How NBA rules prevented Michael Jordan's Bulls from facing superteams in the 1990s

[twyzted]

Dele is a weird one.

Kerr however lets put him into perspective as a 7th man. Per 100 stats 96-98

PTS 18.7
AST 5.0
STL 1.7
TOV 1.2
ORtg 136

Box metrics
BPM 2.8
WS/48 .191
PER 14.8

RPM (RPM WINS)
non data for 96
97 2.39 (6.39) - this grades him out as a top 50 player per minute and top 70 in total impact (insane for a 7th man)
98 he wasn't very good and box metrics showed that a bit too but 96 we'd have to expect pretty good results.

So yeah...I think you're under selling Kerr man. He was surprisingly good and important for those teams. There's a reason he was on the floor in that famous Jazz game for the last play.

He was a role player he did his job fine but adding him as reason to a team being a super team is well....

Chalmers avg per 100 in 12-13
18ppg
6apg
1.8spg

Chris andersen
Ws48 .31
Bpm 5.5
23.8ppg
15rpg
4bpg

Heatles big12?

Chalmers was a basically 0 BPM guy over that run, 12.8 PER, which is barely over replacement level, and a WS/48 of .108 again average player at best. That's not impressive. And he was a STARTER! Kerr was a 7th man who was better than him by a MILE. So basically the data tells me Chalmers wasn't even close to as good as Kerr and he started while kerr was a 7th man.

Andersen was actually pretty dang good for the heat. And aren't the heat seen as a super team? So I don't see why this is counter intuitive. he wasn't there for all of it but he was pretty dang good for them as a bench guy.

Yeah i did not look at per and such for chalmers just went by per100. Not that Kerr was a bad player but saying that having him coming of the bench is equal to the bulls being a superteam makes little sense to me.

[jbk1234]

The no max contract thing is why stars didn't team up before. Teams couldn't afford to pay three all NBA guys and stars certainly weren't interested in taking 60-70% pay cuts to do it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

[nikster]

Jordans supporting cast on those bulls teams, especially during the first 3peat was putrid. Probably a bottom 5 team without him.

Funny how they almost made the finals the first year he retired. Not exactly a "putrid" supporting cast. Pippen alone is basically equivalent to Kawhi Leonard in terms of career and Kawhi is considered to be a top 5 player in the game today.

Yes, but they became good because of Jordan - his coaching, leadership and example. Had Pippen played his career on another team he would have amounted to an average role player at best.

Based on what? Scottie Pippen was an extremely talented and athletic prospect, was highly regarded enough to be the 5th overall pick, and was already better than an average role player in just his second season.

If Jordan was so good at developing his teammates, why isn't there anybody else that he's played with that showed that type of growth

[Pg81]

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

How many points did Rodman average again? 5.5, 5.7 and 4.7 in those 3 championship years with the Bulls.
And in 1990-91 Jordan was the only Bull to make the All-Star game.

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

It's directed at Michael Jordan because it explains why he and the Bulls were so successful during the 90s. Yes, Jordan is one of the greatest players of all time, but he had something of an unfair advantage from a team composition standpoint, locking players like Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant into cheap contracts.

Think of it this way. Imagine if the same rules had been in place in the early 2010s when OKC had Durant/Westbrook/Harden/Ibaka under contract. They would have easily been able to keep all of them on the same team and we probably would have seen OKC win 5+ titles and dominate the league for a decade or more. Meanwhile, LeBron would have wasted away on a poorly run Cavaliers team and squandered his entire career with no way out.

The Bulls were dominant because Michael Jordan is easily the the greatest, most overall dominant player in league history.

This is a rather silly way to undermine and attempt to downplay the scale and scope of his greatness.

This is just blatant nonsense.

So can we at least stop bashing LeBron or Durant for creacting superteams, and stop talking bullsh...that Jordan would never have call Magic and Bird (and dozens of such nonsense) ? The rules in 90sand 80s were completely different.

No. Michael Jordan loves competition. Michael Jordan loves competition. Michael Jordan loves competition.

He loves competition so much that he can't stop gambling playing spades, a game in which he has no physical advantage. He loves it so much he tried baseball, a game he hadn't played in more than a decade. That Iverson crossover clip that's been making the rounds again? Michael Jordan welcomed the challenge of going after one of the quickest humans of all time on the perimeter when Mike was what? 33? Because Michael Jordan loves competition.

Winning is great and greatness is great, but Michael Jeffrey Jordan loves mixing it up. He would've been bored on a superteam.

