Short of some argument involving the maximum possible uncertainty bars possible (e.g. saying Pippen's highest possible uncertainty band has him competing for a top 10 peak ever), no not really.
The biggest thing people would level against Jordan in 1993 is the two-year WOWY sample, showing the team with him in 1993 vs without him in 1994. But this conveniently ignores that the *average* uncertainty on two-year WOWY is significantly more than 100%. Across all the overlapping two-year WOWY samples in this board's top 15 players, the mean uncertainty is 144%. The average uncertainty in all overlapping two-year WOWY samples in this board's top 30 players is 124%. That's the average uncertainty, not the maximum possible uncertainty, and it's based on 25 pairs of overlapping two-year WOWY samples... so a full 50 two-year WOWY samples (source:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108693994#p108693994).
And of course, this misses all of the context that changed from 1993 to 1994, which would support that Jordan's two-year WOWY would be quite uncertain (with the uncertainty pointing to Jordan being better than the two-year WOWY sample would suggest). Citing trex here (
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=107591289#p107591289), the Bulls add the following players in 1994:
-Toni Kukoc: is replacing "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."
-Steve Kerr: who definitely had a good year, and "compared to the '93 team, it's the last legs of John Paxson and Darrell Walker that he replaces........a clear upgrade."
-Bill Wennington: who returned to the NBA in 1994 and had his best year due to age, and " 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]."
... and Pippen and Grant both have their worst regular season in 1993 and a bounce back season in 1994:
trex_8063 wrote: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.
... and I haven't seen any sort of film based argument that puts the blame on their down year on 93 Jordan.
This also doesn't account for the fact that their playoffs were boosted by opposing injuries in 1994:
-"'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."
-Against 1994 Knicks, the Bulls benefited from facing a team without their starting point guard, Doc Rivers, who missed the end of the regular season and the full playoffs.
Looking at overall team results,
-In Sansterre's Top 100 teams ever by Overall (RS + PS) SRS, the 1993 Bulls are the 54th best team of all time, and Jordan posted the #1 Heliocentrism rating of all time (i.e 1993 was a massive carry job, due to the aging cast and down years from the players still in their primes). Meanwhile the 1994 Bulls are... *significantly* below the Top 100.
-In Fivethirtyeght's best teams ever by Overall ELO (pre-2016), the 1993 Bulls are the 31st best team of all time, while the 1994 Bulls are the 199th best team of all time. A pretty massive drop.
So I'm not sure any team-level two year WOWY argument against Jordan for Pippen really stands up to any actual detailed analysis.
...
And basically every stat we have favors Jordan significantly:
WOWY stats:
-Prime WOWY
-Prime WOWYR (adjusted WOWY)
-Prime GPM (another adjusted WOWY metric)
-RWOWY (another adjusted WOWY metric)
Plus minus stats:
-on/off favors Jordan
-Squared2020 RAPM favors Jordan > Pippen generally, although we do not have 1994
Box stats:
-BPM favors Jordan
-PIPM estimate favors Jordan
-RAPTOR favors Jordan
I'm not even sure how I'd begin to believe an argument for Pippen > Jordan, again unless we're really hyper-focusing on some massive uncertainty argument like "what's the 0.01th percentile worst evaluation I could make of 1993 Jordan, and the 99.99th percentile best evaluation I could make for 1994 Pippen". But that seems like a stretch.