You made some great points and I do agree with the premise of what you're saying - obviously, these stats are based on the assumption that you're implementing an offensive system that best utilizes the talents of your team. So a look at the system that the team is helpful for context.

I think that other factors are also important though. Coaches and personnel work to evaluate their players' talents and THEN put the appropriate system in place, and in '88 Pippen was a sophomore. He was still a raw and unpolished (albeit talented) young player, and I think alot of what he did under the Phil Jackson regime was a result of him proving that he possessed the necessary skills to be a point forward in the triangle. In '88 he wasn't that kind of player. I don't think a lack playing the triangle that season was the difference between the Bulls being knocked out and winning a title.

Also, even under the triangle MJ's production was brilliant, and by WS/48 he actually put up his most impressive numbers during the Jackson/Winters regime. His Off Poss% also stayed the same while he played in the triangle. It seems to be a common notion that MJ sacrificed a bunch role/production wise to win titles, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.

Also adjusted for the fast pace and offensive friendly era of the 80s, we have seen production on Par with Jordan over single seasons. Let's not focus on Volume statistics please.

When I highlighted his 96 finals percentages I should have been more thorough. His overall shooting percentages in the second threepeat in both the regular season and playoffs were far lower than his statistical prime, I just chose the 96 Finals because they were the most glaring example. He also had the highest usage rating in the NBA in his last three Bulls seasons. Payton even said in an interview about that series something to the effect of "I could not guard him in his prime, but he has slowed down since he came back"

I understand that there are strategic implications of Jordan not dominating the offense. But let’s say he isolated in the 90s as often as he did in his statistical peak rather than playing strictly through the triangle. Would that really affect his teammates performances? We can use role players like Paxson and Kerr for this instance. In Paxson’s big performances, the shots he hit weren’t necessarily in isolation or the result of him creating offense. Many of them were set shots or single-dribble jumpers, shots that he would have gotten even with late-80s MJ running the offense. Steve Kerr even at his absolute BEST couldn’t dribble his way out of a paper bag. He was the epitome of a role player throughout his Bulls career. The scoring opportunities he received likely would have come no matter how aggressively MJ played. Let’s even consider Rodman. He still would have grabbed rebounds but would have been as irrelevant as before offensively.

The variables in this equation are players like Pippen, Grant, and later Kukoc, who worked with the ball often to create their own offense. Now, with Jordan dominating the offense like he did in the late 80s, his increased individual production would have at least in some part made up for the decreased collective production from his teammates. Not to mention he was a much better defender in his prime. I think something you’ve ignored is that players naturally progress. Specifically Pippen became a better player and not exclusively as the result of MJ’s decreased offensive role. In 89-90 (the year MJ hit his 69 vs the Cavs), MJ took his 3rd most attempts in a season while averaging 33.6 points per game. Pippen in only his 3rd season still managed a 16-6-5 stat line with 2.6 steals and an All-Star selection. Pippen had increased his scoring average each year of his career up to that point. MJ’s offensive domination and Pippen’s offensive evolution peacefully coexisted. I don’t see how we can assume Pippen’s success in becoming a diversely skilled offensive player is merely the result of MJ’s “buying into” the system. Not to mention the Bulls were just one game shy of reaching the Finals that year. A fully developed Pippen, in spite of MJ’s dominance in the playoffs that year, might have been the difference even without a purely triangle-based system.

While I believe 33 to 35 year old MJ was still the most athletic player in the NBA, there were things he couldn’t do anymore. He couldn’t dunk on bigger centers like he used to, or blow by any and every one. He became very deliberate, taking more time to make decisions in the low block when a prime Jordan would have just made a quick spin and dunked it. He reverted to the turnaround jumper more often than he ever did in his prime. There are moves that I can’t articulate because there aren’t names for them, but I just know that 80s MJ did them and 90s MJ couldn’t. I would hardly characterize MJ’s statistical prime as “needless flamboyance”. Sure he had some nice dunks, but the man produced at a rate that will never be seen again.

