Pippen's Efficiency in the 97' and 98' Finals [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

06-12-2020, 01:10 AM

It has become an article of faith that Pippen was inefficient in these Finals on ISH. One thing you will notice is people who always advocate for advanced shooting stats suddenly only want to use raw FG % for these finals (and for the playoffs from 1996-1998--the reason is Pippen took a lot of threes by this point in his career so his raw FG % will be lower than before). Second, it is always "Pippen!". You never see the numbers for other players. Finally, Pippen was injured late (Game 5) in the 98' series. That is a material fact that is never mentioned (if people want to compare the #2 option for the Bulls you have to use Pippen for Games 1-4 and Kukoc for 5-6, and compare to Hornacek/Stockton's scoring "production" of 20 PPG combined). Here are the facts:

1997 Finals

Jordan: 53.2% TS, 48.1% eFG
Pippen: 54.1% TS, 48.4% eFG
Kukoc: 58.0% TS, 54.1% eFG

Malone: 48.5% TS, 44.3% eFG
Stockton: 61.3% TS, 54.8% eFG
Hornacek: 51.8% TS, 43.1% eFG

So Pippen is the highest in TS % of the three superstars in the series, bested only by two low volume players. In eFG% he is second overall, behind only Stockton, who was known to cherry pick shots in his career.

1998 Finals

Jordan: 51.6% TS, 43.9% eFG
Pippen: 50.2% TS, 44.6% eFG
Pippen II (healthy): 57.4% TS, 51.7% eFG (Games 1-4)
Kukoc: 55.7% TS, 54.6% eFG
Kukoc II (#2 option): 74.8% TS, 75.9% eFG (Games 5-6)

Malone: 55.3% TS, 50.4% eFG
Stockton: 53.9% TS, 51.0% eFG
Hornacek: 50.1% TS, 43.8% eFG

Pippen was great scoring-wise (and dominant defensively) but went into a tail spin after his back got hurt.

As you can see, the facts in context of other players and Pippen's injury don't support the narrative that is being spun--hence constant concealing of the #'s for other players, the advanced stats, or the impact of Pippen's back injury.

Other comments:

*Keep in mind Malone was a PF in the era before "stretch 4's"; the other players listed here were perimeter players.
*One conclusion from this is Kukoc was underrated. Just compare his efficiency numbers to Hornacek's and Kukoc in the 98' series was able to scale up to being the #2 option.
*Hornacek was Utah's second leading scorer in 98', third in 97'. He and Stockton combined to average 20.4 PPG in the 98' finals, two-thirds of Pippen/Kukoc, even with Pippen nose-diving the final two games.

Smoke117

06-12-2020, 01:13 AM

It should be noted Pippen had the ****ed up foot in the 97 finals. When that finals started he almost sat out game 1.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-12-2020, 01:18 AM

In both of those finals, how many points did Pippen average compared to Jordan?

Was waiting to see that in the OP. You know cuz context and all. Can't find it though :confusedshrug:

3ball

06-12-2020, 01:25 AM

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-12-2020/2Gn30f.gif

ELITEpower23

06-12-2020, 01:32 AM

Win after win after win for the fam

:hammertime:

3ball

06-12-2020, 02:50 AM

.
FINALS

97' Jordan...... 37.9% usage... 113 ortg... 35.6 assist %..... 6.9 turnover %
97' Pippen...... 25.5% usage... 101 ortg... 15.6 assist %... 15.8 turnover % (lowest assist/TO)
97' Stockton... 21.4% usage... 111 ortg... 46.3 assist %... 23.8 turnover %

98' Jordan...... 41.2% usage... 111 ortg... 14.9 assist %..... 4.9 turnover %
98' Pippen...... 22.9% usage... 104 ortg... 23.8 assist %... 14.6 turnover % (lowest assist/TO)
98' Stockton... 18.8% usage... 103 ortg... 50.4 assist%... 25.1 turnover %

Pippen sucked at scoring and passing.. :confusedshrug:..

Btw, jordan's 97' Finals is goat and very underrated.. he almost doubled Pippen in assists with far less turnovers, and 12 more ppg on far better efficiency - better passer and scorer... And he won 3 games on the last possesssion (2 winners and 2 assist to Kerr)

Smoke117

06-12-2020, 02:56 AM

.
FINALS

97' Jordan...... 37.9% usage... 113 ortg... 35.6 assist %..... 6.9 turnover %
97' Pippen...... 25.5% usage... 101 ortg... 15.6 assist %... 15.8 turnover % (lowest assist/TO)
97' Stockton... 21.4% usage... 111 ortg... 46.3 assist %... 23.8 turnover %

98' Jordan...... 41.2% usage... 111 ortg... 14.9 assist %..... 4.9 turnover %
98' Pippen...... 22.9% usage... 104 ortg... 23.8 assist %... 14.6 turnover % (lowest assist/TO)
98' Stockton... 18.8% usage... 103 ortg... 50.4 assist%... 25.1 turnover %

Pippen sucked at scoring and passing.. :confusedshrug:..

