The last great basketball teams were the Lakers and Celtics from the mid-'80s. Both were blessed with selfless superduperstars (Bird and Magic), genuine Hall of Famers (McHale and Parish for Boston; Worthy and Kareem for the Lakers) and valuable role players (DJ, Ainge and Walton for Boston; Cooper, Scott and Green for the Lakers). And both teams reached heights that haven't been approached since. They were the last two teams that dominated in a competitive league and routinely submitted those occasional "not only are we winning this game by 25 points, just send the tape to Springfield after it's over" games.
That Bulls team that won six NBA titles including back-to-back seasons of 72 and 69 wins with the greatest player in league history and a top-50 all-timer? Didn't even approach the heights of the Celtics.
And how about this dandy:
Bill Simmons, Johan Santana. Johan Santana, Bill Simmons.
We don't talk about it enough, perhaps because we're so close to the situation, but what Johan Santana's done over the last three seasons has been pretty freakin' awesome. So awesome that he's forecasted at 15 VORP higher than any other pitcher in baseball next season by PECOTA. If Simmons can't appreciate that, I guess it's his problem, but when you're the best pitcher in baseball for three years running, I think that classifies as dominance.
In Simmons' world, it rarely counts if it happens outside of Boston. At least he's willing to give the Suns a ton of credit, even if it is because his beloved Celts are terrible and force him elsewhere for quality NBA action.
If the Patriots win this Sunday, and especially if they win the Super Bowl, his columns are going to be nearly unreadable for the next month or two.
From 1988-1991, Jordan was more than 10 percent better than the next best player in the NBA by PER every year. THAT is dominance. basically, he was Santana 2004 every year.
Simmons asserts that we live in a "weird" period of time where there are no dominant players. If your definition of dominance is "Michael Jordan's peak" then it shouldn't be weird that there aren't any dominant players around.
Even then, unless you really want to get into the business of comparing pitchers in DH leagues to pitchers in non-DH leagues, Santana stacks up pretty well. (VORP isn't perfect, but Santana hasn't had anything too weird happen with his BABIP or LOB%, so this should mostly suffice. There's a chance that it's screwing some of the other pitchers, but I don't remember that being the case at the time of any of the Cy Young debates.)
2006 VORP, AL Rank
89.5, 1 -- Santana
75.8, 2 -- Schilling
2005 VORP, AL Rank
73.0, 1 -- Santana
54.8, 2 -- Buehrle
2004 VORP, AL Rank
79.6, 1 -- Santana
68.0, 2 -- Halladay
I'm not sure that we really know how to compare NL pitcher to AL pitchers all that well. It's clearly a different beast when you know you can walk the 8th hitter to get an automatic out in the first five innings of a game. And even if you aren't in trouble facing the pitcher, you don't have to go at full effort to get a lot of pitchers out. Even then, the only season that might be better than Santana's over the last three years is Roger Clemens' 2005 effort. (And if you use PRC, Clemens' edge is just 1 run in '05 and Santana is better than every other pitcher by 10% for the last three years.)
Like I said, if Bill Simmons can't appreciate that, it's his problem.
so, umm, should the best NL starting pitchers have systematically higher VORP because they face lower-variance lineups, or systematically lower VORP because they tend (?) to go longer than the best AL starters because of pinch-hitting opportunities?
It's not clear to me why VORP shouldn't be comparable across leagues, since the scores (presumably) are normed separately with respect to "replacement levels" in each league. I can't think of any good reason to expect significantly different variances in the two leagues. Can you?
BTW, where are you getting these numbers? According to MY check on "VORP for pitchers", in 2004, Santana had 89.5 and in second was Schilling at 75.8.
Oops. I see. Ubes, I think you got the years backwards on your VORPs. You listed the "2004" results as "2006". In 2005, Clemens was first at 80.2, followed by Santana 73.0, Pettite 72.1, Carpenter 67.8, ....
Yeah, I got the years backwards. Oops.
clearly, you didn't read far enough to let him redeem himself. To wit:
Third, Mike D'Antoni buried Marcus Banks (an indefensibly bad free-agent signing)
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Former Future Point Guard of the Minnesota Timberwolves!
I think this is the key phrase: "They were the last two teams that dominated in a competitive league...."
I haven't clicked through to read that article yet, but he's argued before that the NBA of the '90s was diluted by expansion: the great teams weren't as loaded, the league wasn't as competitive. Jordan's Bulls certainly were dominant, but who ever really gave them a stiff test? Who were their arch-rivals? Even at the time, people used to raise that issue.
Particularly in the late '90s, the league seemed so thin on star power, fan interest significantly declined after Jordan "retired" for the second time. Jordan essentially was the NBA. Taking away nothing from his individual brilliance, I think it's fair to say that a sport is more interesting and impressive when its top star or team is tested by stronger competition than the Bulls really faced in their day.
