Was Jordan's supporting cast in 1997-98 weak?

[magicman1978]

They definitely weren't weak, but were also a good example of how players can excel in specific roles/systems. The whole was more than the sum of its parts. I think they all had significant drop offs the next year - just looking at some numbers now:

Pippen - 5bpm to 2.5bpm despite being healthier
Kukoc - 3.3bpm to 3bpm (53% TS down to 49%TS)
Rodman - -0.3bpm to -2.0 but couldn't keep it together and only played 23 games
Longley - -0.9bpm to -2.5bpm
Harper - 1.9bpm to 1.4bpm (50% TS to 45%TS)
Kerr - 1.1bpm to -0.5bpm
Burrell - 2.5bpm to 0.7bpm

[Owly]

They definitely weren't weak, but were also a good example of how players can excel in specific roles/systems. The whole was more than the sum of its parts. I think they all had significant drop offs the next year - just looking at some numbers now:

Pippen - 5bpm to 2.5bpm despite being healthier
Kukoc - 3.3bpm to 3bpm (53% TS down to 49%TS)
Rodman - -0.3bpm to -2.0 but couldn't keep it together and only played 23 games
Longley - -0.9bpm to -2.5bpm
Harper - 1.9bpm to 1.4bpm (50% TS to 45%TS)
Kerr - 1.1bpm to -0.5bpm
Burrell - 2.5bpm to 0.7bpm

Don't disagree with the sentiment but don't agree that all those cited had "significant drop offs". Kukoc and Harper are close to the same level in the overall metric cited and TS% regards only one aspect of the game and one which was, in the lockout season, a little deflated anyway. So I think over 1% of the drop is artificial, and then both players significantly up their usage. And the real terms drop is baked into the overall metric. Add in that both - but especially Harper - are at an age where the average player will be declining (and Harper seemed to miss some games through injury) and I'd suggest given full context they held up pretty well.

One could investigate further context in general, I kinda liked Burrell but he was probably due some regression to the mean and his injury health probably regressed to his career mean too (he generally didn't seem to remain too healthy is my recollection) ... but the underlying idea is sound.

[TheLand13]

Doesn't really matter if they weren't any better before injuries, you can't just disregard them entirely and act like they weren't a factor.

If they weren't better before, then they weren't a factor in the 45-win gap. If you're concerned about the injuries, then just use the pre-injury data:

While most teams fall off after losing a superstar, none imploded like the Lebron-less Cavs; in 21 games with a similar group of players, they played at an anemic 18-win pace (-8.9 SRS) before injuries ravaged their lineup.

They were on an 18-win pace before the injuries. They played 18-win ball after the injuries, and 18-win ball for the season as a whole. Use whichever sample you want, the drop doesn't change. If anything, it just indicates that the injured players were non-factors in a lebron-less context.[/quote]

You're going to have to do better than this. You just said yourself that a 29 game sample size isn't big enough to give a proper estimate of just where the team was going to be at the end of the season before injuries impacted them. Not to mention, the Cavaliers faced a lot of really strong teams starting out, which is one of the reasons why they struggled so much.

You're really going to tell me that not having Varejao for half the season wasn't a factor in them being so terrible? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.

I'm open to the idea that an extra center could have helped a weaker/shallower team by allowing for some positional flexibility, but Shaq wasn't a good rim protector in 2010. He was actually a liability on defense, so I don't know how much of an improvement over-the-hill Shaq offers.

None of this is incorrect, but again, the issues that it presented came in how Cleveland had to play going forward. Even if Shaq still leaves, just having Z around at least would have allowed Varejao to continue to play at his natural position.

It's "almost" an oxymoron because rim-protection is typically a lot more important than any other type of defense for a big man. If he was "terrible" at it, it's hard to see him being "very good" defensively. Perhaps he was a situational postive when paired with an all-time free safety who could also function as a primary paint protector, but that's not exactly a common combination of skills to have in a teammate. I'd imagine in most situations he's neutral at best, and for what it's worth, in the non-lebron season after, his health seemingly made no difference for the cavs.

Even for a PF, being a outright bad rim protector is a serious weakness.

And yet despite Varejao being terrible at it, as I pointed out before, he still was so good defensively that he made all defensive team in 2010. I don't really know what else to tell you, nor am I sure what your point is here. Are you trying to imply that Varejao actually WAS a good rim protector? Or that he wasn't a good defender? Because in both cases, you're wrong.

