Originally Posted by Storm2006
What were the variables in them winning that many games? Not trying to deny it, I'm just genuinely curious.
Good question. It's pointless to talk about the roster, because we know who was on it. However, Steve Kerr is on record saying that Jordan was personally responsible for about five extra wins per year because he didn't believe in "schedule losses." Meaning, the second night of a road back-to-back, or the fourth game in five nights. Games where teams kind of pack it in and look forward to a day off. Kerr said MJ single-handedly won some of those games when the rest of the team was like "nahhhh." So, first of all, you need a maniacal competitor like MJ to get you those few extra wins.
Second, and this is most important, the NBA's talent pool was at its most diluted point. The Grizzlies and Raptors made it six expansion franchises in eight seasons. As a result, there were more 60-win teams over the three-year stretch of the Bulls' second three-peat than any other time in NBA history, and it's not even close. By 1998, FOUR teams won 60+ games. The Lakers and Sonics both won 61 games in 1998, and they were the #2 and #3 seeds in the west lol. That's insane. If any team was ever going to win 70+ games, it would be during that time period, with the most competitive mf'er in basketball history, with two Hall of Fame wing men, and a Hall of Fame coach.
Sure, there could be another Jordan someday, and we've seen super teams formed, but there will never be a dilution of talent on that level to basically provide free wins. That being said, the '96 Bulls, arguably the greatest team of all time, did
lose to the expansion Raptors. So who ******* knows lol.