Think of Pippen's best series or playoff runs..

[3ball]

How many players won 3+ rings with that caliber of production from their sidekick (21/7/7)??

It's only MJ, because everyone else won a chunk of their rings with their sidekick getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg, which leaves only 1 or 2 rings with pippen production from their sidekick... Whereas MJ won six with Pippen, not 1 or 2 like everyone else - that's what makes him goat - only he could get 6 with Pippen..

And we haven't talked 3rd options, which MJ didn't have..

only the very top guys at their PEAK could win with just Pippen and no 3rd option.. aka 71' Kareem or 00' Shaq (the only other times where the scoring champ won the title) and maybe a small handful of other top seasons - that's the only level that wins with Pippen and no 3rd option (aka everyone else's top season was Jordan's standard).

[KD7]

How many sidekicks ever could give you 21/7/7 with GOAT defense

Pippen outplayed the other teams second option in damm near every series in the Bulls dynasty he even outplayed the other teams first option at times (see 92 finals)

[SouBeachTalents]

Think of Jordan's best playoff runs without Pippen

[3ball]

Think of Jordan's best playoff runs without Pippen

Aren't you mad that you never saw the FULL lebron-carrying capabilities??

We missed seeing it because his 30-40 win teams missed the playoffs in 04', 05', and 19'.. if they'd snuck in as 8 seeds, we could've seen lebron as an 8 seed!!!

One can only imagine how his 8 seeds would do given his record losses and sweeps with high seeds

Otoh, we saw MJ's full capabilities because his 30-40 win teams made the playoffs as low seeds in 86' (44 ppg) and 89' (nearly made Finals despite 9 on 40% from pip, aka MJ wins with anyone else)

[SouBeachTalents]

Aren't you mad that you never saw the FULL lebron-carrying capabilities??

We missed seeing it because his 30-40 win teams missed the playoffs in 04', 05', and 19'.. if they'd snuck in as 8 seeds, we could've seen lebron as an 8 seed!!!

One can only imagine how his 8 seeds would do given his record losses and sweeps with high seeds

Otoh, we saw MJ's full capabilities because his 30-40 win teams made the playoffs as low seeds in 86' (44 ppg) and 89' (nearly made Finals despite 9 on 40% from pip, aka MJ wins with anyone else)
I'm mad that Jordan has a losing record in 5 seasons without Pippen

[SATAN]

1-9

[Axe]

Is 3ball just trolling, outright dumb or both? :confusedshrug:

[aceman]

How many players won 3+ rings with that caliber of production from their sidekick (21/7/7)??

It's only MJ, because everyone else won a chunk of their rings with their sidekick getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg, which leaves only 1 or 2 rings with pippen production from their sidekick... Whereas MJ won six with Pippen, not 1 or 2 like everyone else - that's what makes him goat - only he could get 6 with Pippen..

And we haven't talked 3rd options, which MJ didn't have..

only the very top guys at their PEAK could win with just Pippen and no 3rd option.. aka 71' Kareem or 00' Shaq (the only other times where the scoring champ won the title) and maybe a small handful of other top seasons - that's the only level that wins with Pippen and no 3rd option (aka everyone else's top season was Jordan's standard).

Jordan may have had 3rd option if he passed ball

[ArbitraryWater]

do you know what 2nd options usually do?

look at the 15 warriors, 14 spurs, 13-12 heat, 11 mavs, 08-10 2nd options, 07 spurs, 06 heat, 05 spurs, 04 pistons, 03 spurs, 02 lakers, 00 lakers, 99 spurs, etc etc etc...

[ImKobe]

do you know what 2nd options usually do?

look at the 15 warriors, 14 spurs, 13-12 heat, 11 mavs, 08-10 2nd options, 07 spurs, 06 heat, 05 spurs, 04 pistons, 03 spurs, 02 lakers, 00 lakers, 99 spurs, etc etc etc...

Pippen gave the Bulls a very consistent 15-20 points, but did he ever really explode offensively? Like sure, he'd have some efficient 25-30 point games, but those were a rarity. 3 total games of 30+ points in 6 title runs with 0 coming after '92. You never saw him go off for 41 like Wade/Irving would in key games, or have moments like Klay did in elimination games for the Warriors. Jordan never had a 2nd option who could take over offensively, Pippen definitely wasn't that guy. He was 2000 Kobe without the clutch ability, and even '00 Kobe had four 30+pt games and led the team in points, rebounds, assists & blocks in a Game 7, where Pippen completely disappeared offensively and got bodied 1 on 1 in the 4th quarter by a 21 y.o Bryant. Not sure why you'd even list '02 Kobe when he had more 30+ pt games in that Kings series alone than Pippen in all of his title runs.

[Axe]

Pippen gave the Bulls a very consistent 15-20 points, but did he ever really explode offensively? Like sure, he'd have some efficient 25-30 point games, but those were a rarity. 3 total games of 30+ points in 6 title runs with 0 coming after '92. You never saw him go off for 41 like Wade/Irving would in key games, or have moments like Klay did in elimination games for the Warriors. Jordan never had a 2nd option who could take over offensively, Pippen definitely wasn't that guy. He was 2000 Kobe without the clutch ability, and even '00 Kobe had four 30+pt games and led the team in points, rebounds, assists & blocks in a Game 7, where Pippen completely disappeared offensively and got bodied 1 on 1 in the 4th quarter by a 21 y.o Bryant. Not sure why you'd even list '02 Kobe when he had more 30+ pt games in that Kings series alone than Pippen in all of his title runs.
Well, pippen didn't need to be a main on the offensive end to know the impact that he gives for his team. Otoh, he would compensate that with his stellar defense and playmaking to set up offense involving his teammates but without jordan, he was still able to lead the team in scoring during the season after his first retirement.

[Phoenix]

STFU Axe. Whatever you said, nobody cares and half the board probably didn't see it anyway. Most ignored poster on ISH. :applause:

[Axe]

^^The greatest irony in ish. Dork ass son tells about me being ignored, yet can't do it himself alone, even with the help of an ignore list. And, he still chooses to view my posts, despite being hidden already! :lol

[ImKobe]

Well, pippen didn't need to be a main on the offensive end to know the impact that he gives for his team. Otoh, he would compensate that with his stellar defense and playmaking to set up offense involving his teammates but without jordan, he was still able to lead the team in scoring during the season after his first retirement.

I agree on that and I think Pippen's a great 2nd option (greatest ever due to doing it 6 times), but I didn't like him comparing Pippen as a 2nd option to guys like Kobe, Manu, Klay or Wade, who had the ability to completely carry a team in crunch time or even for an entire series.

I see OP's point - Pippen never had the ability to produce like an elite player as a scorer, even when MJ retired his scoring didn't change much in the Playoffs, he didn't break 30 once in that Knicks series, averaging 21.7 ppg on 40,5%FG for that series. He was a true 2nd option, not a 1st option playing 2nd option on a stacked team.

[Axe]

I agree on that and I think Pippen's a great 2nd option (greatest ever due to doing it 6 times), but I didn't like him comparing Pippen as a 2nd option to guys like Kobe, Manu, Klay or Wade, who had the ability to completely carry a team in crunch time or even for an entire series.

I see OP's point - Pippen never had the ability to produce like an elite player as a scorer, even when MJ retired his scoring didn't change much in the Playoffs, he didn't break 30 once in that Knicks series, averaging 21.7 ppg on 40,5%FG for that series. He was a true 2nd option, not a 1st option playing 2nd option on a stacked team.
Great 2nd option, yes. But while his scoring was only average, it didn't stop him from excelling in other areas. And when jordan often topped at ppg, pippen would always come second anyway, like in their second three-peat. He never averaged below 19 ppg all season in their last three seasons together, despite the presence of a younger kukoc who went consistent at 13 ppg. Just don't expect pip to be a scoring machine like kobe and the other guys tho because he ain't the flashy nor selfish type of player.

[Axe]

Anyway, i do hope op is not forgetting the fact that the '94 playoff bulls team without baldan pushed the second seeded knicks to seven games during the ecsf after sweeping the cavs in the first round. Yes, pip could have done more in scoring and too bad they never won a single game in the msg but it's still a great effort nonetheless.

[Kblaze8855]

I agree on that and I think Pippen's a great 2nd option (greatest ever due to doing it 6 times), but I didn't like him comparing Pippen as a 2nd option to guys like Kobe, Manu, Klay or Wade, who had the ability to completely carry a team in crunch time or even for an entire series.

I see OP's point - Pippen never had the ability to produce like an elite player as a scorer, even when MJ retired his scoring didn't change much in the Playoffs, he didn't break 30 once in that Knicks series, averaging 21.7 ppg on 40,5%FG for that series. He was a true 2nd option, not a 1st option playing 2nd option on a stacked team.


He was a first option playing second. We just don’t consider 18-22 a game “first option” scoring for some reason despite there being 30 teams in the nba and most of their first options not scoring that at the time. He was 8th and 12th in the nba in scoring the two years he was the first option with guys like Barkley, Glen Rice, and Reggie scoring less one year and Zo, Penny, Payton, Reggie, Grant Hill and plenty other first options scoring less the next.

It wasn’t like today with every decent scorer being able to give you 20 most nights off the pace and lack of defense. You score 19 a game in most of the 90s that’s a first option. Even with Jordan he was 14th in scoring per game ahead of guys known to do nothing but score. If your second option scores more than Drazen, Reggie, Isiah Thomas, Kevin Johnson, Reggie Lewis, Chuck Person, Mark Price and so on....that’s not bad.

Pippen would have been first option on most teams in nba history. Just not when you put him next to all times scorers. He’d be second to Wade or someone like that. But guess what?

Most teams don’t have a Wade. For most teams in the 90s a guy who can give you 19 is the man. The super team era and easier scoring have warped the idea of how much second guys are expected to score. Most of history a 19ppg #2 was pretty good. Go look at any point. Plenty of first ballot hall of famers known to score aren’t scoring more than 20 a game.

Just hop around through history. First year I checked 8 hall of famers in their primes scored 18-22 a game and only 1(Frazier) was a total player like Pippen. You see plenty of guys like Glen Rice we all consider scorers. Play 14 years score over 22 a game once and that was in 43 minutes a night while he couldn’t do anything but score.

18-21 a game out of a great all around player is pretty standard first option shit. Willis Reed never hit 22 a game in his career. Drexler 4 times in 16 years. Grant Hill did 19, 20, or 21 all but one pre injury year. The great majority of first options are 18-22 a night.

The greatest teams ever just skew the perspective.

[ImKobe]

He was a first option playing second. We just don’t consider 18-22 a game “first option” scoring for some reason despite there being 30 teams in the nba and most of their first options not scoring that at the time. He was 8th and 12th in the nba in scoring the two years he was the first option with guys like Barkley, Glen Rice, and Reggie scoring less one year and Zo, Penny, Payton, Reggie, Grant Hill and plenty other first options scoring less the next.

It wasn’t like today with every decent scorer being able to give you 20 most nights off the pace and lack of defense. You score 19 a game in most of the 90s that’s a first option. Even with Jordan he was 14th in scoring per game ahead of guys known to do nothing but score. If your second option scores more than Drazen, Reggie, Isiah Thomas, Kevin Johnson, Reggie Lewis, Chuck Person, Mark Price and so on....that’s not bad.

Pippen would have been first option on most teams in nba history. Just not when you put him next to all times scorers. He’d be second to Wade or someone like that. But guess what?

Most teams don’t have a Wade. For most teams in the 90s a guy who can give you 19 is the man. The super team era and easier scoring have warped the idea of how much second guys are expected to score. Most of history a 19ppg #2 was pretty good. Go look at any point. Plenty of first ballot hall of famers known to score aren’t scoring more than 20 a game.

Just hop around through history. First year I checked 8 hall of famers in their primes scored 18-22 a game and only 1(Frazier) was a total player like Pippen. You see plenty of guys like Glen Rice we all consider scorers. Play 14 years score over 22 a game once and that was in 43 minutes a night while he couldn’t do anything but score.

18-21 a game out of a great all around player is pretty standard first option shit. Willis Reed never hit 22 a game in his career. Drexler 4 times in 16 years. Grant Hill did 19, 20, or 21 all but one pre injury year. The great majority of first options are 18-22 a night.

The greatest teams ever just skew the perspective.

I was speaking in the context of all-time great teams though, the guy I quoted listed 2nd options on dynasties. Pippen gave you 20-22 a game but not with great efficiency. He was a mediocre FT shooter who missed in big moments, he wasn't a great shooter either but had some decent stretches. Even as a first option in '94, he only had 8 30+ pt games that RS, he had 10 the next season but that Bulls' team quickly became average and could barely stay above .500 without Grant.

Sure, he could have been the first option on average offensive teams all his career and not won any titles like so many had done before.

[insidious301]

Pippen gave the Bulls defense and playmaking. Why is this ignored and how did everything become about scoring? The PPG virtue signaling is dated, and a dead giveaway that the poster has an elementary grasp on basketball.

[97 bulls]

Pippen gave the Bulls defense and playmaking. Why is this ignored and how did everything become about scoring? The PPG virtue signaling is dated, and a dead giveaway that the poster has an elementary grasp on basketball.

Exactly!!!!!! I've been saying this since I've been on this forum.

What's ironic, is that they never compare Pippens scoring stats to his peers or the people in the era he played in. They compare his numbers to guys that played in much more offensive eras. Either the mid 200s to today or the 80s.

[HoopsNY]

Nice try 3ball. It's clear you're agenda driven in this regard because you keep highlighting "3+". Well there have been players who did it with 3 titles. And there are many that did it with 2 titles. So this argument is flawed simply because no one considers it a viable argument to begin with due to its arbitrary nature.

Why not just 2? Or 3? You continuously move the goal posts on this because it suits your agenda.

Furthermore, a player giving 21/8/7 in the finals is outstanding when you also consider what he - in this case Pippen - brings to the table defensively.

I don't know why you go to such lengths. Take it from someone who thinks that MJ is the GOAT with no obvious competition. You don't need to diminish MJ's supporting cast in order to prop him up. If anything, you're diminishing MJ's legacy by consistently trying to create false narratives in order to support him.

[HoopsNY]

Exactly!!!!!! I've been saying this since I've been on this forum.

What's ironic, is that they never compare Pippens scoring stats to his peers or the people in the era he played in. They compare his numbers to guys that played in much more offensive eras. Either the mid 200s to today or the 80s.

In 3ball's defense, he does have somewhat of a point here. While we can look at the league as being slower paced and much more defensive by 1995-98, the same can't really be said from 1988-93.

Scottie became a starter by 1988 and his scoring rankings were as follows:

1988-89: 68th
1989-90: 46th
1990-91: 36th
1991-92: 14th
1992-93: 28th

These years, the league was still faster paced than what we saw in the mid to late 90s, for example, and Scottie wasn't really comparable to his peers scoring-wise.

League PPG 1988-93
1988-89: 109.2
1989-90: 107.0
1990-91: 106.3
1991-92: 105.3
1992-93: 105.3

[97 bulls]

In 3ball's defense, he does have somewhat of a point here. While we can look at the league as being slower paced and much more defensive by 1995-98, the same can't really be said from 1988-93.

Scottie became a starter by 1988 and his scoring rankings were as follows:

1988-89: 68th
1989-90: 46th
1990-91: 36th
1991-92: 14th
1992-93: 28th

These years, the league was still faster paced than what we saw in the mid to late 90s, for example, and Scottie wasn't really comparable to his peers scoring-wise.

League PPG 1988-93
1988-89: 109.2
1989-90: 107.0
1990-91: 106.3
1991-92: 105.3
1992-93: 105.3

So even by the argument you're making his scoring output would put him in the top 3rd? I mean how many players are in the NBA in a given season 350? 400?

[HoopsNY]

So even by the argument you're making his scoring output would put him in the top 3rd? I mean how many players are in the NBA in a given season 350? 400?

Well, consider Kblaze compared him to the likes of Reggie, Payton, Barkley, Isiah, etc, which is true for a season. But the reality is during that stretch of time, he was more comparable to guys like Robert Reid, Sleepy Floyd, Armen Gilliam, Danny Manning, Kenny Smith, Lionel Simmons, Otis Thorpe, Drazen Petrovic, Brad Daughtery, Harvey Grant, Christian Laettener, and Glen Rice.

It's good company, so don't get me wrong, but it's not pristine in any way shape or form. I'm not saying this to belittle Scottie. But I don't really think he became more of a 1st option until 1993-94 when he had to assume that role.

He finished 8th in the 1993-94 season and 12th the following. But we can't just eliminate the first 6 years of his career playing alongside MJ and postulate it as some kind of 1st tier scoring. With every great player, there is a learning curve, and Scottie developed. I think it's one of the reasons Chicago became such a great team as he developed. By 1995, the Bulls were set to win 70+ games every single year.

[goozeman]

To my thinking to be a legitimate "first option" on a playoff team a guy has to be both a closer and finisher. To be a closer you have to be able to pay on and off ball in the half court and create your own shot while getting a team's best defensive looks. To be a finisher you have to be able to score through non-calls and get to the line at high level and shoot consistently high percentage from the free-throw line. Pippen did not do any of those things. Pippen probably never saw a legit double team in his life, and he was for the most part bad at both getting to the line and finishing there (first ten years in league shot .68 percent from line). For most of his career he was just able to sit back in the triangle off ball and be an adequate jump shooter or finish off fast breaks (something for which he was elite). Raw numbers don't tell the whole story and a lot of guys can put up points on bad offensive teams or as a second option while not getting maximum defense pressure. If Pippen was truly a first option, then so are guys like Mark Price, Hornaceck, Ricky Pierce, Jeff Malone, etc.

[3ball]

21/8/7 in the Finals is outstanding (pippen's best stats)




^^^ only MJ won 6 with that

Other greats only won 1 or 2 with pippen stats from a sidekick because their other rings had the sidekick getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg

that's the goatness of MJ - he won six with Pippen stats from his sidekick - he didn't need his sidekick to get 25-30 or FMVP like everyone else did for a chunk of their rings.

And we haven't mentioned 3rd options, which MJ never had - only the top players in their peak seasons could win with Pippen and no 3rd options, aka 71' Kareem or 00' Shaq (the only scoring champs to win the title), or other peak seasons like 03' Duncan, 06' Wade - that's the caliber it takes to win with Pippen and no 3rd option (a Jordan level season)

heck, we saw 11' Wade lose with Pippen (lebron was pippen in those Finals).. ultimately, everyone else's peak season was MJ's standard season (they could only win with Pippen in their peak seasons/Jordan seasons, and otherwise needed their sidekick to get 25-30 ppg or FMVP to win).

[97 bulls]

Well, consider Kblaze compared him to the likes of Reggie, Payton, Barkley, Isiah, etc, which is true for a season. But the reality is during that stretch of time, he was more comparable to guys like Robert Reid, Sleepy Floyd, Armen Gilliam, Danny Manning, Kenny Smith, Lionel Simmons, Otis Thorpe, Drazen Petrovic, Brad Daughtery, Harvey Grant, Christian Laettener, and Glen Rice.

It's good company, so don't get me wrong, but it's not pristine in any way shape or form. I'm not saying this to belittle Scottie. But I don't really think he became more of a 1st option until 1993-94 when he had to assume that role.

He finished 8th in the 1993-94 season and 12th the following. But we can't just eliminate the first 6 years of his career playing alongside MJ and postulate it as some kind of 1st tier scoring. With every great player, there is a learning curve, and Scottie developed. I think it's one of the reasons Chicago became such a great team as he developed. By 1995, the Bulls were set to win 70+ games every single year.

Miller, Thomas, Hill, Payton, Duncan, Garnett, I'd put Pippen in that list as far as scoring. The difference is those guys were sharing the ball with anyone near the caliber of Jordan.

Like Insidious stated earlier, many of the posters that frequent this site seem to have an elementary grasp of Basketball and the NBA. I dont think any of the players I listed would still score at the same level had they played alongside MJ. For some reason this concept just cant seem to be understood by alot of the posters in here.

[97 bulls]

To my thinking to be a legitimate "first option" on a playoff team a guy has to be both a closer and finisher. To be a closer you have to be able to pay on and off ball in the half court and create your own shot while getting a team's best defensive looks. To be a finisher you have to be able to score through non-calls and get to the line at high level and shoot consistently high percentage from the free-throw line. Pippen did not do any of those things. Pippen probably never saw a legit double team in his life, and he was for the most part bad at both getting to the line and finishing there (first ten years in league shot .68 percent from line). For most of his career he was just able to sit back in the triangle off ball and be an adequate jump shooter or finish off fast breaks (something for which he was elite). Raw numbers don't tell the whole story and a lot of guys can put up points on bad offensive teams or as a second option while not getting maximum defense pressure. If Pippen was truly a first option, then so are guys like Mark Price, Hornaceck, Ricky Pierce, Jeff Malone, etc.

See what I mean Hoops? This guy has a very simplistic concept of scoring. I actually think it's more of an agenda, because the fact is that Pippen has been double teamed a lot. If I were to show examples, it wouldn't matter. Because an agenda doesnt need the truth to be conceptualized. Just a hard head.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

One thing I will give Jordan are the last of both 3peats 93,98). Those two years it seems Pippen was tired and beat up. Those are the only two years Jordan has a case of what you argue. 1991, 1992, 1996, 1997 Pippen always outplayed the opponents 2nd best player.

As far as playoff runs, you can't forget 2000.

