Michael Jordan's Plus Minus

[dankok8]

As many of you know, plus minus data wasn't officially tracked prior to the 1996-97 season.

Thanks to a few good people on RealGM and their work, we have 60% of MJ's regular season career and 100% of his playoff career tracked. I did some playoff games but the majority of the playoff work was done by Thinking Basketball, Dipper13 and Squared2020 and the humongous regular season chunk of data by Squared2020 with smaller bits by Dipper 13 and the legendary Harvey Pollack.

Because of Basketball-Reference pace estimates being questioned and considered unreliable, this data is given per 48 minutes instead of per 100 possessions. In case you wish to convert, simply multiply the per 48 by 100/Pace.

https://i.postimg.cc/s2sBGNh4/MJ-Regular-Season-Plus-Minus-Summary.jpg

https://i.postimg.cc/XqNNVrpf/MJ-Playoffs-Plus-Minus-Summary.jpg

Here is a comparison of Jordan's playoff data vs. a few greats from the play-by-play era.

https://i.postimg.cc/jd5zG97M/MJ-vs-Modern-Legends-Playoff-Plus-MInusjpg.jpg

[90sgoat]

Nice.

Yeah, that's the thing with MJ, advanced stats basically all prove the eye test. He really was just absurdly good. There's a reason he's GOAT and Lebron is barely top 10.

[Im Still Ballin]

Great stuff. Any numbers on Shaq? I'd be very interested to see how Magic stacks up. I remember taking a peek at some of the Larry Bird RAPM numbers from Squared2020's work. Wasn't all that impressive if I recall; McHale and Parish had very high-ranking seasons here and there. But that was only based on a limited number of games.

[SATAN]

The stats don't tell the full story...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WocVZ7wkEM

Look at this shit. And they say THIS era is soft! Jordan had it easier than any other star. Period!

[SATAN]

Prime Harden>>>MJ

[Full Court]

^The dumbest AND the most emotionally unstable poster on ISH.

Keep crying, Beezlebiatch.

[Kblaze8855]

I still wish someone could work out prime Wilt Chamberlains plus minus. Especially the season he played over 48 minutes a game.

He missed six minutes the whole season because he punched somebody. But he played every second of a bunch of overtimes, so he averaged 48.5 minutes a game. His season plus minus would just be the teams total points compared to the opponents points for the year but you have to factor in that six minutes. It’s possible that he averaged 50 and 27 while being a net negative the way people use these numbers.

He averaged more than 48 minutes a game across a span of 7 straight playoffs. In his final season at 36 if you take out a game they won by 56 points he played over 48 minutes a game then as well.

On his last legs he still played every second of every playoff game.

Id just like to see someone trying to work out his advanced numbers. Hes such an outlier in everything you just have to pretend he never existed.

[dankok8]

Great stuff. Any numbers on Shaq? I'd be very interested to see how Magic stacks up. I remember taking a peek at some of the Larry Bird RAPM numbers from Squared2020's work. Wasn't all that impressive if I recall; McHale and Parish had very high-ranking seasons here and there. But that was only based on a limited number of games.

We have official Shaq numbers from 1996-97 onwards and I'm actually currently logging his Orlando postseasons. I hope to have Shaq's full career playoff plus minus soon and we already have his entire regular season plus minus except his rookie year thanks to Harvey Pollack.

After Shaq, my plan is to do Magic and Bird. I already did a few Magic playoff games actually but not enough to publish and Squared2020 did a bunch. All I will say is that he looks extremely strong so far. Could turn out to be the plus minus GOAT.

Might do Hakeem at some point as well. While I don't have a lot of his playoff games, they are mostly readily available.

[dankok8]

I still wish someone could work out prime Wilt Chamberlains plus minus. Especially the season he played over 48 minutes a game.

He missed six minutes the whole season because he punched somebody. But he played every second of a bunch of overtimes, so he averaged 48.5 minutes a game. His season plus minus would just be the teams total points compared to the opponents points for the year but you have to factor in that six minutes. It’s possible that he averaged 50 and 27 while being a net negative the way people use these numbers.

He averaged more than 48 minutes a game across a span of 7 straight playoffs. In his final season at 36 if you take out a game they won by 56 points he played over 48 minutes a game then as well.

On his last legs he still played every second of every playoff game.

Id just like to see someone trying to work out his advanced numbers. Hes such an outlier in everything you just have to pretend he never existed.

Actually because Wilt played so many minutes I think his plus-minus wouldn't be that informative. He probably only ever sat in blowouts.

And off course the biggest issue is the footage just isn't available. 70sFan who is the biggest collector of old footage that I know has only like 15-20 Wilt games the last time I checked and most of them not even in full.

[1987_Lakers]

Actually because Wilt played so many minutes I think his plus-minus wouldn't be that informative. He probably only ever sat in blowouts.

This is a good point. He averaged close to 47 mpg in his first 10 seasons in the league.

But one thing I always found interesting is that the Sixers won 55 games the year after they traded Wilt to the Lakers, with their offense seeing no drop off and the Lakers offense actually got worse when they traded for Wilt (Bad fit with Baylor). I mean, the Bulls won 55 games without MJ, but their offense took a noticeable hit.

[999Guy]

Always felt 1990 was his peak.

1988-1990 being his true prime.

[Kblaze8855]

Actually because Wilt played so many minutes I think his plus-minus wouldn't be that informative. He probably only ever sat in blowouts.




Thats exactly my point. I know it wouldn’t show anything. I just wanna see it. You would only need 6 minutes of a single game to have his plus/minus for that whole season. I’d just like that 6 minutes worked out.

[Carbine]

Always felt 1990 was his peak.

1988-1990 being his true prime.

Maybe Regular Season peak, but dealing with playoff defenses with honed in skill I believe 93 Jordan was on a different level. He was as refined as he was ever going to be and still retained enough of his athletic ability compared to his earlier years. His finals was the peak of the mountain top.

[ArbitraryWater]

1980 Kareem
1990 MJ
2000 Shaq
2010 LeBron

:pimp:

[dankok8]

Maybe Regular Season peak, but dealing with playoff defenses with honed in skill I believe 93 Jordan was on a different level. He was as refined as he was ever going to be and still retained enough of his athletic ability compared to his earlier years. His finals was the peak of the mountain top.

Honestly any MJ from 1988 to 1993 can be argued as his peak and you won't see pushback from me. And I've seen 1996 get some mentions too although I'm not convinced.

But personally I would go with 1991 or maybe 1990. From watching a ton of MJ games recently I feel like by 1992 he slowed down athletically ever so slightly which made him not necessarily easier to stop but at least more predictable. He started doing more damage on midrange J's and on nights he shot poorly his impact was reduced. But in 1991 he could get to the rim at will while being an insane shooter too.

[90sgoat]

Honestly any MJ from 1988 to 1993 can be argued as his peak and you won't see pushback from me. And I've seen 1996 get some mentions too although I'm not convinced.

But personally I would go with 1991 or maybe 1990. From watching a ton of MJ games recently I feel like by 1992 he slowed down athletically ever so slightly which made him not necessarily easier to stop but at least more predictable. He started doing more damage on midrange J's and on nights he shot poorly his impact was reduced. But in 1991 he could get to the rim at will while being an insane shooter too.

There's a case to be made for 96 because of how insanely efficient his shooting was against stiffling defense. Would 1991 MJ do as well in the 1996 finals, which were the peak of physical, no spacing defense. 1996 Sonics were more physical than the Bad Boys and played better defense. Not as violent, but they were better.

I rewatched it some time ago and it was insane how physical and packed that defense was.

Pippen shot 34% for the series, Harper 38%, Kerr 31%, which makes you appreciate MJ's lowly 42%.

Would 1991 MJ be able to shoot 42% in that series? I'm not so sure.

[3ba11]

Would 1991 MJ be able to shoot 42% in that series? I'm not so sure.


:biggums::wtf:::coleman:

91' MJ destroys 96' MJ

87-93' MJ destroys 96-98' MJ

this is common knowledge

the only debate is whether 87-89' MJ was actually better than 90-93' MJ despite a slightly less-polished/used jumper (still a killer jumper tho) due to an alien-like athleticism he had at that time.. fwiw 85' & 86' MJ had alien athleticism but a hitch in his jumper (still a decent jumper tho)

[dankok8]

There's a case to be made for 96 because of how insanely efficient his shooting was against stiffling defense. Would 1991 MJ do as well in the 1996 finals, which were the peak of physical, no spacing defense. 1996 Sonics were more physical than the Bad Boys and played better defense. Not as violent, but they were better.

I rewatched it some time ago and it was insane how physical and packed that defense was.

Pippen shot 34% for the series, Harper 38%, Kerr 31%, which makes you appreciate MJ's lowly 42%.

Would 1991 MJ be able to shoot 42% in that series? I'm not so sure.

1996 Sonics were a great defense but saying they were better than the Bad Boys is not something I can get behind. Bad Boys' defense got a lot better in the playoffs compared to the regular season. It was a consistent trend with them except in 1991.

Team: rDRtg Season --> Playoffs

1988 Pistons: -2.8 --> -8.7
1989 Pistons: -3.1 --> -6.2
1990 Pistons: -4.6 --> -8.8
1991 Pistons: -3.3 --> +0.5

1996 Sonics: -5.6 --> -7.6

And worth noting that the 1991 Pistons' poor defensive numbers are heavily skewed by the Bulls destroying them (+7.0).

