Chris Mullin vs Larry Bird $100 bucks a shot [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

KevinNYC

08-09-2011, 04:50 PM

id go with mullen on 3s and everything else to bird

id go with mullen on 3s and everything else to bird

I have heard stories of both of them going shooting dozens and dozens of shots without a miss. I personally saw Mullin shoot what felt like 30 or 40 20-25ft shots without a miss.

Mullin Link (http://www.bouncemag.com/2011/04/04/the-playground-gave-us-mo-aka-chris-mullin/) Check out the comments on the page, search for Tokyo and read that comment and the next.

I can't find the Bird link, but it was from a TV guy, maybe for ESPN. Mickey Mantle had come in for interview and just waiting in the back room watching the camera feed from the Boston Garden before a game and he notices Mantle watching closer and closer and then Mantle says, "this guy doesn't miss." And they watched some more without Bird missing.

DuMa

08-09-2011, 05:07 PM

If they were drinking, Mullin in a heartbeat

97 bulls

08-09-2011, 05:21 PM

I'm going with mullin. He had arguably the sweetest shot in the game.

Da_Realist

08-09-2011, 06:16 PM

I have heard stories of both of them going shooting dozens and dozens of shots without a miss. I personally saw Mullin shoot what felt like 30 or 40 20-25ft shots without a miss.

Mullin Link (http://www.bouncemag.com/2011/04/04/the-playground-gave-us-mo-aka-chris-mullin/) Check out the comments on the page, search for Tokyo and read that comment and the next.

I can't find the Bird link, but it was from a TV guy, maybe for ESPN. Mickey Mantle had come in for interview and just waiting in the back room watching the camera feed from the Boston Garden before a game and he notices Mantle watching closer and closer and then Mantle says, "this guy doesn't miss." And they watched some more without Bird missing.

From Those Guys Have All The Fun
(http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/those-guys-have-all-the-fun-james-andrew-miller/1026502092?ean=9780316043007&itm=1&usri=those%2bguys%2bhave%2ball%2bthe%2bfun%2binsid e%2bthe%2bworld%2bof%2bespn)
Bill Fairweather (Sportscenter Producer): As I prepared, I remembered when I was twenty-one years old and working at this local station in the sports department and Mickey Mantle came by as part of a promotional tour. He came into the sports office and wound up sitting there while the PR guy was doing some other stuff. So we're in this room together, but I'm not going to bother him. He's Mickey Mantle, right? The office had TV screens with different feeds and games that are going on, but one of the screen had the live feed from Boston Garden. So now it's like 4:30 p.m., and the lights are not even on at the Garden, but Larry Bird is out there shooting, as is his pregame ritual. He would always be out there hours before anyone else, shooting a half an hour or an hour by himself. Not even anyone retrieving the ball.

So Mantle sits back and starts watching Bird shooting, and two minutes go by, and I notice Bird hasn't missed a shot. Two more minutes go by; Bird still hasn't missed a shot. And I see Mantle start to sit up, to get on the edge of his chair and get more and more intently focused on watching this. No joke, Bird has probably taken a hundred shots in a row and not missed one. Mantle is just totally amazed by what he's seeing, and I'm watching him watch Bird. I'm getting a real kick out of this because I'm seeing this guy, one of the greatest baseball players of all time, watching one of the greatest basketball players of all time, all the while knowing that there are only two people in the world who are aware of what's going on now, and it's me and Mickey Mantle.

I think Bird was shooting for close to ten minutes without missing a shot, and finally Mantle gets to the point where he has to say something. He's just so amazed by what he's been seeing that he looks at me and says, "This boy doesn't miss." And I looked at him and I said, "Yeah, but you're Mickey Mantle."

ballerz

08-09-2011, 07:18 PM

Larry Legend

KevinNYC

08-09-2011, 07:18 PM

Oh yeah, that new ESPN Book.

Wow, just read the review in Time which led to this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8).

Didn't know about this, but I bet everyone who ever watched Jim Rome wanted to do this.

KevinNYC

08-09-2011, 07:21 PM

Learned a new word too. The Time review calls Jim Rome rebarbative.

re

jlauber

08-10-2011, 12:09 AM

I have mentioned it before, but I attended a Knicks-Warriors game in Oakland in the early 70's, and in the pre-game shoot-around, Jerry Lucas hit some 20 straight shots from between the circles (about 25 ft on average)...high-arching rainbows, and very few even rippled the net. He was past his prime by then, but even years before the media coined the term "Lucas Layup" in his honor. There is also some footage available on YouTube with him swishing FT line HOOK SHOTS (in at least a couple of videos for sure.) All of this from the premier PF of his era. A player that had TWO 20-20 seasons (and several more near-misses.) He was the Kevin Love of his era.

Jon McGlocklin was a 6-5 220 lb. guard that also had 25+ ft. range. He had some outstanding seasons, but in the 70-71 season he shot .535 ... much of it from what would be the 3pt line in today's NBA.

For pure shooting, how about the name of Wilfred Hetzel (article taken in 1970)?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1083519/index.htm

[QUOTE]World's Greatest (and doubtless only) Freak Shot Expert Wilfred Hetzel, who was discharged from the Army in 1943 "for nervousness," is nervous now. In the assembly program at Ladysmith (Va.) High School this morning, the kids were a little restless, and his performance a little ragged. True, he hit over 70% of his gallimaufry of shots

Miserio

08-10-2011, 12:22 AM

I'm going with mullin. He had arguably the sweetest shot in the game.
I agree and i'm the biggest larry bird homer of ALL TIMEEE

Maniak

08-10-2011, 01:53 AM

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldecjnvpoq1qcmnsoo1_250.jpg

walking off with the (money)ball in the air
http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/4/45/Dat_ass.jpg

NugzHeat3

08-10-2011, 03:31 AM

wally_world

08-10-2011, 01:18 PM

Steve Nash

KevinNYC

08-10-2011, 11:37 PM

I know the thread is about their shooting ability but as a sidenote, it's interesting to see that Mullin and Bird had many similarites in their games.

- Great shooters in all situations

- Subpar man defenders yet elite team defenders due to their anticipation and instinct. Mullin had those quick hands that resulted in steals.

- Very good passers. Mullin often used to point forward for the Warriors. Bird may not have brought the ball up the court but a lot of the Celtics offense initiated through him.

Mullin was actually compared to Bird in the early 90s. IIRC, it was around the time they were selected for the Dream TEAM.

Very, very similar. Bird had the quick hands as well, both had great court vision too. Think about how good Mullin would be if he was 6'9' like Bird? He would be able to get his shot off even easier than ever.

Possibly my favorite pass ever was one from Mullin when he was at St. John's. He was standing at the top of the key with both of his hands up calling for the ball and the pass goes to him and and without moving his arm, he just flicks his wrist and serves a perfect chest high pass to the 7 footer, Bill Wennington for a dunk.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:14 AM

OldSchoolBBall

08-11-2011, 05:30 AM

I actually think talent-wise, bird and mullin are tit-for-tat. Mullin just never had the teams good enough to win like bird

Jesus, you're so obtuse. :oldlol: Mullin isn't even CLOSE to Bird in terms of talent, and I say that as a big Mullin fan (even played against him one time briefly when he visited Xaverian HS in Brooklyn back in the day).

InspiredLebowski

08-11-2011, 05:44 AM

Rick Mount'd kill em both. Just ask him.

Kobe 4 The Win

08-11-2011, 06:29 AM

I actually think talent-wise, bird and mullin are tit-for-tat. Mullin just never had the teams good enough to win like bird

I love Mullin but you're nuts

OmniStrife

08-11-2011, 07:57 AM

Steve Nash
+1

Mr. 50-40-90 all day.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 10:14 AM

I guess I should qualified my point by saying as far as offensive offensive, mullin and bird are on par.

donald_trump

08-11-2011, 10:21 AM

I guess I should qualified my point by saying as far as offensive offensive, mullin and bird are on par.

once again not close.

to answer the thread, id take mullin. him and nash and maybe mitch richmond are the only guys id take over bird.

catch24

08-11-2011, 10:22 AM

I guess I should qualified my point by saying as far as offensive offensive, mullin and bird are on par.

:roll:

donald_trump

08-11-2011, 10:24 AM

:roll:

same guy who thinks pippen is just as good as lebron and wade if he played in this era. :oldlol:

thats who were dealing with.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 11:19 AM

same guy who thinks pippen is just as good as lebron and wade if he played in this era. :oldlol:

thats who were dealing with.
I think james is better than pippen. I've said they're similar. But that conversation was about 2-3 years ago.

And yes, im firmly convinced that wade is extremely overrated. He hasn't done much of anything special past 06 and 09. He's overrated defensively, he's a product of the era he plays in due to the rule changes. He's limited offensively, and has underachieved his whole career.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 11:21 AM

once again not close.

to answer the thread, id take mullin. him and nash and maybe mitch richmond are the only guys id take over bird.
Get the **** otta here. Lol not close...... They were essentailly the same type of player offensively.

Kobe 4 The Win

08-11-2011, 11:32 AM

Wow, did you ever watch a prime Larry Bird? He and Mullin weren't in the same universe, offensively or otherwise.

catch24

08-11-2011, 11:33 AM

Get the **** otta here. Lol not close...... They were essentailly the same type of player offensively.

