Jason Kidd or Scottie Pippen who was better

[Da_Realist]

:roll: Pippen supporters are here presenting hard evidence and this is the kind of stuff we see from Jordan fans in response.

Jordan benefited from the biggest marketing campaign in the history of sports. That had no impact on his perception? I guess you also believe it is just a coincidence that the candidate with the biggest budget win nearly every time? Jordan the player was created on the court. Jordan the icon was created by Nike--which built itself from irrelevancy to dominance solely through marketing Jordan--Coke, McDonald's, Hanes, Gatorade, Rayovac, Ballpark, Wheaties, Bijan, MCI, Wilson, Oakley, AMF Bowling, CBS, Chevy, Warner Brothers, Spike Lee movies, clever jingles, ESPN and more. As of 1999, Nike alone had pumped $5 million into marketing Jordan.

You complain about not watching games yet have not said a word about the games in this thread (assuming you watched the 98' finals). Why? :oldlol: @ you invoking the "watched games" thing in this thread. It is Pippen fans in this thread who are the ones who watched, or at least remembered, the games. We have cited games, everyone involved in the games, numerous newspapers, magazines and the responses in the face of overwhelming are "but Pippen did not dominate on defense", "Jordan was as good on defense", "Pippen had no case for FMVP", etc. Yet your response is to claim Pippen fans didn't see the games? :wtf:

I agree with you. What you say and have been saying since you've been on this board is all factual and without any bias. Your analysis of games/years that you admit you didn't see is beyond reproach and you and others have made me see the error in my ways. I love how you break down how weak the 80's were...how stars in the 70's, 80's and 90's affected the league...how Pippen helped Jordan win 50 games in 88. We, the MJ stans, owe you a ton of credit because you've opened our eyes to what basketball is really about. Watching the games allows the media to manipulate our minds until we become zombies. It's happening again. Kobe is the next Jordan...the next GOAT. Why? Because the media says so.

One day, though... 10 years from now... a young guy that didn't have the misfortune of watching Kobe's career will look up the statistical data and conclusively confirm that he too was just a media creation. And one day, the Kobe stans will thank him for it.

We all need to unplug ourselves from the Matrix. :cheers:

[Roundball_Rock]

1-Saying that people were talking about Pippens impact more than Jordan's impact is just insane. One of the worst arguements I've heard. Maybe he had a better impact, but nobody was saying Pippen had a larger impact.

No one was even talking about Jordan's impact because he had no significant impact on defense. Harper's impact>Jordan's on defense in that finals.

Nobody? Yeah, except Sports Illustrated, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Miami Daily Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Doug Collins, Bob Costas(!!!), Jack Ramsey, Jerry Sloan, Jeff Hornacek, Karl Malone, Phil Jackson, and more could be found but the point was made.


2-There is a huge difference between Brandon Roy and Lebron James.

That is the point! There was a huge difference between Pippen and Jordan on defense by that point.


You could say Shaq vs Jordan was close or maybe 97 Hill vs. Jordan was close, but not Pippen vs. Jordan.

97' Pippen>97' Hill. Hill was slightly better on offense but Pippen was far better on defense. Hence, Pippen>Hill. So if Hill and Jordan were close how could Pippen and Jordan not be? Because Hill was doing Sprite commercials and was marketing as the successor to MJ?

You are confusing who the better player was with who the better defensive player was.

You continue to ignore overwhelming evidence to claim Jordan's defense was comparable to Pippen's in 98'. Can you produce a quote from anyone with credibility who says Jordan had great defensive impact on the 98' NBA finals?

[AirJordan23]

No excuse. Kobe has great games too on defense when he feels like it but he didn't deserve to be on the first time. Jordan was old. He had to conserve energy. He could not go 100% on both ends like he could in his youth. This is why I believe Lincoln has argued sharing of responsibilities was key during the second threepeat. Certainly author David Halberstam, who knows more about the inner workings of the team than anyone here, believed that was the case. Codependency was the term used by the Jordan hagiographer.
Hey, I'm well aware of that and the fact that everyone played their role exceptionally well in the second three peat. In fact, I wasn't even arguing that. My post was about MJ's defense in his later years. That's all.


Who deserved it? Mookie Blaylock. He probably deserved to be on the second team but Mookie should have been on the first--where he was before Jordan came back and took his spot.
Yeah, Mookie was a great defender. Great in the passing lanes; think he led the league in steals a couple of times. Not sure about it. Tenacious man defender. But, he did have DPOY Mutombo anchoring the defense that allowed him to roam a bit. I think a case can be made for him making the first team. Regardless, MJ was still deserving of an all defensive selection.

Still, what are we talking about? So what if Jordan was the 8th or 10th best defender in the league when compared to the 1st or 2nd best? Don't you guys see the irony here? Now all of a sudden the impact of 8th best=1st? That means in 92' and 93' for sure that...
Not sure why you brought this up since it doesn't pertain to my post at all.

[Roundball_Rock]

Your analysis of games/years that you admit you didn't see is beyond reproach and you and others have made me see the error in my ways. I love how you break down how weak the 80's were.

Why so angry? :roll: I and other Pip fans presented legit, overwhelming evidence and MJ fans can't counter it and are whining. Why the hypocrisy? It is obvious it is the MJ fans in this thread who didn't watch or forgot the games. This thread is hilarious. :D

I saw the 98' finals. Did you?! If so, please share your insight.

I called the 80's the strongest era just yesterday.


how stars in the 70's, 80's and 90's affected the league...

:oldlol: Do you realize you are only 7 years older than me? Do you realize 90% of this board is 30 or younger? You are exposing yourself as a hypocrite on this, especially since you selected this thread to vent your frustration at *gasp* the notion that Pippen may have deserved one FMVP in six years! Oh nos! St. Michael deserved it every time. After all, he was the best dunker ever. He was the best clutch shooter ever. He was the best shooter on his team. He was the best defender ever. He was the best at rebounding for a SG. He was the most intelligent superstar ever. He was the most generous superstar ever. He was the best looking all-time great ever. He was the best leader ever. He was the best teammate ever. He was the best passer on all his teams. He had the most inspirational life story ever. And on and on. The sad thing is I am not even making these things up. All of them have been ascribed to the Nike icon.



One day, though... 10 years from now... a young guy that didn't have the misfortune of watching Kobe's career will look up the statistical data and conclusively confirm that he too was just a media creation. And one day, the Kobe stans will thank him for it.

He is going to be a media creation if he gets to 6 championships. Print this out and keep it next to your Space Jam dvd. If Kobe gets to 6 the media will elevate him to GOAT or co-GOAT and it will be a joke. I've said this for a while. The same thing will happen with the new Nike icon, Lebron, if he can win a few championships. He already has a big marketing machine behind, including ESPN. You read Halberstam's book so you should know how Jordan conveniently fit with Stern's master plan to get the NBA in bed with Wall Street. Who were the most iconic companies in the 80's? Coke, McDonald's, GM, and Pan Am airlines (gee, how could I know that?). Coke and McDonald's especially since Pan Am's cache was more global than domestic since it flew globally and was emblematic of the world's dominant superpower (somehow I learned that the US was far stronger than the USSR, which I somehow learned was the other superpower). GM is so segmented that its marketing is divided. Name recognition is more brand-based then a generic "GM" recognition. Domestically it was Coke, McDonald's and everyone else. Jordan was the vehicle to get them into the NBA fold.

