Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 10:16 AM

Hakeem won 58 games with 14 ppg second option.

Sixers won 56 games with Iverson's second leading scorer at 12 ppg.

2005 Mavs won 58 games with the second option averaging 15.7 ppg

Rick Barry led his team to a championship with just 48 wins averaging 30 ppg and the next leading scorer averaging 14.

Dominique Wilkins led the '86-'87 Hawks to 57 wins with a 2nd option averaging 16 ppg.

Karl Malone in 2000 did it. His next best averaged about 14 ppg.

2010-11 Dirk led a 60 win team with the second option averaging 15.8 ppg

Portland won 59 games in 1999-00 with the second option winning 14.9 ppg.

This has happened a lot or something close to it.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 10:36 AM

Yup, and they were 51-21 when he actually played, so nearly a 60 win team when he did.

I read an article about how they were projected to win around 48 games, but they were on a mission without Jordan.

They were projected to miss the playoffs by most. After all, they lost the GOAT at the last minute and replaced him with nothing.

I don't think the 55 wins with Grant are what stick out. It's that they lost a player of MJ's caliber, got nothing for him (usually teams can sign a free agent or the player leaves in a trade), and still remained contenders.

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 10:38 AM

Wade nearly won the finals with a 17 ppg 2nd option.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 10:38 AM

This has happened a lot or something close to it.

Sure but look at teams when Russell, Wilt, Shaq (twice), Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron (thrice) left their teams in or near their primes. All were contenders with those players; only one was without that player and MJ stacked the deck against the team by retiring so late.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 11:02 AM

LostCause

04-24-2020, 11:04 AM

guy

04-24-2020, 11:11 AM

I read an article about how they were projected to win around 48 games, but they were on a mission without Jordan.

Having said that, it shows how great Jordan's off the ball style is, that actually allows for a team to develop. If Jordan was playing the Lebron ball system to a t in 1993, then they were not going to win anything near 48 or 55 games in 1994.

Which is ironic, because somehow this is used as an argument against Jordan and for Lebron when it should be the other way around.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 11:12 AM

You mean Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington and Pete Myers?

Kerr took Paxsons role. Wennington replaced the role of Scott Williams or Stacey King.

Kukoc was a rookie but fine. So what? The Bulls replaced PRIME Michael Jordan with a perennial CBA player and a rookie 2nd round draft pick that couldn't even speak the language when he first arrived. Really?

AlternativeAcc.

04-24-2020, 11:14 AM

94 was the beginning of the downfall for Jordan

- Responsible for Dads death
- Quits basketball
- Team dominates without him
- Tries baseball, is horrifically bad at it
- Gets humiliated out of baseball
- Comes back in 95 only to choke miserably in the 2nd round
- 96 finals gets outplayed by Kemp, Payton, and Rodman
- 97 and 98 has by far the most stacked teams just like his whole career, plays 9ppg 2nd option Hornecek in the finals back 2 back
- Quits again after 98
- Comes back in 2003, one of the worst players in basketball, charity case, lottery team
- Goes onto become the worst GM/Owner in the history of professional sports

Let me know if I missed anything.

Space Jam was his peak, and even that will be tainted once Space Jam 2 comes out

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 11:18 AM

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 11:23 AM

Kerr took Paxsons role. Wennington replaced the role of Scott Williams or Stacey King.

Kukoc was a rookie but fine. So what? The Bulls replaced PRIME Michael Jordan with a perennial CBA player and a rookie 2nd round draft pick that couldn't even speak the language when he first arrived. Really?

Kukoc was a rookie just like Luka was. Both seasoned pros. Not saying Toni is on Doncic' level.

Sure but look at teams when Russell, Wilt, Shaq (twice), Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron (thrice) left their teams in or near their primes. All were contenders with those players; only one was without that player and MJ stacked the deck against the team by retiring so late.

The Bulls were as much contenders as the 97 Magic were. The Bulls were a good team without MJ, but no way they win.

Mr Feeny

04-24-2020, 11:26 AM

Kukoc was a rookie just like Luka was. Both seasoned pros. Not saying Toni is on Doncic' level.

The Bulls were as much contenders as the 97 Magic were. The Bulls were a good team without MJ, but no way they win.

They went from perennial champions into a 2nd round team, where they replaced Jordan with Kukoc.

guy

04-24-2020, 11:32 AM

Sure but look at teams when Russell, Wilt, Shaq (twice), Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron (thrice) left their teams in or near their primes. All were contenders with those players; only one was without that player and MJ stacked the deck against the team by retiring so late.

This is and always has been a stupid argument that you and others have been spewing for years. In most of those cases you mentioned, the teammates they left behind best days' were usually behind them and/or the franchise was set on a full rebuild so they were considered lost seasons without the desire and motivation to actually try to contend. This was a completely unique situation, not really comparable to the others you mentioned.

In 94, Pippen and Grant were in the heart of their primes, while Kukoc and Armstrong were on the ascension. And by Jordan retiring so late, the Bulls didn't have the chance to tear the team down and commit to a full rebuild. And unlike the other teams you mentioned, the Bulls were constantly considered a one man show that Jordan carried so there was that extra motivation to try and prove themselves without him, especially for Pippen.

For those reasons and for whatever other reasons, unlike the other teams you mentioned, they still had the motivation and belief that they could contend, and they performed well doing so - and you can live in this fantasy world where teams are extremely motivated at all times no matter the situation and their chances but that is simply unrealistic. Not surprisingly, once the 94 offseason hit and the Bulls were close to a full rebuild, Pippen and probably others considered 95 as a "lost season" and it seems like there play reflected that until Jordan came back.

This comparison doesn't really have much of a bearing on how good a superstar's "help" is when they aren't absent and are playing with those teams when compared to others - meaning when the Celtics go 42-40 without Bird and the Bulls go 55-27 without Jordan its really ****ing stupid to reduce about a decade's worth of their teammates play to a 13 win difference by 1 team. But you continue to make these dumb arguments. A bunch of idiots that never watched them play will always support it.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 11:41 AM

Right. And just to add on to the latter of your statement, the other teams actually replaced the players mentioned with some viable, solid players. Not a perennial CBA player like the Bulls did.

Exactly.

ou mean Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington and Pete Myers?

:biggums:

Myers was the last minute "replacement" for PEAK MJ. MJ averaged 33/7/6 in 93'; Myers 0/0/0 because he couldn't make a NBA roster.

Kukoc was drafted several years prior. Wennington was the third/fourth string C that year (he was the 11th man in the playoffs).

The Kukoc thing is funny, we always hear about him in connection to 94' (his rookie season) but never hear a word about him for the following seasons when he was a bigger contributor. I wonder why?

Notice the teams mentioned are led by guys that many feel Pippen has no business being compared to. Hmm.

Exactly. He is a bum, but you have to pull those names to find other examples. Also notice Portland 2000 is on the list too? Who was their leader?

The Bulls were as much contenders as the 97 Magic were.

Team A: 55 wins, nearly win the #1 seed despite injuries to key players and take the EC champs to 7 (who took Houston to 7)
Team B: 45 wins, lose in the first round

A and B are not the same...and B was able to sign Rony Seiklay and get 17/10 from him; Myers was 8/3.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 11:49 AM

Sure but look at teams when Russell, Wilt, Shaq (twice), Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron (thrice) left their teams in or near their primes. All were contenders with those players; only one was without that player and MJ stacked the deck against the team by retiring so late.

But that's what the OP was about. It was a poor attempt at trying to prop up Pippen while downplaying MJ. The fact remains is that there have been many cases of teams in NBA history that have had a 2nd option that averaged around 15 ppg. These kinds of tear down posts don't serve as analysis, but rather they only stimulate the minds of fanboys who project their opinions based on being fans and not based on being objective analysts.

But while you mentioned what you mentioned, it should be noticed that there is a slight bias in what it is that you've said. For one, the Lakers (Magic, Wilt), Celtics (Bird), Bulls, and Magic (Shaq) all made the playoffs the following year that their best player left.

When Shaq left LA, not only did he leave, but Malone and GP do too, and Rick Fox retires. You're talking about an entire revamp of a team here.

In the case of the Bulls, they were lucky in the first round to face a team that was depleted with injuries. Cleveland didn't have Nance, Daughtery, or Williams. If Cleveland has a full squad, I doubt Chicago even makes it to the second round as the Knicks exposed their flaws. And furthermore, I find it ironic that while that is ignored and the 55 wins is glorified, the next season of Chicago going 34-31 prior to Mike's return is conveniently overlooked.

In the case of Lebron with Cleveland the first time, then not only did Lebron leave, but so did Ilgauskas and Shaq. Mo Williams gets traded about 35 games into the season, and their top rim protector, Anderson Varjaeo ends up missing significant time due to injuries as well as their best player, Antawn Jamison, who only starts in 38 games. It's no surprise that the team fell apart when your best players leave and your other best players miss 2/3 of the season.

To add on, when Lebron leaves Miami, a similar situation occurs. First off, both Bosh and Wade were significantly injured, and when you have your best players injured, needless to say it will have an impact on your team's performance. In addition, Ray Allen left as did their defensive specialist, Shane Battier. But once Wade gets healthy, the team makes the playoffs the following year.

This attempt of trying to tear down Mike based on one year of his retirement while ignoring a plethora of other external circumstances doesn't really prove anything.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 11:53 AM

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 11:56 AM

Team A: 55 wins, nearly win the #1 seed despite injuries to key players and take the EC champs to 7 (who took Houston to 7)
Team B: 45 wins, lose in the first round

A and B are not the same...and B was able to sign Rony Seiklay and get 17/10 from him; Myers was 8/3.

But you're not being fair. Not only did they lose Shaq but Penny was injured for a lot of that season. In the 1995-96 season, Penny started all 82 games. The next season, Penny plays in 59 games.

Hey Yo

04-24-2020, 11:59 AM

They went from perennial champions into a 2nd round team, where they replaced Jordan with Kukoc.
Jordan was a Forward??

Journeyman 6th round pick Pete Myers started 81gms at SG. Kukoc started 8gms and was a SF/PF.

Not sure why you even bother posting about the NBA.

guy

04-24-2020, 12:00 PM

I think Boston won 48 games the following year without Bird, after having won 51 with him in his last season.

Was talking about 1989 where Bird missed almost the whole season due to injury.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 12:03 PM

Was talking about 1989 where Bird missed almost the whole season due to injury.

Oh okay, my mistake.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 12:04 PM

This is and always has been a stupid argument that you and others have been spewing for years. In most of those cases you mentioned, the teammates they left behind best days' were usually behind them and/or the franchise was set on a full rebuild so they were considered lost seasons without the desire and motivation to actually try to contend. This was a completely unique situation, not really comparable to the others you mentioned.

In 94, Pippen and Grant were in the heart of their primes, while Kukoc and Armstrong were on the ascension. And by Jordan retiring so late, the Bulls didn't have the chance to tear the team down and commit to a full rebuild. And unlike the other teams you mentioned, the Bulls were constantly considered a one man show that Jordan carried so there was that extra motivation to try and prove themselves without him, especially for Pippen.

For those reasons and for whatever other reasons, unlike the other teams you mentioned, they still had the motivation and belief that they could contend, and they performed well doing so - and you can live in this fantasy world where teams are extremely motivated at all times no matter the situation and their chances but that is simply unrealistic. Not surprisingly, once the 94 offseason hit and the Bulls were close to a full rebuild, Pippen and probably others considered 95 as a "lost season" and it seems like there play reflected that until Jordan came back.

This comparison doesn't really have much of a bearing on how good a superstar's "help" is when they aren't absent and are playing with those teams when compared to others - meaning when the Celtics go 42-40 without Bird and the Bulls go 55-27 without Jordan its really ****ing stupid to reduce about a decade's worth of their teammates play to a 13 win difference by 1 team. But you continue to make these dumb arguments. A bunch of idiots that never watched them play will always support it.
Oh save it. The fact is that Kevin McHale was an Allstar the year Bird went down to injury. The same for Worthy when Magic abruptly retired. Most were in their early 30s or late 20s. And, they got viable replacements.

Armstrong and Grant never ascended. Their games were what they had always been.

The inconsistencies in these arguments never cease to amaze me.

And why on Gods green earth would you arrive at the conclusion that the 95 Bulls deemed that 95 season as a "lost season" and didn't really try? They lost Grant. The year before, they lost Jordan. That's why they hovered around .500. I mean you cant make this stuff up. These argument are as lame as they come. It seems to me that the Bulls are the only team in which context, common sense, and just flat out credit, can never be utilized.

Look at the Warriors this past year when they lost Curry and Thompson. They fell from perennial title contender to the worse record in the NBA. And again, they went out and got DeAngelo Russell.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 12:12 PM

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 12:15 PM

But that's what the OP was about.

I know but the discussion shifted a bit.

For one, the Lakers (Magic, Wilt), Celtics (Bird), Bulls, and Magic (Shaq) all made the playoffs the following year that their best player left.

Most of the league makes the playoffs. All the teams you listed 1) struggled to get above .500 2) lost in the first round. The Bulls are the outlier in performance.

You also excluded examples of teams who didn't make the playoffs at all.

When Shaq left LA, not only did he leave, but Malone and GP do too, and Rick Fox retires

Yeah but when he left Orlando...the other four starters remained. What happened? You can poke holes into any given individual case but the overall trend is crystal clear, with only one outlier.

In the case of the Bulls, they were lucky in the first round to face a team that was depleted with injuries

The Cavs were a 47 win team the Bulls swept 4-0 the previous year and beat 4-2 the year before that.

It is interesting injuries count for the Cavs and not the Bulls. If the Bulls had normal health from Pippen and Grant (plus others), they would be the #1 seed, not the #3, and playing the Heat. You didn't run those calculations?

I find it ironic that while that is ignored and the 55 wins is glorified, the next season of Chicago going 34-31 prior to Mike's return is conveniently overlooked.

What's overlooked is the importance of Horace Grant (and failing to replace him). It is funny, the MJ crowd likes to ignore Grant/Rodman but the Bulls suffered more when Grant left than when the GOAT left.

I notice you mentioned Hot Rod Williams for Cleveland but didn't mention Grant, Cartwright, Scott Williams all leaving after 94'. So 2 starters (on top of MJ the year before, so 3 of 5 93' team starters gone) plus a third rotation member from their front line.

In the case of Lebron with Cleveland the first time, then not only did Lebron leave

Like Shaq, you also have to look at the teams when they got hurt and missed significant time. What happened after they left is consistent with that. In those cases only they left...

To add on, when Lebron leaves Miami, a similar situation occurs. First off, both Bosh and Wade were significantly injured,

So Wade being hurt more in 14' doesn't count but being hurt in 15' does? Wade is hurt every year so it's a weak excuse. Wade being hurt is baked into the 14' performance with LeBron.

Bosh was done with health issues (not injury) on February 11. The Heat were 22-30 at that point; the Bulls were 34-13 at the same point.

Shane Battier who played 20 MPG is mentioned but the additions of Deng, Whiteside, and Dragic are not.

while ignoring a plethora of other external circumstances

You are projecting.

I think Boston won 48 games the following year without Bird, after having won 51 with him in his last season.

That was 34 year old Bird. I'm talking about near prime Bird and the 89' season when Bird missed 76 games. They went 42-40 (57-25 the year before).

Jordan was a Forward??

When the facts don't work MJ stans will just lie or deceive with sleights of hands. Pete Myers was MJ's replacement, not a bench SF.

guy

04-24-2020, 12:21 PM

Oh save it. The fact is that Kevin McHale was an Allstar the year Bird went down to injury. The same for Worthy when Magic abruptly retired. Most were in their early 30s or late 20s. And, they got viable replacements.

Armstrong and Grant never ascended. Their games were what they had always been.

The inconsistencies in these arguments never cease to amaze me.

And why on Gods green earth would you arrive at the conclusion that the 95 Bulls deemed that 95 season as a "lost season" and didn't really try? They lost Grant. The year before, they lost Jordan. That's why they hovered around .500. I mean you cant make this stuff up. These argument are as lame as they come. It seems to me that the Bulls are the only team in which context, common sense, and just flat out credit, can never be utilized.

Look at the Warriors this past year when they lost Curry and Thompson. They fell from perennial title contender to the worse record in the NBA. And again, they went out and got DeAngelo Russell.

Hmmm let's see because Pippen himself literally called it a "wasted season" (sorry not "lost") and said he didn't try as hard and wasn't as motivated. Oh and he was an all-star too that year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-im-back-fax-1995-nba

“This is a wasted season,” he said. “It all started last summer when they tried to trade me behind my back, never came to me about it and then lied to me when I asked them about it. I was so upset I hardly worked out. I did not report to camp in good shape and things just got worse. Now I see what Michael went through when he first came here,” he said. “He sacrificed a lot of his game to make his teammates better. I’m sacrificing in some areas for the same reason but not getting the same result because we no longer have as much talent.”

Do you really think in those other seasons where a superstar left, that the same lack of motivation was never present?

I didn't say Grant ascended. I said he was in his prime. BJ was either ascending or in his prime. Who cares. The point is its not like Jordan left a bunch of rookies or old dudes. He left a championship supporting cast that were in their primes and had a ton of experience having won 3 straight titles and had been to 5 straight ECF.

The Warriors lost Durant, Curry, and Klay. There situation was not remotely the same.

sportjames23

04-24-2020, 12:27 PM

Horrace Grant. In 1994.

Grant did 14.8 ppg

How many other teams won 55 games with your #2 doing under 15ppg? Pippen's impact is incredible.

I like how this chump didn't mention Toni Kukoc was a starter that year.

LostCause

04-24-2020, 12:28 PM

On a serious note, my question is do you guys actually understand basketball? I ask because the circumstances in Chicago and these other places you're mentioning aren't just a matter of addition/subtraction. The simplest reason why the Bulls were able to continue to do well and teams like LeBrons Cavs aren't is because of system and personnel. You also see how the Spurs are continually able to do well despite turnover for the same reason. Ben Taylor put it well:
https://i.ibb.co/BV1Rzgv/fewef.png

"Dependent talent" isn't what I'd describe the rosters in Chicago as. Chicago filled it's roster with players that fit the triangle. Not players "dependent" on being spoonfed but players who excelled playing in a system that gave them opportunities based on matchups and movement like the triangle. Anyway...

Kerr took Paxsons role. Wennington replaced the role of Scott Williams or Stacey King.

Kukoc was a rookie but fine. So what? The Bulls replaced PRIME Michael Jordan with a perennial CBA player and a rookie 2nd round draft pick that couldn't even speak the language when he first arrived. Really?

Paxson was still on the 94 Bulls, and let's not undersell Kukoc. He was their 2nd leading scorer per 36 and he came off the bench, so his bench production was extremely valuable. Williams also wasn't really "replaced", he averaged double figures against Cleveland.

Chicago cratered offensively without Jordan though, but they did maintain a strong defense.

https://i.ibb.co/1MbFrZd/bullsss.png

With the additions to the team, the leftover personnel and coaching philosophies, the team was obviously going to be okay. Not a contender, but a playoff team with lots of recent championship experience. Some of the other players mentioned had more turnover upon their leaving, and for the most part no they didn't bring in as much quality depth as Chicago did. 97 magic lost 15 more games but Penny also missed 23 himself. They were on a 52-win pace for games Penny played (and that team dealt with a lot of injury throughout its roster). Obviously LeBrons Cavs had the most turnover. Coaching change in Cleveland both times, serious injury problems with Wade/Bosh in Miami etc. Those circumstances are a lot different than the circumstances Chicago encountered, which is more similar to the Spurs being able to remain competitive despite losses due to their system not being overly reliant on a single player.

Here's an excerpt from an article in January of 94 regarding these same additions:
https://i.ibb.co/7ppgJD2/wgfe.png
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1994/01/07/now-bulls-are-a-self-supporting-cast/97cc0633-db40-49bb-bc26-07bad33554f4/

So again, let's not underrate the contributions of these guys. That's revisionist history

LostCause

04-24-2020, 12:30 PM

:biggums:

Myers was the last minute "replacement" for PEAK MJ. MJ averaged 33/7/6 in 93'; Myers 0/0/0 because he couldn't make a NBA roster.

Kukoc was drafted several years prior. Wennington was the third/fourth string C that year (he was the 11th man in the playoffs).

The Kukoc thing is funny, we always hear about him in connection to 94' (his rookie season) but never hear a word about him for the following seasons when he was a bigger contributor. I wonder why?

The bolded isn't relevant. Not saying Myers was so good but we see all the time players who weren't in the NBA finally get the opportunity and do well. Covington, Whiteside, Sessions etc. The point also isn't that these players were on Jordan's level, the point is that they provided quality depth. Which can't be denied.

You forgot to address Kerr, but I'm pretty sure if you were talking about how "stacked" the Bulls were you wouldn't have made that mistake would you?

As for Kukoc, not sure what you're on about. He was drafted prior but didn't play for Chicago until 94. Can't speak for others but I don't underrate him. He was arguably more integral to the Bulls success than Rodman was, at least after 96.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-06-09-9806090284-story.html

Team A: 55 wins, nearly win the #1 seed despite injuries to key players and take the EC champs to 7 (who took Houston to 7)
Team B: 45 wins, lose in the first round

A and B are not the same...and B was able to sign Rony Seiklay and get 17/10 from him; Myers was 8/3.

Once again you're being intellectually dishonest. If you're aware of the injuries to key players and all that to the Bulls then you're also aware of the even more injury-plagued Magic (Almost all their starters played around 65 games, with Penny only 59). They lost in the 1st round with a wrecked roster. That same 17/10 Seiklay basically broke his foot in Game 3 (After disappearing the first 2 games). The Magic still brought the Heat (Who won 61 games) to brink of elimination in Game 5 and lost by 8 points (1st round was Best-of-5 then). Miami went on to the ECF. Penny's "help" in that series was worse than LeBrons in 09 against Orlando
https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1997-nba-eastern-conference-first-round-magic-vs-heat.html

As pointed out above, with Penny that Magic team was on a 52-win pace. If they upset Miami, which they certainly could've, they would've ended in the same spot those 94 Bulls did. 2nd round

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 12:32 PM

Exactly.

:biggums:

Myers was the last minute "replacement" for PEAK MJ. MJ averaged 33/7/6 in 93'; Myers 0/0/0 because he couldn't make a NBA roster.

Kukoc was drafted several years prior. Wennington was the third/fourth string C that year (he was the 11th man in the playoffs).

The Kukoc thing is funny, we always hear about him in connection to 94' (his rookie season) but never hear a word about him for the following seasons when he was a bigger contributor. I wonder why?

Exactly. He is a bum, but you have to pull those names to find other examples. Also notice Portland 2000 is on the list too? Who was their leader?

Team A: 55 wins, nearly win the #1 seed despite injuries to key players and take the EC champs to 7 (who took Houston to 7)
Team B: 45 wins, lose in the first round

A and B are not the same...and B was able to sign Rony Seiklay and get 17/10 from him; Myers was 8/3.

Myers was a last minute roster fill up, but that doesn't mean that the cast sans MJ didn't get stronger that off season. Kukoc definately was an upgrade over the 4th, then 3rd option the Bulls had before. And yes he became better every passing season and the Bulls were stacked by '96. That doesn't make Jordan a lesser player.

The Bulls lost to the East champs. One of the weaker ones at that. The Magic lost to the Heat in 5. The eventual EC finalist. Yes it's not the same. But the Magic without Shaq were talented, likewise were the Bulls. Also the Heat without Lebron were capable of making noise in the playoffs as evidenced a year after, but Bosh's medical constitution robbed us of an interesting '15 East season.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 12:37 PM

The simplest reason why the Bulls were able to continue to do well and teams like LeBrons Cavs aren't is because of system and personnel. You also see how the Spurs are continually able to do well despite turnover for the same reason.

That may explain "LeBron ball" but says nothing for all the other teams. The Lakers didn't have a system? Won 5 chips and made 9 finals playing streetball?

Paxson was still on the 94 Bulls, and let's not undersell Kukoc. He was their 2nd leading scorer per 36 and he came off the bench, so his bench production was extremely valuable. Williams also wasn't really "replaced", he averaged double figures against Cleveland.

Paxson was on the Bulls only in spirit. He played 27 games and averaged 13 MPG. He was done.

Kukoc their fourth leading scorer at 10.9. Of course his "per 36" will be higher since he played in shorter spurts.

Williams averaged 6/4/1 on 15 MPG in the playoffs.

With the additions to the team, the leftover personnel and coaching philosophies, the team was obviously going to be okay

Said...nobody at the time. Even Phil Jackson said 42-40 was the best case scenario.

So again, let's not underrate the contributions of these guys.

Again, it is hilarious these guys get credit for 94' but NEVER are mentioned for 1995-1998 when MJ was back.

Bill Wennington averaged 1/1/1 on 7 MPG in the playoffs.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 12:39 PM

Hmmm let's see because Pippen himself literally called it a "wasted season" (sorry not "lost") and said he didn't try as hard and wasn't as motivated. Oh and he was an all-star too that year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-im-back-fax-1995-nba

“This is a wasted season,” he said. “It all started last summer when they tried to trade me behind my back, never came to me about it and then lied to me when I asked them about it. I was so upset I hardly worked out. I did not report to camp in good shape and things just got worse. Now I see what Michael went through when he first came here,” he said. “He sacrificed a lot of his game to make his teammates better. I’m sacrificing in some areas for the same reason but not getting the same result because we no longer have as much talent.”

Do you really think in those other seasons where a superstar left, that the same lack of motivation was never present?

I didn't say Grant ascended. I said he was in his prime. BJ was either ascending or in his prime. Who cares. The point is its not like Jordan left a bunch of rookies or old dudes. He left a championship supporting cast that were in their primes and had a ton of experience having won 3 straight titles and had been to 5 straight ECF.

The Warriors lost Durant, Curry, and Klay. There situation was not remotely the same.