I think frightwig's analysis of the impressions of the NBA in the late 1990s is spot on (and I basically agree with his conclusion about the quality of the competition the Bulls faced during their two three-peats). Jordan was such a dominant force that reporters/pundits/fans/corporate sponsors lost sight of just how great the remaining talent was in the league. To wit:
Among the NBA's official "50 greatest players" list, those still rating All-NBA first, second or third team ratings in the three years following Jordan's second exit included Shaq, Karl Malone, Hakeem, D-Rob, and Stockton. Others that probably merit ranking with that "50 greatest" list that were making all-league notice during 1999-2002 include Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Kobe, Jason Kidd and Dirk Nowitzki.
Star power may have declined, just because MJ was at such an extraordinary level. But the talent level is still incredibly high.
There were still great players in the past 17 years, but I think expansion and the salary cap did make it harder to build deep, great teams. Even now, the good teams are more likely to be carried by a single star; the best teams count themselves lucky to have two exceptional players. After Shaq and Wade, to take one example, what kind of talent did last year's champion really have on the roster?
That's why Simmons is so excited about the Suns. For the first time in a long while, he's watching a top team that doesn't depend on the one or two superstars to carry a bunch of scrubs who know their roles. They have a deep arsenal of weapons, led by a true point guard who pulls all the right strings, and they play a style of ball that made him a fan of the game in the first place. How often have you seen a team like that since Bird and Magic retired?
That Rockets team with Hakeem, Drexler, Maxwell, Thorpe, Kenny Smith, and Sammy Cassell was pretty darned good. What was wrong with the Spurs team of Duncan, Robinson, Sean Elliot, Avery Johnson, Steve Kerr, and now Parker and Ginobili?
The Suns aren't as good as either of those teams. The fun thing about the Suns is that they score. The rule changes that were long overdue to restrict defenders from mugging perimeter players (a style of play that was popularized by the "Bad Boys" to defend the undefendable Jordan) have brought back more offense to the game. The Suns are a beneficiary.
Incidentally, the Bird led Celtics beat the Lakers in the Finals exactly once. The other two times they got lucky enough to face an inferior Houston outfit, including once when Houston made the finals despite having a losing record during the regular season. That's right. The deeper, better league back then had a team with a 40-42 make the NBA Finals. They beat another 40-42 team, the KC Kings to make the finals.
The Celtics had to beat a 45-37 Chicago team in the second round of the playoffs. Then, they beat their favorite punching bag, the Sixers, in the Eastern Conference finals. Then, they beat the sub-.500 Rockets in the Finals. They got a bye in the first round. Not that impressive.
The deeper, better league back then had a team with a 40-42 make the NBA Finals.
You're referring to the '80-81 season, when the East had 3 teams win 60+ games (Celtics, Sixers, Bucks) and another win 50 (Knicks). To reach the Finals, Boston swept a 45-37 Bulls team and beat the "punching bag" 62-20 Sixers in 7 games (after Philly had beaten the 60-22 Bucks in 7 games). Houston that year was led by Moses Malone, Calvin Murphy, and Robert Reid. In a fluke, they slipped past the Lakers in the 1st round--when that first set was a 3-game "mini-series." Then they beat George Gervin's Spurs in 7 games, before taking the Kings in 5. (The Kings had slipped by Portland in the mini-series, then beat the top-seeded Suns in 7 games.)
A 40-42 team getting through the West was just one of those weird things that can happen in a playoff system, particularly when there is a short 1st round, some series are pushed to the limit, and one team gets some lucky breaks. Still, any team with Moses in his prime, supported by guys like Murphy, Reid, and Tomjanovich is not a bad team. In today's game, they'd probably be one of the elites.
The '81 Celtics had to get by a good, balanced Bulls team, a 62-20 team led by Dr. J, and then beat a team led by Moses Malone in his prime to win the title. I think that's a pretty competitive test.
But the best Celtics team of the '80s was the 67-15 club in '85-86, which was 15-3 in the playoffs. Even if the Celtics did nothing else in the decade, which isn't the case, that one team still is probably better than any team to come along since the Celtics and Lakers dynasties ended. And the Houston team they beat in the '86 Finals had Hakeem Olajuwon, Ralph Sampson, Lewis Lloyd, John Lucas, Robert Reid, and Rodney McCray. That Rockets team, btw, beat the Lakers in 5 games in the conference finals. Are you trying to say that that was an "inferior" team? What about that team seems inferior to you?
The Rockets and Spurs were good teams, but I'm not so impressed by their depth.
Houston had a great Center in Hakeem and some jump-shooters for a couple years (Drexler was a midseason pickup in the second championship season, when the Rockets claimed the title as a 6-seed). They also never had to face Jordan's Bulls in the Finals.
The Spurs won their first title in '99, the strike-shortened season when a lot of the league came back out of shape. After the great Duncan-Robinson duo, the rest of the team were just parts. None of the guards even averaged more than 10 ppg. In the 2003 championship season, Robinson was in his twilight and Ginobli was a rookie bit-player. Stephen Jackson wouldn't really come into his own until after leaving San Antonio. After Duncan and Parker, they just had a lot of ordinary guys playing small roles. By 2005, Ginobli had developed into a fine 3rd man, but who else was on the floor? Bruce Bowen and Rasho Nesterovic had the most minutes among the rest of the supporting cast.