Name recognition is important to Jordan's hold on the popular imagination, but I wouldn't know how it works because I've never run for president. :oldlol:


Not sure why you brought this up since it doesn't pertain to my post at all.

that probably was a response to magnax.

Great point about Mookie having Mutumbo, but Jordan had Pippen, Rodman, and Harper. I would put MJ on the second team. It doesn't matter, though. The original issue was defense in the 98' finals, not what MJ did in the regular season.

[Da_Realist]

:oldlol: Do you realize you are only 7 years older than me?

Yes. Didn't you catch my analysis of Lenny Wilkins impact on the Sonics? I didn't actually watch, therefore my analysis is valid.


Do you realize 90% of this board is 30 or younger?

Yes I do. Thank you for that "How old are you?" thread, by the way.

[magnax1]

No one was even talking about Jordan's impact because he had no significant impact on defense. Harper's impact>Jordan's on defense in that finals.

Nobody? Yeah, except Sports Illustrated, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Miami Daily Herald, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Doug Collins, Bob Costas(!!!), Jack Ramsey, Jerry Sloan, Jeff Hornacek, Karl Malone, Phil Jackson, and more could be found but the point was made.



That is the point! There was a huge difference between Pippen and Jordan on defense by that point.



97' Pippen>97' Hill. Hill was slightly better on offense but Pippen was far better on defense. Hence, Pippen>Hill. So if Hill and Jordan were close how could Pippen and Jordan not be? Because Hill was doing Sprite commercials and was marketing as the successor to MJ?

You are confusing who the better player was with who the better defensive player was.

You continue to ignore overwhelming evidence to claim Jordan's defense was comparable to Pippen's in 98'. Can you produce a quote from anyone with credibility who says Jordan had great defensive impact on the 98' NBA finals?
Why would I use quotes? GP20 can find quotes saying that Kevin Johnson had a huge defensive impact, and was one of the best point guards ever. Is it true? No (well, he's top 15, but not on the level GP20 was saying) but somebody said it anyway. Just because somebody believed it doesn't make it true.
Secondly 97 Grant hill had 20 points, 9 rebounds 8 assists, on 50%and played very good defense. Pippen in 97 averaged 19-6-6 on 45%. He may have been a way better defender, but at that point Grant Hill was just better. And I really don't remember Grant Hill being that tremendously popular.
And Jordan had a way larger impact on offense than Pippen, so I don't get your point. Especially since the difference between Jordan and Pippen on defense isn't half as large as you make it out to be. Why does it matter if Pippen's defense was better if Jordan was obviously better overall? Is finals MVP only for defense?

[OldSchoolBBall]

Where are people getting the idea that Jordan didn't deserve his first team defensive selection in 1998? No other guard had anywhere near his defensive impact overall. Only two (Eddie Jones and Blaylock) were comparable/arguably better as man defenders, but neither of them were in MJ's universe as a help/team defender. Watch the '98 ECF vs. Indiana to see Jordan's defensive impact. If you come away thinking that Jones or Mookie had more defensive impact on games, you simply don't know basketball.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes. Didn't you catch my analysis of Lenny Wilkins impact on the Sonics? I didn't actually watch, therefore my analysis is valid.

No, but I have seen you post about Larry Bird numerous times... :D


Yes I do. Thank you for that "How old are you?" thread, by the way.

I have an interest in demographics because I majored in poli sci. Demographics matter because they are used to plan campaigns (re: marketing of your candidate and negatively marketing the other guy). Of course, I have never run for governor or president myself so what do I know about this?


Why would I use quotes?

You won't because there are none...

Sources matter. Who is the quote from? I presented sources that were legit and diverse, ranging from journalists to players to coaches and commentators. It is one thing to find a quote from a homer; it is another to show a consensus. Just watch the games yourself. They are on YouTube. Even if you watched them in 98' that was over a decade ago. Watch them and refresh your memory, particularly Chicago's wins in games 2, 3, and 4. Especially 3. If you are going to watch just one game watch that legendary performance.


Secondly 97 Grant hill had 20 points, 9 rebounds 8 assists, on 50%and played very good defense. Pippen in 97 averaged 19-6-6 on 45%.

How many rebounds would Hill have gotten alongside Rodman? Pippen was a 8-9 rpg guy before Rodman came to down. Pippen averaged 20/7/6. Hill averaged 21/9/7. Pippen's assist total was deflating because of playing in the triangle. So rebounding and passing are very similar, although Hill was indeed a slightly better rebounder and passer. Regarding scoring the difference is 1 ppg. Even there that is because Pippen started slow in 97'. When he got healthy he was back to the same old Pippen. He averaged 21.4 ppg after the all-star break--the same as Hill's for the season and Hill did not have the league leader in FGA playing with him.

Even if we accept Hill's numbers at face value--which would be a folly since he did not have Rodman, Jordan, and the triangle--Pippen was still better. 1 more point, 2 more rebounds, 1 more assist overcome Pippen's far better defense? I don't think so.

Shooting percentage is misleading since Pippen, being a much better shooter, took more 3's.

Scoring: Wash
Passing: Hill>Pippen
Rebounding: Hill>Pippen
Shooting: Pippen>Hill
Defense: Pippen>>>Hill

Pippen>Hill in 97'. Wherever Hill was better it was marginally better. Pippen had far more range and Pippen was a million times better on defense. Pippen was, for the fourth straight year, the #1 vote getter for the all-Defensive team. Hill has never been a good defender. By 98' Hill was better, though, as he improved and Pippen declined.


And I really don't remember Grant Hill being that tremendously popular.

Really? He and Penny were viewed as the successors to MJ as the marketing cornestones of the league at the time.


And Jordan had a way larger impact on offense than Pippen, so I don't get your point. Especially since the difference between Jordan and Pippen on defense isn't half as large as you make it out to be. Why does it matter if Pippen's defense was better if Jordan was obviously better overall?

I make it out to be? There is no point continuing this if you still think Jordan's defense was comparable to Pippen's in the 98' finals. Yeah, if that is your view then of course MJ was the FMVP since he was much better on offense.

BTW, was Tony Parker better than Duncan? Pierce better than Garnett? Worthy better than Magic? Dumars better than Isiah? I would say Maxwell better than Bird but I will let the Bird expert Da_Realist take that one since I wasn't born in 81' and he was 5 then. The better player is not always the more valuable in a 5-7 game series.


Where are people getting the idea that Jordan didn't deserve his first team defensive selection in 1998?

To move Jordan from #1 all-time to #3 all-time in order to elevate Kobe from #10 all-time to #10 all-time. You didn't get the memo?

[pierce2008mvp]

Jason Kidd is sooo much better than Pippen it isn't even funny. Kidd got to the finals with no allstar on his teams. Pippen never did anything without having an allstar on his team. When Pippen finally played with someone that wasn't an allstar he won 23 games and couldn't even start.

[Roundball_Rock]

Jason Kidd is sooo much better than Pippen it isn't even funny. Kidd got to the finals with no allstar on his teams. Pippen never did anything without having an allstar on his team. When Pippen finally played with someone that wasn't an allstar he won 23 games and couldn't even start.

