Survey Project: Michael Jordan by season

SideshowBob · Post #21 » by **SideshowBob** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:30 am

DavidStern wrote:So why not always look at playoffs SRS?

Well I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the subject or anything, but it seems to me that it might be a good idea to do so for Finals teams and maybe CF teams, but not for teams that are getting eliminated in earlier rounds. I mean, the sample size is going to be pretty small in either case, but for teams getting to the finals, we've typically got a solid 19-25 game sample, which may, at the very least, be somewhat indicative of team quality.

And BTW, if teams are not playing at their actual true level in regular season, then everyone should answer one question: why is it happening?

That's fair. Laziness or complacency in the RS may be the problem in some cases of underestimation. On the opposite end, a weaker than indicated RS schedule, deep benches, or playoff-esque minutes being played by a team's top players in the RS may be the problem in the cases of overestimation.

lorak · Post #22 » by **lorak** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:06 am

Not only sample size (but as you said - for finals teams we have +16 games samples, so good enough), but also matchups are big issue here, because in playoffs teams play with very limited number of opponents and some are easier for particular teams than other, but SRS "doesn't see" it. (for example for Chicago Cavs were always one of these easy matchups.)

1993 CHI pts differential
regular: 6.3
playoffs: 5.8
vs ATL (-0.7 SRS) +16.4
vs CLE (+6.3 SRS) +8.5
vs NYK (+5.9 SRS) +4.7
vs PHO (+6.3 SRS) 0.0 (without Ceballos, so their strength in finals was in reality lower than SRS indicates)

bastillon · Post #23 » by **bastillon** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:40 am

J23F is severely underestimating Grant and Pippen because they weren't high volume isolation scorers. but you gotta look past that. when you already have a player like Jordan it's much more important to get guys who can contribute in different ways. what's the point of having Charles Barkley and Moses Malone on the roster when they both give you the same qualities and neither can play good team defense ? fit is just tremendously important, and so is versatility. the latter gives you something players can rarely duplicate - you're gonna have impact no matter what lineup you're playing with. this is why Grant and Pippen, despite being kinda limited offensively in terms of creating their own offense, were actually monster impact players. Grant in particular is a fascinating case. he was able to post some of the most impressive WS numbers I've ever seen (for a guy who could be considered a role player). his efficiency was always through the roof. there's a reason behind Jordan for Bulls being so destructive offensively. you know, Jordan was on the Bulls in the 80s and posted monster stats but their team offense was nowhere near their championship level. Grant's offensive efficiency is one reason for it.

viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1162145

but definitely Jordan's 93 RS isn't very impressive considering what they were doing without him year later. with Grant/Pippen in the roster and including playoffs, they were like 6 SRS team IIRC (mysticbb calculated this a while back). PS is a different story though. Jordan exploded in the playoffs (35/7/6/2/1 @ 119 ORTG) and Bulls offense skyrocketed as well. I think we should just ignore their RS in this case. Bulls were already coming off back2back championships and clearly coasted most of the year. Jordan was just on a different level in the playoffs, as were the Bulls as a team. but if we're going to include RS, then 93 deserves a proper knock.

Jordan23Forever · Post #24 » by **Jordan23Forever** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:52 pm

but definitely Jordan's 93 RS isn't very impressive considering what they were doing without him year later.

lmao.

Another person blind to the fact that the reason they didn't do better in '93 was because of his two little pets (Grant and Pippen, both of whom had subpar seasons) and not Jordan.

You also do realize that much of Grant's efficiency was BECAUSE OF Jordan, right? He got a TON of easy dunks/layups from MJ's penetration and post-ups where MJ would dump it off to him when doubled. That's why his efficiency took a nosedive once Jordan left (and unsurprisingly picked up again the following year in Orlando where he had both Shaq and Penny to command defensive attention). Like I SAID, he and Pippen had very down years in '93.

Here are Grant's effiency numbers from '91-'93 in the regular and postseasons:

1991 - 55% FG/59% TS (PS: 58% FG/62% FG)
1992 - 58% FG/62% TS (PS: 54% FG/58% TS)
1993 - 51% FG/54% TS (PS: 55% FG/58% TS)

Grant had a subpar regular season but picked it up in the postseason, which is part of why the Bulls played better then. Pippen was just poor efficiency-wise the entire season in '93 (47% FG/51% TS RS and 47% FG/50% TS PS - that's 3% TS below league average in each instance).

