1994 Pippen should have been mvp

[999Guy]

Roundball is a statman, but dumb as rocks in true basketball conversations

He’s not a stat man at all. He uses FG% as a measuring stick for scoring. :lol

[Reggie43]

Imagine getting traded for Roy Rogers one year then Cato and Walt Williams the next because of your toxic attitude but guess what those wont factor in Pippens value because Roundball only understands the game based on stats

[Roundball_Rock]

If you take the totality of the arguments put forward in this thread against Pippen, the logical conclusion is Pippen should have finished 2nd, not 3rd in MVP, by that very (professed) criteria. :lol

[Rico2016]

If you take the totality of the arguments put forward in this thread against Pippen, the logical conclusion is Pippen should have finished 2nd, not 3rd in MVP, by that very (professed) criteria. :lol
:lol

[Duncan21formvp]

Hakeem
Robinson
Malone
Barkley
Ewing
are the only ones that year that have a case.

[Reggie43]

Finishing second in Mvp votes enroute to a second round exit does sound better :lol

Imagine him getting Mvp in 94 in the aftermath of the most famous 1.8 seconds in nba history :roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

:lol

The best part is they are so consumed with hatred towards Pippen and insecurity and fear regarding LeBron they can't even see it.

It is like taking candy from a baby. Just take their argument, apply to Pippen's peers and voila! Pippen comes out looking even better using their own logic. :roll:

The best part of the thread, though, is MJ stans admitting the Bulls with Pete Myers in place of MJ=the Knicks (the 90's Bulls' top competition) at full strength...

[tpols]

https://youtu.be/Cgk24LrIeGk

Is this a player that is too dependent on team play to get going?

Shows his full arsenal with stepbacks, fadeaways, faceup drives runners etc.

wait a second...

in this video alone we see reggie do...

blow by 2 handed dunk
euro step finger roll layup
an assortment of floaters and tear drops off the dribble
chef style deep 3's
a fakeout, up and under dumble pump 3 (wtf)
backdoor cuts for layup

and this is all from ONE game??

:biggums:

How come everybody acts like reggie was a simple shooter?

He had a huge bag of tricks.

[Roundball_Rock]

Speaking of Reggie, he must be better than Shaq, right--since he "outplayed" Shaq "head to head" in the playoffs (47 win team versus 50 win team for Shaq, therefore they must have been equal). Yet another reason to disqualify Shaq from MVP consideration under the professed Jordanian standard (Robinson, Ewing disqualified as well per MJ stan's own professed criteria). If Reggie>Shaq maybe he was as great as people think 25 years after the fact (he was a 1x all-star before Spike Lee)! :lol

[LostCause]

ITT: Got dudes who cite Backpicks left and right for Pippen but ignore that very same source who used the same exact criteria when it comes to Miller, lol. You morons never change with the hypocrisy

That said, no. He shouldn’t have been MVP

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes, because you must agree with every single sentence written by an author. :lol Even BP has Miller behind the other players being mentioned here and notes his peak wasn't top 50 all-time. Miller is higher than his low peak in BP due to longevity--he chugged along at a non-superstar but star level for a long time. That isn't what we are hearing. We are hearing Miller was this superstar who was flat out better prime versus prime compared to real superstars.

One side is presenting information and comparing it to his peers, others going on a "Pippen sucks" crusade presenting cherry picked information relative to him in a vacuum because they know what a holistic picture would look like.

The arguments that have been presented "against" Pippen lead to the conclusion--by MJ stans' own stated criteria--that he should have finished 2nd, not 3rd, in MVP but the echo chamber can't grasp how their own criteria applies to anyone else, drunk on hatred and insecurity as the specter of LeBron James looms.

[tpols]

ITT: Got dudes who cite Backpicks left and right for Pippen but ignore that very same source who used the same exact criteria when it comes to Miller, lol. You morons never change with the hypocrisy

That said, no. He shouldn’t have been MVP

That's not morons. :lol

thats just roundball.

he only uses stats when they fit his cherrypicked criteria.

[Roundball_Rock]

What "cherry picked criteria"? Let's see your self-professed analytic powers explain this. :D

I have a consistent criteria, unlike you and others in this thread, who literally change your criteria from player to player, series to series, etc. :roll:

[Round Mound]

1993-94 Pippen;

- 3rd in Plus/Minus
- 4th in PER
- 5th In Defensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Offensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Value Over Replacement Player
- 7th in Defensive Win Shares
- 7th in Win Shares
- 7th In Defensive Rating
- 9th in Win Shares Per 48 Minutes

And Lead his Team to 55 wins (two wins less than the prior season) WITHOUT MJ.

[Roundball_Rock]

1993-94 Pippen;

- 3rd in Plus/Minus
- 4th in PER
- 5th In Defensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Offensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Value Over Replacement Player
- 7th in Defensive Win Shares
- 7th in Win Shares
- 7th In Defensive Rating
- 9th in Win Shares Per 48 Minutes

And Lead his Team to 55 wins (two wins less than the prior season) WITHOUT MJ.

A record so strong they can't make honest good faith, consistent arguments against it. :bowdown:

[Reggie43]

Strongest second round exit ever? :roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

That is an actual example of fake/biased criteria. The same people who harp on a second round loss have been saying Shaq, Robinson (even Kemp in the WOAT 1st round loss :lol ) should have been higher in MVP than Pippen. So second round loss bad*; first round loss is fine. It is all #agenda driven. Same with the faux metrics of playoff scoring, playoff efficiency, or win-loss records (the poster who railed the most about that in this thread re Pippen and Ewing--days later--in another thread, concerning another player, suddenly wants to separate out 1) games missed by the star in question 2) games missed by his best teammate. Using his own new professed logic, Pippen>Ewing but with Pippen nothing counts but the full 82).

A real criteria is a criteria you apply consistently to every player.

Keep it coming. It is pure comedy to see Pippen haters (MJ stans and a handful of fake fans of other teams) careen from deceptive TP to deceptive TP (or even false TP, like pretending Pippen was on the Dream Team bubble) and get exposed again and again.

*If you lose to the Knicks in 7 in the second round you suck; if you lose to the Knicks in the next round (playing worse than the Bulls did) that is a heroic feat--per the same people.

[Reggie43]

Yep keep clinging to that 55 win second round exit :lol

[Roundball_Rock]

It beats getting swept in the first round. :lol

[Reggie43]

It beats getting swept in the first round. :lol

Pretty sure Pippen would rather get swept in the first round than be reminded of that last 1.8 seconds :roll:

[Roundball_Rock]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q _80,w_1200/wso7atzo1ss5ob1z52zx.jpg

MJ stans not even trying to make a case anymore. :pimp:

[Reggie43]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q _80,w_1200/wso7atzo1ss5ob1z52zx.jpg

MJ stans not even trying to make a case anymore. :pimp:

The fact that you call me an MJ stan without me making a case for him is the best example of paranoia in this board

[tpols]

everyone is an MJ fan and/or an alt of one another to this guy. :oldlol:

he may have a case of mild schizophrenia.

[Roundball_Rock]

Correct--Pippen haters almost to a poster happen to be Jordan fans (not something most of them will deny, only fake Pacers fans, so the faux concern over mentioning MJ fans hate Pippen is amusing). Pure coincidence, as is that the two players in question happened to be teammates. :cheers:

Tpols, I have no idea what you are. You hate Pippen but are all over the map so don't fit neatly into any camp. :lol

[Reggie43]

everyone is an MJ fan and/or an alt of one another to this guy. :oldlol:

he may have a case of mild schizophrenia.

He probably does seeing the amount of threads he is simultaneously replying to, that shit is not healthy and is probably messing with his brain.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Rockball since the doc aired:
https://i.giphy.com/media/kZp2U6hVWiH27mIOkZ/giphy.webp

How long before this sick puppy goes back into hiding? :lol And posts on his alts.

[Roundball_Rock]

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/c_fill,f_auto,fl_progressive,g_center,h_675,pg_1,q _80,w_1200/wso7atzo1ss5ob1z52zx.jpg

MJ stans not even trying to make a case anymore. :pimp:

Reduced to quibbling over what % of Pippen haters are in fact MJ fans. :lol As if whether it is 70%, 80% or 90% matters.

:hammertime:

[tpols]

i dont hate pippen... i'd have no reason to. i pretty much call it like it is.

[Roundball_Rock]

i dont hate pippen...

Yup, you just happen to be in every Pippen thread (it is the same posters--we aren't supposed to notice that and who the bulk of them are fans of) saying he sucks. :lol Anyway, you are in the (small) non-MJ/Pippen hater category.

It isn't just ISH. The same thing happens elsewhere. Just own the agenda (not directed at you tpols but the others). We all see it: Pippen sucked, MJ won by himself against giants (every other 90's star). We see it all over on social media, other sites, etc. daily and it isn't hard to see what the agenda driving it is. People can notice posting histories, people can click on social media profiles and see what comes up, etc.

[insidious301]

Jordan bad. 90s wack. Pippen though!

Think you guys have been talking about the same stuff for months now.

[Roundball_Rock]

19 pages in and "Pippen haters" have not had a single word of criticism towards any other superstar/star mentioned in the thread. So the pose of solemn objectivity driving criticism of Pippen, but not one word towards any other player that has come up in the thread. In fact, even when their own professed criteria was applied to other players, their response often was to defend those players who fared even worse based on their own criteria (the other response was simply to ignore other players and focus on bashing Pippen). Pippen does it, he sucks; anyone else does it to an even worse degree--they are awesome!

