Why Scottie Pippen Was As Important As Michael Jordan - BBALLBREAKDOWN

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen was selected above all those players in dream team 1 & 3

For the DT's. For All-NBA teams. On all-time lists. There literally is no metric by which anyone--outside of Jordanstan--thought Kemp, Mourning where anywhere near Pippen. Drexler was but there is a reason Pippen had 3 all-NBA 1st teams and Drexler only 1.

So we find ourselves 25 or so years later daily being told by MJ stans that Kemp, Mourning, Schrempf, etc. were better than Pippen and they are dumb enough to think people will buy fiction.

The irony is amusing: the same people that tout Jordan for having 6 rings now say it is unfair that Pippen has 6 rings. So the very people who trumpet rings now say it shouldn't matter because it is unfair.

[Phoenix]

Bulls were gifted finesse team with Jordan & Pippen. Even Grant a power forward was known for agility & trap defense. Pistons couldn't match them or most teams athletically & played tough d to slow opponents

That doesn't answer my question though. Which set of players would you take? I would take Rodman and Laimbeer over Grant and Cartwright. MJ/Pippen/Rodman were a great defensive trio in 96. That trio in 91?! Good luck. Who's equal on the Bulls to Aquirre? Dantley? Microwave?

[3ball]

That doesn't answer my question though. Which set of players would you take? I would take Rodman and Laimbeer over Grant and Cartwright. MJ/Pippen/Rodman were a great defensive trio in 96. That trio in 91?! Good luck. Who's equal on the Bulls to Aquirre? Dantley? Microwave?

Let's see who Isiah Thomas would take (1:48 mark)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6og_pOVi2w&t=1m34s

[Roundball_Rock]

That doesn't answer my question though. Which set of players would you take? I would take Rodman and Laimbeer over Grant and Cartwright. MJ/Pippen/Rodman were a great defensive trio in 96. That trio in 91?! Good luck. Who's equal on the Bulls to Aquirre? Dantley? Microwave?

We can't compare those rosters in a vacuum. When the Pistons first made the finals there were only 23 NBA teams; by 96' there were 29. Dilution was heavy. How far do you think a team with John Starks as its second best player would go in the 80's? 35 wins?

[aceman]

That doesn't answer my question though. Which set of players would you take? I would take Rodman and Laimbeer over Grant and Cartwright. MJ/Pippen/Rodman were a great defensive trio in 96. That trio in 91?! Good luck. Who's equal on the Bulls to Aquirre? Dantley? Microwave?

I'd take the team if you let them play basketball would actually win. I can't overstate the fact Pistons played the style they did because they didn't have the talent of other sides. Fans recasting them as a super team is pretty funny - no funnier then saying nobody rated Pippen in 90's I guess.
Put Jordan in place of Thomas - the sides next best scoring creator is sitting on bench & maybe third best too. Bulls blessed with three top scorers who were all defensive players - pistons needed instant offense whereas Bulls had luxury of subbing shooters who play off ball.
Pistons roster with exception of Rodman were defensive bruisers limiting possibility of transition points & taking away an advantage of Jordan's athleticism. Bulls squad maximized this.

[Elosha]

We can't compare those rosters in a vacuum. When the Pistons first made the finals there were only 23 NBA teams; by 96' there were 29. Dilution was heavy. How far do you think a team with John Starks as its second best player would go in the 80's? 35 wins?

Are you old enough to have actually watch the Knicks play in the 90s? If so, you would know the sum of their team was greater than their parts. They relied on hard-nosed, grinding, aggressive defense, some would say even bullying defense. You put them in the 80s and let them play the way they did in the 90s, and the Knicks give you 50 plus win seasons.

This seems to be yet another agenda-based post. Since you have said multiple times you believe the Knicks are the hardest team the Bulls faced, you are basically saying that a team the Bulls dynasty struggled with would onlyt win 35 games in the 80s. That's nonsense.

[Roundball_Rock]

Are you old enough to have actually watch the Knicks play in the 90s?

Yes--and I saw their offense were terrible even with Ewing, their only serious scoring threat. Without Ewing they would not be able to put enough points to compete.


Since you have said multiple times you believe the Knicks are the hardest team the Bulls faced, you are basically saying that a team the Bulls dynasty struggled with would onlyt win 35 games in the 80s

The point was you can't compare rosters from the post-expansion era to pre-expansion era. If the Knicks time travel back to 1985 the core of Ewing, Starks, Oakley will get another quality player or two. It wouldn't be the same core and Starks would not be the second option on a contender constructed in the 80's. If that same exact core, with no additions, goes back there (if we accept the fiction that rosters were not diluted so they would run back the same squad) they would be in trouble, though. Starks would be the #4 or #5 option on 80's contenders so any roster with him as a #2 is toast.

[3ball]

Yes--and I saw their offense were terrible even with Ewing, their only serious scoring threat. Without Ewing they would not be able to put enough points to compete.



The point was you can't compare rosters from the post-expansion era to pre-expansion era. If the Knicks time travel back to 1985 the core of Ewing, Starks, Oakley will get another quality player or two. It wouldn't be the same core and Starks would not be the second option on a contender constructed in the 80's. If that same exact core, with no additions, goes back there (if we accept the fiction that rosters were not diluted so they would run back the same squad) they would be in trouble, though. Starks would be the #4 or #5 option on 80's contenders so any roster with him as a #2 is toast.

Ewing had a higher-scoring 2nd option than MJ in 1992 when X-man averaged 19 on 50% and bullied Pippen into submission (16 on 40%)...

Only after mj had the legendary confrontation with X-man in Game 7 did the Bulls win...

Remember - taking away Pippen via intimidation is how the Pistons won, and the Knicks almost did the same thing.. Pippen was so vulnerable.. but mj was used to beating great teams with poor scoring and efficiency from Pippen... Only MJ beat good teams with poor scoring and efficiency from his sidekick, aka only MJ had carry-jobs against good teams

[Phoenix]

We can't compare those rosters in a vacuum. When the Pistons first made the finals there were only 23 NBA teams; by 96' there were 29. Dilution was heavy. How far do you think a team with John Starks as its second best player would go in the 80's? 35 wins?

I wasn't comparing the pre expansion Pistons with the post expansion Bulls. I'm comparing them when they were facing each other between 88 and 91 so comparing them in a vacuum directly is fine.

[Phoenix]

I'd take the team if you let them play basketball would actually win. I can't overstate the fact Pistons played the style they did because they didn't have the talent of other sides. Fans recasting them as a super team is pretty funny - no funnier then saying nobody rated Pippen in 90's I guess.
Put Jordan in place of Thomas - the sides next best scoring creator is sitting on bench & maybe third best too. Bulls blessed with three top scorers who were all defensive players - pistons needed instant offense whereas Bulls had luxury of subbing shooters who play off ball.
Pistons roster with exception of Rodman were defensive bruisers limiting possibility of transition points & taking away an advantage of Jordan's athleticism. Bulls squad maximized this.