The 1996 Finals is also the type of series where you have to take the shooting % with a grain of salt because the Bulls crushed them in the first three games to go up 3-0 with both Jordan and Pippen shooting well and then both Jordan and Pippen started to struggle to shoot. The shooting statistics overrate the Sonics' defensive performance. They were completely crushed on the boards and didn't force many turnovers. The Bad Boys were a top tier rebounding team and better at forcing miscues.

[3ba11]

any discussion where the idea of 96' MJ outperforming 91' MJ is even considered should not be entertained.. virtually anyone that watched 80' and early 90's MJ was pretty disappointed when he returned from baseball and his 96-98' performance.. only in hindsight does it look goat, but at the time everyone thought it was a let down from his prior dominance but still happy with the titles.. there is no way that 91' MJ wouldn't outperform 96' MJ quite easily

[Phoenix]

There's a case to be made for 96 because of how insanely efficient his shooting was against stiffling defense. Would 1991 MJ do as well in the 1996 finals, which were the peak of physical, no spacing defense. 1996 Sonics were more physical than the Bad Boys and played better defense. Not as violent, but they were better.

I rewatched it some time ago and it was insane how physical and packed that defense was.

Pippen shot 34% for the series, Harper 38%, Kerr 31%, which makes you appreciate MJ's lowly 42%.

Would 1991 MJ be able to shoot 42% in that series? I'm not so sure.

Watching that 96 finals I think MJ was slightly worn by that point compounded by what the Sonics did defensively. Going back through that series he was short on alot of shots indicating to me tired legs. Payton was good at aggressive ball denial but didn't have the verticality to really affect MJ's shot otherwise.

91 MJ wouldn't have had that issue, 96 MJ was more of a shooter but he didn't have 91 MJs motor or relentless ability to attack the paint.

[3ba11]

Watching that 96 finals I think MJ was slightly worn by that point compounded by what the Sonics did defensively. Going back through that series he was short on alot of shots indicating to me tired legs. Payton was good at aggressive ball denial but didn't have the verticality to really affect MJ's shot otherwise.

91 MJ wouldn't have had that issue, 96 MJ was more of a shooter but he didn't have 91 MJs mojor or relentless ability to attack the paint.


Agreed - 91' MJ had goat legs and it was kind of night-and-day when you compare to 96' MJ





Watching that 96 finals I think MJ was slightly worn by that point compounded by what the Sonics did defensively. Going back through that series he was short on alot of shots indicating to me tired legs. Payton was good at aggressive ball denial but didn't have the verticality to really affect MJ's shot otherwise.





The 96' Sonics were a long-time coming - they destroyed favored-Hakeem in 93' but lost to Barkley in 7 games, and their 63-win team had the historic upset loss to Dikembe's 8 seed in 94.. So by the time they broke through in 96', it was a long time coming.. that's how the 90's West was... the Blazers, Sonics, Rockets, Spurs, and Jazz were long-standing organic juggernauts that beat each other's brains out to make the Finals each year - tremendous parity and it was nearly impossible to make multiple Finals from that conference.. Every WCF winner was having their banner year with everything going just perfect - that's what it took.

This is important because none of those organic juggernauts were going to give up on their banner years without a fight and notice that it took Jordan 6 games to win every Finals except 91'.. He never swept any Finals team because those teams had worked so hard and been through wars to get there..

So the psychology entering Game 4 of the 96' Finals is something that no one considers - MJ was literally "the most relaxed he'd ever been" (video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAoaAb3Nc0&t=42m32s)), while the Sonics were frothing at the mouth to save face on the banner season that they worked so long and hard for.. Meanwhile, the refs assumed "da Bulls" were going to win and swallowed their whistles.. It was a perfect set-up to have a short stretch of MJ shooting poorly and Payton getting more credit than he deserved.. In Game 4, MJ was doubled on 10 of the 20 possessions that he caught the ball where Payton was on him (all 10 doubles shown in gifs here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgFWyLRNsGk)).. If MJ had a full series to figure this out, it would've looked more like the 93' ECF.... but instead it just happened to occur after he already put the series away with 3-0 lead.

Btw, the battle-worn, long-standing organic juggernauts that Jordan beat in the Finals are the same kind of long-standing, organic juggernauts that destroy Lebron (Mavs, Magic, Nuggets, Spurs, Warriors) because Jordan has the brand of ball to have an organic juggernaut himself.

[ShawkFactory]

Watching the ‘91 is insane. MJ was at the complete peak of his powers. It’s like watching an absolute master of the game on every level. The greatest ever playing the greatest he ever played. It’s something.

‘96 MJ didn’t have that same level of juice. There are guys who have been at that level or above it. Not the case for 91

[HoopsNY]

This is a good point. He averaged close to 47 mpg in his first 10 seasons in the league.

But one thing I always found interesting is that the Sixers won 55 games the year after they traded Wilt to the Lakers, with their offense seeing no drop off and the Lakers offense actually got worse when they traded for Wilt (Bad fit with Baylor). I mean, the Bulls won 55 games without MJ, but their offense took a noticeable hit.

It's not that uncommon. Many of the elites saw some drop off of sorts once they left, but still remained competitive:

Sixers '68: 62 wins
Sixers '69: 55 wins

'93 Bulls: 57 wins
'94 Bulls: 55 wins

'96 Magic: 60 wins
'97 Magic: 45 wins

'16 Thunder: 55 wins
'17 Thunder: 47 wins

'92 Celtics: 52 wins
'93 Celtics: 48 wins

'91 Lakers: 58 wins
'92 Lakers: 43 wins

'18 Spurs: 47 wins
'19 Spurs: 48 wins

There's a lot of detail regarding these scenarios. For one, Shaq leaving in '97 doesn't tell the whole picture with ORL. The team went 20-8 without him in the '96 season (58 win pace). The next season, Penny actually missed 23 games, but the team had a 53 win pace with him.

Similarly with Kawhi. The team loses him in 2018 and still wins 47 games and a playoff seed. They added DeRozan and win 48 games. The Raptors lost Kawhi to LAC in 2020 and went from being a 58 win team to a 53 win team.

While the drop off from MJ wasn't insignificant, I think a lot of this can be explained with a number of reasons:

1- Pippen, Grant, and BJ all entered their peak years. All 3 made the All-Star team in '94 and both Pippen and Grant were All-Defensive selections, with Pippen having a career year.

2- The addition of Kukoc helped coming off the bench. They didn't get that kind of sixth man production in the '93 season.

3- Pippen was coming off an injury year. While he played the entire season, Pippen actually played with a bad ankle during the '93 season due to not resting up in the summer, playing for the Dream Team. There was a notable drop off in his play between '92 and '93, and it clearly showed.

In the case of Wilt, it's possible the addition of Imhoff and Clark helped to offset any significant drop. Clark was an All-Star and put up 20 PPG in '68. Imhoff wasn't an AS in the '68 season, but he was in the '67 season. 1969 is also when Cunningham enters his peak. He was 24 in the '68 season, so much like someone like Pippen, there was seemingly a natural progression of sorts.

[HoopsNY]

BTW, dankok is one of the GOATs of this forum. I rarely see anything like this from most posters on here. I miss coastal and Roundball honestly.

[Phoenix]

BTW, dankok is one of the GOATs of this forum. I rarely see anything like this from most posters on here. I miss coastal and Roundball honestly.

I wonder what happened to RoundRock. He was active around the time the Bulls last dance doc came about but I haven't seen him in a few years.

[HoopsNY]

I wonder what happened to RoundRock. He was active around the time the Bulls last dance doc came about but I haven't seen him in a few years.

No idea. As much as he and I got into it, his analysis was at least researched and we did end up having some civil debates. I hope he comes back.

[Phoenix]

No idea. As much as he and I got into it, his analysis was at least researched and we did end up having some civil debates. I hope he comes back.

I don't recall you two going at it much, I recall him and 3ball going heavy over Pippen.

[3ba11]

The Bulls fell from the 1 offense ever with Jordan, to a league-average offense without Jordan, while the defensive ranking remained constant - so the massive decline from goat dynasty to 2nd Round team was due entirely to the decline on the offensive end (the absence of Jordan's goat impact).

It shouldn't be a surprise that the loss of Jordan on defense didn't hurt the Bulls on that end because the Bulls improved defensively without Horace in 95', or Pippen in 98' - the bulls had #1 defense before Pippen returned from injury in game 36.. The Bulls improved each time defensively despite the loss of great individual defenders because the primary drivers for great team defense are long-standing chemistry and a culture of effort, which those Bulls had.. This is similar to the 23' Nuggets who played lockdown defense in the 23' Finals despite not having great individual defenders because they had great long-standing chemistry and culture of effort - these are the primary factors for great team defense, while individual perimeter defenders are a tertiary factor.. This means that pippen's strength of defense is infact a tertiary factor on that end, while his offense had the worst shooting splits ever for a playoff run of 15 games and 35 MPG - and these were 2 title runs!!, aka most overrated player ever due to winning spotlight inflation

[dankok8]

It's not that uncommon. Many of the elites saw some drop off of sorts once they left, but still remained competitive:

Sixers '68: 62 wins
Sixers '69: 55 wins

'93 Bulls: 57 wins
'94 Bulls: 55 wins

'96 Magic: 60 wins
'97 Magic: 45 wins

'16 Thunder: 55 wins
'17 Thunder: 47 wins

'92 Celtics: 52 wins
'93 Celtics: 48 wins

'91 Lakers: 58 wins
'92 Lakers: 43 wins

'18 Spurs: 47 wins
'19 Spurs: 48 wins

There's a lot of detail regarding these scenarios. For one, Shaq leaving in '97 doesn't tell the whole picture with ORL. The team went 20-8 without him in the '96 season (58 win pace). The next season, Penny actually missed 23 games, but the team had a 53 win pace with him.