As I was saying in another thread...context is a completely foreign concept to 3ball. Post Pippen's numbers in regards to this games 1-4 in the 98 finals when they were up 3-1 before he hurt his back now. This is also beside the point that he was by far the best defensive player in the first four games and completely dominating the Jazz in that regard. As Phil Jackson would say...A One Man Wrecking Crew. Or as 3ball would say, though, so he can raise up a complete stranger he regards as a god who doesn't give a shit about him...a complete scrub carried to his six championship.

3ball

06-12-2020, 03:08 AM

A One Man Wrecking Crew.

In the 97' Finals,

Jordan used 50% more possessions on better efficiency per possesssion

and literally double the assist percentage with 1/3 the turnover %

Let that sink in... Now let it sink in some more.... PIPPEN SUCKED

And Pippen had 4 points when the game was tight in the last 5 minutes (last in clutch-time points, behind Ostertag and Chris Morris... Jordan has 23 clutch pts)

Post Pippen's numbers in regards to this games 1-4 in the 98 finals when they were up 3-1 before he hurt his back now.

.

in the 98' Finals, Pippen had half of MJ's usage and three times the turnover percentage... :facepalm:

The numbers speak for themselves

Smoke117

06-12-2020, 03:22 AM

lol You're just pathetic. I've never seen anyone else bring up some arbitrary numbers just to raise up a player they stan. The funniest thing is the guy you stan is already considered the greatest of all time, but you actively try to bury and diminish every teammate he ever had in some kind of twisted love letter to him. I don't even know. Not being insane I cannot relate and try and find a common ground. You know what is also a number? Top 30. Scottie Pippen is always put in the top 30 players of all time list. I guess everyone else is wrong but you, because, as you put it, he's a scrub...he's the level of Andre Roberson. (someone I've doubt you ever seen even play and just brought up because you heard he played great defense) The saddest part about you is your a 50 year old man who is ignorant and ****ing stupid. Clearly age does not bring on wisdom if you are the example. I'll now wait for you to disregard everything I said so you can repost some bullshit numbers you posted already today or yesterday or last week or last month. To say you are a joke would be an understatement.

Roundball_Rock

06-12-2020, 05:07 AM

The best part of the OP is the MJ numbers which MJ stans have kept hidden for years. :D

It should be noted Pippen had the ****ed up foot in the 97 finals. When that finals started he almost sat out game 1.

Good point. Here is what Sports Illustrated said about that game (it wasn't even known if he would play until tip-off due to the injury):

Their 84-82 victory over the Utah Jazz in Game 1 on Sunday was
memorable for yet another game-winning shot at the buzzer by Jordan and an even more heroic performance by forward Scottie Pippen, who was the best player on the floor despite a painful soft tissue injury to his left foot.

Nevertheless, the Bulls played as they have throughout the postseason--far short of peak efficiency, particularly on offense, where they were operating mostly on two cylinders named Jordan and Pippen.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1997/06/09/close-call-in-beating-the-jazz-on-a-last-second-shot-in-game-1-of-the-finals-the-bulls-showed-again-that-they-dont-have-to-be-at-their-best-to-be-great

Post Pippen's numbers in regards to this games 1-4 in the 98 finals when they were up 3-1 before he hurt his back now.

He won't--but that is what makes picking them off so easy (they make it obvious what they want to hide--sunlight is the best disinfectant). They also conceal Kukoc's. If you want to compare sidekicks, you have to use Pippen for games 1-4 and Kukoc for games 5-6. Pippen was not even a real option for Game 6 so it is disingenuous to use that. The fact is Chicago's #2 outscored Stockton/Hornacek combined--yet 3ball and co. will say MJ had no scoring help in the series. :roll:

Post Pippen's numbers in regards to this games 1-4 in the 98 finals when they were up 3-1 before he hurt his back now.

Yup, but they never talk defense. Pippen led them to that 3-1 lead.

Win after win after win for the fam

It is too easy. :lol :cheers:

Pippen sucked at scoring

Damn, so what does that make Malone? Malone's career finals TS is -10% compared to his regular season average.

No major star of the 90's declined more in the postseason during their primes than Malone, and the second biggest decliner was...Stockton. Why do MJ stans, who talk about playoff declines daily, feel a need to defend Malone/Stockton?