Players who came up in this thread include Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Miller, Drexler, Stockton, Payton, and Kemp. Only one was subject to scrutiny by "Pippen haters." No bias, no agenda whatsoever. Simple objective analysis.

:roll:

[Sarcastic]

1993-94 Pippen;

- 3rd in Plus/Minus
- 4th in PER
- 5th In Defensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Offensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Value Over Replacement Player
- 7th in Defensive Win Shares
- 7th in Win Shares
- 7th In Defensive Rating
- 9th in Win Shares Per 48 Minutes

And Lead his Team to 55 wins (two wins less than the prior season) WITHOUT MJ.

That's not a strong enough season to win MVP. It's a very nice season, but not MVP worthy.

[Roundball_Rock]

His response is to the people saying Pippen didn't even have a case and shouldn't have even been a candidate because he was a bum. Those are MVP-caliber numbers (a statistical comparison of Pippen and Ewing was done earlier after a MJ fan said Ewing had better stats; it was so lopsided a Knicks fan called for a ban :lol ). As to who wins, a lot of factors go into it. Personally, Hakeem was the right choice but Pippen would have gotten my second vote if I were a MVP voter.

[Sarcastic]

David Robinson put up 29.8/10.7/4.8 on .577 TS, with a 30.7 PER, .296 ws/48, and 11.9 BPM. He also led his team to 55 wins, except he didn't have 2 other All Stars, and a top rookie on his team the way Pippen did.

Shaq also put up numbers far superior to Pippen in 94, beating him PER, ws/48, and win shares, along with traditional box score numbers.



The correct order should have been
1 Hakeem
2 Robinson
(gap)
3 Shaq
(gap)
4 Pippen
5 Ewing
6 Payton or Kemp
7 Payton or Kemp

[Roundball_Rock]

Wow, a real response for once in this thread? :lol One caveat is Pippen missed 10 games and was hurt for another 2 (Bulls started 5-7 as a result). That hurt his MVP case but also hurt his stats. If we are assessing performance we have to look per game (while docking him in season long consideration).

VORP: Robinson 11.4, Hakeem 7.3, Shaq 7.2, Pippen 6.8 (7.7 over 82), Ewing 5.5
BPM: Robinson 11.9, Pippen 7.7 (8.8. over 82), Hakeem/Shaq 6.8, Ewing 5.2
PER: Robinson 30.7, Shaq 28.5, Hakeem 25.3, Pippen 23.2, Ewing 22.9

WS? Robinson ahead by a mile.

If it is about stats, then it should have been Robinson in a landslide with the order behind him varying based on which stats you value. Of course, these advanced stats didn't exist back then. :oldlol: Pippen would be 2nd in BPM and VORP if he played a full season and was 4th in PER (which penalizes ballhandlers due to turnovers). So probably 2nd.


along with traditional box score numbers.

Center versus SF numbers are apples to oranges. The big difference is rebounding. Prime Kareem matches Jordan in scoring, assists (KAJ ahead in blocks, MJ in steals) but crushes him in rebounding but I never see anyone say prime Kareem>prime Jordan statistically.


He also led his team to 55 wins, except he didn't have 2 other All Stars, and a top rookie on his team the way Pippen did.

The Bulls went 50-20 (59 win pace) with a healthy Pippen, with one loss in a meaningless 82nd game. People keep acting like 55 wins was their performance level. 59 wins would be #1 in the East and second best in the NBA. He deserves to be docked for missing games, but his personal performance and team performance was better than the raw stats suggest.

True, Robinson had less help--but he also had perfect health for his team. Their top 5 guys all played 77+ games. The Bulls had injury issues, which always gets overlooked.

The Bulls weren't great without Pippen. They scored 87 PPG, had a -9 point differential. It isn't like he had the 19' Raptors "cast" or something, even if better than the Spurs'.

[Shooter]

Wow, a real response for once in this thread? :lol One caveat is Pippen missed 10 games and was hurt for another 2 (Bulls started 5-7 as a result). That hurt his MVP case but also hurt his stats. If we are assessing performance we have to look per game (while docking him in season long consideration).

VORP: Robinson 11.4, Hakeem 7.3, Shaq 7.2, Pippen 6.8 (7.7 over 82), Ewing 5.5
BPM: Robinson 11.9, Pippen 7.7 (8.8. over 82), Hakeem/Shaq 6.8, Ewing 5.2
PER: Robinson 30.7, Shaq 28.5, Hakeem 25.3, Pippen 23.2, Ewing 22.9

WS? Robinson ahead by a mile.

If it is about stats, then it should have been Robinson in a landslide with the order behind him varying based on which stats you value. Of course, these advanced stats didn't exist back then. :oldlol: Pippen would be 2nd in BPM and VORP if he played a full season and was 4th in PER (which penalizes ballhandlers due to turnovers). So probably 2nd.



Center versus SF numbers are apples to oranges. The big difference is rebounding. Prime Kareem matches Jordan in scoring, assists (KAJ ahead in blocks, MJ in steals) but crushes him in rebounding but I never see anyone say prime Kareem>prime Jordan statistically.



The Bulls went 50-20 (59 win pace) with a healthy Pippen, with one loss in a meaningless 82nd game. People keep acting like 55 wins was their performance level. 59 wins would be #1 in the East and second best in the NBA. He deserves to be docked for missing games, but his personal performance and team performance was better than the raw stats suggest.

True, Robinson had less help--but he also had perfect health for his team. Their top 5 guys all played 77+ games. The Bulls had injury issues, which always gets overlooked.

The Bulls weren't great without Pippen. They scored 87 PPG, had a -9 point differential. It isn't like he had the 19' Raptors "cast" or something, even if better than the Spurs'.

:hammertime:

:dancin

[Roundball_Rock]

:hammertime:

:dancin

Stats suddenly stop mattering in this thread when the stats for all players at issue are presented comparatively, not in an agenda-driven vacuum. :lol

[Bronbron23]

Pip was a great player but he absolutely has no argument for mvp that year. Drob, shaq and hakeem all had good records and all had better stats which according to yall is the most important thing. Shit they scored like 800 more points than pip that year and they all had a bigger impact defensively. They also had more rebounds and better shooting percentage. Wtf are yall talking about? :facepalm

[Roundball_Rock]

Shaq wasn't even a real MVP candidate that year on his 50 win team (with Penny, Anderson, Scott, and Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round (in other words, Orlando wasn't a contender) as he struggled to produce against Rik Smits. A lot of revisionism but it was a three horse race then--with Orlando and New York complaining their guys were not in it.

As to stats, that was covered earlier. Robinson was the landslide winner statistically. Pippen was 2nd per game in VORP and BPM, 4th in PER. That ended the statistical discussion. As to raw traditional stats (PPG, RPG, APG, etc.), We also are comparing a wing's stats to 2-4 centers. Using that logic, doesn't something like 30/16/4>33/6/5? ; )

Pippen's impact? A team that went from 4-6 and a -9 point differential while scoring a paltry 87 PPG went 50-20 with a healthy Pippen. Yet we keep hearing (albeit from MJ and a couple Knicks fans) he had no case when he was a legit contender at the time in a three-way race? Yet somehow guys who were not real MVP candidates not only had cases, but should have been over Pippen 26 years later.

[Bronbron23]

Shaq wasn't even a real MVP candidate that year on his 50 win team (with Penny, Anderson, Scott, and Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round (in other words, Orlando wasn't a contender) as he struggled to produce against Rik Smits. A lot of revisionism but it was a three horse race then--with Orlando and New York complaining their guys were not in it.

As to stats, that was covered earlier. Robinson was the landslide winner statistically. Pippen was 2nd per game in VORP and BPM, 4th in PER. That ended the statistical discussion. As to raw traditional stats (PPG, RPG, APG, etc.), We also are comparing a wing's stats to 2-4 centers. Using that logic, doesn't something like 30/16/4>33/6/5? ; )

Pippen's impact? A team that went from 4-6 and a -9 point differential while scoring a paltry 87 PPG went 50-20 with a healthy Pippen. Yet we keep hearing (albeit from MJ and a couple Knicks fans) he had no case when he was a legit contender at the time in a three-way race? Yet somehow guys who were not real MVP candidates not only had cases, but should have been over Pippen 26 years later.

Nobody uses vorp bpm and per to be honest but ill concede shaq. He sti has no argument over drob who literally better at everything other than passing.

And the no mj argument means nothing. Mj has nothing to do with it. The Bulls were a goat team with mj just like warriors were a goat team with kd. Curry dosnt get more credit now for whatever he does without kd. They're still a great team with a great coach and system.

[Roundball_Rock]

If it is about stats, then Robinson should have been MVP easily.

It was a three horse race. Pippen's "value" is evident based on their performance with and without him. Yet we are hearing he didn't have a case at all 26 years later and that guys who weren't candidates then should have been ahead of him?


Mj has nothing to do with it. The Bulls were a goat team with mj just like warriors were a goat team with kd

MJ won MVP in 98' for keeping the Bulls at a 56 win pace for not even half a season as the Bulls' eroded much worse without Pippen than they did without Jordan. The Bulls had a 59 win pace with healthy Pippen in 94', which would have meant their record would have improved and they would have had the #1 seed without Jordan. 55 wins understates how good they were with Pippen. As a comparison, the Bulls went from 69 wins to a 56 win pace without Pippen in 98' (67 win pace with Pippen back). That is a double digit win slide...

If it is about PPG/RPG/APG (98' #s):

Jordan: 29/6/4
Malone: 27/10/4
Shaq: 28/11/2

[Bronbron23]

If it is about stats, then Robinson should have been MVP easily.