Similarly with Kawhi. The team loses him in 2018 and still wins 47 games and a playoff seed. They added DeRozan and win 48 games. The Raptors lost Kawhi to LAC in 2020 and went from being a 58 win team to a 53 win team.

While the drop off from MJ wasn't insignificant, I think a lot of this can be explained with a number of reasons:

1- Pippen, Grant, and BJ all entered their peak years. All 3 made the All-Star team in '94 and both Pippen and Grant were All-Defensive selections, with Pippen having a career year.

2- The addition of Kukoc helped coming off the bench. They didn't get that kind of sixth man production in the '93 season.

3- Pippen was coming off an injury year. While he played the entire season, Pippen actually played with a bad ankle during the '93 season due to not resting up in the summer, playing for the Dream Team. There was a notable drop off in his play between '92 and '93, and it clearly showed.

In the case of Wilt, it's possible the addition of Imhoff and Clark helped to offset any significant drop. Clark was an All-Star and put up 20 PPG in '68. Imhoff wasn't an AS in the '68 season, but he was in the '67 season. 1969 is also when Cunningham enters his peak. He was 24 in the '68 season, so much like someone like Pippen, there was seemingly a natural progression of sorts.

Good analysis.

Generally though, SRS (or Net Rating) is also more informative of team quality than W-L %.

I'd say all the above teams were much worse without their star. Except the Spurs (and Kawhi missed most of 2018 anyways), all of them had a very sizable decline in SRS.

1968 Sixers: 7.96 SRS
1969 Sixers: 4.79 SRS

-3.17

1993 Bulls: 6.19 SRS
1994 Bulls: 2.87 SRS

-3.32

1996 Magic: 5.40 SRS
1997 Magic: -0.07 SRS

-5.47

2016 Thunder: 7.09 SRS
2017 Thunder: 1.14 SRS

-5.95

1992 Celtics: 3.41 SRS
1993 Celtics: 0.93 SRS

-2.48

1991 Lakers: 6.73 SRS
1992 Lakers: -0.95 SRS

-7.68

2018 Spurs: 2.89 SRS
2019 Spurs: 1.80 SRS

-1.09

[3ba11]

Good analysis.

Generally though, SRS (or Net Rating) is also more informative of team quality than W-L %.

I'd say all the above teams were much worse without their star. Except the Spurs (and Kawhi missed most of 2018 anyways), all of them had a very sizable decline in SRS.

1968 Sixers: 7.96 SRS
1969 Sixers: 4.79 SRS

-3.17

1993 Bulls: 6.19 SRS
1994 Bulls: 2.87 SRS

-3.32

1996 Magic: 5.40 SRS
1997 Magic: -0.07 SRS

-5.47

2016 Thunder: 7.09 SRS
2017 Thunder: 1.14 SRS

-5.95

1992 Celtics: 3.41 SRS
1993 Celtics: 0.93 SRS

-2.48

1991 Lakers: 6.73 SRS
1992 Lakers: -0.95 SRS

-7.68

2018 Spurs: 2.89 SRS
2019 Spurs: 1.80 SRS

-1.09


boom.. there's a ridiculous amount of variance with regular season record, whereas SRS cuts out some of that noise and is a more accurate judge of how well a team performed

[1987_Lakers]

Good analysis.

Generally though, SRS (or Net Rating) is also more informative of team quality than W-L %.

I don't think so. The '86 Bucks for example had an SRS of 8.7, which was higher than the Showtime Lakers that season and the Sixers. And they needed 7 game to beat a Sixers team without Moses, a team who had an SRS of only over 2 during the season.

The 2010 Jazz had a higher SRS than the Lakers that season despite having a worse record, yet nobody was saying they were on their level that season.

[3ba11]

I don't think so. The '86 Bucks for example had an SRS of 8.7, which was higher than the Showtime Lakers that season and the Sixers. And they needed 7 game to beat a Sixers team without Moses, a team who had an SRS of only over 2 during the season.

The 2010 Jazz had a higher SRS than the Lakers that season despite having a worse record, yet nobody was saying they were on their level that season.


The best judge is a regular season record over a period of time - this way you can see if the team is a real 50-win team that can win 50 every year, or whether opponents are just treating them like the Celtics just treated the Lakers without Bron and AD

The 94' Bulls were clearly not a "real" 50-win team that could win 50 every year because after the no pressure, honeymoon period was over, they were borderline .500 in 1995 before MJ returned.. So any team with Pippen as the best scorer will fall out of contention quickly due to insufficient roster talent, as we saw in 95'.. The three-peat chemistry was only good enough to sustain them for a year when they were under the radar and had the surprise factor on their side.. this is obvious

[dankok8]

I don't think so. The '86 Bucks for example had an SRS of 8.7, which was higher than the Showtime Lakers that season and the Sixers. And they needed 7 game to beat a Sixers team without Moses, a team who had an SRS of only over 2 during the season.

The 2010 Jazz had a higher SRS than the Lakers that season despite having a worse record, yet nobody was saying they were on their level that season.

It is well established that SRS has a stronger correlation with winning a championship than W-L%. Obviously it's not perfect correlation. There are exceptions.

[999Guy]

Maybe Regular Season peak, but dealing with playoff defenses with honed in skill I believe 93 Jordan was on a different level. He was as refined as he was ever going to be and still retained enough of his athletic ability compared to his earlier years. His finals was the peak of the mountain top.

Busted motor, waning defense, and slower foot speed in 93.

He had the honor of being the second best in the world behind Hakeem that year though.

The 93 Bulls would’ve lost to the Suns if Barkley wasn’t such a low defense loser and/or KJ wasn’t injured, or if they had Ceballos to balance the rotation.

In any case it was still a 50/50 series. Barkley giving Paxton a wide open 3 on a stupid on ball gamble probably moved that to 51/49 and there was no game 7 in Phoenix.

[HoopsNY]

I don't recall you two going at it much, I recall him and 3ball going heavy over Pippen.

When I first joined the forum, he thought I was an MJ stan. And he would conflate my arguments with 3ball's. We reached a common ground after some time though. Either way, we need more insight like his on this forum.

[HoopsNY]

I don't think so. The '86 Bucks for example had an SRS of 8.7, which was higher than the Showtime Lakers that season and the Sixers. And they needed 7 game to beat a Sixers team without Moses, a team who had an SRS of only over 2 during the season.

The 2010 Jazz had a higher SRS than the Lakers that season despite having a worse record, yet nobody was saying they were on their level that season.

Ultimately, though, I think too much is made of Chicago winning 55 games. Teams losing their best player and that team remaining competitive or not falling off a cliff isn't unheard of.

Here's another one:

w/ Kareem '75 MIL: 38 wins
w/o Kareem '76 MIL: 38 wins

Kareem missed 17 games in the '75 season, but even with him, the team was 35-30 (44 win pace). So the drop off is not tremendous, especially considering Bob Dandridge missed 9 games in '76. And in those games, the team went 2-7.

[90sgoat]

Busted motor, waning defense, and slower foot speed in 93.

He had the honor of being the second best in the world behind Hakeem that year though.

The 93 Bulls would’ve lost to the Suns if Barkley wasn’t such a low defense loser and/or KJ wasn’t injured, or if they had Ceballos to balance the rotation.

In any case it was still a 50/50 series. Barkley giving Paxton a wide open 3 on a stupid on ball gamble probably moved that to 51/49 and there was no game 7 in Phoenix.

Funny, that's not at all how it looked to me.

I watched the entire series some years ago on Youtube and it was pretty obvious that Suns were outplayed and outmatched significantly. They didn't have the defense to challenge Bulls at all and everyone could see it. Suns brought it on offense, but had no ability to stop MJ, which 40ppg in the finals proves.

The only first 3-peat finals I've watched where I felt the outcome was in doubt was Lakers. Worthy was pretty clearly the third best player, significantly better than Pippen, and really gave the Bulls problems. If Bulls had stuck to having MJ defend Magic, which he didn't do very well, and Worthy hadn't gotten injured, then the outcome might have been different.

[iamgine]

Is plus minus a good data? How do you calculate it?

[dankok8]

Is plus minus a good data? How do you calculate it?

Plus minus can very much help show player impact. It's not a perfect stat though. There is no such thing as a holy grail stat obviously.

To calculate plus minus, you basically just track the score when a playing subs in and subs out of games and then add up the stints with and without the player.

[999Guy]

Funny, that's not at all how it looked to me.

I watched the entire series some years ago on Youtube and it was pretty obvious that Suns were outplayed and outmatched significantly. They didn't have the defense to challenge Bulls at all and everyone could see it. Suns brought it on offense, but had no ability to stop MJ, which 40ppg in the finals proves.

The only first 3-peat finals I've watched where I felt the outcome was in doubt was Lakers. Worthy was pretty clearly the third best player, significantly better than Pippen, and really gave the Bulls problems. If Bulls had stuck to having MJ defend Magic, which he didn't do very well, and Worthy hadn't gotten injured, then the outcome might have been different.

