Do you consider Jordans Bulls a Super Team?

[Effigy]

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???

I'll take Ray Allen over Kukoc.

And being a good team isn't what makes a team a superteam, it's how it's put together. All those guys except Rodman they got through the draft. And Rodman as another poster said, was a distressed asset that's why all the Spurs could get for him in trade was Will Purdue. Like Golden State, what made them a super team was adding Kevin Durant, not the guys they organically grew in their system.

[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???

I'll take Ray Allen over Kukoc.

And being a good team isn't what makes a team a superteam, it's how it's put together. All those guys except Rodman they got through the draft. And Rodman as another poster said, was a distressed asset that's why all the Spurs could get for him in trade was Will Purdue. Like Golden State, what made them a super team was adding Kevin Durant, not the guys they organically grew in their system.

Ray Allen was old and a bit player by that time, Kukoc was in prime.

Rodman was acting crazy but he put up huge rebounding numbers in SA. The issue was his behavior.

[Percentsign]

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.

He wasn't a scorer, but I think he was more than a great role player. He basically has the modern record for rpg, as all the players above him were pre-merger

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/pts_per_g_season.html

[Gusto1903]

Were the Spurs ever considered a super team? i guess not

[Lalouie]

I don’t think I consider the first 3 peat Bulls a super team, but the second definitely. That’s not to say Jordan didn’t have a talent advantage in the first 3 peat. What if Ewing had Drexler or Dominique instead of Starks in 92 and 93? Jordan probably has two less titles.

oops. i missed the subtle phrasing in the subject line

the bulls were a "super team".
they were not a "superteam"

[Duke4life831]

I don’t see the argument on how that 2nd 3 peat wasn’t a super team.

3 HOF players playing high level basketball. In 96 Jordan won MVP, Pippen was 5th in MVP voting, and Rodman was 15th in voting.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 96, and 2nd in voting in 97. Harper was averaging 20ppg before he joined Chicago in 95.

How is that not a super team? I don’t care if the front office made the moves or the players got together and decided to make the moves to create the team. The roster and players on the court were a super team.

[Djoker]

I think elite role player is an excellent description for Rodman. He wasn't a star at any point in his career but especially not in the late 90's. Even the full impact stats that we have for 1997 and 1998 like RAPM, RAPTOR, DPM etc. see Rodman as a slightly above average NBA player. I think he was a very good defender even at that stage but on offense he was a complete liability apart from getting offensive rebounds. And for what it's worth the second threepeat Bulls (including 1996 Bulls) hardly miss a beat when Rodman DNP or sat on the bench. And his durability also became an issue with missing lots of games and/or playing limited minutes in the Bulls years.

Kukoc while a good player is also well short of a star. Solid 3rd or 4th guy to have on offense but without both MJ and Pip in 1999, on a pretty bare roster, he could only put up 18.8/7.0/5.3 on -3.4 rTS a historically bad team. And he wasn't much of a defender.

[lessthanjake]

I think elite role player is an excellent description for Rodman. He wasn't a star at any point in his career but especially not in the late 90's. Even the full impact stats that we have for 1997 and 1998 like RAPM, RAPTOR, DPM etc. see Rodman as a slightly above average NBA player. I think he was a very good defender even at that stage but on offense he was a complete liability apart from getting offensive rebounds. And for what it's worth the second threepeat Bulls (including 1996 Bulls) hardly miss a beat when Rodman DNP or sat on the bench. And his durability also became an issue with missing lots of games and/or playing limited minutes in the Bulls years.

Kukoc while a good player is also well short of a star. Solid 3rd or 4th guy to have on offense but without both MJ and Pip in 1999, on a pretty bare roster, he could only put up 18.8/7.0/5.3 on -3.4 rTS a historically bad team. And he wasn't much of a defender.

I mostly agree with this, but I think you might be underrating Kukoc a bit. For one thing, I think his reputation as not being much of a defender was largely borne out of bias at the time against European players. He had a really great combination of length and quickness. And pretty much any RAPM you could look at grades him out as a very good defender. His impact definitely waned in 1999, but he was on a clearly tanking team, so I don’t hold it against him too much. Even including that year, he has some great long-term RAPM numbers. His NBArapm 5-year RAPM has him ranked 12th in the NBA from 1997-2001. It’s 14th in the NBA from 1998-2002. He’s in the top-25 even in the entirely post-Jordan five-year time period from 1999-2003. In Engelmann’s 29-year RAPM, Kukoc is sitting there at +3.7, surrounded by SGA, Drexler, Reggie Miller, Jeff Hornacek, and Anthony Davis. I think we have to temper this a bit by realizing that his minutes-load wasn’t as high as star players, so the overall impact is overstated by those rankings. He didn’t have high-end star impact overall. But he was genuinely really good. I personally think he was definitely better than Rodman in that era. And I think he’s a huge part of the answer to “How did the Bulls stay pretty good in 1994” as well as “Why were the second-three-peat Bulls even more dominant than the first-three-peat Bulls even though Jordan wasn’t as good at that point.”

