Think of Ewing's Best Playoff Runs [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

07-27-2020, 04:02 PM

3ball

07-27-2020, 04:19 PM

Where was the scoring support? He couldn't get 20 in a single series here. If Ewing had a competent 20+ second scorer to go along with dominant defense (a formula their rival used) the Knicks could have been a dynasty.

Starks (1993-1995)

1995 1st round: 13.0 44%
1995 ECSF: 17.1 46%

1994 1st round: 10.0 43%
1994 ECSF: 14.7 37% (10 on 2 for 11 in Game 7)
1994 ECF: 13.9 39% (17 on 5 for 16 in Game 7)
1994 Finals: 17.7 37% (8 on 2 for 18 in Game 7)

1993 1st round: 17.8 46%
1993 ECSF: 17.0 41%
1993 ECF: 15.2 45%

McDaniel 1992

1992 1st round: 19.2 45%
1992 ECSF: 18.6 50%

Houston 1997

1997 1st round: 19.0 55%
1997 ECSF: 19.3 39%

92' X-man ECSF.... 19 on 50%
92' Pippen ECSF... 16 on 40%

^^^ so Ewing had the better 2nd option and a far better remaining cast, yet MJ still demolished him..

Infact, only Pippen's shitty play allowed the series to go 7 - X-man repeatedly punked the soft Pippen, who always had trouble with physical teams (89' ECF.. 90' ECF.. 92' ECSF.. 96' Finals.. 97' ECF.. 98' ECF)

scuzzy

07-27-2020, 04:24 PM

https://media.giphy.com/media/Vi1YAP4jJen4I/giphy.gif

HBK_Kliq_2

07-27-2020, 05:13 PM

Roundball_Rock

07-27-2020, 05:33 PM

Imagine pairing him up with the offense of Tony Parker and Manu. Duncan shot terrible in the 2005 and 2007 finals but still won because of Manu/Parker offense. Manu in particular has a tendency to be a monster in close out games. Ewing never had a Manu or even a Parker.

For sure. They had the #1 defense from 1992-1995. They were still 4th and 2nd respectively in 96' and 97'. Their problem was zero scoring outside of their superstar.

Knick's offensive ranks 1992-1997: 12 of 27, 22nd of 27, 16th of 27, 16th of 27, 21st of 29, 25th of 29

It is hard to win when you can't score and have only one legitimate scoring threat. If they had even one of prime Manu or Parker to go with Ewing they win multiple rings. Ewing didn't have the luck other superstars had to play with guys like Parker, Manu, Kawhi like Duncan did as you referenced, for example.

guy

07-27-2020, 10:29 PM

Never really understood the logic of just looking at 2nd option scoring like its a 2 on 2 game instead of just looking at the rest of the team as a whole. Seems like a pretty lazy argument.

From 92 to 97 in the six series the Knicks lost, the Knicks team minus Ewing scored more than the opposition minus their top scorer in every one of those series except 97 vs the Heat. Those other 5 times they lost to the Bulls in 92, 93, 96, the Rockets in 94 and the Pacers in 95. Seems like his supporting casts did their part when it came to the scoring and Ewing just couldn’t match the scoring dominance as Jordan, Hakeem, and even Reggie Miller. Of course this is a somewhat simplistic way of looking at it and it’s more complicated then that, but again, never understood why people only look at the 2nd option and not the entire supporting cast.

Roundball_Rock

07-27-2020, 10:46 PM

Carbine

07-27-2020, 11:15 PM

This thread makes me shake my head.

Like Guy pointed out, this obsession around here with second option output is rediculous. It's not reality, it's not how series and games are won.

The Knicks had an all time great defense. Guys outside of Starks helped tremdously to form that type of identity. The Coach helped a lot with it.

I don't think the Knicks did Patrick dirty by not giving him someone that's capable of giving 20 a night. They built a team with a defensive identity, one of the best all time. It's unlucky for them they ran into the greatest dynasty of the modern era in my opinion of the four major sports.

Ewing didn't do himself any favors in the '94 finals either.

The 4-9 players need way more credit than what they get, for every team. Those guys make or break championship teams quite often.

NBAGOAT

07-27-2020, 11:29 PM

insidious301

07-27-2020, 11:46 PM

NBAGOAT that is a great point. I know why this topic was made as well. Everyone understands it takes the best team to win. Sometimes even the best player or #2 can carry you for a series. Generally though it is a team effort, yes. If you are active in the threads that discuss Pippen, we are bombarded by 3ball and some others. They claim that Jordan didn't get enough help from Pippen. Well if that's the case then what do you say about Ewing? Who only had John Starks--a perpetual choker. Roundball is on target if given proper context.

guy

07-28-2020, 09:04 AM

It shows up at the end of a lot of those games. When those other teams needed baskets they had other players to turn to. When you have to rely on John Starks in that situation, well, we know the results...
Smits scored 23 in that series, (exactly the same as Miller, 158 points). Starks put up 17.1 in the same series.

Look at the OP. The Knicks couldn't get 20 in a single series from their second option. That matters when the other team gets 23 from Pippen or Smits.

Sorry, I’m not really buying that that was the argument you were shooting for. Sounds like you were just looking at it from a production standpoint. On its face, from a production standpoint it makes no sense to just look solely at 2nd option scoring and none of the other teammates. Its not 2 on 2.

Either way, the end of game scoring you’re highlighting isn’t delineated by whether the second option was scoring 20 ppg or not.

Pippen wasn’t a go-to scorer expected to create his own shot at the end of games when it slowed down more. Rik Smits wasn't that great at it either. The Rockets had no one worth mentioning for that either.

That’s what guys like Jordan, Hakeem, and Miller did and were expected to do especially given who was around them, as well as garner enough attention to create open opportunities for others. That should’ve been Ewing’s role as well, he just wasn’t as great at doing that.

It is true the Knicks could have won several of those years if Ewing did more but it's also true if he had a competent 2nd option they would have won several of those years.

So if Ewing was a better player and/or his teammates were better, they would’ve been a better and more successful team? That’s not saying anything.

Your OP implies that Ewing did his job and played just as well as his opposing counterpart and just didn't have enough scoring around him. That’s clearly not the case. Its not even his fault that much in many of those cases. He's a great player, just wasn’t on the level of Jordan and Hakeem. Can’t blame him too much for that.

Horatio33

07-28-2020, 09:09 AM

https://media.giphy.com/media/Vi1YAP4jJen4I/giphy.gif

Hahaha!

guy

07-28-2020, 09:09 AM

unlike some others i know what you're doing with this thread. as a general point looking at just a 2nd option as team help is stupid but adding up the pts of everyone besides your star doesnt always work because some stars play more than others. Depth is also an issue 2-9 is likely going score more than 2-7. If you play 5 guys 35+, then every starter you have has a good chance to be productive if you're a good team and that seems like more help than a team that plays 9 guys in the playoffs though it might not be.

A great example is the Bucks this year. They dont have great star power on paper for a contender. However they go a ridiculous 12 deep and can maybe even play 10 guys significant minutes in the playoffs. Giannis also plays absurdly low minutes for a star. Likely top 5 in the league at scoring outside their no1 option though you wouldnt think it from their roster. Pace is also a factor, faster teams will score more. why looking at pts/75 might be the best way to look at how productive someone actually is

Pace is also a factor which is why I think looking at pts/75 might

In all the series I mentioned, at the most, Ewing played 2 less MPG then the top scorer on the other team (92 and 95). In other cases, he actually played more MPG.

I'm not saying the argument is that simple. You don't only impact the game through scoring, there's chemistry issues that could impact scoring, scoring between one guy and his teammates are all interlinked in some way, plus obviously efficiency matters as well. All I'm saying is on its face, from a production standpoint, he clearly had enough relative to his opposition.

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 10:43 AM

It is ironic we are getting this defense of a 2nd option scoring 15 PPG when we daily get threads complaining about a 2nd option scoring 20 PPG.

as a general point looking at just a 2nd option as team help is stupid but adding up the pts of everyone besides your star doesnt always work because some stars play more than others. Depth is also an issue 2-9 is likely going score more than 2-7. If you play 5 guys 35+, then every starter you have has a good chance to be productive if you're a good team and that seems like more help than a team that plays 9 guys in the playoffs though it might not be.

The other issue is if we compare them against a series it doesn't give us a full picture because the Knicks had the #1 defense from 1993-1995 and were #2 in 92' and #4 in 97'. So they are going to hold opposing scoring down a lot more than normal. For example, in 94' the Knicks gave up 10 less points than the league average (3.3 PPG better than the 2nd best team).

In 94' the Knicks "cast" averaged 74.0 PPG. The Rockets' 73.8--and everyone always talks about how little help Hakeem had. As a comparison, the Suns' were at 86.6, Bulls 76.0, Pacers 81.1, Jazz 76.7, Sonics 89.4. So the Knicks were right at the bottom of the group.

That’s what guys like Jordan, Hakeem, and Miller did and were expected to do especially given who was around them, as well as garner enough attention to create open opportunities for others.

Really? So why was it Smits getting the ball time and again with the season on the line in Game 7 of the 98' ECF and again the next year in Game 6 of the ECF in 99'? Miller ran around looking for screens because he couldn't create his own shots. He scored 17 PPG and 16 PPG in those series because his volume was minuscule for an alleged 1st option.

Pippen wasn’t a go-to scorer expected to create his own shot at the end of games when it slowed down more

News to the Knicks since it was Pippen who was hitting the big shots against them in the 93' ECF. When did Starks or McDaniel ever do that? When he was doing that, there was silence from Starks.

Marchesk

07-28-2020, 11:40 AM

So ... replace Starks with Richmond, how many titles?

guy

07-28-2020, 11:43 AM

Really? So why was it Smits getting the ball time and again with the season on the line in Game 7 of the 98' ECF and again the next year in Game 6 of the ECF in 99'? Miller ran around looking for screens because he couldn't create his own shots. He scored 17 PPG and 16 PPG in those series because his volume was minuscule for an alleged 1st option.
News to the Knicks since it was Pippen who was hitting the big shots against them in the 93' ECF. When did Starks or McDaniel ever do that? When he was doing that, there was silence from Starks.

Reggie Miller didn’t create his own shots off the dribble or in the post, but his ability to get himself open and/or hit big shots is rivaled by few. With that said, he wasn’t on Jordan or Hakeem’s level either so him not playing great in a series or game similar to Ewing isn’t that out of the ordinary either.

I never said Pippen and Smits never played well at the end of games or were never expected to do anything. But most of the time, they either didn’t shoot the ball well or weren’t given the responsibility to for whatever reason - likely their skillset – in Pippen’s case, are we really trying to argue now that he was a go-to scorer at the end of games when it slowed down and defenses tightened up? Is it not common knowledge that Jordan took the brunt of that responsibility since he was by far the most skilled scorer in that setting and the attention he got opened up opportunities for everyone else? That's not the same thing as saying Pippen didn't regularly impact the end of games in other ways.