Dude, lets take this back to the beginning because something is being lost in translation. You basically said the Bulls were more talented than the Pistons. The way I interpreted that was when they were facing each other between 88 and 91. So I asked, take the two best players off each team WHEN they were facing each other from 88 to 91, MJ/Pip and Isiah/Dumars. Still with me? Ok.....Now which roster are you rolling with? Are you taking Grant over Rodman? Are you taking Cartwright over Laimbeer? Are you taking Paxson or BJ over Vinnie? Are you taking Will Perdue and Staxey King over James Edwards and John Salley Who are you taking over Dantley and Aguirre?

I'm talking about a man by man comparison between the 88 and 91 Bulls and Pistons rosters. I'm repeating this to again clarify my stance. Now you're saying the team that's allowed to play ball wins. And by 91 you are right but that's because guys like Pippen and Grant developed. The Bulls in 88 and 89 weren't more talented. If memory serves the roughhouse tactics started in the 89 series and that was due to devising a way to slow down MJ knowing that if you take him out, the rest of the team * at that time* otherwise wasn't good enough to counteract that. By 90 comparatively speaking the Bulls had closed the talent gap but it's close. But generally speaking? Talent? Alot of those Pistons roles players I would take the Bulls ones just comparing their rosters down the line.

[aceman]

Dude, lets take this back to the beginning because something is being lost in translation. You basically said the Bulls were more talented than the Pistons. The way I interpreted that was when they were facing each other between 88 and 91. So I asked, take the two best players off each team WHEN they were facing each other from 88 to 91, MJ/Pip and Isiah/Dumars. Still with me? Ok.....Now which roster are you rolling with? Are you taking Grant over Rodman? Are you taking Cartwright over Laimbeer? Are you taking Paxson or BJ over Vinnie? Are you taking Will Perdue and Staxey King over James Edwards and John Salley Who are you taking over Dantley and Aguirre?

I'm talking about a man by man comparison between the 88 and 91 Bulls and Pistons rosters. I'm repeating this to again clarify my stance. Now you're saying the team that's allowed to play ball wins. And by 91 you are right but that's because guys like Pippen and Grant developed. The Bulls in 88 and 89 weren't more talented. If memory serves the roughhouse tactics started in the 89 series and that was due to devising a way to slow down MJ knowing that if you take him out, the rest of the team * at that time* otherwise wasn't good enough to counteract that. By 90 comparatively speaking the Bulls had closed the talent gap but it's close. But generally speaking? Talent? Alot of those Pistons roles players I would take the Bulls ones just comparing their rosters down the line.
I know you're avoiding my point - Basketball doesn't work like that: if Pistons had Pippen instead of Rodman they wouldn't need agurrie off bench. That shows starting 5 struggles to create shot. Anyway..
Sf Pippen over Rodman
pf Grant over Edwards
C Cartwright over Laimbeer. Bulls traded Oakley Laimbeer's value never that high.
G Dumars over Paxson
BG Armstrong over Johnson. BJ proven All Star & starter.
B scorer Agurrie over Hodges
Bf levingston or Salley. I mean who cares

[Phoenix]

I know you're avoiding my point - Basketball doesn't work like that: if Pistons had Pippen instead of Rodman they wouldn't need agurrie off bench. That shows starting 5 struggles to create shot. Anyway..
Sf Pippen over Rodman
pf Grant over Edwards
C Cartwright over Laimbeer. Bulls traded Oakley Laimbeer's value never that high.
G Dumars over Paxson
BG Armstrong over Johnson. BJ proven All Star & starter.
B scorer Agurrie over Hodges
Bf levingston or Salley. I mean who cares

I'm not avoiding your point at all, in fact I would say you're deliberately avoiding mine or acting like you have comprehension issues. Who said anything about the Pistons having Pippen over Rodman? I said who would you take between Rodman and GRANT? I isolated MJ/Pippen and Isiah/Dumars and then said compare the rosters AROUND them between 88-91. Do you need that bolded and underlined? That's a very simple concept that I've repeated multiple times so lets see if you keep creating strawman scenarios like ' if the Pistons had Pippen instead of Rodman blah blah'. Stop, nowhere did I say anything of that nature. Moving on:

Cartwright and Laimbeer? You really gonna sit there and type that with a straight face that Cartwright was better when they were facing each other?

Why are you talking about BJ being an all star in 94 comparing him to Vinnie?! I'm talking about 88-91! You really thought you could sneak that in and then say *I'm* avoiding *your* point?! FOH.

[aceman]

I'm not avoiding your point at all, in fact I would say you're deliberately avoiding mine or acting like you have comprehension issues. Who said anything about the Pistons having Pippen over Rodman? I said who would you take between Rodman and GRANT? I isolated MJ/Pippen and Isiah/Dumars and then said compare the rosters AROUND them between 88-91. Do you need that bolded and underlined? That's a very simple concept that I've repeated multiple times so lets see if you keep creating strowman scenarios like ' if the Pistons had Pippen instead of Rodman blah blah'. Stop, nowhere did I say anything of that nature. Moving on:

Cartwright and Laimbeer? You really gonna sit there and type that with a straight face that Cartwright was better when they were facing each other?

Why are you talking about BJ being an all star in 94 comparing him to Vinnie?! I'm talking about 88-91! You really thought you could sneak that in and then say * I'm* avoiding your point?! FOH.

I played your stupid game of lining up teams man for man which goes against everything involved in building teams. Teams don't look to have a stack of star scorers off bench because they'll never see court time & it's a waste of money. Playing slots are used to address weaknesses & compliment players. What does it say about pistons needing to trade for scorer in agurrie?
You on purpose excluded Pippen & then listed Rodman as pf even tho he was sf in 1991. Too bad.
Comparing positions fairer way - Cartwright better low post scorer than Laimbeer who can't create own shot.
We talking championship team vs championship team 90 vs 91.
Bulls win here

[Phoenix]

I played your stupid game of lining up teams man for man which goes against everything involved in building teams. Teams don't look to have a stack of star scorers off bench because they'll never see court time & it's a waste of money. Playing slots are used to address weaknesses & compliment players. What does it say about pistons needing to trade for scorer in agurrie?
You on purpose excluded Pippen & then listed Rodman as pf even tho he was sf in 1991. Too bad.
Comparing positions fairer way - Cartwright better low post scorer than Laimbeer who can't create own shot.
We talking championship team vs championship team 90 vs 91.
Bulls win here

First, I didn't 'purposely' exclude Pippen. I isolated him and MJ as the two best players on the Bulls, same as I did with Isiah and Dumars. A point I've already said more than once and you're acting like you don't comprehend. Rodman may have been small forward on the Pistons but drop him on the Bulls in 90 and he would have lined up at the 4 with Pip at the 3. So my point asking who is better......Rodman or Grant.....remains. We're talking talent, which is what YOU brought up. And now you're trying to obfusticate that with some very transparent sleight of hand, but it's not working. Theres no stupid game being played. You said the Bulls were more talented. Which version? The Bulls weren't the same team every year between 88 and 91. Neither were the Pistons. The only thing stupid is you making a blanket statement about talent and now you're all over the place when I ask you to break down the rosters when they were facing each other and asking you to qualify your statement. Where you then use 94 BJ Armstrong in an argument about Vinnie Johnson for teams facing each other between 88 and 91, and acting like you aren't being disingenuous.

