How NBA rules prevented Michael Jordan's Bulls from facing superteams in the 1990s

[Got Nuffin]

Pippen wasn't known as soft. That all stems from the G7 where he had a migraine. Jordan didn't help him not have a migraine the following year. Pippen was drafted in 87 and continued to improve his game, and once he reached stud status they won. Jordan didn't make him. Jordan isn't the reason he had a competitive drive. Stop trying to give one man credit for what another man did.

FYI, the Bulls as a whole...Jordan included...were constantly crying to the league to stop Detroit from their physical style of play. That's as soft as it get's. Jordan is even on record saying we may have run to the principal or whatever (something like that).

Pippen was absolutely known as soft in his early years by the media and the opposing players.

"He's soft. A small forward in the strictest sense of the word. That's what they say about him. Give him a couple of hard shots and watch him disappear from the lane."

https://buffalonews.com/news/all-everything-pippen-has-outgrown-soft-label/article_aedfa8b5-b90d-5cbf-8325-0c5961749fe3.html

Yes ignorance is bliss and people back then were very ignorant.

lol yes people back then were very ignorant

[DCasey91]

The Jordan romantization/mysticism gets out of hand.

Pre 1991 with today’s social media my lord. He definitely had a certain tag before he won. Imagine what it would be like today

Jordan did this Jordan that. Lol at the Pippen thing stud prospect, pretty sure he finished in the votes one year when Jordan wasn’t playing.

The doco glossing over so many elements it was disperectful to those at the Bulls organization during that whole decade.

Before as well

Dean Smith
Phil Jackson
Jerry Krause
Tex Winter
Scottie Pippen
Rodman

Jordan didn’t make any of them they were who they were. Not to mention others there’s a list there. Harper for ffs averaged 20 and was another teams franchise player.

It’s cool he was painted as the messiah/global icon during the 90’s I get it.

That’s like saying Lebron played with prime Ray Allen who was a franchise player. Ron Harper went to the Bulls when MJ was playing baseball and averaged a measly 6ppg. Yes he averaged 20ppg his last season with the Clippers, but he also took nearly 18 shots to get there with a true shooting percentage of 49%. Do you know how bad that is?

Completely missed the point. I just laugh when people try and knock other people’s abilities/achievements and put the onus on an individual that had nothing to do with coaching/teaching/developing a player.

Didn’t Krause draft 7 all stars one every 2 years? Didn’t he also trade MJ’s mate oakley? Didn’t Mj still want Douggie Collins?
Kukoc, Pippen, Rodman, Grant, Harper etc etc.
Yeah LeGMMJ

If he was that good the Hornets would be winning chips just like he did.

Mj made Pippen what a crock of sh*t.

Last time I checked you can’t make a human being
That’s like making a horse then leading it water and making it a drink.

MJ your not a god. Everyone had help. Last time I checked it wasn’t 1v5 on a basketball team.

Double standards galore. Wasn’t it fact the 90’s was watered down with talent because of the expansion?

So many people gloss over what actually happened during the 90’s lol.


Bird and Kareem have goat level basketball qualities to them (EOY, COY, 3 MVP’s in a row, only person to achieve that, Kareem was goat for closer to 15 years lol High School/College goat. James played superstar ball at 20 with no elite tutelage and a rookie coach with no formal teaching Mike on the other hand elite goat level teaching lol etc etc)


Because there’s no extreme outliers in basketball outside of prime Wilt (I.e meaning others compare)

It isn’t cut and dry. But my ringssssssss

Counter.... Mike ffn Trout lol

He’s not more dominant then say Ruth in baseball, Woods in golf, Gretzky in hockey, Bradman in cricket etc etc.

[BarbaGrizz]

People are confusing what a superteam is. For me a superteam was always a team that was put together because the players combined themselves to go play together. If the team is setup via draft and "normal" trades and FA than it's just a pretty good team, but not a superteam.

[Got Nuffin]

People are confusing what a superteam is. For me a superteam was always a team that was put together because the players combined themselves to go play together. If the team is setup via draft and "normal" trades and FA than it's just a pretty good team, but not a superteam.

Yes exactly. The San Antonio Spurs were dominant for what felt like almost 15-20 because they drafted incredibly well, developed their talent and signed some great free agents.

I never heard anyone call them a superteam.

90s Bulls were exactly the same. The one high profile free agent they did get was high profile for all the wrong reasons, and no other team actually wanted to sign him.