2000 Blazers offensive with Scottie Pippen ON: 108.8 (3rd best ranked offense)

2000 blazers offense with Scottie Pippen OFF: 100.0 (27th best ranked)

So basically the offense with Pippen is playing at Bucks with ray Allen and Glenn Robinson level.

The offense without Pippen is playing like Warriors with Mookie Blaylock level.

[3ball]

Miller, Thomas, Hill, Payton, Duncan, Garnett, I'd put Pippen in that list as far as scoring.


.

Pippen couldn't score anywhere near any those guys

Grant Hill, Tim Duncan, Miller? Are you kidding me?

You guys are clueless.. when did Pippen ever dominate a series with 25+ ppg???.. he never did, whereas everyone on your list did

[3ball]

Those are the only two years Jordan has a case of what you argue. .. 1991, 1992, 1996, 1997 Pippen always outplayed the opponents 2nd best player.



You apparently don't know what I'm arguing

Every great player needed a sidekick to get 25-30 or FMVP for some of their rings...

So they only won 1 or 2 rings with a sidekick getting Pippen stats (aka not FMVP or 25-30 ppg)..

otoh, MJ won 6 with Pippen.. that's absurd compared to everyone else that only won 1 or 2 rings with Pippen-caliber help, while MJ won 6

[HBK_Kliq_2]

You apparently don't know what I'm arguing

Every great player needed a sidekick to get 25-30 ppg or FMVP for some of their rings...

So they only won 1 or 2 rings with a sidekick getting Pippen stats (aka not FMVP or 25-30 ppg).. otoh, MJ won 6 with Pippen.. that's absurd compared to everyone else that needed 25-30 or FMVP from a sidekick to win a chunk of their rings - everyone else only won 1 or 2 rings with Pippen-caliber help, while MJ won 6

Relative to era, Jordan had the best sidekick in a 2 star era. So he was going to win the most rings.

Kawhi in 2019 2nd round beat Embiid/Butler/Simmons 3 allstars and also two 18-21 PPG scorers in Harris/Reddick. Now that's a loaded team all in their primes.

LeBron is beating guys out of their primes (duncan and KG). Same with Jordan beating out of prime 1998 Stockton.

Now is 2020 still prime LeBron? He's a way better player then 2013 Duncan that's for sure. Kawhi is about to beat him too.

[97 bulls]

Pippen couldn't score anywhere near any those guys

Grant Hill, Tim Duncan, Miller? Are you kidding me?

You guys are clueless.. when did Pippen ever dominate a series with 25+ ppg???.. he never did, whereas everyone on your list did

Those guys didnt play with anyone as ball dominant as Jordan.

[Shooter]

Think of Jordan's best playoff runs without Pippen

https://i.postimg.cc/2jPHTQ5t/OoOoo.gifhttps://i.postimg.cc/2jPHTQ5t/OoOoo.gif

[Carbine]

Those guys didnt play with anyone as ball dominant as Jordan.

Jordan was not ball dominant. Tony Parker is more ball dominant than Jordan.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Jordan was not ball dominant. Tony Parker is more ball dominant than Jordan.

Jordan wasn't ball dominant at 35% usage in career playoffs?

Parker is more of just a black hole then ball dominant.

[Carbine]

Educate yourself on what ball dominant and usage mean and why they are very different.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Educate yourself on what ball dominant and usage mean and why they are very different.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/usg_pct_season.html

Look at the list of highest usage % all time. Westbrook, Harden, Bryant, Jordan, Iverson, Luka all ball dominant guys.

Give me some examples on ball dominant guys with low usage?

[97 bulls]

Jordan was not ball dominant. Tony Parker is more ball dominant than Jordan.

Ball dominant isnt the correct term. Jordan (when he finally learned) played within the offense. But make no mistake, he was going to take the lions share of the shots. Even on nights when guys were on, they had to share that night with Jordan. There were some nights when MJ just didnt have it. And other guys did. Jordan still was almost always gonna get his shots up.

On other teams, when guys are hot, they get fed the ball alot. On other teams, when the best player didnt have it, other players were looked to to fill that void. Players like MJ, Kobe, Iverson, Harden. They're gonna continue to shoot. No matter what.

There were nights when Pippen was hot, and hed finish with 25+ pts on 10-14 shooting. His jumped shot was working, hes getting steals a bunch of open court dunks etc. And on those nights where he shouldve been looked to more, it didnt happen. Jordan still took the lions share of the shots. Even when he should have

We saw this on the Dream Team. He didnt need to take almost twice as many shots as the next two guys under him

Or as an old man in Washington.

I dont think the Bulls needed MJ to drop 30 a night to win championships. 94 all but proved it. Would it have been harder? Yes. But definitely doable.

[3ball]

Kawhi beat Embiid/Butler/Simmons 3 allstars and also two 18-21 PPG scorers in Harris/Reddick.

Now that's a loaded team all in their primes.



^^^ that's inferior to MJ beating Price/Daughtery/Nance in 1989 - 3 perennial all-stars in their prime, plus 20/5/5 Ron Harper

they were the #1 SRS team and MJ beat them with nothing from Pippen and a 6 seed

But apparently you don't know MJ's career.. you're ignorant about it and biased towards today's stars

Episode 3 of the documentary covers the Cleveland series (maybe episode 4)





LeBron is beating guys out of their primes (duncan and KG). Same with Jordan beating out of prime 1998 Stockton.



Malone was the league MVP in 97' and 99', so it isn't the same

Again, your bias shows here





Now is 2020 still prime LeBron? He's a way better player then 2013 Duncan that's for sure. Kawhi is about to beat him too.



Lebron sucks, at least compared to Jordan and about 10 other guys

He manufactured his resume - aka he formed a strong team in a conference that weak teams were routinely winning, hence the conference finals win streak (the DEFINITION of manufactured)..

Additionally, his jumpshooting skill is sub-par and he lacks off-ball skill, so he can't fit with all player types or systems to have the best teams - his skill deficit causes weaker teams, aka 3/9





Jordan had the best sidekick in a 2 star era. So he was going to win the most rings.




- Magic only won 5 with Kareem...

- Shaq and Kobe only won 3 with each other

- Lebron only won 3 with Wade/Bosh and Kyrie/Love


^^^ all those sidekicks are legitimate 1st options and won rings as FMVP or 25-30 ppg

So only MJ could win 6 with a permanent 2nd option like Pippen - everyone else needs 1st option caliber from their sidekick to even win 3, let alone 6.






Jordan had the best sidekick in a 2 star era. So he was going to win the most rings.



Pippen wasn't the best 2nd option because he was horrible in the playoffs from 88-90' and 95-98' - he was routinely outplayed these years, and was also weak in the 93' playoffs (lower production rate than 14' Wade and 45% true shooting in Finals)..

so Jordan had the best sidekick for only 2 years - 91' and 92' (and even in 1992 - X-man outplayed Pippen)

And the bulls had the weaker 3rd option basically every time..





Jordan had the best sidekick in a 2 star era




you said the Bulls won because they had the best 2nd option, which makes no sense - having a good 2nd option isn't the biggest driver for winning... No one predicts the champion by sorting 2nd options - they predict the champ sorting by 1st options because that's the biggest driver.

Secondly, teams don't win with good #2 options and shitty #1 options... That isn't even possible - if the #1 option sucks, then he won't be #1 option - so it's the greatness of the #1 option that elevates the #2.. if MJ won 6 with Kemp, Dumas or KJ, then those guys would get the same props that Pippen gets

Jordan almost won in 89' and 90' without a 2nd option at all - he would've won with anyone decent in a 2-star format.. Pippen simply won the "3-peat with MJ" lottery.

[3ball]

.
Thread Cliffs


^^^ To win some of their rings, guys like Magic, Shaq, and Lebron needed sidekicks to get FMVP or 25-30 ppg

so they needed 1st option caliber sidekicks to win less rings than MJ - only MJ could win 6 with a permanent 2nd option stats like Pippen.

[HoopsNY]

Miller, Thomas, Hill, Payton, Duncan, Garnett, I'd put Pippen in that list as far as scoring. The difference is those guys were sharing the ball with anyone near the caliber of Jordan.

This is true, but I wasn't referring to the mid to late 90s.


Like Insidious stated earlier, many of the posters that frequent this site seem to have an elementary grasp of Basketball and the NBA. I dont think any of the players I listed would still score at the same level had they played alongside MJ. For some reason this concept just cant seem to be understood by alot of the posters in here.

The problem here is that Pippen didn't really achieve much better without MJ where scoring was concerned, even during his peak years. In 1993-94 he averaged 22.0 ppg, in 1994-95 he averaged 21.8 ppg before MJ's return. And he averaged 21.8 ppg even after losing Horace Grant.

So are we to think that from '88-93 he would have been an elite scorer given that his
peak years didn't reflect that kind of production?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

^^^ that's inferior to MJ beating Price/Daughtery/Nance in 1989 - 3 perennial all-stars in their prime, plus 20/5/5 Ron Harper

they were the #1 SRS team and MJ beat them with nothing from Pippen and a 6 seed

But apparently you don't know MJ's career.. you're ignorant about it and biased towards today's stars

Episode 3 of the documentary covers the Cleveland series (maybe episode 4)



Malone was the league MVP in 97' and 99', so it isn't the same

Again, your bias shows here



Lebron sucks, at least compared to Jordan and about 10 other guys

He manufactured his resume - aka he formed a strong team in a conference that weak teams were routinely winning, hence the conference finals win streak (the DEFINITION of manufactured)..

Additionally, his jumpshooting skill is sub-par and he lacks off-ball skill, so he can't fit with all player types or systems to have the best teams - his skill deficit causes weaker teams, aka 3/9




- Magic only won 5 with Kareem...

- Shaq and Kobe only won 3 with each other

- Lebron only won 3 with Wade/Bosh and Kyrie/Love


^^^ all those sidekicks are legitimate 1st options and won rings as FMVP or 25-30 ppg

So only MJ could win 6 with a permanent 2nd option like Pippen - everyone else needs 1st option caliber from their sidekick to even win 3, let alone 6.




Pippen wasn't the best 2nd option because he was horrible in the playoffs from 88-90' and 95-98' - he was routinely outplayed these years, and was also weak in the 93' playoffs (lower production rate than 14' Wade and 45% true shooting in Finals)..

so Jordan had the best sidekick for only 2 years - 91' and 92' (and even in 1992 - X-man outplayed Pippen)

And the bulls had the weaker 3rd option basically every time..




you said the Bulls won because they had the best 2nd option, which makes no sense - having a good 2nd option isn't the biggest driver for winning... No one predicts the champion by sorting 2nd options - they predict the champ sorting by 1st options because that's the biggest driver.

Secondly, teams don't win with good #2 options and shitty #1 options... That isn't even possible - if the #1 option sucks, then he won't be #1 option - so it's the greatness of the #1 option that elevates the #2.. if MJ won 6 with Kemp, Dumas or KJ, then those guys would get the same props that Pippen gets

Jordan almost won in 89' and 90' without a 2nd option at all - he would've won with anyone decent in a 2-star format.. Pippen simply won the "3-peat with MJ" lottery.

Cavs didn't have 3 allstars, a 21PPG scorer and a 18PPG scorer all in their primes? That's what Kawhi beat without any help from Siakam or Lowry.

1991 - Pippen beat Vlade in GmSc, 1992 Pippen nearly beat even Clyde in GmSc and any other blazer you want to name, 1993 Pippen outplayed Kevin Johnson. And then Payton had a whopping 1.0 GmSc higher then Pippen. Last two titles Pippen outplayed Stockton both times. What more can you ask for.

[HoopsNY]

See what I mean Hoops? This guy has a very simplistic concept of scoring. I actually think it's more of an agenda, because the fact is that Pippen has been double teamed a lot. If I were to show examples, it wouldn't matter. Because an agenda doesnt need the truth to be conceptualized. Just a hard head.

You're right on that where the double teaming is concerned. But goozeman has a point when it comes to how we view Pippen's career as a whole. It seems ISH is divided into two camps:

Camp A: Pippen was a 1st tier scorer
Camp B: Pippen sucked offensively, period

I believe the truth lies somewhere in them middle, though closer to camp A. 1987-93 shows us that Pippen wasn't top tier and definitely not a 1st option. 1994-98 shows us the evolution of Pippen where he becomes a 1st option type of scorer. In this case, the comparisons to Hill, Payton, Miller, etc are warranted.

[3ball]

Cavs didn't have 3 allstars, a 21PPG scorer and a 18PPG scorer all in their primes? That's what Kawhi beat without any help from Siakam or Lowry.

1991 - Pippen beat Vlade in GmSc, 1992 Pippen nearly beat even Clyde in GmSc and any other blazer you want to name, 1993 Pippen outplayed Kevin Johnson. And then Payton had a whopping 1.0 GmSc higher then Pippen. Last two titles Pippen outplayed Stockton both times. What more can you ask for.

Jordan's upset of the 89' Cavs was an actual upset, whereas many predicted Toronto would beat the Sixers

And again, the 89' Cavs had 3 all-stars that year (perennial all-stars) plus Ron Harper - that's better players than Philly and the Cavs were the #1 SRS in the league

Btw, who cares about gamescore when Pippen produced at a lower rate than anyone with his level of possession usage (20-25% usage)

Anyone with Pippen's possession usage produced more per possession than Pippen (ORtg.. which includes assists).. Pippen has the lowest production rate of anyone he's compared to

Quite simply, Pippen sucked

[HoopsNY]

Pippen couldn't score anywhere near any those guys

Grant Hill, Tim Duncan, Miller? Are you kidding me?

You guys are clueless.. when did Pippen ever dominate a series with 25+ ppg???.. he never did, whereas everyone on your list did

Pippen in the 1991-92 2nd round against Philly: 23.4 PPG on 61% TS%
Pippen in the 1992-93 1st round against Miami: 24.0 PPG on 63% TS%
Pippen in the 1993-94 1st round against Cleveland: 25.3 PPG on 54% TS%

Those aren't Grant Hill like or Reggie Miller like to you? In fact, when did a guy like Hill ever produce 25+ PPG in the playoffs?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Jordan's upset of the 89' Cavs was an actual upset, whereas many predicted Toronto would beat the Sixers

And again, the 89' Cavs had 3 all-stars that year (perennial all-stars) plus Ron Harper - that's better players than Philly and the Cavs were the #1 SRS in the league

Btw, who cares about gamescore when Pippen produced at a lower rate than anyone with his level of possession usage (20-25% usage)

Anyone with Pippen's possession usage produced more per possession than Pippen (ORtg.. which includes assists).. Pippen has the lowest production rate of anyone he's compared to

Quite simply, Pippen sucked

Ron Harper basically had the exact same career as Iggy, he was more valuable as a role player then an all-star. I dont see how that cavs team tops the 2019 76ers who were more like the eastern conference warriors.

Pippen had one of the greatest offensive on/off numbers in history during their 1997 playoff run, so he's doing something right. Pippen's high usage is a sign that he's not scared of the playoffs. Look at Raptors players usage in 2019 2nd round game 7:

Kawhi: 48%
Lowry: 17%
Siakam: 16%
Marc Gasol: 8%

All scared shitless. Be happy you had Pippen to take pressure off Jordan. After all, what was Jordan winning before Pippen started having high usage?

[3ball]

Pippen in the 1992-93 1st round against Miami: 24.0 PPG on 63% TS%
Pippen in the 1993-94 1st round against Cleveland: 25.3 PPG on 54% TS%

Those aren't Grant Hill like or Reggie Miller like to you?
Why are you posting stats from 1st round blowouts - you're making my point

Miller, Duncan, Dumars, Worthy, McHale, KJ - f*cking everyone - averaged 25-30 against the best teams in the biggest stages

i.e. KJ averaged 28/5/9 against the champion Rockets during the 94' and 95' Playoffs (2 seven game series)... When did Pippen do that?.. he was a much worse scorer and passer than KJ..

Pippen was outplayed and averaged 16 on 40% in the 96' Finals.. 98' Finals.. 98' ECF.. 97' ECF.. 90' ECF.. 89' ECF.. 92 ECSF.. 96' ECSF..

[Shooter]

There seems to be a common thing with people crying about Scottie Pippen's offensive production, so let's find out why.

FGA by year
1991
MJ: 22.1
Pip 16.6

1992
MJ: 26.4
Pip: 14.8

1993
MJ: 27.8
Pip: 17.2

1996
MJ: 22.6
Pip: 15.9

1997
MJ: 26.2
Pip: 16.3

1998
MJ: 25.0
Pip: 14.0

6 year average (91-93, 95-98)
MJ: 25.0
Pip: 15.8

MJ was taking nearly 10 more shots, PER GAME but was wondering why Pip didnt score more? In 1992 he took nearly 12 more shots than Pip per game (11.6).

Find me a bigger ball hog.

[HoopsNY]

Why are you posting stats from 1st round blowouts - you're making my point

Miller, Duncan, Dumars, Worthy, McHale, KJ - f*cking everyone - averaged 25-30 against the best teams in the biggest stages

i.e. KJ averaged 28/5/9 against the champion Rockets during the 94' and 95' Playoffs (2 seven game series)... When did Pippen do that?.. he was a much worse scorer and passer than KJ..

Pippen was outplayed and averaged 16 on 40% in the 96' Finals.. 98' Finals.. 98' ECF.. 97' ECF.. 90' ECF.. 89' ECF.. 92 ECSF.. 96' ECSF..

You keep moving the goal posts. We go from regular season production, to playoff production, to don't use the 1st round production, to don't use the 2nd round production, to only using the conference finals or ECF production.

When did Grant Hill ever produce 25+ PPG in an ECF?

[3ball]

Ron Harper basically had the exact same career as Iggy, he was more valuable as a role player then an all-star. I dont see how that cavs team tops the 2019 76ers who were more like the eastern conference warriors.



You're counting Redick as a talent when he was a role player - the 89' Cavs were highly regarded and heavily-favored, while Philly wasn't considered that good and the underdog





Pippen had one of the greatest offensive on/off numbers in history during their 1997 playoff run, so he's doing something right.



He had some of the worst on-offs in 98' and on-off is biased towards the winning team - it's a team stat that heavily favors dominant brands/teams.. Harper and kukoc often had higher on-off than Pippen






Pippen's high usage is a sign that he's not scared of the playoffs. Look at Raptors players usage in 2019 2nd round game 7:

Kawhi: 48%
Lowry: 17%
Siakam: 16%
Marc Gasol: 8%

All scared shitless. Be happy you had Pippen to take pressure off Jordan. After all, what was Jordan winning before Pippen started having high usage?



No sidekick in history had a greater usage deficit to his #1 option than Pippen vs Jordan

So you have no clue what you're talking about

Usage proves that MJ carried the bulls to 6 rings - he won 4 of those rings with 36% usage or greater - that's 4 more than anyone else

That's what you don't understand - guys like Kyrie, Wade, McHale, Worthy, KJ, Dumars - these guys led their team in usage and scoring or were very close - they were 1st option-caliber, yet MJ still won more with a permanent 2nd option sidekick and stats

[97 bulls]

This is true, but I wasn't referring to the mid to late 90s.



The problem here is that Pippen didn't really achieve much better without MJ where scoring was concerned, even during his peak years. In 1993-94 he averaged 22.0 ppg, in 1994-95 he averaged 21.8 ppg before MJ's return. And he averaged 21.8 ppg even after losing Horace Grant.

So are we to think that from '88-93 he would have been an elite scorer given that his years didn't reflect that kind of production?

His scoring did improve though. And again. Let's apply context here. Pippen was the Bulls PG, 2nd best rebounder and go to defender in 94. And in 95, he was the Bulls everything. I'm sure his scoring stats would've been better had he not been spread so thin. I cant think of very many players if any that were asked to run an offense, anchor the defense, be the teams best scorer, and rebounder while often taking on the opposition's best scorer. And be effective doing all of it.

If Pippen focused more on scoring his pts would've been higher. Especially if the Bulls had more help.

[goozeman]

See what I mean Hoops? This guy has a very simplistic concept of scoring. I actually think it's more of an agenda, because the fact is that Pippen has been double teamed a lot. If I were to show examples, it wouldn't matter. Because an agenda doesnt need the truth to be conceptualized. Just a hard head.

Definitionally, it is pretty textbook. Players aren't going to have their shot every night and the opposing team isn't always going to give up easy buckets in transition no matter how good your defense is. True first options can affect the game night in and night out in the half court in multiple ways, and when their shot isn't falling, they can at least get to the line and finish. If a GM told the basketball world he was going to build a team around a prospect that projects to be 17.5ppg guy in the playoffs on 14.5 attempts and will shoot .below 70 percent from the line his first decade in the league, most knowledgable observers would think the guy is nuts. But here we have people torturing stats to make exactly that case for Pippen. The man has a career 17.5ppg for the playoffs. That's it. Another way to think about that is 50 percent of the time Pippen failed to score 17.5 or more points. That's good, but not great and you need great in the playoffs to be the guy. 17.5 gets you a second round exit at best, and I don't care how much you think about Pippen's all-around game. It is called basketball, not defenseball, marginallybetterthanaverageassistball, unconteteddefensivereboundsball, etc.

