Do you consider Jordans Bulls a Super Team?

[Hair Jordan]

Dude, Kukoc sucked ass during his first season with the Bulls. That was a tough adjustment to the NBA, especially in an era with few international players. Kukoc was not this great contributor you are making him out to be in that 1st season. And Steve Kerr, wow. Guess that's why they only won 2 fewer games despite losing His Airness.

You make a good point about that Raptors team being a superteam. They were stacked. Problem is it only lasted 1 season. They took down a hobbled Warriors squad. The Bulls dominated the league for 3 straight seasons. They were so stacked that you had 3 players from the 3-peat making the all-star game the season MJ left. No other teams had that much talent or depth.

The Bulls won 67 games in 1991-92. Jordan and Pippen played heavy minutes during their repeat season and then went directly to the ‘92 Olympics. The following year (1992-93) they eased back on the throttle to give Jordan and Pippen more rest. The end result was a 57 win season - 10 fewer wins than the previous year. They underachieved a little. The 1993-94 Bulls overachieved in Jordan’s absence by winning 55 games to everyone’s surprise and that’s why Ho Grant and BJ Armstrong were rewarded with All Star selections - not because they were legit All Stars. Neither one of them ever made another All Star appearance. The Bulls WERE NOT stacked. They had a bunch of new faces - Kukoc, Kerr, Harper, Meyers etc. The following year, those same Bulls fell back down to Earth and were 34-31 before Jordan came out of retirement and went 13-4 the rest of the regular season. They were basically a .500 team without Jordan.

This sharade of acting like the 93-94 Bulls were the same as the 94-95 Bulls is pretty funny.

The 1st 3-peat was so stacked that you remove a godlike player (MJ) and they still won 55 games. So stacked that teammates like Horace and BJ finally got their flowers and were picked to be all stars.

Horace was so impactful on winning that the year he leaves, he helps his new team to the finals. Dude was a beast and one hell of a defender.

“So stacked” Minus Jordan and Pippen they had 1X All Stars in Grant and BJ. The rest of the cast was old Bill Cartwright, draft busts like Will Perdue, Dennis Hopson and Stacy King and then a bunch of journeymen like Paxon, Livingston, McCray, Tucker, Hanson, Scott Williams etc. That’s stacked?

[PistolPeteJR]

If you gonna use someone's name as a "He had THIS GUY as a teammate" sort of example, it makes your argument look less silly if that player wasn't a dinosaur at the time. But I don't expect much from people who also use Kerr and Paxson as "he had THIS GUY" examples.

That “dinosaur” was still a top-rebounding and top-defensive option. Care to claim otherwise? Back it up contextually and objectively.

'96 was his only season where he was good in both the regular season and playoffs. In '97, he averaged about half as many RPG in the postseason as he did the year before. In the '98 playoffs, his rebounding declined in every subsequent round.

Stop acting like he was a prime Wilt Chamberlain.

96: 14.9rpg (RS); 13.7 (PS)
97: 16.1rpg (RS); 8.4 (PS)
98: 15.0rpg (RS); 11.8 (PS)

Rodman led the league in rebounding in the RS every single one of those seasons. He was also ranked 1st in the 96 PS, fell off to 17th in 97, and rose back to 5th in 98.

And none of this takes into account his contributions on defense.

No one claimed or implied he was Wilt or Wilt-esque, so I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth.

And you still haven't given any credence to the fact he wasn't super valuable to those teams.

[dakomish23]

When teams are loaded but done via draft they generally aren't given this adjective. It's usually relegated to teams created via trade & huge FA signings.

But Jordan Pippen Kukoc Rodman. Yeah they were **** incredible.

And they could def beat the KD Warriors in a series.

[Bergmaniac]

You can till think Jordan without making up nonsense that he carried mediocre rosters to 6 titles and 5 60+ wins seasons, including a 72 wins and 69 wins ones. The Bulls won 72 and 69 wins respectively in successive seasons and the title in both years. This just doesn't happen without a stacked roster, especially when the superstar is 32 and 33 in these years.

[OriginalRed]

The term superteam has become so dilluted nowadays its a joke. If your calling the first three peat Bulls a super team, then I guess that means the 2009 Lakers with Kobe and Gasol are a super team too. Or how about the 2006 Heat with Wade and Shaq. It's always been about stacking immense talent on a single team, not just having a top-tier duo with competent roleplayers and a great coach.

