, that’s just an inference. But, notably, that inference is consistent with contemporaneous perception of Jordan’s defense, which had him placing in DPOY voting essentially every year of his prime. It is also consistent with the signals we have in other years, where, for instance, in Jordan’s absence the 1986 Bulls were amongst the worst defensive teams in history but were way better in the surrounding years with Jordan (and also way better in the games where Jordan actually played remotely normal minutes in 1986). In other words, we can look at team results and infer that Jordan had the defensive impact of an elite rim protecting big man, and we can look at contemporaneous recognition and see that people at the time thought the same thing. This suggests we are on the right track.

Jordan’s unique defensive deterrence explains why he caused the Bulls to be a defensive anomaly

But how would that be? How could Jordan be that impactful defensively, when he’s just a perimeter player? I think the answer to this actually goes to Assumption #2 above. Jordan did actually “gamble” a lot for steals. And, unlike the vast majority of players who do that and are ineffective overall, Jordan was extremely good at it, because of a unique combination of anticipation, basketball IQ, quickness, hands, and wingspan. Crucially, the effect of this isn’t just encompassed by the steals stat, just like the effect of a big man’s rim protection isn’t just encompassed by the blocks stat. Rather, in both these cases, the impact ends up mostly being a constant deterrent effect that is in place a ton of the time and deters opponents from even trying to make higher-percentage plays. You can’t make a high-value pass for an easy bucket if you’re too worried a defender is just going to get his hand on the ball. You can’t take that extra dribble in the post to get better position or take an extra dribble on a drive to get closer to the basket if you’re too worried about being stripped. So you settle for a lower-percentage play, just like players settle for a lower-percentage play to avoid an elite rim protector. This is something players from that era have talked about regarding Jordan, even talking about him being unique in this regard. For instance, Kenny Smith has said: “If you look at Michael, he’d have the correct hand in the passing lane. Defensively, he’s the only guy, he’s the Deion Sanders of basketball, where you wouldn’t run a play on his side of the court because he could defensively stop that side of the court” (see 9:50 of this video: https://youtu.be/HcTT5X5BCns?si=kjhIdGSbyWe8ioxi). It’s clear that Jordan’s capacity to disrupt defense plays was a unique deterrent to teams. And I think this unique deterrence is why he was able to uniquely exert defensive impact that was comparable to the rim deterrence of elite big men.

I noticed you conveniently compared the 96-98 teams to the year he retired (93-94) instead of comparing it to the most logical team, the 92-93 team. The team during his retirement year was obviously more similar to the 92-93 in each and every way.

You put a lot of effort into that post so I apologize for this, but I'm going to dismantle it quickly. See below.

Bulls DRtg in 92-93: 106.1 (7th)
Bulls DRtg in 93-94: 102.7 (6th)

Since you like rDRtg:

Bulls DRtg in 92-93: -2.7
Bulls DRtg in 93-94: -3.6

[lessthanjake]

I noticed you conveniently compared the 96-98 teams to the year he retired (93-94) instead of comparing it to the most logical team, the 92-93 team. The team during his retirement year was obviously more similar to the 92-93 in each and every way.

You put a lot of effort into that post so I apologize for this, but I'm going to dismantle it quickly. See below.

Bulls DRtg in 92-93: 106.1 (7th)
Bulls DRtg in 93-94: 102.7 (6th)

Since you like rDRtg:

Bulls DRtg in 92-93: -2.7
Bulls DRtg in 93-94: -3.6

You have successfully identified the least good defensive signal in Jordan’s career. The other signals are enormous, including what happened in 1986 and what happened after he came back from his first retirement (and, it goes without saying, what happened after his second retirement). The 1996-1998 signal is the most important one, because it is a legitimate anomaly, which by all accounts should not have happened. It is the one that requires some sort of significant explanation.