A 90s SUPER TEAM as we know it would have been if Jordan joined Barkleys Suns, the Admiral joined the Bulls, or Ewing joined Malone and Stockton etc. Now that would have been something to see, but it was unheard of and probably impossible to pull off back then.

[turnaroundJ]

Interesting take. So essentially superteams have been in existence for a long time and the people who had the authority to create said superteam shifted from solely the organization to the organization and the player. Never thought of it like that before.

This. Some players who claim they’d have never teamed up in their primes had the best possible privilege of playing for competent franchises. Even KG had to leave Minny to win anything.

Nowadays it’s more even because players can choose where to go, but of course they’d still rather go to competent orgs. It’s alarming that there are multiple fanbases today that would love to have their owners sell the team.

[otwok]

The terminology didn't exist then. So your way of thinking about this doesn't make sense.

Did everyone, at the time, believe that the Bulls were considerably better than their opponents? Yes. I recall the Bulls being the biggest sure thing I'd seen until the 2017 Warriors.

If those Bulls teams aren't superteams then quite frankly there are no superteams and we should stop wasting time talking about it.

However, I suspect the main reason that people are resistant to the Bulls being a superteam is because they somehow think it diminishes Jordan's legacy.

There were ideas of super teams. The 99 rockets were considered a super team.

But let's do this - define a super team.

A team with an overwhelming talent advantage that maintains that advantage over multiple seasons. Can include both players and coaching. For example, the 1995-96 to 1997-98 Bulls.

The 1990s Bulls, the Shaq / Kobe Lakers, the Heat from 2011-13 and the recent Warriors are the only genuine examples of superteams that we have seen in three decades. Of those four, the Heat were, by far, the weakest of those superteams and the one that felt the easiest to overcome.

Overwhelming talent advantage that maintains that advantage over multiple seasons. Is that any time that wins multiple championships? What if a team has overwhelming talent advantage over multiple seasons but doesn't win championships? This definition is nit picky. You picked the second three peat Bulls but not the first three peat bulls. Nor did you include the Celtics or the Lakers.

Essentially you are letting the result define superteams and not the teams themselves. You are obviously doing this because it fits your narrative.

It wasn't until recently that people on message boards would consider those bulls teams super teams and only because they won 3 straight.

To me this doesn't diminish Jordan at all. I was there, I watched this team, they were who they were because of Jordan. Some dude on the internet can claim stuff 25 years later, I watched those teams. That doesn't change the fact that nobody at the time thought they just had so much talent that they couldn't lose. Everyone thought they couldn't lose because of Jordan.

[picko]

There were ideas of super teams. The 99 rockets were considered a super team.

But let's do this - define a super team.

A team with an overwhelming talent advantage that maintains that advantage over multiple seasons. Can include both players and coaching. For example, the 1995-96 to 1997-98 Bulls.

The 1990s Bulls, the Shaq / Kobe Lakers, the Heat from 2011-13 and the recent Warriors are the only genuine examples of superteams that we have seen in three decades. Of those four, the Heat were, by far, the weakest of those superteams and the one that felt the easiest to overcome.

Overwhelming talent advantage that maintains that advantage over multiple seasons. Is that any time that wins multiple championships? What if a team has overwhelming talent advantage over multiple seasons but doesn't win championships? This definition is nit picky. You picked the second three peat Bulls but not the first three peat bulls. Nor did you include the Celtics or the Lakers.

Essentially you are letting the result define superteams and not the teams themselves. You are obviously doing this because it fits your narrative.

It wasn't until recently that people on message boards would consider those bulls teams super teams and only because they won 3 straight.

To me this doesn't diminish Jordan at all. I was there, I watched this team, they were who they were because of Jordan. Some dude on the internet can claim stuff 25 years later, I watched those teams. That doesn't change the fact that nobody at the time thought they just had so much talent that they couldn't lose. Everyone thought they couldn't lose because of Jordan.

The definition is clear and precise. There is no example of a team with overwhelming talent across multiple seasons that doesn't win a championship.

And merely winning multiple championships over a long period of time - for example, the Spurs - isn't sufficient. A team with overwhelming talent wouldn't regularly lose in the first or second rounds.

Also a superteam can only be defined by success. Otherwise it is simply a collection of names. It isn't a superteam if a bunch of 35-year old former stars join forces to lose in the first or second round.