This post only reassures your maturity. Admit it, you never watched them play.

Bird was by far a better playmaker, and rebounder (offensive). As a scorer, Bird was definitely more effective and had a much bigger volume.

juju151111

08-11-2011, 11:45 AM

This post only reassures your maturity. Admit it, you never watched them play.

Bird was by far a better playmaker, and rebounder (offensive). As a scorer, Bird was definitely more effective and had a much bigger volume.
Why are you arguing with this tard? He makes horseshit statements every other day.

catch24

08-11-2011, 11:53 AM

Why are you arguing with this tard? He makes horseshit statements every other day.

What can I say? It's fun correcting the young and misinformed.

You're right though. We're talking about the kid who'd draft Pippen over Magic in an NBA draft :lol

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:00 PM

Lol I'm really getting under some of you guys skin. You guys remember stuff ive posted literrally years ago.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:02 PM

Wow, did you ever watch a prime Larry Bird? He and Mullin weren't in the same universe, offensively or otherwise.
Even if you feel bird is better offensively, they're not being in the same universe? That's taking it wayyyyy to far.

catch24

08-11-2011, 12:06 PM

Lol I'm really getting under some of you guys skin. You guys remember stuff ive posted literrally years ago.

You posted that stuff just a few weeks ago. Stop exaggerating.

At least backup what you say. All you really tend to do around here is throw wet-blanket statements trying to pass them off as fact. Not intelligent.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:09 PM

What can I say? It's fun correcting the young and misinformed.

You're right though. We're talking about the kid who'd draft Pippen over Magic in an NBA draft :lol
Why does every thread that were in together revolve around my stance on pippen? I think I shed new light on how basketball is played and won and you can't deal with it. This is a bird/mullin thread. You want me to debate you on magic and pippen, I have no problem with it. And just know ill own you like I always do.

If not, let it go. Pippen beat magic on the biggest nba stage. Get over it. It unhealthy

catch24

08-11-2011, 12:12 PM

Why does every thread that were in together revolve around my stance on pippen? I think I shed new light on how basketball is played and won and you can't deal with it. This is a bird/mullin thread. You want me to debate you on magic and pippen, I have no problem with it. And just know ill own you like I always do.

If not, let it go. Pippen beat magic on the biggest nba stage. Get over it. It unhealthy

It's annoying that someone can have 5,000+ posts of hot garbage, and not be banned for it. That's all.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:12 PM

You posted that stuff just a few weeks ago. Stop exaggerating.

At least backup what you say. All you really tend to do around here is throw wet-blanket statements trying to pass them off as fact. Not intelligent.
What stuff? Its the same thing. I post something and you bring up how I owned you in a scottie pippen debate.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:16 PM

It's annoying that someone can have 6,000 posts of hot garbage, and not be banned for it. That's all.
Lol I should be banned for having a pov? The problem is I got you to admit that if pippen played in the 80s, he'd avg 24/9/8 which are bird type numbers. Andit makes you soooooooo mad.

catch24

08-11-2011, 12:16 PM

What stuff? Its the same thing. I post something and you bring up how I owned you in a scottie pippen debate.

The Magic/Pippen "stuff". I'm really not even trying to debate that right now; I was only agreeing with Juju that you're truly uneducated when it pertains to the history of basketball.

Saying you'd take Scottie Pippen over Magic in an NBA draft isn't "owning someone". Hate to burst your bubble, kiddo.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:19 PM

Why are you arguing with this tard? He makes horseshit statements every other day.
What's with the insult? If you disagree with me then show your vast basketball knowledge and show me why. If I agree, ill gladly change my stance. I've been wrong before.

Rose

08-11-2011, 12:19 PM

In regards to shooting, and only shooting I think Mullin can compete with Bird.

So I'd consider taking him in this debate, but ultimately trust Bird.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:25 PM

The Magic/Pippen "stuff". I'm really not even trying to debate that right now; I was only agreeing with Juju that you're truly uneducated when it pertains to the history of basketball.

Saying you'd take Scottie Pippen over Magic in an NBA draft isn't "owning someone". Hate to burst your bubble, kiddo.
No, you can't debate me on magic and pippen.

catch24

08-11-2011, 12:31 PM

Lol I should be banned for having a pov? The problem is I got you to admit that if pippen played in the 80s, he'd avg 24/9/8 which are bird type numbers. Andit makes you soooooooo mad.

It's not just the point of view you have. It's the troll-like extremes you go to. Pippen would average 30 if he played in the 80's! Those type of statements just aren't stimulating conversation nor fun to debate. The problem is that your opinions always consist of what-if scenarios. You simply can't backup what you type. I don't know you personally. You don't make me "mad". Of course one is entitled to an opinion, but after a while it gets both redundant and stupid seeing someone post from their ass not having a single iota of perspective. Simply put - stop talking about players you never watched.

catch24

08-11-2011, 12:34 PM

No, you can't debate me on magic and pippen.

There's no debate. Magic is a tier or two above Pippen, easily.

Kobe 4 The Win

08-11-2011, 12:34 PM

Even if you feel bird is better offensively, they're not being in the same universe? That's taking it wayyyyy to far.

Nooooo, it isn't. Bird's production was vastly beyond Mullin and the result of that production (Awards, Championships) was way beyond what Mullin did. They are similar only in that they are both white dudes who could shoot. There is a reason why Larry Bird is Larry Bird. His face would be on the Mount Rushmore of the NBA, Mullin's would not. Again, I'm not trying to shit on Mullin. Mullin was awesome, but his impact in a game didn't approach Bird's. And, anyone who would take Pip over Magic needs to have their head examined.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:41 PM

Nooooo, it isn't. Bird's production was vastly beyond Mullin and the result of that production (Awards, Championships) was way beyond what Mullin did. They are similar only in that they are both white dudes who could shoot. There is a reason why Larry Bird is Larry Bird. His face would be on the Mount Rushmore of the NBA, Mullin's would not. Again, I'm not trying to shit on Mullin. Mullin was awesome, but his impact in a game didn't approach Bird's. And, anyone who would take Pip over Magic needs to have their head examined.
Isn't this what I said in the first place? Bird is obviously more accomplished cuz he had the better teams. Most of the awards bird won are given to the best player on the best team. But offensively, I really didn't see much of a diffeerence between the two. Definately not to the point that bird is lightyears ahead of mullin as you put it.

Miller for 3

08-11-2011, 12:45 PM

Isn't this what I said in the first place? Bird is obviously more accomplished cuz he had the better teams. Most of the awards bird won are given to the best player on the best team. But offensively, I really didn't see much of a diffeerence between the two. Definately not to the point that bird is lightyears ahead of mullin as you put it.

^^^^

Did not watch Bird play

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:52 PM

It's not just the point of view you have. It's the troll-like extremes you go to. Pippen would average 30 if he played in the 80's! Those type of statements just aren't stimulating conversation nor fun to debate. The problem is that your opinions always consist of what-if scenarios. You simply can't backup what you type. I don't know you personally. You don't make me "mad". Of course one is entitled to an opinion, but after a while it gets both redundant and stupid seeing someone post from their ass not having a single iota of perspective. Simply put - stop talking about players you never watched.
Lol I never said pippen would avg 30 ppg in the 80s. I said he'd avg anywhere between 24-26 but he'd be right at around 24/9/8, which you agreed with I might add.

And as I said before, when you try to compare players that never really played together in their prime, it becomes a what if scenario.

I believed I used the example of wilt chamberlain. Statistically, he's the greatest ever. But a lot of people don't consider him the greatest ever cuz IF he played in the modern era, he wouldn't be anywhere near as statistically dominant as he was in the 60s.

If you don't believe in what if scenarios, then surely the 96 bulls are the greatest team ever cuz they have the greatest record ever. Is this true?

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 12:56 PM

^^^^

Did not watch Bird play
Lol why? Cuz I don't feel bird was lightyears better offensively than mullin. Maybe my definition of "lightyears" is different from yours.

catch24

08-11-2011, 01:00 PM

Lol I never said pippen would avg 30 ppg in the 80s. I said he'd avg anywhere between 24-26 but he'd be right at around 24/9/8, which you agreed with I might add.

All circumstantial. To be honest, I don't even remember agreeing with you. What if he had to carry a team for a long period of time? Could he be as effective of a leader/playmaker as Bird? Magic? Again I'm not going to steer away from the OP but these questions have to be asked and analyzed before you start to extrapolate numbers.

If you don't believe in what if scenarios, then surely the 96 bulls are the greatest team ever cuz they have the most the greatest record ever. Is this true?

This has nothing to do with a 'what-if scenario'. In this case, you would have to use context; i.e., who the Bulls and their contemporaries faced as competition.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 01:00 PM

Also catch24, you want say this is redundant? You bring this stuff up. Not that I mind cuz I enjoy the conversation.

greensborohill

08-11-2011, 01:05 PM

Didn't Pippen quit on his team one time? Very LeBron esque.

juju151111

08-11-2011, 01:11 PM

Why does every thread that were in together revolve around my stance on pippen? I think I shed new light on how basketball is played and won and you can't deal with it. This is a bird/mullin thread. You want me to debate you on magic and pippen, I have no problem with it. And just know ill own you like I always do.

