Chris Mullin: Why Scottie Pippen is an All-Time Great, Pippen is Underrated

[Roundball_Rock]

Keep in mind Mullin both played against Pippen (both were elite SF's) and with Pippen (on the Dream Team).


Mullin believes that fans don’t give enough recognition to Pippen, whom he considers one of the greatest basketball players of all time. Pippen was known as a truly versatile player capable of scoring, passing, rebounding while at the same locking down the best players on the opposing teams. That was his trademark throughout his career, and Mullin considered him the best perimeter defender still to this day.


Scottie Pippen, to me, is one of the greatest players of all time. He plays with so much grace and ease. He does everything on the basketball court to perfection — defense, offense, rebounding, assists, scoring. He was an incredible athlete, and his defense was, I think, at that point in time in his career, probably what made him the best perimeter defender.

He and Michael together were just an incredible, tenacious, relentless duo. They won a lot of their games with their defense. A lot of those games, they won in the low 80s. They were just able to lock teams down and could play any style they needed to win the game. Scottie, he may be underrated with people that just watch and talk about the game. But if you played with him, against him or prepared as a coach to play against a team that Scottie Pippen was on, there’s no way you would underrate him in any facet of the game.

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/chris-mullin-explains-why-he-considers-scottie-pippen-one-of-the-greatest-players-in-nba-history/

[Stanley Kobrick]

:cheers:

[RogueBorg]

Keep in mind Mullin both played against Pippen (both were elite SF's) and with Pippen (on the Dream Team).





https://www.basketballnetwork.net/chris-mullin-explains-why-he-considers-scottie-pippen-one-of-the-greatest-players-in-nba-history/

You've made some outstanding arguments and have convinced me, Pippen is the best SF ever.

[Reggie43]

Could have probably won his own ring if he had the mental toughness to pair with his great all around skills and elite athleticism.

[Round Mound]

Pippen was the best perimeter defender ever. He was also one of the best playmaking SFs and defined the Point-Forward position. He could score, rebound, pass and defend. He wasn't the best scorer or shooter but lets remember he had Jordan taking 24 25 26 FGAs PG so he did not develop his scoring but mainly outside shooting. The year he wasn't with Jordan he averaged 22 on 49.1% FG that's pretty good for a none shooter let alone perimeter player.

[3ball]

.
the consensus on Pippen


https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/CcChfx.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/5VAKpu.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/MaeVZ6.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/J6Y2Y3.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/IPmP3I.gif



Stan Van Gundy on Pippen


"I have always wondered, as good as Scottie Pippen was, would he have been considered a star if he hadn’t played with Jordan and had to carry a team on his own,” Van Gundy explained. “We’ll never know, but my point is that sometimes we make the determination after the fact. In other words, after Chicago won championships, we branded Pippen a star."

[KD7]

.
the consensus on Pippen
No Pip, No Chip

https://i.postimg.cc/02pWC3Wk/Screenshot-20200605-001435.jpg



https://youtu.be/QqJoGpYPWwE

[3ball]

Teammate opinions don't count because they're forced to talk good and big up their teammates

The consensus was posted above...

[Nowitness]

From one consensus top 20 player to another.

Mully had his substance issues early on, but when sober he saw first hand Pippen was one of the greatest impact players ever and without question a top 6 player of the decade playing next to the limp alcoholic yellowed eyed chain smoker.

[3ball]

From one consensus top 20 player to another.

Mully had his substance issues early on, but when sober he saw first hand Pippen was one of the greatest impact players ever and without question a top 6 player of the decade playing next to the limp alcoholic yellowed eyed chain smoker.

Pippen isn't top 75 and has less impact on both ends than a big like Gasol... Pau > Pippen and if Pau had 2 three-peats with mj, he'd be recognized as such

[KD7]

Pippen isn't top 75 and has less impact on both ends than a big like Gasol... Pau > Pippen and if Pau had 2 three-peats with mj, he'd be recognized as such

:roll::roll::roll:

[light]

“He and Michael together were just an incredible, tenacious, relentless duo. They won a lot of their games with their defense. A lot of those games, they won in the low 80s. “

Phil Jackson basically said the same thing in his book The Last Season, page 45:


For all of Michael Jordan's acrobatic exploits and fierce leadership, we prevailed in Chicago because we shut down opponents for prolonged stretches, especially in the fourth quarter. Our quarterback on defense was Scottie Pippen.

And check out this mega-praise of Pippen from Michael Jordan via Phil Jackson's Eleven Rings, page 120:


An important shift took place in Barcelona that would have an enormous impact on the future of the Bulls. Michael returned from the games raving about Scottie's performance.

...after watching [Scottie] outplay Magic Johnson, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler, and other future Hall of Famers in Barcelona, Michael realized that Scottie was the best all-around player on what many consider the best basketball team ever assembled.

Scottie, Michael had to admit, had even outshone him in several of the games.

Read that again:

"Michael realized that Scottie was the best all-around player on what many consider the best basketball team ever assembled."

Wow. Must've been nice for MJ to have a sidekick like that.

I'm glad Scottie is finally getting his due as one of the all-time greats.

ESPN has him ranked at #21 but you could slide him into the top 20 and you wouldn't be wrong.

[Roundball_Rock]

3ball is pathetic. He couldn't find any evidence to support Jordanstan mythology about Pippen not being considered a superstar in the 90's so he is forced to resort to "Cougar Boards" (whatever that is), Skip Bayless, and random MJ stan writings 20 years after the fact. If he had shame this would be a new low, even for him. :roll:


From one consensus top 20 player to another.

Mully had his substance issues early on, but when sober he saw first hand Pippen was one of the greatest impact players ever and without question a top 6 player of the decade playing next to the limp alcoholic yellowed eyed chain smoker.

It is a shame Mullin's prime was cut short due to injury. He and Hardaway could have done some damage if they stayed together and healthy. GS also erred in getting rid of Richmond so soon. He would emerge as the third best SG of the era behind MJ and Drexler.


Pippen isn't top 75

Whatever makes the MJ stan circle jerks feel better. :lol In the real world the historical verdict is in: top 20-30 all-time.

[Roundball_Rock]

Phil Jackson basically said the same thing in his book The Last Season, page 45:

Great quotes. :cheers: Yeah, Jackson has said Pippen was the quarterback for the defense, the director of the offense, and the voice of the team. That is a lot of responsibility for a "sidekick." :oldlol:

Jackson also reportedly, according to Rick Telander, thinks Pippen was the MVP of the team. Telander would know what Jackson thinks because he covered the Bulls for years and even wrote a book on the team.


Telander: Jackson Thought Pippen More Valuable, Team Leader

Based on a statement by Rick Tellander, who worked for the Chicago Sun-Times and covered the Bulls for years, Coach Jackson himself occasionally hinted that Pippen was apparently more valuable than Jordan.

According to Tellander, Jackson’s statements suggested that Jordan was the biggest star in the team but it was actually Pippen who ran the team, Basketball Network reported.

“Phil Jackson, at times has said that Pippen is the team’s most valuable player. Where Jordan is the diamond pendant at the base of the gleaming necklace, Pippen is the thread running through the emeralds, pearls, and lesser stones that compose the whole,” Tellander stated.

Tellander even added that Pippen didn’t only imply a solid defensive approach, but that he was also the key factor in Jackson’s trademark “triangle offense.”

“He’s the glue that holds the Bulls’ triangle offense together, its Doberman defense in place. He’s the facilitator, a point forward who can bring the ball up the court, penetrate, shoot, rebound, hit open teammates, and guard anyone against point guards to power forwards. But most of all, he can play team ball,” Tellander added.



https://www.ibtimes.com/nba-phil-jackson-hinted-scottie-pippen-was-more-valuable-michael-jordan-2896546

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/phil-jackson-describes-the-importance-of-scottie-pippen-during-those-championship-runs-by-the-chicago-bulls/

Tex Winter:


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


And check out this mega-praise of Pippen from Michael Jordan via Phil Jackson's Eleven Rings, page 120:

:applause:

He also concluded Pippen>Stockton, Pippen>Drexler, and Pippen>retired Magic based on observing them play together on the Dream Team as the team's guards.

MJ also said Pippen was the best player in the NBA in 95', the MVP in 96'. In the Halberstam book he confirmed that he "meant it" when he said Pippen was the best player in 95'. MJ also is on record comparing Pippen favorably to Magic and Bird as a player who possessed greatness comparable to them on the court.

[RRR3]

Pippen isn't top 75 and has less impact on both ends than a big like Gasol... Pau > Pippen and if Pau had 2 three-peats with mj, he'd be recognized as such
Name the 75 you have over him then. Should be worth a laugh.

[Roundball_Rock]

Re, Pippen vs. Gasol, it is hard to compare them all-time because most lists cover only the top 50 and therefore Gasol doesn't make the cut. Here is how the two rank on some recent all-time lists:

ESPN: Pippen 21st, Gasol 65th
Slam: Pippen 22nd, Gasol 93rd
Backpicks: Pippen 24th, Gasol unranked (ranks only the top 40)

Dishonesty and Deception: a Case Study in 3ball's BS

Let's further demolish desperate 3ball's dishonesty. The "overrated" comment in the article he posted from ESPN? Here is the quote:


Kevin Pelton: That the timing of "The Last Dance" seems to be influencing the rankings. Scottie Pippen is the only player who was in the Hall of Fame at the time we last ranked players historically in 2016 to move up at least four spots from then, and Dennis Rodman also moved up two spots. Meanwhile, some of the players the Bulls vanquished in the Finals have tumbled: Gary Payton by 12 spots and Clyde Drexler by 21, the largest drop of anyone between the two lists.

That's it. So his comment is noting that Pippen moved up 4 spots, Rodman 2, while Payton and Drexler fell by 12 and 21 spots respectively and he speculated the "doc" drove the changes. Not exactly "Pippen sucks." Where does Pelton rank Pippen? 25th. There isn't much of a difference between 21st and 25th. :lol Here is the brief blurb on his ranking of Pippen:


In the first season after Michael Jordan's retirement, Pippen finished third in MVP voting and led the Bulls to 55 wins, just two fewer victories than in the previous season with Jordan.

(What people always forget is the Bulls went 4-6 without Pippen, a 33 win pace, but had a 58 win pace with Pippen, which would have been an improvement over 57 wins the prior year.)

The graphic for 21-25?

https://a.espncdn.com/photo/2016/0203/nbarank_25-21_1296x518.jpg

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/14671128/explaining-championships-added-all-nba-rank-kevin-pelton

Now when Pelton was asked to name the player in the top 74 who was ranked too high--his response was Maravich. He also blamed the "doc" for the most underrated player in his mind: Drexler.


Pelton: Clyde Drexler, who seems to have dropped mostly because of the focus in "The Last Dance" on the way Michael Jordan made him pay for the media claiming Drexler and Jordan were on the same level entering the 1992 NBA Finals. Drexler ranks 44th in my championships added metric, and the 13-spot difference from his finish in the voting is the largest for any player who retired after 1965 and played his entire career in the NBA.

Not exactly the dishonest impression 3ball/2ball gave about Pelton's views.

[guy]

Chris Mullin also said this :oldlol:: “I'm not going to say Michael made him. That's too strong because Scottie had a lot of game. But if Scottie plays with another guy, I'm not sure whether it's not just the gifts that wouldn't have come out, but also the drive.” Thread backfire. :oldlol:

[Rico2016]

No Pip, No Chip

https://i.postimg.cc/02pWC3Wk/Screenshot-20200605-001435.jpg



https://youtu.be/QqJoGpYPWwE

Decimation

[Rico2016]

Chris Mullin also said this :oldlol:: “I'm not going to say Michael made him. That's too strong because Scottie had a lot of game. But if Scottie plays with another guy, I'm not sure whether it's not just the gifts that wouldn't have come out, but also the drive.” Thread backfire. :oldlol:

And what would MJ do without Pippen...


