Horace Grant's impact

[bastillon]

looking at late Grant...

-98 Grant missed 6 games during which Magic went 3-3 but in 5 of those games Penny was playing what makes this comparison pretty much useless because Penny missed most of the season and Grant played with him in 1 game together.
-99 Grant played in all 50 games.

at this point Grant was 34 years old and shouldn't be making big impact, right ?

Code: Select all

year   w/o   with

00   2-4   43-33
01   2-3   54-23
02   3-3   41-35

combined 7-10 without Grant (34W), 138-91 with Grant (49W)

Grant was playing for the Magic in 02 and 03 but he missed 03 season during which Magic's SRS dropped from 1.25 to -0.4, but the drop off was even bigger if we take their games with Grant in 02 (41-35) in which their pt differential was +2 and compare them to Magic's pt differential in 03 (+0.1) so:

with Grant 02 +2
without Grant 02 -4.2
Magic 03 +0.1

even at that point, with Grant 36 years old, he was a valuable role player.

[bastillon]

on a further note, Bulls were 11-4 without Grant in 89-93 so it's not like they needed him desperately. especially looking at their +7.1 pt differential in those games on the other hand 10 of those 15 games came in 91-93 were Bulls were simply a dominant team so it's not that suprising that prime MJ + Pippen dominated even without Grant (though opps were pretty weak after a quick look so their SRS would've been lower probably).

here's a list of those games:

Code: Select all

Sun, Apr 16, 1989
Mon, Apr 17, 1989
Thu, Jan 19, 1989
Sat, Mar 24, 1990
Wed, Nov 8, 1989
Fri, Mar 1, 1991
Sat, Mar 2, 1991
Tue, Mar 5, 1991
Tue, Jan 8, 1991
Sun, Apr 19, 1992
Fri, Mar 19, 1993
Sat, Mar 20, 1993
Fri, Mar 12, 1993
Sun, Mar 14, 1993
Mon, Feb 15, 1993

[G35]

What set him apart from those four, in my opinion, was the defensive end. All of them were excellent, but Grant covered a lot more ground, while those guys were more grinders. Horace had tremendous quickness, length and range, however. Way, way more versatile.

Could the Bulls still with them? Of course; they had the best player of all time, one of the most versatile players of all time, one of the best coaches of all time and a solid supporting cast.

But Horace was better than "good." Not only was he excellent on the defensive end and on the glass, he had the added bonus of having that money elbow jumper that fit perfectly in the triangle and complemented a player like Shaq later on.

If I had to pick a list of guys whose contributions weren't measured well in raw numbers, he would be one of them, so it doesn't surprise me that he measures out so well otherwise.

I agree with this. Horace was really good. In the '93 finals he really made Barkley work for his points (even tho Charles had a really good series) Horace was big enough to guard the oppositions C and still quick enough to rotate around the perimeter. He is like an upgraded AC Green garbage man. Doesn't have to have any plays run for him. Active around the basket. Awesome efficiency, never did more than his abilities allowed. He was the big man that the Bulls didn't need to win with.....

[GreenHat]

Bastillion I am on the same side as you (that Grant was a good player) but splitting out samples as small as 6 games when so and so was hurt doesn't really help your case much

[penbeast0]

Oh man, sorry JordansBulls . . . you are such an icon around here, I just assume it's you.

[yongaz]

Everyone Jordan played with was way more impactful than people remember or thought at the time! Most fortunate superstar ever! The stars perfectly aligned for him! Lots of players have been better than him but none were so fortunate in their teammates and coaches! No one else had the PERFECT FIT in terms of teammates! Most overrated player of all time! Let's start some more Pippen/Grant/"check out the '94 Bulls' record" topics ASAP!

Let's look past the fact that Jordan carried a larger burden offensively than virtually ANY other championship #1 player, and did so for 6 titles (no one has ever carried a larger offensive burden than MJ did for more than one title, and even for one title, only '94 Hakeem, '03 Duncan, '00 Shaq, and '72 KAJ even compare); let's also not forget that he was the best defender on his team for 3 of his 6 titles and second or third best for the other 3 titles. Never mind that, though - he's beyond overrated!

Hakeem, Grant, and Pippen - these were the true best players of the 90's.

insecurity issues ?

Jordan clearly had GOAT level impact regardless. however good Pippen/Grant may have been together, they never approached the level that they played on with Michael. but to suggest Pippen/Grant weren't high impact players is to me ridiculous. particularly because we've seen what MJ was able to do prior to their development.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1987.html

so as a matter of hard fact, 80s Bulls were nowhere near 90s Bulls... and yet prime MJ played on both teams. two things might have happened. either MJ improved so much or his supporting cast got that much better. if we assume that MJ 87 = MJ 92 and the difference between Bulls 87 and Bulls 92 was about 9 SRS, then it's becoming pretty clear to me that MJ got some serious help from his teammates. whenever you have a team as dominant as Bulls, you need several factors coming together and perfect fit. you're just being delusional if you think MJ was doing everything by himself.

LIES. You must be a Kobe homer.

[Shot Clock]

The OP's response to similar conclusions of Shaq's impact which is much less controversial

Shaq's replacement was Mark Madsen. duh, great impact.

But in this case we ignore the fact that Orlando had a steaming pile of crap for PF's except for Grant. Same as Chicago. Grant was very good and critical to their success but his main importance was due to the fact that Chicago didn't have much inside except for Cartwright.