If not, let it go. Pippen beat magic on the biggest nba stage. Get over it. It unhealthy
Why in every thread you proclaim that you won? You didn't win anything you dumb ass.

juju151111

08-11-2011, 01:14 PM

What's with the insult? If you disagree with me then show your vast basketball knowledge and show me why. If I agree, ill gladly change my stance. I've been wrong before.
I can't argue anything with you anymore. You just say too much dumbshit.

jlip

08-11-2011, 01:20 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9csnrFENGc#t=7m53s

Magic on Mullin's jumper

HylianNightmare

08-11-2011, 01:25 PM

must be nice to play for 100 bucks a shot

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 01:32 PM

All circumstantial. To be honest, I don't even remember agreeing with you. What if he had to carry a team for a long period of time? Could he be as effective of a leader/playmaker as Bird? Magic? Again I'm not going to steer away from the OP but these questions have to be asked and analyzed before you start to extrapolate numbers.

This has nothing to do with a 'what-if scenario'. In this case, you would have to use context; i.e., who the Bulls and their contemporaries faced as competition.
I agree its circumstantial cuz none of these players had the same career. But "circumstantial", "if", "context" whats the difference? None is a definite. Its all deductive. Reasoning. But look at what your saying. In some comparisons, like pippen, you want to stay away from context. You don't want to take into consideration, the offense the bulls played, him playing behind jordan, him playing in a league that didnt really stress an uptempo style like the 80s.

But when you want to discuss the bulls and their dominance, then you want "context". You want to factor in contemporaires, competition etc. Which I agree with. I don't think the 96 bulls are the best team cuz they are the only team to win 70+ games, they have the best away record ever, they tied the record for pt differential. Like you said, there's sooo many factors that are involved in a comparison. Pippen is not different

I don't see any real consistancy in this point of view.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 01:35 PM

Didn't Pippen quit on his team one time? Very LeBron esque.
Lol I guess they're similar in more ways than their vesitility.

KingBeasley08

08-11-2011, 01:36 PM

Why in every thread you proclaim that you won? You didn't win anything you dumb ass.
:oldlol: :oldlol:

97 bulls is such an idiot :roll:

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 01:38 PM

Why in every thread you proclaim that you won? You didn't win anything you dumb ass.
Lol so now you've called me a "tard" and a "dumb ass". What is your problem?

OldSchoolBBall

08-11-2011, 02:43 PM

Why does every thread that were in together revolve around my stance on pippen?

Because it shows that you've engaged in a pattern of idiocy. You make statements like Pippen >= Bird, Pippen = Magic if he played in the 80's, Pippen was as valuable as Jordan to the Bulls, and now this new joke of a statement that Mullin is as talented as Bird and just as good offensively. All of these statements are a joke, so that's why people keep harping on them.

KevinNYC

08-11-2011, 03:29 PM

Jesus, you're so obtuse. :oldlol: Mullin isn't even CLOSE to Bird in terms of talent, and I say that as a big Mullin fan (even played against him one time briefly when he visited Xaverian HS in Brooklyn back in the day).

I think Bird is a much better player than Mullin, but skillwise they were close, but Bird was bigger and stronger which is one of the reason that their impact on the court was different.

Also, did you go to Xaverian? What year did you graduate?

KevinNYC

08-11-2011, 03:41 PM

They are similar only in that they are both white dudes who could shoot.

Yes, they could shoot, but they also shared great court vision, great anticipation/feel for the game, great passing skills, and they both had very quick hands that made up for relatively slow feet on defensive.

Other than the jump shot, I think Bird is better in all this, but they were close. Bird was tougher and much better rebounder, but their games are more similiar than say Mullin and Reggie Miller or Mullin and Chuck Person or other long distance shooters.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 03:56 PM

Because it shows that you've engaged in a pattern of idiocy. You make statements like Pippen >= Bird, Pippen = Magic if he played in the 80's, Pippen was as valuable as Jordan to the Bulls, and now this new joke of a statement that Mullin is as talented as Bird and just as good offensively. All of these statements are a joke, so that's why people keep harping on them.
It just shows how people can take things out of context. Including you. I said, if pippen played in the 80s, his stats would be higher due to the way the game was played. I threw out some numbers, that noone has really disagreed with. The response I got were that that those are "bird type numbers". And here lies the problem. You guys DON'T WANT THEM to look like birds. All I did was use simple math. I never said he'd lead the league in scoring or avg 30 ppg etc. I've repeatedly stated that bird is ranked higher than pippen and has accomplished more individually. Talent-wise yeas, I don't see a difference. Definaetely not to the point of "clear", "miles", "lightyears", "its not even close" or what ever other word or statement you want to use that would imply that bird is that much better than pippen, or mullin or whoever.

I don't think pippen is better than mullin talent-wise. Their roles and styles were different but that's about it.

When I was asked who I would start a franchise with between magic and pippen, I said pippen cuz I know what he would do with a bad team. Magic has never been on a bad team. And he's always struck me as a crybaby and pouter. And magic was a triflen defender. But as far as rank, magic is higher than pippen.

I feel everything I said is reasonable. Not that you or anyone else has to agree. But lets discuss it. I don't call people asshole, and an idiot etc. I don't need to. This is the internet. Attack my point of view not me. Cuz I'm sure if I was standing in front of you and anyone else on here the conversation would be different.

Another problem is the way people take things out of context. Like when I said I was more impressed with how marion was playing lebron james to a standstill than what dirk was doing during the finals. That got turned around into me saying marion was better than dirk.

The problem as I see it is that I expose you and others as being a hypocrite. And once that happens, your credibilty is shot cuz you talk out of both sides of your mouth. I'm consistant. In all aspect of my pov.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 04:04 PM

Yes, they could shoot, but they also shared great court vision, great anticipation/feel for the game, great passing skills, and they both had very quick hands that made up for relatively slow feet on defensive.

Other than the jump shot, I think Bird is better in all this, but they were close. Bird was tougher and much better rebounder, but their games are more similiar than say Mullin and Reggie Miller or Mullin and Chuck Person or other long distance shooters.
This is all I'm sayn. I don't see much of a difference past rebounding. Cuz mullin played with hardaway a good portion of his career. Bird handled the ball more. But rebounding is definately in birds favor.

catch24

08-11-2011, 04:20 PM

I agree its circumstantial cuz none of these players had the same career. But "circumstantial", "if", "context" whats the difference?

Are you really asking what the difference between two distinct words are? I'll break it down for you easily. Do I think Pippen (with supporting cast similar to what he had in '94) could lead a team team like he did in '94, putting up better all-around numbers in a faster pace-driven league? Absolutely. Do I think he could do it consistently, say like Magic and Bird? Of course not. And that reason lies within his mentality and role during the Bulls dynasty.

But when you want to discuss the bulls and their dominance, then you want "context".

Why wouldn't I or anyone else? You're indicating that there isn't an anomaly in speculating what someone's numbers would be another ERA versus dissecting a teams competition. A little perverse don't you think?

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 04:38 PM

Are you really asking what the difference between two distinct words are? I'll break it down for you easily. Do I think Pippen (with supporting cast similar to what he had in '94) could lead a team team like he did in '94, putting up better all-around numbers in a faster pace-driven league? Absolutely. Do I think he could do it consistently, say like Magic and Bird? Of course not. And that reason lies within his mentality and role during the Bulls dynasty.

Why wouldn't I or anyone else? You're indicating that there isn't an anomaly in speculating what someone's numbers would be another ERA versus dissecting a teams competition. A little perverse don't you think?
I sense a double standard comming. But I'm gonna indulge this. Why or what did pippen show in 94 or in any other year he played during his prime, makes you think he couldn't. Play at that high of a level for a few years?

And no there isn't an anomoly. I've seen it done all the time. Wilts stats are routinely translated from the 60s to now. I've seen posters say russell would be the equal of rodman or wallace due to the 60s pace. Kobe fans love to say that he'd avg higher numbers if he didn't have to worry about the zone. Jordan fans say jordan would've avg 40 ppg in this no hand check era. This kind of stuff is done all the time. People say Dwight howard in the 90s would put up mourning type numbers cuz the competiton would be better. Its done all the time. I've seen people compare ming to smits for the same reason. Its done all the time. Its all context.

catch24

08-11-2011, 05:00 PM

I sense a double standard comming. But I'm gonna indulge this. Why or what did pippen show in 94 or in any other year he played during his prime, makes you think he couldn't. Play at that high of a level for a few years?

Because he wasn't that type of player. Look how much his production dwindled in the postseason and the following year right before MJ came back out of retirement. He barely shot 43% (on a relatively low volume) cracking under pressure vs NY displaying awful leadership qualities. Leadership qualities NEEDED to excel and beat those super-teams of the 80's.

Despite the influx of teams playing no defense and fast-pace play being prevalent, the ERA was definitely STILL physical. I can't imagine a Pippen led team getting one game on those Pistons, Celtics or Lakers of the 80's. They'd expose him for what he was, mentally soft. You can call Magic a "whiner" and "pouter" all you want, but he was FAR and AWAY a better leader, player and winner.

And no there isn't an anomoly. I've seen it done all the time. Wilts stats are routinely translated from the 60s to now.

I don't care what you've seen done to Wilt here. The fact you don't see a difference in discussing team competition and what a players stats would be a few decades ago is disturbing.

Look, we're going wayyyyy off track here. Just admit you were off-base claiming there was no significant difference between Bird and Mullin offensively.

