Probably we'll just have to agree to disagree on some of this, and I feel this point may have already been belaboured in posts I haven't read yet, but a few counterpoints.......
homecourtloss wrote:Critics say Jordan left, and the Bulls were still a 55-win team [SRS pegs them more like just 50 wins, fwiw] that went 7 games with the eventual EC champions in the semis.
Few things to bear in mind, however:
1) '93 was a down prime year [sort of like '11 was for Lebron] for Scottie Pippen; while in '94 he bounces back to probably his peak year (it's either that or '92, imo). The exact same thing can be said for Horace Grant.
Not sure this is in any way supportive of Jordan here. League wide TS dropped from 53.6% to 52.8% from 1993 to 1994 but Pippen’s jumped significantly from 51% to 54.4% while Grant’s remained stable. Both of their TOV% dropped slightly while their respective OBMs jumped tremendously with added offensive responsibilities. All of this was with 2000 minutes of Pete Myers being an awful offensive player yet both of Pippen and Grant did as well as they did in “bounce back years.”
Hmm.....this seems like you're trying to insinuate one of two things, either:
1)
the blame for Pippen/Grant's clearly DOWN year [in '93] is Jordan's fault. And/or:
2) Jordan was holding them down (which is why they "bounce back" after he leaves).
We'll have to agree to disagree on one or both counts, whichever it is you intended. I believe their "down" year in '93 was a result of flagging motivation (hard to maintain that desire for excellence year over year; it's mentally/emotionally taxing), and also perhaps a bit of smug confidence (knowing by this point in time that they don't need to "prove" themselves during the rs). Fatigue/burnout from being part of the Dream Team over the summer is likely a factor for Pippen, as well.
Inasmuch as the "Jordan holding them down" implication.....
Well,
obviously their offensive loads are going to go up in his absence. As to efficiency, this isn't the best year, for either of them.
Looking at Pippen's prime seasons in Chicago, ranked by rTS%:
'91: +2.7%
'92: +2.4%
'97: +1.8%
'94 (no Jordan): +1.64%
'95 (mostly without Jordan, and without Grant): +1.61%
'96: +0.9%
'98: +0.9%
'93: -2.6%
So '93 is just a
complete outlier amid the rest of his prime in Chicago (not only does it rank 8th of 8 seasons, but the gap between it and 7th place is nearly TWICE as large as the gap between 7th and 1st).
I say again: it was a "down" year (which doesn't appear to have a lot to due with Jordan, given Pippen's three BEST in terms of shooting efficiency all happened while playing alongside him).
As far as turnover economy is concerned, TOV% is a near-useless stat, imo, as it only considers tov and TSA (according to TOV%, John Stockton has a horrendous turnover economy). Pippen [naturally] had to shift slightly to less playmaking and more scoring in the absense of Jordan (which has repercussions where TOV% is concerned).
My Modified TOV% factors in other responsibilities and production endeavours that may result in a turnover (most notably: playmaking for others [and general ball-handling repsonsibilities]).
Here are his best Chicago seasons by mTOV%:
'98: 7.27%
'97: 7.60%
'96: 7.85%
'92: 8.00%
'93: 8.39%
'91: 8.44%
'94 (without Jordan): 8.74%
'95 (mostly without Jordan, and without Grant): 9.81%
^^He mostly appears to just get better with age (with '93 again being a slight blip in the trend)......except, that is, for years where he's playing without Jordan and has to shoulder more offensive responsibility: those two years playing without [or mostly without] Jordan are the two
worst seasons of his prime in Chicago in terms of turnover economy ('95 actually rates out as worst by a solid margin).
For Grant, here are his prime Chicago seasons ranked by rTS%.....
'92: +8.7%
'91: +5.1%
'94 (no Jordan): +1.2%
'93: -0.2%
(and fwiw, he bounces right back up in '95 playing with a talent-laden Orlando team)
'93 is a clear outlier ("down") year within this part of his prime. While '94 is solidly better than that down year, it's even "more solidly"
behind '91, and laughably behind '92.
In terms of mTOV% (this is one of the underappreciated aspects of Horace Grant: how good he was at ball-control and playing within his limitations on offense).....
'92: 6.26%
'94 (no Jordan): 6.53%
'91: 6.63%
'93: 7.05%
Again, '93 just a bit of an outlier within his prime years in Chicago. '94 holds its own against other prime Chicago years, but is not the best of them.