It was a "wasted" season in that he wanted to be traded and wasnt, he wanted his contract to be renegotiated and wasnt. Not because he didnt try to win. Which is the narrative you tried to promote.

Grant and Armstrong were what they were when Jordan was there. That's my point.

Curry and Klay were contending for a title well before Durant showed up. Hell they were beating the Durant led Thunder.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 12:47 PM

Most of the league makes the playoffs. All the teams you listed 1) struggled to get above .500 2) lost in the first round. The Bulls are the outlier in performance.

Bulls win 55 games because they were well coached and Mike left a winning culture. For one, he cultivated a defensive mentality in those guys. And Pippen, Armstrong, and Grant were all hitting their prime. How exactly is that a detriment to Mike's career or how does it in any way diminish what he did?

Furthermore, the Bulls only coast through the 1st round due to a depleted Cleveland team. Hot Rod Williams, Brad Daughtery, and Larry Nance all missed the playoffs. But why aren't you mentioning that?

You also excluded examples of teams who didn't make the playoffs at all.

I only left out one player and that's Russell. If you're referring to LeBron's 2nd Cavs stint then I can get into that too. But that team was very unique when we consider that LeBron gutted the team midway through. That was another set of bad GM moves on LeBron's part. But i'll give you LeBron and I'll give you Russell. Are we going to ignore the rest?

Yeah but when he left Orlando...the other four starters remained. What happened? You can poke holes into any given individual case but the overall trend is crystal clear, with only one outlier.

The Magic won 45 games and Penny Hardaway and Dennis Scott missed significant time that season. Hardaway started 59 games and Scott 62 games. Why are you ignoring that?

The Cavs were a 47 win team the Bulls swept 4-0 the previous year and beat 4-2 the year before that.

Yes, and that 47 team was depleted with injuries by playoff time. I've mentioned this several times. That Cavs team was consistently thumped by Chicago in large part due to MJ.

It is interesting injuries count for the Cavs and not the Bulls. If the Bulls had normal health from Pippen and Grant (plus others), they would be the #1 seed, not the #3, and playing the Heat. You didn't run those calculations?

You're not getting it. Williams-Daughtery-Nance missed the ENTIRE playoffs.

What's overlooked is the importance of Horace Grant (and failing to replace him). It is funny, the MJ crowd likes to ignore Grant/Rodman but the Bulls suffered more when Grant left than when the GOAT left.

So much so that Grant didn't win a chip in 1994 and Mike returns for a full season in 1995-96 to lead his team to 72 wins and a title? C'mon man. At that rate, you might as well say Grant > Mj.

I notice you mentioned Hot Rod Williams for Cleveland but didn't mention Grant, Cartwright, Scott Williams all leaving after 94'. So 2 starters (on top of MJ the year before, so 3 of 5 93' team starters gone) plus a third rotation member from their front line.

Because Chicago added Ron Harper. Cartwright barely played 42 games in the 1993-94 season. Scott Williams played in 38 games in 1993-94. And honestly, those guys by 1994 were addition by subtraction. It gave Will Perdue a chance to start who was a much better fit at that rate than those guys. And again, those Cleveland players ALL missed the playoffs.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 12:48 PM

So Wade being hurt more in 14' doesn't count but being hurt in 15' does? Wade is hurt every year so it's a weak excuse. Wade being hurt is baked into the 14' performance with LeBron.

Fair point. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Bosh had played a full season the previous year. Remove Allen, Bosh for 40 games, and LeBron...and you don't think a significant drop would occur? It's not like they won 66 games and dropped to 37. They won 54.

Bosh was done with health issues (not injury) on February 11. The Heat were 22-30 at that point; the Bulls were 34-13 at the same point.

Good point, how many of those games did he play alongside Wade? And what was their record in the games they both played together? I'm willing to concede on this one as you have raised a good point.

Shane Battier who played 20 MPG is mentioned but the additions of Deng, Whiteside, and Dragic are not.

My point wasn't to elevate Battier over those guys. My point was to mention his defensive presence. When you have new young talent, you don't simply mold them into a successful team right away. Surely you can reason with that? You can have all the young talent in the world, it means nothing when they're new and developing within a team, veteran players, or a system.

That was 34 year old Bird. I'm talking about near prime Bird and the 89' season when Bird missed 76 games. They went 42-40 (57-25 the year before).

Fair enough. They were still a playoff team.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 12:59 PM

The bolded isn't relevant.

Sure it is. Myers was not good enough to make a NBA roster in 92'. He was not good enough to make a NBA roster in 93'. He was not good enough to make a NBA roster in 94'. The only reason he did was MJ freed up a roster spot by retiring a month before the season started (i.e., the top free agents were already signed). That is who they "replaced" peak "GOAT" and his 33/7/6 with, not Rony Seiklay or Luol Deng.

time players who weren't in the NBA finally get the opportunity and do well. Covington, Whiteside, Sessions etc

You are comparing Whiteside and Covington to Myers? Those guys proved to be good NBA players and stuck. Myers was out of the NBA again for the 97' season, came back for one season in 98' and put up 2/1/0, and then was done for good.

You forgot to address Kerr

Thanks. Kerr was a good player but MJ stans like to say he was brought in as part of a "post-MJ" plan. Kerr was signed before MJ retired and he was Orlando's 12th man at the time. Kerr turned out to be much better than expected fortunately.

As for Kukoc, not sure what you're on about. He was drafted prior but didn't play for Chicago until 94

Same as above: MJ stans point to him as part of a "post-MJ" plan when MJ had nothing to do with it.

If you're aware of the injuries to key players and all that to the Bulls then you're also aware of the even more injury-plagued Magic

You can't have it both ways. Do injuries count or not? You bring them up for Cleveland but not Chicago, for Miami in 2015 but not Miami in 2014. Pick a rule and we can go from there.

Yes, it is a shame Orlando had injuries in 97'. Seiklay missed 8 games, Grant 15, Scott 16, Anderson 19, and Penny 23.

How about 96'? You guys keep acting like injuries only happen the year after the GOAT caliber guy leaves (except miraculously the 94' Bulls, who had zero injuries!). Shaq missed 28 games, Grant 19, Anderson 5. So less total injuries but more top end injuries with Shaq missing more time than Penny did and Grant missing more time than he did the next year.

That same 17/10 Seiklay basically broke his foot in Game 3 (After disappearing the first 2 games)

He played 29 MPG in his three games. Earlier you are hyping guys who played 7 MPG.

he Magic still brought the Heat (Who won 61 games) to brink of elimination in Game 5 and lost by 8 points (1st round was Best-of-5 then)

Yes, with Penny scoring 42 and 41 in those games, and lost. The Lakers got to Game 5 too without Magic. It happens. There is a reason the NBA moved from 5 games to 7 games. When you need 3 wins more flukes can happen.

As pointed out above, with Penny that Magic team was on a 52-win pace. If they upset Miami, which they certainly could've, they would've ended in the same spot those 94 Bulls did

That's interesting but meaningless unless the same "what if" is applied to other teams.

A healthy Bulls teams wins 63 (win pace with Pippen, Grant), not 52, and would have had home court against the Knicks and presumably won. The home team won every game and no road team had won a Game 7 in well over a decade.

So what is your point? Instead of comparing 55 wins and 45 we should compare (theoretical) 63 wins versus 52? That net delta is basically the same.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 01:00 PM

Myers was a last minute roster fill up, but that doesn't mean that the cast sans MJ didn't get stronger that off season. Kukoc definately was an upgrade over the 4th, then 3rd option the Bulls had before. And yes he became better every passing season and the Bulls were stacked by '96. That doesn't make Jordan a lesser player.

All true.

The Bulls lost to the East champs. One of the weaker ones at that. The Magic lost to the Heat in 5. The eventual EC finalist.

Wait...so the mighty Knicks who were MJ's best "tough" comp were now weaker than the 97' Heat who got crushed in the ECF (with MJ shooting 39%)? The Knicks who came within one three pointer of the chip.

The Orlando stuff is interesting speculation but requires that they 1) beat Miami 2) win in the second round. Who was that second round team? A 57 win Knicks team that would have been heavily favored over Orlando. Plus, if we give Orlando 7 bonus wins by erasing injuries we have to erase injuries for New York can give them fictitious bonus wins too. It is disingenuous to grant Orlando 7 wins without making any adjustments for the rest of the East.

I find it interesting the Bulls making it to Game in 7 of the second round is dismissed but now we are hearing about how great getting to Game 5 (winning 2 games) of the first round is an achievement.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 01:12 PM

Bulls win 55 games because they were well coached and Mike left a winning culture

So MJ gets credit for a winning culture but all those other teams didn't have a winning culture and great coaching? Notice it is MJ left a winning culture, not Chicago built a winning culture.

How exactly is that a detriment to Mike's career or how does it in any way diminish what he did?

It doesn't. It is evidence of MJ having a great team, which people bring up only because MJ stans 1) say MJ won by himself 2) keep dissing every other legend soley on the basis of...team success (partly by saying everyone else had loaded teams).

MJ stans do it to themselves. In reality him having a great or bad or mediocre team means 0 to how great he was but MJ stans create this paradigm.

Hot Rod Williams, Brad Daughtery, and Larry Nance all missed the playoffs. But why aren't you mentioning that?

Because it is meaningless. We can't cherry pick when injuries count and they don't. If we exclude injuries for everyone, the Bulls aren't facing them.

Anyway, you are acting like those were fluke injuries and that those guys roared back in the coming years. Those were career enders for Daughtery and Nance (as in, 0 games played after that--not in the Rose sense). Williams was their fourth or fifth best player. Nance's injury opened up room for Tyrone Hill, a future all-star.

It is funny how we are hearing of Cavs' injuries in 1994, the implication being they were warriors before that. BS. The Cavs had injury problems again and again, especially with their stars Price and Daughtery.

So much so that Grant didn't win a chip in 1994 and Mike returns for a full season in 1995-96 to lead his team to 72 wins and a title?

Mike returns...and they do worse in the playoffs than they did the previous year. All conveniently ignored.

Because Chicago added Ron Harper. Cartwright barely played 42 games in the 1993-94 season. Scott Williams played in 38 games in 1993-94. And honestly, those guys by 1994 were addition by subtraction

Harper isn't relevant to their front line. That was their problem.

Cartwright was the starter! Yeah, he missed half the season. Imagine if he played 82 games! 63 wins with Pippen and Grant. Cartwright get them to what, 67? Williams. Worth 1 game? 68? Injuries are part of the sport.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 01:17 PM

Good point, how many of those games did he play alongside Wade? And what was their record in the games they both played together?

They went 13-15 with both of them. Stop making excuses for the Heat. They sucked no matter which way you slice it. Why the shock? They were bad when LeBron was out the lineup when he was there. It carried over to the full season.

They were still a playoff team.

With a 15 game drop-off.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 01:36 PM

So I think we're on two different wavelengths here. For one, I'm not one to argue that those early 90s Bulls teams weren't solid. They were. You're right about the Bulls as a whole, (with Phil), leaving a winning culture. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who was considered to be a greater leader or tougher competitor in NBA history than Mike. Hence why I said leaving a winning culture.

There are no tangible facts to prove this, just what his teammates and his opponents said about him. He took guys who weren't the biggest names and made them into winners. But that doesn't mean the Bulls didn't have solid teams between 1990-1993. They did. And they should be credited for that. Pippen was one of the greatest players of all time. Grant one of the best role players. Bj and Paxson some of the best shooters.

But having said that, what you're doing is using arbitrary numbers and arguments to diminish MJs importance. I'm not even talking about Cleveland's season in 1993-94. What I'm saying is you can't deplete an entire roster, then expect they'll be competitive in the first round. If Cleveland had a full roster, then Chicago doesn't even advance into the second round.

But even if we don't rely on that, then you're still creating arbitrary lines to define your argument. We discredit Bird's leaving his final year and Boston winning 48 games, but we HAVE to rely on the year he was injured where they won 42 games? Why?

Why is winning 1 round of the playoffs sufficient? How come it's not, "Chicago couldn't even get to the ECF" without MJ? I'm not advocating either. I just find this discourse to be silly.

Indian guy

04-24-2020, 01:40 PM

A testament to Pippen being a top 5 player, Phil being one of the GOAT coaches and the fact that it was a championship-experienced roster that was in its 6th season together (1989-1994).

It certainly wasn't some kind of carry job by Pippen though. 22 ppg is not that much. And when 2 of your teammates made the All Star team (Grant and Armstrong), what it means is that Bulls got it done as a team. And that's we learned about them post-MJ - the fact that he did play on a good team.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 01:42 PM

You also have to consider when you look at the Bulls' rosters, or supporting casts, how do they compare to that of the:

Warriors from 2014-2018
Heat from 2010-2012
Celtics 1982-1987
Lakers 1979-1987
Sixers of 1983
Lakers with Wilt-Goodrich-Baylor-West
Celtics of the late '50s-60s
Kareem-Dandridge-Big O and co.
Frazier with Monroe-Reed-Debusschere
Kobe+Shaq+Rice+Horry and co
Bad Boys Pistons

When you look at the greatest support casts of all time, I don't think it's unfair for people to think that Chicago isn't one of them. But to say that the Bulls didn't have great teams would be wrong.

And for Chicago to go 6/6 despite not having the best supporting cast ever or amongst the best ever is something pretty telling.

guy

04-24-2020, 01:43 PM

It was a "wasted" season in that he wanted to be traded and wasnt, he wanted his contract to be renegotiated and wasnt. Not because he didnt try to win. Which is the narrative you tried to promote.

Grant and Armstrong were what they were when Jordan was there. That's my point.

Curry and Klay were contending for a title well before Durant showed up. Hell they were beating the Durant led Thunder.

The hell are you talking about? He literally said he hardly worked out in the offseason, came into the season out of shape and it got worse from there. There's no argument here. Thats straight from the horse's mouth that he didn't try as hard. And when I say "try" I don't mean guys aren't trying hard during the game. Very likely though, they probably aren't as disciplined when it doesn't look like they have as much of a chance to win, aren't playing for a new contract, etc. especially when they have already experienced a certain level of winning beforehand. No, the other examples may have not been less motivated for the same reasons as Pippen i.e. getting shopped around, but they may have other reasons i.e. they just lost their best player after going close to a decade on deep playoff runs and would rather take it easy not believing they have a chance.

Yes, and my point is Grant and Armstrong were still good players younger and in their prime and given their objective to prove something without Jordan, they were still just as motivated as ever before (not to mention Grant was in a contract year.)

The point is they lost 3 superstars plus Iguodala. And they hardly resemble the Warriors team prior to Durant - no Steph, Klay, Iggy, Barnes, or Bogut. I think they may literally have no one from that team but Draymond. Its not remotely close to a comparable situation.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 01:43 PM

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 02:00 PM

How about 96'? You guys keep acting like injuries only happen the year after the GOAT caliber guy leaves (except miraculously the 94' Bulls, who had zero injuries!). Shaq missed 28 games, Grant 19, Anderson 5. So less total injuries but more top end injuries with Shaq missing more time than Penny did and Grant missing more time than he did the next year.

C'mon man, but they still had Shaq for 54 games and 0 the following season. Obviously if you delete Shaq and then Penny misses 23 games, it will cause a reduction in wins. Then when you add Scott missing 20 games it only makes it worse. What you're doing is ignoring these effects. The fact remains that these scenarios have sometimes equal or opposite effects.

Bird misses the season in '89 and they win 42 games from 57 the previous season.
Bird retires in 1992 and the team goes from winning 51 games to 48 games.

LeBron leaves Cleveland and the fall miserably. So by logic, the team that picks him up should dominate, no? After all, the opposite being equal must be true.

Lebron goes to LA and they go from being a 35 win team to 37.

Kareem's last season with Milwaukee they win 38 games.
Milwaukee without Kareem the next season win 38 games.

Wilt's last season with Philadelphia - 62 wins
Philadelphia the next season without Wilt - 55 wins

Like, what does any of this prove?

guy

04-24-2020, 02:04 PM

C'mon man, but they still had Shaq for 54 games and 0 the following season. Obviously if you delete Shaq and then Penny misses 23 games, it will cause a reduction in wins. Then when you add Scott missing 20 games it only makes it worse. What you're doing is ignoring these effects. The fact remains that these scenarios have sometimes equal or opposite effects.

Bird misses the season in '89 and they win 42 games from 57 the previous season.
Bird retires in 1992 and the team goes from winning 51 games to 48 games.

LeBron leaves Cleveland and the fall miserably. So by logic, the team that picks him up should dominate, no? After all, the opposite being equal must be true.
Lebron goes to LA and they go from being a 35 win team to 37.

Kareem's last season with Milwaukee they win 38 games.
Milwaukee without Kareem the next season win 38 games.

Wilt's last season with Philadelphia - 62 wins
Philadelphia the next season without Wilt - 55 wins

Like, what does any of this prove?

You're asking for a lot of ridiculously pointless math to come your way :oldlol:

Hamtaro CP3KDKG

04-24-2020, 02:13 PM

Horace Grant was better than Scottie in the early 90s. For all the talk about Pips defense on Magic in 91, Horace defended him the best on the team

and in that 94 series against the Knicks, Horace was easily the Bulls best player of the series

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 02:21 PM

But having said that, what you're doing is using arbitrary numbers and arguments to diminish MJs importance

You can intepret it that way--the MJ crowd often does but that is an indicia of the odd insecurity of MJ fans. His team was great. He had a superstar teammate and other good teammates. He had the GOAT coach along with a HOF assistant in Tex Winter. None of that changes MJ's (legitimate) case for GOAT, it is just relevant to the "MJ won by himself, why didn't Players X, Y Z? (who all had stacked teams)" line we always say.

Here is the lens I view it through. I see MJ stans saying it was all MJ non-stop. That is annoying as a Pippen fan and 94' is the only actual evidence we have to work with. If MJ never came back after 93', if MJ got traded earlier, etc. are all speculative. 94' is a real world example.

Re Cleveland and New York, the Bulls played them three years in a row, with and without MJ. Against Cleveland they went 4-2, 4-0, 3-0; against New York 4-3, 4-2, 3-4. So no seismic shift. Hot Rod Williams isn't going to shift a 3-0 sweep to a Cleveland win.

We discredit Bird's leaving his final year and Boston winning 48 games, but we HAVE to rely on the year he was injured where they won 42 games? Why?

Because we are talking GOAT level players in or near their primes. 92' Bird was 35 years old, missed half the season, and a star, not a superstar. If we are trying to look at GOAT level performance, Bird's 92' season isn't relevant.

Since we are talking Bird, they went 31-14 with him and 20-17 without him FWIW. That's the difference between 56 wins and 44 wins.

Why is winning 1 round of the playoffs sufficient? How come it's not, "Chicago couldn't even get to the ECF" without MJ?

That would be the question if, you know, anyone else did it. None of the other teams even got out the first round. The logical question is why did Chicago do so much better than the rest?

It certainly wasn't some kind of carry job by Pippen though.

He was a MVP candidate so he "carried" in that sense. Pippen missed 10 games. They went 4-6 without him, 51-21 with him. That's the difference between a 58 win pace and a 33 win pace.

You also have to consider when you look at the Bulls' rosters, or supporting casts, how do they compare to that of the:

Nope, because that is not who they are playing. You have to look at their relative advantage over the comp. Can you name another 90s team that could win 55 while replacing their best player with a scrub?

Bird retires in 1992 and the team goes from winning 51 games to 48 games.

They were on a 56 win pace when Bird actually played. Why did you calculate that for Penny and no one else? So even a 35 year old Bird, its -8 and going from Game 7 of the ECSF to first round fodder.

Da_Realist

04-24-2020, 02:21 PM

C'mon man, but they still had Shaq for 54 games and 0 the following season. Obviously if you delete Shaq and then Penny misses 23 games, it will cause a reduction in wins. Then when you add Scott missing 20 games it only makes it worse. What you're doing is ignoring these effects. The fact remains that these scenarios have sometimes equal or opposite effects.

Bird misses the season in '89 and they win 42 games from 57 the previous season.
Bird retires in 1992 and the team goes from winning 51 games to 48 games.

LeBron leaves Cleveland and the fall miserably. So by logic, the team that picks him up should dominate, no? After all, the opposite being equal must be true.

Lebron goes to LA and they go from being a 35 win team to 37.

Kareem's last season with Milwaukee they win 38 games.
Milwaukee without Kareem the next season win 38 games.

Wilt's last season with Philadelphia - 62 wins
Philadelphia the next season without Wilt - 55 wins

Like, what does any of this prove?

It proves regular season wins are overrated. Teams use the regular season for different reasons. Some go all out, some pace themselves. Some focus on getting homecourt advantage, some try to save the legs of their starters. Many experiment with different lineup combinations. Some have injuries.

Milwaukee was flirting with 70 wins for much of this season. Does anyone truly believe they are a transcendent team? I don't think anyone ever even thought they'd win the title.

The playoffs is what truly separates the boys from the men.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 02:25 PM

LeBron leaves Cleveland and the fall miserably. So by logic, the team that picks him up should dominate, no?

Yes. Cleveland went from 33 wins to 53 wins and the NBA finals. As a HS rookie from 17 wins to 35. The Heat are a special case but improved a lot obviously. The Lakers, when LeBron like Bird is in his mid-30's, did not improve much. What is your point? That Bird and LeBron were not longer GOAT level players at age 34-35?

Same with Shaq. Orlando goes from 21 wins to 41 when he gets there. When he gets to Miami they go from 42 wins to 59. Shaq missed 31 games in LA. but they were a 61 win pace team with him and a 48 win pace team without him.

Boston goes from 29 wins to 61 Bird's rookie year (Parish, McHale get there the next year).

Care to continue? Are you surprised these teams improve when these caliber guys show up?

Lebron goes to LA and they go from being a 35 win team to 37.

Again, one set of rules for Penny and another for everybody else. They went 28-27 with him and 9-18 without LeBron. That's the difference between 42 wins and 27 wins.

Kareem's last season with Milwaukee they win 38 games.
Milwaukee without Kareem the next season win 38 games.

Kareem was traded four four players. So you bring up Wennington and Hot Rod Williams but not an all-star, a 16/11 C who replaced Kareem, and the #2 and #8 picks?

Wilt's last season with Philadelphia - 62 wins
Philadelphia the next season without Wilt - 55 wins

Another trade. What happened when Wilt retired and the Lakers didn't get any players back? I'll help you with half the equation. They won 60 games and made it to the NBA finals with Wilt. What happened the next year?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-24-2020, 02:26 PM

It proves regular season wins are overrated. Teams use the regular season for different reasons. Some go all out, some pace themselves. Some focus on getting homecourt advantage, some try to save the legs of their starters. Many experiment with different lineup combinations. Some have injuries.

Milwaukee was flirting with 70 wins for much of this season. Does anyone truly believe they are a transcendent team? I don't think anyone ever even thought they'd win the title.

The playoffs is what truly separates the boys from the men.

It wasn't always like that. There was a time when regular-season games were played with pride and fervor.

Don't know when the coasting bullshit really started, but by in large the 90s were competitive all year round.

Akeem34TheDream

04-24-2020, 02:29 PM

Hamtaro CP3KDKG

04-24-2020, 02:35 PM

Wow, how good were those Bulls man.

Not really. They were a team of low spades led by the GOAT. Put Pip in this era and hes Iggy with a post game and he doesnt have that clutch it factor that Iggy did to win FMVP in a series with Steph and Bran

guy

04-24-2020, 02:40 PM

None of that changes MJ's (legitimate) case for GOAT, it is just relevant to the "MJ won by himself, why didn't Players X, Y Z? (who all had stacked teams)" line we always say.

Here is the lens I view it through. I see MJ stans saying it was all MJ non-stop. That is annoying as a Pippen fan and 94' is the only actual evidence we have to work with. If MJ never came back after 93', if MJ got traded earlier, etc. are all speculative. 94' is a real world example.

If thats you feel, thats fair. But to the bolded, why do you frame this argument like its the be all of everything then? You constantly take this simplistic stupid approach to quantifying "impact" as how well a team does without said superstar during some random points in their careers ignoring ALL other factors especially the mental/motivation/stage of careers aspect of it, and apply that to the totality of that superstar's career and then say thats their impact. Impact to me and most fans is what equals how great of a player they are. So based on that and your arguments, you're basically saying Jordan probably isn't even a top 10 player and Pippen was even better without explicitly saying it probably cause you know how much of a joke that sounds like.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 02:50 PM

Again, one set of rules for Penny and another for everybody else. They went 28-27 with him and 9-18 without LeBron. That's the difference between 42 wins and 27 wins.

That's certainly one way of looking at it. When Lebron returns from injury, his team is still in playoff contention, and the Lakers go 4-13. Then LeBron decides to sit out the rest of the games. You're being selective and not giving the broader context.

Kareem was traded four four players. So you bring up Wennington and Hot Rod Williams but not an all-star, a 16/11 C who replaced Kareem, and the #2 and #8 picks?

So in your mind, it was an equal trade? Because they literally won the same amount of games. I like Elmore Smith and Winters, but these guys were role players on the Lakers. Winters was a rookie and both barely averaged 11 ppg. Kareem was the best player in the league. You're trying to draw false equivalencies when the facts show something else.

Another trade. What happened when Wilt retired and the Lakers didn't get any players back? I'll help you with half the equation. They won 60 games and made it to the NBA finals with Wilt. What happened the next year?

You're doing the same thing here. Chambers and Imhoff were two bench players, and Archie Clark was another role player. If anything, the Sixers should have tanked by your logic, but they didn't. You're drawing another false equivalency that just isn't fair.

Charles Barkley left Phoenix with a 1st round exit and 41 games after a trade for some role players...Phoenix won 40 games the next season with another first round exit.

World B. Free gets traded for a player half his skill and talent level. The result? The Clippers won 36 games as opposed to 35.

