Ok. I was snarky in my last post so my bad. I apologize. You in turn were snarky and condescending in this last post so we are even.
The 93-94 Bulls fielded a team of core guys in Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Paxson and Armstrong that had played together for years. They played under one coach, Phil Jackson, and one system the entire time. It's called continuity. And it's continuity with a group of players used to winning with a coach that coaches winners. This is why they surprised everyone and won 55 games. Pete Myers is irrelevant.
You can't compare this situation in anyway with the teams Jordan had minus Pippen. Completely different situation. Jordan didn't get to jump on board to a team filled with a strong group of guys with a proven coach like Pete Myers got to do. He joined a lousy team, with a lousy coach and the Bulls made no other additions to the team that helped other than adding Jordan. They won around 30% more of there games and made the playoffs for the 1st time in 3 years anyway. Objectively and subjective we would call that an improvement. Jordan-less Bulls with Pippen also had a great coach and a very stong, cohesive supporting cast. The Pippen-less Bulls with Jordan in the early years had absolutely nothing going for them other then they just drafted Michael Jordan. Do you see the difference? Reverse the roles. If Pippen was the one added in 84-85, not Jordan, they don't win even 38 games and they certainly don't make the playoffs. Because Pippen ins't as big of an impact player as Jordan and Pippen's development is a direct result of the hours of work he put in practicing against Jordan for years. Without Jordan as a teammate, Pippen doesn't become the same player.
On the other hand. If Pippen leaves and Jordan stays in 93-94, the Bulls are still a leading contender for the title and will make it beyond the second round. Will they be champs? I would be more difficult, but not impossible.
But the 93-94 Bulls were not close to good enough to win the NBA title that year. For all there wins, they have nobody they can count on to pull out a win against strong adversity in a playoff series with regularity. Jordan can do that. Pippen can't. Pete Myers certainly can't. So instead they bow out after the second round.
From 90-98 64 teams made it to the 2nd round of the playoffs like the Bulls do in 93-94. Of those teams, 8 win NBA titles. Of those 8, 6 are the Chicago Bulls. Also, of those eight years, every time Michael Jordan suited up to play for the whole season, the team he is on wins and he is always the best player on that team. This goes beyond correlation. This is causality. From 90-98, Jordan=NBA championship. You can't say that about Larry Bird even during his "peak years". We can't even distinguish "peak years" for Jordan when he played for the Bulls because he was great the entire time. When he got a little older, he switched to shooting more jump shots and continued to excel. He reinvented his game to continue his, AND HIS TEAM'S, success. He NEVER just took shots to pad his stats as you suggested. He did it to win and the Bulls won. When they weren't as good his first few seasons, it's because there was no one for Jordan to look to for impactful help.
9-9 when he played in year 2 with Jordan you say. they finishied 22 games BELOW .500 without him. They were that bad...
Bird had a much different experience in his early years. He was actually drafted in 78-79 but didn't play that year for the Celtics. Knowing Bird was coming, the Celtics began adding pieces to accompany him. This includes Archibald and Maxwell. Archibald was already an accomplished player and Maxwell was rapidly progressing. Why didn't they win in 78-79? Could have been a dissatisfied so-called leader in McAdoo. Could have been the circus surrounding there owner and their GM. Perhaps McAdoo just didn't play well with Maxwell and Archibald. Doesn't matter. The Celtics were building for the future. When Bird came, he came with Henderson and Carr as well. The Celtices changed their team completely for Bird. He was not the only change or the only reason for the turn around at all. most important change? Definitely. Only change that mattered? Not at all.
Same with the Celtics recent turnaround. They stunk even when Pierce did play. Rondo doesn't need to be a starter to make an impact. He was turning heads already in 06-07. The point is, a team with a losing record is not devoid of relavent talent. KG and Ray Allen were added and they won the title. But KG and Allen weren't the only factor that enabled them to win. Pierce and Rondo, already on the team, were just as important. Likewise, the Celtics of 78-79 didn't do well. But key additions were made then that helped them turn the the team around in 79-80. Guys already on the team helped Bird in a big way. That is a big reason Bird lead the Celtics to 61 wins in 79-80. He had other quality players on the team. Players that would contribute in the championship team the next year. Players that had already seen a certain level success individually. It wasn't Bird with a bunch of Brian Scalabrine level players winning 61 games. No dressing needed. These are the facts. If only the Bulls had given Jordan more support in his early years...
It really doesn't matter what the starting lineups are. This year the Bulls have probably had a double digit variety of different lineups this season. Mostly due to injury. The team is still fundementally the same. 95-96 Bulls were almost the exact same team as the 94-95 Bulls. They only lost Armstrong, but they picked up Jordan. Jordan was the turnaround. Rodman excelled in a defensive capacity, which is important, but he really only helped out half of the time since his offense stunk. And of course he got tossed from many games and was suspended multiple times. No, the jump from 47 to 72 and from no tile to title was Jordan. The rest of the team was basically that exact same team. I lived through it as a Bulls fan. Anyone paying attention knew who made the biggest difference by a landslide.
Amount of regular season wins doesn't correlate to the relative "goodness" of one team to another team. Just because one team wins 57 games and one team wins 55 does not make necessarily make them relatively equal. The Detriot Lions won more regular season games then the SB champion NY Giants. Are those two teams of "little difference" to you. The Packers will tell you they are quite different. Only looking at the regular season results and giving lip service to the playoff results is one of the worst ways I've ever seen to compare the level of two teams. It's like reading a great book, then reading 75% of a second book, throwing the rest in the trash and deciding they are of similar quality. Then, someone points out the ending of the second book made no sense, and was drastically worse then the first book's ending. But you insist they are about equal value anyway. Wow...
They most certainly did blink an eye. 55 wins is good yet unremarkable. A chapionship is elite. A three peat is greatness. There is quite a bit of "eye blinking" when you go from greatness to just good in the eyes of a team, an organization and the fans. The playoffs are far more important. Bulls with Myers=good (though not due to him). Bulls with Jordan=greatness (due to him). You see how that is more than just a little different?
But why do I need the last word. I'll leave that to people like Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. It's already been posted frequently by others but mabye look it up again. They were quite clear on who they thought was the greatest. And I believe them...