How the hell did the 93-94 Bulls manage to go 55-27 after losing MJ?

[Homer38]

They didn’t only lose 2 more games the next season. They also lost in the second round of the playoffs after winning 3 titles in a row. Sometimes teams overachieve. The next year the Bullls had the regression more like you would expect before MJ came back.

Not really.

First, in '95 they lost Horace Grant.

Second, record-wise, they (statistically) overperformed in '94 in the regular season, but underperformed in '95 (before Jordan returned) vs their SRS.

94: +2.9 SRS, 55-27
95: ~ +4 SRS, 34-31

Average: +3.6 SRS, pace for +49 wins in 82-game season.

Obviously, the irony is they were better statistically in '95 despite losing Grant and yet had much better record in '94.

They also played a very close series against Knicks (+6 SRS team) in '94, eventually losing. That's enough data to say they were a ~2nd tier contending team, especially in '94. Hard to argue that they overperformed in '94 when in ~145 games sample they were a ~50W, +3.6 SRS team in the regular season, despite losing Horace Grant in '95, without Jordan.

~+3.6 SRS is a ~top8-level team in regular season - and obviously they had championship-level experience and GOAT-level coaching in the playoffs, that's why they were able to play such competitive series against Knicks without MJ.

What were their SRS with Pippen in the lineup?

Because Pippen was out for like 10 games that season and they were like 3-7 without him

[TheGOATRises007]

They were an impressive team even without Jordan.

Not quite GSW without Durant level. More like Celtics without Jaylen Brown.

That doesn't make sense at all.

You word it like Pippen was the driving force behind the success.

Celtics without Tatum is more applicable(even though Tatum/Brown are closer than Jordan/Pippen).

[Big_Aristotle]

Because the Bulls without MJ was a pretty good team. MJ was their finisher/closer.

[zimpy27]

They were an impressive team even without Jordan.

Not quite GSW without Durant level. More like Celtics without Jaylen Brown.

That doesn't make sense at all.

You word it like Pippen was the driving force behind the success.

Celtics without Tatum is more applicable(even though Tatum/Brown are closer than Jordan/Pippen).

I don't think Celtics without Tatum is as good as Bulls without Jordan.

[The Master]

What were their SRS with Pippen in the lineup?

Because Pippen was out for like 10 games that season and they were like 3-7 without him

Oh, yeah, great catch, I forgot about that. Also Grant missed 12 games.

So actually their SRS was deflated as with Pippen they were 49-21 (58W pace and +3.8 net rating) and with Pippen-Grant they were 44-16 (60W pace and +4.5 net).

Missed games by MVP candidates that year:

Hakeem - 2
DRob - 2
Pippen - 10
Shaq - 1
Ewing - 3
Payton - 0
Malone - 0

So their record was an overperformance (55W with +3 SRS), but their SRS was deflated (around +3.5-4 SRS with Pippen, I guess) vs their actual level.

[NO-KG-AI]

Good defense and continuity can hold up for a while, particularly in the regular season, especially for a bunch of guys that want to prove themselves. We’ve seen teams like the grit and grind grizz and countless others do these kinds of things.

The Bulls offense was all time great because it had Jordan to score and draw huge attention, but everyone’s individual roles and reads didn’t have to really change with Jordan out. The Triangle has a ceiling I think, but it does allow a ton if flexibility and opportunity past the main guy hogging all the possessions up.

For the Bulls it fizzled out and was trending down fast by the next season.

Scottie is a versatile if flawed guy, Phil is a master, and they had championship vets all over. The Hawks won 60 with Kyle Korver and Al Horford. **** happens lol

[Iwasawitness]

They were an impressive team even without Jordan.

Not quite GSW without Durant level. More like Celtics without Jaylen Brown.

That doesn't make sense at all.

You word it like Pippen was the driving force behind the success.

Celtics without Tatum is more applicable(even though Tatum/Brown are closer than Jordan/Pippen).

I don't think Celtics without Tatum is as good as Bulls without Jordan.

Yeah but you said Brown originally, not Tatum.

[bledredwine]

Why did they go 85-12 with Jordan’s return from 96-98 after barely being .500?

To answer the thread, there point differential wasn’t as good as their record. They definitely overperformed. It was a great season, unlike the next season. One of the Bulls also stated that there was “residual effect” from the prior season, but I forgot if it was BJ or who.

[OdomFan]

Michael Jordan was not the entire system, thats why things didn't fall apart just because he was no longer there. The 93-94 Bulls came into that season with 8 players that were a part of some of, if not the entire 1st 3 peat, and the same coaching staff led by the great Phil Jackson at the head running the Triangle offense and effective defense that made that team as great as they were.

Why do you think Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, BJ Armstrong and the rest of those guys were supposed to forget how to play the game and how to run the triangle just because Mike was no longer around? that's just ridiculous.

The Spurs won 61 games after Tim Duncan retired, is that a hit on Timmys legacy too? I don't think so. Theres no reason that a team can't continue on to be good.

[The4thHorseman]

Bulls would've been better off if Jordan hadn't waited 1 month before the regular season to announce he was walking away. They would've had more time to find a better SG replacement in the starting lineup than Pete Myers who was a journeyman that was out of the league and played the prior 2 years in Italy. A more formidable replacement could have made a difference between the 2nd round exit and a 4th consecutive Finals appearance.

Not sure how Bulls fans or better yet MJ fans would've reacted to a 4th consecutive trip without Jordan.

[Bergmaniac]

The Spurs won 61 games after Tim Duncan retired, is that a hit on Timmys legacy too? I don't think so. Theres no reason that a team can't continue on to be good.