Laimbeer was a better player than Cartwright between 88 and 91. Again, you single out Cartwright being a better low post scorer as if he was Hakeem down there. Laimbeer was a better shooter who averaged 13/10 when the Pistons won. Cartwright? 12/7 numbers those same years. Cartwright in 91?
10/6. But he's better than Laimbeer. OK bud.

Third 'we' never established what was being discussed exactly. You said the Bulls were more talented than the Pistons. NOW you're qualifying that by saying the 91 Bulls vs the 90 Pistons. Its arguable. And that was due to the development of Pippen and Grant, especially Pip which is considered the first year of his prime. However, The 88 Bulls were not more talented than the 88 Pistons. The 89 Bulls were not more talented than the 89 Pistons. The 90 Bulls were not more talented than the 90 Pistons. Were the 91 Bulls more talented than the 90 Pistons? Possibly, but the 91 Bulls didn't play the 90 Pistons. They played the 91 Pistons.....and the 91 Pistons werent as good as the 90 Pistons. Or the 89 Pistons. Or the 88 Pistons. Its hilarious that I actually have to spell that out in its simplest form. When the Bulls were losing to Detroit in 88-90? It wasnt just because the Pistons were physically beating them up. It was because the 88-90 Bulls were simply not as good. They were NOT as talented those years.

[aceman]

First, I didn't 'purposely' exclude Pippen. I isolated him and MJ as the two best players on the Bulls, same as I did with Isiah and Dumars. A point I've already said more than once and you're acting like you don't comprehend. Rodman may have been small forward on the Pistons but drop him on the Bulls in 90 and he would have lined up at the 4 with Pip at the 3. So my point asking who is better......Rodman or Grant.....remains. We're talking talent, which is what YOU brought up. And now you're trying to obfusticate that with some very transparent sleight of hand, but it's not working. Theres no stupid game being played. You said the Bulls were more talented. Which version? The Bulls weren't the same team every year between 88 and 91. Neither were the Pistons. The only thing stupid is you making a blanket statement about talent and now you're all over the place when I ask you to break down the rosters when they were facing each other and asking you to qualify your statement. Where you then use 94 BJ Armstrong in an argument about Vinnie Johnson for teams facing each other between 88 and 91, and acting like you aren't being disingenuous.

Laimbeer was a better player than Cartwright between 88 and 91. Again, you single out Cartwright being a better low post scorer as if he was Hakeem down there. Laimbeer was a better shooter who averaged 13/10 when the Pistons won. Cartwright? 12/7 numbers those same years. Cartwright in 91?
10/6. But he's better than Laimbeer. OK bud.

Third 'we' never established what was being discussed exactly. You said the Bulls were more talented than the Pistons. NOW you're qualifying that by saying the 91 Bulls vs the 90 Pistons. Its arguable. And that was due to the development of Pippen and Grant, especially Pip which is considered the first year of his prime. However, The 88 Bulls were not more talented than the 88 Pistons. The 89 Bulls were not more talented than the 89 Pistons. The 90 Bulls were not more talented than the 90 Pistons. Were the 91 Bulls more talented than the 90 Pistons? Possibly, but the 91 Bulls didn't play the 90 Pistons. They played the 91 Pistons.....and the 91 Pistons werent as good as the 90 Pistons. Or the 89 Pistons. Or the 88 Pistons. Its hilarious that I actually have to spell that out in its simplest form. When the Bulls were losing to Detroit in 88-90? It wasnt just because the Pistons were physically beating them up. It was because the 88-90 Bulls were simply not as good. They were NOT as talented those years.

Not only is this exercise stupid & irrelevant you actually tried rig it to get result you wanted; you excluded Pippen. This argument is about Jordan's teams & you eliminate his greatest teammate. Then you list Rodman out of position although I can see reason for taking two way Grant anyway. After that you want compare a championship team with a non championship team? Should be clear to even you that when you need to bend rules this far your argument is probably wrong.
Cartwright was a good enough low post scorer for bulls to trade future all star Oakley. This ability made him more valuable than Laimbeer - I don't see other teams making comparable trade. Cartwright averaged 9 points in 91 playoffs to Laimbeer 10 playing along side Jordan & Pippen.
Bj future all star with more rounded game than Johnson. Neither selection outrageous.

[aceman]

First, I didn't 'purposely' exclude Pippen. I isolated him and MJ as the two best players on the Bulls, same as I did with Isiah and Dumars. A point I've already said more than once and you're acting like you don't comprehend. Rodman may have been small forward on the Pistons but drop him on the Bulls in 90 and he would have lined up at the 4 with Pip at the 3. So my point asking who is better......Rodman or Grant.....remains. We're talking talent, which is what YOU brought up. And now you're trying to obfusticate that with some very transparent sleight of hand, but it's not working. Theres no stupid game being played. You said the Bulls were more talented. Which version? The Bulls weren't the same team every year between 88 and 91. Neither were the Pistons. The only thing stupid is you making a blanket statement about talent and now you're all over the place when I ask you to break down the rosters when they were facing each other and asking you to qualify your statement. Where you then use 94 BJ Armstrong in an argument about Vinnie Johnson for teams facing each other between 88 and 91, and acting like you aren't being disingenuous.

Laimbeer was a better player than Cartwright between 88 and 91. Again, you single out Cartwright being a better low post scorer as if he was Hakeem down there. Laimbeer was a better shooter who averaged 13/10 when the Pistons won. Cartwright? 12/7 numbers those same years. Cartwright in 91?
10/6. But he's better than Laimbeer. OK bud.

Third 'we' never established what was being discussed exactly. You said the Bulls were more talented than the Pistons. NOW you're qualifying that by saying the 91 Bulls vs the 90 Pistons. Its arguable. And that was due to the development of Pippen and Grant, especially Pip which is considered the first year of his prime. However, The 88 Bulls were not more talented than the 88 Pistons. The 89 Bulls were not more talented than the 89 Pistons. The 90 Bulls were not more talented than the 90 Pistons. Were the 91 Bulls more talented than the 90 Pistons? Possibly, but the 91 Bulls didn't play the 90 Pistons. They played the 91 Pistons.....and the 91 Pistons werent as good as the 90 Pistons. Or the 89 Pistons. Or the 88 Pistons. Its hilarious that I actually have to spell that out in its simplest form. When the Bulls were losing to Detroit in 88-90? It wasnt just because the Pistons were physically beating them up. It was because the 88-90 Bulls were simply not as good. They were NOT as talented those years.

