Jordan retired in October of 1993. The critics predicted gloom and doom for the Bulls. (I was one of these critics). Some even declared that without Jordan, the Bulls wouldn't even make the playoffs. After all, Jordan supposedly carried those stiffs to three titles, right? Because Jordan waited so late to retire, the Bulls were not able to pick up an adequate starter in free agency. They settled with Pete Myers from the CBA. They were set up to fail. Myers had a defensive reputation, but no where near that of Jordan, who had been named first-team all-defense 6 times and won the defensive player of the year award. Furthermore, Myeres hadn't even played in the NBA for the last two years, and he never averaged more than 5 points per game. How can you replace Jordan's 32 ppg and all-world defense with this guy? The Bulls were set up to fail. These predictions were also made - and all of them were reasonable assumptions, as you will see.The first assumption was declared by nearly everybody. Even Bulls coach Phil Jackson predicted a 15-game slip in his autobiography, Sacred Hoops. He based this upon the retirement of superstars from the past. Replacing Jordan with Myers should have been detrimental. However, the Bulls only slipped 2 games: from 57-25 with Jordan in 1993 to 55-27 in 1994. How could this be? They should have fallen apart. The answer is that Jordan simply wasn't as instrumental in taking the Bulls to another level as thought. I'm not saying they could win a title without him. He did make them marginally better, but not significantly better. Look at Jordan's elite peers: if you replace Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Russell with a C.B.A. center, do you expect a 2-game drop? No way. If you replace Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, or Magic Johnson with a C.B.A. player, do you expect a 2-game drop? Think again.Why did Phil Jackson predict a 15-game drop? Because he knew the impact that elite players had on their teams. Look at the table below and ask yourself why Jordan's impact was so minimal? Year before losing Bill Russel: 48-34Year after losing Bill Russell: 34-48Difference in wins: -14Year before losing Oscar Robertson: 59-23Year after losing Oscar Robertson: 38-4Difference in wins: -21Year before losing Wilt Chamberlain: 60-22Year after losing Wilt Chamberlain: 47-35Difference in wins: -13Year before losing Larry Bird: 57-25Year after losing Larry Bird: 42-40Difference in wins: -15Year before losing Magic Johnson: 58-24Year after losing Magic Johnson: 43-39Difference in wins: -15Year before losing Michael Jordan: 58-24Year after losing Michael Jordan: 55-27Difference in wins: -2To make matters worse, the Bulls lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs to the Knicks in 7 games. In Game 5, Scottie Pippen received one of the most unfavorable calls in playoff history by referee Hue Hollins when he was called for a foul on Knicks' rookie Hubert Davis, that allowed Davis to go to the line and win the game. If you are a real Bulls fan, you'll remember the call. I was cheering for the Knicks in that series, and even I admitted the Bulls got hosed. The Bulls should have won that series. I believe that would have defeated Indiana in the finals. They owned them in the regular season and the Knicks handled the Pacers. I don't think they had any chance of beating the Rockets in the finals without Jordan, but I do believe they could have got there without Jordan. It's all speculating, but it's not unreasonable speculation.Interesting....
Wow that is really interesting, it's also weird that the players who played with Jordan previously both scored more and shot better. For examle they used Pippen and Grant...1992-93 (w/ Jordan)Scottie Pippen 18.6 PPG, 47.3 FG% Horace Grant 13.2 PPG, 50.8 FG%1993-94 (witho Jordan)Scottie Pippen 22.0 PPG, 49.1 FG%Horace Grant 15.1 PPG, 52.4 FG%And that's pretty amazing, considering teams' % go down after their star leaves (it did but they included players who played with Jordan previously, and let's not forget Jordan had a good % while his replacement was only known for D)I also found this interesting:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Let me point this out: Jordan joined a losing team in 1984. His first year, they remained a losing team. The next year, they were a losing team. The third year, they posted their 3rd consecutive losing season. During Jordan's first three years, he was not able to make the Bulls into a contender. He couldn't even get them above .500. This man has a legendary "will to win", but can't win? Then, the Bulls add Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen, the next year, and the Bulls put up a winning record and advance another round of the playoffs. The Bulls keep adding players and they keep winning more and more until they win 3 titles. Jordan retires, and the Bulls only slip 2 games. He comes back the next year, and they do WORSE in the playoffs than they did the year before him. After the Bulls add Rodman and win 3 more titles, they disband the team. Two years later, Jordan joins a losing Wizards team. Under Jordan, they remain a losing team both years and fail to make the playoffs each year. He retires again, and the Wizards continue losing the next year.</div>Good find... good read
umm.. tony, how can you be "one of those critics" when you were 4 years old when it happened?but that is pretty amazing by the bulls. only a two game drop off after losing the best player of all time.
That just shows you how weak the League was when Jordan dominated, I don't think a team lead by Scottie would reach the EC semifinals back in the 80's .
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lakersfoelyfe @ Oct 19 2006, 10:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That just shows you how weak the League was when Jordan dominated, I don't think a team lead by Scottie would reach the EC semifinals back in the 80's .</div>Yeah. I mean, considering people who were actually aruond back hen unanimously say that the league is as weak now as it ever was, it surely must have been weaker then. Who cares if people who were actually there say the league in the 80s - early 90s say that was a strong point for the league? It's not true. And Scottie Pippen can't lead a team! He's only a Top 50 NBA Player ever...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Oct 19 2006, 03:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Tony didn't write this article guys....</div>Whoops, sorry 'bout that.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Renton @ Oct 19 2006, 06:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm the Rasheed Wallace of the boards! </div>That's probably not a good thing! :shifty2:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart @ Oct 20 2006, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That's probably not a good thing! :shifty2:</div>Hey! That's what girls say to me when I ask for their phone number!
<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">Good read. Now I have better reason to explain to my friend how Wilt Chamberlain is better than MJ.</span>
Of course you know Pippen had a career year that year. The bulls would've been dominant in 1994 if Jordan stayed on that team. They would equal their year of 1996 with Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at their prime. Next year they lost Grant to the Magic and Pippen wasn't as dominant.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mavsfan1000 @ Oct 22 2006, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Of course you know Pippen had a career year that year. The bulls would've been dominant in 1994 if Jordan stayed on that team. They would equal their year of 1996 with Jordan, Pippen, and Grant at their prime. Next year they lost Grant to the Magic and Pippen wasn't as dominant.</div><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">Maybe Pippen would have still been dominant had MJ not returned to dropping 30 a nigh?</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Illosophee @ Oct 23 2006, 04:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">Maybe Pippen would have still been dominant had MJ not returned to dropping 30 a nigh?</span></div>Pippen hit his peak in 1994. Also I believe they got Kukoc in Kerr that year. Pippen was very good with Jordan and without him was solid around that Bulls team he had. Later on he didn't fit in with a rockets team so I'm to believe his best year was 94 and after that he dropped off a little bit each year.