[Owly]

Jesus Christ. 09 Cavs supporting cast being comparable to 98 Bulls given Scottie missing half the year, Rodman going off the deep end, etc., is not that outlandish of a take. Cavs were good, and they did have depth, just not good depth behind Lebron. That team had an abundance of size, defense, and shooting which historically have been the key ingredients to his success. They lacked another high end talent.

The discord in this place is beyond toxic. Some of you guys seriously need to look in the mirror.

This isn't a matter of being toxic. The 09 Cavs do not compare to the 98 Bulls in regards to the supporting casts. It's not even close.

It is totally closea. 1998 Bulls have crap for offensive support beyond Pippen and Kukoc they have nobody that can create their own shot or create for anybody else. The only other good offensive player is Kerr who unlike the rest of the Bulls can knock down an open shot if somebody creates the open shot for him.

2009 Cavs being a bad supporting cast is a myth.

This seems to confuse offense and scoring. The Bulls shooting from the field (efg%) was 19th of 29. Their FTA/FG rank is worse (21st). They weren't creating good shots. But they did grab a lot of offensive rebounds (2nd) and avoid turnovers (4th) and so were above average on O. Rodman's impact numbers for the year suggest he was more helpful on offense than D. Not that there aren't significant warts to his offensive game but if his headspace wasn't in the San Antonio zone, my impression off the data, in that particular context he was a valuable offensive player. And two good secondary creators after your top star ... otoh isn't that pretty good?

On Cavs I would say that depends on what the bar is. It's not a bad cast versus an average team. But looking at how poorly they fared with LeBron off it's seemingly a team dependent upon him. Now there's noise in that type of data so he might play more with other positive players ... and them falling off without him doesn't necessarily mean players aren't helpful with him in similar contexts ... still I think it does give some indication as to what is driving this team and that this is not such a talented team after LeBron.

[magicman1978]

They definitely weren't weak, but were also a good example of how players can excel in specific roles/systems. The whole was more than the sum of its parts. I think they all had significant drop offs the next year - just looking at some numbers now:

Pippen - 5bpm to 2.5bpm despite being healthier
Kukoc - 3.3bpm to 3bpm (53% TS down to 49%TS)
Rodman - -0.3bpm to -2.0 but couldn't keep it together and only played 23 games
Longley - -0.9bpm to -2.5bpm
Harper - 1.9bpm to 1.4bpm (50% TS to 45%TS)
Kerr - 1.1bpm to -0.5bpm
Burrell - 2.5bpm to 0.7bpm

Don't disagree with the sentiment but don't agree that all those cited had "significant drop offs". Kukoc and Harper are close to the same level in the overall metric cited and TS% regards only one aspect of the game and one which was, in the lockout season, a little deflated anyway. So I think over 1% of the drop is artificial, and then both players significantly up their usage. And the real terms drop is baked into the overall metric. Add in that both - but especially Harper - are at an age where the average player will be declining (and Harper seemed to miss some games through injury) and I'd suggest given full context they held up pretty well.

One could investigate further context in general, I kinda liked Burrell but he was probably due some regression to the mean and his injury health probably regressed to his career mean too (he generally didn't seem to remain too healthy is my recollection) ... but the underlying idea is sound.

Yeah, I made that statement before I really checked the numbers and didn't update it. We didn't have these "advanced" metrics at the time so I just have a memory of Kukoc and Harper struggling in 99 based on the standard stats, but I guess it wasn't quite as bad as I initially thought. I think Scottie ended up being a bit better in Portland as well - where he seemed to fit better than he did in Houston.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Bulls without Jordan vs Cavs without LeBron, who wins?

This game needs to be played without the 3 point shot because with the 3 point shot the Cavvs win to easily.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Could the combined 2009 Cavs and 1998 Bulls players minus LeBron and Jordan beat the 1979 Supersonics if the game was played without a 3 point shot?

[Cavsfansince84]

Cast strength is really relative to league strength as well and having strong systems can make a huge difference. The Bulls bench for instance wasn't great but by the numbers(actual +/-) they may have been the strongest bench in the league in those 96-98 years because they all understood how to run Phil's system and executed it well. Stuff like that gets overlooked imo. Teams aren't just a collection of talent.

[Taj FTW]

I don't know that I'd call it a "weak" cast. That said, Pip missed half the regular season (44 GP), Rodman missed a chunk of the season (66 GP), Longley (58) and Kerr (50) were out for chunks of the season. Rodman was especially crap on O in the playoffs, and Pippen was not good on O in the ECFs or the Finals (but especially against the Pacers). Both were still all-league defenders, though, and of course Rodman was a great rebounder. Team D, spacing, and everyone was there come the playoffs.