That shows how great Pippen was. He won 100% of his games that year since he played only 23 games in his final season. What a way to go out! :bowdown:

P.S. There was no all-star on the 02', 03' Blazers and Wallace was never more than a borderline all-star. When Pippen got hurt his "stacked" Blazers teams were a .500 team. When he played they won nearly 70% of their games thanks to his leadership and ability to make his teammates better (a rare ability Kidd also had. I heard Bird could do it too but, again, I need to wait for the Bird expert Da Realist to log back on to talk about him) by passing the ball, keeping them involved, encouraging them instead of tearing them down, etc. Enjoy Christmas tomorrow. Michael may come down the chimney bearing $175 sneakers named after his Hollywood movie.

[Da_Realist]

No, but I have seen you post about Larry Bird numerous times... :D

You don't think I know about Larry Bird? He didn't retire until 1992 -- the same year you started watching basketball. And as a supplement to what I saw live, I have about 50 games of his on dvd including all of his Finals games. :confusedshrug:

[Roundball_Rock]

You don't think I know about Larry Bird? He didn't retire until 1992 -- the same year you started watching. :confusedshrug: And as a supplement to what I saw live, I have about 50 games of his on dvd including all of his Finals games. :confusedshrug:

It goes to hypocrisy. You were the same age seeing the tail end of his prime as I was when I started watching Pippen. I saw almost all of Pippen's prime and all of his peak live. This thread has morphed into talking about 97' and 98'. Obviously I watched those years (and most of the people saying Pippen had no case for FMVP, especially in 98' obviously have never seen the 98' finals or forgot what they saw yet you went after me?!) so what did you invoking your hypocritical argument have to do with this thread? :confusedshrug: Anger? Have you seen me ever say Pippen had a case for FMVP in 91', 92', 93' even though he was flirting with averaging triple doubles each time? No, because while he was amazing Jordan was greater. All I have said is what you said. He had a shot in 97' and 98'. I would have voted for him only in 98'. Once in six years. No one in this thread has said Pippen>Jordan. What is the problem? All we are saying is what you once said regarding 97' and if you believed it with respect to 97' surely you can at least see why some believed he had a case in 98'. What does what I once said about 88' have to do with anything? Did you notice I have not made that argument in a while? You know who convinced me on that...Hint: he is a Jordan fan, at least as far as I can tell.

Yeah, and I watch old games in general, especially Pippen games thanks to people like you and hitmary (ScottiePippen33) on YouTube, plus what I catch on ESPN Classic. My favorite game has always been the Christmas game in 1994. Pippen carried scrubs to victory against the mighty Knicks. (side note: Pippen 7-0 all-time on Christmas :rockon: ) I saw Game 1 of the 97' finals, which I downloaded, just the other day.

[Da_Realist]

It goes to hypocrisy. You were the same age seeing the tail end of his prime as I was when I started watching Pippen. I saw almost all of Pippen's prime and all of his peak live. This thread has morphed into talking about 97' and 98'. Obviously I watched those years (and most of the people saying Pippen had no case for FMVP, especially in 98' obviously have never seen the 98' finals or forgot what they saw yet you went after me?!) so what did you invoking your hypocritical argument have to do with this thread? :confusedshrug: Anger? Have you seen me ever say Pippen had a case for FMVP in 91', 92', 93' even though he was flirting with averaging triple doubles each time? No, because while he was amazing Jordan was greater. All I have said is what you said. He had a shot in 97' and 98'. I would have voted for him only in 98'. Once in six years. No one in this thread has said Pippen>Jordan. What is the problem? All we are saying is what you once said regarding 97' and if you believed it with respect to 97' surely you can at least see why some believed he had a shot in 98'. What does what I once said about 88' have to do with anything? Did you notice I have not made that argument in a while? You know who convinced me on that...Hint: he is a Jordan fan, at least as far as I can tell.

Yeah, and I watch old games in general, especially Pippen games thanks to people like you on YouTube, plus what I catch on ESPN Classic. My favorite game has always been the Christmas game in 1994. Pippen carried scrubs to victory against the mighty Knicks. (side note: Pippen 7-0 all-time on Christmas :rockon: ) I saw Game 1 of the 97' finals, which I downloaded, just the other day.

There is a difference, though. You create these huge walls of texts about many years you never saw. You never even saw all of Pippen's career, but you're the main one talking about his impact in 1988, for example. I don't talk about Bird's impact on the Celtics in 1982 (although I've seen a few games from that time period). I don't surmise why he lost to the Bucks in a sweep in 1983 because I never saw those games. But you go on and on and on about what happened based on some stats you looked up and make judgment calls based on that.

This isn't really about 97 or 98... My comment was based on you saying Jordan was overrated or created by the media when you didn't even start watching until 1992. You opinion may be shared by others who actually watched, but for me it's just annoying to see 1000 word paragraphs based on who these players were when you didn't watch them. There really isn't enough footage on youtube about MJ years pre-1991 aside from some highlight videos so your opinion can't be that valid just based on what you saw there (although I do have a few playoff games up).

[Roundball_Rock]

There is a difference, though. You create these huge walls of texts about many years you never saw. You never even saw all of Pippen's career, but you're the main one talking about his impact in 1988,

When is the last time I did that and what does it have to do with 98'? You are the one who changed my mind on that period.


This isn't really about 97 or 98... My comment was based on you saying Jordan was overrated or created by the media when you didn't even start watching until 1992.

Wrong thread? I think I said that in the other thread. I don't remember it even coming up here until you went off on that tangent. I always say he is one of the best ever, perhaps the GOAT. It isn't as if I say he is #8 all-time or Kobe is better. What I have said is he is overrated for the same reasons many people in the "MJ overrated" thread said that. Great player, maybe the greatest, but overrated because the hype around him has gotten so ridiculous. Why? What do you expect when one guy has the biggest marketing campaign in sports history behind him?


but for me it's just annoying to see 1000 word paragraphs based on who these players were when you didn't watch them.

More hypocrisy. Here we are on page 18 and probably the last 5 pages have been a dispute between people who saw, or at least remember, the 98' finals and those who either didn't see them or forgot what happened. You said nothing throughout that discussion. Your lone contribution was posting a smiley.

I have been writing "1,000 word paragraphs" (I am sorry, I like to explain my reasoning and support it with facts) on 98' in this thread. Isn't this precisely what you want? Talking about the games I saw. Yet you are scolding me and saying nothing to the people who are saying Pippen played a minor role in 98'? I saw Jordan live as the best player in the league while half this board didn't and you are going after me? :wtf: There was a huge thread about a week ago in which about half the people said Gasol was as good as Pippen. Where was your anger? That is just one recent example regarding one plauer.


You opinion may be shared by others who actually watched

My opinion evidently is so common your statement cannot be true. Do you realize only about 10% of this board watched Jordan in the 80's? Your age in 88'=mine in 94' yet your opinion on 88' is valid and mine on 94' are not? Apparently not because in 98' I was as old as you were when Jordan was on his way to his second championship. The average poster here was 10 in 98', 8 when Pippen's peak ended, and 5 when MJ retired.

[Da_Realist]

When is the last time I did that and what does it have to do with 98'? You are the one who changed my mind on that period.



