Retro Player of the Year 1992-93 UPDATE — Hakeem Olajuwon

[lessthanjake]

2. More generally, I think we can use broader data to draw inferences about specific years. If Jordan and Hakeem’s RAPM isn’t even close overall, it should make us quite skeptical that Hakeem was more impactful in 1993, even if we think Hakeem was better than normal in 1993. The overall data being so clearly in Jordan’s favor provides a baseline assumption that would have to be overcome. The 1993-specific data is definitely flawed (small sample, especially for Hakeem) but definitely does nothing to overcome that assumption.

It doesn't need to. We have actual games to look at lol.

I’ll just add that there’s some real irony here, given that I think it’s pretty clear that the population of people that actually watched basketball in 1992-93 would overwhelmingly vote for Jordan here. I’m virtually certain that the people voting Hakeem in this thread (including you) have mostly watched dramatically fewer basketball games from 1992-93. Of course, those people are still entitled to an opinion, but it’s a little odd for the response to Jordan’s data being superior to Hakeem’s to be “We have actual games to look at lol” when the people who watched those actual games from 1992-93 the most are generally the subset of people who are most in favor of Jordan. The argument basically ends up coming down to “Yeah, the data doesn’t support my position and the people who watched the games most generally do not support my position, but I watched a smattering of YouTube videos and clips and decided differently.” Which, to be clear, is fine actually, since everyone is entitled to their own eye test based on whatever sample they feel comfortable with and are entitled to value that eye test highly. But I thought it bore observing.

[penbeast0]

Eye test for contemporaries (other than sports writers etc.) tend to be highlight films so guys like Jordan, Erving, Hawkins will probably tend to be overrated by eye test especially relative to defensive stars.

[OhayoKD]

2. More generally, I think we can use broader data to draw inferences about specific years. If Jordan and Hakeem’s RAPM isn’t even close overall, it should make us quite skeptical that Hakeem was more impactful in 1993, even if we think Hakeem was better than normal in 1993. The overall data being so clearly in Jordan’s favor provides a baseline assumption that would have to be overcome. The 1993-specific data is definitely flawed (small sample, especially for Hakeem) but definitely does nothing to overcome that assumption.

It doesn't need to. We have actual games to look at lol.

I’ll just add that there’s some real irony here, given that I think it’s pretty clear that the population of people that actually watched basketball in 1992-93 would overwhelmingly vote for Jordan here.

You seem to have interpreted "we have games to look at" as referencing the eyetest as opposed to without samples. I don't particularly care whether you watched the games or didn't beyond your ability to effectively leverage that watching in justifying your position, as always.

[OhayoKD]

I find it strange that posters here vote Hakeem over Jordan for the latter having one bad series against the Knicks but are ok with voting Magic over Jordan in 1989 when Magic played one bad series against the Pistons in the finals because of injury

It's just not equivalent.

1989 -> voter consensus was that Magic was better than Jordan through the rs and 3 rounds
1993 -> voter consensus is that Hakeem was better than Jordan through the rs and 2 rounds

To those voters, you are basically saying they should reward a player they thought played worse on the assumption Jordan would not have gotten hurt as well.

Hakeem isn't being voted over Jordan for the Knicks series, he's being voted for being better and the Knicks series. If people thought hakeem vs jordan was a tie outside of the knicks series, jordan would probably be their POY

But Magic wasnt better than Jordan in the first three rounds of the playoffs either. Magic didn't play that great against Seattle where he averaged 15ppg on 40%FG

he had a true shooting of 55% ts that series sandwiched by true-shootings of 70 and 60. Think it's reasonable to prefer Magic's advantages in scoring effeciency, creation volume, and creation quality, as well as whatever you weigh magic's floor-generaling to offer over Jordan's advantage in scoring volume and whatever effect defensive effect one argues he has.

Result wise, 12-0 with a team that genereally tracked as slightly above average without Magic (+0.4) for his prime and bad without magic the previous year (-3.8) is pretty good.

[Djoker]

This is a very reasonable and tempered post.

Thank you, I always appreciate your contribution as well

The only thing I'll say is that I think it's unfair to say that Jordan just wasn't good against the Knicks. He put up 32.2/6.2/7.0 on +1.8 rTS and had a very low 2.3 turnovers per game. I feel like if he missed fewer shot in each game but committed one more turnover instead, people would be a lot higher on the series because everyone factors in scoring efficiency but not turnovers into offensive efficiency. Even if we go game-by-game, he had an insanely good Game 4 and a very good Game 5 so it wasn't all bad.