Duncan was 40 when he retired, come on now.

[bkkrh]

As many pointed out, they had a great team in general. While pretty much nobody will question Pippen's greatness, Horace Grant might actually be the most underrated Power Forward of the 90s. Especially in that sense, that he is the perfect complementary All Star Level player on a contender, that can score, defend the post and play good on ball defense and is a great rebounder.

I think his main strength was always that he was ready to step up and kind of fill the current team need. You know he'd give 10 points and 8-10 rebounds every night on high shooting averages, but he could also step up and take on a higher scoring role.

I see him as the clear reason that the Bulls struggled more in their 2nd season without MJ. And that's in no way a knock on MJ's greatness, it just meant that the Bulls had also lost their 3rd best player now as well and especially had no more above average big on the roster any more. Kukoc was a great player but definitely more fitting as a SF in that era.

[OdomFan]

The Spurs won 61 games after Tim Duncan retired, is that a hit on Timmys legacy too? I don't think so. Theres no reason that a team can't continue on to be good.

Duncan was 40 when he retired, come on now.

age has nothing to do with anything. its about the fact that the team continued to be good without him. He was still performing well when healthy in his last season. making defensive stops and getting buckets.

[OdomFan]

Bulls would've been better off if Jordan hadn't waited 1 month before the regular season to announce he was walking away. They would've had more time to find a better SG replacement in the starting lineup than Pete Myers who was a journeyman that was out of the league and played the prior 2 years in Italy. A more formidable replacement could have made a difference between the 2nd round exit and a 4th consecutive Finals appearance.

Not sure how Bulls fans or better yet MJ fans would've reacted to a 4th consecutive trip without Jordan.

Even if they had a more formidable replacement, its no guarantee the 94 bulls would have gotten pass the Knicks in the 2nd round. All we can do is speculate.

[bkkrh]

It's incredible what that team did. In 92-93 they went 57-25 and won the chip. MJ retires to play baseball, and they go 55-27 next season. Should have beaten the Knicks and contended for a title too IMO.

They made some minor changes. Tony Kukoc being the biggest. They added Luc Longley, but he was only a 7 pt and 5 reb guy that season.

Was Kukoc THAT good and just generally underrated? It's crazy how a team can lose a GOAT in his prime and still only lose 2 fewer games the next season.

They didn’t only lose 2 more games the next season. They also lost in the second round of the playoffs after winning 3 titles in a row. Sometimes teams overachieve. The next year the Bullls had the regression more like you would expect before MJ came back.

They lost in the 2nd row against a team that had at that time become their biggest rival in the East Coast. They had struggles to beat the Knicks the 2 previous seasons before with MJ and it was a super close series. As a Knicks fan, I also have to say that we benefitted heavily from a wrong referee decision in game 5 that won us that game.

If they would have beaten the Pacers as well afterwards is another story, I don't think that they would have beaten Houston. But being one game away from making it to the Conference Finals without the current best Basketball player in the world is definitely super impressive. Especially if you consider that his replacement was Pete Myers a 30 year old journeyman that had started in 5 NBA games, averaged 4 points and not even played in the NBA for 2 seasons before he was signed. That's pretty much the equivalent of the Miami Heat replacing Lebron with a G-League player and still being a title contender afterwards.

[The4thHorseman]

Bulls would've been better off if Jordan hadn't waited 1 month before the regular season to announce he was walking away. They would've had more time to find a better SG replacement in the starting lineup than Pete Myers who was a journeyman that was out of the league and played the prior 2 years in Italy. A more formidable replacement could have made a difference between the 2nd round exit and a 4th consecutive Finals appearance.

Not sure how Bulls fans or better yet MJ fans would've reacted to a 4th consecutive trip without Jordan.

Even if they had a more formidable replacement, its no guarantee the 94 bulls would have gotten pass the Knicks in the 2nd round. All we can do is speculate.

I know there would have been no guarantee. That's why I used the words "could have" as you can see I highlighted above.

[Bergmaniac]

The Spurs won 61 games after Tim Duncan retired, is that a hit on Timmys legacy too? I don't think so. Theres no reason that a team can't continue on to be good.

Duncan was 40 when he retired, come on now.

age has nothing to do with anything. its about the fact that the team continued to be good without him. He was still performing well when healthy in his last season. making defensive stops and getting buckets.

Duncan was very impressive for 39 year old in his last season, sure, especially before his midseason knee injury. But comparing the impact of a 39 year old playing 25 MPG who missed 21 games to that of prime Jordan is pretty absurd. And Spurs had been preparing for Duncan's retirement for years, unlike the Bulls in 1994.

[Karate Diop]

People always like to gloss over the fact that Michael was a loser before Pippen showed him how to win.

Obviously Michael made them better, but the Bulls won 6 championships together, it was never just MJ - like everyone else in the history of the sport he could never have accomplished what he did in his own.

[OdomFan]

Duncan was 40 when he retired, come on now.

age has nothing to do with anything. its about the fact that the team continued to be good without him. He was still performing well when healthy in his last season. making defensive stops and getting buckets.

Duncan was very impressive for 39 year old in his last season, sure, especially before his midseason knee injury. But comparing the impact of a 39 year old playing 25 MPG who missed 21 games to that of prime Jordan is pretty absurd. And Spurs had been preparing for Duncan's retirement for years, unlike the Bulls in 1994.

Still doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be surprising that the Bulls were still a great team for reasons in my 1st post in this thread. They had experienced championship players, and the same coaches running the same offense. As did the Spurs without Duncan.

[Quattro]

People always like to gloss over the fact that Michael was a loser before Pippen showed him how to win.
.

So dumb