Wrong thread? I think I said that in the other thread. I don't remember it even coming up here until you went off on that tangent. I always say he is one of the best ever, perhaps the GOAT. It isn't as if I say he is #8 all-time or Kobe is better. What I have said is he is overrated for the same reasons many people in the "MJ overrated" thread said that. Great player, maybe the greatest, but overrated because the hype around him has gotten so ridiculous. Why? What do you expect when one guy has the biggest marketing campaign in sports history behind him?



More hypocrisy. Here we are on page 18 and probably the last 5 pages have been a dispute between people who saw, or at least remember, the 98' finals and those who either didn't see them or forgot what happened. You said nothing throughout that discussion. Your lone contribution was posting a smiley.

I have been writing "1,000 word paragraphs" (I am sorry, I like to explain my reasoning and support it with facts) on 98' in this thread. Isn't this precisely what you want? Talking about the games I saw. Yet you are scolding me and saying nothing to the people who are saying Pippen played a minor role in 98'? I saw Jordan live as the best player in the league while half this board didn't and you are going after me? :wtf: There was a huge thread about a week ago in which about half the people said Gasol was as good as Pippen. Where was your anger? That is just one recent example regarding one plauer.

I think I posted in that thread and even went against guy and someone else. :confusedshrug: I said there was no way these Lakers sans Kobe were as good as those Bulls sans Jordan. Check it.

But you're right in general. My comment was more of a general one and not about your thoughts on Pippen in 97 and 98. But to be fair, you seem to be everywhere :oldlol: You did make another reference to Jordan being a media creation in the "Is Jordan overrated thread" and I've seen a few more "Jordan is 1-9 without Pippen (thereby making an assumption on Pippen's relative impact in years you never watched)" comments along with your comments about the 80's in general...so I just assumed your answers in this thread was like the rest of them you post in.

[Da_Realist]

My opinion evidently is so common your statement cannot be true. Do you realize only about 10% of this board watched Jordan in the 80's? Your age in 88'=mine in 94' yet your opinion on 88' is valid and mine on 94' are not? Apparently not because in 98' I was as old as you were when Jordan was on his way to his second championship. The average poster here was 10 in 98', 8 when Pippen's peak ended, and 5 when MJ retired.

Again though. You comment on 1988 when you didn't start watching until 1992. I started watching before I can remember...but really started understanding more and more by 1987. 1988 is still fresh in my mind. I don't complain about what you post about in 1994, unless I disagree with the content of your opinion.

[Roundball_Rock]

I've seen a few more "Jordan is 1-9 without Pippen (thereby making an assumption on Pippen's relative impact in years you never watched)" comments

Context matters. I'll tell you what. The next time I mention that pm me and I'll tell you why I said it. I usually say it in response to idiots who say Pippen could never win without Jordan, even if he were playing with top 30 of all-time plauers like Kidd even though you, since you watched 94', know he had a good shot with freaking Horace Grant.


I think I posted in that thread and even went against guy and someone else. I said there was no way these Lakers sans Kobe were as good as those Bulls sans Jordan.

Different thread. That was the sequel. :oldlol: You weren't in the original "Who was/is better: Gasol or Pippen"? thread.


You did make another reference to Jordan being a media creation in the "Is Jordan overrated thread"

Well let's clarify that. What do you think I mean when I call his current status a "media creation"?


comments along with your comments about the 80's in general

Which ones do you object to?


You comment on 1988 when you didn't start watching until 1992. I started watching before I can remember...but really started understanding more and more by 1987. 1988 is still fresh in my mind. I don't complain about what you post about in 1994, unless I disagree with the content of your opinion.

When is the last time I have legitimately talked about 88'?

Ok. How come you aren't complaining about people here talking about 98' when they didn't see the finals or forgot what they saw? You picked a bad context to complain about this. :oldlol:

Edit: I see you are replying so I wanted to note the edit so you see it. You read Halberstam, right? You know of the confluence of media, corporate changes that helped Jordan become the icon he is today.

[Da_Realist]

Context matters. I'll tell you what. The next time I mention that pm me and I'll tell you why I said it. I usually say it in response to idiots who say Pippen could never win without Jordan, even if he were playing with top 30 of all-time plauers like Kidd even though you, since you watched 94', know he had a good shot with freaking Horace Grant.



Different thread. That was the sequel. :oldlol: You weren't in the original "Who was/is better: Gasol or Pippen"? thread.



Well let's clarify that. What do you think I mean when I call his current status a "media creation"?



Which ones do you object to?



When is the last time I have legitimately talked about 88'?

Ok. How come you aren't complaining about people here talking about 98' when they didn't see the finals or forgot what they saw? You picked a bad context to complain about this. :oldlol:

I'm out. Gotta start cooking for Christmas tomorrow. I don't have a problem with you, just your lack of context sometimes. You're an intelligent poster and make some good points when you're not on an anti-MJ crusade. :D I guess we should have just talked about this through pm's. My bad ISH.

[Roundball_Rock]

Well, it will be a long PM. :D Merry Christmas. :cheers:

[Da_Realist]

Well, it will be a long PM. :D Merry Christmas. :cheers:

Merry Christmas to you and your family. :cheers:

[guy]

:

We went over this before. I showed you stats from about 8 players. Almost all of them had big spikes. Do it yourself. Search for some random players on bball reference--they have random players listed on the left side of the front page--and you will see the same thing 90% of the time so long as a player didn't suffer an injury. The only prominent exception I can think of other than Pippen is Shaq.

Why 96'? He was a better shooter for one. He was scoring around 21.5 ppg before getting hurt during the final fifth of the season. This was with the league leader in FGA on his team and a slower pace in 96' than 94'. I think it is self explanatory why that was his best scoring season until he got hurt. 96' was his best offensive season.

97' he started slow because of a myriad of injuries in 96' and then not having time off due to leading Dream Team III along with Hakeem. During the second half of he season he was at 21.3 or 21.4. Again, with lower pace and the league leader in FGA there.

The presence of MJ did not cost him 1 ppg at most. He improved 3.4 ppg from 93' to 94' after MJ retired. A better comparison is 95'. He was at 22 ppg when Jordan came back (9th or 10th in the league) and fell to a shade under 20 ppg when he came back. Jordan cost him 2 ppg even when he was rusty. His real impact was 2-3 ppg. This is where I got 24-25 ppg from.

Umm, am I missing something? What 8 players did you show me?

Anyway, I'm not just looking at from 93 to 94. I'm looking at his best years, which were 92-97. In 94 and 95, he averaged around 22 ppg. In the 4 other years, where he played with Jordan, he had two seasons averaging around 20-21 ppg. Thats not much of a difference at all. You looked at the difference from 93 to 94. How about we look at 92 to 93? What changed roster-wise, which resulted in Pippen dropping 2.4 ppg? Almost nothing. The team was almost exactly the same. What does that mean? That individual scoring fluctuates for sometimes no reason or for a variety of reasons (Pippen maybe worn out from the Dream Team, pace like you have mentioned, etc). I've said it before and I'll say it again, one player, even one as dominant as Jordan, impact another great player's stats that much.



Why does it even matter? Like I said, would anyone look at him differently if he scored 24 ppg once or twice?

No they wouldn't. I'm just pointing out that the ridiculous notion that you and others are pushing that Jordan was such a significant detriment to his teammates stats, Pippen specifically, is false.



