Credit to Thinking Basketball, Squared2020, and various great RealGM posters for quantitative / qualitative info drawn from.
Being very arguably the most popular basketball figure / superstar in history, Jordan makes (in my opinion cements) a remarkable Mt. Rushmore case for himself analytically and pragmatically - which I hope to lay out, rather than a lot of "vibes"-based arguments which less nuanced fans usually present. While I am not the highest on the room on his first three seasons (his Wizards years as well obviously, more on both to come), I believe 1988 was when most of the foundation of Jordan's prime basketball ability came together - with incremental offensive changes & tweaks present up until his peak of 1990/91. While his overall baseline of efficiency marginally declined (and defense took a step down) after that, the polished skill-set still made him all-time in that regard before Jordan's first retirement. After coming back in 1996, Jordan's floor-raising ability declined - but he excelled as the offensive centerpiece [due to his scoring and phenomenal turnover economy] on two GOAT-level teams and one final all-time team.
When looking at the Box-Score, here's how Jordan fares in Thinking Basketball's model from 1988-93:
Spoiler:
Same logic for 1996-98 in what I would classify a different role:
Spoiler:
For some more context, here's how this looked against different opponents (h/t 70sFan):
Spoiler:
Of-course, all of that - unfortunately - isn't complemented by a slate of impact metrics. Courtesy of Ben (again), there is some +/- and on-off tracking from the Playoffs however (listed in rough estimates). Take it for what you would like to, I have linked the video as well:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
When eye-balling all of this, the play-by-play differences and potency signal more of a 'top-tier all time' lift rather than the outlier the box score and derivations of it (eg. BBRef) may make MJ's value to be.
Using some data from the Top-100 teams effort as well as Thinking Basketball, the offensive results present a similar story.
Sansterre's Project - worth noting the 90s Bulls are 5 out of the top 20 teams and 2 of the top 4:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
With these pieces of the puzzle, here's my verdict:
Jordan had the talent and the raw-offensive ability to be deployed as an excellent floor-raiser of sub-par talent as he broke into his own as a player. When assessing 1988 and 1989 (the pre-triangle, Monster O-Load phase) at or around his apex, I don't think the hero-ball was too much of a problem specific to situation - but 1985-88 in whole paints a different story:
From 1985-88, he created shots for teammates only slightly more than he passed them over (6 plays per 100, in line with his traditional box creation estimate).3 His wild forays into multiple defenders yielded a woeful efficiency of 0.59 points per attempt on such plays.
When looking at 1985-87 (which I see as a more valid and prominent explaining factor of the offensive bottlenecks and coupled with negative value on defense due to little discipline), it's hard to see 1985 over an All-NBA level and 1987 over a fringe-MVP level.
His defense was better in 1988 and 1989 due to better athleticism and motor (even with his well-known gambling errors), but the reason I take 1990 and 1991 as his best seasons are due to the ideal combination of defense/connective-skills/heliocentric floor-raising.
When Phil Jackson arrived in 1990 and installed the triangle, Jordan’s habit of shooting into heavy coverage dissipated. (He settled at around 2 missed creations per 100 for the rest of his career, comparable to career rates from LeBron.) But suboptimal court vision isn’t easily correctable and myopia sometimes limited the value of his passes. Not all creation is equal either, and Jordan was inconsistent in finding the high-value spots on the court. In over 1,100 offensive possessions tracked, MJ hit over 2 “good” passes per 100 with a passing profile slightly behind Dwyane Wade’s and Kobe Bryant’s. During the Jackson years, his passing capability didn’t change much, per se. His decision-making simply improved. Jordan replaced difficult, low efficiency shots with setups for open teammates, bumping his own efficiency and creation rates in the process.4 As he upgraded his floor game, MJ morphed into an elite creator, posting rates in the 94th to 98th historical percentile between 1989 and 1997.
As I stated earlier, the efficiency of mega-creator Jordan declined in 1992/93 along with his defense doing the same - leading me to rank the years as follows: 91 >= 90, 89, 92, 88, 93. I see the top 3 years as "GOAT" caliber, 88/92 as "Fringe-GOAT", and 93 as "All-Time".
When looking at his retirement, the Bulls added a few pieces amidst a defensive slant. In 1994, they accrued a 2.74 SRS flanked by a -3.6 rDRTG and -.2 rORTG. In 1995, they accrued a 4.7 net rating (109.6-105) in 65 games without Jordan and a 7.5 net rating in 17 games with (112.8-105.3) - keep in mind this being a more rusty Jordan. Comparing to the 1990-93 Bulls roster, what I can most grasp is that the Bulls had enough of a safety net to stay afloat through defense while ~treading water on offense - in alignment with the progression in on/off data presented by Ben & TB's team. Furthermore, Jordan's defense heading into the first retirement was shown to be replace-able while the offense was something much more worthwhile to hold on-to. Furthermore:
In 1995, before his return, Chicago chugged along at +1.2 for 63 games (playing at a 52-win pace), reinforcing the team’s competence but also highlighting Jordan’s value — lifting slightly above average offenses by 5 or 6 points is GOAT-worthy. After nearly two seasons off, MJ (posting a cringeworthy -2.6 percent rTS) lifted the ’95 team’s offense to +4.3 in his 27 games (at a 59-win pace). Again, the turnovers declined, down to 12.1 percent from 14.6. Even an oxidized Jordan made an impact.
From 1996-98, Jordan's playmaking responsibilities declined decently so, he remained a stout volume scorer but on less efficiency, and his motor/athleticism were worse - dialing him into a more cerebral, but less effective (still incredible - where I would say 96-98 is the premier shooting guard slate of seasons all time) role on both sides. The Bulls emphasis on rebounding, defense, skill-set versatility, shooting, movement (all catalyzed by Jordan's floor/ceiling raising hybrid - great TOV/cTOV% like almost all of his career, releases valve scoring, offensive rebounding, and movement) - they reached the heights he did. With the box and impact profiles available, it's very hard to find an argument for 96-98 Jordan being the same caliber player he was at his magnum opus(es). The resiliency against elite and formidable PS defenses tells a similar story as well. With the information provided, my guesstimate is that 1996 was an "All-Time" season, 1997 in between All-Time and MVP (I'll go fringe here), and 1998 an MVP effort.
Some further impact snippets from this second three-peat:
The adjusted game-level data we have on Jordan echoes the common sentiment that he’s one of the most valuable players ever; he’s right at the top of these three studies with an average per-game value of +8.2. We only have two years of adjusted plus-minus (APM) at the end of his career and another year of Augmented plus-minus (AuPM), both of which paint Jordan as an elite and consistent player, but not a sui generis force; Jordan’s scaled adjusted plus-minus figures from 1996-98 (about +6.5) all fall in the 98th percentile for seasons on record.
Augmented +/-:
7.4, 5.2, 4.3
Scaled APM values (a CORP estimate) for 1997/98 come out to be a 5.5 and 5.1 level respectively.
A further assessment I wrote on a past thread regarding the 97/98 Bulls:
Spoiler:
Even with the high ends and what I feel to be a substantial argument for GOAT peak/prime in Jordan's favor, why I see him as career #3 all-time is due to the meaningful longevity/prime quality and overall longevity aspects. I haven't finalized intel for my pool aside from my Mt. Rushmore / GOAT candidates yet, but James & Jabbar (even Russell) both have more MVP+ level seasons - and better supporting years when factoring in the full body of work.
Anyways, I hope you all enjoyed my reasoning. Had a free day today before a mini-trip, so felt the whim to make an exception and dive in this deep. Cheers.