In terms of shooting 41.46% in the 1996 NBA Finals, Jordan may have constituted a lesser offensive player at that point in his career, but in '95-'96 at ages thirty-two/thirty-three, he averaged a league-best 30.4 points on a .495 field goal percentage, a .834 free throw percentage in 8.0 FTA per game, and a .582 True Shooting Percentage. Three years earlier in '92-'93 at ages twenty-nine/thirty, Jordan averaged a league-best 32.6 points on a .495 field goal percentage, a .837 free throw percentage in 7.3 FTA, and a .564 True Shooting Percentage. So by those measures, he really had not declined from his last year of the first three-peat. Therefore, while his mediocre or relatively low shooting percentage in the 1996 NBA Finals may in part reflect advancing age, I would caution against too firm an assessment. The low percentage may have just as much (if not more greatly) reflected random variation: a series against an elite defensive opponent where he didn't happen to shoot well, much like Jordan's 1993 Eastern Conference Finals where he shot .400 against the Knicks. This point is especially pertinent because Jordan's cold shooting in the 1996 NBA Finals is largely limited to just two contests (Games Four and Six), where he shot 6-19 and 5-19, respectively, for a combined rate of .289 (11-38). Conversely, in the other four games, he shot .471 (40-85), which isn't spectacular, but doesn't fully suggest a decline in ability, either. Possibly Jordan tired a little late in that series (he was completing a full NBA season for the first time in three years) and perhaps those Finals marked one of those small-sample situations where one or two poor games unduly affects the mean efficiency. Besides, Jordan did average a whopping 11.2 FTA per contest in that series, hitting his free throws at a .836 clip and attaining double-digits in FTA in five of the six games.

So using Jordan's overall field goal percentage in that one series as evidence of the aging process, while not without some arguable merit, also seems a tad fallacious. If Jordan constituted a worse offensive player by that stage of his career, he may have only been a slightly worse offensive player, one whose ability could be negatively misinterpreted based upon a couple cold performances late in the 1996 Finals. After all, in two of Jordan's first three playoff series back in the 1980s, he shot .436 and .417 from the field, respectively.

Let me also note that even if Jordan's offensive repertoire dwindled to two or three moves (I'm not sure that that statement is accurate), the reason may possess less to do with the physical diminishment of age (Jordan in his mid-thirties remained one of the league's most athletic, explosive players) and more with the mental acuity that comes with age. I've found that as they grow older, creative players, writers, and artists often become more spare and efficient in their actions or style, eliminating needless flamboyance and instead maximizing what works the best. I see the same winnowing process, for example, in the evolution of Kevin Johnson's penetrating moves off the dribble. As creators mature, they prefer profundity over flash.

Quite honestly I'm finding most of your argument more dismissive than substantive.

So are we just to ignore the strength of Jordan's supporting casts when debating the reasons for him winning multiple championships? Jordan declined as he got older. Statistics support this, but even the untrained eye could see it. His offensive repertoire became limited to two or three moves and shot a lower percentage from the field.

Now, I understand the case you're trying to make here, that his experience and overall understanding of the game from his championship years outweigh his statistical dominance from the his peak WAR years. Much of drop off in his numbers can be attributed to his redefined role - he understood that Pippen played better with the ball in his hands, etc. - thus the lower assist totals. However, you're not going to convince me in any way that, for instance, shooting 41% in the 96 Finals or 46% in his final Bulls season (an almost 8 percent drop from his peak) has no weight in this argument. He was a lesser offensive player at this point in his career.

Do you really think the Bulls would have failed in the 90s with Jordan from his statistical peak?

the 6-4 and 190 lb sidney moncrief was DPOY twice (in 82-83 and 83-84, and despite great defensive seasons by big men like buck williams, rick mahorn, mark eaton, tree rollins, and others), all-D 1st team 4 times, and all-D 2nd team once during that 6 year stretch. he was the key reason milwaukee was the top defensive team for such a long time, and played almost twice as many minutes as any other bucks player during that time (except marques johnson who he played 40% more minutes than)...

however not only was he the best defensive SG in the league these 6 seasons, he was also one of the very best all-around offensive SGs. he not only scored the 3rd most total points among all SGs (behind only gervin and free) from 80-81 to 85-86, but was the best overall shooting SG (58.0% ScFG%), made the most FTs (shooting 83%), and grabbed the 2nd most total rebounds among all SGs. he scored more than 1/6 of the bucks total points these 6 years, and they averaged a 55-27 W-L record during this time, bettered by only bos, phi, and lal...

if your system does indeed capture defense, for peak value i can't imagine a better 6 year stretch by an SG not named jordan over the past 30+ years...

Yes those TEAM stats are right, the individuals ones clearly destroy your argument. Which is the whole point you don't understand what leads to winning.

It is always interesting when those who claim to base their opinions on "facts" choose which ones to ignore when they feel like it. League Championships won, Conference Championships won, playoff series won, playoff games won, and Minutes Played are irrefutable FACTS, and authentic markers of individual excellence, in the game of basketball, relative to a player's peers. If you cannot cope with this reality, then, just say so. Futile attempts to "shoot the messenger" will accomplish nothing.