No. It shows the historical revisionism going on with respect to him led by a certain faction (only these people do this). People today are saying Pippen was never a top 5 player, never had a shot a FMVP, could not lead a team as the "main man", saying someone like Gasol is as good as him, etc. Fortunately Simmons' book gave Pippen proper recognition and hopefully that stems some of the tide.

Pippen was a top 5 player in certain years.

I really don't see how Pippen deserved FMVP in 97 like some here have said. Was he the best defender in the series? Yes. But as great of a defender as he was, was it that much greater then the next guy, Dennis Rodman? Who limited the Jazz best player, Malone, down to 24 ppg on 44% (bad FG% for a PF and terrible for him considering he was at 55% during the year)? So did he really deserve it over Jordan who averaged 32/7/6 on 46%, hit two game winners, the series winning assist, came up huge in game 5 despite the flu (and this was a very pivotal game since the Bulls were looking at a 3-2 deficit if they lost), and played great defense himself (primarily defended the Jazz third best scorer Jeff Hornacek who only scored 12 ppg on 38%)? I think not.

As far as 98 goes, you can say Pippen had a great case through the first 4 games. But it didn't end in 4. Jordan was already having a good series, and in game 6, he was amazing. I know alot of people overhype how much Jordan had to "carry" the Bulls in some instances, but in game 6 he did just that. There's no way someone can say the guy didn't, especially with Pippen dealing with injuries. Its not really Pippen's fault, he was great in the Finals, he just wasn't as great as Jordan in any Finals.

I don't really think Pippen could've led a team to a championship as the main man, unless we're talking about a situation like the 04 Pistons. He just wasn't built like a Bird, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc. The role of second fiddle was really perfect for the guy, but that doesn't mean he wasn't great.

Pippen's definitely better then Gasol, but Gasol definitely isn't as far off as some suggest.



It depends on how you define recognition. Yeah, in terms of publicity he did. However, in terms of accolades and recognition as a great player no. Jordan retires and he finishes 3rd in MVP voting. He had only one top 5 finish in the rest of his career. Read this thread. All the Pippen detractors have said 94' was his best season. 95' Pippen and 96' Pippen were on par with 94' Pippen and 97' Pippen only slightly inferior. So why does everyone think 94' was by far his best season? The answer is obvious.

I think you can really pick any year from 94-96 as Pippen's best. I'd personally pick 94 just cause I just felt he was a little bit more dominant, but its definitely not by far his best season. As far as his MVP votes go, well we all know MVPs are usually determined by a combination of wins and stats. In 95, every player that was ahead of Pippen led there teams to 55+ wins except for Hakeem, who led his team to the same amount as Pippen, and Pippen didn't separate himself statistically from any of them. Either way, Jordan barely even played that season. In 97, I'm not going to try to explain that. No way he should've been 11th behind the likes of Anthony Mason. But I'm not going to give the Jordan excuse and say they picked Anthony Mason over Scottie Pippen cause Pippen was playing with Jordan. It could've just been a bonehead move just like many MVP voting ranks in the past have been (EX: PJ Brown being picked ahead of Kobe Bryant in 05.) 98 doesn't need an explanation. So at the most we're talking one season where Pippen's MVP recognition was affected by Jordan's presence?

I'm not saying Jordan didn't have any effect on Pippen's recognition. He clearly did, or Pippen wouldn't have been underrated by many back then. But I really think its overblown, and Pippen probably gets more recognition with the way his career did pan out then if he was just another HOFer with his own team that never won a championship i.e. Drexler, Ewing, Nique (which is what most likely would've happened with Jordan and Hakeem around.)



:oldlol: come on. That team would be a run-of-the-mill championship contender? Those teams were winning 57, 64, 57, and 61 games from 95'-98'. This was with Kemp. Surely you agree Pippen>Kemp. 96' is particularly important. They were the second best team. However, take Pippen off the Bulls and the Bulls are no longer the best team. Seattle is.

Yes, Pippen > Kemp. But the upgrade isn't that large. You can't really improve much from 57, 64, and 61 wins. What do you think? They would win 75 games with Pippen instead? This what if gets a little confusing, because more then likely the 96-98 Bulls are very different since they might've never gotten Rodman if they get Kemp, and the Sonics might look a little different as well. But if we say things stay exactly the same, just Kemp and Pippen switched (with maybe Rodman coming off the bench and Kukoc starting), I still say the 96 Bulls win. The mind-set of the Bulls would be different (more focused, greater sense of urgency), the Sonics D would probably be greater, Bulls D probably weaker, but the Bulls would absolutely kill them even MORE on the boards, which is the biggest reason they won in the first place. And with this move we also get rid of the Shawn Kemp problem who absolutely killed us in that series to the point that he was seriously considered the FMVP even though they lost. The Sonics are way more perimeter oriented in this situation primarily revolving their offense around Pippen and Payton, while the Bulls have an inside-outside combo in Kemp and Jordan, which might lessen the impact of the defensive changes (nobody offensively killing the Bulls inside, and the Bulls have a greater offense inside vs. a weaker Sonics frontline). I don't know. It would actually be an interesting series to watch.

[Roundball_Rock]

Merry Christmas to you and your family. :cheers:

Thanks. :cheers:


Umm, am I missing something? What 8 players did you show me?

I don't remember. I don't remember how I even chose them. The point stands, though. Look up random players at bballreference. However, as I said, him scoring 25 ppg once or twice would not change anything.


Anyway, I'm not just looking at from 93 to 94. I'm looking at his best years, which were 92-97. In 94 and 95, he averaged around 22 ppg. In the 4 other years, where he played with Jordan, he had two seasons averaging around 20-21 ppg. Thats not much of a difference at all. You looked at the difference from 93 to 94.

Yeah, which is why 95' is the best example. When MJ came back Pippen slipped 2 ppg.


Pippen was a top 5 player in certain years.

According to some he was barely even top 10 a few times. :confusedshrug:


As far as 98 goes, you can say Pippen had a great case through the first 4 games. But it didn't end in 4.

Yeah. That is why there were two prongs to that discussion: 1) Who was the front-runner after four games? 2) Who deserved it after 6 games?


I don't really think Pippen could've led a team to a championship as the main man, unless we're talking about a situation like the 04 Pistons.

That depends on your take on 94' and where you had the Bulls going without the Hollins atrocity. If you had them going to the NBA finals then Pippen leading a team to a championship is certainly something you can easily envision him doing. (and if you had the Bulls going there and winning well that answers the question) If your take is they lost, period then maybe that holds water.

The Sonics would be a suped up 04' Pistons. Pippen, Payton, Schrempf, Hawkins!

Regarding MVP voting, he was only a legit candidate for two years. Even in 96' when he was 5th and barely behind Hakeem for 4th he received 0 first place votes because MJ received 98 or 99% of the first place votes. Whatever the Bulls did in the regular season, MJ got most of the credit for and deservedly so since he was the best player on the team. If Pippen left to another team he would be the receipient of most of the credit, i.e. the Sonics scenario. The best player on the best team in 96' would give him an excellent chance at winning a MVP.