It was a three horse race. Pippen's "value" is evident based on their performance with and without him. Yet we are hearing he didn't have a case at all 26 years later and that guys who weren't candidates then should have been ahead of him?



MJ won MVP in 98' for keeping the Bulls at a 56 win pace for not even half a season as the Bulls' eroded much worse without Pippen than they did without Jordan. The Bulls had a 59 win pace with healthy Pippen in 94', which would have meant their record would have improved and they would have had the #1 seed without Jordan. 55 wins understates how good they were with Pippen. As a comparison, the Bulls went from 69 wins to a 56 win pace without Pippen in 98' (67 win pace with Pippen back). That is a double digit win slide...

If it is about PPG/RPG/APG (98' #s):

Jordan: 29/6/4
Malone: 27/10/4
Shaq: 28/11/2

well i never argued mj deserved 98 mvp in the first place but he does have some arguments over those guys that pip didnt have against drob. Mj was a much better closer than malone and shaq. He was also a better defender than malone. Pip wasnt a better defender than drob and he wasnt a better closer than drob. Pip is a great 2nd option but hes not a guy you build your team around to win championships. He cant score good enough. Almost every championship team have one of the best scorers or a dominant big. Bron, kd, steph,kobe, shaq, mj, duncan, bird, hakeem, kg and now kawhi. Magic is the exception but even he was still the best at something which was passing. Pip is more of a jack of all trades kind of guy. Offensively Hes good at everything but not great at anything.

[Roundball_Rock]

I brought MJ up because a lot of the people ripping the Bulls' performance will praise the Bulls' 98 performance (for less than half a season) despite a much greater decline in team performance sans Pippen than sans Jordan (in theory the opposite would be true).

A lot of the argument here revolved around win totals. Many people said since the Rockets, Knicks, and Spurs won more games that therefore their best player should be ahead of Pippen in MVP (they also said Shaq should be but you can't expect consistency from those with an agenda). What were those win totals?

Rockets 58
Knicks 57
Spurs 56
Bulls 55
Magic 50

Of course, Pippen missed 10 games and was injured for another 2. In other contexts the same people love to note that but mysteriously want to charge Pippen for losses he was not part of. Here are win totals in games these players actually played (includes 2 injured games for Pippen, Chicago 1-1):

Hakeem 57-23 (58 win pace)
Robinson 54-26 (55 win pace)
Ewing 56-23 (58 win pace)
Pippen 51-21 (58 win pace)
Shaq 49-32 (50 win pace)

If you remove the two injured Pippen games, the Bulls went 50-20, a 59 win pace. So if it is about regular season performance (a professed standard of many Pippen haters here) Pippen comes out looking great.


Pip is a great 2nd option but hes not a guy you build your team around to win championships

Speculation (since he had a grand total of one playoff run as a #1 option) but you can say that about Robinson, Ewing, Malone, Drexler, Payton and even non-superstars like Reggie Miller and Shawn Kemp--all guys praised relative to Pippen throughout this thread. Robinson had nearly a full decade as a #1 option and got past the second round once. Ewing melted down in his finals appearance.

You also can say that about players who actually won MVP. Can you win a chip with Harden, Westbrook, Iverson, etc. as your best player? Your post implies no, that you basically need a top 10 all-time caliber player. Those guys don't win every time but the lion's share of NBA chips have went to teams with one of those players.

KG is an interesting case. KG won only when he played with two other HOF players and people said what you just said about him prior to that: you couldn't win with him as the best player. KG scored 24.2 PPG as his high, 23.0 was his second highest. Is that an Earth shattering difference with 22.0 (in only one full season as a #1 option)? People said it about Dirk too until 2011. Pippen is dismissed because in one year where MJ screwed them they lost. Maybe if MJ left over the summer and they signed Kendall Gill to replace him they win instead of playing 4 on 5 on offense.

Put prime Pippen on the Celtics with Pierce and Allen or prime Pippen on Portland. Those teams don't win chips with him as the best player?

[HoopsNY]

Hakeem deserved the MVP. An argument could be made for Pippen, though I don't think it's strong enough to overcome guys like Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, and maybe even Ewing (though I'd have to look at it more closely).

As for the debate between Miller and Pippen, then Pippen gets that edge. Reggie was a better shooter and more clutch, but Pippen's combination of scoring, defense, and playmaking is more valuable to a team than Miller's ability to score 24 PPG on high efficiency shooting.

[Roundball_Rock]

Hakeem deserved the MVP. An argument could be made for Pippen, though I don't think it's strong enough to overcome guys like Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, and maybe even Ewing (though I'd have to look at it more closely).

Shaq and Ewing weren't even real MVP candidates that year. 26 years later MJ fans now say they should have been ahead of Pippen when their own teams publicly complained they were left out the conversation? :confusedshrug: You guys do a good job of pushing the "Overton" window. 10 years from now we will hear how Pippen should have been all-NBA 3rd team in 94'.


Miller's ability to score 24 PPG on high efficiency shooting.

Except in series that mattered (I like how 2001 is added in to get him to 24 PPG BTW). :lol Pippen and Miller were in the same series (both scored 17 PPG--Miller did it on 2 less shots--throw him a parade). Miller was outplayed by Kukoc--forget Pippen--in that series and in Game 7.

Miller was 21 PPG in the ECF; guess what Pippen was in the ECF? 20. The hypocrisy of the same people dissing Pippen's scoring (around 19-20) hyping Miller, a 21 PPG guy in his prime. If 20 sucks for a 2nd option, how can 21 be awesome for an alleged 1st option? The 1 extra point?

[insidious301]

Shaq and Ewing weren't even real MVP candidates that year. 26 years later MJ fans now say they should have been ahead of Pippen when their own teams publicly complained they were left out the conversation? :confusedshrug: You guys do a good job of pushing the "Overton" window. 10 years from now we will hear how Pippen should have been all-NBA 3rd team in 94'.

That isn't true. Shaq had 3 first place points and overall 4th in MVP voting, behind Pippen. How was he not a "real" candidate? Pippen might've had the best year of his career however Hakeem was the rightful MVP. The next best choice would go to Robinson, who had 24 first place points.


Ewing

Ewing never had a case over Pippen.

[HoopsNY]

Shaq and Ewing weren't even real MVP candidates that year. 26 years later MJ fans now say they should have been ahead of Pippen when their own teams publicly complained they were left out the conversation? :confusedshrug: You guys do a good job of pushing the "Overton" window. 10 years from now we will hear how Pippen should have been all-NBA 3rd team in 94'.

First of all, I didn't anoint Ewing ahead of Pippen. I said, "maybe even Ewing (though I would have to take a look at it)." Ewing averaged more points, rebounds, blocks, higher WS/48, with the #1 seed in the East, but he doesn't deserve a comparison at least?

I don't know what makes someone a "real MVP candidate," but Shaq was definitely one of them.

Who are "you" guys? It's insane that people can't have an opinion with this you, even when comparing players of the same era who were also in the same tier.


Except in series that mattered (I like how 2001 is added in to get him to 24 PPG BTW). :lol Pippen and Miller were in the same series (both scored 17 PPG--Miller did it on 2 less shots--throw him a parade). Miller was outplayed by Kukoc--forget Pippen--in that series and in Game 7.


You're so triggered. I merely mentioned 24 PPG because for Miller's prime years, he did just about that (about 23.5 PPG in the playoffs). But what difference does it make? A point here, a point there; Pippen was still the better overall player.
Miller was 21 PPG in the ECF; guess what Pippen was in the ECF? 20. The hypocrisy of the same people dissing Pippen's scoring (around 19-20) hyping Miller, a 21 PPG guy in his prime. If 20 sucks for a 2nd option, how can 21 be awesome for an alleged 1st option? The 1 extra point?[/QUOTE]

[HoopsNY]

That isn't true. Shaq had 3 first place points and overall 4th in MVP voting, behind Pippen. How was he not a "real" candidate? Pippen might've had the best year of his career however Hakeem was the rightful MVP. The next best choice would go to Robinson, who had 24 first place points.

Ewing never had a case over Pippen.

In that season? Maybe. But that's just the point, they're comparable. It could go either way.

[Roundball_Rock]

I don't know what makes someone a "real MVP candidate," but Shaq was definitely one of them.

News to his GM, who complained publicly about it being a 3 horse race (same as Riley did for Ewing).

Shaq was on a 50 win team (that had Penny, Anderson, D. Scott, Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round. How often does a 50 win team produce a MVP candidate? Shaq's stats on basketballreference obscure that his team wasn't good enough.


. But what difference does it make? A point here, a point there

Apparently--all the difference. Miller's entire "case" relies on scoring so we see shady accounting to get him to 24 PPG (tpols uses 01' to get him there, you cut off his prime in 98' to do it).

Either way, the Miller stuff is amusing. It is all about scoring and we are talking 23 PPG in the PO (24 if we cook the books for him) and 21 PPG in the RS for his prime. The problem is those "playoff" numbers come from monster 1st round series. He wasn't that player for the rest of the PO. If he was, I would agree with the Miller crew.

So that leaves us with this: basically arguing Miller scoring 21 PPG in the ECF on around 14 shots a game and Pippen scoring 20 PPG in the ECF on around 16 shots a game (some of these were end of quarter/end of shot clock bailouts--Miller wasn't taking those for Indiana). It almost is a joke: this whole thing is about 1 point and 2 shots.

Here is the problem: those extra 2 Miller shots don't disappear. They go to his (lesser) teammates. Let's say they convert 45% of them. That's 0.9 field goals per game they get that they wouldn't have if Miller missed 2 more shots.