In game 6 of the 92 ECSF, facing elimination vs the Bulls, Starks and McDaniel both had huge scoring games. In game 6 of the 94 ECF Starks was the Knicks best player and the biggest reason why the Knicks facing elimination beat the Pacers for the first time in that series in Indiana – which set them up to eventually win the series. In the 94 Finals, he had a great shooting night in game 5 which helped them take a 3-2 lead (was easily and by far Ewing’s best game of the series), followed by a great game 6 from him which may have won them the series if Hakeem didn’t block his shot at the end or if Ewing didn’t shoot like shit that game as well. In game 3 of the 96 ECSF vs the Bulls, he was the Knicks best player and the biggest reason the Knicks appeared for a second to make that a series.

The idea that John Starks was this total scrub is revisionist history. The reason he was put in the position to have some of the stinkers he had like game 7 of the 94 Finals was 1 – he had his fair share of big games here and there and 2 – his leader wasn’t Jordan and Hakeem which forced him to try and take more of that responsibility . With that said, he obviously wasn’t as good as Pippen or even Rik Smits. But that’s the point – it doesn’t make sense to only look at only one other teammate of Ewing’s to assess his “help” if pointing out scoring production is the basis of the argument.

Phoenix

07-28-2020, 11:58 AM

So ... replace Starks with Richmond, how many titles?

'In theory' meaning based on team chemistry, Richmond on the 94 team could have been a title. I mean they got to game 7 with Starks and obviously Richmond is a tier above, but it's more than just plug and play. Starks was scrappy and gritty which symbolised that team's identity. He came and went offensively and was the kind of guy who could shoot you in or out of a game ( much like a JR Smith a few years ago). Generally he was a sparkplug and played well off Ewing. Mitch obviously boosts their scoring but does he and Ewing get along? I recall Roundball saying something about Ewing not wanting to defer to Allan Houston, and this would have been later on when he was past his prime. 94 Ewing is still prime Ewing( not quite as good as prior years, but still generally a top 10 level player).

I'm actually more inclined to say that if the Bulls weren't standing in the way in 92 or 93, they win one of those. I'm not sure if Portland or Phoenix can effectively counter-act the physicality of the Knicks. Nor Cleveland in 92 seeing as they were the other ECF team that year.

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 12:07 PM

So ... replace Starks with Richmond, how many titles?

93', 94', 95' IMO. 92' they still lose to the Bulls, 97' they get to the ECF but lose to the Bulls. What do you think?

Reggie Miller didn’t create his own shots off the dribble or in the post, but his ability to get himself open and/or hit big shots is rivaled by few.

Well, he didn't get open in those big games and series. His record doesn't match his reputation. 98' and 99' were his best chances at rings and we have play-by-play data from 97' on.

98' ECF Miller averaged 17 on 13 shots a game on 21% usage (5th on his team, Smits was at 23%). 99' ECF he averaged 16 on 13 shots a game on 23% usage (Smits was at 32%).

In the 4th quarter of Game 7 in 98' Miller took exactly 1 shot (missed) and 0 FTA while Smits took 5 shots and 6 FTA. As a comparison, Luc Longley took 4 shots. :oldlol:

In the 4th quarter of Game 6 in 99' Miller went 0 for 3 with no FTA. Smits went 3 for 6 from the field and 1 for 1 from the line. So again, with the season on the line they went to Smits.

in Pippen’s case, are we really trying to argue now that he was a go-to scorer at the end of games when it slowed down and defenses tightened up?

In the same game, Pippen took 3 FGA (including the go ahead FG) and 1 FTA while Miller went AWOL in the 4th (and Pippen's biggest impacts on the game came on defense and a game-high 12 boards, 6 of them offensive).

Pippen came up huge in the 93' ECF, both overall (SI called him the series MVP) and in the clutch. Where is the corresponding performance from Starks or McDaniel or Houstin in 97'? That's the point.

The idea that John Starks was this total scrub is revisionist history.

No, but he was a 15 PPG player in his prime which is bad for a 2nd option. Guys put up 20 and are dissed here. Look at this:

1995 1st round: 13.0 44%
1995 ECSF: 17.1 46%

1994 1st round: 10.0 43%
1994 ECSF: 14.7 37% (10 on 2 for 11 in Game 7)
1994 ECF: 13.9 39% (17 on 5 for 16 in Game 7)
1994 Finals: 17.7 37% (8 on 2 for 18 in Game 7)

1993 1st round: 17.8 46%
1993 ECSF: 17.0 41%
1993 ECF: 15.2 45%

He never exceeds 18 and he is below 15 several times. This is the second option on a contender...

You pointed to some good games but the overall trend is poor. The Knicks got in a lot of Game 7's from 1992-1995. Let's look at those.

1992 vs. Bulls: McDaniel 14/7/0 on 40%; Pippen 17/11/11 on 64%
1994 vs. Bulls: Starks 10/1/3 on 18%; Grant 17/4/1 on 50%
1994 vs. Pacers: Starks 17/3/4 on 31%; Smits 12/6/1 on 46%
1994 vs. Rockets: Starks 8/1/2 on 11%; Thorpe 6/9/3 on 43%
1995 vs. Pacers: Starks 19/3/3 on 55%; Smits 19/4/1 on 53%

You don't see a problem here? Let's expand it out to get 93' and 97' in here.

1993 G6 vs. Bulls: Starks 14/5/5 on 46%; Pippen 24/6/7 on 50%
1997 G7 vs. Heat: Houston 25/1/6 on 41%; Mourning 22/12/0 on 50%

You can cherry pick games here and there but there is a clear trend here.

But that’s the point – it doesn’t make sense to only look at only one other teammate of Ewing’s to assess his “help” if pointing out scoring production is the basis of the argument.

The Knicks' strength was defense. Their offenses consistently sucked.

insidious301

07-28-2020, 12:34 PM

Not a peep about Jordan needing "help from Scottie", but now its suddenly not about your #2. Instead it is overall team strength! Like nobody goes into these threads with that in mind haha.

guy

07-28-2020, 12:46 PM

Well, he didn't get open in those big games and series. His record doesn't match his reputation. 98' and 99' were his best chances at rings and we have play-by-play data from 97' on.

98' ECF Miller averaged 17 on 13 shots a game on 21% usage (5th on his team, Smits was at 23%). 99' ECF he averaged 16 on 13 shots a game on 23% usage (Smits was at 32%).

In the 4th quarter of Game 7 in 98' Miller took exactly 1 shot (missed) and 0 FTA while Smits took 5 shots and 6 FTA. As a comparison, Luc Longley took 4 shots. :oldlol:

In the 4th quarter of Game 6 in 99' Miller went 0 for 3 with no FTA. Smits went 3 for 6 from the field and 1 for 1 from the line. So again, with the season on the line they went to Smits.

Reggie has gotten overrated. Not arguing he hasn’t been. And I’d still rank Ewing as an overall better player, but for end-of-game scoring, Reggie was better.

In the same game, Pippen took 3 FGA (including the go ahead FG) and 1 FTA while Miller went AWOL in the 4th (and Pippen's biggest impacts on the game came on defense and a game-high 12 boards, 6 of them offensive).

Pippen came up huge in the 93' ECF, both overall (SI called him the series MVP) and in the clutch. Where is the corresponding performance from Starks or McDaniel or Houstin in 97'? That's the point.

That’s nice. Doesn’t change anything I said. Saying Pippen was a reliable go-to scorer at the end of games is complete revisionist history. Which is why the Bulls didn’t give him that role. Doesn’t mean he didn’t have impact in other ways like you mentioned.

Umm, I already pointed out big clutch games that Starks had. Doesn’t mean anyone is saying he’s as good as Pippen. Don’t worry no one is trying to make that comparison. :oldlol:

No, but he was a 15 PPG player in his prime which is bad for a 2nd option. Guys put up 20 and are dissed here. Look at this:

You continue to ignore the point. 2nd option scoring isn’t the sole determinant of the quality of a supporting cast and you’re basically excusing Ewing for it. If Ewing was scoring 27-35 ppg in those series the way his opposing counterparts were in most of those series instead of being outscored to the degree he was (7-13 ppg in some cases), they probably win all those series they lost from 92-97 assuming those teams don’t up their games in reaction to it. So his teammates scoring wasn’t the issue unless we’re holding Ewing to a lower standard then his opposing counterparts – if that’s the argument then sure, blame the teammates but its not really a fair argument then.

guy

07-28-2020, 12:57 PM

Not a peep about Jordan needing "help from Scottie", but now its suddenly not about your #2. Instead it is overall team strength! Like nobody goes into these threads with that in mind haha.

I’m not on this forum posting endlessly on a regular basis like some people are so my arguments are my arguments and no one else’s - the opposite is true as well.

The thread isn’t about Jordan or Pippen, its about Ewing and making excuses for him by citing his lack of scoring help. Is the fact that his teammates usually outscored the other team’s top scorer’s teammates while Ewing was routinely outscored by the other team’s top scorer, and most of the time by a lot, something to just be ignored?

The Knicks pushed the Bulls and Rockets to the brink or close to it for 3 straight years. With that being the case, Ewing isn’t nearly as good as Jordan or Hakeem. Vs the Bulls, none of his teammates were nearly as good as Pippen. So for what reason were the series that close other than overall team strength then?

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 01:07 PM

People can read the 1) Starks series by series numbers 2) Starks in Game 7 numbers and reach their own conclusions.

Saying Pippen was a reliable go-to scorer at the end of games is complete revisionist history. Which is why the Bulls didn’t give him that role.

Yes, MJ hit every single big shot (except Paxson and Kerr doing it once each--who was it that caused Paxson to get open in the first place again?).

Umm, I already pointed out big clutch games that Starks had.

Via cherry picking. You can do that with almost any NBA starter.

If Ewing was scoring 27-35 ppg in those series the way his opposing counterparts were in most of those series instead of being outscored to the degree he was (7-13 ppg in some cases), they probably win all those series they lost from 92-97 assuming those teams don’t up their games in reaction to it

He wasn't a 27-35 PPG type scorer, which means he needed more help scoring wise than MJ or Hakeem. Ewing was 29 PPG in 90', 27 PPG in 91' but never higher than 24.5 outside of those years. From 1992-1997, when NY was a contender, he averaged 23.6.

The Knicks lost to Indiana and Miami. Those teams didn't have 27-35 PPG scorers. Miller and Smits averaged 22.6 each; Hardaway 22.9 and Mourning 19.1. Ewing had problems against Indiana (Smits outplayed him) but he outscored the Miami guys at 23.7. Plus, the point of having help is to be there when you have a down series (if Ewing had a Smits scoring 22.6 the Knicks win nearly all these series).

The thread isn’t about Jordan or Pippen, its about Ewing and making excuses for him by citing his lack of scoring help. Is the fact that his teammates usually outscored the other team’s top scorer’s teammates while Ewing was routinely outscored by the other team’s top scorer, and most of the time by a lot, something to just be ignored?