Hard to really envision calling the 98 Bulls "weak," particularly league-relative.

Where did you get this from? I'm seeing that he played 80 games.

[OhayoKD]

If they weren't better before, then they weren't a factor in the 45-win gap. If you're concerned about the injuries, then just use the pre-injury data:

They were on an 18-win pace before the injuries. They played 18-win ball after the injuries, and 18-win ball for the season as a whole. Use whichever sample you want, the drop doesn't change. If anything, it just indicates that the injured players were non-factors in a lebron-less context.

You're going to have to do better than this. You just said yourself that a 29 game sample size isn't big enough to give a proper estimate

I said no such thing. SRS for 20 full games in a season is one of the bigger data samples you can get. You're going to have to do better than ignoring evidence that challenges your prior after trying to use that same type of evidence to support it. The healthy bron-less cavs were an 18-win team by record and point differential. Claiming they were actually better than that on the basis of games without the players you say made a difference is very much grasping for straws.

I'm open to the idea that an extra center could have helped a weaker/shallower team by allowing for some positional flexibility, but Shaq wasn't a good rim protector in 2010. He was actually a liability on defense, so I don't know how much of an improvement over-the-hill Shaq offers.

None of this is incorrect, but again, the issues that it presented came in how Cleveland had to play going forward. Even if Shaq still leaves, just having Z around at least would have allowed Varejao to continue to play at his natural position.

Sure.

It's "almost" an oxymoron because rim-protection is typically a lot more important than any other type of defense for a big man. If he was "terrible" at it, it's hard to see him being "very good" defensively. Perhaps he was a situational postive when paired with an all-time free safety who could also function as a primary paint protector, but that's not exactly a common combination of skills to have in a teammate. I'd imagine in most situations he's neutral at best, and for what it's worth, in the non-lebron season after, his health seemingly made no difference for the cavs.

Even for a PF, being a outright bad rim protector is a serious weakness.

And yet despite Varejao being terrible at it, as I pointed out before, he still was so good defensively that he made all defensive team in 2010.

And?

The cavs were bad defensively without their sf during the years in question and terrible without the year after. Since when was award voting more important than what actually happens. You'll need to do better than award voting. Neither the holistic stuff, or even the history of big-man d supports a "terrible rim protector" big being a "very good" defender

[tsherkin]

I don't know that I'd call it a "weak" cast. That said, Pip missed half the regular season (44 GP), Rodman missed a chunk of the season (66 GP), Longley (58) and Kerr (50) were out for chunks of the season. Rodman was especially crap on O in the playoffs, and Pippen was not good on O in the ECFs or the Finals (but especially against the Pacers). Both were still all-league defenders, though, and of course Rodman was a great rebounder. Team D, spacing, and everyone was there come the playoffs.

Hard to really envision calling the 98 Bulls "weak," particularly league-relative.

Where did you get this from? I'm seeing that he played 80 games.

It's because I'm illiterate, and was looking at games started, not games played.

[TheLand13]

I said no such thing. SRS for 20 full games in a season is one of the bigger data samples you can get. You're going to have to do better than ignoring evidence that challenges your prior after trying to use that same type of evidence to support it. The healthy bron-less cavs were an 18-win team by record and point differential. Claiming they were actually better than that on the basis of games without the players you say made a difference is very much grasping for straws.

Nothing you gave me challenges the notion that injuries didn't have an impact on the Cavaliers that season. Unless you have sufficient data suggesting that Cleveland would have lost those games regardless (and right now you don't), you have nothing that disproves what I said to be incorrect.

The cavs were bad defensively without their sf during the years in question and terrible without the year after. Since when was award voting more important than what actually happens. You'll need to do better than award voting. Neither the holistic stuff, or even the history of big-man d supports a "terrible rim protector" big being a "very good" defender

I don't need to do better than that at all. A bad defensive player doesn't get voted into all defensive team. It just doesn't happen. I understand that these are just that... awards, but they're still earned to an extent. I've gone on record in the past stating that I didn't think Varejao actually deserved the award, but he still got it for a reason. He was still at least impactful enough at that end to warrant consideration, and as I've mentioned before, there were a lot of things that he was legitimately great at defensively, hell you could even go beyond that and say he was fantastic.

I don't really know what else to tell you other than that Varejao was a great defender. If you think lacking rim protection means he quite literally can't be a good defender, then it's pretty clear I'm wasting my time here.