ElGee · Post #25 » by **ElGee** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:04 pm

DavidStern wrote:So why not always look at playoffs SRS?

And BTW, if teams are not playing at their actual true level in regular season, then everyone should answer one question: why is it happening?

This is a great question and I sometimes wish we had better reference threads here for topics like this. In short, I see 2 factors that you need to really consider:

(1) Sample Size (variance/accuracy)

When is a team at their "true" SRS? After 40 games? 60 games? 80 games is a good, strong sample, no doubt, but is that the EXACT number they would end up at if they played the season over and over? Not quite. As Sideshow said, when you add in the issue of health/consistency, while 82 games is a good sample it's not a perfect reflection of the actual quality of a team after 82 games (which is an arbitrary number).

(2) Opponents/Matchups

Have you ever considered what a team outside of Miami's SRS would be if LeBron missed the season? Or if the Kings were contracted? If you play around with these numbers, you'll see that some teams match up slightly better with other teams. A tanking team can influence SRS in different ways, depending on the matchup. So can an injured one.

If you remove the Celtics from the 60's (an extreme example because of the small league), suddenly the 62 76ers are a 5 SRS team and best in the league. Is that "really" what they were?

In total, SRS is a great tool because points are a great tool because basketball games end at psuedo-random times. However, the SRS you see at the end of the RS next to a team's name isn't a perfect indicator of its strength because of reasons like these. In the same way we can talk about portability for a player, we can talk about it for a team -- some 4 SRS teams matchup great with a bunch of elite teams (versatile and highly consistent strengths regardless of matchup)...I would not think of those teams as merely "4 SRS teams."

PS The Playoffs are a small sample -- I would never suggest using it alone. The interpretation you must make is in how much to view the PS (or a select end-of-season sample) as a "better" indicator of a team's strength. I personally do this in conjunction with health, lineup data, matchup analysis, etc.

ElGee · Post #26 » by **ElGee** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 3:17 pm

J23F is severely underestimating Grant and Pippen because they weren't high volume isolation scorers.

lmao. Another person blind to the fact that the reason they didn't do better in '93 was because of his two little pets (Grant and Pippen, both of whom had subpar seasons) and not Jordan.

Quick comment on stuff like this -- I'd love for as much MJ information to be dumped into this thread as possible. I'd ultimately like to make a thread wiki in each thread's first post. This 93 stuff is obviously going to be valuable to people who don't know the details...

However, PLEASE try to avoid debating or arguing a poster. Every player thread will have its homers -- those people can all act as valuable repositories of information. Every other realgm thread has excessive commentary, personal history battles...I'd like that to not be the case in these.

lorak · Post #27 » by **lorak** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:01 pm

Elgee, I would like to look back at one of your prevoius posts:

ElGee wrote:IMO, the 93 Bulls playing at their PS level for 82 games are winning WAY more games against the rest of the league.

This statement is definitely true, but I think it's reasonable to assume, that "coasting" trough regular season allowed them to "save energy" for playoffs and thus play at higher level during post season. And the other way around - if they would play at that playoff level whole regular season, then probably they wouldn't have enough energy to play at 10.7 SRS level in postseason.

So sure, 6.2 (RS SRS) is too low, but also 10.7 (PS SRS) is too high to be called "true" Bulls value in 1993, because their "true" value depends on both: PS and RS.

BTW, how many wins is 1 SRS point worth?

lorak · Post #28 » by **lorak** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:04 pm

Jordan23Forever wrote:
but definitely Jordan's 93 RS isn't very impressive considering what they were doing without him year later.

lmao. Another person blind to the fact that the reason they didn't do better in '93 was because of his two little pets (Grant and Pippen, both of whom had subpar seasons) and not Jordan.

That's great pro Pippen and Horace argument :lol:

Not huge, but significant drop off in their production and Bulls were worse by about 4 SRS. That means they had big impact.

bastillon · Post #29 » by **bastillon** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:00 pm

lmao. Another person blind to the fact that the reason they didn't do better in '93 was because of his two little pets (Grant and Pippen, both of whom had subpar seasons) and not Jordan.

that doesn't justify Bulls playing at 6 SRS (Grant/Pippen lineups) after Jordan left. that's why 93 RS isn't very impressive. Bulls had enough talent to top 9 SRS that year and underachieved.

