Pippen’s playoff ceiling without MJ

[AirBonner]

Was the conference finals. That puts Pippen on the same tier as his peers (Barkley, Ewing, Robinson) his defense alone got him there. Hell the season MJ first retired the bulls actually improved defensively

[Phoenix]

The Knicks loss was in the second round though.

[AirBonner]

The Knicks loss was in the second round though.

I’m talking about absolute ceiling. Yes you can pick out poorly officiated series

[Phoenix]

I’m talking about absolute ceiling. Yes you can pick out poorly officiated series

What other series or run can be picked out? He only had one MJ-less playoff run as a Bull, 1994. We've seen plays like the 'bad call' play numerous times. Sometimes the whistle blows, sometimes it doesn't. There are vids that show that Scottie made contact with Davis, however slight' just after ball released. It was a 50/50 call that didn't favor Chicago in this instance, but if they were a cleanly better team( and they would have been with MJ there), the series wouldn't have been decided by a controversial call.

[superduper]

The goal post movement after being called out :roll:

[ClipperRevival]

The goal post movement after being called out :roll:

I know. This thread is SO CA-RINGE :yaohappy:

[guy]

What other series or run can be picked out? He only had one MJ-less playoff run as a Bull, 1994. We've seen plays like the 'bad call' play numerous times. Sometimes the whistle blows, sometimes it doesn't. There are vids that show that Scottie made contact with Davis, however slight' just after ball released. It was a 50/50 call that didn't favor Chicago in this instance, but if they were a cleanly better team( and they would have been with MJ there), the series wouldn't have been decided by a controversial call.

Furthermore, people just think it’s a foregone conclusion that even if the Bulls did get the game 5 win that they would’ve definitely won game 6 and closed out the series just because they did actually win game 6. Completely ignoring the many times teams either take it easier or play with a greater urgency in game 6 based on whether they’re up or down 3-2. Case in point: the very next series when the Knicks played the Pacers. It was literally the exact same scenario of the Bulls-Knicks series if the Bulls had gone up 3-2. The home team won each of the first 4 games, then the Pacers stole game 5 on the road. And everyone was expecting the Pacers to close out in game 6 at home and the Knicks ended up winning that game and then the series at home in game 7. Somehow these Bulls would’ve made the Finals in a lot of people’s eyes. Not only could they have lost the ECF, they may have still not even won this series regardless of the call.

[SouBeachTalents]

Furthermore, people just think it’s a foregone conclusion that even if the Bulls did get the game 5 win that they would’ve definitely won game 6 and closed out the series just because they did actually win game 6. Completely ignoring the many times teams either take it easier or play with a greater urgency in game 6 based on whether they’re up or down 3-2. Case in point: the very next series when the Knicks played the Pacers. It was literally the exact same scenario of the Bulls-Knicks series if the Bulls had gone up 3-2. The home team won each of the first 4 games, then the Pacers stole game 5 on the road. And everyone was expecting the Pacers to close out in game 6 at home and the Knicks ended up winning that game and then the series at home in game 7. Somehow these Bulls would’ve made the Finals in a lot of people’s eyes. Not only could they have lost the ECF, they may have still not even won this series regardless of the call.
Yeah, you definitely can't guarantee the Bulls win the series if they had won Game 5. But, the odds would absolutely favor them up 3-2 with a home game upcoming to clinch the series, especially after 3 wins in a row. Obviously there are exceptions, like what happened the very next series, in the 2012 ECF etc., so it's no guarantee, but I would pick the Bulls to win the series at that point had they won Game 5

[LostCause]

No. Pippen was not on the same tier as Barkley and Robinson.You could type an essay with dubious reasoning if you want, but it simply isn’t true

I’d say Pippen on his own would be similar to a Paul George as far as how they are perceived to their peers. PG being better offensively but Pippen better defensively

[ImKobe]

Was the conference finals. That puts Pippen on the same tier as his peers (Barkley, Ewing, Robinson) his defense alone got him there. Hell the season MJ first retired the bulls actually improved defensively

No it doesn't. He lost and got outplayed by Ewing when both were the best players on their team and going up against eachother. He played with Barkley and Hakeem and they lost in the first round, where he averaged 18 points on ~33% shooting and got outplayed by a 20 y.o Kobe in 3 out of 4 games. Their offense might have improved in '94, but the reality is that the league as a whole got worse offensively that season, which prompted the league to shorten the 3-Pt line to help the numbers out. Their offense and SRS tanked when MJ retired, he couldn't carry a team offensively like those guys, which is why he was ALWAYS 2nd to Jordan in scoring in every single Playoff series. Even when Jordan struggled and Pippen was hot, Jordan would always end up having the better series, like the Knicks one in '93.

All the stats back it up, whether you want to look at PER or scoring efficiency or ORTG, Pippen was NEVER a superstar-level player. He needed ~38 minutes a night to barely average 20-22 points on mediocre efficiency, even when MJ retired.

[SamuraiSWISH]

Was lower than Derrick Rose ...

[Phoenix]

Furthermore, people just think it’s a foregone conclusion that even if the Bulls did get the game 5 win that they would’ve definitely won game 6 and closed out the series just because they did actually win game 6. Completely ignoring the many times teams either take it easier or play with a greater urgency in game 6 based on whether they’re up or down 3-2. Case in point: the very next series when the Knicks played the Pacers. It was literally the exact same scenario of the Bulls-Knicks series if the Bulls had gone up 3-2. The home team won each of the first 4 games, then the Pacers stole game 5 on the road. And everyone was expecting the Pacers to close out in game 6 at home and the Knicks ended up winning that game and then the series at home in game 7. Somehow these Bulls would’ve made the Finals in a lot of people’s eyes. Not only could they have lost the ECF, they may have still not even won this series regardless of the call.

Yep, funny enough I had this thought in my head while writing my earlier comments. The Knicks would have played with a sense of urgency that could have possibly resulted in a game 6 win and sending it back home for game 7. We really don't know either way, and typically the team up 3-2 and at home would be in the driver's seat but we've seen those types of comebacks quite a few times, like your example. The teams were clearly close enough to come down to a few plays determining the outcome. They were gritty defensive squads who couldn't really separate from each other offensively.

People also seem to think the Bulls automatically get to the finals as well, as if the Pacers were a doormat. That series also likely goes down to the wire, but the Pacers had Reggie at the peak of his clutch playoff heroics. That would have been a toss-up IMO.

[guy]

Yep, funny enough I had this thought in my head while writing my earlier comments. The Knicks would have played with a sense of urgency that could have possibly resulted in a game 6 win and sending it back home for game 7. We really don't know either way, and typically the team up 3-2 and at home would be in the driver's seat but we've seen those types of comebacks quite a few times, like your example. The teams were clearly close enough to come down to a few plays determining the outcome. They were gritty defensive squads who couldn't really separate from each other offensively.

People also seem to think the Bulls automatically get to the finals as well, as if the Pacers were a doormat. That series also likely goes down to the wire, but the Pacers had Reggie at the peak of his clutch playoff heroics. That would have been a toss-up IMO.

The Bulls were 4-1 that season against them, which is why they make that assumption. What they neglect to mention is that the Knicks were 4-0 that season against them but were a game away from losing to them in the playoffs.

[Phoenix]

The Bulls were 4-1 that season against them, which is why they make that assumption. What they neglect to mention is that the Knicks were 4-0 that season against them but were a game away from losing to them in the playoffs.

There's way too many examples of teams winning the regular season head to head and losing in the same team in the playoffs. But hey, the kiddies enjoy a good narrative.