It partly is. I see MJ fans complain about Pippen scoring 20 every day so partly wanted to see what they would say about Stark's scoring. You are defending him and the "Pippen didn't score enough!" brigade (of which you are not a member--you are among the more reasonable MJ fans) is silent.

The Knicks pushed the Bulls and Rockets to the brink or close to it for 3 straight years. With that being the case, Ewing isn’t nearly as good as Jordan or Hakeem. Vs the Bulls, none of his teammates were nearly as good as Pippen. So for what reason were the series that close other than overall team strength then?

Defense.

insidious301

07-28-2020, 01:14 PM

I’m not on this forum posting endlessly on a regular basis like some people are so my arguments are my arguments and no one else’s - the opposite is true as well.

The thread isn’t about Jordan or Pippen, its about Ewing and making excuses for him by citing his lack of scoring help. Is the fact that his teammates usually outscored the other team’s top scorer’s teammates while Ewing was routinely outscored by the other team’s top scorer, and most of the time by a lot, something to just be ignored?

The Knicks pushed the Bulls and Rockets to the brink or close to it for 3 straight years. With that being the case, Ewing isn’t nearly as good as Jordan or Hakeem. Vs the Bulls, none of his teammates were nearly as good as Pippen. So for what reason were the series that close other than overall team strength then?

That is fair. But if you were on the forum more, you would know this is an extension of the "Jordan no help" report. The myth 3ball and other Jordan fans perpetuate. Roundball countered that well here if I say so myself. New York relied mostly on their defense, another reason why the games were always close. You could then make an argument that if Ewing had Pippen, and Jordan had Starks, New York beats Chicago. I'm not making the claim however the thin margin of error makes the hypothetical fitting.

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 01:19 PM

You could then make an argument that if Ewing had Pippen, and Jordan had Starks, New York beats Chicago. I'm not making the claim however the thin margin of error makes the hypothetical fitting.

Yeah--I think that is pretty clear. The margins were so close the Knicks would get much better and the Bulls much worse if you swap Pippen/Starks.

It is funny, they complain about MJ not having help without ever factoring in the "help" the other contenders #1 options had. Hence the daily complaints about Pippen scoring 20 PPG while zero on Starks scoring 15-16 PPG and Smits 16-17 PPG (or whatever it was) etc.

insidious301

07-28-2020, 01:33 PM

Yeah--I think that is pretty clear. The margins were so close the Knicks would get much better and the Bulls much worse if you swap Pippen/Starks.

It is funny, they complain about MJ not having help without ever factoring in the "help" the other contenders #1 options had. Hence the daily complaints about Pippen scoring 20 PPG while zero on Starks scoring 15-16 PPG and Smits 16-17 PPG (or whatever it was) etc.

For Starks it is especially moronic. He was outscored by Pippen, true, but Pippen also had far more impact on defense. And other facets like passing and rebounding. Jordan carrying the Bulls in that series would be the equivalent of a bad joke.

guy

07-28-2020, 01:34 PM

Yes, MJ hit every single big shot (except Paxson and Kerr doing it once each--who was it that caused Paxson to get open in the first place again?).

Detecting sarcasm. You understand Jordan being the go-to scorer doesn’t mean no one else hit a big shot right? Paxson and Kerr aren’t breaking people down or doing work on the post.

Via cherry picking. You can do that with almost any NBA starter.

Did you not just do that with Smits?

He wasn't a 27-35 PPG type scorer, which means he needed more help scoring wise than MJ or Hakeem. Ewing was 29 PPG in 90', 27 PPG in 91' but never higher than 24.5 outside of those years. From 1992-1997, when NY was a contender, he averaged 23.6.

Sooo we are lowering the standard for Ewing? Got it. Again, not a fair argument then.

The Knicks lost to Indiana and Miami. Those teams didn't have 27-35 PPG scorers. Miller and Smits averaged 22.6 each; Hardaway 22.9 and Mourning 19.1. Ewing had problems against Indiana (Smits outplayed him) but he outscored the Miami guys at 23.7. Plus, the point of having help is to be there when you have a down series (if Ewing had a Smits scoring 22.6 the Knicks win nearly all these series).

The guys having a down series as often as Ewing did tend to not win as much as those didn’t have a down series as often.

Defense.

Is not that part of team strength? I do believe that defense has more to do with effort then offense does, so if that’s what you’re saying then sure. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that his teammates did score more then the other team’s top scorer’s teammates scored .

guy

07-28-2020, 01:43 PM

That is fair. But if you were on the forum more, you would know this is an extension of the "Jordan no help" report. The myth 3ball and other Jordan fans perpetuate. Roundball countered that well here if I say so myself. New York relied mostly on their defense, another reason why the games were always close. You could then make an argument that if Ewing had Pippen, and Jordan had Starks, New York beats Chicago. I'm not making the claim however the thin margin of error makes the hypothetical fitting.

Sure, but if the argument is that Jordan had more help than Ewing and that's why Jordan won, then the appropriate hypothetical would be switching Ewing and Jordan, not Pippen and Starks, because that actually encompasses both player's entire supporting casts (of course maybe it also makes more sense to take into account positional differences someway i.e. switch Bill Cartwright with Gerald Wilkins / Doc Rivers also for example). If thats the case, given the series were that close but Jordan was a much better player then Ewing, then Jordan still wins.

Of course, both scenarios are not that simple, but on its face, those would be the conclusions.

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 01:54 PM

For Starks it is especially moronic. He was outscored by Pippen, true, but Pippen also had far more impact on defense. And other facets like passing and rebounding. Jordan carrying the Bulls in that series would be the equivalent of a bad joke.

Yeah, it is ironic: the Bulls' toughest comp had the weakest 2nd option of any of the contenders of that era while the Bulls had the best yet the MJ guys are complaining about their 2nd option decades later. :confusedshrug:

You understand Jordan being the go-to scorer doesn’t mean no one else hit a big shot right?

The one example we hear about Starks is a shot he missed. With Pippen I gave you some examples of shots he actually made in big series.

Did you not just do that with Smits?

You brought up scoring in the 95' series, crediting Miller when Smits matched him.

Sooo we are lowering the standard for Ewing? Got it. Again, not a fair argument then.

Not for him as a player--he bears blame for some of his shortcomings. I blame his management, though, for not getting him a legitimate 2nd scorer. Both can be true.

The guys having a down series as often as Ewing did tend to not win as much as those didn’t have a down series as often.

True but as has been noted all these series discussed here were close so it wouldn't take much to swing them.

Is not that part of team strength? I do believe that defense has more to do with effort then offense does, so if that’s what you’re saying then sure. Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that his teammates did score more then the other team’s top scorer’s teammates scored .

It is part of team strength--I consider them to be the Bulls' top 90's rival (as do most MJ fans).

But you are missing a lot of the ISH conversation. ISH is obsessed with 1) scoring 2) sidekick scoring. Defense, etc. doesn't enter into the equation. That's the context that led to the OP: all this whining about 20 from a sidekick when you had the Knicks getting 15-16 (on average) in winnable series. :lol

but if the argument is that Jordan had more help than Ewing and that's why Jordan won, then the appropriate hypothetical would be switching Ewing and Jordan,

In the 94' MVP thread the argument MJ fans advanced was Pippen in 94' had equal or better help than Ewing (and more than Hakeem, Robinson). If that is the case, then MJ had>>>more help since Pippen/Grant/Armstrong>>Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc as a "cast."

The argument he is referencing is that MJ didn't have proper help. Hence switching Pippen and Starks. The Knicks suddenly win multiple rings with "no help Pippen".

insidious301

07-28-2020, 02:06 PM

Sure, but if the argument is that Jordan had more help than Ewing and that's why Jordan won, then the appropriate hypothetical would be switching Ewing and Jordan, not Pippen and Starks, because that actually encompasses both player's entire supporting casts (of course maybe it also makes more sense to take into account positional differences someway i.e. switch Bill Cartwright with Gerald Wilkins / Doc Rivers also for example). If thats the case, given the series were that close but Jordan was a much better player then Ewing, then Jordan still wins.

Of course, both scenarios are not that simple, but on its face, those would be the conclusions.

Except we don't hear that "Jordan had more help". It is the opposite with Pippen at the forefront. This has been the talking point for weeks now. If we took your position, which nobody contends, then I don't see the argument for Jordan. He would be on a worse team with an inferior #2.

In the 94' MVP thread the argument MJ fans advanced was Pippen in 94' had equal or better help than Ewing (and more than Hakeem, Robinson). If that is the case, then MJ had>>>more help since Pippen/Grant/Armstrong>>Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc as a "cast."

The argument he is referencing is that MJ didn't have proper help. Hence switching Pippen and Starks. The Knicks suddenly win multiple rings with "no help Pippen".

Exactly.

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 02:12 PM

Except we don't hear that "Jordan had more help". It is the opposite with Pippen at the forefront. This has been the talking point for weeks now. If we took your position, which nobody argues, then I don't see the argument for Jordan. He would be on the worse team with an inferior #2.

Yup. We have a cottage industry of "MJ had no help" with "Pippen sucking (at scoring)" being the entire basis of it. Yet none of these people have one word to stay about Starks, McDaniel, Houston failing to get to 20 in any of these series (20 would be average for Pippen). When Stockton's low scoring comes up they remain silent or defend him. Then you have the Miller obsession. Miller is a beast for scoring 21 on 14 shots in the ECF; Pippen a bum for 20 on 16 in the ECF (apparently 20 sucks for a 2nd option but is awesome for a 1st option).

Which is what made the 94' talk amusing. Pippen/Grant/BJ sucked but Grant/BJ/Kukoc were this awesome "cast" that should have won the chip if that bum Pippen didn't fail these beasts.

To be fair, you aren't like the other MJ stans but what we are telling you is the context of this discussion.

insidious301

07-28-2020, 02:20 PM

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 02:31 PM

Good point, but I'm not an "MJ stan". I was a fan of Jordan the same way I am of players like LeBron, Kawhi, Durant, Shaq, Barkley, Doctor J etc. I like basketball period. The "stans" are crazies who create talking points that you counter like in your OP.

Sorry--that comment was for guy (but I can see how it was unclear who it was for in my post). guy is a MJ fan but he isn't like the ones who you see in these Pippen/Jordan threads. For instance, guy once said Pippen was a top 5 player for several years. Those other guys will barely, if at all, place him in the top 10. :lol

insidious301

07-28-2020, 04:21 PM

No worries Roundball. I probably could've read that a little slower. With all the typos I do here who knows if it would have registered though. I know you're a big Pippen guy who preaches his gospel haha. But it is rare for Jordan fans to rank Pippen that high. Top 10 to a number of stans would be "pushing it" quite frankly. I disagree of course but that is the truth.