The Bulls and Suns scored the exact same amount of points. Every game except one came down to single digits. That one game was Phoenix winning by 10 in Chicago.

This single play is the only reason this didn't go to 7 in Phoenix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RU0g3Ppru4&ab_channel=BenTaylor

Barkley's amateur nonsense defense in the clutch.

If Jordan was facing an actual all-time big, like say Garnett, instead of a talented loser like Chuck? We are probably talking a Phoenix win. In 6 games or less. I could really be convinced the Suns win with Prime AD instead of Barkley.

Jordan got to duck all the actual monsters of his era. You put Robinson or Hakeem on a team as offensively loaded as the early 90's Suns and we probably see Jordan get shut out of titles. Definitely shut out of a 3-peat.

[iamgine]

Plus minus can very much help show player impact. It's not a perfect stat though. There is no such thing as a holy grail stat obviously.

To calculate plus minus, you basically just track the score when a playing subs in and subs out of games and then add up the stints with and without the player.

Isn't that on-off? Are they the same thing?

[dankok8]

Isn't that on-off? Are they the same thing?

Yes. Same thing.

[RogueBorg]

Jordan got to duck all the actual monsters of his era.

He/they beat both Ewing and Shaq.

As for Olajuwon and Robinson, there were 6 seasons where the Bulls were waiting for them yet they weren't good enough to even get out of their own conference. In '91 they got bounced by the Lakers and Warriors. In '92 Houston didn't even make the playoffs and San Antonio got swept by a Barkley-less Suns team in the 1st round. In '93 they both lost in the semis. In '96 they both lost in the semis again. In '97 Houston couldn't even get by the Jazz and the Spurs were no where to be found. In '98 they were getting bounced in the first and second rounds.

Where were the monsters?

[dankok8]

Giving my two cents.

Simply based on the dominance of their respective teams, it's not an easy sell that Hakeem's Rockets at their best would have beat any Bulls title team. The Bulls teams were historically great (except for 1993 which were above average) while the Rockets were among the weaker champions in NBA history. Based on the team statistics we have that are quite informative about team strength like Net Rating and SRS (both RS and PS) the 1994 and 1995 Rockets were no more dominant and in fact possibly less dominant than the 1993 Suns. It's a classic case of winning bias.

They matched up well and I think they give the 1993 Bulls a good series but beating them is a reach. And other versions of the Bulls were too good for the Rockets.

[HoopsNY]

Giving my two cents.

Simply based on the dominance of their respective teams, it's not an easy sell that Hakeem's Rockets at their best would have beat any Bulls title team. The Bulls teams were historically great (except for 1993 which were above average) while the Rockets were among the weaker champions in NBA history. Based on the team statistics we have that are quite informative about team strength like Net Rating and SRS (both RS and PS) the 1994 and 1995 Rockets were no more dominant and in fact possibly less dominant than the 1993 Suns. It's a classic case of winning bias.

They matched up well and I think they give the 1993 Bulls a good series but beating them is a reach. And other versions of the Bulls were too good for the Rockets.

There's no reason to think the '95 Bulls would have beaten the '95 Rockets. For one, the Bulls would have had to deal with peak Hakeem, who would have likely put up 40/20 against a poor interior defense.

Chicago lost Grant in '95, and that left a big hole in their interior defense and would have likely been exposed. In addition, the Bulls would have had to not only deal with Hakeem, but Clyde, and the array of shooters that would have made it tough for their defense.

Do you double and triple team Hakeem down low? If so, who deals with Clyde? And then what do you do with Elie, Horry, and Cassell sitting on the perimeter?

I think Chicago wins easily in 1994, though.

[dankok8]

There's no reason to think the '95 Bulls would have beaten the '95 Rockets. For one, the Bulls would have had to deal with peak Hakeem, who would have likely put up 40/20 against a poor interior defense.

Chicago lost Grant in '95, and that left a big hole in their interior defense and would have likely been exposed. In addition, the Bulls would have had to not only deal with Hakeem, but Clyde, and the array of shooters that would have made it tough for their defense.

Do you double and triple team Hakeem down low? If so, who deals with Clyde? And then what do you do with Elie, Horry, and Cassell sitting on the perimeter?

I think Chicago wins easily in 1994, though.

Oh no. I don't think the 95 Bulls beat the 95 Rockets. Not at all.

I was talking about the Bulls title teams and the notion that MJ was lucky to duck the Rockets. I don't think either the 1994 or 1995 Rockets beat any Bulls title team except maybe 1993 Bulls and even then it's not likely. 1993 Bulls would still be favored.

[Xiao Yao You]

There's no reason to think the '95 Bulls would have beaten the '95 Rockets. For one, the Bulls would have had to deal with peak Hakeem, who would have likely put up 40/20 against a poor interior defense.

Chicago lost Grant in '95, and that left a big hole in their interior defense and would have likely been exposed. In addition, the Bulls would have had to not only deal with Hakeem, but Clyde, and the array of shooters that would have made it tough for their defense.

Do you double and triple team Hakeem down low? If so, who deals with Clyde? And then what do you do with Elie, Horry, and Cassell sitting on the perimeter?

I think Chicago wins easily in 1994, though.

does Grant leave if MJ is there? Does Hakeem do what he did against the 3 time champs?

[HoopsNY]

Oh no. I don't think the 95 Bulls beat the 95 Rockets. Not at all.

I was talking about the Bulls title teams and the notion that MJ was lucky to duck the Rockets. I don't think either the 1994 or 1995 Rockets beat any Bulls title team except maybe 1993 Bulls and even then it's not likely. 1993 Bulls would still be favored.

Ah okay, gotchya. That makes sense. I'm curious as to why you think the '95 Rockets wouldn't beat the '98 Bulls.

[HoopsNY]

does Grant leave if MJ is there? Does Hakeem do what he did against the 3 time champs?

Grant had contract issues with Chicago IIRC. Reinsdorf didn't give him a good offer and the relationship became sour by the summer. I think Orlando had offered a lot more money.

If MJ doesn't retire in 1993, I guess it's possible he doesn't leave but I really doubt he would have stayed. He had already 3 won three titles either way and wanted the opportunity to join a younger core. If Chicago wins in '94, which they almost certainly would have, then I think Grant probably leaves just because there wouldn't be any reason for him to stay. He was already very accomplished.

[Xiao Yao You]

Grant had contract issues with Chicago IIRC. Reinsdorf didn't give him a good offer and the relationship became sour by the summer. I think Orlando had offered a lot more money.

If MJ doesn't retire in 1993, I guess it's possible he doesn't leave but I really doubt he would have stayed. He had already 3 won three titles either way and wanted the opportunity to join a younger core. If Chicago wins in '94, which they almost certainly would have, then I think Grant probably leaves just because there wouldn't be any reason for him to stay. He was already very accomplished.

may have been different if they were going for 5 in a row. He left to play with Shaq and Penny too not just money. Leaving Pippen is different than leaving MJ

[999Guy]

He/they beat both Ewing and Shaq.

As for Olajuwon and Robinson, there were 6 seasons where the Bulls were waiting for them yet they weren't good enough to even get out of their own conference. In '91 they got bounced by the Lakers and Warriors. In '92 Houston didn't even make the playoffs and San Antonio got swept by a Barkley-less Suns team in the 1st round. In '93 they both lost in the semis. In '96 they both lost in the semis again. In '97 Houston couldn't even get by the Jazz and the Spurs were no where to be found. In '98 they were getting bounced in the first and second rounds.

Where were the monsters?

He split series with a young Shaq 1-1.

Ewing is not on this level. He was offensively handicapped come playoff time. And he peaked in the late 80’s his prime athleticism was done by the time his team scared the shit out of Jordan’s Bulls in 92 and 93.


Hakeem played with garbage. Robinson played with garbage. Like I said, you slot them onto an offensively competent team and watch the titles rack up.

If Hakeem and D-Rob played on teams that could win 55 games and nearly make a Finals without them, we wouldn’t even have to argue about this.

[dankok8]

Ah okay, gotchya. That makes sense. I'm curious as to why you think the '95 Rockets wouldn't beat the '98 Bulls.

They wouldn't because the 1998 Bulls were a really great basketball team.

My top 100 team ranking (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?515088-Djoker-s-New-Top-100-List) that uses Net in the regular season and rNet in the playoffs (adjusts for competition) has the 1998 Bulls ranked #15 all time. The 1995 Rockets are out of the top 100.

Sansterre's very different methodology (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2012241) that uses SRS in the regular season and rolling SRS in the playoffs (also adjusts for competition) has the 1998 Bulls ranked #19 all time and the 1995 Rockets at #93.

Both of our methodologies also adjust for league parity in slightly different ways and both have their strengths and weaknesses but it's not meant to be gospel. It is a solid baseline of team quality though.

Even giving the 1995 Rockets the benefit of the doubt and completely giving them a pass for "coasting" in the regular season, their postseason performance was not historically great or anything. Their +9.3 rNet in the playoffs is still far worse than any Bulls title team and only #57 on the list. Certainly solid but no evidence of a giant slayer.

The narrative surrounding the 1998 Bulls was that they were weak and old and they were... relative to the 1996 and 1997 Bulls. But in absolute terms, looking at that team on its own, it's a definite top 20 team of all time. Over the whole regular season they played at a very good +7.9 Net but they played at a whopping +9.6 Net in 44 games with Pippen in the regular season (a mark only 12 teams ever surpassed over a whole season) and Pippen was there for the entire playoffs where they played at +13.4 rNet (a mark only 9 teams ever surpassed).