So this whole "efficiency" argument is based on 1 FG a game that Miller generates over Pippen and looks strictly at shooting. How many FG was Pippen generating for Chicago via his playmaking, via being an elite rebounder for a non-big (more possession), via defense (more possessions), etc.?


In that season? Maybe. But that's just the point, they're comparable. It could go either way.

Only to a certain fan base 26 years later.

[insidious301]

In that season? Maybe. But that's just the point, they're comparable. It could go either way.

Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.

[Roundball_Rock]

Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.

Context. First, no one compares efficiency of a SF to a C. That is an ISH shtick but I doubt any MVP voter did that. If they compared efficiency, it would be C's to C's (so Ewing vs. Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq).

The context for the Knicks was going from 60 wins and the 1 seed to 57 wins and the 2 seed. The same core came back (although Rivers got hurt). So if Ewing was 4th in MVP when he was better, his team was better why would he suddenly finish higher when he and his team took steps back? That is why he finished 5th in 94'. Ewing wasn't even all-NBA in 94'. MVP, doe?

The Bulls similarly stepped back, going from 57 wins and the 2 seed to 55 wins and the 3 seed but obviously with losing MJ and "replacing" him with Myers. Moreover, people recognized the Bulls with Pippen were much better (50-20 with him healthy) so he got some credit for that (e.g., the Bulls with Pippen>the Knicks with Ewing that year) but he also lost votes because he missed 10 games and was injured for 2 more.

It is obvious why the Bulls' 55 was viewed as more impressive than the Knicks' 57 (the Knicks won the 82nd game against the Bulls, a meaningless game for each team so the actual delta in real games was 56 versus 55).

The other thing that hurt Ewing was he got annihilated by Hakeem and Robinson H2H. Hard to be MVP when the two MVP candidates at your own position embarrass you.

[insidious301]

Context. First, no one compares efficiency of a SF to a C. That is an ISH shtick but I doubt any MVP voter did that. If they compared efficiency, it would be C's to C's (so Ewing vs. Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq).

The context for the Knicks was going from 60 wins and the 1 seed to 57 wins and the 2 seed. The same core came back (although Rivers got hurt). So if Ewing was 4th in MVP when he was better, his team was better why would he suddenly finish higher when he and his team took steps back? That is why he finished 5th in 94'. Ewing wasn't even all-NBA in 94'. MVP, doe?

The Bulls similarly stepped back, going from 57 wins and the 2 seed to 55 wins and the 3 seed but obviously with losing MJ and "replacing" him with Myers. Moreover, people recognized the Bulls with Pippen were much better (50-20 with him healthy) so he got some credit for that (e.g., the Bulls with Pippen>the Knicks with Ewing that year) but he also lost votes because he missed 10 games and was injured for 2 more.

It is obvious why the Bulls' 55 was viewed as more impressive than the Knicks' 57 (the Knicks won the 82nd game against the Bulls, a meaningless game for each team so the actual delta in real games was 56 versus 55).

The other thing that hurt Ewing was he got annihilated by Hakeem and Robinson H2H. Hard to be MVP when the two MVP candidates at your own position embarrass you.

My post is more matter of fact. Ewing didn't only have better efficiency, but had more rebounds too. Another category centers rule in. Even if what you say is true, and they are good points, New York still finished #1 and Ewing had better stats to a degree. The MVP is year-by-year award. Jordan's bulls were a dynasty in hindsight, but he was awarded an MVP in 1998 with Chicago winning 62 games(we can point to injuries, but are we willing to do that for everyone else?). This after winning 70 and 67 games the years prior. Everything is case by case.

[Roundball_Rock]

Even if what you say is true, and they are good points, New York still finished #1 and Ewing had better stats to a degree.

They didn't finish #1--Atlanta did. The Knicks, Bulls were behind them.

Frankly, seeding wasn't a big factor. The Knicks, Bulls, Hawks went to the final weekend neck-and-neck and the MVP race became a 3 horse race between Hakeem, Robinson, Pippen before it was known how those teams would shake out. That said, the Knicks being in a three-way battle for 1st was a step back from the prior year, when they finished 3 games ahead of the Bulls and 6 games ahead of the third place Cavs.


The MVP is year-by-year award.

Agreed. My point is he had a lot more going for him in 93' and he finished 4th so it isn't surprising he finished lower (5th) in 94'. 93' they were 1st, 60 wins and he was 2nd team all-NBA behind Hakeem. 94', 2nd, 57 wins and no all-NBA.


Ewing didn't only have better efficiency, but had more rebounds too. Another category centers rule in

True. Pippen fared better in advanced stats but they didn't exist back then but the point was Pippen then was being compared to Hakeem, Robinson; not Ewing or Shaq. For example:

Sports Illustrated


SI article on the 94’ MVP race, DPOY and other awards (COY PJ):

As the regular season draws to a close, the races for the individual awards are so close that it might be fairest to chop up the trophies and spread them around. For instance, Most Valuable Player honors could be divvied up as follows: the M to the Rockets' Hakeem Olajuwon, the V to the Spurs' David Robinson and the P to the Bulls' Scottie Pippen. There hasn't been a season in recent memory with so many photo finishes, but, well, the time has come to name our winners:

MVP: Hakeem Olajuwon, Rockets

Notwithstanding the unequivocal pronouncement on the cover of a certain magazine (SI, March 7) that Robinson is the Man, no one has come closer to single-handedly carrying a team than Olajuwon, who at week's end was third in the league in scoring (27.3 points per game) and tied for third in rebounding (12.0). Robinson, the scoring leader at 29.2, has been brilliant, but he has had rebounding maniac Dennis Rodman to relieve him of some of his responsibilities on the boards and even to guard opposing centers from time to time. Pippen has played like an MVP, but he has had lapses in which he hasn't comported himself like one, such as the night he reacted to booing by Chicago fans by pointing out that teammate Toni Kukoc hadn't received similarly harsh treatment despite having missed all of his field goal attempts.

Ewing, Shaq weren't even worth mentioning. Their beef with Pippen was basically PR stuff.

[Roundball_Rock]

Chicago Tribune


Although O'Neal has proved far better than his critics will admit, the second NBA player not named Michael, Larry or Earvin to win an MVP award since 1983 will be named David or Hakeem. Or possibly Scottie.

With just a month left in the MVP voting among national media, Robinson and Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon have emerged as the favorites, with the Bulls' Scottie Pippen hanging around on the edge.

So a three-horse race again, which is what everyone watching back then understood it as (Hubie Brown says the same at the outset of Bulls-Cavs Game 1--that game is on YT).


Olajuwon, the angry one, has calmed noticeably, no longer fighting with himself and management.
Pippen has done the impossible, making Jordan's shadow disappear, and Robinson, with the addition of Dennis Rodman to rebound and motivate him, has become an angry man, or at least more determined.

Shaq and Ewing are mentioned as non-candidates with their GM and coach complaining about their exclusion:


There is some other anger around, notably from those who think they are deserving of the award but being overlooked.

"Shaq is leading the league in scoring, is second in rebounding and shooting on one of the league's most improved teams," noted Orlando General Manager Pat Williams. "He should be right there with Hakeem and Robinson."

Patrick Ewing should, too, says his coach, Pat Riley.

"If there ever was a time he deserved to be MVP, it was last year," said Riley, "when his team won 60 games and 24 of the last 28. And he's had a great season again."

But Ewing's poor performances against Olajuwon and Robinson-he's averaging 13 points a game against them this season to 33 for them-and publicity-shy ways make him a long shot.

This "5 horse race" thing is revisionism from MJ/Knicks fans (some overlap--Knicks fans love MJ for some reason--Stockholm Syndrome?) 26 years later. Ewing's own coach and Shaq's own GM recognized they weren't candidates. :lol

https://vault.si.com/vault/1994/04/25/the-nba

[insidious301]

They didn't finish #1--Atlanta did. The Knicks, Bulls were behind them.

New York and Atlanta both had the same record and win percentage. Record and Team Play have always been a mainstay in MVP narrative. Or do you disagree?


haq and Ewing are mentioned as non-candidates with their GM and coach complaining about their exclusion:

Orlando management isn't something I would hang my hat on. The Ewing argument is at least understandable, because, frankly, he didn't get many votes. Shaq however had a number of them. Nearly the same first place and total points as Pippen. Right or wrong that was the shake out.

[Roundball_Rock]

New York and Atlanta both had the same record and win percentage. Record and Team Play have always been a mainstay in MVP narrative.

True--but Atlanta had HCA so the tiebreaker mattered. I agree record is a factor--one reason why Shaq wasn't in it--but it wasn't all positive for Ewing. His team went from 1st to 2nd, they won 3 less games, and he personally regressed. So it would be odd to see him improve on 4th in MVP in 93'.

Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP. Right or wrong, MVP voters never gave him much consideration.


Orlando management isn't something I would hang my hat on. The Ewing argument is at least understandable, because, frankly, he didn't get many votes. Shaq however had a number of them. Nearly the same first place and total points as Pippen. Right or wrong that was the shake out.

Pippen was hurt directly by missing 10 games and indirectly but that costing the Bulls the #1 seed. So the fact Pippen was ahead of him in the first place tells you something because if two players are equal and one plays the full season and the other doesn't, the guy playing the full season would win out.

Total points was Pippen 390, Shaq 289, Ewing 255.

The ballots are 1-5, though. That gives us a better look to who voters viewed them.