But what about the 93 —> 94 signal? Well, as an initial matter, 1993 is widely understood to have been a down-year for the Bulls supporting cast, who were coasting in the RS after having won two straight titles. The 1992 Bulls team had a better regular season rDRTG than the 1994 Bulls. But even that was only by a small amount. So what’s the reason for the 1994 Bulls defense having a similar regular season rDRTG to the first-three-peat Bulls? Well, for starters, it goes back to something I mentioned in my last post. Teams with great offenses *and* great defenses tend to just blow teams out and teams that are winning by a lot let up (and data on this shows that this effect is quite large). This means that being great on one end of the court actually puts downwards pressure on a team’s numbers on the other end. Why is that important here? Well, the Bulls went from a +6.3 rORTG team over the first-three-peat years (and +4.9 rORTG in 1993 specifically) to a -0.2 rORTG team in 1994. In other words, because their offense was way worse, the 1994 Bulls had a lot fewer situations where the defense was letting up because they were ahead by a lot (and, also, a lot fewer situations where they were way behind and the other team was letting up). All else being equal, we actually would expect the rDRTG for the 1994 Bulls to be a good deal better in that context.

Importantly, the effect I describe above is less of an issue in the playoffs, because your opponents are good, so you can rack up higher rDRTGs and rORTGs without being so far ahead that the numbers basically cannibalize themselves. Coasting is of course also less of an issue in the playoffs. Jordan’s Bulls always noticeably ramped it up defensively in the playoffs, so that was a better representation of their defensive quality. And what do we see happen in the playoffs? Well, in the first-three-peat years, the Bulls’ playoff rDRTG was a fantastic -4.4 (negative numbers are good for rDRTG), while it was only -1.3 in the 1994 playoffs. So the Bulls playoff defense was quite a lot better in the first-three-peat years than it was in 1994 without Jordan. That’s a good signal for Jordan (albeit still not his strongest signal)!

And even that is underselling it, because the first-three-peat Bulls and the 1994 Bulls were not the same team. Rather, the 1994 Bulls were a stronger team outside of not having Jordan. Grant and Pippen were at their best (after both having noticeably down years in 1993, I’ll note). But it was more than that. The Bulls added some pieces that year. Notably, this included Toni Kukoc. Kukoc is a player who didn’t have a great defensive reputation because he was European, but we now have a good deal of defensive RAPM data for him and it is really good until he got older (which shouldn’t be surprising, since he is a really long defender). That was definitely a serious defensive upgrade. As was replacing some ancient Cartwright minutes with Longley and Wennington—the latter two certainly weren’t elite rim protectors, but they were definitely better defensively than a mid-30’s Cartwright. The 1994 Bulls had those defensive upgrades and still were a good deal far off from the first-three-peat Bulls in playoff defense. This not only doesn’t support the point you’re trying to make, but is actually another great signal regarding the huge defensive impact of Jordan!

So what you’re basically left hanging your hat on is just that the defensively-upgraded 1994 Bulls were as good or better defensively than the first-three-peat Bulls in the regular season (while having done so much worse offensively that we’d *expect* the 1994 Bulls to have a notably better rDRTG), while they were noticeably worse defensively in the playoffs. And meanwhile the second-three-peat Bulls were substantially better than the 1994 Bulls in both regular season and playoff defense. Heck, even with a recently-unretired Jordan that was obviously not at his best, the 1995 Bulls had a notably better playoff rDRTG than the 1994 Bulls, despite not having Horace Grant anymore. You don’t have much to hang your hat on here. I get why you’re focusing on the one thing you’re focusing on, since it’s basically the one signal for Jordan that isn’t enormous defensively, but the overall data picture here is clearly one of a player who has defensive signals that rival anyone, and who, crucially, has signals that involve him pushing a team up into a rarified defensive air that no one else but elite rim protecting big men have taken their teams. While all these signals have noise (and so we should expect variance, including resulting in a signal like the 1993 —> 1994 RS signal), taking a team to that rarified defensive air without an elite rim protector is something we need to take really seriously, because it is not something that randomly happens. Teams don’t just hit those defensive heights without an elite rim protecting big man. This is the only example of it, and we have good reason to believe Jordan is the main reason for it.

[bledredwine]

I've seen Pippen interviews where he credited his defensive improvement to Jordan having him constantly guard him in practices.
I couldn't find it due to the absurd more recent toxic Pippen videos perforating YouTube, but I did find an NBA.com article where Pippen basically says the same.

www.nba.com/bulls/news/jordanhof_pippen_090910.html#

(contd) It was the endless practice sessions that Pippen said in which the greatest improvements were made.