I'm not saying Jordan didn't have any effect on Pippen's recognition. He clearly did, or Pippen wouldn't have been underrated by many back then. But I really think its overblown, and Pippen probably gets more recognition with the way his career did pan out then if he was just another HOFer with his own team that never won a championship i.e. Drexler, Ewing, Nique

It depends. 1>6 according to most people. :confusedshrug: If he got one championship as the "main man" that would apparently be better than 6 with MJ. If he won 0 then yeah the way things worked out was better, especially since most of the people he is ranked around either have 0 or 1 championship. He isn't really competing with someone with a boatload of championships, other than Havelick. He is there with David Robinson, Stockton, KG, Isiah and those types. When I say "ranked around" I mean people within 6-7 spots of him.


Yes, Pippen > Kemp. But the upgrade isn't that large. You can't really improve much from 57, 64, and 61 wins. What do you think? They would win 75 games with Pippen instead? T

74-8 of course! :oldlol: I agree with your point. The difference would be in the playoffs where the extra having a Pippen instead of a Kemp would make the difference in a close series. In 96' they would be favorites.


This what if gets a little confusing, because more then likely the 96-98 Bulls are very different since they might've never gotten Rodman if they get Kemp, and the Sonics might look a little different as well. But if we say things stay exactly the same, just Kemp and Pippen switched (with maybe Rodman coming off the bench and Kukoc starting), I still say the 96 Bulls win.

Yeah they would not have gotten Rodman. What would be the point when they had a 20/10 big man? Rodman was a pariah at the time and they only got him out of utter desperation because they needed rebounding. If your scenario includes Rodman then the Bulls are better but if you take him out then the Sonics are imo but it would be close and as you said it would be an interesting series. They could have gotten there in 97' too. That team lost in 7 games to the Rockets in the WCSF. If Pippen got them past Houston they would probably be favored against Utah.

[guy]

Regarding MVP voting, he was only a legit candidate for two years. Even in 96' when he was 5th and barely behind Hakeem for 4th he received 0 first place votes because MJ received 98 or 99% of the first place votes. Whatever the Bulls did in the regular season, MJ got most of the credit for and deservedly so since he was the best player on the team. If Pippen left to another team he would be the receipient of most of the credit, i.e. the Sonics scenario. The best player on the best team in 96' would give him an excellent chance at winning a MVP.


Well lets remember one thing. Jordan won in a landslide in 96. He got 109 out of 113 first place votes. The other 4 were for Penny, Hakeem, and Malone. So in the case of 96, everyone was overshadowed by Jordan regardless of what team they played on.



It depends. 1>6 according to most people. :confusedshrug: If he got one championship as the "main man" that would apparently be better than 6 with MJ. If he won 0 then yeah the way things worked out was better, especially since most of the people he is ranked around either have 0 or 1 championship. He isn't really competing with someone with a boatload of championships, other than Havelick. He is there with David Robinson, Stockton, KG, Isiah and those types. When I say "ranked around" I mean people within 6-7 spots of him.


Well in the case of Pippen, he's fairly recent. Its alot easier to not look at accolades/stats to compare two players that are fairly recent. For example, I'm not sure who you're talking about, but KG is a guy that only has 1 title and it was as the main man (and to many thats arguable). I'd take KG over Pippen, just because I've seen both play, and I would rather have KG over Pippen. I don't really need titles/MVPs/stats/whatever to tell me otherwise.

[Roundball_Rock]

Well lets remember one thing. Jordan won in a landslide in 96. He got 109 out of 113 first place votes. The other 4 were for Penny, Hakeem, and Malone. So in the case of 96, everyone was overshadowed by Jordan regardless of what team they played on.

Yeah, my point was he only had a legit shot at MVP in 94'. Even in 95' MJ coming back had to have cost him votes, although his team didn't have enough wins for him to win that year. He led the team in everything but when you are on a 45 win level team, even though it would be a 15-20 win team without you (pre-MJ. How would it be better than the 99' Bulls? Kukoc would be the "#1 option." :roll: ), you are not going to win a MVP.


Well in the case of Pippen, he's fairly recent. Its alot easier to not look at accolades/stats to compare two players that are fairly recent. For example, I'm not sure who you're talking about, but KG is a guy that only has 1 title and it was as the main man (and to many thats arguable). I'd take KG over Pippen, just because I've seen both play, and I would rather have KG over Pippen. I don't really need titles/MVPs/stats/whatever to tell me otherwise.

I see what you are saying but it does hurt him. The one knock against Pippen is he never won a championship without Jordan. Without that what would be the criticism of him? He would have to move up on most lists under that scenario. Yeah, if you compare strictly based on play then it doesn't matter but most people factor in, to varying degrees, accolades and championships. Look at K. Malone. 2 MVP's, all-NBA first team for an entire decade or at least 90% of it, #2 all-time in scoring, amazing longevity and he is barely clinging to the top 20 because he doesn't have a championship.

I am talking about rankings in general. I look to ISH, Slam, Simmons, Kalb and look at where players usually are to say a player is "generally" ranked in a given range. Pippen is usually around 25th, give or take a few spots.

He is recent to us and people like Bill Simmons but in the ISH context he is not recent. Half of this board was 8 or younger when he was last at his peak in 96'. To many of them he is just another Gasol.

[Alhazred]

Ok, I know this thread has gone off-topic, but to answer the op's question:

It's a tough choice. Pippen developed slower than Kidd did, but if we're talking peak, then it would depend on who else I had on my team. Both are great defenders, rebounders and occasionally shot poorly, although Pippen was the better scorer in my opinion. I guess I would pick Pippen by a hair, although I'd be happy to have either of them on my team.

[Roundball_Rock]

There was talk at one point in this thread about whether Pippen was ever a top 5 player in the league. I caught this while watching a game from 94':

Top 5 in all-NBA voting in 1994

1) Pippen (forward) 94
2) Hakeem (center) 68
3) Malone (forward) 65
4) Stockton (guard) 56
5) Sprewell (guard) 29

Pippen crushed everyone in the voting. You can let Hakeem slide because he was at the same position as Robinson and that cost him a lot of votes. Robinson was considered on par with Hakeem at the time. However, look at Pippen's vote and compare that to the other forwards and guards. Karl Malone was a top 5 player for practically all of the 90's, right? Pippen crushed him 94-68 in the voting. No, Pippen playing SF and Malone PF was not a factor. All-NBA voting is done on a forward/center/guard basis. Several times in the 90's two PF's, especially Malone and Barkley, took the two forward spots on the first team.

A quick internet search revealed the following for his other peak seasons:


Top 5 in all-NBA voting in 1995

1) Malone (F) 519
2) Robinson (C) 479
3) Pippen (F) 451
4) Stockton (G) 447
5) P. Hardaway (G) 394

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/12/sports/1995-nba-playoffs-malone-leads-all-nba.html

Top 5 in all-NBA voting in 1996

1) Jordan (G) 113 (unanimous)
2) Pippen (F) 91
3) Hardaway (G) 90
4) Malone (F) 89
5) Robinson (C) 65

Since we know there were 113 voters Pippen received 81% of the vote. He got hurt during the final fifth of the season and his production declined so that surely cost him some votes. The margin between him and #3 and #4 would be greater if he didn't get hurt. Still, the guy gets hurt and averages 15 ppg for one-fifth of the season (21-22 ppg before that) and he still gets more votes than anyone not named Jordan. :bowdown:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/24/sports/sports-people-basketball-jordan-a-unanimous-all-star-again.html

This is voting for the all-NBA team. Regarding the all-Defensive team, Pippen received the most votes in 1994. And in 1995. And in 1996. Yes, also in 1997. So to recap, these were his finishes during his peak:

All-NBA voting: 1st, 3rd, 2nd
All-Defensive voting: 1st, 1st, 1st

Scottie may never have been a top 5 player but if he wasn't he sure had a lot of people fooled at the time. :oldlol:

[indiefan23]

Heh, you are a little Pippen obsessed roundball, not that I don't love him too. Stan responses are more entertaining though. I find fan perception vs reality one of the most interesting things in sports honestly.