As for Bird, he may have been a little older, but he was still an all-star; a 20-10-7 player who can shoot with the best of them. They lost that and only saw 3 fewer wins the next season.

You're not being consistent. Look I agree. To minimize Mike's supporting role is unfair. Those guys were solid and the Bulls of the early 90s were a great team. This cannot be ignored. But spare me with the "Scottie won 55 games" as if one year decides something tangible where the value of a player is concerned. It doesn't, and it's evidenced by a lot of other players in history.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 03:25 PM

You're not being consistent. Look I agree. To minimize Mike's supporting role is unfair. Those guys were solid and the Bulls of the early 90s were a great team. This cannot be ignored. But spare me with the "Scottie won 55 games" as if one year decides something tangible where the value of a player is concerned. It doesn't, and it's evidenced by a lot of other players in history.

The same can be said from the other side as well. How do we know what Pip wasnt able to do? He didnt have a fair sample size. That's been my argument all along. And the little sample size we do have indicates that he might have been able to.

Look at Dirk. I remember the Mavericks winning 67 games and having the best record in the NBA, only to be bounced out in the 1st round. Nowitzki was regarded as a laughing stock a joke. Could not win the big one. All it took was one year. And all his fails prior to that was forgiven.

My argument with the Bulls circa 96-98 is that they were a 55 win team and then they added Jordan. Theres never been a need to tear down Michael Jordan's teammates to prop him up. His resume speaks for itself.

I mean whose unreasonable here? Guys like Rock and Myself who are going off the results? Or guys that say Pippen was nothing more than an Andre Igoudala or a taller Mo Williams.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 03:29 PM

The same can be said from the other side as well. How do we know what Pip wasnt able to do? He didnt have a fair sample size. That's been my argument all along. And the little sample size we do have indicates that he might have been able to.

Look at Dirk. I remember the Mavericks winning 67 games and having the best record in the NBA, only to be bounced out in the 1st round. Nowitzki was regarded as a laughing stock a joke. Could not win the big one. All it took was one year. And all his fails prior to that was forgiven.

My argument with the Bulls circa 96-98 is that they were a 55 win team and then they added Jordan. Theres never been a need to tear down Michael Jordan's teammates to prop him up. His resume speaks for itself.

I mean whose unreasonable here? Guys like Rock and Myself who are going off the results? Or guys that say Pippen was nothing more than an Andre Igoudala or a taller Mo Williams.

Whoever tries to minimize Scottie by comparing him to Iguodala and Mo Williams has no business watching basketball, let alone speaking about it. Iguodala and Williams will never be regarded as top 50 players. You can make the argument that Pippen is top 30.

Akeem34TheDream

04-24-2020, 03:31 PM

Not really. They were a team of low spades led by the GOAT. Put Pip in this era and hes Iggy with a post game and he doesnt have that clutch it factor that Iggy did to win FMVP in a series with Steph and Bran

Nice try. Pippen was a top 10 player easily. Iggy was the 5th best player. On his team.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 03:33 PM

My argument with the Bulls circa 96-98 is that they were a 55 win team and then they added Jordan. Theres never been a need to tear down Michael Jordan's teammates to prop him up. His resume speaks for itself.

Exactly. So they were a 55-60 team with Pippen, Grant and co. but with MJ they became a 70+ win team. How is this saying MJ was useless? The point is the team was uniquely great--which MJ stans emphatically deny.

Just look at the other superstars from that time. Portland won 51 with Drexler, Orlando 50 with Shaq, New York 57 with Ewing, Houston 58 with Hakeem, Utah 53 with Malone, San Antonio 55 with Robinson, Phoenix 56 with Barkley. The Bulls win 55 without MJ and we aren't supposed to notice?

Take the best player off any of those teams and they would be lucky to win 45 if everything goes right.

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 03:38 PM

My argument with the Bulls circa 96-98 is that they were a 55 win team and then they added Jordan. Theres never been a need to tear down Michael Jordan's teammates to prop him up. His resume speaks for itself.

I mean whose unreasonable here? Guys like Rock and Myself who are going off the results? Or guys that say Pippen was nothing more than an Andre Igoudala or a taller Mo Williams.

The truth is inbetween. Pippen heavily declined during that stretch. Mainly due to injuries, but he could produce as much in '98 on a regular basis as he could in '96. Doesn't make him a Mo or Andre, but it's fair to say that he wasn't as capable later on. He obviously still was a great player skillwise.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 03:41 PM

Exactly. So they were a 55-60 team with Pippen, Grant and co. but with MJ they became a 70+ win team. How is this saying MJ was useless? The point is the team was uniquely great--which MJ stans emphatically deny.

Just look at the other superstars from that time. Portland won 51 with Drexler, Orlando 50 with Shaq, New York 57 with Ewing, Houston 58 with Hakeem, Utah 53 with Malone, San Antonio 55 with Robinson, Phoenix 56 with Barkley. The Bulls win 55 without MJ and we aren't supposed to notice?

Take the best player off any of those teams and they would be lucky to win 45 if everything goes right.

Lol. And they're trying to say guys like a rookie Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Pete Myers, and Bill Wennington are suitable replacements for the GOAT. Lol BILL FRIGGN WENNINGTON. You couldn't possibly make this stuff up. I blame the public school system

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 03:43 PM

The truth is inbetween. Pippen heavily declined during that stretch. Mainly due to injuries, but he could produce as much in '98 on a regular basis as he could in '96. Doesn't make him a Mo or Andre, but it's fair to say that he wasn't as capable later on. He obviously still was a great player skillwise.

Aging too, although I wouldn't say "heavily declined." He was 27-30 during his peak and like most players he started to decline after 30. He was still a superstar, though it is lost because a lot of his 98' greatness was defensively.

Most of the team was declining during that time, including MJ and Rodman. Kukoc was the only one in his 20's.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 03:50 PM

Lol. And they're trying to say guys like a rookie Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Pete Myers, and Bill Wennington are suitable replacements for the GOAT. Lol BILL FRIGGN WENNINGTON.

Yup, and then they never mention any of those guys again for the years they played with MJ. :oldlol:

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 03:54 PM

Roundball you're obviously very intelligent, but you have yet to account for what we do see in real terms. I think the example of a great player leaving and teams still surviving is a lot more common than you think. As mentioned before, we have examples of Wilt in Philly, Kareem with the Bucks, Barkley with the Suns, World B Free with the Clippers.

In more modern times, KD left OKC. That team didn't fall off the map. They played well, won 47 games, and made the playoffs. Kawhi left Toronto and they're still one of the best players in the league.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but Scottie and the Bulls winning isn't like some rare occasion where we've seen a team maintain some level of success after their best player leaves.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 04:04 PM

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 04:08 PM

Bro. How are you missing this?

Rony Seikly replaced Shaq
Seale Threat replaced Magic
Reggie Lewis replaced Bird
Victor Olidipo replaced Durant

Pete Myers replaced Jordan.

Come on bro.

Pippen replaced Jordan, Grant replaced Pippen, ...
Penny replaced Shaq, etcetc

You don't replace your first option with an 8th option. If you don't get a new first option the former 2nd slides up.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 04:08 PM

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 04:11 PM

What you guys are doing are swapping player for player, as if the role and option of the player who left is automatically filled by any other player.

When Kevin Durant left, the first option didn't become Victor Oladipo. And quite frankly, Oladipo's best year comes in Indy. He was still a role player in OKC. But that's besides the point. KD's leaving means the leadership and 1st option role goes to Westbrook.

The same happens when all the other greats left or were traded.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 04:11 PM

Pippen replaced Jordan, Grant replaced Pippen, ...
Penny replaced Shaq, etcetc

You don't replace your first option with an 8th option. If you don't get a new first option the former 2nd slides up.

This makes absolutely no sense. Even if what you say is true. At some point, there was a huge void left when Jordan retired.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 04:15 PM

This makes absolutely no sense. Even if what you say is true. At some point, there was a huge void left when Jordan retired.

And there wasn't when Oscar Robertson was traded? When KD signed with Golden State? When Kareem was traded to LA? When Kawhi signed with LA? When Barkley went to Houston?

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 04:19 PM

This makes absolutely no sense. Even if what you say is true. At some point, there was a huge void left when Jordan retired.

How doesn't this make sense? It's the damn reality. Did Pete Myers become the first option or Scottie Pippen? The void was that the Bulls were incapable of winning a championship without MJ.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 04:20 PM

And there wasn't when Oscar Robertson was traded? When KD signed with Golden State? When Kareem was traded to LA? When Kawhi signed with LA? When Barkley went to Houston?
Yes. Who is saying otherwise. My argument was that there was some form of quality in the replacements. Were they as good as the player that left? No. But certainly better than Pete Myers.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 04:23 PM

Yes. Who is saying otherwise. My argument was that there was some form of quality in the replacements. Were they as good as the player that left? No. But certainly better than Pete Myers.

I think you're nitpicking on that one. Darrall Imhoff was nowhere near as good as Wilt Chamberlain. Not even close. Guy couldn't even crack double-digits in points or rebounds.

Who filled the void of KD in OKC? No one. That didn't happen.

Who filled Charles Barkley's shoes? Robert Horry and Sam Cassell? Look I like those guys as role players but c'mon.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 04:33 PM

How doesn't this make sense? It's the damn reality. Did Pete Myers become the first option or Scottie Pippen? The void was that the Bulls were incapable of winning a championship without MJ.

Neither Grant nor Armstrong were ever considered options. They're role stayed the same. There wasnt another guy that could take some of the offensive pressure off Pippen.

Think about what you're saying here. This is how that 1-9 argument rears its ugly head. Why didnt the Bulls win in 86 then right? Woolridge was Pippen. Oakley was Grant. No matter how you slice it. Jordan's leaving was a big void.

Look at it like this. You have 4 cars. One is a Bugatti, another a Ford F-150, another is a Ferrari, and a Honda Accord. You lose the Bugatti in a accident and the person that hits you offers you a 1998 Toyota Celica with low miles with the reasoning that you already have the other vehicles. Is that a fair exchange? Seeing as how the Bugatti is a car and that 98 Celica is a car.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 04:42 PM

guy

04-24-2020, 04:43 PM

guy

04-24-2020, 04:45 PM

Roundball you're obviously very intelligent

He's really not. Being able to calculate doesn't make you that.

HoopsNY

04-24-2020, 04:46 PM

He's really not. Being able to calculate doesn't make you that.

I don't think he's being malicious. We should give one another the benefit of the doubt.

bullettooth

04-24-2020, 04:46 PM

So much fun watching all the Bron stans melt down... they're already grasping at straws for any argument to prop up their balding idol, but it's going to get worse; history isn't going to be kind to LeBron... in 5+ years time, LeBron's legacy will be losing 6 times in the finals. Just like Wilt. Just like Jerry West.

Just come to terms with that now.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 04:54 PM

All that time you were driving the Bugatti, you wouldn't be driving the Celica now, in fact you barely would. You would be driving the Ferrari more. That's the point.

But the Celica isnt capable of being a stand in for the Bugatti. Nobody in their right mind would say. I'm good because I still have the Ferrari. So the old ass Celica is a good replacement.

That's what these guys are saying. Losing the Bugatti (Jordan), doesnt matter because you have a Ferrari (Pippen). That's not the way it works.

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 05:05 PM

Neither Grant nor Armstrong were ever considered options. They're role stayed the same. There wasnt another guy that could take some of the offensive pressure off Pippen.

Think about what you're saying here. This is how that 1-9 argument rears its ugly head. Why didnt the Bulls win in 86 then right? Woolridge was Pippen. Oakley was Grant. No matter how you slice it. Jordan's leaving was a big void.

Look at it like this. You have 4 cars. One is a Bugatti, another a Ford F-150, another is a Ferrari, and a Honda Accord. You lose the Bugatti in a accident and the person that hits you offers you a 1998 Toyota Celica with low miles with the reasoning that you already have the other vehicles. Is that a fair exchange? Seeing as how the Bugatti is a car and that 98 Celica is a car.

Now that doesn't really make sense. I'm not saying Scottie became Jordan in a sense that he became a 33/6/6 guy. But he took his place in the hierachy. Grant took Pippen's; some player has to get the most looks some the 2nd most and so on. Pete Myers didn't replace Jordan. He replaced the last dude on the pine.

Just like the Corolla doesn't replace your Bugatti. Your Ferrari becomes the newest top car and the Corolla replaces your Accord as the daily driver you run down. Doesn't make the Ferrari as fast as the Bugatti, but still the top car.

I don't roll with the 1-9 argument. From neither perspective. It's stupid beyond belief. First because Pippen didn't have much impact when Jordan beat the Cavs for the first time and neither did Jordan have much of an impact creating a winning culture before '88 and not even much by then. The problem is that nobody's interested in the reality of things. It's only "look at my MJ/Lebron/Kobe/...".

In reality Pippen was a great player and quite possibly the best complementary piece for a player like Jordan, but people here spamming the board with threads claiming that Pippen is the only reason Jordan won are missusing your favourite player to crown their boycrush GOAT. The reality is just like Pippen needed to grow into the ATG player that he was, but Jordan also had to.
MJ showed a higher floor by his first few games, but that doesn't mean he was ready to win yet. Jordan's peak coincided with Pippen's ascent to stardom, while Pippen's best seasons were when MJ left and the 72 win season.

It's just as dishonest as Kobe stans arguing that Shaq was worse than Kobe, because he played his best during the 3 peat. It was quite the same situation.

FireDavidKahn

04-24-2020, 05:09 PM

In 1993-1994 the Bulls were 51-21 with Pippen and 4-6 without him. They were on a 58 win pace with Scottie.

Scottie was able to make Armstrong and Grant into all-stars.

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 05:20 PM

But the Celica isnt capable of being a stand in for the Bugatti. Nobody in their right mind would say. I'm good because I still have the Ferrari. So the old ass Celica is a good replacement.

That's what these guys are saying. Losing the Bugatti (Jordan), doesnt matter because you have a Ferrari (Pippen). That's not the way it works.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm sayin is that if you lose the Bugatti, who won you quarter mile races at the track day, you wouldn't take the Corolla for it. You'd take the Ferrari and get ousted by the quarter finals. Now there are people claiming the Ferrari is as fast as the Bugatti because it nearly matched the Bugattis worst pre-elim time.

Pete Myers didn't take Jordan's place in the Bulls hierachy. Pippen did and as I said of course he wasn't as capable as Jordan in Jordan's place with Pippen in Pippen's. A big reason why the Bulls were nearly as good as the year before record wise was that the Bulls had their worst record of the first 3 peat the year prior and that the accord was replaced by a Benz.

guy

04-24-2020, 05:30 PM

But the Celica isnt capable of being a stand in for the Bugatti. Nobody in their right mind would say. I'm good because I still have the Ferrari. So the old ass Celica is a good replacement.

That's what these guys are saying. Losing the Bugatti (Jordan), doesnt matter because you have a Ferrari (Pippen). That's not the way it works.

No they're not. By saying the Celica is the stand in for the Bugatti would be like saying Pete Myers was now going to take 25 shots per game and be their go-to guy in the clutch. Thats not what happened and thats not what anyone is saying.

And I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't matter. I know people don't want to believe this, but going from Jordan to Pippen is a huge downgrade. And it showed - they went from a 3-peat champion to a 2nd round team. Its just not the downgrade Jordan to Pete Myers.

guy

04-24-2020, 05:32 PM

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm sayin is that if you lose the Bugatti, who won you quarter mile races at the track day, you wouldn't take the Corolla for it. You'd take the Ferrari and get ousted by the quarter finals. Now there are people claiming the Ferrari is as fast as the Bugatti because it nearly matched the Bugattis worst pre-elim time.

Pete Myers didn't take Jordan's place in the Bulls hierachy. Pippen did and as I said of course he wasn't as capable as Jordan in Jordan's place with Pippen in Pippen's. A big reason why the Bulls were nearly as good as the year before record wise was that the Bulls had their worst record of the first 3 peat the year prior and that the accord was replaced by a Benz.

Well put

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 05:34 PM

Now that doesn't really make sense. I'm not saying Scottie became Jordan in a sense that he became a 33/6/6 guy. But he took his place in the hierachy. Grant took Pippen's; some player has to get the most looks some the 2nd most and so on. Pete Myers didn't replace Jordan. He replaced the last dude on the pine.

Just like the Corolla doesn't replace your Bugatti. Your Ferrari becomes the newest top car and the Corolla replaces your Accord as the daily driver you run down. Doesn't make the Ferrari as fast as the Bugatti, but still the top car.

I don't roll with the 1-9 argument. From neither perspective. It's stupid beyond belief. First because Pippen didn't have much impact when Jordan beat the Cavs for the first time and neither did Jordan have much of an impact creating a winning culture before '88 and not even much by then. The problem is that nobody's interested in the reality of things. It's only "look at my MJ/Lebron/Kobe/...".

In reality Pippen was a great player and quite possibly the best complementary piece for a player like Jordan, but people here spamming the board with threads claiming that Pippen is the only reason Jordan won are missusing your favourite player to crown their boycrush GOAT. The reality is just like Pippen needed to grow into the ATG player that he was, but Jordan also had to.
MJ showed a higher floor by his first few games, but that doesn't mean he was ready to win yet. Jordan's peak coincided with Pippen's ascent to stardom, while Pippen's best seasons were when MJ left and the 72 win season.

It's just as dishonest as Kobe stans arguing that Shaq was worse than Kobe, because he played his best during the 3 peat. It was quite the same situation.

Right. And this is my point. As I stated earlier. This argument isnt made if the Jordan stans would stop saying the Bulls outside of Jordan werent that good. Because theres gonna be pushback due to what we actually saw when Jordan left.

You cant mistake roles for hierarchy. By default players rankings go up or down based on the talent that comes and goes.

In 92-93, Jordan was the Bulls SG. In 93-94 Myers was the SG. So Myers was Jordan's replacement.

My argument is roles. Neither Horace Grant nor BJ Armstrong should be considered number 2 options on a Championship team. They werent on the teams Jordan was on. The Bulls needed another guy that could get 18-20 ppg ON HIS OWN. Not on put backs or open jumpers which was how Grant and Armstrong got their points. When Jordan left, there wasnt anybody to fill the role that Pippen had with Jordan. Even a decent player. Kukoc would become that but he was a rookie in 94. And playing out of position in 95. The Bulls didnt fill that role successfully when Jordan left.

Better yet. Let's talk about impact. The Bulls needed another guy to impact the game to take Pippens spot since he took Jordan's. Does that make more sense?

guy

04-24-2020, 05:36 PM

Now that doesn't really make sense. I'm not saying Scottie became Jordan in a sense that he became a 33/6/6 guy. But he took his place in the hierachy. Grant took Pippen's; some player has to get the most looks some the 2nd most and so on. Pete Myers didn't replace Jordan. He replaced the last dude on the pine.

Just like the Corolla doesn't replace your Bugatti. Your Ferrari becomes the newest top car and the Corolla replaces your Accord as the daily driver you run down. Doesn't make the Ferrari as fast as the Bugatti, but still the top car.

I don't roll with the 1-9 argument. From neither perspective. It's stupid beyond belief. First because Pippen didn't have much impact when Jordan beat the Cavs for the first time and neither did Jordan have much of an impact creating a winning culture before '88 and not even much by then. The problem is that nobody's interested in the reality of things. It's only "look at my MJ/Lebron/Kobe/...".

In reality Pippen was a great player and quite possibly the best complementary piece for a player like Jordan, but people here spamming the board with threads claiming that Pippen is the only reason Jordan won are missusing your favourite player to crown their boycrush GOAT. The reality is just like Pippen needed to grow into the ATG player that he was, but Jordan also had to.
MJ showed a higher floor by his first few games, but that doesn't mean he was ready to win yet. Jordan's peak coincided with Pippen's ascent to stardom, while Pippen's best seasons were when MJ left and the 72 win season.

It's just as dishonest as Kobe stans arguing that Shaq was worse than Kobe, because he played his best during the 3 peat. It was quite the same situation.

Exactly. Is it Jordan's fault he played ~70% of his career with Pippen? And that 70% was in most player's careers the best 70% of their career in terms of age? And thats including the Wizards as part of his career. Its incredible that this argument, even in the media, has gotten this many legs vs. it just being dismissed as a coincidence. Do people really think if Jordan never got Pippen he would've never gotten out of the first round???

guy

04-24-2020, 05:39 PM

Right. And this is my point. As I stated earlier. This argument isnt made if the Jordan stans would stop saying the Bulls outside of Jordan werent that good. Because theres gonna be pushback due to what we actually saw when Jordan left.

You cant mistake roles for hierarchy. By default players rankings go up or down based on the talent that comes and goes.

In 92-93, Jordan was the Bulls SG. In 93-94 Myers was the SG. So Myers was Jordan's replacement.

My argument is roles. Neither Horace Grant nor BJ Armstrong should be considered number 2 options on a Championship team. They werent on the teams Jordan was on. The Bulls needed another guy that could get 18-20 ppg ON HIS OWN. Not on put backs or open jumpers which was how Grant and Armstrong got their points. When Jordan left, there wasnt anybody to fill the role that Pippen had with Jordan. Even a decent player. Kukoc would become that but he was a rookie in 94. And playing out of position in 95. The Bulls didnt fill that role successfully when Jordan left.

Better yet. Let's talk about impact. The Bulls needed another guy to impact the game to take Pippens spot since he took Jordan's. Does that make more sense?

Well they didn't win the championship so they weren't 2nd options on a championship team. Of course in terms of hierarchy, each spot was a lesser player after losing Jordan. But its not like everyone's role stayed the same, and Pete Myers "replaced" Jordan and was now taking on his role. They tried to collectively make up for Jordan, but they couldn't. That's the whole point. I don't know how this isn't clear.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 05:41 PM

No they're not. By saying the Celica is the stand in for the Bugatti would be like saying Pete Myers was now going to take 25 shots per game and be their go-to guy in the clutch. Thats not what happened and thats not what anyone is saying.

And I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't matter. I know people don't want to believe this, but going from Jordan to Pippen is a huge downgrade. And it showed - they went from a 3-peat champion to a 2nd round team. Its just not the downgrade Jordan to Pete Myers.

Lol bro how are you missing this? It's not rocket science. Going from Pippen to Jordan was a downgrade. Eveb more, the 3pt nucleus of Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, and Paxson/Armstrong suffered a huge gash when Jordan left. The other guys were still there and more importantly STAYED IN THEIR ROLES. Sure by default Pippen became the best player then Grant after him and so on. It still doesnt replace that big loss.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 05:44 PM

teams still surviving is a lot more common than you think. As mentioned before, we have examples of Wilt in Philly, Kareem with the Bucks, Barkley with the Suns, World B Free with the Clippers.

1) you are mixing in trades where teams got 3-4 players, including all-star level guys back for 1 player. That's not the same as one player leaving via retirement or free agency 2) Barkley and Free aren't the caliber of guys we are talking about.

Barkley isn't a good example anyway for other reasons (he is another example of a trade--Phoenix gave up its leading scorer and 2 starters for him). The Sixers won 35 games with him and 26 the next year. That isn't a massive drop-off but they already sucked. What did you expect? 15-67? When he went to Phoenix they went from 53 wins and a 4-1 loss in the second round to 62 wins and the NBA finals. That's significant progress.

In more modern times, KD left OKC. That team didn't fall off the map.

They went from losing the WCF in 7 games to losing in the first round. Their wins went from 55 to 47. This includes them going 3-7 without him (they were a 59 win pace team with him). Anyway, when you move down the ladder the level of impact will decrease. What was the impact when Carmelo or Kyrie Irving left? Draymond Green? How far down the list do you want to go?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but Scottie and the Bulls winning isn't like some rare occasion where we've seen a team maintain some level of success after their best player leaves.

It is for a GOAT level player leaving in or near his prime. You haven't been able to show another example because there is none.

You don't replace your first option with an 8th option

You replace by positions. Pippen and Grant did what they did the previous year. Their roles didn't change significantly. Pippen didn't switch to becoming a full-time guard. (They could have done that in theory: Pippen, Armstrong as the guards and Kukoc at SF.)

Did Pete Myers become the first option or Scottie Pippen?

Pete Myers became the starting SG. Who was that in the previous season?

Think about what you're saying here. This is how that 1-9 argument rears its ugly head. Why didnt the Bulls win in 86 then right? Woolridge was Pippen. Oakley was Grant. No matter how you slice it. Jordan's leaving was a big void.

Yeah, it always gets back to they weren't good without MJ, it was all MJ and then they complain when people point out evidence of their performance without him and compare it to other similar cases.

He's really not. Being able to calculate doesn't make you that.

guy is a clown--this is why he is on the ignore list. Let adults have a conversation.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 05:48 PM

Well they didn't win the championship so they weren't 2nd options on a championship team. Of course in terms of hierarchy, each spot was a lesser player after losing Jordan. But its not like everyone's role stayed the same, and Pete Myers "replaced" Jordan and was now taking on his role. They tried to collectively make up for Jordan, but they couldn't. That's the whole point. I don't know how this isn't clear.

Right. So when I hear or read the nonsense that Pippen didn't take the Bulls to a Championship so hes ___, I cant help but respond with the fact that the talent he had behind him, wasnt tantamount to the talent Jordan had behind him. Why isnt Pippen afforded this logic like all the all time greats that are supposedly so far above him?

Again, what makes Barkely or Nowotzki or Wade soooooooo much better than Pippen. Other than they had 8-10 years to accomplish what a supposedly lesser player in Pippen was supposed to accomplish in 1? Fck outta here with that nonsense

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 05:49 PM

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 05:54 PM

Right. And this is my point. As I stated earlier. This argument isnt made if the Jordan stans would stop saying the Bulls outside of Jordan werent that good. Because theres gonna be pushback due to what we actually saw when Jordan left.

You cant mistake roles for hierarchy. By default players rankings go up or down based on the talent that comes and goes.

In 92-93, Jordan was the Bulls SG. In 93-94 Myers was the SG. So Myers was Jordan's replacement.