Bulls may not have had talent to beat pistons in 1988 - 90 that doesn't mean pistons were more talented. Pistons beat Celtics & Lakers - would you make argument pistons had man for man more talent than those teams? Guess you'd have to play with parameters there again?
Pistons didn't win on talent - they won on defense & spoiling game. Bulls needed to get better to beat them. They traded for Cartwright. By your reckoning Oakley was probably a better player than Cartwright & this would make bulls weaker - but that shows how flawed comparing teams man for man is.
It's simplistic like something school kids do.
Pistons were not a super talented team - to present them as such takes tremendous manipulation of criteria & is just rewriting history

[ArbitraryWater]

But why isolate the sidekick

[aceman]

But why isolate the sidekick

Rigged

[Phoenix]

-snip-


Nah, you're playing games. Nothing is being rigged or rules being bent. This 'stupid' exercise started because you made a comment about relative talent and I replied to you. All I did was remove the two best players/stars off each team and asked you how are you coming to your conclusion.

But I can play your game. Let's just remove MJ and Isiah off their teams in 90 since I'm 'rigging the results'. Let's be clear, that means I am talking the 1990 versions of these rosters WITHOUT MJ and Isiah, since you like to play dumb ( or maybe not playing, the jury is out).

1990 Bulls: Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Paxson, BJ, Hodges, King

1990 Pistons: Dumars, Rodman, Aguirre, Laimbeer, Vinnie, Salley, Edwards

Easy? So no 'but BJ was an all star in 94' retorts now, yeah? We on the same level now? Ok let's continue. In what ways is that Bulls core of players above more talented from top to bottom than the Pistons players above? And really, I don't mind hearing an argument those out of those rosters above, the Bulls still had the better roster. Would take a hell of an argument, but I could be convinced. I don't expect that to come from you, however.

Saying the 91 Bulls is more talented than the 90 Pistons. Again, even if true this serves what point? Those versions of those teams didnt face off. *I'm* comparing the teams head to head the years they played each other. If anything, you trying to say 'but but I meant the 91 Bulls' is rigging the conversation, and that's because you know the Bulls prior to 91 weren't more talented. So you casually move the goalposts. Michael Jackons' estate should sue you for the level of moonwalking you're doing. My position has been consistent. And really, anyone rolling up to agree that the Bulls were more talented in the years they LOST are also full of shit, because theres a long list of posters on this forum who will argue all day that the Bulls only beat Detroit in 91 because they 'got old and injured'. By extension that means that earlier versions of the Bulls weren't better than earlier versions of the Pistons. By the time the Bulls got to 'that' level, the Pistons were on the slide. Highly common opinion. You're trying to argue that if the teams were just allowed to play basketball, the Bulls win. That's not even a feasible consideration before 90 at the ABSOLUTE earliest.

Rodman transitioned from being a small forward to a power forward with the Spurs. If the situation called for it Rodman would be at PF on the 90 Bulls. So you're trying to play semantics with their positions as a way to avoid the comparsion when you know full well that Rodman on the 90 Bulls would be assuming Horace's spot. Rodman was the DPOY. And a markedly better rebounder. No GM in their right mind would trade what Rodman was giving you in 1990 for what Horace was giving you. Horace at this best was a very good interior defender/rebounder, and a garbage points scorer. Rodman was a DPOY and has a case as the best pound for pound rebounder ever.

What does Oakley making the all-star team in 94 have to do with getting traded in 88 for Cartwright? It's like you comparing BJ in 90 with Vinnie by saying 'but BJ was an all-star in 94!' The Bull went a different direction and decided to trade Oakley because they needed a center and were lining up Horace to be their PF. You're trying to make it seem like the Bulls traded for Cartwright because he was going to be McHale down on the block for them.

[Manny98]

https://i.postimg.cc/zXfqh3jY/400.jpg

[Phoenix]

But why isolate the sidekick

Dont be that dude above. I isolated Isiah and Dumars, and MJ and Scottie as the two best players. How was it 'isolating' the sidekick? Furthermore, Scottie from 88 to 90 wasnt some great irreplaceable talent. He didnt become the 2nd best Bull till 89, and didn't really 'take off' till 91. And in that sense, along with Horace, that's the first year I would agree that the Bulls were more 'talented' but the Pistons also wasn't at their best. Now, what part of that do you disagree with?

[Phoenix]

https://i.postimg.cc/zXfqh3jY/400.jpg

You were swimming around in your dads nutz when this was happening, Junior. The adults are talking.

[Phoenix]

Bulls may not have had talent to beat pistons in 1988 - 90 that doesn't mean pistons were more talented. Pistons beat Celtics & Lakers - would you make argument pistons had man for man more talent than those teams? Guess you'd have to play with parameters there again?
Pistons didn't win on talent - they won on defense & spoiling game. Bulls needed to get better to beat them. They traded for Cartwright. By your reckoning Oakley was probably a better player than Cartwright & this would make bulls weaker - but that shows how flawed comparing teams man for man is.
It's simplistic like something school kids do.
Pistons were not a super talented team - to present them as such takes tremendous manipulation of criteria & is just rewriting history

The Pistons weren't more talented than the Lakers and Celtics but trying to equate that to the Bulls is false equivalence. The Pistons had Isiah Thomas, one of the great point guards in league history. Rodman, one of the greatest defenders and rebounders ever. Dumars, one of the great shooting guards and defenders. Adrian Dantley, a career 24ppg scorer and averaged 30 the year BEFORE he joined the Pistons. All 4 on the 89 team. And you......are saying I'm rewriting history in terms of their talent. You are trying to argue that MJ, second year Horace and Scottie, with Cartwright, Paxson, is more talented in that vacuum. The Pistons were physical in 91 but lost. What was the difference, since physicality is the only reason they were beating Chicago. Your words.

You have tons of people on this board who argue that the Bulls win 6 titles because the league was more diluted in the 90s. That means the Bulls level of talent didnt match the great 80s squads. That's what is being said there. Anyone now rolling up to argue against 'that' are hypocrites so I'm going to sit back and see who exposes their ass here.

[ArbitraryWater]

Dont be that dude above. I isolated Isiah and Dumars, and MJ and Scottie as the two best players. How was it 'isolating' the sidekick? Furthermore, Scottie from 88 to 90 wasnt some great irreplaceable talent. He didnt become the 2nd best Bull till 89, and didn't really 'take off' till 91. And in that sense, along with Horace, that's the first year I would agree that the Bulls were more 'talented' but the Pistons also wasn't at their best. Now, what part of that do you disagree with?