[1993Playoffs]

I would consider the 2nd 3peat team.

[Hair 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*.

BJ and Ho Grant were not All Star caliber players. They made the All Star team in 1993-94 because the Bulls overachieved in Jordan’s absence. They never sniffed another All Star nod the rest of their careers (before OR after 1993-94). To suggest they were perennial All Stars types is disingenuous. Two HOF’s doesn’t make a SuperTeam. If it did, Harden/Paul, Lebron/AD, Lebron/Luka would be considered SuperTeams and they’re not.

[Djoker]

I think elite role player is an excellent description for Rodman. He wasn't a star at any point in his career but especially not in the late 90's. Even the full impact stats that we have for 1997 and 1998 like RAPM, RAPTOR, DPM etc. see Rodman as a slightly above average NBA player. I think he was a very good defender even at that stage but on offense he was a complete liability apart from getting offensive rebounds. And for what it's worth the second threepeat Bulls (including 1996 Bulls) hardly miss a beat when Rodman DNP or sat on the bench. And his durability also became an issue with missing lots of games and/or playing limited minutes in the Bulls years.

Kukoc while a good player is also well short of a star. Solid 3rd or 4th guy to have on offense but without both MJ and Pip in 1999, on a pretty bare roster, he could only put up 18.8/7.0/5.3 on -3.4 rTS a historically bad team. And he wasn't much of a defender.

I mostly agree with this, but I think you might be underrating Kukoc a bit. For one thing, I think his reputation as not being much of a defender was largely borne out of bias at the time against European players. He had a really great combination of length and quickness. And pretty much any RAPM you could look at grades him out as a very good defender. His impact definitely waned in 1999, but he was on a clearly tanking team, so I don’t hold it against him too much. Even including that year, he has some great long-term RAPM numbers. His NBArapm 5-year RAPM has him ranked 12th in the NBA from 1997-2001. It’s 14th in the NBA from 1998-2002. He’s in the top-25 even in the entirely post-Jordan five-year time period from 1999-2003. In Engelmann’s 29-year RAPM, Kukoc is sitting there at +3.7, surrounded by SGA, Drexler, Reggie Miller, Jeff Hornacek, and Anthony Davis. I think we have to temper this a bit by realizing that his minutes-load wasn’t as high as star players, so the overall impact is overstated by those rankings. He didn’t have high-end star impact overall. But he was genuinely really good. I personally think he was definitely better than Rodman in that era. And I think he’s a huge part of the answer to “How did the Bulls stay pretty good in 1994” as well as “Why were the second-three-peat Bulls even more dominant than the first-three-peat Bulls even though Jordan wasn’t as good at that point.”

Honestly I disagree about his defense. I think his defense looked good because he shared the floor with so many defensive studs on the Bulls. He had poor lateral quickness, lacked physicality and was a negligible vertical presence despite being 6'8''. Honestly Kukoc was Larry Bird on D but without the great instincts. Just IMO...

As for better than Rodman on those Bulls... maybe. That's not a crazy take at all and I may even agree with it but Kukoc was again, like Rodman, likely an elite role player but not a star. And his numbers including efficiency generally declined quite a bit in the PS for the Bulls which isn't good considering he was a 3rd option. And as you eluded to, a guy averaging 27-28 mpg is not a star player 99.9% of the time regardless of per possession impact.

[picko]

People with agendas will twist themselves in knots over this, but the reality is that all the dynasties in NBA history were 'super-teams' in the sense that talent is often heavily concentrated within a few teams. Most super-teams in NBA history have been created by smart GMs, notably guys like Auerbach, Krause, West who ran rings around their hapless peers. More recently, greater player agency has allowed player constructed super-teams to emerge, the most successful being the Heat and Warriors.

Jordan's championship teams were always vastly more talented than their competition. The same was true for Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics and Shaq/Kobe Lakers.


In 1995-96, the Bulls had the MVP (and another top 5 finish), the league's best two-way player, the league's best rebounder, three of the top defenders, arguably the best coach in league history and the league's 6th man of the year. And that's in an era where the league wasn't particularly deep from a talent standpoint after years of expansion.

The best player on the league's 2nd best team that season, the Supersonics, would have been the third best player on the 1995-96 Bulls. Quite simply, it was the most stacked team since the 1960s Celtics after accounting for league-wide talent. So pretending it wasn't a 'super-team' - likely because you are trying to elevate Jordan vs his peers - seems foolish.