Lebron and Durant are chasing a ghost seeking validation. They childishly seek fame and adulation. They could never measure up to a career so pure.

Oh really? Is that why he told th Bulls FO that he will force a trade if they do not get him sufficient help? Is that why he tried to meddle in their draftings not even wanting Scottie Pippen? Is that why he retired after a mere 3 rings even though the career record sits at 11 with 8 straight titles?

Funny how they almost made the finals the first year he retired. Not exactly a "putrid" supporting cast. Pippen alone is basically equivalent to Kawhi Leonard in terms of career and Kawhi is considered to be a top 5 player in the game today.

Yes, but they became good because of Jordan - his coaching, leadership and example. Had Pippen played his career on another team he would have amounted to an average role player at best.

So Jordan now gets the credit for turning Pippen into a star? And he's somehow the coach of the Bulls too? No credit for the front office that made decisions Jordan disagreed with (trading Charles Oakley for the pick they used to draft Pippen) or Phil Jackson (in spite of him having more rings than fingers to put them on)?

Blatant nonsense. Pippen made Pippen. MJ helped, like any other superstar did with his team mates. Nothing special about it. What is next? Did Nash make Dirk? Did Moses make Barkley? Did Kareem make Magic? Robinson made Duncan?

MJ's Bulls were a super team, but they weren't a superteam as we've seen over the last couple of decades.

As great as Rodman was, he wasn't Barkley or Malone. He was a free agent that made sense and fit the tough enforcer, defender, rebounder, they needed.
They had excellent role players but that also doesn't constitute a superteam.

I wouldn't even put this Lakers team in the category of 'superteam' as they only have 2 stars.
BKN is
GWS was
Mia was
Bos was

That's how I see it.

NOTE: I didn't read the entire post. TLTR

You are right Rodman was no Barkley or Malone. He was far better when it cames to rebounding and it is not even close while also being among the best defenders and greatest hustlers in the league. He was an integral part to two dynasties and he was able to dominate with his hyper specialized skill set. The value he added to a team is not all that much smaller compared to Malone and Barkley and he had a legit case for winning FMVP in 96 for keeping the Bulls in the game which was one of the worst shooting teams of the past 30 years, probably even past 50 years. Seattle was far superior in terms of effiency and yet they still lost. How come? Dennis Rodman going ham on the boards, that is why, combined with being a pest on the defensive end.
What holds Rodman really back was not so much scoring but that he was a headcase who needed a coach that could hold his worst escapades in check.

[Ritzo]

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

How many points did Rodman average again? 5.5, 5.7 and 4.7 in those 3 championship years with the Bulls.
And in 1990-91 Jordan was the only Bull to make the All-Star game.

Yeah, Rodman impacted the game with his scoring. What a braindead argument.

[Metallikid]

On a related note If the NBA hadn't had the completely bogus no 1st picks for Canadian expansions we would have had two ROY in a row and one of the best backcourts in the whole League by our 3rd season.

[Schiltzenberger]

Didn't the Knicks try to pair him up with Ewing?...there was news of him signing as a FA with New York. Obviously he stayed in Chicago, but the opportunities were there to create superteams. Orlando nearly had Duncan, Hill and McGrady...... I mean, come on?

The difference was players back then were competitive, they hated other teams and players, they wanted to beat them. These days it's all buddy ball, so players or much more willing to team up.

[76ciology]

Can we bring it back to how it was before?

Less player empowerment, more parity for teams. So fans of mediocre teams or lottery teams can also enjoy their teams? Benefit the millions of fans over the few hundred of players.

I mean sure.. there can still be superteams because of some luck in drafting and trades. One can argue that the bulls is a product of this. But atleast its done with merit. Not like in today’s NBA whereas a player will only give a list of teams he wants to be traded to (Harden).

Current blueprint of a prime destination team like the Los Angeles or Brooklyn is just accumulating asset and wait for a marquee FA, where they pretty much have the rights to first refusal given how much preferred they are. When that happens they can just strike with their assets. You can’t say the same thing for the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats.

With how the rules are being constructed, i can bet you that teams like Sacramento and Charlotte will NEVER win a championship. Once they’ll have their Michael Jordan, a team like the Miami Heat will free up their cap space and just snatch him from them.

[camby23]

Didn't the Knicks try to pair him up with Ewing?...there was news of him signing as a FA with New York. Obviously he stayed in Chicago, but the opportunities were there to create superteams. Orlando nearly had Duncan, Hill and McGrady...... I mean, come on?

