The 72-10 Bulls, Just how focused was this team ?? The questions

[dr8ked]

Was it luck? , My questions : injuries?, you have to be focused to stay healthy throughout the season ( or was it luck ?), What about the days when your star player is having a bad shooting night ??Is everybody else that much focused that they know when to step up and cover for their star player ?? also what about when everybody in the team including the star player is having a bad shooting night?? are they that much focused to realise they have to step up their defense and stop the opposing team from scoring ?? How do you handle off the court distractions without losing your focus on the goal??

Rasheed wallace said they could win 70 games but looking at some of the loses they've had, i doesnt look like they can do it. Magic is plagued with injuries/suspension, Cavs are having a chemistry issue, same applies to spurs. Lakers look lost without gasol, The verdict is still out on the nuggets ( but from the looks of things, they can't do it either). We all know records are there to be broken,but what will it take to break this record ??

speak on it and no trolling Please.

[Big One]

milwaukee will win 73 next season. book it

[Roundball_Rock]

They had injuries. Pippen suffered a few injuries during the final quarter of the season (which derailed a "Pippen for MVP" movement led by one Michael J. Jordan) and played hurt throughout the playoffs. Yet they kept winning. Why? They had the GOAT who was the best player in the league at the time and another player who was considered by many to be the second best player in the NBA at the time (when healthy). Pippen was consensus top 5 at worst in 96'. In addition to that they had the best rebounder in the game, Dennis Rodman, who also was an excellent defender. The 96' Bulls are the only team to ever have three players on the first all-defensive team. Ron Harper was also a very capable defender. Since Pippen was a unique player, a SF who served as the de facto PG, the Bulls were able to use Ron Harper, a career SG, PG spot since Pippen was the primary ballhandler/playmaker. As far as players go, they had the best 6th man in the game that year in Kukoc and a great 7th man in Kerr. Last but not least, they had Phil Jackson.


What about the days when your star player is having a bad shooting night ??Is everybody else that much focused that they know when to step up and cover for their star player ?? also what about when everybody in the team including the star player is having a bad shooting night??

Well, first this team had two superstar players so if one was struggling there was a good chance the other was not. Even when the team as a whole struggled offensively they were always competitive because they were by far the best defensive team in the league. They only lost two games by double digits. What does that tell you?


How do you handle off the court distractions without losing your focus on the goal??

You mean Dennis Rodman? Great leadership: Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson. Remember that in 97' when Rodman was getting a ton of technicals in the playoffs and playing so poorly he was not even leading the team in rebouding both MJ and Pip chided him. I recall Pippen publicly criticized him for it. Only the Bulls could have incorporated Rodman at that time. This was when Rodman was at the height of his gimmick/celebrity.

[Rake2204]

I wasn't visibly overwhelmed with how good that Chicago team was. It was not as if you could watch them play for 10 minutes and say, "Wow! I didn't know basketball could be played like that!". It was more often subtle, consistent execution and ability.

It seemed like they were always successful in completing everything they set out to do in a given game, and it was tiring for me to watch. It always seemed like, "Oh, there's Scottie Pippen pulling up for a three on a fastbreak. Stupid shot for anyone else in the NBA but of course he's going to drill it because it's Chicago" or "Oh, there's Bill Winnington dropping a pass to Michael Jordan along the baseline for a reverse layup and-1. Sure Wennington would be a scrub on any other team in the league but he plays for Chicago, so he's going to make plays like that every night." Clearly I'm exaggerating a little bit (it didn't always go right) but it honestly felt like everyone on that team played with a plus-5 ability boost.

I didn't hate the Bulls in '96 by any means, but I don't think I appreciated them until the years had passed. I was definitely rooting for the Sonics in the Finals that year (and I still love that Shawn Kemp dunk on Rodman - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTPV2r2s1k8) but for the most part I remember the Bulls for just having a team full of players that knew what to do once they stepped on the floor. I even remember Jud Buechler catching a lob and throwing it down with two hands in garbage time to which I said, "Yep, figures, Bulls."

[Shepseskaf]

The Bulls were in just about every game that year. I believe that they only lost one game by more than 10 points.

I doubt this type of season will ever be equaled. Even the best teams will get blown out every now and then. Jordan just wouldn't allow it.

[Cyclone112]

I remember a game they had in Toronto back in Toronto's first season ever and as you can imagine they were horrible. Somehow the Bulls lost by 1 point when Jordan hit a ridiculous fade away like half a second after the buzzer off an offensive rebound from a missed Steve Kerr three pointer.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199603240TOR.html

I know it's a "what if" scenario but I always think they should have had single digit losses(73-9) if it weren't for that game where they had no business losing to an expansion team in its first year in the league.

[Roundball_Rock]

Jordan just wouldn't allow it.

It wasn't just Jordan. Look at these 8 games where MJ shot 33% or worse. The Bulls went 7-1 in them.

Lakers vs. Bulls: Jordan is 5 for 20 but the Bulls win by 20 points anyway on Pippen's 33/13/6/2 with Kukoc chipping in 22 points and Rodman 15 boards.

Bulls vs. Rockets: Jordan is 7 for 26 but the Bulls beat Hakeem/Drexler by double digits. Pippen had 28/12/5, Kukoc 16 and Kerr 17.

Knicks vs. Bulls: MJ is 8 for 27 but the Bulls win by 7 anyway. Pippen has 22/7/8/3/1 and a total of five Bulls are in double figures (Kukoc had 18).

Bulls vs. Sonics: Jordan is 6 for 19 and the Bulls narrowly lose by 5. Pippen has a bad game, a decent 44% from the field but only 2 for 11 at the line. Luc Longley was actually the Bulls' best player in this game.

Bulls vs. Cavs: Jordan is 6 for 19 but the Bulls blow out the Cavs by 26 anyway. Harper is the high man for the Bulls.

Bulls vs. Pistons: Both Jordan and Pippen struggle (10 for 30 for MJ, 7 for 23 for Pip) and the Bulls still win.

Bulls vs. Magic: Jordan is 10 for 30 but the Bulls win on 20 points from Kukoc and 17/13/5 from Pip.

Bulls vs. Bucks: Jordan is 9 for 27 but the Bulls win anyway. Longley was the Bulls' best offensive player in this game.


I know it's a "what if" scenario but I always think they should have had single digit losses(73-9) if it weren't for that game where they had no business losing to an expansion team in its first year in the league.

They should have been 73-9 and 40-1 at home if it weren't for yet another fishy call by Hue Hollins in the Bulls' last home game of the season (they "lost 100-99 to the Pacers)...

[Cyclone112]

They should have been 73-9 and 40-1 at home if it weren't for yet another fishy call by Hue Hollins in the Bulls' last home game of the season (they "lost 100-99 to the Pacers)...

Can you elaborate on that? I don't remember anything about that.

[Biddy77]

The Bulls championship teams were built for the Triangle, and they ran it virtually to perfection. They had a lot of guys on the roster who were smart players, and they got a lot of layups from cuts and movement away from the ball. When you have easy buckets coming in to supplement what you get from your stars, and your D is air tight, wins take care of themselves.

Watching those teams, it often got aggravating. Harper always seemed to be catching the ball right at the basket for a layup, Kerr always seemed to be standing all alone at the 3 point line, etc. Guys like Jud Buechler could come in, make smart cuts, and end a game in double digits-- and you'd be sitting there at home screaming about how bad Jud was the entire time he did it, wondering why your team couldn't seem to stop the Bulls' scrubs.

[andgar923]

They had injuries....

Only 4 players played over 80 games (MJ, Kerr,Toni, Harp).

Pip only played 77 games
Rodman only played 64
Luc 62
Bill 71
Dickey 60
Caffey 57
Randy Brown 68


The reason they won, is because they were professionals and they never took a night off. They did all the little things that needed to be done to win. Most of them were experienced vets so that can either be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on how you look at it.

But it ultimately comes down to 'leadership'.

Its easy to lose focus and take a few nights off, or give up when things aren't working but they didn't for the most part..... that's due to their team's leadership.

[Jasper]

I wasn't visibly overwhelmed with how good that Chicago team was. It was not as if you could watch them play for 10 minutes and say, "Wow! I didn't know basketball could be played like that!". It was more often subtle, consistent execution and ability.

It seemed like they were always successful in completing everything they set out to do in a given game, and it was tiring for me to watch. It always seemed like, "Oh, there's Scottie Pippen pulling up for a three on a fastbreak. Stupid shot for anyone else in the NBA but of course he's going to drill it because it's Chicago" or "Oh, there's Bill Winnington dropping a pass to Michael Jordan along the baseline for a reverse layup and-1. Sure Wennington would be a scrub on any other team in the league but he plays for Chicago, so he's going to make plays like that every night." Clearly I'm exaggerating a little bit (it didn't always go right) but it honestly felt like everyone on that team played with a plus-5 ability boost.

I didn't hate the Bulls in '96 by any means, but I don't think I appreciated them until the years had passed. I was definitely rooting for the Sonics in the Finals that year (and I still love that Shawn Kemp dunk on Rodman - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTPV2r2s1k8) but for the most part I remember the Bulls for just having a team full of players that knew what to do once they stepped on the floor. I even remember Jud Buechler catching a lob and throwing it down with two hands in garbage time to which I said, "Yep, figures, Bulls."

We could analyse the pi$$ out of this again , as I did that year when they won 72 games ,,, but there are two critical points to make and that is it -
1) They were purely dominant
2) Every team that stepped on the floor at tip off , knew they were in trouble , just by looking at the Bulls.

This is no joke , no exageration - it is a fact.

[Glide2keva]

We could analyse the pi$$ out of this again , as I did that year when they won 72 games ,,, but there are two critical points to make and that is it -
1) They were purely dominant
2) Every team that stepped on the floor at tip off , knew they were in trouble , just by looking at the Bulls.

This is no joke , no exageration - it is a fact.
As a person who was there for all of those home games, I agree totally.

[Roundball_Rock]

Can you elaborate on that? I don't remember anything about that.

I don't remember the particulars of the actual alleged infraction. I think it was a questionable foul call on the Bulls. What I do remember is that it came within the final minute of the game, the Bulls' players had a :wtf: reaction at the call, and that even the commentators pointed out Hollin's "history" with the Bulls. I looked for it on YouTube but no one has uploaded it yet, although the Bulls/Pacers game in February in which Jordan scored 44 and Pippen 40 is up. :cheers:

[Cyclone112]

I don't remember the particulars of the actual alleged infraction. I think it was a questionable foul call on the Bulls. What I do remember is that it came within the final minute of the game, the Bulls' players had a :wtf: reaction at the call, and that even the commentators pointed out Hollin's "history" with the Bulls. I looked for it on YouTube but no one has uploaded it yet, although the Bulls/Pacers game in February in which Jordan scored 44 and Pippen 40 is up. :cheers:

Ok thanks for looking, if you ever do come across it can you post it please. I'll check out the game you mention at the end. 84 points between Pip and MJ sounds like an awesome game.

[Roundball_Rock]

Definitely.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fPZpNjTvBQ&feature=PlayList&p=C8DDD0B0881FE07C&index=0&playnext=1

A 10 minute highlight reel version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dARp3MYkeQM

[Rake2204]

We could analyse the pi$$ out of this again , as I did that year when they won 72 games ,,, but there are two critical points to make and that is it -
1) They were purely dominant
2) Every team that stepped on the floor at tip off , knew they were in trouble , just by looking at the Bulls.

This is no joke , no exageration - it is a fact.
I agree. If my post somehow came off as anti-'96 Bulls I didn't mean it to be.

[OldSchoolBBall]

As mentioned, those Bulls did have injury issues. Rodman missed 18 games, Longley (starting center) missed 20 games, and Pippen missed 5 games. The Rodman absence was most significant due to the amount of games and his value to the team.

[Mister JT]

The Bulls were just dominant at that time. Infact, after winning 72 in 1996, they come right back and win 69 the next year. The 69 wins-record seemed untouchable for decades, and they achieved that in back-to-back seasons (They could have won 70 if not for a slump in the end of the season). Then in 1997-98, they won 62 games with Pippen injured for half the season.

They had role players who stepped up to complement Jordan and Pippen. Phil Jackson has the uncanny ability to get the best from them because he trusted them. Like Luke walton posting up in the Denver series, or Fisher nailing the three against Orlando after shooting badly the whole game.

And Jordan and Pippen did not take nights off. If they were healthy, they would play, unlike some of the stars today who would sit out the last game of the season if they are already locked for the playoffs, so they would not get injured.

[che guevara]

The Bulls were just dominant at that time. Infact, after winning 72 in 1996, they come right back and win 69 the next year. The 69 wins-record seemed untouchable for decades, and they achieved that in back-to-back seasons (They could have won 70 if not for a slump in the end of the season). Then in 1997-98, they won 62 games with Pippen injured for half the season.

They had role players who stepped up to complement Jordan and Pippen. Phil Jackson has the uncanny ability to get the best from them because he trusted them. Like Luke walton posting up in the Denver series, or Fisher nailing the three against Orlando after shooting badly the whole game.

And Jordan and Pippen did not take nights off. If they were healthy, they would play, unlike some of the stars today who would sit out the last game of the season if they are already locked for the playoffs, so they would not get injured.
:roll: What a ****ing clown. Are you seriously knocking Lebron because he did this? I have never heard any criticism dumber than this - it makes you look like a ****ing idiot. They already had homecourt locked up - what possible advantage would they get from having their starters play another game?

Oh, and by the way: that was the coach's decision, not Lebron's.

[andgar923]

The Bulls were just dominant at that time. Infact, after winning 72 in 1996, they come right back and win 69 the next year. The 69 wins-record seemed untouchable for decades, and they achieved that in back-to-back seasons (They could have won 70 if not for a slump in the end of the season). Then in 1997-98, they won 62 games with Pippen injured for half the season.

They had role players who stepped up to complement Jordan and Pippen. Phil Jackson has the uncanny ability to get the best from them because he trusted them. Like Luke walton posting up in the Denver series, or Fisher nailing the three against Orlando after shooting badly the whole game.