Roundball_Rock

07-28-2020, 05:20 PM

What is striking to me is that is a big change from what they thought about him when I started on ISH. In that thread weeks ago I read when I replied to you in another thread with old quotes one MJ guy placed Pippen on par with Ewing and better than Drexler in that 2010 or 11' post. I saw the same poster a month ago saying Gasol>Pippen. You also had stuff like bruceblitz melting down and posting a video saying Pippen was "overrated"--and had him 43rd all-time (so around where Drexler, Payton are). How many MJ fans have Pippen top 50 or top 60 today?

MJ fans have become more extreme under the LeBron challenge than they were when it was Kobe.

guy

07-29-2020, 09:30 AM

The one example we hear about Starks is a shot he missed. With Pippen I gave you some examples of shots he actually made in big series.

That doesn’t make Pippen a reliable go-to scorer, which is why he wasn’t used that way. Not sure how many times I have to repeat this.

Did I say that John Starks was this reliable go-to scorer? He had his moments but I wouldn't call him reliable. I already went through why he was put into those situations, but its more of an indictment on Ewing.

Not for him as a player--he bears blame for some of his shortcomings. I blame his management, though, for not getting him a legitimate 2nd scorer. Both can be true.

If you’re saying he needed more help scoring-wise, you’re lowering the standard for him. He wasn’t an equal overall player then Jordan or Hakeem either, which means he would need more help.

Both can’t be true, cause all these comparisons are relative to a certain standard. If we’re comparing to the standard of Jordan or Hakeem, and his teammates outscored their teammates, from a scoring perspective he clearly had enough help, but obviously there was still some other issue i.e. he wasn’t the scorer Jordan or Hakeem were.

True but as has been noted all these series discussed here were close so it wouldn't take much to swing them.

And it makes little sense to blame his teammates who scored more then Jordan and Hakeem’s teammates vs blaming Ewing who fell significantly short of matching Jordan and Hakeem’s scoring impact.

But you are missing a lot of the ISH conversation. ISH is obsessed with 1) scoring 2) sidekick scoring. Defense, etc. doesn't enter into the equation. That's the context that led to the OP: all this whining about 20 from a sidekick when you had the Knicks getting 15-16 (on average) in winnable series. :lol

I could care less about the “ISH conversation”. It makes no sense to hold more emphasis on “sidekick scoring” vs overall supporting cast scoring. I don’t know how many times I have to say its not 2 on 2. If we’re going to base an argument around “ISH conversation” vs logical sense then I’m not trying to waste my time.

The argument he is referencing is that MJ didn't have proper help. Hence switching Pippen and Starks. The Knicks suddenly win multiple rings with "no help Pippen".

Jordan’s only help was not just Pippen and Ewing’s only help was not just Starks so that hypothetical doesn’t make more sense than the one I mentioned especially if we’re making the tired old excuse that Jordan only beat Ewing (or whoever for that matter) because he had more help.

guy

07-29-2020, 09:38 AM

Except we don't hear that "Jordan had more help". It is the opposite with Pippen at the forefront. This has been the talking point for weeks now. If we took your position, which nobody contends, then I don't see the argument for Jordan. He would be on a worse team with an inferior #2.

Exactly.

I don't know if you are picking and choosing what you read, but we hear "Jordan had more help" all the time. It is pretty much what keeps the Jordan/Lebron arguments alive since its used as a simple excuse for why Lebron hasn't been nearly as successful (I'm not trying to turn this into a Jordan/Lebron just pointing out that as an example since it is the most dominating topic here).

I'm not going to deny that there's alot of Jordan had no help arguments as well, but thats usually from trolls that aren't worth replying to. But thats not the same thing as saying that Jordan's teammates had shortcomings and he had to take a significant load in certain areas as a result, which is nothing extreme at all to say especially to anyone that watched them play.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 10:52 AM

That doesn’t make Pippen a reliable go-to scorer, which is why he wasn’t used that way. Not sure how many times I have to repeat this.
How do you define a reliable go to scorer?

If you’re saying he needed more help scoring-wise, you’re lowering the standard for him. He wasn’t an equal overall player then Jordan or Hakeem either, which means he would need more help.
This isnt a fair assessment. Jordan never won a ring without having a scorer next to him the caliber of Pippen. Why does Pippen have to prove himself by winning or leading a team to a Championship with less help than other guys got?

Both can’t be true, cause all these comparisons are relative to a certain standard. If we’re comparing to the standard of Jordan or Hakeem, and his teammates outscored their teammates, from a scoring perspective he clearly had enough help, but obviously there was still some other issue i.e. he wasn’t the scorer Jordan or Hakeem were.
Or perhaps (especially in the case with Jordan), he (MJ) was
taking more shots than opposing teams number 1. I think 94 proved the Bulls didnt need a guy dropping 30 a night to win. They got that and that's why they dominated.

And it makes little sense to blame his teammates who scored more then Jordan and Hakeem’s teammates vs blaming Ewing who fell significantly short of matching Jordan and Hakeem’s scoring impact.
I dont see how this means anything. The Bulls in 94 outscored the Knicks. How did that work out? And that counting Patrick and his teammates.

I could care less about the “ISH conversation”. It makes no sense to hold more emphasis on “sidekick scoring” vs overall supporting cast scoring. I don’t know how many times I have to say its not 2 on 2. If we’re going to base an argument around “ISH conversation” vs logical sense then I’m not trying to waste my time.

Jordan’s only help was not just Pippen and Ewing’s only help was not just Starks so that hypothetical doesn’t make more sense than the one I mentioned especially if we’re making the tired old excuse that Jordan only beat Ewing (or whoever for that matter) because he had more help.
So let me get this straight. You dont want to narrow down this conversation to sidekick and 2-2 scoring, it's a team game. Which has always been my argument. But then, in the next paragraph, you say Jordan beat Ewing? Jordan didnt beat Ewing. The Bulls beat the Knicks. And Hell yes. The Bulls had more help for Jordan than the Knicks had for Ewing. We already saw how well the Bulls were without MJ. Take Ewing off that 94 Knick team and guve them a center the caliber of Pete Myers and they dont even make the playoffs. The Knicks barely beat the Bulls without MJ.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 11:09 AM

I'd like to address this "reliable scorer" BS. A lot goes into a player being able to score the basketball. Obviously skill, but teammates ability to take pressure off you but making the opposition pay for double teaming, you bigs setting competent picks, and how much energy you have to exert on defense, rebounding etc.

This isnt a video game guys. Players get tired. And often they run out of gas trying to get the win and compete through three and a half quarters that they just dont have enough to finish.

insidious301

07-29-2020, 12:09 PM

I don't know if you are picking and choosing what you read, but we hear "Jordan had more help" all the time. It is pretty much what keeps the Jordan/Lebron arguments alive since its used as a simple excuse for why Lebron hasn't been nearly as successful (I'm not trying to turn this into a Jordan/Lebron just pointing out that as an example since it is the most dominating topic here).

I'm not going to deny that there's alot of Jordan had no help arguments as well, but thats usually from trolls that aren't worth replying to. But thats not the same thing as saying that Jordan's teammates had shortcomings and he had to take a significant load in certain areas as a result, which is nothing extreme at all to say especially to anyone that watched them play.

You're not doing yourself any favors bringing LeBron up. Comparing his cast to Jordan's is a different argument altogether. We do see that, no argument there, but its in a different context than what is being debated now. Recently. The picture painted is Jordan winning in spite of Pippen. Pippen is then "matched up" vs sidekicks from that era. Kind of weird that you're admittedly not on ISH much, and yet you're trying to alter the narrative.

guy

07-29-2020, 12:50 PM

How do you define a reliable go to scorer?

A guy that can consistently create his own shot and convert at a high enough efficiency in the half court when the game slows down mostly either off the dribble and/or in the post and were good enough to force the defense to have to make a decision to double team him or not.

Jordan never won a ring without having a scorer next to him the caliber of Pippen. Why does Pippen have to prove himself by winning or leading a team to a Championship with less help than other guys got?

You realize I was talking about Ewing not Pippen right? :oldlol: Good lord.

Or perhaps (especially in the case with Jordan), he (MJ) was taking more shots than opposing teams number 1. I think 94 proved the Bulls didnt need a guy dropping 30 a night to win.

Not sure here if you think I’m talking about Ewing or Pippen here – either way, the idea that the Bulls didn’t need Jordan to take to take ~25 shots per game in the playoffs give or take a few depending on the season and they would’ve won all of the same titles if instead he shot as much as Ewing and was taking 5-10 less shots per game against the better competition is completely laughable :oldlol:. If he had Dwyane Wade or Kobe Bryant on his team, then sure maybe, but he didn’t. They dominated, but they didn’t dominate to that degree that they had that large of a margin of error. The 94 Bulls were worse then most of those Knicks teams, so you're not saying anything with that.

I dont see how this means anything. The Bulls in 94 outscored the Knicks. How did that work out?

Rare occurrence where the loser actually ended up scoring more due to higher deficits in their wins. General point still stands.

Either way, Ewing outscored Pippen, but his teammates didn’t outscore Pippen’s teammates. If the Knicks lost this series, sure you could make a larger argument here that his teammates should’ve given him more scoring help and not blame Ewing for not scoring more.

But in the series I mentioned where he’s literally getting outscored by Jordan/Hakeem by 7-13 ppg while his teammates are scoring more then the opposition, I don’t see how the ones to blame are his teammates for not scoring more .

So let me get this straight. You dont want to narrow down this conversation to sidekick and 2-2 scoring, it's a team game. Which has always been my argument. But then, in the next paragraph, you say Jordan beat Ewing? Jordan didnt beat Ewing. The Bulls beat the Knicks.

Follow the conversation cause it doesn’t seem like you did. Based on the argument of scoring help around them, which is what the OP is about, and then also how much better of a scorer Jordan was than Ewing, Jordan would’ve beaten Ewing whether they switched places or not. Scoring help wasn’t the problem for Ewing when it came to when he faced the Bulls. Factor in other stuff if you want, but just looking at scoring help which was the topic at hand, that wasn’t the issue.
Look at it from Ewing’s teammates perspective – if Ewing blamed them for not scoring more when they were scoring more then the opponent minus Jordan/Hakeem/Miller, wouldn’t they justifiably point out that Jordan/Hakeem/Miller were scoring more than Ewing and in many of those cases doing the equivalent of blowing him out?

guy

07-29-2020, 12:51 PM

guy

07-29-2020, 12:54 PM

You're not doing yourself any favors bringing LeBron up. Comparing his cast to Jordan's is a different argument altogether. We do see that, no argument there, but its in a different context than what is being debated now. Recently. The picture painted is Jordan winning in spite of Pippen. Pippen is then "matched up" vs sidekicks from that era. Kind of weird that you're admittedly not on ISH much, and yet you're trying to alter the narrative.

Yes, a picture painted by trolls.

Are you saying there's no argument between Lebron's help and Jordan's help through their career and there's this huge difference? If thats the case, then I think I'm done.

I've been on here for over a decade and generally know what other people arguing, but I'm not on here on most days and I'm definitely not taking into account whats being said in other topics that I'm not participating and don't feel the need to when it comes to topics I am not participating in. If I had to go through the hundreds of threads that RR is in and take that into account whenever I post, I wouldn't do shit else with my life :oldlol:.