But why isolate the sidekicks.

It makes sense to isolate the best players to see who the rest is / what they had to work with. The sidekicks fall into that category.

[Phoenix]

But why isolate the sidekicks.

It makes sense to isolate the best players to see who the rest is / what they had to work with. The sidekicks fall into that category.

And with that said, my above post I said ok, just take MJ and Isaiah off those squads between 88 and 90. My position is consistent as far as depth of talent. My view is 91, coinciding with Scottie and Grant's ascension, and the decline of the Pistons, is the first year I would say the Bulls were more definitively talented.

What's your view?

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm comparing them when they were facing each other between 88 and 91 so comparing them in a vacuum directly is fine.

Got it.


why isolate the sidekick

That is odd. We are daily reminded Pippen was in the "supporting cast" but now he is separated from the other non-MJ players?


Furthermore, Scottie from 88 to 90 wasnt some great irreplaceable talent. He didnt become the 2nd best Bull till 89, and didn't really 'take off' till 91

A few caveats. 89' was his second season. By 90' he was an all-star, posting numbers similar to what he did in 90', although I agree per the eye test 91' was his real breakout.

The only reason I mention these things is it often is portrayed (not by you but others) that Pippen had this glacial ascent. He was a starter by around Christmas of his second season, he was an all-star by his third, an elite player by the end his fourth, by his fifth he was being discussed by Walton in Sports Illustrated as the 2nd or 3rd best player in an article that compared Pippen favorably (in the MJ-lite sense) to MJ. That is a rapid progression.

[Phoenix]

1) That is odd. We are daily reminded Pippen was in the "supporting cast" but now he is separated from the other non-MJ players?



2) A few caveats. 89' was his second season. By 90' he was an all-star, posting numbers similar to what he did in 90', although I agree per the eye test 91' was his real breakout.

The only reason I mention these things is it often is portrayed (not by you but others) that Pippen had this glacial ascent. He was a starter by around Christmas of his second season, he was an all-star by his third, an elite player by the end his fourth, by his fifth he was being discussed by Walton in Sports Illustrated as the 2nd or 3rd best player in an article that compared Pippen favorably (in the MJ-lite sense) to MJ. That is a rapid progression.

1) I've explained a few times why I did that. I took the best two players from each side and wanted to compare how the squads stacked up in terms of 'talent' once you removed them. Bear in mind that I took Dumars off the Pistons side so it's not like I isolated Pippen as the 2nd best Bull without doing the same for Detroit. I also then said ok, just remove MJ and Isiah then compare everyone else. I used 1990 because that's probably the only year the teams were 'nearly' a match for each other. The Pistons couldn't hang with Chicago in 91 and Chicago couldn't hang with Detroit in 88 and 89. So when you see me reference 1990 as I have, that would because that's probably the balance point, if that makes sense. Also, I'm not one of the ones who shit on Pippen here. In fact I believe I've already told you specifically that he's probably my 2nd favorite player and that I consider myself a 'fan' of the 90s Bulls in general.I basically stopped 'stanning' a team when they broke up in 98.

2) Pippen was an all-star in 90, but not one in 91 oddly enough even though he was better in 91. But I think most people would consider that the point he really took off was 91. That was the year he mentally caught up with his talent and skills. That was the year Rodman could knock him in the stands and he just get back up, dust himself off calmly, and go about his business.

[Roundball_Rock]

It was just odd to see Pippen separated out from the cast since we never see that here but I agree you are a good faith poster and not out there just looking to diss Pippen to diss Pippen. :cheers:


2) Pippen was an all-star in 90, but not one in 91 oddly enough even though he was better in 91. But I think most people would consider that the point he really took off was 91.

Agreed. He and the Bulls came alive in the second half of the season, continued through the playoffs and never looked back. Bill Simmons' thinks the best Bulls' "team" would be if you fuse the 91' playoffs team with the 92' RS team.

The 91' East all-star team is weird. Hersey Hawkins, Ricky Pierce made it but Pippen, Miller, Rodman who made the 90' team weren't on the 91' team.

[Phoenix]

:cheers:


It was just odd to see Pippen separated out from the cast since we never see that here but I agree you are a good faith poster and not out there just looking to diss Pippen to diss Pippen. :cheers:



Agreed. He and the Bulls came alive in the second half of the season, continued through the playoffs and never looked back. Bill Simmons' thinks the best Bulls' "team" would be if you fuse the 91' playoffs team with the 92' RS team.

The 91' East all-star team is weird. Hersey Hawkins, Ricky Pierce made it but Pippen, Miller, Rodman who made the 90' team weren't on the 91' team.

More or less. My recollection of that time period was that the 91 playoffs just naturally extended into the 92 season. The Bulls had the poise of a champion then and it was clear in how they carried themselves on-court.

[Roundball_Rock]

:cheers:



More or less. My recollection of that time period was that the 91 playoffs just naturally extended into the 92 season. The Bulls had the poise of a champion then and it was clear in how they carried themselves on-court.

Of course we can't cherry pick across years so that makes the debate of the GOAT Bulls team open. I still would pick the 92' team, even if they did had trouble in the second round. What about you? Usually it comes down to 96', 92' but 97' is overlooked. It was the same team--except the added Bison Dele (formerly Brian Williams).

[Phoenix]

Of course we can't cherry pick across years so that makes the debate of the GOAT Bulls team open. I still would pick the 92' team, even if they did had trouble in the second round. What about you? Usually it comes down to 96', 92' but 97' is overlooked. It was the same team--except the added Bison Dele (formerly Brian Williams).

I tend to look past things like records because there's always context there. I would probably lean 92 as well. MJ was pretty much 91 but another year of experience. Scottie was fully realized at this point. Horace was like 14/10 and probably about as good as he was in 94 when he made the all-star team. BJ was starting to show signs that he was ready to take over the 2nd backcourt spot from Paxson. Some would lean to 96 because MJ and Pippen were more battle-tested but I don't know.....you're basically talking MJ and Pip as close to the apex of their physical and mental primes as you were going to see in 92. Both young, completely healthy and could terrorise you defensively for 40 minutes a night. Throw Horace in there and that was the realization of the '3 doberman' defense at its peak.

The league was also stronger in 92 before the 95 expansion further spread talent around, so I personally don't put too much more stock in the 72 wins than I do the 67 wins in 92. I think that team after 95 was very capable of equalling or even exceeding 72. And in that instance, you're also talking about a 29 year old MJ/26 year old Pip being able to utilize the shorter 3point line that their older versions were able to leverage for a few years.