[DimesandKnicks]

The Bulls won 67 games in 1991-92. Jordan and Pippen played heavy minutes during their repeat season and then went directly to the ‘92 Olympics. The following year (1992-93) they eased back on the throttle to give Jordan and Pippen more rest. The end result was a 57 win season - 10 fewer wins than the previous year. They underachieved a little. The 1993-94 Bulls overachieved in Jordan’s absence by winning 55 games to everyone’s surprise and that’s why Ho Grant and BJ Armstrong were rewarded with All Star selections - not because they were legit All Stars. Neither one of them ever made another All Star appearance. The Bulls WERE NOT stacked. They had a bunch of new faces - Kukoc, Kerr, Harper, Meyers etc. The following year, those same Bulls fell back down to Earth and were 34-31 before Jordan came out of retirement and went 13-4 the rest of the regular season. They were basically a .500 team without Jordan.

This sharade of acting like the 93-94 Bulls were the same as the 94-95 Bulls is pretty funny.

The 1st 3-peat was so stacked that you remove a godlike player (MJ) and they still won 55 games. So stacked that teammates like Horace and BJ finally got their flowers and were picked to be all stars.

Horace was so impactful on winning that the year he leaves, he helps his new team to the finals. Dude was a beast and one hell of a defender.

“So stacked” Minus Jordan and Pippen they had 1X All Stars in Grant and BJ. The rest of the cast was old Bill Cartwright, draft busts like Will Perdue, Dennis Hopson and Stacy King and then a bunch of journeymen like Paxon, Livingston, McCray, Tucker, Hanson, Scott Williams etc. That’s stacked?

Translation, besides two HOFer they two 1x AS and role players *shrug*.

[Special_Puppy]

The term superteam has become so dilluted nowadays its a joke. If your calling the first three peat Bulls a super team, then I guess that means the 2009 Lakers with Kobe and Gasol are a super team too. Or how about the 2006 Heat with Wade and Shaq. It's always been about stacking immense talent on a single team, not just having a top-tier duo with competent roleplayers and a great coach.

Was 2011-2014 Chris Bosh actually better than 1991-1993 Horace Grant?

[Special_Puppy]

Jordan’s Bulls were not a “superteam” because a “superteam” is a specific term that has a particular meaning that isn’t just “this team is really good.”

“Superteams” are commonly understood to be those that have at least three players that could be franchise players. The Bulls never had that. Jordan and Pippen both fit the bill, but guys like Rodman and Grant did not. Those guys would simply never be the #1 guy on a team. Arguably, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since, for fit reasons, it may be as good or better to have two franchise-player type of guys and another guy that is a really good complementary piece, rather than having three franchise players. But that’s a discussion about whether the “superteam” model is the best way to go, which is a separate question. The Bulls were not a superteam, but their model of team building was still obviously very good.

Leaving aside the “superteam” question, I also think people need to really realize that the first-three-peat Bulls and second-three-peat Bulls did not have comparable supporting casts. The first-three-peat Bulls were basically just Jordan, Pippen, Grant, and a bunch of negative-impact guys. The second-three peat Bulls were Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and also several genuinely positive-impact guys like Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr. As a result, the second-three-peat team was better than the first-three-peat team, even though Jordan himself wasn’t as good in the second-three-peat years and 1991-1993 Horace Grant was definitely better than 1996-1998 Dennis Rodman. The second-three-peat team was a genuinely deep team, while the first-three-peat team was much more top-heavy.

Serious question: what made 2011-2014 Chris Bosh someone who could be a "Franchise player", but someone like 1991-1993 Horace Grant not? I know he scored a lot of points on Raptors teams that didn't win a single playoff series in a weak Eastern Conference, but I'm not sure that's evidence either way

[lessthanjake]

Jordan’s Bulls were not a “superteam” because a “superteam” is a specific term that has a particular meaning that isn’t just “this team is really good.”

“Superteams” are commonly understood to be those that have at least three players that could be franchise players. The Bulls never had that. Jordan and Pippen both fit the bill, but guys like Rodman and Grant did not. Those guys would simply never be the #1 guy on a team. Arguably, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since, for fit reasons, it may be as good or better to have two franchise-player type of guys and another guy that is a really good complementary piece, rather than having three franchise players. But that’s a discussion about whether the “superteam” model is the best way to go, which is a separate question. The Bulls were not a superteam, but their model of team building was still obviously very good.

Leaving aside the “superteam” question, I also think people need to really realize that the first-three-peat Bulls and second-three-peat Bulls did not have comparable supporting casts. The first-three-peat Bulls were basically just Jordan, Pippen, Grant, and a bunch of negative-impact guys. The second-three peat Bulls were Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and also several genuinely positive-impact guys like Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr. As a result, the second-three-peat team was better than the first-three-peat team, even though Jordan himself wasn’t as good in the second-three-peat years and 1991-1993 Horace Grant was definitely better than 1996-1998 Dennis Rodman. The second-three-peat team was a genuinely deep team, while the first-three-peat team was much more top-heavy.