And Jordan and Pippen did not take nights off. If they were healthy, they would play, unlike some of the stars today who would sit out the last game of the season if they are already locked for the playoffs, so they would not get injured.

And to add to this....

I don't understand why players make the game complicated.

If your big man is hot keep feeding him the rock! I understand that the defense tries to prevent this, but even then they don't seem to try much.

If the pick and roll is working, keep running it over and over and over... its not that hard!

So they stop it a few times, go back to it again and again.

The way Brandon Jennings was playing the other night and how he explained it is how b-ball should be played. He said they were giving him the looks so he was just taking advantage. He wasn't forcing it, it was just simple easy basketball.

*rant over*

But that's what made the Bulls successful, it was their 'fundamentals' and their dedication to efficiency.

[Mister JT]

Did I mention Lebron's name? I didn't even know Lebron did that. I didn't diss him.

Also, it was about being a total competitor, wanting to win everything. We hear stories about the greats not wanting to lose in anything, whether it was cards, billiards or basketball games. I think, it's a mentality that the Bulls had.

[bagelred]

- Bulls had FOUR great go to scorers - Jordan, Pippen, Harper, Kukoc

- Absolute perfect role players in Rodman, Kerr - Probably the two best guys at their specialty

- Solid if not spectacular big men

- Amazing defense

- Played with both amazing confidence and determination

- The best closer in NBA history

[Cyclone112]

Definitely.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fPZpNjTvBQ&feature=PlayList&p=C8DDD0B0881FE07C&index=0&playnext=1

A 10 minute highlight reel version http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dARp3MYkeQM

Thanks for posting, seeing that MJ and Pip combined for 84 in this game got me wondering what the biggest combination of points those two had or any duos for that matter.

I don't really care about MJ scoring 69 and someone else getting 16 for a total of 85 which is > 84. I'm talking two fairly monster games by teammates.

[Shepseskaf]

It wasn't just Jordan. Look at these 8 games where MJ shot 33% or worse. The Bulls went 7-1 in them.
Get a clue, stat-boy. Even on those rare occasions when Jordan didn't shoot well, it was all of the intangibles that he brought to the team that helped make a difference -- such as toughness, continuous effort, and confidence.

Numbers simply don't explain everything. With MJ on the floor, even if he had missed every shot, the team had the confidence that if it came down to one last basket that he would make it... and that would give them the will to play harder.

[97 bulls]

The Bulls were just dominant at that time. Infact, after winning 72 in 1996, they come right back and win 69 the next year. The 69 wins-record seemed untouchable for decades, and they achieved that in back-to-back seasons (They could have won 70 if not for a slump in the end of the season). Then in 1997-98, they won 62 games with Pippen injured for half the season.

They had role players who stepped up to complement Jordan and Pippen. Phil Jackson has the uncanny ability to get the best from them because he trusted them. Like Luke walton posting up in the Denver series, or Fisher nailing the three against Orlando after shooting badly the whole game.

And Jordan and Pippen did not take nights off. If they were healthy, they would play, unlike some of the stars today who would sit out the last game of the season if they are already locked for the playoffs, so they would not get injured.

i think that all three teams were just outstanding. especially the 97 team. 69 wins with the injuries, the proverbial champion "bulls eye" on their back, rodman being suspended 20 games, not to mention the vendetta that the league had on him. brian williams/bisen dele (a solid low post option) only playing in 9 games the whole season. thus having to go through the playoffs rusty.

thats easily a 75-76 win team with a relatively injury free season and williams/dele there for the whole season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Get a clue, stat-boy. Even on those rare occasions when Jordan didn't shoot well, it was all of the intangibles that he brought to the team that helped make a difference -- such as toughness, continuous effort, and confidence.

Numbers simply don't explain everything. With MJ on the floor, even if he had missed every shot, the team had the confidence that if it came down to one last basket that he would make it... and that would give them the will to play harder.

Yeah, MJ had the magic touch to make sure his team never had a losing season. Oh wait... :sleeping This is what is annoying: MJ credited for everything under the sun that happened when he happened to be within a 500 mile radius. He wasn't the only player with great intangibles, something Nike and ESPN rarely mention but those who were on the team recognize. Listen to Phil Jackson and two Bulls'.


"Everybody who talks about the Chicago Bulls talks about MJ first," Harper says, "but Pip had a more all-around game. Defense, offensive rebounds and defensive boards: Pip made the game easier for us to play. But he may not ever get his due, not until he brings that other championship ring home."

This is a technical analysis, a basketball purist's take, because in matters that can't be quantified but mean everything—heart, courage, response to pressure—Jordan was incomparable. But the fact is, Jordan never won a championship without Pippen, either, and for good reason. No one is more versatile than Pippen. "He's the best defender I've seen," Dunleavy says. "I put him in a class with Bobby Jones, Sidney Moncrief and certainly Jordan. But they're different. Jordan, at his position, may have been as good as there was. But Scottie could guard more positions than Michael. Scottie can handle more sizes."

Jackson wanted Pippen badly in L.A., but Buss never seriously considered going after him. "I thought it was meant to be," Jackson says. "I thought he was a godsend for us in L.A. For me to have to swallow it and move on was very difficult. On the Bulls he was probably the player most liked by the others. He mingled. He could bring out the best in the players and communicate the best. Leadership, real leadership, is one of his strengths. Everybody would say Michael is a great leader. He leads by example, by rebuke, by harsh words. Scottie's leadership was equally dominant, but it's a leadership of patting the back, support."

Or, as former Bull Joe Kleine puts it, "Michael was the father figure saying, 'You're grounded.' Pip was like Mom coming in to tell you everything's going to be all right."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017938/5/index.htm

But yeah, it was all MJ. :bowdown:


Bulls had FOUR great go to scorers - Jordan, Pippen, Harper, Kukoc

Harper was a single digit scorer in Chicago. He was a great scorer in LA and Cleveland but never recovered from an injury he suffered in LA. Kukoc was a solid scorer, though, who averaged 19 ppg as the #1 option in 1999. I agree with the rest of your post, though.


Thanks for posting, seeing that MJ and Pip combined for 84 in this game got me wondering what the biggest combination of points those two had or any duos for that matter.

Good question. My guess would be West/Baylor given the insane pace of the 60's.


thats easily a 75-76 win team with a relatively injury free season and williams/dele there for the whole season.

Good point. Imagine a 76-6 team!

[Lebron23]

1995-96 Chicago Bulls were the best offensive team and best defensive team in 1996.

Offensive Rating: 115.2 (1st of 29) ▪ Defensive Rating: 101.8 (1st of 29)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1996.html

[Roundball_Rock]

Amazing, Lebron23. :bowdown: Has any other team ranked #1 in both categories?

[Lebron23]

Amazing, Lebron23. :bowdown: Has any other team ranked #1 in both categories?

The 1996 Chicago Bulls are the only team that accomplished that feat.

[Roundball_Rock]

Thanks for the info! That is another reason that is the GOAT team. :pimp:

[CB4GOATPF]

1995-96 Chicago Bulls were the best offensive team and best defensive team in 1996.

Offensive Rating: 115.2 (1st of 29) ▪ Defensive Rating: 101.8 (1st of 29)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1996.html

:wtf: :bowdown:

[SAKOTXA]

Scottie Pippen could have won the MVP that year, IMO he played better than MJ. Don't kill me.....

[Lebron23]

Scottie Pippen could have won the MVP that year, IMO he played better than MJ. Don't kill me.....

Michael Jordan was way better than Scottie Pippen in 1996.

[SAKOTXA]

Michael Jordan was way better than Scottie Pippen in 1996.

Well yea he was, but IMO Pippen was the more important, he played great defense all year, and was very consistent on both offensive and defensive ends of the floor.

[SAKOTXA]

Oh ***** nvm, I was referring to the Bulls 1996-1997 season, my bad I mixed it up.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Well yea he was, but IMO Pippen was the more important

LMAO :oldlol:

EDIT: Doesn't matter which season you're referring to. L...M...A...O

[SAKOTXA]

LMAO :oldlol:

EDIT: Doesn't matter which season you're referring to. L...M...A...O

1996-1997 season

Scottie Pippen 20.2 PPG , 6.5 RPG, 5.7 APG, 2SPG, 0.6 BPG on 0.474 shooting.

Michael Jordan 29.6 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 4.3 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0. 5 BPG on 0.486 shooting.

The reason I said Pippen was more important is that he played great on both defensive and offensive ends of the floor. Like I said this was my opinion, and I wouldn't disagree with you If you said that MJ was more important to that team. It is not laughable to say that Pippen arguably had a better season than MJ.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Everything just came together for that team. MJ was obviously embarrassed about their loss the year before and he came back more motivated than ever. By that time his jumpshot and post game were peaking and he had learned how to pace himself perfectly. The additions in the frontcourt, particularly Rodman filled in the hole that Horace Grant's departure had left. A big reason why they lost to Orlando the year before was because they didn't have a frontcourt that could compete. Ron Harper's contributions also can't be underestimated. He was a very good defender, he gave them a very big and versatile backcourt and he was another smart player who made the right plays. Roundball Rock perfectly summed up the advantage of having a SF who was your de facto point guard as well.

The team was just filled with talent and experience. That was another key, all of the players, particularly Jordan and Pippen had a lot of years under their belt and they had gained a lot of knowledge in that time. They also had a lot of players who really worked hard. Obviously we all know about Jordan's work ethic, Pippen broguht it every night and say what you want about Rodman off the court, but on the court, he was relentless. Remember how well he played in the 1996 finals?

[Dizzle-2k7]

Ive never seen a team as feared as the 96 Bulls..just imagine tying up your kicks, stretching, warming up, walking onto the court for the jumpball, and seeing Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen on the other team. :bowdown:

You also got the crazy Chicago fans, a top 3 basketball Coach all time, Kukoc, Rodman, and most importantly: role players that knew their role.. damn what a team. So much class and so much hunger.

[OldSchoolBBall]

1996-1997 season

Scottie Pippen 20.2 PPG , 6.5 RPG, 5.7 APG, 2SPG, 0.6 BPG on 0.474 shooting.

Michael Jordan 29.6 PPG, 5.9 RPG, 4.3 APG, 1.7 SPG, 0. 5 BPG on 0.486 shooting.

The reason I said Pippen was more important is that he played great on both defensive and offensive ends of the floor. Like I said this was my opinion, and I wouldn't disagree with you If you said that MJ was more important to that team. It is not laughable to say that Pippen arguably had a better season than MJ.

It certainly IS laughable to anyone with half a brain. Here, let me show you: :oldlol:

[Mister JT]

And if I remember correctly, that Bulls team finished January with only 3 losses.

I think that should be the standard for teams that are chasing the record. If a team today finishes January with around 3-5 losses, they're more or less on pace for 70. Then people can legitimately talk about the record.


I remember that we were vacationing in Orlando when they beat the Bucks in Milwaukee to get the record. I used to have a '96 Penny Hardaway San Antonio All-Star replica and pair of white Air Shake N Destruct Rodmans with the laces on the sides. Haha!

[04mzwach]

They were the closest things to superheros in basketball. I saw Jordan hit buzzer beaters. I saw Kukoc hit DAGGERSSSS!! I saw Pippen lock down players. It was a thing of beauty and beast. It was crazy watching a team so good at a young age. It was a shock when they lost. It just didn't make any sense that they were losing. They were so good that when they lost you couldn't believe it and you were in shock. They beat everybody. I think this might of been the year the only team that beat them twice was the Pacers. Reggie Miller had to let his name be known as well as Rick Smitz...very underrated IMO. No team will ever match or beat their record, ever. It's a once in a life time type of thing. If you read this, you won't see another team like them.

[puppychili]

At one point they were 41-3. Makes me laugh at all the people that start to hype up their team for 70 wins after their team goes 3-0 or something like that.

Most dominant team ever. Don't forget they won 69 the next year and had a chance to win 70 on the last game of the regular season but they lost to the Knicks.

Still though over two seasons the Bulls averaged 70 wins. Incredible. :bowdown:

[Roundball_Rock]

Scottie Pippen could have won the MVP that year, IMO he played better than MJ. Don't kill me.....

They will kill you but guess what? MJ himself believed Pippen should have been MVP that year and he had a strong MVP candidacy going before he got hurt late in the season. Would he have won? No, but he would have at least finished 3rd and perhaps even 2nd (instead of 5th, narrowly behind 4th place Hakeem. How often do two teammates finish in the top 5 in MVP voting? The only other time I know of is Magic/Kareem in 85', but that was a straight fight in which neither was the "chosen one" if you get my drift).


The reason I said Pippen was more important is that he played great on both defensive and offensive ends of the floor. Like I said this was my opinion, and I wouldn't disagree with you If you said that MJ was more important to that team. It is not laughable to say that Pippen arguably had a better season than MJ.

That is a legitimate argument to make for 1996 and 1997. Pippen was the team's best defender (arguably the best defender in the league and the best perimeter defender who only Payton rivaled) and defense was the key to those teams. Pippen also served as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. Without Pippen you could not have Ron Harper, another very good defender, play as PG because he was in reality a SG and could not handle PG duties. If Pippen went down you would have had to send Harper to the bench and replaced Pippen with Kukoc. Or you could start Kukoc, keep Harper and divide Pippen's role between Kukoc and Jordan (which obviously would sap energy from an aging past his prime MJ). Of course, Kukoc/Jordan did not do nearly as good a job as Pippen in elevating their teammates when Pippen was hurt for half of 98'. Just look at the FG % of every Bull before and after the all-star break and you will find a dramatic increase when Pippen was running the offense. In fact, the differential in FG % with and without Pippen is comparable to the decline Lakers had with and without Magic after he retired (again, MJ fans will not like to hear this but this is documented fact. You can compare the percentages yourself at basketballreference) or the Celtics when Bird was hurt in 88'. Either way the net result would be a vastly inferior defense. If Jordan was injured you would slide Harper over to his natural position of SG and insert Kerr into the starting lineup as PG. Or, you could start Kukoc as SF, move Harper to SG and put Pippen at PG (a position he played in college, on the Dream Team and in Portland). All of this sure beats having to replace MJ with a CBA player doesn't it?

