JORDAN'S CLAY FEET EXPOSED in 1994-1995
These two years are central in proving that Jordan is not the greatest ever. These two seasons will debunk a series of Jordan-based myths:
1.Jordan carried the team to 6 championships
2.Jordan made those around him better
3.Jordan was the most valuable player ever.
Jordan retired in October of 1993. The critics predicted gloom and doom for the Bulls. Extremist even declared that with Jordan, the Bulls wouldn't even make the playoffs. After all, Jordan supposedly carried those stiffs to three titles, right? These 4 assumptions were made:
1.The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.
2.If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the title.
3.Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them.
4.The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.
Assumption 1: The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.
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 by CBA journeyman Pete Myers should have been detrimental. These expectations weren't without reason.
The following list shows why 15 games was a reasonable number, and it also shows why Jordan didn't impact his team as greatly as other legends before him:
1. 1969 Celtics Bill Russell 48-34 Championship , Next Season 34-48 (-14) Missed playoffs
2.1973 Lakers Wilt
Chamberlain 60-22 NBA Finals, Next Season 47-35 (-13) Lost in first round 1-4
3.1974 Bucks Oscar
Robertson 59-23 NBA Finals, Next Season 38-44 (-21) Missed playoffs
4.1988 Celtics Larry Bird 57-25 Conference
Finals, Next Season 42-40 (-15) Lost in first round 0-3
5.1991 Lakers Magic
Johnson 58-24 NBA Finals, Next Season 43-39 (-15) Lost in first round 1-3
6.1993 Bulls Michael
Jordan 57-25 Championship, Next Season 55-27 (-2) Lost in 2nd round 3-4
Assumption 2: If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the title. This assumption was declared by those in 1995 who said, "the Bulls didn't win the title in 1994, did they?" While Jordan fans claim that he and he alone was single-handedly responsible for the title, they conveniently neglect 1995. Jordan did come back that season. However, the Bulls didn't have Horace Grant (and Dennis Rodman would not join until the next season). Without Grant, their rebounding and interior defense deficiencies were exposed by the Orlando Magic (Horace Grant's team, ironically), and the Bulls lost in the second round 2-4. As you can see in the table above, the previous year, without Jordan, they lost 3-4 in the 2nd round. Now if Jordan were single-handedly responsible for those titles, why did they do even worse in the playoffs after he returned than they did the year before, when they didn't have him?
Sure, they won the championship the following season, as Jordan fans like to point out, but they fixed their rebounding/interior defense problems by acquiring Dennis Rodman. Without Grant or Rodman, Jordan simply could not win a championship. After all, the team really didn't miss him that badly when he retired.
When 1995 is brought up, Jordan-supporters will invariably say "Jordan had court rust, what do you expect?" Jordan played 17 games that season. In 1986, Jordan played 18 games. In the 1986 playoffs Jordan scored a playoff-record 63 points. Why was Jordan able to shake the court rust in 1986 and not in 1995? Jordan fans usually claim that he got better as he got older.
Furthermore, to expose the double-standard, in 1969-70, Wilt Chamberlain played 9 games and then tore up his knee (similar injury to Charles Barkley's career-ending injury). He returned for the final 3 games of the regular season, and then took his team to the 7th game of the NBA finals (the famous Willis Reed game). Why is Chamberlain a "loser" and Jordan "has court rust"? Chamberlain's team went to the 7th game of the NBA Finals. Jordan's team couldn't even get to the 7th game of the Eastern Conference semi-finals. If Jordan is better than Wilt (and everybody else), then Jordan has no excuse for not leading the Bulls to the 1995 NBA Championship. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Losing to Orlando in the Conference semi-finals can only be described as a major choke.
Assumption 3: Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them. This appears to be a logical assumption. However, the logic is clearly seen when the hype is peeled away.
1992-93 (w/ Jordan)----Scottie Pippen PPG(18.6) FG%(47.3)
1993-94 (w/o Jordan)---Scottie Pippen PPG(22.0) FG%(49.1)
1992-93 (w/ Jordan)----Horace Grant PPG(13.2) FG%(50.8)
1993-94 (w/o Jordan)---Horace Grant PPG(15.1) FG%(52.4)
Assumption 4: The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.
The fourth assumption is that the Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan than with him. That is because conventional wisdom says that a player of Jordan�s ability requires extra defensive attention, and that creates open shots for teammates.
In addition to this, the shooting percentage of the league has declined every year since 1989, so it is only logical to assume that even with Jordan, the shooting percentage of the team would decline, and without him it would greatly decline, correct? Not surprisingly, the Bulls' opponents shot worse (fg% and PPG) in 1994 (no Jordan) than in 1993 (with Jordan). I doubt that Pete Myers was a better defender than Jordan, so this fact only further proves the trend that I just mentioned.
Well, the Bulls, as an entire team, DID shoot worse. That is because Jordan�s field goal percentage was taken out, and his position was replaced by CBA journeyman Pete Myers, who was known for defense (in other words, a terrible shooter). Furthermore, Toni Kukoc was a poor shooting rookie in 1994 (.431 from the floor and .271 from 3-point range).
When you factor this out, you find that there were nine players who played with Jordan in 1993 and without him 1994, you see that they actually shot BETTER without Jordan (48.6%) than they did with him (48.2%). As I showed previously, this was also true of the top 2 scorers (Pippen and Grant). In contrast, the 1992 Lakers and the 1989 Celtics saw nearly everyone on the team fall in fg% and ppg, due to the absence of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, respectively. This difference may not seem like much, but remember, Jordan is SUPPOSED to make life easier for teammates, not harder. And the trend in the league was decreased fg% every year. How could this be?
The answer is that players like Jordan do not make those around them better. Jordan has always been more interested in scoring his points than in helping his team. Whenever he was asked to score less, he rebelled.
In the 1989 Conference Finals, Bulls coach Doug Collins asked Jordan to pass more. Jordan had a hissy-fit and hardly shot at all, just to prove that his shots are needed. He took Collins request to an extreme. Rather than try to win the game, Jordan wanted to prove his own worth. When Phil Jackson took over as coach, he asked Jordan to not win the scoring title. Jordan rebelled. Jordan often criticized the Triangle defense and openly questioned Phil Jackson and Tex Winter. He also said that the triangle was an outdated defense and that offense players had evolved past it. He also questioned Winter's qualifications.
Passing simply wasn�t a priority for Jordan. Players like Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and Larry Bird made their teammates better. However, as I previously showed, the Bulls who played with Jordan shot better without him. Jordan is supposed to have a huge impact on the Bulls, right? Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Bill Russell, and Wilt Chamberlain had huge impacts on their teams in the W-L column, and Jordan is supposed to be better than them, isn't he? Could it be that Jordan simply wasn't as valuable to the Bulls as the legends listed above were to their teams?
Let's look at those 3 myths again:
1.Jordan carried the team to 6 championships - As I showed, the Bulls did not suffer greatly when he retired. When he returned, they didn't even make the conference finals, until they replaced their power forward.
2.Jordan made those around him better - I proved this collectively by showing that the players who played with him shot better without him.
3.Jordan was the most valuable player ever - He simply did not affect the W-L column, or the playoff performance as greatly as the other players that I showed above.
There can only be one conclusion from all of this: Michael Jordan is NOT the greatest basketball player ever.
.
.
.
BR>