My argument is roles. Neither Horace Grant nor BJ Armstrong should be considered number 2 options on a Championship team. They werent on the teams Jordan was on. The Bulls needed another guy that could get 18-20 ppg ON HIS OWN. Not on put backs or open jumpers which was how Grant and Armstrong got their points. When Jordan left, there wasnt anybody to fill the role that Pippen had with Jordan. Even a decent player. Kukoc would become that but he was a rookie in 94. And playing out of position in 95. The Bulls didnt fill that role successfully when Jordan left.

I think the Jordan stans saying the Bulls outside of Jordan weren't that good is a new argument. Never heard that back in the day. Some of the biggest stans in my circle of basketball friends had Pippen somewhere in their top 5 back then. I think the argument stems from Lebron stans saying the '94 Bulls were as good as the '93 version and were a foul away from winning the title. It's both just equally stupid.

Better yet. Let's talk about impact. The Bulls needed another guy to impact the game to take Pippens spot since he took Jordan's. Does that make more sense?

I think we actually view it the same way. I'm arguing against the people that say that Jordan had zero impact and Pippen made Jordan, because of a 2 wins difference between two seasons. If Pippen had a guy like Joe Johnson those Bulls surely could've gotten further, but that simply wasn't the reality of the NBA back then. Teams had to luck into 2nd option stars.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 06:02 PM

I think the Jordan stans saying the Bulls outside of Jordan weren't that good is a new argument. Never heard that back in the day.

I've been here since 2009 and 97 since 2006. We have been hearing it the entire time.

The cycle is created by MJ stans. They say MJ is the GOAT because of team success and everybody sucks because they did less with more. Fans of other players then point out how great the team was (94' is an obvious example because it is not speculation) as a group and Pippen, Rodman individually and MJ stans reply by tearing down the team and players. The LeBron stuff is funny since 10 years ago or so it was Kobe stans who were saying the same things (in response to MJ stan attacks on Kobe).

I think the argument stems from Lebron stans saying the '94 Bulls were as good as the '93 version and were a foul away from winning the title.

Search for threads on the 94' Bulls on here. It wasn't the LeBron crew, it was the Kobe crew saying it for many years. Now the Kobe crew argues the MJ stan position on many issues :lol .

If Pippen had a guy like Joe Johnson those Bulls surely could've gotten further, but that simply wasn't the reality of the NBA back then. Teams had to luck into 2nd option stars.

Or sign one. You can't do that in October...but Harper the next year was signed to be a strong second option. They also looked at trading for Hornacek at the trade deadline but Krause foolishly didn't want to give up a first round pick (which was always going to be low and turned out to be Dickey Simpkins).

MJ stans have gotten worse. The 57 to 55 wins is misleading since that was the worst year of the chip teams. MJ stans used to be smart enough to argue that 92' (67 wins) was a better representation of their true level or that 96' was (72 wins). If you accept those theories, the difference is 67 and 55 or 72 and 55.

It still is flawed--you can't cherry pick the peak levels of teams (using an average may be better) but it still made more sense than what they do these days.

guy

04-24-2020, 06:06 PM

guy is a clown--this is why he is on the ignore list. Let adults have a conversation.

Wow so you realize your arguments were so weak you had to resort to this? :oldlol:

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 06:26 PM

Why are MJ stans avoiding this like the plague?
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?479442-Scottie-Pippen-s-Peak-Compared-to-other-1990s-Stars-(Advanced-Stats)

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 06:32 PM

That isn't how it works in basketball. You just said Myers didn't replace Jordan but he replaced the 12th man. He literally took Jordan's spot as the starting SG. Using your logic, everyone simply trickles down and he would be riding the pine but positions matter in basketball and they couldn't have Kukoc play SG.

Pippen took 1 more shot a game, Grant about 1 1/2, Armstrong 2 more. That is a combined 4 1/2 more shots among their all-star players. Jordan vacated 26 shots a game...it's basketball, not a corporation where the #2 moves up to become the president, the #3 guys becomes VP, and so on.

It's not the same situation. Shaq won without Kobe, Kobe won without Shaq.

The LeBron obsession is comical. Guy and I have been saying this forever. Before we are secret Kobe stans; now secret LeBron stans?

I'm not talking about you or 97 Bulls - this is actually the most satisfying basketball talk on this forum in years. I'm talking about the stans and trolls polluting the front page with 25 Pippen threads ever since the Bulls flick came out.
I'm talking about the guys who say that Pippen is better or more important than Jordan, because they simply stick to their obvious agenda. They don't GAF about Scottie Pippen the basketball player. It's simply a strawman to devalue Jordan's career. Just like some years ago a horde of Kobe stans argued that he was the better player in 00 to 02 between him an Shaq, because Shaq only started winning when Kobe became a star.

It wasn't the same career path for MJ/Pip and Shaq/Kobe, but the situation in '91 to '93 and '00 to '02 was kind of the same and the arguments are the same. Jordan didn't become great because of Pippen. The team became capable of winning. Just like the Lakers.

Both Jordan und Shaq would've hit their peak regardless, just the team success might not have been there if not for Pippen or Kobe.

Myers was a hyperbole just in order to adress that he didn't replace Jordan in the hierachy of the team. I honestly don't know without checking how many minutes he played, but what I mean is that he didn't replace Jordan in the sense that he was made the leading USG% player of the Bulls. He got a spot somewhere down the pecking order that wasn't close to Jordan's. The dishonesty of afforementioned stans lies within sayin the Bulls only replaced Jordan with Myers while nothing else happened on that team.

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 06:33 PM

I've been here since 2009 and 97 since 2006. We have been hearing it the entire time.

The cycle is created by MJ stans. They say MJ is the GOAT because of team success and everybody sucks because they did less with more. Fans of other players then point out how great the team was (94' is an obvious example because it is not speculation) as a group and Pippen, Rodman individually and MJ stans reply by tearing down the team and players. The LeBron stuff is funny since 10 years ago or so it was Kobe stans who were saying the same things (in response to MJ stan attacks on Kobe).

Search for threads on the 94' Bulls on here. It wasn't the LeBron crew, it was the Kobe crew saying it for many years. Now the Kobe crew argues the MJ stan position on many issues :lol .

Or sign one. You can't do that in October...but Harper the next year was signed to be a strong second option. They also looked at trading for Hornacek at the trade deadline but Krause foolishly didn't want to give up a first round pick (which was always going to be low and turned out to be Dickey Simpkins).

MJ stans have gotten worse. The 57 to 55 wins is misleading since that was the worst year of the chip teams. MJ stans used to be smart enough to argue that 92' (67 wins) was a better representation of their true level or that 96' was (72 wins). If you accept those theories, the difference is 67 and 55 or 72 and 55.

It still is flawed--you can't cherry pick the peak levels of teams (using an average may be better) but it still made more sense than what they do these days.

I remember the time when there was a pletora of Kobe stans, but I only started lurking during the lockout and back then it was a full blown triangle war between Kobe, MJ and Lebron stans rehashing the same bs all day. Just don't remember Kobe stans using thatpoint that much. In my memory they mostly attacked Lebron as they felt threatened.

I don't want to tear down that team. I actually think it was a capable cast talentwise as evidenced by earlier and later success. Pippen, Kukoc are good core players to have if you're Jordan and just slide into that team and of course Pippen did the heavy lifting that season. I just hate stans - of any player, even if it's my AT fav.

RRR3

04-24-2020, 06:38 PM

I remember the time when there was a pletora of Kobe stans, but I only started lurking during the lockout and back then it was a full blown triangle war between Kobe, MJ and Lebron stans rehashing the same bs all day. Just don't remember Kobe stans using thatpoint that much. In my memory they mostly attacked Lebron as they felt threatened.

I don't want to tear down that team. I actually think it was a capable cast talentwise as evidenced by earlier and later success. Pippen, Kukoc are good core players to have if you're Jordan and just slide into that team and of course Pippen did the heavy lifting that season. I just hate stans - of any player, even if it's my AT fav.
Shaq?

Overdrive

04-24-2020, 06:51 PM

Shaq?

Yes. I used to argue with a guy called 32dayz, who was an insufferable Shaq stan just because he spewed nonsense all the time.

Why are MJ stans avoiding this like the plague?
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?479442-Scottie-Pippen-s-Peak-Compared-to-other-1990s-Stars-(Advanced-Stats)

I don't know if you mistake me for an MJ stan, because I'm arguing in his case, but that list isn't surprising at all. If I had to draft between those players and I'd know their careers in hindsight. Id take Pippen #3 behind Barkley and Malone, but just based on having seen extended amounts of either as a first option.

Pippen was my fav Bull and one of my fav players back then. Definately more likeable than Jordan.

Manny98

04-24-2020, 06:52 PM

If you added Clyde Drexler to the 94 Bulls they would of won that year

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 07:06 PM

If you added Clyde Drexler to the 94 Bulls they would of won that year

Didnt even need to go that high Mitch Richmond and Latrell Sprewell could've gotten them over the top.

Turbo Slayer

04-24-2020, 07:12 PM

Didnt even need to go that high Mitch Richmond and Latrell Sprewell could've gotten them over the top. Who are they? Superstars? Stars? Good role players? I never watched the 90s.

Axe

04-24-2020, 07:18 PM

1987_Lakers

04-24-2020, 07:21 PM

97 bulls. Long time no see.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 07:58 PM

Yes. I used to argue with a guy called 32dayz, who was an insufferable Shaq stan just because he spewed nonsense all the time.

I don't know if you mistake me for an MJ stan, because I'm arguing in his case, but that list isn't surprising at all. If I had to draft between those players and I'd know their careers in hindsight. Id take Pippen #3 behind Barkley and Malone, but just based on having seen extended amounts of either as a first option.

Pippen was my fav Bull and one of my fav players back then. Definately more likeable than Jordan.

So you know for a fact that you will not win with Malone and Barkley. But you'd pick them anyway over Pippen? Why? You're ok with season after season of failure?

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 08:02 PM

97 bulls. Long time no see.

What's up 87 Lakers?

knicksman

04-24-2020, 08:04 PM

Right. So when I hear or read the nonsense that Pippen didn't take the Bulls to a Championship so hes ___, I cant help but respond with the fact that the talent he had behind him, wasnt tantamount to the talent Jordan had behind him. Why isnt Pippen afforded this logic like all the all time greats that are supposedly so far above him?

Again, what makes Barkely or Nowotzki or Wade soooooooo much better than Pippen. Other than they had 8-10 years to accomplish what a supposedly lesser player in Pippen was supposed to accomplish in 1? Fck outta here with that nonsense

Just because pippen did it 1 time playing playoff mode for a whole season just to prove that he could do it without jordan dont mean shit. What happens when that motivation is lost, yeah theyre back to where they should be, 34-31 before jordan returned. And how many teams have won with their best player being a pippen type player?

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 08:04 PM

Rofl you got me laughing when you mentioned the f-150 there. Compared to others mentioned, it's a freaking truck. ��

TheF-150 is Horace Grant ��.

Rodman would be an f-150 Raptor

1987_Lakers

04-24-2020, 08:05 PM

What's up 87 Lakers?

Isn't it odd we have an identical number of posts? WTF, I just saw that.

Axe

04-24-2020, 08:06 PM

TheF-150 is Horace Grant ��.

Rodman would be an f-150 Raptor
Lol that's an interesting analogy.

97 bulls

04-24-2020, 08:09 PM

Isn't it odd we have an identical number of posts? WTF, I just saw that.

Wow. That's crazy.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 08:13 PM

I'm not talking about you or 97 Bulls - this is actually the most satisfying basketball talk on this forum in years. I'm talking about the stans and trolls polluting the front page with 25 Pippen threads ever since the Bulls flick came out.

Got it. Yeah there is a surge since the documentary but it will fade. Pippen will always come up anyway to a lesser degree even after the doc surge subsides. He was one of the most popular players of the 90s, he generates a lot of discussion due to him being somewhat polarizing, and the MJ stans' vendetta against him. If you post a thread about a similar player like Ewing or Drexler you won't get this many replies.

Jordan didn't become great because of Pippen. The team became capable of winning. Just like the Lakers.

Both Jordan und Shaq would've hit their peak regardless, just the team success might not have been there if not for Pippen or Kobe.

Sure, legit points all around. There also is a scenario where they win anyway, but instead of a dynasty it is 1-2 rings. The only reason this matters is MJ stans make everything about "6" and "6-0" so they have to paint a picture of 6 inevitable rings, which is ridiculous.

The dishonesty of afforementioned stans lies within sayin the Bulls only replaced Jordan with Myers while nothing else happened on that team.

I don't think it is dishonesty. He literally replaced him. Somebody had to become the new starting SG for the Bulls and it was him. Multiple other changes happened, like happen every year on teams, but Myers was the MJ replacement and the one change made post-MJ before the season. If they knew MJ was gone if he retired in June they would likely made different moves, starting with getting a legitimate starting SG.

I remember the time when there was a pletora of Kobe stans, but I only started lurking during the lockout and back then it was a full blown triangle war between Kobe, MJ and Lebron stans rehashing the same bs all day. Just don't remember Kobe stans using thatpoint that much

They did for the same reason LeBron stans do today: defense. The level of discussion here is a lot better than elsewhere but if you go on sports Facebook groups or Twitter you will be deluged with MJ stans saying "6-0", "3-6". It will trigger a response. MJ stans like to dish it out but don't like to receive the retaliatory volleys.

I don't know if you mistake me for an MJ stan

No, I meant MJ stans in general, not even in this thread (of which you aren't one). It to me is evidence of them arguing in bad faith regarding Pippen: when cold, hard data is presenting they aren't anywhere to be seen.

idnt even need to go that high Mitch Richmond and Latrell Sprewell could've gotten them over the top.

For sure they win with Drexler, Richmond, Sprewell but those along with Miller were the top SGs of that time. I think they make the finals with even an average starting SG. If they have an above average one like Hornacek they win the chip. We'll never know but look at how strong they were with a scrub in Myers.

Roundball_Rock

04-24-2020, 08:16 PM

Who are they? Superstars? Stars? Good role players? I never watched the 90s.

Sprewell was all-NBA first team that year. Probably his best season. Drexler was the second best SG for the first half of the 90's (and a top 5 player at his peak) and then it was Richmond later on. Miller is remembered more because his big moments came against the right teams and times, but Drexler and Richmond were better.

Turbo Slayer

04-24-2020, 08:28 PM

Sprewell was all-NBA first team that year. Probably his best season. Drexler was the second best SG for the first half of the 90's (and a top 5 player at his peak) and then it was Richmond later on. Miller is remembered more because his big moments came against the right teams and times, but Drexler and Richmond were better. So Drexler and Richmond were great shooting guards in their own right. Oh I see.

So Drexler is like James Harden and Richmond was like a Klay Thompson. Cool.

LeCroix

04-24-2020, 09:19 PM

Notice the teams mentioned are led by guys that many feel Pippen has no business being compared to. Hmm.

Precise thoughts, so realistically only Malone, Hakeem, and Dirk did it. Hakeemis top 10, Malone and Dirk top 30. Not realizing this info helps the notion that Pippen was beyond special. MJ had a great teammate, who cares because Wade was great in 2012 and so was Kyrie in 2017.

LostCause

04-25-2020, 09:25 AM

My bad fellas I had some things come up yesterday. I'll respond to a couple posts today though

That may explain "LeBron ball" but says nothing for all the other teams. The Lakers didn't have a system? Won 5 chips and made 9 finals playing streetball?

The Lakers had a system. They won their chips with Riley. They made 1 Finals under Dunleavy but that was also Magic's last season. All the teams mentioned went on to become pretenders (Or just outright terrible like the Cavs). The Bulls did well in the season but I wouldn't consider them contenders

Paxson was on the Bulls only in spirit. He played 27 games and averaged 13 MPG. He was done.

Kukoc their fourth leading scorer at 10.9. Of course his "per 36" will be higher since he played in shorter spurts.

You're correct about Paxson. I was pointing out he was still there.

Kukoc's Per-36 was a reflection of how effective he was in the time he played. So whether he played in spurs or not. what's important is how effective he was. Given he turned a few games and literally won a few on buzzer beaters (Which is why Phil trusted him in the playoffs) I'm not sure why you're trying to minimize his contributions

Williams averaged 6/4/1 on 15 MPG in the playoffs.

Yet he was the 2nd leading scorer of Game 1 against Cleveland and averaged double figures that series. He also provided quality depth in the season after returning. Not surprising he shit the bed against NY and their all-time great defense (As they did most that year - they had an all-time great defense that year)

Again, it is hilarious these guys get credit for 94' but NEVER are mentioned for 1995-1998 when MJ was back.
What's that got to do with what I said? I don't really care about what other people are doing or saying

LostCause

04-25-2020, 09:38 AM

Sure it is. Myers was not good enough to make a NBA roster.....That is who they "replaced" peak "GOAT" and his 33/7/6 with, not Rony Seiklay or Luol Deng.

They didn't really "replace" Jordan though. We know that because their offense literally cratered. It was below league average, and to even get there they brought in a lot of players who were pretty good for them offensively (Kerr especially, followed by Kukoc etc)

Thanks. Kerr was a good player but MJ stans like to say he was brought in as part of a "post-MJ" plan. Kerr was signed before MJ retired and he was Orlando's 12th man at the time. Kerr turned out to be much better than expected fortunately.

Same as above: MJ stans point to him as part of a "post-MJ" plan when MJ had nothing to do with it.

I don't know what a "post-MJ plan" is but the fact is these players played for the Bulls in 94 when MJ was gone. I don't see what a plan has to do with it

Kerr was really good for them. He led the team in offensive rating by a wide margin and was 3rd or 4th in the NBA in 3pt percentage

You can't have it both ways. Do injuries count or not? You bring them up for Cleveland but not Chicago, for Miami in 2015 but not Miami in 2014. Pick a rule and we can go from there.
What? You brought them up for Chicago. Why would I need to repeat that?

Yes, it is a shame Orlando had injuries in 97'. Seiklay missed 8 games, Grant 15, Scott 16, Anderson 19, and Penny 23.

How about 96'? ...

Orlando had Shaq in 96. They were better equipped to deal. Obviously a team without him is less equipped to deal with that. Take Shaq away and there's Penny. Take Penny out and there's no "star" to steer the ship

He played 29 MPG in his three games. Earlier you are hyping guys who played 7 MPG.

He was completely neutralized prior to injuring himself. Yet even still the Magic brought the Heat to the brink of elimination, much like Chicago did New York in 94

Don't recall hyping up anyone who played 7mpg. If you're referring to Wennington he clearly provided quality depth to that Bulls team. Not sure how that's being criticized

Yes, with Penny scoring 42 and 41 in those games, and lost. The Lakers got to Game 5 too without Magic. It happens. There is a reason the NBA moved from 5 games to 7 games. When you need 3 wins more flukes can happen.

Possibly, but just going by the results and not speculation that series victory was within reach

That's interesting but meaningless unless the same "what if" is applied to other teams.
So what is your point? Instead of comparing 55 wins and 45 we should compare (theoretical) 63 wins versus 52? That net delta is basically the same.

Not at all. The point is even with injury and a roster that faltered in the playoffs that Magic team was about 11 points away from making the 2nd round of the playoffs, like the Bulls in 94. They didn't get there, but then again they didn't face a team like those 94 Cavs either in the 1st round

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 09:45 AM

Just to recap what we heard from the MJ crowd earlier, since a lot was thrown out:

*We need to adjust win totals for star health for Orlando (Penny) and look at it for Miami (Wade and Bosh, but the data didn't help there) but not do the same for Boston (Bird), Chicago (Pippen), Milwaukee (Kareem), OKC (Durant), and so on. The purpose here is twofold: 1) inflate the win totals for some teams and not do the same for other teams to mask the real difference in team performance. So it is "Boston won 51 with a 34 year old Bird and 48 the next year", not that Boston was a 56 win team with Bird on the floor in his final season.
*Injuries matter, but only for the 94' Bulls' opponents and the other teams that were mentioned in those specific seasons after a GOAT level player left. Injuries to the 94' Bulls don't matter, nor do injuries to those other teams in the prior season from which the win total baseline comes from. In other words, use injuries selectively to close the gap by inflating the win total the year after Player X left, but not doing the same to the final year that player was there to get a real comparison. With the Bulls, it is flipped. Don't use injuries at all because it would mean the Bulls would have lost peak MJ and actually won more games the next year.
*Regular season wins don't matter, we should use playoff results, even though playoff results show exactly the same trend. It's a nice deflection but has zero impact on the overall point.
*Getting to Game 5 of the first round is praiseworthy against the EC runner up (only because of the Knicks' suspensions BTW), but getting to Game 7 in the second round against the EC champs apparently is not praiseworthy.
*Teams battling for .500 play less hard (all of the teams I raised, except the 94' Bulls), or use the season to experiment, etc. That makes zero sense. If anything these are the teams that play the hardest because they have no other choice.
*Kukoc, Kerr, Wennington being added to the Bulls matters in 94', but none of these guys is ever mentioned for the four years they played with MJ.
*Grant leaving after his best season before 95' is not relevant, nor is the acquisition of Rodman before the 96' season. So Wennington matters but the two biggest non-MJ player moves during the 90's Bulls runs don't matter. Grant leaving or Rodman arriving is not even worth mentioning (ask yourself how many times you have seen the MJ crowd discuss 95' and mention Grant or 96' and mention Rodman...the answer is 0 and 0, but we hear a lot about "rust").

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 09:46 AM

*MJ's retirement in October should be looked at as the same as a player leaving in free agency, retiring after the season (situations where teams can get a quality replacement) or a trade (where teams will get multiple players back for a superstar). The Bulls' didn't have the deck stacked against them, so no need to look at what would have happened if they got the same shake as the other teams (the Lakers with Magic are the only exception, but he retired for health reasons).
*We shouldn't just look at guys like Russell, Wilt, LeBron, MJ, Shaq, Bird, Magic in or near their primes but also lesser players like Durant, Kawhi or LeBron and Bird when they are past their prime. This is another deflection. What we are talking about is the impact of GOAT level players leaving while they are playing at a prime/near prime level. Chauncey Billups or an ancient Shaq leaving isn't relevant.
*The Bulls had a winning culture, all because of one player (evidently the culture continued absent the one player), and a winning system but the implication is the 60's Celtics, 70's Lakers, 80's Celtics, Showtime Lakers, 90's Magic, 00's Lakers, and LeBron's teams did not. This is despite all these teams either winning chips or at least making the finals. We are to believe they did it with a losing culture, no system, nothing. It just happened?

LostCause

04-25-2020, 09:50 AM

Lol. And they're trying to say guys like a rookie Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Pete Myers, and Bill Wennington are suitable replacements for the GOAT. Lol BILL FRIGGN WENNINGTON. You couldn't possibly make this stuff up. I blame the public school system

You're not really proving to be any better than the trolls on this forum with this level of stupidity

Here are the facts: Chicago's offensively crated without MJ. That's indisputable. After 3 straight years of having historic, all-time offenses they fell below league average. That's reflected here
https://i.ibb.co/1MbFrZd/bullsss.png

So starting with the argument of who "replaced" Jordan doesn't even make sense. He wasn't replaced. To even get to a league average offense, all those players you listed above were needed otherwise they would've done even worse. Kerr led the team in offensive rating, Kukoc was the 2nd leading scorer per-36 rookie or not (He was 25 by the way, so that rookie designation doesn't do him justice), Wennington gave quality depth. The other playes (BJ, Horace, Pippen) stepped up

Chicago did well. They maintained a championship-experienced core and brought in key pieces to fit their system, which their core knew perfectly by this point. I liken it to the Spurs and being able to remain competitive despite losing big time players over the years

But if you want to present yourself as a moron, ignoring the evidence and arguing "lol but pete myerzz" is one way to go about doing that

LostCause

04-25-2020, 09:52 AM

Manny98

04-25-2020, 09:56 AM

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 10:02 AM

So Drexler and Richmond were great shooting guards in their own right. Oh I see.

So Drexler is like James Harden and Richmond was like a Klay Thompson. Cool.

Those are reasonable analogies.

Precise thoughts, so realistically only Malone, Hakeem, and Dirk did it. Hakeemis top 10, Malone and Dirk top 30. Not realizing this info helps the notion that Pippen was beyond special. MJ had a great teammate, who cares because Wade was great in 2012 and so was Kyrie in 2017.

Exactly. So he is bum, but then have to list guys like Dirk, Malone and Hakeem.

All the teams mentioned went on to become pretenders (Or just outright terrible like the Cavs)

That's the point.

The Bulls did well in the season but I wouldn't consider them contenders

They won 55 games, had one of the three MVP candidates, took NY to 7 who then took Houston to 7 but weren't contenders? If it wasn't New York coming out the EC, the Bulls were the most likely team to do so.

Kukoc's Per-36 was a reflection of how effective he was in the time he played.

It's a sleight of hand to mask he was a 11/4/3 as a rookie. Yeah, he played well but he was even better in 1995-1998 and we never hear about him for those seasons from the very people who toast his rookie year. It's obvious why.

Yet he was the 2nd leading scorer of Game 1 against Cleveland and averaged double figures that series

So 1 game and 3 games. Fun with tiny sample sizes. He was 6/4/1 on 15 MPG in the playoffs as a whole (10 games). At any rate, if he is that important, why isn't his departure after that season ever mentioned by the MJ crowd?

They didn't really "replace" Jordan though.

Exactly. Imagine if they had an opportunity to do so. If we take 55 wins with injuries as a baseline, with a legitimate starting SG they likely win 60+ easily and the razor thin loss to NY becomes a win.