[RogueBorg]

Nice story, except for the part where you forget to mention the years Chicago made the Finals neither Houston nor San Antonio came close to getting there. They were getting bounced in the first and second rounds. Houston came closest in '97 losing in 6 games in the WCF. I also laugh because you criticize the offensive parts Olajuwon and Robinson were paired with but aren't consistent with the same for Ewing.

[HoopsNY]

They wouldn't because the 1998 Bulls were a really great basketball team.

My top 100 team ranking (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?515088-Djoker-s-New-Top-100-List) that uses Net in the regular season and rNet in the playoffs (adjusts for competition) has the 1998 Bulls ranked #15 all time. The 1995 Rockets are out of the top 100.

Sansterre's very different methodology (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2012241) that uses SRS in the regular season and rolling SRS in the playoffs (also adjusts for competition) has the 1998 Bulls ranked #19 all time and the 1995 Rockets at #93.

Both of our methodologies also adjust for league parity in slightly different ways and both have their strengths and weaknesses but it's not meant to be gospel. It is a solid baseline of team quality though.

Even giving the 1995 Rockets the benefit of the doubt and completely giving them a pass for "coasting" in the regular season, their postseason performance was not historically great or anything. Their +9.3 rNet in the playoffs is still far worse than any Bulls title team and only #57 on the list. Certainly solid but no evidence of a giant slayer.

The narrative surrounding the 1998 Bulls was that they were weak and old and they were... relative to the 1996 and 1997 Bulls. But in absolute terms, looking at that team on its own, it's a definite top 20 team of all time. Over the whole regular season they played at a very good +7.9 Net but they played at a whopping +9.6 Net in 44 games with Pippen in the regular season (a mark only 12 teams ever surpassed over a whole season) and Pippen was there for the entire playoffs where they played at +13.4 rNet (a mark only 9 teams ever surpassed).

It is true that the Rockets struggled against WC opponents. They went the distance the first two rounds, for example. But those were also solid teams they faced.

For example, they faced a 60 win Utah team in the first round. How far off from the '98 team is that Utah team, really? Stockton, Malone, and Hornacek were all in their primes. I'd give the '98 team the edge because they were more fundamental and their bench was better because of Eisley and Anderson. Granted, the '95 team had Chambers, which doesn't equalize it, but it makes up for it somewhat.

I'd also argue that Houston's road to the finals was tougher given they faced Utah, Phoenix, and SAS. I think that's a tougher road than say WAS, CHH, and IND. Indiana was the exception, but how far off were they from Phoenix and San Antonio? Chicago went to 7 games against them.

Given that they also beat Orlando, I think the overall road to the title was tougher. Aside from that, I think Houston wins because Hakeem was a far superior finals performer to someone like Malone.

Add Pippen's woes with his back as well as the Rockets having someone like Clyde, then I don't think Chicago stands a chance. Clyde > Hornacek, and then you still have to deal with the shooters like Cassell, Elie, Horry, and Smith.

[dankok8]

It is true that the Rockets struggled against WC opponents. They went the distance the first two rounds, for example. But those were also solid teams they faced.

For example, they faced a 60 win Utah team in the first round. How far off from the '98 team is that Utah team, really? Stockton, Malone, and Hornacek were all in their primes. I'd give the '98 team the edge because they were more fundamental and their bench was better because of Eisley and Anderson. Granted, the '95 team had Chambers, which doesn't equalize it, but it makes up for it somewhat.

I'd also argue that Houston's road to the finals was tougher given they faced Utah, Phoenix, and SAS. I think that's a tougher road than say WAS, CHH, and IND. Indiana was the exception, but how far off were they from Phoenix and San Antonio? Chicago went to 7 games against them.

Given that they also beat Orlando, I think the overall road to the title was tougher. Aside from that, I think Houston wins because Hakeem was a far superior finals performer to someone like Malone.

Add Pippen's woes with his back as well as the Rockets having someone like Clyde, then I don't think Chicago stands a chance. Clyde > Hornacek, and then you still have to deal with the shooters like Cassell, Elie, Horry, and Smith.

Summarizing their competition, I think we can agree on the following:

1995 Jazz (7.76 SRS) >>> 1998 Nets (1.88 SRS)
1995 Suns (3.86 SRS) > 1998 Hornets (2.45 SRS)
1995 Spurs (5.90 SRS) < 1998 Pacers (6.25 SRS)
1995 Magic (6.44 SRS) < 1998 Jazz (5.73 SRS but 7.5 SRS with Stockton)

The raw SRS underrates the 1998 Jazz because Stockton missed a huge chunk of the season and in the games he played they were ~7.5 SRS and then he was healthy in the playoffs. The way the Jazz beat the Lakers in the 98 WCF was extremely impressive. It was one of the worst beatings of a 60+ win team in NBA history. A total dismantling...

At the end, how you judge the competition depends how much credit you want to give the Rockets for having a very tough opponent in the 1st round. I'd honestly call their overall competition a wash because the toughest opponent you play has the biggest bearing on how difficult the title run is.

The rNet values below for the postseason adjust for competition so they are an indicator of performance.

1995 Rockets:

1st Round vs Jazz: +13.0 rNet (+14.9 rORtg, +1.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs Suns: +4.6 rNet (+5.5 rORtg, +0.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs Spurs: +8.2 rNet (+5.2 rORtg, -3.0 rDRtg)
Finals vs Magic: +14.5 rNet (+9.3 rORtg, -5.2 rDRtg)

Overall: +9.3 rNet (+7.7 rORtg, -1.6 rDRtg)

The Rockets were phenomenal against the Jazz and Magic but only solid against the Spurs and subpar against the Suns. This data also confirms that the Jazz were strong because despite +13.0 rNet, it was still a relatively close series but it also shows the Suns were a paper tiger. +4.6 rNet loses the series against an opponent that actually plays at a high level.

1998 Bulls:

1st Round vs Nets: +10.5 rNet (+10.8 rORtg, +0.3 rDRtg)
ECSF vs. Hornets: +13.9 rNet (+3.6 rORtg, -10.3 rDRtg)
ECF vs. Pacers: +11.7 rNet (+12.6 rORtg, +0.9 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Jazz: +16.7 rNet (+0.1 rORtg, -16.6 rDRtg)

Overall: +13.4 rNet (+5.4 rORtg, -8.0 rDRtg)

The Bulls were way more consistent. +10 rNet or better in every round is pretty impressive. The Bulls also having higher rNet in the last two rounds but playing relatively close series against both the Pacers and Jazz is another piece of evidence that 1998 Pacers/Jazz are better than 1995 Spurs/Magic.

Also realize that we are completely dismissing the regular season in this analysis. Over a large sample of 82 games, the 1995 Rockets played at a 46-win pace and +2.2 Net while the 1998 Bulls played at a 62-win pace and +7.9 Net and again with a whopping 67-win pace and +9.6 Net in games Pippen played. If we include the regular season, the comparison is over before it started.

[HoopsNY]

Summarizing their competition, I think we can agree on the following:

1995 Jazz (7.76 SRS) >>> 1998 Nets (1.88 SRS)
1995 Suns (3.86 SRS) > 1998 Hornets (2.45 SRS)
1995 Spurs (5.90 SRS) < 1998 Pacers (6.25 SRS)
1995 Magic (6.44 SRS) < 1998 Jazz (5.73 SRS but 7.5 SRS with Stockton)

The raw SRS underrates the 1998 Jazz because Stockton missed a huge chunk of the season and in the games he played they were ~7.5 SRS and then he was healthy in the playoffs. The way the Jazz beat the Lakers in the 98 WCF was extremely impressive. It was one of the worst beatings of a 60+ win team in NBA history. A total dismantling...

At the end, how you judge the competition depends how much credit you want to give the Rockets for having a very tough opponent in the 1st round. I'd honestly call their overall competition a wash because the toughest opponent you play has the biggest bearing on how difficult the title run is.

The rNet values below for the postseason adjust for competition so they are an indicator of performance.

1995 Rockets:

1st Round vs Jazz: +13.0 rNet (+14.9 rORtg, +1.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs Suns: +4.6 rNet (+5.5 rORtg, +0.9 rDRtg)
WCSF vs Spurs: +8.2 rNet (+5.2 rORtg, -3.0 rDRtg)
Finals vs Magic: +14.5 rNet (+9.3 rORtg, -5.2 rDRtg)

Overall: +9.3 rNet (+7.7 rORtg, -1.6 rDRtg)

The Rockets were phenomenal against the Jazz and Magic but only solid against the Spurs and subpar against the Suns. This data also confirms that the Jazz were strong because despite +13.0 rNet, it was still a relatively close series but it also shows the Suns were a paper tiger. +4.6 rNet loses the series against an opponent that actually plays at a high level.

1998 Bulls:

1st Round vs Nets: +10.5 rNet (+10.8 rORtg, +0.3 rDRtg)
ECSF vs. Hornets: +13.9 rNet (+3.6 rORtg, -10.3 rDRtg)
ECF vs. Pacers: +11.7 rNet (+12.6 rORtg, +0.9 rDRtg)
Finals vs. Jazz: +16.7 rNet (+0.1 rORtg, -16.6 rDRtg)

Overall: +13.4 rNet (+5.4 rORtg, -8.0 rDRtg)

The Bulls were way more consistent. +10 rNet or better in every round is pretty impressive. The Bulls also having higher rNet in the last two rounds but playing relatively close series against both the Pacers and Jazz is another piece of evidence that 1998 Pacers/Jazz are better than 1995 Spurs/Magic.