What about their relative impacts on the offensive bottom line? You posted the 97' stats but Pippen in 96' was even better. 96' was Pippen's best offensive season and perhaps his best season overall. Despite playing with the league leader in field goal attempts Pippen was averaging around 21.5-22 ppg (keep in mind the pace was ultra-slow during this time and the Bulls were slower than most teams. 22 ppg back then would place you in the top 10 in scoring) before getting hurt (he averaged only 15 ppg during the final fifth or so of the season and that dragged him down to 19.4). Compare that to MJ's 30.4. Jordan was scoring 9 more points per game (using 21.5), but Pippen averaged two more assists per game. When you factor that in Jordan was producing about 5 more points per game than Pippen. In 97' their relative gap in scoring stayed the same (due to a slower pace) as did their assists so the same argument can be made in 97'. So offensively Jordan produced 5 more points. Did Pippen's greater impact on defense offset that? A reasonable case can be made that it did.

People often confuse "best" with "important." Kareem was better than Magic in 82' but one could make a legitimate case that Magic was more important to the team.

Many people have forgotten how highly prime Pippen was rated. He was considered by some to be the second best player behind Jordan in 96', and to a lesser extent in 97' (and second best behind Hakeem in 94' and 95'). These weren't the opinions of some random Pippen fans. These were views expressed in Sports Illustrated, Slam Magazine, and ESPN. Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTRqNvUSACE&feature=related Fast forward to 3:50 and listen to the comments.


1995-96 season ESPN Sunday Conversation

Roy Firestone interviewing Scottie: "They are saying this is an MVP season for you..."
[Who was "they" you ask? Several people, including some guy named Michael Jeffery Jordan... ]

Bob Ryan: "This guy gives them elements on the court that are unattainable, unapproachable anywhere else..."

Dick Schaap: "Is he is good as his teammate?"

Ryan: "Well, as a matter of fact technically he is, but he doesn't have the aura of Michael Jordan but he can do things--in a package--that is unsurpassed in the NBA today..."

Some may scoff at that but Bob Ryan is a very respected NBA observer and this is what was said in 96', not with 13 years of "Jordan is god" coverage on ESPN coloring our views of that period.

Here is another video from that period. Guokas makes this comment during the pregame analysis portion.

Matt Guokas: “Scottie Pippen, the best all-around player in the game.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJQvkn_zUIg&feature=channel_page

Sports Illustrated/and THE GOAT: CHICAGO (AP) -- Say this for Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen's supporting cast, they're not stupid.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/bas...jordan_pippen/

Again, this was not the common view but there were some who viewed it as a 1a/1b type relationship during the second three peat.

These are commentators and writers. How did players rate Pippen during this period?

Dream Team III/Reggie Miller=: PHOENIX -- I walked up to each one of them and asked the question.

If you could be any other player here who would it be?

It was a question I'd asked 12 years ago to Dream Team III: Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley, Penny Hardaway, Gary Payton, Shaq.

Their answers lent insight into which players they respected, whose game they feared. Back then Scottie Pippen's name came up the most. Five out of the 12 players on that team wanted to be, even if for one game, Jordan's Green Hornet. When asked, "Why Pip?" it was Miller who explained it best: "Because Pippen can score only five points and still dominate a basketball game."

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/090216

This isn't me speaking or OldSchoolBBall, these are NBA legends like Reggie Miller. Think about it: they were asked who they would want to be if they could be anyone in the league at the time and Pippen was the overwhelming choice. In 2009 when the same question was asked of the NBA's elite (of NBA all-stars) the most frequent answer was Lebron.

Jordan clearly was the best player in the NBA in 1995-96/1996-97 (which is why he got nearly every first place MVP vote in 96') but Pippen had a very strong case for being the second best or at least third (behind Shaq, although Shaq missed half of 96' and it was Penny who was the Magic MVP candidate that year). This is what the Jordan revisionists want people to forgot. Moreover, given their respective roles on the team one can make a legitimate argument that Pippen was as valuable to the team in 1996 and 1997 than Jordan. By that time Jordan was past his prime and Pippen was in his prime (I consider his prime to have been 1994-1997). Pippen was the better defender, rebounder, and passer. In other words, he was better in practically everything other than scoring, although concedely there is a signifcant gap between 30 ppg and 21.5-22 ppg.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Of course, Kukoc/Jordan did not do nearly as good a job as Pippen in elevating their teammates when Pippen was hurt for half of 98'. Just look at the FG % of every Bull before and after the all-star break and you will find a dramatic increase when Pippen was running the offense.

Disingenuous.

[Roundball_Rock]

Disingenuous.

How so? Facts are facts. Explain these away. :D

In 1997-98 Scottie played only 9 games before the all-star break. Let's look at the stats of the Bulls' top five scorers other than Pippen before and after the all-star break.

Toni Kukoc: 12.6 ppg on 45% shooting before the ASG, 14.4 on 46.4% after the ASG

Luc Longley: 11.1 ppg on 44.4% before the ASG, 12.8 ppg on 50% after the ASG

Ron Harper: 9.6 on 42.9% before the ASG, 8.8 on 46% after the ASG

Steve Kerr: 7.1 on 41.1% before the ASG, 8.0 on 50.7% after the ASG

Michael Jordan: 28.9 on 45.0% before the ASG, 28.5 on 48.9% after the ASG

Gee, maybe this was all just a string of coincidences? Let's try one more, Bill Wennington. 3.3 ppg on 41.4% before the ASG, 3.7 on 45.9% after the ASG.

MJ fans will say MJ was hurt and that is why he shot poorly at the beginning of the season. And? Explain Kukoc, Harper, Kerr, Longley, and hell even Wennington.

[OldSchoolBBall]

How so? Facts are facts. Explain these away. :D

In 1997-98 Scottie played only 9 games before the all-star break. Let's look at the stats of the Bulls' top five scorers other than Pippen before and after the all-star break.

Toni Kukoc: 12.6 ppg on 45% shooting before the ASG, 14.4 on 46.4% after the ASG

Luc Longley: 11.1 ppg on 44.4% before the ASG, 12.8 ppg on 50% after the ASG

Ron Harper: 9.6 on 42.9% before the ASG, 8.8 on 46% after the ASG

Steve Kerr: 7.1 on 41.1% before the ASG, 8.0 on 50.7% after the ASG

Michael Jordan: 28.9 on 45.0% before the ASG, 28.5 on 48.9% after the ASG

Gee, maybe this was all just a string of coincidences? Let's try one more, Bill Wennington. 3.3 ppg on 41.4% before the ASG, 3.7 on 45.9% after the ASG.

MJ fans will say MJ was hurt and that is why he shot poorly at the beginning of the season. And? Explain Kukoc, Harper, Kerr, Longley, and hell even Wennington.

Common sense tells us that when you have more great offensive threats on a team, team efficiency will increase. That's why attributing it to "Pippen running the offense" is disingenuous.

[Dizzle-2k7]

The fact that Loki can laugh at the idea of Pippen being considered more important shows how biased and close minded he is...

Some people could easily argue Pau Gasol was more important to the Lakers title then Kobe Bryant.. does that make Pau better? No way. But is his "importance value" arguable? Sure. Just like its arguable Pippen was more important in 96 and 97.

[SAKOTXA]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]They will kill you but guess what? MJ himself believed Pippen should have been MVP that year and he had a strong MVP candidacy going before he got hurt late in the season. Would he have won? No, but he would have at least finished 3rd and perhaps even 2nd (instead of 5th, narrowly behind 4th place Hakeem. How often do two teammates finish in the top 5 in MVP voting? The only other time I know of is Magic/Kareem in 85', but that was a straight fight in which neither was the "chosen one" if you get my drift).



That is a legitimate argument to make for 1996 and 1997. Pippen was the team's best defender (arguably the best defender in the league and the best perimeter defender who only Payton rivaled) and defense was the key to those teams. Pippen also served as the team's primary ballhandler/playmaker. Without Pippen you could not have Ron Harper, another very good defender, play as PG because he was in reality a SG and could not handle PG duties. If Pippen went down you would have had to send Harper to the bench and replaced Pippen with Kukoc. Or you could start Kukoc, keep Harper and divide Pippen's role between Kukoc and Jordan (which obviously would sap energy from an aging past his prime MJ). Of course, Kukoc/Jordan did not do nearly as good a job as Pippen in elevating their teammates when Pippen was hurt for half of 98'. Just look at the FG % of every Bull before and after the all-star break and you will find a dramatic increase when Pippen was running the offense. In fact, the differential in FG % with and without Pippen is comparable to the decline Lakers had with and without Magic after he retired (again, MJ fans will not like to hear this but this is documented fact. You can compare the percentages yourself at basketballreference) or the Celtics when Bird was hurt in 88'. Either way the net result would be a vastly inferior defense. If Jordan was injured you would slide Harper over to his natural position of SG and insert Kerr into the starting lineup as PG. Or, you could start Kukoc as SF, move Harper to SG and put Pippen at PG (a position he played in college, on the Dream Team and in Portland). All of this sure beats having to replace MJ with a CBA player doesn't it?

What about their relative impacts on the offensive bottom line? You posted the 97' stats but Pippen in 96' was even better. 96' was Pippen's best offensive season and perhaps his best season overall. Despite playing with the league leader in field goal attempts Pippen was averaging around 21.5-22 ppg (keep in mind the pace was ultra-slow during this time and the Bulls were slower than most teams. 22 ppg back then would place you in the top 10 in scoring) before getting hurt (he averaged only 15 ppg during the final fifth or so of the season and that dragged him down to 19.4). Compare that to MJ's 30.4. Jordan was scoring 9 more points per game (using 21.5), but Pippen averaged two more assists per game. When you factor that in Jordan was producing about 5 more points per game than Pippen. In 97' their relative gap in scoring stayed the same (due to a slower pace) as did their assists so the same argument can be made in 97'. So offensively Jordan produced 5 more points. Did Pippen's greater impact on defense offset that? A reasonable case can be made that it did.

People often confuse "best" with "important." Kareem was better than Magic in 82' but one could make a legitimate case that Magic was more important to the team.

Many people have forgotten how highly prime Pippen was rated. He was considered by some to be the second best player behind Jordan in 96', and to a lesser extent in 97' (and second best behind Hakeem in 94' and 95'). These weren't the opinions of some random Pippen fans. These were views expressed in Sports Illustrated, Slam Magazine, and ESPN. Here is an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTRqNvUSACE&feature=related Fast forward to 3:50 and listen to the comments.



Some may scoff at that but Bob Ryan is a very respected NBA observer and this is what was said in 96', not with 13 years of "Jordan is god" coverage on ESPN coloring our views of that period.

Here is another video from that period. Guokas makes this comment during the pregame analysis portion.

Matt Guokas:

[SAKOTXA]

It certainly IS laughable to anyone with half a brain. Here, let me show you: :oldlol:

You are an idiot, seriously.

[che guevara]

The fact that Loki can laugh at the idea of Pippen being considered more important shows how biased and close minded he is...

Some people could easily argue Pau Gasol was more important to the Lakers title then Kobe Bryant.. does that make Pau better? No way. But is his "importance value" arguable? Sure. Just like its arguable Pippen was more important in 96 and 97.
The fact that some people can believe Pippen was more important to the team than MJ shows how completely ****ing retarded they are. The gap between Pippen and MJ was much bigger than the gap between Kobe and Gasol.

30.4/6.6/4.3 with 2.2 steals and very good defense on 49.5% shooting who steps it up in the clutch > 19.4/6.4/5.9 with great defense who fades in the clutch. I understand that MJ had a really ****ty Finals that year, but taking MJ off that team would have had more impact than taking Pippen off the team.

Saying Pippen was more important is complete revisionist history, and you really have to be a huge MJ hater/Kobe dickrider to even believe there's a case for it.

[SAKOTXA]

The fact that some people can believe Pippen was more important to the team than MJ shows how completely ****ing retarded they are. The gap between Pippen and MJ was much bigger than the gap between Kobe and Gasol.

30.4/6.6/4.3 with 2.2 steals and very good defense on 49.5% shooting who steps it up in the clutch > 19.4/6.4/5.9 with great defense who fades in the clutch. I understand that MJ had a really ****ty Finals that year, but taking MJ off that team would have had more impact than taking Pippen off the team.

Saying Pippen was more important is complete revisionist history, and you really have to be a huge MJ hater/Kobe dickrider to even believe there's a case for it.


Of course over the course of their careers MJ was better/ more important to that team, but during the 1996-97 season It was very arguable and MJ himself said that Pippen made a strong case for the MVP, but like I said before I wouldn't argue with people who think otherwise, that's just my opinion. And it is not waaaay off.

[che guevara]

Of course over the course of their careers MJ was better/ more important to that team, but during the 1996-97 season It was very arguable and MJ himself said that Pippen made a strong case for the MVP, but like I said before I wouldn't argue with people who think otherwise, that's just my opinion. And it is not waaaay off.
Yes, it is. You literally have no case whatsoever. You don't actually believe Scottie was as important, you're just trying to bring MJ down a notch because you're a huge Kobe homer.

[raptorfan_dr07]

People often confuse "best" with "important." Kareem was better than Magic in 82' but one could make a legitimate case that Magic was more important to the team.




The reason I said Pippen was more important is that he played great on both defensive and offensive ends of the floor.

Yep, just like how Pau Gasol is the most important player on the Lakers. :rolleyes: Remember that bullsh*t when talking about Kobe/Lakers.

[SAKOTXA]

Yes, it is. You literally have no case whatsoever. You don't actually believe Scottie was as important, you're just trying to bring MJ down a notch because you're a huge Kobe homer.

Why did you decide that I am a Kobe homer? You are a complete dumbass. Pippen was more important to that 96-97 Bulls team, then Gasol was to the Lakers 08-09 team. Stop jumping up to conclusions and making yourself look like an idiot.

[SAKOTXA]

Yep, just like how Pau Gasol is the most important player on the Lakers. :rolleyes: Remember that bullsh*t when talking about Kobe/Lakers.

