Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace

[hitmanyr2k]

Part I
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObgS6uUVjQ)

and

Part II
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace Part II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyzx6ISXQGw)

[Roundball_Rock]

:applause: :cheers:

[chazzy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMfMP_OXX4

[triangleoffense]

watching him play in his prime like that... he seriously looks like a more polished version of lebron with a better jumpshot. Lebron is obviously bigger and more athletic but pippen was so strong and graceful with amazing fundamentals. People still constantly underestimate how good pippen actually was even though the highlights, numbers, championships and multiple all-star and 1st team NBA defense and offensive teams speak for themselves.

[chazzy]

Awesome mix.. the man was very skilled. Great footwork and ball handling

[Cyclone112]

Very good mix but I don't see why it was split into two parts. Should have been one part ending with the dunk on Ewing. I liked the editing and music choice a lot and thought it went with the high pace of the video but I felt the dunk on Ewing to end the first video wasn't edited as epically as it should have.

[Alhazred]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Q-Zxii3Fk

[chazzy]

Very good mix but I don't see why it was split into two parts. Should have been one part ending with the dunk on Ewing. I liked the editing and music choice a lot and thought it went with the high pace of the video but I felt the dunk on Ewing to end the first video wasn't edited as epically as it should have.

They were made 2 months apart

[hitmanyr2k]

Also one of my favorites...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9CgBbakDHQ&fmt=18

[Da_Realist]

Part I
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObgS6uUVjQ)

and

Part II
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace Part II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyzx6ISXQGw)

Very nice videos :applause:

[97 bulls]

what i appreciate most about these vids are the beginning statement by scottie and the late game shots that he made. not to mention his dribbling abilities. its sad when i hear or read people on these boards say that pippen couldnt dribble or shoot. not to mention, its a joke. and i agree about the lebron james comparison

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Best sidekick of all time!

:cheers:

[Glide2keva]

what i appreciate most about these vids are the beginning statement by scottie and the late game shots that he made. not to mention his dribbling abilities. its sad when i hear or read people on these boards say that pippen couldnt dribble or shoot. not to mention, its a joke. and i agree about the lebron james comparison
Those are people who never saw him play and only look at stats.

[97 bulls]

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
Those are people who never saw him play and only look at stats.

[Roundball_Rock]

Those are people who never saw him play and only look at stats.

:applause: I heard several people claim Pippen did nothing in Game 3 of the 98' NBA finals because he only scored 10 points in that game. Even when I posted several newspaper and magazine articles from the time, quoted coaches of both teams and players, posted a video of Doug Collin's analyzing Game 3 all they could say was "10 points."


People still constantly underestimate how good pippen actually was even though the highlights, numbers, championships and multiple all-star and 1st team NBA defense and offensive teams speak for themselves.

It is sad. All most people care about is scoring. Winning and defense means little. He won wherever he went--even when he was in Portland his teams won nearly 70% of the time with him and were .500 without him. Why? Was it his 11/6/6 they missed when he was 37 years old? No, it was his leadership, ability to make his teammates better, versatility and defense. Plus, regarding scoring, many people look up "Small Forward" and don't even realize he was the de facto point guard for his team. He actually was the official PG for Portland for 1 1/2 years (guess whether the team played better or worse with Pip running the show?). He was not asked to score 25 ppg!


Awesome mix.. the man was very skilled. Great footwork and ball handling

There was nothing on the court he could not do. You name it, he could do it. Post up? Check. Slash for a dunk? Check. Mid-range J? Check. Three point range? Check. Run the offense? Check. Make his teammates better? Check. Score 20-22 points a game even when asked to pass first, score second? Check. Play legendary defense? Check. Guard four positions? Check. Play four positions? Check. Help a teammate's confidence when he was down? Check. If you were starting a team from scratch and could choose any player in history in an all-time draft Pippen would go several spots higher than he is ranked by most on all-time lists. That is real impact, not some of the bogus standards you see thrown around for ranking people. He could fit on any team and play any role you wanted him to play. It would be easier to build around him than practically any non-center because of his amazing all-around game.

The most annoying thing is so many people today don't know how good he was at his peak. There are several posters here who can't even fathom that he was once considered a top 5 player, and many people had him as high as 2nd and 3rd (not just "homers" but Sports Illustrated, Slam Magazine, Bob Ryan to name a few). Yet several people today act as if he were a borderline top 10 player a la Bosh.

Peak Pippen (1994-1996)

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

But these are writers. How about sources with more cache?


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

So nearly half of Dream Team III wanted to be peak Pippen--even for one day--yet he was a borderline top 10 player? :roll:

Here is who was on Dream Team III: Anfernee Hardaway, Grant Hill, Karl Malone, Reggie Miller, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Mitch Richmond, David Robinson, Glenn Robinson and John Stockton.

[1987_Lakers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMfMP_OXX4

:wtf:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Those are people who never saw him play and only look at stats.

I agree. He helped MJs Bulls more than he hurt them. His defense and versatility was one of the major reasons Chicago became a dynasty (there's a reason Jordan never wanted to play without him). The perfect complementary player, a Robin to Batman.

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree. He helped MJs Bulls more than he hurt them. His defense and versatility was one of the major reasons Chicago became a dynasty (there's a reason Jordan never wanted to play without him). The perfect complementary player, a Robin to Batman.

:oldlol: @ the thinly veiled shots. Every post this guy has made in this thread calls him a "Robin" or a "sidekick." This is why Pippen fans get annoyed at MJ fans (see what I mean Da_Realist?). Even in a "cheers to Scottie" thread the MJ jihad rears its ugly head. "Sidekicks" don't finish #1 in all-NBA and all-Defense voting in the same season.

Jordan did play without him, both before and after Pippen coming to Chicago, and...

[Desperado]

:oldlol: @ the thinly veiled shots. Every post this guy has made in this thread calls him a "Robin" or a "sidekick." This is why Pippen fans get annoyed at MJ fans (see what I mean Da_Realist?). Even in a "cheers to Scottie" thread the MJ jihad rears its ugly head. "Sidekicks" don't finish #1 in all-NBA and all-Defense voting in the same season.

Jordan did play without him, both before and after Pippen coming to Chicago, and...

Jordan had 5 losing seasons (below .500) all without Pippen and never made it past the first round.

85, 86, 87, 02, & 03

[Mister JT]

:oldlol: @ the thinly veiled shots. Every post this guy has made in this thread calls him a "Robin" or a "sidekick." This is why Pippen fans get annoyed at MJ fans (see what I mean Da_Realist?). Even in a "cheers to Scottie" thread the MJ jihad rears its ugly head. "Sidekicks" don't finish #1 in all-NBA and all-Defense voting in the same season.

Jordan did play without him, both before and after Pippen coming to Chicago, and...


You act like being Robin to Jordan's Batman is a bad thing when it really isn't. No one compared him to Alfred or Commissioner Gordon or Bat Girl.

He was Jordan's sidekick, just like Kobe was Shaq's sidekick during their three-peat. It's not like he was saying that Pippen was an ordinary role player or like Mo Williams complementing Lebron.

Pippen was not a sidekick all the time. He proved that he can lead a team.

HOWEVER, when Jordan and Pippen played together they formed one of the best ever duos in the league. And it was because the second option, Pip, was a Top 50 player and a top 25 caliber player, not just an ordinary All-Star.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:oldlol: @ the thinly veiled shots. Every post this guy has made in this thread calls him a "Robin" or a "sidekick."

What shots? I'm just telling it like it is? :oldlol: He was a versatile all time great. Jordan's complementary player, what more do you want?

[SAKOTXA]

I am not trying to troll or anything, but MJ's career record without Pippen is 182-228 (44%). Pippen is a top 25 player in my book... :applause:

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree. He helped MJs Bulls more than he hurt them. His defense and versatility was one of the major reasons Chicago became a dynasty (there's a reason Jordan never wanted to play without him). The perfect complementary player, a Robin to Batman.

No shots? It is pathetic to go to a "cheers to Scottie" thread and diminish him. The "sidekick" label is intended to diminish him. Would you go into a "cheers to MJ" thread and talk about his gambling problems?

Yeah, "mere sidekicks" finish (1994-1996, Pippen's peak):

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

Pippen was 1b to Jordan's 1a from 1996-98 and the "#1 option" on defense.


Jordan had 5 losing seasons (below .500) all without Pippen and never made it past the first round.

85, 86, 87, 02, & 03


It is a shame Pippen didn't demand a trade to Seattle before the 96' season...


I am not trying to troll or anything, but MJ's career record without Pippen is 182-228 (44%). Pippen is a top 25 player in my book..

:applause:

No, you are not trolling. He is. Jordan Nation disses Pippen as a "mere sidekick" even in a "cheers to Scottie thread" and then whine when we examine what their hero did without the "mere sidekick."

That is MJ without Scottie. Here is what Pippen did without MJ:

Translated win totals over 82 games from 1988-2003 (years without MJ in bold)

51
47
55
61
67
57
58
48
71
69
67
51
59
47
52
53

Average: 57 wins, 70%
Pace for best record in the NBA: 5
Pace for the second best record in the NBA: 2 (1994 and 2000)
Pace for the #1 seed: 6 (including 1994)
Pace for the #1 or #2 seed: 8

He was stuck in the ultracompetitive, deep West in the 2000's. His 2002 and 2003 teams were top 5 teams. In 2002 his team was the 5th best in the league and in 2003 4th best but all the superior teams happened to be in the West. If his Portland teams, which were below .500 without him in these seasons, were in the East they would have been the #1 seeds and probably made it to the NBA finals in 2002 and 2003.

It means little but is good for a laugh. MJ and Pippen played each other once in the NBA. Guess whose team won in a blowout? You should know the answer...

Edit: oh 87_Lakers that was a scene in a movie.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No shots? It is pathetic to go to a "cheers to Scottie" thread and diminish him. The "sidekick" label is intended to diminish him. Would you go into a "cheers to MJ" thread and talk about his gambling problems?

Again who is diminishing Scottie Pippen? Are you replying to yourself? :oldlol:

Pippen was a mere sidekick. MJ dominated in team points and had nearly the amount of production Pippen had each season. During the second 3-peat Pippen shot the Bulls out of games during the post season. He was a tremendous player, an all time great though.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I am not trying to troll or anything, but MJ's career record without Pippen is 182-228 (44%). Pippen is a top 25 player in my book... :applause:

I am not trying to troll or anything, but Kobe's career without Shaq or Pau is
128-133. Pau Gasol and Shaq were/are top 10 players of the league during their stay with the Lakers.

[Roundball_Rock]

I am not trying to troll or anything, but Kobe's career without Shaq or Pau is
128-133. Pau Gasol and Shaq were/are top 10 players of the league during their stay with the Lakers.

:roll: Exclude two players? That is the point. Every other top 10 of all-time player has won a ring without their best teammate except for Magic and Jordan, and at least Magic made it to the NBA finals. Jordan was 1-9 in three seasons and could not even make the playoffs in a pathetically weak East in two seasons in DC.

Yeah, Jordan was young and then old without Scottie but since when did Jordan fans care about context? Pippen played only ONE full season of his prime without Jordan and practically all non-MJ fans agree on what Hue Hollins did in the Knicks series...Pippen was 34 in 2000 and suffered numerous injuries in the years preceding 2000. Yet he came within 2 minutes of a ring. Does anyone think that team loses with prime Pippen? So prime Pippen could win with Rasheed Wallace yet MJ fans say nonsense like he couldn't win with Kevin Johnson--and Mitch Richmond--and Rik Smits--and Horace Grant? :roll: This is just Pippen. You guys don't give a damn about context when it comes to Kareem and Wilt and why they don't have more "rings as the man" or why Wilt's scoring suddenly dropped off and he won "only" 7 scoring titles.

Anyway, it is clear that you are trolling. This is a good thread and should not be diverted. I am asking Pippen fans and Sakota to ignore your trolling. If you want to compare Pippen without Jordan to Jordan without Pippen create a thread for that subject and we will be glad to compare their records apart...

[Abraham Lincoln]

watching him play in his prime like that... he seriously looks like a more polished version of lebron with a better jumpshot. Lebron is obviously bigger and more athletic but pippen was so strong and graceful with amazing fundamentals.
Good post. Sadly most on this board won't agree.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:roll: Exclude two players? That is the point. Every other top 10 of all-time player has won without their best teammate except for Magic and Jordan, and at least Magic made it to the NBA finals. Jordan was 1-9 in three seasons and could not even make the playoffs in a pathetically weak East in two seasons in DC.

Except Scottie Pippen inherited a great team that was already championship built (3x). Every top 10 player also have legitimate reasons (better teams, worse competition etc). Yes, Jordan also carried the team to the postseason when Pippen was contributing jack. He was developing. Put his loses into context. Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas also conceived Jordan has no help prior to Scottie developing. During his DC days, you fail to mention he was playing with broken ribs and his starters, were injured different stretches through games.


Yeah, Jordan was young and then old without Scottie but since when did Jordan fans care about context?

:oldlol: at relying on a Hue Hollins call when they still had two series to go to even be crowned champs. That should be a telling story to Pippen's teammates (prime Rasheed, productive Stoudemire, Bonzi Wells, Steve Smith, Sabonis).

Yeah I'm trolling. :rolleyes: I'm simply stating facts and putting those facts into context. Who's diminishing anyone?

[Roundball_Rock]

Good post. Sadly most on this board won't agree.

That Lebron vs. other SF's thread was just sad. Lebron, who just turned 25, is light years ahead of even peak Dr. J? :wtf:

[Abraham Lincoln]

Even ahead of Larry..

[Alhazred]

Even ahead of Larry..

:lol

[chazzy]

:wtf:

:roll: The most bizarre thing I saw yesterday http://deadspin.com/5444021/scottie-pippen-would-not-like-to-thank-all-the-little-people

[catch24]

I have part 1 favorited on Youtube. Have you seen the "Ultimate Defender" series? Greatest perimeter defender ever.

[Roundball_Rock]

Wow. I missed that, Abe. Was it one poster or were there several with that view?

:roll: at the typical hypocrisy (not you Abe, the MJ fan gimmick know as kuniva), not just of you but your ilk.


cept Scottie Pippen inherited a great team that was already championship built (3x).

1991-1993 Bulls: 61, 67, and 57 wins
1996-1997 Bulls: 72, 69 wins

Pippen in 94' had his team at a slightly higher winning percentage when he played than Jordan did without Pippen during the first half of 1998 despite Jordan inheriting a 69 win team, not a 57 win team. Jordan fans will play the age excuse but in order to apply that you have to believe 94' Pippen>98' Jordan. In other words, 94' Pippen would have to be the best player in the league in 98'--which MJ fans adamantly say he was never good enough to be in any year.

When Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and yes, Shaquille O'Neal (twice) left their teams due to injuries or retirement in or near their prime their teams collapsed. Some of these teams were championship teams; all were at least 57+ win teams who made the conference finals the year before. Jordan--the "greatest of all-time"--retires, is replaced by a scrub who could not even make it as a 12th man in the NBA in the previous season (he was the equivalent of a D-League player but because Jordan mysteriously retired at the last possible minute there was no time to find an adequate NBA starter to replace him. If Jordan didn't screw the team over and retired in a normal fashion they would have had time to find a legit replacement.) and the team remains a top 5 team. As the old SAT question would say, which one is not like the others?

Kareem is missing because he left in a trade. Milwaukee got back several good, young players for him, as would be expected in such a trade. However, when the same roster played without Kareem they went 3-14; with him they were on pace for 30 more wins (if prime Kareem played on the 90's Bulls, not 14-15 win teams, he would have more "rings as the man" but MJ fans, as is typical, ignore the context and scream "rings as the man! rings as the man!" like hysterical parrots when Kareem and Jordan are compared...). When he retired he was 42 so his impact was minor but make no mistake about it, in his prime he had immense impact.


Every top 10 player also have legitimate reasons (better teams, worse competition etc).

Better teams? Who else had a team that could remain a top 5 team without him after a top-tier great left in/near his prime? Thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing that list.

Worse competition? As if Patrick Ewing was great competition. Russell and Wilt faced each other--and then Jerry West/Baylor in the finals year after year. Anyway, why the invocation of context and excuses? It doesn't matter when it comes to anyone other than MJ. Why does context suddenly matter when it comes to MJ, and even then it only matters when he is losing. Him having a better situation than any other superstar in the league in the 90's is irrelevant when looking at him having 6 "rings as the man." Just look at who the best teammates leaders of other contenders had:

Hakeem: had Otis Thorpe until 95' when he got Drexler
Ewing: had John Starks
Miller: had Rik Smits
Robinson: had Sean Elliot
Barkley: had Kevin Johnson for one year of his prime
Malone: had Stockton
Shaq: had Penny playing at a high level for 2 years
Drexler: had Terry Porter until 95', when he was past his prime
Wilkins: had Kevin Willis
Jordan: had Scottie Pippen

Gee, which one had the advantage here?



Put his loses into context.

More hypocrisy. Again, why the sudden interest in context? As a wise man once said, prime Kareem or prime Wilt could elevate any team to contender status. Let's put it this way: if you swapped Jordan with Kareem or Wilt who would have more "rings as the man"? Or better yet, how about starting a team from scratch. You have no idea who the other 11 will be. They will be chosen randomly. Who would you rather have as your franchise cornerstone? If context is examined then the "rings as the man" card MJ fans play is rendered moot for then it is pretty clear that Wilt and Kareem would have more success, especially in the random team scenario.


During his DC days, you fail to mention he was playing with broken ribs and his starters, were injured different stretches through games.

Typical hypocrisy. The 94' Bulls were ravaged by injuries yet MJ fans never mention that if the team were healthy they would have won 60+. Pippen and Grant missed 10 or more games as did numerous others, including their starting center. In the playoffs their starting center was hurt. Yet MJ fans take 55 wins at face value.


at relying on a Hue Hollins call when they still had two series to go to even be crowned champs

Making just the ECF with the "greatest of all-time" being replaced with a D-League scrub is quite a feat. The consensus among everyone other than MJ/Knick fans (apparently one and the same in 94'?) is they would have made the NBA finals but lost to Houston. They crushed Indiana 4-1 in the regular season that year.


Pippen's teammates (prime Rasheed, productive Stoudemire, Bonzi Wells, Steve Smith, Sabonis).

Rasheed Wallace was 25 and Bonzi Wells a second year player. Sabonis was 35 and ravaged by injuries over the years. He was considered by many to be as good as Hakeem in his prime with the passing of Walton. Once again, context is ignored. When it comes to Pippen or anyone else all that matters is what appears at first blush. Forget having peak Rasheed or Wells and Sabonis in their primes. Prime Pippen alone would put them over the top.


I'm simply stating facts and putting those facts into context

:oldlol: Emphasizing Pippen was a "complementary player", a "sidekick", saying he "hurt the team" (implying he barely helped the team more than he hurt it) in every sentence in a "cheers to Scottie" thread is clear Pippen diminishing. That would be like me going into a "cheers to Jordan" thread and asking why he mysteriously retired a month before the 94' season and mentioned the gambling suspension rumors.

If the claims made about your hero are accurate his record would be sufficient. There would be no need for a jihad against Pippen. Russell fans don't obsess with Cousy. Wilt fans don't hate West. Magic fans do not diminish Kareem at every opportunity or vice versa. And so on. Only Jordan fans do this. Again, if the claims made about him being head and shoulders above the rest his record would suffice.

As I said, if you want to compare their records apart from one another create a thread to do so. I am done with your trolling in this thread. The only reason I replied to your previous post is to expose your hypocrisy and provide some context to younger fans who did not see prime Pippen play. There are people here who think Pippen was barely a top 10 player at his peak thanks to the MJ fan crusade. See, we don't need to hide facts. Pippen's record is strong enough to justify what he is, a top 20-25 all-time player and arguably the GOAT perimeter defender and certainly the GOAT defensive SF. So is the record of Kareem, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Russell, and GOAT candidates in every other team sport. The problem arises when there is a great discrepancy between the claims made regarding a particular legend and his record. Jordan may well be the GOAT but the claims made about him by people like you are that he is heads and shoulders above every other player to play basketball. That is the problem. If that were true MJ fans would have better arguments over Kareem than "rings as the man" (aka MJ had better luck so he>KAJ and aka Tim Duncan=third greatest player ever) or "Wilt was selfish" ( :roll: @ the irony).

Edit: MJ fans love to point out Houston and Portland were playoff teams when Pippen got there. What they never mention is those teams were no longer playoff teams when #33 left.

[kshutts1]

I love Pip, he's my favorite player of all time. Great player, could do anything, but watching the videos I was reminded of how mediocre his shot was. He didn't have the best body control on pull up 3's, and his shot just looks.. awkward. Whatever.. it was more or less effective, but I figured I'd be picky and try to find something wrong with his game.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

1991-1993 Bulls: 61, 67, and 57 wins
1996-1997 Bulls: 72, 69 wins

Pippen in 94' had his team at a slightly higher winning percentage when he played than Jordan did without Pippen during the first half of 1998 despite Jordan inheriting a 69 win team, not a 57 win team. Jordan fans will play the age excuse but in order to apply that you have to believe 94' Pippen>98' Jordan.

More idiotic claims coming from the genius masquerading behind a Pippen avatar. Your trolling is obvious. The only hypocrisy I see is from all your deluded posts. You fail to mention that Kukoc and Longley missed a combined 32 games. Who was their second option or Jordan's second scorer to fall back on like Pippen had in Horrace Grant, BJ Armstrong and Kukoc? :oldlol: Your logic seemingly bites you in the ass each time you post!


When Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and yes, Shaquille O'Neal (twice) left their teams due to injuries or retirement in or near their prime their teams collapsed. Some of these teams were championship teams; all were at least 57+ win teams who made the conference finals the year before. Jordan--the "greatest of all-time"--retires

You're not putting any of those teams role players, starters and opposition/opponents into context. Jordan was replaced by a 'CBA scrub', but the Bulls also, unlike the other teams and players you mentioned, came off of a 3peat and signed NEW relevant acquisitions to replace Jordan. It was the same team in a nutshell + a few great productive role players.


Kareem is missing because he left in a trade. Milwaukee got back several good, young players for him, as would be expected in such a trade. However, when the same roster played without Kareem they went 3-14; with him they were on pace for 30 more wins (if prime Kareem played on the 90's Bulls, not 14-15 win teams, he would have more "rings as the man"

That's your opinion and a mere assumption at that. You can't say "Player X would win here because Player Z did". Going by your logic, Jordan and Magic would of swept through the 80's winning near every single title, further cementing Jordan's legacy as 'GOAT'. Once again, you're not putting team losses into perspective, how typical of you! Jon McGlocklin (20ppg) and Bob Dandridge (14ppg) missed a combined 58 games when Kareem was traded. :oldlol: at this idiot. Faking knowledge and cramming numbers without context.


More hypocrisy. Again, why the sudden interest in context?

It's debatable. There's really no wrong answer considering Jordan won 6 as the main guy. Your opinions in itself are moot, you're better off ignoring me, you simply make absolutely no sense.


Typical hypocrisy. The 94' Bulls were ravaged by injuries yet MJ fans never mention that if the team were healthy they would have won 60+. Pippen and Grant missed 10 or more games as did numerous others, including their starting center. In the playoffs their starting center was hurt. Yet MJ fans take 55 wins at face value.

Not as many in 1998. 10 games is nothing compared to what Jordan had to face carrying an undeveloped Pippen in the late 80's. 55 wins is meaningless to me if they got bounced in the second round verse a team Jordan beat the previous season. Same Bulls team, 2 known players today, and a GOAT candidate (coaching) in Phil Jackson.


Making just the ECF with the "greatest of all-time" being replaced with a D-League scrub is quite a feat. The consensus among non-MJ/Knick fans (apparently one and the same in 94'?) is they would have made the NBA finals but lost to Houston. They crushed Indiana 4-1 in the regular season that year.

Yeah it is. Losing to the same team you beat previously is not. Sitting out on the final possession of a game is not either either.....They MIGHT of went to the Finals verse the Rockets but would of probably have lost. What does it matter? They didn't repeat as championships. Your opinion on the subject is moot.


Rasheed Wallace was 25 and Bonzi Wells a second year player. Sabonis was 35 and ravaged by injuries over the years. He was considered by many to be as good as Hakeem in his prime. Once again, context is ignored..

You can ignore the context all you want, the production is all you need, though:

at 25 Wallace (81 games): 16.4ppg 7reb on 51%fg
Steve Smith 81 games: 15ppg 47%fg
Damon Stoudamire 78 games: 12.5ppg 5ast
Sabonis 66 games (:oldlol: at ravaged with injuries): 12ppg 8reb 50%
Wells: 66 games: 9ppg 48%


If the claims made about your hero are accurate his record would be sufficient. There would be no need for a jihad against Pippen

He's not my "hero". Hardly my favorite player of all time, but I'll entertain you!

- Highest career scoring average: MJ 30.12
- Highest career playoff scoring average: MJ 33.4
- Highest career Finals scoring average: MJ 33.6 (min. 15 games)
- Highest single season playoff average: MJ 43.7
- Highest single Finals series average: MJ 41.0
- Most Total Points Playoffs: MJ 5987
- Most seasons leading league in scoring: MJ 10
- Most seasons leading league in total points: MJ 11
- Most consecutive seasons leading in scoring: MJ, Wilt tied at 7
- Most 50 point games playoffs: MJ 8
- Most 40 point games playoffs: MJ 38
- Most 30 point games: MJ 563
- Most 30 point games playoffs: MJ 109
- Most consecutive 50 point games playoffs: MJ 2
- Most consecutive 45 point games playoffs: MJ 3
- Most consecutive 40 point games finals: MJ 4
- Most consecutive 30 point games finals: MJ 9
- Most consecutive 20 point games playoffs: MJ 60
- Most consecutive 20 point games finals: MJ 35
- Most consecutive double figures scoring: MJ 866
- Highest scoring game playoffs: MJ 63
- Most points in one half finals: MJ 35
- Oldest to score 50: MJ 51 at age 38
- Oldest to score 40: MJ 43 at age 40


Jordan won 10 scoring titles, 5 he won while making over 50% of his shots, Jordan led the league in steals, Jordan was the best shot blocking guard, Jordan won 14 combined MVP's (3 all star, 5 league, 6 finals). Jordan averaged 33, 6, and 6 in the Finals for his career. Jordan averaged 31.5ppg on 51.5% shooting when he wore a Bulls uniform while leading the league in scoring 10 times.


So what makes Michael Jordan the greatest of all time? Well, it's quite simple actually, it's his combination of individual dominance (10 scoring titles, undisputed best player in the league for so many years, numerous MVP awards, and numerous scoring records), the way he raised his level of play in the playoffs, the way he led his teams to so many championships, and his accuracy/consistency as an all-around two way player.

NBA ALL-TIME LEADERS (Current as of 12/17/08):
(All statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS)

1st Place: MJ, 149 total points
2nd Place: Wilt, 124 total points
3rd Place: Bill, 118 total points
4th Place: Jabbar, 114 total points
5th Place: Magic, 102 total points

(Active Players):
1st Place: Shaq, 85 total points
2nd Place: Tim, 73 total points
3rd Place: KB, 54 total points

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2003-02-06-dupree-team_x.htm -- there's your 'formula'.

Out of date, but right on the money (This is why Pippen was a sidekick).

[Roundball_Rock]

I love Pip, he's my favorite player of all time. Great player, could do anything, but watching the videos I was reminded of how mediocre his shot was. He didn't have the best body control on pull up 3's, and his shot just looks.. awkward. Whatever.. it was more or less effective, but I figured I'd be picky and try to find something wrong with his game.

Yeah, I never understood how he could be so graceful on the court doing everything else, especially his finger rolls, and yet have such an awkward shot. As you, said, though, it was effective, especially from mid-range and adequate from long range so who cares how it looked. The best thing about his game was he was so versatile that he could adapt to whatever situation existed in a given game. If he was up against a shorter opponent he would post up more. If he was up against a taller but slower opponent he would beat them off the dribble. If he was on fire he would look to shoot more. If his shot was off he would realize it and work more as a playmaker for others (and if their shot was off he would work the offense to get them a good shot to keep their confidence up). One thing is for sure: his playmaking and legendary defensive abilities were there every night even if his shot was not.

[BlackMamba24]

roundball rock is ****ing retarded

[Alhazred]

1991-1993 Bulls: 61, 67, and 57 wins
1996-1997 Bulls: 72, 69 wins

Pippen in 94' had his team at a slightly higher winning percentage when he played than Jordan did without Pippen during the first half of 1998 despite Jordan inheriting a 69 win team, not a 57 win team. Jordan fans will play the age excuse but in order to apply that you have to believe 94' Pippen>98' Jordan. In other words, 94' Pippen would have to be the best player in the league in 98'--which MJ fans adamantly say he was never good enough to be in any year.

The Bulls roster was much older overall in 1998. Harper, Rodman and Jordan were all in their mid 30s. Also, 24-11 without your number two option is still a good record.


When Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, and yes, Shaquille O'Neal (twice) left their teams due to injuries or retirement in or near their prime their teams collapsed.

When Bird retired his team dropped three games more the next season. Milwaukee had the same record the season after Kareem left. Philadelphia won 55 games the season after Wilt left. According to the logic you presented, these guys aren't true legends.


Some of these teams were championship teams; all were at least 57+ win teams who made the conference finals the year before. Jordan--the "greatest of all-time"--retires, is replaced by a scrub who could not even make it as a 12th man in the NBA in the previous season (he was the equivalent of a D-League player but because Jordan mysteriously retired at the last possible minute there was no time to find an adequate NBA starter to replace him. If Jordan didn't screw the team over and retired in a normal fashion they would have had time to find a legit replacement.)

"Mysteriously"? His dad was murdered during the summer. Sorry he wasn't able to get over it soon enough....


Better teams? Who else had a team that could remain a top 5 team without him after a top-tier great left in/near his prime? Thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing that list.

Wilt Chamberlain, for one.


Worse competition? As if Patrick Ewing was great competition. Russell and Wilt faced each other--and then Jerry West/Baylor in the finals year after year.

Jordan had Gary Payton, Clyde Drexler, Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller to compete against. Not exactly scrubs...


Anyway, why the invocation of context and excuses? It doesn't matter when it comes to anyone other than MJ. Why does context suddenly matter when it comes to MJ, and even then it only matters when he is losing. Him having a better situation than any other superstar in the league in the 90's is irrelevant when looking at him having 6 "rings as the man." Just look at who the best teammates leaders of other contenders had:

Hakeem: had Otis Thorpe until 95' when he got Drexler
Ewing: had John Starks
Miller: had Rik Smits
Robinson: had Sean Elliot
Barkley: had Kevin Johnson for one year of his prime
Malone: had Stockton
Shaq: had Penny playing at a high level for 2 years
Drexler: had Terry Porter until 95', when he was past his prime
Wilkins: had Kevin Willis
Jordan: had Scottie Pippen

Gee, which one had the advantage here?

Robinson had Rodman and Duncan, Drexler had Buck Williams in the post and Hakeem in Houston, Barkley had Majerle and Danny Manning, Malone had Hornacek as well and Shaq had Grant, Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson to complement them and the second options on their teams. Those guys had very capable players around them.


Making just the ECF with the "greatest of all-time" being replaced with a D-League scrub is quite a feat. The consensus among non-MJ/Knick fans (apparently one and the same in 94'?) is they would have made the NBA finals but lost to Houston. They crushed Indiana 4-1 in the regular season that year.

Ergo, it must be true? The Magic swept LA 2-0 in the 09 regular season.


Rasheed Wallace was 25 and Bonzi Wells a second year player. Sabonis was 35 and ravaged by injuries over the years. He was considered by many to be as good as Hakeem in his prime. Once again, context is ignored. When it comes to Pippen or anyone else all that matters is what appears at first blush. Forget having peak Rasheed or Wells and Sabonis in their primes. Prime Pippen alone would put them over the top.

Those guys also managed to get to the WCF the year before Pippen got there.


:oldlol: Emphasizing Pippen was a "complementary player", a "sidekick", saying he "hurt the team" (implying he barely helped the team more than he hurt it) in every sentence in a "cheers to Scottie" thread is clear Pippen diminishing. That would be like me going into a "cheers to Jordan" thread and asking why he mysteriously retired a month before the 94' season and mentioned the gambling suspension rumors.

Must've been gambling, I'm sure it had nothing to do with his dad getting murdered....


If the claims made about your hero are accurate his record would be sufficient. There would be no need for a jihad against Pippen. Russell fans don't obsess with Cousy. Wilt fans don't hate West. Magic fans do not diminish Kareem at every opportunity or vice versa. And so on. Only Jordan fans do this. Again, if the claims made about him being head and shoulders above the rest his record would suffice.

:oldlol:

You've attacked Jordan way more than anyone has attacked Pippen on here. Also, that comment in bold is ridiculous. I've heard Bird and Magic fans trash McHale and Worthy, claiming they would have been nothing without them, also Wilt fans insult his former teammates continually. What's the one thing Wilt stans will say when his playoff record is brought up? "Oh, well, his teammates choked, not him." Ridiculous....


Edit: MJ fans love to point out Houston and Portland were playoff teams when Pippen got there. What they never mention is those teams were no longer playoff teams when #33 left.

:lol So they were playoff contenders before his arrival and sucked by the time he left? How is that a positive thing?

I like Pip, but your arguments have been getting a little out of hand. For someone to claim to support Pippen so much, you really don't care for his teammates, do you?

[Roundball_Rock]

The only hypocrisy I see is from all your deluded posts. You fail to mention that Kukoc and Longley missed a combined 32 games.

:roll: Kukoc missed 8. This is what I was alluding to. MJ fans have to use smoke and mirrors. Longley? Your argument is the "greatest of all-time" needed Luc Longley?


. Jordan was replaced by a 'CBA scrub', but the Bulls also, unlike the other teams and players you mentioned, came off of a 3peat and signed NEW relevant acquisitions to replace Jordan

Yeah, Steve Kerr is a "relevant acquisition" to replace the "greatest of all-time." They added Kukoc and Kerr to the bench. Teams change rosters all the time, another thing you may have noticed. Do you "think" the other teams in question came back with exactly the same roster? If your argument is that rookie Kukoc plus a career reserve like Kerr=Jordan that is at best ironic.


Jon McGlocklin (20ppg) and Bob Dandridge (14ppg) missed a combined 58 games when Kareem was traded.

What relevance does that have? You need to take reading comprehension 101. :oldlol: I specifically cited Milwaukee as an exception so their record the year after Kareem left was irrelevant. Too bad basketballreference.com does not teach reading comprehension.


That's your opinion and a mere assumption at that. You can't say "Player X would win here because Player Z did"

Again with the poor reading comprehension. The point was if Kareem had the best team in the league, not 14 win teams, he would have more "rings as the man." This is common sense. Whether he would have 6 in 8 years is debatable but that he would have more than 1, which is all he won in the 70's, is not debatable.


There's really no wrong answer considering Jordan won 6 as the main guy.

Thanks for proving one of my points. Jordan's case is heavily based on 6 "as the man" yet Jordan fans fail to look at why Kareem and Wilt do not have as many. If your argument is MJ is better simply because he had better luck than you have to have Duncan #3 all-time because he has the third most rings as "the man." Duncan>Shaq? He has one more MVP and one more "ring as the man."


Not as many in 1998.

Jordan fans fail to see the significance in them quibbling over details between 98' and 94'. Jordan is the "greatest of all-time." His record as the team leader sans Pippen should be light years ahead of Pippen's sans Jordan.


55 wins is meaningless to me if they got bounced in the second round verse a team Jordan beat the previous season.

Jordan beat them? Watch that series.


Losing to the same team you beat previously is not

If you are ignorant about what happened when every other legend of that caliber retired. Those teams did not win more than 42 games and most missed the playoffs or quickly got crushed in the first round.


Sabonis 66 games ( at ravaged with injuries): 12ppg 8reb 50%

:roll: You obviously know nothing about Sabonis.


Jordan won 10 scoring titles

Wilt won 7 straight to open his career and then never again placed higher than 4th. Of course, "MJ=clear GOAT" people are unaware why this happened so they parrot things like "10 scoring titles." Learn about Wilt and why he suddenly stopping winning scoring titles. Wilt could fill any role on the basketball court--and he did at various times in his career. Yet MJ fans uses this against him. Pathetic. Mea culpa: I used to be harsh toward Wilt too until I learned more about the legend.


Jordan was the best shot blocking guard

Yeah, and Wilt and Russell were the best shot blockers period. No position qualifier needed.


Jordan won 14 combined MVP's (3 all star, 5 league, 6 finals)

Look at this. MJ fans using FMVP's in a comparison with Russell and Wilt. The award did not even exist until 1969. :roll:

The combination thing is debatable. One thing Jordan does not have is the ability to lift horrible teams to contention. If that is part of one's combination than Wilt and Kareem are above him.


(All statistical records + playoff records + career averages + playoff averages + MVPs + Finals MVPs + Rings + All-1st teams + All-1st Defensive Teams + All-star games + All-star MVPS)

1) Learn why Wilt's averages suddenly dramatically declined before you talk about his career averages
2) FMVP's didn't even exist in 1969. Why do you think it is named after Russell?
3) Rings are a team achievement. You can't examine rings without looking at their team situations, of course MJ fans will never do this
4) There were no all-D teams until 1969 either. Russell is considered the greatest defensive player ever and Wilt was very close yet MJ fans use all-D teams against them. :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

When Bird retired his team dropped three games more the next season. Milwaukee had the same record the season after Kareem left.

:oldlol: @ using 92' Bird and not 89'. Milwaukee traded Kareem. Who did they get for him?


"Mysteriously"? His dad was murdered during the summer.

Yeah. When did he retire? October.


Wilt Chamberlain, for one.

That is it. One example over all of NBA history.


Jordan had Gary Payton, Clyde Drexler, Joe Dumars and Reggie Miller to compete against.

He met Payton, Drexler, and Miller a grand total of 3 times in the playoffs during his title runs.


Robinson had Rodman and Duncan

He got Duncan in 98' when he was past his prime. Rodman was a liability in 95'. Why do you think he was traded for a career scrub like Perdue?


Drexler had Buck Williams

Exactly. :oldlol:


Barkley had Majerle and Danny Manning

When he was past his prime. Who did he have in Philly?


Malone had Hornacek as well

34 or 35 year old Hornacek.


I've heard Bird and Magic fans trash McHale and Worthy, claiming they would have been nothing without them, also Wilt fans insult his former teammates continually.

Some links will be appreciated. Wilt fans cite the fact that his teams were inferior to Russell's for most of his career. They aren't on a jihad against Hal Greer or Jerry West.


So they were playoff contenders before his arrival and sucked by the time he left?

They didn't suck by the time he left. Portland was a top 5 team, unfortunately the weakest of the group and the others were all in the West too, in 2003 when he played. Look at their record with him (below 0.500 without him). They were good enough to #1 in the East. After he left they went 41-41.


For someone to claim to support Pippen so much, you really don't care for his teammates, do you?

:oldlol: at the irony. I like his teammates--except one and I used to like him until I met his fans on ISH.

[Human Error]

Part I
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObgS6uUVjQ)

and

Part II
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace Part II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyzx6ISXQGw)
Scottie Pippen: getting beat up by little people (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTMfMP_OXX4)

:applause:

[Alhazred]

:oldlol: @ using 92' Bird and not 89'. Milwaukee traded Kareem. Who did they get for him?

Boston had a coaching turnover in 89 plus McHale, Parish and others suffered from injuries as well. Completely different situation from Jordan's. Also, what's wrong with using 92 as an example?

As for Milwaukee, they got a few decent players, but no one who was anywhere near Kareem's league


Yeah. When did he retire? October.

Yeah, after months from hearing conspiracy theories on how his gambling supposedly killed his dad(no clear evidence exists to suggest that, though).


That is it. One example over all of NBA history.

Yep, one example and it's Wilt Chamberlain. Is he not an impact player either, then?


He met Payton, Drexler, and Miller a grand total of 3 times in the playoffs during his title runs.

And....? Hakeem met Shaq, Robinson and Ewing how many times in his career? Ewing once, Shaq twice and David Robinson once. He was still considered a dominant center in a league filled with quality big men.


He got Duncan in 98' when he was past his prime. Rodman was a liability in 95'. Why do you think he was traded for a career scrub like Perdue?

He got Duncan in 98, both averaged 20/10 that year. Rodman was a killer rebounder and helped San Antonio earn those 62 wins in 95. Besides, the Bulls won with him regardless and he wasn't any better behaved those seasons, either.


Exactly. :oldlol:

He also posted Grant-like numbers with Portland, nothing wrong with that.


When he was past his prime. Who did he have in Philly?

Maurice Cheeks and Hersey Hawkins.


34 or 35 year old Hornacek.

Nevertheless he was still a capable scorer.


Some links will be appreciated. Wilt fans cite the fact that his teams were inferior to Russell's for most of his career. They aren't on a jihad against Hal Greer or Jerry West.

http://www.youtube.com/user/workouthrd

I've talked to this guy about Boston a lot and he's pretty convinced that the rest of the team would have been nothing without Bird, including McHale, Parish and DJ. He also thinks Boston and Chicago had even teams in 87. :lol


They didn't suck by the time he left. Portland was a top 5 team, unfortunately the weakest of the group and the others were all in the West too, in 2003 when he played. Look at their record with him (below 0.500 without him). They were good enough to #1 in the East. After he left they went 41-41.

After they were in the WCF before he showed.


:oldlol: at the irony. I like his teammates--except one and I used to like him until I met his fans on ISH.

Thanks?

[Roundball_Rock]

Eff this. All I care about is the shameful display on NBC right now, not the 90's. Yeah, yeah, MJ is the GOAT. Jordan carried scrubs to 6 rings all by himself even though they won 55 games without him despite numerous injuries, even though their leader was a borderline all-star, not a MVP caliber top 20-25 all-time type player. If Pippen played today Joe Johnson would>him. Joe Johnson on the 94' Bulls=62-20 and a sweep of the Knicks. :bowdown:

Two last points:

1) I don't believe he was suspended. If he was word would have leaked out by now. I do believe he screwed the team by his timing. If he retired in the summer they would have time to get a legit replacement and the team would have been good enough to overcome even that scrub Pippen and won it all.

2) That was one data point regarding Wilt. What happened to LA after he left? His team sucked when he was drafted and he made them instant contenders. It simply is easier to build around a great center than a great guard, at least before the modern rules

[Manute for Ever!]

:oldlol: @ the thinly veiled shots. Every post this guy has made in this thread calls him a "Robin" or a "sidekick." This is why Pippen fans get annoyed at MJ fans (see what I mean Da_Realist?). Even in a "cheers to Scottie" thread the MJ jihad rears its ugly head. "Sidekicks" don't finish #1 in all-NBA and all-Defense voting in the same season.

Jordan did play without him, both before and after Pippen coming to Chicago, and...