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 01:15 PM

Did I say that John Starks was this reliable go-to scorer?

No, but the OP says he wasn't a reliable scorer period (no need to specify contexts when he is at 10 or 13 for entire series).

He wasn’t an equal overall player then Jordan or Hakeem either, which means he would need more help.

Yes.

If we’re comparing to the standard of Jordan or Hakeem, and his teammates outscored their teammates

Based on what? In 94' the Houston and New York "casts" scored the same--the difference was 0.2. You seem to be relying in within series results, not overall performance. That is a flawed way to look at it since NY's all-time great defense would deflate the other team's scoring. That doesn't tell us what their true capability was.

I'm not going to deny that there's alot of Jordan had no help arguments as well, but thats usually from trolls that aren't worth replying to

It isn't just trolls.

But thats not the same thing as saying that Jordan's teammates had shortcomings

They lose credibility because in their narrative only Jordan's teammates (chiefly one) had shortcomings. Everyone else in the 90's walked on water. When you criticize a 90's player from another team, the same people will tend to defend their flaws.

Like I said, you aren't part of this but you may ignore the sea in which we swim but others are aware of it and that factors into our posting.

Or perhaps (especially in the case with Jordan), he (MJ) was
taking more shots than opposing teams number 1. I think 94 proved the Bulls didnt need a guy dropping 30 a night to win. They got that and that's why they dominated.

That is part of the shell game: Jordan takes 30 shots a game in a series, the opposing team's "#1" takes 20 and MJ stans ask why his teammates didn't score more.

We know for a fact the Bulls without MJ were still a top 10 offense. It is a myth they were offensively inept if not for MJ the savior.

Which has always been my argument. But then, in the next paragraph, you say Jordan beat Ewing? Jordan didnt beat Ewing. The Bulls beat the Knicks.

Good catch. In another thread we are hearing "Jordan" beat the Suns. It is always "Jordan" by himself when they win--but when they lose zero blame goes to him. :oldlol:

Recently. The picture painted is Jordan winning in spite of Pippen. Pippen is then "matched up" vs sidekicks from that era. Kind of weird that you're admittedly not on ISH much, and yet you're trying to alter the narrative.

Yup--and Starks arguably was the worst "sidekick" on a contender from that era. Yet not one word here from the people who complain about Pippen's performance each day. It goes to show you those aren't good faith arguments. There is nothing stopping them from saying "Pippen sucked, but Starks sucked even more" or something.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 01:31 PM

What are you saying here? That there's a bunch of guys that would be reliable scorers at the end of games, they just get tired?

No. I'm saying Pippen would've done better if he had what other guys had that you deem reliable. He didnt have that. He seems to be penalized for not taking over games like MJ. Maybe hed have more energy at the end of games to finish if he wasnt relied on every night to do what two guys did the years before.

I cant think of very many players that were asked to do the things he did in 94. Be the best scorer, run the offense, rebound, defend the tough assignments, help others defend their man, and not have anyone on his level like others did or even a little below him. People seem to miss this concept in 94 and 95.

insidious301

07-29-2020, 01:55 PM

Yes, a picture painted by trolls.

Like Roundball said, it isn't just trolls.

Are you saying there's no argument between Lebron's help and Jordan's help through their career and there's this huge difference? If thats the case, then I think I'm done.

What I am saying is, there's an argument, but it has no relevance here. What we are debating right now is something different. Two completely different sets of arguments.

I've been on here for over a decade and generally know what other people arguing, but I'm not on here on most days and I'm definitely not taking into account whats being said in other topics that I'm not participating and don't feel the need to when it comes to topics I am not participating in. If I had to go through the hundreds of threads that RR is in and take that into account whenever I post, I wouldn't do shit else with my life :oldlol:.

I can't speak to Roundball and his activity, but the topic is only based on maybe two or three separate threads. Not hundreds. Would take seconds to process however you weren't in those discussions and just assumed. I don't know about you, but to me, its silly to jump into topics and argue talking points that aren't relevant.

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 01:58 PM

I cant think of very many players that were asked to do the things he did in 94. Be the best scorer, run the offense, rebound, defend the tough assignments, help others defend their man, and not have anyone on his level like others did or even a little below him

Hubie Brown literally laughed about how much the Bulls asked Pippen to do before one of the Knicks games.

People forget Grant went AWOL rebounding in the playoffs. Grant averaged only 6 boards (Oakley was killing him) against the Knicks and Pippen had to pick up the slack and lead the team in rebounding in the playoffs and against the Knicks. In Game 7 Pippen had 16, Grant only 4.

Jordan did tend to hog the ball at the end of games (it worked so why not?) but it is a myth that Jordan scored every point at the end of games. People define "clutch" ridiculously narrowly: a one possession game with 25-30 seconds or less left and it only counts as "clutch" if it is a shot. If you hit a dagger with 70-80 seconds left to seal a series (like Pippen did against the Knicks in the ECF) that doesn't count due to 1) time on the clock 2) it was a 4 point lead, not 3. Or if you draw 3 defenders that leads to Paxson being open, that doesn't count. Or if you steal the ball on Utah's last chance to stay alive in Game 6, that doesn't count either.

So the narrative is it was all MJ except one shot from Paxson (Ainge left Paxson for Pippen) and one from Kerr.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 02:18 PM

A guy that can consistently create his own shot and convert at a high enough efficiency in the half court when the game slows down mostly either off the dribble and/or in the post and were good enough to force the defense to have to make a decision to double team him or not.
So are Bryant, and Iverson considered reliable scorers?

You realize I was talking about Ewing not Pippen right? :oldlol: Good lord.
Even Ewing. He didnt have a guy the caliber of a Gasol, a Pippen, a Worthy, etc.

Not sure here if you think I’m talking about Ewing or Pippen here – either way, the idea that the Bulls didn’t need Jordan to take to take ~25 shots per game in the playoffs give or take a few depending on the season and they would’ve won all of the same titles if instead he shot as much as Ewing and was taking 5-10 less shots per game against the better competition is completely laughable :oldlol:. If he had Dwyane Wade or Kobe Bryant on his team, then sure maybe, but he didn’t. They dominated, but they didn’t dominate to that degree that they had that large of a margin of error. The 94 Bulls were worse then most of those Knicks teams, so you're not saying anything with that.
I'm not saying the Bulls would've won 6 Championships, win 72, 69, game, while having the highest margin of victory, basically not miss a beat had MJ scored less. That's why I said they wouldn't have been as dominant. I do think they win a couple championships. I really think if Pippen wasnt leaned on to do so many other things. Maybe he has the energy to finish at the end of those losses.

Rare occurrence where the loser actually ended up scoring more due to higher deficits in their wins. General point still stands.
No it doesnt because Jordan takes more shots. Duh. Ewing takes more shots than Pippen. You seem to think that in these games, everybody gets the same amount of shots.

Either way, Ewing outscored Pippen, but his teammates didn’t outscore Pippen’s teammates. If the Knicks lost this series, sure you could make a larger argument here that his teammates should’ve given him more scoring help and not blame Ewing for not scoring more.

But in the series I mentioned where he’s literally getting outscored by Jordan/Hakeem by 7-13 ppg while his teammates are scoring more then the opposition, I don’t see how the ones to blame are his teammates for not scoring more .

Again. Because the Knicks spread their shots around more.

Based on the argument of scoring help around them, which is what the OP is about, and then also how much better of a scorer Jordan was than Ewing, Jordan would’ve beaten Ewing whether they switched places or not. Scoring help wasn’t the problem for Ewing when it came to when he faced the Bulls. Factor in other stuff if you want, but just looking at scoring help which was the topic at hand, that wasn’t the issue.
Look at it from Ewing’s teammates perspective – if Ewing blamed them for not scoring more when they were scoring more then the opponent minus Jordan/Hakeem/Miller, wouldn’t they justifiably point out that Jordan/Hakeem/Miller were scoring more than Ewing and in many of those cases doing the equivalent of blowing him out?

The argument isnt Jordan and Ewing. It's the second scorer. Replace Starks with Mitch Richmond and some of the Bulls/Knicks battles are definitely different. Not all. But some.

guy

07-29-2020, 02:25 PM

In 94' the Houston and New York "casts" scored the same--the difference was 0.2.

Not sure what you’re looking at, but the Rockets averaged 86 ppg while the Knicks averaged 87 ppg in the 94 Finals. Hakeem averaged 27 and Ewing averaged 19. So Hakeem’s cast averaged 59 ppg and the Ewing’s cast averaged 68 ppg. And this isn’t a shots issue either, since FGA/FTA wise they are similar with Ewing taking more FGA.

Ewing played relatively well vs the Bulls and didn’t take as many shots in those series as Jordan did, which I will address below, so you can at least try to make the arguments you’re making in those series – still wrong though.

But I don’t understand in what world you can argue that his teammates should’ve done more here then instead of clearly assigning blame to Ewing. He had an all-time bad Finals here.

You seem to be relying in within series results, not overall performance.

Don’t defense and offense go hand-in-hand? If you deflate the other team’s scoring, then you don’t have to score as much. So given the defense, Ewing’s supporting cast scored enough given they significantly outscored Hakeem’s supporting cast.

When you’re talking about overall performance / capability, are you referring to the regular season? Why does that hold more relevance then how their teammates actually performed relative to against each other in the series in question?

If you wanted to dig deeper and make the argument that player X took so many shots that it threw guys who were capable of contributing more off of rhythm, which is a valid reason to make for a lot of the ball dominant scorers/point guards we have seen in history, thats legit, but I don’t think that applies to Hakeem, Ewing, or Jordan in these cases.

Jordan takes 30 shots a game in a series, the opposing team's "#1" takes 20 and MJ stans ask why his teammates didn't score more.

For the most part, the 25-30 shots a game he took in a series were the best shots available for the team. There’s a good chance they don’t win any titles if he’s taking 20 shots per game. You’re making it seem like these weren’t mostly needed and he was just this selfish scorer in the championship years that was forcing shots up like he was Trae Young or some shit.

Furthermore, you’re making it seem like shot creation isn’t one of the most important skills in the game. Ewing probably didn’t have the capability to take that many quality shots. So why are his teammates blamed for that when the team that’s beating them has a guy that does that?

We know for a fact the Bulls without MJ were still a top 10 offense.

Based on what? Whatever it is, its completely revisionist history that the Bulls didn’t have their fair share of lulls offensively in the playoffs that required Jordan to take them out of it. Regular season doesn’t translate perfectly into the playoffs given the level of competition and intensity. And this being an issue doesn’t equate to being inept.

guy

07-29-2020, 02:28 PM

It isn't just trolls.