It exposes the Jordan mythologist army never really cared about "playoff declines" when you go on and on day in, day out about a small decrease (driven by 5 injuries in 3 specific playoffs, i.e. from 1990-1995 his TS efficiency in the playoffs=his RS efficiency, so did his 2000-2003 TS efficiency in Portland. The 1990-1995 decrease was 0.3% and in Portland exactly 0% compared to the RS. Damn, what a choker!) yet excuse literally the two biggest decliners of the era (we also have seen Robinson, Ewing defended as playoff performers by MJ stans). :oldlol:

Also, be careful about making Pippen's decrease that big of a deal because we then have to compare it to the level of decrease of certain others and we may not find that big of a delta...

Roundball_Rock

06-12-2020, 12:15 PM

MJ stans suddenly don't want to talk about finals efficiency. :roll:

3ball

06-12-2020, 08:44 PM

Round Mound

06-12-2020, 08:48 PM

^^^ if anyone can't see that Pippen sucked and was thoroughly carried, then they can't read

Jordan doubled Pippen's assist percentage in 1997 Finals, with 1/3 the turnover percentage

Let that sink in... pippen sucked

:roll:

Whoah10115

06-12-2020, 08:54 PM

These are garbage threads. Keep shoving stats and you don't know shit beyond that, then talk bullshit about Kareem in the WCFs, as if you watched.

Pippen is great tho. One of my favorite players.

Whoah10115

06-12-2020, 08:59 PM

Not to mention that all you did was give 3ball another thread to post the same thing again, as his mission in life is to single-handedly create as many threads about Jordan as these creeps do about LeBron..at least they have alts man.

Did I just prefer the alts? Damn what this asshole has done.

For the record Roundball_Rock is the asshole..3ball just 3ball.

3ball

06-12-2020, 09:01 PM

:roll:

How could Pippen get half the assist percentage but 3 times the turnover percentage?

He sucks... that how... Show me a better definition of sucking... Maybe if someone got 15 on 34%... Oh wait

Show me another sidekick that won while getting outscored by so much AND half the assist percentage with 3 times the turnover percentage... Probably doesn't exist

Overdrive

06-12-2020, 09:37 PM

How could Pippen get half the assist percentage but 3 times the turnover percentage?

Can you post the raw numbers like you always do? Or are percentages the prefered stat when it comes to assists?

trada7029

06-12-2020, 10:57 PM

Can you post the raw numbers like you always do? Or are percentages the prefered stat when it comes to assists?

1997 Finals

Jordan... 32.3.. 7.0.. 6.0.. 2.2 tov.. 113 ortg.. 27.1 PER.. 23 (https://stats.nba.com/players/clutch-traditional/?sort=PTS&dir=-1&Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PerMode=Totals&PORound=4) clutch points (#1)
Pippen... 20.0.. 8.3.. 3.5.. 3.5 tov.. 101 ortg.. 18.1 PER.... 4 (https://stats.nba.com/players/clutch-traditional/?sort=PTS&dir=-1&Season=1996-97&SeasonType=Playoffs&PerMode=Totals&PORound=4) clutch points (last)

1997 Playoffs

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-13-2020/CygAgo.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-13-2020/WXfEGl.gif

tpols

06-12-2020, 11:04 PM

Let me break it down for yall in non autistic fashion.

MJ = 32 ppg on 113 ORTG
Pippen = 18 ppg on 102 ORTG

Just imagine what efficiency pippen would've put up without the GOAT beside him....

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 11:28 AM

So the goal posts move. So MJ stans admit the "poor efficiency" TP we heard daily was deceptive all along? :cheers:

Just imagine what efficiency pippen would've put up without the GOAT beside him....

What evidence is there MJ increased teammate efficiency? IG and I have talked about it in another thread. Here is the available data, not theory, data:

*When MJ returned in 95' Pippen, Kukoc, Perdue became less efficient; BJ more.
*When MJ returned in 86' Woolridge, Green, Gervin became less efficient.
*When MJ left in 94' Pippen, Grant, Cartwright, Williams became more efficient; BJ less efficient.
*When Oakley was traded away from MJ he became more efficient.
*When Cartwright was traded to the Bulls he became less efficient.

There is almost no evidence produced to date to support the theory that MJ was this great efficiency booster (only BJ seemed to benefit from him in this regard). MJ stans can argue 93' was a down year for Pippen so not a good comp, but MJ came back and his efficiency went down. MJ stans never address any Bulls' teammate outside of Pippen.