OldSchoolBBall

08-11-2011, 05:34 PM

I think Bird is a much better player than Mullin, but skillwise they were close, but Bird was bigger and stronger which is one of the reason that their impact on the court was different.

Also, did you go to Xaverian? What year did you graduate?

No, I had a couple of friends who used to be on the team back in the mid-90's, and Mullin would occasionally go down there to show face at his alma mater and play sometimes with current/former players. I was able to get into a couple of these sessions due to my friends. Dude is an INCREDIBLE shooter and a cool guy.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 05:43 PM

Because he wasn't that type of player. Look how much his production dwindled in the postseason and the following year right before MJ came back out of retirement. He barely shot 43% (on a relatively low volume) cracking under pressure vs NY displaying awful leadership qualities. Leadership qualities NEEDED to excel and beat those super-teams of the 80's.

Despite the influx of teams playing no defense and fast-pace play being prevalent, the ERA was definitely STILL physical. I can't imagine a Pippen led team getting one game on those Pistons, Celtics or Lakers of the 80's. They'd expose him for what he was, mentally soft. You can call Magic a "whiner" and "pouter" all you want, but he was FAR and AWAY a better leader, player and winner.

I don't care what you've seen done to Wilt here.
lol sure you don't. You said that trying to generalize stats across eras wasn't the norm. When I show you multiple examples, you don't care.

The fact you don't see a difference in discussing team competition and what a players stats would be a few decades ago is disturbing.
The similarity is the context. You know what I'm saying is true. Your just acting as if there isn't a parralel.

Look, we're going wayyyyy off track here. Just admit you were off-base claiming there was no significant difference between Bird and Mullin offensively.
Pippen shot bad that bulls/knicks series. But I wouldn't say that was indicative of what he was year by year. That series as a whole was a defensive struggle. Its not like he's the first player to have a bad shooting series against a strong defensive team. He still avg almost. 24 points 9 rebounds and played great defense. And 43% wasn't that bad considering the league avg that year was about 46%. As an example, bird shot 47% in 81 in a league that avg 49%. The difference is bird had a much better team. And the fact that he played against the 40-42 rockets definately helped.

But I stand by assertion that mullin and bird were similar offensively.

KevinNYC

08-11-2011, 05:55 PM

No, I had a couple of friends who used to be on the team back in the mid-90's, and Mullin would occasionally go down there to show face at his alma mater and play sometimes with current/former players. I was able to get into a couple of these sessions due to my friends. Dude is an INCREDIBLE shooter and a cool guy.
OK. So you're younger than me. I watched one of these sessions his senior year in college. I think it was mostly college age guys who were with him then.

The funny part of the story was I saw him in the locker room and figured I would hang around and took a seat in the stands and when he first came out he was awful and I thought: Wow glad no scouts are watching this. Turns out that was his younger brother who looks just like him, but not as tall. When he came out he didn't miss. It was INCREDIBLE. Just like dribbling all around the floor turning and shooting from what seemed like 25-30 feet out and hitting everthing. Not even set shots, just wrong foot turnarounds while warming up. All net each time.

catch24

08-11-2011, 05:58 PM

Pippen shot bad that bulls/knicks series. But I wouldn't say that was indicative of what he was year by year. That series as a whole was a defensive struggle. Its not like he's the first player to have a bad shooting series against a strong defensive team. He still avg almost. 24 points 9 rebounds and played great defense. And 43% wasn't that bad considering the league avg that year was about 46%. As an example, bird shot 47% in 81 in a league that avg 49%. The difference is bird had a much better team. And the fact that he played against the 40-42 rockets definately helped.

But I stand by assertion that mullin and bird were similar offensively.

lol sure you don't. You said that trying to generalize stats across eras wasn't the norm. When I show you multiple examples, you don't care.

I don't. Although, I may consider the source. A kid who props up his favorite player any chance he gets is irrelevant to me (look how many times you've been called an idiot this thread; use your head) :oldlol: at taking Scottie Pippen over one of the greatest players ever in an NBA draft. There's no way anyone is gonna agree with that, let alone a GM. The only exception is you because you're a zealot.

The fact you don't see a difference in discussing team competition and what a players stats would be a few decades ago is disturbing.
The similarity is the context. You know what I'm saying is true. Your just acting as if there isn't a parralel.

Team competition isn't adjusting an entire ERA's pace for individual players numbers whilst estimating what said players numbers would be. How can you be this clueless? Context is thrown out the window when Pippen had keys to the porsche and refused to comeback in during a pivotal playoff game because a play wasn't drawn up for him. But yeah, Magic is the pouter. Good one :oldlol:

And again, there's a bit of a difference saying Bird/Mullin had similar skillsets and there not being a sigincant difference in their offense.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 06:33 PM

I don't. Although, I may consider the source. A kid who props up his favorite player any chance he gets is irrelevant to me (look how many times you've been called an idiot this thread; use your head) :oldlol: at taking Scottie Pippen over one of the greatest players ever in an NBA draft. There's no way anyone is gonna agree with that, let alone a GM. The only exception is you because you're a zealot.
I don't make decisions because of what someone may think. I was aked a question and I answered it according to what I believe in. That's what men do. Not answer how I think some people on the internet would answer. Maybe your the kid.

Team competition isn't adjusting an entire ERA's pace for individual players numbers whilst estimating what said players numbers would be.
I didn't do this. I adjusted pippens stats based on if he played in a different era. Not the other way around. What I did is nothing new. Its not an anomoly. And its about as fair as you can get when trying to compare across eras. Cuz we honestly don't know.

How can you be this clueless? Context is thrown out the window when Pippen had keys to the porsche and refused to comeback in during a pivotal playoff game because a play wasn't drawn up for him. But yeah, Magic is the pouter. Good one :oldlol:
He didn't have the keys to the porche. Thats why he was pissed. He was paying the car note each month. But he couldn't drive it. And for the life of me ill never understand why he gets beat up for that one play. Don't forget, that HE WANTED THE SHOT. HE WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY. And he deserved that chance. Was he wrong? Sure. But I understand where he was comming from.

And again, there's a bit of a difference saying Bird/Mullin had similar skillsets and there not being a sigincant difference in their offense.
There's not a significant difference in their offense. Bird played in an uptempo era and mullin played in an uptempo offense.

catch24

08-11-2011, 07:39 PM

I don't make decisions because of what someone may think. I was aked a question and I answered it according to what I believe in. That's what men do. Not answer how I think some people on the internet would answer. Maybe your the kid.

Everyone here knows you rationalize and draw up excuses for your favorite player and team(s). Don't get it twisted, a grown ass man would own up to his mistakes. You've yet to do so. Instead you completely hijack the thread because you're stupid ass finally realizes your first post had zero merit. Bird leads Mullin in every major statistical category offensively. Comfortably I might add.

It doesn't matter what you "believe in". No one sane agrees with you. Pippen was a sidekick. You'd build around a second option instead of one of the top 5-7 players all-time. Think about it for a second. Take a few seconds if you need to.

It's almost as if you're purposely going against the grain because you want attention. Grow up and open up your mind. Learn to put aside your personal bias and feelings in debates. Just because your favorite player doesn't measure up to some of his peers doesn't make his impact any less than what it was. Remember that.

I didn't do this. I adjusted pippens stats based on if he played in a different era. Not the other way around. What I did is nothing new. Its not an anomoly. And its about as fair as you can get when trying to compare across eras. Cuz we honestly don't know

You can't adjust Pippen's stats, that's the point. You don't know if he could lead a team consistently. He didn't do it in Chicago so what makes you think he could do it by himself against the stacked teams of the 80's without Jordan's guidance or Phil's coaching? Again stop straying away from the original topic and admit you were DEAD wrong saying there wasn't a difference in Mullin and Bird's offense.

He didn't have the keys to the porche. Thats why he was pissed. He was paying the car note each month.

He "led" the team for an entire season. Just because he didn't get the last shot in a playoff game doesn't give him the right to sit on the bench and refuse to come back in. Pippen quit on his team. That's what happened.

There's not a significant difference in their offense. Bird played in an uptempo era and mullin played in an uptempo offense.

Wrong again, moron. Bird was a better passer, ran the Boston offense, was a much better offensive rebounder, and scorer adjusting for volume.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mullich01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01.html

In 1985, arguably one of Bird's best seasons, he averaged 29/10/7 and his teams pace per game was 101.6 (13 of 23 in the league); In 1991, arguably one of Mullin's best seasons, he averaged 26/5/4 and his teams pace per game was 103.6 (2nd in the league). So Mullin played in an uptempo offense, second in the league, averaging more possessions than Bird, yet couldn't put up the numbers Bird did. I thought there was no significant difference? Interesting. Its also worth noting there really wasn't much of a difference in defenses during the mid-late 80's and early 90's. Average pace per game was around 100 with teams like the Warriors getting just as many possessions as teams of the 80's.

Shit, their playoff numbers aren't even remotely close making the comparison look even more of a joke than it already is.

TAC602

08-11-2011, 07:48 PM

Everyone here knows you rationalize and draw up excuses for your favorite player and team(s). Don't get it twisted, a grown ass man would own up to his mistakes. You've yet to do so. Instead you completely hijack the thread because you're stupid ass finally realizes your first post had zero merit. Bird leads Mullin in every major statistical category offensively. Comfortably I might add.