Serious question: what made 2011-2014 Chris Bosh someone who could be a "Franchise player", but someone like 1991-1993 Horace Grant not? I know he scored a lot of points on Raptors teams that didn't win a single playoff series in a weak Eastern Conference, but I'm not sure that's evidence either way

I think it probably largely comes down to the type of players they are. And yeah, part of that is just being a player who is plausibly suited to being a #1 option.

Grant just wasn’t that. It’s possible that he could’ve been but just didn’t have to show it because he played with Jordan and Shaq. But I just don’t see it, and I would say that the 1998 season with the Magic was a good example of this—Shaq had left and Penny went down, and a 32-year-old Horace didn’t scale up at all and remained a complementary piece. That’s just what he was IMO.

As for Bosh and the success of the Raptors, I don’t think the requirement of a superteam is that each player must plausibly be a “franchise player” on a really good team. Maybe it wouldn’t be enough to be not very good individually but still arguably have a “franchise player” role because you’re on a genuinely awful team. Like, I don’t think Jordan Poole is plausibly a “franchise player” right now, even if we think he’s the Wizards’ #1 option. Bosh having been a perennial all star and franchise player for a pretty average team is clearly enough though, IMO.

I would also just add that a player being suited to being the #1 option is not necessarily the optimal thing to have as your #3 option on a team. More of a complementary piece might legitimately be better for the team. So it’s not clear to me that the superteam model always leads to having the stronger team. But regardless of whether it’s smart team-building or not, I do think that these are the parameters of what a “superteam” is.

[Special_Puppy]

Jordan’s Bulls were not a “superteam” because a “superteam” is a specific term that has a particular meaning that isn’t just “this team is really good.”

“Superteams” are commonly understood to be those that have at least three players that could be franchise players. The Bulls never had that. Jordan and Pippen both fit the bill, but guys like Rodman and Grant did not. Those guys would simply never be the #1 guy on a team. Arguably, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since, for fit reasons, it may be as good or better to have two franchise-player type of guys and another guy that is a really good complementary piece, rather than having three franchise players. But that’s a discussion about whether the “superteam” model is the best way to go, which is a separate question. The Bulls were not a superteam, but their model of team building was still obviously very good.

Leaving aside the “superteam” question, I also think people need to really realize that the first-three-peat Bulls and second-three-peat Bulls did not have comparable supporting casts. The first-three-peat Bulls were basically just Jordan, Pippen, Grant, and a bunch of negative-impact guys. The second-three peat Bulls were Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and also several genuinely positive-impact guys like Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr. As a result, the second-three-peat team was better than the first-three-peat team, even though Jordan himself wasn’t as good in the second-three-peat years and 1991-1993 Horace Grant was definitely better than 1996-1998 Dennis Rodman. The second-three-peat team was a genuinely deep team, while the first-three-peat team was much more top-heavy.

Serious question: what made 2011-2014 Chris Bosh someone who could be a "Franchise player", but someone like 1991-1993 Horace Grant not? I know he scored a lot of points on Raptors teams that didn't win a single playoff series in a weak Eastern Conference, but I'm not sure that's evidence either way

I think it probably largely comes down to the type of players they are. And yeah, part of that is just being a player who is plausibly suited to being a #1 option.

Grant just wasn’t that. It’s possible that he could’ve been but just didn’t have to show it because he played with Jordan and Shaq. But I just don’t see it, and I would say that the 1998 season with the Magic was a good example of this—Shaq had left and Penny went down, and a 32-year-old Horace didn’t scale up at all and remained a complementary piece. That’s just what he was IMO.

As for Bosh and the success of the Raptors, I don’t think the requirement of a superteam is that each player must plausibly be a “franchise player” on a really good team. Maybe it wouldn’t be enough to be not very good individually but still arguably have a “franchise player” role because you’re on a genuinely awful team. Like, I don’t think Jordan Poole is plausibly a “franchise player” right now, even if we think he’s the Wizards’ #1 option. Bosh having been a perennial all star and franchise player for a pretty average team is clearly enough though, IMO.

I would also just add that a player being suited to being the #1 option is not necessarily the optimal thing to have as your #3 option on a team. More of a complementary piece might legitimately be better for the team. So it’s not clear to me that the superteam model always leads to having the stronger team. But regardless of whether it’s smart team-building or not, I do think that these are the parameters of what a “superteam” is.

