92 Bulls >>>>>>> 96 Bulls?
_Lefty
Members Posts: 6,564 ✭✭✭✭✭
I got this from another forum, I was talking about great defenses and I brought up the doberman defense of the early 90s. I googled it, and this thread came up. I always referred to the 96 bulls as the greatest incarnation but dude changed my mind. Ya'll agree with what homie was sayin?
joehoo:
Quote from: "grimballer"
how the ***** are 96 bulls overrated?
I'll tell you how... people are dazzled by the 72 win total, and they forget key factors that make the 92 Bulls MUCH better than the 96 Bulls.
1996 Chicago Buls = 72-10
1992 Chicago Bulls = 67-15
So five win difference. Not even significant to begin with. Now consider this:
1. The 1996 Bulls won 6-7 games against the FIRST year expansion Raptors and Grizzlies. That severely waters down their win total. Give the 92 Bulls 7 games against teams led by Damon Stoudamire and Brian Reeves, and that win total is probably at least 70 right off the bat.
2. Disparity in the 92 and 96 league. Here is a FACT! The 1996 fifth seed in the East was the Cleveland Cavaliers. Their leading scorers?
Terrell Brandon
Danny Ferry
Chris Mills
If that doesn't say it all about how weak the 96 league was compared to the 92 league, I don't know what does.
In 1992 the fifth seed in the East was the Detroit Pistons.. Isiah Thomas played 78 games, Dumars played 82, Laimbeer played 82, Rodman played 81. They still had Agguire, Woolridge and Salley.. And they were the FIFTH seed.
The league was a much deeper league in 1992.
In 92 the Pacers were a 40 win seventh seed. They had Reggie Miller, Chuck Person, Dale Davis, Rik Smits... basically a YOUNG version of the teams that did so well when they were OLD from 98-00.
3. The ages of the Bulls.... In 1992 Jordan was 29, Pippen was 26 and Grant was 26. They had something called the Pippen and Jordan fourth quarter show every night in 1992... the Bulls would sick the "Doberman Defense" on opponents. That defense involved Jordan, Pippen and Grant in college-style fullcourt pressure... and it led to a 12 minute long barrage of fast break dunks that just ruined teams.
No team, before or since, has been able to run the floor like that, with athletes of that size-athleticism duo caliber. It was literally a quarter long dunk contest. The Bulls would be down 3 to the Cavaliers in the fourth quarter and win the game by 15.
By 1996, Jordan was 33, Pippen 30, and Rodman was 35. While they were effective in a watered down BAD league.. they had no wherewithall to pull of the athletic feets the 92 team could pull off. In 92, Pippen and Jordan were both jumping 40+" on the breakaway combined with lightning quickness and floor speed... they just couldn't do that in 96. Nobody can do that at 33 and 30.
To this you often get "but they were so much smarter in 96." No they weren't... first off all, the difference between the very very very very saavy Bill Cartwright and the stupid lumbering moronic Luc Butterhands Longley is enough right off the bat. But, in 1992, they were already the smartest SG and SF in the league. So you lose a step and a half and you're gonna offset it by going from the smartest to the "double smartest"...?
4. The biggest fallacy ever regarding the 96 Bulls. That Dennis Rodman at age 35, was vastly superior to a 26 year old Horace Grant. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rodman's perceived difference from Grant is more glitter than substance. He played to the people ten times better, and that's about it. Here are the stats:
Horace Grant 1992 - age 26
14.2 PPG 10.0 RPG 2.7 APG 1.23 SPG 1.62 BPG 57.8% FG 74.1% FT
Dennis Rodman 1996 - age 35
5.5 PPG 14.9 RPG 2.5 APG 0.56 SPG 0.42 BPG 48.0% FG 52.8% FT
a) The myth that Rodman is so superior defensively... They used Grant to press fullcourt, you couldn't dot hat with Rodman. Grant had an extra 0.67 SPG and 1.20 BPG. Grant had younger legs. Rodman was far superior to Grant in 1990. At that time, Dennis was an all-time top 5 defender, and Grant was just "very good." In 92 Grant was still very good and by 96, Rodman was living off of reputation. Still pretty good, no longer great.
b) Rodman is a better rebounder. But if you let me choose between:
Better rebounder, equal defender, VERY inferior offensive player (Rodman often was so bad that his defender cheated off of him)
or
Inferior rebounder, equal defender, VASTLY superior offensive player
I'll take the latter every time. My ? there is a full 10% disparity in FG% and 21% in free throws.