He indeed had insanely good G4, G5 isn't bad but that's just 2 out of 6 games. Without games 4 and 5, he averaged 27.5/5.3/6.5 on 45.5 TS% with 1.8 tov. Of course excluding the best games from the average is not fair, but I would call all these 4 games massive underperformances for him.

It's also very important to remember that Jordan had one of the worst games of his career in game 3, which was critical for the series. Had the Bulls not step up, the series would be over and even his heroic G4 performance wouldn't have changed anything.

Good point about low turnovers by the way - it's true that people often forget about it. I don't think it changes my evaluation of the series, but it does make it a little "less bad" than it looks in the first place.

I see this series by Jordan in a similar light to Kareem's series in the 1972 WCF. Not very good but not terrible efficiency at all (still +rTS) and still a very good performance.

I don't think the analogy is perfect because:

1. Kareem had a monstrous defensive series, Jordan wasn't close him in that regard.
2. Kareem's averages weren't inflated by one game.
3. Kareem didn't have much help in the series, while Jordan's supporting cast played fantastic.

That Game 3 had the Bulls come out to a huge lead in the 2nd quarter with his Bulls teammates hitting shots. A lot of them were open off of Jordan's assists. So he had some doing in that victory. I think Jordan's high playmaking volume in the series combined with very low turnovers makes a big difference. 3:1 assist to turnover ratio is elite.

One other point that I don't think anyone brought up in this thread is the Bulls had a +12.7 rORtg in the Knicks series so the offense was doing really well despite Jordan's poor shooting. Probably because of all the attention he drew giving his teammates open shots. The series was close because the Bulls' defense allowed the Knicks to do well on offense. Bulls posted a pretty poor +0.9 rDRtg and Ewing lit them up.

The analogy isn't perfect indeed.

1. Agreed. Although Jordan was better offensively as well because of playmaking.

2. Kareem also had two good shooting games in Game 1 and Game 2 and then four bad ones.

3. Agreed.

With all that said, I do want to re-watch this series at some point soon and do some tracking. Defense, plus minus and some MJ shot charts with a bunch of X's for a change lol

[70sFan]

With all that said, I do want to re-watch this series at some point soon and do some tracking. Defense, plus minus and some MJ shot charts with a bunch of X's for a change lol

I hope to see the results and I am open to change my mind, as I have never tracked the series myself

[capfan33]

This is a very reasonable and tempered post.

Thank you, I always appreciate your contribution as well

The only thing I'll say is that I think it's unfair to say that Jordan just wasn't good against the Knicks. He put up 32.2/6.2/7.0 on +1.8 rTS and had a very low 2.3 turnovers per game. I feel like if he missed fewer shot in each game but committed one more turnover instead, people would be a lot higher on the series because everyone factors in scoring efficiency but not turnovers into offensive efficiency. Even if we go game-by-game, he had an insanely good Game 4 and a very good Game 5 so it wasn't all bad.

He indeed had insanely good G4, G5 isn't bad but that's just 2 out of 6 games. Without games 4 and 5, he averaged 27.5/5.3/6.5 on 45.5 TS% with 1.8 tov. Of course excluding the best games from the average is not fair, but I would call all these 4 games massive underperformances for him.

It's also very important to remember that Jordan had one of the worst games of his career in game 3, which was critical for the series. Had the Bulls not step up, the series would be over and even his heroic G4 performance wouldn't have changed anything.

Good point about low turnovers by the way - it's true that people often forget about it. I don't think it changes my evaluation of the series, but it does make it a little "less bad" than it looks in the first place.

I see this series by Jordan in a similar light to Kareem's series in the 1972 WCF. Not very good but not terrible efficiency at all (still +rTS) and still a very good performance.

I don't think the analogy is perfect because:

1. Kareem had a monstrous defensive series, Jordan wasn't close him in that regard.
2. Kareem's averages weren't inflated by one game.
3. Kareem didn't have much help in the series, while Jordan's supporting cast played fantastic.

That Game 3 had the Bulls come out to a huge lead in the 2nd quarter with his Bulls teammates hitting shots. A lot of them were open off of Jordan's assists. So he had some doing in that victory. I think Jordan's high playmaking volume in the series combined with very low turnovers makes a big difference. 3:1 assist to turnover ratio is elite.

