Quantitatively, how much could MJ have added to his career without retirements? And would he be your goat?

[Buckets22]

Imagine if Kenny The Jet Smith locks him down for 2 years and the Rockets win the title! I'm pretty sure that the MJs GOAT status will be shaken...and the TNT Inside the NBA become even more crazier.

[penbeast0]

Did the Rockets really try to use Kenny Smith to guard him (or, well, anyone)? Pretty sure that's why they put up with Vernon Maxwell, so they would have someone to guard the opp's best scorer.

[prolific passer]

94 could have probably been the best offensive squad of the dynasty if Jordan is added. That is if BJ and Horace still play at an all star level and Pippen plays at a MVP level. Also the additions of Kerr and Kukoc off the bench. They probably 4 peat but still lose Grant to the magic in free agency and struggle on the boards in 95 and still make the trade for Rodman and do another 3 peat. So 7-0 in the finals with a 4 peat and 3peat. Seems pretty solid to me.

[Tomtolbert]

Undoing those two retirements in isolation, the Bulls would be the favorites in 1994 and among the contendors, but unlikely to win, in 1999. Projecting beyond a year is awfully difficult, so I won't even attempt it. Even in 1999, there is a decent chance he plays on a different team which could have better potential than the aging Bulls core.

[HeartBreakKid]

Undoing those two retirements in isolation, the Bulls would be the favorites in 1994 and among the contendors, but unlikely to win, in 1999. Projecting beyond a year is awfully difficult, so I won't even attempt it. Even in 1999, there is a decent chance he plays on a different team which could have better potential than the aging Bulls core.

That's a good point. Jordan may have just joined another team (and he eventually would IRL).

[prolific passer]

Undoing those two retirements in isolation, the Bulls would be the favorites in 1994 and among the contendors, but unlikely to win, in 1999. Projecting beyond a year is awfully difficult, so I won't even attempt it. Even in 1999, there is a decent chance he plays on a different team which could have better potential than the aging Bulls core.

That's a good point. Jordan may have just joined another team (and he eventually would IRL).

Who does he join? Hornets with Elden Campbell, Coleman, Eddie Jones, and David Wesley?

Also had Bobby Phills for the 6th man. RIP.

[OhayoKD]

OP seems to be suggesting that Jordan keeps his existing career and then just adds season to that. Except that's not at all how real life works. You can't leave the 2nd Threepeat in pen here for instance.

So many big egos/personalities in play in Chicago. This idea they could have kept that all together and cohesive for a decade straight feels crazy optimistic to me.

they did rather well in 94 and 95 with all those big egos and personatilties hitting a boiling point. Jordan being given the credit for "winning intangibles" that weren't there to be seen before or after jackson has always been one of the sillier components of the myth

[OhayoKD]

Did the Rockets really try to use Kenny Smith to guard him (or, well, anyone)? Pretty sure that's why they put up with Vernon Maxwell, so they would have someone to guard the opp's best scorer.

Dunno, iirc, but despite a gigantic help advantage the bulls were 10-13 vs hakeem's rockets for mj's career. I think facing versatile bigs were a much bigger factor than whoever was the indvidual defender they put on him.

[Owly]

Did the Rockets really try to use Kenny Smith to guard him (or, well, anyone)? Pretty sure that's why they put up with Vernon Maxwell, so they would have someone to guard the opp's best scorer.

I assume you know this but ... yes, the answer is no.

Maxwell was well regarded on D. Smith was not.

At the point, Brooks was the more regarded defender and in ... I think '93 .... started pinching Smith's crunch time minutes and they did really well in those games. At the very least he was a spark-plug and part of that was aggressive, pressure defense.

Then '94 starts out in the rotation playing 20.9 mpg over 33 games through 20th Jan. He plays more RS minutes that season than Cassell. By the playoffs though he's rarely getting into games. By the box it's a down year and it comes at the wrong time with an oddly competent 24th pick and Smith getting hot for the last 30ish RS games.

Looking at how bad Smith was in the finals one wonders whether Brooks shouldn't have been kept ready in the rotation or busted out ... the Harper matchup might not have been any more favorable for him (Brooks is small and I've read Harper was effective "steering" Smith)... though it's hard to see it being much worse (at least maybe Harper's looks are more contested, though 3pt defense is a big part luck).

[Narigo]

He''ll like likely win 7 rings. I think bulls win a close matchup against the rockets in 94. Jordan being rusty in 95 is bit overblown so they still lose to the Magic. They will lose to the Spurs in 99 with Pippen and Rodman being pass their primes

[rk2023]

I've seen through multiple sources on here and online in general that the Bulls were 10-13 against Hakeem's Rockets (unsure the exact time frame being cited and forget my sources). Does anybody happen to know what their rORTG was in those matchups? In theory, I could see why their offense would struggle with Hakeem's presence being able to blow up some basket-oriented triangle sets and Jordan's cutting/slashing - in theory.