You also do realize that much of Grant's efficiency was BECAUSE OF Jordan, right? He got a TON of easy dunks/layups from MJ's penetration and post-ups where MJ would dump it off to him when doubled. That's why his efficiency took a nosedive once Jordan left (and unsurprisingly picked up again the following year in Orlando where he had both Shaq and Penny to command defensive attention). Like I SAID, he and Pippen had very down years in '93.

Grant actually played better without Jordan. why didn't you compare 93 Grant to 94 Grant ? he was better in 94. to me it's insane to argue Grant was just a by-product of Jordan's impact. you could argue that back in 93 but with the hindsight knowledge that we have right now, knowing how impactful Grant was later in his career, particularly in 94-95, you can defend this notion by any means. 94-95 Grant was posting 14/10/3/1/1 @ 121 ORTG. his teams suffered significant drop offs whenever he missed games. no matter how you look at it, Grant was an all-star caliber player in terms of impact.

him underachieving in 93 doesn't justify Bulls winning merely 57 games. go take a look at Hakeem's roster that year... they were like 2 wins away from the Bulls. once again, the reason for Bulls underachieving was their previous b2b trips to the finals. they were coasting. Jordan, as a leader of that group, was coasting as well. he should be taking responsibility for this. but to me we shouldn't judge Bulls and Jordan by their RS anyway. you're overzelous in arguing for Jordan, because I'm actually defending him. 93 RS isn't relevant because they made up for it with great PS run.

E-Balla · Post #30 » by **E-Balla** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:13 pm

SRS:

1985 +2.0
1986 +3.5
1987 +3.5
1988 +6.0
1989 +6.0
1990 +7.5
1991 +7.5
1992 +6.5
1993 +6.5
1995 +3.5
1996 +6.0
1997 +5.5
1998 +5.5
2002 +0.5
2003 +1.5

ardee · Post #31 » by **ardee** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:16 pm

GC Pantalones wrote:SRS:

1985 +2.0
1986 +3.5
1987 +3.5
1988 +6.0
1989 +6.0
1990 +7.0
1991 +7.0
1992 +6.5
1993 +6.5
1995 +3.5
1996 +6.0
1997 +5.5
1998 +5.5
2002 +0.5
2003 +1.5

Do you have '91 Jordan as the GOAT peak or in the top three? 7.0 is kinda low.

fatal9 · Post #32 » by **fatal9** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:25 pm

Aside from *possibly* taking it easy, the '93 team probably had the weakest bench out of all the championship Bulls team. BJ got upgraded to starter as Paxson had fallen off significantly and wasn't able to play starter minutes anymore due to an offseason knee surgery. Rodney McCray was signed to help shore up their bench scoring but that signing kind of failed. You can find cases of Jordan complaining about his teammates that year, that "he had to do too much", "he had to always bring them back into games", MJ ended up playing more minutes that year than he had in any year after '89. So in terms of depth, that was most likely the weakest Bulls team. This is something I've heard mentioned by announcers during games as well.

And yes, Horace Grant was EASILY an all-star level impact guy.

ElGee · Post #33 » by **ElGee** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:34 pm

Chicago Bulls team trends

Chicago ORtg, RS then PS (relative to competition) -- noteable lineup changes in spoilers (experience in league)

1984 -5.2
------------------
1985 +0.8 PS +4.6 (4g)

Spoiler:

1986 +1.4 PS +5.4 (3g)

Spoiler:

1987 +0.3 PS +2.6 (3g)

Spoiler:

1988 +1.0 PS -2.8 (10g)

Spoiler:

1989 +1.3 PS +3.1

Spoiler:

1990 +4.2 PS +3.7

Spoiler:

1991 +6.7 PS +10.9

Spoiler:

1992 +7.4 PS +6.0

Spoiler:

1993 +4.9 PS +8.9

Spoiler:

-----------------
1994 -0.2 PS +8.4 (10g)

Spoiler:

1995 (pre Jordan) +2.1, (w Jordan) +5.6 PS +4.2 (10g)

Spoiler:

-----------------
1996 +7.5 PS +8.7

Spoiler:

1997 +7.7 PS +6.1

Spoiler:

1998 +2.7 PS +6.6

Spoiler:

Jordan23Forever · Post #34 » by **Jordan23Forever** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:56 pm

bastillon wrote:
Grant actually played better without Jordan. why didn't you compare 93 Grant to 94 Grant ?