[OhayoKD]

Nothing you gave me challenges the notion that injuries didn't have an impact on the Cavaliers that season. Unless you have sufficient data suggesting that Cleveland would have lost those games regardless (and right now you don't).

Unless you can explain why you think the sample with the players in question wasn't representative, then yeah, the cavs being 18-win with the roster you're saying they were more than 18-wins with matters.

I'm not sure what type of "suffecient" data you're looking for, because a large sample with a team playing the players you're trying to assess is about as good as you can get, lest you plan on rooting your takes in reality as opposed to imagination

I don't need to do better than that at all.

Sorry fam. "Here's someone's opinion" usually doesn't cut it here. Assuming "good defender" means "makes defense better" as opposed to "wins award voting", that basically no "terrible rim protecting" big has successfully improved their defenses significantly is alot more indicative than you assuming that award voting is accurate.

[TheLand13]

Unless you can explain why you think the sample with the players in question wasn't representative, then yeah, the cavs being 18-win with the roster you're saying they were more than 18-wins with matters.

Well for one thing, as I literally just pointed out before, their second half of the season schedule was easier than the first half. This isn't really hard to comprehend. They face more bottom tier teams on a regular basis, if they're at full strength, it's very likely they win more games. I don't know what part of this you aren't comprehending.

I'm not sure what type of "suffecient" data you're looking for, because a large sample with a team playing the players you're trying to assess is about as good as you can get, lest you plan on rooting your takes in reality as opposed to imagination

How about the kind that literally disproves what I just said, or the kind that shows ANY season where any team that's on a certain win pace after 29 games actually keeps up with said pace while maintaining full strength? That would have been a start, but you've been given multiple chances to do so and you haven't done it yet. So it's clear to me you don't plan on it.

Sorry fam. "Here's someone's opinion" usually doesn't cut it here.

Literally what you've been doing this entire time but okay.

Assuming "good defender" means "makes defense better" as opposed to "wins award voting", that basically no "terrible rim protecting" big has successfully improved their defenses significantly is alot more indicative than you assuming that award voting is accurate.

Who said Varejao didn't improve the Cavaliers defense? I certainly hope you aren't trying to imply that. And if that's the case, there's no point in continuing this with you. Varejao absolutely made Cleveland better defensively. So far the only retort you've offered against that is that the Cavaliers were much worse when LeBron sat, which is a silly argument because all it proves is that LeBron was just that good defensively. It doesn't in anyway demonstrate that Varejao didn't make them better, just that he wasn't on LeBron's level. There's a reason I didn't address it the first time.

Like I said, Varejao was much better suited playing PF. He had no business playing center and just because he lacked the physical tools to fulfill the role that was required of him at the time doesn't mean he wasn't, at the very least, a very good defender. I'm not sure why I'm continuing to waste my time arguing with someone who doesn't seem to understand that, as it's become pretty clear at this point that you're going entirely off data and didn't watch at the time, but I'm happy with the fact that this is another future reference point for why going off of nothing but numbers is incredibly flawed and why it can be a narrow minded way of thinking.

So thanks for that I guess? But unless you can offer something more substantial than what you've been giving me here, there's no point in continuing this.

[OhayoKD]

Well for one thing, as I literally just pointed out before, their second half of the season schedule was easier than the first half. This isn't really hard to comprehend. They face more bottom tier teams on a regular basis, if they're at full strength, it's very likely they win more games. I don't know what part of this you aren't comprehending.

SRS adjusts for opponent strength. Which is why I used that instead of record. Maybe read what you're responding to?

as it's become pretty clear at this point that you're going entirely off data and didn't watch at the time

Thinking a big who can't protect the rim is good at defense makes clear you don't watch basketball at all actually.

JK

But a pretty good way to make people think you don't know anything is to try and accusing others of not watching the game after you fail to back up a half-baked take. People whose eyetests are supported by reality have better eyetests than those whose aren't(like you). Good "man defense" doesn't neccesarily make a big a very good defender. That's hoops 101.

You should probably get the basics right before you try flexing your eyetest. "I say so" isn't how you justify a conclusion and generally, the only people who use "i say so" are people who don't really understand the game.

Feel free to provide proof the cavs were magically destined to improve from that 18-win start though. Favoring make-believe reality over actual reality doesn't mean you watched the games

[OdomFan]

I wouldn't say weak, but that Bulls core were definitely slowing down some compared to 1996 and even 97. Still very much the Bulls with a very credible chance at winning it all which they did, but that was the difference. The league was not weak what so ever like some on here are trying to make it out to be. There a ton of great talent, and rosters all around with good talent.