"He was very competitive, so he went at me and that helped me learn,", said Pippen. "You continue to compete against the very best every day, and you will get better, or you'll be embarrassed."

(later) "A lot of my instincts came from guarding Michael all the time in practice," he added. "I had four other guys on my team, but I had schemes that I would throw out there depending on what he did. I'd say, 'if I make Michael do this, then you go trap him.' There were things I tried to do on defense to trigger him into a mistake. He was a great player, and if you couldn't try it on him in practice, there was nowhere else to try it."



Anyway, as a fan who followed each game, it was obvious that Jordan was the biggest culture changer in the league, and you saw it in last dance, if you like it or not. The most undervalued aspect is his overall impact the intensity of the team and how consistently they won. From the years 91-98 with Jordan on the team, the Bulls didn't have a single stretch of 3 losses in a row and that's amazing.

We already know that his teams were more dominant and never underachieved. The were suffocating on both ends and regularly won by double digits in an era when you just didn't see that often.

It's so funny how everyone talks about Pippen in 94, but then fails to mention the Bulls poor next year, Jordan coming back them doing 13-4, then record setting 72-10 the next year... so basically 85-14 after Jordan's return. After the Bulls struggling to go .500 before adding rusty Jordan? That's what you call a culture change and though Rodman helped, it was obvious who the needle mover was.

These same people also don't mention how Bosh was an MVP candidate, Wade was a top 3 player who won a championship before Lebron even did in dominant fashion, Kyrie's made the finals and hit almost 30 in the Cavs finals, outplaying Steph. so..... moot point.

[Special_Puppy]

Totally disagree on Kawhi being a better defender.

Jordan had a substantially larger impact on the overall game on the defensive end.

But clearly, people have forgotten or are unaware.

Watch on YouTube

That is a remarkable game in terms of defense, and I’d like to use that as a launching point to discuss some things regarding Jordan defensively, and how we have good reason to believe he had defensive impact similar to elite rim protecting big men.

I think when assessing Jordan’s defense, some people get too hung up on what is normally true in the NBA as a whole, without accounting for the fact that Michael Jordan (as well as many of his Bulls teams) is just objectively a huge outlier in general.

A lot of the lukewarm assessments of his defense basically come down to people applying two assumptions to suggest Jordan couldn’t possibly have had elite defensive impact: (1) rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players, and (2) players gambling for steals isn’t a smart play overall (and, since Jordan did a good deal of that, they conclude that it must not have been impactful overall even if it led to high steals stats).

These two assumptions may well generally be true (though I think the second one is not entirely clear). But that doesn’t mean they’re true of Michael Jordan specifically.

Jordan’s Bulls were a complete defensive anomaly

Let’s take that first assumption. One of the main pieces of evidence backing the idea that rim-protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players is that the best defensive teams in NBA history are basically all teams with elite rim-protecting big men. That’s very good evidence! But is there an exception to that rule? Well, yes there is. It’s actually Jordan’s Bulls! The Bulls did not have an elite rim protecting big man. Yet, the second-three-peat Bulls had the 3rd best three-year playoff rDRTG of any team in NBA history. And the two teams above them (led by Duncan/Robinson and Kareem) aren’t ahead by much and didn’t go nearly as consistently deep in the playoffs as the Bulls in the years in question, so it’s definitely very arguable that the best three-year playoff defense in NBA history was the 1996-1998 Bulls. And this was no playoff fluke, since they were also a fantastic regular season defense in that timespan (31st all time in three-year regular season rDRTG, with essentially every team ahead of them being one with a rim-protecting big man—mostly Russell, Duncan, Ewing, and Ben Wallace). And that’s despite the fact that, unlike the vast majority of the top defenses in history, those Bulls were also an elite offensive team, which combined with great defense naturally led to huge leads, which we know causes teams to let up. That puts downwards pressure on the rDRTG, which other top defensive teams in history did not have. If the 1996-1998 Bulls regular season offense had only been as good as the offenses of other top regular season defenses of all time, then the Bulls’ rDRTG would surely have been even better (probably closer to their playoff rDRTG—as playoff rDRTG is less quickly mitigated by great offense, since you’re playing good opponents). In other words, the best regular season defenses and best playoff defenses of all time are essentially just a sea of teams with elite rim protecting big men…and then Jordan’s Bulls are sitting there alongside them (and arguably being the best of all when it comes to the playoffs).