1st place: Hakeem 66, Robinson 24, Pippen 7, Shaq 3, Ewing 1
2nd place: Robinson 57, Hakeem 28, Pippen 9, Shaq/Ewing 3, Price 1
3rd place: Pippen 37, Shaq 21, Ewing 19, Robinson 17, Hakeem 6, Payton 1

Shaq got the most 4th place votes, Ewing the most 5th place votes. So each line on the ballot was consistent with the order of finish.

Pippen had 7 first place, Shaq 3 but if you combine first and second the gap is 16-6. Then on third Pippen is ahead again 37-21. Shaq got the most 4th place and second most 5th place votes. In other words, Shaq wasn't competing with Pippen for votes but with Hakeem. Pippen was in his own tier in the voting but we don't know what it would have looked like if he played 82 games.

You can see full ballots through 2001 at http://www.apbr.org/nbamvps.html. It is interesting in 96' Hakeem was slightly ahead of Pippen but Pippen led him 11-1 in second place votes (MJ got 99% of the first place votes) and 18-9 in third place votes.

[insidious301]

True--but Atlanta had HCA so the tiebreaker mattered. I agree record is a factor--one reason why Shaq wasn't in it--but it wasn't all positive for Ewing. His team went from 1st to 2nd, they won 3 less games, and he personally regressed. So it would be odd to see him improve on 4th in MVP in 93'.

Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP. Right or wrong, MVP voters never gave him much consideration.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ewing was the MVP either. With how it is voted upon though, Ewing could have gotten more recognition. We saw Chicago win less games than years prior yet the league still gave Jordan MVP. The criteria is often unclear.


Pippen was hurt directly by missing 10 games and indirectly but that costing the Bulls the #1 seed. So the fact Pippen was ahead of him in the first place tells you something because if two players are equal and one plays the full season and the other doesn't, the guy playing the full season would win out.

Total points was Pippen 390, Shaq 289, Ewing 255.

The ballots are 1-5, though. That gives us a better look to who voters viewed them.

1st place: Hakeem 66, Robinson 24, Pippen 7, Shaq 3, Ewing 1
2nd place: Robinson 57, Hakeem 28, Pippen 9, Shaq/Ewing 3, Price 1
3rd place: Pippen 37, Shaq 21, Ewing 19, Robinson 17, Hakeem 6, Payton 1

Shaq got the most 4th place votes, Ewing the most 5th place votes. So each line on the ballot was consistent with the order of finish.

This is all fair. My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot. But neither would Pippen. They still garnered enough votes to be legitimate candidates though.

[Roundball_Rock]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ewing was the MVP either. With how it is voted upon though, Ewing could have gotten more recognition. We saw Chicago win less games than years prior yet the league still gave Jordan MVP. The criteria is often unclear.

Barkley won it in 93'--MJ was third (in the same situation as Ewing: 2nd seed with 57 wins) but I get your point. It is odd Ewing never finished higher than 4th despite being a superstar on a contender for much of his prime in the market where the national media is based. It isn't a good look for Ewing, though, since it suggests MVP voters didn't think of him as highly as fans then or now do. Look at his C peers. Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq all won MVP's. So did the best PF's of his time, Barkley and Malone. So all the top 40 AT big men won one in that era but Ewing never came close. That says something.


My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot.

In the sense that it was a "3 horse" race. This year it is 2 horses, sometimes it is 3 (e.g., 08').

Shaq's problem was his team record. If your team is 50-32 it is hard to win MVP, especially when he had a strong "cast" around him and the result was "only" 50 wins. There are exceptions. Westbrook, Jordan, Kareem but the exceptions prove the rule: GOAT candidates in their primes or Westbrook having a historic season. Shaq was the third best player at his own position in 94' (if we go by all-NBA) so he didn't stick out.

[insidious301]

Barkley won it in 93'--MJ was third (in the same situation as Ewing: 2nd seed with 57 wins) but I get your point. It is odd Ewing never finished higher than 4th despite being a superstar on a contender for much of his prime in the market where the national media is based. It isn't a good look for Ewing, though, since it suggests MVP voters didn't think of him as highly as fans then or now do. Look at his C peers. Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq all won MVP's. So did the best PF's of his time, Barkley and Malone. So all the top 40 AT big men won one in that era but Ewing never came close. That says something.

I meant that Jordan won MVP in 1998. And Chicago won less games that year than in 96 and 97. Mentioned this above so assumed you knew where I was going. That is my fault for not being clear. Ewing never being a top 3 candidate is weird. Never put much thought into it but like you said, the big market should have overrated him.


In the sense that it was a "3 horse" race. This year it is 2 horses, sometimes it is 3 (e.g., 08').

You only meant Top 3? Fair enough. 1994 was Shaq's second year though, so its crazy he got that many points to begin with.

[HoopsNY]

Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.

I'm not even saying he deserved more acclaim than Pippen. I'm saying it's - at the VERY least - a conversation. The mere fact that we're having this conversation proves it.

Rounball is just an bitter MJ hater who boils everything down to MJ being overrated by "stans". I mean, after I clearly said that Ewing and Pippen's 1993-94 season were comparable (not necessarily one being CLEARLY over the other), he responds with this:


Only to a certain fan base 26 years later.

This is the kind of rhetoric that is mind boggling. As if to say, nope, no way, not in the conversation. Like this is some David Wingate vs Scottie Pippen comparison.

[Phoenix]

I don't believe it's so weird that Ewing never finished closer than 4th in MVP. I don't think at any point in his career he would have been considered like the 4th best player in any given season ( yes, I know best player doesn't always and necessarily mean MVP). But his peak coincided with peak MJ, Barkley, Magic, then David Robinson came in, Mailman, Shaq then enters the league, Hakeem takes it up a gear. His best just happened to coincide with a really strong period for superstars.

[Phoenix]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ewing was the MVP either. With how it is voted upon though, Ewing could have gotten more recognition. We saw Chicago win less games than years prior yet the league still gave Jordan MVP. The criteria is often unclear.



This is all fair. My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot. But neither would Pippen. They still garnered enough votes to be legitimate candidates though.

Shaq had MVP numbers. But so did Hakeem and Admiral and on teams with better records. And you simply couldn't ignore Scottie leading the Bulls to a better record as well beyond what I think most of us would have imagined at the time. Plus, as silly as it may seem, I think there's a thing about 'paying dues' and 94 Shaq was a second year player. It wasn't 'his time' yet.

[HoopsNY]

News to his GM, who complained publicly about it being a 3 horse race (same as Riley did for Ewing).

Shaq was on a 50 win team (that had Penny, Anderson, D. Scott, Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round. How often does a 50 win team produce a MVP candidate? Shaq's stats on basketballreference obscure that his team wasn't good enough

Right, because rookie Penny Hardaway was the acclaimed player that everyone came to know and love in 1998. Give me a break man. Penny was a rookie, with no defense, averaging 16 ppg. Scott Skiles, who didn't crack 10 ppg and averaged 6 assists, not to mention only started 46 of 81 games.

You're making Shaq's supporting cast out to be Chicago's supporting cast here. Who would you rather have? A trio of Penny-Anderson-Scott or Grant-Bj-Kukoc in that year? Better yet, swap Shaq and Pippen and what are the Bulls doing that year?

Furthermore, Shaq damn near won the scoring title if David Robinson wasn't stat padding. You seem to think that Scottie's 22 ppg is somehow comparable to Shaq's 29.3. There's a significant difference there. And if you say defense, then what was Shaq defensively? Some slouch? Shaq was always an excellent defender.


Apparently--all the difference. Miller's entire "case" relies on scoring so we see shady accounting to get him to 24 PPG (tpols uses 01' to get him there, you cut off his prime in 98' to do it).

You need to get out more. Why are you so bothered by what I wrote? I merely used Miller's best years in the playoffs (1990-02), where he averaged 23.5 PPG. Why is that a crime? I merely tried to establish who he was as a scorer/playoff performer. So what are we going to say now, that Scottie was the better scorer/shooter with higher efficiency numbers? Or was Reggie the better player in that regard?

And even after that, I CLEARLY said Pippen > Miller. You would think Roundball is George Bush, you're either with us or against us. We're all "stans" cause we don't agree - to the very letter of HIS law - and therefore we ALL have some kind of "agenda." Go figure.


Either way, the Miller stuff is amusing. It is all about scoring and we are talking 23 PPG in the PO (24 if we cook the books for him) and 21 PPG in the RS for his prime. The problem is those "playoff" numbers come from monster 1st round series. He wasn't that player for the rest of the PO. If he was, I would agree with the Miller crew.

And I previously showed you that Miller has great performances in all rounds. Yes there seems to be a drop off but why does that matter when he faced strong defensive teams in the 1st and 2nd rounds? You're acting like he was doing it against severely weak defensive teams in the 1st round. Newsflash Roundball, Indiana wasn't a consistent #1 or #2 seed to have that luxury of facing easier competition in Round 1.

Indiana finished 8th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 8th, 8th between 1989-02.

Indiana was usually facing elite teams in the 1st round.


So that leaves us with this: basically arguing Miller scoring 21 PPG in the ECF on around 14 shots a game and Pippen scoring 20 PPG in the ECF on around 16 shots a game (some of these were end of quarter/end of shot clock bailouts--Miller wasn't taking those for Indiana). It almost is a joke: this whole thing is about 1 point and 2 shots.


So what's your point?

[Roundball_Rock]

I meant that Jordan won MVP in 1998. And Chicago won less games that year than in 96 and 97.

True, but he got credit for keeping them afloat without MJ (Pippen didn't get the same credit when he did the same--for a full season, not half a season).


You only meant Top 3? Fair enough.