Do you realise that some people are actually BULLS fans?

[Roundball_Rock]

Do you realise that some people are actually BULLS fans?

Yeah, the Bulls fans are the ones who never post in Bulls game thread (since they stopped watching Bulls games after 1998), never defend Rose, never talk about the Bulls and 2010, never post on the Bulls forum. :oldlol: at conflating Jordan fans with Bulls fans. Most of them jumped off the Bulls bandwagon when Jordan retired after Scottie and Phil left. Bulls fans, i.e. Undisputed, 97 bulls, Glide2eva, GreatGreg, et al. don't bash Pippen at every opportunity which is why I am specific in referring to MJ fans. Some Jordan fans (guy, Samuri) are still Bulls fans but it is obvious most aren't. Surely one who observes other posters so closely would have realized this.

[Manute for Ever!]

Yeah, the Bulls fans are the ones who never post in Bulls game thread (since they stopped watching Bulls games after 1998), never defend Rose, never talk about the Bulls and 2010, never post on the Bulls forum. :oldlol: at conflating Jordan fans with Bulls fans. Most of them jumped off the Bulls bandwagon when Jordan retired after Scottie and Phil left. Bulls fans, i.e. Undisputed, 97 bulls, Glide2eva, GreatGreg, et al. don't bash Pippen at every opportunity which is why I am specific in referring to MJ fans. Some Jordan fans (guy, Samuri) are still Bulls fans but it is obvious most aren't. Surely one who observes other posters so closely would have realized this.

Merely responding to your generalisation that there are two factions, Jordan fans and Pippen fans. Just saying that that isn't the case. I'm a Bulls fan, always will be and am not concerned with who does/did what, as long as we win/won. Wow, you are defensive.

[Roundball_Rock]

Defensive? No, but annoyed that these bandwagon fans who haven't watched a Bulls game since 1998 call me a Lakers fan because they can't grasp that Pippen had fans , even though there are three people in this thread who have Pippen as their favorite player.

Oh then you misunderstood me. The reason I refer to "MJ fans" is to distinguish them from Bulls fans. There are some Pippen fans too but generally Pippen fans also are Bulls fans (97bulls, kshutts, me). They didn't jump off the bandwagon like most MJ fans here did.

Three factions:

1) Bulls fans. This is by far the largest group. They rarely enter into the Jordan vs. Pippen threads probably because they are disgusted at what at first blush appears as internecine warfare.

2) Pippen fans. This is the smallest group but as I noted they usually overlap with Bulls fans.

3) Jordan fans. The second largest group but very dedicated. Most of them are not Bulls fans, although there are a few exceptions.

[Manute for Ever!]

Defensive? No, but annoyed that these bandwagon fans who haven't watched a Bulls game since 1998 call me a Lakers fan because they can't grasp that Pippen had fans , even though there are three people in this thread who have Pippen as their favorite player.

Oh then you misunderstood me. The reason I refer to "MJ fans" is to distinguish them from Bulls fans. There are some Pippen fans too but generally Pippen fans also are Bulls fans (97bulls, kshutts, me). They didn't jump off the bandwagon like most MJ fans here did.

Three factions:

1) Bulls fans. This is by far the largest group. They rarely enter into the Jordan vs. Pippen threads probably because they are disgusted at what at first blush appears as internecine warfare.

2) Pippen fans. This is the smallest group but as I noted they usually overlap with Bulls fans.

3) Jordan fans. The second largest group but very dedicated. Most of them are not Bulls fans, although there are a few exceptions.

Gotcha, my mistake :cheers:

[Roundball_Rock]

No problem. :cheers: Here is an example from the Rose thread from last night:

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 63

User Name Posts

beasted86 10
Undisputed 8
Roundball_Rock 5
Manute for Ever! 4
Pharcyde 4
aem 3
liljohnnywall 3
Human Error 3
TheTruth11 2
imdaman99 2
Samurai Swoosh 2
lpublic_enemyl 2
Millennium X 2
Dresta 1
DoubleTech 1
B-Easy 1
Batman 1
bdreason 1
Bigsmoke 1
RoseCity07 1
dyna 1
LebrickJames84' 1
Rekindled 1
ConanRulesNBC 1
RoTM 1
YAH trick YAH 1

Bulls fans I know of in bold so I likely missed some people. Only one is a MJ fan (Samuri(. If you are a regular in the Pippen or Jordan threads you will notice certain people who are regulars in those threads but always missing from threads like the Rose one.

[juju151111]

No problem. :cheers: Here is an example from the Rose thread from last night:

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 63

User Name Posts

beasted86 10
Undisputed 8
Roundball_Rock 5
Manute for Ever! 4
Pharcyde 4
aem 3
liljohnnywall 3
Human Error 3
TheTruth11 2
imdaman99 2
Samurai Swoosh 2
lpublic_enemyl 2
Millennium X 2
Dresta 1
DoubleTech 1
B-Easy 1
Batman 1
bdreason 1
Bigsmoke 1
RoseCity07 1
dyna 1
LebrickJames84' 1
Rekindled 1
ConanRulesNBC 1
RoTM 1
YAH trick YAH 1

Bulls fans I know of in bold so I likely missed some people. Only one is a MJ fan (Samuri(. If you are a regular in the Pippen or Jordan threads you will notice certain people who are regulars in those threads but always missing from threads like the Rose one.
I could of sworn i posted in that thread and why you always geting butthurt?? Pippen was a sidekick. He sure has hell wasn't "Batman" in any all this. Even robin saves Batman sometimes, i don't see the problem with being the sidekick, which he was.

[Roundball_Rock]

You were in another Rose thread. I copy and pasted the list of posters. It is on page 2 or 3 and you can check yourself. As to that, I get annoyed at idiots thinking I am Fatal or a Lakers fan just because I am a Pippen fan when most of these people jumped off the Bulls bandwagon in 98'. I can understand it when I first joined but how dense does a person have to be to think we are the same by this point?

Context. The individual who kept throwing "sidekick" and "complementary" every other word uses them to diminish him. He dismissed Pippen vs. Bernard King and Dominique Wilkins because Pip was allegedly a "mere sidekick."

I didn't come into your MJ triple double thread and take a shot at him, which I could have given how he was accumulating a lot of his triple doubles during that time (although that does not matter much because the fact remains that he was one of the most versatile players ever). It is a low blow to come into a "cheers to Player X" thread and take shots at him but what do you expect from gimmicks? I apologize for contributing to sidetracking this great thread by responding to a gimmick account. Rest assured that problem will not happen again. :D


i don't see the problem with being the sidekick, which he was.

Yes, but "sidekick" is an empty label. Pippen played with one of the three or four greatest players ever. Should that be held against him? If Jerry West or Hakeem played with Jordan he would be a "sidekick." Does that make them lesser players? I've heard it said that losing in the NBA finals as team leader>winning 6 rings as a "sidekick" (actually 1b for the last 3).

[catch24]

I could of sworn i posted in that thread and why you always geting butthurt?? Pippen was a sidekick. He sure has hell wasn't "Batman" in any all this. Even robin saves Batman sometimes, i don't see the problem with being the sidekick, which he was.

Lol, RR calls anyone who defends MJ's legacy a 'gimmick' Juju. His arguments remind me of Alborz at times, but I won't go there. He'll go on and spew crap that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed. I wouldn't label anyone a troll, when it's pretty obvious what you're doing is trolling dude. I also want to say Pippen being a 'sidekick' can be labeled different ways. I sure hope you don't mean he was a "1B" type player because that's simply not true. Anyway, that Kuniva clown is probably a gimmick, he repeats himself over and over. I saw him trying to say Kobe was just another allstar in another thread...lmfao.

[Roundball_Rock]

RR calls anyone who defends MJ's legacy a 'gimmick' Juju.

Really? Who else have I called a gimmick, besides Abe who is a Wilt fan and I no longer consider a gimmick, and BlackMamba24? Juju, do you recall me calling you a gimmick? :lol


I also want to say Pippen being a 'sidekick' can be labeled different ways

Yeah--and I know how that person labels it since we talked about it the other day.


I sure hope you don't mean he was a "1B" type player because that's simply not true

He was for the final three rings.


His arguments reminds me of Alborz at times, but I won't go there.

Such as? You went there. Now back it up.


He'll go on and spew crap that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.

Threads evolve. Your post is an example. Are you trolling? You are shifting the topic to a degree.

I just saw you refer to bruceblitz as a "great poster." :roll:

[catch24]

Look at his responses, he has to question MY opinion on the matter. Just the other day you called me a troll. Do you even know what trolling means? I'm an MJ fan, no doubt, I respect his game to the fullest, but does that mean I have a shaved head or eat wheaties in hanes underwear? You forget I'm a Kobe/Lakers fan first. If you must know, you and Alborz (KB42PAH) share this same Pippen love - it's in his Youtube channel description - the same old 55 win argument. Bruce was a good poster. Sure his mountain of Copy N Paste grew tiring, but he brings cold hard facts to the table. His views are logical, yours are NOT.

[catch24]

*waiting for a long rebuttal that has nothing to do with my post*

[Roundball_Rock]

Look at his responses, he has to question MY opinion on the matter.

Let's look at your original comments:


I sure hope you don't mean he was a "1B" type player because that's simply not true

It is wrong to reply to that? You essentially said MY opinion on the matter was ridiculous.


Just the other day you called me a troll.

Link? I've posted with juju more than anyone here. I have never called him a troll or a gimmick. You are making false accusations. You have leveled three separate ones: the alleged troll comment, the alleged gimmick comments, and the idiotic "reasoning" regarding KB42. I am not even a Lakers fan (I don't jump from bandwagon to bandwagon like some others. I've stuck with the Bulls since the 90's) yet people like you still cannot grasp that. this is what I was talking about earlier, juju. I once had a policy of just putting anyone who still thought I am a Lakers fan and/or Fatal automatically on ignore because that would cull the herd of some of the worst posters but I stopped because of Abe, who is otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable but for some reason maintains this confusion. I think I should revert to that and make an exception for Abe.

I've spoken of Jordan trolls in the abstract but never called you a troll in particular, although I doubt you could recognize the difference.



If you must know, you and Alborz (KB42PAH) share this same Pippen love - it's in his Youtube channel description - the same old 55 win argument.

:oldlol: There is a disconnect between your arrogance and your substance. You invoke logic and then say two people are the same simply because they agree on one thing? That "thinking" speaks for itself. The OP of this thread and I agree on Pippen. It is reflected on his dedicated to Pippen YouTube channel. Maybe we are the same too, Sherlock? :eek:


Sure his mountain of Copy N Paste grew tiring, but he brings cold hard facts to the table

He did. So do I. It is not my fault you have trouble with them. One may disagree with my interpretation but you have to be brain dead to think I don't post facts. I've posted numerous facts in this thread alone.

[catch24]

Let's look at your original comments

It is wrong to reply to that? You essentially said MY opinion on the matter was ridiculous.

It's pretttttty ridiculous that you're dubbing Pippen as a 1B. He was a top 5-10 player during his ERA, but that certainly doesn' mean he was Jordan's 1B. I don't think he was a sidekick either. Kobe was a sidekick in 2000, but during 2001-on he was not. He was 1B.


The 3-pt discussion we had a few days ago. I cannot find the thread, but you kept insisting I was trolling or being an MJ fan. I remember specifically saying "lol @ calling a lakers fan a Jordan fan"


Link

There is a disconnect between your arrogance and your substance. You invoke logic and then say two people are the same simply because they agree on one thing? That "thinking" speaks for itself. The OP in this thread and I agree on Pippen. It is reflected on his YouTube channel. Maybe we are the same too? :oldlol:

What the hell are you talking about? I've had debates with him in the past, and you present your arguments JUST like him. Fatal9 is another one.


He did. So do I. It is not my fault you have trouble with them. One may disagree with my interpretation but you have to be brain dead to think I don't post facts. I've posted numerous facts in this thread alone.

What is it that I am having trouble with exactly? We simply don't see eye to eye on this. You post facts, but many posters have conceded that you twist your facts around to take shots at Jordan. The 50 win season from the Bulls in 1994 is a prime example. How do you even call yourself sane thinking that year was solely carried on Pippen's shoulders? The majority of us know that was a great team in 1994, and a total team effort.

[catch24]

Did I call you kb42pah or Fatal9? No. Am I implying you are not a Bulls fan? No. I ask once again, what are you talking about? Stop being so damn defensive dude.

[Roundball_Rock]

It's pretttttty ridiculous that you're dubbing Pippen as a 1B. He was a top 5-10 player during his ERA, but that certainly doesn' mean he was Jordan's 1B. I don't think he was a sidekick either. Kobe was a sidekick in 2000, but during 2001-on he was not. He was 1B.

It is debatable. In 96' he was #2 in all-NBA voting and #1 in all-Defense voting. That sounds like more than a 5-10 player. Abe Lincoln agrees with the 1a/1b idea. So do BJ Armstrong, Ron Harper, Bill Cartwright, a Pulitzer Prize winning author who has written a book on Jordan and the Bulls (meaning he had access to numerous Bulls sources), and implicitly Sports Illustrated, Slam Magazine, and Bob Ryan to name some others. When you say Pippen was the second-best player that makes it a 1a/1b relationship.

96' and 97' Pippen arguably was superior to 2001-2002 Kobe, but you probably only look at scoring so you would not realize the argument for Pippen. That said, a case can be made for young Kobe too.


The 3-pt discussion we had a few days ago. I cannot find the thread, but you kept insisting I was trolling or being an MJ fan. I remember specifically saying "lol @ calling a lakers fan a Jordan fan"

Huge difference. I probably did call you a MJ fan, which you just said you are. :confusedshrug:


I've had debates with him in the past, and you present your arguments JUST like him. Fatal9 is another one.

How? You are making a serious accusation. From what I have heard this guy got banned. If people believe your lies the logical conclusion is to ban me. Back it up with logic and facts, not vague, weaselly, shamefully dishonest reasons.


You post facts, but many posters have conceded that you twist your facts around to take shots at Jordan.

And? Your hero blitz did that numerous times with Kobe and Pippen. I don't pose as objective. Everyone has a degree of bias. Do I use facts to make my case? Guilty as charged. Sue me.

I do take shots at Jordan yet I have him as the third or fourth greatest player ever. Moreover, a lot of times I am going to extremes in response to extremes. For example, the 1-9 discussion earlier in the thread was to show the hypocrisy of MJ fans. When it comes to MJ they look at context but never do when it comes to Pippen, Kareem, Wilt, or anyone else.


The 50 win season from the Bulls in 1994 is a prime example. How do you even call yourself sane thinking that year was solely carried on Pippen's shoulders?

Sincerely,

Phil Jackson

Yeah, Jackson is insane. :oldlol: "Solely carried" is a stretch. That never happens. Was he a MVP candidate? Yes. He led the team in scoring, assists, steals, was second in rebounding, ran the offense, and was the defensive anchor. He did all of this in the playoffs except rebounding where he rose to #1 on the team in that category. That is what he did. People can interpret that as they wish. The fact is that year he was #1 in all-NBA voting and #1 in all-Defensive team voting so some schmucks sure thought he was an elite player back then.


The majority of us know that was a great team in 1994, and a total team effort.

Of course it was a good team. That is the point. Jordan had a team that could win that many games without him. Prime Kareem didn't. Wilt did but he was up against a superior team in Russell's Celtics and also up against the West/Baylor Lakers. He did not have the best team for a decade. This is partly where "55 wins" comes up. MJ fans love to argue "rings as the man" but you cannot seriously examine that without looking at the teams they were on for winning is a team achievement. A Jordan or Pippen can be the chief reason for a team winning but they cannot do it on their own.

Now was it a good team without Pippen? Their record without Pippen speaks for itself. They were a lottery team without him in 94' and a joke in 95' without Pippen with Grant no longer being there.


Did I call you kb42pah or Fatal9? No. Am I implying you are not a Bulls fan? No. I ask once again, what are you talking about? Stop being so damn defensive dude.

It was implied and that is serious since KB apparently is a banned poster. I lost track of the MJ fans who think I am Fatal but I wouldn't be surprised if you are one of them.

For the record, while I clashed with blitz I liked him. He did present facts. Did he spin them? Yes, but we all do that to a degree. I hope he comes back, especially if LA wins again just to see his reaction.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:roll: Kukoc missed 8. This is what I was alluding to. MJ fans have to use smoke and mirrors. Longley? Your argument is the "greatest of all-time" needed Luc Longley?

Luke Longley who was highly productive. Try again idiot :oldlol: Again, who did Jordan defer to when Pippen wasn't around? He didnt have the team Pippen had in 94.


Yeah, Steve Kerr is a "relevant acquisition" to replace the "greatest of all-time."

Yes, Pippen who is one of the greatest 3pt shooters ever. Kukoc who shot near 40% from 3 in the post season. Teams do change, and in '94 they did. Try again.


What relevance does that have? You need to take reading comprehension 101. :oldlol: I specifically cited Milwaukee as an exception so their record the year after Kareem left was irrelevant. Too bad basketballreference.com does not teach reading comprehension.

:oldlol: at this idiot who cannot comprehend a sentence telling me I need to take comprehension ..... Look at Bucks season after Kareem. You also said 'Kareem left and look what happened?' You're just being delusional.


Jordan fans fail to see the significance in them quibbling over details between 98' and 94'. Jordan is the "greatest of all-time."

Again not a Jordan fan. BK is my fav of all time. Pip and Jordans teams were different in 98 and 94. Simple idiot.


You obviously know nothing about Sabonis.

He wasn't the same player he was in Europe, but still highly productive, far from raveling injures.


Look at this. MJ fans using FMVP's in a comparison with Russell and Wilt. The award did not even exist until 1969.

Idiot, we realize that. MJ still leads in points, and I provided the 'formula' and USA article.


The combination thing is debatable. One thing Jordan does not have is the ability to lift horrible teams to contention. If that is part of one's combination than Wilt and Kareem are above him.

No it's not. Jordan had the best combo, the article depicts that.


1) Learn why Wilt's averages suddenly dramatically declined before you talk about his career averages
2) FMVP's didn't even exist in 1969. Why do you think it is named after Russell?
3) Rings are a team achievement. You can't examine rings without looking at

1.) Doesn't matter, Jordan retired two times, came back, and still was productive.

2.) We know that, but he still has the best combo

3.) Yup, thats why Scottie is overrated and a mere sidekick.

[Manute for Ever!]

Luke Longley who was highly productive. Try again idiot :oldlol: Again, who did Jordan defer to when Pippen wasn't around? He didnt have the team Pippen had in 94.


That right there is how we can tell you weren't watching the NBA back then. The popularity of the NBA and the Bulls in particular was at a fever pitch, you couldn't avoid it. My grandmother knows his name is spelt 'Luc' and she doesn't watch sport at all.

[Timmy D for MVP]

My favorite dunk of all time is still when he came down after the steal and Patrick Ewing jumped to block him like way out and they collided and Scottie in mid air pushed him backwards and just postered Pat.

[catch24]

96' and 97' Pippen arguably was superior to 2001-2002 Kobe, but you probably only look at scoring so you would not realize the argument for Pippen. That said, a case can be made for young Kobe too.

LOL @ the generalizing. Of course I only go by scoring. That's why I feel LeBron is the best overall player today. :confusedshrug:


Huge difference. I probably did call you a MJ fan, which you just said you are. :confusedshrug:

I am, but the way you went about it was as if you were labeling me a 'stan'. That's just not the case dude.


How? You are making a serious accusation. From what I have heard this guy got banned. If people believe your lies the logical conclusion is to ban me. Back it up with logic and facts, not vague, weaselly, shamefully dishonest reasons.

Yeah, RR I'm going to dig up information from years ago (on his yt page) of us going back and forth debating about Pippen. Come on dude. I am not lying. I am not the only poster that accused you of being Fatal9/Kb42pah (I don't think you are anyway), all I am saying is you base your opinions and spin facts like they do.


And? Your hero blitz did that numerous times with Kobe and Pippen. I don't pose as objective. Everyone has a degree of bias. Do I use facts to make my case? Guilty as charged. Sue me.

Bruce Blitz is a friend of mine. Good dude. Does he have bias? Sure Is his knowledge of past greats great? Of course.


I do take shots at Jordan yet I have him as the third or fourth greatest player ever. Moreover, a lot of times I am going to extremes in response to extremes. For example, the 1-9 discussion earlier in the thread was to show the hypocrisy of MJ fans. When it comes to MJ they look at context but never do when it comes to Pippen, Kareem, Wilt, or anyone else.

I don't come on here as often, so I wouldn't know. Maybe we just didn't see eye to eye that day. I don't want any enemies over a forum.


Sincerely,

Phil Jackson

Yeah, Jackson is insane. :oldlol: "Solely carried" is a stretch. That never happens. Was he a MVP candidate? Yes. He led the team in scoring, assists, steals, was second in rebounding, ran the offense, and was the defensive anchor. He did all of this in the playoffs except rebounding where he rose to #1 on the team in that category. That is what he did. People can interpret that as they wish. The fact is that year he was #1 in all-NBA voting and #1 in all-Defensive team voting so some schmucks sure thought he was an elite player back then.

Jackson said Pippen "solely" carried the Bulls to the 1994 semi's? Or did he say it was a team effort and Scottie Pippen LED the team?


Of course it was a great team. That is the point. Jordan had a team that could win that many games without him. Prime Kareem didn't. Wilt did but he was up against a superior team in Russell's Celtics and also up against the West/Baylor Lakers. He did not have the best team for a decade. This is partly where "55 wins" comes up. MJ fans love to argue "rings as the man" but you cannot seriously examine that without looking at the teams they were on for winning is a team achievement. A Jordan or Pippen can be the chief reason for a team winning but they cannot do it on their own.