Also realize that we are completely dismissing the regular season in this analysis. Over a large sample of 82 games, the 1995 Rockets played at a 46-win pace and +2.2 Net while the 1998 Bulls played at a 62-win pace and +7.9 Net and again with a whopping 67-win pace and +9.6 Net in games Pippen played. If we include the regular season, the comparison is over before it started.

I'm with you here. The problem I have with this is it doesn't analyze anything else except dominance. You're analyzing how well the teams played relative to the competition, but that doesn't say much if the competition wasn't necessarily stronger than another year's sample.

The numbers from the '98 finals seem skewed as well. It includes a 42 point blowout, which might skew the data from the other games as they were much closer.

In the other 5 games, the margin of victory in total was like 15 points, so an average of 3 points. Kinda curious how that looks if you were to exclude that one game.

But just looking at the two teams, then I can't see how Chicago matches up well against Houston. Pippen's back injuries were a major issue. They hindered him in the Indiana series and spilled into the finals. By the second half of game 4, and games 5 and 6, he was done. I don't think for a second that Clyde plays anywhere near as badly as Hornacek did in the '98 finals.

In fact, other than Clyde's rookie year, I don't think he ever scored fewer than 14 PPG in a playoff series. Hornacek averaged 10.7 in the '98 finals. I also think the production that Hakeem would give would seriously be a problem for Chicago.

Hakeem putting up 30/12 on high efficiency is likely, almost a given. That matters when you consider the point differentials in each of the games that weren't blowouts. Each game was decided by an average of 3 points. While I don't think Cassell, Horry, and Elie perform the way they did in '95 (especially given the bigger 3 point line), I do think the difference in play between Hakeem/Clyde vs. Hornacek/Malone would be significant. And with the point differentials being as small as they were, then it's likely to tilt in Houston's favor.

[dankok8]

I'm with you here. The problem I have with this is it doesn't analyze anything else except dominance. You're analyzing how well the teams played relative to the competition, but that doesn't say much if the competition wasn't necessarily stronger than another year's sample.

The numbers from the '98 finals seem skewed as well. It includes a 42 point blowout, which might skew the data from the other games as they were much closer.

In the other 5 games, the margin of victory in total was like 15 points, so an average of 3 points. Kinda curious how that looks if you were to exclude that one game.

But just looking at the two teams, then I can't see how Chicago matches up well against Houston. Pippen's back injuries were a major issue. They hindered him in the Indiana series and spilled into the finals. By the second half of game 4, and games 5 and 6, he was done. I don't think for a second that Clyde plays anywhere near as badly as Hornacek did in the '98 finals.

In fact, other than Clyde's rookie year, I don't think he ever scored fewer than 14 PPG in a playoff series. Hornacek averaged 10.7 in the '98 finals. I also think the production that Hakeem would give would seriously be a problem for Chicago.

Hakeem putting up 30/12 on high efficiency is likely, almost a given. That matters when you consider the point differentials in each of the games that weren't blowouts. Each game was decided by an average of 3 points. While I don't think Cassell, Horry, and Elie perform the way they did in '95 (especially given the bigger 3 point line), I do think the difference in play between Hakeem/Clyde vs. Hornacek/Malone would be significant. And with the point differentials being as small as they were, then it's likely to tilt in Houston's favor.

Competition is close either way and the Bulls were a much more dominant team. If you cherrypick the 42-point blowout against Utah I can do the same for the 33-point blowout against Phoenix. Without that game, the Rockets were heavily outplayed by the Suns. Obviously samples are small so there is variance but putting all the pieces together, all evidence points to the Bulls being the better team.

How the teams match up is a different story and a bit subjective. It comes down to opinion. For instance the Knicks in the 90's were nowhere close to as good as the Bulls but they were a tough matchup. However I still think you're reaching a bit here.

For one Hakeem wasn't a very high efficiency scorer in general. He did 33 ppg on +1.7 rTS for the entire 1995 playoffs. If we break it down round by round:

vs. Jazz: 35.0 ppg on +6.3 rTS
vs. Suns: 29.6 ppg on -1.6 rTS
vs. Spurs: 35.3 ppg on +4.7 rTS
vs. Magic: 32.8 ppg on -2.9 rTS

There is random variance in these numbers but none of those teams were really good defensively. He had two very efficient series and two inefficient ones.

The 1998 Bulls are a historically great defensive team that can throw Longley/Rodman at him and use MJ to quickly double and try to blow him up in the post. When he faced a similarly dominant defense in the 1994 Knicks, Hakeem did 26.9 ppg +2.8 rTS. The Bulls were also a dominant rebounding team so they would keep him off the boards. All in all, I see Hakeem doing 27-28 ppg/9-10 rpg on roughly league average shooting.

As for others, yes.. Clyde would be a problem to deal with. Still the Bulls had a lot of great perimeter defenders to throw at him. Harper, Jordan, Pippen and they could even switch Rodman at times. The Rockets shooters would lose some sting with the longer 3pt line and the Bulls' perimeter defense. The Rockets would probably put Pippen on Clyde if he's the one running the offense to tire him out.

The other big issue for the Rockets is defensively. They were -0.9 rDRtg in the regular season and -1.6 rDRtg in the playoffs. How would they stop MJ is another question worth asking? Hakeem can erase some of their mistakes but can only do so much and he himself was no longer the stalwart on D he was in 1993 and 1994.

[HoopsNY]

Competition is close either way and the Bulls were a much more dominant team. If you cherrypick the 42-point blowout against Utah I can do the same for the 33-point blowout against Phoenix. Without that game, the Rockets were heavily outplayed by the Suns. Obviously samples are small so there is variance but putting all the pieces together, all evidence points to the Bulls being the better team.

Completely agree. But that's not why I mentioned it. I mentioned the 42 point blowout because it skews the numbers, and similarly, it would for Houston. I'm not championing the stat is what I'm saying.


How the teams match up is a different story and a bit subjective. It comes down to opinion. For instance the Knicks in the 90's were nowhere close to as good as the Bulls but they were a tough matchup. However I still think you're reaching a bit here.

That's just it. They weren't as good, but they matched up well. Who matches up with Clyde? You can say MJ, but MJ's motor was running thin in that '98 series, and he would have had to guard Clyde throughout the series while maintaining his offensive ability.

Who matches up with Hakeem? I suppose Rodman? That doesn't favor Chicago in this case.


For one Hakeem wasn't a very high efficiency scorer in general. He did 33 ppg on +1.7 rTS for the entire 1995 playoffs. If we break it down round by round:

vs. Jazz: 35.0 ppg on +6.3 rTS
vs. Suns: 29.6 ppg on -1.6 rTS
vs. Spurs: 35.3 ppg on +4.7 rTS
vs. Magic: 32.8 ppg on -2.9 rTS

There is random variance in these numbers but none of those teams were really good defensively. He had two very efficient series and two inefficient ones.

He still shot 53% for the playoffs. And I'd say SAS was a solid defense. Either way, it's less about the entire team's defense and more of who his matchup would be. I'm guessing Rodman would have to guard him because Longley would likely get obliterated. And Rodman ain't stopping Hakeem.

Hakeem creates all sorts of matchup problems for Chicago and the fact that he had become so good at finding his spot up shooters would only help Houston.


The 1998 Bulls are a historically great defensive team that can throw Longley/Rodman at him and use MJ to quickly double and try to blow him up in the post. When he faced a similarly dominant defense in the 1994 Knicks, Hakeem did 26.9 ppg +2.8 rTS. The Bulls were also a dominant rebounding team so they would keep him off the boards. All in all, I see Hakeem doing 27-28 ppg/9-10 rpg on roughly league average shooting.


But we're not talking about '94. We're talking about '95. A more appropriate example would be Hakeem putting up 35/13/5/4 on 56% against Robinson/Rodman. Yet somehow he'd do less against Longley and a lesser version of Rodman (Rodman was All-Defensive 1st Team in '95 and didn't make the team in '98), because of MJ helping out? Make it make sense.

That scenario only sticks if Hakeem doesn't have shooters. And I don't think MJ is coming to help as much as Rodman, which wouldn't matter anyway.


As for others, yes.. Clyde would be a problem to deal with. Still the Bulls had a lot of great perimeter defenders to throw at him. Harper, Jordan, Pippen and they could even switch Rodman at times. The Rockets shooters would lose some sting with the longer 3pt line and the Bulls' perimeter defense. The Rockets would probably put Pippen on Clyde if he's the one running the offense to tire him out.

Keep in mind, the Rockets were 2nd in the playoffs in '94 in 3PA and 4th in 3p%. So while the percentage as a whole might drop, I still think they shoot a great percentage. They were only 7th in 1995 btw. Chicago shot the three at a 32.4% clip in the '98 playoffs and 29.5% in the finals.

In the '94 playoffs, Houston shot 36% in the playoffs. Okay put it this way; Utah shot 22% in the finals in '98. Do you think Houston shoots the same? I honestly don't.

If Chicago does throw Pippen on Clyde, then good luck in a game 4-5-6 and possible 7. Clyde wasn't a Bryon Russell.


The other big issue for the Rockets is defensively. They were -0.9 rDRtg in the regular season and -1.6 rDRtg in the playoffs. How would they stop MJ is another question worth asking? Hakeem can erase some of their mistakes but can only do so much and he himself was no longer the stalwart on D he was in 1993 and 1994.