It doesn't matter what you "believe in". No one sane agrees with you. Pippen was a sidekick. You'd build around a second option instead of one of the top 5-7 players all-time. Think about it for a second. Take a few seconds if you need to.

It's almost as if you're purposely going against the grain because you want attention. Grow up and open up your mind. Learn to put aside your personal bias and feelings in debates. Just because your favorite player doesn't measure up to some of his peers doesn't make his impact any less than what it was. Remember that.

You can't adjust Pippen's stats, that's the point. You don't know if he could lead a team consistently. He didn't do it in Chicago so what makes you think he could do it by himself against the stacked teams of the 80's without Jordan's guidance or Phil's coaching? Again stop straying away from the original topic and admit you were DEAD wrong saying there wasn't a difference in Mullin and Bird's offense.

He "led" the team for an entire season. Just because he didn't get the last shot in a playoff game doesn't give him the right to sit on the bench and refuse to come back in. Pippen quit on his team. That's what happened.

Wrong again, moron. Bird was a better passer, ran the Boston offense, was a much better offensive rebounder, and scorer adjusting for volume.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mullich01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01.html

In 1985, arguably one of Bird's best seasons, he averaged 29/10/7 and his teams pace per game was 101.6 (13 of 23 in the league); In 1991, arguably one of Mullin's best seasons, he averaged 26/5/4 and his teams pace per game was 103.6 (2nd in the league). So Mullin played in an uptempo offense, second in the league, averaging more possessions than Bird, yet couldn't put up the numbers Bird did. I thought there was no significant difference? Interesting. Its also worth noting there really wasn't much of a difference in defenses during the mid-late 80's and early 90's. Average pace per game was around 100 with teams like the Warriors getting just as many possessions as teams of the 80's.

Shit, their playoff numbers aren't even remotely close making the comparison look even more of a joke than it already is.

End Of Discussion.

Between 97bulls and Jacks3, it's difficult to tell which of them is a more unreasonable moron. Although, the eye sore factor of 97bulls posts are probably greater.

catch24

08-11-2011, 08:03 PM

End Of Discussion.

Between 97bulls and Jacks3, it's difficult to tell which of them is a more unreasonable moron. Although, the eye sore factor of 97bulls posts are probably greater.

He thinks he can post garbage and not get called out on it. Come on, honestly, not one single difference between Bird and Mullin's offensive game?

:wtf:

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 08:04 PM

Everyone here knows you rationalize and draw up excuses for your favorite player and team(s). Don't get it twisted, a grown ass man would own up to his mistakes. You've yet to do so. Instead you completely hijack the thread because you're stupid ass finally realizes his first post in this thread had zero merit. Bird leads Mullin in every major statistical category offensively. Comfortably I might add.
Stop trying to validate you opinion by running behind someone else. When they want to chime in they will. That's what females do.

It doesn't matter what you "believe in". No one sane agrees with you. Pippen was a sidekick. You'd build around a second option instead of one of the top 5-7 players all-time. Think about it for a second. Take a few seconds if you need to.
Sure it does. That's why its called my opinion.

It's almost as if you're purposely going against the grain because you want attention. Grow up and open up your mind. Learn to put aside your personal bias and feelings in debates. Just because your favorite player doesn't measure up to some of his peers doesn't make him any less of a player. Remember that.

You can't adjust Pippen's stats, that's the point. You don't know if he could lead a team consistently. He didn't do it in Chicago so what makes you think he could do it by himself against the stacked teams of the 80's without Jordan's guidance or Phil's coaching? Again stop straying away from the original topic and admit you were DEAD wrong saying there wasn't a difference in Mullin and Bird's offense.
[B]if your talking about 94 what was he supposed to do? He had a bad series against the knicks. It happens. Its no more of an indication that he could lead a team to a championship that any other player. It was one year. And the bulls weren't supposed to beat the knicks. They overachieved that season. I remeber the remarks people made when jordan abruptly retired. I remember during the first 3pt people saying the bulls were jordan and a bunch of scrubs. I hoonestly thought they'd finish with about 45 wins at best. Funny thing is. If you compare the 94 bulls to some of laker teams kobe led pre championship, or wades teams, or just about any other, Pippen did more with less. The 95 bulls, who had minimal talent at best were on pace to win about 45 games before jordans return.

He "led" the team for an entire season. Just because he didn't get the last shot in a playoff game doesn't give him the right to sit on the bench and refuse to come back in. Pippen quit on his team. That's what happened.

you get no argument out of me. It was a bad decision. But I respect the fact that he wanted the shot. That's all I'm saying.

Wrong again, moron. Bird was a better passer, ran the Boston offense, was a much better offensive rebounder, and scorer adjusting for volume.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mullich01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01.html

In 1985, arguably one of Bird's best seasons, he averaged 29/10/7 and his teams pace per game was 101.6 (13 of 23 in the league); In 1991, arguably one of Mullin's best seasons, he averaged 26/5/4 and his teams pace per game was 103.6 (2nd in the league). So Mullin played in an uptempo offense, second in the league, averaging more possessions than Bird, yet couldn't put up the numbers Bird did. I thought there was no significant difference? Interesting. Its also worth noting there really wasn't much of a difference in defenses during the mid-late 80's and early 90's. Average pace per game was around 100 with teams like the Warriors getting just as many possessions as teams of the 80's.

Shit, their playoff numbers aren't even remotely close making the comparison look even more of a joke than it already is.
Again, if you feel that bird was better, that's fine. I never said that notion was blasphemy or anything. I said I believed they're on par with each other.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 08:07 PM

End Of Discussion.

Between 97bulls and Jacks3, it's difficult to tell which of them is a more unreasonable moron. Although, the eye sore factor of 97bulls posts are probably greater.
Then tell me your opinion. Between mullin and bird, or pippen. Was larry bird lightyears better offensively than bird?

catch24

08-11-2011, 08:18 PM

Stop trying to validate you opinion by running behind someone else. When they want to chime in they will. That's what females do.

Quit being such a pansy and quote me properly. :oldlol: at hiding behind someone else. It just so happens NO ONE agrees with you. What more needs to be said? You're somewhere on an island by yourself away from scrutiny, hence why you're comfortable posting bullshit.

Sure it does. That's why its called my opinion.

An unjustified one. There was nothing better Pippen did besides play defense. Magic was damn near better at everything. Reality.

if your talking about 94 what was he supposed to do?

Play better and not quit on his team.

Again, if you feel that bird was better, that's fine. I never said that notion was blasphemy or anything. I said I believed they're on par with each other.

It's not what 'I feel', it's what it is. My opinions in this thread are backed with facts. Again, I don't spout half-assed opinions without some sort of evidence to back them up. You were spewing BS, got called out, and now have no rebuttal or leg to stand on. "If you feel that Bird was better, that's fine"??? Really??? That's the best you got? What happened to pace and that "uptempo" crap you were regurgitating a few minutes ago?

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 08:35 PM

Quit being such a pansy and quote me properly. :oldlol: at hiding behind someone else. It just so happens NO ONE agrees with you. What more needs to be said? You're somewhere on an island by yourself away from scrutiny, hence why you're comfortable posting bullshit.
you are hiding behind others like a girl. And id tell you the exact same thing in person. In fact, I live in los angeles. Whenever your ready, let me know and ill meet up with you and tell you whatever it is you wanna know.

An unjustified one. There was nothing better Pippen did besides play defense. Magic was damn near better at everything. Reality.
actually, pippen was better than magic as far as championships too.

Play better and not quit on his team.

It's not what 'I feel', it's what it is. My opinions in this thread are backed with facts. Again, I don't spout half-assed opinions without some sort of evidence to back them up. You were spewing BS, got called out, and now have no rebuttal or leg to stand on. "If you feel that Bird was better, that's fine"??? Really??? That's the best you got? What happened to pace and that "uptempo" crap you were regurgitating a few minutes ago?
I told you that mullin played in a higher tempo offense but bird played in a higher tempo era. I told you mullin didn't dominate the ball like bird did. So I agree with you. But I just go deeper.

catch24

08-11-2011, 08:58 PM

I told you that mullin played in a higher tempo offense but bird played in a higher tempo era. I told you mullin didn't dominate the ball like bird did. So I agree with you. But I just go deeper.

He didn't dominate the ball like Bird did because he wasn't as good running an offense. If he was similar to a playmaker Bird was, he'd of handled the ball more with or without Hardaway.

you are hiding behind others like a girl. And id tell you the exact same thing in person. In fact, I live in los angeles. Whenever your ready, let me know and ill meet up with you and tell you whatever it is you wanna know.

No one is hiding. I've addressed your posts. Not only are you stupid but an e-thug as well.

Hilarious :oldlol:

You'd be looking at the ground talking to me face to face. Pipe down.

actually, pippen was better than magic as far as championships too.

No, Michael Jordan was. Pippen was merely a sidekick/second option. His impact never exceeded what Magic brought to his teams.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 09:15 PM

He didn't dominate the ball like Bird did because he wasn't as good running an offense. If he was similar to a playmaker Bird was, he'd of handled the ball more with or without Hardaway.

No, the warriors had a great pg. Which meant mullins role was different from birds.

No one is hiding. I've addressed your posts. Not only are you stupid but an e-thug as well.