The difference was players back then were competitive, they hated other teams and players, they wanted to beat them. These days it's all buddy ball, so players or much more willing to team up.

Is post prime Ewing and Oakley a better supporting cast than Pippen and Rodman? The Bulls nearly beat the Knicks
in 1994 WITHOUT Jordan. And after reading that article you're gonna tell me with a straight face that the rules had nothing to do with players loyalty?

For example Ewing was 34 and post prime when he became a FA for the first time in his career. It's almost like comparing soccer players loyalty before and after Bosman rule in 1995.

[camby23]

LeBron fans wake up everyday and try to find a way to diminish Jordan lmao.

Even without admitting it, they all know Jordan is the G.O.A.T.

It's not even about Jordan. But can we at least stop comparing modern players and 90's players when it comes to loyalty, creating superteams etc? The rules were completely different then. If you were drafted by poorly managed franchise your chances of winning a championship were VERY limited.

[Jables]

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

Well if the bulls were a superteam in the 90s, by that logic, werent the magic a superteam with shaq, penny and horace grant, or the utah jazz, seattle supersonics, or Phoenix with Chuck, marlee and Kevin Johnson. Even the lakers team MJ beat to win his first title.

Exactly, if having 3 All Stars was a "superteam for 90s standards", then the era was stacked with superteams. It's a ridiculous statement that puts very little thought into the context of the era.

[DCasey91]

The Jordan romantization/mysticism gets out of hand.

Pre 1991 with today’s social media my lord. He definitely had a certain tag before he won. Imagine what it would be like today

Jordan did this Jordan that. Lol at the Pippen thing stud prospect, pretty sure he finished in the votes one year when Jordan wasn’t playing.

The doco glossing over so many elements it was disperectful to those at the Bulls organization during that whole decade.

Before as well

Dean Smith
Phil Jackson
Jerry Krause
Tex Winter
Scottie Pippen
Rodman

Jordan didn’t make any of them they were who they were. Not to mention others there’s a list there. Harper for ffs averaged 20 and was another teams franchise player.

It’s cool he was painted as the messiah/global icon during the 90’s I get it.

[Antinomy]

When you account for 6-7 expansion teams being added between 1989-1995, that also explains why the talent was so diluted across the league.

Magic, Bird, Dr.J, etc have interviews on YouTube from the mid-90s talking about how watered down the league was at the time. Not in retrospect.

Once all the dynasties from the 80s got old or fell off, MJ’s Bulls started winning. Let’s not forget that he never won a playoff series before or after Scottie Pippen.

With all the changes occurring around the league back then, it’s not hard to see how they were able to dominate. You would never see a team nearly win 8 titles in a row in the modern era.

[DoctorX]

The no max contract thing is why stars didn't team up before. Teams couldn't afford to pay three all NBA guys and stars certainly weren't interested in taking 60-70% pay cuts to do it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J327A using RealGM mobile app

Agreed. With no Max guys were getting big deals that took up a ton of the cap space on their team which prevented super teams from forming. If we had no Max the same thing would happen today. Without the max guys like Lebron,Durant would be making 100 mil a year. It would be impossible to build a super team around them. At best you might be able to squeeze in another star but the team would be pretty thin with role players.

[scrabbarista]

Didn't the Knicks try to pair him up with Ewing?...there was news of him signing as a FA with New York. Obviously he stayed in Chicago, but the opportunities were there to create superteams. Orlando nearly had Duncan, Hill and McGrady...... I mean, come on?

The difference was players back then were competitive, they hated other teams and players, they wanted to beat them. These days it's all buddy ball, so players or much more willing to team up.

Is post prime Ewing and Oakley a better supporting cast than Pippen and Rodman? The Bulls nearly beat the Knicks
in 1994 WITHOUT Jordan. And after reading that article you're gonna tell me with a straight face that the rules had nothing to do with players loyalty?

For example Ewing was 34 and post prime when he became a FA for the first time in his career. It's almost like comparing soccer players loyalty before and after Bosman rule in 1995.

In regards to the myth that the 1994 Bulls were "almost as good" without Jordan (e.g., they won two fewer games than the previous season, and "almost beat the Knicks"), this - quoted from another poster - will be helpful information:

"1. The 92-93 bulls were the epitome of a team coasting in the regular season preparing for a long playoff run. Recent iterations of the Warriors are another example of this. The previous 2 seasons they won 61 and 67 games and by far number 1 in Srs. 92-93 Bulls were much better than a 57 win team and were clearly the best team in the league that year sweeping the Cavs who finished ahead of them in srs, beating the number 1 seed Knicks in 6 and the Suns(also ahead of the Bulls) in 6.