No Pip

[Duncan21formvp]

Source: GoogleBooks (http://books.google.com/books?id=aQ84ViBNkYwC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=Game+Michael+Jordan+broke+his+leg&source=web&ots=Y9Xtn3nomR&sig=6shSn2cklYKVP1kBaC6nI0A_oko&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA39,M1)




Pippen, unlike other Bulls who usually kept their distance from Jordan, tried to learn all he could from Jordan in practice. In turn, Jordan worked with Pippen on his moves, jump shot, and defense and taught him mental toughness.





Pippen relates on how his game improved - Link (http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/jordanhof_pippen_090910.html)


http://www.nba.com/media/bulls/jordanpippen_090910.jpg




“He was very competitive, so he went at me and that helped me learn,” said Pippen. “You continue to compete against the very best every day, and you will get better, or you’ll be embarrassed.”




“I went to a small school, so I had to be a jack of all trades and master a few,” said Pippen. “Defense was one thing I was really able to work at and get better.

“A lot of my instincts came from guarding Michael all the time in practice,” he added. “I had four other guys on my team, but I had schemes that I would throw out there depending on what he did. I’d say, ‘If I make Michael do this, then you go trap him.’ There were things I tried to do on defense to trigger him into a
mistake. He was a great player, and if you couldn’t try it on him in practice, there was nowhere else to try it.”





http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-krausejordan090909



“Michael was great at identifying things,” Krause said. “Would Pippen have been great someplace else? Michael absolutely killed Scottie in practice every day for his first two years. Mike just tore Pip up. He made Pip learn how to compete and forced him into playing hard. Had there not been someone to challenge Scottie like that, I’m not sure what would’ve happened to him.”

[Duncan21formvp]

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_091030.html

Sam: I know there's that "he's a rookie thing," though I thought more with Rose was the way he drove and then was so quick he could avoid the contact. I think with him he was more accustomed to having just come out of playing in the Chicago playgrounds where you aren't going to get calls going to the basket. I remember watching Jordan not long after Pippen joined the Bulls showing Pippen how to drive and go into a defender and then finish your shot. Wade was a more mature player having gone to college several years, and Anthony played in the post and inside a lot. That's one area for Rose for improve. He's a quick study and I think you'll see him taking the hit since he's strong and can do it and drawing more calls this season.


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_091023.html



Would you still consider pippen to be included on the 50 greatest players list? I know that he pioneered/changed the way that his position was played creating more of a point-forward spot, which paved the way for players like melo and lebron. But he never did accomplish anything by himself, and proved in Portland that he couldn't carry a team.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sam: You can't judge with Portland given he was well past his athletic prime and had lost basically all his explosiveness and was operating on guile. He was a much smarter player than ever given credit for, though many still question his top 50 inclusion. The notion is if not for Jordan, there would be no chance. And I tend to agree. If he were picked by the Clippers at No. 4 in that draft as he should have been, he would not have been a top 50 player because he couldn't create that much for himself. But he wasn't and he was the No. 2 part of six championships and was a multiple defensive player and gold medalist on the Dream Team. So he deserves the recognition and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame as a result. Most everyone who has succeeded has benefitted from good timing on occasion. Pippen did as well, but he also made the most of it.
[/quote]


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/ask-sam-sam-smith-opens-his-mailbag-033012.html



Sam: I remember Jordan helping Pippen with this. In Pippen’s first several seasons, he rarely got calls on drives. Jordan used to show him — we were permitted to watch practice then — how to drive into contact and then react to the contact. Pippen used to practice it all the time with Jordan showing him.

[knicksman]

pippens skills are replaceable while jordans arent. You could replace pippen with rondo and howard and jordan still winning or replace him with kidd and chandler. Meanwhile lakers right now have 2 superstars yet nobody on that team could do what jordan does. Lebron or pippen have lots of skills but they arent valuable. Thats why jordan > lebron. Only nerds aka betas value lebron. Alpha dogs want to be the man in the clutch first and foremost. Being the best all around is just secondary.

[Rico2016]

pippens skills are replaceable while jordans arent. You could replace pippen with rondo and howard and jordan still winning or replace him with kidd and chandler. Meanwhile lakers right now have 2 superstars yet nobody on that team could do what jordan does. Lebron or pippen have lots of skills but they arent valuable. Thats why jordan > lebron. Only nerds aka betas value lebron. Alpha dogs want to be the man in the clutch first and foremost. Being the best all around is just secondary.

"Alpha" Knicksfan :lol


Quit it

[86Celtics]

.
the consensus on Pippen


https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/CcChfx.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/5VAKpu.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/MaeVZ6.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/J6Y2Y3.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-04-2020/IPmP3I.gif



Stan Van Gundy on Pippen


"I have always wondered, as good as Scottie Pippen was, would he have been considered a star if he hadn’t played with Jordan and had to carry a team on his own,” Van Gundy explained. “We’ll never know, but my point is that sometimes we make the determination after the fact. In other words, after Chicago won championships, we branded Pippen a star."

This is ridiculous. Why even bother with this crap?

[light]

Stan Van Gundy said LeBron is better than Jordan.

In SVG's world Jordan still lags behind LeBron even if Pippen is worse than what most people think.

He's not the best guy to cite if you're an MJ guy.

[ArbitraryWater]

Teammate opinions don't count because they're forced to talk good and big up their teammates

The consensus was posted above...

thats not the consensus.

youre posting opinions from 10 random ppl that might as well be on here. some of those vids only ask the question if he is, but dont actually say so. lol

[3ball]

thats not the consensus.

youre posting opinions from 10 random ppl that might as well be on here. some of those vids only ask the question if he is, but dont actually say so. lol

Pippen being carried is common thinking and statistical fact

MJ made Pippen - this is well-documented, historical fact

Pippen was horrible in the playoffs and clutch

The facts are what they are

Sorry, but defense is an inadequate counter to 15 on 33% averages and zero clutch production

[Roundball_Rock]

:lol at how insecure MJ stans are. It will be funny if LeBron's team wins this year and MJ stans further unravel. Too bad LeBron isn't washed up or retired, right? Many years of LeBron to ratchet up the pressure on Jordanstan.


Stan Van Gundy said LeBron is better than Jordan.

In SVG's world Jordan still lags behind LeBron even if Pippen is worse than what most people think.

He's not the best guy to cite if you're an MJ guy.

JVG said Pippen isn't top 50 all-time. It is obvious why the Van Gundy's have a bias against Pippen. You can't attack MJ so Pippen is the logical target. (JVG did say Pippen was the GOAT help/team defender years later.)

That said, SVG/JVG are at least real opinions--although both statements were years after the fact. 3ball has yet to show any contemporary reporting from Pippen's prime to support what he and the army of other MJ stans repeatedly claim everywhere in general and in that thread in particular.

Anyway, that's 2 coaches, and JVG may have changed his opinion. Shall we list the coaches that say Pippen was as great as the consensus? ;)


Chris Mullin also said this

Opinions change. His recent comment was days ago; the comment you refer to is from the Dream Team book from 2012 or 2013. :oldlol: Moreover, what you raise is a separate discussion, although the whole "MJ made" anyone stuff looks worse every passing year as we see what he "makes" in Charlotte (and before that in DC and Chicago). Basically only one player became a HOF player with MJ. That guy also happened to be the #5 pick from a small school--picked ahead of guys MJ stans today drool over like Kevin Johnson and Reggie Miller (no skills doe!). :lol

Pippen was projected to be a superstar by Detroit's GM who "desperately" tried to trade up to get him, which is on the record. Daly saw Pippen as a future superstar as well in 88' when he saw his raw talent he knew it was only a matter of time before Chicago would eclipse Detroit. Phoenix projected him to be a "very, very, very good player", again on the record. We also know Sacremento would have taken him at #6 if Krause didn't make the trade with Seattle (yet MJ stans hate both Krause and Pippen for saving his legacy as GOAT :lol ). Other teams were hotly interested in him, like Cleveland, who picked #7.

It is my understanding MJ did not play on any of these teams. Correct me if I am wrong.


pippens skills are replaceable while jordans arent.

This experiment was run. The championship era Bulls without MJ and the Bulls without Pippen were basically the same. The difference 56 win pace without Pippen in 98' and a 58 win pace without MJ in 94' is not statistically significant.


youre posting opinions from 10 random ppl that might as well be on here. some of those vids only ask the question if he is, but dont actually say so. lol

It is because he has nothing but can't admit it. :roll:

[guy]

Opinions change. His recent comment was days ago; the comment you refer to is from the Dream Team book from 2012 or 2013. :oldlol: Moreover, what you raise is a separate discussion, although the whole "MJ made" anyone stuff looks worse every passing year as we see what he "makes" in Charlotte (and before that in DC and Chicago). Basically only one player became a HOF player with MJ. That guy also happened to be the #5 pick from a small school--picked ahead of guys MJ stans today drool over like Kevin Johnson and Reggie Miller (no skills doe!). :lol

I was mainly messing around, but nothing has changed for this era's players in the last 8 years so I’m not sure why Mullin’s opinion would’ve changed. Furthermore, what Mullin said in both these quotes do not contradict each other. Whoever influenced or helped Pippen become great doesn't really matter in terms of Pippen’s greatness. Every great player is influenced/taught by someone. Jordan may have never became great if it wasn’t for Dean Smith, but that doesn’t really matter.

However, for whatever reason some people try to use it against Jordan, not directly but indirectly when they try to compare “help” to other greats. There’s just a difference between getting raw talent as your teammates and playing a huge hand in their build up into superstars and your best help vs getting already established MVPs, FMVPs, all-NBA, all-stars, high draft picks from top schools as your best teammates. And for most greats, it didn’t work out that way.

And yes, Pippen came from a small school. Not just a small school, but a division III school. Just because a few GMs saw his talent and one took a risk on him (its not the first time this has happened.) doesn’t mean it wasn't unconventional and wasn’t risky. It was probably the equivalent back then of taking a high school player today.

[Roundball_Rock]

I was mainly messing around, but nothing has changed for this era's players in the last 8 years so I’m not sure why Mullin’s opinion would’ve changed

What has changed is perspective. It takes 20+ years for the historical judgement on a person to take hold. You need time to get perspective and remove emotions. For example, Ronald Reagan was considered average by historians in the 90's. As late as 2002 he was 16th in a historian survey. Now he is considered top 10 all-time. George H.W. Bush seems to be moving up too now and Bill Clinton going down, although we need more recent surveys to confirm what appears to be happening. Lyndon Johnson is an old figure who has risen in the past decade or so, Andrew Jackson one who has fallen as what people value and define as "great" has shifted. Look at who the dominant player of today is. I don't think it hurts Pippen that Pippen 2.0 is that guy, which makes Pippen's game look better to people today. Or that Kawhi often is compared to Pippen defensively.

I forgot to mention JVG was on the Woj podcast a few weeks ago with Ewing. Ewing said he dominated as a center and Jordan, Pippen dominated for the Bulls as wings. JVG did not contest that statement, FWIW. So he may have further evolved in Pippen's direction.


Whoever influenced or helped Pippen become great doesn't really matter in terms of Pippen’s greatness. Every great player is influenced/taught by someone. Jordan may have never became great if it wasn’t for Dean Smith, but that doesn’t really matter.

Agreed. Jordan himself said he wouldn't have become what he did without Kevin Loughery. MJ stans never post that quote.

We are all products of our experiences. No human being remains the same their entire lives or careers. Sure we are shaped by who we worked for or with but that doesn't mean if you take those influences out we would suddenly become scrubs. In that alternate scenario other people would fill the roles that influenced us. In sports it is pretty obvious if you combine talent with a strong work ethic that talent is going to win out.


There’s just a difference between getting raw talent as your teammates and playing a huge hand in their build up into superstars and your best help vs getting already established MVPs, FMVPs, all-NBA, all-stars, high draft picks from top schools as your best teammates. And for most greats, it didn’t work out that way.