That reminds me, I haven't see that poster Carbine the last few days who was doing the Bulls playoff runs. Think he was up to the 92 series with Knicks IIRC.

[Roundball_Rock]

I tend to look past things like records because there's always context there. I would probably lean 92 as well. MJ was pretty much 91 but another year of experience. Scottie was fully realized at this point. Horace was like 14/10 and probably about as good as he was in 94 when he made the all-star team. BJ was starting to show signs that he was ready to take over the 2nd backcourt spot from Paxson. Some would lean to 96 because MJ and Pippen were more battle-tested but I don't know.....you're basically talking MJ and Pip as close to the apex of their physical and mental primes as you were going to see in 92. Both young, completely healthy and could terrorise you defensively for 40 minutes a night. Throw Horace in there and that was the realization of the '3 doberman' defense at its peak.

The league was also stronger in 92 before the 95 expansion further spread talent around, so I personally don't put too much more stock in the 72 wins than I do the 67 wins in 92. I think that team after 95 was very capable of equalling or even exceeding 72. And in that instance, you're also talking about a 29 year old MJ/26 year old Pip being able to utilize the shorter 3point line that their older versions were able to leverage for a few years.

That reminds me, I haven't see that poster Carbine the last few days who was doing the Bulls playoff runs. Think he was up to the 92 series with Knicks IIRC.

Great points. The case for the 96' or 97' team would be they had more depth, Jordan and Pippen were more polished (e.g., Pippen couldn't shot early on but was a viable threat from 3 in the second half of the 90's and had developed a solid post game). Athletically, though, 92' MJ/Pip/Grant>older MJ/Pip/Rodman. The depth talk is overstated. Yeah, they had Kukoc and Kerr but in 92' BJ was the 6th man so not exactly a slouch.

Re Carbine, he is in the Russell as GOAT thread today.

[Phoenix]

Great points. The case for the 96' or 97' team would be they had more depth, Jordan and Pippen were more polished (e.g., Pippen couldn't shot early on but was a viable threat from 3 in the second half of the 90's and had developed a solid post game). Athletically, though, 92' MJ/Pip/Grant>older MJ/Pip/Rodman. The depth talk is overstated. Yeah, they had Kukoc and Kerr but in 92' BJ was the 6th man so not exactly a slouch.

Re Carbine, he is in the Russell as GOAT thread today.

Yeah it's a fine line. It basically goes down to how much MJ and Pippen being the prime 'versions' of themselves balances out their 2nd 3peat experience and slight depth edge but as you said I don't think that's a dramatic difference. MJ/Scottie/Grant were also a healthier trio in 92. Pip got injured in 96 about 2/3 of the way through and was never as healthy as he was over the first 3peat. Rodman was incredibly valuable in 96 but started trending downwards and become more erratic over time by 98. The first 3peat Bulls had no equivalent to Kukoc but I'm not sure he swings the odds firmly to the 2nd 3peat team. Pros and cons to each side, really. I dont feel strongly enough about it to really disagree with someone taking 96.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah it's a fine line. It basically goes down to how much MJ and Pippen being the prime 'versions' of themselves balances out their 2nd 3peat experience and slight depth edge but as you said I don't think that's a dramatic difference. MJ/Scottie/Grant were also a healthier trio in 92. Pip got injured in 96 about 2/3 of the way through and was never as healthy as he was over the first 3peat. Rodman was incredibly valuable in 96 but started trending downwards and become more erratic over time by 98. The first 3peat Bulls had no equivalent to Kukoc but I'm not sure he swings the odds firmly to the 2nd 3peat team. Pros and cons to each side, really. I dont feel strongly enough about it to really disagree with someone taking 96.

Yeah I'm with you. Still three all-time great teams from that Bulls' era.

[Shooter]

Crushing

[3ball]

Jordan doubled pippen's scoring and averaged more assists while winning rings

It's literally the goat load - no one ever did that - this youtube person is just trying to rewrite history

Pippen was trash and the stats prove it... Or the eye test..

and everyone said he sucked back then.. no one tracked his production because they knew he wasn't a factor.. so no one blamed him to he many times he choked... he wasn't a real star despite the accolades (which always go to the winning team)

[dankok8]

Jordan doubled pippen's scoring and averaged more assists while winning rings

It's literally the goat load - no one ever did that - this youtube person is just trying to rewrite history

Pippen was trash and the stats prove it... Or the eye test..

and everyone said he sucked back then.. no one tracked his production because they knew he wasn't a factor.. so no one blamed him to he many times he choked... he wasn't a real star despite the accolades (which always go to the winning team)

It's takes like this why people troll you all the time. Pippen was a great player. Better than the help other superstars had? Maybe maybe not but to call Pippen a bum and say he sucked is just wrong.

[3ball]

It's takes like this why people troll you all the time. Pippen was a great player. Better than the help other superstars had? Maybe maybe not but to call Pippen a bum and say he sucked is just wrong.





19/7/5 on 42% in 6 Finals isn't great

And you're lying for saying it is


17/7/5 on 41% in the 96-98' playoffs isn't great

And you're lying for saying it is


16 on 40% in 2 Finals, 4 ECF and a critical 7-game ECSF isn't great

And you're lying for saying it is


16/6/5 career averages on weak efficiency isn't great

And you're lying for saying it is


Getting destroyed defensively by Dominique, X-man, Chris Mullin, a hobbled Worthy, rookie Dumas, Detlef Schrempf, Juwan Howard, Larry Johnson, Penny Hardaway, Mashburn - ****ing everyone - he has zero series of locking anyone down as the primary defender.. that isn't great

And you're lying for saying it is

literally everyone got their normal averages on him... but people became extremely accustomed to bringing up his defense, since his offense couldn't be complimented




Ultimately, pippen was lucky to play alongside MJ in the 2-star vs 2-star 90's, where anyone wins alongside the goat... Pippen wouldn't be enough help in the super-team 80's until 89' (once hof dantley left the pistons)

[Shooter]

So then if Pippen outscored the Finals #2 option 5 of 6 times (83%) of the time and was 3rd in MVP voting in 1994, but he was "trash" then what does that say about the weak 90s? Basically Tabo Sefolosha was top 3 in MVP voting in 1994? Is that the era you want to stand behind 3ball? :lol

LeBron > Kareem > Russell > Bird > Duncan > Magic > Jordan

[dankok8]

Pippen played all-time level defense. You can help your team win by playing D too.

Ignore these trolls 3ball. You won't convince a bunch of kids that never watched MJ that he is GOAT. Just like peeps who were alive in the 60's probably won't convince them that Russell is GOAT. It's hard to believe someone's testimony on something you've never seen with your own eyes. You just have to accept that for many future generations Lebron will be GOAT because he's the best player they've watched. Even my girl who never watched ball before meeting me 4 years ago thinks Lebron is the GOAT because she never watched anyone else and hasn't seen better. And that's fine...