I don't know what a "post-MJ plan"

The obvious: get a quality SG and a second scorer to minimize the damage from losing MJ. Which is exactly what they did the next year with Harper. It didn't work out scoring wise but he was brought in to be a second 20 ppg type, which he was his entire career up to that point.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 10:04 AM

Orlando had Shaq in 96. They were better equipped to deal

The point is injuries happen every year. You can't pick and choose when to count them (in this case to gas a 45 win team that lost in the first round). Even if they won 52, which is specious since you have to give every other team extra wins using that logic, they would still be the 7th seed and face the same Miami team. People ignore what the 96' expansion did to inflate win totals for good teams.

He was completely neutralized prior to injuring himself.

It happens, especially in small sample sizes or when you are facing an all-time great defender like Alonzo Mourning.

Possibly, but just going by the results and not speculation that series victory was within reach

Not really. First, you are comparing a 5 game series to a 7 game series. How many times do we see an inferior team win 2 of the first 4-5 games and then lose the series 4-2?

Miami outscored Orlando 92-84. The Bulls actually outscored the Knicks in the series and led late in every game. These aren't the same performances.

Not at all. The point is even with injury and a roster that faltered in the playoffs that Magic team was about 11 points away from making the 2nd round of the playoffs, like the Bulls in 94.

Again, you have to give the same inflation to the other comparison point. The Bulls were 1 phantom foul call (on the final play of the game) from being up 3-2 heading to Chicago, and probably en route to the NBA finals. That isn't the same as "11 points from making the second round", where they would be crushed by the Knicks.

The Knicks were better than Miami. They were up 3-1 until they had a bunch of players suspended.

They didn't get there, but then again they didn't face a team like those 94 Cavs either in the 1st round

That's part of the benefit of seeding. 55 wins versus 45.

Most of your points here are intellectually dishonest. You can certainly do better

I simply pointed out the sleights of hand being used.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 10:16 AM

Here are the facts: Chicago's offensively crated without MJ. That's indisputable. After 3 straight years of having historic, all-time offenses they fell below league average. That's reflected here

Obviously. They replaced peak MJ with Pete Myers. That's a huge falloff. So on one hand the offense cratered, but on the other the Bulls weren't screwed by not getting a chance to get a quality SG to replace MJ?

What people need to understand is Myers was a scrub who wasn't going to be on a NBA roster until MJ retired right before the season. So you aren't replacing MJ with a league average starting SG, or even top 20 one.

What did Chicago's offense look like without Pippen? The implication always is "They were worse without MJ. See, it was all MJ!". I'm not saying that is what you are saying but that is what MJ nation writ large always does. They never factor in the team minus Pippen or even Grant or Rodman.

Pippen missed 38 of the 49 games before the ASG in 98' so we can loosely use that as a gauge of his impact (although this includes 11 games of Pippen's improvement in the sample):

Bulls before the ASG: 94.7 PPG (18th in NBA)
Bulls after the ASG: 99.7 PPG (5th in NBA)

As noted, the real numbers would be even worse since the pre-ASG sample has Pippen playing about 1/5 of the games.

Grant? The Bulls fell off more in 95' than they did in 94'. That's a simple fact.

(He was 25 by the way, so that rookie designation doesn't do him justice)

The relevance is he was much better after his rookie year, but oddly, we only hear about him re his rookie year.

LostCause

04-25-2020, 10:39 AM

It's a sleight of hand to mask he was a 11/4/3 as a rookie. Yeah, he played well but he was even better in 1995-1998 and we never hear about him for those seasons from the very people who toast his rookie year. It's obvious why.

How's it masking anything? As a rookie going by per-game stats he was the 4th leading scorer and tied for 3rd in assists. However since he was a bench player his value is better captured by per-36 numbers. Both these things can be true, it's not either/or. He was a very good bench player, even as a rookie

The bolded has no bearing here. If you want to argue about agendas or troll points or whatever thats a separate topic

So 1 game and 3 games. Fun with tiny sample sizes. He was 6/4/1 on 15 MPG in the playoffs as a whole (10 games). At any rate, if he is that important, why isn't his departure after that season ever mentioned by the MJ crowd?

Did you miss the part about his regular season contributions?

Again, to the bolded, that's not relevant to me. Ask those people

Exactly. Imagine if they had an opportunity to do so. If we take 55 wins with injuries as a baseline, with a legitimate starting SG they likely win 60+ easily and the razor thin loss to NY becomes a win.

If all else remains the same, possibly. That player would need to be able to adapt to the triangle offense though and given Pippens demeanor at the time, they also would've probably had to take a backseat to him as he was intent on proving himself (Hence sitting out the Kukoc shot)

In that scenario, assuming they get someone who fits and those things above don't become issues, then yeah I'd definitely say they'd be contenders. Do they beat Houston though? Probably not (Keep in mind people argue whether Chicago could've beat Houston WITH Jordan)

The obvious: get a quality SG and a second scorer to minimize the damage from losing MJ. Which is exactly what they did the next year with Harper. It didn't work out scoring wise but he was brought in to be a second 20 ppg type, which he was his entire career up to that point.

I was referring to your post about how apparently other posters implied it was part of a "post-MJ" plan. I don't see why it was relevant to bring something like that up

LostCause

04-25-2020, 10:45 AM

The point is injuries happen every year. You can't pick and choose when to count them ..

None of this changes the fact some teams are better equipped to handle injuries however. Your original point was that shaq gone = 1st round loss, but it was obviously not that simple and it hardly ever is

Not really. First, you are comparing a 5 game series to a 7 game series. How many times do we see an inferior team win 2 of the first 4-5 games and then lose the series 4-2?

They lost by 8 points. Regardless if Miami would win more convincingly if the series theoretically went 7 games, to lose by that margin is by definition "within reach"

That's part of the benefit of seeding. 55 wins versus 45.

I was referring to injuries to the opponents

[quuote]I simply pointed out the sleights of hand being used.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you've been on the forum too long or are just paranoid, but all you're doing is making trollish points probably in an effort to combat trolls who aren't even here. These aren't "sleights of hand" but rather you straight up twisting/misrepresenting arguments. I assume these are in reference to things I've said:

1.
Getting to Game 5 of the first round is praiseworthy against the EC runner up (only because of the Knicks' suspensions BTW), but getting to Game 7 in the second round against the EC champs apparently is not praiseworthy.
2.
Grant leaving after his best season before 95' is not relevant, nor is the acquisition of Rodman before the 96' season. So Wennington matters but the two biggest non-MJ player moves during the 90's Bulls runs don't matter. Grant leaving or Rodman arriving is not even worth mentioning
3.
The Bulls had a winning culture, all because of one player (evidently the culture continued absent the one player), and a winning system but the implication is the 60's Celtics, 70's Lakers, 80's Celtics, Showtime Lakers, 90's Magic, 00's Lakers, and LeBron's teams did not. This is despite all these teams either winning chips or at least making the finals. We are to believe they did it with a losing culture, no system, nothing. It just happened?

For 1, pointing out the Magic coming within reach of beating the Heat doesn't in any way diminish the Bulls doing the same against the Knicks. Again, you created that narrative on your own as that was never stated. It's a red herring
For 2, that was never said. Don't know anyone who said losing Grant or adding Rodman don't matter but you're pretending that was presented here. If you can quote it, show it, otherwise you're making it up
For 3, don't know how to address this. It's a clear strawman. If you're referring to my point about the Lakers there was no implication they didn't have a "system" or culture. Literally said they did. The only team I said didn't really have one was LeBrons Cavs (a system) because LeBron himself was the system, so take him out and you need a new system. It also didn't help they brought in a new coach

Back to what I said, I don't really care what "MJ stans" are saying nor is it relevant to any point I've made. If you want to address stans or w/e other arguments you've heard over the years, make a thread and post it all there. However, you're half responding to what's being presented here and the other half is twisting points or addressing people who aren't even part of the discussion.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 10:55 AM

How's it masking anything? As a rookie going by per-game stats he was the 4th leading scorer and tied for 3rd in assists

Perception, saying he was 11 ppg is a different impression than "2nd leading scorer per 36." The latter implies he was close. Kukoc's scoring was closer to the 5th scorer than the 3rd.

If all else remains the same, possibly. That player would need to be able to adapt to the triangle offense though and given Pippens demeanor at the time, they also would've probably had to take a backseat to him

That's speculation. If they brought in a SG better than Pippen he would have always been the #2 option and his record suggests he would have accepted that.

The problem is there was no SG or perimeter player better than Pippen so anyone who came in would slide in as the #2 option at best. You aren't going to get Drexler or Richmond to the Bulls. It doesn't necessarily have to be the #2 either. Ideally, yes, so they can have a second 18-20 PPG guy, but even if they got a 14-15 PPG guy who was the third option that's still a lot better than what they got from Myers.

Do they beat Houston though? Probably not (Keep in mind people argue whether Chicago could've beat Houston WITH Jordan)

That stuff is funny because people look at their records against each other for the decade but ignore the years in question. When Pippen played the Bulls went 2-1 against Houston in 94' and 95'. Plus, Houston and Hakeem were not thought of the way they are today. I doubt the Bulls circled those games on the calendar in a way they would with New York, Cleveland, Portland, etc.

I was referring to your post about how apparently other posters implied it was part of a "post-MJ" plan.

The play is to minimize the hardships created by MJ retiring a month before the season. That sets up them then saying, "Why couldn't they win without MJ? See, it was all MJ!". It is dumb--even if you accept the bad premise that the Bulls got a fair shake--you can't still conclude it was all MJ. You have to factor how the team would look without its other key players, and the evidence we have suggests Pippen, Grant, Rodman all had big impacts on the team.

The consistent thread in all of the MJ stans' maneuvers is the precious "6-0" and "6" were inevitable. No matter who played with MJ, no matter who the comp was, it was going to happen under every scenario. By doing this they can then weaponize "6-0" and "6" against every other legend, as they do. It's weird but this is the MJ stan playbook and the play is run day in, day out and year in, year out.

LostCause

04-25-2020, 10:57 AM

Obviously. They replaced peak MJ with Pete Myers. That's a huge falloff. So on one hand the offense cratered, but on the other the Bulls weren't screwed by not getting a chance to get a quality SG to replace MJ?

Why are you asking me? Never made the claim they weren't.

What did Chicago's offense look like without Pippen? The implication always is "They were worse without MJ. See, it was all MJ!". I'm not saying that is what you are saying but that is what MJ nation writ large always does. They never factor in the team minus Pippen or even Grant or Rodman.

Pippen missed 38 of the 49 games before the ASG in 98' so we can loosely use that as a gauge of his impact (although this includes 11 games of Pippen's improvement in the sample):

Bulls before the ASG: 94.7 PPG (18th in NBA)
Bulls after the ASG: 99.7 PPG (5th in NBA)

As noted, the real numbers would be even worse since the pre-ASG sample has Pippen playing about 1/5 of the games.

The dropoff without Pippen was actually worse, believe it or not. Unlike with MJ they didn't bring in any notable pieces like they did in 94 with Kerr, Kukoc etc (Offensively at least, somehow they improved defensively though. Similar to Chicago without MJ, lost a ton of offense but stepped up defensively)

Grant? The Bulls fell off more in 95' than they did in 94'. That's a simple fact.

Of course, because a team that already lost probably their biggest piece lost yet another big piece. They just didn't have the talent to win games (Though their offense didn't suffer as much as a dropoff as the season before).

The relevance is he was much better after his rookie year, but oddly, we only hear about him re his rookie year.

I posted this earlier. Not sure how anyone's underrating Kukoc when he was arguably their 3rd most important player after 96
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1998-06-09-9806090284-story.html

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 11:07 AM

None of this changes the fact some teams are better equipped to handle injuries however. Your original point was that shaq gone = 1st round loss, but it was obviously not that simple and it hardly ever is

How equipped teams are is unknowable. Maybe some teams buckle under the pressure, maybe they fill the void as everyone steps up (different sport, but that's what happened with the 2017 Eagles).

Re Shaq, we have a mountain of evidence because he changed teams multiple times in his prime and because he got hurt frequently. What does that tell us? That his teams were .500 at best without him. You can't just look at 45 wins in a vacuum. It is consistent with a career long trend that Penny, Kobe, and Wade all could not buck.

They lost by 8 points. Regardless if Miami would win more convincingly if the series theoretically went 7 games, to lose by that margin is by definition "within reach"

Fair enough.

I was referring to injuries to the opponents

The problem is if we accept your notion the Cavs would not have been the #6 seed in the first place minus those injuries. Alas, the Cavs were 29-24 when Daugherty and Nance both went down. In other words, they did basically the same before and after.

The fact is the Cavs' were a team in decline by 94' and not in the Bulls' class. Daughtery went from 20/10 to 17/10 as his FG % slipped from 57% to 49%. Nance went from 17/9 to 11/7 and from 55% to 49%. Same names but not the same players from the Cavs' team that won 54 the year before and 57 in 92'.

For 1, pointing out the Magic coming within reach of beating the Heat doesn't in any way diminish the Bulls doing the same against the Knicks. Again, you created that narrative on your own as that was never stated. It's a red herring

You aren't the only person in this thread. We have people who consistently say "they lost, didn't they?" re the 94' Bulls.

For 2, that was never said. Don't know anyone who said losing Grant or adding Rodman don't matter but you're pretending that was presented here.

Not by you but anyone who has been here, or anywhere where basketball is discussed, knows what I am talking about. I'm not going to sift through the entire thread to find specific quotes.

However, you're half responding to what's being presented here and the other half is twisting points or addressing people who aren't even part of the discussion.

You're assuming it is a two-way discussion. There are other people here. They get lost because they aren't as prolific but they come in and say stuff like "regular season win's don't matter" etc.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 11:15 AM

The dropoff without Pippen was actually worse, believe it or not. Unlike with MJ they didn't bring in any notable pieces like they did in 94 with Kerr, Kukoc etc

That's why in season comparisons are better since the remainder of the team remains the same but MJ was durable so we don't have that with him like we do with Shaq, Bird, and some others.

Of course, because a team that already lost probably their biggest piece lost yet another big piece. They just didn't have the talent to win games (Though their offense didn't suffer as much as a dropoff as the season before).

Without adequately replacing either. It is pretty obvious but you will routinely hear those 2 seasons referred to by MJ stans without any mention of Grant or Rodman by the MJ crowd. For example, "They won 55 but the next season they were 34-31 before MJ came back and they won 72 and the chip his first full season." Nothing about the roster changes, other than MJ "shaking off rust."

Not sure how anyone's underrating Kukoc when he was arguably their 3rd most important player after 96

Watch the incessant LeBron vs. MJ debates. When the discussion turns to teammates, look to see who MJ fans mention and don't. They will mention Pippen and Rodman, then promptly diminish them. Kukoc, Kerr never come up.

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 12:16 PM

You're not really proving to be any better than the trolls on this forum with this level of stupidity
I'm not the one making the argument bro.

Here are the facts: Chicago's offensively crated without MJ. That's indisputable. After 3 straight years of having historic, all-time offenses they fell below league average. That's reflected here
https://i.ibb.co/1MbFrZd/bullsss.png
This graph is a waste of time. Everyone knew and knows that the Bulls suffered when Jordan left. Duh....

So starting with the argument of who "replaced" Jordan doesn't even make sense. He wasn't replaced. To even get to a league average offense, all those players you listed above were needed otherwise they would've done even worse. Kerr led the team in offensive rating, Kukoc was the 2nd leading scorer per-36 rookie or not (He was 25 by the way, so that rookie designation doesn't do him justice), Wennington gave quality depth. The other playes (BJ, Horace, Pippen) stepped up
And heres where you get extra-loopy.
Kerr assumed Paxsons role. Yes he was on the team, but his role had been greatly diminished. Wennington assumed the role of Scott Williams. Kukoc was a rookie. You know you're reaching when you trot out the per 36 min card. Which is an extremely slippery slope. With a little bit of time, I'm sure I can find some scrub that plays 10 min and would have a per on par with the Altime greats. And unfortunately, Myers REPLACED Jordan. He just wasn't a suitable replacement.

Chicago did well. They maintained a championship-experienced core and brought in key pieces to fit their system, which their core knew perfectly by this point. I liken it to the Spurs and being able to remain competitive despite losing big time players over the years
They did well because they had very good players like Grant and Armstrong. And a great player and coach in Pippen and Jackson. The facts are that the Bulls outside of Jordan were better than you and your ilk want to give credit to.

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 12:41 PM

Perception, saying he was 11 ppg is a different impression than "2nd leading scorer per 36." The latter implies he was close. Kukoc's scoring was closer to the 5th scorer than the 3rd.

That's speculation. If they brought in a SG better than Pippen he would have always been the #2 option and his record suggests he would have accepted that.

The problem is there was no SG or perimeter player better than Pippen so anyone who came in would slide in as the #2 option at best. You aren't going to get Drexler or Richmond to the Bulls. It doesn't necessarily have to be the #2 either. Ideally, yes, so they can have a second 18-20 PPG guy, but even if they got a 14-15 PPG guy who was the third option that's still a lot better than what they got from Myers.

That stuff is funny because people look at their records against each other for the decade but ignore the years in question. When Pippen played the Bulls went 2-1 against Houston in 94' and 95'. Plus, Houston and Hakeem were not thought of the way they are today. I doubt the Bulls circled those games on the calendar in a way they would with New York, Cleveland, Portland, etc.

The play is to minimize the hardships created by MJ retiring a month before the season. That sets up them then saying, "Why couldn't they win without MJ? See, it was all MJ!". It is dumb--even if you accept the bad premise that the Bulls got a fair shake--you can't still conclude it was all MJ. You have to factor how the team would look without its other key players, and the evidence we have suggests Pippen, Grant, Rodman all had big impacts on the team.

The consistent thread in all of the MJ stans' maneuvers is the precious "6-0" and "6" were inevitable. No matter who played with MJ, no matter who the comp was, it was going to happen under every scenario. By doing this they can then weaponize "6-0" and "6" against every other legend, as they do. It's weird but this is the MJ stan playbook and the play is run day in, day out and year in, year out.

Which is why the "1-9" argument comes up. These guys just dont see that they're shooting themselves in the head with their own logic. Even with this poster "Lost Cause" (such an appropriate handle) touting rookie Kukoc PER (SMFH) to show some kind of value as part of the most feeble attempt at formulating the argument that Pippen had sufficient help to win it all in 94.

But these same dipsticks open up the excuse floodgates for Jordan when he didnt win in 86. Why are Pete Myers and rookie Toni Kukoc PER sufficient for Pippen to win. But Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley not suitable replacements for Pip and Grant? Especially when we constantly hear the argument that Jordan could've won with any 20ppg scorer. I mean we actually got to see these argument play themselves out and these clowns still deny it.

HoopsNY

04-25-2020, 12:48 PM

1) you are mixing in trades where teams got 3-4 players, including all-star level guys back for 1 player. That's not the same as one player leaving via retirement or free agency 2) Barkley and Free aren't the caliber of guys we are talking about.

You're right, but in the case of Wilt and KD, they are the same. Wilt got traded for Darrall Imhoff and some other nobodies. Are you going to tell me that was an even trade? KD signed with GS. His team didn't fall off the map. Even by logic, shouldn't Milwaukee have tanked despite getting two good role players? They won the same amount of games with Kareem as they did without him.

Barkley isn't a good example anyway for other reasons (he is another example of a trade--Phoenix gave up its leading scorer and 2 starters for him). The Sixers won 35 games with him and 26 the next year. That isn't a massive drop-off but they already sucked. What did you expect? 15-67? When he went to Phoenix they went from 53 wins and a 4-1 loss in the second round to 62 wins and the NBA finals. That's significant progress.

I was referring to Barkley when he went to Houston. But now that I look back on it, I forgot Jason Kidd was also traded from Dallas sometime mid-season. So I rescind.

They went from losing the WCF in 7 games to losing in the first round. Their wins went from 55 to 47. This includes them going 3-7 without him (they were a 59 win pace team with him). Anyway, when you move down the ladder the level of impact will decrease. What was the impact when Carmelo or Kyrie Irving left? Draymond Green? How far down the list do you want to go?

The point is that KD was of superstar caliber. He was an MVP and is one of the best players, not only in the league, but will go down amongst the greatest of all time. If you want to say "well he's not MJ," then this debate starts and stops with MJ as there really isn't anyone else comparable in terms of greatness or timing. No one else retired with that level of greatness and success, in the middle of their prime.

It is for a GOAT level player leaving in or near his prime. You haven't been able to show another example because there is none.

Arbitrary rules for arbitrary discussions. And sure I have, the examples of Wilt and Kareem are pretty telling. Even if I concede to your point about Kareem, it doesn't explain how the team literally had the exact same win total as the previous year, despite not having the best player in the game and getting two good role players.

HoopsNY

04-25-2020, 01:10 PM

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 01:15 PM

HoopsNY

04-25-2020, 01:35 PM

You're missing one key point. Myers wasnt even an NBA journeyman when the Bulls picked him up.

The fact is that in the history of sports. When big name players are traded. The team giving the great player never get back equal quality.

But they get back some kind of quality. Imhof was an Allstar. And I've always felt Wilt was overrated and sacrificed winning for stats.

Oladipo was not KD. But again, he was at least a good basketball player.

Imhoff wasn't an all-star the season he was traded for Wilt. And honestly, before this thread, I doubt anyone reading it ever even heard the name. What are we really doing here? Comparing one of the greatest players of all time, arguably the most athletic and most dominant, to a career 7 pts and 7 rebounds center?

At this point, I think you and Roundball are underrating the likes of Wilt. We're trying to draw comparisons between him and Darrall Imhoff...I mean, really?

As for Oladipo, that didn't come without trading Ibaka, which was an even deal. So we're back to square one, which is, the OKC Thunder didn't fall off the map when they lost KD.

And I haven't even spoken about other instances in NBA history where we saw something similar.

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 01:58 PM

Imhoff wasn't an all-star the season he was traded for Wilt. And honestly, before this thread, I doubt anyone reading it ever even heard the name. What are we really doing here? Comparing one of the greatest players of all time, arguably the most athletic and most dominant, to a career 7 pts and 7 rebounds center?
Myers wasnt even in the NBA when he replaced Jordan. Lol. At least Imhof was good enough to make an Allstar team.

[At this point, I think you and Roundball are underrating the likes of Wilt. We're trying to draw comparisons between him and Darrall Imhoff...I mean, really?
How are you arriving at this conclusion? Wilt would be Jordan, Imhof would be Myers.

As for Oladipo, that didn't come without trading Ibaka, which was an even deal. So we're back to square one, which is, the OKC Thunder didn't fall off the map when they lost KD.
They also got Taj Gibson. Again. One side tenured NBA players as replacements. Other side. CBA player. Not to mention that the drop off from prime Michael Jordan to a CBA player. Is far more great than the drop off from Durant to Olidipo.

And I haven't even spoken about other instances in NBA history where we saw something similar.
Show us.

LostCause

04-25-2020, 02:08 PM

And heres where you get extra-loopy.
Kerr assumed Paxsons role. Yes he was on the team, but his role had been greatly diminished. Wennington assumed the role of Scott Williams. Kukoc was a rookie. You know you're reaching when you trot out the per 36 min card. Which is an extremely slippery slope. With a little bit of time, I'm sure I can find some scrub that plays 10 min and would have a per on par with the Altime greats. And unfortunately, Myers REPLACED Jordan. He just wasn't a suitable replacement.

There's no reach involved. I'm not going to lecture you on what per-36 averages indicate, but whether you cite his per game averages or his per-36, it really doesn't matter. He was a key contributor. He also didn't play 10 minutes, he played 24 per game, about the same as Pete Myers who started. Regardless, the point is the additions in 94 were big for them, and even with those additions they still went from 3 years of historic offenses to league average

Also, Kerr didn't just assume Paxsons role. He was much better in it than Pax was in 93 and he was 4th on the team in minutes after Pippen, Grant and Armstrong. Williams was also still there

They did well because they had very good players like Grant and Armstrong. And a great player and coach in Pippen and Jackson. The facts are that the Bulls outside of Jordan were better than you and your ilk want to give credit to.

You seem to be mixed up. On one hand you're saying the Bulls without Jordan were better than people give them credit for, yet here you are downplaying the contributions of some KEY members of those Bulls teams. So which is it?

Or let's try this. Remove Jordan alone from the 93 Bulls and take the 94 Bulls roster as well. Ignore any "improvements" Grant, Pippen and Armstrong make between years. Which team is better?

I'd say the 94 Bulls. Adding Kerr, Kukoc and Wennington gave them more depth and they got Williams back anyway, but clearly you seem to think differently. Guessing you think very highly of Stacey King?

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 02:29 PM

There's no reach involved. I'm not going to lecture you on what per-36 averages indicate, but whether you cite his per game averages or his per-36, it really doesn't matter. He was a key contributor. He also didn't play 10 minutes, he played 24 per game, about the same as Pete Myers who started. Regardless, the point is the additions in 94 were big for them, and even with those additions they still went from 3 years of historic offenses to league average

My bad. I'm old school. When I see PER, i immediately think of what it originally meant. Their stats if they played 36 min per game.

[Also, Kerr didn't just assume Paxsons role. He was much better in it than Pax was in 93 and he was 4th on the team in minutes after Pippen, Grant and Armstrong. Williams was also still there
Sorry. It was King that left. William's missed half the season. So Wennington took Stacey Kings role.

[You seem to be mixed up. On one hand you're saying the Bulls without Jordan were better than people give them credit for, yet here you are downplaying the contributions of some KEY members of those Bulls teams. So which is it?
How do you arrive at this conclusion? I've never undermined any of them. They just dont make up Jordan's loss.

Or let's try this. Remove Jordan alone from the 93 Bulls and take the 94 Bulls roster as well. Ignore any "improvements" Grant, Pippen and Armstrong make between years. Which team is better?

I'd say the 94 Bulls. Adding Kerr, Kukoc and Wennington gave them more depth and they got Williams back anyway, but clearly you seem to think differently. Guessing you think very highly of Stacey King?
Oh the 94 Bulls for sure. Wennington, Kerr, Kukoc, and Longley were definitely Improvements over Pax, Williams, King, and Cartwright. Truth be told, I always thought Stacey King was soft.

