Jordan and Pippen Plus/Minus Numbers in the 90s

[MrVorp]

Back to our regularly scheduled program. Some Scottie Pippen plus-minus numbers from the box score era: https://squared2020.com/2023/12/07/some-scottie-pippen-historical-plus-minus-numbers/

You read my mind. I was going to ask you to post Pippen's numbers.

Regarding the MJ logs you posted the other night...

We have 63 Jordan games for 92-93 which is ~80% of his season of 78 games.

His 1993 numbers look very good. The team is +489 with him and -75 without him.

1992-93 Net Rating:

ON: +9.5
OFF: -9.9
ON-OFF: +19.4

We also have 78 Jordan games for 95-96 which is ~95% of his season of 82 games.

His 1996 numbers are obviously great. The team is +943 with him and +29 without him.

1995-96 Net Rating:

ON: +16.2
OFF: +2.2
ON-OFF: +14.0

The only thing I'd caution about with ratings here is that there are a handful of possessions that are double-counted, as substitutions can happen mid-possession due to dead balls with no transfer of possession. It happens on average ~4 times a game for each team. So if you get a weird Rating for a team in the OFF stage, that may be a symptom of a non-traditional substitution pattern.

But yeah... His 93 season is bonkers as far as differential goes. Even watching almost every game from that season back-to-back-to-back, it's crazy how the team goes into another level when he comes back onto the court. It wasn't as crazy in the 1996 season.

By double-counting do you mean you log a possession as occurring for the group of players before the dead ball substitution and another one for the new group of players after the substitution once the ball has changed teams? If so, I imagine that you assign the points, if any, to the group of players that were on the court when they occurred and assign zero points to the other group?

[Djoker]

Well you have the exact possession count off the court. I just estimated.

What are your off ratings if you calculated them?

The 96 team was just so strong. The 93 team was really lacking by comparison looking beyond the top 4-5 guys.

Argh, I do have them, but I'd have to get back to where I have the data available and write a script for that.

But you're right, the 93 team was much more lacking than the 96 team in terms of teammate strength. That said, Scott Williams did a serviceable job as the team's sixth man in 93. Bill was already starting to fade into the end of his career and had a good game every so often. Williams was such as "you never know what you're going to get." At one point in February/March, the team kept rotating Perdue, King, and Williams as the sixth man. Stacey King had a couple really good games late in the season. If I recall correctly, Perdue had one monster game as far as points scored and disrupting the opponent on defense. But nothing was consistent for those three.

BJ's shooting was a pleasant surprise for the 93 season. His eFG+ took a big jump that season as he increased his 3PT volume by ~10% over expectation (expected 115 attempts, took 139) and maintained it at 45%. Read that as he didn't have as many open jumpers as previous seasons as a bench player and started getting targeted on defensive rotations (this put more strain on Horace Grant as a midrange shooter), but maintained his FG%. That's impressive.


The 96 team was much tougher. They had 7 solid guys instead of 5. Wennington was a bit of struggle with that team, but could be viewed as on-par with Will Perdue/Stacey King of 93.

I watched some 93 Bulls games recently and just had a gut feeling that everyone on the team except Jordan, Pippen, Grant and BJ was a net negative. They would have their moments but as you said about the big men trio, very inconsistent.

Good point on BJ who became a very good shooter for them. And it's funny but I hardly hear anyone talk about BJ leaving the Bulls in 1995 just as Rodman came. It's almost like he didn't exist.

As lessthanjake said, we really appreciate your work here.

[Squared2020]

.

[OhayoKD]

Kudos to you for adding so much to the data we have! As I noted above, I didn’t realize you’ve now done so much more on 1992-1993 than you had done even just a few months ago. Very time-intensive work I’m sure, so I really appreciate it. And, given some of what I’ve seen in this thread, I also want to emphasize that I think there’s a lot of people who greatly appreciate your work (including me), and that the minority of deeply unpleasant people you’ve encountered here probably discourage engaging in the forums at all, but they definitely do not represent most people’s attitude to your fantastic (and extremely time-intensive) contributions.

Thanks, I appreciate that. It's just one bad actor so far. And even then, he's moreso passionate than mean. Have you been to Twitter?

You are referring to yourself, right?

Because unless you can produce a receipt showing this actually happened...

In a post a year ago, you stated that I should never have released data and that it would be better if I was never around. I asked you what I did to you to deserve to be told that I should not exist. You sent me a long PM apologizing when you realized the magnitude of your words

You are the "bad actor" here.

Extremely unsettling people read that accusation, saw the accuser refuse to provide any evidence when pressed, and then went along with the well-poisoning.

[Squared2020]

.

[Djoker]

MJ shot 35.2% from 3pt range on 2.2 attempts a game for his first 9 postseasons from 1985-1993 with both his volume and % increasing as the years went by. And this whole sample is on a regular line. He peaked as a three point shooter in his first threepeat years averaging 38.7% on 2.4 attempts a game in the playoffs.