That is a fair point. MJ put in the work and didn't cut and run when he was losing. What your side ignores, though, is timing and other influencers. MJ had perfect timing with Pippen. Their primes almost completely overlapped, by the time Pippen started his prime Detroit, LA were running out of gas and Boston already had emptied the tank.

Also the MJ narrative is that it was all MJ working with Pippen. Doug Collins went out of his way to work with Pippen and Grant each day on defense, shooting, etc. as rookies. Phil Jackson played a role. The MJ stan narrative is it was MJ and Pippen training on an island for 3 years. The "MJ as great player developer" thing loses steam each passing year for obvious reasons.

LeBron/Wade and Kareem/Magic are the two the MJ side brings up most often. Kareem was 32/33 (33 by the playoffs) when he had rookie Magic. By the time Magic became an all-NBA player Kareem was 34/35. LeBron and Wade's primes overlapped--but only for 1 year, arguably 2.

[Roundball_Rock]

And yes, Pippen came from a small school. Not just a small school, but a division III school. Just because a few GMs saw his talent and one took a risk on him (its not the first time this has happened.) doesn’t mean it wasn't unconventional and wasn’t risky. It was probably the equivalent back then of taking a high school player today.

That is a good comparison and the same basic concept applies: immense talent that is worth the elevated risk. These guys more often than not pan out, although there is a risk. One difference between Pippen and HS players is teams saw Pippen play against the other players going to the draft at various tournaments and he dominated. With Kobe, LeBron, KG, Howard etc. there was no tape on them outside of playing high schools. MJ stans drool over Miller and Kevin Johnson today. Why weren't they the ones going in the top 5? Miller wasn't even top 10 (11th).

The reason I mentioned those other teams is they projected Pippen to be a superstar or at least a star (not sure what "very, very, very good" equates to :oldlol: ). Why? Because they reasoned talent would win out, that with proper coaching he would blossom. That essentially is what Fitzsimmons (with Phoenix) said: it would take a while to take the small school/raw nature out of him but he would ultimately blossom. That is a logical approach.

The other beef I have is a lot of MJ stans act like Pippen was this unusually late bloomer. He was an all-star by his 3rd season (same as Drexler, Miller and Johnson) and all-NBA by his 5th. Stockton rode the bench for 3 years and didn't become an all-star until his 5th season and nobody even notes it let alone says "Malone made Stockton." Or take Kawhi. His first all-star and all-NBA season was his 5th season. Who "made" him (the real answer: Kawhi made Kawhi, just like Stockton made Stockton, Nash made Nash, Butler made Butler, etc.)? I could go on and on with many HOF players. Only with Pippen do we hear this "made" BS that suggests he would have been a scrub if drafted by Detroit, Sacremento, Cleveland or anywhere instead of Chicago--when we have those very teams telling us they thought otherwise.

[Roundball_Rock]

Name the 75 you have over him then. Should be worth a laugh.

:lol He also fails to grasp how bad that makes MJ's era look (like when he said the other day that Davis=Hakeem--Hakeem was the best player in the NBA for two years in the 90's; Davis is the second best player on his own team today). What he is saying is Gasol would be a MVP candidate, a superstar, a multiple 1st team all-NBA guy if he played in the 90's. He was a great player but he wasn't close to these things in the era he played in. Gasol never received a MVP vote (keep in mind there are five selections per MVP voter--so Gasol never got a single 5th place vote). He made two 3rd team all-NBA and one 2nd team in LA, made another 2nd team in Chicago.

Consider this:

1990’s All-NBA 1st team selections

Malone 10
Jordan 7
Gasol 4? 5? (remember, he is supposedly clearly better than Pippen)
Robinson 4
Pippen 3
Hakeem 3
Barkley 3
Magic 2
Duncan 2
Penny 2
Stockton 2
Shaq 1
Price 1
Mourning 1
Payton 1
Mullin 1
Ewing 1
Iverson 1
Kidd 1
Hill 1
Drexler 1
T. Hardaway 1
Sprewell 1

2000’s All-NBA 1st team selections

Duncan 7
Shaq 7
Kobe 7
Garnett 4
Dirk 4
Kidd 4
LeBron 3
Nash 3
T Mac 2
Iverson 2
Howard 2
Amare 1
Wade 1
Paul 1
Webber 1
Payton 1

2010’s All-NBA 1st team selections

LeBron 9
Durant 6
Harden 5
Kobe 4
Curry 3
Davis 3
Howard 3
Kawhi 2
Westbrook 2
Rose 2
Paul 2
Duncan 1
Wade 1
D. Jordan 1
M. Gasol 1
Lillard 1
Giannis 1
George 1
Jokic 1

So all these guys made it but Gasol never did in his own era.

[guy]

Like I said, the two quotes from Mullin don’t contradict each other.



Agreed. Jordan himself said he wouldn't have become what he did without Kevin Loughery. MJ stans never post that quote.



Cause no one ever talks about the Jordan/Loughery duo like they do Jordan/Pippen.



Sure we are shaped by who we worked for or with but that doesn't mean if you take those influences out we would suddenly become scrubs…In sports it is pretty obvious if you combine talent with a strong work ethic that talent is going to win out.


There’s a big gap between superstar/HOFer and scrub. There’s people with firsthand knowledge and experience around the two that say that Pippen’s drive/competitiveness/work ethic were improved by Jordan.



MJ had perfect timing with Pippen. Their primes almost completely overlapped, by the time Pippen started his prime Detroit, LA were running out of gas and Boston already had emptied the tank.


You don’t have to be in your “prime” to be an elite/all-star player. From 1990 to 1998 excluding the retired years, that’s 7 years. Bird had it similar with McHale/Parish, Magic with Kareem/Worthy, Shaq/Kobe, Kobe/Gasol, Russell/Cousy, Durant/Westbrook, Curry/Klay, Stockton/Malone, etc. If Lebron was the type to commit and stick around, he could’ve had it somewhat with Wade who was still a great player up until 2016 (just hurt more often then the others I mentioned), or with Kyrie if he didn’t help drive him out.

The last point you can say about every era. How come no one talks about how those teams you mentioned didn’t benefit from the Bulls not hitting their strides yet? Or that Detroit clearly benefitted from the same thing with the Lakers and Celtics (they only beat the Lakers when Kareem was 42 years old and Magic didn’t even play half the series). What about the Shaq/Kobe Lakers and Duncan’s Spurs benefitting from the Bulls being gone and the Jazz getting old? Lebron benefitting from Kobe’s Lakers, Duncan’s Spurs, and the Celtics getting old or the Mavs looking to rebuild instead of defend their championship or the Thunder being too young?



The MJ stan narrative is it was MJ and Pippen training on an island for 3 years. The "MJ as great player developer" thing loses steam each passing year for obvious reasons.

A bit of an overexaggeration, but the narrative stems from what people that were close to the situation actually say – even unbiased people like Jerry Krause and Sam Smith. Never said no one else helped Pippen.
There’s a big difference between being a talent evaluator and working with someone every day to help improve their skills.



LeBron/Wade and Kareem/Magic are the two the MJ side brings up most often.

Age doesn’t matter in this conversation, level of play does. Kareem was elite till like 1986? Magic was a great player from day 1. So Magic had an elite Kareem for about 7 years and Kareem had an elite Magic for 10 years?

Wade was literally being argued as just as good or better then Lebron when they joined up and he was an all-star till 2016. Sure, he declined, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t great, and Lebron also had a 3rd star on his team, which Jordan only really had for 1-2 years.

[Roundball_Rock]

There’s a big gap between superstar/HOFer and scrub. There’s people with firsthand knowledge and experience around the two that say that Pippen’s drive/competitiveness/work ethic were improved by Jordan.

Some exaggeration, some truth. The guy went from equipment manager to top 5 pick in a few years. He wasn't a Derrick Coleman type lazy bum.

Re the truth, yes, and? Haven't we all been improved by our co-workers and bosses over time? Does that mean if Mentor X was not there that you would become a scrub? Unlikely--because if Mentor X was not there someone else would have filled his/her role in that organization you were in.


You don’t have to be in your “prime” to be an elite/all-star player.

Separate conversation but fair point. What I was getting at is the nuance is lost. So while Kareem remained elite through 86' and a legit all-star through 87', his prime ended in 80'. People conflate prime Kareem with 80's Kareem when bringing up Magic.


Bird had it similar with McHale/Parish, Magic with Kareem/Worthy, Shaq/Kobe, Kobe/Gasol, Russell/Cousy, Durant/Westbrook, Curry/Klay, Stockton/Malone

You are throwing a lot out there. Magic/Kareem obviously isn't comparable. Kareem was 34/35 when Magic started his prime. He overlapped with Worthy's, though. McHale/Parish is good. Shaq/Kobe is legit--but it didn't last (MJ fans ignore that Pippen could have went Kobe or Kyrie on MJ and torpedoed the team). Most of the others are good, with the caveat that you are getting to lower caliber of players when you start going to Gasol, Klay compared to these other names.


If Lebron was the type to commit and stick around, he could’ve had it somewhat with Wade who was still a great player up until 2016

You can't reverse aging and injuries (the latter was a big factor in Wade's decline since the injuries piled up year after year). Wade was still good for a while but his prime only briefly overlapped with LeBron's.

Davis may go down as the best player LeBron ever played with but again, LeBron got him when he was 35.

Wilt is another one. He played with West and Baylor but Wilt and Baylor were older by then.

It is hard to thread the needle and have overlapping primes. Usually when that happens it is guys who are drafted together like Bird/McHale, Curry/Thompson, Jordan/Pippen (technically not drafted by Chicago but you get my drift), KD/Westbrook, etc.

[Roundball_Rock]

Probably because those teams aren't discussed much themselves. A lot of legit points. Personally, I do think that stuff should be factored in. I am an auto racing fan and in Formula 1 GOAT discussions the comp comes up a lot. For example, people will note Michael Schumacher started winning his chips right after Prost retired and the year Senna died and no GOAT-level racer emerged to compete with him in his prime. It is context that has to be included in assessing Schumacher. Or in NASCAR that Richard Petty won against weak competition. If I said these things about Petty or Schumacher on their sports' version of ISH nobody would go ballistic, even their proponents, because it is obvious. Sure, they would try to downplay their advantages but they wouldn't try to tell you vastly inferior competitors were equals like MJ stans do.

It doesn't negate Petty's or Schumachers' greatness--they would be great in any era--but it is context for assessing their resume and stats because their resume wouldn't be the same against tougher competition (like their GOAT peers faced).

Stick and ball fans, especially bball fans, don't like to look deep into context, for whatever reason.


but the narrative stems from what people that were close to the situation actually say – even unbiased people like Jerry Krause and Sam Smith

Which no one disputes. What I am saying is if remove MJ someone else would emerge to fill that role. Talent always wins out, especially when there is great coaching. Who was the "MJ" for Kawhi (a 15th pick) or Stockton or Drexler, etc.?


There’s a big difference between being a talent evaluator and working with someone every day to help improve their skills.

Nothing is stopping him from working with them. Retired players do it all the time. He isn't because he knows he can't magically "make" a legend. If he could, he would do it.


Age doesn’t matter in this conversation, level of play does. Kareem was elite till like 1986? Magic was a great player from day 1

Age can't be divorced from level of play, though. Kareem was elite through 1986 in the MVP caliber, all-NBA 1st team caliber sense--but he no longer was prime Kareem that we saw from 1970-1980. Why does this matter? If you put prime Kareem and prime Magic together they would never lose. In the 80's the Lakers did win 5 times but that meant they lost nearly half the time as well.


Wade was literally being argued as just as good or better then Lebron when they joined up and he was an all-star till 2016. Sure, he declined, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t great

Same idea. In theory prime LeBron and prime Wade would dominant like prime MJ and prime Pippen--although in practice we saw them lose with both guys at their peaks. I think we always have to remember there are levels to greatness. LeBron/Wade isn't the same type of "guarantee" Kareem/Magic would be in their primes.

