No question. If the Central had at least a team or two like that of the 96 squads with Reggie Miller, etc. they'd not be a 60-win team and maybe not even a 55+ win team. Not taking anything away from what they've accomplished this year as it's quite impressive. Comparing a team with Michael Jordan to one without is silly.
One thing you should remember though is that the Bulls were 9-8 after their first 17 games. They had a ton of new personnel, a new coach, and new systems. So there was a learning curve that left them 9-8 after 17 games. If the Central would have had more quality teams, they may not have won 62 games, but they would have still probably won more than 55 assuming this would have been a team that didnt have a learning curve to deal with. I had the Bulls pegged for 55 wins this year but they were better than I thought. Having said that, I thought Milwaukee and Indiana would be better than they were this year. My point is that even though the Central wasnt incredibly strong, it's offset by the Bulls having to overcome an initial learning curve. I think between those two advantages and disadvantages, they would have won 58-60 wins.
And it should also be pointed out that the Central teams did beat some of the NBAs elite teams while the Bulls had to play those teams more often but managed to make it throw with only one loss.
In the end, this years team has nothing to hang their head about. It's impressive no matter how you cross section the data. But to even compare them to the greatest team of all time is a bunch of crazy talk.
I think as you win more and more games, it becomes increasingly difficult. The air gets thinner above the timberline and a part of that is that, you're not just winning games, you're also avoiding losses that come with the grind of an NBA season. So, while 10 games may not seem like much, it's actually quite a lot.