Because as I showed, '93 was a down year for him. Why would you compare a down year to another year? He was better in '91 and especially '92 than he was in '94. lol @ the tired "he played better without Jordan" nonsense. Wow.

I've watched hundreds of Bulls games, and the idea that someone would contest the fact that Grant's offense benefitted SIGNIFICANTLY from Jordan is insane. Why did Grant shoot 63% in the '91 Finals? Because Jordan was finding him multiple times each game right under the basket with passes for easy buckets.

mysticbb · Post #35 » by **mysticbb** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:18 pm

bastillon wrote:that doesn't justify Bulls playing at 6 SRS (Grant/Pippen lineups) after Jordan left. that's why 93 RS isn't very impressive. Bulls had enough talent to top 9 SRS that year and underachieved.

No idea where the numbers are coming from, but when we take the real numbers, we get an estimated SRS of 4.8 for the games with Grant and Pippen, including playoffs. With Jordan in 1993 it was +7.3 (including playoffs as well). In the 4 games Jordan missed the Bulls had 0 SRS.
They had +8.1 SRS in the 5 games Grant missed in 1993. With Pippen missing the circus trip in 1994, the Bulls played +1.1 in 10 games. They played -2.8 without Grant in 1994.

lorak · Post #36 » by **lorak** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:23 pm

Jordan23Forever wrote: Why did Grant shoot 63% in the '91 Finals? Because Jordan was finding him multiple times each game right under the basket with passes for easy buckets.

Jordan was primary Bulls ballhander so it shouldn't be surprise that after his assists teammates scored most often.

And "multiple times each game" is total 13 FG during whole finals after Jordan's assists. Overall Horace had 32 FGM, so 13 is actually pretty much, but he also was excellent on offensive board and scored 7 times after ORB and also relatively often scored after Pippen's passes (6 times).

Dr Positivity · Post #37 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:42 pm

85 - +7.5 Ws (48.5)
86 - +4.5 Ws (45.5)
87 - +12.0 Ws (53.0)
88 - +18.0 Ws (59.0)
89 - +15.5 Ws (56.5)
90 - +15.0 Ws (56.0)
91 - +19.0 Ws (60.0)
92 - +16.0 Ws (57.0)
93 - +14.0 Ws (55.0)
95 - +4.5 Ws (45.5)
96 - +20.0 Ws (61.0)
97 - +17.5 Ws (58.5)
98 - +12.0 Ws (53.0)
02 - -6.0 Ws (35.0)
03 - -2.0 Ws (39.0)

If it has to be whole numbers w/ the wins, round it up

toodles23 · Post #38 » by **toodles23** » Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:56 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:85 - +7.5 Ws (48.5)
86 - +4.5 Ws (45.5)
87 - +12.0 Ws (53.0)
88 - +18.0 Ws (59.0)
89 - +15.5 Ws (56.5)
90 - +15.0 Ws (56.0)
91 - +19.0 Ws (60.0)
92 - +16.0 Ws (57.0)
93 - +14.0 Ws (55.0)
95 - +4.5 Ws (45.5)
96 - +20.0 Ws (61.0)
97 - +17.5 Ws (58.5)
98 - +12.0 Ws (53.0)
02 - -6.0 Ws (35.0)
03 - -2.0 Ws (39.0)

If it has to be whole numbers w/ the wins, round it up

You really think '96 was MJ's best season? I don't see that at all, he was noticeably better on both ends in '91.

ElGee · Post #39 » by **ElGee** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:23 am

Narigo wrote:1985- 7 wins
1986 - 6 wins
1987- 12 wins
1988- 22 wins
1989- 25 wins
1990- 27 wins
1991- 27 wins
1992- 24 wins
1993- 21 wins
1996- 20 wins
1997- 20 wins
1998- 18 wins

2002 and 2003?

Dr Positivity · Post #40 » by **Dr Positivity** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:23 am

I'm voting based on how many wins I think the player produced. So while 91 Jordan may be "better", by nature of 96 Jordan playing on a better team and specifically with a better defense, he gets credit for more wins in this case. (FTR I came up with my numbers, with a secret sauce system I came up with involving Oliver's individual ORTG, on-court DRTG - estimated in this case for pre on/off days - and no. of possessions. The goal to give a player positive value if he uses a possession above the efficiency of the team he's defending, which by definition would contribute to a win. I've found this to distribute wins very believably when tested on modern day players and wins. It's not perfect but for this project I think I will go with it)