1994 and 1995

Jordan's Clay Feet exposed

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.  Hype had it that they wouldn't even make the playoffs.  After all, Jordan supposedly carried those stiffs to three titles, right?  These 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.

The first assumption was declared by most.  Even Bulls coach Phil Jackson declared the second part, in his autobiography Sacred Hoops, based upon the retirement of superstars from the past.  For instance:

• When Bill Russell retired in 1969, the Celtics went from 48-34 to 34-48 (14 games).
• When Wilt Chamberlain retired in 1973, the Lakers went from 60-22 to 47-35 (13 games).
• When Oscar Robertson retired in 1974, the Bucks went from 59-23 to 38-44 (21 games).
• When Larry Bird missed 76 games in 1988-89, the Celtics went from 57-25 to 42-40 (15 games).
• When Magic Johnson retired in 1991, the Lakers went from 58-24 to 43-39 (15 games). 

However, when Michael Jordan retired, the Bulls went from 57-25 to 55-27.  Jordan was replaced by CBA journeyman Pete Myers.

The second assumption was "if Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the title," comes from those who like to say, "the Bulls didn't win the title in 1994, did they?"  Of the five teams listed above, four of them played in the finals with their superstar (Bird's team made the conference finals).  Without their respective stars, the 1970 Celtics and 1974 Bucks team failed to make the playoffs.  The 1974 Lakers were defeated 4-1 in the first round, the 1989 Celtics went 0-3 in the first round of the playoffs and the 1992 Lakers went 1-3 in the first round of the playoffs.  The Jordan-less Bulls of 1994 won their first round series and lost in the second round in seven games, with one loss (game 5) coming on a questionable call at the end.

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 seasons.  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.  Note that they did worse in the playoffs in 1995 than they did in 1994.  If Jordan were single-handedly responsible, don't you think they would do better with him in 1995 than without him in 1994?

Hmmm...maybe this basketball is a team game, after all.

Here is something else to consider.  When the topic of 1995 is brought up, Jordan-supporters will invariably say "Jordan had court rust, what do you expect?"  Jordan played 17 games that season, and his team didn't even make the conference finals.  [On an interesting sidenote, he only played 18 games in 1985-86, and that was the year that he scored 63 points in a playoff game.  Jordan fans must think that 18th game is necessary to shake the court rust...except in '95, he played 10 playoff games...oops].  In 1969-70, Wilt Chamberlain played 9 games and then tore up his knee.  He returned for the final 3 games of the regular season, and then took his team to the 7th game of the NBA finals.   Court rust?  Michael Jordan, the supposed, "greatest player in history", can't beat Orlando in a 7 game series after playing in 21 games (over 1/4 of a regular season), yet Wilt was called a "loser" for playing less games, and took his team past the round that Jordan lost, past the next round (Conference Finals) and all the way to the 7th game of the NBA Finals.  Court rust?  I thought he shook that court rust when he had his "double-nickel" (55 point) game against the Knicks!  Court rust?  How about tearing a tendon in your knee (similar to Charles' Barkley's career-ending injury), and only getting to play 3 games on a repaired knee, without basketball stamina, and then go into the playoffs?  Yet, Wilt was supposedly a "loser."  Well, if Jordan is better than Wilt, then Jordan has no excuse for not leading the Bulls to the 1995 NBA Championship.  Losing to Orlando in the Conference semi-finals can be categorized as nothing less than a major choke.

The third assumption was that 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.

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 (such as Steve Kerr in game 6 of the 1997 finals). In addition to this, the shooting percentage of the league has declined every year since 1989, so it is only logical to assume that without Jordan, players would have shot significantly worse in 1994 than in 1993, correct? Well, the Bulls, as a 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). Also, consider that Toni Kukoc was a rookie in 1994, and was a poor shooter (.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).  This may not seem like much, but remember, Jordan is SUPPOSED to make life easier for teammates, not harder.  How could this be?

Because 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. Passing simply wasn’t a priority for Jordan. Players like Magic Johnson, Oscar Robertson, and Larry Bird made their teammates better.  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.  However, the Bulls players who played with and without Jordan shot BETTER without him. B.J. Armstrong, Pippen, and Grant saw their scoring averages INCREASE, and the Bulls went from 57-25 to 55-27.  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, 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

2. Jordan made those around him better

3. Jordan was the most valuable player ever.

We have seen that point one isn't true.  Jordan has a losing record without Pippen and couldn't lead the Bulls to the championship in 1995.  He needed Pippen, a solid rebounder/interior-defensive force, along with solid teammates and a good coach.   Point 2 has been proven here in great detail, and I have disproved point 3, by showing that he wasn't as valuable as Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, and Bill Russell.  There can only be one conclusion from all of this: Michael Jordan is NOT the greatest basketball player ever.