2. People think the Bulls just replaced Jordan with Pete Myers and that’s it but that’s a false narrative. They added Pete Myers, Steve Kerr (one of the best shooters in the league) and Toni Kukoc, the best player in Europe. So they had the entire championship team last year minus Jordan but adding Kukoc, Kerr, Myers, and kept Phil Jackson as coach. Pippen, Grant, Kukoc, Kerr, Armstrong, Cartwright, Longley, Wennington etc.

3. The 93-94 bulls way overachieved and were not nearly as good as their record. Their expected win loss was 50-32, 5 wins less than the 55 they actually won. Their srs plummeted to 11th. In fact, there were 4 teams who won less games than the bulls yet finished ahead in srs and several teams like the Knicks, Spurs and Hawks who only won a couple more games yet finished far ahead in srs. The Bulls' offense also went from top 2 to bottom half of the league without Jordan.

4. In the First Round, they beat a Cavs without Brad Daugherty, Larry Nance, or Hot Rod Williams. If healthy, that Cavs team could have beaten the Bulls. They lost to the Knicks in the playoffs without MJ and were undefeated against the Knicks with MJ. Derek Harper was also ejected in game 3 and missed games 4 and 5. The Knicks were 3-1 against the Bulls in that series when Derek Harper played fully. The Knicks were clearly a better team.

5. The Bulls went from 3-peat champions to 2nd Round exit without Jordan, despite keeping every major player from the previous year, and adding Myers, Kerr, and Kukoc, and keeping Phil Jackson at coach."

EDIT: Credit for this info goes to RGMer 876Stephen.

[DoctorX]

Can we bring it back to how it was before?

Less player empowerment, more parity for teams. So fans of mediocre teams or lottery teams can also enjoy their teams? Benefit the millions of fans over the few hundred of players.

I mean sure.. there can still be superteams because of some luck in drafting and trades. One can argue that the bulls is a product of this. But atleast its done with merit. Not like in today’s NBA whereas a player will only give a list of teams he wants to be traded to (Harden).

Current blueprint of a prime destination team like the Los Angeles or Brooklyn is just accumulating asset and wait for a marquee FA, where they pretty much have the rights to first refusal given how much preferred they are. When that happens they can just strike with their assets. You can’t say the same thing for the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats.

With how the rules are being constructed, i can bet you that teams like Sacramento and Charlotte will NEVER win a championship. Once they’ll have their Michael Jordan, a team like the Miami Heat will free up their cap space and just snatch him from them.

Agreed. As a Spurs fan I feel fortunate I was able to see them win 5 and even though they will most likely never win again I'm satisfied but I feel for fans of other teams that are not in NYC,LA,Miami. They will get to enjoy their superstar for several years until the teams in those 3 locations I mentioned will cheat just clear cap space to steal a few superstars and create a super team. I predict Zion will leave the Pelicans after his rookie deal is up and he's unrestricted FA which till take place 5-6 years from now. I will laugh if he joins the Lakers. Lamelo is another guy that will be LA or NYC bound in 6-7 years.

[scrabbarista]

Can we bring it back to how it was before?

Less player empowerment, more parity for teams. So fans of mediocre teams or lottery teams can also enjoy their teams? Benefit the millions of fans over the few hundred of players.

I mean sure.. there can still be superteams because of some luck in drafting and trades. One can argue that the bulls is a product of this. But atleast its done with merit. Not like in today’s NBA whereas a player will only give a list of teams he wants to be traded to (Harden).

Current blueprint of a prime destination team like the Los Angeles or Brooklyn is just accumulating asset and wait for a marquee FA, where they pretty much have the rights to first refusal given how much preferred they are. When that happens they can just strike with their assets. You can’t say the same thing for the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats.

With how the rules are being constructed, i can bet you that teams like Sacramento and Charlotte will NEVER win a championship. Once they’ll have their Michael Jordan, a team like the Miami Heat will free up their cap space and just snatch him from them.