Well, they wouldn't stop MJ. He's gonna get his 30-33 PPG regardless. Utah was a 17th ranked defense in '98 and they still managed to hold CHI to 88 PPG during the finals (CHI averaged 96.7 PPG during the regular season).

[dankok8]

That's just it. They weren't as good, but they matched up well. Who matches up with Clyde? You can say MJ, but MJ's motor was running thin in that '98 series, and he would have had to guard Clyde throughout the series while maintaining his offensive ability.

Who matches up with Hakeem? I suppose Rodman? That doesn't favor Chicago in this case.



He still shot 53% for the playoffs. And I'd say SAS was a solid defense. Either way, it's less about the entire team's defense and more of who his matchup would be. I'm guessing Rodman would have to guard him because Longley would likely get obliterated. And Rodman ain't stopping Hakeem.

Hakeem creates all sorts of matchup problems for Chicago and the fact that he had become so good at finding his spot up shooters would only help Houston.



But we're not talking about '94. We're talking about '95. A more appropriate example would be Hakeem putting up 35/13/5/4 on 56% against Robinson/Rodman. Yet somehow he'd do less against Longley and a lesser version of Rodman (Rodman was All-Defensive 1st Team in '95 and didn't make the team in '98), because of MJ helping out? Make it make sense.

That scenario only sticks if Hakeem doesn't have shooters. And I don't think MJ is coming to help as much as Rodman, which wouldn't matter anyway.



Keep in mind, the Rockets were 2nd in the playoffs in '94 in 3PA and 4th in 3p%. So while the percentage as a whole might drop, I still think they shoot a great percentage. They were only 7th in 1995 btw. Chicago shot the three at a 32.4% clip in the '98 playoffs and 29.5% in the finals.

In the '94 playoffs, Houston shot 36% in the playoffs. Okay put it this way; Utah shot 22% in the finals in '98. Do you think Houston shoots the same? I honestly don't.

If Chicago does throw Pippen on Clyde, then good luck in a game 4-5-6 and possible 7. Clyde wasn't a Bryon Russell.


Well, they wouldn't stop MJ. He's gonna get his 30-33 PPG regardless. Utah was a 17th ranked defense in '98 and they still managed to hold CHI to 88 PPG during the finals (CHI averaged 96.7 PPG during the regular season).

You make good points here.

One thing I'll push back on is Hakeem dominating. In the 1995 playoffs he wasn't super efficient scoring the ball (+1.7 rTS is barely above league average) and he would face a historically great defense in the Bulls. I strongly disagree with you that individual matchups are more important than the team defense/system. Shaq is even more unstoppable offensively than Hakeem and on paper Longley/Rodman guarding him is "barbeque chicken" to quote The Diesel himself but guess what... the Bulls did a fantastic job on Shaq in 1996 on route to sweeping the Magic. Why? Because Jordan and their other perimeter defenders could collapse on him and still recover out to shooters when he passed the ball out. Of course they also blew up a ton of plays and forced a lot of turnovers. Harper/Jordan/Pippen were exceptionally quick. They could make plays other teams simply couldn't. Oh and Rodman did his thing where he corals a ridiculous number of rebounds. Even in 1998, he still led the league in rebounds and TRB%. Bulls in their 2nd threepeat won a ton of games by simply having more possessions than their opponents because of controlling the glass and forcing turnovers while committing very few themselves. To make things worse, the 1995 Rockets were actually a poor rebounding team.

Hakeem played 14 games against the Bulls from 1991 to 1997 in his prime. His scoring outputs were 13, 20, 24, 17, 18, 28, 29, 28, 15, 29, 31, 23, 32, 29. That's an average of 24 ppg. It's reasonable to expect 2-3 ppg more since Hakeem raised his game in the playoffs but 30+ ppg seems unlikely.

Another point I'd push back on is the 3pt shooting. 3pt shooting is incredibly streaky so using just the playoffs is iffy. Including the 1995 regular season, the Rockets were just 14th in 3pt % and that's with a shorter line. They were 15th in 1994. The 3pt shot is the most overblown factor here. The Bulls with the GOAT perimeter defense they had (Harper/Jordan/Pippen >>) would do fine contesting or even running them off the line.

And lastly you just brought up the Utah defense as a counter to the Rockets' defensive mediocrity. It's not so much that the Jazz held Chicago down. It's that Chicago slowed the pace and held Utah down. People don't realize that the 1998 Jazz had the 7th best offense by rORtg in league history. And they came off of a WCF where they hammered a very strong Lakers team with Shaq and three other all-stars. Just steamrolled them... Playing the Bulls was like running into a wall. They were forced into playing Chicago's game.

[HoopsNY]

You make good points here.

One thing I'll push back on is Hakeem dominating. In the 1995 playoffs he wasn't super efficient scoring the ball (+1.7 rTS is barely above league average) and he would face a historically great defense in the Bulls.

Where do you see this data? And I'm curious why we would focus on TS% when Hakeem wouldn't shoot 3s. I've always liked FG% for big men. And since Hakeem had a mid-range game and he attempted A LOT of FGs, his FG% is darn impressive.

Hakeem attempted 26.2 FGA in the '95 playoffs, and scored at a 53% clip. His FGA from the '95 playoffs was more than MJ in the playoffs in '91, '95, '96, and '98. He was tied in '97.

I bring this up because you know this as well as I do...keeping a high FG% isn't as impressive when you're only attempting 10-15 attempts a game. As a player attempts more, particularly in the second halves, 4th QT, and OT of games, it is increasingly more difficult to keep up a higher FG% due to the difficulty of sustainability.

This is why MJ was so impressive and needless to say, Hakeem was too in the '95 playoffs. A lot of games came down to the wire and Hakeem showed up consistently, attempting a lot of shots and scoring as well.

That's why his dominance stands out.


I strongly disagree with you that individual matchups are more important than the team defense/system. Shaq is even more unstoppable offensively than Hakeem and on paper Longley/Rodman guarding him is "barbeque chicken" to quote The Diesel himself but guess what... the Bulls did a fantastic job on Shaq in 1996 on route to sweeping the Magic.

Shaq averaged 27 PPG on 64% in that series. Shaq played in 45 series during his career...it's his 4th highest FG% of any series. What makes it so impressive is that Grant got hurt in game 1, making doubling Shaq a lot easier. I wouldn't call it "excellent".


Why? Because Jordan and their other perimeter defenders could collapse on him and still recover out to shooters when he passed the ball out. Of course they also blew up a ton of plays and forced a lot of turnovers. Harper/Jordan/Pippen were exceptionally quick. They could make plays other teams simply couldn't.

You're not wrong about this. So I do have to take that into consideration. My only pushback with this is that this is the '96 team. The '98 team was a lot slower and MJ didn't have the same lateral quickness, though Chicago did have a great perimeter defense that year as well.

But given your analysis on that point, I do have to concede.


Oh and Rodman did his thing where he corals a ridiculous number of rebounds. Even in 1998, he still led the league in rebounds and TRB%. Bulls in their 2nd threepeat won a ton of games by simply having more possessions than their opponents because of controlling the glass and forcing turnovers while committing very few themselves. To make things worse, the 1995 Rockets were actually a poor rebounding team.


He wasn't the same in the playoffs and finals. Rodman in '96 was just a different animal, and after '96 had really underperformed in the playoffs relative to what we saw in '96. Keep in mind, he was being discussed for the FMVP by game 3.

I don't think Houston being a bad rebounding team affected them as much as their ranking indicated:

RS HOU '95: 19th REBs
RS SAS '95: 4th REBs
RS ORL '95: 5th REBs
RS PHO '95: 10th REBs

PS HOU '95: 9th REBs
PS PHO '95: 1st REBs
PS SAS '95: 2nd REBs
PS ORL '95: 7th REBs

Clearly the difference in rebounding between the teams didn't matter for Houston when it was all said and done.


Hakeem played 14 games against the Bulls from 1991 to 1997 in his prime. His scoring outputs were 13, 20, 24, 17, 18, 28, 29, 28, 15, 29, 31, 23, 32, 29. That's an average of 24 ppg. It's reasonable to expect 2-3 ppg more since Hakeem raised his game in the playoffs but 30+ ppg seems unlikely.

Yea but we're discussing '95. Look at Hakeem's RS against SAS and ORL as an example.

RS '95 vs. SAS: 29.5 PPG on 47.3% FGs
RS '95 vs. ORL: 24.5 PPG on 42.2% FGs

We saw what what he ended up doing against these teams when it mattered. Hakeem was one of those players who rose to the occasion during the playoffs and finals. I'm not convinced if he faces Chicago from '98 that he'd only average 26-27 a game.


Another point I'd push back on is the 3pt shooting. 3pt shooting is incredibly streaky so using just the playoffs is iffy. Including the 1995 regular season, the Rockets were just 14th in 3pt % and that's with a shorter line. They were 15th in 1994. The 3pt shot is the most overblown factor here. The Bulls with the GOAT perimeter defense they had (Harper/Jordan/Pippen >>) would do fine contesting or even running them off the line.


Fair point and it's something I definitely have to consider.