[indiefan23]

Who do you think deserved to be an on the all defensive team over him? I'd say Payton was the only guard who had more impact on defense than him.And I don't think I'm being biased either. Jordan was not as good of a defender as he was in the early 90s compared to the late 90s but he still had a significant amount of defensive impact. I guess Eddie Jones could be the other guard over him?

In 98? Off the top of my head, Brevin Knight comes to mind. What you're really asking is 'which star defender', but since most defenders aren't stars. Even John Starks with only a single defensive team second team nod for his whole NBA all time steals leading career. Eddie Jones is a good choice.


Regardless, he was at least deserving of a second team nomination. And I do realize he had defensive studs in Pippen and Harper to guard some of the premier offensive players in the league. But, MJ had the most load to carry on offense. And he was still having great defensive games/plays. MJ could still play elite defense at times and when needed to. He couldn't roam around and get back in time as well as he could in his earlier days but the impact was still there. Just not as consistently. You can't expect a guy in his mid 30s to carry all the offense load while playing exceptional defense. It's really hard to maintain that level since it takes a lot of energy to do that. Jordan could do it from '87 to about '92 but he was past his athletic prime in '98 and had to save up energy.

This is all I was really saying... he was past his prime. He was still amazing, but Pippen was the best defender in the league and they beat the crap out of Utah with his team leading defense. It was such a beautiful thing to watch if you're a ball fan. I think in the finals that year Pippen was their best player while obviously, MJ was MJ and the best of all time. IMHO, that's why he got his last FMVP. The league gives these awards as marketing. Do you think Tony Parker wins his own FMVP award if the NBA/Hoop didn't take off in Europe? I don't.

[Dresta]

Pippen by miles.

[indiefan23]

1-Saying that people were talking about Pippens impact more than Jordan's impact is just insane. One of the worst arguements I've heard. Maybe he had a better impact, but nobody was saying Pippen had a larger impact.

If it was insane why the hell did Sports Illustrated, the biggest and most respected sports mag ever, say that at the time? ;0 All time Jordan is amazing but Pippen is not someone who rode his coat tails. Jordan with a coat tail rider is just on a normal good team. The bulls are like the Spurs, Lakers or Rockets. They peak, have some success, probably win a title or two and fade. With Pippen, they were the best team, and tandem, of all time.

They didn't win, they obliterated teams and dominated the entire 90's winning titles every year they played a full season together. There's a difference between being the second best guy on a championship team and the second best guy on the best team of all time. The fact that Pippen came within a shot or two of the finals, without MJ, with his best player being BJ Armstrong pretty much indicates how special he was. His second fiddle is just about everyone else's orchestra.


3-Jordan's defense was barely a drop worse than Pippen's with three minutes left in a close game. He was good to average throughout the rest, but Jordan is one of the best clutch players ever, not just on offense. Who stole the ball from malone in the finals seconds? Jordan (though anybody could tear apart Malone in the clutch)
EDIT: and jordan Averaged 32 ppg in the first 4 games, compared to 34 through all 6. Barely a difference

Yea, unfortunately there are 43 more minutes in a basketball game. Jordan was a great defender but Pippen was frankly better and by 98 it was not even close. Its not an insult but Pippen was in his prime and Jordan was not. Jordan didn't have the versatility. Pippen defended 1's to 5's. I'd bet any money that if MJ himself came on here, he'd bash the crap out of you for trying to suggest Pippen was anything but one of the very best players ever. Jordan was the best, but part of being the best is making other's better and Pippen was his personal career project.

I don't get why you want to slam Pippen because when you do it's like saying Jordan failed at training his teammates. Why is it people only think about games? Seriously, is Pippen not Jordan's greatest accomplishment? Jordan was the best from almost day one in the league and he took a guy with raw talent and 0 skills and turned him into the second best player in the league. Now some chumps who never watched the game want to say that Pippen wasn't even a top 10 player or some BS and that Pippen didn't really do much in the 98 finals when Pippen destroyed the Jazz. Even if Pippen wins FMVP Jordan gets huge credit because Pippen is the player he devoted his own career to improving.

Gaa... ISH fans are stupid.

[WeaponX2024]

Gimme Pippen, Kidd was an amazing player himself, but Pippen in my opinion was very capable of winning a championship as a leader himself, at least if you ask me. Both are Hall of famers and Top 50 players to ever play....without question.

[D.J.]

They played different positions, I would take Kidd. If both players didn't score a single point, they could still impact games. With Pippen, his perimeter defense could turn an otherwise horrible game into a somewhat respectable one. With Kidd, he could impact the game in more ways. Not only could he play good defense, but he was a tremendous floor leader. He had excellent court awareness, made his teammates better, and could rebound very well despite being 6'3". As great as Pippen was, Kidd had more of an impact if he wasn't scoring. Kidd had 11 games where he had a double-double while scoring five or fewer points. Pippen only did it once.

[Alhazred]

Jordan was a great defender but Pippen was frankly better and by 98 it was not even close. Its not an insult but Pippen was in his prime and Jordan was not. Jordan didn't have the versatility. Pippen defended 1's to 5's.

Jordan has been assigned to guard players as short as Allen Iverson and Isiah Thomas to centers like Vlade Divac. Scottie was an amazing defender, but MJ was an incredibly versatile defender himself.

[indiefan23]

They played different positions, I would take Kidd. If both players didn't score a single point, they could still impact games. With Pippen, his perimeter defense could turn an otherwise horrible game into a somewhat respectable one. With Kidd, he could impact the game in more ways. Not only could he play good defense, but he was a tremendous floor leader. He had excellent court awareness, made his teammates better, and could rebound very well despite being 6'3". As great as Pippen was, Kidd had more of an impact if he wasn't scoring. Kidd had 11 games where he had a double-double while scoring five or fewer points. Pippen only did it once.

While I somewhat agree, I'd say it's Kidd's passing that affected games. Why knock Pippen for being a better scorer? How many 10 assist games is a small forward 'really' going to get anyway? You can't give out a positionally bias stat like that when comparing a 1 and a 3.

[indiefan23]

Jordan has been assigned to guard players as short as Allen Iverson and Isiah Thomas to centers like Vlade Divac. Scottie was an amazing defender, but MJ was an incredibly versatile defender himself.

Of course mj was good, but in 98, that does not change that Pippen was their first defencive option.

[D.J.]

While I somewhat agree, I'd say it's Kidd's passing that affected games. Why knock Pippen for being a better scorer? How many 10 assist games is a small forward 'really' going to get anyway? You can't give out a positionally bias stat like that when comparing a 1 and a 3.