[guy]

Equipment manager to top 5 pick in a few years. He wasn't a Derrick Coleman type lazy bum.

No one said he was.



Re the truth, yes, and? Haven't we all been improved by our co-workers and bosses over time? Does that mean if Mentor X was not there that you would become a scrub? Unlikely--because if Mentor X was not there someone else would have filled his/her role in that organization you were in.

Maybe not a scrub, but that doesn’t mean you reach your full potential. There's plenty of people who go through their work life that feel like if they worked with someone more or longer that they would’ve been better off career-wise.



Separate conversation but fair point. What I was getting at is the nuance is lost. So while Kareem remained elite through 86' and a legit all-star through 87', his prime ended in 80'. People conflate prime Kareem with 80's Kareem when bringing up Magic.


But you’re mentioning primes like everyone's prime is equal. Prime Pippen is not even close to prime Kareem. Prime Pippen is much closer to post-prime Kareem then he is to prime Kareem.



(MJ fans ignore that Pippen could have went Kobe or Kyrie on MJ and torpedoed the team). Most of the others are good, with the caveat that you are getting to lower caliber of players when you start going to Gasol, Klay compared to these other names.

Most great players play together without any significant issues. Shaq/Kobe and Lebron/Kyrie are the exception not the rule. Also, Jordan didn’t do anything to piss off Pippen to the degree Shaq did to Kobe and Lebron did to Kyrie.

Gasol in 09 and 10 was more or less the same level as Pippen in the championship years. He was universally considered the best no. 2 in the league.



You can't reverse aging and injuries (the latter was a big factor in Wade's decline since the injuries piled up year after year). Wade was still good for a while but his prime only briefly overlapped with LeBron's.
Davis may go down as the best player LeBron ever played with but again, LeBron got him when he was 35.


He had some bad or just statistically unimpressive series in 2013 and 2014 but a lot of those were in the 2 rounds in the weak East where he was basically load managing and he had a bad 2013 ECF and 2014 Finals. So what? You can say the same thing about Pippen in some series in the 2nd three-peat.

Either way, what’s your point here? That guys don’t have the exact same situation as everyone else? Okay, that doesn’t mean Jordan’s was better. This argument is a loser’s mentality making excuses.

I can also say that Jordan didn’t have an all-star level player until his 6th season. Russell, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, Durant all had that much sooner. Are we going to seriously argue that that wasn’t to their benefit?

[guy]

Sure, they would try to downplay their advantages but they wouldn't try to tell you vastly inferior competitors were equals like MJ stans do. It doesn't negate Petty's or Schumachers' greatness--they would be great in any era--but it is context for assessing their resume and stats because their resume wouldn't be the same against tougher competition (like their GOAT peers faced).

He beat Magic and Shaq, both consensus top 10 GOATs.

He beat Malone and Barkley multiple times – I know you can’t seem to separate how much resume does for someone’s legacy/greatness unless its Jordan of course, but had they actually beat him in the finals, they are both considered consensus top 10-15 players of all-time.

People consider Magic and Bird his main “peers” in terms of the level he was playing at, but in terms of timing, it wasn’t. I don’t know what more he could’ve done but beat Magic. And Jordan and Bird’s “primes” never really overlapped for more than 1 season at the most – 1988. Bird wasn’t close to the same player after that.



Which no one disputes. What I am saying is if remove MJ someone else would emerge to fill that role.


Would they? How do you know? Based on what his teammates have said and those covering the Bulls, his competitiveness, work ethic and intensity were not rivaled by many, if anybody. So it doesn’t sound like its that replaceable.

Now sure with another mentor, maybe he ends up a decent starter, or makes a couple of all-star games but while that’s improvement, that’s not what he ended up being.

And sure, maybe with another mentor, he ends up as a HOF level player like he is. But we don’t know that. What we do know is what happened – that Jordan played a huge part in his development. Now just given the Bulls situation, maybe with Collins or Jackson’s help he would’ve still ended up a really good player. Are we really going to argue that Jordan didn’t take it up another level? If Jordan was Kareem and just laid his head into a book and didn’t bother with his teammates after practice or if he was Lebron and wasted his energy coming up with dance moves with his teammates on the sideline and just trying to make sure everyone felt welcome and got along (while at the same time trying to recruit other star players knowing his teammates were going to be bait for them) instead of working with his teammates individually and didn’t work with Pippen that much at all, are we really going to argue that Pippen ends up the same player, given everyone around the team including Pippen that says otherwise?

There’s actually a lot of people that believe Kawhi wouldn’t be the player he is if he wasn’t drafted in SA.

Like I said, its not a knock on Pippen. Just like its not a knock on Jordan to say if he went to Gonzaga instead of UNC he wouldn’t be what he is today. Maybe he would be John Stockton (or maybe a lot worse), which is still a great player but a far cry from the consensus GOAT.



Nothing is stopping him from working with them. Retired players do it all the time. He isn't because he knows he can't magically "make" a legend.

Guys like Hakeem and Kobe did that here and there, not everyday like they were actual players playing with their teammates.

What executives do that? Were Bird and Magic doing that? That’s not the stage of his life he’s in. Poor argument.

[Roundball_Rock]

Maybe not a scrub, but that doesn’t mean you reach your full potential.

True, but what kind of variance do we really expect for a talent of this caliber? The narrative a lot of MJ stans sell is that Pippen would be some anonymous NBA player had he been drafted by any other team. Moreover, what always is ignored is the variance cuts both ways. It is possible he would have been worse on another team but it also is possible he would have been better on a team where he spent his prime as the #1 option. He certainly would be remembered as better as a #1. A lot of the "knock" against him always boils down to "#2 option doe!", even when he is compared to players who would be the #2 options to him if they played together.


But you’re mentioning primes like everyone's prime is equal

I didn't make that clear here but I often point out there are levels to greatness.


Prime Pippen is much closer to post-prime Kareem then he is to prime Kareem.

True--but there is another factor to the equation. The comp isn't prime Pippen to post-prime Kareem. The comp is Pippen versus Starks, Smits, Porter, Worthy, Johnson, Kemp, Daughterty, Penny, T. Hardaway, Stockton, Dumars and post-prime Kareem versus McHale, Dr. J (!), Dumars in the NBA finals (the WC was weak in the 80's).


Most great players play together without any significant issues. Shaq/Kobe and Lebron/Kyrie are the exception not the rule

True but it isn't a guarantee. Shaq/Penny is another duo that flamed out. We just saw Harden/Paul flame out. Durant/Westbrook had issues. The reason I brought compatibility up is it is relevant to long term success. One can argue that Shaq/Kobe was better than Jordan/Pippen during their respective runs but there is a difference between a decade long run and 4-5 years. That is why the latter won 6 rings and the former 3. When these duos come up this stuff is ignored, as if Shaq having prime Penny for 2 seasons (the only "sidekick" rivaling Pippen in the 90's)=MJ having Pippen for a decade.


Gasol in 09 and 10 was more or less the same level as Pippen in the championship years

99% of non-MJ fans would disagree with you. In the past you have said Pippen was a top 5 player for most of his prime. Gasol never got close to top 5. Do you mean they are similar in the sense of being the best sidekicks in those years? If so, there is a case for that. The problems with this comparison are: 1) we are comparing 2 years to a decade 2) Gasol wasn't the clear cut best sidekick. I don't think he was. Amare, Pierce, Yao were all better than him during that time. Then he was superseded in 2011 by Wade (turned into a sidekick) and Westbrook (emerging). Pippen was the clear cut best sidekick the entire decade, other than a two year period where Penny was comparable and most people in 95' and 96' would say Pippen>Penny.


He had some bad or just statistically unimpressive series in 2013 and 2014 but a lot of those were in the 2 rounds in the weak East where he was basically load managing and he had a bad 2013 ECF and 2014 Finals. So what?

It goes to what you said earlier: different levels of greatness. Wade in 2013 and 2014 was not prime Wade. When he is discussed he often disingenuously is presented as being prime Wade the entire LeBron Miami run.

[Roundball_Rock]

That guys don’t have the exact same situation as everyone else? Okay, that doesn’t mean Jordan’s was better. This argument is a loser’s mentality making excuses.

It's the same concept as applied to the racers I referenced earlier. If you go strictly by statistics Schumacher and Petty are the clear GOAT's of their racing series. Schumacher has the most wins and most chips. Petty is tied for the most chips and has by far the most wins. Yet they are not considered universal GOAT's. They aren't even the front-runner, although they have sizable contingents for them. The entire reason is it is understood they compiled those achievements in favorable circumstances that their GOAT competitors lacked (whether having weak comp, better teams, or a combination of both at various points).

It baffles me why we can't have a nuanced discussion in basketball. Everyday I see "6>3" and "6-0>3-6" spammed all over the internet, and this is in team sport where there are 5 guys on the court at any given time (in auto racing there is a large crew but only 1 guy behind the wheel).

Jordan would not have 6 rings if he didn't have the circumstances he did. Schumacher wouldn't have 7 if he didn't have the circumstances he did. Neither would Petty. So what? I still consider Schumacher the GOAT, just as MJ legitimately can be GOAT. I don't know why heaven and earth must be moved to pretend he wasn't uniquely advantaged by a confluence of factors (one that is overlooked is the second best player in the NBA retiring due to health reasons).


I can also say that Jordan didn’t have an all-star level player until his 6th season. Russell, Kareem, Bird, Magic, Shaq, Kobec, Duncan, Durant all had that much sooner

That is a fair point, although you said "level". One could argue Woolridge and Oakley were all-star level players.

The reason people don't bring that up is we aren't spammed every day with what MJ did in the 80's. The entire MJ as GOAT case--as presented--revolves around 6 of 15 seasons. It does come up in F1 with Schumacher. He spent part of his prime leaving the reigning 2x champ team to rebuild Ferrari, which was average when he got there. So an argument for him is he showed he could win and contend with inferior cars but even there people with a straight face aren't going to act like on net he didn't have favorable team/comp circumstances for the lion's share of his prime. The reason it doesn't come up with MJ is the MJ case that is made revolves around team success and he didn't have much when his teams were not good.


He beat Magic and Shaq, both consensus top 10 GOATs.

It is a team sport, though. If this was tennis or boxing or even auto racing that would hold more weight. When his team beat Shaq's the Bulls were a 72 win juggernaut, Orlando a 60 win team. The Lakers win is more impressive.


He beat Malone and Barkley multiple times

Same comment: it is not an individual sport. The Jazz and Suns were clearly inferior teams.

[Roundball_Rock]

People consider Magic and Bird his main “peers” in terms of the level he was playing at, but in terms of timing, it wasn’t.

In the NBA case I meant teams more than players. In auto racing I meant a combination of both. Senna and Prost had to race each other in their primes (for a while on the same team--so the same equipment/team scenario) and other lesser greats. Schumacher briefly raced against a tail end of the top 10 all-time guy in his prime. So the distinction is made.

So in basketball facing the Lakers and Pistons at the tail end of their run isn't the same as what other great teams of other eras faced perennially.


Would they? How do you know?

Teams like to how those type of people around. Remember, the Bulls themselves signed Pippen for that purpose at the end of his career. You also have coaches (HC as well as assistants). Who is to say if MJ isn't there Doug Collins or Jackson don't take on a larger role with Pippen?

It doesn't make sense to assume that if MJ didn't exist the Bulls would just float leaderless forever. As mentioned earlier, it is possible in the MJ-less scenario Pippen comes out worse but it also is possible he comes out better. We just don't know.


There’s actually a lot of people that believe Kawhi wouldn’t be the player he is if he wasn’t drafted in SA.