I mean the names that come up when MVP is discussed. This year it is Giannis and LeBron. In 08' it was Kobe, Paul, KG. Sure other people get votes but only 2-3 players have a legitimate chance of actually winning it. The others get votes because each ballot has 5 spots. In 94', it was Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson. I posted SI, the Tribune, and anyone can go to the TNT opening of the Bulls-Cavs Game 1 and see Hubie Brown say MVP is between Pippen, Robinson, Hakeem. Shaq, Ewing aren't even mentioned in two of these cases--in one they are mentioned as not being viable candidates.


I don't believe it's so weird that Ewing never finished closer than 4th in MVP. I don't think at any point in his career he would have been considered like the 4th best player in any given season ( yes, I know best player doesn't always and necessarily mean MVP). But his peak coincided with peak MJ, Barkley, Magic, then David Robinson came in, Mailman, Shaq then enters the league, Hakeem takes it up a gear.

I mostly meant relative to his reputation. Look at this thread. He is being presented as being far better than Pippen, a player who was 3rd in MVP his one full prime season as a #1. Yet the "superior" player could never do it?

Some of it is weird outside his reputation. Both Hardaways finished 3rd in the 90's, Drexler was 2nd, Payton was 3rd in 98'. Ewing was arguably better than all these players and had the benefit of playing in New York--not Seattle, Orlando, Portland or even Miami.

Some of his reputation is agena-driven. Ewing gets hyped by the same people who hype Malone, Miller, Stockton, Drexler, Payton, et al. for obvious reasons and here Ewing has the value of diminishing Pippen. Notice they go on and on about Ewing vs. Pippen but don't make a case for Ewing over Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem? If he was a serious MVP candidate, he would have a case over them but we aren't hearing it.


Shaq had MVP numbers.

Yeah, but it is tough when your team is 50-32 to win MVP. Everyone else being discussed won 55+.

If Shaq won it would have been perhaps the most embarrassing MVP: the MVP getting swept in the first round by a 47 win team? Can you imagine that? :lol


I mean, after I clearly said that Ewing and Pippen's 1993-94 season were comparable (not necessarily one being CLEARLY over the other), he responds with this:

Yeah, backed by 3 media sources from the time plus a quote from Ewing's own coach. Can you point to one that had Pippen and Ewing on par in the MVP race? Thanks in advance.

Drop the shtick. You guys put a narrative-based spin and then feign it as objective when in reality it was a 3 horse race and Ewing wasn't one of them, Pippen was. We are having this conversation because MJ stans successfully re-write history via mass repetition (it's mostly the MJ/Knicks crowd hyping Ewing in this thread). The same reason we have to talk about Pippen's scoring every day when you all will praise Miller as a great scorer for scoring 1 more point in the next breath. :oldlol:

[Phoenix]

I mostly meant relative to his reputation. Look at this thread. He is being presented as being far better than Pippen, a player who was 3rd in MVP his one full prime season as a #1.

Some of it is weird even considering his reputation. Both Hardaways finished 3rd in the 90's, Drexler was 2nd, Payton was 3rd in 98'. Ewing was arguably better than all these players and had the benefit of playing in New York--not Seattle, Orlando, Portland or even Miami.



Yeah, but it is tough when your team is 50-32 to win MVP. Everyone else being discussed won 55+.



I've caught little tidbits of this thread so not sure of everything that's been said, but sort of honed in on Ewing on this last page. Perhaps some of his reputation was based on the market? Or maybe all those Bulls-Knicks battles. In other words, if he was dropping 25/10 on some 40 win team( or small market team) would he get as much attention ( then and now)? But just looking at the situation, it is weird that 'worse' players ranked higher in other seasons but every season has a different story I guess. I mean in 93, you had Barkley, Hakeem and MJ all on top of their games. Talk about a tough nut to crack.

Yeah,that's what I was saying about Shaq. He had the numbers but the numbers argument applied to Hakeem and Admiral too who yielded higher team records. Scottie's numbers weren't anything to sneeze at either at 22/9/6/3/1 49%...and also a higher team record. So Shaq shouldn't have been an MVP candidate over the aforementioned 3 and that's how the voters saw it as well.

[insidious301]

I'm not even saying he deserved more acclaim than Pippen. I'm saying it's - at the VERY least - a conversation. The mere fact that we're having this conversation proves it.

Yeah I know, Hoops. Just threw that in there myself. You’re right though. I had mentioned to Roundball that Ewing could’ve gotten more recognition. Although depending on the story line, the “criteria” can get murky.


Shaq had MVP numbers. But so did Hakeem and Admiral and on teams with better records. And you simply couldn't ignore Scottie leading the Bulls to a better record as well beyond what I think most of us would have imagined at the time. Plus, as silly as it may seem, I think there's a thing about 'paying dues' and 94 Shaq was a second year player. It wasn't 'his time' yet

That wasn't he argument, Phoenix. We all agree that Hakeem and Robinson were better candidates. And that Hakeem’s MVP was justified(at least I do). Not ignoring Scottie either. My only contention is that Shaq and Ewing were “real” candidates as well. Not the MVP’s but they deserved recognition. In fairness that is me talking with hindsight, and I know there will be disagreement.


I mean the names that come up when MVP is discussed. This year it is Giannis and LeBron. In 08' it was Kobe, Paul, KG. Sure other people get votes but only 2-3 players have a legitimate chance of actually winning it. The others get votes because each ballot has 5 spots. In 94', it was Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson. I posted SI, the Tribune, and anyone can go to the TNT opening of the Bulls-Cavs Game 1 and see Hubie Brown say MVP is between Pippen, Robinson, Hakeem. Shaq, Ewing aren't even mentioned in two of these cases--in one they are mentioned as not being viable candidates.

Got you. It is rare to have 4 or 5 legitimate names in the race, you’re right. Ewing could have gotten more points/votes, and if for nothing else, his teams record. If wins and losses are often a talking point in the MVP discussion, then I don’t see why not. Not a big deal though. Hakeem was obviously the right choice.

[Roundball_Rock]

Perhaps some of his reputation was based on the market? Or maybe all those Bulls-Knicks battles. In other words, if he was dropping 25/10 on some 40 win team( or small market team) would he get as much attention ( then and now)?

I updated my last post. I think some of it is agenda driven. The people hyping Ewing here hype anyone MJ played against. They also use Ewing, like some of the others, to unfavorably contrast Pippen to diminish him.

Outside of that, I think the market was a big factor. Look at Robinson, a better player in the same era who didn't get nearly the hype playing in San Antonio. The Knicks-Bulls rivalry helped since you had a lot of high profile games between the largest and third largest markets, with the Bulls being the most popular team. People didn't care about Knicks-Pacers or Knicks-Heat the same way.

I suspect some of it is a statistical bias to centers. His line includes double digit rebounds, the efficiency crowd will credit his high RS shooting percentage (he was a C--what do you expect?).

All of these things boost him beyond what he was as a player--but of these New York probably is the biggest factor.


So Shaq shouldn't have been an MVP candidate over the aforementioned 3 and that's how the voters saw it as well.

Yeah and some of it is the MVP race can only have so much room. When is the last time there was a legit 4 or 5 way MVP race? In modern times I can recall only 2 or 3 way races (if there was a race, e.g., in 96' MJ won in a walk).

[999Guy]

Pippen was in no way better than Hakeem, D-Rob, or Shaq.

Shaq wasn’t even better the following year in essence. As far as explosion and mobility Shaq peaked from 94-96.

Pippen wasn’t ****ing with him, and we saw how good Orlando really was without Shaq right after he left. Penny was also not developed yet, and Shaq still got them to a better team performance.

Really Shaq was the best offensive player on the planet that season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen wasn’t ****ing with him, and we saw how good Orlando really was without Shaq right after he left

If that is your metric, the Bulls without Pippen in 94' sucked. Orlando without Shaq was still a playoff team. The Bulls had a 33 win pace without Pippen with a -2.6 rORTG.

Pippen was ahead of Shaq 16-6 in 1st/2nd place votes and crushed him in 3rd place votes for a reason.


It is rare to have 4 or 5 legitimate names in the race, you’re right. Ewing could have gotten more points/votes, and if for nothing else, his teams record. If wins and losses are often a talking point in the MVP discussion, then I don’t see why not. Not a big deal though. Hakeem was obviously the right choice.


Yeah--it just seems MVP voters didn't value him the same way others did then or now.

Some of what hurts the record angle is the narrative is set before the 82nd game. The Knicks, Bulls, Hawks were neck and neck all year. Maybe if the Knicks led all year the narrative would have been better but they were in a close race and finished in the middle of those 3 teams.

For example, here are their wins at the end of March, February, January, December:

March: Knicks/Hawks 50, Bulls 46
February: Hawks 38, Bulls 37, Knicks 36
January: Hawks/Knicks 30, Bulls 29
December: Hawks 19, Bulls/Knicks 18

Even in mid-April the Knicks, Hawks, Bulls all had 54 wins on April 15.

So the order shifted for these teams across the season (Bulls didn't lead at the end of any of these months but they were tied with Atlanta for 1st at the all-star break).

[Phoenix]

Yeah and some of it is the MVP race can only have so much room. When is the last time there was a legit 4 or 5 way MVP race? In modern times I can recall only 2 or 3 way races (if there was a race, e.g., in 96' MJ won in a walk).

I mean this year alone, is anyone else even being discussed from Giannis and Lebron? Nope. Usually by the time we get to April ( or March this year), 2 frontrunners clearly emerge with an odd 3rd darkhorse candidate as an upstart choice. You may start November with 4-5 names but that's whittled down. Luka was getting MVP talk in November.