I'm not knocking him at all. Pippen was a solid floor leader as well. He was the original point forward. As far as Kidd, there was nothing Pippen did that he couldn't do. Kidd had some good shooting days, was a great passer, and rebounded better than some big men.

[Alhazred]

Of course mj was good, but in 98, that does not change that Pippen was their first defencive option.

Oh I'm not denying Pippen was a better defender in 98(Although Jordan was still pretty good himself), I'm just saying that Jordan has been assigned to guard players from various positions as well.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm not knocking him at all. Pippen was a solid floor leader as well. He was the original point forward. As far as Kidd, there was nothing Pippen did that he couldn't do. Kidd had some good shooting days, was a great passer, and rebounded better than some big men.

Kidd is a career 40% shooter. Pippen was a much better shooter (47%) and scorer than Kidd. Kidd is a better passer but Pippen was good. Kidd is a good defender but Pippen was better. Pippen is in the GOAT perimeter defender conversation. Kidd is not. Other than passing Pippen> or = Kidd everywhere.

Pippen also was a great rebounder for his size and position too. He led his team in rebounding three times in the playoffs despite playing with Horace Grant during those years.

You said Kidd had more impact when he wasn't scoring. That is debatable. Kidd had more impact passing but Pippen had more impact on defense. Your stat is misleading because Pippen was a much better scorer. He didn't have as many games scoring in the single digits as Kidd did. Plus if Pippen didn't score over 10 the only way he would need 10+ assists to do it. That is very difficult to do in the triangle offense. No one has ever averaged more than 7 assists in the triangle (Pippen has the record).

[indiefan23]

I'm not knocking him at all. Pippen was a solid floor leader as well. He was the original point forward. As far as Kidd, there was nothing Pippen did that he couldn't do. Kidd had some good shooting days, was a great passer, and rebounded better than some big men.

Hmm... Jason Kidd could not guard a center or power forward. That's the point. It's passing vs defence.

[juju151111]

Umm, am I missing something? What 8 players did you show me?

Anyway, I'm not just looking at from 93 to 94. I'm looking at his best years, which were 92-97. In 94 and 95, he averaged around 22 ppg. In the 4 other years, where he played with Jordan, he had two seasons averaging around 20-21 ppg. Thats not much of a difference at all. You looked at the difference from 93 to 94. How about we look at 92 to 93? What changed roster-wise, which resulted in Pippen dropping 2.4 ppg? Almost nothing. The team was almost exactly the same. What does that mean? That individual scoring fluctuates for sometimes no reason or for a variety of reasons (Pippen maybe worn out from the Dream Team, pace like you have mentioned, etc). I've said it before and I'll say it again, one player, even one as dominant as Jordan, impact another great player's stats that much.



No they wouldn't. I'm just pointing out that the ridiculous notion that you and others are pushing that Jordan was such a significant detriment to his teammates stats, Pippen specifically, is false.



Pippen was a top 5 player in certain years.

I really don't see how Pippen deserved FMVP in 97 like some here have said. Was he the best defender in the series? Yes. But as great of a defender as he was, was it that much greater then the next guy, Dennis Rodman? Who limited the Jazz best player, Malone, down to 24 ppg on 44% (bad FG% for a PF and terrible for him considering he was at 55% during the year)? So did he really deserve it over Jordan who averaged 32/7/6 on 46%, hit two game winners, the series winning assist, came up huge in game 5 despite the flu (and this was a very pivotal game since the Bulls were looking at a 3-2 deficit if they lost), and played great defense himself (primarily defended the Jazz third best scorer Jeff Hornacek who only scored 12 ppg on 38%)? I think not.

As far as 98 goes, you can say Pippen had a great case through the first 4 games. But it didn't end in 4. Jordan was already having a good series, and in game 6, he was amazing. I know alot of people overhype how much Jordan had to "carry" the Bulls in some instances, but in game 6 he did just that. There's no way someone can say the guy didn't, especially with Pippen dealing with injuries. Its not really Pippen's fault, he was great in the Finals, he just wasn't as great as Jordan in any Finals.

I don't really think Pippen could've led a team to a championship as the main man, unless we're talking about a situation like the 04 Pistons. He just wasn't built like a Bird, Jordan, Hakeem, Shaq, etc. The role of second fiddle was really perfect for the guy, but that doesn't mean he wasn't great.

Pippen's definitely better then Gasol, but Gasol definitely isn't as far off as some suggest.



I think you can really pick any year from 94-96 as Pippen's best. I'd personally pick 94 just cause I just felt he was a little bit more dominant, but its definitely not by far his best season. As far as his MVP votes go, well we all know MVPs are usually determined by a combination of wins and stats. In 95, every player that was ahead of Pippen led there teams to 55+ wins except for Hakeem, who led his team to the same amount as Pippen, and Pippen didn't separate himself statistically from any of them. Either way, Jordan barely even played that season. In 97, I'm not going to try to explain that. No way he should've been 11th behind the likes of Anthony Mason. But I'm not going to give the Jordan excuse and say they picked Anthony Mason over Scottie Pippen cause Pippen was playing with Jordan. It could've just been a bonehead move just like many MVP voting ranks in the past have been (EX: PJ Brown being picked ahead of Kobe Bryant in 05.) 98 doesn't need an explanation. So at the most we're talking one season where Pippen's MVP recognition was affected by Jordan's presence?

I'm not saying Jordan didn't have any effect on Pippen's recognition. He clearly did, or Pippen wouldn't have been underrated by many back then. But I really think its overblown, and Pippen probably gets more recognition with the way his career did pan out then if he was just another HOFer with his own team that never won a championship i.e. Drexler, Ewing, Nique (which is what most likely would've happened with Jordan and Hakeem around.)



Yes, Pippen > Kemp. But the upgrade isn't that large. You can't really improve much from 57, 64, and 61 wins. What do you think? They would win 75 games with Pippen instead? This what if gets a little confusing, because more then likely the 96-98 Bulls are very different since they might've never gotten Rodman if they get Kemp, and the Sonics might look a little different as well. But if we say things stay exactly the same, just Kemp and Pippen switched (with maybe Rodman coming off the bench and Kukoc starting), I still say the 96 Bulls win. The mind-set of the Bulls would be different (more focused, greater sense of urgency), the Sonics D would probably be greater, Bulls D probably weaker, but the Bulls would absolutely kill them even MORE on the boards, which is the biggest reason they won in the first place. And with this move we also get rid of the Shawn Kemp problem who absolutely killed us in that series to the point that he was seriously considered the FMVP even though they lost. The Sonics are way more perimeter oriented in this situation primarily revolving their offense around Pippen and Payton, while the Bulls have an inside-outside combo in Kemp and Jordan, which might lessen the impact of the defensive changes (nobody offensively killing the Bulls inside, and the Bulls have a greater offense inside vs. a weaker Sonics frontline). I don't know. It would actually be an interesting series to watch.
:applause:

[juju151111]

Oh I'm not denying Pippen was a better defender in 98(Although Jordan was still pretty good himself), I'm just saying that Jordan has been assigned to guard players from various positions as well.
I agree, people always cliam Pippen could guard all postions, but Phil put
Mj on PF/Centers too. He just didn't do it has much because of his offensive role. Go look at game 1-5 91 finals of MJ guarding the PG,SG, and C.