Like I said, its not a knock on Pippen. Just like its not a knock on Jordan to say if he went to Gonzaga instead of UNC he wouldn’t be what he is today. Maybe he would be John Stockton (or maybe a lot worse), which is still a great player but a far cry from the consensus GOAT.

How often does that come up with Kawhi? Or anyone not named Pippen? It seems to be a BS argument used only against Pippen.


What executives do that? Were Bird and Magic doing that? That’s not the stage of his life he’s in.

There is nothing stopping him. He is the owner. He can do what he wants. The fact is MJ has been in the NBA in various roles since the mid-80's. Only one player associated with MJ has emerged as a HOF player (Rodman already was proven prior to getting to Chicago). It isn't a coincidence that one guy happened to be a top 5 pick, and his pick undersells his talent because of the risk associated with him coming from a small school and playing weak college comp. If the 87' draft is redone today he goes #1 or #2 (probably #2 before you jump on me over D Rob--but keep in mind Pippen and Robinson are ranked together all-time today, although Robinson usually is inches ahead).

[guy]

True, but what kind of variance do we really expect for a talent of this caliber? The narrative a lot of MJ stans sell is that Pippen would be some anonymous NBA player had he been drafted by any other team. Moreover, what always is ignored is the variance cuts both ways. It is possible he would have been worse on another team but it also is possible he would have been better on a team where he spent his prime as the #1 option. He certainly would be remembered as better as a #1. A lot of the "knock" against him always boils down to "#2 option doe!", even when he is compared to players who would be the #2 options to him if they played together.


Who knows. But no the variance does not cut both ways, cause Pippen ended up being great enough that it’s a much bigger assumption that he would’ve been a better player somewhere else despite playing with and being coached by Jordan, Phil, Collins, Tex and having the consistent experience playing in that big many games that early in his career. There weren’t many if any better situations then that for him to learn from.

Like I said, its not a knock on Pippen. It doesn’t really matter how he got there. But it shouldn’t be a knock on Jordan either is the point.

And his game wasn’t held back by anyone. He basically played the same way without Jordan then with him.



I didn't make that clear here but I often point out there are levels to greatness.

If you acknowledge that there at different levels, then why make this argument when you know that primes aren’t universally comparable?



True--but there is another factor to the equation. The comp isn't prime Pippen to post-prime Kareem. The comp is Pippen versus Starks, Smits, Porter, Worthy, Johnson, Kemp, Daughterty, Penny, T. Hardaway, Stockton, Dumars and post-prime Kareem versus McHale, Dr. J (!), Dumars in the NBA finals (the WC was weak in the 80's).


I don’t think the difference between Pippen and a lot of those guys such as Kemp, Penny, and Stockton is that much different then the difference between Kareem and McHale or Dr. J in the years he played them. Then if you take into account all the weak teams he played in the WC, I overall don’t see much of difference.



True but it isn't a guarantee. Shaq/Penny is another duo that flamed out. We just saw Harden/Paul flame out. Durant/Westbrook had issues. The reason I brought compatibility up is it is relevant to long term success. One can argue that Shaq/Kobe was better than Jordan/Pippen during their respective runs but there is a difference between a decade long run and 4-5 years. That is why the latter won 6 rings and the former 3. When these duos come up this stuff is ignored, as if Shaq having prime Penny for 2 seasons (the only "sidekick" rivaling Pippen in the 90's)=MJ having Pippen for a decade.


An all-star/elite level Pippen? Jordan had for 7-8 years. Durant/Westbrook and Kobe/Shaq was like 6 years. You’re making a small difference some huge deal here.

[guy]

99% of non-MJ fans would disagree with you.


99% is a huge exaggeration and a lot of those people probably never watched Pippen play – some may have not even watched Gasol. And I don’t agree at all that Amare and Yao were better than him, MAYBE Pierce.

Off the top of my head:

In 1992 I would say the following players were better than Pippen: Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley, Malone, Drexler – so he was top 8

In 2010 I would say the following players were better than Gasol: Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Melo, Dirk, Durant, Howard, CP3 - so he was top 9

So not much of a difference like I said. Even if you want to argue a few spots here and there, he was clearly at that level.



It goes to what you said earlier: different levels of greatness. Wade in 2013 and 2014 was not prime Wade. When he is discussed he often disingenuously is presented as being prime Wade the entire LeBron Miami run.
And its disingenuously presented that Pippen didn’t play similarly like shit especially offensively for many series. No one remembers because it was 20-30 years ago instead of 10.



Jordan would not have 6 rings if he didn't have the circumstances he did.

Based on what exactly? So he just happened to be drafted into the best situation possible for him which based on the number of teams would’ve been like 1 in 25 or something?

Put Jordan in Magic or Bird’s situations and he’s probably winning at least 6 because he was better then them.

Switch Jordan and Drexler, the 2nd best SG of his era. If Jordan was on the Blazers, who made 2 finals and 3 WCF in the early 90s and then the Rockets teaming up with Hakeem in the mid-to-late 90s, and he’s probably winning at least 6.
When we’re talking about the greatest of the greats, they don’t need only 1 exact situation to maximize their success – that just happened to be the situation they were in.

[3ball]

The very fact that there's debate about whether Pippen was great - means he wasn't

Stan Van Gundy didn't wonder whether Wade was great... Everyone knows Wade is great

Stan wondered whether Pippen was great, as do many people

That means he wasn't great

Roundball writing long essays for Pippen.. that isn't needed for someone great

[guy]

That is a fair point, although you said "level". One could argue Woolridge and Oakley were all-star level players.

Fine, call it elite. If you go down this road I can bring up teams in the 90s that Jordan beat that had 6-7 all-star level players based on that definition.



The reason it doesn't come up with MJ is the MJ case that is made revolves around team success and he didn't have much when his teams were not good.
If it only revolved around team success, Pippen would have an argument for GOAT. Team success was largely a result of his greatness, not the other way around.



It is a team sport, though. If this was tennis or boxing or even auto racing that would hold more weight. When his team beat Shaq's the Bulls were a 72 win juggernaut, Orlando a 60 win team. The Lakers win is more impressive.
Same comment: it is not an individual sport. The Jazz and Suns were clearly inferior teams.

Right 60 win team, terrible :oldlol:. I’ve had conversations with you before and you were targeting the individual great players on those teams, not the teams overall. If you’re changing it up, my bad I missed it.

The Jazz and Suns were inferior teams with the main difference being the Bulls had Jordan and they didn’t. If Jordan averages 35 ppg in the 93 finals or 30 ppg in the 98 finals, his numbers still look great but they probably aren’t winning those series.



So in basketball facing the Lakers and Pistons at the tail end of their run isn't the same as what other great teams of other eras faced perennially.

That’s not really what happens on a regular basis throughout NBA history. Furthermore, teams aren’t considered great if they don’t win at all. Is it Jordan’s fault that he didn’t leave room for more of his competition to win?

Deny it if you want, but if he let the Knicks or Jazz win once or twice, they are considered great teams – probably in the same vain as the Bad Boy Pistons, Hakeem’s Rockets, the 04 Pistons, the 08 Celtics, the Kobe/Gasol Lakers, etc.



Teams like to how those type of people around. Remember, the Bulls themselves signed Pippen for that purpose at the end of his career. You also have coaches (HC as well as assistants). Who is to say if MJ isn't there Doug Collins or Jackson don't take on a larger role with Pippen?

Well because they couldn’t. They weren’t physically able to do that the way Jordan could. They weren’t working out together. Is defending Phil Jackson the same as defending Jordan?

I see your point, but the fact is Jordan played a huge role. And by all accounts, it made him better. He should get credit for it, not discredited relative to other great players that didn’t do the same thing and instead had to rely on getting to play with already established great players.



It doesn't make sense to assume that if MJ didn't exist the Bulls would just float leaderless forever. As mentioned earlier, it is possible in the MJ-less scenario Pippen comes out worse but it also is possible he comes out better. We just don't know.

There were other leaders. And he may have ended up still a really good player. But that’s not the same as what he ended up.

[guy]

How often does that come up with Kawhi? Or anyone not named Pippen? It seems to be a BS argument used only against Pippen.

How often does anyone talk about Kawhi? How often does the “Jordan needed Pippen” argument come up for anyone else? The natural counter would be to point out that Pippen was raw when he started and Jordan played a huge hand in his development, which is true by all accounts of people that were part of that experience.



There is nothing stopping him. He is the owner. He can do what he wants. The fact is MJ has been in the NBA in various roles since the mid-80's. Only one player associated with MJ has emerged as a HOF player (Rodman already was proven prior to getting to Chicago).

Okay the point is he isn’t doing it for whatever reason. Probably cause he’s past that point in his life of being in the gym every day. If you want to argue that Jordan the owner isn’t as great as Jordan the player or teammate, go right ahead. Teh situations aren't comparable. This is really a ridiculous argument here.

[Roundball_Rock]

But no the variance does not cut both ways, cause Pippen ended up being great enough that it’s a much bigger assumption that he would’ve been a better player somewhere else

I meant in the historical sense, the perception sense, etc. It is no coincidence 2 of his 3 all-NBA 1st teams came without MJ and he became a MVP candidate without MJ. If he has a full prime without MJ, wins a MVP and wins a ring or even makes a finals as the best player he would be perceived differently. Think someone like Harden today with a ring or Kawhi with a MVP. Of course MVPs and rings depend on a lot but we are talking variance and the high end for Pippen would involved those things.


And his game wasn’t held back by anyone.

His accolades were. Also, the argument we hear about MJ is regarding his growth. It is entirely possible he would have grown faster if forced to be the #1 option early in his career versus gaining responsibility more gradually. It could go south too but again we are talking the positive end of variance.


I don’t think the difference between Pippen and a lot of those guys such as Kemp, Penny, and Stockton is that much different then the difference between Kareem and McHale or Dr. J in the years he played them

It is all opinion but as far as resumes and all-time lists go those guys aren't comparable. Kemp, for all the gas he gets lately, never made all-NBA 1st team, never was a MVP candidate. Stockton made all-NBA 1st team twice but was never a MVP candidate. The difference between Pippen and Stockton is the former's greater peak and the latter's great longevity. Penny is closer but he gets a lot of ink for a guy who was great for only 3 years, of which he was on a contender for only 2 (unlike Pippen he did much worse as a #1 while Pippen thrived.)

Dr. J was MVP in 81' and then a sidekick to Moses.


An all-star/elite level Pippen? Jordan had for 7-8 years. Durant/Westbrook and Kobe/Shaq was like 6 years

Kobe became a star in 00' and a superstar in 01' and Shaq left in 04'. That isn't the same window as 1990-1998. KD/Westbrook had a long window but MJ>KD and Pippen>Westbrook so different classes of duos.


In 1992 I would say the following players were better than Pippen: Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Barkley, Malone, Drexler – so he was top 8

In 2010 I would say the following players were better than Gasol: Kobe, Lebron, Wade, Melo, Dirk, Durant, Howard, CP3 - so he was top 9

You are picking Gasol's best year and not doing the same with Pippen. They topped out at different levels. Also, MJ fans consistently place Pippen at the tail end of the superstar class but I give you credit for at least putting a legitimate list together, not nonsense like Pippen was never top 15.

[Roundball_Rock]

And I don’t agree at all that Amare and Yao were better than him, MAYBE Pierce.

Not even Yao? Amare was controversial and the consensus here was Gasol>Amare but I was always in the Amare>Gasol and Amare>Bosh camp. Amare showed a ceiling those two never could reach.


And its disingenuously presented that Pippen didn’t play similarly like shit especially offensively for many series

I didn't say Wade sucked. I merely said he wasn't prime Wade. Pippen was prime Pippen the entire 1991-1998 period. Pippen's worst series are posted here all the time. The fact that he played elite defense is never mentioned, something old Wade didn't do.


Based on what exactly? So he just happened to be drafted into the best situation possible for him which based on the number of teams would’ve been like 1 in 25 or something?