We can infer Jordan was the primary reason the Bulls were a defensive anomaly

So how did the Bulls reach defensive heights that are otherwise essentially exclusively reserved for teams with elite rim protecting big men? I think when there’s an exception in the evidence for a rule (i.e. an exception to the evidence that elite rim protectors have the most defensive impact), then there’s likely a serious reason for that, which should be assessed instead of blindly assuming the rule is applicable even to the exception. Of course, a lot of people would say that the reason the 1996-1998 Bulls were so good defensively is not really about Jordan, but rather that they also had Pippen and Rodman. But what’s interesting here is that both of those guys actually missed quite a lot of games in that timeframe. Pippen missed almost half the season in 1998…and the Bulls defense had a better rDRTG in the games Pippen missed than in the games Pippen played. Meanwhile, Rodman missed a lot of games over those three years…and the Bulls *barely* had a worse rDRTG in the games Rodman missed. So we don’t have much indication that either of those guys were the secret sauce that made the Bulls the exception to the rule that historically elite defense requires an elite rim protecting big man. They were a historically elite defense for large stretches with or without each of those guys. The Bulls were, however, not an historically elite defense without Jordan, when he retired. They were a good defense, but not historically elite and were actually a pretty mediocre defense in the one playoffs without Jordan.

In other words, Jordan’s Bulls were the notable exception to the rule that historically elite defenses must have elite rim protecting big men. And they still played at that historically elite defensive level in a whole bunch of games without Pippen and a whole bunch of games without Rodman, but did not play at that level in the absence of Jordan. I think one can draw a pretty clear inference here that Michael Jordan was the primary cause of the Bulls being essentially the only historically elite defense without an elite rim protecting big man. Which would suggest that Jordan may be the exception to the rule that elite rim protecting big men are far more impactful defensively than perimeter players!

Of course, that’s just an inference. But, notably, that inference is consistent with contemporaneous perception of Jordan’s defense, which had him placing in DPOY voting essentially every year of his prime. It is also consistent with the signals we have in other years, where, for instance, in Jordan’s absence the 1986 Bulls were amongst the worst defensive teams in history but were way better in the surrounding years with Jordan (and also way better in the games where Jordan actually played remotely normal minutes in 1986). In other words, we can look at team results and infer that Jordan had the defensive impact of an elite rim protecting big man, and we can look at contemporaneous recognition and see that people at the time thought the same thing. This suggests we are on the right track.

Jordan’s unique defensive deterrence explains why he caused the Bulls to be a defensive anomaly

But how would that be? How could Jordan be that impactful defensively, when he’s just a perimeter player? I think the answer to this actually goes to Assumption #2 above. Jordan did actually “gamble” a lot for steals. And, unlike the vast majority of players who do that and are ineffective overall, Jordan was extremely good at it, because of a unique combination of anticipation, basketball IQ, quickness, hands, and wingspan. Crucially, the effect of this isn’t just encompassed by the steals stat, just like the effect of a big man’s rim protection isn’t just encompassed by the blocks stat. Rather, in both these cases, the impact ends up mostly being a constant deterrent effect that is in place a ton of the time and deters opponents from even trying to make higher-percentage plays. You can’t make a high-value pass for an easy bucket if you’re too worried a defender is just going to get his hand on the ball. You can’t take that extra dribble in the post to get better position or take an extra dribble on a drive to get closer to the basket if you’re too worried about being stripped. So you settle for a lower-percentage play, just like players settle for a lower-percentage play to avoid an elite rim protector. This is something players from that era have talked about regarding Jordan, even talking about him being unique in this regard. For instance, Kenny Smith has said: “If you look at Michael, he’d have the correct hand in the passing lane. Defensively, he’s the only guy, he’s the Deion Sanders of basketball, where you wouldn’t run a play on his side of the court because he could defensively stop that side of the court” (see 9:50 of this video: https://youtu.be/HcTT5X5BCns?si=kjhIdGSbyWe8ioxi). It’s clear that Jordan’s capacity to disrupt defense plays was a unique deterrent to teams. And I think this unique deterrence is why he was able to uniquely exert defensive impact that was comparable to the rim deterrence of elite big men.