And lastly you just brought up the Utah defense as a counter to the Rockets' defensive mediocrity. It's not so much that the Jazz held Chicago down. It's that Chicago slowed the pace and held Utah down. People don't realize that the 1998 Jazz had the 7th best offense by rORtg in league history. And they came off of a WCF where they hammered a very strong Lakers team with Shaq and three other all-stars. Just steamrolled them... Playing the Bulls was like running into a wall. They were forced into playing Chicago's game.

Utah did impact them defensively though. Chicago shot 45.1% and 33.7% in FGs and threes in the first three rounds. During the finals, that number dropped to 43% and 29.5%.

During the regular season, Chicago shot 45.1% and 32.3% from the field. But get this. With Pippen in the lineup, they shot 46% and 33.8%, respectively.

One might argue it's because Pippen got hurt, but in the first 4 games, they held Chicago to 42.4% shooting and 25.9% from three.

[RogueBorg]

Grant had contract issues with Chicago IIRC. Reinsdorf didn't give him a good offer and the relationship became sour by the summer. I think Orlando had offered a lot more money.

If MJ doesn't retire in 1993, I guess it's possible he doesn't leave but I really doubt he would have stayed. He had already 3 won three titles either way and wanted the opportunity to join a younger core. If Chicago wins in '94, which they almost certainly would have, then I think Grant probably leaves just because there wouldn't be any reason for him to stay. He was already very accomplished.

Grant had issues with being the 3rd wheel in Chicago especially after the 1992 Olympics when Jordan and Pippen got so much pub. There was an Inside Sports Story that talked about "Chicago's unhappy Bull."

[dankok8]

Where do you see this data? And I'm curious why we would focus on TS% when Hakeem wouldn't shoot 3s. I've always liked FG% for big men. And since Hakeem had a mid-range game and he attempted A LOT of FGs, his FG% is darn impressive.

Hakeem attempted 26.2 FGA in the '95 playoffs, and scored at a 53% clip. His FGA from the '95 playoffs was more than MJ in the playoffs in '91, '95, '96, and '98. He was tied in '97.

I bring this up because you know this as well as I do...keeping a high FG% isn't as impressive when you're only attempting 10-15 attempts a game. As a player attempts more, particularly in the second halves, 4th QT, and OT of games, it is increasingly more difficult to keep up a higher FG% due to the difficulty of sustainability.

This is why MJ was so impressive and needless to say, Hakeem was too in the '95 playoffs. A lot of games came down to the wire and Hakeem showed up consistently, attempting a lot of shots and scoring as well.

That's why his dominance stands out.

I get TS% from Basketball-Reference.

Hakeem had a 56.0 %TS in the 1995 playoffs compared to a league average of 54.3 %TS. This gives him a relative efficiency of +1.7 rTS.

TS% is true efficiency because it takes into account the value of 3pt shots and free throws. Hakeem didn't get to the line much and didn't shoot threes so he wasn't as efficient as raw FG% would have you believe.


Shaq averaged 27 PPG on 64% in that series. Shaq played in 45 series during his career...it's his 4th highest FG% of any series. What makes it so impressive is that Grant got hurt in game 1, making doubling Shaq a lot easier. I wouldn't call it "excellent".

Yea but Shaq also shot 36.4% from the free throw line and averaged 4.3 turnovers per game.

I watched this entire series recently for tracking plus-minus and Shaq was subdued. He barely had impact except in Game 3 where he had a phenomenal game.


You're not wrong about this. So I do have to take that into consideration. My only pushback with this is that this is the '96 team. The '98 team was a lot slower and MJ didn't have the same lateral quickness, though Chicago did have a great perimeter defense that year as well.

But given your analysis on that point, I do have to concede.

Among all championship teams in history (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?514668-My-Attempt-at-Ranking-the-Greatest-Teams-of-All-Time),

The 1996 Bulls had a -5.9 rDRtg in the regular season (12th) and -9.4 rDRtg in the playoffs (4th).
The 1998 Bulls had a -5.2 rDRtg in the regular season (14th) and -8.0 rDRtg in the playoffs (9th).

The 1998 Bulls were still a crazy good defensive team.


He wasn't the same in the playoffs and finals. Rodman in '96 was just a different animal, and after '96 had really underperformed in the playoffs relative to what we saw in '96. Keep in mind, he was being discussed for the FMVP by game 3.

Rodman had a down year in the 1997 playoffs but in 1998 he was quite good. He had a 24.1 TRB% in the regular season and 21.3 TRB% in the playoffs. Those are pretty incredible numbers. Pretty much only the likes of Wilt/Russell/Moses aka GOAT rebounders did that kind of thing...


I don't think Houston being a bad rebounding team affected them as much as their ranking indicated:

RS HOU '95: 19th REBs
RS SAS '95: 4th REBs
RS ORL '95: 5th REBs
RS PHO '95: 10th REBs

PS HOU '95: 9th REBs
PS PHO '95: 1st REBs
PS SAS '95: 2nd REBs
PS ORL '95: 7th REBs

Clearly the difference in rebounding between the teams didn't matter for Houston when it was all said and done.


With rebounding, I was just bringing up a point that would be clearly in favor of the Bulls.


ea but we're discussing '95. Look at Hakeem's RS against SAS and ORL as an example.

RS '95 vs. SAS: 29.5 PPG on 47.3% FGs
RS '95 vs. ORL: 24.5 PPG on 42.2% FGs

We saw what what he ended up doing against these teams when it mattered. Hakeem was one of those players who rose to the occasion during the playoffs and finals. I'm not convinced if he faces Chicago from '98 that he'd only average 26-27 a game.

Fair point. We actually don't know.

But we know that of all the great centers to face the Bulls like Ewing, Mourning and of course Shaq, none of them exploded against the Bulls and usually had very subdued series. Lower ppg, lower efficiency and often high turnovers. Doesn't mean Hakeem would as well but the Bulls had tools to deal with opposing big men effectively even if the individual matchups (i.e. Longley or Rodman) don't look that favorable at first glance.


Utah did impact them defensively though. Chicago shot 45.1% and 33.7% in FGs and threes in the first three rounds. During the finals, that number dropped to 43% and 29.5%.

During the regular season, Chicago shot 45.1% and 32.3% from the field. But get this. With Pippen in the lineup, they shot 46% and 33.8%, respectively.

One might argue it's because Pippen got hurt, but in the first 4 games, they held Chicago to 42.4% shooting and 25.9% from three.

The style of play with very low pace had an impact on that. The Jazz are kind of a weird team actually. In the regular season in 1998, their offense was historically great and defense average but in the playoffs with a slower pace, their offense fell off and became just average but their defense improved and became really good. It is probably a style change.

1998 Jazz:
Regular Season: +7.3 Net (+7.6 rORtg, +0.3 rDRTg)
Playoffs: +7.3 rNet (+0.1 rORtg, -7.2 rDRtg)

[3ba11]

"impact" stats conclude that the 2011 Mavs had better on-paper talent than the Heat because they outperformed opponents by more than the Heat during those playoffs and fell off less when Dirk left the floor.. Therefore the 2011 Mavs had better on-paper talent than the Heat - this is the logic used by Ben Taylor's video to say the Bulls had better casts than they actually did.

But his logic is obviously false - the Mavs didn't have more talent - it's intuitive that their superior dominance of opponents compared to the Heat, or their superior cast performance was due to their superior chemistry and strategy, not talent - so that's the problem with "impact" numbers - they measure more than on-paper talent and are often a better reflection of a chemistry or brand of ball advantage, which is dictated by the 1st option's skillset.. The Mavs developed great chemistry with Dirk, so they had it without him too, which deflates Dirk's "impact" even though he's responsible for the chemistry development.. It's the opposite for Lebron's teams because his ball-dominant skillset can't develop the kind of chemistry that wins with Jason Terry (or Mo Williams).

Lebron has the kind of bad chemistry that needs franchise players at 2nd and 3rd option, otherwise he can't win as 1st option.. So he literally has the worst chemistry of all-time, based on these talent requirements - he needs franchise players at 2nd and 3rd option for him to win as 1st option.

[dankok8]

"impact" stats conclude that the 2011 Mavs had better on-paper talent than the Heat because they outperformed opponents by more than the Heat during those playoffs and fell off less when Dirk left the floor.. Therefore the 2011 Mavs had better on-paper talent than the Heat - this is the logic used by Ben Taylor's video to say the Bulls had better casts than they actually did.

But his logic is obviously false - the Mavs didn't have more talent - it's intuitive that their superior dominance of opponents compared to the Heat, or their superior cast performance was due to their superior chemistry and strategy, not talent - so that's the problem with "impact" numbers - they measure more than on-paper talent and are often a better reflection of a chemistry or brand of ball advantage, which is dictated by the 1st option's skillset.. The Mavs developed great chemistry with Dirk, so they had it without him too, which deflates Dirk's "impact" even though he's responsible for the chemistry development.. It's the opposite for Lebron's teams because his ball-dominant skillset can't develop the kind of chemistry that wins with Jason Terry (or Mo Williams).

Lebron has the kind of bad chemistry that needs franchise players at 2nd and 3rd option, otherwise he can't win as 1st option.. So he literally has the worst chemistry of all-time, based on these talent requirements - he needs franchise players at 2nd and 3rd option for him to win as 1st option.

What does this have to do with anything discussed in the thread?

[BarberSchool]

Has there been a modern metric discovered yet that didn’t reinforce the eye test regarding the GOAT ?

[Phoenix]

What does this have to do with anything discussed in the thread?

Absolutely nothing. He'd have dropped that post if the topic was about the merits of pineapple as a pizza topping.