92 Bulls >>>>>>> 96 Bulls?
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?
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?
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)
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.
Hey! You will be signed out in 60 seconds due to inactivity. Click here to continue using the site.