One other point that I don't think anyone brought up in this thread is the Bulls had a +12.7 rORtg in the Knicks series so the offense was doing really well despite Jordan's poor shooting. Probably because of all the attention he drew giving his teammates open shots. The series was close because the Bulls' defense allowed the Knicks to do well on offense. Bulls posted a pretty poor +0.9 rDRtg and Ewing lit them up.

The analogy isn't perfect indeed.

1. Agreed. Although Jordan was better offensively as well because of playmaking.

2. Kareem also had two good shooting games in Game 1 and Game 2 and then four bad ones.

3. Agreed.

With all that said, I do want to re-watch this series at some point soon and do some tracking. Defense, plus minus and some MJ shot charts with a bunch of X's for a change lol

Few things. Firstly, interesting analogy, always great to see Kareem brought up out of context as opposed to rehashing the same players/arguments over and over again. Would say that MJs game 4 is a way bigger outlier than any game Kareem had, which charitably you could interpret as MJ having a higher ceiling.

Secondly to the point of ORTG, it sounds and is very impressive, but I think one thing we have to note is they weren’t some middling offense being elevated purely by Jordan’s presence. The following year, they posted an +8.5 rORTG against a very similar Knicks team. I actually eyeballed this once using Ben’s database, and among playoff runs with at least 7 games, a +8.5 was in the top 10% historically. So take of that what you will.

Another thing to note is that Kareem’s (relatively) poor efficiency was by necessity, as I’m sure you know Oscar was basically half a player due to a horrific groin strain that had started to affect his stomach, and another key guard in McGlocklin could barely move. Kareem was forced to take 30+ (mostly self created shots) per game against Wilt and an ATG team.

And with this, I wonder whether MJ really needed to take as many shots as he did as a decoy (of sorts) to elevate his team overall, or whether some of his shot chucking habits got the better of him. Moreover, the Knicks were a solid title contender, but era relative, they weren’t the same challenge that the 72 lakers posed.

And finally, I wholeheartedly agree that the Knicks series should have been tracked yesterday. It’s the only time in MJs career I believe that he faced a -8 rDRTG team and I think it deserves to be analyzed properly as opposed to just throwing numbers back and forth.

[ShaqAttac]

HAKEEM
Mega impact and great d and great o. prob should have won MVP. Made team go from 2-10 to 55 wins. 70s fan made good arg Hakeem was still awesome vs sonics

EWING
carry ny to 60 wins and almost beat MJ+superteam. Prob outplayed MJ with great D and higher TS in most games. Paul cooked tbh.

MJ
won another chip ig. choke vs NYK but scored 41 vs Suns. WOWY bad but 3 peat 3 peat

BARKLEY
won MVP and played MJ superteam close. Bad on D tho. suns prob stacked they win 50 before he joins.

PIPPEN
saved MJ vs NY. Great d and good o.

[lessthanjake]

Eye test for contemporaries (other than sports writers etc.) tend to be highlight films so guys like Jordan, Erving, Hawkins will probably tend to be overrated by eye test especially relative to defensive stars.

I’m referring to people who actually watched a lot of games back then, not just highlight films. And, given your mention of sports writers as an exception, I think it’s probably safe to say that by the time the 1993 playoffs were over sports writers widely regarded Jordan as having been better than Hakeem that year. Obviously pre-playoffs that’s not *necessarily* the case, since we know Barkley won MVP with Hakeem 2nd and Jordan 3rd (voter fatigue was likely at play to some degree, but may not fully explain it), but the POY vote is about RS + Playoffs. Of course, I don’t have formal polling or something to actually directly prove this, but I doubt it’s a controversial assertion to say that contemporaries that watched a lot of basketball back then (i.e. the people who surely watched 1992-93 basketball the most) thought that Jordan was the POY for 1992-1993. One is free to come to a different conclusion than what contemporaries thought, of course. Indeed, we do have some more data than people had back then, and that data could potentially point in another direction from contemporaries’ view. But when there’s *also* a pivot away from RAPM and RAPM-like data (as well as other impact data like WOWYR, Moonbeam’s related analysis, etc.) because it shows Jordan far ahead of Hakeem, then it starts to be difficult to see the basis for it. Based on OhayoKD’s response, I suppose the basis is basically just a heavy lean on small-sample WOWY for Hakeem and the 1994 Bulls doing well. I don’t find that at all convincing for reasons that have been discussed at length many times before by many different posters, and I find it even less convincing given how much information/data goes in Jordan’s favor. But I guess it is a basis that people are free to find convincing, if they want to index on that to the exclusion of most everything else (or, I suppose, if it also supports their own personal eye test, likely based on a smattering of YouTube videos and clips). It certainly leads to a conclusion that seems destined to win out amongst the specific voters in this thread, and that’s okay.