In contrast, the numbers for Pippen show the opposite (need to do 94' but have the 98' numbers):

*Jordan, Kukoc, Longley, Harper, Kerr, Wennington all became more efficient with Pippen than without him. No player I looked at (which was the top 5 non-Pippen scorers plus Wennington thrown in as a random 6th player) became less efficient. :oldlol:

The MJ theory sounds great: GOAT-level player to draw defensive attention, lower volume for teammates. These should combine to produce large efficiency gains. So where is it? It sounds like the offense operated with more ball movement minus MJ so they actually got better shots without him as a result, despite higher volume and more defensive attention. Any alternative theories?

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-13-2020, 11:32 AM

*When MJ returned in 95' Pippen became less efficient

Pippen in the '94 Playoffs: 52%TS
Pippen in the '95 Playoffs (w/ Jordan): 55%TS

:confusedshrug:

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 12:13 PM

Here are the raw numbers for transparency.

Bulls' Teammates in 95' With/Without MJ

Pippen w/out MJ in 95': 56.1% TS
Pippen with MJ in 95': 54.9% TS

Kukoc w/out MJ in 95': 57.9% TS
Kukoc with MJ in 95': 55.8% TS

Armstrong w/out MJ in 95': 56.2% TS
Armstrong with MJ in 95': 66.6% TS

Perdue w/out MJ in 95': 57.6% TS
Perdue with MJ in 95': 55.6% TS

Bulls’ Teammates With/Without MJ in 86’

Woolridge without MJ: 21.5/4.9/3.4 49.7% FG 15.0 GS
Woolridge with MJ: 15.9/4.9/1.7 49.4% FG 11.2 GS

Gervin without MJ: 17.8/2.9/1.9 47.7% FG 10.5 GS
Gervin with MJ: 11.1/1.9/0.9 46.3% FG 5.6 GS

Green without MJ: 14.8/8.9/2.0 48.9% FG 10.4 GS
Green with MJ: 7.8/5.2/0.9 32.4% 3.8 GS

1998 Efficiency for Top 5 non-Pippen Bull's Scorers (by TS %)

Jordan w/out Pippen: 52.0%
Jordan with Pippen: 54.4%

Kukoc w/out Pippen: 52.1%
Kukoc with Pippen: 52.9%

Longley w/out Pippen: 48.9%
Longley with Pippen: 49.6%

Harper w/out Pippen: 49.3%
Harper with Pippen: 51.2%

Kerr w/out Pippen: 54.1%
Kerr with Pippen: 62.1%

Wennington had an increase too when I looked at him as a random player.

Oakley/Cartwright (TS %)

Oakley 88' with MJ: 54.3%
Oakley 89' w/out MJ: 56.0%

Cartwright 88' w/out MJ: 63.9%
Cartwright 89' with MJ: 53.5%

trada7029

06-13-2020, 12:16 PM

Pippen in the '94 Playoffs: 52%TS
Pippen in the '95 Playoffs (w/ Jordan): 55%TS

:confusedshrug:

Kuniva, you seem like you're educated

So certainly you understand that MJ cannot assist on his own shots.... Accordingly, MJ assisted on a higher proportion of AVAILABLE shots than Pippen, which is why his assist percentage is higher - jordan's playoff assist percentage is 28% and Pippen's 21, so MJ assisted 33% more often than Pippen..

the idea that Pippen assisted more is a complete myth - MJ assisted 33% more often in the playoffs, and 10% more often in regular season

tpols

06-13-2020, 12:21 PM

it's totally asinine to think pippen wouldnt get an efficiency drop over a big sample size without MJ.

Imagine if he was the first option in that 2nd 3peat? already shooting like shit but having to carry a huge load with the defense zoned in on him instead of MJ?

the pacers would've beat the bulls in 5.

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 12:35 PM

trada7029

06-13-2020, 12:51 PM

So you have nothing? I am not making a definitive statement. I'm simply asking for the data showing MJ improved his teammates' efficiency. That is more than "Pippen! Pippen! Pippen!". Afraid that no trend exists? I gave you guys Armstrong. Find another.

Yes, we have an insufficient sample size. :lol Even if you spin, spin, spin like IG was in the other thread, the best you can find is a split decision: that his peak efficiency as a #1 was (56.1% TS in 95' before his numbers dipped with MJ)...literally the same as his peak as a #2. That "split decision" would have to ignore that 56.1% on 27.4% usage>>>doing it on 21.8% usage.

Basketball is played on the court, not in theory.

Why Pippen! Pippen! Pippen! Kukoc? Cartwright? Grant? Kerr? Armstrong? Maybe try Scott Williams? Oakley? Woolridge? Craig Hodges? IDK, Rodney McCray? Jack Haley? Maybe he did it in 02' on the Wizards?

