For all the hoops statistics that I love to crunch, I actually do have a rooting interest: I’m a Bulls fan. Michael Jordan has nothing to do with it — I grew up in the Windy City. I was a fan in the Artis Gilmore era, the Jerry Sloan and Stormin’ Norman Van Lier era, and the dark ages era — those six losing seasons that followed the last Chicago title in 1998.

And by a fan, I don’t just mean I kept an eye on the box score as the Bulls lost to this or that team by 20 or 30 points: I was a fixture at various sports bars, the kook in the corner watching a game by himself. On good nights, I’d point out to anyone who would listen to my ravings that “Hey, this Tyson Chandler kid is going to be a perennial on the All Defensive team soon.” On my lesser nights, I might have contended that Jalen Rose just needed the right offensive system or that Dalibor Bagaric just needed consistent minutes to develop.

Those Bulls, who were not so affectionately known as Horri-Bulls, were the worst team this decade. From 2000 to 2002, they put together a three-season run — 17–65, 15–67, and 21–61 — that dwarfs the ineptitude of other noted losers such as Golden State, Atlanta, and the Los Angeles Clippers. The2002–03teamimproved to 30–52 in time to knock themselves out of the upper echelon of the draft that included LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh. They suffered another characteristically bad season in 2003–04, but drafted Ben Gordon and Luol Deng — and they have become the (at least) semi-respectable team that the Knicks play tonight.

Watching the Knicks last week, especially the games against Sacramento and Houston, brought those Horri-Bulls to mind, and I began to wonder if these Knicks are as bad those Bulls.

On the surface, it may seem like a ludicrous question: These Knicks have several talented players such as Eddy Curry, Zack Randolph, Quentin Richardson, Jamal Crawford, and Stephon Marbury. But those Bulls had Elton Brand, Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Chandler, and (of course) Crawford and Curry. Both teams function as a cautionary tale: Every team in the NBA has talent, but unless that talent meshes, then losing — and lots of it — will ensue.

Let’s look at team metrics. The Knicks are presently 8–24 (.250), but their point differential, a negative 8.3 points per contests, suggests that they have been overachieving (bet you didn’t expect to see that word associated with this year’s Knicks) to win eight games. Their point differential is consistent with that of a .195 team. Unless they improve on that, then they will win 10 of their remaining 50 games. That would place them at 18–64, just a cut above those Bulls of the dark ages, but definitely close enough to warrant comparison.

The one major difference between the two teams is organizational awareness. Those Bulls knew they were a bad team, and made moves left and right. Many of them were not very good — for instance, they traded Artest and Miller for Rose. But there was urgent prerogative for change rather than complacency. The Knicks, on the other hand, are making noises that they still expect this team to suddenly blossom into a 45-win unit. Isiah Thomas, probably the most reviled man in New York basketball history, has said that he plans no trades this season.

That’s what worries me most — I may not be a Knicks fan but I’d at least like to watch good basketball each night before the Western Conference games come on. If the Knicks don’t change, then they are on pace for a miserable run like those Bulls teams. The cap situation is well known and I won’t rehash it here, but without some sort of overhaul, the roster will be beset by bad contracts until 2011. This Knicks team will almost certainly set franchise lows for victories, and without change, they may repeat the feat next season, too.

Perhaps the lone saving grace of the moment is that another NBA team is doing even worse than the Knicks. The Minnesota Timberwolves are 4–29 and have the utterly lethal combination of a GM, Kevin McHale, and a coach, Randy Wittman, who are less competent than Thomas. They are on pace to possibly become the fourth NBA team to lose 70 games in a season, joining the 1973 Philadelphia 76ers, the 1987 Los Angeles Clippers, and the 1998 Denver Nuggets, on the ultimate league dishonor roll.

The major difference between the T-Wolves and the Knicks is youth. The Minnesota roster is stacked with young players such as forwards Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, and Craig Smith and guards Randy Foye and Rashad McCants — each is still on the upside of their careers. Even just left to their devices and barring injury, the T-Wolves will improve. The same cannot be said for the Knicks, and they are approaching depths of historical proportion.

mjohnson@nysun.com