At the very least, it's not some gimme that Rodman is way better than Grant.
The 96 Bulls got their win total in a very opportunistically overexpanded league, a bad league, with older legs, and a power forward living off of reputation.
Are the 96 Bulls BAD? No. They're still a top 15-20 team all-time. They probably win 60 games in 1992. But they're just not as good as the media and sports people play them up to be. That's all.
Comments
-
I was always a fan of Horace Grant over no-O Rodman.Im sure my opinion isn't very popular though.
-
Any thread that shows Horace Grant love automatically gets a goat from me.
-
You can't say 96 was watered down then give the 92 bulls props for going 67-15 when they went 12-1 vs the heat,hornets,t wolves and magic.4 expansion teams with the heat being the only team making the playoffs in 92 season the rest were the worst in the nba.
In 96 bulls lost to the raptors,heat,magic and hornets 2 of these teams(heat and magic) made the playoffs the hornets missed em by one game.Magic were the 2nd best team in the east and went to the finals the year before that watered down logic is terrible.
Defensively 96 bulls gave up 93 ppg.92 bulls gave up 99.5 ppg -
Rodman was better than Grant, ain't no way around it... And the '92 team had nothing like Toni Kukoc... Ron Harper and Steve Kerr>>>>John Paxson and Bj Armstrong...
Scottie Pippen was better in '92 compared to '96 statistically but he was hands down a better jump shooter in '96 and could still defend at a high lvl when needed...
And as for Jordan statistically he was pretty much the same player with his ast only taking a hit by 2....
'96 Jordan 30.4ppg/6.6reb/4.3ast/2.2stl
'92 Jordan 30.1ppg/6.4reb/6.1ast/2.3stl
Advantage for '96 Bulls, better supporting cast, deeper bench and better defensively as a team...
Advantage for '92 Bulls, younger Scottie Pippen that gives you about 2 more ppg/ast/reb and a younger Jordan even tho 96' Jordan gives you damn near the same production....
Conclusion: '96 Bulls>>>'92 Bulls -
Interesting argument, allow me dwell on this for spell
-
So ? enhancing Kukoc's "legacy" in here bruh? Really? THIS cracka??
Y'all trippin man. I was young as hell watching the last 2 championships but I remember dude stayed ? me off. -
numbaz...80's baby wrote: »Nobody is "enhancing" his legacy.
Name 4 players from the 92 team that was better than Kukoc.
Why must I name 4 lol?? Random af but outside Jordan, Pippen, & Grant id say Bill Cartwright although he didn't have much left by '92 but prime vs prime im taking Cartwright all day.
Look I agree the '96 team was better but Toni Kukoc still wasn't ? , & i always liked Grant over Rodman simply because I find it hard to be a professional basketball player & be that awful at scoring the ball. ? coulda stayed on the Pistons if we kept Grant & i bet we'd still have 6 rangz. -
I don't think a lot of what he said was wrong, but it doesn't really support his conclusion as strongly as he's suggesting.
First of all, he's really only discussing three positions: Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman/Grant. Those are arguably the most important positions on those teams, but you can't say the supporting cast didn't make a difference.
Second, his whole argument about Rodman vs Grant rests on stats, but if you actually watched the games, you know that a lot of what Rodman did never made the stat sheet. He used to give Shaq fits and others fits. Horace didn't accomplish anything comparable. It's true Grant was the better offensive player, but in the end, who cares about that? You had all the offense you need between Jordan and Pippen. The team won with Rodman because they didn't need offense from him. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »but if you actually watched the games, you know that a lot of what Rodman did never made the stat sheet.