Basically, the 96 Bulls were the 94 Bulls with addition of Jordan and an upgrade in Rodman over Grant. They're much more related to the 96 Bulls than the 93 Bulls.

It's just ridiculous to try to even formulate an argument where those guys were Tantamount to Jordan.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 02:58 PM

You know you're reaching when you trot out the per 36 min card. Which is an extremely slippery slope. With a little bit of time, I'm sure I can find some scrub that plays 10 min and would have a per on par with the Altime greats.

Exactly and this goes to our frustration. The 94' roster gets picked apart did but that same logic is never applied to any of the Chicago teams which had MJ. No non-championship team has been dissected as much on ISH than this one.

Per 36 on that team alone: Scott Williams 16/10, Wennington 14/9, King 16/10, Perdue 11/11. You get the point. They didn't play 36 or anything close to it and that's not an accident.

Which is why the "1-9" argument comes up. These guys just dont see that they're shooting themselves in the head with their own logic. Even with this poster "Lost Cause" (such an appropriate handle) touting rookie Kukoc PER (SMFH)

Did that guy OldSchoolBBall get banned again (previously Loki)? I think he was the other guy who used to invoke Hot Rod Williams for the Cavs like LostCause just did.

But these same dipsticks open up the excuse floodgates for Jordan when he didnt win in 86. Why are Pete Myers and rookie Toni Kukoc PER sufficient for Pippen to win. But Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley not suitable replacements for Pip and Grant? Especially when we constantly hear the argument that Jordan could've won with any 20ppg scorer.

Great question. Don't forget they also had Dailey scoring 16. What's the answer? What I always hear from MJ stans is "they were cokeheads!" as if that matters on the court. Oakley just gets ignored altogether--until the 90s when he is hyped as a key cog on the Knicks teams that MJ stans like to point to as a great rival.

Turbo Slayer

04-25-2020, 03:01 PM

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 03:01 PM

KD signed with GS. His team didn't fall off the map.

1) Why are we bringing KD up with Wilt, MJ, LeBron, Bird, etc.? Obviously KD doesn't have the same impact as those guys.

At any rate, they were a 59 win pace team when KD played in 16' and made it to Game 7 of the WCF against a 73 win team. In 17' they won 48 games and lost in the first round. That is a major difference, no?

Even by logic, shouldn't Milwaukee have tanked despite getting two good role players? They won the same amount of games with Kareem as they did without him.

Specious, just like all these other examples that have been proferred. The 75' Bucks went 3-14 without Kareem and 35-30 with him en route to 38 wins. In other words, they were a 14 win pace team without him and a 44 win team with him. So that 14 win base team adds four quality players and gets to 38 wins. So they add four quality players and still can't get to 44? This speaks to Kareem's value, not against it.

Wilt got traded for Darrall Imhoff and some other nobodies.

Archie Clark wasn't a "nobody." He was a 2x all-star and made all-NBA once. Not exactly a scrub.

I was referring to Barkley when he went to Houston.

Why are we talking about 33 year old Barkley who was no longer a MVP caliber guy, let alone a GOAT caliber player (which he never was)?

The point is that KD was of superstar caliber. He was an MVP and is one of the best players, not only in the league, but will go down amongst the greatest of all time

Arbitrary rules for arbitrary discussions. And sure I have, the examples of Wilt and Kareem are pretty telling.

All three are inaccurate, as discussed earlier, and the top 10 all-time is not "arbitrary" it is the greatest players of all-time who are always compared to each other (no one compares Barkley to Kareem or Jordan to Durant). The Lakers won 60 and made the NBA finals with Wilt, the next year it was 47 wins and the first round. I notice that isn't mentioned?

Your examples are: 1) Milwaukee adding four quality players to a team that was a 14 win pace team minus Kareem and getting to 38 wins. This completely backfires on you 2) OKC going from 59 win pace with KD and the WCF to 48 wins and the first round without him 3) Wilt being traded for 2 all-stars and 3 players.

Keep sliding down the all-time rankings. You can't find any top 10 player. Now you are reaching to top 20-25 players. Still no dice. Maybe top 40 will do the trick? Eventually you will get to Kyrie Irving (who is a weird case where his teams improve without him).

But you're not being consistent there either. Myers took 6.8 shots a game. So he's not replacing Jordan's 26.

No one did. Using your logic, then no one at all replaced Jordan. His roster spot when to Myers but no one replaced his role taking 26 FGA. It was a team effort.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 03:04 PM

Why did the Bulls lost to the Magic in the semifinals against Orlando Magic in 1995? And how come the Bulls utterly dominated the Magic in 1996 in a sweep?

Was it the addition of Dennis Rodman that helped? Idk lol.

The Bulls got killed on the glass and had no interior defense with Grant gone. This is mainly why the Bulls went from contending for the #1 seed in 94' to contending for 5th or 6th place without him. It is no coincidence the Bulls always had a Grant or Rodman on those championship teams.

So the Bulls addressed their biggest weakness (rebounding) with the #1 player in the league for that. The Bulls also had issues integrating MJ and his 25-26 shots a game out the blue. By 96' everyone had time to adjust. Finally, Orlando suffered in 96' because Grant went down halfway through Game 1. Orlando would have lost anyway but losing your third best player killed any chances they had.

Turbo Slayer

04-25-2020, 03:17 PM

The Bulls got killed on the glass and had no interior defense with Grant gone. This is mainly why the Bulls went from contending for the #1 seed in 94' to contending for 5th or 6th place without him. It is no coincidence the Bulls always had a Grant or Rodman on those championship teams.

So the Bulls addressed their biggest weakness (rebounding) with the #1 player in the league for that. The Bulls also had issues integrating MJ and his 25-26 shots a game out the blue. By 96' everyone had time to adjust. Finally, Orlando suffered in 96' because Grant went down halfway through Game 1. Orlando would have lost anyway but losing your third best player killed any chances they had. Cool reply.

I have a question. What is the best way to argue against people who say that Jordan was 1-9 before Pippen "saved" him?

Thanks.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 03:20 PM

All these players mentioned in this thread: Pippen, Bird, Durant, Kareem, Shaq, LeBron, et al. but only for Penny Hardaway do they want to look at the team record in games the star missed.

Durant is amusing since he missed 10+ games twice in OKC. The first time was 2015 when they went 18-9 with him (55 win pace), 27-28 without him (40 win pace, they missed the playoffs at 45-37). In 2016 they went 3-7 with him and 52-20 with him (59 win pace with him). Again, a big difference in win rate. He leaves and they go 47-35 and lose in the first round and this is to be celebrated? This is the counter to the 94' Bulls?

LostCause

04-25-2020, 03:26 PM

How do you arrive at this conclusion? I've never undermined any of them. They just dont make up Jordan's loss.[

If you're not undermining them I'm not sure what you're doing then. I saw an earlier post you implied I was bringing these players up to imply Pippen had "enough to win" and you compared that to Jordan in 86. No idea where that idea came from given I've highlighted their offensive woes and that I didn't see them as legit threats to Houston

Oh the 94 Bulls for sure. Wennington, Kerr, Kukoc, and Longley were definitely Improvements over Pax, Williams, King, and Cartwright. Truth be told, I always thought Stacey King was soft.

Basically, the 96 Bulls were the 94 Bulls with addition of Jordan and an upgrade in Rodman over Grant. They're much more related to the 96 Bulls than the 93 Bulls.

It's just ridiculous to try to even formulate an argument where those guys were Tantamount to Jordan.

Never argued the bolded. I posted the graphic to illustrate Jordan wasn't replaced, their offense tanked to below league average without him while gaining some quality players. Without the players mentioned it would've been even worse. That seems like a fairly straightforward conclusion

Per 36 on that team alone: Scott Williams 16/10, Wennington 14/9, King 16/10, Perdue 11/11. You get the point. They didn't play 36 or anything close to it and that's not an accident.

Kukoc played over 1800 minutes that season at 24 per game. Would've probably been closer to or possibly above 2000 but he missed 12 games. His playtime was right around Kerr/Myers who had the most PT outside of Grant/Pip/Armstrong

I really don't understand what's so hard to get about Kukoc's impact here. He was very valuable in both the RS (3rd in BPM, PER and VORP ahead of even BJ, and the playoffs (He led the team in BPM for the playoffs, 2nd in PER and was 3rd in VORP). Is your argument that he played too little to make much of a difference? Or he just didn't make a difference at all? What's the actual counterargument here

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 03:39 PM

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 03:46 PM

[

If you're not undermining them I'm not sure what you're doing then. I saw an earlier post you implied I was bringing these players up to imply Pippen had "enough to win" and you compared that to Jordan in 86. No idea where that idea came from given I've highlighted their offensive woes and that I didn't see them as legit threats to Houston
The general consensus is that Jordan's teammates werent very good without him. 94 and 95 shows that's not true. They were very good. And Pippe. Showed that he was a bonafide star.

Never argued the bolded. I posted the graphic to illustrate Jordan wasn't replaced, their offense tanked to below league average without him while gaining some quality players. Without the players mentioned it would've been even worse. That seems like a fairly straightforward conclusion
He was replaced. His replacement wasnt a scrub. The players you mentioned (outside of rookie Kukoc and we will get to him later), assumed the role of other players. I broke that down for you.

Kukoc played over 1800 minutes that season at 24 per game. Would've probably been closer to or possibly above 2000 but he missed 12 games. His playtime was right around Kerr/Myers who had the most PT outside of Grant/Pip/Armstrong

I really don't understand what's so hard to get about Kukoc's impact here. He was very valuable in both the RS (3rd in BPM, PER and VORP ahead of even BJ, and the playoffs (He led the team in BPM for the playoffs, 2nd in PER and was 3rd in VORP). Is your argument that he played too little to make much of a difference? Or he just didn't make a difference at all? What's the actual counterargument here

I have a question. How many wins do you think the Bulls net without Kukoc in 94?

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 03:50 PM

I have a question. What is the best way to argue against people who say that Jordan was 1-9 before Pippen "saved" him?

I think 1-9 is a shorthand for people making the point MJ needed a strong team around him to win chips, versus being a serious point. It is the counter to "3-6", which itself is shorthand to say LeBron failed on the biggest stage.

Pippen was a rookie on the bench in 88' so hard to credit him with them winning 50 games and making it to the second round (although he had a big game in Game 5, his first start, to help the Bulls win the series). In 89' the Bulls started 13-11 and then made Pippen a permanent starter. They lost the first game but then went on a roll (something like 11 wins in 13 games or 12 in 14. You can look up the specifics but you get the point).

Ultimately I think Jordan needed Pippen to have a dynasty. He did not need him to have some team success. Here is why. In the 90's teams won chips with the following second options Dumars, Pippen (6x), Thorpe, Drexler, older Robinson. Teams made the finals and lost with these second options: Porter (2x), Worthy, K. Johnson, Starks, Penny, Kemp, Stockton (2x, although Hornacek was the second scorer, when people say "option" they often mean second best player and that was Stockton). The 99' Knicks had Houston, old Ewing, and Sprewell all score about the same but I would say Houston was the 1a and Ewing the 1b. At any rate, Ewing was hurt in the ECF.

So that list runs from superstars to former superstars who were "just" stars by then to guys who were stars but never superstars and finally a few "merely" good players. Starks, Porter, Thorpe were all one-time all-stars. They are the names that stick out to me. It is hard to get a Pippen or Drexler but not that hard to get a Starks or Thorpe or Porter (Grant was a comparable caliber guy on the Bulls as an example, and he was their #3). I assume MJ could win chips with guys like that if lesser players won a chip (Hakeem) or made the finals with them (Ewing and Drexler twice).

I think MJ was winning chips with or without Pippen. The big question is how much? Probably 1-2 with those type of guys (which he had in Grant), maybe has a losing finals trip or two as well. Maybe they could acquire a star, but unlikely, since their best trade assets would be Grant, Armstrong, Kukoc and they would have low draft picks. Unlikely to get a star back for them (although Houston pulled it off with Drexler).

All roads lead back to "6" and "6-0". MJ stans make it all about those numbers so 1) people who are opposed will chip away at them 2) MJ stans will go to extreme lengths to preserve the myth that it was inevitable no matter what.

If MJ stans simply said MJ was a better player because he was a better player all this wouldn't be necessary and you wouldn't see this effort on the LeBron side, previously with Kobe fans, to chip away at his team success narrative.

HoopsNY

04-25-2020, 03:53 PM

But you're not getting it, you're acting as if there were no adjustments made to the Bulls in 1993-94, as if to say the addition of Kukoc, Kerr, Longley had no impact, as well as guys like Armstrong, Pippen, and Grant hitting their stride. All three players hit their prime years and that season could be characterized as their peak year.

The above mentioned players assumed their roles with greater facilitation from new guys. You're operating as if they're simply not there and didn't bring something extra to the team. Kerr was an improvement to Paxson and Longley/Wennington to that of Cartwright/Williams. Kukoc was a nice addition as well. When you combine those improvements as well your three best players all entering their peak years, it makes for some kind of success.

I'm not giving you Imhoff/Clark if you can't accede to the Bulls supporting cast getting additions and their best players hitting their peak years. Neither Imhoof nor Clark were all-stars their first year in Philadelphia. And if you think Archie Clark's 13 points somehow makes up for Wilt's offense and defensive presence, then I don't know what to say. Wilt was a 24-24-9 player his last year in Philadelphia.

My point about KD wasn't to parallel the situations. My point was to show that a great player leaving a team doesn't necessitate them falling off the map. And MJ's situation is a bit unique being that he left in the midst of his prime, something we haven't seen in NBA history. Even if Wilt does the same, then the 76ers had enough to work with where they could be successful, and quite frankly, they still won 55 games with Archie Clark for crying out loud.

Even if Clark isn't there, someone else from that team would fill his shoes and at least score 9 points. You're making it out to be an ALL or NOTHING. As if players evolving doesn't exist, prime years don't have peak years, rookies can't contribute and play well, etc. So sure, Myers came in, but so did a lot of other guys who were far more important to the Bulls success of 1993-94.

What your'e doing is making this out to be the Scottie Pippen show exclusively like MJ fans would make his teams out to be the MJ show exclusively.

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 03:53 PM

Kukoc played over 1800 minutes that season at 24 per game. Would've probably been closer to or possibly above 2000 but he missed 12 games. His playtime was right around Kerr/Myers

Kukoc played 75 games but yeah he is another player who missed time. 55 wins with Cartwright missing half the season, Pippen 10 games, Grant 12, etc. That his PT was around Myers and Kerr is not a good thing for his value (look at his PT compared to Kerr in subsequent years). A healthy 94' Bulls likely easily win 60+.

Is your argument that he played too little to make much of a difference?

That his role is inflated for 94' and then erased altogether for when he played with MJ, years in which his impact was greater. Not saying you did it but ask 97. Whenever the 94' Bulls come up Kukoc quickly does as well--but the same people never mention him for any other year.

HoopsNY

04-25-2020, 04:04 PM

Kukoc played 75 games but yeah he is another player who missed time. 55 wins with Cartwright missing half the season, Pippen 10 games, Grant 12, etc. That his PT was around Myers and Kerr is not a good thing for his value (look at his PT compared to Kerr in subsequent years). A healthy 94' Bulls likely easily win 60+.

That his role is inflated for 94' and then erased altogether for when he played with MJ, years in which his impact was greater. Not saying you did it but ask 97. Whenever the 94' Bulls come up Kukoc quickly does as well--but the same people never mention him for any other year.

You're dissecting this way too deeply and ignoring team dynamics, coaching, as well as focusing more on the players who missed time while not even considering the opponent they faced and what irregularities they had in their lineup.

I think we can all agree on somethings:

1- MJ is the GOAT
2- Despite being the GOAT, he couldn't do it alone
3- Scottie Pippen was a great player and key contributor to the first 3 chips
4- Jordan needed Pippen and co. as does any great player needing support
5- The Bulls of the early 90s had great teams
6- Jordan's supporting cast wasn't as great as other dynasties
7- A great player leaving doesn't necessitate a team falling apart
8- The Bulls' had some key additions and their best players hit their peak years

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 04:12 PM

You're dissecting this way too deeply and ignoring team dynamics, coaching, as well as focusing more on the players who missed time while not even considering the opponent they faced and what irregularities they had in their lineup.

I think we can all agree on somethings:

1- MJ is the GOAT
2- Despite being the GOAT, he couldn't do it alone
3- Scottie Pippen was a great player and key contributor to the first 3 chips
4- Jordan needed Pippen and co. as does any great player needing support
5- The Bulls of the early 90s had great teams
6- Jordan's supporting cast wasn't as great as other dynasties
7- A great player leaving doesn't necessitate a team falling apart
8- The Bulls' had some key additions and their best players hit their peak years

I gotta give some pushback here. Which dynasty did better without their star?

HoopsNY

04-25-2020, 04:21 PM

I gotta give some pushback here. Which dynasty did better without their star?

You think MJ had the best supporting cast of all time? (Honest question)

HoopsNY

04-25-2020, 04:22 PM

Matter of fact, let's make a new post about it lol

LostCause

04-25-2020, 04:25 PM

He was replaced. His replacement wasnt a scrub. The players you mentioned (outside of rookie Kukoc and we will get to him later), assumed the role of other players. I broke that down for you. ]

It wasn't apples to apples though, as I also explained (ie Kerr was WAY better for them than Paxson was in 93)

I have a question. How many wins do you think the Bulls net without Kukoc in 94?

Really hard to guess things like that but they went 55-23 with him and without him they went 2-5. Pippen/Grant/Armstrong were all present for each of those losses except the one to Miami (Grant was out). I'm sure there's more nuance to it than that and I doubt the Bulls would be on a 23-win pace without Kukoc as that record suggests, but he was definitely important and if all else remained the same and you just subtracted him from the team, I could see them losing around 5-8 more games

LostCause

04-25-2020, 04:29 PM

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 04:44 PM

]

It wasn't apples to apples though, as I also explained (ie Kerr was WAY better for them than Paxson was in 93)

Really hard to guess things like that but they went 55-23 with him and without him they went 2-5. Pippen/Grant/Armstrong were all present for each of those losses except the one to Miami (Grant was out). I'm sure there's more nuance to it than that and I doubt the Bulls would be on a 23-win pace without Kukoc as that record suggests, but he was definitely important and if all else remained the same and you just subtracted him from the team, I could see them losing around 5-8 more games

How many wins is Kukoc worth in 96?

Roundball_Rock

04-25-2020, 07:46 PM

well as focusing more on the players who missed time while not even considering the opponent they faced and what irregularities they had in their lineup.

That's because it is in contrast to the health they had in 93'. Armstrong played 82, Pippen 81, Grant 77, Cartwright 63 (MJ played 78). In 94' it was Armstrong 82, Pippen 72, Grant 70, Cartwright 42. So Pippen missed 9 more games, Grant 7 more, and Cartwright 21 more.

6- Jordan's supporting cast wasn't as great as other dynasties

This is another reason why 94' keeps coming up. Who else had a team that could contend for the #1 seed with a scrub replacing the best player? No examples have been provided because they do not exist. What people keep making the mistake of is comparing rosters in vacuums. Teams don't play in vacuums. They play in leagues. The issue is the relative advantage a team has over its competition, not rosters from different eras.

In the 90s only one team had two MVP caliber players for an extended period (Orlando did for 2 years). In the 90s Reggie Miller could be the #1 option on a contender; in the 10s Miller would be Klay without the defense and the #3 option on the KD-era Warriors. In the 90s you could contend or even win with Terry Porter, John Starks, and Otis Thorpe as your second best player. In the 80s or 60s or 10s you would have no shot if that is your #2. And so on.

Which dynasty did better without their star?

They can't name one. We have raised examples here and the "best" example they have produced so far is OKC (which wasn't a dynasty) went from a 59 win level and the WCF with KD to 47 wins and losing in the first round.

Ronin45

04-25-2020, 08:24 PM

Hmmm let's see because Pippen himself literally called it a "wasted season" (sorry not "lost") and said he didn't try as hard and wasn't as motivated. Oh and he was an all-star too that year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-im-back-fax-1995-nba

“This is a wasted season,” he said. “It all started last summer when they tried to trade me behind my back, never came to me about it and then lied to me when I asked them about it. I was so upset I hardly worked out. I did not report to camp in good shape and things just got worse. Now I see what Michael went through when he first came here,” he said. “He sacrificed a lot of his game to make his teammates better. I’m sacrificing in some areas for the same reason but not getting the same result because we no longer have as much talent.”

Do you really think in those other seasons where a superstar left, that the same lack of motivation was never present?

I didn't say Grant ascended. I said he was in his prime. BJ was either ascending or in his prime. Who cares. The point is its not like Jordan left a bunch of rookies or old dudes. He left a championship supporting cast that were in their primes and had a ton of experience having won 3 straight titles and had been to 5 straight ECF.

The Warriors lost Durant, Curry, and Klay. There situation was not remotely the same.
Wow, even more examples I forgot of Scottie being a total selfish, pouty, bitchy, malcontent. What an absolute terrible excuse for a “leader” and as if 1994, and 1998 weren’t glaringly selfish examples of piss poor selfish, entitled malcontent attitude.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-25-2020, 08:36 PM

Wow, even more examples I forgot of Scottie being a total selfish, pouty, bitchy, malcontent. What an absolute terrible excuse for a “leader” and as if 1994, and 1998 weren’t glaringly selfish examples of piss poor selfish, entitled malcontent attitude.

Pippen was one of the best in-game leaders up until the Kukoc game-winner. Had Toni missed that shot, it would've followed Pippen forever.

I've already seen 80% of the Last Dance doc. Pip talks about the incident. I didn't like the way he handled it then and don't like his "explanation" now. Yeah he's one of the greatest all-around players ever. No doubt. But Mike was the guy who made everyone go on that team. Him and Phil. The times players 'lacked energy'? Jordan was on their ass. And he never held back.

Ronin45

04-25-2020, 08:51 PM

Pippen was one of the best in-game leaders up until the Kukoc game-winner. Had Toni missed that shot, it would've followed Pippen forever.

I've already seen 80% of the Last Dance doc. Pip talks about the incident. I didn't like the way he handled it then and don't like his "explanation" now. Yeah he's one of the greatest all-around players ever. No doubt. But Mike was the guy who made everyone go on that team. Him and Phil. The times players 'lacked energy'? Jordan was on their ass. And he never held back.
Damn. How did you already see 80% of the doc?! As for the rest? Yup.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-25-2020, 09:03 PM

Damn How did you already see 80% of the doc?! As for the rest? Yup.

His justification was crap.

I caught episodes 3-8 from online stream. If you're into the unseen 'HD' clips, I wouldn't recommend. Everything is there but the quality is downgraded.

Da_Realist

04-25-2020, 09:03 PM

No spoilers please

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 09:05 PM

His justification was crap.

I caught episodes 3-8 from online stream. If you're into the unseen 'HD' clips, I wouldn't recommend. Everything is there but the quality is downgraded.

So is it great? Anything gonna come out that we didn't already know?

97 bulls

04-25-2020, 09:06 PM

No spoilers please

Hey Real. Do you have a YouTube channel?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-25-2020, 09:13 PM

So is it great? Anything gonna come out that we didn't already know?

There's a few things I didn't know. A lot of rare high quality footage too. I think most of you guys will enjoy it.

Its the only LIVE sports event I can look forward to lol

Da_Realist

04-25-2020, 09:19 PM

Hey Real. Do you have a YouTube channel?

What's up 97. I do but I stopped uploading years ago. I just use it to view and save the content of others.

Soundwave

04-25-2020, 09:21 PM

You think MJ had the best supporting cast of all time? (Honest question)

Jordan would've had a better supporting cast in Portland had they not been stupid and taken Jordan no.2 in 1984 and that would've been ready from the get go, no need to wait like 5 years+ for it to come together.

No way in hell did Jordan have the help Magic and Bird had.

Axe

04-25-2020, 09:23 PM

Jordan would've had a better supporting cast in Portland had they not been stupid and taken Jordan no.2 in 1984 and that would've been ready from the get go, no need to wait like 5 years+ for it to come together.

No way in hell did Jordan have the help Magic and Bird had.
It all happened in portland's way because they badly needed a center during that time. 😂

Ronin45

04-25-2020, 09:28 PM

Jordan would've had a better supporting cast in Portland had they not been stupid and taken Jordan no.2 in 1984 and that would've been ready from the get go, no need to wait like 5 years+ for it to come together.

No way in hell did Jordan have the help Magic and Bird had.

Agreed. They should’ve competed for rings in 99, 00, and 01 of things were handled correctly by a competent or like able non narcissistic GM. As well as an owner who wasn’t a douche or a moron.

aceman

04-25-2020, 10:22 PM

Lebron23

04-25-2020, 10:57 PM

Pippen from 1994-96 is Kawhi level without the load management.

guy

04-26-2020, 12:17 AM

I gotta give some pushback here. Which dynasty did better without their star?

This argument is ridiculous. Do you think that if Jordan retired prior to any other season in the 90s that the Bulls would’ve definitely won 55 or around it just cause they did in 94? If Jordan retired prior to the 91 season, without the championship and a younger and inexperienced Pippen and Grant, and an unproven Phil, they are winning 55? If Jordan retired prior to 98, with the rest of that team on its last legs basically are they winning 55? If you really think so, you’re just completely ignoring that team’s evolution process.

Furthermore, you really think that if Bird got injured in any other season, they are always only winning 42 games? If Magic retired before any other season, they are only winning 43 games? You think that these teams with 3-4 other HOFers couldn’t have won 50-60 games?

This is why it’s such an absurd argument.