Well looking at our offense right now, you can make the case that Gasol is arguably the most important player in the triangle, because he is the passer out of the double teams and makes life very easy for players like Bynum and Odom, we are struggling right now , because Bynum doesn't pass out of the post. Right now they are as good as Kobe, and Kobe has been off these last couple of games, that happens to every player , but I still think we will have the best record in the NBA by the end of this year. It all depends on when Gasol will come back, right now we are in the same situation as the Celtics were in last year without KG. The only difference is that KG was their defensive presence, Gasol is more important for us on offense.

[Diesel J]

you're just trying to bring MJ down a notch because you're a huge Kobe homer.

:applause:

[DuMa]

sorry Pippen was never a better candidate for MVP than Jordan was. Jordan set the table, provided the dinner and cleared the table almost every night.

[Big#50]

NBA sucked in the 90's.

[SAKOTXA]

NBA sucked in the 90's.
:wtf:

[hitmanyr2k]

The fact that some people can believe Pippen was more important to the team than MJ shows how completely ****ing retarded they are. The gap between Pippen and MJ was much bigger than the gap between Kobe and Gasol.

30.4/6.6/4.3 with 2.2 steals and very good defense on 49.5% shooting who steps it up in the clutch > 19.4/6.4/5.9 with great defense who fades in the clutch. I understand that MJ had a really ****ty Finals that year, but taking MJ off that team would have had more impact than taking Pippen off the team.

Saying Pippen was more important is complete revisionist history, and you really have to be a huge MJ hater/Kobe dickrider to even believe there's a case for it.

Pippen fading in the clutch is a myth. It's almost like Kobe homers saying Shaq never touched the ball in the last 3 minutes of the 4th qtr during the Laker dynasty :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Common sense tells us that when you have more great offensive threats on a team, team efficiency will increase. That's why attributing it to "Pippen running the offense" is disingenuous.

Really? Why did team efficiency increase after MJ retired and was replaced by a CBA scrub? Moreover, you have to look at the degree of decrease. The decrease was on par with that of the Lakers without Magic and the Celtics without Bird. You do realize players can do things on the floor to help the team that go beyond sheer talent, don't you? Certainly those who played with Pippen understood that...


Thank You, some of these idiots that never watched the Bulls think that Pippen was some normal sidekick and MJ was THE MAN.

Yeah, they act as if Pippen was nothing more than a glorified borderline all-star when in reality he was a top 2-5 player at his peak, the consensus best perimeter player at his peak (and #2 behind MJ in 96'), and the best SF of the 90's.


.The fact that some people can believe Pippen was more important to the team than MJ shows how completely ****ing retarded they are. The gap between Pippen and MJ was much bigger than the gap between Kobe and Gasol.

:roll: Kobe is at worst a top 3 player; Gasol is at best a top 10 player. Most people consider Gasol a top 15 player. Pippen was a top 2-5 player in 1996 and 1997. The gap between a 1-3 player and a 10-15 player is greater than a gap between #1 and a 2-5 player?


30.4/6.6/4.3 with 2.2 steals and very good defense on 49.5% shooting who steps it up in the clutch > 19.4/6.4/5.9 with great defense who fades in the clutch.

Speaking of revionist history, why did you include the 19.4 ppg number? We are talking about Pippen when he was healthy. He was scoring 21.5-22 ppg in 96' before getting hurt. Factor in assists and Jordan was producing only 5 more points on offense than Pippen and Pippen was far superior in defense. You could argue Pippen's superior value on defense offset Jordan's 5 point advantage on defense. You also have to look at match-up problems created by having a SF who handled PG duties, which allowed a SG to play at PG and the luxury of having an elite defender who could guard 4 positions. Basketball is not a mere boxscore game.


but taking MJ off that team would have had more impact than taking Pippen off the team.

Saying Pippen was more important is complete revisionist history

How about actual history? They took MJ off the team, remember? Pippen also was out for half a season once. What happened? Pippen led the 94' Bulls to a 70% win rate without Jordan; Jordan led the 98' Bulls to a 68% win rate without Pippen.


Yes, it is. You literally have no case whatsoever.

No case? He just mentioned MJ himself believed Pippen was the 96' MVP!


Yep, just like how Pau Gasol is the most important player on the Lakers. Remember that bullsh*t when talking about Kobe/Lakers.

I couldn't care less who the most important player on the Lakers is.


you're just trying to bring MJ down a notch because you're a huge Kobe homer.

That makes no sense. Kobe is ranked somewhere between 9-12 all-time; Jordan is ranked somewhere between 1-3 and in the vast majority of cases is ranked #1. What would be the point of Kobe fans trying to knock MJ down? If their agenda was to move Kobe up the all-time rankings their target would be Duncan or Hakeem, the two players most frequently ranked immediately ahead of Kobe.


sorry Pippen was never a better candidate for MVP than Jordan was. Jordan set the table, provided the dinner and cleared the table almost every night.

This ignores the facts presented in this thread. Note the common theme of MJ fans dismissing the evidence presented, not presenting any of their own and simply regurgitating conventional wisdom (which helps when over a decade after you ceased being a major factor in the NBA your mug still appears in an ad on the right side of the screen).

The fact is Jordan produced 38 points per game in 96', Pippen 33 when healthy; in 97' Jordan produced 37 points per game, Pippen 32. On defense Pippen>Jordan. Pippen was the better passer, rebounder, and defender during this period. The only thing past his prime MJ did better during this period was score (leading the league in field goal attempts kind of helps that...) yet Jordan "set the table, provided the dinner and cleared the table"? :rolleyes:

Let me pose this question: If Lebron and Wade or Lebron and Chris Paul teamed up would it be a #1/#2 relationship or a 1a/1b one?

Let's be real: right now MJ is the consensus GOAT because nearly every basketball fan has been bombarded by MJ's mug in a zillion ads and on ESPN for much of their lives. When people look back at basketball history 30-50 years from now and are not influenced by the massive MJ marketing campaign Kareem, Russell, and Wilt will have much more support as the GOAT than they do now. People won't remember Nike or Hanes ads. They will look at championships won, MVP's, stats, etc. This is the reason why MJ fans are so insecure imo. Whether consciously or unconsciously they realize this will eventually happen. Only in basketball and hockey are there consensus GOAT's. In hockey it makes sense; no one has a legit case over Gretzky. In basketball it is an anomaly that you don't find in golf, football, baseball, tennis, NASCAR, F1, IndyCar etc. Every other sport has at least two people who have large groups of partisans considering them the GOAT.

[SAKOTXA]

If Kobe wins the MVP/Championship and a Finals MVP this year, he is a top 5-6 in my book.

[Da_Realist]

Let's be real: right now MJ is the consensus GOAT because nearly every basketball fan has been bombarded by MJ's mug in a zillion ads and on ESPN for much of their lives. When people look back at basketball history 30-50 years from now and are not influenced by the massive MJ marketing campaign Kareem, Russell, and Wilt will have much more support as the GOAT than they do now. People won't remember Nike or Hanes ads. They will look at championships won, MVP's, stats, etc. This is the reason why MJ fans are so insecure imo. Whether consciously or unconsciously they realize this will eventually happen. Only in basketball and hockey are there consensus GOAT's. In hockey it makes sense; no one has a legit case over Gretzky. In basketball it is an anomaly that you don't find in golf, football, baseball, tennis, NASCAR, F1, IndyCar etc. Every other sport has at least two people who have large groups of partisans considering them the GOAT.

This is sort of true...and ironic. Stats live on over time as memories fade. 30-50 years from now, Michael Jordan will be reduced to a set of numbers -- none of which will adequately define his actual play and how great of a player he was.

But it's already happening with Pippen today. Which is why YOU are so insecure about Pippen's place in history.

[DuMa]

If Kobe wins the MVP/Championship and a Finals MVP this year, he is a top 5-6 in my book.
thats great. too bad no one gives a **** about Kobe in this thread. GTFO

[SAKOTXA]

thats great. too bad no one gives a **** about Kobe in this thread. GTFO

Wtf you smoking? Read Roundball's posts.

[Roundball_Rock]

This is sort of true...and ironic. Stats live on over time as memories fade. 30-50 years from now, Michael Jordan will be reduced to a set of numbers -- none of which will adequately define his actual play and how great of a player he was.

But it's already happening with Pippen today. Which is why YOU are so insecure about Pippen's place in history.

People have been saying Pippen was a fraud for a decade now. There are big variation on where people rank Pippen. Yeah, the consensus places him around 25th and some place him in the top 20 but there are some who claim he is not even top 50 all-time. In Jordan's case the variation is usually between 1-3. Even his biggest detractors, Alpha Wolf and Fatal, rank him 5th all-time.

It isn't just stats but accolades and how they were perceived when they played. Pippen's career stats are not great because he hung on way too long but he will be ranked far higher than others with similar career stats because people will look at his all-NBA teams, all-defensive teams (for a three year stretch he was the only player to be both first team all-NBA and first team all-defense. What does that tell you about prime Pippen?) and when watching old games will hear commentators say things like "Scottie Pippen, the best all-around player in the game". Pippen's accolades and reputation in his prime far exceed his stats. Pippen actually seems to be moving up the rankings. Elliot Kalb had him #30 in 2003, in the latest ranking book (Simmons') he is #24. Similarly, Slam Magazine had him #41 in 2003, this year they ranked him #27. I think as Jordan's shadow recedes and people look at who the best players of that era were people are realizing he was not a mere sidekick but a legend in his own right. I suspect if Kalb writes an update to his book Pippen will move into the top 25.

In Jordan's case he was the best player of his generation. What more accolades could he really get? Here is what I mean with MJ: 30-50 years from now people will look at 5 MVP's and compare it to Kareem's 6 and Russell's 5. They will compare his 6 rings to Kareem's 6 and Russell's 11. They'll compare their all-NBA selections, etc. Jordan got nearly all he could during his time (aside from the 93' and 97' MVP's. He deserved the 97' one for sure). All you could definitely conclude from looking at these things is that Jordan was the best player of his generation. That is it. No one will automatically conclude he was the GOAT based on these things. They will then compare him to the best players of other generations (I wonder if Wilt/Russell and Magic/Bird will be penalized for not elevating themselves to clear #1 status like MJ and Kareem did during their primes). My guess is Jordan will be a plurality GOAT 30-50 years from now but there will be a resurgence of advocates for other GOAT candidates.

One last point regarding historical evaluations that ties Pip and MJ together is people are going to look at MJ's record without Pippen more down the road. Elliot Kalb actually does it in his book. This is a fair point since when the discussion turns to, say, Kareem people will say what could he have done without Magic and it is only inevitable that the same thinking will be applied to Jordan. Right now, though, it is blasphemy to even argue Pippen played a very significant role on the 90's Bulls, as the reaction of MJ fans in this thread suggests.

I am very glad Simmons wrote his book. It is the only "history of the NBA" book available at Barnes and Noble. Perhaps there are some online (are there?!) but it is the only one commonly available. There is also the 2003 book that ranks the greatest players of all-time. These will be the starting points for future generations when assessing players and Pippen is rated highly in both, although he is referred to as a "second banana" in Kalb's book* (the rest of his analysis is fair, though) and Simmons is almost as pro-Pippen as me. :oldlol:

*Note: Kalb has Shaq as the GOAT

[juju151111]

Well yea he was, but IMO Pippen was the more important, he played great defense all year, and was very consistent on both offensive and defensive ends of the floor.
More important:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Da_Realist]

One last point regarding historical evaluations that ties Pip and MJ together is people are going to look at MJ's record without Pippen more down the road.

Not likely. When you have as many highlights as he has (that will live on forever), the domination of stats like he did (that will live on forever) and the awards and recognition that he received (that will also live on forever), his career will be above questions like "What did he do without Pippen?". Especially when people realize that MJ was playing with scrubs early on and Pippen, himself, was one of them up to 1990.

MJ is unique because he was the undeniable best player on those Bulls teams and has all the MVP's, Finals MVP's and other awards/recognition to prove it. That's different than Kareem, Bird, Magic and every other superstar from that era. Every Finals series (except maybe 96) he played in has at least one signature game that affirmed his status as the best player. MJ's status will live on nicely, even though the stats and highlights do a poor job showing how good he was. There's just been too much written about him (newspapers, magazines, books, internet, etc) to totally forget why people regarded MJ as the best in the game. He is to basketball what Ali is to boxing.

I think it's the opposite in regards to Pippen. Without the highlights, dominating stats and signature moments, it will be much harder for fans to remember Pippen and all he brought to the table than MJ. You're already feeling that tug as we move farther and farther away from his career. Pippen's greatness isn't easily captured in highlight videos.

[triangleoffense]

Pippen and MJ is the equivalent of Lebron Kobe.. if that even more.

[SAKOTXA]

Pippen and MJ is the equivalent of Lebron Kobe.. if that even more.

Slap yourself please, like 10 times.

[momo]

2) Every team that stepped on the floor at tip off , knew they were in trouble , just by looking at the Bulls.

This is no joke , no exageration - it is a fact.

That is a big part of the answer. It does not show up on the stat sheets, but it was tangible all season that year. You could feel it watching them too... down 7 in the 4th quarter to anyone, and they still felt like a lock to win.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not likely. When you have as many highlights as he has (that will live on forever), the domination of stats like he did (that will live on forever) and the awards and recognition that he received (that will also live on forever), his career will be above questions like "What did he do without Pippen?". Especially when people realize that MJ was playing with scrubs early on and Pippen, himself, was one of them up to 1990.

He has all that but so do the other GOAT candidates. That is why it likely will become a real debate when you are comparing others with similar credentials and looking at their credentials, not being influenced by fond memories of one candidate.

The Pippen question would come when asking what Kareem did without Magic and vice versa or Bird without McHale, Shaq without Kobe and perhaps vice versa. It only makes sense to pose the same question regarding Jordan. You would then have to look at Jordan's team but the question needs to be asked.


MJ is unique because he was the undeniable best player on those Bulls teams and has all the MVP's, Finals MVP's and other awards/recognition to prove it. That's different than Kareem, Bird, Magic and every other superstar from that era.