Using this logic, the 2001 Sixers were also a super team. Iverson was MVP, Larry Brown COY, Mutombo the DPOY and rebounding leader, and McKie the SMOY.

Except Brown won a championship with no Top 10 players, something Phil never did. Mutombo could actually score 10 points in an empty gym, unlike Rodman. And McKie was a much better defender than Kukoc.

And for the record, Scottie's play declined sharply after the All-star break and those struggles lasted the entire postseason.

I started my post by saying "People with agendas will twist themselves in knots over this" and you couldn't resist turning yourself into a pretzel.

This isn't very difficult: every dynasty in league history was a 'super-team'. Every single one. There are no exceptions. They were all vastly more talented, both in top-end talent and depth, than their peers.

Creating disingenuous examples won't change that.

[DimesandKnicks]

“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*.

BJ and Ho Grant were not All Star caliber players. They made the All Star team in 1993-94 because the Bulls overachieved in Jordan’s absence. They never sniffed another All Star nod the rest of their careers (before OR after 1993-94). To suggest they were perennial All Stars types is disingenuous. Two HOF’s doesn’t make a SuperTeam. If it did, Harden/Paul, Lebron/AD, Lebron/Luka would be considered SuperTeams and they’re not.

Or maybe that team “overachieved” because they actually are Allstar caliber players. Hence why they were all-stars on a 55 win team.
No one said they were perennial all-stars but they were allstars.

Point being, you two best players are HOF and your third best is a double double and all NBA defender and your fourth can get you 15 points. Relatively speaking, this is a very very good team.

It’s why the Bulls sans Jordan took the Knicks to seven games. The Knicks second best player was John Starks and third Charles Oakley

[MavsDirk41]

I don’t see the argument on how that 2nd 3 peat wasn’t a super team.

3 HOF players playing high level basketball. In 96 Jordan won MVP, Pippen was 5th in MVP voting, and Rodman was 15th in voting.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 96, and 2nd in voting in 97. Harper was averaging 20ppg before he joined Chicago in 95.

How is that not a super team? I don’t care if the front office made the moves or the players got together and decided to make the moves to create the team. The roster and players on the court were a super team.

Cant agree with you on the Ron Harper thing. Do you realize he averaged those 20 points per game on 18 shot attempts per game, 42/30/71 shooting splits and a 49% TS the year before joining the Bulls? With the cherry on he averaged over 3 turnovers per game. That sound ultra impressive to you?

[Duke4life831]

I don’t see the argument on how that 2nd 3 peat wasn’t a super team.

3 HOF players playing high level basketball. In 96 Jordan won MVP, Pippen was 5th in MVP voting, and Rodman was 15th in voting.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 96, and 2nd in voting in 97. Harper was averaging 20ppg before he joined Chicago in 95.

How is that not a super team? I don’t care if the front office made the moves or the players got together and decided to make the moves to create the team. The roster and players on the court were a super team.

Cant agree with you on the Ron Harper thing. Do you realize he averaged those 20 points per game on 18 shot attempts per game, 42/30/71 shooting splits and a 49% TS the year before joining the Bulls? With the cherry on he averaged over 3 turnovers per game. That sound ultra impressive to you?

Ron Harper was a very solid player in the 90s. Not saying he was a star, but he was a very solid player. The reason I brought him up was the fact he was an everyday starter who had a career average of 19/5/5 before joining Chicago. And on that Bulls second 3 peat. He was the 6th, 7th, and 5th scoring option on those teams.

And just for comparison. Mario Chalmers and Norris Cole were the 4th and 5th leading scorers on that first Miami championship team.

So the point I’m making, even with a team with 3 HOFers (I know Kukoc made the HOF, but he wasn’t a HOF level player in the NBA), it’s not like the roster was super top heavy after those 3. It was a team with 3 elite players and lots of quality depth as well. Aka a super team.

[MavsDirk41]

I don’t see the argument on how that 2nd 3 peat wasn’t a super team.

3 HOF players playing high level basketball. In 96 Jordan won MVP, Pippen was 5th in MVP voting, and Rodman was 15th in voting.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 96, and 2nd in voting in 97. Harper was averaging 20ppg before he joined Chicago in 95.

How is that not a super team? I don’t care if the front office made the moves or the players got together and decided to make the moves to create the team. The roster and players on the court were a super team.

Cant agree with you on the Ron Harper thing. Do you realize he averaged those 20 points per game on 18 shot attempts per game, 42/30/71 shooting splits and a 49% TS the year before joining the Bulls? With the cherry on he averaged over 3 turnovers per game. That sound ultra impressive to you?

Ron Harper was a very solid player in the 90s. Not saying he was a star, but he was a very solid player. The reason I brought him up was the fact he was an everyday starter who had a career average of 19/5/5 before joining Chicago. And on that Bulls second 3 peat. He was the 6th, 7th, and 5th scoring option on those teams.