LeCroix

04-26-2020, 12:20 AM

This argument is ridiculous. Do you think that if Jordan retired prior to any other season in the 90s that the Bulls would’ve definitely won 55 or around it just cause they did in 94? If Jordan retired prior to the 91 season, without the championship and a younger and inexperienced Pippen and Grant, and an unproven Phil, they are winning 55? If Jordan retired prior to 98, with the rest of that team on its last legs basically are they winning 55? If you really think so, you’re just completely ignoring that team’s evolution process.

Furthermore, you really think that if Bird got injured in any other season, they are always only winning 42 games? If Magic retired before any other season, they are only winning 43 games? You think that these teams with 3-4 other HOFers couldn’t have won 50-60 games?

This is why it’s such an absurd argument.

Think to this. 93 Bulls win 57 with MJ, Scottie, Grant. 94 Bulls win 55 with Pete Myers, Scottie, Grant. So think to this now. When can Bulls lose Scottie and still succeed. We dont know, but probably never could they.

guy

04-26-2020, 12:24 AM

guy

04-26-2020, 12:25 AM

Think to this. 93 Bulls win 57 with MJ, Scottie, Grant. 94 Bulls win 55 with Pete Myers, Scottie, Grant. So think to this now. When can Bulls lose Scottie and still succeed. We dont know, but probably never could they.

:confusedshrug:

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 12:39 AM

This argument is ridiculous. Do you think that if Jordan retired prior to any other season in the 90s that the Bulls would’ve definitely won 55 or around it just cause they did in 94? If Jordan retired prior to the 91 season, without the championship and a younger and inexperienced Pippen and Grant, and an unproven Phil, they are winning 55? If Jordan retired prior to 98, with the rest of that team on its last legs basically are they winning 55? If you really think so, you’re just completely ignoring that team’s evolution process.

Furthermore, you really think that if Bird got injured in any other season, they are always only winning 42 games? If Magic retired before any other season, they are only winning 43 games? You think that these teams with 3-4 other HOFers couldn’t have won 50-60 games?

This is why it’s such an absurd argument.
How is my argument ridiculous? It's a fact. We dont know what would've happened after a million scenarios. But we did get to see the outcome of these teams main guys leaving their contending team. I'm sorry it hurts your little Feewings.

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 12:43 AM

Can someone tell me what happened to the 2015 and 2016 Atlanta Hawks? They dropped from 60 to 48 wins. There 5th best player left but there 4 best players were still there and only missed a combined 6 games in 2016 vs 31 games in 2015 despite the record. So what gives? Aren’t these things usually explainable?

:lol:oldlol::lol:oldlol:

I bet you're punching the hell out of your keyboard trying to find scenarios of teams failing to ease your butthurt.

guy

04-26-2020, 12:46 AM

How is my argument ridiculous? It's a fact. We dont know what would've happened after a million scenarios. But we did get to see the outcome of these teams main guys leaving their contending team. I'm sorry it hurts your little Feewings.

It’s a fact but it’s a misleading argument cause it ignores all other circumstances surrounding a team. You’re right, you don’t know what would happen under a million scenarios, so using this argument as the be all end all is pretty ****ing stupid but obviously not surprising.

guy

04-26-2020, 12:46 AM

:lol:oldlol::lol:oldlol:

I bet you're punching the hell out of your keyboard trying to find scenarios of teams failing to ease your butthurt.

I’m good. Don’t deflect. Answer the question or don’t bother responding.

guy

04-26-2020, 12:59 AM

Wow, even more examples I forgot of Scottie being a total selfish, pouty, bitchy, malcontent. What an absolute terrible excuse for a “leader” and as if 1994, and 1998 weren’t glaringly selfish examples of piss poor selfish, entitled malcontent attitude.

I don’t even blame the guy. He had every right to be pissed. It even goes to show that the Bulls could’ve been better and possibly underachieved that season before Jordan came back that year. But I bet 99% of posters on here weren’t aware of these quotes where Pippen basically said he didn’t try as hard. And this is one of the best players ever and to some people the best no. 2 ever saying this.

So do we really think that in some other situations where a superstar left a team that his teammates didn’t feel a lack of motivation that could’ve been a big driver to the drop off?

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 01:00 AM

It’s a fact but it’s a misleading argument cause it ignores all other circumstances surrounding a team. You’re right, you don’t know what would happen under a million scenarios, so using this argument as the be all end all is pretty ****ing stupid but obviously not surprising.

What scenarios? We know what happened. We saw it. Stop trying to act like what happened didn't really happen.

guy

04-26-2020, 01:05 AM

What scenarios? We know what happened. We saw it. Stop trying to act like what happened didn't really happen.

What I laid out in my post i.e. if you took Jordan off each of those teams, if you took Bird off each of those teams, if you took Magic off of those teams. If you really just think they’re winning the same amount of games every year as the first season where they missed that superstar, I don’t know what to tell you.

Not sure where I’m denying what happened. Just saying it’s not that simple. Any logical person should be able to see that.

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 01:10 AM

What I laid out in my post i.e. if you took Jordan off each of those teams, if you took Bird off each of those teams, if you took Magic off of those teams. If you really just think they’re winning the same amount of games every year as the first season where they missed that superstar, I don’t know what to tell you.

Not sure where I’m denying what happened. Just saying it’s not that simple. Any logical person should be able to see that.

Right that's why I said we dont know. Maybe McHale leaves via FA or get traded to the Hawks. Perhaps Worthy get Jeanie Buss pregnant, takes part ownership of the team, trades away Scott, Cooper and Green for Gary Payton. Under your assumption, the scenarios are virtually limitless.

I'm just going based on what actually happened.

Smoke117

04-26-2020, 01:19 AM

I don’t even blame the guy. He had every right to be pissed. It even goes to show that the Bulls could’ve been better and possibly underachieved that season before Jordan came back that year. But I bet 99% of posters on here weren’t aware of these quotes where Pippen basically said he didn’t try as hard. And this is one of the best players ever and to some people the best no. 2 ever saying this.

So do we really think that in some other situations where a superstar left a team that his teammates didn’t feel a lack of motivation that could’ve been a big driver to the drop off?

Wait, how did the Bulls underachieve in 95 before Jordan came back? Guys were in and out of the line up in 95 and, despite all this bullshit about the team turning it around when Jordan came back, they had won 8 out of their last 10 games before he even returned. That Pippen even had the Bulls over .500 in 95 after losing the best player in the world and Horace Grant and replacing them with Pete Myers and Toni Kukoc is impressive as hell. He put an all time perimeter defensive clinic that season. That he didn't win DPOY is one of the biggest travesties in NBA history especially when so many lesser perimeter players have won DPOY like Payton and Artest who didn't have half his impact that season.

LeCroix

04-26-2020, 01:32 AM

:lol:oldlol::lol:oldlol:

I bet you're punching the hell out of your keyboard trying to find scenarios of teams failing to ease your butthurt.
Cosign

HoopsNY

04-26-2020, 03:29 AM

This debate is being pushed too hard in too many extremes. On the one hand, there seems to be some who think that the Bulls didn't have a great supporting cast, of which they did.

On the other, some want to act like Bulls' supporting cast was the best ever and in Roundball's case, he wants to ignore the example of Wilt Chamberlain being traded to LA in exchange for Clark and Imhoff (lol).

So Imhoff comes in Wilt's place and averages 9 pts and 9.7 rebounds. Myers comes in replacing MJ averaging 8 points and 3 assists.

Clark averages 13.5-3.5-3.6. Kukoc is added in 1993-94 and puts up 11-4.0-3.4

The 76ers go from winning 62 games to 55 games. The Bulls go from winning 57 games to 55 games. Wilt and Jordan are therefore, non-impactful players and their respective teams were great with or without them.

I'll wait to hear how great Imhoff and Clark were in their non-all-star selected year while the addition of Kukoc, Kerr, Wennington coupled with Armstrong, Pippen, and Grant coming into their peak years had nothing to do with any of this.

Round Mound

04-26-2020, 03:38 AM

LAL

04-26-2020, 03:40 AM

HoopsNY

04-26-2020, 03:50 AM

Its not really that its just that Pippen was a Top 10 Player in the 90's as was Jordan. And Horace was also a Top 10 Powerforward in the league.

I'm being sarcastic. It's quite simple:

the 1993-1994 team with a peak year Scottie Pippen, BJ Armstrong, and Horace Grant combined with the addition of Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc, Luc Longey and Bill Wennington were better than:

the 1992-93 team with Scottie Pippen (non-peak), BJ Armstrong (non-peak), Horace Grant (non-peak), and John Paxson, Scott Williams, and Bill Cartwright.

Now unless people think the 92-93 supporting cast was EXACTLY the same in terms of ability and performance to the 93-94 team, then I can't understand how others don't see this.

aceman

04-26-2020, 06:32 AM

I'm being sarcastic. It's quite simple:

the 1993-1994 team with a peak year Scottie Pippen, BJ Armstrong, and Horace Grant combined with the addition of Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc, Luc Longey and Bill Wennington were better than:

the 1992-93 team with Scottie Pippen (non-peak), BJ Armstrong (non-peak), Horace Grant (non-peak), and John Paxson, Scott Williams, and Bill Cartwright.

Now unless people think the 92-93 supporting cast was EXACTLY the same in terms of ability and performance to the 93-94 team, then I can't understand how others don't see this.

Players peaked stats wise cause Jordan wasn't there

LostCause

04-26-2020, 09:40 AM

Late reply

How many wins is Kukoc worth in 96?

The closest thing we have to predict this with Jordan part of the team would be 97. Chicago was 50-7 with him (71 win pace), 19-6 without him (62 game pace). So I'll say about 8-10. May be underselling him since he played 81 games that year, was 2nd on the team in ORTG to Kerr and was 3rd to Jordan and Pippen in every other advanced metric (PER, WS, VORP, BPM etc). So just straight up removing him would definitely bring that team down a good amount of games

guy

04-26-2020, 11:00 AM

Right that's why I said we dont know. Maybe McHale leaves via FA or get traded to the Hawks. Perhaps Worthy get Jeanie Buss pregnant, takes part ownership of the team, trades away Scott, Cooper and Green for Gary Payton. Under your assumption, the scenarios are virtually limitless.

I'm just going based on what actually happened.

Well Pippen never led a team to a championship. That’s actually what happened. Didn’t you say that people shouldn’t hold it against Pippen for not leading a team to a championship without considering the entire situation and since he only had 1 real attempt to do it while others led their team to a title but had multiple opportunities?

Yet in the argument I laid out, when we really only have 1 season each to assess those teams without Jordan, Bird, or Magic, 1 season is enough regardless of the other circumstances and we can only go “based on what actually happened.”

Actual results won’t always cover an entire time period where teams and players continuously evolve for better or worse. Applying 1 season to nearly a decade of play doesn’t do that. But you can speculate based on the situation and can assess the talent level and the games of the important pieces involved. To not do that and just approach it the way you’re doing it is a weak argument and just flat out lazy.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 12:01 PM

Who on trailblazers comes close to Pippen?

I realize some posters are young, but jeezus.

Clyde Drexler led the Blazers to 2 NBA Finals, Scottie Pippen led the Bulls to one 2nd round appearance.

The Blazers were a very good team without Jordan, with Jordan they would've won 7-9 championships plausibly.

They were already making the NBA Finals by 1990.

Roundball_Rock

04-26-2020, 02:39 PM

But Mike was the guy who made everyone go on that team. Him and Phil.

Kerr just days ago said Pippen was. People always underrate Pippen's leadership role and inflate MJ's.

Jordan would've had a better supporting cast in Portland had they not been stupid and taken Jordan no.2 in 1984

Portland won 51 games with Drexler but they were a better "supporting cast" than the team that won 55 without Jordan.

It all happened in portland's way because they badly needed a center during that time.

Well, that and they already had a SG in Drexler. Drexler was a bench player as a rookie but his talent was apparent. Hindsight is 20/20 but teams don't usually spend first round picks on the same position.

Who on trailblazers comes close to Pippen?

Drexler is comparable. He hit his prime earlier but exited it earlier as well. That timeline doesn't help MJ because he would have had to compete with the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, and 80's Pistons for much of that time versus facing weaker comp in the mid and late 90's.

When can Bulls lose Scottie and still succeed. We dont know, but probably never could they.

We have 38 games in 98' to look at. They basically were the 94' Bulls level without Pippen.

Wait, how did the Bulls underachieve in 95 before Jordan came back? Guys were in and out of the line up in 95 and, despite all this bullshit about the team turning it around when Jordan came back, they had won 8 out of their last 10 games before he even returned

They were 23-25 before the ASG but 11-6 after the ASG before MJ returned.

It is funny the 95' Bulls, shed of MJ and Grant with no adequate replacements for either, are hammered for their performance but the same people will hype the 90s Pacers who were only around 4-5 games ahead of the weakened Bulls. What does that (accepting the MJ stan argument) say about the comp, then?

He put an all time perimeter defensive clinic that season.

Yup, they lost MJ and Grant and still had the #2 defense but all these guys care about is scoring.

Just older Pippen fans getting a second life all of a sudden thanks to the young bronsexuals latest argument. It's funny to read.

What is the LeBron obssession? This stuff has been going on my entire time on ISH (since 2009). Back then it was supposedly about Kobe. Now LeBron.

Now unless people think the 92-93 supporting cast was EXACTLY the same in terms of ability and performance to the 93-94 team

It isn't about 93' versus 94'. It is about the performance level of that "supporting cast" without MJ. We constantly hear how poor MJ had little help and how much help other legends of his level had. The actual results, not speculation, results show otherwise but MJ stans insist with the "weak cast" line anyway.

Players peaked stats wise cause Jordan wasn't there

That's another part of the equation. These guys will look at every minute angle to discredit the 94' team but not that one...so MJ leaves and half the team has career years, efficiencies go up across the board for players who were on both teams. I thought MJ "made his teammates better"?

Roundball_Rock

04-26-2020, 02:44 PM

I realize some posters are young, but jeezus.

Clyde Drexler led the Blazers to 2 NBA Finals, Scottie Pippen led the Bulls to one 2nd round appearance.

This is another reason Pippen fans push back. So Pippen (and by extension his teammates) are bums because they did not win a chip in 1 playoff run they had without MJ. Drexler has 11 years in Portland, gets there by year 7 and again in year 9 (with a team built around him, not a player who retired), and that means he is better because he did it over a decade.

It is dumb. Barkley got to the finals as the best player--once. Ewing--once. Payton--once. How many years did it take them to get there? It took Malone 13-14 years to get there. They act like these guys were like LeBron and making the finals every year. They weren't and they had teams built around their skills and didn't have to scramble at the last minute to replace their best teammate, two unique strikes Pippen had going against him.

So with Portland we are supposed to run out scenarios over a decade ("7-9 chips!") but not with Chicago. It is bad faith, again, on MJ stans' part. If you put Chicago without MJ for an entire decade they likely do make a finals at some point. New York, who they were on par with, made it that very year. Indiana (without a superstar, like Chicago would have), made it eventually in 2000 and made 5 conference finals.

Yet we are supposed to assume that because the Bulls failed to make it once, they were forever and ever destined to always lose in the second round. It is brilliant logic. Indiana didn't make the finals that year, nor did Seattle, Phoenix, Utah, Portland (lost in the first round, 51 win team), or Orlando. Ergo, they would never make a finals, right?

Back to Drexler, he is very comparable to Pippen but because he played against, not with, MJ, MJ stans will hype him and diminish Pippen. As a Pippen fan I can be honest and admit they are comparable (so is Ewing). I don't have to tear down Drexler to lift Pippen up.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 02:54 PM

This is another reason Pippen fans push back. So Pippen (and by extension his teammates) are bums because they did not win a chip in 1 playoff run they had without MJ. Drexler has 11 years in Portland, gets there by year 7 and again in year 9 (with a team built around him, not a player who retired), and that means he is better because he did it over a decade.

It is dumb. Barkley got to the finals as the best player--once. Ewing--once. Payton--once. How many years did it take them to get there? It took Malone 13-14 years to get there. They act like these guys were like LeBron and making the finals every year. They weren't and they had teams built around their skills and didn't have to scramble at the last minute to replace their best teammate, two unique strikes Pippen had going against him.

So with Portland we are supposed to run out scenarios over a decade ("7-9 chips!") but not with Chicago. It is bad faith, again, on MJ stans' part. If you put Chicago without MJ for an entire decade they likely do make a finals at some point. New York, who they were on par with, made it that very year. Indiana (without a superstar, like Chicago would have), made it eventually in 2000 and made 5 conference finals.

Yet we are supposed to assume that because the Bulls failed to make it once, they were forever and ever destined to always lose in the second round. It is brilliant logic. Indiana didn't make the finals that year, nor did Seattle, Phoenix, Utah, Portland (lost in the first round, 51 win team), or Orlando. Ergo, they would never make a finals, right?

Back to Drexler, he is very comparable to Pippen but because he played against, not with, MJ, MJ stans will hype him and diminish Pippen. As a Pippen fan I can be honest and admit they are comparable (so is Ewing). I don't have to tear down Drexler to lift Pippen up.

Clyde Drexler was a great player, probably a better player than Scottie Pippen. He wasn't just a scorer either go check the numbers.

If anything Jordan got kind of screwed by being drafted by Chicago ... a franchise that was so bad that 5 years earlier Magic Johnson had said he'd refuse to report and would go back to college than go to the NBA if the Bulls got the no.1 pick. If he had been picked by Portland he would've been on a team that was good almost immediately, there was far more talent there.

The Bulls to be honest to me a shit tier franchise that got very, very, very lucky that Portland passed on Jordan in 1984 (the GM even admits if the draft had happened after the '84 Olympics when more people got to see Jordan, they probably don't get Jordan). This is maybe the most fortunate bounce of good luck in the history of the NBA.

They did nothing before Jordan and basically have done nothing since.

I take no joy in saying that because I'd like the Bulls to be good, but their track record outside of the Jordan era is embarrassing.

The Bulls were mediocre/average by 1994-95 again, they were not beating the Knicks or Pacers or (eventually) the Magic without Jordan coming back. That team was going nowhere.

LeCroix

04-26-2020, 03:02 PM

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 03:11 PM

Guys guys guys guys guys look to this

a 93 bulls collect 57 wins with MJ, Pip, Grant
a 94 bulls collect 55 wins with Pete Myers, Pip, Grant

The proof to pudding is showing. Pippen has strong impact during any time period of bulls history. Michael does too but he has more impact when Pippen shows up to play even as a rookie because i showed bulls jumping 36 wins to 50 wins in rookie pippen years.

95-96 Lakers with Cedric Ceballos as the no.1 option = 53 wins

00-01 Lakers with Shaq and Kobe = 56 wins

Guess Ceballos and Van Exel are just about as good as Shaq and Kobe.

The 92-93 Bulls were more of an outlier than the norm anyway, virtually all other 90s versions of the Bulls with Jordan won 60+ games and fairly easily at that, that was one season where the team was a bit out of sync because they were just tired with regular season nonsense and wanted to get back to the Finals and finish the damn threepeat.

Even in 94-95 when Jordan came back out of shape, the Bulls went 13-4, which prorates to a 63 win season.

No give a sh*t that Cedric Ceballos led the Lakers to 53 wins, lol.

Roundball_Rock

04-26-2020, 03:47 PM

Clyde Drexler was a great player, probably a better player than Scottie Pippen. He wasn't just a scorer either go check the numbers.

They are comparable. Pippen is the one who is consistently higher on the all-time lists but peak vs. peak it is close. I did check the numbers (their peak rankings):

Pippen: VORP 3rd, PER 4th, Box plus/minus 3rd, Win Shares 5th
Drexler: VORP 4th, PER 4th, Box plus/minus 4th, Win Shares 5th

The Bulls were mediocre/average by 1994-95 again, they were not beating the Knicks or Pacers or (eventually) the Magic without Jordan coming back. That team was going nowhere.

LostCause, you see this? This is an example of what I am talking about. No mention of Grant.

Teams have ups and downs. Indiana won 39 games and 58 the next year. NY had a sequence of 55, 47, 57, 43 wins in the 90s.

The question is what happens if you give that team 10 years without MJ, build it around Pippen, like other superstars had. Logically it is likely they make the finals at some point (remember, this scenario means the Bulls don't make 6 trips) when you look at what comparable players did as the #1 option (Ewing and Drexler) or even lesser players (Miller).

They did nothing before Jordan and basically have done nothing since.

That is because of the Rose tragedy. They had the best record and made the ECF in 11' and had the best record in the NBA again in 12'. That team would have been the rival to LeBron's teams in the EC.

No give a sh*t that Cedric Ceballos led the Lakers to 53 wins, lol.

Ceballos wasn't even an all-star. All "#1 options" are not the same. Pippen was a MVP candidate, all-NBA first team, a superstar.

Even in 94-95 when Jordan came back out of shape, the Bulls went 13-4, which prorates to a 63 win season.

True, but they were playing better before he came back as they got healthier and got roles settled. They were 11-6 after the all-star break before he came back, which prorates to 53 wins (Indiana won 52 as a comparison). Teams improve or decline during seasons. The Knicks were 12-12 to start that same season and finished with 55 wins.

trada7029

04-26-2020, 04:16 PM

.
Here's Gottlieb setting record straight on Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyYHH9ZHLM&t=03m50s

Monta Ellis MVP

04-26-2020, 04:22 PM

They are comparable. Pippen is the one who is consistently higher on the all-time lists but peak vs. peak it is close. I did check the numbers (their peak rankings):

Pippen: VORP 3rd, PER 4th, Box plus/minus 3rd, Win Shares 5th
Drexler: VORP 4th, PER 4th, Box plus/minus 4th, Win Shares 5th

LostCause, you see this? This is an example of what I am talking about. No mention of Grant.

Teams have ups and downs. Indiana won 39 games and 58 the next year. NY had a sequence of 55, 47, 57, 43 wins in the 90s.

The question is what happens if you give that team 10 years without MJ, build it around Pippen, like other superstars had. Logically it is likely they make the finals at some point (remember, this scenario means the Bulls don't make 6 trips) when you look at what comparable players did as the #1 option (Ewing and Drexler) or even lesser players (Miller).

That is because of the Rose tragedy. They had the best record and made the ECF in 11' and had the best record in the NBA again in 12'. That team would have been the rival to LeBron's teams in the EC.

Ceballos wasn't even an all-star. All "#1 options" are not the same. Pippen was a MVP candidate, all-NBA first team, a superstar.

True, but they were playing better before he came back as they got healthier and got roles settled. They were 11-6 after the all-star break before he came back, which prorates to 53 wins (Indiana won 52 as a comparison). Teams improve or decline during seasons. The Knicks were 12-12 to start that same season and finished with 55 wins.

Pippen was good but so was Wade and Bosh. Wade had very good advanced stats VORP and PER. Wade was 2nd in PER. Chris Bosh did too have good VORPs and PERs. LeBron is still better because everyone sucked at basketball in 1990’s. Look it up on YouTube.

HoopsNY

04-26-2020, 04:25 PM

trada7029

04-26-2020, 04:32 PM

Chicago won 40 games the season prior to Pippen's arrival. And the reason they saw this jump to 50 wins was because of adding rookie Scottie Pippen? This is a bit ridiculous.

All MJ needed was a 18 ppg sidekick and the #7 team defense

The Bulls only had the #7 team defense during the 1st three-peat (less than every conference finals and Finals opponent)

And we know what Pippen was worth - 97' Kemp or rookie Tmac - that's what the Bulls' were willing to trade him for... So not much... It's not coincidence that they wanted Kemp for Pippen after Kemp destroyed the 96' Finals and Pippen shot 34%

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 04:58 PM

All MJ needed was a 18 ppg sidekick and the #7 team defense

The Bulls only had the #7 team defense during the 1st three-peat (less than every conference finals and Finals opponent)

And we know what Pippen was worth - 97' Kemp or rookie Tmac - that's what the Bulls' were willing to trade him for... So not much... It's not coincidence that they wanted Kemp for Pippen after Kemp destroyed the 96' Finals and Pippen shot 34%

So he needed help? The Bulls didnt beat the Sonics because of their offense. They won because of their defense.

trada7029

04-26-2020, 05:08 PM

So he needed help? The Bulls didnt beat the Sonics because of their offense. They won because of their defense.
Yeah but the Sonics couldn't rest on defense.. they were always on their heels by ball movement and being worn down by doubling Jordan at a 50% frequency.. the constant double-teaming and scrambling from ball movement left them less fresh to go off offensively..

Otoh, against lebron, defenses are rolling their eyes while lebron dribbles away, simply waiting to get the ball back so they can put him on his heels again... But against MJ, they were the ones on their heels by having to double him and react to zippy ball movement

It's a battle of attrition that MJ's style was much better at winning

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 05:13 PM

So he needed help? The Bulls didnt beat the Sonics because of their offense. They won because of their defense.

That series was over before it started. 3-0 and two of the three games were blowouts. They let them get a few pity wins because they didn't want to celebrate in rainy ass Seattle.

Turbo Slayer

04-26-2020, 05:14 PM

Yeah but the Sonics couldn't rest on defense.. they were always on their heels by ball movement and being worn down by doubling Jordan at a 50% frequency.. the constant double-teaming and scrambling from ball movement left them less fresh to go off offensively..

Otoh, against lebron, defenses are rolling their eyes while lebron dribbles away, simply waiting to get the ball back so they can put him on his heels again... But against MJ, they were the ones on their heels by having to double him and react to zippy ball movement

It's a battle of attrition that MJ's style was much better at winning Oh no...

You are 3ball. It's obvious from your style of posting...

Guys 3ball is a MJ stan.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 05:17 PM

The 1996 NBA Finals was basically the Bulls-Magic series. Everyone and their grandma knew that. Once the Magic cratered, the Finals was just a celebration round to goof around in. The Sonics never had a serious shot.

Orlando was supposed to be the team, if any team could do it, that was going to beat the Bulls in '96. Unfortunately for them, they got spanked so bad that Shaq went looking for an exit.

trada7029

04-26-2020, 05:17 PM

That series was over before it started. 3-0 and two of the three games were blowouts. They let them get a few pity wins because they didn't want to celebrate in rainy ass Seattle.