Always teams are going to build first around top offensive talent. Pippen and Miller have identical career playoff fga at 14.5 and yet Reggie still scored at a 15 percent higher clip at 20.6 for his career. Barkley in Houston put up Pippen-like scoring averages in the playoffs shooting the ball just 12 attempts per night. Why? Both Barkley and Miller possessed refined offensive skills that could always use to exploit a defense. Pippen was not very efficient because his offensive game was raw. The guy was helter skelter at the line and lacked a true go-to half court skill set. Take Pippen out of the triangle and what offense is a team running through him? Isolating at top of the key? No – not a good enough ball handler and he turns the ball over too much. Running him off screens? No – not nearly quick enough. Pick-and-roll action? No – he's a decent finisher at the rim but too small. Posting him up? Nope – post game sucks. Letting just shoot over defense? Naw – mediocre shooter from deep. Pippen was a great athlete who simply made the most of his opportunities in the triangle. I would class him as an jack-of-all-trades opportunist in the Bulls system.

The number one rule in basketball is that scorer and when they are not scoring, they are looking to score. First options don't let the game come to them. Their offensive skills are immediately obvious. When you watch Pippen play, nothing really stands out offensively. His number reflect that in their overall lack of efficiency and lack of refined skill set. Sure, he was an a great all-around player when you factor in his defense, but that doesn't mean he's a first option. That's why when Jordan retired the first time, Pippen's numbers barely changed. He was tapped out in the triangle. System guy scoring system points aren't first options, especially when they don't even flash the skills.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

You're counting Redick as a talent when he was a role player - the 89' Cavs were highly regarded and heavily-favored, while Philly wasn't considered that good and the underdog



He had some of the worst on-offs in 98' and on-off is biased towards the winning team - it's a team stat that heavily favors dominant brands/teams.. Harper and kukoc often had higher on-off than Pippen




No sidekick in history had a greater usage deficit to his #1 option than Pippen vs Jordan

So you have no clue what you're talking about

Usage proves that MJ carried the bulls to 6 rings - he won 4 of those rings with 36% usage or greater - that's 4 more than anyone else

That's what you don't understand - guys like Kyrie, Wade, McHale, Worthy, KJ, Dumars - these guys led their team in usage and scoring or were very close - they were 1st option-caliber, yet MJ still won more with a permanent 2nd option sidekick and stats

Ron Harper doesn't thrive as a star player, he thrives as a role player. Reddick is in a 5th option scoring role, can you name me other 5th options who averaged 18PPG in a season?

Bulls were still better offensively with Pippen then without him in 1998. But yes I do credit Jordan for 1998 since last of a 3peat is always the most difficult. That still doesn't take away Pippen dominating on/off in 1997, out playing Stockton in 1998, out playing Kevin Johnson in 1993, out playing even Clyde drexler in 1992 and out playing Divac in 1991. That's plenty of help relative to era is all I'm saying. Not trying to hate on Jordan here, I actually prefer his game over LeBron.

[HoopsNY]

His scoring did improve though. And again. Let's apply context here. Pippen was the Bulls PG, 2nd best rebounder and go to defender in 94. And in 95, he was the Bulls everything. I'm sure his scoring stats would've been better had he not been spread so thin. I cant think of very many players if any that were asked to run an offense, anchor the defense, be the teams best scorer, and rebounder while often taking on the opposition's best scorer. And be effective doing all of it.

If Pippen focused more on scoring his pts would've been higher. Especially if the Bulls had more help.

But he didn't have to do all of that from 1987-93. Team-wise, Chicago was a great offense. They were top 5 in offense from '89-93. And he had the best scorer on the team and the Bulls were consistently amongst the best in assists, ranking 7th, 4th, 3rd, and 6th from '89-93.

And I don't know what "anchoring" a defense really means for perimeter players. Considering this was a big man centric era, that title usually went to Centers like Ewing, Robinson, Mutombo, and Hakeem as slashing, post up play, and overall inside play was the focus.

But let's not act like Scottie was the best defender on Chicago from 1987-93, either. The Bulls as a whole were a great defensive team. So if he didn't do it without the load, nor with the load, then maybe he just wasn't THAT great of a scorer?

[3ball]

.

He was a true 2nd option, not a 1st option playing 2nd option on a stacked team.



^^^ and that's the point

Jordan won 6 with a bonafide 2nd option, while everyone else won less despite having sidekicks that played 1st option caliber (FMVP or 25-30 ppg)

Guys like Shaq, Lebron and Magic won rings with their sidekick getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg, yet they STILL won less than Jordan, who won every ring with a bonafide 2nd option

[HBK_Kliq_2]

^^^ and that's the point

Jordan won 6 with a bonafide 2nd option, while everyone else won less despite having sidekicks that played 1st option caliber (FMVP or 25-30 ppg)

Guys like Shaq, Lebron and Magic won rings with their sidekick getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg, yet they STILL won less than Jordan, who won every ring with a bonafide 2nd option

In your imagination the best sidekick for Jordan is a guy putting up Westbrook type numbers. Westbrook failed over and over again with Durant and even failed with Harden as the 3rd wheel, Westbrook failed with Paul George, now he's the huge favorite to fail again as the 2nd star.

[goozeman]

You guys are aware that Jordan had only played two full seasons in the NBA before Pippen got to the Bulls, right? Ya'll act like dude had been toiling away with no success for a decade or something. Seriously, he's only two years older than Pippen.

[HoopsNY]

Definitionally, it is pretty textbook. Players aren't going to have their shot every night and the opposing team isn't always going to give up easy buckets in transition no matter how good your defense is. True first options can affect the game night in and night out in the half court in multiple ways, and when their shot isn't falling, they can at least get to the line and finish. If a GM told the basketball world he was going to build a team around a prospect that projects to be 17.5ppg guy in the playoffs on 14.5 attempts and will shoot .below 70 percent from the line his first decade in the league, most knowledgable observers would think the guy is nuts. But here we have people torturing stats to make exactly that case for Pippen. The man has a career 17.5ppg for the playoffs. That's it. Another way to think about that is 50 percent of the time Pippen failed to score 17.5 or more points. That's good, but not great and you need great in the playoffs to be the guy. 17.5 gets you a second round exit at best, and I don't care how much you think about Pippen's all-around game. It is called basketball, not defenseball, marginallybetterthanaverageassistball, unconteteddefensivereboundsball, etc.

Always teams are going to build first around top offensive talent. Pippen and Miller have identical career playoff fga at 14.5 and yet Reggie still scored at a 15 percent higher clip at 20.6 for his career. Barkley in Houston put up Pippen-like scoring averages in the playoffs shooting the ball just 12 attempts per night. Why? Both Barkley and Miller possessed refined offensive skills that could always use to exploit a defense. Pippen was not very efficient because his offensive game was raw. The guy was helter skelter at the line and lacked a true go-to half court skill set. Take Pippen out of the triangle and what offense is a team running through him? Isolating at top of the key? No – not a good enough ball handler and he turns the ball over too much. Running him off screens? No – not nearly quick enough. Pick-and-roll action? No – he's a decent finisher at the rim but too small. Posting him up? Nope – post game sucks. Letting just shoot over defense? Naw – mediocre shooter from deep. Pippen was a great athlete who simply made the most of his opportunities in the triangle. I would class him as an jack-of-all-trades opportunist in the Bulls system.

The number one rule in basketball is that scorer and when they are not scoring, they are looking to score. First options don't let the game come to them. Their offensive skills are immediately obvious. When you watch Pippen play, nothing really stands out offensively. His number reflect that in their overall lack of efficiency and lack of refined skill set. Sure, he was an a great all-around player when you factor in his defense, but that doesn't mean he's a first option. That's why when Jordan retired the first time, Pippen's numbers barely changed. He was tapped out in the triangle. System guy scoring system points aren't first options, especially when they don't even flash the skills.

Yea this is pretty much spot on.

[HoopsNY]

You guys are aware that Jordan had only played two full seasons in the NBA before Pippen got to the Bulls, right? Ya'll act like dude had been toiling away with no success for a decade or something. Seriously, he's only two years younger than Pippen.

Don't tell that to some people on here. They get offended. The "No Pip No Chip" crowd consistently chants their mantras, as if this was a Magic/Kareem situation.

[97 bulls]

@Goozeman

Bro. Reggie Miller was a great jump shooter. THATS IT. He couldnt break you down off the dribble, he had absolutly no post game, and wasnt scary in the fastbreak as a finisher. Even as the main scoring option, Millers offensive numbers were on par with Pippens.

When Pippen joined the Rockets, they made him a jump shooter. They didnt run an offense conducive to Pips strength which is getting out in transition in the open court.

As I said in my previous post, how many players do you think ca. efficiently and effectively do what Pippen did and score 28ppg? And win?

Pippen was excellent in transition, had a very good post game, a streaky shooter, an ok 3pt shooter, and a below averge FT shooter. If he was expected to do all he did, you dont think he could score more on say 46%?

[3ball]

Definitionally, it is pretty textbook. Players aren't going to have their shot every night and the opposing team isn't always going to give up easy buckets in transition no matter how good your defense is. True first options can affect the game night in and night out in the half court in multiple ways, and when their shot isn't falling, they can at least get to the line and finish. If a GM told the basketball world he was going to build a team around a prospect that projects to be 17.5ppg guy in the playoffs on 14.5 attempts and will shoot .below 70 percent from the line his first decade in the league, most knowledgable observers would think the guy is nuts. But here we have people torturing stats to make exactly that case for Pippen. The man has a career 17.5ppg for the playoffs. That's it. Another way to think about that is 50 percent of the time Pippen failed to score 17.5 or more points. That's good, but not great and you need great in the playoffs to be the guy. 17.5 gets you a second round exit at best, and I don't care how much you think about Pippen's all-around game. It is called basketball, not defenseball, marginallybetterthanaverageassistball, unconteteddefensivereboundsball, etc.

Always teams are going to build first around top offensive talent. Pippen and Miller have identical career playoff fga at 14.5 and yet Reggie still scored at a 15 percent higher clip at 20.6 for his career. Barkley in Houston put up Pippen-like scoring averages in the playoffs shooting the ball just 12 attempts per night. Why? Both Barkley and Miller possessed refined offensive skills that could always use to exploit a defense. Pippen was not very efficient because his offensive game was raw. The guy was helter skelter at the line and lacked a true go-to half court skill set. Take Pippen out of the triangle and what offense is a team running through him? Isolating at top of the key? No – not a good enough ball handler and he turns the ball over too much. Running him off screens? No – not nearly quick enough. Pick-and-roll action? No – he's a decent finisher at the rim but too small. Posting him up? Nope – post game sucks. Letting just shoot over defense? Naw – mediocre shooter from deep. Pippen was a great athlete who simply made the most of his opportunities in the triangle. I would class him as an jack-of-all-trades opportunist in the Bulls system.

The number one rule in basketball is that scorer and when they are not scoring, they are looking to score. First options don't let the game come to them. Their offensive skills are immediately obvious. When you watch Pippen play, nothing really stands out offensively. His number reflect that in their overall lack of efficiency and lack of refined skill set. Sure, he was an a great all-around player when you factor in his defense, but that doesn't mean he's a first option. That's why when Jordan retired the first time, Pippen's numbers barely changed. He was tapped out in the triangle. System guy scoring system points aren't first options, especially when they don't even flash the skills.







You guys are aware that Jordan had only played two full seasons in the NBA before Pippen got to the Bulls, right? Ya'll act like dude had been toiling away with no success for a decade or something. Seriously, he's only two years younger than Pippen.




history in writing

[97 bulls]

But he didn't have to do all of that from 1987-93. Team-wise, Chicago was a great offense. They were top 5 in offense from '89-93. And he had the best scorer on the team and the Bulls were consistently amongst the best in assists, ranking 7th, 4th, 3rd, and 6th from '89-93.

And I don't know what "anchoring" a defense really means for perimeter players. Considering this was a big man centric era, that title usually went to Centers like Ewing, Robinson, Mutombo, and Hakeem as slashing, post up play, and overall inside play was the focus.

But let's not act like Scottie was the best defender on Chicago from 1987-93, either. The Bulls as a whole were a great defensive team. So if he didn't do it without the load, nor with the load, then maybe he just wasn't THAT great of a scorer?

I'm responding to Gooseman. I'm referencing 94 and 95.

Theres no way Pippen was scoring 25 a night playing next to MJ.

How many teams actually had 2 guys giving 25+ a night?

Who anchored the Bulls number two defense in 95? Kukoc? Luckily Longley? Was it a team effort when the starting five in 95 was Armstrong, Myers, Kukoc, Longley and Pippen? Did you actually watch the Bulls in 95? Pippen was their anchor. Yes he did it from his forward position.

Listen to and watch this video.

https://youtu.be/eOoWZNp0AlA

[97 bulls]

You guys are aware that Jordan had only played two full seasons in the NBA before Pippen got to the Bulls, right? Ya'll act like dude had been toiling away with no success for a decade or something. Seriously, he's only two years older than Pippen.

Who said anything different?

[goozeman]

Don't tell that to some people on here. They get offended. The "No Pip No Chip" crowd consistently chants their mantras, as if this was a Magic/Kareem situation.

Lol, I meant older than Pippen, but still I've seen that meme on here so many times I though I was misremembering Jordan's career. But it right there on the stat sheet. Jordan missed almost all of his sophomore campaign. He was basically in his third full season when Pippen got the Bulls and only 23 at the start of that season. Pippen was a 21-year-old rookie.

[HoopsNY]

I'm responding to Gooseman. I'm referencing 94 and 95.

Right, but your referencing '94 and '95 aren't consistent because Pippen didn't have to carry such a heavy load prior when he had MJ and Grant full-time. So he couldn't score more then without the load and he didn't score more with the load. Maybe it's not the load that is the problem?


Theres no way Pippen was scoring 25 a night playing next to MJ.

How many teams actually had 2 guys giving 25+ a night?

The assumption is that Pippen should have scored a consistent 25 PPG w/MJ. Between 1987-93, Pippen averaged 16.1 PPG on on 53% TS%. So he wasn't anywhere near 20 PPG let alone 25.

[goozeman]

Who said anything different?

Kind of deflates the meme a little doesn't it? "Second-year player Michael Jordan fails to unseat the reigning champion Boston Celtics" doesn't quite have the same effect I guess. I see why you guys just spam "no pip no chip." Of course, Pippen was so non-existent his first two years in the league I can see why people would be confused as to when he actually got there.

[97 bulls]

Right, but your referencing '94 and '95 aren't consistent because Pippen didn't have to carry such a heavy load prior when he had MJ and Grant full-time. So he couldn't score more then without the load and he didn't score more with the load. Maybe it's not the load that is the problem?
How is this not registering? From 88 to 93, he had MJ
Hed have to be hella-efficient to get 25 a night playing with a player that shoots as much as Mj did.

So then, Goozemans argument is, "why didnt he score much more in 94 and 94 when MJ left?" My response is more responsibility was heaped on him. From running the offense, to being the teams best scorer, to being the team's best rebounder, to taking on the tough defensive assignments, to helping everyone defender their man.

Again watch this video

https://youtu.be/eOoWZNp0AlA




The assumption is that Pippen should have scored a consistent 25 PPG w/MJ. Between 1987-93, Pippen averaged 16.1 PPG on on 53% TS%. So he wasn't anywhere near 20 PPG let alone 25.
Context. And now it seems like your agenda is seeping in. Pippen played behind and shared time with the previous lottery pick the y year before in Brad Sellers.

[Shooter]

You guys are aware that Jordan had only played two full seasons in the NBA before Pippen got to the Bulls, right? Ya'll act like dude had been toiling away with no success for a decade or something. Seriously, he's only two years older than Pippen.

MJ played 15 seasons, Made 13 playoffs.
Of the 15, he played 10 with Pip and 5 without

Tell me about his 5 seasons without Pippen.

[97 bulls]

Kind of deflates the meme a little doesn't it? "Second-year player Michael Jordan fails to unseat the reigning champion Boston Celtics" doesn't quite have the same effect I guess. I see why you guys just spam "no pip no chip." Of course, Pippen was so non-existent his first two years in the league I can see why people would be confused as to when he actually got there.

I dont agree with that narrative. The Bulls outside of MJ just weren't good enough to compete against the Celtics.

But I also understand that these Jordaniares create this false narrative that the Bulls werent very good outside of MJ when they had their run. That all he needed to win was some solid players. Well he had that in 86 in Oakley and Woolridge. Cant have it both ways.

[goozeman]

How is this not registering? From 88 to 93, he had MJ
Hed have to be hella-efficient to get 25 a night playing with a player that shoots as much as Mj did.

So then, Goozemans argument is, "why didnt he score much more in 94 and 94 when MJ left?" My response is more responsibility was heaped on him. From running the offense, to being the teams best scorer, to being the team's best rebounder, to taking on the tough defensive assignments, to helping everyone defender their man.

Again watch this video

https://youtu.be/eOoWZNp0AlA




I read what you wrote there. You said he was the PG in 1994 when B.J. Armstrong made the all-star team playing point for the Bulls. Grant made the all-star team too, btw. Pippen was hardly by himself. The next year you said he couldn't score more because he had to do everything else, but the Bulls were frankly a bad team and were in danger of missing the playoffs before Jordan returned, so maybe he should have done less of everything else and more scoring. But we know why he didn't do that and it is because he couldn't. He had every opportunity to do so. It was his team after all. Instead, letting Pippen taken over more of the scoring responsibility they (the Bulls coaching staff) turned to a second-year guy in Kukoc.

And, besides, Pippen was already a high volume shooter with or without Jordan. For the decade, Pippen took the eighth most number of total attempts from the field and was 16th in terms of fga per game. How many times do you want this guy to shoot before he becomes that mythical first option? The idea that he was just toiling away in obscurity and not getting involved in the offense is just not supported. The reality is that Pippen took the most number of shots he could get given his skills, but even cherry picking his shots in the triangle he was less efficient to true first options like Barkley and Miller in the playoffs, which is why I made the comparison.

[HoopsNY]

How is this not registering? From 88 to 93, he had MJ
Hed have to be hella-efficient to get 25 a night playing with a player that shoots as much as Mj did.

But I'm not arguing that he should have averaged 25 PPG. Better yet, I'm not using 25 PPG as some kind of arbitrary number here, you are. The entire discussion is on Pippen being a "1st tier"-"1st option"-"Elite scorer"-"Great scorer."

I disagree that he was. Sue me.


So then, Goozemans argument is, "why didnt he score much more in 94 and 94 when MJ left?" My response is more responsibility was heaped on him. From running the offense, to being the teams best scorer, to being the team's best rebounder, to taking on the tough defensive assignments, to helping everyone defender their man.

Right. Which is why I said that it would make sense if he was doing more scoring prior to the 1993-94 season. You boil it down to him having to do more. Goozeman and myself boil it down to his inability as a scorer. Goozeman said it here:


Pippen was not very efficient because his offensive game was raw. The guy was helter skelter at the line and lacked a true go-to half court skill set. Take Pippen out of the triangle and what offense is a team running through him? Isolating at top of the key? No – not a good enough ball handler and he turns the ball over too much. Running him off screens? No – not nearly quick enough. Pick-and-roll action? No – he's a decent finisher at the rim but too small. Posting him up? Nope – post game sucks. Letting just shoot over defense? Naw – mediocre shooter from deep. Pippen was a great athlete who simply made the most of his opportunities in the triangle. I would class him as an jack-of-all-trades opportunist in the Bulls system.

The number one rule in basketball is that scorer and when they are not scoring, they are looking to score. First options don't let the game come to them. Their offensive skills are immediately obvious. When you watch Pippen play, nothing really stands out offensively. His number reflect that in their overall lack of efficiency and lack of refined skill set. Sure, he was an a great all-around player when you factor in his defense, but that doesn't mean he's a first option. That's why when Jordan retired the first time, Pippen's numbers barely changed. He was tapped out in the triangle. System guy scoring system points aren't first options, especially when they don't even flash the skills.



Context. And now it seems like your agenda is seeping in. Pippen played behind and shared time with the previous lottery pick the y year before in Brad Sellers.

You really have to stop pulling the Roundball card every time someone disagrees with you. Just because someone doesn't want to accept Pippen being a "1st option" his first 6 years in the league, doesn't mean that they have "an agenda."

But anyhow. Since you want to now default on the Brad Sellers argument, then let's look at Pippen's numbers after he becomes a starter (56 starts) in the 1988-89 season:

PPG: 15.8
FG%: 48%
Fth: 68%
3pt: 28%
TS%: 53%

Do these look like elite scoring numbers or 1st option scoring numbers to you?

[HoopsNY]

I read what you wrote there. You said he was the PG in 1994 when B.J. Armstrong made the all-star team playing point for the Bulls. Grant made the all-star team too, btw. Pippen was hardly by himself. The next year you said he couldn't score more because he had to do everything else, but the Bulls were frankly a bad team and were in danger of missing the playoffs before Jordan returned, so maybe he should have done less of everything else and more scoring. But we know why he didn't do that and it is because he couldn't. He had every opportunity to do so. It was his team after all. Instead, letting Pippen taken over more of the scoring responsibility they (the Bulls coaching staff) turned to a second-year guy in Kukoc.

And, besides, Pippen was already a high volume shooter with or without Jordan. For the decade, Pippen took the eighth most number of total attempts from the field and was 16th in terms of fga per game. How many times do you want this guy to shoot before he becomes that mythical first option? The idea that he was just toiling away in obscurity and not getting involved in the offense is just not supported. The reality is that Pippen took the most number of shots he could get given his skills, but even cherry picking his shots in the triangle he was less efficient to true first options like Barkley and Miller in the playoffs, which is why I made the comparison.