[AEnigma]

HAKEEM
Mega impact and great d and great o. prob should have won MVP

EWING
carry ny to 60 wins and almost beat MJ+superteam

MJ
won another chip ig.

BARKLEY
won MVP and played MJ superteam close. Bad on D tho.

PIPPEN
saved MJ vs NY. Great d and good o.

I will count the ballot as is, but I would like to see a little more substantive effort, and I encourage you to edit in additional reasoning accordingly.

[ShaqAttac]

HAKEEM
Mega impact and great d and great o. prob should have won MVP

EWING
carry ny to 60 wins and almost beat MJ+superteam

MJ
won another chip ig.

BARKLEY
won MVP and played MJ superteam close. Bad on D tho.

PIPPEN
saved MJ vs NY. Great d and good o.

I will count the ballot as is, but I would like to see a little more substantive effort, and I encourage you to edit in additional reasoning accordingly.

yessir

[Narigo]

1. Michael Jordan- Best player in regular season as his supporting cast mainly Pippen, Grant, Carthwrihght and paxson had down season. Best player in the playoffs also despite not having a good series versus the Knicks. He Had a historical finals averaging 41 in the finals

2. Hakeem Olajuwon- Arguably at his peak, best scoring and passing season in his career while still being a elite defender at his position

3. Charles Barkley- Despite Kevin Johnson missing quite a few games, Barkley leads the team to a NBA Finals birth. Made a defensive mistake at end of gm6 that cause a game winner from John Paxton

4. David Robinson

5. Karl Malone- Going with Malone over Ewing mostly because I think Malone is better offensive player than Ewing this season and while Ewing is a elite defender he did had a capable defensive cast and better supporting cast overall. Malone does have Stockton but the rest of his supporting cast is not good

[jjgp111292]

The Bulls having a superteam label has got to be one of the most egregious, borderline trollish efforts of historical revisionism.

[AEnigma]

I would probably call them about as much of one as the Suns, with the Bulls being a better version because Jordan is better than Barkley. If neither is considered one then fair enough, but in that case exceedingly few teams ever would be.

[KembaWalker]

i like how everyone that is coming from the same Discord to vote all misspell Michael Jordan the same way

"new voters" or VPN alts, i wonder

[OhayoKD]

i like how everyone that is coming from the same Discord to vote all misspell Michael Jordan the same way

"new voters" or VPN alts, i wonder

I take it counting is not your strong suit

[lessthanjake]

I would probably call them about as much of one as the Suns, with the Bulls being a better version because Jordan is better than Barkley. If neither is considered one then fair enough, but in that case exceedingly few teams ever would be.

I wouldn’t exactly consider either team a “super team.” That said, there’s a way better argument for the Suns being one than the Bulls.

The Suns had two major superstars (Barkley and Kevin Johnson). The Bulls had that too, so that’s not a distinguishing factor. But Tom Chambers had made All-NBA second team and had multiple top 10 MVP finishes just a few years before. The Bulls didn’t have anyone with that kind of recognition—with Horace Grant being their 3rd best player and he was a one-time all star. On top of that, Dan Majerle was a three-time all-star in the middle of his best years (and probably better than Tom Chambers at that point). I wouldn’t call the 1992-93 Suns a super team, in part because I think Chambers had taken a step down from his best years (and likely not *just* due to taking a back seat production-wise to other stars). But Barkley/KJ/Majerle/Chambers was certainly a deep set of really big names at the time to an extent that the Bulls didn’t have. And that’s the sort of thing the term “super team” is generally aimed at describing. It does arguably describe the 1993 Suns, and it really just doesn’t describe the 1993 Bulls.

The notion that the Bulls were a “super team” is basically wholly dependent on the fact that the Bulls did reasonably well during Jordan’s first retirement. I don’t think that’s at all adequate to label them a “super team,” but even if we looked at that sort of thing, the Suns are pretty clearly at a different level. The 1994 Bulls had a 2.87 SRS. Prior to Jordan coming back, the 1995 Bulls had a 3.78 SRS. These are pretty solid, of course. But in the years before Barkley came to Phoenix, the Suns had SRS’s of 5.68, 6.49, 7.09, and 6.84 (even while always having some key guys miss at least a little time). We can quibble about the effect of various different bits of roster turnover on both these teams, but ultimately the Suns core without Barkley was pretty clearly a step or two above the Bulls core without Jordan. And that’s not even getting into the fact that the suggestion in this thread is that the 1992-1993 Bulls were a “super team,” and it is pretty clear that the Bulls supporting cast had a noticeable down-year, so they were almost certainly not as good that year as their SRS the next season would suggest (to be fair, a similar thing is also probably true of the Suns, because of KJ having some injury issues in 1993—but injury issues don’t usually discourage people from giving the “super team” label).

