94 Pippen, Ewing or Shaq to contend with?

[Marchesk]

Let's say you can pick teammates from 94 Bulls, Knicks or Magic, with a limitation of two all-stars that year, and you can only have one of Pippen, Ewing or Shaq.

Which of those three MVP candidates gives you the best contending team?

[Roundball_Rock]

This will be another "Why Pippen Sucks" thread, not a comparison of the three (of which only Pippen was in the MVP conversation--despite the big revisionist push 26 years later to put Shaq and Ewing in it that was not the case at the time*). :lol It is impressive how Pippen is moved from the Hakeem/Robinson tier in 94' to the Ewing/Shaq tier 26 years later.

*I am still waiting for MJ fans to provide a single media report from 1994 that had Shaq, Ewing in the conversation.

[97 bulls]

https://youtu.be/rwiKFho6qYc

13:25 mark. Chuck says it best.

[Roundball_Rock]

https://youtu.be/rwiKFho6qYc

13:25 mark. Chuck says it best.

We can provide chapter and verse. We can provide 100 articles and videos from 1994 saying it was Hakeem/Robinson/Pippen as the MVP candidates and they will keep pushing their agenda to diminish Pippen by demoting him a quarter century later to the Shaq/Ewing non-contender tier.

The excuse is they were candidates because they finished 4th and 5th but any NBA fan knows each year has only 2-3 real MVP candidates and in 94' it was Hakeem/Robinson/Pippen. There are 4th and 5th place finishers because each ballot has 5 spots...

The same people won't even mention Ewing as a MVP candidate in 93', when he had a stronger case. :lol

The OP is a decent poster but we know how this thread will go so I'm not going to put much energy into what will be a bad faith exercise of bashing Pippen.

[97 bulls]

The answer depends on the personel

[Roundball_Rock]

The answer depends on the personel

Shaq had Penny, Anderson, D. Scott, Skiles and couldn't win a playoff game. It's bizarre they keep bringing Shaq up when he did the least with the best "cast" of any of the top 5 MVP finishers that year.

Agree on Pippen and Ewing. The difference is Pippen fits a lot more team constructs than Ewing does since Pippen is more versatile, has a broader skill set, etc. Ewing only had success with one type of team. Pippen can spearhead a good offense, a great defense as your best player. Ewing never showed he could anchor a competent offense so you are reliant on having a dominant defense to offset the weak offense to compete. If you are drawing 30 teams from scratch, how many will have dominant defenses with Pat Riley as the coach?

[Marchesk]

This will be another "Why Pippen Sucks" thread, not a comparison of the three (of which only Pippen was in the MVP conversation--despite the big revisionist push 26 years later to put Shaq and Ewing in it that was not the case at the time*). :lol It is impressive how Pippen is moved from the Hakeem/Robinson tier in 94' to the Ewing/Shaq tier 26 years later.

Pippen falls in between the upper and lower tier of the MVP voting. But if you include the top two, then Hakeem is likely the consensus pick to put a team around in 94. Ewing and Shaq make it more interesting.

[tpols]

The Knicks and the Bulls both had 2 all stars that year outside Pippen and Ewing. That's as apples to apples a square off as you'll ever see in the 2nd round. And Ewing's team was 1 rookie toni kukoc shot away from being up 3-0 on Pippen's squad. And of course ultimately won with Ewing outplaying Scottie in every way. So we saw how that plays out in real life... dont even need a hypothetical.

Then Shaq vs Ewing... Shaq got swept out the playoffs that year averaging 10 ppg less than he did in the regular season. Reggie went nuts... 29 ppg on 55% shooting. While Ewing led a team that went 4 rounds deep and was a single shot away from a championship.

So Pat Ewing it is.

[Roundball_Rock]

Pippen falls in between the upper and lower tier of the MVP voting.

I am still waiting for a single article, video, press report from 1994 showing Pippen in the same group as Ewing & Shaq for MVP. :cheers: I pulled three (SI, the Tribune, and TNT) in another thread that had Pippen in the Hakeem, Robinson tier with 0 mentioning Ewing & Shaq since they weren't relevant to the 1994 MVP race until 2020. :oldlol:

Pippen's final MVP totals were deflated by missing 10 games and being hurt for 2 more. The fact he still was ahead of the other two says something...

I get your point, though, that if you include Hakeem and Robinson it would not be close since everyone would say Hakeem but if you asked voters this in 1994 the answer would be Pippen.

[KD7]

I'll let Rodman answer the OP since he actually played in that era and would know more than some random ISH poster


"If you notice about Scottie Pippen, when Michael Jordan left in '93, '94, '95 -- Scottie Pippen was the best player in the world," Rodman said. "If people didn't know that, he led the team in every category. Every category. Scottie got his wings in 1991 when [the Bulls] beat the Detroit Pistons. When Michael left, Scottie took over and next thing you know he was the best player in the world. People don't know that."

[Roundball_Rock]

I'll let Rodman answer the OP since he actually played in that era and would know more than some random ISH poster

Or MVP voters at the time. If Ewing and Shaq were these great candidates--as we keep hearing 26 years later (from MJ and Knicks fans with obvious agendas)--why weren't they in the three-way conversation then?

Shaq had the best "cast" of any of the top 5 finishers and did the least with it. It is hard to argue he was the MVP given the gap between what he was working with and the results and no one tried to make the case then. It is amusing to see 50 wins and getting swept in the first round=MVP 26 years later.