Rodman is the undisputed king of intangibles. Horace grant was a better overall player though. He added a lot to the team because he could do so much. Rodman had to come out when they needed more offensive punch, and kukoc couldn't guard anybody. They were left at a disadvantage one way or another with both. Horace grant wasn't a liability at the 4, he had a respectable post game and could shoot the 15 footer, plus he was a good finisher at the rim. He was also more dynamic on the defensive end than rodman because he could guard more than 4s and 5s and you could stretch him in the full court pressure to play center field and get steals.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't think a lot of what he said was wrong, but it doesn't really support his conclusion as strongly as he's suggesting.
First of all, he's really only discussing three positions: Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman/Grant. Those are arguably the most important positions on those teams, but you can't say the supporting cast didn't make a difference.
Second, his whole argument about Rodman vs Grant rests on stats, but if you actually watched the games, you know that a lot of what Rodman did never made the stat sheet. He used to give Shaq fits and others fits. Horace didn't accomplish anything comparable. It's true Grant was the better offensive player, but in the end, who cares about that? You had all the offense you need between Jordan and Pippen. The team won with Rodman because they didn't need offense from him.
What exactly do you think I'm arguing lol?? ? making titan graphs just to agree wit me??
96 team was better.
This is primarily due to the superior role players, not Rodman over Grant.
Rodman was indeed a better fit (regardless of year), considering we had the GOAT and the NOSE to take care of offense.
We agree on all these points. I still like Horace Grant's game over Rodman's, & I'm well aware that Rodman is Top 10 defensive player of all time.
However, I ? with that Magic squad of Penny, Shaq, Grant, Anderson & i feel it altered the course of history when Penny got hurt. This is probably where my bias of Grant over Rodman comes from.
But can you honestly say if you swap Rodman for Grant on Bulls 96-98 they don't still three-peat? -
By the way, lol @ give Shaq fits. Rodman as a Bull never had to face that ? in the playoffs, you just giving Dennis moral victories now
-
By the way, lol @ give Shaq fits. Rodman as a Bull never had to face that ? in the playoffs, you just giving Dennis moral victories now
Yes he did, the 72-10 team faced the Magic in the ECF's -
Gotta lean toward 96 and my thinking is the team was a more dynamic offensively and with intangibles. You lose on some things with Rodman but the gain with him, Kukoc, Kerr, and Harper outweighs the loss
-
Cosign Grant on the Magic. He was an overlooked big part of their success.
-
Chi-Town Bully wrote: »
Damnit. You gotta forgive me breh, I was born in '91. -
Dennis would shut down Grant and grab 20 boards.
DR > Grant
It's not even close. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't think a lot of what he said was wrong, but it doesn't really support his conclusion as strongly as he's suggesting.
First of all, he's really only discussing three positions: Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman/Grant. Those are arguably the most important positions on those teams, but you can't say the supporting cast didn't make a difference.
Second, his whole argument about Rodman vs Grant rests on stats, but if you actually watched the games, you know that a lot of what Rodman did never made the stat sheet. He used to give Shaq fits and others fits. Horace didn't accomplish anything comparable. It's true Grant was the better offensive player, but in the end, who cares about that? You had all the offense you need between Jordan and Pippen. The team won with Rodman because they didn't need offense from him.
What exactly do you think I'm arguing lol?? ? making titan graphs just to agree wit me??
96 team was better.
This is primarily due to the superior role players, not Rodman over Grant.
Rodman was indeed a better fit (regardless of year), considering we had the GOAT and the NOSE to take care of offense.
We agree on all these points. I still like Horace Grant's game over Rodman's, & I'm well aware that Rodman is Top 10 defensive player of all time.
However, I ? with that Magic squad of Penny, Shaq, Grant, Anderson & i feel it altered the course of history when Penny got hurt. This is probably where my bias of Grant over Rodman comes from.
But can you honestly say if you swap Rodman for Grant on Bulls 96-98 they don't still three-peat?
Rodman is better than Grant bc his incredible rebounding, the hustle, defense, getting in people's head, was way more valuable to a team than Grant's 12 Career PPG....
