1990-1992 Michael Jordan Shot Chart

[Gregoire]

Did you count assisted/unassisted baskets?

[Dipper 13]

Did you count assisted/unassisted baskets?

No, but if we assume all of the Spot Up (Jumper), Cut, & Off Screen plays were assisted, then the percentage is at roughly at 23%. In addition to some Transition plays, a good number his Post Up plays were also assisted when he would get the ball in the post and go directly into his shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udz0zi0upJg#t=3m29s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmjUpA3UVlA#t=14m7s

[ShotCreator]

A +44.8 net. That simply cannot be true, can it?

[olive_triangurl]

Nice work, I've always been impressed with Jordan's quick and decisive moves and decision making that you alluded to. Nice to see these % as well. I never understood why some act like MJ just learned to shoot during the 2nd 3peat. As soon as Phil came in, he was relying on his mid to outside shot a ton, and as these numbers show, shooting theme extremely well.

Also earlier in his career, his 63 point playoff record vs Boston for example was mostly jump-shots, and his career-high 69 vs Cleveland was mostly jump-shots.

[TheGOATRises007]

Late bump, but I just saw these stats from another thread.

Some are insane, but that net rating can't be true right?

[Colbinii]

Late bump, but I just saw these stats from another thread.

Some are insane, but that net rating can't be true right?

Net rating is already wonky when professionals do it so I dont put much stock in Jordan's net rating.

1995 is a much closer representation of his cast than whatever number this guy got.

[TheGOATRises007]

Late bump, but I just saw these stats from another thread.

Some are insane, but that net rating can't be true right?

Net rating is already wonky when professionals do it so I dont put much stock in Jordan's net rating.

1995 is a much closer representation of his cast than whatever number this guy got.

What was the net rating in 1995?

I don't think Jordan had the best supporting cast for a superstar ever, but the net numbers paint it out that he had the WORST cast of all time which I find ludicrous

[Colbinii]

Late bump, but I just saw these stats from another thread.

Some are insane, but that net rating can't be true right?

Net rating is already wonky when professionals do it so I dont put much stock in Jordan's net rating.

1995 is a much closer representation of his cast than whatever number this guy got.

What was the net rating in 1995?

I don't think Jordan had the best supporting cast for a superstar ever, but the net numbers paint it out that he had the WORST cast of all time which I find ludicrous

Well in 1995 the Bulls were 13-4 with Jordan and 34-31 without him.In 1994 the Bulls were 55-27 without Jordan for the entire season.

That puts the bulls at 88-58 without Jordan, 13-4 with Jordan.

I quickly estimated the SRS for 1995
without Jordan and even though they were 34-31 the SRS was right around the previous seasons SRS of a 55-27 which was 2.87 (Perhaps a bit higher than this, actually. Their MOV was 4.76, 3 more home games than road games) However, 17 games of Jordan moved them from say a 3 or 3.5 SRS team to a 4.3 SRS team, which is quite a big lift, but it goes to show you that those Bulls teams had a lot of decent players but Pippen couldn't provide the scoring lift the team needed.

[Bel]

Jordan's 3 best years having an outlier clutch time rating is not that surprising given the Bull's tactics. Phil Jackson would rest Jordan at the start of every 4th quarter, and then basically turn the offense over to him when he came back in partway through. So its natural that other stars who didn't have this type of setup are going to fare worse, since that tactic is basically tailor made for what this clutch stat is measuring. I suspect this is why Dipper used 90-92 as the peak years instead of 89-91, as Jordan was extremely impactful on court in the 89 playoffs, but he wouldn't have had that setup under Doug Collins. I don't know comparisons off the top of my head, but the man defense % may be more illuminating here.

Its not that the 90-92 Bulls were the worst team ever in the clutch, it may just look that way because of how they played. Under the triangle for 3 1/2 quarters of the game, Jordan sacrificed and everyone ate. When they just turned the ball over to Jordan in some games at the end, the other teammates are mostly there for running around and team defense. There might be player-specific things too: for example, Bill Cartwright had limited stamina and mobility by this time, so he was mostly used as an offensive option early on in the game and then ignored later on. So while he would provide impact in keeping the score close, it just wouldn't be much at the end of the game. It also fits my intuition from watching a bunch of these Bull's games recently. Just to give two obvious examples off the top of my head: in g6 of the 1993 finals, Jordan scored all of the Bull's (9) 4th quarter points up until Paxson's heartbreaking end game 3. At the end of g6 in 1998, Jordan basically did almost everything positive. Neither of those were in the 3 years selected here.