Let me guess. You think saying Pippen wasn’t a reliable go-to scorer is trolling? Or that Pippen is top 40 instead of top 25 is trolling? Or that the Bulls relied a lot Jordan offensively? Or that other teams the Bulls faced may have been deeper teams (the same people that complain about a statement like this will co-sign when Lebron says “we’re top-heavy as ****” and “we need a backup PG”? :oldlol: )

If legitimate opinions that have been echoed by legitimate people that have covered/played/coached the sport like this is trolling to you, then I’m done. Keep bitching like you have been for the last 4 months.:oldlol:

guy

07-29-2020, 02:32 PM

No. I'm saying Pippen would've done better if he had what other guys had that you deem reliable. He didnt have that. He seems to be penalized for not taking over games like MJ. Maybe hed have more energy at the end of games to finish if he wasnt relied on every night to do what two guys did the years before.

I cant think of very many players that were asked to do the things he did in 94. Be the best scorer, run the offense, rebound, defend the tough assignments, help others defend their man, and not have anyone on his level like others did or even a little below him. People seem to miss this concept in 94 and 95.

So there's not one-star teams that carry their teams offensively at the end of games?

Pippen's whole career wasn't just 94 and 95. The most of the rest of his career he had Jordan :oldlol: So he was too tired to be a go-to scorer even in those years? It wasn't ideal for the Bulls or any team to rely that much on one guy to be their go-to scorer at the end of games.

Carbine

07-29-2020, 02:38 PM

Something I do find interesting is that in EVERY series of their first 2 title playoff runs and the first series of '93 is Jordan has been the best player of the series.

This trend seems to continue for the remaining series of 93 and all of 96, 97 and 98.

For as much winning as the Bulls did, it is worth pointing out that in no series did the "#2" outplay the #1 which is unheard of.

There have been series where Duncan was not the best player when he won titles. A few actually.

Few series where Shaq was not the best player - even in his prime.

Steph/Durant had series where one was better than the other.

Magic/Kareem were flip flopping between best player in series during their title runs. Even Worthy was a time or two.

Teams who have won this much, in every case the #2 options have series where they play better than the #1.

MJ seems to be the only example of never being outplayed by his #2 for a team that has won multiple titles.

guy

07-29-2020, 02:39 PM

I can't speak to Roundball and his activity, but the topic is only based on maybe two or three separate threads. Not hundreds. Would take seconds to process however you weren't in those discussions and just assumed. I don't know about you, but to me, its silly to jump into topics and argue talking points that aren't relevant.

My initial post was the 7th post in this topic and I directly addressed the first post. What am I arguing thats not relevant? You're really saying I should go into other threads and take that into account? The f*ck? :oldlol: If the OP wanted me to take into account other arguments, he should've put that in the OP or just continued whatever argument he was trying to make in those other threads.

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 02:48 PM

The talk about the Bulls' drop-off in 94' without MJ ignores they had a greater drop-off without Pippen in 98' (similar performance but they were declining from 69 wins in 97' versus from 57 in 93'). We always hear about 94' but nothing about 98'.

Not sure what you’re looking at

RS numbers. PO numbers don't work for the Knicks because they suppress the other team's numbers so much it doesn't tell us what the other team's true scoring capability was.

But I don’t understand in what world you can argue that his teammates should’ve done more here then instead of clearly assigning blame to Ewing. He had an all-time bad Finals here.

I agree on the finals but it isn't mutually exclusive. Even with Ewing choking the chip was right there if Starks also didn't choke or if someone else stepped up (Oakley? Mason?).

For the most part, the 25-30 shots a game he took in a series were the best shots available for the team. There’s a good chance they don’t win any titles if he’s taking 20 shots per game

True--but that doesn't negate the point of it being disingenuous for MJ fans to always complain about teammate scoring while ignoring MJ left less on the table than the #1 on literally any other team.

Based on what?

Offensive rating.

its completely revisionist history that the Bulls didn’t have their fair share of lulls offensively in the playoffs that required Jordan to take them out of it

Yeah, or for Pippen or Kukoc to take them out. It was MJ more often than others of course but it wasn't always him (Pippen for large parts of the second half of Game 1 of the 97' Finals, Kukoc in the third quarter of Game 7 of the 98' ECF as examples).

It also ignores the inconvenient fact that the Bulls offense without Pippen was worse than the Bulls offense without Jordan. We always see MJ get all the credit for the offense so why did they slip to 13th without Pippen?

Let me guess.

I said they weren't trolls. :confusedshrug:

You think saying Pippen wasn’t a reliable go-to scorer is trolling? Or that Pippen is top 40 instead of top 25 is trolling? Or that the Bulls relied a lot Jordan offensively? Or that other teams the Bulls faced may have been deeper teams

That isn't what we hear. What we hear are:

*Pippen sucked at scoring and MJ would have won more with literally anyone else who is mentioned as a potential "replacement" 2nd option.
*:lol top 40? The way they talk about him the question is whether he is even top 100.
*The Bulls relied exclusively on MJ because his team sucked.

The final point leads to hypocrisy. Depending on the thread we hear 1) the other teams were better 2) the other teams had no shot because they were vastly inferior. It seems to turn on whether the issue is "MJ" or another star. If the former, MJ slayed great teams all by himself. If the latter, the team sucked (as MJ stans defend every 90's star, except one, and this includes excusing every loss they had).

It wasn't ideal for the Bulls or any team to rely that much on one guy to be their go-to scorer at the end of games.

You said it yourself: he was an all-time great scorer, shot creator--those were the team's best shots. Now you are saying they should have shifted some of those shots away from MJ?

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 02:52 PM

MJ seems to be the only example of never being outplayed by his #2 for a team that has won multiple titles.

Possibly--Sports Illustrated said Pippen was MVP of the 93' ECF and there was a first round series where Pippen exceeded Jordan in game score but your point is valid.

It also is a bit odd: if MJ is the GOAT, why are we setting the bar at another player outplaying him? The bar should be Pippen vs. the other team's stars.

The issue is Jordan is the only one whose team was a contender without him (despite having the deck stacked against them via not being given a chance to replace MJ). So we get songs about it being all MJ which gets blown up by the reality of what the team did without him. According to the MJ narrative, they should have went to the lottery like LeBron's teams do since it was all MJ.

The "it was all MJ" crowd has never been able to explain away the obvious: if it was all MJ, how did they magically contend without him?

Look at your list. The Lakers sucked when Magic retired. The Worthy you mentioned? Crumbled as a #1.

Shaq? Magic were 45 wins and the first round without him. Lakers to the lottery.

LeBron? It is a punchline how bad his teams are without him.

guy

07-29-2020, 02:54 PM

So are Bryant, and Iverson considered reliable scorers?

Yes. Should’ve mentioned getting to the free throw line as well.

If you’re going to mention %, which I’m guessing you are, is Deandre Jordan a more reliable scorer then Kobe and AI?

If DJ, or Pippen, tried to take the shots Kobe and AI were given that responsibility and were relied upon to take the type of shots those guys did at the end of games, which were the best shots available in those settings, there efficiency would plummet.

I'm not saying the Bulls would've won 6 Championships, win 72, 69, game, while having the highest margin of victory, basically not miss a beat had MJ scored less. That's why I said they wouldn't have been as dominant. I do think they win a couple championships. I really think if Pippen wasnt leaned on to do so many other things. Maybe he has the energy to finish at the end of those losses.

Sure. :hammerhead:

No it doesnt because Jordan takes more shots. Duh. Ewing takes more shots than Pippen. You seem to think that in these games, everybody gets the same amount of shots.

Again. Because the Knicks spread their shots around more.

And maybe they shouldn’t have done that then, but were forced to cause Ewing wasn’t as capable?

I already addressed these for most part. If you have another point feel free. Not going to continue to repeat myself.

The argument isnt Jordan and Ewing. It's the second scorer. Replace Starks with Mitch Richmond and some of the Bulls/Knicks battles are definitely different. Not all. But some.

And my point from the beginning has been that shouldn’t be solely about the second scorer when it comes to overall scoring help.

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 02:58 PM

And my point from the beginning has been that shouldn’t be solely about the second scorer when it comes to overall scoring help

You are an outlier. The response after yours talks about the #2. That's what it always comes down to on ISH.

For "team help", per MJ fans themselves, the Bulls in 94' had the best cast in the NBA and should have won the chip. If that is the case--the cast is that good with Grant/BJ/Kukoc--what does that make the cast when it is Pippen/Grant/BJ or Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc?

We hear it both ways, though. TheCorporation summed up well and which I will modify. The narrative from Team MJ is as follows:

1993: MJ won all by himself, carried scrubs.
1994: The Bulls should have won 65 and the chip--Grant, Kukoc, BJ and co. were that good a "cast".
1995: (erased)
1996: MJ won all by himself, carried scrubs.

You keep saying you don't care what others say but everyone else in this thread is operating based on what we see in the "sea" of ISH.

insidious301

07-29-2020, 03:06 PM

My initial post was the 7th post in this topic and I directly addressed the first post. What am I arguing thats not relevant? You're really saying I should go into other threads and take that into account? The f*ck? :oldlol: If the OP wanted me to take into account other arguments, he should've put that in the OP or just continued whatever argument he was trying to make in those other threads.

Already forgot what you just said? You just invoked Lebron to make your point. Its a dumb comparison because that isn't what the topic is about. It is about #2s relative to the 90s. Like it has been in several other topics. You can do whatever you want "guy" but changing the argument to Ewing vs Jordan then using LeBron vs Jordan as an example is you moving goal posts. Even worse you assumed and "weren't buying" what the OP meant. When, in fact, that is actually what he meant. Is this how you normally interact with people or do they get benefit of the doubt?

Carbine

07-29-2020, 03:11 PM

It wasn't all MJ. Stop focusing so much energy on trolls, lol

It's a waste of time arguing with 3ball. Even Tpols is ridiculous. I don't know anyone else that spews that garbage.

I do want to point out once again to you that those results without their superstar isn't a apple to apple comparison.

2004 Lakers and 2005 Lakers are pretty different rosters. Different coaches too, right? It's not like they lost Shaq and everyone else came back.

'92 Lakers made the playoffs at least, but yes a massive drop considering they were a finals team the year prior. I'd say that drop is right in the same area as the Bulls coming down from a 3 peat to a 2nd round exit.

Shaq ECF to 1st round exit, so less of a fall than Magic.

LeBron is a category by himself, he's the best regular season team riser we've ever seen.

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 03:22 PM

It isn't trolls, it isn't just 3ball. It is a long list of MJ fans who aren't as reasonable as you, guy, or Phoenix are.

I do want to point out once again to you that those results without their superstar isn't a apple to apple comparison.

That's usually the response: nullify the value of what the Bulls did without MJ being nullifying every counter example. We are simply supposed to "assume" MJ was worth 25, 30 wins, etc. It is weird: MJ gave us a real life experiment of seeing the team without him by retiring at his peak yet we are to ignore that? The one qualifier is he denied the team a chance to replace him.

'92 Lakers made the playoffs at least

They went from 58 wins to 43 wins. Worthy is a name who comes up often on ISH, often with it implied MJ would have done better if he had Worthy. Well, Worthy had the same opportunity Pippen had. Pippen thrived; Worthy wilted.