[Owly]

I've seen through multiple sources on here and online in general that the Bulls were 10-13 against Hakeem's Rockets (unsure the exact time frame being cited and forget my sources). Does anybody happen to know what their rORTG was in those matchups? In theory, I could see why their offense would struggle with Hakeem's presence being able to blow up some basket-oriented triangle sets and Jordan's cutting/slashing - in theory.

https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/michael-jordan-vs-hakeem-olajuwon-record
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask/hakeem-olajuwon-vs-michael-jordan-record

From the dates you could go deeper at Reference.

All that said you're looking at 23 games with some very different teams so not sure there'll necessarily be much of a big picture to see here so much as noise.

Fwiw, Maxwell is at or over 50% from the field in 5 of their 6 first three-peat matchups, and they win each of those 5, which is the key era driving an Olajuwon's teams advantage. Again small samples so probably likelier to be luck rather than a bad matchup. Flipside Jordan hits that mark twice (though Maxwell twice exactly on the line, and his below was in the 30s, Jordan's aboves are around or at 60 and has one just below the 50).

[Cavsfansince84]

He''ll like likely win 7 rings. I think bulls win a close matchup against the rockets in 94. Jordan being rusty in 95 is bit overblown so they still lose to the Magic. They will lose to the Spurs in 99 with Pippen and Rodman being pass their primes

You don't think that all those deep playoff runs in a row begin to take more of a toll by 97/98? I mean the Bulls were already running pretty low by then(more so in the playoffs where they played ultra slow I think in part to compensate); I think it's very tough to say that they just find that extra gear to win games with that sort of load every season. Even mentally they'd have less of a drive I think instead of the rejuvenated out for blood mindset MJ brought in 96.

[McBubbles]

I agree that we can't assume anything but this idea that MJ would burn out if he didn't retire is not based in reality. Dozens of professional athletes have played 20 consecutive years at top level. The notion that one of the most driven, psychotically competitive players ever would burn out feels far-fetched to me .

1. MJ wasn't close to being the most driven, competitive or dedicated player ever. THIS is the statement that isn't based in reality. How is it that the guy who regularly gambled, partied, got drunk before playoff games, who said he wanted to retire early and who ended up retiring THREE TIMES could be considered the most driven and competitive basketball player ever? I'd give that honour to Bill Russell.

Dozens of athletes more driven than Michael Jordan who also took much better care of their bodies than Michael Jordan played for 20 years at the top level, correct? Their success has nothing to do with him so I don't know why you'd bring them up. "Other players could play for 20 years, so the man who couldn't even play 15 without literally quitting the sport thrice could surely do that" what? Where is this benefit of the doubt coming from? Again, not based in reality at all.

2. How is him being burned out not based in reality? He said it himself in 1993;

"When I lose the sense of motivation and the sense of, to prove something as a basketball player, it's time for me to move away. It's not because I don't love the game. I always will. I just feel that I have reached the pinnacle of my career".

If anyone responds with that nonsense forced retirement conspiracy theory I'll be very upset. The NBA decided to make the worst business decision in capitalist history by banning the most profitable athlete of all time at the peak of his superstardom for gambling, something that doesn't even make a top 100 of NBA scandals? Yeah ok.

Kobe raping someone is fine. Magic forcing his teammates to have orgies and then getting HIV is fine. JR Smith committing manslaughter is fine. Gambling? Oh no, gotta ban our billion dollar product for an extremely short and arbitrary length of time, for reasons that no one that peddles this theory has actually ever bothered to explain

[VanWest82]

I think 6 or 7 titles is the right number. Some points for consideration:

1. MJ's dad dying in the manner he did would've impacted the 94 season for better and worse. It'd be worse in terms of prep coming in, but better in that it might've helped heal things some between Mike and Horace. Would Horace, Scotttie, and BJ have still been motivated for breakout campagins? If not, would Horace have allowed Hakeem to get into his head in the Finals? If you can answer the 94 Horace question, I can answer whether or not they would've won, and odds are they win that one anyways because you have Jordan's age 30 season crossed with perhaps Pippen's best season.

2. Not leaving to play baseball would've been a big boost to extending Jordan's prime. No more atrophy of some of those important leg muscle groups that never fully came back. I still think he would've figured out his post offense as decline set in.

3. Odds are they lose one of 94 or 95. If your argument is that MJ lost his motivation to play in 93, well he likely gets that back once he loses. The guy was maniacal. If they lose in 94, then you get pisssed off MJ tearing up the league in 95 and Krause probably addresses their front court issue a year earlier.