Hilarious :oldlol:
I never said anything about you hiding. You implied that my I voice my opinions only over the internet. I have these debates all day at work. I have no problem telling you in person. We could even play some 21 or something.

You'd be looking at the ground talking to me face to face. Pipe down.
But I'm the internet thug? Come on bro. I think your misunderstanding my invite.

No, Michael Jordan was. Pippen was merely a sidekick/second option. His impact never exceeded what Magic brought to his teams.
I remember in 91. Pippen impacted the hell outta magic. Bottom line, since you only respect what actually happened, you'd have to respect that head to head, pippen has a 1-0 advantage in the championship. And he played better than magic.

catch24

08-11-2011, 09:26 PM

No, the warriors had a great pg. Which meant mullins role was different from birds.

Just like the Celtics had great point guard/guard play from DJ and Danny Ainge. Again, if Mullin was so great the offense would have came through him, much like it did in Boston with Bird.

I never said anything about you hiding. You implied that my I voice my opinions only over the internet. I have these debates all day at work. I have no problem telling you in person. We could even play some 21 or something.

Did you not just I'm hiding behind other people on this forum? I'm confused. This is getting f*cking stupid.

I'm alright with you but when you post utter garbage someone has to call you out on it. Please explain why there is no difference between Bird and Mullin offensively when the statistics (and production) throughout their careers say otherwise.

I remember in 91. Pippen impacted the hell outta magic. Bottom line, since you only respect what actually happened, you'd have to respect that head to head, pippen has a 1-0 advantage in the championship. And he played better than magic.

Pippen was a fine player. An awesome all-time great. Jordan has a 1-0 advantage against Magic, not the other way around. Those two were the respective leaders of their squads. It's complete revisionist history to say stuff like Pippen has a 1-0 advantage over Magic, much less an out of prime Magic.

I respect that he put the locks on Magic certain points of that series, but that's about as far as it goes.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 09:42 PM

Just like the Celtics had great point guard/guard play from DJ and Danny Ainge. Again, if Mullin was so great the offense would have came through him, much like it did in Boston with Bird.
They weren't pgs in a traditional sense. Hardaway was. And hardaway was an amzing scorer. And what made it harder for mullin was that hardaway, richmond, and then later spreewell, handled the ball too. Parrish and mchale were bigs. Someone had to get them the ball. I doubt very seriously that bird would've had the ball in his hands as much as he did with hardaway and richmond on his team

Did you not just I'm hiding behind other people on this forum? I'm confused. This is getting f*cking stupid.

I'm alright with you but when you post utter garbage someone has to call you out on it. Please explain why there is no difference between Bird and Mullin offensively when the statistics (and production) throughout their careers say otherwise.
I know you are. We just disagree on this topic. We may agree on another. It no biggie.

Pippen was a fine player. An awesome all-time great. Jordan has a 1-0 advantage against Magic, not the other way around. Those two were the respective leaders of their squads. It's complete revisionist history to say stuff like Pippen has a 1-0 advantage over Magic, much less an out of prime Magic.

I respect that he put the locks on Magic certain points of that series, but that's about as far as it goes.
You have no choice but to respect what pippen did in 91 vs the magic. And as you like to say, facts are facts, the bulls (with pippen) beat the lakers (with magic johnson). Thus when the two were on the court on the biggest stage playing each other, pippen came out on top. And convinceingly I might add

catch24

08-11-2011, 09:58 PM

They weren't pgs in a traditional sense. Hardaway was. And hardaway was an amzing scorer. And what made it harder for mullin was that hardaway, richmond, and then later spreewell, handled the ball too. Parrish and mchale were bigs. Someone had to get them the ball. I doubt very seriously that bird would've had the ball in his hands as much as he did with hardaway and richmond on his team.

You're right, they weren't, which again, is part of the reason Bird ran Boston's offense most of the time. The other reason being HE was the offense. There's no way Mullin could replace what Bird did and still be as effective.

Offensively, yeah, you may have a point. They were close as far as their skillset (passing, exceptional shooting, scoring, and offensive rebounding), it's just the degree Bid did it in was more convincingly dominant.

You have no choice but to respect what pippen did in 91 vs the magic. And as you like to say, facts are facts, the bulls (with pippen) beat the lakers (with magic johnson). Thus when the two were on the court on the biggest stage playing each other, pippen came out on top. And convinceingly I might add

The Bulls lead by Jordan and Pippen beat the Lakers lead by Magic and Worthy. Right. Like I said, I just don't think it's fair to say Pippen = 1-0 against Magic (like those two were the only superstars and/or leaders that series). It's a little disingenuous is all. And again, not to make any excuses or anything, it's what it is (lol), but one cannot deny LA were on their last legs (Worthy DNP'd two of the five games that series while Scott, who only missed the last game, had nagging injuries as well). It would have been much more interesting to see both teams at their peak go at it.

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 10:08 PM

You're right, they weren't, which again, is part of the reason Bird ran Boston's offense most of the time. The other reason was because HE was the offense. There's no way Mullin could replace what Bird did and still be as effective.

Offensively, yeah, you may have a point. They were close as far as their skillset (passing, exceptional shooting, scoring, and offensive rebounding), it's just the degree Bid did it in was more convincingly dominant.
Its no fun when we agree catch. I like you much more when your being difficult

Did you not just I'm hiding behind other people on this forum? I'm confused. This is getting f*cking stupid.

The Bulls lead by Jordan and Pippen beat the Lakers lead by Magic and Worthy. Right. Like I said, I just don't think it's fair to say Pippen = 1-0 against Magic (like those two were the only superstars and/or leaders that series). It's a little disingenuous is all. And again, not to make lame excuses, it's what it is (lol), one cannot deny LA were on their last legs (Worthy DNP'd two of the five games that series while Scott, who only missed the last game, had nagging injuries as well). It would have been much more interesting to see both teams at their peak go at it.
Your actually right catch. This is disingenuious. But its along the same lines as to why I feel the way I do about pippen. Its not like he had a great team or lost as the favorite. And he didn't play bad vs the knicks. He shot bad. But his overall game was great.

I hope you see the parallel.

catch24

08-11-2011, 10:18 PM

Your actually right catch. This is disingenuious. But its along the same lines as to why I feel the way I do about pippen. Its not like he had a great team or lost as the favorite. And he didn't play bad vs the knicks. He shot bad. But his overall game was great.

I hope you see the parallel.

Yeah, I hear you. Much of that is why 'Scottie33Pippen' of Youtube (hitman2k) is around posting mixes and videos of Pipp.

Want my honest opinion? They had no business making the semifials, much less taking the Knicks of all teams to 7 games. That in-itself was an accomplishment. No Bulls fan by any means, but you gotta give credit where its due, and Pippen (who while I still think pulled a b*tch move when his team needed him most), did a stellar job being the glue that held that team together. Dude definitely held his own without Mike.

Seeing that you're a big fan of his, what season do you consider his best?

97 bulls

08-11-2011, 10:50 PM

Yeah, I hear you. Much of that is why 'Scottie33Pippen' of Youtube (hitman2k) is around posting mixes and videos of Pipp.

Want my honest opinion? They had no business making the semifials, much less taking the Knicks of all teams to 7 games. That in-itself was an accomplishment. No Bulls fan by any means, but you gotta give credit where its due, and Pippen (who while I still think pulled a b*tch move when his team needed him most), did a stellar job being the glue that held that team together. Dude definitely held his own without Mike.
I agree that 1.8 seconds really hurt his overall status. I think it killed his chances of winning the dpoy the next year.

Seeing that you're a big fan of his, what season do you consider his best?
1995. Easily. He had that team above 500 on pace to win about 44-45 games with a starting lineup of armstrong, myers, himself, either dickie simpkins, corie blount, larry krystawaik, and toni kukoc playing out of position, and luc longley.

That team was number 2 in team defense, and that was SOLELY due to him. He lead the league in defensive rating, he lead the league in steals. Avg a block a game and lead the bulls in every major category. Something that only been done 2 other times. He was also all nba 1st team defense.

Just understand that I in no way shape or form think pippen is or should be ranked higher than magic or bird. No matter what happened in his career, he didn't achieve what they did on a personal level. I just don't think he had a legit chance. Its unfortuante for him, but that's sports.

As far as mullin/bird. Bird was obviously the better player overall. I just feel they're close as far as putting the ball in the basket.

D.J.

08-11-2011, 10:58 PM

Mullin from mid range, Bird from beyond the arc.

catch24

08-11-2011, 11:39 PM

juju151111

08-12-2011, 12:18 AM

You have no choice but to respect what pippen did in 91 vs the magic. And as you like to say, facts are facts, the bulls (with pippen) beat the lakers (with magic johnson). Thus when the two were on the court on the biggest stage playing each other, pippen came out on top. And convinceingly I might add
:facepalm Shut it dumbass up. Pippen got his ass beat by Magic in gm 3. Stop watching clips and watch the gms. MJ guarded him more. Your a dumb****. Magic is way better then Pippen.

TAC602

08-12-2011, 12:23 AM

1995. Easily. He had that team above 500 on pace to win about 44-45 games with a starting lineup of armstrong, myers, himself, either dickie simpkins, corie blount, larry krystawaik, and toni kukoc playing out of position, and luc longley.