Agreed. As a Spurs fan I feel fortunate I was able to see them win 5 and even though they will most likely never win again I'm satisfied but I feel for fans of other teams that are not in NYC,LA,Miami. They will get to enjoy their superstar for several years until the teams in those 3 locations I mentioned will cheat just clear cap space to steal a few superstars and create a super team. I predict Zion will leave the Pelicans after his rookie deal is up and he's unrestricted FA which till take place 5-6 years from now. I will laugh if he joins the Lakers. Lamelo is another guy that will be LA or NYC bound in 6-7 years.

Maybe I'm wishful thinking, but I've had the thought that as a Jordan guy, Zion might join LaMelo in CHH. Probably not realistic, but it would be pretty cool.

[DoctorX]

Can we bring it back to how it was before?

Less player empowerment, more parity for teams. So fans of mediocre teams or lottery teams can also enjoy their teams? Benefit the millions of fans over the few hundred of players.

I mean sure.. there can still be superteams because of some luck in drafting and trades. One can argue that the bulls is a product of this. But atleast its done with merit. Not like in today’s NBA whereas a player will only give a list of teams he wants to be traded to (Harden).

Current blueprint of a prime destination team like the Los Angeles or Brooklyn is just accumulating asset and wait for a marquee FA, where they pretty much have the rights to first refusal given how much preferred they are. When that happens they can just strike with their assets. You can’t say the same thing for the Sacramento Kings or Charlotte Bobcats.

With how the rules are being constructed, i can bet you that teams like Sacramento and Charlotte will NEVER win a championship. Once they’ll have their Michael Jordan, a team like the Miami Heat will free up their cap space and just snatch him from them.

Agreed. As a Spurs fan I feel fortunate I was able to see them win 5 and even though they will most likely never win again I'm satisfied but I feel for fans of other teams that are not in NYC,LA,Miami. They will get to enjoy their superstar for several years until the teams in those 3 locations I mentioned will cheat just clear cap space to steal a few superstars and create a super team. I predict Zion will leave the Pelicans after his rookie deal is up and he's unrestricted FA which till take place 5-6 years from now. I will laugh if he joins the Lakers. Lamelo is another guy that will be LA or NYC bound in 6-7 years.

Maybe I'm wishful thinking, but I've had the thought that as a Jordan guy, Zion might join LaMelo in CHH. Probably not realistic, but it would be pretty cool.

I would love to see them hook up in Charlotte but like you said highly unlikely too happen. If they do hook up it will unfortunately be in LA,Miami,NYC.

[Antinomy]

lebron would have won more than 6 titles in the 90s with those bulls teams going against craig ehlo's of the world.

Dude, JOHN STARKS was the Knicks 2nd best player. An undersized 2 guard who never shot above 45% from the field & averaged over 18ppg once.

Wouldn’t even be the 4th best player on nearly all the teams Lebron has matched up against.

And that was MJ’s biggest rival in the 90s.

[dhsilv2]

He was a role player he did his job fine but adding him as reason to a team being a super team is well....

Chalmers avg per 100 in 12-13
18ppg
6apg
1.8spg

Chris andersen
Ws48 .31
Bpm 5.5
23.8ppg
15rpg
4bpg

Heatles big12?

Chalmers was a basically 0 BPM guy over that run, 12.8 PER, which is barely over replacement level, and a WS/48 of .108 again average player at best. That's not impressive. And he was a STARTER! Kerr was a 7th man who was better than him by a MILE. So basically the data tells me Chalmers wasn't even close to as good as Kerr and he started while kerr was a 7th man.

Andersen was actually pretty dang good for the heat. And aren't the heat seen as a super team? So I don't see why this is counter intuitive. he wasn't there for all of it but he was pretty dang good for them as a bench guy.

Yeah i did not look at per and such for chalmers just went by per100. Not that Kerr was a bad player but saying that having him coming of the bench is equal to the bulls being a superteam makes little sense to me.

I guess it comes down to what is "super" but I'd say a team who's got legit starter quality players of the time coming off the bench with two debatably top 5 guys, an all defensive team guy, and a former 20 a game scorer is pretty super. When MJ retired the first time, the next year BJ and Grant would both be allstar the following year, and we've got metrics showing at his peak Grant was a top 15 level player, and he fits to a T the profile of a guy who's that good but gets over looked (better defender than scorer, big man who can shoot that creates space, and at the time he might have been the best transition big man which is pretty important when you play with Pippen and Jordan). Outside of 98 where that team was just beat up and dragging, Jordan had the best team around him pretty much always. You don't win 6 titles in 8 years because you have the best player ever. You do it because you have the best team.