2004 Lakers and 2005 Lakers are pretty different rosters. Different coaches too, right? It's not like they lost Shaq and everyone else came back.

They also didn't get scrubs back in exchange for Shaq. They got Butler and Odom--the Bulls got Pete Myers for MJ.

The Magic had more continuity. It was the same starting 5, except Seiklay (a 17/10 player) replacing Shaq. Again, not exactly Pete Myers.

Shaq ECF to 1st round exit, so less of a fall than Magic.

That's a way to spin it but the fact is the Bulls sans MJ performed far better than the Magic without Shaq.

The other examples you list aren't the peak versions of those players either. It is easier to replace 2004 Shaq than it is to replace 1993 MJ. Moreover, MJ is the GOAT. Why do we hear MJ compared to Kawhi in these discussions? MJ's void isn't the same as Kawhi's.

Your post illustrates some of the issues of relying on PO samples. If the Bulls were in the other bracket they go to the ECF and lose to the Knicks there (assuming Hue Hollins bails the Knicks out again :oldlol: ) and their season would look better on paper, despite being the same team.

This isn't a far fetched scenario. Whenever MJ fans discuss those other teams we hear chapter and verse about the bumps in the road while the 94' Bulls are presented as having this perfect ride. If the Bulls had the same health they had in 93' or that the Knicks' best players had they would be the #1 seed (which would give them HCA against the Knicks--the home team won every game). We also never hear the disadvantage the Bulls had with Pete Myers acknowledged.

Jordan set the team up to fail and his fans crow about it forevermore. These other teams were set up much better in most cases since they were able to plan, prepare, and adapt to losing that player (except Magic, who retired due to HIV) and still did far worse.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 03:34 PM

Yes. Should’ve mentioned getting to the free throw line as well.

If you’re going to mention %, which I’m guessing you are, is Deandre Jordan a more reliable scorer then Kobe and AI?

If DJ, or Pippen, tried to take the shots Kobe and AI were given that responsibility and were relied upon to take the type of shots those guys did at the end of games, which were the best shots available in those settings, there efficiency would plummet.

Come on bro. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

And maybe they shouldn’t have done that then, but were forced to cause Ewing wasn’t as capable?
Or maybe the Knicks shouldve done a better job getting him a good number 2 like other Alltime greats had.

And my point from the beginning has been that shouldn’t be solely about the second scorer when it comes to overall scoring help.

That is the topic though. Did Ewing ever have a number 2 guy the caliber of a Pip, or Shaq for Wade, Or Gasol for Kobe, or Manu etc?

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 03:39 PM

Or maybe the Knicks shouldve done a better job getting him a good number 2 like other Alltime greats had

Which they ironically eventually did by getting Houston, Sprewell but they had Houston for only 97' (Ewing's last elite season) and by the time Sprewell got there he was no longer a superstar. If they got one player of that caliber for Ewing's prime he would have rings but they brought in guys like McDaniel, Starks, Charles Smith. That won't cut it.

Carbine

07-29-2020, 03:51 PM

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 04:00 PM

Yeah, we hear that a lot: the Bulls added Kukoc, Kerr. Sometimes Longley (who was traded for King, so a piece for a piece--although Longley by 96' became a starter), Wennington are mentioned. None of these players' additions had anything to do with MJ. Myers was the MJ "replacement" and the only addition tied to MJ.

We don't hear all those players were bench players in 94'. We also don't hear Cartwright missed half the season, Paxson barely played as he was washed up and injured, Pippen missed 10 games and was hurt for 2 more (Bulls 5-7), Grant missed 12 games, Kukoc missed 7 games. Scott Williams, who was their 6th man in 93', played only 38 games in 94'.

It is presented as a fairy tale ride with all the pluses noted but none of the minuses (with the other teams the 94' Bulls are compared to it is the opposite: all the negatives noted but zero of the positives). If they had the health other teams had "55 wins" becomes 60 and the 1 seed. "55 wins" sells their capability short.

I also find it rich when it comes to 94' we hear of Kukoc, Kerr, Longley from the same people (not you or guy--speaking generally) who will say MJ had no help. These guys were super additions and great contributors in 94' but "no help" and irrelevant in 95', 96', 97', 98' (especially Kukoc, even though Kukoc was much better after his rookie year). :lol Rookie Kukoc is a big deal; prime Pippen a scrub. Kukoc, Kerr worth noting; if you mention rookie Pippen, Grant MJ fans will throw a fit.

All this spin wouldn't be necessary if there wasn't this big effort to deny the obvious: Jordan had a good team around him.

Carbine

07-29-2020, 04:19 PM

By the time the playoffs rolled around they were all good to go. It was Kukoc who actually made one of the most clutch shots in recent memory in game 3, otherwise they are going to OT with Pippen completely out of the game mentally.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 04:22 PM

It isn't trolls, it isn't just 3ball. It is a long list of MJ fans who aren't as reasonable as you, guy, or Phoenix are.

That's usually the response: nullify the value of what the Bulls did without MJ being nullifying every counter example. We are simply supposed to "assume" MJ was worth 25, 30 wins, etc. It is weird: MJ gave us a real life experiment of seeing the team without him by retiring at his peak yet we are to ignore that? The one qualifier is he denied the team a chance to replace him.

They went from 58 wins to 43 wins. Worthy is a name who comes up often on ISH, often with it implied MJ would have done better if he had Worthy. Well, Worthy had the same opportunity Pippen had. Pippen thrived; Worthy wilted.

They also didn't get scrubs back in exchange for Shaq. They got Butler and Odom--the Bulls got Pete Myers for MJ.

The Magic had more continuity. It was the same starting 5, except Seiklay (a 17/10 player) replacing Shaq. Again, not exactly Pete Myers.

That's a way to spin it but the fact is the Bulls sans MJ performed far better than the Magic without Shaq.

The other examples you list aren't the peak versions of those players either. It is easier to replace 2004 Shaq than it is to replace 1993 MJ. Moreover, MJ is the GOAT. Why do we hear MJ compared to Kawhi in these discussions? MJ's void isn't the same as Kawhi's.

Your post illustrates some of the issues of relying on PO samples. If the Bulls were in the other bracket they go to the ECF and lose to the Knicks there (assuming Hue Hollins bails the Knicks out again :oldlol: ) and their season would look better on paper, despite being the same team.

This isn't a far fetched scenario. Whenever MJ fans discuss those other teams we hear chapter and verse about the bumps in the road while the 94' Bulls are presented as having this perfect ride. If the Bulls had the same health they had in 93' or that the Knicks' best players had they would be the #1 seed (which would give them HCA against the Knicks--the home team won every game). We also never hear the disadvantage the Bulls had with Pete Myers acknowledged.

Jordan set the team up to fail and his fans crow about it forevermore. These other teams were set up much better in most cases since they were able to plan, prepare, and adapt to losing that player (except Magic, who retired due to HIV) and still did far worse.
Even in the case of Magic and the Lakers. The Lakers got Sedale Threat. He was a solid PG. I wouldn't trade 1 Sedale Threat for 2 Pete Myers.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 04:24 PM

Marchesk

07-29-2020, 04:24 PM

Even in the case of Magic and the Lakers. The Lakers got Sedale Threat. He was a solid PG. I wouldn't trade 1 Sedale Threat for 2 Pete Myers.

There's a phrase I never thought I'd see. Not that Sedale Threat or Pete Myers come to mind, like ever, unless someone is trolling 3Ball.

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 04:29 PM

It's also worth mentioning that the '94 Bulls added 3 pieces to what was to become another 3 peat - Kukoc, Kerr and Longley although Longley only playd 1/4 of a season.

Rarely brought up, 93 to 94 wasn't just MJ for Pete.

This argument is ROUTINELY brought up Carbine. And this always my response.

Kerr replace Paxaon

Kukoc was a rookie

Longley replaced Cartwright.

Even though Pax and Cartwright were on the team, they werent used nearly as much.

Carbine

07-29-2020, 04:32 PM

97 bulls

07-29-2020, 04:43 PM

He was a rookie Seems to belittle him. He did make the biggest shot of the season unassisted, no?

He was an effective player rookie or not. A definite asset to the team, which he expanded on in the following years.

He was rookie bro. That's not belittling him. It's a fact. Case and point. Take a look at the play before Kukoc hit that shot. He made a rookie mistake. And perhaps they dont need a last second catch and shoot to win the game.

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 05:18 PM

By the time the playoffs rolled around they were all good to go

Which doesn't help your seeding. #1 means HCA against the Knicks and it means facing the Knicks in the ECF, not the ECSF. The Pacers won 47 games, got owned by the Bulls all season, did worse against the Knicks than the Bulls but get hyped because their soft bracket led them to the ECF the same year. Being the 5 seed>being the 3 seed that year the way the brackets shook out.

He was an effective player rookie or not. A definite asset to the team, which he expanded on in the following years.

He was 9/4/4 in the playoffs and MJ fans hype him as a rookie while never mentioning him for 1995-1998 when he was actually a major contributor as their 2nd/3rd option. Even in 98' when he was the 2nd option for half the year the narrative is "MJ carried the Bulls without Pippen" (which amusingly implies Pippen mattered when that is useful for the 98' narrative).

Rookie Pippen was 10/5/2 and the very same people say he had zero to do with the Bulls' "success" in 88'. Which is it?

All these gymnastics and double standards wouldn't be required of MJ fans simply acknowledged the simple fact his team was good without him. Why is there this lifelong crusade to deny the obvious?

I don't see Kawhi fans going around saying the Raptors suck because it would be absurd on its face.

Carbine

07-29-2020, 05:26 PM

You aren't going to get any pushback from normal people saying the Bulls were good without Jordan.

He had a championship level cast around him. Besides the '95 season, Jordan with the Bulls won every year they had a championship level cast.

The hypothetical that would have been great to see is if Pippen retired instead of Jordan.

I don't think they win without Pippen either, although a finals lose is probably in the works instead of 2nd round.

Roundball_Rock

07-29-2020, 05:43 PM

The hypothetical that would have been great to see is if Pippen retired instead of Jordan.

For 94' the Bulls probably go to the finals with MJ but that goes to my point about PO results being overstated. The line (finals vs. ECSF) would be different but the team's strength not that much different. The Bulls with Pippen were essentially one foul call away from the finals. With MJ they would win by enough the call wouldn't be relevant.

The caveat is the Bulls with MJ & Pippen struggled to beat the Knicks the previous year with Pippen being huge in the series. In theory, given the 94' team's performance, with MJ they win but we can't pencil that in as certain. If Pippen wasn't on the 93' team the Bulls don't beat the Knicks.

94' Bulls with MJ>94' Bulls with Pippen but not the light years difference MJ fans would wish or present it as.

