Horace Grant 1993-94 Per Game: 15.1 pts, 11.0 reb, 3.4 ast, 2.3 stocks, 52.4% eFG, 54.0% ts (+1.2 rTS) IA per 75: 17.5 pts, 11.4 reb, 3.8 ast Impact (compared to age 26-28 PF seasons since 1978): +3.0 COPM (95th %ile), +1.2 CDPM (85th %ile) Closest PROFILE comps (not necessarily playstyle or total impact): '02 & '03 Chris Webber Grant's lone All-Star appearance came in 1994, but the singular selection dramatically undersells the level of player he was. With Jordan retired and Chicago needing more from its supporting cast alongside Pip, Grant expanded his offensive role while continuing to provide the rebounding, passing and disciplined defense that had made him so valuable during the '91-93 title runs. 1. Elite 2-way efficiency Grant wasn't a high volume scorer, but he was remarkably well-rounded and efficient. The underlying profile explains it. He ranked in the 96th percentile in relative offensive rebounding, 92nd in passer rating and 92nd in turnover avoidance. He combined 11.0 reb and 3.4 ast with a modest 10.0% turnover rate, creating value without needing a huge offensive role. Defensively, he wasn't a pure shot-blocking specialist, but he was an extremely disciplined defender: 94th %ile in foul avoidance, 71st in block rate and 79th in defensive rebounding. His 2.3 stocks also undersell the broader value of having a physical, fundamentally sound PF who could defend without constantly giving possessions away. 2. More than the box score suggests Grant's 15.1 pts/gm don't jump off the page, but his efficiency + possession economy were exceptional. He finished with 10.0 win shares, 5.7 of which were offensive, compared to Scottie Pippen's 5.3 OWS (Pip still led the team in overall win shares at 11.3). He ranked 5th among PFs and 14th overall in win shares, while his ws/48 ranked 3rd among PFs. He also landed around the t15 in BPM and VORP, giving us several independent box score-based metrics from the pre-play by play era pointing toward the same conclusion which is that Grant was one of the NBA's most valuable players in '94, despite never approaching superstar-level usage. Chicago went 48-21 in Grant's starts compared to 7-6 without him. Obviously that's not a controlled impact measure, but it's consistent with the larger picture, the Jordan-less Bulls won 55 games, and Grant was a major reason they remained one of the league's best teams. 3. He got even better in the playoffs Grant's regular season efficiency carried over to the postseason, where he averaged 16.4/7.4/2.6 with 2.8 stocks on 58.5% ts (+7.7 rTS) over 10 games. The 7 game series against the Knicks was particularly impressive (reminder by relative DRtg the '94 Knicks had the 8th greatest defense of all time). Grant averaged 16.7/6.4/2.9 on 61.5% ts (+11.4 rTS), while Chicago posted a +1.3 net rating in his minutes despite ultimately losing the series. Overall takeaway: Horace wasn't a flashy offensive creator or a dominant rim protector. He was something arguably more valuable than his reputation suggests which is an exceptionally low-mistake, efficient 2 way PF who rebounded at an elite level, passed well, defended without fouling and contributed strong offensive impact without demanding possessions. His 1 all star appearance makes him look like a guy who briefly reached that level. The evidence suggests something different which is that Grant was a high-level player for a much longer stretch and 1994 was simply the season where his value finally got the spotlight. Video: 18 pts, 12 reb, 3 blk vs CLE. Game 2 of the 1st round