That team was number 2 in team defense, and that was SOLELY due to him. He lead the league in defensive rating, he lead the league in steals. Avg a block a game and lead the bulls in every major category. Something that only been done 2 other times. He was also all nba 1st team defense.

Just understand that I in no way shape or form think pippen is or should be ranked higher than magic or bird. No matter what happened in his career, he didn't achieve what they did on a personal level. I just don't think he had a legit chance. Its unfortuante for him, but that's sports.

As far as mullin/bird. Bird was obviously the better player overall. I just feel they're close as far as putting the ball in the basket.

Mullin was just as good of a shooter, I wouldn't claim otherwise. Bird was great shooter too obviously, but he was a pure scorer on another level. That's the primary difference to me. Bird didn't have explosive athleticism, but the man could get his shot against anybody and do it on a high volume if needed. Clearly, he played on some crazy talented teams and that's probably the reason he didn't put up several 30 ppg seasons. It wasn't anything for him to drop 40+, but he had so many more ways to impact the game outside of scoring and shooting, many of them already detailed by other posters. Still to this day, how many players are 24/10/6? And I usually couldn't careless about numbers when it comes to Bird.

As far as Scottie... amazing versatility, great passer, all-world perimeter defender. I don't see him being much more than he was as a scorer, but then again he had a massive load to carry during the one full year he was on his own. My opinion of Pippen is so high that if I were to put together an 8-man all time roster - not the Top 8 players - but an actual team, he'd be on it. And no, I don't know who all eight would be other than than Hakeem, Jordan.. and Larry Bird. Larry would probably be the 'worst' defender, and that's saying something considering he was an amazing team defender with absurd instincts.

97 bulls

08-12-2011, 12:48 AM

:facepalm Shut it dumbass up. Pippen got his ass beat by Magic in gm 3. Stop watching clips and watch the gms. MJ guarded him more. Your a dumb****. Magic is way better then Pippen.
Bulls fan huh? I think you posted about three times. And they've all been to me, and they've all started with insults. What have I done to make you so mad?

97 bulls

08-12-2011, 12:56 AM

Mullin was just as good of a shooter, I wouldn't claim otherwise. Bird was great shooter too obviously, but he was a pure scorer on another level. That's the primary difference to me. Bird didn't have explosive athleticism, but the man could get his shot against anybody and do it on a high volume if needed. Clearly, he played on some crazy talented teams and that's probably the reason he didn't put up several 30 ppg seasons. It wasn't anything for him to drop 40+, but he had so many more ways to impact the game outside of scoring and shooting, many of them already detailed by other posters. Still to this day, how many players are 24/10/6? And I usually couldn't careless about numbers when it comes to Bird.

As far as Scottie... amazing versatility, great passer, all-world perimeter defender. I don't see him being much more than he was as a scorer, but then again he had a massive load to carry during the one full year he was on his own. My opinion of Pippen is so high that if I were to put together an 8-man all time roster - not the Top 8 players - but an actual team, he'd be on it. And no, I don't know who all eight would be other than than Hakeem, Jordan.. and Larry Bird. Larry would probably be the 'worst' defender, and that's saying something considering he was an amazing team defender with absurd instincts.
I may be wrong, but you seemed to disagree with me in an earlier post. But now, I can't say I disagree with anything you stated. I think you even called me a dumbass. What's up?

G-train

08-12-2011, 01:24 AM

Mullin is definitely a better shooter in my eyes.

TAC602

08-12-2011, 01:34 AM

I may be wrong, but you seemed to disagree with me in an earlier post. But now, I can't say I disagree with anything you stated. I think you even called me a dumbass. What's up?

You got a lot more reasonable within your conversation with catch24 and I honestly hadn't seen you do anything like that in other threads. Always seemed like you were pushing against the grain purposely, but when you clarified your comments regarding Bird/Mullin, it came off a lot more intelligent so apologies for the insult.

That doesn't mean I'd agree with stuff like Pippen over Magic as an individual player, but I don't worship at the Jordan altar (although I recognize him as GOAT) so I'm not the type to diminish Scottie's contributions and value as a player.

juju151111

08-12-2011, 03:54 AM

Bulls fan huh? I think you posted about three times. And they've all been to me, and they've all started with insults. What have I done to make you so mad?
It's not just this thread. It's the constant garbage you talk. None of your posts for the last few months make sense. You just come up crap with no facts the back it up. I watch the bulls gms and Pip was good, but he isn't a top 20 player. Just get over it man damn.

herschel4heisman

08-12-2011, 07:39 AM

I'd take Bird but not just because of skill but how legendary his competitive drive prevented him from losing most of the time. Even in the story Mullin told, he said Bird came back to tie after Mullin took a big lead.

But I was a big fan of that Golden State team (I used to use them on NBA Live 95. I preferred Sprewell, Mullin and Hardaway to Run TMC) so I am aware of how great a shooter Mullin is. As a matter of fact, this video popped up earlier this year showing Mullin exhibiting how shooting prowess on the ESPN campus in Bristol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-hf-Kr8QCY

Stuckey

08-12-2011, 07:57 AM

:facepalm Shut it dumbass up. Pippen got his ass beat by Magic in gm 3. Stop watching clips and watch the gms. MJ guarded him more. Your a dumb****. Magic is way better then Pippen.

lol didn't know Pippen stans can be more delusional than Kobe stans

97 bulls

08-12-2011, 02:19 PM

It's not just this thread. It's the constant garbage you talk. None of your posts for the last few months make sense. You just come up crap with no facts the back it up. I watch the bulls gms and Pip was good, but he isn't a top 20 player. Just get over it man damn.
Well now I have something to respond to.

I think what happens is, people come in on a conversation in the middle. I've never said or implied that pippen was a top 10 player. I respond to the posters that say he never led a team to a championship. Is this really a fair assesment? You can base that off of one season?

Was pippen really afforded the same type of team and multiple years to learn from his mistakes?

Pippen did a better job with the teams he had as the "man" than teams other all-time greats had that are comparable. The 95 bulls were on pace to win 44 games. Go back and look at that roster and compare it to another 44 or even your typical 50 win team that was led by an all-time great.

People say pippen wasn't a great scorer. I agree, but he was a good scorer. But his strength was his versitility and defense. Why does he have to conform to other players strengths? There was a stat that I heard while watching the 90 or 91 lakers/warriors playoff game on nbatv about magic and scoring a lot of points. He scored 40 or more points 4 times if I remember correct during his playoff career. The lakers only won 1 of tthose four. Magic never won or dominated a game using his defense. Or scoring a lot of points. But he did dominate a game by controlling tempo and dishing out assists. Pippen didn't really dominate by scoring a lot of points. He did dominate by strangleing the head of an offense by playing suffocating defense on the pg. And filling a stat sheet. Why his way of winning is any less effective than any others all-time greats? Cuz jordan was the best player on the team? Without pippen they don't win.

As far as his alltime ranking, I feel he's in the 20 to 25 range based on his accomplishments. Basketball-reference has a daily running pole ranking every nba player and hes routinely in the 18 to 23 range. In fact, he's at 21 right now.

I don't think anything I said about scottie pippen is wrong or trollish. I think you just disagree. Now you obviously have your reasons. I think its mainly cuz you want jordan to have exclusive credit for every championship the bulls won as if he led a bunch of scrubs to the promise land. The fact is he didn't, he had 7 years to do that and failed miserably. And understand I'm as big a jordan fan as anybody. But I give credit to all the bulls for those championships. Not just jordan.

TAC602

08-12-2011, 02:38 PM

Well now I have something to respond to.

I think what happens is, people come in on a conversation in the middle. I've never said or implied that pippen was a top 10 player. I respond to the posters that say he never led a team to a championship. Is this really a fair assesment? You can base that off of one season?

Was pippen really afforded the same type of team and multiple years to learn from his mistakes?

Pippen did a better job with the teams he had as the "man" than teams other all-time greats had that are comparable. The 95 bulls were on pace to win 44 games. Go back and look at that roster and compare it to another 44 or even your typical 50 win team that was led by an all-time great.

People say pippen wasn't a great scorer. I agree, but he was a good scorer. But his strength was his versitility and defense. Why does he have to conform to other players strengths? There was a stat that I heard while watching the 90 or 91 lakers/warriors playoff game on nbatv about magic and scoring a lot of points. He scored 40 or more points 4 times if I remember correct during his playoff career. The lakers only won 1 of tthose four. Magic never won or dominated a game using his defense. Or scoring a lot of points. But he did dominate a game by controlling tempo and dishing out assists. Pippen didn't really dominate by scoring a lot of points. He did dominate by strangleing the head of an offense by playing suffocating defense on the pg. And filling a stat sheet. Why his way of winning is any less effective than any others all-time greats? Cuz jordan was the best player on the team? Without pippen they don't win.

As far as his alltime ranking, I feel he's in the 20 to 25 range based on his accomplishments. Basketball-reference has a daily running pole ranking every nba player and hes routinely in the 18 to 23 range. In fact, he's at 21 right now.

I don't think anything I said about scottie pippen is wrong or trollish. I think you just disagree. Now you obviously have your reasons. I think its mainly cuz you want jordan to have exclusive credit for every championship the bulls won as if he led a bunch of scrubs to the promise land. The fact is he didn't, he had 7 years to do that and failed miserably. And understand I'm as big a jordan fan as anybody. But I give credit to all the bulls for those championships. Not just jordan.