This is what increasing efficiency looks like:

Jordan w/out Pippen: 52.0%
Jordan with Pippen: 54.4%

We already know that lebron turns teammates into higher efficiency play-finishers (lesser players)

But what's more hurtful - barely reducing your teammates efficiency, or significantly reducing their production

The 14' Heat had much better efficiency against the Spurs than any other Spurs opponent, but lost by the most.. this is common - efficiency isn't nearly as important as production

Production makes a defense work, which leaves them less capacity for offense... Otoh, seeking efficiency is a passive approach and lets the defense rest.. the 14' heat had MUCH better efficiency against the Spurs than any other Spurs opponent.. this passive, less productive approach HURT them

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 01:00 PM

Let's compare Pippen's "small sample size" to others who became #1 options from the same general era. Feel free to add others.

Penny with Shaq in 96': 60.5% TS
Penny w/out Shaq in 97': 55.4% TS (#1 option)

Worthy with Magic in 91': 53.1% TS
Worthy w/out Magic in 92': 49.0% TS (#1 option)

Kemp with Payton in 97': 58.3% TS
Kemp w/out Payton in 98': 51.2% TS (#1 option)

McHale with Bird in 88': 65.6% TS
McHale w/out Bird in 89': 60.8% TS (#1 option)

Richmond with in GS in 91': 56.5% TS
Richmond in Sacramento in 92': 54.8% TS (#1 option)

Stopping it after one year makes it look prettier...Kemp, Worthy, Penny got even worse in subsequent years as #1 options. Worthy, Penny broke down altogether. Meanwhile Pippen had career high efficiency in 95' before MJ, improving on 94'.

This is what you are groping for. This is what usually happens when a #2 option becomes a #1 option and gets more volume and more defensive attention.

Pippen was a rare outlier, a credit to him and the small number of players who did the same by rising to the occasion. Westbrook is another (maintained the same TS % without KD despite higher volume, more defensive attention). Does it kill you Pippen haters to admit this? :lol

The Pippen stuff would matter if he was the only one but when Grant, Cartwright, Williams, Woolridge, Kukoc, Green, Gervin, Oakley, are all more efficient without MJ in addition to Pippen and the only one we have that was less efficient was Armstrong, that should tell any sane observer something. These are basically all his key teammates. Forgot Kerr.

Kerr w/out MJ in 95': 63.5% TS
Kerr with MJ in 95': 63.7% TS

I guess you can hang your hat on the 0.2% (statistically insignificant difference)? :cheers:

trada7029

06-13-2020, 01:06 PM

Lebron's teammates are considered bad players and he gives them a bad rep

MJ elevates his teammates to stars and great reputation

And that's because production > efficiency

Lebron craters his teammates' production, which is more hurtful than reducing efficiency..

Lebron turns teammates into predictable play-finishers with far lower production than they normally get... MJ let's teammates handle the ball and play their game, so their production doesn't crater like lebron's teammates.. lebron reduces teammates' role and MJ doesn't

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 01:12 PM

Can we get some receipts? Let's see some data, not speculation and theories.

ArbitraryWater

06-13-2020, 01:18 PM

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 01:36 PM

Jordan said he couldn't have won without Pippen, who had 23 points Friday and played incredible defense throughout the playoffs.

``I'll take the trophy, he'll take the car,' Jordan said, referring to the automobile that goes to the finals MVP.

https://www.greensboro.com/mvp-jordan-credits-pippen-take-the-car-jordan-said/article_5cd1b84b-be79-5b5c-9a8e-9e4eb9fbfd94.html

MJ thought Pippen should be co-FMVP.

RRR3

06-13-2020, 01:40 PM

We already know that lebron turns teammates into higher efficiency play-finishers (lesser players)

But what's more hurtful - barely reducing your teammates efficiency, or significantly reducing their production

The 14' Heat had much better efficiency against the Spurs than any other Spurs opponent, but lost by the most.. this is common - efficiency isn't nearly as important as production

Production makes a defense work, which leaves them less capacity for offense... Otoh, seeking efficiency is a passive approach and lets the defense rest.. the 14' heat had MUCH better efficiency against the Spurs than any other Spurs opponent.. this passive, less productive approach HURT them
Literally no one was talking about LeBron. You are sick in the head.

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 03:19 PM

Here are what #'s look like for a player who actually massively raises teammate's efficiency.