The 1.5 Jordan-less seasons are very revealing in general (thanks for the 95 SRS calc btw Colbinii), but I'm not sure how relevant they are to his 90-92 peak impact. 95 Jordan just wasn't anywhere near his peak self with all that rust and age (93 Jordan was already a significant dropoff at times), and I suspect at least some of that 13-4 turnaround is due to just a general morale boost and excitement rather than actual on-court impact. Jordan was awfully inconsistent in 95.

[bledredwine]

This makes sense. Scottie said that Mike was so clutch that if the Bulls were within 8 heading into the 4th, he knew they'd win the game.

Anyway, OP is amazing.

[eminence]

A +44.8 net. That simply cannot be true, can it?

Nah, it's almost assuredly not. The +18 On I could believe. The -26 off is complete bollocks. Whether this is due to poor sampling or what I don't know.

[eminence]

Nah, it's almost assuredly not. The +18 On I could believe. The -26 off is complete bollocks. Whether this is due to poor sampling or what I don't know.

In a super simplified calc I did it would take approximately a -10 Off (paired with a +18 On) for the Bulls to have generated the actual MOV they did over the sampled period. Still an absolutely ridiculous on/off, but at the top of what we've seen, not several deviations outside of anything we've ever seen.

[eminence]

The Clutch Net Rating also seems meaningfully off, as I'd expect +48.8 to generate a better record than 44-15 (74.6%). Here's the league leaders in RS clutch net rating and their record each year from '97 to present and the '90-'92 Bulls profiled here. Stats from nba.com



Bulls are the dot to the far right. Didn't bother to convert from /48 to /100, but that'd push their dot a little bit further right (just a bit past 50 if I'm remembering my 90's paces correctly).

Edit: I've continued to look at this a bit more, and while I still have strong doubts, this one is within the realm of possibility (the 18 Grizzlies underperformed their clutch net rating to a similar level, -5.4 Net, but only 29% win rate). It would be the biggest underperformance in terms of wins of elite Net rating teams by a fair margin.

[LA Bird]

There is no way that +45 on/off net rating is remotely accurate.

1. Dipper had similarly high on/off estimates for Barkley (+36.3) and Hakeem (+34.5) but those estimates were disproven with Harvey Pollack's full season data.

Barkley net on/off
1987: +7.9
1988: +2.7
1989: +11.0
1990: +8.3
1991: +8.8
1992: +6.0
1993: ?
1994: +6.8
1995: +6.8
1996: +7.8

Hakeem net on/off
1994: +14.5
1995: +9.0
1996: +10.3

In none of the 12 full seasons did they come anywhere near the +35 on/off estimate over the same period.

2. There has only been a handful of +20 on/off net seasons in the last 25 years, none above +25. A +35 or + 45 on/off was never realistic in the first place, especially not by 3 players at the same time in just the few seasons prior. This was most likely just a calculation error somewhere in Dipper's spreadsheet which was repeated when he plugged in new numbers for different players.

[Bel]

Slight correction: Dipper added in a 1990-92 playoffs only comparison on page 3 here: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1286698&start=44 . This is more accurate, as Jordan's (selected) regular season games posted online are definitely subject to highlight bias. The +48 number comes from those highlight bias RS games and all playoff games in 90-92. So that gives clutch info of: Plus/Minus Total: +87 / Plus/Minus Per 48: +42.2 / Win Percentage: 70.8%. Unfortunately I don't think Dipper updated the man defense to playoffs only.

Is there any way to benchmark Jordan's playoff per 48 stats (http://i.imgur.com/pXUCEnY.png) to modern players clutch stats and their net rating to get kind of a rough estimate? Obviously this is box score only and thus limited, but it might give a ballpark idea of how extreme his net rating could really be?

Another point: how much data actually is there for the Jordan-off time in the playoffs? I can't imagine Jordan ever being on the bench in a close game in the last 5 minutes in the playoffs. What kind of off-time sample size does there need to be for it to be semi-reliable?

Lastly, how does Jordan's career clutch playoff +/- by Dipper (from this thread viewtopic.php?t=1297293) match up? He records it as Plus/Minus Total: +198 / Plus/Minus Per 48: +23.3. Which, factoring out the outlier 90-92 years, would leave the remaining seasons at Plus/Minus Total: +111 / Plus/Minus Per 48: +17.2, a much more realistic number. He says he got 97/98 data from NBA.com, which if I looked in the right place, comes out as (per 48): 97: +/- 35.6 and 98: +/- 14.1. For reference, Pippen is slightly higher in 97 and slightly lower in 98. Not totally sure what conclusions to judge.

[RCM88x]

Guess the only thing we can do now is watch all the games together and calculate it ourselves.

[fisentke545]

Banned for spam - CF