A lot of that can be spun by partisans. You could claim Kareem was the best player on 4 of his title teams, Magic on 3 and hell even push it to 4, Bird all on 3, etc. Look at the amount of spin involved rankings in other sports or even historical rankings, i.e. of presidents ("FDR was a socialist", "Lincoln was a dictator", etc.). Right now there is no debate; that will change. If one wants to put ****** in Jordan's armor his record without Pippen is the strongest point to make. Just look at today's MJ detractors. They all home in on his record without Pippen. The reason why this is a significant argument is that Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Russell and Shaq all elevated their teams significantly as rookies while Jordan improved his team from 27 to 38 wins. Their teams also collapsed without them (aside from Kareem's teams) while Jordan's team dropped only 2 games in the W-L column. If you are going to make that argument you can't do it without bringing up Pippen. Just look at Alpha Wolf (is he still around?). I think MJ fans instinctively realize this and this is why they tend to be anti-Pippen. Painting Pippen as a borderline all-star type is a sort of preemptive strike against this line of argument.


MJ's status will live on nicely, even though the stats and highlights do a poor job showing how good he was. There's just been too much written about him (newspapers, magazines, books, internet, etc) to totally forget why people regarded MJ as the best in the game. He is to basketball what Ali is to boxing.

He certainly will always reside in the basketball Pantheon. His status as the consensus GOAT is not set in stone, though. There was a lot written in the 70's about Kareem, 80's about Magic/Bird, 60's about Russell, etc. Generations from now they will get more of a look whereas right now they are basically, as Bird would say, playing for second.


I think it's the opposite in regards to Pippen. Without the highlights, dominating stats and signature moments, it will be much harder for fans to remember Pippen and all he brought to the table than MJ. You're already feeling that tug as we move farther and farther away from his career. Pippen's greatness isn't easily captured in highlight videos.

Well, there are several great Pippen highlight videos out there but I recognize your point. Who in 50 years will search for Pippen highlights? I think Bulls' fans will since he is the second greatest Bull ever but I doubt anyone else will. Pippen is a different case than Jordan because he is in a different class. You have to compare him to the class of players he is in, players like Isiah Thomas, Havelick, Malone, Barkley, Garnett. Jazz fans will never forget Malone but you won't see a Suns fan in 50 years look up Malone highlights. So how will Pippen fare in comparison to these players, and these in the next tier like Patrick Ewing and Dominique Wilkins? That is the question. I think he will fare pretty well. The Simmons' book is a huge help to Pippen's cause. Looking beyond that, though, what I meant was not highlights but actual games. Just as someone like me watches old Magic and Bird games to see how good they were, people too young to have watched Jordan live in his prime will watch old Jordan games. When they watch them they will hear things like "Scottie Pippen, the best all-around player in the game." This actually may be the greatest thing Pippen has going for him over his peers. No one will search for Pippen games in 50 years or Isiah, Malone, Garnett, games (with the aforementioned exception of fans of their franchises) but many people will watch old Jordan games. While they are there to watch MJ they will see how great Pippen was.

I think Pippen has a legit shot at overtaking some players currently ahead of him because thanks to his association with Jordan he will be remembered more than some of them. Moreover, Pippen benefits from being a fixture in some all-time great discussions. He is of course in the discussion of the greatest players at his position, but so are his peers like Isiah. He is also, though, in the discussion of the greatest duo of all-time and the best perimeter defender ever (or more narrowly the best defensive forward ever). You don't have to consider someone like Isiah in anything other than where he ranks in your top 10 PG's.

With respect to accolades, when people take a second look his accolades will look better. For one he was the best player at his position for several years, a feat many greats never achieved. Also, how many people know that Pippen came closer to winning a MVP than Isiah Thomas ever did and that Pippen made as many all-NBA first teams and more all-NBA teams than Isiah? It is assumed by many fans that Thomas was a superior player but 50 years from now when people look at the all-NBA and all-defensive teams (which Isiah never made), MVP voting, etc. Pippen will look better vis-a-vis a lot of people. Will he be hurt in comparison to some others who were comparable players but have superior credentials due to playing as "the main man" for years, like Garnett? Yeah, but you would think that people, at least the astute ones, would realize his accolades were dragged down by playing with the GOAT. He had only one legit chance to win a MVP, for instance.

I thought his standing would decline post-Chicago, and it did, but there has been a revival of his reputation in recent years as people have looked at his career with better perspective. In 2002 did you expect him to be ranked well ahead of Patrick Ewing, Dominique Wilkins, and Gary Payton on most all-time lists and to be in the same group with Stockton, Malone, Isiah, David Robinson and Barkley? There were many knuckleheads at the time he believed Houston and Portland "proved" he was a creature of Jordan, even though he was past his prime in each case and he excelled in 1994 and 1995 without Jordan when he was in his prime.

[Da_Realist]

If one wants to put ****** in Jordan's armor his record without Pippen is the strongest point to make.

Well, if that's all they can find, they can have at it. :oldlol: The only people that makes this argument are Jordan detractors that won't be taken seriously, anyway. It doesn't take much to make this argument look silly.

[Fatal9]

Could a case be made that perhaps Horace Grant was more "important" to the Bulls than Jordan? Jordan's scoring could be replaced, him leaving didn't impact the team defensively at all. In fact in games Pippen played the following season, they had a better winning percentage in those games than with Jordan in the previous season. Even in the playoffs, the team came 1 whistle away from probably reaching the finals (a bad call like that in the '92 or '93 Knicks series could have knocked the Bulls out of those playoffs too), so not much lost there either. Seems like the team was almost as good as ever. With the loss of Grant's interior D, rebounding though, the Bulls struggled, got dominated in the playoffs even. This void wasn't filled until they got the GOAT rebounder and maybe GOAT multiple position defender. We all know Grant isn't even in the same universe as Jordan as a player....but this is what people mean when they refer to the importance of each player's role to the team. Pippen's playmaking, all around defense, court presence etc etc all were the core of that Bulls team. Without him, those teams fall apart. I have serious doubts on whether MJ could take that '94 team as far as Pippen did (or make two role players into all-stars like Pippen did). Again, the most "important" players aren't necessarily the best ones.

[G.O.A.T]

Could a case be made that perhaps Horace Grant was more "important" to the Bulls than Jordan?

This is where people stop and realize you need to be on ignore.

Enjoy your tattoo of Kobe's ***** on your arm.

[Glide2keva]

Thank You, some of these idiots that never watched the Bulls think that Pippen was some normal sidekick and MJ was THE MAN.
Well, I'm glad I worked there and watched it all happen in front of me.

Pippen was VERY, and I mean VERY important to the teams' overall success. Some people seem to think that he is getting slighted over MJ, but that is certainly not the case.

I saw Pippen as a raw rookie, bricking dunks in 87-88, and watched him develop over the years, that was due to MJ's guidence, something SOME posters fail to acknowledge.

Pippen got screwed in 94 for MVP and in 96 one could make the case for him winning the award.

In 1994, he lead a brand new team to a 57 win season, two more than the previous year despite MJ not being there and them having many new faces.

MJ came in and blended with the team and the rest is history.

I don't what round rock's problem with people giving MJ his due credit is, but it is not a slight on Pippen when they do so.

MJ earned his. So did Pippen.

[Samurai Swoosh]

Definetely wasn't luck ... even though they won a staggering 72 games ... only losing a dime. They actually should've won like 2 or 3 games they lost. Same goes for the '97 Bulls. They won 69 but should've won like 2 or 3 games that they lost. That would've been back to back 70+ win seasons.

[Glide2keva]

If Kobe wins the MVP/Championship and a Finals MVP this year, he is a top 5-6 in my book.
Not even.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't what round rock's problem with people giving MJ his due credit is, but it is not a slight on Pippen when they do so.

My problem is with giving Jordan 90% of the credit, especially when it comes to intangibles. According to the coach and players on the team Pippen's leadership was as important as Jordan's, but all you hear from some are "Jordan willed his teams to win", "Jordan wouldn't let them lose", etc.


Pippen got screwed in 94 for MVP and in 96 one could make the case for him winning the award.

I agree. In 94' Hakeem was the best player but Pippen was the second best and he was more valuable to his team than Hakeem. Both were their team's leading scorers and defensive anchors. The difference? Pippen also ran the offense. He led his team in scoring, minutes, assists, steals (led the league), helped with spacing by developing into a decent three point shooter by that point in his career, was second in rebounding (and first in the playoffs), second in blocks, served as the defensive anchor, ran the offense, and was a coach on the floor. He did practically everything for the team and his team had the same win rate as Hakeem's did and better than Robinson's team did when he played. Yet he was 3rd in MVP voting? :wtf: I can at least understand someone voting for Hakeem over Pippen but there is no way Robinson should have been second over Pip.

In 96' he was underrated, as usual. I think he should have finished 2nd in MVP voting behind MJ that year. 97' showed the stupidity of MVP voters. Pippen in 97' was basically as good as 96' Pippen (although there was a slight decline) yet he somehow went from 5th to 10th in MVP voting. :oldlol:

[che guevara]

What is it with this bull**** that Pippen deserved MVP in 1994? It's a complete joke. Hakeem led his team to more wins, with far superior stats, better defense, with an inferior supporting cast. Patrick Ewing (who was not close to Hakeem's level) had a better case than Pippen - he led his team to the same amount of wins with better stats and was the team's defensive anchor. David Robinson had far superior stats with a similar win-loss record, while being his team's defensive anchor. You could even argue Shaq over Pippen that year - his stats were way, way, way better. Pippen was good, but to say that he was ever good enough to win an MVP is a joke.

Is there a single person here who actually watched basketball back then actually think Pippen ever deserved an MVP? And whoever suggested that Pippen had a case in 1996, did you recently have a head injury? The GOAT was on his team that year and was arguably still in his prime (depending on who you talk to, '93 or '96 was the last year of his prime).

[chitownsfinest]

The 97 team would have finished with 70+ wins as well if not for Rodman's and Kukoc's injury. I consider the 97 team more impressive considering the amount of weight MJ and Pippen had to cover and the fact they faced tougher competition in 97 then they did in 96.

[OldSchoolBBall]

What is it with this bull**** that Pippen deserved MVP in 1994? It's a complete joke. Hakeem led his team to more wins, with far superior stats, better defense, with an inferior supporting cast. Patrick Ewing (who was not close to Hakeem's level) had a better case than Pippen - he led his team to the same amount of wins with better stats and was the team's defensive anchor. David Robinson had far superior stats with a similar win-loss record, while being his team's defensive anchor. You could even argue Shaq over Pippen that year - his stats were way, way, way better. Pippen was good, but to say that he was ever good enough to win an MVP is a joke.

Seriously. These cats are delusional thinking that Pip had a better MVP case than Hakeem and DRob that year at the very least when they had far better numbers, more defensive impact, and led even worse teams to the same/more wins.

[hitmanyr2k]

The only thing that cost Pippen MVP in '94 was him missing 10 games due to recovering from ankle surgery. If Pippen is there for a full 82 games the Bulls most likely have a 60+ win season (plus homecourt in the playoffs) and he takes that MVP easy because you're not supposed to be leading your team to 60 wins when you replace the G.O.A.T with scrubs like Pete Myers and Jo Jo English. Hell, they shouldn't even have won 55 :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

Hakeem led his team to more wins

Wrong. The Rockets did win 58 games to Chicago's 55 games but Pippen missed 10 games and the Bulls went 4-6 in them. When he played they went 51-21, a win rate of 71%. What was Hakeem's win rate? 71%.


with far superior stats, better defense, with an inferior supporting cast.

Stats are going to be different for a center and a SF. To say a center averaged 11 rebounds and a SF 9 means the center is automatically superior makes no sense.

Inferior supporting cast? The Bulls had a CBA scrub as a starter! :roll: If the Bulls replaced MJ with anyone legit they would have won the title.

Hakeem=Pippen
Thorpe=Grant
Maxwell>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Myers
Smith=Armstrong
Horry>>Cartwright

Moreover, the Bulls were ravaged by injuries yet they still won 55 games and were on pace for 58 and the #1 seed if Pippen played all 82 games. You also have to look at expectations. All the other candidate's were on good teams; the Bulls were expected to be a lottery team without Jordan and turned out to arguably be the best team in the East. This was chiefly because of the 25-30 win swing Pippen was worth.


Patrick Ewing (who was not close to Hakeem's level) had a better case than Pippen - he led his team to the same amount of wins with better stats and was the team's defensive anchor.

57 wins, a slightly lower winning percentage than Pippen's Bulls with Pippen. Ewing's team actually regressed from the previous season (60 wins to 57).

Shaq was on a 50 win team so he was not a legit MVP candidate.

P.S. did any of those players also run their team's offense? Why are you MJ fans leaving that important factor out in a discussion of value to a team?

[Roundball_Rock]

Is there a single person here who actually watched basketball back then actually think Pippen ever deserved an MVP? And whoever suggested that Pippen had a case in 1996)

Yeah, he finished a solid 3rd in trhe 94' vote and was 5th in 96'. Who suggested he had a case in 1996? Some dude named Michael Jeffery Jordan. :oldlol:


These cats are delusional thinking that Pip had a better MVP case than Hakeem and DRob that year at the very least when they had far better numbers, more defensive impact, and led even worse teams to the same/more wins.

Better numbers because they were centers? :oldlol: How about comparing assists and three point shooting if we are to compare stats which are influenced based on position?