4. He probably doesn't win in 99. He was already starting down the slippery slope in 98, and the jam packed lockout schedule with many 4 in 5 nights would've worn him down. Mike wouldn't have taken games off.

Conclusion: Bulls win one of 94 or 95 (likely 94) and still win 96 and 97 as they were incredibly dominant, but might lose in 98 due to additional wear and tear, no breaks, etc., and he doesn't win after that unless he joins the Spurs or something.

Edit: conclusion #2 is we lost 2 years of MJ being the best player in the L. Even if he loses once in 94/95 and in 98 leaving him with six, it's still additive in terms of his career discussion and place in history. I think people often make the mistake of remembering what Mike looked like in 95, and then extrapolating that across 94&95 in this hypothetical. No. It was still Jordan's prime. He would've been the favourite every year unless you're suggesting Scottie wouldn't have been on the team or something. Two more years of Mike being #1 to add to 88-93 + 96&97 gets him to ten. The longevity arguments against him get a lot harder with that length of prime.

[tsherkin]

I think Jordan's retirement was necessary for both him and the team to go on the 2nd 3 peat. I get the feeling he was burnt out on basketball, inventing challenges, and getting even nastier with teammates after the 1st 3 peat. Could he have made it a 4 peat? Quite possibly, but I'd guess it wears out before the 6th ring and he ends up with only 5 titles instead of 6 plus a far less gracious actual retirement (though possibly avoiding the whole Wizards situation).

My take, based on nothing but my general experience with toxic but successful workplace personalities (mainly lawyers fwiw).

This is roughly where I sit on the subject.

[LakerLegend]

The retirements (and missing most of his 2nd year) saved a lot of mileage on his legs so it's not a linear thing.

That and they aren't winning a title in 95 with that roster period.

Things flipped the next year when the Bulls had a star PF and the Magic didn't (Ho Grant's injury)

[MacGill]

I think 6 or 7 titles is the right number. Some points for consideration:

1. MJ's dad dying in the manner he did would've impacted the 94 season for better and worse. It'd be worse in terms of prep coming in, but better in that it might've helped heal things some between Mike and Horace. Would Horace, Scotttie, and BJ have still been motivated for breakout campagins? If not, would Horace have allowed Hakeem to get into his head in the Finals? If you can answer the 94 Horace question, I can answer whether or not they would've won, and odds are they win that one anyways because you have Jordan's age 30 season crossed with perhaps Pippen's best season.

2. Not leaving to play baseball would've been a big boost to extending Jordan's prime. No more atrophy of some of those important leg muscle groups that never fully came back. I still think he would've figured out his post offense as decline set in.

3. Odds are they lose one of 94 or 95. If your argument is that MJ lost his motivation to play in 93, well he likely gets that back once he loses. The guy was maniacal. If they lose in 94, then you get pisssed off MJ tearing up the league in 95 and Krause probably addresses their front court issue a year earlier.

4. He probably doesn't win in 99. He was already starting down the slippery slope in 98, and the jam packed lockout schedule with many 4 in 5 nights would've worn him down. Mike wouldn't have taken games off.

Conclusion: Bulls win one of 94 or 95 (likely 94) and still win 96 and 97 as they were incredibly dominant, but might lose in 98 due to additional wear and tear, no breaks, etc., and he doesn't win after that unless he joins the Spurs or something.

Edit: conclusion #2 is we lost 2 years of MJ being the best player in the L. Even if he loses once in 94/95 and in 98 leaving him with six, it's still additive in terms of his career discussion and place in history. I think people often make the mistake of remembering what Mike looked like in 95, and then extrapolating that across 94&95 in this hypothetical. No. It was still Jordan's prime. He would've been the favourite every year unless you're suggesting Scottie wouldn't have been on the team or something. Two more years of Mike being #1 to add to 88-93 + 96&97 gets him to ten. The longevity arguments against him get a lot harder with that length of prime.

Yup - I posted earlier, but since this good post is up I will add more context here.

I think some look at it as it would have been a bleamish on MJ if he ever lost. Part of the current pro-argument is 6-0 in the finals with no game 7's, however, we all evaluate the players performance throughout the series. If MJ went 6-1 or 7-2, unless his performance reflected poor quality of play, and we're talking about prime/peak MJ here.

We'd see AS selections, first teams and most likely leading the league in scoring just to name a few. The fact that he left the game twice and came back able to play as he did is incredible in my opinion. Especially understanding that while MJ worked hard, he also liked to enjoy himself off the court as well. No where close to Rodman level, but not on Kobe's work ethic either, as MJ was just that gifted.