Good point about FGA relative to the era. Pippen ranked 11th in FGA (total) in 1991-92 and 14th in 1992-93. I see a lot of people like using his scoring numbers relative to his peers, but suddenly FGA goes out the window in comparison to those same peers. I wonder why? :confusedshrug:

[97 bulls]

I read what you wrote there. You said he was the PG in 1994 when B.J. Armstrong made the all-star team playing point for the Bulls. Grant made the all-star team too, btw. Pippen was hardly by himself.
I did not say he was by himself. I said he took on more responsibility. Grant and Armstrong got more shot opportunities but their roles didnt change.


The next year you said he couldn't score more because he had to do everything else, but the Bulls were frankly a bad team and were in danger of missing the playoffs
Not true. When MJ returned the Bulls were 6th in the playoff race at 34 wins. Theg were above 500. And the 8th seed FINISHED WITH 35 WINS BY THE END OF THE SEASON. The 8th seeded team finished with 35 wins. The Bulls had 34 wins when MJ came back with 17 left. They were NOT in danger of not making the playoffs.


before Jordan returned, so maybe he should have done less of everything else and more scoring. But we know why he didn't do that and it is because he couldn't. He had every opportunity to do so. It was his team after all. Instead, letting Pippen taken over more of the scoring responsibility they (the Bulls coaching staff) turned to a second-year guy in Kukoc.

And, besides, Pippen was already a high volume shooter with or without Jordan. For the decade, Pippen took the eighth most number of total attempts from the field and was 16th in terms of fga per game. How many times do you want this guy to shoot before he becomes that mythical first option? The idea that he was just toiling away in obscurity and not getting involved in the offense is just not supported. The reality is that Pippen took the most number of shots he could get given his skills, but even cherry picking his shots in the triangle he was less efficient to true first options like Barkley and Miller in the playoffs, which is why I made the comparison.

Or perhaps he was as I feel a first option playing behind another first option. The stats show it.

[97 bulls]

But I'm not arguing that he should have averaged 25 PPG. Better yet, I'm not using 25 PPG as some kind of arbitrary number here, you are.
So then what do you consider 1st tier? I mean, he averged 22 ppg in 94 and 95. Good for 8th and 12th in a league with 400+ players
Lol. This is ridiculous. Is the cutoff 23? Is it success? What metric are you counting here?


The entire discussion is on Pippen being a "1st tier"-"1st option"-"Elite scorer"-"Great scorer."
I think the discussion is more an offensive comparison between Pippen and Jordan.





Ri
ght. Which is why I said that it would make sense if he was doing more scoring prior to the 1993-94 season. You boil it down to him having to do more. Goozeman and myself boil it down to his inability as a scorer. Goozeman said it here:





You really have to stop pulling the Roundball card every time someone disagrees with you. Just because someone doesn't want to accept Pippen being a "1st option" his first 6 years in the league, doesn't mean that they have "an agenda."

The agenda is putting uber lofty expectations on Pippen that you wouldn't put on another player. For instance, saying the 95 Bulls were a "bad team" when they were 3 games above .500, and 6th in the playoffs seeding. That's not a bad team unless you have an agenda. Not a great team. But considering the circumstances, its impressive. If you need me to, I go more in depth.


But anyhow. Since you want to now default on the Brad Sellers argument, then let's look at Pippen's numbers after he becomes a starter (56 starts) in the 1988-89 season:

PPG: 15.8
FG%: 48%
Fth: 68%
3pt: 28%
TS%: 53%

Do these look like elite scoring numbers or 1st option scoring numbers to you?
Hes not the first option!!!! Oh my god this is incredible.

[3ball]

Or perhaps he was as I feel a first option playing behind another first option. The stats show it.




other greats like Shaq, Lebron, or Magic had 1st option-caliber sidekicks that averaged 25-30 or got FMVP

Jordan never had that - he won all 6 rings with a bonafide 2nd option, while other greats needed 1st option guys for some of their rings

[97 bulls]

other greats like Shaq, Lebron, or Magic had 1st option-caliber sidekicks that averaged 25-30 or got FMVP

Jordan never had that - he won all 6 rings with a bonafide 2nd option, while other greats needed 1st option guys for some of their rings

And those guys second option dont have 6 rings.

[3ball]

And those guys second option dont have 6 rings.

Because they weren't good enough to win most years that their sidekick got 2nd option stats (Pippen stats) - only MJ could win all his rings with a bonafide 2nd option - other greats needed a sidekick that was 1st option caliber for some of their rings (a sidekick getting 25-30 or FMVP)

Heck, Wade couldn't win with a Pippen-caliber player in 2011

And yeah, MJ lost with Woolridge, but that wasn't a 2-star format - you needed an all-time great team with many HOF's to win in the 80's East.. whereas Pippen was fortunate to play with MJ in the 90's, where 2-star contenders were the norm (better parity).. MJ would've won rings with a lot of guys in the 2-star format, more than anyone else because he was the best #1 option.. a guy like Xavier McDaniel averaged 25/9/4 against the 87' Lakers - that's good enough to win with MJ in the 90's (X-man also outplayed Pippen in the 92' Playoffs)

[97 bulls]

Because they weren't good enough to win most years that their sidekick got 2nd option stats (Pippen stats) - only MJ could win all his rings with a bonafide 2nd option - other greats needed a sidekick that was 1st option caliber for some of their rings (a sidekick getting 25-30 or FMVP)

Heck, Wade couldn't win with a Pippen-caliber player in 2011

And yeah, MJ lost with Woolridge, but that wasn't a 2-star format - you needed an all-time great team with many HOF's to win in the 80's East.. whereas Pippen was fortunate to play with MJ in the 90's, where 2-star contenders were the norm (better parity).. MJ would've won rings with a lot of guys in the 2-star format, more than anyone else because he was the best #1 option.. a guy like Xavier McDaniel averaged 25/9/4 against the 87' Lakers - that's good enough to win with MJ in the 90's (X-man also outplayed Pippen in the 92' Playoffs)

And I keep telling you that your 2 star argument isnt true. The Bucs did NOT HAVE A BUNCH OF HALL OF FAMERS playing for them. They had one great player in Moncrief. And the Bucks had the 3rd best record for all of the 80s. Your argument is a joke.

[3ball]

And I keep telling you that your 2 star argument isnt true. The Bucs did NOT HAVE A BUNCH OF HALL OF FAMERS playing for them. They had one great player in Moncrief. And the Bucks had the 3rd best record for all of the 80s. Your argument is a joke.

Did the Bucks win the East?.. No, they didn't because you needed an all-time great team stacked with HOF's to win the 80's East and the Bucks didn't qualify

Yes, MJ lost to these Bucks because he was a rookie in his first series and actually got outplayed - the only series of his career where he wasn't the best player in the series..

But a veteran MJ would've won that series and was always the best player in every series - you should know you're on the wrong side because your entire anti-MJ case rests on his first series ever as a rookie.. otherwise, a veteran MJ beats any team alongside most other stars, i.e. Woolridge or X-man or young Pippen.. <<<< and that's what actually happened - MJ nearly made the Finals in 1989 with zero help and only lost to all-time great teams after that initial Bucks' series

[Hey Yo]

I was speaking in the context of all-time great teams though, the guy I quoted listed 2nd options on dynasties. Pippen gave you 20-22 a game but not with great efficiency. He was a mediocre FT shooter who missed in big moments, he wasn't a great shooter either but had some decent stretches. Even as a first option in '94, he only had 8 30+ pt games that RS, he had 10 the next season but that Bulls' team quickly became average and could barely stay above .500 without Grant.

Sure, he could have been the first option on average offensive teams all his career and not won any titles like so many had done before.
21-7-7 with elite defense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30-4-4 with mediocre defense.

[97 bulls]

Did the Bucks win the East?.. No, they didn't because you needed an all-time great team stacked with HOF's to win the 80's East and the Bucks didn't qualify

Yes, MJ lost to these Bucks because he was a rookie in his first series and actually got outplayed - the only series of his career where he wasn't the best player in the series..

But a veteran MJ would've won that series and was always the best player in every series - you should know you're on the wrong side because your entire anti-MJ case rests on his first series ever as a rookie.. otherwise, a veteran MJ beats any team alongside most other stars, i.e. Woolridge or X-man or young Pippen.. <<<< and that's what actually happened - MJ nearly made the Finals in 1989 with zero help and only lost to all-time great teams after that initial Bucks' series

I'm not anti MJ, you're anti Pippen. And anti Lebron.

My point with the Bucks is that you didn't need 3 or 4 HOFERS/Allstars to win in the 80s. Only The Lakers and Celtics had that and they were dynasties. 2 of the greatest teams in history.

[3ball]

21-7-7 with elite defense >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30-4-4 with mediocre defense.

^^^ it's just false

The Cavs couldn't win in 2016 without Kyrie's 27 ppg, but they obviously won without him playing great defense - that's because defense is a team effort, which is why Kyrie was on the #1 defense in 2018, and the Cavs locked up the Warriors' goat offense in 2016..

Ultimately, you're forgetting that offensive players are more expensive than defensive players.. So a better offensive player can help a defense by allowing the GM to fill out the roster with cheaper defenders, while a lesser offensive player requires more expensive offensive teammates... That's why Kyrie's weak defense was on great defensive teams - his presence allows GM's to get cheap defenders like Shumpert and Jefferson, so the Cavs have a great defense

That's why defense matters much less when comparing 2 stars - defense is a team effort, and being a better offensive player can actually HELP a defense.. ultimately, great defense (hard work, inspiration) is much more replaceable than great offense (which requires skill)

[insidious301]

Exactly!!!!!! I've been saying this since I've been on this forum.

What's ironic, is that they never compare Pippens scoring stats to his peers or the people in the era he played in. They compare his numbers to guys that played in much more offensive eras. Either the mid 200s to today or the 80s.

I'm not a big advocate on Pippen's scoring, but I know he was capable of dropping more points. Pippen averaged 21ppg in 1992 which was 14th in the league. Hakeem averaged 21.6 and was rated 12th. Apart from the small point differential, nobody ignores Hakeem's rebounding and defense. Yet when posters look at Pippen's 21ppg, which was better than 98% of the league, he is labeled a "mediocre scorer". No mention of his defense/playmaking/rebounding (all arguably better than Jordan's). Why the double standard?

Relative to his era, and when Pippen became the man in 1994, he was #8 in scoring. Behind Robinson/Shaq/Hakeem/Wilkins/Ewing/Malone/Richmond who nobody says were #2s. And who nobody forgets brought more than scoring. Like defense.

[3ball]

I'm not a big advocate on Pippen's scoring, but I know he was capable of dropping more points. Pippen averaged 21ppg in 1992 which was 14th in the league. Hakeem averaged 21.6 and was rated 12th. Apart from the small point differential, nobody ignores Hakeem's rebounding and defense. Yet when posters look at Pippen's 21ppg, which was better than 98% of the league, he is labeled a "mediocre scorer". No mention of his defense/playmaking/rebounding (all arguably better than Jordan's). Why the double standard?

Relative to his era, and when Pippen became the man in 1994, he was #8 in scoring. Behind Robinson/Shaq/Hakeem/Wilkins/Ewing/Malone/Richmond who nobody says were #2s. And who nobody forgets brought more than scoring. Like defense.

It doesn't matter that Hakeem averaged 21 the same year as Pippen (92'), or that Pippen was #8 in the league with 22.0 ppg (94').

It doesn't matter because that was pippen's PEAK capability in the regular season and playoffs, while the list of players with higher peak capability runs the gamut - Hakeem, Kyrie, Ewing, Dominique, Worthy, Wade, Miller, Penny, McHale, X-man, Cummings, many, many more - seemingly everyone..

Pippen wasn't capable of getting that critical 41 points in Game 5 of the 2016 NBA Finals.. So the Cavs get destroyed that game with Pippen instead of Kyrie - they would've lost in 5 like they were supposed to..

Pippen isn't capable of destroying the Knicks, so he can't beat them like Miller did.

Guys like 87' Worthy averaged 30 on 64% in the WCF or won the 88' FMVP against Rodman, while guarding Dantley

Or when 89' KJ destroyed Magic's 1-seeded Lakers, or averaged 28/5/9 against the champion Rockets in 94' and 95' (two 7-game series)

Or when Dumars averaged 27/7/6 to win 89' FMVP

Or when Mchale averaged 26+ numerous times to lead the Celtics in some of their biggest series

Or when Ewing and Drexler led their teams to 2 Finals each

And on.. and on


Pippen was a secondary player ALWAYS - so he could never really "help" MJ by taking over like other sidekicks did (listed above)

[insidious301]

It doesn't matter that Hakeem averaged 21 the same year as Pippen (92'), or that Pippen was #8 in the league with 22.0 ppg (94').

It matters if you are going to call him a mediocre scorer. Relative to the league, Pippen was all but mediocre. Try a very good scorer. Once again however we are ignoring all the other things that made Pippen great--a common troll tactic.

[ImKobe]

It matters if you are going to call him a mediocre scorer. Relative to the league, Pippen was all but mediocre. Try a very good scorer. Once again however we are ignoring all the other things that made Pippen great--a common troll tactic.

A very good scorer (relative to the best scorers in the league) peaks at 22 ppg on 54%TS? It's not like Pippen was a 3-Pt specialist or a great FT shooter either, he was limited in his scoring ability, which is why he only cracked 30 points 3 times in 6 titles runs, with 0 coming after the 1992 title run.

[3ball]

It matters if you are going to call him a mediocre scorer.

Relative to the league Pippen was all but mediocre. Try a very good scorer. Once again however we are ignoring all the other things that made Pippen great--a common troll tactic.

Pippen's peak capability sucks compared to everyone's

You're comparing his best years to everyone's worst, and pip still loses.

It's a horrific argument that makes my point - Pippen is nowhere near the level you think, and more of a glorified role player - his best was scraping the bottom of everyone's worst

[insidious301]

A very good scorer (relative to the best scorers in the league) peaks at 22 ppg on 54%TS? It's not like Pippen was a 3-Pt specialist or a great FT shooter either, he was limited in his scoring ability, which is why he only cracked 30 points 3 times in 6 titles runs, with 0 coming after the 1992 title run.

We can argue semantics on what a "good" and "very good" scorer is. Pippen shot 49% in 1994 and didn't take many threes--it wasn't sought after then like it is now. Overall #8 in scoring and on decent efficiency. By definition how is that mediocre?

[3ball]

We can argue semantics on what is very good or "good". Pippen shot 49% and didn't take many threes--it wasn't a sought after shot then like it is now. #8 in scoring and on decent efficiency. By definition how is that mediocre?

But if 22 on terrible efficiency is Pippen's best, then he sucks compared to the guys we're comparing him to

This "peak" that we reference isn't just a season - it's game-by-game - Pippen can't step up like the other stars to dominate an important series, game, or possession

[97 bulls]

But if 22 on terrible efficiency is Pippen's best, then he sucks compared to the guys we're comparing him to

This "peak" that we reference isn't just a season - it's game-by-game - Pippen can't step up like the other stars to dominate an important series, game, or possession

But it's not on terrible efficiency. He shot 49% from the field. That's very good for a perimeter player.

Was Kobe a bad scorer?

[insidious301]

Pippen's peak capability sucks compared to everyone's

You're comparing his best years to everyone's worst, and pip still loses.

It's a horrific argument that makes my point - Pippen is nowhere near the level you think, and more of a glorified role player - his best was scraping the bottom of everyone's worst

Pippen and Hakeem were basically neck and neck. And once again, Pippen was the 8th best scorer in the league according to PPG. If that "sucks" then only 2% of the NBA could score. Your "point" is actually a really bad one.

[ImKobe]

We can argue semantics on what a "good" and "very good" scorer is. Pippen shot 49% in 1994 and didn't take many threes--it wasn't sought after then like it is now. Overall #8 in scoring and on decent efficiency. By definition how is that mediocre?

9th in TS% among the top 10 scorers, averaged 21.7 ppg on 40.5%FG against the Knicks in the Playoffs that year, much worse than the year before alongside MJ. He was a solid 2nd option, but not close to an elite scorer. "very good" IMO implies that he was a gifted scorer, which is just not true.

[3ball]

But it's not on terrible efficiency. He shot 49% from the field. That's very good for a perimeter player.

Was Kobe a bad scorer?

Kobe could get 35 a game

Pippen's best is 22

Thats a 13 point difference.. additionally, Kobe's true shooting wasn't due to horrific FT's like Pippen that kills a team.. he was carrying the load, which hurts efficiency for all players

Pippen never carried the load - that's kind of the point - MJ is the only guy that was forced to carry the load all the time, while other guys had sidekicks capable of taking over.. aka Wade, Kyrie, and AD, who all outscored Lebron at various points and were more equal scoring and usage partners, especially in big series.

[insidious301]

9th in TS% among the top 10 scorers, averaged 21.7 ppg on 40.5%FG against the Knicks in the Playoffs that year, much worse than the year before alongside MJ. He was a solid 2nd option, but not close to an elite scorer. "very good" IMO implies that he was a gifted scorer, which is just not true.

I don't think he was elite or gifted. So if that is what "very good" means to you, then call him a good scorer. A good scorer in 1994. Pippen definitely wasn't mediocre or "sucks" like the OP claimed.

[ImKobe]

But it's not on terrible efficiency. He shot 49% from the field. That's very good for a perimeter player.

Was Kobe a bad scorer?

Kobe as a 2nd option at 21 years-old had more 30-point games in one title run than Pippen in 6. His career average alone is better than Pippen's peak season. Stop it.

[3ball]

I don't think he was elite or gifted. So if that is what "very good" means to you, then call him a good scorer. A good scorer in 1994. Pippen definitely wasn't mediocre or "sucks" like the OP claimed.

if 22 on terrible efficiency is the top capability of a team's best player, then that team will ultimately suck - yes, we know Pippen had that one year where he averaged 22 and won 55 - but again, if that's your team's PEAK when they have everything, then the team will ultimately suck over a longer period - they'd be the 80's Hawks, but honestly, Pippen could never go 7 with Bird as the #1 option, or drop 48

[97 bulls]

Kobe could get 35 a game

Pippen's best is 22

Thats a 13 point difference.. additionally, Kobe's true shooting wasn't due to horrific FT's like Pippen that kills a team.. he was carrying the load, which hurts efficiency for all players

Pippen never carried the load - that's kind of the point - MJ is the only guy that was forced to carry the load all the time, while other guys had sidekicks capable of taking over.. aka Wade, Kyrie, and AD, who all outscored Lebron at various points and were more equal scoring and usage partners, especially in big series.

Lol. So why does Kobe get a break for having to exert a lot of energy on scoring and thus effecting his efficiency, but the same cant be given to Pippen who exerted most of his energy on help defense and rebounding and running the offense?

This is incredible.

[97 bulls]

Kobe as a 2nd option at 21 years-old had more 30-point games in one title run than Pippen in 6. His career average alone is better than Pippen's peak season. Stop it.

Pippen could got a bunch of 30pt games too if he was just gonna chuck 27 shots a night.

[HoopsNY]

Hes not the first option!!!! Oh my god this is incredible.

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other here. I'm not saying he was the first option. The discussion seems to be that he was first option worthy. I agree - IF we're talking about 1993-97. That makes sense to me. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Scottie wasn't 1st option material prior to that.

Why do we get to eliminate his first 6 years of play, especially when they all come in playoff basketball and three of them come in championship play? Is there another starting player who averaged 16.1 PPG on 53% TS% in his first 6 seasons of play? Maybe there is. But the point is, I don't think anyone considers that to be "elite" or "1st Tier" or "1st option" levels.


So then what do you consider 1st tier? I mean, he averged 22 ppg in 94 and 95. Good for 8th and 12th in a league with 400+ players
Lol. This is ridiculous. Is the cutoff 23? Is it success? What metric are you counting here?

Cool. And I've said over and over, him averaging 22 ppg between 1993-95 makes him a 1st option. I mean, how could he not be when he was ranked 8th and 12th in the league in scoring?

But Scottie played in 17 seasons. To boil his scoring ability (in this case being a 1st option), down to 2-4 seasons doesn't make much sense to me. Do we get to do that with any other 1st options in NBA history? Maybe so, but definitely not on the level as to how we view Pippen.



I think the discussion is more an offensive comparison between Pippen and Jordan.

I understand. But it focused in on him being a 1st option.


The agenda is putting uber lofty expectations on Pippen that you wouldn't put on another player. For instance, saying the 95 Bulls were a "bad team" when they were 3 games above .500, and 6th in the playoffs seeding. That's not a bad team unless you have an agenda. Not a great team. But considering the circumstances, its impressive. If you need me to, I go more in depth.

I agree with that. Goozeman is off on that point in saying that Chicago was a "bad team" prior to MJ's return. What you fail to give Goozeman credit for is his assessment on Pippen's actual skills. These are skills that he lacked, especially in his first 6 years of play. His skills weren't refined nor was he the type of player who could rely on one area to be able to dominate consistently.

Is there anything wrong with this assessment?

[insidious301]

if 22 on terrible efficiency is the top capability of a team's best player, then that team will ultimately suck - yes, we know Pippen had that one year where he averaged 22 and won 55 - but again, if that's your team's PEAK when they have everything, then the team will ultimately suck over a longer period - they'd be the 80's Hawks, but honestly, Pippen could never go 7 with Bird as the #1 option, or drop 48

21 a game on 49% shooting is not terrible efficiency. You're lying to yourself. The Bulls didn't rely on Pippen scoring, and is why he was great in other facets. Why do you keep tapdancing around it?

[insidious301]

Pippen could got a bunch of 30pt games too if he was just gonna chuck 27 shots a night.