I disagree with Kareem not having great teams around him. TO win a championship every superstar needs a great supporting cast or sidekick, 1B, etc around them.



It was implied and that is serious since KB apparently is a banned poster. I lost track of the MJ fans who think I am Fatal but I wouldn't be surprised if you are one of them.

I don't.


For the record, while I clashed with blitz I liked him. He did present facts. Did he spin them? Yes, but we all do that to a degree. I hope he comes back, especially if LA wins again just to see his reaction.

:cheers:

[Roundball_Rock]

That right there is how we can tell you weren't watching the NBA back then. The popularity of the NBA and the Bulls in particular was at a fever pitch, you couldn't avoid it. My grandmother knows his name is spelt 'Luc' and she doesn't watch sport at all.

:roll: @ Luc being "highly productive." That doesn't even warrant further comment. Thanks for quoting him or I would have missed a good laugh.


My favorite dunk of all time is still when he came down after the steal and Patrick Ewing jumped to block him like way out and they collided and Scottie in mid air pushed him backwards and just postered Pat.

Mine too! The dunk itself was great but what happened after, the context it happened in made it legendary.


LOL @ the generalizing. Of course I only go by scoring. That's why I feel LeBron is the best overall player today.

A lot of people think you need to score 25 ppg to be a dominant player. If you compare peak Pippen to young Kobe, Pippen is superior in every area other than scoring. Of course peak Kobe>peak Pippen but peak Pippen has a good case over young Kobe. BTW, you think I am crazy for saying Pippen was 1b for half of his titles. Some people would say the same thing about saying Kobe was 1b in 2001 and 2002. My view is if there are two top 5 ish players on a team they are 1a/1b. If Lebron and Chris Paul played together Lebron is clearly better but I would view that as 1a/1b since Paul is good enough to be the best player on any team in the league other than Cleveland, the Lakers, and Miami. Others would say they would be #1/sidekick since Lebron is better.


Yeah, RR I'm going to dig up information from years ago (on his yt page) of us going back and forth debating about Pippen. Come on dude. I am not lying. I am not the only poster that accused you of being Fatal9/Kb42pah (I don't think you are anyway), all I am saying is you base your opinions and spin facts like they do.

Yeah--but note that all of them are MJ fans except for Abe. Yeah, I do agree with Fatal and if what you say is true about KB on 94' but does that mean I am them? I wasn't here when KB posted. Fatal has been here when I posted. Other than Jordan and Pippen on what do we agree? Put it this way:

Kshutts and I agree Pippen was a great player
Kshutts and I are Bulls fans
Kshutts and I are Eagles fans

Does that mean we are the same person? The OP is huge Pip fan. He has a YouTube page with numerous Pip videos. Am I him? I use a lot of stats. So does Sir_Charles, who also thinks Pip was great. Am I him? People took two things and made a specious assumption and the number of people who still think that are less now than there were before. In June and July many people thought I was him--although no one did when I was pro-MJ when I first came here. People think I always looked at MJ this way but I was pro-MJ, even created a few pro-MJ threads, when I first got here. Then I met his fans and noticed a trend whenever Pippen came up...


Jackson said Pippen "solely" carried the Bulls to the 1994 semi's? Or did he say it was a team effort and Scottie Pippen LED the team?

"Led us in everything" and that Pip should have been league MVP that year. I agree that no one can truly solely carry a team.


I disagree with Kareem not having great teams around him. TO win a championship every superstar needs a great supporting cast or sidekick, 1B, etc around them.

He did early and then late in his career but he didn't during most of the 70's. He played with 0 all-stars from 1973-79. By the time Magic arrived Kareem was too old to be good enough to win numerous rings as clear cut "man". If Kareem was 22, not 32 when Magic arrived he would have a lot more rings as the man, or if Oscar was young when he came to the Bucks.


Bruce Blitz is a friend of mine. Good dude. Does he have bias? Sure Is his knowledge of past greats great? Of course.


Cool. Has he ever considered coming back?

[catch24]

A lot of people think you need to score 25 ppg to be a dominant player. If you compare peak Pippen to young Kobe, Pippen is superior in every area other than scoring. Of course peak Kobe>peak Pippen but peak Pippen has a good case over young Kobe. BTW, you think I am crazy for saying Pippen was 1b for half of his titles. Some people would say the same thing about saying Kobe was 1b in 2001 and 2002. My view is if there are two top 5 ish players on a team they are 1a/1b. If Lebron and Chris Paul played together Lebron is clearly better but I would view that as 1a/1b since Paul is good enough to be the best player on any team in the league other than Cleveland, the Lakers, and Miami. Others would say they would be #1/sidekick since Lebron is better.

I've become a huge Shaq fan and appreciate what he did for us. That being said, I do believe Kobe in 2001-through, he was 1B. 29ppg on 47% during the 2001 post season? How is that not a 1B? Shaq was the major reason we won though, at least to me.


He did early and then late in his career but he didn't during most of the 70's. He played with 0 all-stars from 1973-79. By the time Magic arrived Kareem was too old to be good enough to win numerous rings as clear cut "man". If Kareem was 22, not 32 when Magic arrived he would have a lot more rings as the man, or if Oscar was young when he came to the Bucks.

Agreed dude. Kareem was a nightmare during the late the mid-late 70s.


Cool. Has he ever considered coming back?

I've asked him before. His reponse was something like "I'll never go back to that sh!thole". lol

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:roll: @ Luc being "highly productive." That doesn't even warrant further comment. Thanks for quoting him or I would have missed a good laugh.

11ppg 6reb 3ast and 1 block isn't productive? :oldlol: Again, who did Jordan have in 1998, when Pippen was injured, to score the ball?

[Roundball_Rock]

I've become a huge Shaq fan and appreciate what he did for us. That being said, I do believe Kobe in 2001-through was 1B. 29ppg on 47% during the 2001 post season? How is that not a 1B? Shaq was the major reason we won though, at least to me.

I agree, although I believe Shaq is underrated by most people because his game wasn't flashy.


I've asked him before. His reponse was something like "I'll never go back to that sh!thole". lol

:oldlol: I remember he once posted a thread calling for me, Fatal, and some other guy to get banned. Tell him I said I want him back. He would be shocked. :D

[catch24]

Will do RR, i'm out dude.

[Roundball_Rock]

Later. :cheers: I am glad we had this talk. I think we misunderstood each other but we don't post with each other often so we never cleared things up until now.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:oldlol:

No one cares, answer the question fake Pippen fan, hiding being an avy. What was the difference in Jordan's 1998 and 1994 teams?

[97 bulls]

i think its an insult when people refer to pip as a "role player", "second fiddle", "robin" etc. you guys act like pip was jordans wife or something. the fact is that pip contributed just as much as jordan and both complemented each other.

scottie pippen showed that he could lead a championship contender. why are you jordan fans so butthurt when people give pip his props? i love jordan as much as anyone and theres no need to degrade pip to prop up jordan. if pip gets a solid sg in 94 like a latrell sprewell, they win the championship. theres no denying that.

[Roundball_Rock]

i think its an insult when people refer to pip as a "role player", "second fiddle", "robin" etc. you guys act like pip was jordans wife or something. the fact is that pip contributed just as much as jordan and both complemented each other.

scottie pippen showed that he could lead a championship contender. why are you jordan fans so butthurt when people give pip his props? i love jordan as much as anyone and theres no need to degrade pip to prop up jordan. if pip gets a solid sg in 94 like a latrell sprewell, they win the championship. theres no denying that.

:bowdown: Amen bro! I was annoyed when a guy at the Pip jersey retirement referred to him as a "sidekick." You could tell everyone in the audience felt it was awkward since it was Scottie's night. I think even MJ had a :wtf: look on his face.

This was a "cheers to Pippen" thread and a gimmick/sock was taking thinly veiled shots at him. Every other sentence included the word "sidekick" or "complementary." He even said Pippen "helped the team more than he hurt them" as if Pippen as if he was a marginal player like Fisher who brings a few assets but several liabilities as well. What a joke. We saw what the team did without Pippen and everyone involved acknowledges his significance. Of course, what do you expect from someone who thinks "Luke" Longley was a "highly productive" player. Longley was "highly productive"; Pippen barely more of a plus than a minus. :roll:

[AirJordan23]

the fact is that pip contributed just as much as jordan

:roll:

[EricForman]

i think its an insult when people refer to pip as a "role player", "second fiddle", "robin" etc. you guys act like pip was jordans wife or something. the fact is that pip contributed just as much as jordan and both complemented each other.

scottie pippen showed that he could lead a championship contender. why are you jordan fans so butthurt when people give pip his props? i love jordan as much as anyone and theres no need to degrade pip to prop up jordan. if pip gets a solid sg in 94 like a latrell sprewell, they win the championship. theres no denying that.


According to your logic

1: leading a team to 55 wins and second round exit for one season is enough to prove that one person can lead championship contenders. If that's the case. So can Vince. and Deron Williams. and maybe 150 some other players in the history of the game.

2: Latrell in 94 was solid? Latrell in 94 was a star. That's like saying "If Jordan gets a solid center like Ewing in 89, they win the title".

3: Pip contributed JUST AS MUCH as Jordan?


You and Roundball (ironic how you refer to everyone who doesnt agree with you as Jordan fanboys yet overlooking the fact you two are Pip fanboys) need to get out of here with this nonsense. If you guys are arguing Pip was a big contributor, almost Jordan's equal, I would disagree still but let it go. But just as much? STFU with that nonsense. Watch the 98 Finals and get back to me.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'll school you one more time. Take notes because these lessons are going to get rare since I usually ignore bad gimmicks.


Again, who did Jordan defer to when Pippen wasn't around?

Kukoc and your "highly productive" Longley. If you watched the Bulls in 98' you would know Longley got hurt after Pippen came back and Kukoc missed about two games before Pippen came back.


Yes, Pippen who is one of the greatest 3pt shooters ever. Kukoc who shot near 40% from 3 in the post season. Teams do change, and in '94 they did. Try again.

Ok. How dumb are you? Your argument is the "greatest of all-time" can be replaced by a rookie Kukoc (11/4/3 on 43%) and a guy who was never more than a 7th man. If that is true then Jordan cannot be the "greatest of all-time."


Look at Bucks season after Kareem.

Educate yourself since common sense will not suffice. Kareem was the best player in the league. He wasn't going to be traded for nothing. This is what the guys he was traded for did in Milwaukee:

18/3/5 (all-star)
16/11/1
9/4/2
7/6/1

They gave up Kareem and a 2/1/1 player. :oldlol: @ acting as if it was the same team. They added an all-star, they added a 16/11 center along with two solid role players. You hype rookie Kukoc and Steve Kerr. This team added two players with that type of production and then an all-star and another all-star caliber player.

Yet despite this they remained inferior to what they were when Kareem played.

I said look at what happened when Kareem got hurt the year before. They went 3-14. That is a 14 win pace; with him they were 30 games better. Not everyone can play on teams that can remain top 5 without him.


Pip and Jordans teams were different in 98 and 94.

Yeah--the 98' one was superior. :oldlol:


He wasn't the same player he was in Europe, but still highly productive, far from raveling injures.

He was a solid role player, not the dominant player he was before his injuries.


MJ still leads in points, and I provided the 'formula' and USA article.

That is because you know nothing about Wilt's career. Wilt was a far better scorer.


No it's not. Jordan had the best combo, the article depicts that.

You are to dense to understand how formulas work. I've tried to explain it to you about half a dozen times so there is no point trying to do so again.


1.) Doesn't matter, Jordan retired two times, came back, and still was productive.

1) AKA you are ignorant and not interested in correcting that. How can you talk about basketball history when you refuse to learn about it? Learn about Wilt's career and you will realize why your comment is idiotic.


2.) We know that, but he still has the best combo

That is debatable and even that does not equate him to being a better player. Having the better career does not automatically mean a player is better.


3.) Yup, thats why Scottie is overrated and a mere sidekick.

Scottie leading the 94' Bulls without Jordan (57 wins in 93'): 51-21 (71%)
Michael leading the 98' Bulls without Pippen (69 wins in 97'): 24-11 (69%)

And the 98' team was superior. The only legit excuse MJ fans have for this is arguing 94' Pippen>98' Jordan but Jordan fans would probably argue peak Pippen<Wizards Jordan.

:oldlol: @ Jordan zealots attacking 97 bulls and me as Pippen fans. We are but we are Bulls fans. We didn't jump off the bandwagon like you guys. Who do you guys root for now? Boston, Cleveland, or Los Angeles?


Watch the 98 Finals and get back to me.

I watched some of it the other day. :bowdown: @ Scottie shutting down the #1 offense in the game.


If you guys are arguing Pip was a big contributor, almost Jordan's equal, I would disagree still but let it go. But just as much?

Does it really matter if you split their "credit" 40-40 or 45-35? One thing is for sure, the Bulls replaced Pippen with Kukoc for the first half of 98' and declined by a 13 win pace. Imagine if they replaced him with a D-Leaguer who was out the NBA for the previous two seasons...In your opinion, if that happened would the Bulls reach 45 wins? It is hard to say. I think they probably could get to 40, though.

Pippen was replaced by a legit NBA starter when he left Portland. What happened? A team that had a top 5 winning percentage when Pippen played (below 0.500 without the legend there--even at 37 Pippen was impacting the W-L column significantly by doing things that don't show up in the ppg column like making his teammates better) tumbled to 41-41 the next season.


2: Latrell in 94 was solid? Latrell in 94 was a star. That's like saying "If Jordan gets a solid center like Ewing in 89, they win the title".

They were a top 5 team with a D-League level scrub replacing the "greatest of all-time." Forget Sprewell. Just find a legit NBA starter to replace him and that team wins it all. Too bad MJ screwed the team by retiring at the last minute (less than a month before the season) so they didn't have time to find a decent replacement.

:roll: at comparing Pippen to Vince Carter and Deron. The lengths Jordan fans go to diminish Pippen is hilarious. I Jordan was what they say he is (the "clear GOAT") this was not be necessary. His record would suffice.

Jordan arguably was the least valuable of ANY GOAT candidate. MJ fans amusingly play into this but their hatred of Pippen blinds them to seeing the logical implications of their arguments. I agree Pippen was a run-of-the-mill all-star! Pippen=Joe Johnson. But that team was STACKED. Practically everyone on that team was all-star level! The team was so great that even with a borderline top 10-15 player "leading" them they still remained a top 5 team. That shows Jordan's role in the team winning is greatly exaggerated. The team was just so good, from man 3-12 and sort of man #2 that they could replace him with a scrub and still remain a top 5 team. The team was so stacked that even Pippen could keep them a top 5 team. If Pippen could do that then Chris Bosh would lead that team to 67-15! :bowdown:

[Alhazred]

Your argument is the "greatest of all-time" can be replaced by a rookie Kukoc (11/4/3 on 43%) and a guy who was never more than a 7th man. If that is true then Jordan cannot be the "greatest of all-time."

So does that mean Wilt Chamberlain can't be considered the greatest, either? The Sixers replaced him with Darrall Imhoff in 1969 and went 55-27 while he averaged 9.2 points and 9.7 rebounds a game. That isn't much better than what Kukoc and Kerr did in 94.

I'm cool with you just trying to give Pippen respect, but you go way overboard with your criticism of Jordan.

[OldSchoolBBall]

the fact is that pip contributed just as much as jordan


:oldlol:

Wow... :oldlol:

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jordan arguably was the least valuable of ANY GOAT candidate.

It's hysterical that you actually believe this.

[EricForman]

you gotta love how Jordan haters, oops I mean Pip fans, hold on to that 94 season and keep insisting that the 94 Bulls were one call away from winning it all. I've never seen fans of a team that went out in the SECOND ROUND make such a claim like it was a sure thing.

Imagine Chris Paul fans claiming if this play had gone their way in 2008 playoffs they would have won it all (they lost in second round to Spurs)

imagine if Atlanta Hawks fans claiming that had Steve Smith hit more threes, they would have won it all in 99 (they lost to Knicks in second round)

I mean come on. They lost in the second round. Pip led the team to a second round exit. And these idiots like Roundball and Fatal are acting like it was some uncanny achievement and the only reason they didn't win it all was beacuse they were screwed. SECOND ROUND EXIT.

They keep mentioning how they won only "two less games" without Jordan as if regular season win numbers is the end-all be all. The difference between 93 Bulls and 94 Bulls is champions and second round exit. Not just two wins.

These idiots and their agendas are hilarious.

[EricForman]

Pippen was replaced by a legit NBA starter when he left Portland. What happened? A team that had a top 5 winning percentage when Pippen played (below 0.500 without the legend there--even at 37 Pippen was impacting the W-L column significantly by doing things that don't show up in the ppg column like making his teammates better) tumbled to 41-41 the next season.

Funny how you make it sound like the Blazers fell off when Pip left, when they fell off after the blown 15 point lead in 2000 (which Pip was a part of) because they never could recover emotionally or psychologically after that. Pip played 2-3 more years with the Blazers after 2000 when they were a .500 team. But you make it sound like the Blazers dropped off only because Pip left. Do you really believe this crap you're spewing?

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I watched some of it the other day. @ Scottie shutting down the #1 offense in the game.[QUOTE]

98 Pip with the bad back "shut down" the Jazz? :oldlol:

wow you're just trolling. im done.

[Roundball_Rock]

Funny how you make it sound like the Blazers fell off when Pip left, when they fell off after the blown 15 point lead in 2000 (which Pip was a part of) because they never could recover emotionally or psychologically after that. Pip played 2-3 more years with the Blazers after 2000 when they were a .500 team. But you make it sound like the Blazers dropped off only because Pip left. Do you really believe this crap you're spewing?

They were a top 5 team (pace over 82 games) when he played in 2002 and 2003. They were only sub .500 when he was hurt, but of course a MJ fan wouldn't know this.

2002: on pace for 52 wins with him (5th in the league), 37 wins without him (18th in the league)
2003: on pace for 53 wins with him (4th in the NBA), 39 wins without him (19th in the NBA)

Unfortunately for him, all the superior teams were in the West. If his Portland teams were in the East, like Jordan's team during these two seasons was, they would have been the #1 seed in both years (and obviously in 2000) and probably made the NBA finals.


So does that mean Wilt Chamberlain can't be considered the greatest, either? The Sixers replaced him with Darrall Imhoff in 1969 and went 55-27 while he averaged 9.2 points and 9.7 rebounds a game. That isn't much better than what Kukoc and Kerr did in 94.

Using his argument, yes. I don't believe rookie Kukoc+Kerr=Jordan.


hold on to that 94 season and keep insisting that the 94 Bulls were one call away from winning it all.

Who said that? Thanks in advance.


The difference between 93 Bulls and 94 Bulls is champions and second round exit.

That is the point. :applause: What was the difference between Wilt leaving LA? Bird getting hurt near his prime in 89'? Russell retiring? Magic retiring? Shaq leaving Orlando? Shaq leaving Los Angeles?


98 Pip with the bad back "shut down" the Jazz?

According to Jerry Sloan, Phil Jackson, Sports Illustrated, Doug Collins, Karl Malone, the New York Times, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Miami Herald, just to name a few. Let me guess: they were all in the tank for Kobe as far back as 1998 and out to diminish Jordan because giving Pip proper credit and elevating him to around 20th all-time magically diminishes Jordan from majority #1 to majority #1? It is obvious you did not watch that series but only looked up the boxscore. :oldlol: @ you probably thinking Pippen did nothing in Game 3 because he scored only 10 points.


It's hysterical that you actually believe this.

It is arguable.

Russell: obviously. He shows up, they become champs. He leaves, they go from champs to not even making the playoffs
Shaq: Orlando and LA collapse without him. Orlando went down 1-3 in the first round and LA missed the playoffs.
Magic: LA collapsed, down to 42-40 without him after making the finals with him. Worthy was hurt for part of the year, but the team was .500 with or without him.
Bird: Boston collapsed, down from 57 wins and the ECF to 42-40 even with McHale, Parish, Reggie Lewis (Bird's replacement), Johnson, and Danny Ainge. Bird was replaced by Reggie Lewis and the team did nothing. Jordan was replaced by a scrub and the team remained a top 5 team.
Kareem: Milwaukee traded him and a 12th man for an all-star, a 16/11 center, and two rookie Kukoc/Kerr type role players and still did worse. Kareem>four players, despite that group including an all-star, a 16/11 center and two solid role players. Jordan--according to Jordan fans--was worth barely more as rookie Kukoc (11/4/3) and Steve Kerr. I disagree but that is the argument MJ fans make. If you added a 16/11 center then those additions, even with some minor subtractions>Jordan according to MJ fans? So how exactly does MJ have more impact on his teams than, say, Kareem?

Some of these teams had injuries--but so did the 94' Bulls so that excuse does not fly.

Surely you will bring up "6 rings as a man." However, according to MJ fans themselves his team was flat out STACKED! Of course he was going to win rings. They won 55 despite injuries and remained a top 5 team without him. He won 6 rings with that kind of team. From what MJ fans say about how great that team was you would think any top 20 great could win with it--even that Joe Johnson-type Pippen had them in the top 5. What would a KG do with it, let alone a Kareem?



wow you're just trolling. im done.

:roll: at the self-ownage. I am trolling? No, you don't know when what happened in Portland or what happened in the 98' finals. Either you are trolling or ignorant on these things. Which is it?