Put Jordan in Magic or Bird’s situations and he’s probably winning at least 6 because he was better then them.

I meant the circumstances surrounding his team's competition in the 90's, when the Bulls were winning. Yeah, if you put MJ on the those teams he likely wins more. A caveat is how does MJ work with KAJ? KAJ would be the first option initially. Would MJ accept that? If so, how would that impact his development?


Switch Jordan and Drexler, the 2nd best SG of his era. If Jordan was on the Blazers, who made 2 finals and 3 WCF in the early 90s and then the Rockets teaming up with Hakeem in the mid-to-late 90s, and he’s probably winning at least 6.

Well, in that scenario he would never be traded to Houston as he would be the GOAT Blazer after winning 2-3 rings there. What people always forget about the Blazers is they had a great run but it lasted a mere 3 years. People talk about them like they were perennial contenders for 6-7 years.


When we’re talking about the greatest of the greats, they don’t need only 1 exact situation to maximize their success

Do the Bulls win 6 if the 80's Lakers are in the 90's? Just assume Kareem, Magic, Worthy are the same ages they are in 1990 and 1993 as they were in 1980 and 1983. Or if the Shaq/Kobe Lakers are in the 90's?


If it only revolved around team success, Pippen would have an argument for GOAT. Team success was largely a result of his greatness, not the other way around.

You are conflating his historical reputation with experts, the media, etc. with fans. Go anywhere on social media and see the "arguments" MJ stans present daily. It is all about team success, 6 seasons--maybe with some reference to 88' because he won MVP and DPOY. It is dumb but that is the card they keep playing.

[Roundball_Rock]

Right 60 win team, terrible

:oldlol: come on. The point is the difference between 72 wins and 60. Moreover, that team lost its third best player--the guy who swung the 95' series--before halftime of Game 1. They were 50-13 with Grant that season; 10-9 without him. You have downplayed these type of numbers in the past but the Bulls' performance without Grant in 94' (7-5) matched what they did over 65 games before MJ.


I’ve had conversations with you before and you were targeting the individual great players on those teams, not the teams overall

Maybe in noting that MJ played weak SG's while Kareem, Wilt, LeBron had tougher comp at their positions.


The Jazz and Suns were inferior teams with the main difference being the Bulls had Jordan and they didn’t.

Yeah but that is lazy analysis, as you know. You don't compare one team with its best player removed and not do the same with the others. What do the Jazz and Suns do without Malone and Barkley? We know the answer for the Bulls without MJ.


That’s not really what happens on a regular basis throughout NBA history

At least in recent decades whenever a juggernaut falls off another emerges to replace it. Chicago replaced Detroit, Detroit replaced Boston, Boston didn't replace but superseded Philadelphia all in the 1980-1991 time frame. In the 2010's when the Lakers fell, OKC rose. The Cavs replaced the the Heat. The Warriors superseded the Spurs. Around when the Spurs/Thunder collapsed the Lakers emerged.


Furthermore, teams aren’t considered great if they don’t win at all. Is it Jordan’s fault that he didn’t leave room for more of his competition to win?

There were 6-8 teams jostling in the tier behind the Bulls. That's what people notice. It wasn't like the 60's where the Lakers kept losing to the Celtics dynasty. The teams that are hyped as great were inconsistent and/or didn't last long. The Jazz are the closest thing the Bulls had to a rival and they weren't dominating their conference.


they are considered great teams – probably in the same vain as the Bad Boy Pistons, Hakeem’s Rockets, the 04 Pistons, the 08 Celtics, the Kobe/Gasol Lakers, etc.

When we say "great" we usually mean all-time great teams. The 04' Pistons, Hakeem Rockets don't count.


I see your point, but the fact is Jordan played a huge role. And by all accounts, it made him better. He should get credit for it, not discredited relative to other great players that didn’t do the same thing and instead had to rely on getting to play with already established great players

Agreed. He put in the hard work.


Well because they couldn’t. They weren’t physically able to do that the way Jordan could. They weren’t working out together. Is defending Phil Jackson the same as defending Jordan?

Who developed Kawhi, Drexler, Nash, Payton, Stockton, Butler, McHale, et al.? They aren't connected to any player, which suggests it was coaching.


How often does anyone talk about Kawhi?

Among fans? Not much but he was getting a ton of media hype during the first half of this season. He is still discussed as possibly the best player in the NBA in the media. Among fans he doesn't come up much because he keeps playing for teams that aren't popular in the US.

[guy]

I meant in the historical sense, the perception sense, etc
.

That’s the very high end and way too much speculation for me to bother with. I think I made my point – a lot of people say Jordan had a huge influence on Pippen. Its not a knock on Pippen but his success shouldn’t be used to discredit Jordan.



His accolades were. Also, the argument we hear about MJ is regarding his growth. It is entirely possible he would have grown faster if forced to be the #1 option early in his career versus gaining responsibility more gradually. It could go south too but again we are talking the positive end of variance.


Or considering he was raw, if the Bulls didn’t have Jordan, the most likely scenario is they don’t even make the playoffs his first few years.



It is all opinion but as far as resumes and all-time lists go those guys aren't comparable. Kemp, for all the gas he gets lately, never made all-NBA 1st team, never was a MVP candidate. Stockton made all-NBA 1st team twice but was never a MVP candidate. The difference between Pippen and Stockton is the former's greater peak and the latter's great longevity. Penny is closer but he gets a lot of ink for a guy who was great for only 3 years, of which he was on a contender for only 2 (unlike Pippen he did much worse as a #1 while Pippen thrived.)

Dr. J was MVP in 81' and then a sidekick to Moses.


Why are you focusing on resumes as opposed to the individual years? Yet you say when we mention Magic having Kareem, we are misleading and conflating Kareem’s prime with the version Magic played with?



Kobe became a star in 00' and a superstar in 01' and Shaq left in 04'. That isn't the same window as 1990-1998. KD/Westbrook had a long window but MJ>KD and Pippen>Westbrook so different classes of duos.


Kobe was all-NBA by 1999. So its 6 seasons. Seems like you’re just arguing to argue at this point.



You are picking Gasol's best year and not doing the same with Pippen. They topped out at different levels. Also, MJ fans consistently place Pippen at the tail end of the superstar class but I give you credit for at least putting a legitimate list together, not nonsense like Pippen was never top 15.

Well I specifically referred to the years Kobe won titles with him. Fine pick 96 (not using 94 since Jordan wasn’t there). I’d put Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Malone over him. So he’s top 6. Either way, they are at the same level / tier based on their level of play and impact on their team. There’s not some magical ranking number that separates the two.


Not even Yao? Amare was controversial and the consensus here was Gasol>Amare but I was always in the Amare>Gasol and Amare>Bosh camp. Amare showed a ceiling those two never could reach.

Yao didn’t even play in 2010. Amare’s ceiling was in 2005 IMO.

[guy]

I meant the circumstances surrounding his team's competition in the 90's, when the Bulls were winning. Yeah, if you put MJ on the those teams he likely wins more. A caveat is how does MJ work with KAJ? KAJ would be the first option initially. Would MJ accept that? If so, how would that impact his development?


Probably, he came from a team concept at UNC but still had the work ethic to become as skilled / talented as he was. In fact, might’ve been better cause he wouldn’t have gotten used to being a solo act and wouldn’t have had the same issues early on.

Either way, I’m just taking him for the player he was because that’s how I judge players in these scenarios cause its too much speculation otherwise. If you asked me to do the same for Pippen, I would do the same because I’m not judging Pippen based on how he developed – just that you shouldn’t discredit the guys that helped them get there.



Well, in that scenario he would never be traded to Houston as he would be the GOAT Blazer after winning 2-3 rings there. What people always forget about the Blazers is they had a great run but it lasted a mere 3 years. People talk about them like they were perennial contenders for 6-7 years.


I’m just talking about the exact situation of Clyde Drexler, which means other great players had all-time great situations as well.



Do the Bulls win 6 if the 80's Lakers are in the 90's? Just assume Kareem, Magic, Worthy are the same ages they are in 1990 and 1993 as they were in 1980 and 1983. Or if the Shaq/Kobe Lakers are in the 90's?


The early 90s Bulls are basically a better version of the pre-Moses Sixers teams that pushed the Lakers in the Finals and by the 2nd three-peat years, Kareem would’ve been pretty old. So I would probably say the Bulls win the first 5 they won and losing in 98 to the 88 Lakers. This is assuming Jordan still retires like he did so the Lakers probably still win in 94 and 95 (they lose to the Pistons in 90 cause they would’ve taken advantage of Kareem going down). They also may have not made as many finals considering most of the WC champion teams in the 90s were probably then the 80s Lakers WC competition.

I don’t think Shaq/Kobe win any against the Bulls. In 1990, the 2000 Lakers probably lose to the Pistons. They would’ve been broken up by 1994 by the same logic.

Do the Lakers win 5 in the 80s or 00s if the Bulls were in those eras?



You are conflating his historical reputation with experts, the media, etc. with fans. Go anywhere on social media and see the "arguments" MJ stans present daily. It is all about team success, 6 seasons--maybe with some reference to 88' because he won MVP and DPOY. It is dumb but that is the card they keep playing.

I will agree that it’s a bad argument and its actually a discredit to Jordan because it doesn’t tell the whole story. Like I said, his team success is largely a result of his greatness, not the other way around. 6 vs 3 doesn’t make Jordan better then Lebron but there’s reasons other then the stupid teammate/competition arguments that he has more and which make him better.

[guy]

:oldlol: come on. The point is the difference between 72 wins and 60. Moreover, that team lost its third best player--the guy who swung the 95' series--before halftime of Game 1. They were 50-13 with Grant that season; 10-9 without him. You have downplayed these type of numbers in the past but the Bulls' performance without Grant in 94' (7-5) matched what they did over 65 games before MJ.

What kind of argument is this? Any great team is going to look weak going against a 72 team by that definition. Bulls were on a focused mission that season which is why they won that much. It wasn’t because they were that much more talented then everyone else.

The Magic weren’t winning that series with or without Grant. You don’t actually believe they had a good chance.



Yeah but that is lazy analysis, as you know. You don't compare one team with its best player removed and not do the same with the others. What do the Jazz and Suns do without Malone and Barkley? We know the answer for the Bulls without MJ.

But the Bulls weren’t playing the Jazz/Suns without Jordan and Malone/Barkley?



At least in recent decades whenever a juggernaut falls off another emerges to replace it. Chicago replaced Detroit, Detroit replaced Boston, Boston didn't replace but superseded Philadelphia all in the 1980-1991 time frame. In the 2010's when the Lakers fell, OKC rose. The Cavs replaced the the Heat. The Warriors superseded the Spurs. Around when the Spurs/Thunder collapsed the Lakers emerged.

The Bulls didn’t fall off. They kept winning championships and were broken up. The Magic were supposed to be that team and the Bulls staved them off and they broke up largely due to that. You realize how dumb this is right? You’re penalizing the Bulls for not losing :oldlol:.



There were 6-8 teams jostling in the tier behind the Bulls. That's what people notice. It wasn't like the 60's where the Lakers kept losing to the Celtics dynasty. The teams that are hyped as great were inconsistent and/or didn't last long. The Jazz are the closest thing the Bulls had to a rival and they weren't dominating their conference.


Or there were that many good to great teams that they kept knocking off each other until they met the Bulls in the Finals or ECF and ultimately lost? Not to mention, if you don’t win titles, there’s constant retooling around those teams, meaning less chemistry and cohesiveness and not that championship confidence that carries over from year to year. The regular season doesn’t allow for 6-8 57-65 win teams all at once. Its just mathematically unlikely. Its all relative.

Different teams or the same teams in the Finals every year don’t define what is a weak or strong era like you continuously try to suggest. I’ve made this example before, if the Jazz weren’t any better and the Suns, Blazers, Spurs, Lakers, Rockets, and Sonics of the 90s were all significantly worse teams then they were, then the 90s would’ve looked a lot like the 60s with the Jazz losing every year in the finals to the Bulls. That clearly would make it a weaker era though.