This is true. If Pippen got lazy on defense or deviated from the offense, he would definitely score more. If Magic weren't orchestrating Showtime, do you think he wouldn't score more? No. It is common sense that he would--but beyond that who really cares? Scoring is just one aspect of the game. Pippen's impact overall is documented.

[3ball]

21 a game on 49% shooting is not terrible efficiency. You're lying to yourself. The Bulls didn't rely on Pippen scoring, and is why he was great in other facets. Why do you keep tapdancing around it?

Only MJ had to win all his rings with a "true" 2nd option - everyone else won some of their rings with 1st option-level sidekicks that got FMVP's or 25-30 ppg.. so they only won 1-2 rings with 2nd option production from a sidekick, whereas MJ won 6 with a 2nd option (his sidekick never got fmvp or 25-30 ppg)

[HoopsNY]

I'm not a big advocate on Pippen's scoring, but I know he was capable of dropping more points. Pippen averaged 21ppg in 1992 which was 14th in the league. Hakeem averaged 21.6 and was rated 12th. Apart from the small point differential, nobody ignores Hakeem's rebounding and defense. Yet when posters look at Pippen's 21ppg, which was better than 98% of the league, he is labeled a "mediocre scorer". No mention of his defense/playmaking/rebounding (all arguably better than Jordan's). Why the double standard?

How was he more capable when given the opportunity, he didn't do it? Furthermore, Olajuwon averaging nearly 22 ppg from 1990-92 is more of an anomaly, and completely ignores the fact that those were his injury riddled seasons, beginning with the injury to the eye socket from an elbow from Bill Cartwright. Olajuwon only started in 50 games in 1990, and 69 games in 1991.

Furthermore, the comparisons are unfair. Hakeem had an amazing skillset. His mid-range jumper for a big man was sound. He had the most impeccable foot work of any big man in NBA history. And his post up game was right up there amongst the elites. He could be relied upon as a 1st option game in and game out for many many years. Hakeem was an impact scorer the minute he stepped onto the court.

Also, no one is ignoring anything. Some of just feel that for a large portion of Pippen's career with MJ, he was not a great scorer, let alone an "elite" one. Why are people fighting this notion?


Relative to his era, and when Pippen became the man in 1994, he was #8 in scoring. Behind Robinson/Shaq/Hakeem/Wilkins/Ewing/Malone/Richmond who nobody says were #2s. And who nobody forgets brought more than scoring. Like defense.

Right. And what happened to the six years prior? Why do we get to focus on 2 years of Scottie's career and ignore the first 6? As if those 2 years completely paint the picture of him being an elite scorer, when clearly he wasn't.

[insidious301]

Only MJ had to win all his rings with a "true" 2nd option - everyone else won some of their rings with 1st option-level sidekicks that got FMVP's or 25-30 ppg.. so they only won 1-2 rings with 2nd option production from a sidekick, whereas MJ won 6 with a 2nd option (his sidekick never got fmvp or 25-30 ppg)

I made a thread nearly a month ago asking which perimeter players were best after Jordan, and Pippen rated 2nd. Or tied with Drexler. So compared to his peers, and going by the common consensus, Pippen was a #1 option for most of the 90s. He just played behind Jordan--who happened to be the greatest scorer.

[97 bulls]

He wasnt a first option player coming out of college. Hell he wasnt even a starter. I'm addressing why that might have been the case. He came in playing behind another guy who was a lottery pick the season before him. So he wasnt just gifted a spot. So I thinks it's unfair to make that claim due to the circumstances. He showed flashes. Who knows what he could've been had he been drafted by the Kings or Sonics.

Again. These expectations that are just insane. Pippen had to have the opportunity and grow into what he became just like every other player. Was MJ the best player ever the day he was drafted? No. Hell he was considered a loser at ome point in his career.



I'm not boiling it down to a few seasons. I think Pippen was first option capable from 90 to 98. But that wasnt his role for all but 2 of those seasons because he was playing alongside a player that any player would've been a second option to. Pips greatness was that he could impact a game without scoring a bunch of points. But I tend to think that Pippen would be more highly regarded by novice fans had he won a couple championships with MJ and the Bulls, and then spend the rest of his career mired in mediocrity chucking shots and focusing on his personal stats and accomplishments.




Yes because again, that's just about every player. No player is a depth at every skill in basketball other than probably MJ. The triangle really hurt Pippen because his strength was transition. The triangle was installed because of MJs unwillingness to play a team concept. And that offense took the ball out of his hands. If the Bulls played in a style more conducive to Pipens strengths, his stats would've been much better, but the team would've suffered. They would've spent the game watching Jordan and Pippen dunking on people and putting up gaudy stats, but coming up short and losing in the end because the team isnt involved. I think Pippen with his point guard background knew how to keep his teammates involved and saw the importance of it as well. Theres no doubt in my mind that Pippen is a 24-26 ppg scorer if he played in a more uptempo style and he had control of the ball. But again at a cost. He was a great finisher, good post game and streaky shooter, and a solid slasher. He and Dominique had the same offensive talents, but Willikns had a scorers mindset.

[insidious301]

How was he more capable when given the opportunity, he didn't do it?

Pippen's primary focus was playing the all-around game. Not padding his PPG totals. So to say he was given an opporuntiy? Yeah I don't agree with that. If we have some quotes or murmors from coaches back then--with them asking Pippen to score more? And he didn't? I can see your point, but that likely never happened. Pippen was uniquely selfless and played the ultimate utility role.


Furthermore, Olajuwon averaging nearly 22 ppg from 1990-92 is more of an anomaly, and completely ignores the fact that those were his injury riddled seasons, beginning with the injury to the eye socket from an elbow from Bill Cartwright. Olajuwon only started in 50 games in 1990, and 69 games in 1991.

This is 1992 dude. Hakeem played 70 games. Its not a "anomaly" using that year to counter the Pippen "sucks as a scorer" crap. If scoring 21 on 50% is bad then what does that say about Olajuwon? Did you read the exchange or are you assuming that I am taking shots at Hakeem? If its the latter, that isn't what I am doing.


Also, no one is ignoring anything. Some of just feel that for a large portion of Pippen's career with MJ, he was not a great scorer, let alone an "elite" one. Why are people fighting this notion?

Who is saying he was a great scorer? If you look back at the excahnge between "ImKobe" and I, you will note that I don't think he was a gifted scorer or an elite one. Just a "good scorer" relative to the league.


Right. And what happened to the six years prior? Why do we get to focus on 2 years of Scottie's career and ignore the first 6? As if those 2 years completely paint the picture of him being an elite scorer, when clearly he wasn't.

The six years prior? Pippen was still a good scorer from 91-93. What exactly are you talking about?

[97 bulls]

How was he more capable when given the opportunity, he didn't do it? Furthermore, Olajuwon averaging nearly 22 ppg from 1990-92 is more of an anomaly, and completely ignores the fact that those were his injury riddled seasons, beginning with the injury to the eye socket from an elbow from Bill Cartwright. Olajuwon only started in 50 games in 1990, and 69 games in 1991.

Furthermore, the comparisons are unfair. Hakeem had an amazing skillset. His mid-range jumper for a big man was sound. He had the most impeccable foot work of any big man in NBA history. And his post up game was right up there amongst the elites. He could be relied upon as a 1st option game in and game out for many many years. Hakeem was an impact scorer the minute he stepped onto the court.

Also, no one is ignoring anything. Some of just feel that for a large portion of Pippen's career with MJ, he was not a great scorer, let alone an "elite" one. Why are people fighting this notion?



Right. And what happened to the six years prior? Why do we get to focus on 2 years of Scottie's career and ignore the first 6? As if those 2 years completely paint the picture of him being an elite scorer, when clearly he wasn't.

Was Pippen trying to score as many points as he could or trying to win? You dont think its fair to say that he could've scored more but probably to the detriment of winning?

No one is saying he was an elite scorer. He was good enough to be a first option scorer.

[HoopsNY]

And I keep telling you that your 2 star argument isnt true. The Bucs did NOT HAVE A BUNCH OF HALL OF FAMERS playing for them. They had one great player in Moncrief. And the Bucks had the 3rd best record for all of the 80s. Your argument is a joke.

In the 1984-85 season, Chicago had 1 All-Star in Jordan. The Bucks had 2 in Moncrief and Cummings. Furthermore, here are the MVP voting ranks for the 1984-85 season:

Cummings: 5th
Moncrief: 8th
Pressey: 17th

And Pressey was All-Defensive 1st team in addition to being an MVP vote getter. Then in the next season, they ranked 7th, 11th, and 13th, respectively. This idea that Milwaukee defies the 2 vs 2 star format is simply not true, especially when Chicago had one legitimate star.

[HoopsNY]

A very good scorer (relative to the best scorers in the league) peaks at 22 ppg on 54%TS? It's not like Pippen was a 3-Pt specialist or a great FT shooter either, he was limited in his scoring ability, which is why he only cracked 30 points 3 times in 6 titles runs, with 0 coming after the 1992 title run.

I think you mean 40 points? Pippen scorered 30+ pts 5 times in the 1990-91 season alone.

[HoopsNY]

He wasnt a first option player coming out of college. Hell he wasnt even a starter. I'm addressing why that might have been the case. He came in playing behind another guy who was a lottery pick the season before him. So he wasnt just gifted a spot. So I thinks it's unfair to make that claim due to the circumstances. He showed flashes. Who knows what he could've been had he been drafted by the Kings or Sonics.

You keep saying the same things while ignoring my points. Scottie became a full-time starter in the 1988-89 season. During that stretch of 57 games, he averaged 15.8 ppg on 53% TS%. You keep talking about playing behind another guy when in fact, he took over that role and still didn't showcase any "elite" scoring ability.

Go look at the other players like Barkley, Ewing, Miller, Malone, McDaniel, Hakeem, Hill, and all of the other players people on this thread are comparing him to. They either made an immediate impact or in their second season, became immediate impact offensive players.


Again. These expectations that are just insane. Pippen had to have the opportunity and grow into what he became just like every other player. Was MJ the best player ever the day he was drafted? No. Hell he was considered a loser at ome point in his career.

How are they insane? People, including you, are anointing Pippen as a 1st option/elite scorer for virtually his entire tenure with Chicago. I think people don't want to admit that this notion is just false. If you want to champion 1994 onward, then by all means, do so. But don't get upset when people question Pippen as a legitimate 1st option his first 6 years in the league.


I'm not boiling it down to a few seasons. I think Pippen was first option capable from 90 to 98. But that wasnt his role for all but 2 of those seasons because he was playing alongside a player that any player would've been a second option to.

Arbitrary years all of a sudden. So now we isolate 1990-98? Including 1990-91 where he averaged 17.8 PPG, where he ranked 36th next to guys like Kenny Smith, Tyrone Corbin, Otis Thorpe, etc? Did anyone else consider those guys as elite scorers or 1st options at that time, or were they all deemed legitimate 2nd options? You see the problem here?


Yes because again, that's just about every player. No player is a depth at every skill in basketball other than probably MJ. The triangle really hurt Pippen because his strength was transition. The triangle was installed because of MJs unwillingness to play a team concept. And that offense took the ball out of his hands. If the Bulls played in a style more conducive to Pipens strengths, his stats would've been much better, but the team would've suffered.

So now Pippen was a bonafide iso player from 1987-93? When I think of iso guys, I think of Allen Iverson, James Harden, Bernard King, Alex English, Tracy McGrady, etc. What's the difference between them and Pippen? Simple...skills.

A young Scottie Pippen lacked the skills to produce 25+ PPG. And quite frankly, he never developed the skills to be able to do what other guys did outside of a system. You're overrating Scottie's skills.

[tpols]

It's time to accept the fact that Pippen's offense was paltry fellas.

A dribbler who scores on low volume and efficiency. His defense is great, but most great defensive players don't get near the props he gets.

[HoopsNY]

Pippen's primary focus was playing the all-around game. Not padding his PPG totals. So to say he was given an opporuntiy? Yeah I don't agree with that. If we have some quotes or murmors from coaches back then--with them asking Pippen to score more? And he didn't? I can see your point, but that likely never happened. Pippen was uniquely selfless and played the ultimate utility role.

"Padding"? Chicago struggled offensively that year. They ranked 22nd in PPG. Maybe the scoring was necessary? But again, Scottie couldn't rise to that occasion to score more. And my contention isn't even with considering him to be a 1st option those years. He clearly was. I repeat (since people think I have an agenda), Pippen was 1st option status after 1993.


This is 1992 dude. Hakeem played 70 games. Its not a "anomaly" using that year to counter the Pippen "sucks as a scorer" crap. If scoring 21 on 50% is bad then what does that say about Olajuwon? Did you read the exchange or are you assuming that I am taking shots at Hakeem? If its the latter, that isn't what I am doing.


I didn't say Pippen sucked as a scorer. Furthermore, using one year, a year where Hakeem had hamstring issues, as well as demanding a trade, as evidence that he was a parallel with Scottie between 1987-93, just shows how negligent you are towards the Rockets contentious relationship with Hakeem between 1990-92. It came to the point that Hakeem was cleared to play by team doctors, but refused to play, sighting his hamstring issues hadn't been resolved. The Rockets then suspended Hakeem indefinitely.

So we have a elbow to the socket, hamstring woes, trade demands and not wanting to play for Houston anymore, that all had a serious negative impact on his production and games played - but we want to rely on Hakeem's underachieving those years to say what? Scottie was as good of a scorer as Hakeem?

Hakeem between 1984-90 averaged 23.2 PPG on 55% TS%. So yea, perhaps something else was going on that resulted in reduced production?


Who is saying he was a great scorer? If you look back at the excahnge between "ImKobe" and I, you will note that I don't think he was a gifted scorer or an elite one. Just a "good scorer" relative to the league.


Great, then we're in agreement. Though I am being clear that Scottie between '87-93 wasn't 1st option material.


The six years prior? Pippen was still a good scorer from 91-93. What exactly are you talking about?

Yea, I never said he wasn't a good scorer.

[HoopsNY]

Was Pippen trying to score as many points as he could or trying to win? You dont think its fair to say that he could've scored more but probably to the detriment of winning?

No one is saying he was an elite scorer. He was good enough to be a first option scorer.

Agreed if we're talking about post-1993. Don't think he was 1st option material prior. Sorry. If you disagree then fair, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

[tpols]

Agreed if we're talking about post-1993. Don't think he was 1st option material prior. Sorry. If you disagree then fair, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

Why would you think of him as first option material in 1996-onwards when his volume was in the teens and efficiency very poor?

...and thats with a 30 ppg MJ as the focus of the defense. Can you imagine the scoring #'s if he was the main guy?

[insidious301]

"Padding"? Chicago struggled offensively that year. They ranked 22nd in PPG. Maybe the scoring was necessary? But again, Scottie couldn't rise to that occasion to score more. And my contention isn't even with considering him to be a 1st option those years. He clearly was. I repeat (since people think I have an agenda), Pippen was 1st option status after 1993.

The Bulls were 14th in overall offensive rating. They hardly “struggled". Pippen could have scored more, yes, but was he asked to? Would it benefit his team to score more than to get them involved? I think we can all agree that for Chicago to legitimately contend, they needed a true replacement for Jordan. Instead he was replaced by the CBA player, Pete Myers.


I didn't say Pippen sucked as a scorer. Furthermore, using one year, a year where Hakeem had hamstring issues, as well as demanding a trade, as evidence that he was a parallel with Scottie between 1987-93, just shows how negligent you are towards the Rockets contentious relationship with Hakeem between 1990-92. It came to the point that Hakeem was cleared to play by team doctors, but refused to play, sighting his hamstring issues hadn't been resolved. The Rockets then suspended Hakeem indefinitely.

So we have a elbow to the socket, hamstring woes, trade demands and not wanting to play for Houston anymore, that all had a serious negative impact on his production and games played - but we want to rely on Hakeem's underachieving those years to say what? Scottie was as good of a scorer as Hakeem?

Hakeem between 1984-90 averaged 23.2 PPG on 55% TS%. So yea, perhaps something else was going on that resulted in reduced production?

You are either not following what is being said or blinded by your Hakeem fandom. The whole argument is over Pippen “sucking”. What did or didn’t happen to Hakeem is beside the point and not relevant. In 1992, Pippen was a #1 option relative to the league, and the numbers are proof.

Great, then we're in agreement. Though I am being clear that Scottie between '87-93 wasn't 1st option material.

Fair enough. But why claim we called Pippen an “elite” scorer? Nobody did that. Also, how was Pippen not "first option material" in the early 90s? In 92 alone, Pippen’s numbers suggest he would be a first option.


Why would you think of him as first option material in 1996-onwards when his volume was in the teens and efficiency very poor?

Yeah I can only see the argument for 1996. In the playoffs, I have said he wasn’t a good scorer and could be argued as a mediocre one. 96-98 he was inefficient in the playoffs, and Jordan carried the scoring load imo.

[97 bulls]

You keep saying the same things while ignoring my points. Scottie became a full-time starter in the 1988-89 season. During that stretch of 57 games, he averaged 15.8 ppg on 53% TS%. You keep talking about playing behind another guy when in fact, he took over that role and still didn't showcase any "elite" scoring ability.
Both of these points have been acknowledged. I said I feel Pip was a first option scorer type from 90 to 98. Meaning he wasnt quite ready prior to that. Being top 8 and 12 put 400+ players is very good. What would've been good in your opinion.


Go look at the other players like Barkley, Ewing, Miller, Malone, McDaniel, Hakeem, Hill, and all of the other players people on this thread are comparing him to. They either made an immediate impact or in their second season, became immediate impact offensive players.
Immediate impact how?




[How are they insane? People, including you, are anointing Pippen as a 1st option/elite scorer for virtually his entire tenure with Chicago. I think people don't want to admit that this notion is just false. If you want to champion 1994 onward, then by all means, do so. But don't get upset when people question Pippen as a legitimate 1st option his first 6 years in the league.
Lol I'm not upset. I dont understand why you cant seem to comprehend that Pippen cant be a first option over MJ.



Arbitrary years all of a sudden. So now we isolate 1990-98? Including 1990-91 where he averaged 17.8 PPG, where he ranked 36th next to guys like Kenny Smith, Tyrone Corbin, Otis Thorpe, etc? Did anyone else consider those guys as elite scorers or 1st options at that time, or were they all deemed legitimate 2nd options? You see the problem here?
That's not arbitrary. I didnt just cherrypick a few random years. 90 to 98 is 9 seasons. 9 straight seasons.



So now Pippen was a bonafide iso player from 1987-93? When I think of iso guys, I think of Allen Iverson, James Harden, Bernard King, Alex English, Tracy McGrady, etc. What's the difference between them and Pippen? Simple...skills.

A young Scottie Pippen lacked the skills to produce 25+ PPG. And quite frankly, he never developed the skills to be able to do what other guys did outside of a system. You're overrating Scottie's skills.

Not so much iso. I mean he wasnt a bad iso player. But what I mean is getting out in transition and looking for easy buckets because Pippen was a great finisher. Either leading or finishing the break. And again. What do you mean by "young Scottie Pippen"?

[97 bulls]

The Bulls were 14th in overall offensive rating. They hardly “struggled". Pippen could have scored more, yes, but was he asked to? Would it benefit his team to score more than to get them involved? I think we can all agree that for Chicago to legitimately contend, they needed a true replacement for Jordan. Instead he was replaced by the CBA player, Pete Myers.
Great points.



You are either not following what is being said or blinded by your Hakeem fandom. The whole argument is over Pippen “sucking”. What did or didn’t happen to Hakeem is beside the point and not relevant. In 1992, Pippen was a #1 option relative to the league, and the numbers are proof.


Fair enough. But why claim we called Pippen an “elite” scorer? Nobody did that. Also, how was Pippen not "first option material" in the early 90s? In 92 alone, Pippen’s numbers suggest he would be a first option.

Exactly. I dont see what they expected of Pippen playing alongside MJ.



Yeah I can only see the argument for 1996. In the playoffs, I have said he wasn’t a good scorer and could be argued as a mediocre one. 96-98 he was inefficient in the playoffs, and Jordan carried the scoring load imo.

I see your point and I admire your consistency. You didnt cut Olajuwan any slack and neither did you Pippen when it comes to injuries.

Saying that, Pippen was hurt in 96. I think that needs to be qualified.

[insidious301]

I appreciate that 97 bulls. Thank you. My thoughts on "injury" are like most athletes'. If you're on the field then all is fair game.


Saying that, Pippen was hurt in 96. I think that needs to be qualified.

You're right and that is why I mentioned the argument for 1996. The one full year of the three, I could see Pippen being a #1. Difficult making a strong case if he suits up however. From my vantage point, early and mid 90s Pippen was a better all-around player than the late 90s version--who played with ailments.

[ImKobe]

I think you mean 40 points? Pippen scorered 30+ pts 5 times in the 1990-91 season alone.

Playoffs. I consider a title run to be the Playoffs, not the entire 100 games or whatever. It's crazy to think that he didn't score 30+ points once in 4 straight title runs. He even only scored 30 points once as a first option in the '94 Playoffs in 10 games, which was Game 1 of the first round vs Cavs and it's not like he was consistently up in the high-20s either, he only scored 25 points twice in the Knicks series.

[HoopsNY]

The Bulls were 14th in overall offensive rating. They hardly “struggled". Pippen could have scored more, yes, but was he asked to? Would it benefit his team to score more than to get them involved? I think we can all agree that for Chicago to legitimately contend, they needed a true replacement for Jordan. Instead he was replaced by the CBA player, Pete Myers.

