ScrantonBulls wrote:Himothy Duncan wrote:Jordan literally couldn’t make it out of the first round until Scottie came. But he’s the best ever? LOL. Being able to win at least a little bit by yourself should be a minimum requirement to be called the best ever ffs.
Bulls in 92-93: 57-25
Bulls in 93-94 after MJ quits: 55-27
Just lmao. Dude had some of the MOST stacked teams of all time when you consider the weak era. Imagine giving LeBron a team so strong that they win 55 games without him. Jordan won nothing without ridiculously stacked squads, and Pippen like you said.
Pippen won 55 games and nearly went to the ECF without MJ. What exactly did MJ do without Scottie?
Regarding the 1994 Bulls:
1. They went 55-27, but that overstates how good they were. Their SRS was more like a 50-win team.
2. The Bulls supporting cast—and Pippen and Grant in particular—were well below their normal level in 1993, after winning the title twice in a row (maybe coasting, or maybe just happened to have decreases in form). But they were right in the middle of their prime years more generally, and were much better in 1994. The better comparison for the Bulls in terms of Scottie and Horace being even remotely at their 1994 level is the 1992 Bulls—who won 67 games at an SRS that was like a 66-win team.
3. The Bulls added Kukoc in 1994. He was the 4th best player on the 1996-98 three-peat team, and actually became the 3rd best player near the end when Rodman became washed. He wasn’t a major star, but he was very good (probably the best player the Bulls had in the Jordan years outside of Jordan/Pippen/Grant/Rodman), and adding him was a major upgrade.
4. The Bulls added Longley and Wennington in 1994. Neither was particularly good, but they were better than an ancient Cartwright, and they replaced almost half of Cartwright’s minutes. This was a notable upgrade.
5. The Bulls added Kerr in 1994. He was merely a solid role player but was still a significant upgrade of Paxson, who had become completely washed.
So, what happened in 1994 is that Pippen and Grant were both in way better form than they’d been in 1993, and the rest of the supporting cast was pretty massively upgraded. Not a huge surprise that the negative effect of losing Jordan would get mitigated a lot by the rest of the team being way better.
And, more generally, it’s just not all that surprising that the Bulls would do pretty well, when we realize that Jordan actually left a team with a supporting cast right in the middle of their primes. Most players don’t do that. LeBron certainly didn’t. Most stars that leave a team do so when the supporting cast is in clear decline. That’s not what Jordan did at all, so it’s clearly not comparable to what happens to teams that other stars have left. And it *definitely* isn’t comparable to the situation when LeBron has left teams—he always leaves when a team is in clear decline after a series of win-now moves. The more comparable thing would be to compare how the 1998 Bulls did in almost half a season without Pippen (won at a 56-win pace with a +6.82 average margin of victory) to how the 1999 Bulls did (won at a 21-win pace with a -9.46 average margin of victory). That time, Jordan actually left a team when it was in clear decline, and the result was a *massive* decrease in the team’s fortunes. But of course instead of using that more comparable comparison, you use the one that has almost nothing similar to compare to because Jordan left a team in the middle of its prime.
Furthermore, what happens when a star leaves is pretty dependent on whether the system and personnel of the team are built to maximize that player’s influence or whether the system is built to maximize what the supporting cast can do while assuming that the superstar will eat regardless. The former is what LeBron’s teams generally have been. The latter is what the Bulls and the triangle were—Phil Jackson himself has even said as much (i.e. that the triangle wasn’t there for Jordan, but rather was there to maximize the rest of the cast). If the system and personnel is built to maximize the superstar, that player leaving will naturally make the whole thing not work anymore—they’ll either have to run a system that the personnel no longer actually fits with, or have to lose continuity and try something completely different. This is bad either way. But if the system and personnel was built to maximize the supporting cast, then that superstar player leaving will still leave the team able to have continuity and run a system that works well for them. This makes a huge difference!
As for what Jordan ever did without Pippen, it’s a silly question because Pippen arrived when Jordan had only been in the NBA three seasons and had been drafted by an awful team. Jordan was already one of the league’s top few players before Pippen showed up, but no one was going to win titles with that team those years. It’s certainly worth noting, though, that the Bulls still did quite well without Pippen for half a season in 1998, that the Bulls won a title when Pippen had a well below-par year in 1993, and won the Finals in 1998 with Pippen getting hobbled during the series. There’s really not much evidence that Jordan was dependent on Pippen’s greatness for his success. Pippen certainly helped! But when Pippen was injured or playing well below his normal level, the Bulls still did very well. I’m not sure what else you’d want Jordan to prove. If you think it’s reasonable to expect Jordan to have won a title in 1987, then you’re just crazy—even taking that team to the playoffs was a real feat.