Amare w/out Nash 2003-2004: 53.3%
Amare with Nash 2008-2010: 63.1% (62.8% from 2005-2010)
Amare w/out Nash 2011-2013: 56.7%

Marion with Nash 2005-2007: 58.0%
Marion w/out Nash 2009-2011: 53.7%
Marion 2010 in Phoenix: 59.4%
Marion 2010 in Miami: 50.3%

J. Johnson w/out Nash 2002-2003: 47.5%
J. Johnson with Nash 2004-2005: 52.2%
J. Johnson w/out Nash 2006-2008: 54.2%

Bell w/out Nash 2003-2005: 51.2%
Bell with Nash 2006-2008: 57.0%
Bell w/out Nash 2010-2012: 54.6%
(2009 56.9% in PHX, 54.1% in CHA)

Barbosa w/out Nash 2004: 55.3%
Barbosa with Nash 2005-2010: 58.1%
Barbosa w/out Nash 2011-2013: 52.4%

Diaw w/out Nash 2004-2005: 48.1%
Diaw with Nash 2005-2008: 55.1%
Diaw w/out Nash 2010-2012: 54.5%
(60.0% in PHX, 55.8% in CHA in 09')

Shaq w/out Nash 2005-2007: 58.1% (57.9% in 06' and 07')
Shaq with Nash 2009: 62.3%
Shaq w/out Nash 2011-2012: 59.5%
(60.5% in PHX, 57.7% in MIA in 08')

With MJ--at best--we can say teammate efficiency was a wash with, without him.

ArbitraryWater

06-13-2020, 03:21 PM

amazing stuff for Nashy

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 03:26 PM

amazing stuff for Nashy

Yup--which is why I always push back when people say he should have never won MVP. That is MVP work.

tpols

06-13-2020, 03:44 PM

Bulls team ORTG

1991 - 1st rank
1992 - 1st rank
1993 - 2nd rank

1994 - 14th rank

:biggums:

Chicago went from all time great offense to... straight mediocre without MJ.

And that was with PEAK pippen. Young or old (2nd 3peat) Scottie would've fared even worse.

We're looking at 20th and beyond ranked offenses fellas...

smh.

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 03:50 PM

While we are here, let's demolish another TP about MJ having no help in these finals. Hornacek the #2 option in 98', Stockton in 97'. Pippen for 97' and games 1-4 for 98', Kukoc for games 5-6 for context.

1998 Finals "Help"

Game 1: Pippen 21, Kukoc 9; Hornacek 4, Stockton 24
Game 2: Pippen 21, Kukoc 13; Hornacek 20, Stockton 9
Game 3: Pippen 10, Kukoc 16; Hornacek 6, Stockton 2 (legendary D from Pip)
Game 4: Pippen 28, Kukoc 8; Hornacek 8, Stockton 7
Game 5: Kukoc 30, Pippen 6; Hornacek 9, Stockton 6
Game 6: Kukoc 15, Pippen 8; Hornacek 17, Stockton 10

Injured Pippen 14; healthy Stockton 16. :lol

1997 Finals

Game 1: Pippen 27, Kukoc 6; Stockton 16, Hornacek 11
Game 2: Pippen 10, Kukoc 7; Stockton 14, Hornacek 19
Game 3: Pippen 27, Kukoc 8; Stockton 17, Hornacek 4
Game 4: Pippen 16, Kukoc 9; Stockton 17, Hornacek 13
Game 5: Pippen 17, Kukoc 9; Stockton 13, Hornacek 7
Game 6: Pippen 23, Kukoc 9; Stockton 13, Hornacek 18

No help, doe! :lol

None of this even covers defense...or Rodman, who held Malone to 48.5% TS/44.3% eFG in 97'.

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 03:53 PM

Bulls team ORTG

Chicago went from all time great offense to... straight mediocre without MJ.

And that was with PEAK pippen. Young or old (2nd 3peat) Scottie would've fared even worse.

Wait until you discover the decline from 97' to 98' without Pippen (old Pippen doe)... :roll:

They were +2.2 rORTG with Pippen in 94' (8th); -2.6 rORTG without him (21st). Pete Myers in place of MJ (so 4 on 5 on offense for the Bulls) and still a top 10 offense? Better than any MJ offense prior to Jackson and the triangle?

The decrease without Pippen in 94' and 98' was -5 in rORTG both times (-7 if we compare against 97'). With MJ, -3 from 93' to 94' and +3 when he came back in 95'. Yet Pippen sucks as an offensive player per you and others--yet your own logic says he was a great offensive player. :lol

ImKobe

06-13-2020, 03:54 PM

Nice, leaving out all the important data here

1997

MJ: 32.3 ppg 6.0 APG 2.1 TOV 113 ORTG
Pip: 20.0 ppg 3.5 APG 3.5 TOV 101 ORTG

1998

MJ: 33.5 ppg 2.3 APG 1.67 TOV 111 ORTG
Pip: 15.7 ppg 4.8 APG 2.67 TOV 104 ORTG
Kukoc: 15.2 ppg 2.7 APG 1.67 TOV 108 ORTG

tpols

06-13-2020, 03:59 PM

14th ranked offense is below average amongst teams that made the playoffs.