[Elosha]

It should be noted that the Bulls were blowing out the Magic in Game 1 of 96 ECF when Grant got injured. I like Grant and think he's underrated. But he's not changing the series outcome, or even preventing the sweep.

[Roundball_Rock]

a lot of people say Jordan had a huge influence on Pippen. Its not a knock on Pippen but his success shouldn’t be used to discredit Jordan.

Agreed.


Or considering he was raw, if the Bulls didn’t have Jordan, the most likely scenario is they don’t even make the playoffs his first few years.

Not mutually exclusive with the possible scenario I laid out. The team could suck but Pippen could have blossomed earlier.


Why are you focusing on resumes as opposed to the individual years?

Separate discussion. What people say is Pippen was a much better sidekick than his peers, which covers the Bulls' entire run. If you want to go year by year it changes, but only slightly. Penny was close to him in 95' and 96'. Kemp, Stockton (peak wise), and the other names that sometimes are raised never were.


Kobe was all-NBA by 1999. So its 6 seasons

Thanks. I forgot that. I had (mis)remembered 2000 as being his breakout.


Fine pick 96 (not using 94 since Jordan wasn’t there). I’d put Jordan, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Malone over him. So he’s top 6. Either way, they are at the same level / tier based on their level of play and impact on their team. There’s not some magical ranking number that separates the two.

That is part of the quirk of Pippen: Jordan being gone coincided with 2 of Pippen's 3 best years. So we are in a quandary: how do we evaluate a player without looking at his absolute best? However, he was no help to MJ in 94' for obvious reasons.

Let's say he was 6th behind those guys (I would note Pippen>Malone in all-NBA voting in 96' as forwards and Pippen was ahead of him in MVP voting too, despite being a sidekick). 6th, 9th. 6th, 10th. It doesn't sound like a lot but often is. It depends on tiers. To me those six guys you mentioned were all superstars. Gasol never was. You can't win a ring or make a finals with Gasol as your best player. With Pippen, Malone, Robinson you (in theory) can.


Yao didn’t even play in 2010. Amare’s ceiling was in 2005 IMO.

What do you think about Yao v. Gasol in 09'? Amare was great pre-injury but he was dominant in the second half of 2008 and 2010 as well as the first half of 2011 (pre-Carmelo). He was flawed but I just never saw Gasol or Bosh reach that high a level for a sustained period (roughly half a season multiple times). I was in the minority on ISH but this was something I advocated back when Amare played.


. In fact, might’ve been better cause he wouldn’t have gotten used to being a solo act and wouldn’t have had the same issues early on.

Good point--I had not thought of that. There are so many things that could go different with a "butterfly effect" scenario that I think it is BS to make ironclad declarations about entire careers, like Pippen minus MJ or Kawhi drafted by 29 other teams, etc.

[Roundball_Rock]

I’m just talking about the exact situation of Clyde Drexler, which means other great players had all-time great situations as well.

Fair enough. One caveat is this would assume MJ wasn't retired in 95'. The thing is MJ isn't compared to Drexler. We are talking situations of GOAT level guys. That is why I brought in the racing analogies. There are lesser guys who spent their entire careers on great teams but they aren't relevant to GOAT discussions.


The early 90s Bulls are basically a better version of the pre-Moses Sixers teams that pushed the Lakers in the Finals and by the 2nd three-peat years, Kareem would’ve been pretty old. So I would probably say the Bulls win the first 5 they won and losing in 98 to the 88 Lakers

Even this favorable scenario would matter because we hear "6" is a magic number because no one other than Russell has more than 6 (Kareem only gets credit for 2-3 rings, while Magic magically gets credit for all 5 :lol ). If MJ has "only" 5 that is as many as Kobe, Duncan, Magic. The argument is 6 puts him on another plane. It is dumb but that is what we hear 24/7, especially outside of ISH (higher level of discussion here).


Do the Lakers win 5 in the 80s or 00s if the Bulls were in those eras?

Nope. So it cuts both ways. Same thing with the racing guys. Yeah, in tougher eras Petty and Schumacher don't win as much but if they go to another era they take chips and race wins away from other people, including their GOAT comp.


I will agree that it’s a bad argument and its actually a discredit to Jordan because it doesn’t tell the whole story. Like I said, his team success is largely a result of his greatness, not the other way around. 6 vs 3 doesn’t make Jordan better then Lebron but there’s reasons other then the stupid teammate/competition arguments that he has more and which make him better.

A lot of MJ stans are lazy. It is a shame. You, Blitz, even OSB are on a different level than the idiocy we see by many MJ stans here and on social media.


What kind of argument is this? Any great team is going to look weak going against a 72 team by that definition

It goes to them having no peer. Even when GS won 73 there was another 67 win team, for example. You could argue Seattle was that in 96' with 64 wins.


The Magic weren’t winning that series with or without Grant.

Agreed. My point was the team that was on the court for 3 1/2 of the 4 games was not a 60 win caliber team without Grant. So the already large gap grew even wider.


But the Bulls weren’t playing the Jazz/Suns without Jordan and Malone/Barkley?

Not in the playoffs. FWIW, the Bulls went 2-0 against the Jazz (wins by 9 and 16) and 1-1 against the Suns (a win by 19, a loss by 1). Tiny sample size but impressive during that small sample.

The Bulls did play the Knicks and Cavs without MJ in the playoffs. This is fortuitous because they faced those teams each of the two previous years. Flip the script: remove Ewing or Price from those teams. We don't need to speculate on the latter. Price missed the bulk of the 91' season and the Cavs were on a 30 win pace without him.

[Roundball_Rock]

The Bulls didn’t fall off. They kept winning championships and were broken up.

Sloppy phrasing but my point was whenever a contender ceased to be a contender, whether due to aging, injuries, the health situation with Magic, or the BS break up the Bulls did.


You realize how dumb this is right? You’re penalizing the Bulls for not losing

Those successor contenders did emerge. It just happened to be right after the Bulls were dismantled. Spurs won in 99', Lakers in 00'.

In golf Tiger was clearly the best player of his era but he also had a clear #2 in Mickelson. The Bulls lacked that in the 90's. That is the flaw in the argument that "if no MJ...". If MJ doesn't exist the 90's look like the 70's with a bunch of teams winning. There wasn't a clear second team to take the reins. Speculation--and this assumes the Bulls never win without MJ (if no MJ, why couldn't the Bulls do what the Knicks and Pacers did in the 90's?):

1990: Pistons
1991: Lakers
1992: Blazers
1993: Knicks
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Sonics
1997: Heat
1998: Jazz
1999: Spurs

Would any of these be considered "great"? I don't think so. You don't need multiple chips to be great (67' Sixers, 71' Bucks, etc.) but none of these teams were at that level.

MJ stans frequently note that the Bulls never had a Game 7 in the finals. That is pretty damning regarding their comp...


Or there were that many good to great teams that they kept knocking off each other until they met the Bulls in the Finals or ECF and ultimately lost?

Distinction without a difference. Either way we are saying there was a pack clearly behind the Bulls, not a team or two on par with the Bulls.


Not to mention, if you don’t win titles, there’s constant retooling around those teams

That's the odd thing. They didn't do much. The Jazz added Hornacek--but MJ was retired at that point. The Rockets added Drexler--but MJ was retired. What were the "big" moves these teams made when MJ was in the league? Miami traded for Mourning and then Hardaway--but Miami was not a contender before those two moves. The Knicks did nothing in Ewing's prime. The Pacers did nothing. The Cavs...nothing. Portland? Nothing. Orlando? Again, another move with MJ retired in signing Grant.

Hell, this implies a credit to MJ: he was so intimidating these other teams didn't even give it a true shot until he was retired.


if the Jazz weren’t any better and the Suns, Blazers, Spurs, Lakers, Rockets, and Sonics of the 90s were all significantly worse teams then they were, then the 90s would’ve looked a lot like the 60s with the Jazz losing every year in the finals to the Bulls. That clearly would make it a weaker era though.


That is an interesting take but I don't think many sports fans would agree with that spin. Tiger had Mickelson, Sampras had Agassi, Earnhardt had Wallace. All greats, but the second guy is clearly inferior. However, if that first guy didn't exist that second guy would suddenly be dominant in their era. That is because they were that good--they were that much better than the 3rd, 4th, 5th guys.

[guy]

Separate discussion. What people say is Pippen was a much better sidekick than his peers, which covers the Bulls' entire run. If you want to go year by year it changes, but only slightly. Penny was close to him in 95' and 96'. Kemp, Stockton (peak wise), and the other names that sometimes are raised never were.


I don’t really see why resume matters here. My main point was the difference between Pippen and Penny/Kemp/etc. wasn’t any larger then post-prime Kareem (so like 81-86) and McHale/Dr. J in the years they played, which I believe was your argument. I mean, Kemp was literally being argued as the best player in the 96 Finals. So your initial point on this subject doesn’t really hold weight. Can agree to disagree cause at this point this argument has changed too many times.



Let's say he was 6th behind those guys (I would note Pippen>Malone in all-NBA voting in 96' as forwards and Pippen was ahead of him in MVP voting too, despite being a sidekick). 6th, 9th. 6th, 10th. It doesn't sound like a lot but often is. It depends on tiers. To me those six guys you mentioned were all superstars. Gasol never was. You can't win a ring or make a finals with Gasol as your best player. With Pippen, Malone, Robinson you (in theory) can.


I wouldn’t agree on Pippen, just like Gasol so that’s why I put them in the same boat here.



What do you think about Yao v. Gasol in 09'? Amare was great pre-injury but he was dominant in the second half of 2008 and 2010 as well as the first half of 2011 (pre-Carmelo). He was flawed but I just never saw Gasol or Bosh reach that high a level for a sustained period (roughly half a season multiple times). I was in the minority on ISH but this was something I advocated back when Amare played.


Yao at his very best was better but couldn’t really depend on him consistently – but he predictably got hurt in the 09 playoffs for the season.


Fair enough. One caveat is this would assume MJ wasn't retired in 95'. The thing is MJ isn't compared to Drexler. We are talking situations of GOAT level guys. That is why I brought in the racing analogies. There are lesser guys who spent their entire careers on great teams but they aren't relevant to GOAT discussions.

No I’m assuming he was retired and comes back in 95 and given the timing, he’s on the Rockets. 95 Jordan was still better than 95 Drexler . He wasn’t better than Hakeem. That duo is clearly great enough that they win that year.



Even this favorable scenario would matter because we hear "6" is a magic number because no one other than Russell has more than 6 (Kareem only gets credit for 2-3 rings, while Magic magically gets credit for all 5 :lol ). If MJ has "only" 5 that is as many as Kobe, Duncan, Magic. The argument is 6 puts him on another plane. It is dumb but that is what we hear 24/7, especially outside of ISH (higher level of discussion here).

Okay, I don’t really know what you’re trying to argue here now. I don’t really care about magic numbers. The main point I thought you were trying to get at is you thought the Bulls win considerably less – I don’t see it that way.

[guy]

Nope. So it cuts both ways. Same thing with the racing guys. Yeah, in tougher eras Petty and Schumacher don't win as much but if they go to another era they take chips and race wins away from other people, including their GOAT comp.


Sure, but I don’t really know if the Bulls win less because if the team is just magically transported 10 years prior then those late 80s Bulls are going up against some pretty weak competition in the late 70s that were making the Finals with similar records.



It goes to them having no peer. Even when GS won 73 there was another 67 win team, for example. You could argue Seattle was that in 96' with 64 wins.


The 73 win Warriors were literally beaten by a 57 win Cavs. Okay, this is a dumb argument. You’re literally just looking for every excuse to discount the Bulls competition.