[Timmy D for MVP]

According to your logic

1: leading a team to 55 wins and second round exit for one season is enough to prove that one person can lead championship contenders. If that's the case. So can Vince. and Deron Williams. and maybe 150 some other players in the history of the game.

2: Latrell in 94 was solid? Latrell in 94 was a star. That's like saying "If Jordan gets a solid center like Ewing in 89, they win the title".

3: Pip contributed JUST AS MUCH as Jordan?


You and Roundball (ironic how you refer to everyone who doesnt agree with you as Jordan fanboys yet overlooking the fact you two are Pip fanboys) need to get out of here with this nonsense. If you guys are arguing Pip was a big contributor, almost Jordan's equal, I would disagree still but let it go. But just as much? STFU with that nonsense. Watch the 98 Finals and get back to me.

A great meter of how good someone is is to listen to their peers. Especially if those peers aren't bullsh!ters. MJ himself said on some nights it was like playing with his twin. That's pretty high praise.

To say Pip was not a huge contributor is ridiculous. And yes on some days they were equal, the difference is that Jordan did it night in and night out while Pip only reached that level with fair regularity.

[Roundball_Rock]

A great meter of how good someone is is to listen to their peers. Especially if those peers aren't bullsh!ters. MJ himself said on some nights it was like playing with his twin. That's pretty high praise.

To say Pip was not a huge contributor is ridiculous. And yes on some days they were equal, the difference is that Jordan did it night in and night out while Pip only reached that level with fair regularity.

:applause:


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

Here is who was on that team (1996--they are talking about peak Pippen):

Anfernee Hardaway, Grant Hill, Karl Malone, Reggie Miller, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Mitch Richmond, David Robinson, Glenn Robinson and John Stockton.

Yet these MJ historical revisionists act as if Pippen was a glorified Joe Johnson type. :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'll school you one more time. Take notes because these lessons are going to get rare since I usually ignore bad gimmicks.

Coming from the idiot hiding behind a Pipp Avy. Oh the irony! :oldlol:


Kukoc and your "highly productive" Longley. If you watched the Bulls in 98' you would know Longley got hurt after Pippen came back and Kukoc missed about two games before Pippen came back.

:oldlol: at those guys who, according to you, were Jordan's scoring help. You're a joke. You started watching the NBA in the 2000's, admit it.


Ok. How dumb are you? Your argument is the "greatest of all-time" can be replaced by a rookie Kukoc (11/4/3 on 43%) and a guy who was never more than a 7th man. If that is true then Jordan cannot be the "greatest of all-time."

A rookie Kukoc who played over seas a handful of seasons and was by far a top 15-20 player of all time there. A guy who shot 40% from 3 during the playoffs. Yeah, I'm the idiot. Seriously, stop thinking about a rebuttal and think before you type.


Educate yourself since common sense will not suffice. Kareem was the best player in the league. He wasn't going to be traded for nothing. This is what the guys he was traded for did in Milwaukee:

This goes to show you have no idea what you're talking about, how typical of you! You first pasted the Bucks record after he was traded, I provided evidence debunking this (injuries etc), you spin the entire subject around. Do you have schizophrenia?


Yeah--the 98' one was superior.

:oldlol: at zero allstars being better than 3 allstars


That is because you know nothing about Wilt's career. Wilt was a far better scorer.

This coming from someone who cites what Wilt's teams did after his departure, yet ironically, totally taking what happened out of context (factoring injuries and new teammates) What was the Sixers record after Wilt went to the Lakers? "The so called GOAT didn't effect teams, did he?" Just using your logic!





1) AKA you are ignorant and not interested in correcting that. How can you talk about basketball history when you refuse to learn about it? Learn about Wilt's career and you will realize why your comment is idiotic.

AKA you're an idiot and fake basketball knowledge. I'm not the only one exposing your clown ass. Get a job, you're here everyday everyhour. I find it funny that you continue to say "I will not ruin this thread going back and forth with trolls" yet you continue responding to me. Are you that addicted to a basketball forum? :roll:. As I said, get your priorities in order.


And the 98' team was superior. The only legit excuse MJ fans have for this is arguing 94' Pippen>98' Jordan but Jordan fans would probably argue peak Pippen<Wizards Jordan.

No, they were not, unless you think Pippen having back problems, Rodman at the end of his career, Luc Longley and an older team in general better. They had no one productive in comparison to 1994. Stop calling other people trolls and gimmicks cause they dont agree with you. You're a retard, no one agrees with you, what don't you understand?

[Alhazred]

That is the point. What was the difference between Wilt leaving LA? Bird getting hurt near his prime in 89'? Russell retiring? Magic retiring? Shaq leaving Orlando? Shaq leaving Los Angeles?

What about Wilt leaving Philly? Or Bird retiring in 92? Or Shaq leaving Phoenix?

[Roundball_Rock]

What about Wilt leaving Philly? Or Bird retiring in 92? Or Shaq leaving Phoenix?

Come on. You are better than that. 36 year old Shaq? 34 or 35 with a bad back Bird? Do you think prime Shaq could leave PHX and the team not suffer immensely? Look at Orlando and LA after he left.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Come on. You are better than that. 36 year old Shaq? 34 or 35 with a bad back Bird? Do you think prime Shaq could leave PHX and the team not suffer immensely? Look at Orlando and LA after he left.

:oldlol: at him using context/perspective when he wants to!

Weren't Penny and the Laker team riddled with injuries?

[Alhazred]

Come on. You are better than that. 36 year old Shaq? 34 or 35 with a bad back Bird? Do you think prime Shaq could leave PHX and the team not suffer immensely? Look at Orlando and LA after he left.

Yeah and look at the Bulls after Jordan left in 98. 62 wins and a championship to being worse than the Clippers the year after he's gone. Of course, we all know Phil, Pippen and Rodman leaving were part of the downfall as well, but what about the other guys we've mentioned?

Shaq left LA a long with Jackson, Malone and GP plus Orlando suffered due to Penny's injuries.

The 89 Celtics had a coaching turnover plus their lineup was old and succumbing to injuries. That was around the time that McHale's feet began to deteriorate. Parish and DJ were in their mid thirties and Ainge missed 37 games.

Please quit taking things out of context to suit your agenda.

[chitownsfinest]

Lakers the year after Magic- Had James Worthy miss 28 games, Perkins miss 19, and Divac miss 44 games as well after having a really healthy season the year prior. Obviously that will mean 15 less games won and you also have to factor Worthy becoming less productive due to an injury he suffered in the Chicago series.

Bird- The team did win 15 less the season he got injured, but you have to factor in that Pippen was a batter player then McHale and had more of an impact, so Bulls had a more capable leader. The Bulls also had a better coaching staff who were great at making adjustments and had a great offensive system that doesn't depend on one player. Bulls were also coming off a three-peat while the Celts weren't the powerhouse they once were, faltering to the Pistpns in 6.

Shaq (twice)
First time- Nick Anderson and Scott both missed a combined 35 games and regressed as players. Penny missed 23 games and Grant missed 15 games as well. When 4 of your most imprtant players are banged and/or regressing, you will have a tough time replicating the previous years success. Also, Pippen in 94>Penny in 97. Not the same situation as Chicago's in 94. Don't have to mention coaching either.

Second time- Completely new team change meaning they will have to take a long time to play well together. Imprtant role player from the title years in Fox and Fisher left, and GP and Malone left as well. Arguably the GOAT coach was gone as well meaning they had to adjust to a new offensive scheme. Also factor in Kobe and Odom missing a combined 34 games, as well Kobe going through well documented personal and injury problems which effected his play, and your team will have a hard time winning games. This one is sort of a legit claim and Shaq had a huge impact on the regression as well, but you have to look at the context. Also, Pippen in 94>Kobe in 05.

Wilt- Philly won 55 the season after he left. In LA, LA won 13 less games because of him leaving and also Jerry West missed 51 games. That will all combine to cause you to lose 13 less.

KAJ- His team finished with the same record after he left but it is a bit unfair to do this since KAJ missed 17 games the year prior where his team went 3-14 I believe, meaning his team was on pace for 44 win with him in the lineup. His team won 38 the year after, so a 6 game regression isn't that huge actually. You also have to look at the much superior coaching of the Bulls and that Pippen>>the Buck's second best player. Also, the Bucks were a average playoff team with a healthy KAJ the year prior while the Bulls were a championship team that had won three years in a row. Again it is not fair to compare them.

Russell- Legit claim as the C's were a championship team the year prior, like Chicago but they lost two impact players in Sam Jones and Russell without getting legit replacements, which will mean a lot less games won. Coaching is about equal and Pippen in 94>Hondo in 1970. you also have to factor in the C's would become a serious contenders again a few years later. Maybe they needed more time to adjust to Russell's loss then Chicago did to Jordan's?

My point is that you can't base the impact of a player on one season afterward. You have to look at many other factors. Also, Chicago in 93 outscored teams by twice as much as they outscored teams in 94. This shows the two win difference was bigger then it looks. I'm not trying to discount what Pippen did that yr either. Leading the Bulls to 55 games without your go-to-guy for the last 9 seasons was incredible considering how everyone was counting them out (SI had them finishing at like 5 or 6). The team didn't have the greatest talent either but still came close to winning it all.

[Disaprine]

Part I
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObgS6uUVjQ)

and

Part II
Scottie Pippen: Power and Grace Part II (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyzx6ISXQGw)
wow :applause:

[chitownsfinest]

BTW great work on the videos. Also loved the Jordan/Pippen: The Truth video made by the same guy who made these.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Lakers the year after Magic- Had James Worthy miss 28 games, Perkins miss 19, and Divac miss 44 games as well after having a really healthy season the year prior. Obviously that will mean 15 less games won and you also have to factor Worthy becoming less productive due to an injury he suffered in the Chicago series.

Bird- The team did win 15 less the season he got injured, but you have to factor in that Pippen was a batter player then McHale and had more of an impact, so Bulls had a more capable leader. The Bulls also had a better coaching staff who were great at making adjustments and had a great offensive system that doesn't depend on one player. Bulls were also coming off a three-peat while the Celts weren't the powerhouse they once were, faltering to the Pistpns in 6.

Shaq (twice)
First time- Nick Anderson and Scott both missed a combined 35 games and regressed as players. Penny missed 23 games and Grant missed 15 games as well. When 4 of your most imprtant players are banged and/or regressing, you will have a tough time replicating the previous years success. Also, Pippen in 94>Penny in 97. Not the same situation as Chicago's in 94. Don't have to mention coaching either.

Second time- Completely new team change meaning they will have to take a long time to play well together. Imprtant role player from the title years in Fox and Fisher left, and GP and Malone left as well. Arguably the GOAT coach was gone as well meaning they had to adjust to a new offensive scheme. Also factor in Kobe and Odom missing a combined 34 games, as well Kobe going through well documented personal and injury problems which effected his play, and your team will have a hard time winning games. This one is sort of a legit claim and Shaq had a huge impact on the regression as well, but you have to look at the context. Also, Pippen in 94>Kobe in 05.

Wilt- Philly won 55 the season after he left. In LA, LA won 13 less games because of him leaving and also Jerry West missed 51 games. That will all combine to cause you to lose 13 less.

KAJ- His team finished with the same record after he left but it is a bit unfair to do this since KAJ missed 17 games the year prior where his team went 3-14 I believe, meaning his team was on pace for 44 win with him in the lineup. His team won 38 the year after, so a 6 game regression isn't that huge actually. You also have to look at the much superior coaching of the Bulls and that Pippen>>the Buck's second best player. Also, the Bucks were a average playoff team with a healthy KAJ the year prior while the Bulls were a championship team that had won three years in a row. Again it is not fair to compare them.

Russell- Legit claim as the C's were a championship team the year prior, like Chicago but they lost two impact players in Sam Jones and Russell without getting legit replacements, which will mean a lot less games won. Coaching is about equal and Pippen in 94>Hondo in 1970. you also have to factor in the C's would become a serious contenders again a few years later. Maybe they needed more time to adjust to Russell's loss then Chicago did to Jordan's?

My point is that you can't base the impact of a player on one season afterward. You have to look at many other factors. Also, Chicago in 93 outscored teams by twice as much as they outscored teams in 94. This shows the two win difference was bigger then it looks.

:bowdown:

[guy]

We should have a Scottie Pippen forum on here.

[EricForman]

We should have a Scottie Pippen forum on here.


only because idiots like roundball keep insisting that Pip was basically as valuable as Jordan and anyone who doesnt believe so are just "Jordan ******gers".

This clown argues that Pip shut down the Jazz in 98, and once claimed the Bulls would have been more sucessful in the 90s had they gone ahead with this rumored trade of Jordan for a few draft picks in the late 80s (he goes on with this what if scenario that leads the picks to become Kevin Johnson, Rik Smits, and Mitch Richmond). He basically thinks Pip would have won 7 or more rings in the 90s had the Bulls gotten rid of Jordan in the late 80s and going with a core of Pip/Mitch Rich/KJ/Rik Smits. That lineup is nice. But seven or more rings? Only an idiot like him could believe that.

[Roundball_Rock]

Lakers the year after Magic- Had James Worthy miss 28 games, Perkins miss 19, and Divac miss 44 games as well after having a really healthy season the year prior. Obviously that will mean 15 less games won and you also have to factor Worthy becoming less productive due to an injury he suffered in the Chicago series.

Bird- The team did win 15 less the season he got injured, but you have to factor in that Pippen was a batter player then McHale and had more of an impact, so Bulls had a more capable leader. The Bulls also had a better coaching staff who were great at making adjustments and had a great offensive system that doesn't depend on one player. Bulls were also coming off a three-peat while the Celts weren't the powerhouse they once were, faltering to the Pistpns in 6.

Shaq (twice)
First time- Nick Anderson and Scott both missed a combined 35 games and regressed as players. Penny missed 23 games and Grant missed 15 games as well. When 4 of your most imprtant players are banged and/or regressing, you will have a tough time replicating the previous years success. Also, Pippen in 94>Penny in 97. Not the same situation as Chicago's in 94. Don't have to mention coaching either.

Second time- Completely new team change meaning they will have to take a long time to play well together. Imprtant role player from the title years in Fox and Fisher left, and GP and Malone left as well. Arguably the GOAT coach was gone as well meaning they had to adjust to a new offensive scheme. Also factor in Kobe and Odom missing a combined 34 games, as well Kobe going through well documented personal and injury problems which effected his play, and your team will have a hard time winning games. This one is sort of a legit claim and Shaq had a huge impact on the regression as well, but you have to look at the context. Also, Pippen in 94>Kobe in 05.

Wilt- Philly won 55 the season after he left. In LA, LA won 13 less games because of him leaving and also Jerry West missed 51 games. That will all combine to cause you to lose 13 less.

KAJ- His team finished with the same record after he left but it is a bit unfair to do this since KAJ missed 17 games the year prior where his team went 3-14 I believe, meaning his team was on pace for 44 win with him in the lineup. His team won 38 the year after, so a 6 game regression isn't that huge actually. You also have to look at the much superior coaching of the Bulls and that Pippen>>the Buck's second best player. Also, the Bucks were a average playoff team with a healthy KAJ the year prior while the Bulls were a championship team that had won three years in a row. Again it is not fair to compare them.

Russell- Legit claim as the C's were a championship team the year prior, like Chicago but they lost two impact players in Sam Jones and Russell without getting legit replacements, which will mean a lot less games won. Coaching is about equal and Pippen in 94>Hondo in 1970. you also have to factor in the C's would become a serious contenders again a few years later. Maybe they needed more time to adjust to Russell's loss then Chicago did to Jordan's?

My point is that you can't base the impact of a player on one season afterward. You have to look at many other factors. Also, Chicago in 93 outscored teams by twice as much as they outscored teams in 94. This shows the two win difference was bigger then it looks. I'm not trying to discount what Pippen did that yr either. Leading the Bulls to 55 games without your go-to-guy for the last 9 seasons was incredible considering how everyone was counting them out (SI had them finishing at like 5 or 6). The team didn't have the greatest talent either but still came close to winning it all.

:applause:

I noticed you said Pippen>Havelick (peak Pip vs. peak Hondo), Pippen>McHale, Pippen>Penny, Pippen>05' Kobe. If you accept that then 55 wins (that team also had injuries...) makes sense. The problem arises with what some MJ fans claim: Pippen was basically what Joe Johnson is today. That makes no sense. That leaves two options: either the entire team was completely stacked or Jordan was easily replaceable.

The offense suffered greatly without MJ but the defense in 94' was better than in 93'.



KAJ- His team finished with the same record after he left but it is a bit unfair to do this since KAJ missed 17 games the year prior where his team went 3-14 I believe, meaning his team was on pace for 44 win with him in the lineup. His team won 38 the year after, so a 6 game regression isn't that huge actually. You also have to look at the much superior coaching of the Bulls and that Pippen>>the Buck's second best player. Also, the Bucks were a average playoff team with a healthy KAJ the year prior while the Bulls were a championship team that had won three years in a row. Again it is not fair to compare them.


You also have to factor the trade. The Bucks got one all-star, a 16/11 center and two decent role players for Kareem.


Please quit taking things out of context to suit your agenda.

:applause: Back to square one. This was my original point! MJ fans want context when convenient for MJ--but never for anyone else. So we now all agree context matters? No more stupidity like "Pippen could never win if he never played with MJ" even though he came within 2 minutes of a ring at age 34 well past his prime in 2000 and had a legit shot in 94' if it weren't for Hue Hollins. How about non-Bulls. So we are done with nonsense such as "Jordan has more rings as the man than (insert name of any great not named Russell here) so he is better" since Kareem and Wilt did not have the same favorable situations to win 6 "rings as a man" like Jordan. MJ may indeed be the GOAT but use a legit argument that takes into account context.


He basically thinks Pip would have won 7 or more rings in the 90s had the Bulls gotten rid of Jordan in the late 80s and going with a core of Pip/Mitch Rich/KJ/Rik Smits. That lineup is nice.

They would certainly be favored practically every year. Which teams would be favored over them in a given year? Provide specific years and specific teams. Not a generic "Knicks." Say 93' Knicks. Thanks in advance. I look forward to hearing how a team with the best SF, second or third best SG, second or third best PG of the decade along with two all-star caliber big men would be trounced each year.


This clown argues that Pip shut down the Jazz in 98

Watch the finals.


only because idiots like roundball keep insisting that Pip was basically as valuable as Jordan

So do Ron Harper, Bil Cartwright, Tex Winter, a Pulitzer Prize winning author of a book on MJ (meaning he had access to numerous inside sources, unlike you), BJ Armstrong, and implicitly Sports Illustrated, Bob Ryan, and 96' all-NBA voters to name a few. The implication comes from saying Pippen is the second-best player in the league that inherently means a 1a/1b relationship.

[magnax1]

only because idiots like roundball keep insisting that Pip was basically as valuable as Jordan and anyone who doesnt believe so are just "Jordan ******gers".

This clown argues that Pip shut down the Jazz in 98, and once claimed the Bulls would have been more sucessful in the 90s had they gone ahead with this rumored trade of Jordan for a few draft picks in the late 80s (he goes on with this what if scenario that leads the picks to become Kevin Johnson, Rik Smits, and Mitch Richmond). He basically thinks Pip would have won 7 or more rings in the 90s had the Bulls gotten rid of Jordan in the late 80s and going with a core of Pip/Mitch Rich/KJ/Rik Smits. That lineup is nice. But seven or more rings? Only an idiot like him could believe that.
He shut down the Jazz? If Jordan hadn't hit that shot, there is no way they lose that series. Really the biggest thing that changed that series was the refs. They killed any sort of momentum the Jazz could pull together. Pippen played about his normal regular season play.
And that teams isn't any more talented then the 93 Suns.
Sounds very fatal9/roundballrockish.

[Roundball_Rock]

1998 NBA finals

Since most MJ fans here evidently didn't watch it here is what those who did said at the time:


At Every Turn, Jazz Finds Pippen; The Bulls' Consummate Defender Picks Apart the Pick-and-Roll
By MIKE WISE
Published: June 9, 1998


Pippen, a roving linebacker in high-tops, is using the finals to reaffirm his position as the game's most complete and chaos-inspiring defensive player. On Sunday night, he was largely responsible for the lowest scoring total in National Basketball Association history since the advent of the shot clock, when the Chicago Bulls pulverized the Jazz, 96-54, to take a two-games-to-one lead in the four-of-seven-game series.

Pippen roamed the floor, spreading his 6-foot-7-inch angular body from player to player on the Jazz roster. Twenty-six Utah turnovers and an unprecedented finals rout later, everyone wanted to know how one player could cause such disruption.

After the Jazz practiced at the United Center today, Sloan was asked whether Pippen was guilty of defending illegally -- guarding the ball instead of his man -- a violation punishable by a technical foul after a warning. Sloan, perhaps Chicago's greatest defender before this current group of Bulls made their mark, would not take the bait.

''I didn't hear them call it, so I guess there was no illegal defense,'' he said. ''I think floater is the right word. Pippen is floating, and a lot of people didn't recognize it. We didn't adjust to it. It's not like we had time to stop the game and practice on it for a while.''

Pippen was also the subject of a diatribe by Larry Bird, the Indiana Pacers' coach, after the first two games of the Eastern Conference finals. Bird wanted to know why Pippen was allowed to bump and push a smaller, less-athletic player like Pacers point guard Mark Jackson and not get called for fouls.


He has obliterated the criticism he once received for not being physical enough. This post-season alone, he shut down Charlotte's Glen Rice in the second round and discombobulated the Pacers' offense in the Eastern Conference finals.