I also watched the Bulls throughout the 1990s. I saw all the championships. To suggest that the Bulls couldn't lose because of Jordan is overly simplistic. The Bulls were also overwhelmingly talented with the best coaching. And the reason that it is overly simplistic is because I saw Jordan fail and fail and fail again when he wasn't surrounded by overwhelming talent.

The 1990s Bulls were a superteam. There shouldn't be any debate about it.

[TheGOATRises007]

There's only been 3 superteams in NBA history.

The Heatles, the KD+Curry Warriors and now the Nets.

You need multiple superstars with at least 1 all-star.

The Bulls were a very good team with a good/great supporting cast behind MJ, but Pippen is no superstar.

[VanWest82]

If 90s Bulls were a super team then so was 2020 Lakers. Lebron and AD (better than Scottie’s best season), plus former stars / DPOY in Dwight and Rondo. Solid vet supporting cast in Danny Green (2x NBA champ), KCP, Avery Bradley, Kuzma, Morris, Caruso.

By this definition any team with two stars and good supporting cast is a super team. Doesn’t seem right.

[TimRobbins]

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman.

Biggest super-team ever assembled to date.

[ty 4191]

Wasn’t it fact the 90’s was watered down with talent because of the expansion?

Yes, it was extremely watered down, relative to the 1980's, at least.

--1989-1996 the NBA added the Hornets, Heat, Timberwolves, Magic, Raptors, and Grizzlies, bringing the total NBA Teams to 29.

--From 1980-1988 only 1 team was added (Mavericks, 1980). 23 teams, total, during those years.

Consider:
--From 1980-1988 only 4 out of 23 teams had an overall winning percentage under .434. One team had a sub .350 winning percentage.

--From 1989-1998 11 out of 29 teams had an overall winning percentage under .434. Four teams had a sub .350 winning percentage.

1989-1998:
Hornets: .460 winning percentage
Heat: .443
Timberwolves: .321
Magic: .493
Raptors: .272
Grizzlies: .195

[Petergrifindor]

Good info but I don't know why it's directed at MJ rather than just being a primer on the league and salary cap at that time. MJ didn't face superteams but he also wasn't on a superteam. And other players were also not on or playing against superteams. So there was no superteam-related competitive advantage or disadvantage for MJ or anyone else.

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman.

Biggest super-team ever assembled to date.

Hell no.

With other modern superteams if you just quit the best player the team would still be a contender.

Pippen Rodman Kukoc doesn't go anywhere on their own.

[DCasey91]

Bulls was a superteam for 90s standards.

Jordan/Pippen/Kukoc/Rodman.

Biggest super-team ever assembled to date.

Hell no.

With other modern superteams if you just quit the best player the team would still be a contender.

Pippen Rodman Kukoc doesn't go anywhere on their own.

Incorrect take out any top player in the NBA today and they wouldn’t be contenders, as with any point in time in NBA history.

I actually think 91-93, 96 was more of a superteam. Horace Grant just added more as the third, and Jordan was super goat lvl. 97-98 is debatable. Though Kukoc was great, (Rodman in 97-98 wasn’t 96 Rodman let alone Pistons Rodman. Jazz just didn’t have a legit secondary scorer and wasn’t all that deep, basically their problem for a long time (Stockton/Malone covered up so much as great players do. In fact the Bulls didn’t run up against another dynasty/superteam pretty much, because they’re were the superteam lol, team for team they were much deeper then the rest.)

Also Pippen was a stud muffin.

Russell’s Celtics
Showtime Lakers
Shaq/Kobe special 2000-2002
Birds Celtics
GSW 2017-2019
Erving/Malone 76ers
Wilts Historic 76ers
Celtics big 3. (I know Sucks the timelines weren’t perfect, early Rondo from the last game in 08 ECF until 2012 was a god damn problem nutted the 010’ series. Have no idea why anyone would call it a big three. 4th guy Game 4 18 rebound triple double good night. Yeah that’s a superteam).
Heatles 2012-2013 (Comparable to latter Bulls teams but not necessarily early Bulls teams, Wade/Bosh wasnt at their best for the whole time).
2013-2014 Spurs was deeeeeeeeeeeep.

Even then injuries beats out everything else pretty easily.

[Petergrifindor]

Incorrect take out any top player in the NBA today and they wouldn’t be contenders, as with any point in time in NBA history.

Heatles without Lebron, Warriors without Curry/Durant, or Nets without Durant/Harden would have been all 3 contenders.

[DCasey91]

Incorrect take out any top player in the NBA today and they wouldn’t be contenders, as with any point in time in NBA history.