There several lines of evidence that point against this idea

-Jordan's Defense RAPTOR (peak years weighted more) was +2.5 which is great but a rung below the elite rim protectors of the era like Hakeem and Robinson (who were +5 or better on the defense end)
-The Squared2020 RAPM has Jordan as a +1.3 on the defense end which is great, but is again a rung below defenders like Robinson

Read on Twitter

-We have DPM for 1997 and 1998 and it shows Jordan to be net neutral on the defensive end
-We have RAPM for 1997 and 1998 and it shows Jordan to be a good defender but again a rung below people like Dikembe Mutombo https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GkOZSq7W14lUSC6fBsdM-W9yydOFSle6q4awUoJne0g/edit?gid=0#gid=0
-When Jordan retired for the first time, there was almost no dropoff on the defensive end for the Bulls

So why were the 2nd three-peat bulls so good defensively? Because they were absolutely loaded with defensive talent! Randy Brown, Ron Harper, Luc Longley, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and of course Jordan himself.

[lessthanjake]

There several lines of evidence that point against this idea

-Jordan's Defense RAPTOR (peak years weighted more) was +2.5 which is great but a rung below the elite rim protectors of the era like Hakeem and Robinson (who were +5 or better on the defense end)
-The Squared2020 RAPM has Jordan as a +1.3 on the defense end which is great, but is again a rung below defenders like Robinson

Read on Twitter

-We have DPM for 1997 and 1998 and it shows Jordan to be net neutral on the defensive end
-We have RAPM for 1997 and 1998 and it shows Jordan to be a good defender but again a rung below people like Dikembe Mutombo https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GkOZSq7W14lUSC6fBsdM-W9yydOFSle6q4awUoJne0g/edit?gid=0#gid=0
-When Jordan retired for the first time, there was almost no dropoff on the defensive end for the Bulls

So why were the 2nd three-peat bulls so good defensively? Because they were absolutely loaded with defensive talent! Randy Brown, Ron Harper, Luc Longley, Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and of course Jordan himself.

I think these are fair points, but I’d note a few things:

- I wouldn’t really credit Defensive RAPTOR much, since RAPTOR for that time period is not normal RAPTOR and is basically just a box component. To get more granular about this, the theory I’m positing is that Jordan had a unique deterrent effect on defense. This is something that would naturally get undersold in box-based defensive stats, which would be focused in correlating box stats to what they *generally* mean in terms of impact, rather than what they might mean in a specific instance where something is an anomaly. Basically, box stats built to correlate with impact will naturally undersell exceptions to the rule (and I note that this also to some degree applies to DPM, which you mentioned too, since it’s got a correlated box prior).

- Regarding Squared RAPM, I’d note that for whatever reason the numbers for DRAPM are generally lower than we’d normally expect. Must be something with how it’s scaled or calculated. Jordan’s DRAPM is quite good in that context—albeit a bit below guys like Kareem, Robinson, Ewing, and Hakeem. That seems like a fair point, with the caveat of course that Squared doesn’t have full data, so the confidence interval on it is definitely fairly large (and probably large enough to not take *too* seriously relatively small differences in DRAPM specifically).

- Similarly, I think pointing to 1997 and 1998 RAPM is a fair point too, but its utility is pretty limited by the sample size. Jordan didn’t miss many minutes (or any games) in those years, so the “off” sample that RAPM is based on is small such that it is subject to a lot of noise and has a wide confidence interval. To illustrate this a bit, Jordan’s DRAPM in 1997 is about equal to Hakeem’s, and Jordan’s DRAPM in 1998 is about equal to Duncan’s (looking at JE’s year-by-year RAPM). So, while others are ahead in DRAPM in those years, I definitely don’t think Jordan’s DRAPM in those years should be regarded as disproving the point (though it would be a data point that would tend to lower the likelihood).