I don’t really think these are comparable in any meaningful way. As I said, I don’t even think the term “super team” really describes the 1993 Suns, but it *definitely* doesn’t describe the 1993 Bulls.

[Cavsfansince84]

I wouldn’t exactly consider either team a “super team.” That said, there’s a way better argument for the Suns being one than the Bulls.

The Suns had two major superstars (Barkley and Kevin Johnson). The Bulls had that too, so that’s not a distinguishing factor. But Tom Chambers had made All-NBA second team and had multiple top 10 MVP finishes just a few years before. The Bulls didn’t have anyone with that kind of recognition—with Horace Grant being their 3rd best player and he was a one-time all star. On top of that, Dan Majerle was a three-time all-star in the middle of his best years (and probably better than Tom Chambers at that point). I wouldn’t call the 1992-93 Suns a super team, in part because I think Chambers had taken a step down from his best years (and likely not *just* due to taking a back seat production-wise to other stars). But Barkley/KJ/Majerle/Chambers was certainly a deep set of really big names at the time to an extent that the Bulls didn’t have. And that’s the sort of thing the term “super team” is generally aimed at describing. It does arguably describe the 1993 Suns, and it really just doesn’t describe the 1993 Bulls.

The notion that the Bulls were a “super team” is basically wholly dependent on the fact that the Bulls did reasonably well during Jordan’s first retirement. I don’t think that’s at all adequate to label them a “super team,” but even if we looked at that sort of thing, the Suns are pretty clearly at a different level. The 1994 Bulls had a 2.87 SRS. Prior to Jordan coming back, the 1995 Bulls had a 3.78 SRS. These are pretty solid, of course. But in the years before Barkley came to Phoenix, the Suns had SRS’s of 5.68, 6.49, 7.09, and 6.84 (even while always having some key guys miss at least a little time). We can quibble about the effect of various different bits of roster turnover on both these teams, but ultimately the Suns core without Barkley was pretty clearly a step or two above the Bulls core without Jordan. And that’s not even getting into the fact that the suggestion in this thread is that the 1992-1993 Bulls were a “super team,” and it is pretty clear that the Bulls supporting cast had a noticeable down-year, so they were almost certainly not as good that year as their SRS the next season would suggest (to be fair, a similar thing is also probably true of the Suns, because of KJ having some injury issues in 1993—but injury issues don’t usually discourage people from giving the “super team” label).

I don’t really think these are comparable in any meaningful way. As I said, I don’t even think the term “super team” really describes the 1993 Suns, but it *definitely* doesn’t describe the 1993 Bulls.

I think that all discussions regarding super team status really don't accomplish anything other than obfuscate things on this board(really anywhere but here we usually don't get too caught up in trying to worry about it). I just don't think it matters much at all whether the label is attached to any team if we are mainly looking at how good the team or its players were. Re the Suns, it would make more sense to call the Suns one if Chambers were anything close to his prime self in that season but he wasn't. He was a 12/5/2 6th man by then and his last strong season had been 2 years earlier at age 31. Also Grant is always going to be way underrated via accolades. I think everyone knows that. The media just didn't shine to him once Pippen started getting a lot of mvp/all nba type talk(probably in part because of him getting on the Dream team and honestly I think they liked to promote the narrative of MJ carrying his teams). Johnny Bach though said at least once that he felt Grant was the Bulls' best defender during the 1st 3peat. I think what's largely underrated about Grant is how much of a physical freak he was in those years and his motor on defense along with developing a decent outside shot and being a pretty good finisher. He's not at all a guy to build around but he was definitely superior to Rodman imo(the post 92 versions) even though Rodman gets way more talk now.

[lessthanjake]

I wouldn’t exactly consider either team a “super team.” That said, there’s a way better argument for the Suns being one than the Bulls.