And i don't get the "he was ass on offense" ? .. Don't you know if you left him alone, or doubled off him he'd have one of those 15 pts 20 reb nights.. Scoring was just something he never had to do, im sure if he looked for his shot more he'd atleast put up 12 on nightly basis...
i'll take a old Rodman *Bulls second 3peat* over a young Grant *Bulls first 3peat* -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I don't think a lot of what he said was wrong, but it doesn't really support his conclusion as strongly as he's suggesting.
First of all, he's really only discussing three positions: Jordan, Pippen, and Rodman/Grant. Those are arguably the most important positions on those teams, but you can't say the supporting cast didn't make a difference.
Second, his whole argument about Rodman vs Grant rests on stats, but if you actually watched the games, you know that a lot of what Rodman did never made the stat sheet. He used to give Shaq fits and others fits. Horace didn't accomplish anything comparable. It's true Grant was the better offensive player, but in the end, who cares about that? You had all the offense you need between Jordan and Pippen. The team won with Rodman because they didn't need offense from him.
What exactly do you think I'm arguing lol?? ? making titan graphs just to agree wit me??
96 team was better.
This is primarily due to the superior role players, not Rodman over Grant.
Rodman was indeed a better fit (regardless of year), considering we had the GOAT and the NOSE to take care of offense.
We agree on all these points. I still like Horace Grant's game over Rodman's, & I'm well aware that Rodman is Top 10 defensive player of all time.
However, I ? with that Magic squad of Penny, Shaq, Grant, Anderson & i feel it altered the course of history when Penny got hurt. This is probably where my bias of Grant over Rodman comes from.
But can you honestly say if you swap Rodman for Grant on Bulls 96-98 they don't still three-peat?
My ? I was responding to the OP. That's why I didn't quote you or anyone else. -
rodman would get offensive rebounds and pass it back out. he could easily had 10 points a game off just grabbing offensive rebounds and going back up
-
detcatinva wrote: »rodman would get offensive rebounds and pass it back out. he could easily had 10 points a game off just grabbing offensive rebounds and going back up
Why you lying? So ? coulda had an automatic 2 but chose to kick it out every time? Where they do that at? I'm more inclined to believe bro was way more confident in letting MJ/Pip take the shot than he was in his own layup ability.
@The Lonious Monk oops.
@blue197 explain his tenure on the Pistons then??? I'm calling shenanigans on a ? saying a dude who averaged a career 7.3 ppg as a full time starter ain't ass on offense.
I think the most he ever averaged was like 11 ppg which was on the Pistons but every other season was under 10ppg.
7.3 ppg per 36 ain't because the team didn't need him to score, it's cuz the ? had no O. -
Rodman had no O but in his 3 years in college averaged
26pts/13reb
26pts/16reb
24pts/17reb
And do you know how many scorers that Piston team had? Why would they need him to score when he can get 18 boards and shut down the opposing teams best player no matter the position... Rodman isn't a HOF for nothin dude.. -
? college gotta do with the b professional careers we discussing??
Rodman is HOF because he is top 10 GOAT in defense, as I've clearly admitted to earlier. Anybody top 10 in a category belongs in the HOF. Isn't that unwritten rule why Stockton made it? Cracka's whole career was a double double and even tho 13ppg ain't really nothing to parade over, them 10+ assists every damn game was.
Back to Rodman though. You still getting to argue dudes scoring ability when he averaged 7ppg. Stop it 5.
I respect Rodman's game & I'm thankful he served as a Bull. None of this changes my opinions or the fact that family averaged 7 POINTS PER GAME. -
And yes, I know HOF counts college careers too but nobody was talking about HOF or college until you brought it up.
-
Rodman 34pts/23reb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4WXNq4-F6A
Rodman 32pts/21reb/3blk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&persist_app=1&v=3qJiBVc4OT8
Wish there was more Rodman film online, i'd have a ? load of 20+ games... My point is Rodman could score jus bc he didn't doesn't mean he couldn't, the man just knew his role and excelled at it...
Like i said if he looked for his shot more I'm sure he'd easily avg a double-double for his career especially with all the offensive boards he could get.. -
Yeah, I mean you shouldn't really look for a guy to take a lot of shots on a team with MJ, especially if that's not even a role he cares about.