He definitely isn't an elite shooter but he's solid hovering around league average. Far from being exploited that's for sure. Much better than the likes of Wade, Westbrook, Giannis etc.

[McBubbles]

MJ shot 35.2% from 3pt range on 2.2 attempts a game for his first 9 postseasons from 1985-1993 with both his volume and % increasing as the years went by. And this whole sample is on a regular line. He peaked as a three point shooter in his first threepeat years averaging 38.7% on 2.4 attempts a game in the playoffs.

He definitely isn't an elite shooter but he's solid hovering around league average. Far from being exploited that's for sure. Much better than the likes of Wade, Westbrook, Giannis etc.

Why're you using the relatively small sample size of the playoffs?

In his first 9 regular seasons he averaged 1.4 3's a game on 30% compared to the 31.3% average. During his first threepeat in the regular season he averaged 1.8 3's a game on 32.4% shooting compared to the 32.9% average. In his last threepeat he averaged 2.8 3's a game on 36.9% shooting compared to the 35.7% average.

So he went from slightly below, to a teensy tiny bit below, to slightly above average.

[Heej]

Haha, Ohayo. He even provided receipts for me. It's good he's got a friend to console him. He needs all the help he can get. It's alright, I can be a villain in your story, too. Goodbye.

Edit:: Just in case, here's the receipt from a year ago:

I wish he had held back on sharing any data that was far short of usual sample standards, because this scattering of games has so far pretty much only worsened discourse.

Despite it seeming innocuous to many, since that was all my work here in RealGM, that comes out as telling me as I should not exist here. Whether he thinks so or not. So I asked him that because I was not sure I had much time while messing with chemo. The small fraction of folks I've had get erupted at me on Twitter (like the 20 people out of 10-15k interactions I have on there) do the same thing. They take some stab at me or my work, I provide an evidence-based rebuttal, they take a personal jab at me and I usually make fun of their jab. Then they get enraged because they can't control their emotions. Moreso, they struggle with my directness and think I'm being personal. That's definitely a fault of mine, but serving as a fed who had to investigate truly bad actors, I tend to cut thorough the BS and get to the end result faster.


Alright, that's enough said. You got your receipt. If you take it as another interpretation, then that's okay. You can do you.

Your victim card is in danger of being revoked. Reads fairly obvious to me that he respects your work and wanted you to hold yourself to a higher standard as far as sharing data goes. It almost seems like you're projecting your own ill feelings onto AEnigma and then activating your victim card over it.

[Squared2020]

.

[Heej]

Your victim card is in danger of being revoked. Reads fairly obvious to me that he respects your work and wanted you to hold yourself to a higher standard as far as sharing data goes. It almost seems like you're projecting your own ill feelings onto AEnigma and then activating your victim card over it.

No projecting here. Dude told a guy dealing with life-threatening cancer to not post his work because he's supposedly hurting a conversation. That dude could have easily said, "I wish people could understand the variance is large." Changes the entire tone, doesn't imply a silencing of a voice. But you've proven to have an implicit bias in defending the guy and you're entitled to your opinion.

Not a victim here, just trimming the trolls.

See ya!

Pulling up the cancer diagnosis that had no relevance to Enigma's response as a method to shame him is honestly disturbing and a bit sociopathic tbh. Maybe he didn't say what he said the way you wanted him to, but that doesn't give you the right to completely misrepresent what he said in a contrived attempt to publicly shame him.

That being said, seems like you're doing alright in your fight with that wretched disease so I wish you nothing but the best. My mom was fortunate to overcome a bout with breast cancer years ago so those stories always hit close to home with me. But I still think it's highly unethical and controlling for you to bring that up when it was completely irrelevant to his statement.

[MyUniBroDavis]

This is a crazy conversation

[Squared2020]

.

[CzBoobie]

Did AEnigma know you were dealing with cancer? And even if he did, the quote absolutely doesnt indicate he wanted you dead...as he clarified and even apologized in the PM. Yet here you are using it to try to smear his character, like what the hell?!

[Squared2020]

.

[CzBoobie]

At first you tried to make it seem like he apologized because he had said something horrible to you ("took personal attack") and you brought up cancer. Not only he didnt say anything even remotely close to horrible, he apologized out of respect to you and your work...You didnt call out anything, you just made a fool of yourself.

[Squared2020]

.

[CzBoobie]

Not offended and you dont need to leave the boards. But you do you.

[Heej]

Strange behavior lol

[MyUniBroDavis]

Is this what happens when a conversation devolves to a level further below than a lebron and jordan thread

Idk how this went from a bron vs jordan to AEnigma on trial lmao

[mysticOscar]

This place is becoming Lebron squad only zone