We saw the Bulls without Pippen for half a season and the results were similar to the Bulls without Jordan--except the 98' decline represented greater erosion. Awfully inconvenient but that's what happened. ; )

1998 Bulls without Pippen, with MJ: 26-12 (56 win pace, down from 69 wins the year before)
1994 Bills without MJ, with Pippen: 51-21 (58 win pace, compared to 57 wins the year before)

If Pippen doesn't come back at all the Bulls don't beat the Pacers--they barely did with him.

When 98' and 94' are compared the response often is age, which nonetheless implies 98' MJ=94' Pippen. The shifts based on agendas are always fun. Pippen was a bum but would be the best player in the NBA in 98'? :lol

What would have been really interesting is seeing the Jazz without Malone, Knicks without Ewing, Pacers without Miller. We never got that in their primes given their durability. We did see the Pacers go 39-43 without Jackson/Smits for much of the year, which suggests they couldn't absorb losing Miller.

I can't see the Knicks or Jazz doing anything without Ewing or Malone--they wouldn't score at all sans them.

We did see the Magic without Shaq and they sucked. We saw the Lakers without Magic and they sucked. We saw the Suns with Barkley hurt

We saw Drexler injured for chunks of the 93' and 94' season. The Blazers didn't skip a beat without him--but they performed at a high 40's win level with or without him. So it isn't a good look for Drexler's value but it also doesn't paint his "cast" as great since they were merely above average sans him.

Barkley was in steady decline but we saw him miss some time in 94' , 95' and 96'.

1994 Suns without Barkley: 8-9
1995 Suns without Barkley: 10-4
1996 Suns without Barkley: 3-8

So generally bad.

We saw the Cavs without Price.

1991 Cavs without Price: 24-42 (30 win pace)

Only one team from that era showed it could lose its best player and remain a contender.

Don't forget Grant/Rodman. We saw the Bulls with Jordan/Pippen but without Grant/Rodman--and that was the worst Bulls result of the entire era (although again influenced by PO brackets--if they were in the other bracket they make the ECF).

guy

07-30-2020, 10:20 AM

RS numbers. PO numbers don't work for the Knicks because they suppress the other team's numbers so much it doesn't tell us what the other team's true scoring capability was.

What? The actual performance at hand doesn’t matter?

How is bringing up what his supporting cast did as a whole in this series any different then you bringing up multiple individual playoff performances?

I agree on the finals but it isn't mutually exclusive. Even with Ewing choking the chip was right there if Starks also didn't choke or if someone else stepped up (Oakley? Mason?).

Sure, like I said, if Ewing was better and his teammates were better, they’d be a better and more successful team. Earth shattering news. :oldlol:

You can make that argument in any close series in history that if ANY player from the losing team played better then they did, they would’ve won. Thats not saying anything

The point is if a series was that close despite the superstar on the losing team having that all-time bad of a performance, why the f*** are we looking at any of the supporting cast? They did their job is the point.

True--but that doesn't negate the point of it being disingenuous for MJ fans to always complain about teammate scoring while ignoring MJ left less on the table than the #1 on literally any other team.

Fine and fair . Either way, I was looking at it more from the Knicks perspective – from a scoring standpoint Ewing consistently got significantly outplayed by Jordan and the supporting cast did enough to keep it close. That’s on the superstar then.

Offensive rating.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but if you’re talking about 1995 where they were ranked 10th, that included Jordan for part of the season.

Yeah, or for Pippen or Kukoc to take them out. It was MJ more often than others of course but it wasn't always him (Pippen for large parts of the second half of Game 1 of the 97' Finals, Kukoc in the third quarter of Game 7 of the 98' ECF as examples).

I don’t know how many times I have to say that that doesn’t mean something else never happened. It was obviously much more often Jordan.

It also ignores the inconvenient fact that the Bulls offense without Pippen was worse than the Bulls offense without Jordan. We always see MJ get all the credit for the offense so why did they slip to 13th without Pippen?

I don’t know where you’re pulling this from, and don’t care that much – what are you trying to say exactly when you say s*** like this?

That Pippen was the better, more impactful offensive player then Jordan? Cause that’s the argument it sounds like you would be implying. Don’t be shy.

guy

07-30-2020, 10:21 AM

I said they weren't trolls. :confusedshrug:

Yes, my bad. Should’ve said are these “trollish opinions”?

That isn't what we hear. What we hear are:
*Pippen sucked at scoring and MJ would have won more with literally anyone else who is mentioned as a potential "replacement" 2nd option.
*:lol top 40? The way they talk about him the question is whether he is even top 100.
*The Bulls relied exclusively on MJ because his team sucked.

Sounds like incredible over exaggerations. Maybe something 3ball would say, but not most other people.

Maybe I’m wrong, but whatever. Those are who would be trolls even if they appear to not be.

I can’t be your psychiatrist since you’re constantly so upset about Pippen being disrespected. So keep on going on your rampage. :oldlol:

You said it yourself: he was an all-time great scorer, shot creator--those were the team's best shots. Now you are saying they should have shifted some of those shots away from MJ?

2 great scorers is more beneficial than 1 no matter how great Jordan is. Bird and Lebron weren't as great scorers as Jordan was, but pairing one of them with Jordan is much more beneficial scoring wise and isn't going to make them rely so much on 1 player.

You are an outlier. The response after yours talks about the #2. That's what it always comes down to on ISH.

So let me get this straight. You start a topic about #2s scoring. I say “well why are we only looking at #2 we should look at the overall supporting cast since its not 2 on 2 and those points count too.” And instead of having a more logical conversation around that and what actually matters you basically say “well 3ball and the rest of ISH always focus on #2s so that’s what matters so lets stick to that.” What kind of sense does that make ? :oldlol:

guy

07-30-2020, 10:29 AM

Come on bro. Stop being intellectually dishonest.

????

Okay so now we're revising history and saying Pippen was a great go-to scorer. Cool. Shouldn't we consider him a borderline top 10 player then? Whats stopping everyone? All this time it was common knowledge that he wasn't a great go-to scorer but since thats actually not the case, he basically has everything. He's one of the GOAT defenders, great all-around player, and now he's a great scorer as well. Where's the argument against putting him with Jordan, Lebron, Bird, etc.?

Or maybe the Knicks shouldve done a better job getting him a good number 2 like other Alltime greats had.

If we're saying "Poor Patrick" I think its fair to look at if he was actually on par with his counterparts that were beating him.

That is the topic though. Did Ewing ever have a number 2 guy the caliber of a Pip, or Shaq for Wade, Or Gasol for Kobe, or Manu etc?

I think I'm allowed to point out that the game isn't 2 on 2 and there's more to it then that so maybe we should focus on a superstar's overall supporting cast. If people want to pretend thats not the case, oh well.

guy

07-30-2020, 10:33 AM

Already forgot what you just said? You just invoked Lebron to make your point. Its a dumb comparison because that isn't what the topic is about. It is about #2s relative to the 90s. Like it has been in several other topics. You can do whatever you want "guy" but changing the argument to Ewing vs Jordan then using LeBron vs Jordan as an example is you moving goal posts. Even worse you assumed and "weren't buying" what the OP meant. When, in fact, that is actually what he meant. Is this how you normally interact with people or do they get benefit of the doubt?

I brought Lebron up as an example in response to something you said.

Either way, if the expectation is that I should be perusing through other threads and getting the pulse around those topics before replying to one specific topic and I can't just take the OP on its face and respond accordingly, well sorry, that's f*cking stupid. Its not that serious. Maybe you and others have time for sh*t like that, but sorry I don't.

Roundball_Rock

07-30-2020, 10:38 AM

Either way, I was looking at it more from the Knicks perspective – from a scoring standpoint Ewing consistently got significantly outplayed by Jordan and the supporting cast did enough to keep it close

This gets back to MJ taking more shots--his "cast" will always score less as a result. That "cast" played the Knicks the next year without MJ and outscored the Knicks, a better reflection of their capacity than what they did with MJ taking 25-30 shots.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to here, but if you’re talking about 1995 where they were ranked 10th, that included Jordan for part of the season.

They were 10th before MJ. In 94' they were 14th but that includes them being -2.6 without Pippen. We don't have the data for the Pippen only games but Backpicks has the data for games Pippen, Grant, Kukoc all played and they ranked 8th during those games. These are not the performances of inept offensive players.

In 98' without Pippen the Bulls slipped to 13th (with 2 expansion teams by then), as a comparison.

I don’t know how many times I have to say that that doesn’t mean something else never happened. It was obviously much more often Jordan.

We don't hear of it for the Knick cast members to anywhere near the same degree. Xavier McDaniel scored 18.6 in one series and ISH toasts him all the time--while ripping Pippen for averaging 20. :lol You cherry picked the two big games Starks had in 94', for example. Kukoc outplayed Reggie Miller in an entire ECF. These aren't the same things.

I don’t know where you’re pulling this from

The +1 translates to 13th in 98' (note they jump to +6 with Pippen :lol ):

https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Bulls-efficiencies-Pippen-93-to-98.png

Maybe something 3ball would say, but not most other people.

On the one hand you disclaim knowledge, on the other imply craziness for refuting those very people. :lol MJ stans have to be held accountable for their BS. They already cause enough damage even while checked via mass repetition.

What kind of sense does that make ?

The thread proves the hypocrisy of the army that whines about Pippen's scoring each day. 20 PPG from Pippen sucks; 15 is fine from Starks. The Pippen complaints aren't good faith complaints--which is why they are silent on Starks' 15.

guy

07-30-2020, 11:02 AM

The +1 translates to 13th in 98' (note they jump to +6 with Pippen :lol ):

Again, what is this supposed to tell me? That Pippen was the better, more impactful offensive player then Jordan? Again, don’t be shy. :oldlol:

On the one hand you disclaim knowledge, on the other imply craziness for refuting those very people. :lol MJ stans have to be held accountable for their BS. They already cause enough damage even while checked via mass repetition.
The thread proves the hypocrisy of the army that whines about Pippen's scoring each day. 20 PPG from Pippen sucks; 15 is fine from Starks. The Pippen complaints aren't good faith complaints--which is why they are silent on Starks' 15.

Held accountable? Hypocrisy of the army? ISH isn’t a courtroom or a government. :oldlol: Its not that serious. :oldlol: If I’m having a conversation with you or whoever, I’m not having it with everyone else on ISH and I don’t give enough shit to continuously argue about other people’s opinions with someone else other than that person. It seems like what too much of these conversations go to. Sorry man, I don’t have time for bullshit conversations like that.

insidious301

07-30-2020, 11:19 AM

I brought Lebron up as an example in response to something you said.

Either way, if the expectation is that I should be perusing through other threads and getting the pulse around those topics before replying to one specific topic and I can't just take the OP on its face and respond accordingly, well sorry, that's f*cking stupid. Its not that serious. Maybe you and others have time for sh*t like that, but sorry I don't.

You can do whatever you want. I'm not your caretaker. Just know that if you jump into conversations assuming crap, and whine that it "doesn't matter" that you assume, you're not having a conversation. You're in an echo chamber writing your own narrative.