I’d also note that a good deal of my point is about playoff defense, because that’s where the Bulls were consistently at their best—in part, I think, because they were so good on offense that it significantly cannibalized DRTG in the regular season (due to the rubber band effect), which is less true in the playoffs. And the one version of playoff RAPM from 1997 and 1998 that I’m aware of has Jordan grading out quite well (2nd in 1997 and 18th in 1998). That said, single-season playoff RAPM is such a low sample that it’s basically useless. So it’s probably more accurate to say that the crux of my point can’t really be tested with RAPM.

[Special_Puppy]

Oh On the Topic of Jordan's defense. Regular Season On/off Analysis found that almost all of Jordan's lift came on the offensive end

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

The Bulls Defense did go from -4 in the regular season to -6.2 in the playoffs though. I'm skeptical that improvement was because of Jordan's defense meaningfully improve in the playoffs (Jordan's offense did meaningfully improve in the playoffs though)

[lessthanjake]

Oh On the Topic of Jordan's defense. Regular Season On/off Analysis found that almost all of Jordan's lift came on the offensive end

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

The Bulls Defense did go from -4 in the regular season to -6.2 in the playoffs though. I'm skeptical that improvement was because of Jordan's defense meaningfully improve in the playoffs (Jordan's offense did meaningfully improve in the playoffs though)

I think this is a fair point, but is basically just downstream of the previously-mentioned RAPM numbers, since Squared’s RAPM is just based on Squared’s on-off (adjusted for who else is on the court, of course). One thing I find notable there is that easily Jordan’s best defensive on-off in that data was found in 1992—which is actually the one piece of data there that isn’t included in the Squared RAPM that you previously posted. This strongly suggests that the overall Squared RAPM might be underselling Jordan a bit during that time period. As does the fact that the sample of games that Squared looked at in 1991 was very skewed towards less good games for the Bulls (the Bulls basically completely dominated the unsampled games), though that is a little less clear cut as to how it would affect the data.

That said, I think it’s right that the regular season RAPM data we have doesn’t generally suggest Jordan had crazy high defensive impact like the WOWY data generally does. So there’s definitely some ambiguity here. I do tend to think that data sources are all generally flawed and noisy and when there’s different sets of data that say different things, I tend to put more stock in the one that is closer to contemporaneous perception of the player. Here, that’d be the data saying Jordan was tremendously impactful defensively. I also tend to put more stock in data that shows something genuinely anomalous, since it’s the type of thing we almost definitionally wouldn’t see just from pure noise. Here, again, that would lead to crediting the optimistic assessment of Jordan’s defense. But that’s just applying useful heuristics, rather than anything that’s entirely certain. If someone wants to look at the limited RAPM data we have and come to a different conclusion than me, I don’t think it’s certain to be wrong.

As for the shift from regular season to playoff, based on the Thinking Basketball database, the first-three-peat Bulls had a regular season rDRTG of -2.8, while they had a playoff rDRTG of -4.4. The second-three-peat Bulls had a regular season rDRTG of -5.1, while they had a playoff rDRTG of -8.3. And, notably, the rDRTG in the playoffs was better than the RS rDRTG in every single title-winning year (as well as 1989 and 1990 FWIW). The Bulls definitely did ramp it up defensively in the playoffs. I’m not sure whether that improvement is all about Jordan doing better defensively in the playoffs (though their rDRTG did get worse in the playoffs compared to the RS when they were without Jordan in 1994), and that’s not really my argument. I think the Bulls did better defensively in the playoffs in terms of rDRTG because (1) unlike most great defenses, the Bulls had great offenses too, and when you play good teams in the playoffs, your rORTG and rDRTG can get notably higher before the values start to cannibalize themselves by creating large leads that cause your team to let up; and (2) the team as a whole simply was more intense defensively in the playoffs (which may in part be due to leadership from Jordan, but that’s a tough thing to gauge, and I’m not making any particular claim about that). Whatever the reason, the second-three-peat Bulls had arguably the best three-year playoff defense in NBA history (it’s 3rd all time in three-year rDRTG, but the teams ahead of them had a first-round exit in their timeframes, so aren’t really comparable). The fact that that occurred without an elite rim protecting big man is genuinely anomalous. Maybe they were just that good because of a sum of a bunch of great defensive parts. That’s the kind of story that regular season RAPM would probably suggest. But they aren’t the only team to have a set of fantastic perimeter defenders but be lacking an elite rim protector, yet other teams didn’t do anything even close to what those Bulls did, especially in the playoffs. It does also seem notable that the team’s rDRTG was basically impervious to Pippen or Rodman not playing but wasn’t as good without Jordan—though obviously the comparison isn’t perfect because the absences happened at different times.