I guess I'm a bit of a Bosh hater who thinks he peaked as a fringe top 20 player and so I'm not sure he actually qualifies as a franchise player although obviously it depends on your definition.

[lessthanjake]

Serious question: what made 2011-2014 Chris Bosh someone who could be a "Franchise player", but someone like 1991-1993 Horace Grant not? I know he scored a lot of points on Raptors teams that didn't win a single playoff series in a weak Eastern Conference, but I'm not sure that's evidence either way

I think it probably largely comes down to the type of players they are. And yeah, part of that is just being a player who is plausibly suited to being a #1 option.

Grant just wasn’t that. It’s possible that he could’ve been but just didn’t have to show it because he played with Jordan and Shaq. But I just don’t see it, and I would say that the 1998 season with the Magic was a good example of this—Shaq had left and Penny went down, and a 32-year-old Horace didn’t scale up at all and remained a complementary piece. That’s just what he was IMO.

As for Bosh and the success of the Raptors, I don’t think the requirement of a superteam is that each player must plausibly be a “franchise player” on a really good team. Maybe it wouldn’t be enough to be not very good individually but still arguably have a “franchise player” role because you’re on a genuinely awful team. Like, I don’t think Jordan Poole is plausibly a “franchise player” right now, even if we think he’s the Wizards’ #1 option. Bosh having been a perennial all star and franchise player for a pretty average team is clearly enough though, IMO.

I would also just add that a player being suited to being the #1 option is not necessarily the optimal thing to have as your #3 option on a team. More of a complementary piece might legitimately be better for the team. So it’s not clear to me that the superteam model always leads to having the stronger team. But regardless of whether it’s smart team-building or not, I do think that these are the parameters of what a “superteam” is.

I guess I'm a bit of a Bosh hater who thinks he peaked as a fringe top 20 player and so I'm not sure he actually qualifies as a franchise player although obviously it depends on your definition.

FWIW, NBArapm has Bosh at 14th in the NBA in RAPM in the five-year span prior to joining the Heat. And he was 11th in three-year RAPM in the three years before he joined the Heat. That website has a separate “6Factor” RAPM, and it has Bosh at 11th in the NBA in the five years before he joined the Heat, and 9th in the three years before he joined Miami. He wasn’t just an empty-stats guy, but rather put up some very good impact numbers *and* box numbers just before joining Miami.

[Black Jack]

The Jordan/Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc squad was a superteam. That's 1 superstar and 2-3 all star level players.

Look at them vs the Heatles

MJ = LeBron
Pippen = Wade
Rodman = Bosh
Kukoc > anyone else on the Heatles

How can you not count it as a superteam???

[Special_Puppy]

I think it probably largely comes down to the type of players they are. And yeah, part of that is just being a player who is plausibly suited to being a #1 option.

Grant just wasn’t that. It’s possible that he could’ve been but just didn’t have to show it because he played with Jordan and Shaq. But I just don’t see it, and I would say that the 1998 season with the Magic was a good example of this—Shaq had left and Penny went down, and a 32-year-old Horace didn’t scale up at all and remained a complementary piece. That’s just what he was IMO.

As for Bosh and the success of the Raptors, I don’t think the requirement of a superteam is that each player must plausibly be a “franchise player” on a really good team. Maybe it wouldn’t be enough to be not very good individually but still arguably have a “franchise player” role because you’re on a genuinely awful team. Like, I don’t think Jordan Poole is plausibly a “franchise player” right now, even if we think he’s the Wizards’ #1 option. Bosh having been a perennial all star and franchise player for a pretty average team is clearly enough though, IMO.

I would also just add that a player being suited to being the #1 option is not necessarily the optimal thing to have as your #3 option on a team. More of a complementary piece might legitimately be better for the team. So it’s not clear to me that the superteam model always leads to having the stronger team. But regardless of whether it’s smart team-building or not, I do think that these are the parameters of what a “superteam” is.

I guess I'm a bit of a Bosh hater who thinks he peaked as a fringe top 20 player and so I'm not sure he actually qualifies as a franchise player although obviously it depends on your definition.

FWIW, NBArapm has Bosh at 14th in the NBA in RAPM in the five-year span prior to joining the Heat. And he was 11th in three-year RAPM in the three years before he joined the Heat. That website has a separate “6Factor” RAPM, and it has Bosh at 11th in the NBA in the five years before he joined the Heat, and 9th in the three years before he joined Miami. He wasn’t just an empty-stats guy, but rather put up some very good impact numbers *and* box numbers just before joining Miami.