That wasn't he argument, Phoenix. We all agree that Hakeem and Robinson were better candidates. And that Hakeem’s MVP was justified(at least I do). Not ignoring Scottie either. My only contention is that Shaq and Ewing were “real” candidates as well. Not the MVP’s but they deserved recognition. In fairness that is me talking with hindsight, and I know there will be disagreement.



I mean, I suppose you could say that whoever has a top 5 MVP finish is 'MVP worthy' but there's levels to it. My recollection of that year was Hakeem, Admiral and Scottie getting the MVP talk. Doesn't mean the other two aren't MVP caliber in a vacuum, but they didn't have strong cases over those three. And from what I see, usually by December the media starts picking out a few candidates and runs with it through seasons end. I don't recall someone sneaking in at the end who wasn't identified early on. Remember Steve Nash in 05? People were crowning him MVP before Christmas lol.

[Roundball_Rock]

I mean this year alone, is anyone else even being discussed from Giannis and Lebron? Nope. Usually by the time we get to April ( or March this year), 2 frontrunners clearly emerge with an odd 3rd darkhorse candidate as an upstart choice. You may start November with 4-5 names but that's whittled down. Luka was getting MVP talk in November.

Exactly. Yeah, Harden and Luka were in the mix earlier in the year but both faded. Davis got some talk as well. These players will finish 3rd-5th but we know the real race is Giannis vs. LeBron.

Now imagine 26 years later someone saying Anthony Davis should have been ahead of LeBron in MVP. The analogy isn't exactly perfect since LeBron will be 2nd instead of 3rd but you get my point: no one was arguing Davis (or Harden or Luka) as MVP at the end of the season just like no one was doing that with Ewing or Shaq. They will finish in the top 5 because 5 players have to but we know it was a two-way race this year, just as 08' was a three way race with Kobe, CP, KG and 93' was between Hakeem, Barkley, MJ. 94' was Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson.


I suppose you could say that whoever has a top 5 MVP finish is 'MVP worthy' but there's levels to it. My recollection of that year was Hakeem, Admiral and Scottie getting the MVP talk.

Agreed on levels. As to what I bolded, yeah, that is what I remember and that's what the SI, Tribune articles say and what Hubie Brown says at 0:27 that Pippen is a contender for MVP up there with Hakeem, Robinson. No mention of Shaq or Ewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjZ0bPR7Iw

We haven't seen anything in 22 pages showing a case for Ewing or Shaq as MVP being made at the time. It doesn't exist--they weren't in the discussion as we both recall and as the reporting that has been produced from then backs up.

Ewing plays in New York and isn't in the mix. That says it all.

[KD7]

#nopipnochip

[Phoenix]

Exactly. Yeah, Harden and Luka were in the mix earlier in the year but both faded. Davis got some talk as well. These players will finish 3rd-5th but we know the real race is Giannis vs. LeBron.



I wonder if Harden had kept up that 39ppg pace( remember the early season buzz was him doing 40 a game), and let's say the Rockets were in the ballpark of LA at least, how would that have played out? Once January hit it's like a switch literally flipped and Westbrook started scoring more than Harden, and all the talk on him died down. This was actually shaping up with some interesting storylines that have been lost with covid. Remember when Lillard went crazy on offense for a period after Kobe's passing? Luka was flirting with a triple double early on. Seems like ages ago now.

[HoopsNY]

Yeah, backed by 3 media sources from the time plus a quote from Ewing's own coach. Can you point to one that had Pippen and Ewing on par in the MVP race? Thanks in advance.

Drop the shtick. You guys put a narrative-based spin and then feign it as objective when in reality it was a 3 horse race and Ewing wasn't one of them, Pippen was. We are having this conversation because MJ stans successfully re-write history via mass repetition (it's mostly the MJ/Knicks crowd hyping Ewing in this thread). The same reason we have to talk about Pippen's scoring every day when you all will praise Miller as a great scorer for scoring 1 more point in the next breath. :oldlol:

When did I argue that the media didn't make it about 3 players? I don't care what the media said. That wasn't my argument.

You can say that it was a 3 man race as far as the media goes - sure, and you'd be right. But that doesn't mean that the media's choice stands up to scrutiny. Furthermore, I'm not debating that the voters got it wrong. Clearly they did as Hakeem won it, though Robinson really was neck and neck with him.

I'm merely saying that it is a conversation between Pippen, Shaq, and Ewing. When you consider the arguments for Ewing, then it clearly IS a conversation. Just because Pippen was the prevailing player in terms of voting, doesn't mean that it wasn't a conversation.

We're having this conversation now because someone made a post saying "1994 Pippen Should Have Been MVP." Yet you blame MJ stans? How ironic.

[Roundball_Rock]

I wonder if Harden had kept up that 39ppg pace( remember the early season buzz was him doing 40 a game), and let's say the Rockets were in the ballpark of LA at least, how would that have played out? Once January hit it's like a switch literally flipped and Westbrook started scoring more than Harden, and all the talk on him died down.

For sure. It would be a three way race then. Harden's numbers faded and the Rockets slipped to 6th in the West. If they remained in the hunt for 1st, Harden kept the big numbers he would have been up there. I think no one was going to beat Giannis but Harden could have been 2nd again if things broke that way.

Luka was getting a lot of MVP talk early in the year but I never thought his team would have the record to keep him viable.

Kawhi got some whispers early on but that faded quickly--he misses too many games.

Davis will be top 5--which is an achievement (it is rare for teammates to finish in the top 5) but hard to actually win when you are your team's second MVP candidate.


This was actually shaping up with some interesting storylines that have been lost with covid. Remember when Lillard went crazy on offense for a period after Kobe's passing? Luka was flirting with a triple double early on. Seems like ages ago now.

Yeah, hopefully the finish to the RS and the PO make up for it but who knows. MLB's start is not promising.


We're having this conversation now because someone made a post saying "1994 Pippen Should Have Been MVP." Yet you blame MJ stans? How ironic.

22 pages of MJ stans with a few Knicks fans sprinkled in arguing against Pippen but it has nothing to do with MJ. :lol We still haven't seen a case for Ewing or Shaq--merely how they should have beaten that darn Pippen (awfully inconvenient he was a MVP candidate with MJ away). It has been 22 pages of "Why Pippen Sucks" or "Why Pippen had no case" versus a legitimate discussion of the 94' race.

Re Ewing or Shaq, it's like if someone says Davis or Luka should have been ahead of LeBron 26 years now when no one was saying that at the time.

[HoopsNY]

For sure. It would be a three way race then. Harden's numbers faded and the Rockets slipped to 6th in the West. If they remained in the hunt for 1st, Harden kept the big numbers he would have been up there. I think no one was going to beat Giannis but Harden could have been 2nd again if things broke that way.

Luka was getting a lot of MVP talk early in the year but I never thought his team would have the record to keep him viable.

Kawhi got some whispers early on but that faded quickly--he misses too many games.

Davis will be top 5--which is an achievement (it is rare for teammates to finish in the top 5) but hard to actually win when you are your team's second MVP candidate.



Yeah, hopefully the finish to the RS and the PO make up for it but who knows. MLB's start is not promising.



22 pages of MJ stans with a few Knicks fans sprinkled in arguing against Pippen but it has nothing to do with MJ. :lol We still haven't seen a case for Ewing or Shaq--merely how they should have beaten that darn Pippen (awfully inconvenient he was a MVP candidate with MJ away). It has been 22 pages of "Why Pippen Sucks" or "Why Pippen had no case" versus a legitimate discussion of the 94' race.

Re Ewing or Shaq, it's like if someone says Davis or Luka should have been ahead of LeBron 26 years now when no one was saying that at the time.

You complain about unending pages, but do you realize it's arguably half your writing?

I already mentioned why Ewing and Shaq are in the conversation. If you don't agree, then fine. It doesn't make my view illegitimate or me trying to "further my agenda" (whatever that is). You're too paranoid. You need help.

[Roundball_Rock]

You posted a 1993 MVP race thread. How many of these people advocated for Ewing then? I believe zero even though his case was stronger then. :lol

This is a great thread for many reasons. That's why I linked to it--which led you bring this dead thread up.


I already mentioned why Ewing and Shaq are in the conversation.

Like I said, we still haven't seen a case for them to actually be MVP. Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson have had actual cases presented. As to your posts:


An argument could be made for Pippen, though I don't think it's strong enough to overcome guys like Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, and maybe even Ewing (though I'd have to look at it more closely).


First of all, I didn't anoint Ewing ahead of Pippen. I said, "maybe even Ewing (though I would have to take a look at it)." Ewing averaged more points, rebounds, blocks, higher WS/48, with the #1 seed in the East, but he doesn't deserve a comparison at least?

None of this is a case for either Ewing or Shaq as MVP. It's the same line throughout this thread "Pippen shouldn't have even finished 3rd" from Team Jordan, which some take to greater extremes but the consistency is every MJ fan, outside of Phoenix who isn't part of the crusade, said Pippen was not only not MVP but should have finished worse than he actually did. (You also cherry picked statistics that favor Ewing :oldlol: --nothing about VORP, BPM, assists, steals conveniently.)

Shaq, Ewing are tools to get Pippen lower than his actual finish. We even heard Malone, Kemp (a 2nd option) come up in this thread--implying Pippen shouldn't have even been top 5. There is a Ewing thread up and none of this crowd is in it because they don't care about Ewing per se.

Ewing keeps getting credit for the Knicks doing something they didn't even do. Maybe that helps explain some of the delta 26 years later.