The discussion is on scoring. The Bulls were 22nd in scoring. We're always told that Scottie was capable of big numbers, but MJ held him back. Well if that was truly the case, then where was the "big scoring" in 1993-95? (I'm not saying you say this btw).


You are either not following what is being said or blinded by your Hakeem fandom. The whole argument is over Pippen “sucking”. What did or didn’t happen to Hakeem is beside the point and not relevant. In 1992, Pippen was a #1 option relative to the league, and the numbers are proof.

I don't believe Pippen sucked as a scorer. That's tpol and 3ball. In 1992, Pippen's "#1 scoring" was on par with the Jeff Malones, Jeff Hornaceks, Drazen Petrovics, and Kendall Gills of the world.

Hakeem actually averaged more than Scottie, though not by much. My question is, why did you choose to compare him to Hakeem (knowing Hakeem's off the court issues and injuries woes that year), and not someone like Jeff Malone, Jeff Hornacek, or Reggie Lewis?

If we go by your line of thinking (that there is some parallel in terms of 1st option scoring between Hakeem and Pippen), then there must be a parallel between Hakeem and someone like Jeff Malone? The idea itself is ridiculous.


Fair enough. But why claim we called Pippen an “elite” scorer? Nobody did that. Also, how was Pippen not "first option material" in the early 90s? In 92 alone, Pippen’s numbers suggest he would be a first option.

1991-92 is conveniently 4 years after Pippen comes into the league. And his numbers are alongside guys who aren't really considered to be 1st options, largely because maybe they had peak years that they couldn't replicate? Just look at Kendall Gill who doesn't see that kind of output until 1996-97. But even if I give you that one, then what happens to the other 5 years?

[HoopsNY]

Both of these points have been acknowledged. I said I feel Pip was a first option scorer type from 90 to 98. Meaning he wasnt quite ready prior to that. Being top 8 and 12 put 400+ players is very good. What would've been good in your opinion.

I just feel that the notion that Pippen was a 1st option type of player is largely dependent on his post 1993 seasons. Scottie played 17 seasons. His "1st option" abilities seem only relevant to 4-5 years? How many elite players that are considered 1st options only produce that many type of years over a 17 year career?


Immediate impact how?

Check Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Hill, etc numbers within their first 5 seasons.


Lol I'm not upset. I dont understand why you cant seem to comprehend that Pippen cant be a first option over MJ.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying Scottie was not capable of 22+ PPG (like he did in 1993-95), between 1987-93. And "being held back" wasn't the problem. Scottie just wasn't a refined player at that time. I don't think he could be or would be a first option over MJ.


Not so much iso. I mean he wasnt a bad iso player. But what I mean is getting out in transition and looking for easy buckets because Pippen was a great finisher. Either leading or finishing the break. And again. What do you mean by "young Scottie Pippen"?

Scottie didn't have the skills as a younger player to score on a high/consistent level. He did not have a great post game, jumpshot, 3 point shot, couldn't shoot free throws, etc. Running a fast break doesn't automatically make you skillful.

[insidious301]

The discussion is on scoring. The Bulls were 22nd in scoring. We're always told that Scottie was capable of big numbers, but MJ held him back. Well if that was truly the case, then where was the "big scoring" in 1993-95? (I'm not saying you say this btw).

Okay, but you mentioned they struggled on “offense”. There is more to an option than just scoring. Pippen did not struggle to score and the Bulls “offense” was better than average.

1994 Pippen was 8th overall in scoring and #12 in 1995. He was also a #1 option both years. He could have scored more to prove a point, but if that weren’t his goal. and he wasn’t asked to then what is the problem? The real reason they weren’t legit contenders is because there was no replacement for Jordan. Let me reiterate. Pippen was a good scorer. Not elite or great. His offense however….


I don't believe Pippen sucked as a scorer. That's tpol and 3ball. In 1992, Pippen's "#1 scoring" was on par with the Jeff Malones, Jeff Hornaceks, Drazen Petrovics, and Kendall Gills of the world.

Hakeem averaged more than Scottie, though not by much. My question is, why did you choose to compare him to Hakeem (knowing Hakeem's off the court issues and injuries woes that year), and not someone like Jeff Malone, Jeff Hornacek, or Reggie Lewis?

This is what I replied to before you quoted me. '92 Pippen is right there with Hakeem (who does not get an excuse for playing 70 games) and above guys like Reggie Miller, Kevin Johnson and Mark Price—players who are considered #1 options. The “why” is plain as day to see.


1991-92 is conveniently 4 years after Pippen comes into the league. And his numbers are alongside guys who aren't really considered to be 1st options, largely because maybe they had peak years that they couldn't replicate? Just look at Kendall Gill who doesn't see that kind of output until 1996-97. But even if I give you that one, then what happens to the other 5 years?

Nothing about it is convenient. You had said early 90s Pippen wasn’t a #1 option. The fact is his numbers are that of a #1. We can go on about scoring, but I already made it clear there is more to “options” than just scoring. If that weren’t true then Magic was a third-fourth option on the Lakers. Obviously, nobody thinks that.

[97 bulls]

I just feel that the notion that Pippen was a 1st option type of player is largely dependent on his post 1993 seasons. Scottie played 17 seasons. His "1st option" abilities seem only relevant to 4-5 years? How many elite players that are considered 1st options only produce that many type of years over a 17 year career?

I dont. I saw what Pippen was capable of. He was a lottery pick. The Bulls traded up to get him. A lot of teams were high on him coming out of college.


Check Barkley, Ewing, Malone, Hill, etc numbers within their first 5 seasons.
Totally different situations. Barkley came in behind guys that were on their way out soon in Moses Malone and Dr J. Ewing replaced a journeyman, do did Karl Malone, and Hill was given the keys coming in as well. None of theee guys walked in to a situation where the incumbent SF was last year's big lottery pick. So Pippen has to wait to see how well Sellers would turn out. And along with that, Jordan was young as well. I keep telling you that.




You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying Scottie was not capable of 22+ PPG (like he did in 1993-95), between 1987-93. And "being held back" wasn't the problem. Scottie just wasn't a refined player at that time.I don't think he could be or would be a first option over MJ.

That's not the argument Hoops. No version of Pippen was ever good enough to be the first option over Michael Jordan. And truth is, I think this is what a lot of these Pippen arguments center around. This idiotic perceived notion that anyone that says Pippen was great is also saying that he is either on par or better than Jordan. Nobody us saying that. I also think its hard to believe that you feel pre 94 Pippen couldn't average more ppg (22+ is what you stated) when he averged 21 in 92 playing alongside MJ.


Scottie didn't have the skills as a younger player to score on a high/consistent level. He did not have a great post game, jumpshot, 3 point shot, couldn't shoot free throws, etc. Running a fast break doesn't automatically make you skillful.
So you think he acquired all these skills in the summer of 93? How did he manage to even score almost 20ppg? By your own assertion, you cant do it solely on fastbreak points.

[97 bulls]

Okay, but you mentioned they struggled on “offense”. There is more to an option than just scoring. Pippen did not struggle to score and the Bulls “offense” was better than average.

1994 Pippen was 8th overall in scoring and #12 in 1995. He was also a #1 option both years. He could have scored more to prove a point, but if that weren’t his goal. and he wasn’t asked to then what is the problem? The real reason they weren’t legit contenders is because there was no replacement for Jordan. Let me reiterate. Pippen was a good scorer. Not elite or great. His offense however….



This is what I replied to before you quoted me. '92 Pippen is right there with Hakeem (who does not get an excuse for playing 70 games) and above guys like Reggie Miller, Kevin Johnson and Mark Price—players who are considered #1 options. The “why” is plain as day to see.



Nothing about it is convenient. You had said early 90s Pippen wasn’t a #1 option. The fact is his numbers are that of a #1. We can go on about scoring, but I already made it clear there is more to “options” than just scoring. If that weren’t true then Magic was a third-fourth option on the Lakers. Obviously, nobody thinks that.

And here is other issue. Its generally understood that had Magic actually tried, he couldve scored 30ppg. Nobody argues that. And in my opinion, Magic and Pippen offensive skillset (just ability to score nothing else) is very similar. In fact, Magic was asked to score more and the best he did was 24ppg. In an uptempo offense in a higher pace league. But people still feel he could've scored more. Was Magics offensive ability maxed out @HoopsNY?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Ya'll are having the same debate RR and I had.

Personally? I think Pippen could've had his "own" team anytime during the 90s. From '91 and up anyway. How successful they would be is another story. Don't think you could win w/ Pip as the lead scorer, but you could surround him with others iso players to make up for it. And he possibly could win as head honcho.

Chicago would have to be stacked. And the scorer beside him would have to be somebody like Reggie or Mitch.

[HoopsNY]

Okay, but you mentioned they struggled on “offense”. There is more to an option than just scoring. Pippen did not struggle to score and the Bulls “offense” was better than average.

I meant in relation to scoring.


1994 Pippen was 8th overall in scoring and #12 in 1995. He was also a #1 option both years. He could have scored more to prove a point, but if that weren’t his goal. and he wasn’t asked to then what is the problem? The real reason they weren’t legit contenders is because there was no replacement for Jordan. Let me reiterate. Pippen was a good scorer. Not elite or great. His offense however….

My point was 1987-93. I've already said post 1993, it's clear he was 1st option material.


This is what I replied to before you quoted me. '92 Pippen is right there with Hakeem (who does not get an excuse for playing 70 games) and above guys like Reggie Miller, Kevin Johnson and Mark Price—players who are considered #1 options. The “why” is plain as day to see.

Funny you focus on guys like Miller and KJ. Why not Jeff Malone and Jeff Hornacek? Perhaps drawing a parallel with them and Hakeem just seems a tad bit off? And it's not about excuses for Hakeem. Hakeem averaged 21.6 PPG that season. How did he have such a drop off in his production while being in the midst of his prime? All other factors were not equal during that time.

But the point remains, here are a list of names: Drazen Petrovic, Jeff Malone, Jeff Hornacek, Reggie Lewis, Hakeem Olajuwon - Are these names on equal footing? Are they all considered the same where it comes to scoring?


Nothing about it is convenient. You had said early 90s Pippen wasn’t a #1 option. The fact is his numbers are that of a #1. We can go on about scoring, but I already made it clear there is more to “options” than just scoring. If that weren’t true then Magic was a third-fourth option on the Lakers. Obviously, nobody thinks that.

But they're not. And my emphasis wasn't on just the early 90s. I specifically mentioned 1987-93, and with good reason. Pippen officially become the #1 option until 1993-94. And if his first 6 seasons show you - solidly - that he was 1st option status, then most teams had two number one options on them. Is that we're saying now?

And why does 1991-92 get to define Pippen as a #1 but not his first 4 seasons in the league and five total seasons prior to 1993-94?

[HoopsNY]

I dont. I saw what Pippen was capable of. He was a lottery pick. The Bulls traded up to get him. A lot of teams were high on him coming out of college.

That doesn't address my question. I simply asked, how many elite players that played at least 17 seasons get to be defined as 1st options solely on 4 or 5 years?


Totally different situations. Barkley came in behind guys that were on their way out soon in Moses Malone and Dr J. Ewing replaced a journeyman, do did Karl Malone, and Hill was given the keys coming in as well. None of theee guys walked in to a situation where the incumbent SF was last year's big lottery pick. So Pippen has to wait to see how well Sellers would turn out. And along with that, Jordan was young as well. I keep telling you that.


You keep telling me that and conveniently ignore that Pippen became a full-time starter in his second season. During that stretch he averages 15.8 PPG. I don't get why you keep hiding behind that?

You say the triangle limited Pippen and if it was just him and Mike playing off of one another that he would have scored more. Okay, so what happened in the 1989-90 season? Pippen starts all 82 games, played 38.4 minutes, and scorings a massive 16.5 PPG without the triangle offense.

All I'm hearing is excuses.


That's not the argument Hoops. No version of Pippen was ever good enough to be the first option over Michael Jordan. And truth is, I think this is what a lot of these Pippen arguments center around. This idiotic perceived notion that anyone that says Pippen was great is also saying that he is either on par or better than Jordan. Nobody us saying that. I also think its hard to believe that you feel pre 94 Pippen couldn't average more ppg (22+ is what you stated) when he averged 21 in 92 playing alongside MJ.

Peak Pippen averaged 22.0 PPG and 21.8 PPG without Mike. So a 6 year PPG average without MJ prior to the 1993-94 season would have resulted in 22+ PPG? Does that sound reasonable to you?


So you think he acquired all these skills in the summer of 93? How did he manage to even score almost 20ppg? By your own assertion, you cant do it solely on fastbreak points.

No, obviously he developed over time. And I never said that he was a horrible scorer. He wasn't. But that doesn't mean he had the skills early on in his career to be a viable #1 option. This just isn't the case.

[GimmeThat]

How many players won 3+ rings with that caliber of production from their sidekick (21/7/7)??

It's only MJ, because everyone else won a chunk of their rings with their sidekick getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg, which leaves only 1 or 2 rings with pippen production from their sidekick... Whereas MJ won six with Pippen, not 1 or 2 like everyone else - that's what makes him goat - only he could get 6 with Pippen..

And we haven't talked 3rd options, which MJ didn't have..

only the very top guys at their PEAK could win with just Pippen and no 3rd option.. aka 71' Kareem or 00' Shaq (the only other times where the scoring champ won the title) and maybe a small handful of other top seasons - that's the only level that wins with Pippen and no 3rd option (aka everyone else's top season was Jordan's standard).

just what exactly do you call having 5 players with a PER of 14+

[HoopsNY]

And here is other issue. Its generally understood that had Magic actually tried, he couldve scored 30ppg. Nobody argues that. And in my opinion, Magic and Pippen offensive skillset (just ability to score nothing else) is very similar. In fact, Magic was asked to score more and the best he did was 24ppg. In an uptempo offense in a higher pace league. But people still feel he could've scored more. Was Magics offensive ability maxed out @HoopsNY?

Magic was a better scorer than Pippen and much more capable where it came to scoring. The fact that Magic had 3 seasons with higher PPG than Scottie's best season should tell you all that you need to know.

Furthermore, Magic shot the ball better than Scottie and was a far superior free throw shooter. And Magic's TS% was 61%, Pippen's was 53.6%. You don't see an obvious difference there?

Magic in the 1989-90 playoffs averaged 25.2 PPG. Pippen never did that. The closest is his 1993-94 playoffs where the numbers are skewed because he faced a shell of a Cleveland team that lost 3 of their starters.

Magic as a rookie in game 6 of the NBA finals dropped 42 points against Philadelphia. Where do we see Pippen in that big of a moment dominate scoring? Scottie's best scoring output was 32 with Chicago, including the year that MJ wasn't in the playoffs.

In fact, how many 40 pt games did Pippen even have in his entire playoffs career? 0. Magic had 4.

[97 bulls]

That doesn't address my question. I simply asked, how many elite players that played at least 17 seasons get to be defined as 1st options solely on 4 or 5 years?
I plainly stated from 90 to 98. That's 9 NBA seasons bro. I'd even take 99 as well. After 99? Age, mileage and injuries caught up to him.




You keep telling me that and conveniently ignore that Pippen became a full-time starter in his second season. During that stretch he averages 15.8 PPG. I don't get why you keep hiding behind that?

You say the triangle limited Pippen and if it was just him and Mike playing off of one another that he would have scored more. Okay, so what happened in the 1989-90 season? Pippen starts all 82 games, played 38.4 minutes, and scorings a massive 16.5 PPG without the triangle offense.

The Triangle offense was implemented in 90 bro. Jacksons first year as Head Coach. So you're argument centers around literally 1 season. 89. And I already said he probably wasn't quite ready yet. But we just dont know. Pippen has the luxury of playing behind Jordan and learn from watching Sellers fail.




Peak Pippen averaged 22.0 PPG and 21.8 PPG without Mike. So a 6 year PPG average without MJ prior to the 1993-94 season would have resulted in 22+ PPG? Does that sound reasonable to you?
Yes



No, obviously he developed over time. And I never said that he was a horrible scorer. He wasn't. But that doesn't mean he had the skills early on in his career to be a viable #1 option. This just isn't the case.

6 years in is a long time for most NBA players seeing as how the typical life expectancy for an NBA career is probably 7-8 seasons. Definitely not 17 lol.

[HoopsNY]

I plainly stated from 90 to 98. That's 9 NBA seasons bro. I'd even take 99 as well. After 99? Age, mileage and injuries caught up to him.




The Triangle offense was implemented in 90 bro. Jacksons first year as Head Coach. So you're argument centers around literally 1 season. 89. And I already said he probably wasn't quite ready yet. But we just dont know. Pippen has the luxury of playing behind Jordan and learn from watching Sellers fail.



Yes




6 years in is a long time for most NBA players seeing as how the typical life expectancy for an NBA career is probably 7-8 seasons. Definitely not 17 lol.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Because apparently Pippen was a bonafide 1st option capable of averaging 22+ PPG for six seasons even prior to the 1993-94 in 97 Bulls' eyes.

Doesn't matter that Pippen's ACTUAL PPG was 16.1 for his first 6 seasons. Doesn't matter that he lacked skills in virtually everything except slashing and transition offense. Doesn't matter that his PEAK saw 22.0 and 21.8 PPG, respectively.

No free throw shooting? No problem.
No legit post up game? No problem.
No great foot work? No problem
No bullseye mid-range game? No problem
No three point shooting? No problem

Just magically become a great scorer without tools and the leadership of MJ, by yourself. Go figure.

[97 bulls]

Magic was a better scorer than Pippen and much more capable where it came to scoring. The fact that Magic had 3 seasons with higher PPG than Scottie's best season should tell you all that you need to know.

Furthermore, Magic shot the ball better than Scottie and was a far superior free throw shooter. And Magic's TS% was 61%, Pippen's was 53.6%. You don't see an obvious difference there?

Magic in the 1989-90 playoffs averaged 25.2 PPG. Pippen never did that. The closest is his 1993-94 playoffs where the numbers are skewed because he faced a shell of a Cleveland team that lost 3 of their starters.

Magic as a rookie in game 6 of the NBA finals dropped 42 points against Philadelphia. Where do we see Pippen in that big of a moment dominate scoring? Scottie's best scoring output was 32 with Chicago, including the year that MJ wasn't in the playoffs.

In fact, how many 40 pt games did Pippen even have in his entire playoffs career? 0. Magic had 4.

I'm talking about skillset here. Magic was a streaky shooter, wasnt gonna break you down off the dribble, had no midrange game, couldnt shoot off the dribble, but was great in transition. Both as a passer and finisher. Most of Magic points came in transition. And Magic had a decent post game. I sure wish we could watch a game together and actually see how similar Magics and Pippens skillset was offensively. Oh and Magic was an outstanding FT shooter. Pippen was below averge to mediocre at best.

[insidious301]

I meant in relation to scoring.

And yet, Pippen was still one of the best scorers in 1994. An option isn’t defined as a scorer either way. Or are you still ignoring that?


Funny you focus on guys like Miller and KJ. Why not Jeff Malone and Jeff Hornacek? Perhaps drawing a parallel with them and Hakeem just seems a tad bit off? And it's not about excuses for Hakeem. Hakeem averaged 21.6 PPG that season. How did he have such a drop off in his production while being in the midst of his prime? All other factors were not equal during that time.

Yeah even better, lets ignore them like you’re doing. Haha. Reggie Miller and Kevin Johnson were #1s in 1992, and Pippen outscored them both. We don’t have to talk about Hakeem. That's my point, HoopsNY. Why are you still going on about him even though he played 70 games “in the midst of his prime”?


But the point remains, here are a list of names: Drazen Petrovic, Jeff Malone, Jeff Hornacek, Reggie Lewis, Hakeem Olajuwon - Are these names on equal footing? Are they all considered the same where it comes to scoring?

Did 92 Pippen not outscore Miller/KJ? Were Hakeem and Pippen, essentially, not on "equal" footing? Don't know how to explain this any clearer.


But they're not. And my emphasis wasn't on just the early 90s. I specifically mentioned 1987-93, and with good reason. Pippen officially become the #1 option until 1993-94. And if his first 6 seasons show you - solidly - that he was 1st option status, then most teams had two number one options on them. Is that we're saying now?

And why does 1991-92 get to define Pippen as a #1 but not his first 4 seasons in the league and five total seasons prior to 1993-94?

I’ve already shown that they are though. Pippen outscored alleged #1s, and statistically, was more or less on “equal footing” with Hakeem. What else are you looking for? I have also told you that 92 gets “defined” because of your original claim. You said 90s Pippen wasn’t a #1, and yet the facts say otherwise. Also why avoid my comparison to Magic? By your line of thinking, Magic was a 3rd option in 1986 and 1988(averaged less ppg than Worthy and Scott). Plus a second option behind Worthy in 1991. Again, nobody would make those silly claims.

[97 bulls]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Because apparently Pippen was a bonafide 1st option capable of averaging 22+ PPG for six seasons even prior to the 1993-94 in 97 Bulls' eyes.

Doesn't matter that Pippen's ACTUAL PPG was 16.1 for his first 6 seasons. Doesn't matter that he lacked skills in virtually everything except slashing and transition offense. Doesn't matter that his PEAK saw 22.0 and 21.8 PPG, respectively.

No free throw shooting? No problem.
No legit post up game? No problem.
No great foot work? No problem
No bullseye mid-range game? No problem
No three point shooting? No problem

Just magically become a great scorer without tools and the leadership of MJ, by yourself. Go figure.