Compare that to the '86 Celtics, who had Bird-McHale-Parish in the frontcourt, Ainge and Dennis Johnson at guards, and Bill Walton coming off the bench. Or compare to the Lakers teams with Kareem-Worthy-Green in the frontcourt, Magic and Byron Scott at guards, and Michael Cooper coming off the bench.
Please. Those teams could have run the Rockets and Spurs off the floor. I believe either of them would have given the Bulls some awful matchup problems, too. Imagine Longley-Rodman-Pippen going up against those Celtics or Lakers frontcourts. Tire tracks all across their backs....
Of course that '86 Celtics team did play the Bulls in the playoffs that year. Jordan missed all but 18 games that year and the Bulls made the playoffs despite a 30-52 record. Yep, a team 22 games under .500 was good enough to make the playoffs.
Jordan, Woolridge, Corzine, Oakley, and Paxson started. Jordan was a second year guy, Oakley was a rookie, Corzine was a nobody and Paxson was a future substitute. Woolridge was shown the door after that season.
The Celtics won all three games, two of them fairly handily. But the middle game was an overtime game -- Jordan's famous 63 point outburst that prompted Larry Bird, who was not prone to compliment the opposition, to exclaim that it was "God disguised as Michael Jordan" playing for the Bulls. Tire tracks, indeed.
The later teams with a still-the-best-player-in-the-league Jordan, a lockdown defender in Pippen, a rebounding and defending maniac in Rodman, along with Ron Harper, Toni (20.4 PER) Kukoc, and a sharpshooter in Steve Kerr were every bit as good (and I believe better) than the 1986 Celtics.
The league scoring rate in the NBA in 1986 was 107.2 points per 100 possessions. The Celtics scored 111.8 and allowed 102.5, good for 3rd and 1st, respectively, in the league.
The league scoring rate in the NBA in 1996 was 107.6 points per 100 possessions. The Bulls scored 115.8 and allowed 101.2, both best in the league. They were better offensively and defensively relative to the league than that Celtics team was.
The premise here is whether that Bulls team was great. I say it was. I think it was better than that Celtics team. I think it was comparable to that Lakers team. Heck, the 1991 Bulls team, which was far from the best of the lot, handled the Lakers with Johnson, Worthy, Perkins, Scott, and a young and effective Divac with ease.
Few outside of Boston would argue with the contention that Jordan was the best player in NBA history, by either MY standards OR ubelmann's
so, the 1995-1996, 72-10 Bulls team had the best player ever AND perhaps the best complementary player ever in Pippen. But the dropoff in talent was sharp after those two. Toni Kukoc was a nice player. He was the only other player to average double figures in scoring (13.1; 10.8 ppg in the playoffs). The rest was just parts. Rodman averaged 14.9 reb/g and was named All-Defense (1st team) for the last time in his career. There was more than a bit of "Gold Glove"-ness to that award.
They had seven guys play 1000+ minutes -- six of whom averaged double figures per 40 minutes. In order of per-40 scoring rates, with actual per-game scoring in parentheses (after Jordan, Pippen and Kukoc): Steve Kerr (8.4), Bill Wennington (5.3), Luc Longley (9.1), Ron Harper (7.4), Rodman (5.5).
I was living in Champaign at the time and saw a lot of Bulls games (who didn't? but I got the local feed too). The Bulls lived on the incredible defensive pressure applied by Jordan and Pippen, Jordan's offensive brilliance, and a host of role players who mostly played their roles.
Jordan averaged 37.7 minutes per game; Pippen, 36.7, Rodman 32.6. No one else averaged more than 26.5. I think that is a testament to how top-heavy that team was.
So yea, you could say they were great and they were deep.
The 1985-86 67-15 Celtics team had four Hall of Fame front-court players and one near-HOFer in the backcourt (DJ). The main short-coming was that the rotation was only 8 deep, with one big guy (Walton), one swing man (Wedman) and one guard (Sichting) getting meaningful minutes off the bench.
A matchup between the 1995-6 Bulls and the 1985-6 Celtics would have been very interesting. I think a 31-year old DJ would have done about as well as anyone guarding a 32-year old Jordan. McHale, Parish and Walton would have killed Rodman, Longley, Wennington, etc. down low. Bird vs. Pippen? Well, Pippen was a great perimeter defender, but would have had his hands pretty full. Ainge >> Ron Harper, Wedman and Kukoc would have been a push, Sichting and Kerr another push.
Bottom line: I can't see that the Bulls were not at the 1985-6 Celtics' level. Contrasting styles make for interesting basketball.
correction. The Bulls had eight players with 1000+ minutes (in order, Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Rodman, Kerr, Harper, Longley, Wennington).
The 1985-6 Celtics likewise had 8 with 1000+ minutes. So, while it sort of seems like the Bulls were deeper, they really weren't. Both basically had 8-man rotations.
Simmons = overrated. He's the puffy cheetos of sports columnists. Mildly amusing for a while but pretty soon your sick of them (him).
+250 unfulfilling calories, Banjo. I will now envision Simmons with animated tiger stripes and cool shades.