[3ball]

So then if Pippen outscored the Finals #2 option 5 of 6 times (83%) of the time and was 3rd in MVP voting in 1994, but he was "trash" then what does that say about the weak 90s? Basically Tabo Sefolosha was top 3 in MVP voting in 1994? Is that the era you want to stand behind 3ball? :lol

LeBron > Kareem > Russell > Bird > Duncan > Magic > Jordan


1997 Finals

Pippen....... 20.0 ppg... 3.5 apg... 21 TO's... 42%
Stockton'... 15.0 ppg... 8.8 apg... 23 TO's... 50%


It's coincidence that pippen outscored the opposing #2 in the Finals because many other series he was outscored

Many #2"s were better than pippen including Stockton, Tim Hardaway, Penny, Kemp, KJ, and many more.. many other guys outplayed pippen too, like X-man, Willis or Juwan Howard

[3ball]

.
09' Mo Will... 17.2 PER... 2.3 BPM... 3.1 VORP... 0.165 WS/48
90' Pippen.... 16.3 PER... 1.8 BPM... 3.0 VORP... 0.087 WS/48

09' Mo Will... 17.8.. 3.4.. 4.1.. 59% ts... 115 ortg... 23.4 usage
90' Pippen.... 16.5.. 6.7.. 5.4.. 53% ts... 103 ortg... 21.0 usage


So MJ achieved a top 5 offense with less offensive help

Don't be surprised.. that's how weak pippen was offensively (Mo Williams level)




Pippen played all-time level defense. You can help your team win by playing D too.

Ignore these trolls 3ball. You won't convince a bunch of kids that never watched MJ that he is GOAT. Just like peeps who were alive in the 60's probably won't convince them that Russell is GOAT. It's hard to believe someone's testimony on something you've never seen with your own eyes. You just have to accept that for many future generations Lebron will be GOAT because he's the best player they've watched. Even my girl who never watched ball before meeting me 4 years ago thinks Lebron is the GOAT because she never watched anyone else and hasn't seen better. And that's fine...

Could the Lakers win with AD scoring like Pippen?

So the defense argument doesn't work for comparisons unless a player literally prevents a top defense, which is rare (kyrie and curry were on #1 defenses... and Mo Williams was on the #3 defense in 09', with better offense than 90' Pippen, see above)

And again, pippen didn't play good defense anyway - you can't provide a single example of him locking someone down as the primary defender - otoh, there's MANY MANY MANY examples of him getting destroyed.. I will make a thread that lists the dozens of examples on YouTube of a YouTuber detailing pippen getting destroyed.. there's a ton of them..

Also, the bulls only had the #7 defense during the 1st three-peat - 4 of 6 conference finals and Finals opponents had a better defense.. so pippen's "team" defense is overrated or bs

[Shooter]

1997 Finals

Pippen....... 20.0 ppg... 3.5 apg... 21 TO's... 42%
Stockton'... 15.0 ppg... 8.8 apg... 23 TO's... 50%


It's coincidence that pippen outscored the opposing #2 in the Finals because many other series he was outscored

Many #2"s were better than pippen including Stockton, Tim Hardaway, Penny, Kemp, KJ, and many more.. many other guys outplayed pippen too, like X-man, Willis or Juwan Howard

Why are you talking about 1997? :lol Stockton was outscored by Pippen PPGZ by a WIDE margin

Pippen produced nearly double Stockton's PPGz

next

[3ball]

.
Pippen couldn't handle quick wings with good handle like Hill or Kobe:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/NZrhCv.gif



Here's Kobe shaking his head after breaking Pippen BADLY in 99' - Pippen is joke to him:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/DtKoPr.gif..



But just a few months earlier, Jordan had no problem stuffing Kobe's crossover in 98' ASG:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/EStPHq.gif



Here's another one - Pippen can't handle Grant off-the-dribble - he can't stay in front:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-09-2015/5FXjSn.gif



But MJ can - he stays in front of Grant every step of the way and forces wild shot:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/n1LWjI.gif



Video about Chris Mullin destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NMThAlG-g


Video about Detlef Schrempf destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NMThAlG-g


Video about 18-year old Dirk dropping 52 on Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E1TxcLux7do&t=0m06s


Video about Barkley destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpkSSCTvrYU&t=81s&t=02m15s


Video about Grant Hill destroying Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pzH3-Ak7Acc


Video showing X-man destroying Pippen

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1992-nba-eastern-conference-semifinals-knicks-vs-bulls.html


Video showing Mashburn destroying Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRR3Jx8RvoI




^^^^^ that's the tip of the iceberg


The reason MJ was so much better defending quick ballhandlers like Hill, Kobe or Westbrook is because he was a 2-guard, and was the frequently the primary, all-game defender on quick point guards.

For example, MJ was matched up against Gary Payton from the TIP-OFF in Game 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meL62CUehuw&t=0m48s) and Game 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFiqeJcgXfg) of the NBA Finals and was the main defender throughout the game..

MJ was also the main defender and matched up from the tip-off against Isiah Thomas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9MfhFFE7fc&t=0m28s) and Rod Strickland (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3JqY3CECW8).. And we all know he was matched up from tip-off against Magic, when he guarded Magic for 14 of 20 quarters (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713075&postcount=45) (70%) in the 1991 Finals.

MJ's far greater experience playing quick ballhandling guards and his superior athleticism made him a better perimeter defender than Pippen..

[Shooter]

.
09' Mo Will... 17.2 PER... 2.3 BPM... 3.1 VORP... 0.165 WS/48
90' Pippen.... 16.3 PER... 1.8 BPM... 3.0 VORP... 0.087 WS/48

09' Mo Will... 17.8.. 3.4.. 4.1.. 59% ts... 115 ortg... 23.4 usage
90' Pippen.... 16.5.. 6.7.. 5.4.. 53% ts... 103 ortg... 21.0 usage


So MJ achieved a top 5 offense with less offensive help

Don't be surprised.. that's how weak pippen was offensively (Mo Williams level)





Could the Lakers win with AD scoring like Pippen?

So the defense argument doesn't work for comparisons unless a player literally prevents a top defense, which is rare (kyrie and curry were on #1 defenses... and Mo Williams was on the #3 defense in 09', with better offense than 90' Pippen, see above)

And again, pippen didn't play good defense anyway - you can't provide a single example of him locking someone down as the primary defender - otoh, there's MANY MANY MANY examples of him getting destroyed.. I will make a thread that lists the dozens of examples on YouTube of a YouTuber detailing pippen getting destroyed.. there's a ton of them..

Also, the bulls only had the #7 defense during the 1st three-peat - 4 of 6 conference finals and Finals opponents had a better defense.. so pippen's "team" defense is overrated or bs

What part of "Pippen outscored the opposition's #2 option in every Final" don't you understand? So the simple answer to your question is "Yes. Because the oppositions #2 option would score even less than him."