Literally GOAT offense to below average offense...

And then you have this in the playoffs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYcjCoy7R4I

:roll:

the guy was an ultimate ho.

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 03:59 PM

Goal posts moving. So we all agree the efficiency BS MJ stans have pushed for 10+ years was deceptive? Even MJ stans can't defend it with the facts showing up. So they knew it was BS but still pushed it before getting called out?

14th ranked offense is below average

This idiot can't grasp that they were top 10 when Pippen actually played but not top 20 without him. Hence 14th overall. It isn't hard to process.

So to the second point, where are the receipts? The Knicks were 16th and they had Ewing all season--and this was the best Riley-era Knicks offense...

ImKobe

06-13-2020, 04:01 PM

Goal posts moving. So we all agree the efficiency BS MJ stans have pushed for 10+ years was deceptive? Even MJ stans can't defend it with the facts showing up.

This idiot can't grasp that they were top 10 when Pippen actually played but not top 20 without him. Hence 14th overall. It isn't hard to process.

So to the second point, where are the receipts? The Knicks were 16th and they had Ewing all season--and this was the best Riley-era Knicks offense...

So, they were still below-average offensively among Playoff teams when Pippen played.

ImKobe

06-13-2020, 04:07 PM

Let's look further at the Knicks series in the 1994 ECSF

Pippen: 51.3%TS 44.7% eFG 103 ORTG
Ewing: 58.1%TS 53.8% eFG 113 ORTG
Armstrong: 60.7%TS 54.3% eFG 123 ORTG
Grant: 61.5%TS 57.1% eFG 131 ORTG

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 04:11 PM

First, MJ stans aren't able to process--by your own TP Pippen was awesome offensively since the offense sucked more without him than MJ. You can't hype a 3 point differential and ignore 5 or 7 (Bulls were barely above the league average at +1 in 98' without Pippen).

So, they were still below-average offensively among Playoff teams with Pippen played.

Goal posts moving yet again (without conceding the deception exposed in the OP) but I like exposing MJ stan myths so let's put it to the test (I think I know the answer...).

1994 Playoff Offenses

EC teams offensive rank: Magic 3rd, Heat 5th, Cavs 6th, Bulls 8th (healthy), Pacers 11th, Hawks 12th, Nets 13th, Knicks 16th
WC teams offensive rank: Suns 1st, Sonics 2nd, Spurs 4th, Jazz 7th, Warriors 9th, Blazers 10th, Rockets 15th, Nuggets 20th

So the Bulls with Pippen were better than: Pacers, Hawks, Nets, Knicks, Warriors, Blazers, Rockets, Nuggets (8 teams)
The Bulls with Pippen were worse than: Magic, Heat, Cavs, Suns, Sonics, Spurs, Jazz (7 teams)

MJ stans' new TP crumbles upon examination. MJ stans flailing just making things up now. :lol

Let's do the same with 98'...

1998 Playoff Offenses

EC teams offensive rank: Pacers 4th, Nets 5th, Hawks 6th, Heat 10th, Hornets 11th, Bulls (minus Pippen) 13th, Knicks 20th, Cavs 24th
WC teams offensive rank: Jazz 1st, Lakers 2nd, Sonics 3rd, Wolves 7th, Rockets 9th, Suns 12th, Blazers 16th, Spurs 17th

The Bulls w/out Pippen were better than: Knicks, Cavs, Blazers, Spurs (4 teams)
The Bulls w/out Pippen were worse than: Pacers, Nets, Hawks, Heat, Hornets, Jazz, Lakers, Sonics, Wolves, Rockets, Suns (11 teams)

Bulls with Pippen were 4th (1st in the East) with an improvement of 5 net points (so +1 to +6, orating of 106 to 111, Pacers were at 108 and the top EC offense).

We are going to expose every single lie. Do better MJ stans. :hammertime:

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 04:34 PM

As to cherry picking one series against an all-time great defense (#1, 98.2 dRating--so 8.1 points less than the league average), let's put that to the test too.

Let's look further at the Knicks series in the 1994 ECSF

Let's do--but look at all teams they played--which MJ stans always conceal (a classic MJ stan tell, in this case telling us the data for the other teams wouldn't help their TP).