'93 is just flatly an outlier down [within their primes as a whole] for both of them in terms of offensive efficiency. It's the clear worst by a country mile for Grant, and is either worst all-around or basically tied with '95 [a mostly sans-Jordan year] as worst all-around for Pippen.
But while '94 is better [than '93] for each of them, it is also very clearly NOT the most-efficient [nor even
one of the most efficient] Chicago season for either of them.
homecourtloss wrote:2) A promising rookie named Toni Kukoc was added in '94.
He was definitely promising, but he was basically a neutral player in 1994 though he showed great promise in the playoffs. He was at least a tier and a half or more advanced in 1996, though, in which he top 10 impact player,.
But we're comparing specifically to the '93 team. Thus, you have to look at whose minutes he's principally replacing: it's mostly the last legs of Rodney McCray that he's replacing (plus some misc of last legs Trent Tucker, maybe scattered minutes of their various bigs). He's a clear upgrade
from that.
homecourtloss wrote:3) They added Steve Kerr, who was a very nice bench piece.
Kerr definitely had a good year
And again: compared to the '93 team, it's the last legs of John Paxson and Darrell Walker that he replaces........a clear upgrade.
homecourtloss wrote:4) Bill Wennington (decent bench piece) was added.
His best year was probably 1994 though most of his minutes overlap with Pippen’s. Interesting that Scottie Pippen got the most out of him this year compared to any of his other years though that could be due to many things.
Yes it could; age being foremost among them, imo.
And again: he's a slight upgrade over the minutes he's replacing on the '93 team [washed up Cartwright and bloated and undermotivated Stacey King, primarily].
homecourtloss wrote:5) Pete Myers wasn't much, but he could at least play good defense, and he stuck to his role pretty well (he was added in '94).
No, Myers was by far their worst player who played significant minutes. Bulls Were 6.3 points per 100 possessions better with him off the court, by far the best they were with any off the players off the court. He was a terrible offensive player and not that good of a defender either
Fair enough, but in this way he's kind of the perfect slot-in to determine Jordan's value above REPLACEMENT level......because replacement level is basically what Myers was. So I suppose with can just ignore the Jordan/Myers swap, and focus on the OTHER moving pieces.
homecourtloss wrote:So it wasn't just "Jordan left and they still did this".
It was "Jordan left, but they added Kukoc and Kerr and Myers and Wennington; and BOTH Pippen and Grant had major bounce-back years......and THEN they did this" ("this" being that they dropped by only 2 wins, but by -3.32 SRS, and got ousted in the 2nd round [instead of winning title]).
Basically, it was, though.
No, I just don't agree (see above).
A Kukoc for aged out McCray/Tucker [last season for both] might not be a huge upgrade, but it is an upgrade.
Kerr for aged out Paxson and last legs Walker may not be an earth-shaker, but it IS an upgrade.
Wennington for washed up Cartwright and King may not be a big upgrade, but it IS an upgrade.
I don't know how many wins/SRS added those^^^ things account for; but it is a non-zero sum.
And otherwise, most of the compensation is on the "bounce-back" of Pippen and Grant. Which---as per above---their down year in '93 is not on Jordan. Indeed, BOTH of them had their most efficient offensive season
s [plural] while playing next to him, and '94 [plus '95 for Pippen] rate out among the bottom half in terms of all-around efficiency.
If we want to say Kerr/Kukoc/Wennington account of NOTHING [again: I'd disagree], and focus only on what impact the loss of Jordan had, it would be more accurate [imo] to at least compare '94 to a year where Pippen/Grant were playing
at a similar level as '94 (because they clearly were NOT in '93).
'92 (the other year that could be argued as peak for each of them, imo) comes to mind.
The difference there is: -12 wins, and a whopping -7.2 SRS change.
homecourtloss wrote:And the other thing here is that the coach, Phil Jackson, got as much out of role players as any coach ever, perhaps, as he was able to replicate the same success with the Lakers with their role players. So if we’re going to give credit to that coaching for helping this team, stay successful 1994 then we also have to give credit to the coaching in the series that they won.
Well, I won't argue with you here. PJ is indeed a GOAT-level coach, and probably deserves some credit (I sort of wrote him out because he's present throughout this period in discussion).
And fwiw, that '94 series against Cleveland was a Cav team whose frontcourt was utterly decimated by injury: Nance, Daugherty, and HR Williams were ALL out for the series. The closest thing the Cavs had to defensive anchor were the Williams/Nance minutes.
"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." -George Carlin
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
). The variance in SRS has been drastically reduced since 1984 (which is the early cutoff of these bands for me). 