And just for comparison. Mario Chalmers and Norris Cole were the 4th and 5th leading scorers on that first Miami championship team.

So the point I’m making, even with a team with 3 HOFers (I know Kukoc made the HOF, but he wasn’t a HOF level player in the NBA), it’s not like the roster was super top heavy after those 3. It was a team with 3 elite players and lots of quality depth as well. Aka a super team.

Ron Harper was very good defensively for the Bulls and he fit in very well with the team but his best days were behind him. Harper, Longley, Kerr, Wennington along with Kukoc provided solid depth to the core of Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman. They had better depth than the first 3 peat but Pippen struggled with injuries in 98 and Rodman was washed after that season. If they were a super team at least it wasnt a collusion of all star players teaming up together. They drafted Jordan, Pippen, and Kukoc. They got Rodman for Will Perdue. Harper wasnt a hot commodity. Rodman also missed 18 games in 96 and they still won 72 games. The combination of Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson as the HC was a monster.

[DCasey91]

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?

Not definitely not. Grant was amazing for the Magic when he took on a larger role no fault of his own or the Bulls for that matter. I'd rather him taking most of what they ran for Cartwright etc.

But relative to eras he would take on more responsibility on on offense in Boshs time he was more than capable of doing it, just a really really smart player on both sides of the ball when watching film. Kind of the same with Robert Horry in Rudy T's system but he was more diverged because he was the best outright shooter which was highly needed, should have taken a bigger role on ball rather lessen the ball play of elle/smith because he was clearly the best passer on that team too. Dumb smart on both sides very similar to Grant just different position.

That's the the thing with modern times they min/max players capabilities better obviously

Bosh is very much overrated on both ends of the court. Especially on defence that to me is a non discussion

I wasn't surprised at all that Grant and Pippen for that matter were top 5 in post defence for non C's during their first 3 peat.

Hot take but I'd rather Grant than Rodman if going by their 3 year performances.

Two very distinct teams but one really was an all time offensive/defensive team especially in the playoffs (pace and obviously the much better offensive forward)

[ShootersShoot]

I don’t see the argument on how that 2nd 3 peat wasn’t a super team.

3 HOF players playing high level basketball. In 96 Jordan won MVP, Pippen was 5th in MVP voting, and Rodman was 15th in voting.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 96, and 2nd in voting in 97. Harper was averaging 20ppg before he joined Chicago in 95.

How is that not a super team? I don’t care if the front office made the moves or the players got together and decided to make the moves to create the team. The roster and players on the court were a super team.

Cant agree with you on the Ron Harper thing. Do you realize he averaged those 20 points per game on 18 shot attempts per game, 42/30/71 shooting splits and a 49% TS the year before joining the Bulls? With the cherry on he averaged over 3 turnovers per game. That sound ultra impressive to you?

Iirc harper suffered a career altering injury prior to joining the bulls. He clearly wasnt the same player that averaged 20ppg. Still was a good role player for the bulls though.

[DimesandKnicks]

I don’t see the argument on how that 2nd 3 peat wasn’t a super team.

3 HOF players playing high level basketball. In 96 Jordan won MVP, Pippen was 5th in MVP voting, and Rodman was 15th in voting.

Kukoc was 6th man of the year in 96, and 2nd in voting in 97. Harper was averaging 20ppg before he joined Chicago in 95.

How is that not a super team? I don’t care if the front office made the moves or the players got together and decided to make the moves to create the team. The roster and players on the court were a super team.

Cant agree with you on the Ron Harper thing. Do you realize he averaged those 20 points per game on 18 shot attempts per game, 42/30/71 shooting splits and a 49% TS the year before joining the Bulls? With the cherry on he averaged over 3 turnovers per game. That sound ultra impressive to you?

Iirc harper suffered a career altering injury prior to joining the bulls. He clearly wasnt the same player that averaged 20ppg. Still was a good role player for the bulls though.

I actually think it was early in his time with Clippers. Idt he scored 20ppg then had the injury than joined the Bulls

[ShootersShoot]

Cant agree with you on the Ron Harper thing. Do you realize he averaged those 20 points per game on 18 shot attempts per game, 42/30/71 shooting splits and a 49% TS the year before joining the Bulls? With the cherry on he averaged over 3 turnovers per game. That sound ultra impressive to you?

Iirc harper suffered a career altering injury prior to joining the bulls. He clearly wasnt the same player that averaged 20ppg. Still was a good role player for the bulls though.

I actually think it was early in his time with Clippers. Idt he scored 20ppg then had the injury than joined the Bulls

Oh right thanks. Yea i thought he was an underrated part of the second 3peat and also the lakers in 2000. Excellent glue guy at that stage of his career.