Worse teams? Did they have a CBA scrub in their starting lineup? The Spurs won 49 games in 93', the Rockets 55, and the Knicks 60. They came back in 1994 intact. The Bulls lost the GOAT, and since he retired a month before the season, replaced him with a CBA scrub. They were expected to be a lottery team. In fact, they were a lottery team when Pippen did not play (40% win rate). Pippen dragged this team to contending for the #1 seed and MJ fans say he had no case. :roll:


he only thing that cost Pippen MVP in '94 was him missing 10 games due to recovering from ankle surgery. If Pippen is there for a full 82 games the Bulls most likely have a 60+ win season (plus homecourt in the playoffs) and he takes that MVP easy because you're not supposed to be leading your team to 60 wins when you replace the G.O.A.T with scrubs like Pete Myers and Jo Jo English. Hell, they shouldn't even have won 55

Exactly. :applause: The team went 4-6 without him despite having an easy schedule during that period; he came back and they went on a 14-1 roll. The Myers part is what pisses MJ fans off. The "GOAT" was replaced by a complete scrub who sucked so much he could not even make a NBA roster in the previous season. Yet the team dropped only two games in the W-L column. :oldlol: Their win rate with Pippen was on pace for 58 wins but you are right, given their soft schedule when he was injured they easily could have won 59-60 games if he didn't get hurt. Without Pippen those scrubs would have been lucky to even win 30 games. :oldlol:

In reality the Bulls' lost three starters from 93': Jordan, Cartwright and Paxson. The latter two were scrubs in 94' due to injury. They replaced Jordan with a CBA scrub and Cartwright with Luc Longley and still only dropped 2 games. The man who led them to this doesn't deserve MVP consideration? :roll:

Let's use a Bill Simmons' idea: replace the player in question with a decent player at his position. We actually saw this in 94' in Pippen's case since he was hurt (Kukoc--a rookie--was the backup SF). They went 4-6 without him and would have went 2-8 or 3-7 if they had a normal schedule during that period. How many games would the Rockets and Spurs won if Hakeem/Robinson were replaced by Matt Geiger?

[che guevara]

Wrong. The Rockets did win 58 games to Chicago's 55 games but Pippen missed 10 games and the Bulls went 4-6 in them. When he played they went 51-21, a win rate of 71%. What was Hakeem's win rate? 71%.

So I guess when a player gets injured, we should just pretend that he didn't and kept playing? K bro.:rockon: Shaq should have been MVP over Malone in 1997 then!:applause: Shaq had a 72.5% W/L record when he was playing, and averaged 26.2/12.5/3.1 with 3 blocks! Malone only averaged 27.4/9.9/4.5 with half a block per game!:sleeping He did have a 78% win record, but Shaq had much better stats!:cheers:

Note: I hope I used enough smileys in this post. I don't want to get outperformed by roundball, here.

[SAKOTXA]

Well, I'm glad I worked there and watched it all happen in front of me.

Pippen was VERY, and I mean VERY important to the teams' overall success. Some people seem to think that he is getting slighted over MJ, but that is certainly not the case.

I saw Pippen as a raw rookie, bricking dunks in 87-88, and watched him develop over the years, that was due to MJ's guidence, something SOME posters fail to acknowledge.

Pippen got screwed in 94 for MVP and in 96 one could make the case for him winning the award.

In 1994, he lead a brand new team to a 57 win season, two more than the previous year despite MJ not being there and them having many new faces.

MJ came in and blended with the team and the rest is history.

I don't what round rock's problem with people giving MJ his due credit is, but it is not a slight on Pippen when they do so.

MJ earned his. So did Pippen.

Anybody that watched the Bulls those years would know that. Some of these guys just look at the stats and jump to conclusions.

[Roundball_Rock]

So I guess when a player gets injured, we should just pretend that he didn't and kept playing?

What kind of "logic" is that? The issue is value to a team. An excellent way to assess that is by looking at the team in question's performance without the player in question. In the case of Hakeem/Robinson it is theoretical but we saw how lousy the Bulls' were when Pippen was replaced by an average SF (Kukoc). How many games would the Rockets/Spurs win if Matt Geiger was their center? This is a simple but important question since the issue is determining who the most valuable player was that year. We saw the Bulls were a 25-30 win team without Pippen. How would the Rockets have done without Hakeem or the Spurs without Robinson?

How many games did Shaq play that year? 51. You are comparing that to playing 72 games?

[che guevara]

What kind of "logic" is that? The issue is value to a team. An excellent way to assess that is by looking at the team in question's performance without the player in question. In the case of Hakeem/Robinson it is theoretical but we saw how lousy the Bulls' were when Pippen was replaced by an average SF (Kukoc). How many games would the Rockets/Spurs win if Matt Geiger was their center?

How many games did Shaq play that year? 51. You are comparing that to playing 72 games?
What I'm saying is that using win % over the team's record is complete bull****. It basically forgives players for missing games.

[Roundball_Rock]

Anybody that watched the Bulls those years would know that. Some of these guys just look at the stats and jump to conclusions.

Looking is all some of them are doing. Using their logic centers are always superior to wing players because center' stats are always going to look better due to having more rebounds, blocks, and a higher FG %. They fail to look at the value a player having an ability to shoot three pointers provides, or the value in being the primary playmaker of a team versus simply standing under the basket waiting to be fed the ball.

[Roundball_Rock]

What I'm saying is that using win % over the team's record is complete bull****. It basically forgives players for missing games.

Yeah, let's ignore the best evidence available of a player's value to a team. :oldlol: How many games do you think the Rockets would have won in 94' or the Spurs in 94' if they replaced Hakeem/Robinson with a rookie center or even a decent center with experience like Matt Geiger? The 94' Bulls replaced Pippen with a rookie SF, Cartwright for the season with a second year center, and Jordan with a CBA scrub and stillwon 55 games. Yet the reason for them doing this has no case for MVP in Jordan Nation?

[SAKOTXA]

Looking is all some of them are doing. Using their logic centers are always superior to wing players because center' stats are always going to look better due to having more rebounds, blocks, and a higher FG %. They fail to look at the value a player having an ability to shoot three pointers provides, or the value in being the primary playmaker of a team versus simply standing under the basket waiting to be fed the ball.

That's the point, big man can't dominate if PERIMETER players don't give the ball to them. They are always depending on their smalls to give them the ball. Non the less I still think that it's very hard to win a title without a great center.

[Roundball_Rock]

That's the point, big man can't dominate if PERIMETER players don't give the ball to them. They are always depending on their smalls to give them the ball. Non the less I still think that it's very hard to win a title without a great center.

Yeah, and they all had solid guards to get them the ball (Kenny Smith/Vernon Maxwell, Derek Harper/John Starks, Penny Hardaway/Scott Skiles). Pippen had a 6/4/1 center to work with!

They only look at scoring*. Factor in assists to get a more accurate reflection of their offensive value. This is especially important when one of the candidate's chief role, since he was the de facto point guard, was to run the offense and be a facilitator first, scorer second. According to these people Jason Kidd was never a legit MVP candidate because he wasn't scoring 25 ppg. :oldlol: Let's assign 2.2 points per assist to factor in three pointers and points made on "and one's".

*Mysteriously Pippen (+1) had a higher scoring average than Robinson (-10 from the regular season), Shaq (-9 from the regular season), and Ewing (-3 from the regular season) during the playoffs. The MVP is a regular season award but I found it amusing that these big bad scoring machines ran out of gas when money was on the table (of course Shaq would more than make up for this in the future; Ewing and Robinson never did).


Total point production

Hakeem: 27 ppg, 4 apg. Total points produced: 35.8
Pippen: 22 ppg, 6 apg. Total points produced: 35.2
Robinson: 30 ppg, 5 apg. Total points produced: 41
Ewing: 25 ppg, 2 apg. Total points produced: 29.4
Shaq: 29 ppg, 2 apg. Total points produced: 34.3

See what happens when you factor in assists? Pippen's points production is on par with that of Hakeem and Shaq's and significantly better than Ewing's. Robinson is substantially ahead of the pack. In fact, if one belives MVP's should be decided solely on stats than Robinson should have been the runaway MVP in 94'. Yet I bet most of these people believe Hakeem deserved it. Their interest is not really in the stats but diminishing Pippen since they are fans of...

Three pointers made

Hakeem: 8
Robinson: 10
Pippen: 63
Shaq: 0 (Shaq has only made one three in his entire career)
Ewing: 4

How about some defensive stats? They will focus solely on blocks but let's combine blocks and steals.

Block/steal average

Hakeem: 5.3
Pippen: 3.7
Robinson: 5.0
Shaq: 3.8
Ewing: 3.8

This is a more holistic view of the stats. You have to look beyond stats, though. Pippen was able to play 4 positions and guard 4 positions. Since he was a SF handling PG duties you could start a combo guard like BJ Armstrong as the PG or even a SG like Ron Harper. The matchup advantages this kind of flexibility offers cannot be overlooked. In contrast, Ewing and Shaq could play and guard 1 position. Hakeem could play 2 and guard 2. Robinson probably could guard PF's but he never played PF.

Then there are expectations, which are always a factor in MVP voting.

Knicks in 93': 60 wins, #1 seed
Knicks in 94': 57 wins, #2 seed

Rockets in 93': 55 wins, #2 seed
Rockets in 94': 58 wins, #2 seed

Spurs in 93': 49 wins, #5 seed
Spurs in 94': 55 wins, #4 seed

Magic in 93' 41 wins, missed the playoffs (9th place)
Magic in 94': 50 wins, #4 seed

Bulls in 93': 57 wins, #2 seed
Bulls in 94': 55 wins, #3 seed

So only the Magic really outperformed their previous season's win total, but winning a MVP with 50 wins is difficult to do. The others performed about as well as they did the previous year in terms of wins. The other teams came back with the same core they had the previous year. The Bulls lost the GOAT and replaced him with a CBA scrub who could not even be a 12th man in the NBA in the previous year. That is a pretty big change if you ask me. Given this most people expected the Bulls to miss the playoffs. Why? People were aware of what usually happens when a player of MJ's caliber retires/leaves. Phil Jackson predicted a 42 win season for the 94' Bulls. Here is what impact on wins the loss of other Jordan caliber players had on their respective teams:

Celtics without Russell: -14 wins
Lakers without Wilt: -13
Bucks without Oscar: -21
Bucks without Kareem: 0
Celtics without Bird: -15
Lakers without Magic: -15
Bulls without Jordan: -2

Instead, they were on their way to 59-60 wins and the #1 seed if Pippen didn't get hurt. Even with his injury they finished only 2 games out of the #1 seed despite replacing Jordan, who retired at the last minute, with a total scrub. Why? The strong performance of Pippen in 94'. Worthy and McHale, who are players some compare to Pippen, were not good enough to step up their games to limit the damage. McHale's field goal percentage slipped 6% without Bird, Worthy's 5% without Magic. Pippen's increased 2% without Jordan despite taking over 100 more 3's in 1994 than in 1993. Pippen stepping up to the plate when these other great players could not do so is further evidence of how strong a season Pippen had in 94' and how great he was in his prime.

Other accolades

These happened after the MVP vote but they give you an idea of how these players were rated at the time.

DPOY

1) Hakeem 23 votes (2nd ranked defense)
2) Robinson 22 votes (9th ranked defense)
4) Pippen 11 votes (6th ranked defense despite losing Jordan's legendary defense, highest non-center)

Ewing and Shaq received no DPOY votes.

All-NBA

First team: Pippen, Hakeem
Second team: Robinson
Third team: Shaq

All-defensive team

First team: Pippen, Hakeem
Second team: Robinson

So Shaq was considered the third best player at his position, Ewing the fourth best (Ewing was clearly considered better than Alonzo Mourning and Mutumbo at the time). Neither were considered elite defenders. These views had to have hurt their MVP votes.

Pippen was considered the best forward. Karl Malone was the other forward on the all-NBA first team but Malone did not make either all-defensive team. Given this it is safe to say Pippen was considered to be the best forward that year. He certainly was considered to be the best player at his position.

Robinson was considered to be the second best player at his position. You could give him a pass for this, though, since the Hakeem happened to play the same position.

Responsibilities

Hakeem: Primary scorer, primary rebounder, defensive anchor, make sure never to stray beyond 15 feet of the basket on offense.
Robinson: Leading scorer, secondary rebounder, leading assistman defensive anchor, make sure never to stray beyond 15 feet of the basket on offense.
Pippen: Primary scorer, secondary rebounder, defensive anchor, leading assistman/best passer, run the offense/primary playmaker, primary ballhandler, be a versatile offensive threat who can slash to the basket as well as shoot three pointers to stretch the defense
Ewing: Primary scorer, secondary rebounder, defensive anchor, 7th best passer, make sure never to stray beyond 15 feet of the basket on offense.
Shaq: Primary scorer, primary rebounder, defensive anchor, 5th best passer/assistman, make sure never to stray beyond 5 feet of the basket on offense.


When the voters, media, considered all of these things Pippen was a legitimate and strong MVP candidate. Since there is no official criteria for MVP it is hard to say who deserved it. If the award is intended to go to the best player than Hakeem should have won. Hakeem was just as good in 95' as he was in 94', and Robinson's stats actually declined (down 2 ppg, down 2 apg, down 1 rpg. In contrast Hakeem's stats were identical, except for a 1 rpg decline) yet in 95' Robinson was MVP and Hakeem finished 5th so apparently the award is not based on who the best player is. If the award is for the best player on the best team then Gary Payton should have won, instead he was a distant 6th with only 2% of the vote. If the award is for what it claims to be, for the player who was most valuable to his team than Pippen had an excellent case for it.

[Glide2keva]

Anybody that watched the Bulls those years would know that. Some of these guys just look at the stats and jump to conclusions.
Exactly. I am an MJ fan, but I'm a Bulls fan first and always.

That 94 team was one call away from possibly going back to the Finals (thanks Hugh Hollins, awesome call)

Had MJ been there, they would've made it. Because that series against the Knicks would've ended in 5 games, because the bulls had their number, even without MJ.

They would've beat Indiana in the next round due to the fact that they beat them all year like it was their job. They swept Houston, if I'm not mistaken with Bill Wennington getting 19 points on Olajuwon.

Pippen deserved the MVP for that year, because he was the most VALUABLE player on his team, one that wasn't expected to go anywhere or do anything. So saying he should've gotten MVP that year is not a joke.

If you were watching that season, it was clear that he deserved it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Exactly. I am an MJ fan, but I'm a Bulls fan first and always.

That 94 team was one call away from possibly going back to the Finals (thanks Hugh Hollins, awesome call)

Had MJ been there, they would've made it. Because that series against the Knicks would've ended in 5 games, because the bulls had their number, even without MJ.