Whereas everyone remembers Steve Kerr's game-winning shot in Game 6 of last season's finals against the Jazz, few recall what happened moments later. Pippen deflected the inbounds pass on the other end to Toni Kukoc, who dunked to seal the victory and Chicago's fifth title.

''He could be the best defensive player playing,'' Malone said.




Jazz guard Jeff Hornacek said: ''They're pushing the pick-and-roll. We handled it in Game 1 when John was driving to the baseline and getting the shot off right then. Now, with Pippen running all over the place, they can afford to push John, and the big guy can step out on John a little more and get a trap on him. And Pippen can go fill the passing lanes. He's roaming out there.

''We have to figure out a way to get around that. If we do that, we'll be able to execute our offense.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/09/sports/nba-finals-every-turn-jazz-finds-pippen-bulls-consummate-defender-picks-apart.html?pagewanted=1


With forward Scottie Pippen playing the passing lanes to help force 26 Jazz turnovers and the Bulls collectively using their superior speed and reach to harass the Jazz into shooting a collective 30 percent, Chicago took a 2-1 lead in the best-of-seven series with a ...

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-665954.html


Taking charge: Pippen draws raves from all around for his stellar defense


In holding their opposition to 54 points Sunday, several members of the Bulls played very well defensively, but Pippen was the key, playing a sort of free-safety role and stopping the Jazz from getting into their offense, much less scoring.

Pippen got 2 of the Bulls' 4 steals, had 1 blocked shot and got four charging calls, twice stepping in on Karl Malone as he swung into the lane and toward the basket. His defensive effort allowed others, like Toni Kukoc, to come up with steals, and the Bulls had 13 pilfers and 6 blocked shots while holding the Jazz to 30 percent shooting and no more than 17 points in any quarter.

"I can't conjure anyone playing defense like Pippen,'' said Dr. Jack Ramsay, the former Portland Trail Blazers coach and current NBA broadcast analyst.

"Scottie has been the key to this team the last two or three years,'' said Bulls coach Phil Jackson. "This guy has become something that is in another dimension. I don't know if there is a better defensive player in understanding, the visualization, concepts of what the opponent's offense is about.

"He has been a one-man wrecking crew. He just loves to take opponents apart with his defense. He is a great offensive player, but defense is his hallmark."


"Scottie is very athletic,'' Malone said. "He can recover quickly. He could be the best defensive player playing."

"The great thing about Scottie is he can do so many things,'' teammate Luc Longley said. "We can put him on the ball, or have him guard a specific guy, or you could put him on a (Greg) Foster or (Greg) Ostertag and have him roam. He is like the boy at the dike: he can stick his thumb in wherever he was needed. Last night, he seemed to be everywhere."

There were two key elements to Pippen's defensive performance Sunday. One was the charge calls he got, standing in the way of Malone twice, Bryon Russell once and Shandon Anderson once, getting position in time to impress the referees.

He impressed Utah coach Jerry Sloan, too. "He may be the only guy in basketball who gets offensive foul calls,'' he said. "I didn't know they still called those."

http://www.dailyherald.com/special/bulls98/game4/16rest.htm


After all, no team ever played better, more strangulating
defense than the Bulls did on the Jazz. That was the closest thing basketball has to a shutout. There wasn't a Jazz player Pippen didn't guard at some point. He was the free safety. Roaming. Rotating. Helping. Recovering.

The Jazz just didn't look like itself. Utah doesn't look like it really believes it can win. And a large measure of this is Pippen. It has neither antidote nor answer for him. He pressures the ball at midcourt, then rejects a 7-foot-2 center.

All that worked for the Jazz this year suddenly doesn't work. Pippen has taken it away and Utah appears to have no Plan B. Jazz personnel say they have options off their options, but where are they? Which brings us to an interesting question: Who is the second-best player in the NBA?

The question isn't whom would you take to build a franchise around. The question is who is, in all-around ability, second only to you-know-who?

Shaquille O'Neal? Possibly.

Karl Malone? His strange passivity and fade in these finals notwithstanding. Possibly.

Pippen? No worse than fourth.

And if he had his perimeter shot, he'd be second.

Every year the balloters for defensive player of the year go by the numbers and select either the league leader in blocked shots or the league leader in steals. But you ask a coach. You ask anyone who sees a hundred games a year. And Pippen is almost always their choice.

Every time we fall to thinking he's soft, he blasts to the hole. Or he runs half the length of the court to overhaul Malone, gets in front of him and takes the charge. He's also adept at flopping, by the by.

Michael Jordan said yesterday: ``It's like playing with my twin brother in some respects.''


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/UTAH+IN+PIPPEN%27S+POCKET%3B+CHICAGO+DEFENDER%27S+ PRESENCE+CONSIDERABLE+IN+...-a083826695

The reference to "if he had his shot" in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is Pippen was not the same in 98' as he was in 94'-97' due to injuries. So if he had Pippen 2nd-4th best in the game in 98' that means he likely had him clear #2 in prior years.


There is more out there but non-MJ fans reading this should get the point. Game 3 was the showcase game for his defense against the Jazz and it illustrated what he did to them in 3 of the 4 Chicago wins. They aren't talking about one great game; they are talking about what he had done in the series. Of course, MJ fans probably went to bballreference and saw he scored 10 points in Game 3 and figured he did nothing. :oldlol:


And that teams isn't any more talented then the 93 Suns.

Yeah, because Mitch Richmond isn't a huge upgrade over Dan Majerle and Rik Smits over Oliver Miller. I've asked numerous people the same question: who beats those teams and in when? Give specific teams and specific years. Thanks in advance.


He shut down the Jazz? If Jordan hadn't hit that shot, there is no way they lose that series.

Typical. Boil it down to one hyped shot that is shown so often on ESPN that you think it happened yesterday. If Pippen did not shut down the #1 offense in the league MJ's final shot would not have mattered. The Bulls were up 3-0 thanks to his defense. Unfortunately, he got hurt taking a million Malone charges and that cost him a FMVP (another thing MJ fans overlook but surely they will factor this in with their new found belief in context the next time they talk about Pip never winning a FMVP).


Pippen played about his normal regular season play.

Damn right! Ask Mark Jackson or Larry Bird about that one the next time you see them. Or Reggie Miller. Or your Jazz icons. I hear Mr. Sloan is still around.


We should have a Scottie Pippen forum on here.

How ironic. Do you realize MJ, who retired six years ago and was last relevant in 1998, gets more media mentions (using a quick Google news search) than Jesus or the presidents of China and Russia combined? He even got more pub last week than Lebron--or Tom Brady--or Brett Favre and almost as much as Kobe. He got 73x more than Kareem, 50x more than Wilt.

[Alhazred]

Back to square one. This was my original point! MJ fans want context when convenient for MJ--but never for anyone else. So we now all agree context matters? No more stupidity like "Pippen could never win if he never played with MJ" even though he came within 2 minutes of a ring at age 34 well past his prime in 2000 and had a legit shot in 94' if it weren't for Hue Hollins. How about non-Bulls. So we are done with nonsense such as "Jordan has more rings as the man than (insert name of any great not named Russell here) so he is better" since Kareem and Wilt did not have the same favorable situations to win 6 "rings as a man" like Jordan. MJ may indeed be the GOAT but use a legit argument that takes into account context.

I'm confused. When have I made claim to anything that you mentioned above?


They would certainly be favored practically every year. Which teams would be favored over them in a given year? Provide specific years and specific teams.

The 95 Magic. We all saw what Shaq did to Smits in 2000. Throw in Grant plus a young and talented backcourt and you have yourself a team that the one you mentioned would have trouble beating. Throw in the 96 Sonics, too as well as the 95 Rockets. 93 Suns might have a shot too, but you took KJ away so that's not a possible matchup.

[magnax1]

Yeah, because Mitch Richmond isn't a huge upgrade over Dan Majerle and Rik Smits over Oliver Miller. I've asked numerous people the same question: who beats those teams and in when? Give specific teams and specific years. Thanks in advance.
What was it? KJ, Richmond, Pippen, and Smits? Unless they have a super good bench then that team isn't as good as Barkley, KJ, Marjelejey, Richard Dumas, Danny Ainge, Cedric Ceballos, and Tom Chambers. I think every one of those players listed was a starter at some point. and all but Dumas was an all star. Team that would beat them
93 Suns, and Knicks
94 Rockets
95 Magic, and Rockets
97 Heat and Jazz
98 Pacers and Jazz
All those teams would have most likely won a 7 game series, depending on the bench and coach.


Typical. Boil it down to one hyped shot that is shown so often on ESPN that you think it happened yesterday. If Pippen did not shut down the #1 offense in the league MJ's final shot would not have mattered. The Bulls were up 3-0 thanks to his defense. Unfortunately, he got hurt taking a million Malone charges and that cost him a FMVP (another thing MJ fans overlook but surely they will factor this in with their new found belief in context the next time they talk about Pip never winning a FMVP).
Well, it did boil down to one shot..... so...... (and stop saying hed be finals MVP. He scored 12 less ppg in the first 4 games, it wasn't close)
Ok, if Jordan and Pippen were 1a and 1b, why did they give Jordan the MVP every other year?(I already know your answer, its that Nike marketing campaign controlling everything, am I right?) well then why did they give Jordan the marketing Campaign? And why does pretty much everyone on here disagree with you?

[EricForman]

Watch the finals.



For what, four games? After hurting his back, Pip was a virtual non factor the final two games (game 5: 2-16 FG, 6 points. game 6: 26 minutes played, 8 points scored), yet you claim he shut down the Jazz. Last I checked, the NBA finals lasted six games and not four. How can you make such a claim when he was a non factor for two of six games? I'm not even talking about "superstar performances" like game 3 when he finished wiht 10-4-4.

let's check Jordan and Pip's PER for the playoffs shall we?

98 playoffs: Jordan 28.1, Pip 19.5
97 playoffs: Jordan 27.1, Pip 18.1
96 playoffs: Jordan 26.7, Pip 19.4
95 playoffs: Jordan 24.8, Pip 18.9
93 playoffs: Jordan 30.1, Pip 16.9
92 playoffs: Jordan 27.2, 20.1
91 playoffs: Jordan 32.0, Pip 22.0
90 playoffs: Jordan 31.6, Pip 18.7
89 playoffs: Jordan 29.9, Pip 14.4

(note that in 94, when Pip was supposedly "the man", he had a 22.8 PER to Horace Grant's 21.2 and Kukoc's 21.9)

Jordan's PER have always blown Pip's out of the water. Even doubled him several times. The gap between Jordan's efficiency and Pip's efficiency is wider in some years than even 94 Hakeem over his next best player (Hakeem had 27 to Horry's 16 in 94)

The PER gap between Jordan and Pip is significantly larger than that of Duncan over Manu during their title years (Manu actually topped Duncan in 05), or Shaq's over Kobe (even in 2000 Shaq only had a 10 point gap over Kobe, in 2001 Shaq had a 3 point gap) or Bird over McHale in 86 (Bird only had a 3 point gap over Mchale) 85 Lakers saw Magic and Kareem with similar PER and James Worth not far behind both.

Every title winning duo has had a smaller PER gap than Jordan and Pip. I mean look at those numbers again. How is it possible that Kobe was able to narrow the PER gap with Shaq, Manu was able to top Duncan, McHale/Worthy all came close to Bird/Magic, but Pip never came close to Jordan? Not once! The closest he came 96 when he came withing 6 points.

If Pip was Jordan's equal how is this possible? How is it possible that every other sidekick in the history of great teams has had at least one year where they surpassed the team's star or come very close, yet Pip never did?

come on roundball, I'm waiting. tell me exactly how Pip is 1B to Jordan's 1A?

:oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm confused. When have I made claim to anything that you mentioned above?

I am talking about "Team Jordan", not particular posters but the group.

95' Magic? First, Grant or Oakley was on the Bulls in that scenario so you have to revise your thinking based on that.

95' Magic

PF ?
SF Scott
C Shaq
SG Anderson
PG Penny

Hypothetical Bulls

PF Grant or Oakley
SF Pippen
C Smits
SG Richmond
PG Johnson

The Bulls are superior at all positions except center. Even if you have Grant at PF for Orlando Oakley is on par with him. With Smits there the Bulls would not have traded Oak for a center, although they might have for KJ if they could not get him for Grant.

96' Sonic

PF Kemp
SF Schrempf
C Ervin "No Magic" Johnson
SG Hawkins
PG Payton

Hypothetical Bulls >at SF, C, SG, =at PG and <at PF

95' Rockets are inferior at every position except SG, where they are equal, and at C where obviously they are superior.

So how exactly what Pippen/Johnson/Richmond/Smits/Oak or Grant be underdogs against those teams? You realize they would still have Kukoc coming off the bench too...


I'm not even talking about "superstar performances" like game 3 when he finished wiht 10-4-4.

:roll: Typical MJ fan ignorance. I posted what people who saw the game, coached in it, or played in it said yet MJ fans can't grasp anything more than scoring. Pippen dominated the game and all they can talk about is 10 points.

PER is a joke (biased against primary ballhandlers like Pippen for instance). According to PER Magic is not top 10 all-time, no other PG is top 20 all-time. Plus, according to PER Lebron's 09' playoff run >>any of MJ's. Do you agree Neil Johnston>Magic Johnson and that Lebron at age 24>MJ at 24? Do

Since Team Jordan is all here, I am curious, which teams do you pull for now? I know guy is still a Bulls fan but what about the others? Cavs, Lakers, or Celtics? Probably Boston or Cleveland because of you know who on LA but he does score a lot and his teams win.

[chitownsfinest]

:oldlol: Come on. Do you honestly think Jerry f'ing Krause would be able to keep that stacked team for as long as you say? You honestly think he would want to pay for all those contracts? The only reason he kept your boy Pippen for so long was because he locked him up to a crappy contract early on (I believe he was getting paid less then Longley at a point).

[Roundball_Rock]

:oldlol: Come on. Do you honestly think Jerry f'ing Krause would be able to keep that stacked team for as long as you say? You honestly think he would want to pay for all those contracts? The only reason he kept your boy Pippen for so long was because he locked him up to a crappy contract early on (I believe he was getting paid less then Longley at a point).

Probably not but that was not relevant to the hypothetical. It was a hypothetical that we see all the time on ISH, like the Hakeem/Jordan/Drexler one (how would Houston be able to pay for three superstars?). The difference is MJ fans went bananas in this one. All these hypothetical assume the team stays togehter, they mesh, there are no injuries at crucial times or season ending ones, etc.

[Alhazred]

I am talking about "Team Jordan", not particular posters but the group.

And that's made up of who specifically? I need names, not generalizations.


95' Magic? First, Grant or Oakley was on the Bulls in that scenario so you have to revise your thinking based on that.

95' Magic

PF ?
SF Scott
C Shaq
SG Anderson
PG Penny

I'm confused. I named you a team and you take a player away? Which lineups am I allowed to use for a comparison, then? How about I just add Jordan to Houston or New York since you're just taking and adding players to whichever team you wish?

[magnax1]

Since you ignored all my others, heres another. If Pippen and Jordan were 1a and 1b, why is Jordan considered by most people to be the best player ever, and pippen not even top 10?

[Roundball_Rock]

Since you ignored all my others, heres another. If Pippen and Jordan were 1a and 1b, why is Jordan considered by most people to be the best player ever, and pippen not even top 10?

They weren't 1a/1b except for three years. Well, four if you count MJ being 1b in 95'. From 1989-1993 MJ was #1. In 1996 Pippen was #2 in all-NBA voting and #1 in all-D voting. How was he not 1b? If he wasn't then there can never be a "1b."

1a/1b depends on definition. Mine is if two top 5 players play together they are 1a/1b even if one obviously is better. Would Lebron and Chris Paul be 1a/1b? In my book, yes, even though Lebron is better Paul is good enough to be the best player on every team other than Cleveland, Miami, and LA. Him being paired with Lebron does not change that. What is your view? I have posed the Lebron-Paul hypothetical numerous times when 1a/1b comes up and for some mysterious reason have yet to receive an answer.

MJ fans and a few others like you think I am way out on left field on this. Here are some others who agree with me: the poster Abe Lincoln (no one can doubt his basketball knowledge) Ron Harper, Bil Cartwright, Tex Winter (he actually suggested MJ may have needed Pippen more than Pippen needed MJ), a Pulitzer Prize winning author of a book on MJ (meaning he had access to numerous inside sources, unlike you), BJ Armstrong, and implicitly Sports Illustrated, Bob Ryan, and 96' all-NBA voters to name a few. The implication comes from saying Pippen is the second-best player in the league that inherently means a 1a/1b relationship.


And that's made up of who specifically? I need names, not generalizations.

You are new. Wait and you will see it is the same dozen or so MJ fans diminishing Pippen in every Pippen thread.


I'm confused. I named you a team and you take a player away?

You are confused because you weren't here for that thread. The hypothetical had either Grant or Oakley at PF. One would be gone in exchange for then-rookie Kevin Johnson.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

:roll: at roundball_rock getting served up ... Who's the troll again?

[Mister JT]

So now MJ was 1b in 1995?

[chitownsfinest]

I seriously want to see 2-3 posts from MJ fans claiming Pippen was on Joe Johnson's level (no Duncan21MVP and BruceBlitz don't count considering most, even MJ fans, ignore them and consider them trolls). Also, it was you who started this giant argument when you responded to someone calling Pippen a great sidekick, yet you are getting at MJ fans for trolling? I can respect if you don't agree with Pippen being a sidekick, but it's a notion that even non-jordan fans do not agree with so it's not as big as a blatant diss as you make it to be.

[Alhazred]

You are confused because you weren't here for that thread. The hypothetical had either Grant or Oakley at PF. One would be gone in exchange for then-rookie Kevin Johnson.

Ok, so then which 90s lineups am I allowed to choose? Also, putting those guys on the Bulls would drastically change 90s NBA history. All of the teams would have been different. Where would Jordan be in all of this, still with the Clippers? What if he ended up in New York?

[Roundball_Rock]

So now MJ was 1b in 1995?

He was better than the guy who was #3 in all-NBA voting, #1 in all-Defense voting, and named the best all-around player in the league by players, coaches, and GM's? If he was then, no, he was not 1b.


I seriously want to see 2-3 posts from MJ fans claiming Pippen was on Joe Johnson's level

Saying he was "barely a top 10 player" at best is saying he was on par with a Joe Johnson (top 15 imo). Take your pick. The point was his relative ranking.


it was you who started this giant argument when you responded to someone calling Pippen a great sidekick, yet you are getting at MJ fans for trolling?

Where did I say MJ fans were trolling?

The argument started when their records apart from each other was raised, although I agree I react too harshly and apologized to hitmary for hijacking the thread. That said, while him being a "sidekick" may be a legit point there are some legit points about MJ that would not be welcomed by MJ fans in a "cheers to MJ" thread.


Ok, so then which 90s lineups am I allowed to choose? Also, putting those guys on the Bulls would drastically change 90s NBA history. All of the teams would have been different. Where would Jordan be in all of this, still with the Clippers? What if he ended up in New York?

Any not involving Oakley or Grant, or you could use one with them with the caveat that it only applies if said team had whichever player you want to use. Your Rockets and Sonics are valid comparisons and they might have won, but you can't honestly believe they would be favored over this hypothetical Bulls team.

Jordan's contract was until the end of the 1996 season at which point supposedly New York was his favored location (although was it signed by then?). Of course, by then Ewing was past his prime. Jordan got bored winning 3 straight rings. Maybe he would have gotten bored losing every year on the Clippers, retired in 93' and never come back.

[Mister JT]

He was better than the guy who was #3 in all-NBA voting, #1 in all-Defense voting, and named the best all-around player in the league by players, coaches, and GM's? If he was then, no, he was not 1b.

Yes, he was better. So we agree then. Jordan was 1. Pippen was 2 or "1b" to make you happy.

Jordan played only 17 games that's why he didn't win any postseason awards. But if you look at it game by game, Jordan was the clear number 1 option, especially in the end game.

[Alhazred]

Any not involving Oakley and Grant. Your Rockets and Sonics are valid comparisons, but you can't honestly believe they would be favored over this hypothetical Bulls team.

And if Jordan demanded a trade to go to either team...?


Jordan's contract was until the end of the 1996 season at which point supposedly New York was his favored location (although was it signed by then?). Of course, by then Ewing was past his prime. Jordan got bored winning 3 straight rings. Maybe he would have gotten bored losing every year on the Clippers, retired in 93' and never come back.

It's just as likely that he would have demanded a trade much earlier, as well. Sorry, but that whole scenario doesn't add up for me. The league would be too different, plus there's too many other possibilities.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes, he was better. So we agree then. Jordan was 1. Pippen was 2 or "1b" to make you happy.

Jordan played only 17 games that's why he didn't win any postseason awards. But if you look at it game by game, Jordan was the clear number 1 option, especially in the end game.

I personally don't care about this "#1 option" stuff. My standard is of indispensability. To determine that I ask if the team could have won if the player in question was replaced by an average player at that position. By that standard, for example, on last year's champs Kobe and Gasol both qualify.

Jordan was the #1 scoring option but what else? Pippen was the defensive anchor, primary playmaker, primary rebounder, primary shotblocker :lol , and secondary scorer. Jordan was the secondary defender, secondary playmarker, secondary rebounder, and primary scorer.

Of course MJ didn't win any awards. The question is was he good enough in 95' to be better than a guy who was #3 in all-NBA voting and #1 in all-defensive voting? I don't think so but I can see people going with MJ if they heavily value scoring. BTW, bruceblitz has even said Pippen was the better player in 95''--as did Jordan himself so it isn't like only Pip fans are saying it.


And if Jordan demanded a trade to go to either team...?