Not in the playoffs. FWIW, the Bulls went 2-0 against the Jazz (wins by 9 and 16) and 1-1 against the Suns (a win by 19, a loss by 1). Tiny sample size but impressive during that small sample.


I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue here.


Sloppy phrasing but my point was whenever a contender ceased to be a contender, whether due to aging, injuries, the health situation with Magic, or the BS break up the Bulls did.
When teams get worse, other teams get better. If a team starts to lose more, other teams are benefitting from it. Okay, that’s not rocket science. The Bulls weren’t starting to lose more yet though.



Those successor contenders did emerge. It just happened to be right after the Bulls were dismantled. Spurs won in 99', Lakers in 00'.


But would they have been successor contenders though? If the Bulls weren’t dismantled and beat them those years, you would just call them weak competition.



In golf Tiger was clearly the best player of his era but he also had a clear #2 in Mickelson. The Bulls lacked that in the 90's. That is the flaw in the argument that "if no MJ...". If MJ doesn't exist the 90's look like the 70's with a bunch of teams winning. There wasn't a clear second team to take the reins. Speculation--and this assumes the Bulls never win without MJ (if no MJ, why couldn't the Bulls do what the Knicks and Pacers did in the 90's?):

1990: Pistons
1991: Lakers
1992: Blazers
1993: Knicks
1994: Rockets
1995: Rockets
1996: Sonics
1997: Heat
1998: Jazz
1999: Spurs


Is that how it would look though? I would actually pick the Knicks in 92 and the Jazz in 97.

And with that being the case, is it that much different then the 2010s which most people don’t consider a weak era?



Distinction without a difference. Either way we are saying there was a pack clearly behind the Bulls, not a team or two on par with the Bulls.

The 60s Lakers were not on par with the 60 Celtics. Again, the only way you would argue that any team was on par with the Bulls is if they actually beat them. You can deny that you would do that, but you know its true. That wouldn't make the Bulls more impressive. That’s a stupid argument.

[guy]

That's the odd thing. They didn't do much. The Jazz added Hornacek--but MJ was retired at that point. The Rockets added Drexler--but MJ was retired. What were the "big" moves these teams made when MJ was in the league? Miami traded for Mourning and then Hardaway--but Miami was not a contender before those two moves. The Knicks did nothing in Ewing's prime. The Pacers did nothing. The Cavs...nothing. Portland? Nothing. Orlando? Again, another move with MJ retired in signing Grant.


No they actually did. Big moves in terms of superstars weren’t made back then because they weren’t available. But there was constant retooling which is what happens when teams don’t win – they try to find the formula to beat the beast.

Examples:

The Knicks constantly retooled from 92 to 98. The 92 team had Gerald Wilkins, Xavier McDaniel and Mark Jackson who went away and they brought back Doc Rivers, Charles Smith and Ronaldo Blackman in 93. By 1997 they lost more guys including Anthony Mason and got Allan Houston and Larry Johnson

Suns lets go of Tom Chambers in 93 and brought in AC Green in 94. In 95, they brought in Danny Manning and Wayman Tisdale. In 96 they let go of Majerle and got Hot Rod Williams.



That is an interesting take but I don't think many sports fans would agree with that spin. Tiger had Mickelson, Sampras had Agassi, Earnhardt had Wallace. All greats, but the second guy is clearly inferior. However, if that first guy didn't exist that second guy would suddenly be dominant in their era. That is because they were that good--they were that much better than the 3rd, 4th, 5th guys.

Okay, so if the 3rd, 4th or 5th guys were actually better and weren’t dominated by that 2nd guy, that makes the era weaker? That’s basically what you’re saying. That makes zero f*cking sense.

Its not a spin, its exposing your incredibly flawed logic.

[Roundball_Rock]

I mean, Kemp was literally being argued as the best player in the 96 Finals

True, but so was Rodman. Not sure why we always hear of Kemp's great series but never Rodman's.


I wouldn’t agree on Pippen, just like Gasol so that’s why I put them in the same boat here.

Fair enough, although I would note the consensus then and now is Pippen was a superstar and Gasol wasn't. So it isn't just me.


Yao at his very best was better but couldn’t really depend on him consistently – but he predictably got hurt in the 09 playoffs for the season.

True.


No I’m assuming he was retired and comes back in 95 and given the timing, he’s on the Rockets.

If he is retired he wouldn't be traded mid-season.


The 73 win Warriors were literally beaten by a 57 win Cavs.

The point was no one was in the Bulls' zip code. We keep hearing win totals for teams without the context of the Bulls' win number. Plus it also ignores the win inflation that occurred in the 90's for good teams because of expansion.


I don’t even know what you’re trying to argue here.

That the small sample we have of the Bulls without MJ playing the Suns and Jazz was impressive on the Bulls' part.

The earlier point was those teams would not be capable of doing what the Bulls did without their best player. The Suns won 56 with Barkley, Jazz 53 with Malone. Are we saying they would feel no impact without them? Who would score for the Jazz?


When teams get worse, other teams get better. If a team starts to lose more, other teams are benefitting from it.

That didn't happen in the 90's--no one stepped up to replace the Lakers. It was the Bulls and then a fairly large second tier. We don't have to speculate. When MJ (or for half a season, Pippen) were removed from the equation there suddenly was parity at the top between the Bulls and those teams. The combination of having two superstars gave them a unique advantage in that era. For all the talk about the stacked 80's Lakers they were out there facing a Celtics team with 4-5 HOF players and other comparable teams.


But would they have been successor contenders though? If the Bulls weren’t dismantled and beat them those years, you would just call them weak competition.

The Bulls would have lost, given the decline of Pippen and Rodman, but as noted a few times earlier, you can lose and still be strong competition. No one says the West/Baylor Lakers were weak, for example. The issue with all these 90's teams that get gassed is they simply were not great even if the Bulls did not exist. The Bulls aren't why the Pacers won 39 games in 97', the Knicks bounced around between good and average each year in the second half of the 90's, etc.


Is that how it would look though? I would actually pick the Knicks in 92 and the Jazz in 97.

Possible--either way the picture is one of parity.

[Roundball_Rock]

And with that being the case, is it that much different then the 2010s which most people don’t consider a weak era?

In the 2010's you had the Warriors, Spurs, Cavs, Heat, OKC as consistent contenders for large parts of the decade and I'm not even counting teams like the Rockets in that class.


The 60s Lakers were not on par with the 60 Celtics.

"On par" was not the right way to put it but "comparable" definitely applies. They consistently>the rest of their conference and they played the Celtics close several times. They took them to 7 three times in the 60's. Compare that performance to the Jazz.


Again, the only way you would argue that any team was on par with the Bulls is if they actually beat them

Then why did I bring up the 60's Lakers who never won before and OKC in this post?


Big moves in terms of superstars weren’t made back then because they weren’t available

There were some. Barkley is the biggest example. Then you had Mourning, Hardaway traded on a lesser level but still the type of guys who can be MVP candidates. Teams like Seattle tried to get Pippen. Mitch Richmond moved around a few times. Not a superstar but a player who was considered better than Miller then. Rodman wasn't a superstar but the Rodman trade was a huge move after the Bulls lost with MJ one time. Other teams didn't swing for the fences like the Bulls did in that case (Miami was doing it to build a contender, not add to a contender).


The Knicks constantly retooled from 92 to 98. The 92 team had Gerald Wilkins, Xavier McDaniel and Mark Jackson who went away and they brought back Doc Rivers, Charles Smith and Ronaldo Blackman in 93. By 1997 they lost more guys including Anthony Mason and got Allan Houston and Larry Johnson


Exactly. So X, Charles Smith, etc. aren't going to cut it against Jordan/Pippen. Houston, LJ, Sprewell were legit moves but too little, too late as Ewing was past his prime by then. If you got that type of talent around him in his prime the Knicks win rings.


Suns lets go of Tom Chambers in 93 and brought in AC Green in 94. In 95, they brought in Danny Manning and Wayman Tisdale. In 96 they let go of Majerle and got Hot Rod Williams.

AC Green, Williams aren't going to move the needle. Manning is a solid move, but akin to the Jazz acquiring Hornacek.

[Roundball_Rock]

Okay, so if the 3rd, 4th or 5th guys were actually better and weren’t dominated by that 2nd guy, that makes the era weaker? That’s basically what you’re saying

No, I spoke earlier in this post about how you can be strong comp without ever winning in some cases. Their is some level of objectivity in assessing performance levels, although it is harder in a team sport than an individual sport because for those tennis, golf, racing guys we still have race/tournament wins to look at (even if they were inferior to the #1 and #2 guys over the course of a full season).

In team sports the best thing we can look at is performance over time. No one says the Colts or Broncos (wherever Manning was at a given time) were weak comp for the Patriots because they consistently lost to the Patriots. It is understood they were really good, played the Patriots close (won a few times but you don't necessarily need that like the 60's Lakers) and that if the Patriots didn't exist or Brady was removed from the equation (injury, retirement, whatever) they would take over as the dominant team on the AFC side of the bracket.

The Jordan excuse doesn't really fly for these teams because how often were they losing to other teams? They weren't even consistent contenders every year. Yeah, the Knicks were good in 92'-94', 97' but they weren't contenders in 91', 96', 98'. The Pacers won 58 in 98' but it was 39 the prior year. You don't see a clear inferiority on the part of these teams that has nothing to do with MJ or the Bulls?

Why is this such a big issue to MJ fans anyway? As I noted earlier in this thread, if I said some other legends in other sports played against weak comp they wouldn't ferociously try to say how awesome the comp was. Sure, they would paint them as better than they were but within reasonable range. They also would downplay some of the advantages their guy had but they wouldn't try to sell you that they faced some all-time great comp. In Formula 1 some of prime Schumacher's competition (after Senna died, Prost retired--all right in time for him to win his first chip) were flash in the pan types like the Suns or Sonics. I have never seen Schumacher's fans hype them as great--and these are guys who actually won championships at one point.

[ELITEpower23]

No, I spoke earlier in this post about how you can be strong comp without ever winning in some cases. Their is some level of objectivity in assessing performance levels, although it is harder in a team sport than an individual sport because for those tennis, golf, racing guys we still have race/tournament wins to look at (even if they were inferior to the #1 and #2 guys over the course of a full season).

In team sports the best thing we can look at is performance over time. No one says the Colts or Broncos (wherever Manning was at a given time) were weak comp for the Patriots because they consistently lost to the Patriots. It is understood they were really good, played the Patriots close (won a few times but you don't necessarily need that like the 60's Lakers) and that if the Patriots didn't exist or Brady was removed from the equation (injury, retirement, whatever) they would take over as the dominant team on the AFC side of the bracket.

The Jordan excuse doesn't really fly for these teams because how often were they losing to other teams? They weren't even consistent contenders every year. Yeah, the Knicks were good in 92'-94', 97' but they weren't contenders in 91', 96', 98'. The Pacers won 58 in 98' but it was 39 the prior year. You don't see a clear inferiority on the part of these teams that has nothing to do with MJ or the Bulls?

Why is this such a big issue to MJ fans anyway? As I noted earlier in this thread, if I said some other legends in other sports played against weak comp they wouldn't ferociously try to say how awesome the comp was. Sure, they would paint them as better than they were but within reasonable range. They also would downplay some of the advantages their guy had but they wouldn't try to sell you that they faced some all-time great comp. In Formula 1 some of prime Schumacher's competition (after Senna died, Prost retired--all right in time for him to win his first chip) were flash in the pan types like the Suns or Sonics. I have never seen Schumacher's fans hype them as great--and these are guys who actually won championships at one point.

Bingo. Roundball wins again. Elite level posting

[BigShotBob]

Pippen peaked in round 2 scoring 20 points on 40% shooting. He's only at his best as a second option. He couldn't even peak over 25 points against the Knicks :roll:

Underrated? Sure, to gen-z. But overall, he's okay but he looked his best with MJ and everyone knows that's the truth.