[insidious301]

I mean this year alone, is anyone else even being discussed from Giannis and Lebron? Nope. Usually by the time we get to April ( or March this year), 2 frontrunners clearly emerge with an odd 3rd darkhorse candidate as an upstart choice. You may start November with 4-5 names but that's whittled down. Luka was getting MVP talk in November.



I mean, I suppose you could say that whoever has a top 5 MVP finish is 'MVP worthy' but there's levels to it. My recollection of that year was Hakeem, Admiral and Scottie getting the MVP talk. Doesn't mean the other two aren't MVP caliber in a vacuum, but they didn't have strong cases over those three. And from what I see, usually by December the media starts picking out a few candidates and runs with it through seasons end. I don't recall someone sneaking in at the end who wasn't identified early on. Remember Steve Nash in 05? People were crowning him MVP before Christmas lol.

All good points. I had a problem with the "real" verbiage, as if Shaq or Ewing didn't get votes. Roundball clarified his position though and it is fair. Top 3 is the norm in an MVP race, no argument there. I also want to make it clear that I am not for Shaq and Ewing winning MVP. Rather with hindsight, both could have gotten more votes. Ewing mainly because of team record.

@HoopsNY good post

[Roundball_Rock]

What is odd is none of the people in this thread advocate for Ewing as a MVP candidate for 93'--when he had better team and individual results (and was 4th, not 5th, in MVP). Hoops did a thread on the 93' race--didn't even mention Ewing there. :oldlol: We have 22 pages with Ewing constantly coming up but the same logic evidently doesn't transfer to the 1993 season.

60 wins>57 wins
1 seed>2 seed
All-NBA 2nd team>0 All-NBA

But magically he has this great case for 94' but not for 93' as almost all these people with passionate opinions on the 94' race (only as it relates to the 3rd place finisher, evidently) have nothing to say about 93'.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481911-The-1992-93-MVP-should-have-went-to

[insidious301]

I never saw that thread. And to be fair, it doesn't look like it had many views or replies. Ewing should have gotten more credit that year. Especially now that you reminded me New York won more games in 93.

[Roundball_Rock]

it doesn't look like it had many views or replies.

Of course. No one really cares who the MVP should have been 26 or 27 years ago. That's not what this thread was. The theme in this thread, after the cavalry showed up (not the OP's intent), was "Pippen shouldn't have finished 3rd" or "Why Pippen sucked" not "who should have been MVP in 94'". That's what drew the usual suspects here but 93' isn't relevant to their (non-existent) agenda. Ewing is a tool to argue Pippen shouldn't have been even 3rd. That's it.

I didn't mean you. I meant the others who came in through the thread.

[insidious301]

Yeah that is bogus and a clear double standard. Since Pippen is attached to the hip with Jordan, you're going to get more buzz. It is similar to a poster giving Pippen praise, and a Jordan Stan thinking you're putting them on equal footing. I have only been active recently, but that has been my experience posting here.

EWING 4 PREZ!

[HoopsNY]

You posted a 1993 MVP race thread. How many of these people advocated for Ewing then? I believe zero even though his case was stronger then. :lol

90% of the people on this forum are probably too young to have remembered Ewing, let alone the 1993-94 season. You realize that's 26 years ago? The point isn't what people were saying then; the point is to evaluate how players ARE ranked in that given season.


None of this is a case for either Ewing or Shaq as MVP. It's the same line throughout this thread "Pippen shouldn't have even finished 3rd" from Team Jordan, which some take to greater extremes but the consistency is every MJ fan, outside of Phoenix who isn't part of the crusade, said Pippen was not only not MVP but should have finished worse than he actually did. (You also cherry picked statistics that favor Ewing :oldlol: --nothing about VORP, BPM, assists, steals conveniently.)

I never said that these guys do in fact deserve the MVP over Hakeem or Robinson. I'm saying it puts them in the conversation, and at the very least makes Ewing and Shaq comparable to Pippen more than Ewing and Shaq being comparable to Hakeem to Robinson. Is that better?

Furthermore, the statistics are close. My entire point was to show that they are in fact comparable. I'm sorry you're disturbed by this.

Ewing: 24.5/11.2/2.3/1.1/2.7 on 50/29/76

PER: 22.9
TS%: .551
WS: 13.1
WS/48: .211
OBPM: 2.5
DBPM: 2.7
VORP: 5.5

Pippen: 22.0/8.7/5.6/2.9/0.8 on 49/32/66

PER: 23.2
TS%: .544
WS: 11.2
WS/48: .191
OBPM: 4.5
DBPM: 3.2
VORP: 6.8

So Ewing leads 8 categories here while Pippen leads in 7. Pippen led his team to 55 wins while Ewing led his to 57. Ewing led his team to the second best SRS and the best defense in the league.

But this is all "cherry picking." How ironic it is that the Knicks ended up beating Chicago, winning the ECF, and ultimately coming within 1 game of winning a championship. But no. Not comparable at all, cause to Roundball, Ewing is akin to David Wingate or some other nobody. Lord forgive us for drawing such a comparison between him and Scottie Pippen, thinking that Ewing had a similar case for MVP!!!

[HoopsNY]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ewing was the MVP either. With how it is voted upon though, Ewing could have gotten more recognition. We saw Chicago win less games than years prior yet the league still gave Jordan MVP. The criteria is often unclear.

This is all fair. My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot. But neither would Pippen. They still garnered enough votes to be legitimate candidates though.

Nothing about this is unfair, except in Roundball's mind. I guess you must be an MJ stan too!


The same reason we have to talk about Pippen's scoring every day when you all will praise Miller as a great scorer for scoring 1 more point in the next breath.

Maybe because Miller was able to average more points on less FGA, with higher efficiency numbers? I'm not even saying Miller was a better player than Pippen. He wasn't. But I'd take him as a scorer over Pippen. Why not?

[insidious301]

Nothing about this is unfair, except in Roundball's mind. I guess you must be an MJ stan too!

I wear Nike. Drink Gatorade and chew bubble gum. What else tipped you off?


Maybe because Miller was able to average more points on less FGA, with higher efficiency numbers? I'm not even saying Miller was a better player than Pippen. He wasn't. But I'd take him as a scorer over Pippen. Why not?

Yeah Miller was a better scorer. Come to think of it? His game was a lot like Dale Ellis'.

[Roundball_Rock]

If Ewing ever was going to win MVP it would have been in 1993. A lot of the arguments made for him here (but not in the 93' thread :lol ) are thin reeds.

Wins/seeding:

The people pushing Ewing here are the same people pushing Shaq (50 wins). Do wins matter or not? :oldlol: For Ewing we keep hearing 57 wins. That's weak in context. First, MVP voters then would know the 57th win meant nothing as the Knicks-Bulls played a meaningless game. It is no different than a football team winning in Week 17 in a meaningless game. No one cares for MVP voting purposes.

Second, MVP voters would know the Bulls with Pippen performed at a higher level than the Knicks with Ewing. It doesn't make logical sense to argue team performance for MVP in favor of the guy whose team performed worse with him (logically, assuming--as has been done in this thread--the two teams are equal, it implies the other guy was more "valuable").

Third, even if we credit the 57th win, so what? The Spurs won 56, Bulls 55, Rockets 58. Atlanta 57, Phoenix 56. 57 isn't impressive when half a dozen teams are in the same bracket--and three of those have MVP candidates.

Fourth, no one cares about getting the 2 seed. I have never heard "Player X led a team to the 2 seed" as an argument for MVP. If you get the 1 seed it would matter.

In 1993 the Knicks had the 1 seed and they had a gap to the teams behind them. The third best record in the NBA was 57 wins and then came a couple teams at 55. They were 2 games out for the best record in the NBA in 93'; in 94' they were 6 games back.

*Ewing's play:

Ewing was all-NBA over Robinson, Shaq in 93'; in 94' he didn't even make all-NBA. I have never heard of a MVP who didn't make all-NBA. Have you?

As the Tribune article noted, it hurt Ewing's MVP consideration that he kept getting crushed by Hakeem and Robinson. If you are the "MVP", why are you getting annihilated and embarrassed by the two best players at your own position?

*Narrative:

Jordan won in 91', 92' and it is almost impossible to win three straight. MJ's chances were diminished going into 93' due to voter bias and the Bulls slipping from 67 wins to 57 further damaged him. Barkley had a strong narrative going but Ewing had the next best. Hakeem? The Rockets won 55 games. As we have seen argued throughout this thread, 55 isn't enough to be MVP. :lol In 94' the door was more closed. Hakeem benefited from being 2nd in 93' in the "his turn" sense, Pippen had a great narrative, Robinson and his team had a rebound year with Rodman to give him a narrative, and Shaq emerged as a top 5 player.


Yeah Miller was a better scorer.

No one disputes that--the issue is the exaggerated sense. The way they talk about the two is Miller was Curry and Pippen was Draymond Green. The difference in the ECF was 1 PPG (same as the RS--they rely heavily on Miller scoring 26 in the first round but he didn't come close to that with the pressure and stakes higher in real series...). The "efficiency" difference? 2 FGA--and even that factors in Pippen taking end of quarter and end of shot clock bailouts/heaves that Miller didn't take since his team didn't put the ball in his hands nearly as much.

It is laughable that 21/23 PPG is hyped as this awesome scoring--when we see people criticized for scoring around that all the time on ISH. Duncan is getting hit for that in a thread on the front page, for instance.

[And1AllDay]

Rodman said it best

https://i.postimg.cc/8cMt4xhH/Screenshot-20200605-001435.jpg

wowowoowow