Average Points Scored Against the 1994 Knicks (Playoffs)

Nets: 86.5
Bulls: 90.3
Pacers: 87.4
Rockets: 86.1

Damn, another TP shattered. The Bulls' offense did better against the 94' Knicks than anyone else. How about defense?

Average Points Allowed Against the 1994 Knicks (Playoffs)

Nets: 93.8
Bulls: 89.1
Pacers: 87.4
Rockets: 86.9

Net Difference

Knicks vs. Nets: Knicks +7.3
Knicks vs. Bulls: Bulls +1.2
Knicks vs. Pacers: even
Knicks vs. Rockets: Knicks +0.8

Knicks got lucky thanks to Hue Hollins infamous "foul" call bailing the Knicks out after they were losing, missed on their final shot in Game 5 (handed the Knicks a 3-2 lead):

https://frankthetank.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/scottie-pippen-hue-hollins-hubert-davis-foul.jpg?w=584

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 04:41 PM

But, but, you used raw points. What about offensive rating? The Knicks' average dRating was 98.2 so the number in parentheses compares against the average.

Offensive Rating Against the 94' Knicks (Playoffs)

Nets: 95.9 (-2.3)
Bulls: 106.7 (+8.5)
Pacers: 100.1 (+1.9)
Rockets: 101.0 (+2.8)

So the Nets were slightly worse, the Pacers and Rockets slightly better. The Bulls were the only standout, as their offense performed 9 points better than the Knicks' season long average rating.

No wonder MJ stans never utter a single word about these other team's offensive performance.

ImKobe

06-14-2020, 07:38 AM

As to cherry picking one series against an all-time great defense (#1, 98.2 dRating--so 8.1 points less than the league average), let's put that to the test too.

Let's do--but look at all teams they played--which MJ stans always conceal (a classic MJ stan tell, in this case telling us the data for the other teams wouldn't help their TP).

Average Points Scored Against the 1994 Knicks (Playoffs)

Nets: 86.5
Bulls: 90.3
Pacers: 87.4
Rockets: 86.1

Damn, another TP shattered. The Bulls' offense did better against the 94' Knicks than anyone else. How about defense?

Average Points Allowed Against the 1994 Knicks (Playoffs)

Nets: 93.8
Bulls: 89.1
Pacers: 87.4
Rockets: 86.9

Net Difference

Knicks vs. Nets: Knicks +7.3
Knicks vs. Bulls: Bulls +1.2
Knicks vs. Pacers: even
Knicks vs. Rockets: Knicks +0.8

Knicks got lucky thanks to Hue Hollins infamous "foul" call bailing the Knicks out after they were losing, missed on their final shot in Game 5 (handed the Knicks a 3-2 lead):

https://frankthetank.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/scottie-pippen-hue-hollins-hubert-davis-foul.jpg?w=584

Bulls deserved to lose with how bad Pippen was as the supposed #1 guy and with him mentally checking out and refusing to play in a tie game situation. Pippen couldn't carry an offense scoring-wise, hence him being wayyy less efficient than his teammates and Ewing & Starks.

Roundball_Rock

06-14-2020, 09:13 AM

Pippen couldn't carry an offense scoring-wise

Offensive Rating Against the 94' Knicks (Playoffs)

Nets: 95.9 (-2.3)
Bulls: 106.7 (+8.5)
Pacers: 100.1 (+1.9)
Rockets: 101.0 (+2.8)

hence him being wayyy less efficient than his teammates and Ewing & Starks.

More #deception.

1994 Playoff Efficiency

Pippen: 52.1% TS, 31.9% usage (playoff league leader)
Ewing: 49.5% TS, 28.6% usage
Starks: 52.8% TS, 22.2% usage
Smith: 53.2% TS, 18.2% usage
Grant: 58.5% TS, 18.1% usage
Armstrong: 61.0% TS, 17.9% usage

Your whole TP relies on low usage players. Grant scored a lot on putbacks and dunks. Armstrong was a sharpshooter. Pippen detractors go on and on about Kukoc. He played 19 MPG in the playoffs and went 9/4/4--and you guys sing hosannas to him for it. If these guys were so efficient--why didn't they get more usage? They couldn't create enough shots. If they took 25% usage--their efficiency would tank.

Pippen versus Ewing is a comp of two superstars--and strikingly the SF has better efficiency than a C. Using your own standard, Ewing must have sucked. Especially given how bad that offense was (16th that year--and this was the best Riley-era offense...).

You keep flailing and just saying anything--the facts keep showing otherwise. Have some self-respect and stop embarrassing yourself.