I did.l not say first six year Hoops. YOU keep making that my argument. Lol. I plainly stated starting from 90. That means not 89, not 88.



No free throw shooting? No problem.
No legit post up game? No problem.
No great foot work? No problem
No bullseye mid-range game? No problem
No three point shooting? No problem

Just magically become a great scorer without tools and the leadership of MJ, by yourself. Go figure.

Lol. Then how was he able to score at all?

[HoopsNY]

I'm talking about skillset here. Magic was a streaky shooter, wasnt gonna break you down off the dribble, had no midrange game, couldnt shoot off the dribble, but was great in transition. Both as a passer and finisher. Most of Magic points came in transition. And Magic had a decent post game. I sure wish we could watch a game together and actually see how similar Magics and Pippens skillset was offensively. Oh and Magic was an outstanding FT shooter. Pippen was below averge to mediocre at best.

Magic had better dribbling skills.
Magic was the superior free throw shooter.
Magic had the superior post up game.
Magic had a higher offensive IQ
Magic was better in transition

On what grounds is Pippen better at scoring?

[insidious301]

I'm talking about skillset here. Magic was a streaky shooter, wasnt gonna break you down off the dribble, had no midrange game, couldnt shoot off the dribble, but was great in transition. Both as a passer and finisher. Most of Magic points came in transition. And Magic had a decent post game. I sure wish we could watch a game together and actually see how similar Magics and Pippens skillset was offensively. Oh and Magic was an outstanding FT shooter. Pippen was below averge to mediocre at best.

Both good post players however Magic was better from midrange whereas Pippen's outside shot was more consistent. A big advantage Magic had was in freethrow shooting. If he got fouled, he would knock both of them down.Magic had years shooting 90% from the line IIRC. I like your comparison to them as scorers though. I would rank Magic as the better scorer but its definitely close. If both of them scaled back on passing, and in Pippen's case, on defense too, you are right--they would score more.

[GimmeThat]

Magic had better dribbling skills.
Magic was the superior free throw shooter.
Magic had the superior post up game.
Magic had a higher offensive IQ
Magic was better in transition

On what grounds is Pippen better at scoring?

I don't know, but if you look at Magic's weight, you wonder if he's confusing assists with rebounds.

[HoopsNY]

And yet, Pippen was still one of the best scorers in 1994. An option isn’t defined as a scorer either way. Or are you still ignoring that

Good grief bro, do I have to get THAT technically specific with you? We're talking about scoring options here.


Yeah even better, lets ignore them like you’re doing. Haha. Reggie Miller and Kevin Johnson were #1s in 1992, and Pippen outscored them both. We don’t have to talk about Hakeem. That's my point, HoopsNY. Why are you still going on about him even though he played 70 games “in the midst of his prime”?


Because Hakeem was banged up that season and literally didn't want to play for Houston. Or do those issues have zero impact on performance? He literally got suspended by the team for refusing to play.


Did 92 Pippen not outscore Miller/KJ? Were Hakeem and Pippen, essentially, not on "equal" footing? Don't know how to explain this any clearer.


Great. He appeared to be a 1st option that year and let's say he was one (as I doubt Pippen puts up the same numbers without MJ on the court THAT particular season, but ok), what happened to the other 5 seasons? The only year that matters is 1991-92? Why doesn't 1989-90 count? Or 1990-91?

Furthermore, that season saw 34 players average 18+ PPG, and 43 players average 17 or more. At this rate, we might as well start claiming 3rd options are 1st options because they were limited in FGA under a 1st or 2nd option. That's all that this really seems to boil down to. And the NBA had half of their teams with #1 options playing as #2 options.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What you're failing to realize here is my view. I don't think Scottie was able to carry that scoring load by himself by the 1991-92 season, whereas he was more mature and a better leader, thus more capable by 1993-94 and 1994-95.


I’ve already shown that they are though. Pippen outscored alleged #1s, and statistically, was more or less on “equal footing” with Hakeem. What else are you looking for? I have also told you that 92 gets “defined” because of your original claim. You said 90s Pippen wasn’t a #1, and yet the facts say otherwise. Also why avoid my comparison to Magic? By your line of thinking, Magic was a 3rd option in 1986 and 1988(averaged less ppg than Worthy and Scott). Plus a second option behind Worthy in 1991. Again, nobody would make those silly claims.

Magic is a unique case. First off, he was a PG. Magic's role was to distribute the ball. But yes, Scott was the #1 option. How could he not be when he had a higher FGA, FG%, and PPG? Just because Magic for his career was a better scorer doesn't mean THAT particular season didn't favor Scott as a 1st option.

[light]

Pippen was the unsung hero of those Bulls teams. Everyone on those teams agree.

MJ also agrees with that statement wholeheartedly because its obviously true.

MJ wants guys like you to know that you're severely underrating Scottie Pippen.

No point in arguing otherwise.

[HoopsNY]

Considering Pippen was hobbled by his ankle injury and coming off playing for the dream team, then I do re-consider my position. He probably would have performed better in the 1992-93 season (higher PPG most definitely), and improved his game even further.

So I guess Insidious is right if we were to include 1992 and 1993 (I'm including 1993 as it appears that season's decline wasn't due to youth and or injuries). But my point still remains for at least 1987-91.

Insidious, you were right.

[insidious301]

Good grief bro, do I have to get THAT technically specific with you? We're talking about scoring options here.

Is being specific asking for a lot now? I want to make sure I understand what you are implying. That should be your intention too.


Because Hakeem was banged up that season and literally didn't want to play for Houston. Or do those issues have zero impact on performance? He literally got suspended by the team for refusing to play.

Okay and? Hakeem still played in 70 games man! I’m not giving him a pass for not wanting to be in Houston. Pippen didn’t want to play for Chicago in 1995 either. Yet, you ncluded that year in your argument.


Great. He appeared to be a 1st option that year and let's say he was one (as I doubt Pippen puts up the same numbers without MJ on the court THAT particular season, but ok), what happened to the other 5 seasons? The only year that matters is 1991-92? Why doesn't 1989-90 count? Or 1990-91?

Why should it count? I took issue with your erroneous claim. That Pippen wasn’t a #1 before 94.


But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What you're failing to realize here is my view. I don't think Scottie was able to carry that scoring load by himself by the 1991-92 season, whereas he was more mature and a better leader, thus more capable by 1993-94 and 1994-95.

Why shouldn’t I get the benefit of the doubt? Who cares about your approval when the facts are more objective. Lets not get emotional, HoopsNY. No. I don’t think Pippen could carry the scoring load either. You keep conflating words like “option” with scoring. Makes your argument convoluted. If you want to keep your PPG narrative, then Magic was a clear #2 for years during his prime. The #1 wasn’t Kareem either.


Magic is a unique case. First off, he was a PG. Magic's role was to distribute the ball. But yes, Scott was the #1 option. How could he not be when he had a higher FGA, FG%, and PPG? Just because Magic for his career was a better scorer doesn't mean THAT particular season didn't favor Scott as a 1st option. Reply With Quote

Pippen played point-forward. Don’t see how that makes any difference here. You're now saying Pippen was a #1 so I think we’ve come to an agreement.

[insidious301]

Considering Pippen was hobbled by his ankle injury and coming off playing for the dream team, then I do re-consider my position. He probably would have performed better in the 1992-93 season (higher PPG most definitely), and improved his game even further.

So I guess Insidious is right if we were to include 1992 and 1993 (I'm including 1993 as it appears that season's decline wasn't due to youth and or injuries). But my point still remains for at least 1987-91.

Insidious, you were right.

Thank you, HoopsNY. I don't think Pippen could carry a scoring load either, just like you and kuniva mentioned. We disagreed with each other but also have a mutual understanding. This is what you call a gentlemen's debate.

[3ball]

Only MJ won 3+ rings without a 1st option level sidekick, aka FMVP or 25-30 ppg from the sidekick.. So only MJ won 3+ rings with 2nd option stats from his sidekick, aka "true" 2nd option

[97 bulls]

Heres a video of Magics 43pt game vs the Suns in 90. Literally all his shots were in transition or on FTs. No real post moves. Just back down and turn. No outside jumper. Just layups and FTs.

https://youtu.be/qD3cZDg6tiA

[GimmeThat]

Paul Pierce's 2008 FMVP says hi

[3ball]

Paul Pierce's 2008 FMVP says hi

only MJ won 3+ rings with 2nd option stats from his sidekick.. everyone else needed their sidekick to get FMVP or 25-30 ppg for some of their rings

[HoopsNY]

Considering Pippen was hobbled by his ankle injury and coming off playing for the dream team, then I do re-consider my position. He probably would have performed better in the 1992-93 season (higher PPG most definitely), and improved his game even further.

So I guess Insidious is right if we were to include 1992 and 1993 (I'm including 1993 as it appears that season's decline wasn't due to youth and or injuries). But my point still remains for at least 1987-91.

Insidious, you were right.

Meant to say that 1993 was due to injuries and not youth or a perceived fall off. Had forgotten about Pippen hurting his ankle in the previous playoffs and not getting to rest during the summer.

[HoopsNY]

Thank you, HoopsNY. I don't think Pippen could carry a scoring load either, just like you and kuniva mentioned. We disagreed with each other but also have a mutual understanding. This is what you call a gentlemen's debate.

Which is why I said he wouldn't be considered 1st option material (meaning not 1st option by default). Here was my logic regarding 1991-92.

Since Pippen hadn't produced a season like it, it appeared to me that it was probably more of an anomaly when looking at 1992-93. Pippen's PPG had fallen off somewhat and so there had to have been something attributed to that.

This is why I keep talking about Hakeem's 1991-92 season being more of an anomaly because that's not what we were used to seeing. In 1992-93, we have to remain consistent, does Pippen suddenly NOT become 1st option material or is there something greater at play (like in the case of Hakeem in the previous season).

So that weighed into my analysis in that Pippen wasn't quite ready to assume that role, and 1991-92 was more of having MJ to lean on to produce 21 PPG.

I am, of course, incorrect, since Pippen's decline wasn't necessarily natural but probably due to the injured ankle.

[HoopsNY]

Heres a video of Magics 43pt game vs the Suns in 90. Literally all his shots were in transition or on FTs. No real post moves. Just back down and turn. No outside jumper. Just layups and FTs.

https://youtu.be/qD3cZDg6tiA

That's just it though; Magic's ability in the post was far superior to Pippen's. The point here is that Magic had a refined skillset that allowed him to score more at will than Pippen would have been able to in his earlier years.

[Phoenix]

Magic's ability to consistently beat you with the pass set up his scoring. Whether it be in transition or his forays to the rim, as the defender you're acutely aware that his eyes are locked on all 4 teammates as scoring options and your attention is divided as to what he was going to do. That was the beauty of his game regardless of who was around him. I've seen Magic score 5 points and it's clear he was the best player on the court in terms of playing puppet-master, controlling the pace and setting up teammates in positions they had no choice but to convert.

[97 bulls]

Magic's ability to consistently beat you with the pass set up his scoring. Whether it be in transition or his forays to the rim, as the defender you're acutely aware that his eyes are locked on all 4 teammates as scoring options and your attention is divided as to what he was going to do. That was the beauty of his game regardless of who was around him. I've seen Magic score 5 points and it's clear he was the best player on the court in terms of playing puppet-master, controlling the pace and setting up teammates in positions they had no choice but to convert.

Magic was a beast dont get me wrong. Were talking about his own ability to put the ball in the basket.

[97 bulls]

That's just it though; Magic's ability in the post was far superior to Pippen's. The point here is that Magic had a refined skillset that allowed him to score more at will than Pippen would have been able to in his earlier years.

What skillset bro? Most of Magics points came in transition and at the FT line. His post game was more due to him being defended by someone much smaller than him.

Theres no doubt in my mind that Pippen couldve scored more in an uptempo style like the one Magic played in.

[Phoenix]

Magic was a beast dont get me wrong. Were talking about his own ability to put the ball in the basket.

Yeah it was just a general comment not directed at anyone. I was catching the last page or so about his scoring and thought I'd chime my 2 cents in.

As far as his own scoring ability in a vacuum. It's really hard to say exactly what his peak could have been if he solely concentrated on it. He always had competent scoring options around him, and to my earlier point the fact that you had to be aware of his teammates made him tougher to contain because he could masterfully flick the switch. It's that one time in transition where you expected him to pass and he goes all the way. Magic gave up tons of scoring opportunities in transition because he wanted to reward guys on the break and when you give everyone a bit of that scoring candy, it keeps them locked in and willing to put more effort into other aspects of the game. Magic understood better than most that a rising tide lifts all boats when it came to getting his teammates involved on offense. I figure as a scorer on a crap team he'd be fine but you can't really separate his scoring from his passing. No matter the level of talent he made everyone a threat, so again he was hard to zero in on.

Magic could have posted 87 numbers on any team for most of his career if he wanted. He became a better set shooter as time went on and could find his way into the lane and find tight seams which again, he created through the threat that he may pass it off.

[insidious301]

Which is why I said he wouldn't be considered 1st option material (meaning not 1st option by default).

From my vantage point, you can be "1st option material" while not carrying a scoring load. According to Roundball_Rock, Pippen also played hurt in 1993. That could play a reason as you said. Your Hakeem analysis is fair however my point was guys often play through injury and on teams they want out from. Scottie Pippen was one of them. He doesn't get an excuse for it either.

[insidious301]

Yeah it was just a general comment not directed at anyone. I was catching the last page or so about his scoring and thought I'd chime my 2 cents in.

As far as his own scoring ability in a vacuum. It's really hard to say exactly what his peak could have been if he solely concentrated on it. He always had competent scoring options around him, and to my earlier point the fact that you had to be aware of his teammates made him tougher to contain because he could masterfully flick the switch. It's that one time in transition where you expected him to pass and he goes all the way. Magic gave up tons of scoring opportunities in transition because he wanted to reward guys on the break and when you give everyone a bit of that scoring candy, it keeps them locked in and willing to put more effort into other aspects of the game. Magic understood better than most that a rising tide lifts all boats when it came to getting his teammates involved on offense. I figure as a scorer on a crap team he'd be fine but you can't really separate his scoring from his passing. No matter the level of talent he made everyone a threat, so again he was hard to zero in on.

Magic could have posted 87 numbers on any team for most of his career if he wanted. He became a better set shooter as time went on and could find his way into the lane and find tight seams which again, he created through the threat that he may pass it off.

Good post Phoenix. Going to add that Pippen never had a season where he shot 38% from three and 90% from the line. Magic did--whose shooting touch is underrated, and mainly because of that "weird" form.

[Hey Yo]

Wonder how Magic's game (if any) would be affected if the Mark Jackson rule existed back then. Seemed like half of his game was him posting a dude up for like 12-15 seconds of the shot clock.

[97 bulls]

Wonder how Magic's game (if any) would be affected if the Mark Jackson rule existed back then. Seemed like half of his game was him posting a dude up for like 12-15 seconds of the shot clock.

It was. He simply backed down the smaller guards or he finished on the fastbreak.

This is why I keep saying you cant compare 80s ball to 90s ball. It was so much easier to score in the 80s.

[goozeman]

It was. He simply backed down the smaller guards or he finished on the fastbreak.

This is why I keep saying you cant compare 80s ball to 90s ball. It was so much easier to score in the 80s.

It's actually the opposite. PG's bringing the ball up with their back to the basket was not by choice. Defenders could be way more physical then and it was harder for ball handler's to protect the dribble. Now PG's are always facing the basket and they can see the offense, so it's easier for them to pass and shoot. A lot of the crazy handles we see today from guys like Curry and Kyrie wouldn't be possible in the 80's and 90's, nor would they be able to just pull up at any point on the court. Scoring is much easier today than it was in the 80's and 90's, never mind the all the freedom of movement changes that allow crap like Isiah Thomas' hesitation dribble, Harden's gather and step back, or Klay Thompson being able to play all night and never put the ball on the court because nobody can close out on him without getting a foul or he can run 10 yards off a screen without a dribble.

[LAmbruh]

just moved pippen into my top 15 after reading this thread

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen was the unsung hero of those Bulls teams. Everyone on those teams agree.

MJ also agrees with that statement wholeheartedly because its obviously true.

MJ wants guys like you to know that you're severely underrating Scottie Pippen.

No point in arguing otherwise.

It is striking to compare the views of Pippen's value to the team that people who were on the team (players, coaches, even Krause) have with fans' views...

[97 bulls]

It's actually the opposite. PG's bringing the ball up with their back to the basket was not by choice. Defenders could be way more physical then and it was harder for ball handler's to protect the dribble. Now PG's are always facing the basket and they can see the offense, so it's easier for them to pass and shoot. A lot of the crazy handles we see today from guys like Curry and Kyrie wouldn't be possible in the 80's and 90's, nor would they be able to just pull up at any point on the court. Scoring is much easier today than it was in the 80's and 90's, never mind the all the freedom of movement changes that allow crap like Isiah Thomas' hesitation dribble, Harden's gather and step back, or Klay Thompson being able to play all night and never put the ball on the court because nobody can close out on him without getting a foul or he can run 10 yards off a screen without a dribble.

I agree. Its damn near too easy to score today.

[3ball]

It is striking to compare the views of Pippen's value to the team that people who were on the team (players, coaches, even Krause) have with fans' views...
No one can stand the same narrative over and over, so Pippen was occasionally thrown in there as a story..
key word: OCCASIONALLY..

you guys are digging up a few quotes from people over his 17-year career and throwing them together to make it seem big - you probably don't even realize how deceptive you're being.. Pippen was never a story, except on rare occasion as a diversion from MJ fatigue.. Congrats to you and Google for assembling the few quotes and stories all in one place..

But your collage means nothing.. the play on the he court tells the story, and Pippen had a lot of flaws.. aka he was a negative floor spacer - teams WANTED him shooting/bricking jumpers - his presence as any kind of jumpshooter HURT spacing.. Secondly, he can't hit FT's especially in big series or the clutch - and the bulls never looked to him down the stretch of tight games - his clutch burden was literally zero.. Thirdly, he didn't lock down his man despite frequently guarding the opponent's 4th option (Dumas, Kersey, Schrempf).. His defensive presence only yielded the #7 team defense during the 1st three-peat, which was worse than nearly every ECF or Finals opponent they faced (and Knicks in 92' ecsf).. Finally, he isn't an elite 1st option-caliber player, aka his peak scoring capability isn't elite (22 on 54 ts) - it's average for an all-star, even a 1 or 2-time all-star, let alone what is considered "elite" for the game's top scorers.. And 1st option players don't have 10+ series of 16 on 40% in their prime.. Pippen's standard of 16 on 40% isn't "elite" by any standard.. ultimately, he's the only prominent 2nd option that didn't get FMVP or 25-30 ppg

[Roundball_Rock]

In the real world, Pippen was a MVP candidate and 1st team all-NBA (leading vote getter) as a #1 option. Only in Jordanstan is there this debate over whether he was competent as a #2. In the real world we all saw him perform as an elite #1. Sorry it doesn't fit the narrative--but we saw it happen. Not speculation. Reality.


He was a first option playing second. We just don’t consider 18-22 a game “first option” scoring for some reason despite there being 30 teams in the nba and most of their first options not scoring that at the time. He was 8th and 12th in the nba in scoring the two years he was the first option with guys like Barkley, Glen Rice, and Reggie scoring less one year and Zo, Penny, Payton, Reggie, Grant Hill and plenty other first options scoring less the next.

It wasn’t like today with every decent scorer being able to give you 20 most nights off the pace and lack of defense. You score 19 a game in most of the 90s that’s a first option. Even with Jordan he was 14th in scoring per game ahead of guys known to do nothing but score. If your second option scores more than Drazen, Reggie, Isiah Thomas, Kevin Johnson, Reggie Lewis, Chuck Person, Mark Price and so on....that’s not bad.

Pippen would have been first option on most teams in nba history. Just not when you put him next to all times scorers. He’d be second to Wade or someone like that. But guess what?

Most teams don’t have a Wade. For most teams in the 90s a guy who can give you 19 is the man. The super team era and easier scoring have warped the idea of how much second guys are expected to score. Most of history a 19ppg #2 was pretty good. Go look at any point. Plenty of first ballot hall of famers known to score aren’t scoring more than 20 a game.

Just hop around through history. First year I checked 8 hall of famers in their primes scored 18-22 a game and only 1(Frazier) was a total player like Pippen. You see plenty of guys like Glen Rice we all consider scorers. Play 14 years score over 22 a game once and that was in 43 minutes a night while he couldn’t do anything but score.

18-21 a game out of a great all around player is pretty standard first option shit. Willis Reed never hit 22 a game in his career. Drexler 4 times in 16 years. Grant Hill did 19, 20, or 21 all but one pre injury year. The great majority of first options are 18-22 a night.

The greatest teams ever just skew the perspective.

:applause:


In 3ball's defense, he does have somewhat of a point here

Scottie became a starter by 1988 and his scoring rankings were as follows:

1988-89: 68th
1989-90: 46th
1990-91: 36th
1991-92: 14th
1992-93: 28th

1993-1994: 8th
1994-1995: 10th (pre-MJ return)

So when he was a #1 option he was top 10 ahead of names that MJ stans salivate over like Miller, Payton, Kemp, both Hardaways, etc. It is disingenuous for MJ stans to always bitch about teammate scoring when MJ took 25-30 shots every game.