The Suns had two major superstars (Barkley and Kevin Johnson). The Bulls had that too, so that’s not a distinguishing factor. But Tom Chambers had made All-NBA second team and had multiple top 10 MVP finishes just a few years before. The Bulls didn’t have anyone with that kind of recognition—with Horace Grant being their 3rd best player and he was a one-time all star. On top of that, Dan Majerle was a three-time all-star in the middle of his best years (and probably better than Tom Chambers at that point). I wouldn’t call the 1992-93 Suns a super team, in part because I think Chambers had taken a step down from his best years (and likely not *just* due to taking a back seat production-wise to other stars). But Barkley/KJ/Majerle/Chambers was certainly a deep set of really big names at the time to an extent that the Bulls didn’t have. And that’s the sort of thing the term “super team” is generally aimed at describing. It does arguably describe the 1993 Suns, and it really just doesn’t describe the 1993 Bulls.

The notion that the Bulls were a “super team” is basically wholly dependent on the fact that the Bulls did reasonably well during Jordan’s first retirement. I don’t think that’s at all adequate to label them a “super team,” but even if we looked at that sort of thing, the Suns are pretty clearly at a different level. The 1994 Bulls had a 2.87 SRS. Prior to Jordan coming back, the 1995 Bulls had a 3.78 SRS. These are pretty solid, of course. But in the years before Barkley came to Phoenix, the Suns had SRS’s of 5.68, 6.49, 7.09, and 6.84 (even while always having some key guys miss at least a little time). We can quibble about the effect of various different bits of roster turnover on both these teams, but ultimately the Suns core without Barkley was pretty clearly a step or two above the Bulls core without Jordan. And that’s not even getting into the fact that the suggestion in this thread is that the 1992-1993 Bulls were a “super team,” and it is pretty clear that the Bulls supporting cast had a noticeable down-year, so they were almost certainly not as good that year as their SRS the next season would suggest (to be fair, a similar thing is also probably true of the Suns, because of KJ having some injury issues in 1993—but injury issues don’t usually discourage people from giving the “super team” label).

I don’t really think these are comparable in any meaningful way. As I said, I don’t even think the term “super team” really describes the 1993 Suns, but it *definitely* doesn’t describe the 1993 Bulls.

I think that all discussions regarding super team status really don't accomplish anything other than obfuscate things on this board(really anywhere but here we usually don't get too caught up in trying to worry about it). I just don't think it matters much at all whether the label is attached to any team if we are mainly looking at how good the team or its players were. Re the Suns, it would make more sense to call the Suns one if Chambers were anything close to his prime self in that season but he wasn't. He was a 12/5/2 6th man by then and his last strong season had been 2 years earlier at age 31. Also Grant is always going to be way underrated via accolades. I think everyone knows that. The media just didn't shine to him once Pippen started getting a lot of mvp/all nba type talk(probably in part because of him getting on the Dream team and honestly I think they liked to promote the narrative of MJ carrying his teams). Johnny Bach though said at least once that he felt Grant was the Bulls' best defender during the 1st 3peat. I think what's largely underrated about Grant is how much of a physical freak he was in those years and his motor on defense along with developing a decent outside shot and being a pretty good finisher. He's not at all a guy to build around but he was definitely superior to Rodman imo(the post 92 versions) even though Rodman gets way more talk now.

I agree that Chambers wasn’t his prime self anymore, though I think him being a 12/5/2 sixth man is in significant part a result of being a power forward on a team that now had Charles Barkley. But I agree that he’d taken a step back. He was still a good player though, albeit age had started catching up to him by that point. And I agree that the “super team” label isn’t particularly important. I didn’t bring it up. The people who brought up the “super team” term in this thread were doing so to downplay Jordan, and I only responded after a couple other posters had had a back and forth about that.

As for Horace Grant, I think I agree that Grant was perhaps undersold a bit (definitely compared to Rodman, though I liked Rodman more at the time, for sheer humor value). But I think there’s a real effort by people (not you specifically) to way overcompensate on him, in order to downplay Jordan. Horace Grant was a good player, but let’s remember that he went to another team in his prime and didn’t get a whole lot of recognition or become a major star there either. This wasn’t about people promoting Jordan or Pippen. Horace Grant was just a good NBA starter and nothing much more than that. I’d put him at about the same level as a guy like Aaron Gordon nowadays (not that they have all the exact same strengths and weaknesses, of course).

[homecourtloss]

Tom Chambers? He was washed offensively and defensively was a liability. The very next year in 1994 he couldn’t stay on the court with Utah since he was that big of a defensive liability. Sloan showed visible disgust with his game.

Horace Grant, meanwhile, would stay a positive contributor for the Lakers and Orlando in the early 2000s before his final two years let alone 1993 in which he was a high motor, no plays off, versatile defender, along with being a fast break opportunist.