They would've beat Indiana in the next round due to the fact that they beat them all year like it was their job. They swept Houston, if I'm not mistaken with Bill Wennington getting 19 points on Olajuwon.

Pippen deserved the MVP for that year, because he was the most VALUABLE player on his team, one that wasn't expected to go anywhere or do anything. So saying he should've gotten MVP that year is not a joke.

If you were watching that season, it was clear that he deserved it.

:applause:

[97 bulls]

Exactly. I am an MJ fan, but I'm a Bulls fan first and always.

That 94 team was one call away from possibly going back to the Finals (thanks Hugh Hollins, awesome call)

Had MJ been there, they would've made it. Because that series against the Knicks would've ended in 5 games, because the bulls had their number, even without MJ.

They would've beat Indiana in the next round due to the fact that they beat them all year like it was their job. They swept Houston, if I'm not mistaken with Bill Wennington getting 19 points on Olajuwon.

Pippen deserved the MVP for that year, because he was the most VALUABLE player on his team, one that wasn't expected to go anywhere or do anything. So saying he should've gotten MVP that year is not a joke.

If you were watching that season, it was clear that he deserved it.
great point. i vividly remember everybody saying that the bulls would be the eastern conference version of the clippers without jordan. which is basically a 15 win team.

[Roundball_Rock]

great point. i vividly remember everybody saying that the bulls would be the eastern conference version of the clippers without jordan. which
is basically a 15 win team.

Even Phil Jackson predicted they would be a .500 team without Jordan. That was the coach's prediction! Everyone else thought they would be a lottery team and they actually were a lottery team without Pippen. They were 4-6 without him despite playing a soft schedule during that period. They easily could have been 3-7 or 2-8 without him if they played a normal schedule, but they managed to get bailed out by getting easy wins against the 13 win Mavericks, 20 win Bucks, and 33 win Lakers. They had only one quality win during that stretch (Atlanta). They went 1-4 against playoff teams without Pippen. Moreover, look at their margin of victory. Even against bad teams they struggled to win.

vs. Atlanta +26 (57 win team)
vs. the Bucks +1 (20 win team)
vs. Celtics -1 (32 win team)
vs. Seattle -1 (63 win team)
vs. Portland -22 (47 win team)
vs. Lakers +2 (33 win team)
vs. Kings -2 (28 win team)
vs. Rockets -7 (58 win team)
vs. Spurs -25 (55 win team)
vs. Mavericks +23 (13 win team)

With Pippen they would have beaten the Celtics, Sonics, Kings, and maybe even the Rockets (they beat them later that year with Pippen). That would give them 58-59 wins, enough for the #1 seed in the East instead of the #3 seed and the second best record in the NBA behind Seattle with 59 wins (58 would tie them with Hakeem's Rockets). This would mean the Bulls would have had HCA against the Knicks, and the Knicks did not win a single game in Chicago in that series although the Bulls legitimately beat them in game 5 in New York.

[Maestro33]

Aside from the obvious strengths, that team had a brilliant sense of when to put the pedal down and when they could ease up with little to no negative effects. Luck was a factor but only in a few games as most of the time they were too far ahead for luck to be a factor. When luck ran out though it led to some entertaining basketball. Denver was as hot as Ive ever seen a team in their home game and the Knicks ruined the Bulls at MSG. In those two it was like luck just reversed. The substitution patterns and Kukoc also contributed t the controlled pace.

[97 bulls]

Even Phil Jackson predicted they would be a .500 team without Jordan. That was the coach's prediction! Everyone else thought they would be a lottery team and they actually were a lottery team without Pippen. They were 4-6 without him despite playing a soft schedule during that period. They easily could have been 3-7 or 2-8 without him if they played a normal schedule, but they managed to get bailed out by getting easy wins against the 13 win Mavericks, 20 win Bucks, and 33 win Lakers. They had only one quality win during that stretch (Atlanta). They went 1-4 against playoff teams without Pippen. Moreover, look at their margin of victory. Even against bad teams they struggled to win.

vs. Atlanta +26 (57 win team)
vs. the Bucks +1 (20 win team)
vs. Celtics -1 (32 win team)
vs. Seattle -1 (63 win team)
vs. Portland -22 (47 win team)
vs. Lakers +2 (33 win team)
vs. Kings -2 (28 win team)
vs. Rockets -7 (58 win team)
vs. Spurs -25 (55 win team)
vs. Mavericks +23 (13 win team)

With Pippen they would have beaten the Celtics, Sonics, Kings, and maybe even the Rockets (they beat them later that year with Pippen). That would give them 58-59 wins, enough for the #1 seed in the East instead of the #3 seed and the second best record in the NBA behind Seattle with 59 wins (58 would tie them with Hakeem's Rockets). This would mean the Bulls would have had HCA against the Knicks, and the Knicks did not win a single game in Chicago in that series although the Bulls legitimately beat them in game 5 in New York.
i also would like to point out how even though the bulls didnt have jordan, they were still the champions and thus had that bulls eye on their back. im sure that teams played them hard in order to get payback for the last three years.

[dr8ked]

Aside from the obvious strengths, that team had a brilliant sense of when to put the pedal down and when they could ease up with little to no negative effects. Luck was a factor but only in a few games as most of the time they were too far ahead for luck to be a factor. When luck ran out though it led to some entertaining basketball. Denver was as hot as Ive ever seen a team in their home game and the Knicks ruined the Bulls at MSG. In those two it was like luck just reversed. The substitution patterns and Kukoc also contributed t the controlled pace.



:applause: :applause: :applause:

[magnax1]

This team wasn't just focused. They put so much into the regular season that it ended up hurting them in the playoffs. Which is pretty stupid, but I'm pretty sure Jordan came out in the beginning of the year with the objective of having them be the best team ever, no matter the consequences.

[Roundball_Rock]

This team wasn't just focused. They put so much into the regular season that it ended up hurting them in the playoffs. Which is pretty stupid, but I'm pretty sure Jordan came out in the beginning of the year with the objective of having them be the best team ever, no matter the consequences.

Yeah, it was all Jordan. He even coached the team. :rolleyes:

[madmax]

Yeah, it was all Jordan. He even coached the team. :rolleyes:
yeah, nothing to do about being a class above any other team at that time:roll: Those Jordan stans never cease to amaze me...

[Soundwave]

It would've been interesting had Jordan decided to come back at the tail end of the '94 season rather than '95 ... they probably would've gone to the Finals again.

[magnax1]

Yeah, it was all Jordan. He even coached the team. :rolleyes:
I never said it was. Everyone was important, you can't win a ring without a good team, even if you are the best player ever. but nobody on the team was as important/good as Jordan.

[Roundball_Rock]

yeah, nothing to do about being a class above any other team at that time:roll: Those Jordan stans never cease to amaze me...

The team goes 72-10. It had 3 HOF'ers, the GOAT coach, the best player in the league and arguably the second best player too, the best 6th man, and the best 3 point shooter yet it is all Jordan? He decreed "Thou shalt win 72ith" and it was. Funny how he couldn't "will" some of his other teams...

[magnax1]

The team goes 72-10. It had 3 HOF'ers, the GOAT coach, the best player in the league and arguably the second best player too, the best 6th man, and the best 3 point shooter yet it is all Jordan? He decreed "Thou shalt win 72ith" and it was. Funny how he couldn't "will" some of his other teams...
The only thing I said is that must've been his objective. Please point out the part where I said he was the only reason they won 72 games.
You can't, because you're just trolling.

[D.J.]

Unlike other teams and players, no one on that Bulls team took a play off. Whether it was diving for loose balls(Rodman was notorious for this) or boxing out, it was the little things that won them 72 games and 87-13 including the playoffs. You also had Jordan returning for his first full season since 1992-93 and he was more motivated than ever.

[Roundball_Rock]

The only thing I said is that must've been his objective.

You think that wasn't his goal every year? He wanted to win at Monopoly, Pac Man, golf, cards, scrimmages, and so on yet he was satisfied with not being the best?

[magnax1]

You think that wasn't his goal every year? He wanted to win at Monopoly, Pac Man, golf, cards, scrimmages, and so on yet he was satisfied with not being the best?
No, I don't think every year he went out and said "I think this year we have the chance to be the best team ever."
None of his teams had been that talented, and very few teams ever were. especially on the defensive end. With 3 of the top 20-30 or so defensive players ever on the same team.

[Alhazred]

The team goes 72-10. It had 3 HOF'ers, the GOAT coach, the best player in the league and arguably the second best player too, the best 6th man, and the best 3 point shooter yet it is all Jordan? He decreed "Thou shalt win 72ith" and it was. Funny how he couldn't "will" some of his other teams...

One of those HOFers was a "team cancer" the year before, the coach was originally from the CBA and the best 3 point shooter struggled to stay in the league as a 12th man, remember?

Just messing with you, that team was deep with Kukoc, Kerr, Rodman, Harper backing up Michael and Scottie. :cheers:

[Roundball_Rock]

No, I don't think every year he went out and said "I think this year we have the chance to be the best team ever."
None of his teams had been that talented, and very few teams ever were. especially on the defensive end. With 3 of the top 20-30 or so defensive players ever on the same team.

I see. Well, I am glad he laid down the law on those slackers Pippen, Rodman, and Jackson and they signed onto the goal of trying to be the GOAT team. Jordan is amazing. :bowdown:

[Alhazred]

I see. Well, I am glad he laid down the law on those slackers Pippen, Rodman, and Jackson and they signed onto the goal of trying to be the GOAT team. Jordan is amazing. :bowdown:

I thought it was all Pippen before? Funny how that team became stacked again once Jordan came back. :lol

Come on, man, there's no harm in giving MJ his cred, especially if Pippen really did carry the team by himself in 94.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Arguably the 4th best Bulls team.

[magnax1]

I see. Well, I am glad he laid down the law on those slackers Pippen, Rodman, and Jackson and they signed onto the goal of trying to be the GOAT team. Jordan is amazing. :bowdown:
Once again, you're just trolling. I never said anything bad about Pippen or Rodman. Actually quite the opposite. They're both top 10 defenders all time.
EDIT:Abe really? Fourth best Bulls team ever???

[Roundball_Rock]

Once again, you're just trolling. I never said anything bad about Pippen or Rodman. Actually quite the opposite. They're both top 10 defenders all time.

I agree with you now. :confusedshrug: Jordan showed up at training camp and set the goal to be the GOAT team and Pippen, Rodman, and Jackson all signed on.


I'm pretty sure Jordan came out in the beginning of the year with the objective of having them be the best team ever, no matter the consequences.

The result? 72-10. GOAT leader :bowdown:

[Abraham Lincoln]

EDIT:Abe really? Fourth best Bulls team ever???

'91
'92
'97

[magnax1]

'91
'92
'97
I'm gonna say that there is no way that 97 was better. Pippen and Jordan were both one year older, and the only real addition was Bison Dele, and he didn't play that much anyway.

[Roundball_Rock]

The 97' team won about as many games (69) despite having more injury problems so it has a legit case. Ask 97_bulls about this. He makes a good case for that team. The 92' team was strong too. It won 67 games, which is five less than the 96' team, but it did it in a less diluted league. I disagree with the 92' team>the 96' team but it has a case.

[D.J.]

The 1993 Bulls team is very underrated. You had Jordan and Pippen both playing non stop from September 1991 until the 1993 Finals. They were both drained coming back from Barcelona. They still won 57 games, swept Atlanta, swept Cleveland, won four straight after being down 0-2 to the 60 win Knicks, and defeated the 62 win Suns to win the title.

[Alhazred]

91 and 93 imo. Pippen and Jordan were both monster defenders in that period and were both close to their peaks as well as experienced.

[Abraham Lincoln]

I'm gonna say that there is no way that 97 was better. Pippen and Jordan were both one year older, and the only real addition was Bison Dele, and he didn't play that much anyway.

Indeed the Jordan/Pippen duo carried a huge load in the postseason. Bigger than the previous year. Jordan was no worse than he was in '96, whilst Pippen was near the end of his peak. Very close.

[Roundball_Rock]

The 1993 Bulls team is very underrated. You had Jordan and Pippen both playing non stop from September 1991 until the 1993 Finals. They were both drained coming back from Barcelona. They still won 57 games, swept Atlanta, swept Cleveland, won four straight after being down 0-2 to the 60 win Knicks, and defeated the 62 win Suns to win the title.

I agree. 57-25 is not "great" but that team made an amazing comeback against the Knicks and then beat the Suns despite PHX having home court advantage. The 90' team was not as good as any of the title teams but it is underrated too. That team took the Pistons to 7 games, gave them a tougher fight than anyone that year.

[Abraham Lincoln]

91 and 93 imo. Pippen and Jordan were both monster defenders in that period and were both close to their peaks as well as experienced.
No disrespect to the Bulls, but NY beat themselves in '93. Those Knicks are criminally underrated on this main board, as is every defensive oriented scrappy team prior to 2004.


A fantasy matchup would indeed be Hannum's Sixers vs. Riley's Knicks, soley for the sake of the magnificent rebound battles and "big muscle activity" under the rim.

[Alhazred]

I agree. 57-25 is not "great" but that team made an amazing comeback against the Knicks and then beat the Suns despite PHX having home court advantage. The 90' team was not as good as any of the title teams but it is underrated too. That team took the Pistons to 7 games, gave them a tougher fight than anyone that year.

:cheers:

It would have been funny if the Bulls had been able to upset Detroit in 90 or 89. They had a legit shot, too, considering both series' were 6 and 7 games each.

[D.J.]

No disrespect to the Bulls, but NY beat themselves in '93. Those Knicks are criminally underrated on this main board, as is every defensive oriented scrappy team prior to 2004.


A fantasy matchup would indeed be Hannum's Sixers vs. Riley's Knicks, soley for the sake of the magnificent rebound battles and "big muscle activity" under the rim.

Any team that loses after leading 2-0 or 3-1 beats themselves. There's no reason to lose three in a row, four in a row, or four in five when you have a commanding lead. Most people would acknowledge that the Knicks were a very scrappy, defensive-minded team that never went away. The only things that kept them from winning a title were Jordan and a prime Dream.