But the reality is during that stretch of time, he was more comparable to guys like Robert Reid, Sleepy Floyd, Armen Gilliam, Danny Manning, Kenny Smith, Lionel Simmons, Otis Thorpe, Drazen Petrovic, Brad Daughtery, Harvey Grant, Christian Laettener, and Glen Rice.

Told you all 3ball isn't an outlier on Team MJ. :facepalm

As if Harvey Grant could ever rank 8th in scoring.

[insidious301]

I don't know if HoopsNYC is an MJ stan(claims he is all about Hakeem) however I explained to him "1st option" =/= padding points. When you get an opportunity, look at my Magic Johnson comparison, Roundball_Rock. You might like that parallel. I legitimately think Pippen could have been a #1 any year after 1991. How good the team would be depends on who you surround Pippen with.

[Roundball_Rock]

In addition to the absurdity of expecting large scoring numbers when one guy takes half the shots, Pippen also expended energy on defense. Moreover, he was the team's primary facilitator (which is why the Bulls' offenses sucked without him). He wasn't asked to score first or to save his energy for one end of the floor. One myth they rely on is that "points" were scoring 25-30 PPG in the 90's like they do today. Compare him to "points" back then.

1994 "Point" Scoring Leaders

8th Pippen 22.0
N/R K. Johnson 20.0
21st Anderson 18.8
25th Abdul-Rauf 18.0
28th Price 17.3
30th Strickland 17.2
36th Payton 16.5
39th Penny 16.0
45th Murdock 15.3
51st Stockton 15.1

1994 Pippen Scoring versus Select Stars

6th Ewing 24.5
7th Richmond 23.2
8th Pippen 22.0
9th Barkley 21.6
10th Rice 21.1
13th Dumars 20.4
17th Miller 19.9
24th Kemp 18.1
28th Price 17.3
36th Payton 16.5
51st Stockton 15.1

Damn, Pippen comes out well compared to many players whose scoring Pippen haters praise.

1994 2nd Option Scoring


16th C. Robinson 20.1
N/R K. Johnson 20.0
20th Willis 19.1
N/R Starks 19.0
21st Anderson 18.8
N/R Daughtery 17.3
36th Payton 16.5
37th J. Malone 16.4
39th Penny 16.0
42nd Smits 15.7
46th Ellis 15.2
47th Grant 15.1
51st Stockton 15.1
63rd Thorpe 14.0

Another deceptive trick is acting like there were all these 2nd options scoring 25+ back in the 90's. The 94' list speaks for itself and shows you why you never see actual comparisons of Pippen's scoring from 3ball and co. with other second options' scoring: it would nuke their argument.

The logical question is not to bitch about MJ's sidekick scoring each day. The logical question is how many rings would Ewing, Robinson, Hakeem, Malone, or Barkley have if they had that caliber of a sidekick for their primes instead of having Starks, Elliott, Thorpe, Hawkins, and Stockton as their second options for most/all their primes? Ewing, for example, would kill for 20 PPG instead of 15 PPG from Starks...and that doesn't even get to playmaking, defense, etc.

Bulls' Finals/ECF Opponent "#2" Scoring in Series

1991: Dumars 13, Worthy 19
1992: Daughtery 18, Porter 16
1993: Starks 15, Johnson 17
1996: Penny 26, Kemp 23
1997: Mourning 16, Stockton 15
1998: Smits 16, Stockton 10 (Hornacek 11 if you want to use him)

Only two guys at 20+--both in the same year. This is why they don't post this info--by their own standard this is horrendous scoring (remember, 20-21 PPG is trash so what is 15, 10, or 13?).

[3ball]

you never see actual comparisons of Pippen's scoring from 3ball and co. with other second options' scoring: it would nuke their argument.



Pippen's peak ability is 22 ppg - we don't need to compare that - everyone knows that isn't elite scoring ability

Pippen's peak (22 on 54 TS) is similar to a typical all-star, and nothing compared to elite scorers or 1st options

Everyone (Magic, Shaq, Lebron, Duncan, etc, etc) would win less with Pippen because their ring count depended on a sidekick occasionally getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg.. Only MJ won all his rings with a true 2nd option whose peak scoring ability wasn't elite.. so only MJ could win 6 with Pippen





The logical question is not to bitch about MJ's sidekick scoring each day. The logical question is how many rings would Ewing, Robinson, Hakeem, Malone, or Barkley have if they had that caliber of a sidekick for their primes instead of having Starks, Elliott, Thorpe, Hawkins, and Stockton as their second options for most/all their primes? Ewing, for example, would kill for 20 PPG instead of 15 PPG from Starks...and that doesn't even get to playmaking, defense, etc.
Kemp, Payton, Penny, Smits, X-man, Harper and others were better or outplayed Pippen so your argument is moot

Additionally, if you go man-for-man, the bulls easily had the weaker roster compared to any Finals or ECF opponent, and many 2nd round opponents, or even 1st round (97' bullets)

[Roundball_Rock]

The irony of the people here saying MJ had no help are often the same people who will say the 94' Bulls had the best supporting cast in the NBA...

[3ball]

The irony of the people here saying MJ had no help are often the same people who will say the 94' Bulls had the best supporting cast in the NBA...

16 on 40% isn't help... It just isn't no matter how you twist it

All the greats would win less with Pippen because their ring count depended on a sidekick occasionally getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg (aka not Pippen)

so only MJ could win 6 with Pippen because everyone else needed a sidekick to occasionally get FMVP or 25-30 ppg.. Only MJ won all his rings with a true 2nd option whose peak scoring ability wasn't elite..

[HoopsNY]

In the real world, Pippen was a MVP candidate and 1st team all-NBA (leading vote getter) as a #1 option. Only in Jordanstan is there this debate over whether he was competent as a #2. In the real world we all saw him perform as an elite #1. Sorry it doesn't fit the narrative--but we saw it happen. Not speculation. Reality.



:applause:



1993-1994: 8th
1994-1995: 10th (pre-MJ return)

So when he was a #1 option he was top 10 ahead of names that MJ stans salivate over like Miller, Payton, Kemp, both Hardaways, etc. It is disingenuous for MJ stans to always bitch about teammate scoring when MJ took 25-30 shots every game.



Told you all 3ball isn't an outlier on Team MJ. :facepalm

As if Harvey Grant could ever rank 8th in scoring.

You're a little late to the party. I already conceded to insidious' point about Pippen being 1st option material (at least by 1991-92). My original point was examining Pippen's first 6 years in the league (as I repeatedly said Pippen was 1st option material after 1993).

I knew would race to criticize me. Just goes to show that you're on some kind of crusade against "MJ stans."

[3ball]

You're a little late to the party. I already conceded to insidious' point about Pippen being 1st option material (at least by 1991-92). My original point was examining Pippen's first 6 years in the league.

I knew would race to criticize me. Just goes to show that you're on some kind of crusade against "MJ stans."

"1st option material" by definition means "under consideration", aka "borderline"

Your words, not mine

Pippen's peak (22 on 54 TS) is similar to a typical all-star, and nothing compared to elite scorers or 1st options

Every all-time great would win less with Pippen because their ring count depended on a sidekick occasionally getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg.. Only MJ won all his rings with a true 2nd option whose peak scoring ability wasn't elite.. so only MJ could win 6 with Pippen

[HoopsNY]

"1st option material" by definition means "under consideration", aka "borderline"

Your words, not mine

Pippen's peak (22 on 54 TS) is similar to a typical all-star, and nothing compared to elite scorers or 1st options

Every all-time great would win less with Pippen because their ring count depended on a sidekick occasionally getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg.. Only MJ won all his rings with a true 2nd option whose peak scoring ability wasn't elite.. so only MJ could win 6 with Pippen

Meaning he could fill a 1st option role. It's a fair point given that he averaged 21.0 PPG in 1991-92, and even though he declined in 1992-93, it was largely due to an injured ankle after spending the summer on the Dream Team.

My misconception came by forgetting about the injuries and playing on the Dream Team, which made it appear as if 1991-92 was some sort of anomaly. It wasn't. He was capable of being a 1st option by 1991-92. So insidious was correct in that sense.

[Roundball_Rock]

Of course there is never going to be any discussion of other contemporary second options. Which is revealing. If such a comparison would make Pippen look bad, we would hear it every day... :lol

It is a bit absurd to say because he scored 17.8 PPG with the league leader in shots that he would score 17.8 on every other team. As KBlaze noted, there are many teams. Guys like Dana Barros and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf were 1st options on teams in the 90's. People acting like 91' Pippen wouldn't be on half the teams? The same guy who averaged 22/9/6/3 in the playoffs in 91'?

It also is striking how we get daily scrutiny and bitching about Pippen's offense. For such a "poor" offensive player, it is amazing how much his team's offense sucked without him. -2.6 rORTG in 94' (+2.2 with him, on par with the Jazz or Blazers). In 97' they went from +8 (1st) and +6 (4th) in 98' with him to +1 (13th) in 98' without him for half the year as their PPG slipped 6.6 PPG without Pippen at the controls (that passing the ball thing evidently raises teammate efficiency).

[Roundball_Rock]

16 on 40% isn't help... It just isn't no matter how you twist it

All the greats would win less with Pippen because their ring count depended on a sidekick occasionally getting FMVP or 25-30 ppg (aka not Pippen)

so only MJ could win 6 with Pippen because everyone else needed a sidekick to occasionally get FMVP or 25-30 ppg.. Only MJ won all his rings with a true 2nd option whose peak scoring ability wasn't elite..

I know, MJ had it so tough beating 2nd options with a 2nd option who outscored the other guy in 10 of 12 Finals/ECF's (the exceptions coming in 96'). MJ beating the odds! :bowdown:

I am using MJ stans' own statements: whenever 94' comes up the same people here saying Pippen sucked as a 2nd option are often the same people who say how awesome Horace Grant was as a 2nd option (so Grant was awesome but behind the incompetent guy in the pecking order :lol ).

Let's do a quick fact check of 2nd option scoring on title teams. You seem to be talking finals, so let's stick to that.

2019: Siakam 20, Lowry 16
2014: Parker 18, Kawhi 18, Duncan 15
2013: Wade 20
2012: Wade 23
2011: Terry 18
2010: Gasol 19
2009: Gasol 19
2008: Pierce 22

This is a joke. All I had to do was get outside the Warrior's era. Point made.

The real question is this:

1991: Worthy 19 (Pippen 21)
1992: Porter 16 (Pippen 21)
1993: Johnson 17 (Pippen 21)
1996: Kemp 23 (Pippen 16)
1997: Stockton 15 (Pippen 20)
1998: Stockton 10 (Pippen 16 total, 20 while healthy)

MJ is the one who didn't have help! :roll: If Pippen sucked--and could be a MVP candidate and 1st team all-NBA--by your own logic MJ's era was a joke (not my view but the logical conclusion of the "Pippen sucked" manta from 3ball and his minions). According to your ilk, Pippen basically is Iggy. In today's era Iggy is a 4th or 5th option and a one-time all-star who doesn't sniff a MVP vote or all-NBA.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

3ball getting cucked in his own thread. Pathetic :lol

Long as you keep making MJ threads, and talking like you actually watched that era, you will be reduced to an onlooker.

[Roundball_Rock]

3ball getting cucked in his own thread. Pathetic :lol

Long as you keep making MJ threads, and talking like you actually watched that era, you will be reduced to an onlooker.

:lol

I don't get his crusade. As we talked about in the other thread, that Pippen was able to succeed alongside MJ (both on and off the court) is a credit to MJ. A big weakness LeBron has is how he integrates with other stars, which is why his teams never have a high ceiling relative to other champs helmed by an ATG of LeBron's caliber or relative to their comp (even when they won, his teams had 7 games ECF's in 12', 13' and 7 Game finals in 13', 16').

3ball loves to bring names like Worthy and KJ up. Those guys never were MVP candidates or 1st team all-NBA. Yes, Pippen's best years came away from MJ but in 96' he was still 1st team all-NBA and top 5 in MVP (things Worthy,Daughtery, Starks, Smits, KJ, Dumars, Porter, Kemp, Stockton, etc. never did).

[HoopsNY]

It is a bit absurd to say because he scored 17.8 PPG with the league leader in shots that he would score 17.8 on every other team. As KBlaze noted, there are many teams. Guys like Dana Barros and Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf were 1st options on teams in the 90's. People acting like 91' Pippen wouldn't be on half the teams? The same guy who averaged 22/9/6/3 in the playoffs in 91'?

i feel like we're all either playing semantics or mixing up connotations here. The struggle I think is to define what we mean by 1st option. A lot has been said in this thread. You have elite scorers, 1st options, 1st option material, etc being used. I don't think they're synonymous.

Having said that, you're right that a player averaging 17.8 PPG behind a high volume scorer could average more on many teams during that season, in this case Pippen. But does that define them as a true 1st option? Or a place holder in the absence of a true 1st option? And for several players who were 1st options (by default), was it because they were true 1st options or because there was a lack of one?


As if Harvey Grant could ever rank 8th in scoring.

What's interesting is that you chose Grant of all that were mentioned. Grant played behind Bernard King in that same year, another high volume shooter/high volume scorer. King averaged 28.4 PPG that year on almost 24 FGA, with Grant averaging 18.2 on 50%.

The same can be said about Grant considering King's presence. Though I don't think many people view Grant in such a favorable fashion. And I'm also not sure Pippen being 8th in scoring in 1993-94 is relevant since we're discussing the 1990-91 season here.

Basically, you can't project what was, at the time, based on what wasn't, in the future, as it didn't happen yet. I'm not sure if that makes sense.

[Roundball_Rock]

The struggle I think is to define what we mean by 1st option. A lot has been said in this thread. You have elite scorers, 1st options, 1st option material, etc being used. I don't think they're synonymous.

There were 25-29 teams when Pippen played. People talk about "1st option" as if there were only 5 or 7 of them. By definition, there were a lot more. Dee Brown, Dana Barros, Abdul-Raof, Hersey Hawkins, etc. all led teams in scoring in the 90's.


King averaged 28.4 PPG that year on almost 24 FGA, with Grant averaging 18.2 on 50%.

His career high was 18.6--Pippen is being critiqued for 17.8.


And I'm also not sure Pippen being 8th in scoring in 1993-94 is relevant since we're discussing the 1990-91 season here.

I didn't read the whole thread--there is a sameness to these arguments that I don't think reading it will provide much value.

8th goes to scoring capability, especially in the context of doing it on a contender. Dana Barros scoring 21 on a 24 win team isn't the same as scoring 22 on a contender and scoring 22 in 1994 isn't the same as 22 in 1989 (if you adjust for pace, for example, Drexler's peak of 27 becomes 24 on the 94' Bulls--a "whopping" 2 point difference).

What amuses me is Pippen peaked at 8th (same as Miller). Dumars, Mourning peaked at 7th (on bad teams)--they scored a lot less when on contenders. McHale 6th. Worthy, K. Johnson, Porter, Starks, Daughtery, Kemp, Stockton, Smits never were top 10.

Some of the disconnect is anyone who actually watched basketball back then recognized Pippen as an elite scoring 2nd option who was a MVP candidate in the #1 option role; kids Googling see 20 PPG and think of today's league and don't realize 20 PPG back then was like 24-25 PPG today. The assumption is that all these other teams had 23-25 PPG 2nd options while poor MJ had "only" 20; the reality is Starks, Smits were 16 PPG types. The highest scoring 2nd options were 19-20 PPG (guys like Daughtery, Pippen).

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The 1st option stuff is redundant. Pip would be a first option on a number of squads that era.

And now that we know about his scoring, compared to other so-called sidekicks, clowns like 3ball have nothing left. :oldlol: I've argued recently that SP was inefficient and a poor scorer in the playoffs (look at his 96 and 98 logs), but that's about it. The nonsense over dude being a weak option is just that. Nonsense.

[NBAGOAT]

hate to go back to lebron but i'm just wondering if 3ball thinks 16ppg on 40% isnt help at all, then what can he say about wade in 2013 haha. Wade put up 16ppg on 50% ts. Now 3ball would point out wade's RS stats which were good for a 2nd option but ofc he doesnt do the same for pippen. as kuniva said, pippen's RS stats are good for a sidekick.

I know he would then transition to jordan making pippen and lebron marginalizing wade which is true to a small extent but usually completely exaggerated by him. It's been pointed out but it's a contradiction to say everything pippen did well was because of jordan but pippen's a poor scorer. Add on wade did play well during the RS so what he wasnt marginalized then but he was in the playoffs, not logically consistent?(PS has a lot to do with injuries/age and secondary options scoring less in the playoffs)

[TheCorporation]

3ball, the most pathetic member of this board. Deceitful, shameful, and lies to no end. Terrible excuse of a poster.

This guy had the audacity to complain about Pippen's offensive production, meanwell ignoring the fact that Pippen's worst playoff run was still producing more ppg than 2013 playoffs Wade. Sickening.

And then he ignores defense too? Michael Jordan never had a better defensive rating than Scottie Pippen for any ring. Never. I'll say it again. Scottie Pippen had a better defensive rating every single year he won a ring with Michael Jordan. Everybody knows who the defensive anchor was on that Chicago Bulls team.

Pathetic forum member.

https://i.postimg.cc/LXGZBJKs/Screenshot-20190405-093115-Phonto.jpg

[Roundball_Rock]

hate to go back to lebron but i'm just wondering if 3ball thinks 16ppg on 40% isnt help at all, then what can he say about wade in 2013 haha. Wade put up 16ppg on 50% ts. Now 3ball would point out wade's RS stats which were good for a 2nd option but ofc he doesnt do the same for pippen. as kuniva said, pippen's RS stats are good for a sidekick.

I know he would then transition to jordan making pippen and lebron marginalizing wade which is true to a small extent but usually completely exaggerated by him. It's been pointed out but it's a contradiction to say everything pippen did well was because of jordan but pippen's a poor scorer. Add on wade did play well during the RS so what he wasnt marginalized then but he was in the playoffs, not logically consistent?(PS has a lot to do with injuries/age and secondary options scoring less in the playoffs)
Good points.

I'll add PS also has a lot to do with the defenses you face. For instance, Pippen's worst PO run efficiency wise was 96' and the Bulls faced three of the five best non-Bulls defenses that year (including the best, Seattle).

Also, we have Pippen flyspecked for his worst (usually associated with injuries--that is why he suddenly had PO efficiency drops from 1996-1998 after being consistent from 1990-1995 and being consistent in Portland). We could do the same and find a lot more with other 90's stars.

Re Wade, 3ball will say how much a joke defenses are today but compare 2013 numbers to 1998 at face value. Yet another inconsistency.

[TheCorporation]

https://i.postimg.cc/sxQfmm9F/23has-Asavior-PIP.jpg
Thoughts?

[LAmbruh]

https://i.postimg.cc/sxQfmm9F/23has-Asavior-PIP.jpg
Thoughts?

:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

I'm glad context is finally being applied in the debate on Scottie Pippen.

From 90 to 98, nobody played more games than Scottie Pippen. That's including the playoffs and Championships and two Olympic gold medals in 92 and 96.

Jordan took almost 2 years off. And he didnt want to join The original Dream Team because he knew the importance of rest.

So the question is, was Pippens bad offensive stats in 96 because he couldn't score or was his body overworked. I mean, he had great stats on solid efficiency in most of his playoff runs. Even in 98 before his back gave out on him in the Finals. He played almost 3 extra seasons counting the playoffs and Olympics.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm glad context is finally being applied in the debate on Scottie Pippen.

From 90 to 98, nobody played more games than Scottie Pippen. That's including the playoffs and Championships and two Olympic gold medals in 92 and 96.

Jordan took almost 2 years off. And he didnt want to join The original Dream Team because he knew the importance of rest.

So the question is, was Pippens bad offensive stats in 96 because he couldn't score or was his body overworked. I mean, he had great stats on solid efficiency in most of his playoff runs. Even in 98 before his back gave out on him in the Finals. He played almost 3 extra seasons counting the playoffs and Olympics.

Injuries. He had a great RS, was getting MVP talk, etc. but got hurt in the final 15-20 games and the injuries piled up (his PPG went from 21 through late February to about 15 PPG in March/April). By the playoffs he had three separate injuries.

He still finished top 5 in MVP and was first team all-NBA (second in voting behind MJ) but the dip late in the year carried over to the playoffs.

A legitimate playoff decliner would show that trend year after year like Malone, Stockton, Robinson, et al. With Pippen it's basically only 96', 98'--two injured PO runs (and even for 98' as you noted he was good until his back gave out in the finals). He was consistent from 1990-1995 and in Portland. 97' he had a foot injury for the finals but managed to overcome that (he was actually more efficient than MJ, albeit on lower volume but you get the point.).

If we cherry picked 2 PO runs in 8-9 years (especially by focusing on a PO run with multiple injuries where the team faced 3 of the 5 best opposing defenses in the NBA) we could do the same with any player but only Pippen is singled out for this standard even though as you pointed out his had more mileage than anyone with no rest (not even a rest via missing the playoffs like LeBron got last year, which refreshed him for this season) so it isn't surprising his body started to fail after he turned 30.

The other way you know it is a bogus issue is 90 percent of these people who go on and on about 96' and 98' will either say nothing about real playoff decliners or actually defend them. If it's a legitimate issue, Malone tops the list followed by Stockton. Do we ever see threads from them talking about Malone's eFG percentage nose diving 8 percent in the playoffs? When they compare Pippen to Stockton do they talk about him losing 5 percent in the PO? Or about Stockton scoring 9.7 in a NBA finals and 9.9 in a WCF?