That is beyond the scope of those kind of hypotheticals. For example, in the Hakeem/MJ/Drexler one what if Jordan suffered a career ruining injury in a freak fall like Ralph Sampson did? You have to be reasonable in terms of what speculation you do in such scenarios.


that whole scenario doesn't add up for me

*MJ for the #2 and #6 picks
*#2 would be used on Rik Smits
*With MJ gone and the ball freed up for a legit PG the door would be open to acquiring rookie KJ, who Krause believed he could get for either Oakley or Grant
*The Bulls would have the #6 and #11 picks. They would need to move up to #4 or #5 to draft Richmond

I didn't dream this up. It almost happened. Krause was for it as was Collins I believe. Reinsdorf vetoed it solely on financial grounds.

It wasn't serious as none of these "what if X was drafted/traded/signed here?" threads are but MJ fans went nuts at the notion that Pippen may have won without Jordan and that Jordan may have won 0 rings under any scenario. There were some who said he would make the Clippers winners. :lol:

[Alhazred]

That is beyond the scope of those kind of hypotheticals. For example, in the Hakeem/MJ/Drexler one what if Jordan suffered a career ruining injury in a freak fall like Ralph Sampson did? You have to be reasonable in terms of what speculation you do in such scenarios.

Alright, but then what do the rest of the teams look like at this point, then? Obviously all the other teams in the league would have different lineups. Like I said, I don't know what the lineups would be like in this alternate reality. We know the Bulls', now what about the rest of the league?

Ok, crazy scenario. Charles Barkley hated it in Philly, but with no KJ in Phoenix, he probably wouldn't go there. What if Jordan had stayed in LA and turned the Clippers into a 45-50 win club? Maybe Barkley decides to force a trade there in 92 or even earlier. Due to Harold Katz's incompetence, he lets Barkley go for two or three benchwarmers and a couple of first round picks. The Clippers then have this starting lineup in 1992.

Michael Jordan
Ron Harper
Danny Manning
Charles Barkley
Olden Polynice

Coach: Larry Brown

That's a pretty good lineup, imo.

Or maybe Hakeem decides to go to to LA in 1992 while feuding with Rockets management, or they just keep tanking and eventually get Shaq in the 92 draft....

[Roundball_Rock]

Ok, but then what do the rest of the teams look like at this point, then? Obviously all the other teams in the league would have different lineups. Like I said, I don't know what the lineups would be like in this alternate reality. We know the Bulls', now what about the rest of the league?

That is beyond the scope of such threads. We can't pull a Marty McFly and see what the ripple effects would be. We can only look at the major effects:

*Either Oakley or Grant in Cleveland
*If it is Oak then he does not go to NY
*If it is Grant then maybe the Cavs give him a big contract and he never goes to Orlando

*Pippen stays in Chicago as he did anyway until 1998. Maybe if he is the best player on the team, not MJ, he gets his payday from the team and never goes to Portland

*Kevin Johnson never goes to Phoenix. Maybe this speeds up the development of Steve Nash

*Rik Smits never goes to Indiana. The Pacers never become contenders, Reggie Miller never have those legendary playoff moments against the Knicks and all those deep playoff runs

*Mitch Richmond spends his career on a contender, not his prime on 20 win teams

*Jordan is on the Clippers for at least a few years

What difference does it really make, though, who replaces Smits in Indiana, for example? We have the general contours surrounding the major players. Look at the Hakeem/Drexler/Jordan scenario MJ fans love. No one was asking if they would click, how Drexler and Jordan would function together both as natural SG's, who becomes the "#1 option", whether one of the three gets disgruntled and demands a trade, etc. Or in the ABA/Kareem thread I don't recall Magic fans complaining because that would likely have meant he would have become a Sixer, not a Laker, after the eventual merger.

[Roundball_Rock]

Ok, crazy scenario. Charles Barkley hated it in Philly, but with no KJ in Phoenix, he probably wouldn't go there. What if Jordan had stayed in LA and turned the Clippers into a 45-50 win club? Maybe Barkley decides to force a trade there in 92 or even earlier. Due to Harold Katz's incompetence, he lets Barkley go for two or three benchwarmers and a couple of first round picks. The Clippers then have this starting lineup in 1992.

Michael Jordan
Ron Harper
Danny Manning
Charles Barkley
Olden Polynice

Coach: Larry Brown

That's a pretty good lineup, imo.

:eek: If that happened that team would dominate. People forget Harper was a 20 ppg guy before getting injured in 94' and Polynice was a very good rebounder. That actually is a reasonable scenario since Barkley and MJ are good friends.

[juju151111]

They weren't 1a/1b except for three years. Well, four if you count MJ being 1b in 95'. From 1989-1993 MJ was #1. In 1996 Pippen was #2 in all-NBA voting and #1 in all-D voting. How was he not 1b? If he wasn't then there can never be a "1b."

1a/1b depends on definition. Mine is if two top 5 players play together they are 1a/1b even if one obviously is better. Would Lebron and Chris Paul be 1a/1b? In my book, yes, even though Lebron is better Paul is good enough to be the best player on every team other than Cleveland, Miami, and LA. Him being paired with Lebron does not change that. What is your view? I have posed the Lebron-Paul hypothetical numerous times when 1a/1b comes up and for some mysterious reason have yet to receive an answer.

MJ fans and a few others like you think I am way out on left field on this. Here are some others who agree with me: the poster Abe Lincoln (no one can doubt his basketball knowledge) Ron Harper, Bil Cartwright, Tex Winter (he actually suggested MJ may have needed Pippen more than Pippen needed MJ), a Pulitzer Prize winning author of a book on MJ (meaning he had access to numerous inside sources, unlike you), BJ Armstrong, and implicitly Sports Illustrated, Bob Ryan, and 96' all-NBA voters to name a few. The implication comes from saying Pippen is the second-best player in the league that inherently means a 1a/1b relationship.



You are new. Wait and you will see it is the same dozen or so MJ fans diminishing Pippen in every Pippen thread.



You are confused because you weren't here for that thread. The hypothetical had either Grant or Oakley at PF. One would be gone in exchange for then-rookie Kevin Johnson.
LOl i just caught that 1b comment. LMAO MJ was never 1b to Pip. If Mj is on the court breeding then it's MJ>>>>PIp GTFO Even in 1995 and the gap between MJ and Pip is further then LJ and Cp3.

[Mister JT]

Jordan was the #1 scoring option but what else? Pippen was the defensive anchor, primary playmaker, primary rebounder, primary shotblocker :lol , and secondary scorer. Jordan was the secondary defender, secondary playmarker, secondary rebounder, and primary scorer.

Saying "primary playmaker" makes it sound like Pippen was playing PG on a regular offense. Playmaking can be creating your own when time is running out, passing out of double teams from the post, fighting to get free on the baseline so that the passer only needs to make a basic pass, being the anchor on the fastbreak, creating a scoring situation for others by making a difficult pass, etc. And IMO, in the triangle Jordan was as much of a playmaker as Pippen. Even in 95.

Saying "primary defender" makes it sound like Pippen plays defense first, then the other 4 guys help him if he needs them. And Jordan was no defensive slouch.


I've heard in some sportcenter segment about Pippen describing him as the best all-around player in the NBA, but the second best player on his team. Something to that effect.

[Roundball_Rock]

LOl i just caught that 1b comment. LMAO MJ was never 1b to Pip. If Mj is on the court breeding then it's MJ>>>>PIp GTFO Even in 1995 and the gap between MJ and Pip is further then LJ and Cp3.

It is debatable and ultimately of little value since we are talking about only 1/5 a season.

Really? What is the gap between Lebron and CP? A lot of it depends on how high you rate CP. Is CP good enough to ever been #1 in all-NBA and all-Defensive team voting--in the same season, for instance?


Saying "primary playmaker" makes it sound like Pippen was playing PG on a regular offense. Playmaking can be creating your own when time is running out, passing out of double teams from the post, fighting to get free on the baseline so that the passer only needs to make a basic pass, being the anchor on the fastbreak, creating a scoring situation for others by making a difficult pass, etc. And IMO, in the triangle Jordan was as much of a playmaker as Pippen. Even in 95.

Saying "primary defender" makes it sound like Pippen plays defense first, then the other 4 guys help him if he needs them. And Jordan was no defensive slouch.

Look at their performance with and without Pippen in 98'. His playmaking was very important. Jordan was as talented a playmaker but that was not his role. His role was to score first, pass second. Pippen had the opposite role.

Primary defender means the same as primary scorer. He is the one with the most impact on defense, just as Jordan being the primary scorer does not mean Pippen was not scoring anything. Jordan was no defensive slouch but Pippen was not an offensive slouch either. He was a top 10 scorer when Jordan was retired and could have scored more if he was asked to be a scorer instead of being tasked as the point forward.


I've heard in some sportcenter segment about Pippen describing him as the best all-around player in the NBA, but the second best player on his team.

No one really argued that he was better. The question was how did he rank compared to everyone else in the league not named MJ? Some people had him as high as 2nd or 3rd at his peak. #2 in all-NBA voting (behind MJ in 96') and #1 in all-D voting. If that isn't 1b what is? It is an empty label of convenience if that isn't 1b.

[Alhazred]

:eek: If that happened that team would dominate. People forget Harper was a 20 ppg guy before getting injured in 94' and Polynice was a very good rebounder. That actually is a reasonable scenario since Barkley and MJ are good friends.

Thanks, glad you like it. Like I said, the scenario you're describing opens up plenty of possibilities. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing KJ/Richmond/Pippen/ Smits together, that sounds like it would be a fun lineup.

[juju151111]

It is debatable and ultimately of little value since we are talking about only 1/5 a season.

Really? What is the gap between Lebron and CP? A lot of it depends on how high you rate CP. Is CP good enough to ever been #1 in all-NBA and all-Defensive team voting--in the same season, for instance?
He good enough to get the MVP stolen from him.

[Roundball_Rock]

He good enough to get the MVP stolen from him.

MVP depends to an extent on luck. If the Hornets won the #1 seed they would have won. If Pippen didn't get hurt and miss ten games his team would have had the #1 seed in the East and the #2 record in the league. He would finish second at least in MVP voting against absolute peak Hakeem instead of third. Chris Paul was up against 08' Kobe in a year where there was amazing parity in the West. Phoenix was the 6th seed and it was only 2 games out of first!

How good is Chris Paul, when healthy in your view? Best player? Third best? 6th? 12th?


Thanks, glad you like it. Like I said, the scenario you're describing opens up plenty of possibilities. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing KJ/Richmond/Pippen/ Smits together, that sounds like it would be a fun lineup.

Yeah it would have been--but the ways things actually played out was fun too! :D

[Alhazred]

Yeah it would have been--but the ways things actually played out was fun too! :D

Agreed :cheers:

[juju151111]

MVP depends to an extent on luck. If the Hornets won the #1 seed they would have won. If Pippen didn't get hurt and miss ten games his team would have had the #1 seed in the East and the #2 record in the league. He would finish second at least in MVP voting against absolute peak Hakeem instead of third. Chris Paul was up against 08' Kobe in a year where there was amazing parity in the West. Phoenix was the 6th seed and it was only 2 games out of first!

How good is Chris Paul, when healthy in your view? Best player? Third best? 6th? 12th?



Yeah it would have been--but the ways things actually played out was fun too! :D
LOL If Pippen didn't get hurt??? If LA didn't beat NO in their last regular season meeting cp3 would be mvp, but lets get off this If. Pippen had no chance at winnig it in 94. Hakeem was just the better player. Cp3 is top8 when healthy.

[Roundball_Rock]

LOL If Pippen didn't get hurt??? If LA didn't beat NO in their last regular season meeting cp3 would be mvp, but lets get off this If. Pippen had no chance at winnig it in 94. Hakeem was just the better player. Cp3 is top8 when healthy.

It is a MVP award, not a better player award. How can you say Paul deserved it over Kobe (and Garnett) and then say it should go by best player? Both Kobe and KG were better but less valuable to their teams.

Ah, CP3 is top 8. You underrate him compared to most, who had him 4th or 5th before he got hurt (usually 4th). Wait, though. Lebron-Paul is much closer in your view than MJ-Pippen. If both MJ and Lebron are similar (we are talking young Lebron and 96'-98' MJ, altough peak Lebron has a shot at >peak MJ but that is 2-4 years down the road) and Paul is top 8 that means Pippen was 12th or something?

[juju151111]

It is a MVP award, not a better player award. How can you say Paul deserved it over Kobe (and Garnett) and then say it should go by best player? Both Kobe and KG were better but less valuable to their teams.

Ah, CP3 is top 8. You underrate him compared to most, who had him 4th or 5th before he got hurt (usually 4th). Wait, though. Lebron-Paul is much closer in your view than MJ-Pippen. If both MJ and Lebron are similar (we are talking young Lebron and 96'-98' MJ, altough peak Lebron has a shot at >peak MJ but that is 2-4 years down the road) and Paul is top 8 that means Pippen was 12th or something?
I misspoke about best player, but MVP for that season was CP3. Yes, Cp3 deserved the MVP over Kobe life time acheviment award.

WTH are you talking about? I said top 8th because he gets injured or people like Durant are coming up, but 4-6 is where i rank him. No Mj and Lj are not close. When LJ and MJ are close, i will see it plain has day and even ya boy bruce don't think it's close until LJ wins a chip.

[Roundball_Rock]

I agree Paul deserved the MVP since it is not a best player award and he was more valuable to his team than Kobe or KG.

All-time Lebron isn't even close to MJ. I am talking about their impact on the court and only comparing 96'-98' MJ to 09' and 10' Lebron.

So we have different criteria for 1a/1b. 4-6 is enough to be 1b imo.


even ya boy bruce don't think it's close until LJ wins a chip.

Yeah, you can't get to the top 10 all-time without one. Lebron won 66 games last year and made the NBA finals with a weak team so it is very likely he will win multiple rings in his career. There were at least a dozen teams in the playoffs last year with better "supporting casts" for their best player than Cleveland. If he can get another legit all-star he will win several rings.

[NuggetsFan]

So we have different criteria for 1a/1b. 4-6 is enough to be 1b imo.


I don't think it has to do where you rank in the league. The 4th best player in the league could still not be close to the best in the league. Like do you really think if CP3 joined LeBron he wouldn't take the back seat and people would view it as a 1a\1b type situation? I don't think so because it's pretty clear who the better player is.

Just like it's pretty clear that Jordan was the better player than Pippen .. shouldn't be held against the player taking the back seat it's just what it is. The superior player is going to stand out.

[LebrickJames84']

most overrated player of all time.

[97 bulls]

According to your logic

1: leading a team to 55 wins and second round exit for one season is enough to prove that one person can lead championship contenders. If that's the case. So can Vince. and Deron Williams. and maybe 150 some other players in the history of the game.

2: Latrell in 94 was solid? Latrell in 94 was a star. That's like saying "If Jordan gets a solid center like Ewing in 89, they win the title".

3: Pip contributed JUST AS MUCH as Jordan?


You and Roundball (ironic how you refer to everyone who doesnt agree with you as Jordan fanboys yet overlooking the fact you two are Pip fanboys) need to get out of here with this nonsense. If you guys are arguing Pip was a big contributor, almost Jordan's equal, I would disagree still but let it go. But just as much? STFU with that nonsense. Watch the 98 Finals and get back to me.
in response to your 3 points

1. its not just that he led his team to 55 wins. its that no one believed that team was good enough or that he (pippen) was good enough to to even keep the team competitive. most people (myself included) believed that pip was a product of jordan as were all his teammates. so 55 wins and a questionble second round exit was amazing. i mean, the knicks made it to the finals that year. if the bulls draw the pacers in the semis, they make it to the ecf.

2. yes latrell was a star. but he wasnt as good as pippen and he wasnt anywhere as good as jordan. so sprewell was a downgrade but definately a fitting replacement that wouldve given pip the chance to win as the number 1 guy. similar to how kobe started wining when he got gasol. hes not as good as shaq but hes good enough to team with kobe to get a ring or 2. but when kobe had chris mihm as shaqs replacement, he didnt do as well as pip did with myers as with pippen.

3. im not saying pip was a good as jordan. or that jordan couldnt do what pip did. but the fact is that they both in the had the same workload, just different roles. jordan scored more but pippen had a bigger role defensively. not saying jordan couldnt do it but pip was more of a rover along with playing great defense on his man. so in essence, their responsiblities were the on the same level. it just that one guy was the legs the other were the arms. which could you afford to loose?

[97 bulls]

Since you ignored all my others, heres another. If Pippen and Jordan were 1a and 1b, why is Jordan considered by most people to be the best player ever, and pippen not even top 10?
ill address this point. first, pippen accepted a secondary role for his career which means it was hard to achieve the accolades other top 10 players achieved. but not cuz he couldnt. think about it, how many great scorers wouldve loved to be in jordans role? have an extremely talented guy accept a situation that basically will hurt his standing as a career player for the good of the team thus helping define your legacy.

i just really believe that pippen and kobes careers are so similar to a point. both were going down a road in which the situations were similar and once they hit that fork, kobe went one way in his career and pip the other. i know you guys dont want to hear it but, had pip not played behind jordan for about 3-4 years, he has at least 1 mvp ans a ring as the all important "best player on the team". combine that with his legacy as an alltime great defender and he can make an argument for top 10. or at least have the same argument as kobe.

just understand that we and i think i speak for pippen fans when i state this, believe that pip was talented enough that he couldve achieved more. and shouldnt be penalized because he chose the team over himself. and if you guys were honest, youd admit that if pip pulls a kobe, maybe jordan ends up like shaq achievement wise. and thus no longer the hands down favorite as alltime greatest ever. you guys should be building pip up not tearing him down cuz he helped build the jordan legacy too.

[Big#50]

Best sidekick of all time!

:cheers:
Kobe.

[97 bulls]

Alright, but then what do the rest of the teams look like at this point, then? Obviously all the other teams in the league would have different lineups. Like I said, I don't know what the lineups would be like in this alternate reality. We know the Bulls', now what about the rest of the league?

Ok, crazy scenario. Charles Barkley hated it in Philly, but with no KJ in Phoenix, he probably wouldn't go there. What if Jordan had stayed in LA and turned the Clippers into a 45-50 win club? Maybe Barkley decides to force a trade there in 92 or even earlier. Due to Harold Katz's incompetence, he lets Barkley go for two or three benchwarmers and a couple of first round picks. The Clippers then have this starting lineup in 1992.

Michael Jordan
Ron Harper
Danny Manning
Charles Barkley
Olden Polynice

Coach: Larry Brown

That's a pretty good lineup, imo.

Or maybe Hakeem decides to go to to LA in 1992 while feuding with Rockets management, or they just keep tanking and eventually get Shaq in the 92 draft....
thats a great lineup if it on nba 2k. but in real life, barkley and jordan clash and couldnt or wouldnt stay together long. definatley not a 6 championship team.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't think it has to do where you rank in the league. The 4th best player in the league could still not be close to the best in the league. Like do you really think if CP3 joined LeBron he wouldn't take the back seat and people would view it as a 1a\1b type situation? I don't think so because it's pretty clear who the better player is.

I agree that is how most people look at it--except when convenient (i.e. Magic/Kareem since it is convenient for MJ fans to classify them as 1a/1b as much as possible so they can reduce the "rings as the man" they won). I have a different view. Peak Pippen was the second or third best player in the league according to many people, not just Pippen fans. I don't believe that should be ignored because MJ was better.


1. its not just that he led his team to 55 wins. its that no one believed that team was good enough or that he (pippen) was good enough to to even keep the team competitive. most people (myself included) believed that pip was a product of jordan as were all his teammates. so 55 wins and a questionble second round exit was amazing. i mean, the knicks made it to the finals that year. if the bulls draw the pacers in the semis, they make it to the ecf.

He didn't even watch the 98' finals so what do you think he knows about 94'? He actually thinks Pippen did nothing in Game 3 in 98' because he went on basketballreference.com and all it showed for Pippen was 10-4-4 when we know, as comments from journalists, players, and coaches from the time reveal that he dominated the game and the series until he got hurt due to shutting down the #1 offense in the league thanks to his defense. He was the MVP for 3 of the 4 Chicago wins. It is a shame he got hurt. That cost him a FMVP so you have "MJ fans" today bashing him for never winning a FMVP yet they demand we look at context when it comes to their hero (a fair request) yet refuse to do the same for anyone else in basketball, whether it is Pippen, Kareem, Wilt, you name it.


3. im not saying pip was a good as jordan. or that jordan couldnt do what pip did. but the fact is that they both in the had the same workload, just different roles. jordan scored more but pippen had a bigger role defensively. not saying jordan couldnt do it but pip was more of a rover along with playing great defense on his man. so in essence, their responsiblities were the on the same level. it just that one guy was the legs the other were the arms. which could you afford to loose?

:bowdown: :applause: Exactly. All some of these MJ fans understand is scoring. Jordan was better but Jordan was old. He needed to conserve energies. Everyone acknowledges Jordan is a smart person. Why would he keep all the load on himself if he was playing with a top 2-5 player? The workload was divided about equally from 1995-1998:

*Pippen was the primary playmaker
*Pippen was the defensive anchor
*Pippen was the secondary rebounder
*Pippen was the secondary scorer
*Pippen was the co-leader of the team

*Jordan was the secondary playmaker (except in 98' when his role diminished in this area)
*Jordan was the secondary or tertiary defender depending on whether Rodman felt like playing 100% D on a given night
*Jordan was the tertiary rebounder
*Jordan was the primary scorer
*Jordan was the co-leader of the team

All they look at is MJ scored 30 ppg, Pippen 21 ppg and that means Jordan contributed 9 more points than Pippen. What a joke. Factor in the extra assists Pippen got (with each assists being worth an extra 2.2-2.3 points). Factor in that the team shot 3-4% better when he played (3% does not sound like a lot but today that is the different between being 5th in the league in FG %, Cleveland, and 20th, Philadelphia. In 98' that was the difference between being 3rd and 28th!). Factor in the additional points Pippen was worth on defense. Jordan was still more valuable but when you take a look at the complete picture it is a lot closer than these people realize.