Heatles without Lebron, Warriors without Curry/Durant, or Nets without Durant/Harden would have been all 3 contenders.

You think 2012-2013 Heat would win without Lebron
Or even worse No Curry/Durant and Nets with just Irving?

Dude the stuff you’re smoking is bunk get rid of it ASAP.

[Petergrifindor]

Incorrect take out any top player in the NBA today and they wouldn’t be contenders, as with any point in time in NBA history.

Heatles without Lebron, Warriors without Curry/Durant, or Nets without Durant/Harden would have been all 3 contenders.

You think 2012-2013 Heat would win without Lebron
Or even worse No Curry/Durant and Nets with just Irving?

Dude the stuff you’re smoking is bunk get rid of it ASAP.

You have to read more carefully

[DCasey91]

Heatles without Lebron, Warriors without Curry/Durant, or Nets without Durant/Harden would have been all 3 contenders.

You think 2012-2013 Heat would win without Lebron
Or even worse No Curry/Durant and Nets with just Irving?

Dude the stuff you’re smoking is bunk get rid of it ASAP.

You have to read more carefully

What did I misread?

[Petergrifindor]

You think 2012-2013 Heat would win without Lebron
Or even worse No Curry/Durant and Nets with just Irving?

Dude the stuff you’re smoking is bunk get rid of it ASAP.

You have to read more carefully

What did I misread?

Contenders doesn't mean a win for sure team, it means one among the favorites. And the sign "/" was intended to make you choose one or the other, which should be clear since we were talking about removing a team best player (as in a single 1).

And the Heatles in 2010 would have been for sure my beat to be on the Finals from the east. And the way the 2010 finals went, maybe they would have done even better. Obviously if you take the washed Wade years, not a chance, but that was not the point.

[twyzted]

Wasn’t it fact the 90’s was watered down with talent because of the expansion?

Yes, it was extremely watered down, relative to the 1980's, at least.

--1989-1996 the NBA added the Hornets, Heat, Timberwolves, Magic, Raptors, and Grizzlies, bringing the total NBA Teams to 29.

--From 1980-1988 only 1 team was added (Mavericks, 1980). 23 teams, total, during those years.

Consider:
--From 1980-1988 only 4 out of 23 teams had an overall winning percentage under .434. One team had a sub .350 winning percentage.

--From 1989-1998 11 out of 29 teams had an overall winning percentage under .434. Four teams had a sub .350 winning percentage.

1989-1998:
Hornets: .460 winning percentage
Heat: .443
Timberwolves: .321
Magic: .493
Raptors: .272
Grizzlies: .195

you know decades go from 80-89 and 90-99 not 80-88 and 89-98 but i guess it fits your narrative so why not.
also you forget that between 66-80 the league added 14 teams that is alot more then was added in the 90s...
so why is the 80s not diluted with talent like the 90s?

60s added 6 teams
1961 Chicago Packers (now Washington Wizards)
1966 Chicago Bulls
1967 San Diego Rockets (now Houston Rockets), Seattle SuperSonics (now Oklahoma City Thunder)
1968 Milwaukee Bucks, Phoenix Suns

70s added 4 teams
1971 Buffalo Braves (later San Diego Clippers, now Los Angeles Clippers), Cleveland Cavaliers, Portland Trail Blazers
1974 New Orleans Jazz (now Utah Jazz)
plus expansion with merger of nba and aba but those teams had players when entering

80s added 5 teams
1980 Dallas Mavericks
1988 Charlotte Hornets (now New Orleans Pelicans), Miami Heat
1989 Minnesota Timberwolves, Orlando Magic

90s added 2 teams
95 Raptors and Grizzlies.



Also its not like those teams sucked well outside of timberwolves
Magic in the 90s had Shaq, Penny, Dennis Scott, NIck Anderson and more
Heat Glen Rice, Steve Smith, Alonzo Mourning, Jamal Mashburn, Tim Hardaway etc.
Hornets Mourning, Larry Johnson and more.



Also its not teams were losing there best players in the expansion draft they could protect top 8 and could only lose 1 player per draft so in 88 and 89 a team at worst lost 2 end of bench players.

[ty 4191]

Also its not teams were losing there best players in the expansion draft they could protect top 8 and could only lose 1 player per draft so in 88 and 89 a team at worst lost 2 end of bench players.

The 6 Expansion Teams' cumulative winning percentage 1989-1998 was .364.

Real winners, of course!!! including 2 teams under ..300 overalll!!!