[Djoker]

Excellent posts Jake!

However, I honestly don't believe that Jordan is approaching elite defensive big man in terms of defensive impact. We know from a plethora of impact data that non-bigs peak at about 2 points per 100 possessions in terms of defensive impact while bigs peak at about 6 points per 100 possessions. Protecting the paint really is far more valuable than any other aspect of defense. On the other hand, MJ is definitely the elite of the elite when it comes to non-bigs.

Also, just an aside and I've cautioned many on these boards on this point (and it fell on deaf ears) but looking at offense and defense in a vacuum is always tricky because of that rubber band effect but also because style of play can change when certain players are in or out of the lineup. For example, in the 1997-98 regular season, Pippen missed 38 games and the Bulls had a +6.1 Net Rtg (-0.4 rORtg, -6.5 rDRtg). In the other 44 games with Pippen, the Bulls had a +9.6 Net Rtg (+5.5 rORtg, -4.1 rDRtg). Obviously Pippen isn't worth a 5.9 ORtg improvement (which is GOAT-level offensive improvement!) while being a clear negative on defense with a 2.4 DRtg drop. That makes no sense. A more logical explanation is that the Bulls changed their style of play without Pippen and played more defensive basketball while using Jordan's offensive greatness to keep them afloat on offense. And with Pippen, they could play a more offensive style and still be a great defense. The Net Rtg of +6.1 and +9.6 I would trust to try and gauge Pip's impact but the offensive and defensive splits I would take with a grain of salt.

[The-Stallion70]

I think that Lebron James is the most talented player of all time and I think that that is also a different question than who is the greatest of all time.

[DCasey91]

I thinks it's a terrible post and an even worse theory.

Garnett vs Howard both played alongside mediocre defenders in their prime in fact 4/1 ratio for Howard same as Garnett for alot of the time guess what the defensive results was? But you don't read about it

Garnett this and Garnett that

... Rim don't move. The reason why is because the best elite defensive centers, rim protectors can protect the whole interior, literally eat up 60%++ of the shot diet of whatever high number it is depending on which years you want to look at.

I wonder why multiple not just one quality defensive wings are so sought after today... Hmmmmmm

Here's one for you super duper simple

Basketball can be played and is today 4 "wings" rotating, individually defending etc etc.

But let's take two for arguments sake. One is best in comp the other worse on each side

.... Oh wait the impact metrics aren't what you expect it to be coz the other guy keeps messing up

I'm not surprised to find that Pippen and Grant ranked in the top 5 in the comp for interior/post defence for non centers add on the amazing verstality that Pippen is as a wing.

I can make the exact same stupid theory as the one you presented.

... Wait better yet

Today right now look at the Rockets. Look at it

Sengun

Surrounding by Brooks, Smith Jr, Thompson, Eason good sweetness

More good quality defenders that go together better results

Both iterations of the Bulls was a 3 headed defensive monster that synergized brilliantly on team D and individually, surrounding by excellent depth for the majority

Guess what? 92 Finals points out as Jordan's highlight (Killed Drexler, better matchup)

..... I literally just said he put away his habits from 91

Wait so I just killed the gamble theory too?

It's just silly now. Jordan was and is a great defender take nothing away from him

But I'll always stand against bullsh*t

"Can Jordan have the same impact as an elite rim protecting big"

That is some delusional behaviour. This is a beyond a joke