Game 3

Jordan 1996 Finals... 36 points
Giannis 2019 ECF...... 12 points

Jordan crushed Game 3, so Payton couldn't execute a comeback like Kawhi did

Turbo Slayer

04-26-2020, 05:18 PM

Game 3

Jordan 1996 Finals... 36 points
Giannis 2019 ECF...... 12 points

Jordan crushed Game 3, so Payton couldn't execute a comeback like Kawhi did Are you 3ball?

trada7029

04-26-2020, 05:19 PM

Oh no...

You are 3ball. It's obvious from your style of posting...

Guys 3ball is a MJ stan.

MJ was doubled 10 of the 20 times he caught the ball in Game 4, shown in gifs here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11792377&postcount=161

Notice how the doubling causes frantic movement by the defense/wears them down, so they have less capacity for offense

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 05:25 PM

MJ was doubled 10 of the 20 times he caught the ball in Game 4, shown in gifs here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11792377&postcount=161

Notice how the doubling causes frantic movement by the defense/wears them down, so they have less capacity for offense

Sonics didn't really do shit. The Bulls just got bored and played loose/lazy for a couple of games and you can't really blame them.

They played that season with such intensity and it was all building up to that Orlando series, once that series turned into a blow out and so did the Sonics series (up 3-0), the Bulls started planning the parade, I even remember saying to my friend it would be nice if they let the Sonics win a couple so they can celebrate in style in Chicago in the new United Center. To that point the only time they'd won a title at home was in '92.

trada7029

04-26-2020, 05:33 PM

Sonics didn't really do shit. The Bulls just got bored and played loose/lazy for a couple of games and you can't really blame them.

They played that season with such intensity and it was all building up to that Orlando series, once that series turned into a blow out and so did the Sonics series (up 3-0), the Bulls started planning the parade, I even remember saying to my friend it would be nice if they let the Sonics win a couple so they can celebrate in style in Chicago in the new United Center. To that point the only time they'd won a title at home was in '92.

But how did the bulls have a goat offense (top 5 all-time ortg) while going 4 on 5 with rodman and Pippen weak scoring?

Obviously, MJ had goat offense and style

From 538:

He mixed scoring volume and shooting efficiency better than just about any player in history. Over his career, he averaged 30.2 pace-adjusted points per 36 minutes, easily the most of any qualified player since 1977. But he also had a career true shooting percentage of 56.9 percent, much higher than the league average of 53.5 percent over the years of his career. As a result, Jordan is an outlier on the furthest boundary of the usage-vs.-efficiency curve for all-time players..

Jordan’s most underrated offensive strength of all might have been his ability to generate high-quality shots (for himself and others) without turning the ball over. Only two qualified players in NBA history had a career usage rate of at least 30 percent with a turnover percentage under 10 percent — Jordan and Dominique Wilkins (rivals in a couple of iconic 1980s dunk contests). And with apologies to the Human Highlight Film, Jordan was asked to do a lot more on offense for the Bulls than Wilkins was for the Hawks. MJ assisted on nearly 25 percent of teammate baskets when he was on the court, on top of his scoring responsibilities. That made Jordan one of the better playmakers in the NBA, even as he simultaneously led the league in scoring 10 times during the 11 seasons he played between 1986-87 and 1997-98.

All of this helps explain why Jordan’s Bulls finished in the top five in offensive efficiency every season from 1989-90 to 1996-97, except for the two Jordan spent playing baseball.5 When your best player is taking on a historic share of team possessions while also averaging nearly 1.2 points on each of those possessions, you’re going to have a historically great offense. And indeed, Chicago had three seasons — 1992, 1996 and 1997 — where its offense cleared the league average by 7 points per 100 possessions. Jordan was the engine that powered the offensive success of the Bulls’ dynasty.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 05:41 PM

But how did the bulls have a goat offense (top 5 all-time ortg) while going 4 on 5 with rodman and Pippen weak scoring?

Obviously, MJ had goat offense and style

From 538:

He mixed scoring volume and shooting efficiency better than just about any player in history. Over his career, he averaged 30.2 pace-adjusted points per 36 minutes, easily the most of any qualified player since 1977. But he also had a career true shooting percentage of 56.9 percent, much higher than the league average of 53.5 percent over the years of his career. As a result, Jordan is an outlier on the furthest boundary of the usage-vs.-efficiency curve for all-time players..

Jordan’s most underrated offensive strength of all might have been his ability to generate high-quality shots (for himself and others) without turning the ball over. Only two qualified players in NBA history had a career usage rate of at least 30 percent with a turnover percentage under 10 percent — Jordan and Dominique Wilkins (rivals in a couple of iconic 1980s dunk contests). And with apologies to the Human Highlight Film, Jordan was asked to do a lot more on offense for the Bulls than Wilkins was for the Hawks. MJ assisted on nearly 25 percent of teammate baskets when he was on the court, on top of his scoring responsibilities. That made Jordan one of the better playmakers in the NBA, even as he simultaneously led the league in scoring 10 times during the 11 seasons he played between 1986-87 and 1997-98.

All of this helps explain why Jordan’s Bulls finished in the top five in offensive efficiency every season from 1989-90 to 1996-97, except for the two Jordan spent playing baseball.5 When your best player is taking on a historic share of team possessions while also averaging nearly 1.2 points on each of those possessions, you’re going to have a historically great offense. And indeed, Chicago had three seasons — 1992, 1996 and 1997 — where its offense cleared the league average by 7 points per 100 possessions. Jordan was the engine that powered the offensive success of the Bulls’ dynasty.

I mean yeah ... no shit ... team with greatest offensive player in the history of the sport has good offence.

That doesn't mean they aren't human and didn't check out of that season a bit after winning game 3.

People who are too young to remember don't understand how hyped the Orlando Magic were. THAT was the NBA Finals. The actual finals were just a glorified intro to the championship parade.

Circa 1996 you could not turn on the TV and not see a Shaq commercial or Lil Penny everywhere. Orlando was supposed to be the dynasty and if any team could beat the Bulls it would be them and that was the series that was hyped all year long.

The only thing the 96 Finals accomplished was win some respect (and a giant ass contract in the future) for Shawn Kemp, who was a helluva player before he decided to get fat as a seal.

Roundball_Rock

04-26-2020, 05:58 PM

And we know what Pippen was worth - 97' Kemp or rookie Tmac

95' Kemp. Those are indicators of value. The other team was willing to give up a young star like Kemp, or a young future star like T Mac, because they wanted to win now and viewed prime Pippen at a higher level than a prime Kemp or Vin Baker. (MJ told Karl to make the 95' Pippen-Kemp trade and said Seattle would win the chip with Pippen.)

As a comparison, in 95' Drexler actually was traded and it was for Otis Thorpe (a Horace Grant or Charles Oakley level player). So Pippen commanded a lot more value at the same time than Drexler did.

All MJ needed was a 18 ppg sidekick

Except he had a 23 PPG "sidekick" and a 16 PPG third option earlier in his career. What happened?

Pippen was good but so was Wade and Bosh

Relevance? I don't see armies of stans going across the internet saying Wade sucked like MJ stans have done forever with Pippen.

You are 3ball. It's obvious from your style of posting...

Guys 3ball is a MJ stan.

Good catch bro.

The 1996 NBA Finals was basically the Bulls-Magic series. Everyone and their grandma knew that

Seattle actually did better than Orlando against the Bulls. The difference was light years between the teams, although I agree Orlando was better than Seattle.

People who are too young to remember don't understand how hyped the Orlando Magic were.

Popular but remember Seattle was a team that consistently won 55+ but always underachieved in the playoffs (another example why you can't project a decade from one playoff run). There was a sense that this was their shot, that Kemp was coming into his own, Payton had become a big star by then (he wasn't a star in 93' when they made the WCF--Payton was 13 PPG or so then). So while inferior to Orlando, they weren't viewed as trash like some of the early 2000s EC champs were.

Roundball_Rock

04-26-2020, 06:03 PM

I just love how every 90s star* gets hyped by MJ stans except Pippen. Kemp is one of them (because of the 96' finals) but he was viewed as inferior to scrub Pippen by his own team. Kemp was younger but he had entered his prime so that excuse doesn't work (Kemp was 25, Pippen 29).

How do MJ stans explain Pippen commanding much higher trade value than Drexler in the same year? Isn't Drexler supposed to be much better according to the MJ crowd?

*If you played against, not with, MJ you automatically get gassed. Robinson is the one superstar who never did but MJ stans need to promote him to say he was better than Pippen when MJ was retired.

trada7029

04-26-2020, 06:06 PM

1996 Finals

Kemp..... 23 on 50%
Pippen... 15 on 34%

Kemp was much better than Pippen, which is why the architect Krause preferred him over Pippen

Reggie Miller called the bulls a 1-man team in 1991, and Isiah/Magic said the same thing in the middle of the 93' Finals... That was the consensus at the time

SATAN

04-26-2020, 06:15 PM

How many accounts does this 3ball guy have anyway?

Roundball_Rock

04-26-2020, 06:23 PM

How many accounts does this 3ball guy have anyway?

It's sad, isn't it?

He also doesn't understand how trades work. If two stars are being traded and one is 25 and the other 29, the 29 year old almost always is better because his superiority offsets the age difference. There are positional factors that can come in play but Pippen was in several proposed trade and the trend was the same: a younger player going to Chicago with the other team doing that because their view was the superior player and could help them win in the near term.

Pippen for Kemp is a prime example. Pippen on Seattle almost certainly wins a chip or two. Kemp going to Chicago would resemble what we saw out of him in Cleveland, where he went when he was 28. (Jordan would not have come back to play with Kemp so Jordan is not a factor in this alternate scenario.)

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 06:36 PM

It's sad, isn't it?

He also doesn't understand how trades work. If two stars are being traded and one is 25 and the other 29, the 29 year old almost always is better because his superiority offsets the age difference. There are positional factors that can come in play but Pippen was in several proposed trade and the trend was the same: a younger player going to Chicago with the other team doing that because their view was the superior player and could help them win in the near term.

Pippen for Kemp is a prime example. Pippen on Seattle almost certainly wins a chip or two. Kemp going to Chicago would resemble what we saw out of him in Cleveland, where he went when he was 28. (Jordan would not have come back to play with Kemp so Jordan is not a factor in this alternate scenario.)

Shawn Kemp was a really impressive player before he got fat and lazy in Cleveland. If he was traded to Chicago at least for 97-98 season he would have to stay in shape or get murdered by Jordan.

I don't think Pippen + Payton win a title ... Pippen teamed up with better players in Olajuwon and Barkley and then had a loaded team in Portland and couldn't even make the Finals.

Seattle would be too small to come out of the West, they'd be very thin at both the C and PF spots.

Pippen was a very good player, but so was Kemp, that's a lateral move at best for both teams I think, positionally it probably weakens Seattle. You need Kemp's size upfront because they already lacked at the center spot to begin with.

To be honest I think the Bulls win the title either way in '98, but going forward since they were going to lose Pippen anyway, it likely would've made sense to do that deal. Kemp + Kukoc would've been an OK 1-2 to retool with provided Kemp doesn't get fat.

KD7

04-26-2020, 07:00 PM

3ball :roll:

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 07:12 PM

Shawn Kemp was a really impressive player before he got fat and lazy in Cleveland. If he was traded to Chicago at least for 97-98 season he would have to stay in shape or get murdered by Jordan.

I don't think Pippen + Payton win a title ... Pippen teamed up with better players in Olajuwon and Barkley and then had a loaded team in Portland and couldn't even make the Finals.

Seattle would be too small to come out of the West, they'd be very thin at both the C and PF spots.

Pippen was a very good player, but so was Kemp, that's a lateral move at best for both teams I think, positionally it probably weakens Seattle. You need Kemp's size upfront because they already lacked at the center spot to begin with.

To be honest I think the Bulls win the title either way in '98, but going forward since they were going to lose Pippen anyway, it likely would've made sense to do that deal. Kemp + Kukoc would've been an OK 1-2 to retool with provided Kemp doesn't get fat.
I always found this funny to think that Jordans berating his teammates would automatically get them in line. His teammates have always stated that Pippen offset Jordan's aggressive style and thus made it bearable.

Axe

04-26-2020, 07:22 PM

Oh no...

You are 3ball. It's obvious from your style of posting...

Guys 3ball is a MJ stan.
Had 18 posts so far.

aceman

04-26-2020, 07:30 PM

I realize some posters are young, but jeezus.

Clyde Drexler led the Blazers to 2 NBA Finals, Scottie Pippen led the Bulls to one 2nd round appearance.

The Blazers were a very good team without Jordan, with Jordan they would've won 7-9 championships plausibly.

They were already making the NBA Finals by 1990.
Jordan + Drexler wouldn't work as they play same role - one would have to go.
There's a reason the blazers didn't take MJ as they had the two guard covered.
If you consider Jordan on blazers you need to subtract Drexler. You're looking at Porter & Robinson.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 07:45 PM

I always found this funny to think that Jordans berating his teammates would automatically get them in line. His teammates have always stated that Pippen offset Jordan's aggressive style and thus made it bearable.

Judging by Kemp's waist line post-1998 he needed someone to get on his ass for his own good.

Coddling players and telling them what they want to hear doesn't always do them favors. Kemp was a better player than what he showed in Cleveland and I don't think being babied further was the answer there.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 07:46 PM

Jordan + Drexler wouldn't work as they play same role - one would have to go.
There's a reason the blazers didn't take MJ as they had the two guard covered.
If you consider Jordan on blazers you need to subtract Drexler. You're looking at Porter & Robinson.

I bet it would've worked just fine. Drexler would've realized quickly that Jordan was better than him and adjusted accordingly, he wasn't a dick-ish personality in that way.

The Lakers probably would've been able to smack them around for a couple of years which would've focused them but by the late 80s the Lakers would be in trouble trying to hold that group back especially with Kareem aging.

These rules are always dumb and arbitrary just like once upon a time it was a "fact" in the NBA that having a scoring leader on your team meant no championships and you can't possibly build a team around a wing player, only through the center position. Today we consider this stuff absurd, but mainly because Jordan basically re-wrote these rules.

Not taking Jordan when they had the chance is the biggest blunder in NBA history. Period. The Bulls conversely hit the biggest jackpot in pro sports history.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-26-2020, 08:03 PM

Kerr just days ago said Pippen wa. People always underrate Pippen's leadership role and inflate MJ's.

Cool. And in the doc, Grant, Phil, Paxon and Wennington all said Jordan was.

I think some people like to be coddled and told things are OK. They don't like confrontation. Jordan's style was to light a fire under his teammates' ass. So they would be ready for big games.

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 08:13 PM

Cool. And in the doc, Grant, Phil, Paxon and Wennington all said Jordan was.

I think some people like to be coddled and told things are OK. They don't like confrontation. Jordan's style was to light a fire under his teammates' ass. So they would be ready for big games.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nba.com/amp/bulls/history/pippenhof_wennington_100802.html

Wennington has also said Pip was his favorite teammate

Roundball_Rock

04-26-2020, 09:22 PM

Pippen was a very good player, but so was Kemp, that's a lateral move at best for both teams I think

That's because you diminish Pippen and inflate Kemp (and anyone else who MJ played against). They weren't equal. Kemp was not a MVP caliber player nor an all-NBA first team caliber guy. There are different levels of greatness.

Shawn Kemp was a really impressive player before he got fat and lazy in Cleveland. If he was traded to Chicago at least for 97-98 season he would have to stay in shape or get murdered by Jordan.

He was good in Cleveland for a while. So we saw the scenario of a rebuilding type team with Kemp as their franchise player while Kemp was still Kemp.

I don't think Pippen + Payton win a title ... Pippen teamed up with better players in Olajuwon and Barkley and then had a loaded team in Portland and couldn't even make the Finals.

Pippen, Hakeem, Barkley were all past their primes by then. Since you know Kemp got fat you know that. In Pippen's case, he was never the same after his back injury in the 98' finals.

I always found this funny to think that Jordans berating his teammates would automatically get them in line. His teammates have always stated that Pippen offset Jordan's aggressive style and thus made it bearable.

They never credit Pippen's leadership role. Jordan's shtick only worked when PJ and Pip were around.

I bet it would've worked just fine. Drexler would've realized quickly that Jordan was better than him and adjusted accordingly, he wasn't a dick-ish personality in that way.

Possibly but they were very similar. There is only one basketball. How would Drexler react to MJ being the ball hog he was before PJ?

And in the doc, Grant, Phil, Paxon and Wennington all said Jordan was.

I don't recall their specific comments but Kerr's (on ESPN on The Jump) was basically what you said but regarding Pippen as the guy who kept it all together. It is a MJ doc so it will promote him. Wennington in particular raved about Pippen's leadership in his book. Wennington said he would take Pippen over Jordan if starting a team.

Jordan had a role but he couldn't operate as the glue because he lacked the relationships, accessibility, and personality to do so. What he did as the "bad cop" he didn't need much face time with the players to do.

Wennington has also said Pip was his favorite teammate

Basically the entire team would say that. Even Kukoc has Pippen as his favorite teammate.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 09:30 PM

That's because you diminish Pippen and inflate Kemp (and anyone else who MJ played against). They weren't equal. Kemp was not a MVP caliber player nor an all-NBA first team caliber guy. There are different levels of greatness.

He was good in Cleveland for a while. So we saw the scenario of a rebuilding type team with Kemp as their franchise player while Kemp was still Kemp.

Pippen, Hakeem, Barkley were all past their primes by then. Since you know Kemp got fat you know that. In Pippen's case, he was never the same after his back injury in the 98' finals.

They never credit Pippen's leadership role. Jordan's shtick only worked when PJ and Pip were around.

Possibly but they were very similar. There is only one basketball. How would Drexler react to MJ being the ball hog he was before PJ?

I don't recall their specific comments but Kerr's (on ESPN on The Jump) was basically what you said but regarding Pippen as the guy who kept it all together. It is a MJ doc so it will promote him. Wennington in particular raved about Pippen's leadership in his book. Wennington said he would take Pippen over Jordan if starting a team.

Jordan had a role but he couldn't operate as the glue because he lacked the relationships, accessibility, and personality to do so. What he did as the "bad cop" he didn't need much face time with the players to do.

Basically the entire team would say that. Even Kukoc has Pippen as his favorite teammate.

I don't think Kemp is that far behind Scottie Pippen at all, people don't know how good of a player Kemp was.

The fact of the matter there is also an inflation when you are on a glamour team like the 90s Bulls, you get an inflation of how good you are relative to other players.

Happens with every team, like the Celtics, Lakers, etc. the support players become a bit overrated, meanwhile guys who are busting their ass and not winning titles, getting into Finals, every year get a bit underrated most likely.

If Shawn Kemp won several titles playing alongside Jordan or Shaq, people would be talking about him as an all-time great.

I'm sorry but the whole "Jordan could only win with Pippen" narrative this board and really only this board tries to desperately to push is bull shit. Players that are on the level of Jordan, Shaq, yes I'll even put LeBron in that mix are going to win titles, it's just a matter of when, not if and who will be riding shot gun for the ride. Even Kobe you could see that shit was coming, he was too good to not win eventually with some other supporting cast (but make no mistake he was the defacto no.1 reason).

That's how basketball and virtually every pro sport works. You cannot hold down players like that forever you can only delay the inevitable. If the Bulls never got their act together, Jordan simply would've gone elsewhere like Barkley did and won with some other more competent organization, like probably the Knicks or Lakers.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-26-2020, 09:37 PM

Forgot about BJ Armstrong and Rodman. They also said Mike was that dude.

Of course Pippen had teammates who liked him. He was a nice guy and someone they could befriend. Mike ruled with an iron fist and held everyone accountable. ALL THE TIME. Pippen fans claim that only worked because their boy was there. I say without Jordan, their boy quit on the team when they needed him most.

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 09:45 PM

LeCroix

04-26-2020, 09:49 PM

Jordan left the Bulls in the middle of a dynasty. His decision to abruptly retire cost the Bulls at least 1 ring.

think to this, bulls can win in 94 with mj i think its possible. hakeem is a match up but mj is stronger. but then think to this, mj was fatigue tired in 1996 so maybe he loses that one or loses in 98. I think he can be first ever to win 4 in a row but i dont know about 7 in total it will not add up with his mind being fatigued

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

04-26-2020, 09:54 PM

Jordan left the Bulls in the middle of a dynasty. His decision to abruptly retire cost the Bulls at least 1 ring.

None of the Chicago players thought Jordan quit on them. Big difference. Pippen on the other hand...Well, watch the documentary yourself.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 09:59 PM

None of the Chicago players thought Jordan quit on them. Big difference. Pippen on the other hand...Well, watch the documentary yourself.

Everyone knew MJ was not right after his dad died, you can't really hold that against a player. The whole baseball thing was his way of grieving his father and it came full circle on father's day 1996 where they won the 4th title. Almost everything about his Bulls career has some kind of story book like element to it.

Pippen's a great player, but purposefully not getting surgery in the summer to punish the team because you're angry over a contract that you signed (even though the owner told you not to sign it) and can't be renegotiated anyway on top of that throwing a childish tantrum on the bench over Kukoc getting a play called for him and being yelled at by Cartwright on the bench like an 8 year old that won't listen to their parents weren't great looks.

Lets be honest this board would crucify Jordan (or Kobe or LeBron) if he did either of those things, people scraping at whatever they can get (oh noez! Jordan didn't sign an autograph for Chamillionaire that one time when he was trying to have fun at a club, what a scandal, lol).

The Kukoc thing especailly, if a superstar player did that today and was caught on camera refusing to go into the game and getting yelled at by a veteran member of the team ... social media would f**king lose their damn minds.

Axe

04-26-2020, 10:03 PM

Jordan left the Bulls in the middle of a dynasty. His decision to abruptly retire cost the Bulls at least 1 ring.
It's still a big mystery for all of us why he intended to retire after his first 3-peat.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 10:07 PM

It's still a big mystery for all of us why he intended to retire after his first 3-peat.

He never did, after they won the 3rd title his post-game interview he's talking about winning no.4 the next year. He may have pondered it but I doubt it was ever serious until what happened in summer 1993 happened.

Retiring and going to play baseball was part of his grieving process over losing his father. Life is bigger than dribbling a basketball, believe it or not.

Axe

04-26-2020, 10:10 PM

He never did, after they won the 3rd title his post-game interview he's talking about winning no.4.

Retiring and going to play baseball was part of his grieving process over losing his father. Life is bigger than dribbling a basketball, believe it or not.
Lmao that's not what I'm talking about when i said that but yes. His father's undeserving sudden demise could be a contributing factor to his decision to abruptly retire back then.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 10:12 PM

Lmao that's not what I'm talking about when i said that but yes. His father's undeserving sudden demise could be a contributing factor to his decision to abruptly retire back then.

Contributing? It was obviously the clear factor, he doesn't have to say it. You can see even though he has the tough/ruthless persona he is a human being and emotional like everyone else, like people who were surprised that he cried at Kobe Bryant's funeral, I'm like did you miss championship no.1 and 4? He is effected by emotion just like any regular person. He's not some machine.

He happens to be the best basketball player ever, but he's just a person outside of that.

Axe

04-26-2020, 10:13 PM

Contributing? It was obviously the clear factor, he doesn't have to say it. You can see even though he has the tough/ruthless persona he is a human being and emotional like everyone else, like people who were surprised that he cried at Kobe Bryant's funeral, I'm like did you miss championship no.1 and 4? He is affected by emotion just like any regular person. He's not some machine.
Unfortunately, there is something beyond that once you see it. It happened during one of his team's postseason games way back in 1993.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 10:17 PM

Unfortunately, there is something beyond that once you see it. It happened during one of his team's postseason games way back in 1993.

I haven't seen the whole documentary but you can see it even now any time he speaks about his dad, you can see his eyes start to well.

That was just a strange odyssey he needed to go on to grieve, it's like the richest person on the planet going to live on some hippie plantation with no running water or something for 18 months before snapping back to themselves, lol. It's like something out of a movie. He needed to do that. No one faults him for it, his teammates knew that, they knew how close he was to his dad. It didn't need to be said aloud.

Axe

04-26-2020, 10:19 PM

I haven't seen the whole documentary but you can see it even now any time he speaks about his dad, you can see his eyes start to well.

That was just a strange odyssey he needed to go on to grieve, it's like the richest person on the planet going to live on some hippie plantation with no running water or something, lol. It's like something out of a movie. He needed to do that. No one faults him for it.
Yeah but even before his dad passed away, it was said that he already had intentions to retire after the '93 season as well.

97 bulls

04-26-2020, 10:22 PM

I haven't seen the whole documentary but you can see it even now any time he speaks about his dad, you can see his eyes start to well.

That was just a strange odyssey he needed to go on to grieve, it's like the richest person on the planet going to live on some hippie plantation with no running water or something for 18 months before snapping back to themselves, lol. It's like something out of a movie. He needed to do that. No one faults him for it, his teammates knew that, they knew how close he was to his dad. It didn't need to be said aloud.

I absolutely agree. Jordan did what he needed to do. So did Pippen.

Soundwave

04-26-2020, 10:23 PM

Yeah but even before his dad passed away, it was said that he already had intentions to retire after the '93 season as well.

Which I don't buy.

I think it is true he was growing tired of being so damn famous that he couldn't literally even take a shit in a public toilet in peace (he had to do it once and according to him people were sliding photos under the stall for him to autograph as he's trying to shit ... imagine that being your life).

I think he did in a hypothetical way discuss with his dad trying baseball.

I also think he wasn't serious about any of that. He clearly says in the presser after the Bulls beat Phoenix in '93 that he wanted to go 4-peat.

That all changed after summer 1993, which hey, he's a human being, he's allowed to take some time for himself if that's what he needed.