Tbh that's better than expected

[OriginalRed]

I guess I'm a bit of a Bosh hater who thinks he peaked as a fringe top 20 player and so I'm not sure he actually qualifies as a franchise player although obviously it depends on your definition.

FWIW, NBArapm has Bosh at 14th in the NBA in RAPM in the five-year span prior to joining the Heat. And he was 11th in three-year RAPM in the three years before he joined the Heat. That website has a separate “6Factor” RAPM, and it has Bosh at 11th in the NBA in the five years before he joined the Heat, and 9th in the three years before he joined Miami. He wasn’t just an empty-stats guy, but rather put up some very good impact numbers *and* box numbers just before joining Miami.

Tbh that's better than expected

Bosh was extremely underrated by alot of people, they just remember how much him and Wade declined later with Lebron but there's a reason the Big 3 in Miami were looked at as such a force when you had 3 guys of that caliber teaming up.

[Percentsign]

I do. Even without Jordan, they were already a borderline championship team -- when Jordan went to play baseball, the Bulls still won 55 games and took the Knicks to 7 games. Pippen had an MVP-caliber year. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong made all-star team. And they had one of the greatest coaches .

[Cavsfansince84]

Not quite. I see it as a team anchored by both a goat level player and goat level coach and great asst coaches. That is why their bench(which was good but not really great) had strong +/- even when both MJ & Pippen sat. They just did what they were coached to and everyone bought into the idea of playing hard every night. Superteam is just having 3 top 20 guys on the same team.

[ShootersShoot]

FWIW, NBArapm has Bosh at 14th in the NBA in RAPM in the five-year span prior to joining the Heat. And he was 11th in three-year RAPM in the three years before he joined the Heat. That website has a separate “6Factor” RAPM, and it has Bosh at 11th in the NBA in the five years before he joined the Heat, and 9th in the three years before he joined Miami. He wasn’t just an empty-stats guy, but rather put up some very good impact numbers *and* box numbers just before joining Miami.

Tbh that's better than expected

Bosh was extremely underrated by alot of people, they just remember how much him and Wade declined later with Lebron but there's a reason the Big 3 in Miami were looked at as such a force when you had 3 guys of that caliber teaming up.

Its hard to call bosh a franchise player in hindsight, but at the time he was a perennial all star as a #1 option who helped a struggling franchise reach the playoffs.

[G35]

Jordan’s Bulls were not a “superteam” because a “superteam” is a specific term that has a particular meaning that isn’t just “this team is really good.”

“Superteams” are commonly understood to be those that have at least three players that could be franchise players. The Bulls never had that. Jordan and Pippen both fit the bill, but guys like Rodman and Grant did not. Those guys would simply never be the #1 guy on a team. Arguably, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, since, for fit reasons, it may be as good or better to have two franchise-player type of guys and another guy that is a really good complementary piece, rather than having three franchise players. But that’s a discussion about whether the “superteam” model is the best way to go, which is a separate question. The Bulls were not a superteam, but their model of team building was still obviously very good.

Leaving aside the “superteam” question, I also think people need to really realize that the first-three-peat Bulls and second-three-peat Bulls did not have comparable supporting casts. The first-three-peat Bulls were basically just Jordan, Pippen, Grant, and a bunch of negative-impact guys. The second-three peat Bulls were Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, and also several genuinely positive-impact guys like Kukoc, Harper, and Kerr. As a result, the second-three-peat team was better than the first-three-peat team, even though Jordan himself wasn’t as good in the second-three-peat years and 1991-1993 Horace Grant was definitely better than 1996-1998 Dennis Rodman. The second-three-peat team was a genuinely deep team, while the first-three-peat team was much more top-heavy.

Serious question: what made 2011-2014 Chris Bosh someone who could be a "Franchise player", but someone like 1991-1993 Horace Grant not? I know he scored a lot of points on Raptors teams that didn't win a single playoff series in a weak Eastern Conference, but I'm not sure that's evidence either way

Because Grant went to other stacked teams and was never as good as he was in Chicago. Grant went to Orlando and played next to Shaq and Penny and didn't become an All Star caliber player.....

[G35]

I do. Even without Jordan, they were already a borderline championship team -- when Jordan went to play baseball, the Bulls still won 55 games and took the Knicks to 7 games. Pippen had an MVP-caliber year. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong made all-star team. And they had one of the greatest coaches .

Would anyone say that the Pacers are a championship level team at the beginning of the year? Or even at the beginning of this years playoffs? They have gone further than that Bulls team, it does not mean you are stacked with talent....

[Heat3]

I never saw them as a super team. Rodman is a HOF but he was an elite role player. Not the same kind of star that MJ or even Pippen were.