Here are just some quotes which say the same thing we do:


"It is interesting and revealing that teammates, opponents and coaches consistently praise Pippen". Phil Jackson, his coach with the six-time champion Chicago Bulls, declares, 'Scottie was our team leader. "He was the guy that directed our offense and he was the guy that took on a lot of big challenges defensively...the year that Michael retired, Scottie I think was the most valuable player in the league.'"" Former teammate and current Bulls coach "Bill Cartwright flatly states that Pippen 'was as much a part of winning the championships as MJ. I don't think it would have gotten done without him.'"


""Jordan always felt Pippen was something special," longtime Bulls assistant Tex Winter said. "Michael realized "how easy it was to play with him and how he helped make his teammates better." It's often said Jordan needed Pippen and Pippen needed Jordan. "I'm not sure Jordan didn't need Pippen more than Pippen needed Jordan."""

And to help them understand the concept that things other than scoring matter look at what was being said about 37 year old Scottie (his team was 4th best in the league with him, 19th without him that year!):


Memphis Grizzlies coach Hubie Brown breaks it down scientifically: 'He's 6-8 and he can see over the defense, which is a major advantage for a point guard. He also doesn't rush anything. "You don't see Portland running back downcourt and forcing threes. You don't see them trying to get the ball in the paint and wasting so much time that two options of a play are already gone. He has a presence.'"

"The Oregonian selected the 37-year old Pippen as the midseason MVP of the resurgent 2002-03 Blazers: 'Statistics don't tell the whole story with Pippen", whose ability to guard anyone from Atlanta Hawks power forward Shareef Abdur-Rahim to San Antonio Spurs point guard Tony Parker to Boston Celtics small forward Paul Pierce has given the Blazers incredible versatility.'"


It is no coincidence Pippen won wherever he went. 16 straight years in the playoffs, an average of 57 wins per year. His "worst" season, aside from his last where he played in only about 20 games, was a season in which his team won almost 50 games.


ill address this point. first, pippen accepted a secondary role for his career which means it was hard to achieve the accolades other top 10 players achieved. but not cuz he couldnt. think about it, how many great scorers wouldve loved to be in jordans role? have an extremely talented guy accept a situation that basically will hurt his standing as a career player for the good of the team thus helping define your legacy.

ANY other 90's superstar would happily swap situations with Jordan. People like David Robinson had Sean Elliot as his best teammate until he was past his prime, Ewing had John Starks until he was past his prime, Hakeem Otis Thorpe until 95', Drexler Terry Porter until 95', etc. while Jordan was playing with a guy who at his peak was the second or third best player in the game. How many rings would he have won with Sean Elliot? We all know the answer which is why MJ fans have this crusade against Pippen to make it look like he won all by himself.



i just really believe that pippen and kobes careers are so similar to a point. both were going down a road in which the situations were similar and once they hit that fork, kobe went one way in his career and pip the other. i know you guys dont want to hear it but, had pip not played behind jordan for about 3-4 years, he has at least 1 mvp ans a ring as the all important "best player on the team". combine that with his legacy as an alltime great defender and he can make an argument for top 10. or at least have the same argument as kobe.

:bowdown:


just understand that we and i think i speak for pippen fans when i state this, believe that pip was talented enough that he couldve achieved more. and shouldnt be penalized because he chose the team over himself. and if you guys were honest, youd admit that if pip pulls a kobe, maybe jordan ends up like shaq achievement wise. and thus no longer the hands down favorite as alltime greatest ever. you guys should be building pip up not tearing him down cuz he helped build the jordan legacy too.

:bowdown: :cheers: Great post, 97! The sad thing is Pippen easily could have pulled a Kobe in the summer of 95'. Seattle was very interested in him, as were other teams like Phoenix. He could have demanded a trade to Seattle and been on that team, which win around 60 games from 96'-98'. Think about this team:

PF Schrempf
SF Pippen
C Johnson/Perkins
SG Hawkins
PG Payton

Center is a weak link but that team would have two superstars and two other all-star caliber players. Pippen would probably win a "ring as the man" with this team and his all-time ranking would be higher if he did this instead of winning 3 more as a "sidekick." Yet we complain about selfish superstars today when we penalize people like Pippen for sacrificing shots at glory and ultimately their all-time ranking for the sake of the team and winning?

[Dizzle-2k7]

Pippens handles are so impressive and he makes it look easy too... superb grace.

[magnax1]

They weren't 1a/1b except for three years. Well, four if you count MJ being 1b in 95'. From 1989-1993 MJ was #1. In 1996 Pippen was #2 in all-NBA voting and #1 in all-D voting. How was he not 1b? If he wasn't then there can never be a "1b."

1a/1b depends on definition. Mine is if two top 5 players play together they are 1a/1b even if one obviously is better. Would Lebron and Chris Paul be 1a/1b? In my book, yes, even though Lebron is better Paul is good enough to be the best player on every team other than Cleveland, Miami, and LA. Him being paired with Lebron does not change that. What is your view? I have posed the Lebron-Paul hypothetical numerous times when 1a/1b comes up and for some mysterious reason have yet to receive an answer.

MJ fans and a few others like you think I am way out on left field on this. Here are some others who agree with me: the poster Abe Lincoln (no one can doubt his basketball knowledge) Ron Harper, Bil Cartwright, Tex Winter (he actually suggested MJ may have needed Pippen more than Pippen needed MJ), a Pulitzer Prize winning author of a book on MJ (meaning he had access to numerous inside sources, unlike you), BJ Armstrong, and implicitly Sports Illustrated, Bob Ryan, and 96' all-NBA voters to name a few. The implication comes from saying Pippen is the second-best player in the league that inherently means a 1a/1b relationship.
Well, I wouldn't consider Chris Paul and LBJ 1A and 1B mostly because I think Paul is a little bit over rated. Especially on the defensive end. Kobe and Wade/Lebron? Yeah. Wilt and Jerry West? Yeah, Moses and Dr. J? Probably.

Jordan and Pippen? No, Jordan was undeniably the best player in the league up until maybe 98, where Shaq had a pretty good arguement, except for the fact he just wasn't the winner that Jordan was (didn't make big plays, usually played bad help defense) Pippen also fell off in 98 pretty badly too though, he was stripped of quite a bit of athleticism, and wasn't quite the scorer he used to be. Jordan in 96 might be the best version of Jordan to me though. He was an amazing post scorer, had an amazing Jumper, played more solid defense then any time in his career (as in he didn't gamble on steals very often, and didn't roam around on defense trying to get a block) and played a very team oriented game, all while hitting big shots when they needed him too. Theres a reason Jordan won all the MVPs and Pippen didn't.

I really don't think that people like Tex Winters (hes Phil Jackson's assistant coach, right?) opinion really matters in an arguement like this. Phil Jackson says weird things all the time. Red Auerbach said that Bird was the Best player ever. Does that make it anything more then a biased opinion? This reminds me of something I remember learning a while back in a history class. When looking at a piece of history, the people who are the ones who witnessed something are usually the ones who are most biased. Maybe they want to change it to make themselves look better, maybe they just like somebody better, but the ones who are impacted by it the most are most likely to say something that is extremely biased, or just not true.

[juju151111]

in response to your 3 points

1. its not just that he led his team to 55 wins. its that no one believed that team was good enough or that he (pippen) was good enough to to even keep the team competitive. most people (myself included) believed that pip was a product of jordan as were all his teammates. so 55 wins and a questionble second round exit was amazing. i mean, the knicks made it to the finals that year. if the bulls draw the pacers in the semis, they make it to the ecf.

2. yes latrell was a star. but he wasnt as good as pippen and he wasnt anywhere as good as jordan. so sprewell was a downgrade but definately a fitting replacement that wouldve given pip the chance to win as the number 1 guy. similar to how kobe started wining when he got gasol. hes not as good as shaq but hes good enough to team with kobe to get a ring or 2. but when kobe had chris mihm as shaqs replacement, he didnt do as well as pip did with myers as with pippen.

3. im not saying pip was a good as jordan. or that jordan couldnt do what pip did. but the fact is that they both in the had the same workload, just different roles. jordan scored more but pippen had a bigger role defensively. not saying jordan couldnt do it but pip was more of a rover along with playing great defense on his man. so in essence, their responsiblities were the on the same level. it just that one guy was the legs the other were the arms. which could you afford to loose?
Bigger load defensively??? GTFO it was MJ who guarded Isiah in 90, Magic in 91, Clyde in 92, and wilkins in 93. MJ Did wat Pip did while facing double teams on offense. MJ voted by coaches has #1 defender in 93. MJ made plenty all defensive player. MJ was the Batman and Pip was Robin. Iam tired this crap with people disrespecting MJ defensively.

[Roundball_Rock]

Bigger load defensively??? GTFO it was MJ who guarded Isiah in 90, Magic in 91, Clyde in 92, and wilkins in 93. MJ Did wat Pip did while facing double teams on offense. MJ voted by coaches has #1 defender in 93. MJ made plenty all defensive player. MJ was the Batman and Pip was Robin. Iam tired this crap with people disrespecting MJ defensively.

Wilkins? :lol We are talking about the second threepeat. Pippen was the better defender then. Jordan guarded Jeff Hornacek against the Jazz while Harper took Stockton. :roll:

You mention voting for things like the all-D team. That is interesting. Who received the most votes for the all-Defense team in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 (and would have probably been #1 again in 98' if he didn't miss half the season)? Who was #1 in all-NBA voting in 1994, #3 in 1995, and #2 in 1996? MJ fans love to cite things when they are convenient but then ignore them when they are inconvenient. How can a guy who was #2 in all-NBA voting (behind MJ) and #1 in all-D voting not be 1b? If that isn't 1b then what is?

Thanks for sharing, magnax. I think most people will agree with you. I am on a bit of an island with my definition and I don't even really look at that but rather whether a player was indispensable and both Jordan and Pippen qualify, as we saw when Pippen was replaced by Kukoc, who was not an average SF but a good one. If Pippen could not be replaced with Kukoc how would the team do with an average SF? Would it even reach 50 wins?

Pippen in 98' did fall off but he was still scoring 20 ppg when healthy. He averaged 19 in the regular season but that was because he needed to shake off the rust. I agree, though, Pippen had declined by then--but so had Jordan but I agree the gap had widened by then. The closest Pippen was to him was 95', 96', and 97'.


Wilt and Jerry West? Yeah, Moses and Dr. J?

A lot of this is based on perception. Look at the 83' Sixers:

Moses 25/15/1 with 2 blocks
Dr. J 21/7/4 with 2 blocks

Moses: 1st in MVP voting
Dr. J: 5th in MVP voting

Both are first team all-NBA. Sound familiar? It should. This is very similar to Jordan-Pippen in 96', except Pippen was also first team all-Defense and actually the leading vote getter. Yet Pippen did not have the aura of Dr. J--and Moses not that off MJ--and one is classified as 1a/1b and the other "sidekick" and "master."

[magnax1]

Wilkins? :lol We are talking about the second threepeat. Pippen was the better defender then. Jordan guarded Jeff Hornacek against the Jazz while Harper took Stockton. :roll:

You mention voting for things like the all-D team. That is interesting. Who received the most votes for the all-Defense team in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 (and would have probably been #1 again in 98' if he didn't miss half the season)? Who was #1 in all-NBA voting in 1994, #3 in 1995, and #2 in 1996? MJ fans love to cite things when they are convenient but then ignore them when they are inconvenient. How can a guy who was #2 in all-NBA voting (behind MJ) and #1 in all-D voting not be 1b? If that isn't 1b then what is?

Thanks for sharing, magnax. I think most people will agree with you. I am on a bit of an island with my definition and I don't even really look at that but rather whether a player was indispensable and both Jordan and Pippen qualify, as we saw when Pippen was replaced by Kukoc, who was not an average SF but a good one. If Pippen could not be replaced with Kukoc how would the team do with an average SF? Would it even reach 50 wins?

Pippen in 98' did fall off but he was still scoring 20 ppg when healthy. He averaged 19 in the regular season but that was because he needed to shake off the rust. I agree, though, Pippen had declined by then--but so had Jordan but I agree the gap had widened by then. The closest Pippen was to him was 95', 96', and 97'.



A lot of this is based on perception. Look at the 83' Sixers:

Moses 25/15/1 with 2 blocks
Dr. J 21/7/4 with 2 blocks

Moses: 1st in MVP voting
Dr. J: 5th in MVP voting

Both are first team all-NBA. Sound familiar? It should. This is very similar to Jordan-Pippen in 96', except Pippen was also first team all-Defense and actually the leading vote getter. Yet Pippen did not have the aura of Dr. J--and Moses not that off MJ--and one is classified as 1a/1b and the other "sidekick" and "master."
You left off the probably. Its alot closer then MJ and Pippen, but alot further away then Wilt and West. Jordan and Pippen are Like Bird and McHale. Would anybody deny that McHale is a top 10 at his position? No, but would anybody deny that Bird was on another level, and McHale wouldn't have won a ring without Bird on his team? Though Bird would probably still win a couple rings with an all star level PF.

[Roundball_Rock]

You left off the probably. Its alot closer then MJ and Pippen, but alot further away then Wilt and West. Jordan and Pippen are Like Bird and McHale. Would anybody deny that McHale is a top 10 at his position? No, but would anybody deny that Bird was on another level, and McHale wouldn't have won a ring without Bird on his team?

I see your point but Pippen was better than McHale. Pippen kept his team afloat without Jordan; McHale couldn't without Bird. Just compare their records:

All-NBA first team: Pippen 3x (leading vote getter once), McHale 1x
All-NBA second team: Pippen 2x (would be 3 but he missed half of 98' so he was down to the 3rd team), McHale 0x
All-NBA third team: Pippen 2x, McHale 0x

All-Defense first team: Pippen 8x, McHale 3x
All-Defense second team: Pippen 2x, McHale 3x

Top 3 MVP voting: Pippen 1x, McHale 0x
Top 5 MVP voting: Pippen 2x, McHale 1x
Top 10 MVP voting: Pippen 5x, McHale 1x

Usually comparing MVP voting is unfair with a "sidekick" because being that drastically reduces his MVP voting but it is fair in this case because they were in similar situations.

All-star games: Pippen 7x, McHale 7x

Pippen also is in the GOAT perimeter defender conversation and the consensus GOAT defensive SF. McHale obviously is not in the GOAT PF conversation.

You are a Jazz fan. How do you view Malone-Stockton?

[magnax1]

I see your point but Pippen was better than McHale. Pippen kept his team afloat without Jordan; McHale couldn't without Bird. Just compare their records:

All-NBA first team: Pippen 3x (leading vote getter once), McHale 1x
All-NBA second team: Pippen 2x (would be 3 but he missed half of 98' so he was down to the 3rd team), McHale 0x
All-NBA third team: Pippen 2x, McHale 0x

All-Defense first team: Pippen 8x, McHale 3x
All-Defense second team: Pippen 2x, McHale 3x

Top 3 MVP voting: Pippen 1x, McHale 0x
Top 5 MVP voting: Pippen 2x, McHale 1x
Top 10 MVP voting: Pippen 5x, McHale 1x

Usually comparing MVP voting is unfair with a "sidekick" because being that drastically reduces his MVP voting but it is fair in this case because they were in similar situations.

All-star games: Pippen 7x, McHale 7x

Pippen also is in the GOAT perimeter defender conversation and the consensus GOAT defensive SF. McHale obviously is not in the GOAT PF conversation.

You are a Jazz fan. How do you view Malone-Stockton?
Up until the mid 90's Stockton was better, from then on it was Malone no contest, though neither would have been the player they were without eachother. Especially in the longevity department. Probably similar to Pippen-Jordan. Its interesting how both Malone and Pippen fell of stats wise considerably after leaving their partners.
McHale isn't in the GOAT power forward conversation, though he was definitely a better offensive player then Pippen by a large margin.
I'd agree Pippen was quite a bit better though, its just the closest situation I could think of.

[Roundball_Rock]

Do you think they were always clear #1/#2? Your take is interesting because Malone was considered better by most, at least since 94' when I began to watch. Looking at MVP voting Malone was ahead of Stockton every year, though, in the 90's and he was all-NBA first team every year while Stockton sometimes wasn't.

Yeah, I see your point. I agree Bird-McHale is the closest comparison. I agree McHale was a better scorer but Pippen was much better defensively and Pippen brought more to a team with his versatility, i.e. he could run the offense too and was a very good playmaker.


Its interesting how both Malone and Pippen fell of stats wise considerably after leaving their partners.

Well Pippen didn't the first time. Pippen's stats actually improved when MJ retired in 94'. In 99' he did fall off but that back injury in the 98' finals really damaged him. He was never the same after that. He also seemed to age fast, although I do think in 99' if he was not in a bad offense for him like Houston he could have had something like 18/7/5. By 2001 he was not nearly what he was in 98' but he remained stable from 2001-03 and actually played a significant role in Portland doing well in 2002 and 2003. Malone fell off too but I think that was simply because he was the #3 option instead of the #1 and he also had Gary Payton there so he wasn't getting the same touches. I think he was basically the same player in 04' as 03'.

[juju151111]

Wilkins? :lol We are talking about the second threepeat. Pippen was the better defender then. Jordan guarded Jeff Hornacek against the Jazz while Harper took Stockton. :roll:

You mention voting for things like the all-D team. That is interesting. Who received the most votes for the all-Defense team in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 (and would have probably been #1 again in 98' if he didn't miss half the season)? Who was #1 in all-NBA voting in 1994, #3 in 1995, and #2 in 1996? MJ fans love to cite things when they are convenient but then ignore them when they are inconvenient. How can a guy who was #2 in all-NBA voting (behind MJ) and #1 in all-D voting not be 1b? If that isn't 1b then what is?

Thanks for sharing, magnax. I think most people will agree with you. I am on a bit of an island with my definition and I don't even really look at that but rather whether a player was indispensable and both Jordan and Pippen qualify, as we saw when Pippen was replaced by Kukoc, who was not an average SF but a good one. If Pippen could not be replaced with Kukoc how would the team do with an average SF? Would it even reach 50 wins?

Pippen in 98' did fall off but he was still scoring 20 ppg when healthy. He averaged 19 in the regular season but that was because he needed to shake off the rust. I agree, though, Pippen had declined by then--but so had Jordan but I agree the gap had widened by then. The closest Pippen was to him was 95', 96', and 97'.



A lot of this is based on perception. Look at the 83' Sixers:

Moses 25/15/1 with 2 blocks
Dr. J 21/7/4 with 2 blocks

Moses: 1st in MVP voting
Dr. J: 5th in MVP voting

Both are first team all-NBA. Sound familiar? It should. This is very similar to Jordan-Pippen in 96', except Pippen was also first team all-Defense and actually the leading vote getter. Yet Pippen did not have the aura of Dr. J--and Moses not that off MJ--and one is classified as 1a/1b and the other "sidekick" and "master."
Second 3 peat?? Where did 97bulls say that. LOL The bulls played the hawks in the 93 playoffs. He got the most attention payed to him while stil guarding the best players. Yes, MJ got tired quicker in the 2nd 3 peat because of old age, but when he really wanted to step up defensivly he would.

Pippen was a sidekick he wasn't MJ equal. 1a and 1b is Kobe and Shaq in 02-04.

[Roundball_Rock]

Second 3 peat?? Where did 97bulls say that. LOL The bulls played the hawks in the 93 playoffs. He got the most attention payed to him while stil guarding the best players. Yes, MJ got tired quicker in the 2nd 3 peat because of old age, but when he really wanted to step up defensivly he would.

Pippen was a sidekick he wasn't MJ equal. 1a and 1b is Kobe and Shaq in 02-04.

The whole "1a/1b" talk has revolved around 1996-98'. I thought you meant Gerald Wilkins during the Cleveland series. First round series are a joke anyway. Cleveland was a legit threat, though. It made the ECF in 92' and won 55 or 54 games in 93'.

You are illustrating what I mentioned, though. You cite coaches voting when MJ was #1 but ignore that Pippen was #1 in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and probably in 1998 if he didn't miss half the year. Despite that he still got enough votes to make first team all-Defense. Yet when MJ is ahead voting it proves he >Pippen defensively but when Pippen is ahead it means nothing? It doesn't matter if MJ wanted to step up from 96'-98'. He simply was not as good a defender as Pippen at that point.

[juju151111]

The whole "1a/1b" talk has revolved around 1996-98'. I thought you meant Gerald Wilkins during the Cleveland series. First round series are a joke anyway. Cleveland was a legit threat, though. It made the ECF in 92' and won 55 or 54 games in 93'.

You are illustrating what I mentioned, though. You cite coaches voting when MJ was #1 but ignore that Pippen was #1 in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and probably in 1998 if he didn't miss half the year. Despite that he still got enough votes to make first team all-Defense. Yet when MJ is ahead voting it proves he >Pippen defensively but when Pippen is ahead it means nothing? It doesn't matter if MJ wanted to step up from 96'-98'. He simply was not as good a defender as Pippen at that point.
Where did i say anything about that?? I have Pippen ahead of MJ on defense alltime.