How dumb are you? :lol

[3ball]

What part of "Pippen outscored the opposition's #2 option in every Final" don't you understand? So the simple answer to your question is "Yes. Because the oppositions #2 option would score even less than him."

How dumb are you? :lol

Kyrie outscored the unanimous league MVP, and AD is outscored lebron and the entire league, yet you're bragging on Pippen outscoring a 2nd option?

Do you see the gap there?

It's nothing for a championship team to have a 2nd option score more - that's often a function of brand of ball.. otoh, when a 2nd option outscores the entire league (AD) or the league MVP - that's a function of superior talent

outscoring the league or the MVP > outscoring a 2nd option

[Shooter]

Kyrie outscored the unanimous league MVP, and AD is outscored lebron and the entire league, yet you're bragging on Pippen outscoring a 2nd option?

Don't run now, Mr. Low IQ

What part of "Pippen outscored the opposition's #2 option in every Final" don't you understand? So the simple answer to your question is "Yes. Because the oppositions #2 option would score even less than him."

[3ball]

Don't run now, Mr. Low IQ

What part of "Pippen outscored the opposition's #2 option in every Final" don't you understand? So the simple answer to your question is "Yes. Because the oppositions #2 option would score even less than him."

outscoring the league or the MVP > outscoring a 2nd option

It's nothing for a championship team to have a 2nd option score more - that's often a function of brand of ball.. otoh, when a 2nd option outscores the entire league (AD) or the league MVP - that's a function of superior talent

[Shooter]

outscoring the league or the MVP > outscoring a 2nd option

It's nothing for a championship team to have a 2nd option score more - that's often a function of brand of ball.. otoh, when a 2nd option outscores the entire league (AD) or the league MVP - that's a function of superior talent

So do you understand why your question was retarded now? :lol

[3ball]

So do you understand why your question was retarded now? :lol


2020 Playoffs

https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-15-2020/VHu9ez.gif


outscoring a 2nd option is nothing compared to outscoring the #1 option (Wade/Kyrie) or the entire league (AD above).

it's standard to outscore the 2nd option, especially for a winning team (although pippen was outscored in the majority of series in his career including portland..... and 40% of series as a Bull)

Ultimately, lebron needed 2 stars to win (2 pippen's), or a sidekick to outscore the whole league (AD)... btw, those 2 stars also outscored him (11' Wade), or matched him (16' Kyrie), whereas MJ averaged 10-30 more than pippen in every series

[light]

Common knowledge.

And MJ himself has made it known in no uncertain terms that he could not do it without Pippen, so the public is aware.

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/No-Pip-No-Chip.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/No-Pip-No-Chip-2.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/no-pip-no-chip-3.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/no-rings-for-mj.jpg

[3ball]

Common knowledge.

And MJ himself has made it known in no uncertain terms that he could not do it without Pippen, so the public is aware.

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/No-Pip-No-Chip.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/No-Pip-No-Chip-2.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/no-pip-no-chip-3.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/no-rings-for-mj.jpg

MJ didn't think kids would use it 30 years later to say he wasn't goat.. mj was a professional and said things that any true professional would say.

Despite pippen's many horrible series, Jordan never complained and stuck by his sidekick.. a true professional with character.. compare to lebron who always asks for more help and throws teammates under the bus

[3ball]

.
Pippen couldn't handle quick wings with good handle like Hill or Kobe:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/NZrhCv.gif



Here's Kobe shaking his head after breaking Pippen BADLY in 99' - Pippen is joke to him:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/DtKoPr.gif..



But just a few months earlier, Jordan had no problem stuffing Kobe's crossover in 98' ASG:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/EStPHq.gif



Here's another one - Pippen can't handle Grant off-the-dribble - he can't stay in front:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-09-2015/5FXjSn.gif



But MJ can - he stays in front of Grant every step of the way and forces wild shot:


http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/10-10-2015/n1LWjI.gif



Video about Chris Mullin destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NMThAlG-g


Video about Detlef Schrempf destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NMThAlG-g


Video about 18-year old Dirk dropping 52 on Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E1TxcLux7do&t=0m06s


Video about Barkley destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpkSSCTvrYU&t=81s&t=02m15s


Video about Grant Hill destroying Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pzH3-Ak7Acc


Video showing X-man destroying Pippen

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1992-nba-eastern-conference-semifinals-knicks-vs-bulls.html


Video showing Mashburn destroying Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRR3Jx8RvoI




^^^^^ that's the tip of the iceberg


The reason MJ was so much better defending quick ballhandlers like Hill, Kobe or Westbrook is because he was a 2-guard, and was the frequently the primary, all-game defender on quick point guards.

For example, MJ was matched up against Gary Payton from the TIP-OFF in Game 3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meL62CUehuw&t=0m48s) and Game 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFiqeJcgXfg) of the NBA Finals and was the main defender throughout the game..

MJ was also the main defender and matched up from the tip-off against Isiah Thomas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9MfhFFE7fc&t=0m28s) and Rod Strickland (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3JqY3CECW8).. And we all know he was matched up from tip-off against Magic, when he guarded Magic for 14 of 20 quarters (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=11713075&postcount=45) (70%) in the 1991 Finals.

MJ's far greater experience playing quick ballhandling guards and his superior athleticism made him a better perimeter defender than Pippen..

No one

Don't ever say pippen was a great defender again

[3ball]

.

Video about Chris Mullin destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zZszuAgyCCs


Video about Detlef Schrempf destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z5NMThAlG-g


Video about 18-year old Dirk dropping 52 on Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E1TxcLux7do&t=0m06s


Video about Barkley destroying Pippen:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NpkSSCTvrYU&t=02m15s


Video about Grant Hill destroying Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pzH3-Ak7Acc


Video showing X-man destroying Pippen

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1992-nba-eastern-conference-semifinals-knicks-vs-bulls.html


Video showing Mashburn destroying Pippen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bRR3Jx8RvoI




^^^^^ that's the tip of the iceberg


..


^^^ links corrected

[8Ball]

No one

Don't ever say pippen was a great defender again

Meltdown

[HoopsNY]

No one

Don't ever say pippen was a great defender again

So now Pippen wasn't a great defender? Bro what kind weed are you smoking cause it has some seriously profound effects.

[And1AllDay]

Common knowledge.

And MJ himself has made it known in no uncertain terms that he could not do it without Pippen, so the public is aware.

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/No-Pip-No-Chip.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/No-Pip-No-Chip-2.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/no-pip-no-chip-3.gif

https://s8.gifyu.com/images/no-rings-for-mj.jpg

bran bois walkin out droppin the mic like

https://i.postimg.cc/YCQYFZfH/m_scott_what.gif