I always wonder, what would get more clout; two 3-peats, or a 4-peat with a potential 2-peat and maybe a single etc.

The point I really enjoyed from this post was the combination of MJ/Pip at their best together without Pip going through the loss of MJ. This point seems to get swept under the rug at times as they were the core throughout all 6 titles. Even if they get beat in the finals, you could be looking at a full decade of almost this team playing in them and as history has shown without any MJ poor performances, or only by comparing to himself at his best.

Leaving the sport twice and returning after long lay-offs is extremely difficult regardless of how great of an athlete you are. MJ did this knowing the odds but didn't care and second 3-peat MJ dominated once returned. Regardless if you think he was too burned out to win a chip, regular season MJ would have crushed the league, and PS MJ would still have put up insane numbers, even with an L. With 3-peats being so rare there is no way this hurts him because we know his performances, outside of injury, would most likely have been the best on either team. He won more than enough and his missing years would only increase his GOAT status in my mind so long as they fell in typical MJ fashion.

[SilentA]

He would have a better case, yeah. He wouldn't be "my" GOAT in terms of biased criteria, but he'd have a stronger case for best "career" in that top 3 tier with Lebron and Kareem.

That said, I think his number of rings would be the same, or one more at most.

In 1994, there's no guarantee they beat the Knicks and Pacers, and I can't predict the impact of the family loss, but I'll give them that given how strong the rest of the cast performed. That's +1.

In 1995, even if they get past the Magic, they do not win 1995 against Hakeem/Drexler (who swept the Magic) without Grant/Rodman, a bunch of "who?" PFs, and Longley/Wennington/Perdue at C. There's just no way. Add possible burnout to that too.

I don't see why I'd expect them to lose in 1996 and 1997. Part of me wonders how an extended run would affect 1998, especially with how close the Pacers game was, but there's too much speculation here. I'll say he keeps this.

1999 onwards, no. They were already running on fumes in 1998 and older. I think this was covered by insiders already. Even if Pippen/Rodman stayed, I think that would have been the year they "fall". MJ could have gone to a championship contender, but was also more likely to end up in a "playoff but not championship winning team" just going by probability. Without Phil and the triangle, it's also entirely possible he goes back to his old volume scoring ways and playing more selfishly while hurting locker room culture. I'll say he doesn't win.

So he wins 91, 92, 93, 94 (debatable), 96, 97, 98 (debatable). He does not win 95 and 99, 2000, and we saw what happened with the Wizards.

I always saw 6-0 as a stupid argument rooted in flawed logic and creating an unjustified mythology around him. 7 finals wins across an 8-year stretch is clearly more impressive for me for his GOAT case, as well as if he can display good longevity in his latter years between 98 and 01. I also think people would end up being more realistic about both his strengths and his flaws, and have more respect for his teammates (i.e not having Grant/Rodman for 95).

[eminence]

He would have a better case, yeah. He wouldn't be "my" GOAT in terms of biased criteria, but he'd have a stronger case for best "career" in that top 3 tier with Lebron and Kareem.

That said, I think his number of rings would be the same, or one more at most.

In 1994, there's no guarantee they beat the Knicks and Pacers, and I can't predict the impact of the family loss, but I'll give them that given how strong the rest of the cast performed. That's +1.

In 1995, even if they get past the Magic, they do not win 1995 against Hakeem/Drexler (who swept the Magic) without Grant/Rodman, a bunch of "who?" PFs, and Longley/Wennington/Perdue at C. There's just no way. Add possible burnout to that too.

I don't see why I'd expect them to lose in 1996 and 1997. Part of me wonders how an extended run would affect 1998, especially with how close the Pacers game was, but there's too much speculation here. I'll say he keeps this.

1999 onwards, no. They were already running on fumes in 1998 and older. I think this was covered by insiders already. Even if Pippen/Rodman stayed, I think that would have been the year they "fall". MJ could have gone to a championship contender, but was also more likely to end up in a "playoff but not championship winning team" just going by probability. Without Phil and the triangle, it's also entirely possible he goes back to his old volume scoring ways and playing more selfishly while hurting locker room culture. I'll say he doesn't win.

So he wins 91, 92, 93, 94 (debatable), 96, 97, 98 (debatable). He does not win 95 and 99, 2000, and we saw what happened with the Wizards.

I always saw 6-0 as a stupid argument rooted in flawed logic and creating an unjustified mythology around him. 7 finals wins across an 8-year stretch is clearly more impressive for me for his GOAT case, as well as if he can display good longevity in his latter years between 98 and 01. I also think people would end up being more realistic about both his strengths and his flaws, and have more respect for his teammates (i.e not having Grant/Rodman for 95).

Does Drexler ask for a trade to Houston if they aren't the defending champs?