I do think Pippen is worthy of the Top 20-25, but that list cracks me up sometimes. A couple weeks ago, Kobe Bryant was ranked #289. He's managed to climb into the Top 35 based on fan ratings.

Kobe 4 The Win

08-14-2011, 07:34 PM

97 bulls

08-14-2011, 07:56 PM

Pippen is a complimentary player who quit on his team when they needed him in the playoffs. How does that compare to Magic Johnson? If you want to bring up the 1991 finals, Jordan and Pippen were racking up fouls when they tried to guard Magic. The reason the Bulls won was that they had the younger, healthier team and Jordan played out of his mind. Also 2 of our 5 starters (Scott and Worthy) were playing with bad wheels. Worthy was able to pull himself together enough to score early in the servies but he was not anywhere near his best. The injury hampered every aspect of his game and eventually he had to sit out.
Its sad you feel this way. The bulls had the series well in hand when worthy and scott were hurt. All the rest of the stuff is excuses. Jordan was playing on a bad wheel too. It happens. I could just as easily say that had isaiah thomas not injured himself, the pistons go on to beat the lakers in 88.

As far as the term "complimentary", I. Was reading an article about pippen and whether or not he was a complimentary player. It something if you consider a catcher in baseball "complimentary" to a pitcher. or the way a wide reciever "compliments" a quarter back. Or the way your left and right arm "compliment" each other, you get the point, then sure pippen complimented jordan.

Go back and listen to jordan hall of fame speach. He says every championship he won, he did it with pippen.

And you need to let what he did in 94 go. You ACT as if he stayed out cuz he DIDN'T want the opportunity. But how fitting it is that in game 6 of the bulls last championship, he hurt his back and played through it and even contributed. He was far from a quitter.

97 bulls

08-14-2011, 08:37 PM

I checked the results of some other all-time greats and what their "complimentary" players did without them.

The lakers in 91 won 58 games. He retired, was replaced with sedale threat, who was a solid pg and the won 43 game. They still had worthy and scott.

The celtics in I believe 89 lost bird to injury they replaced him with reggie lewsi. Who was a very good young player. The result? They went from 57 wins to 42 wins. They still had mchale and parrish.

The year shaq was traded from the lakers to the heat, they replaced him with chris mihm. During that year, id make the argument that he was a top 10 center. The result? The lakers won 38 games with bryant leading the team.

The bulls replaced michael jordan with pete myers. Undoubted the biggest drop off in talent. They went from 57 wins to 55 wins.

And please no excuses. Sure bryant missed 14 games, but pippen missed 10. Bird did play in 6 of those games that year and I'm sure they at least won 3 of the six. And the reggie lewis had a very good campaign replacing bird.

You could say that the bulls also picked up kukoc. Which is true. But then id come back with the fact that kobes lakers also got koron butler and lamar odom. Kukoc was a rookie and didn't speak good english.

The bulls did win the championship the year before, and while none of the other teams did, they all made it to the fianls.

Just thought this would give pippen 94 season some strong perspective.

Kobe 4 The Win

08-15-2011, 02:02 AM

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 02:35 AM

Its sad you feel this way. The bulls had the series well in hand when worthy and scott were hurt.

So the Bulls had the series well in hand in Game 1 when Worthy was visibly limping up and down the court at the start of the game?

I could just as easily say that had isaiah thomas not injured himself, the pistons go on to beat the lakers in 88.

They might have, just as LA might have won in 89 had Magic Johnson not pulled a hammy and missed a huge chunk of the series

As far as the term "complimentary", I. Was reading an article about pippen and whether or not he was a complimentary player. It something if you consider a catcher in baseball "complimentary" to a pitcher. or the way a wide reciever "compliments" a quarter back. Or the way your left and right arm "compliment" each other, you get the point, then sure pippen complimented jordan.

Barkley played with Pip along side Hakeem in Houston and he said that he discovered that Pippen "couldn't play without Michael". Charles Barkley's words, not mine

Go back and listen to jordan hall of fame speach. He says every championship he won, he did it with pippen.

It's customary to compliment your teamates in a HOF speach. Just because Jordan said he did it with Pippen (which is common sense) doesn't mean that Pip is on Magic Johnson's level.

And you need to let what he did in 94 go. You ACT as if he stayed out cuz he DIDN'T want the opportunity. But how fitting it is that in game 6 of the bulls last championship, he hurt his back and played through it and even contributed. He was far from a quitter.

So I need to let go of (ignore) the negative stuff he did and only focus on the positive stuff? That's not how the real world works.
Worthy wasn't not visibly limping in game one.

Barkley and pippen didn't get along in houston. Pippen called barkley fat and lazy. Which was very true.

And while its true that its customary. Jordan said it. His words not mine. Before he went down the line and thanled all the people that had a role in making him what he became, dean smith, his mother, his siblings, phil jackson, whoever else, he thanked pippen.

And I never said you need to ignore that play in 94. I said let it go. It was one play in an almost 20 year career. One friggn play. I acknowledged it. But I also understand why he did it. As a coach id be happy to have a guy that's willing to take that last second shot.

Just think of all the players after jordan retired in 98 that could've joined the bulls. Carter, mcgrady, duncan, hill. To name a few. A lot of them chose not to come to the bulls cuz they didn't want to have to fill jordans shoes. That was a lot of pressure. Pippen gladly did it and excelled at it.

Maybe you missed my next post, but I defy you to show me another team that did as well as the bulls did in 94 after they lost their best player.

My criteria for what inconsider great is obviously different from a lot of people. But I'm sorry, I've alway believe magic played in a system that was perfect for him, and routinely had the best team far and away. As well as playing in a dispicable conference. He lost to a lot of teams he had no business loosing to. And to me, that holds a lot of weight.

Is he ranked higher than pippen? Yes. He's accomplished more than pip on a personal level. But that's due to no fault of pippen I've checked other great players rosters that were comparable to the bulls roster talent-wise. And pippen blows them out the water as far as what he was able to accomplish.

eliteballer

08-15-2011, 02:47 AM

97 when did you actually start watching basketball. Your stances are flat out ridiculous.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 03:02 AM

97 when did you actually start watching basketball. Your stances are flat out ridiculous.
Lol the truth hurts don't it? I don't think anything I said is off base. Its you laaker fans that always want to see thing through purple and gold glasses. I admit that with a healthy worthy and scott the series is a lot more interesting. I still think the bulls come out on top though. But all I hear from laker fans is excuses as to how or why their team lost. As if the lakers never benifitted from having to play an injury riddled team. Wasn't mchale hurt in 87? Didn't you guys benifit from thomas spraining his ankle in 89? Hell jordan had a bad wheel too in the 91 finals.

1987_Lakers

08-15-2011, 03:24 AM

I actually think talent-wise, bird and mullin are tit-for-tat. Mullin just never had the teams good enough to win like bird
:roll:

97 bulls continues to hate on players from the 80's Lakers & Celtics so he can believe in his mind that the 90's Bulls are the GOAT team. Let your insecurities go.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 03:46 AM

:roll:

97 bulls continues to hate on players from the 80's Lakers & Celtics so he can believe in his mind that the 90's Bulls are the GOAT team. Let your insecurities go.
Some of mullins best years were in the 80s. What are you talking about?

1987_Lakers

08-15-2011, 03:57 AM

Some of mullins best years were in the 80s. What are you talking about?

You missed the point.:facepalm

Kobe 4 The Win

08-15-2011, 04:01 AM

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 05:54 AM

Yes, Worthy was limping in game one. The commentators were discussing it early in the game. I watched the f**king game yesterday. Don't call me a liar please. Worthy was clearly injured. I think it happened in the Portland series. He was able to suck it up for a while and play, it hampered him, and eventually he was out of the series completely. This is a FACT.
I didn't see the limping your talking about. I do remember him limping in gaame 3 or 4. But not game one. But as I said before, jordan was hurt too. Its a part of the game.x

It is also a fact that Scott had a leg unjury. Leg issues for a basketball player is going to hurt their game especially on defense. That's two of LA's 5 starters. Worthy a Hall of Famer and Finals MVP. I'm not guaranteeing that LA wins that series if 100% healthy but the injuries absolutely were a factor. To deny this is absurd.
I can't honestly say the bulls win with a healthy worthy and scott. But based on what I saw in games 1-3, the bulls weren't in any real trouble. And again, don't forget jordan had a foot injury too.

97 bulls

08-15-2011, 06:52 AM

This is the first half of game 1. Worthy had a good game. And I don't see the limping. Maybe his foot was hurt. But it wasn't noticbale.

Also. Notice that at the 28 min mark dunleavy puts worthy on jordan.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=JpLvmrawTnw

DCL

08-15-2011, 12:17 PM

my knock on mullin was that he was never an impact difference maker ever.

you'd always see his stats which were pretty good, but at the end of the season when everything counted, he and tmc were always quick playoff exits. and they always departed miserably, going down with barely any swings. if they made to second round, they were often just swept easily like pancakes. there was no fire. no tenacity. no street hunger. whatever u wanna call it.

it's not all mullin's fault, but to me, his greatness is always going to be limited, so it's rather funny why so many people often compare him to larry bird....???

well, it's becuz they're both white. duh.

but they were pretty different players because bird had soooo much more game. also, mullin was soo slow he probably made bird look like brent barry.