Just no super teams like many on here like to see so thats why people want to label it weak. I call that logic itself weak.

[Cavsfansince84]

I wouldn't say weak, but that Bulls core were definitely slowing down some compared to 1996 and even 97. Still very much the Bulls with a very credible chance at winning it all which they did, but that was the difference. The league was not weak what so ever like some on here are trying to make it out to be. There a ton of great talent, and rosters all around with good talent.

Just no super teams like many on here like to see so thats why people want to label it weak. I call that logic itself weak.

imo it was. The problem is we look at win totals and assume a team winning 62 games in 1998 was just as good as a team that was winning 62 in 92. Its natural I think to do that but if you look at the top 10 players in 98 they are almost identical to the to the top 10 from 92 except that, they are just older versions of them and minus a lot of guys in that 8-15 range who should have been in their primes but fell off due to injuries such as Mullin, Price, KJ, Daugherty, LJ, Robinson, Ewing and so forth. This is why I think the late 90's was weak.

[Taj FTW]

I wouldn't say weak, but that Bulls core were definitely slowing down some compared to 1996 and even 97. Still very much the Bulls with a very credible chance at winning it all which they did, but that was the difference. The league was not weak what so ever like some on here are trying to make it out to be. There a ton of great talent, and rosters all around with good talent.

Just no super teams like many on here like to see so thats why people want to label it weak. I call that logic itself weak.

There were no super teams due to the lack of talent. The league was absolutely weak. None of the teams the Bulls went through in the east were particularly impressive. Did you see the Knicks team that made the finals the next year? Or the Pacers the following year? LOL

[OhayoKD]

I wouldn't say weak, but that Bulls core were definitely slowing down some compared to 1996 and even 97. Still very much the Bulls with a very credible chance at winning it all which they did, but that was the difference. The league was not weak what so ever like some on here are trying to make it out to be. There a ton of great talent, and rosters all around with good talent.

Just no super teams like many on here like to see so thats why people want to label it weak. I call that logic itself weak.

There were no super teams due to the lack of talent. The league was absolutely weak. None of the teams the Bulls went through in the east were particularly impressive. Did you see the Knicks team that made the finals the next year? Or the Pacers the following year? LOL

Unless we define "superteam" as "signed co-stars via trade or free-agency instead of the draft", the Bulls clearly qualify. Two superstars, GOAT coach candidate(with a system that turned a non-contender into title-worthy over the course of a season) 58-wins without best player(and playoff elevation). 53-win pace without best and third best player(with the second best player demanding a trade) prior to the 3rd best player being replaced with an upgrade.

Would also say stockon-malone probably count by how the term is traditionally defined along with Hakeem-Barkley and Penny/Shaq. Bulls were clearly a step ahead though.

Not that any of this really is a commemtary on league strength, but "no superteams" seems off

[Taj FTW]

I wouldn't say weak, but that Bulls core were definitely slowing down some compared to 1996 and even 97. Still very much the Bulls with a very credible chance at winning it all which they did, but that was the difference. The league was not weak what so ever like some on here are trying to make it out to be. There a ton of great talent, and rosters all around with good talent.

Just no super teams like many on here like to see so thats why people want to label it weak. I call that logic itself weak.

There were no super teams due to the lack of talent. The league was absolutely weak. None of the teams the Bulls went through in the east were particularly impressive. Did you see the Knicks team that made the finals the next year? Or the Pacers the following year? LOL

Unless we define "superteam" as "signed co-stars via trade or free-agency instead of the draft", the Bulls clearly qualify. Two superstars, GOAT coach candidate(with a system that turned a non-contender into title-worthy over the course of a season) 58-wins without best player(and playoff elevation). 53-win pace without best and third best player(with the second best player demanding a trade) prior to the 3rd best player being replaced with an upgrade.

Would also say stockon-malone probably count by how the term is traditionally defined along with Hakeem-Barkley and Penny/Shaq. Bulls were clearly a step ahead though.

Not that any of this really is a commemtary on league strength, but "no superteams" seems off

A superteam is a term used to describe a team in a manner that denigrates the legacy of one of the players on the team. It's beyond stupid. For some reason people are OK with GMs creating "superteams" and trading players whether they like it or not, but when a player chooses where he wants to play and joins a good team, it's a bad thing apparently. It's honestly just a **** argument people use when they hate a player for the most part.