The 90' team was not as good as any of the title teams but it is underrated too. That team took the Pistons to 7 games, gave them a tougher fight than anyone that year.

They were just as good skills wise as the championship teams. The only thing they lacked was the mental game. Ultimately, the only reason Detroit won those series in 1989 and 1990 was because they were able to psych out Chicago with their bullying tactics. The Bulls finally figured it out in 1991.

[Alhazred]

No disrespect to the Bulls, but NY beat themselves in '93. Those Knicks are criminally underrated on this main board, as is every defensive oriented scrappy team prior to 2004.

Yeah, I liked the early 90s Knicks with Riley coaching them. Good times.



A fantasy matchup would indeed be Hannum's Sixers vs. Riley's Knicks, soley for the sake of the magnificent rebound battles and "big muscle activity" under the rim.

Bill Simmon's in his book described Ewing as a mediocre rebounder, which I thought was odd because he's had some great games against the Bulls where he would grab 15 or more. I think he's still mad that the Knicks knocked the Celtics out of the playoffs in 1990. :oldlol:

[chitownsfinest]

No disrespect to the Bulls, but NY beat themselves in '93. Those Knicks are criminally underrated on this main board, as is every defensive oriented scrappy team prior to 2004.


A fantasy matchup would indeed be Hannum's Sixers vs. Riley's Knicks, soley for the sake of the magnificent rebound battles and "big muscle activity" under the rim.
Yeah I agree with that they beat themselves. You don't hold MJ to his poorest shooting series at his prime and don't take full advantage of it. The Bulls supporting cast played great in that series. Pippen his big shots and B.J hit a go ahead shot in game 5. Jordan shot poorly but he locked down on Starks in the last 4 games.

[chitownsfinest]

I thought Simmons came off as way too harsh on Ewing. Ewing had plenty of big games/series and late game takeovers, yet everyone calls him a choker. In fact, I would take Ewing in a big game over Malone any day.

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree, DJ.


Yeah I agree with that they beat themselves. You don't hold MJ to his poorest shooting series at his prime and don't take full advantage of it. The Bulls supporting cast played great in that series. Pippen his big shots and B.J hit a go ahead shot in game 5. Jordan shot poorly but he locked down on Starks in the last 4 games.

They did and they didn't. It depends on how you interpret it. Did Charles Smith beat himself and cost the Knicks a 3-2 lead or did Pippen (twice) and Grant beat him? One thing is clear: the better team won.


I thought Simmons came off as way too harsh on Ewing. Ewing had plenty of big games/series and late game takeovers, yet everyone calls him a choker. In fact, I would take Ewing in a big game over Malone any day.

:applause:

Sadly, one of this late game takeovers came in 94' against the Bulls in Game 7. :cry:

[D.J.]

I thought Simmons came off as way too harsh on Ewing. Ewing had plenty of big games/series and late game takeovers, yet everyone calls him a choker. In fact, I would take Ewing in a big game over Malone any day.


Ewing certainly wasn't a choker. Though I would take Barkley over Ewing in a game 7, Ewing definitely gets the nod over Malone. Ewing had 24/22 I believe in game 7 against Indiana in 1994. He also set the blocks record in the 1994 Finals. He may not have always performed as good as he should have on the offensive end, but he was money on the defensive end when the Knicks needed him. Ewing had quite a few excellent defensive games when the Knicks needed him.

All players have their haters. The best way to see how good some of these guys are, is to watch playoff games and games during crunch time.

[Alhazred]

I completely agree, he was way too harsh on him. I don't think he said a single decent thing other than he was a great defender and shotblocker. He spent more time explaining why he didn't rank Patrick higher than 35 instead of explaining what made him stand out. He might as well have ranked him at 90.

[chitownsfinest]

I agree, DJ.



They did and they didn't. It depends on how you interpret it. Did Charles Smith beat himself and cost the Knicks a 3-2 lead or did Pippen (twice) and Grant beat him? One thing is clear: the better team won.



:applause:

Sadly, one of this late game takeovers came in 94'. :cry:
I think Smith took it to weak to the basket and maybe Ewing shouldn't have deferred to him. Yeah the 93 Bulls were the better team imo.

Yeah Ewing hit a 3 in the 4th of game 7 that pretty much nailed the game.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Any team that loses after leading 2-0 or 3-1 beats themselves. There's no reason to lose three in a row, four in a row, or four in five when you have a commanding lead. Most people would acknowledge that the Knicks were a very scrappy, defensive-minded team that never went away. The only things that kept them from winning a title were Jordan and a prime Dream.

Indeed. The Charles Smith play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRFKhpMKX0E) also had a big part.

PHX NY Finals would have been interesting and heated due to the fight earlier that year. Great offense vs. Great defense.

[Abraham Lincoln]

Yeah, I liked the early 90s Knicks with Riley coaching them. Good times.


Bill Simmon's in his book described Ewing as a mediocre rebounder, which I thought was odd because he's had some great games against the Bulls where he would grab 15 or more. I think he's still mad that the Knicks knocked the Celtics out of the playoffs in 1990. :oldlol:
Simmons is very, very biased. And even besides Ewing, NY had some serious muscle in the frontcourt. Against the likes of Chamberlain and Luke Jackson, it would be a marvel.

[D.J.]

Indeed. The Charles Smith play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRFKhpMKX0E) also had a big part.

PHX NY Finals would have been interesting and heated due to the fight earlier that year. Great offense vs. Great defense.


I remember that fight. Quite the b*tch move from Greg Anthony, but that brings me back to rivalries. Putting the Greg Anthony incident aside, many rivalries, players and teams alike, existed during the 90's.

The main reason is the Internet wasn't ruining everything. You didn't have tons of news sources shoving it down our throats. You saw the promotion for these rivalries either on television, or the newspaper. When you watched the game on television, you were never disappointed. There was always tension during those rivalries. You could feel it.

[Roundball_Rock]

I think Smith took it to weak to the basket and maybe Ewing shouldn't have deferred to him. Yeah the 93 Bulls were the better team imo.

Yeah Ewing hit a 3 in the 4th of game 7 that pretty much nailed the game.

Plus something like 20 or 22 second half points.

[chitownsfinest]

Ewing stepped up and had a big block on Hardaway (a big shot maker in his day) to save the game in the 97 ECF as well. He also had literraly every single point for the Knicks in the 4th quarter of game 1 in 92 against the Bulls, had a willis redd effort in game 6 in that same yr and put up big numbers with an injured ankle, and answered MJ for like every shot in the 4th of game 5 in 93 (hit the go ahead shot as well I think). He had plenty of other clutch moments as well that I can't recall right now. Looking back, he had mor big moments and games then most players in history, including some players typically ranked ahead of him. Simmons did his research for his book but a lot of his statements were out of his ass, I must admit as a Simmons fan myself.

[chitownsfinest]

Greg Anthony used to talk mad sh!t in his day. I remember in 92 I think when he was talking smack to Pippen and Jordan as a rookie! I used to love when they put him on the floor though because he used to always make the wrong decisions.

[Roundball_Rock]

A big reason for his bad rep in this regard is the 94' finals (18-19 ppg on 36%) and then the finger roll in 95'. Those were arguably his best opportunities to win rings along with 93' and that magnified what happened imo.

[D.J.]

Greg Anthony used to talk mad sh!t in his day. I remember in 92 I think when he was talking smack to Pippen and Jordan as a rookie! I used to love when they put him on the floor though because he used to always make the wrong decisions.


Young Anthony learned his lesson as a rookie. Never anger Michael Jordan. All you had to do was look at him the wrong way and he went off.

[chitownsfinest]

I would maybe take the 97 team ahead of the 96 one due to tougher competition, but the 96 team was more balanced in terms of depth. The 97 team had a banged up Kukoc and Rodman in the playoffs. It felt like Pippen and Jordan had to carry them actually. They were the most important scorers, playymakers, defenders, and even rebounders for the most part. In 96 with a more healthy unit, Mj and Pippen could cruise more in the playoffs.

[chitownsfinest]

A big reason for his bad rep in this regard is the 94' finals (18-19 ppg on 36%) and then the finger roll in 95'. Those were arguably his best opportunities to win rings along with 93' and that magnified what happened imo.
Yeah that's true. He obviously wasn't Jordan or Bird and had plenty of faliures, but I often felt his successes came more often then faliures. It's kinda like with Dirk: Dirk has had a sh!t mload of big games and playoff series, but people will always remember the chokejob to Miami and losing to the 8th seeded Warriors.

[D.J.]

A big reason for his bad rep in this regard is the 94' finals (18-19 ppg on 36%) and then the finger roll in 95'. Those were arguably his best opportunities to win rings along with 93' and that magnified what happened imo.


In retrospect, it was really the Pacers series in '95 that did him in. Against the Rockets in 1994, though he put up horrible shooting percentages, his defense is ultimately what won three games for the Knicks. Take away Ewing's defense, and Houston probably wins in five.

In the Pacers series the following year, the Knicks were huge favorites and the finger roll is what lead many people to believe that Ewing choked.

[O.J A 6'4Mamba]

i just think it is hilarious how every year espn a team gets of to a 15-3 start and ESPN is like ohh they are going to win 70 games they are going to beat the Bulls. 14 years hasn't happened.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah that's true. He obviously wasn't Jordan or Bird and had plenty of faliures, but I often felt his successes came more often then faliures. It's kinda like with Dirk: Dirk has had a sh!t mload of big games and playoff series, but people will always remember the chokejob to Miami and losing to the 8th seeded Warriors.

Great analogy! Both lead perennial contenders too yet could never get over the hump.


In the Pacers series the following year, the Knicks were huge favorites and the finger roll is what lead many people to believe that Ewing choked.

Yeah, plus wasn't it him who missed those key free throws in the Reggie Miller "8 points in 6 seconds" game?

[D.J.]

Great analogy! Both lead perennial contenders too yet could never get over the hump.



Yeah, plus wasn't it him who missed those key free throws in the Reggie Miller "8 points in 6 seconds" game?


Ewing went 3-4 from the line in game 1. Game 7 was where he choked at the foul line. He went 5-9 despite putting up 29/14/5/4.

[chitownsfinest]

^ That was Starks that choked and I believe he fouled Miller like an idiot afterwards too with the game tied lol

[Roundball_Rock]

^ That was Starks that choked and I believe he fouled Miller like an idiot afterwards too with the game tied lol

Oh yeah :oldlol: Speaking of choking and the 90's Knicks. 2 for 18.

[D.J.]

Oh yeah :oldlol: Speaking of choking and the 90's Knicks. 2 for 18.


What's even more disturbing is they only lost that game by six. If the Knicks were blown out, it wouldn't be such an issue. But if Starks has even a semi-respectable shooting night, the Knicks win.

[robertshaw_1]

The 10 losses of the season:

Game 6: Lost 94-88 at Orlando.-

Game 12: Lost 97-92 at Seattle.-

Game 26: Lost 103-97 at Indiana.-

Game 45: Lost 105-99 at Denver.-

Game 46: Lost 106-96 at Phoenix.-

Game 54: Lost 113-104 at Miami.-

Game 61: Lost 104-72 at New York.-

Game 68: Lost 109-108 at Toronto.-

Game 75 Lost 98-87 with Charlotte (In Chicago).-

Game 81: Lost 100-99 with Indiana (In Chicago).-

SICK.

[Roundball_Rock]

The 10 losses of the season:

Game 6: Lost 94-88 at Orlando.-

Game 12: Lost 97-92 at Seattle.-

Game 26: Lost 103-97 at Indiana.-

Game 45: Lost 105-99 at Denver.-

Game 46: Lost 106-96 at Phoenix.-

Game 54: Lost 113-104 at Miami.-

Game 61: Lost 104-72 at New York.-

Game 68: Lost 109-108 at Toronto.-

Game 75 Lost 98-87 with Charlotte (In Chicago).-

Game 81: Lost 100-99 with Indiana (In Chicago).-

SICK.

Hue Hollins struck again. :rolleyes: The Bulls should have been 73-9 and 40-1 at home.


What's even more disturbing is they only lost that game by six. If the Knicks were blown out, it wouldn't be such an issue. But if Starks has even a semi-respectable shooting night, the Knicks win

Yup--or if Riley took him out...

The irony is if the Knicks won the series, especially if they won Game 6 (one shot away), Starks would likely have been the hero and FMVP and not the goat.

[Desperado]

That year Rodman only played 64 games. (started 57)

I wonder what there record would have been had he played the full season.

Considering how close a couple of those losses were who knows.

[D.J.]

Hue Hollins struck again. :rolleyes: The Bulls should have been 73-9 and 40-1 at home.



Yup--or if Riley took him out...

The irony is if the Knicks won the series, especially if they won Game 6 (one shot away), Starks would likely have been the hero and FMVP and not the goat.


Through six games, Starks was averaging 19.3 PPG/6.5 APG/3.3 RPG/1.8 SPG on 42 percent shooting(48.6 percent from games 2-6) and 41 percent from downtown. If the Knicks win, there's no question Starks wins Finals MVP. Though Ewing was a monster on defense, his shooting percentages were piss poor. Starks was great on both sides of the floor.

[robertshaw_1]

That year Rodman only played 64 games. (started 57)

I wonder what there record would have been had he played the full season.

Considering how close a couple of those losses were who knows.

RODMAN DIDNT PLAY IN TORONTO...in the 109-108 lost

[Roundball_Rock]

Through six games, Starks was averaging 19.3 PPG/6.5 APG/3.3 RPG/1.8 SPG on 42 percent shooting(48.6 percent from games 2-6) and 41 percent from downtown. If the Knicks win, there's no question Starks wins Finals MVP. Though Ewing was a monster on defense, his shooting percentages were piss poor. Starks was great on both sides of the floor.

Agreed.

[dr8ked]

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[thejumpa]

If you had seen this time play, then you would know how good they were. It was ridiculous. We had a 64-18 record going into the Finals....64-18 AND we beat them at home. GP played great defense and the Sonics put a fight, but that Chicago team was on another level. They cruised through the regular season, had chances to win more games, and dominated in the playoffs. Good times.