Ewing has a better case but he finished 5th in 94' and 4th in 93'--in 93' he was better individually as was his team. If voters rejected him in 93' (another three way race), why would they call his number in 94'? The people on ISH hyping Ewing for 94' won't do the same for Ewing in 93'. The fact is Ewing spent his entire career playing in NY without ever being a serious candidate for MVP (being 4th in a three way race or 5th in a three way race doesn't count). There is a delta between that and his reputation 20-30 years later.

[Jay-B]

Shaq all day ...

[Roundball_Rock]

At the time (1994) the Knicks and Magic were publicly complaining about Ewing and Shaq not being in the MVP conversation but 26 years later they magically were thanks to the "work" of one fan base with an obvious agenda. :lol It is impressive as it is scary how history gets re-written day in, day out but over the years it takes a toll via mass repetition by an online army.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Ewing had his entire career and he could never have a single playoff run leading playoffs in BPM, PER, W/S 48.

Jokic was in the playoffs 1 year and already led it in BPM, PER, W/S 48. That's pathetic on Ewing's part. I'm taking Shaq or Scottie here depending on the era. 90s I take Shaq, 2010s I take Pippen.

[Marchesk]

I'll let Rodman answer the OP since he actually played in that era and would know more than some random ISH poster


If you notice about Scottie Pippen, when Michael Jordan left in '93, '94, '95 -- Scottie Pippen was the best player in the world," Rodman said. "If people didn't know that, he led the team in every category. Every category. Scottie got his wings in 1991 when [the Bulls] beat the Detroit Pistons. When Michael left, Scottie took over and next thing you know he was the best player in the world. People don't know that.

So if we asked Kenny Smith, John Starks or Sean Elliot who was the best during that time, they would have said Pippen? Rodman knows more than some random ISH poster, but we've all heard plenty of former NBA opinions on who was GOAT, top 10 all-time and other related topics, and we know they have different opinions, some of them quite interesting.

Also, a quick check of BR shows Rodman's wrong about Pippen leading the Bulls in every category.

[insidious301]

If this isn't a discussion for "MVP", I am taking Shaq. He might have been one of the three or four best players in the league. In just his second year too.

[NBAGOAT]

i'm still taing shaq, he wasnt very good in the playoffs but idc. shaq's help gets a bit overrated because it's offensively inclined and top heavy. The defense is mediocre and the depth isnt there. Saw it with his later magic teams too.

MVP voting can be a bit off many years. Chris Paul likely will get some top 5 votes this year and he honestly doesnt not deserve it but it's narrative drivem. he's not a top 5 player and certainly not comparable to luka no matter how badly luka plays in the playoffs this year.

[Marchesk]

If this isn't a discussion for "MVP", I am taking Shaq. He might have been one of the three or four best players in the league. In just his second year too.

Pretty sure Penny would have too, if given the choice. Rodman can choose Pippen. Although it's kind of weird that he said that, given he was playing with Robinson at the time. Guess that goes to show how little respect Dennis had for the Spurs. But David was leading his team in plenty of categories as well, including assists.

[Roundball_Rock]

Chris Webber said the same thing in 94'--had no connection to Pippen or Robinson. Jordan said it as well, albeit in 95' but none of the top tier players (Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Malone) changed materially between 94' and 95'...

Penny and Shaq didn't get along so who knows what he would say.

What's the explanation for Shaq, Penny not winning a playoff game? You have the MVP, you have Penny and they get swept by a 47 win team? Something is off in this equation. We had 20+ pages hyping Shaq as a MVP for 94' but no one provided an answer for their playoff debacle or their lack of RS dominance (50 wins--Pippen and Kukoc without Grant, Rodman, or MJ could get you around 50 :oldlol: ).


If this isn't a discussion for "MVP", I am taking Shaq

It's going to be a near sweep for Shaq in 2020, knowing what we know about Shaq after 1994. What would be interesting is if this question was posed in 1994 (and included Hakeem, Robinson).

[tpols]

Whats the explanation for Reggie hanging 29 ppg on 55% shooting to Shaq's 20 ppg.

"Low volume" am I right Rock, or am I right?

:lol

[insidious301]

It's going to be a near sweep for Shaq in 2020, knowing what we know about Shaq after 1994. What would be interesting is if this question was posed in 1994 (and included Hakeem, Robinson).

Who do you think was better than Shaq in 1994? We can go by what people "thought at the time", but what did you think? I watched a little bit of that season and remember Shaq being a phenom. Looking at his numbers now, you could definitely make the case for 3 or 4. Easily.

[NBAGOAT]

Chris Webber said the same thing in 94'--had no connection to Pippen or Robinson. Jordan said it as well, albeit in 95' but none of the top tier players (Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Malone) changed materially between 94' and 95'...

Penny and Shaq didn't get along so who knows what he would say.

What's the explanation for Shaq, Penny not winning a playoff game? You have the MVP, you have Penny and they get swept by a 47 win team? Something is off in this equation. We had 20+ pages hyping Shaq as a MVP for 94' but no one provided an answer for their playoff debacle or their lack of RS dominance (50 wins--Pippen and Kukoc without Grant, Rodman, or MJ could get you around 50 :oldlol: ).



It's going to be a near sweep for Shaq in 2020, knowing what we know about Shaq after 1994. What would be interesting is if this question was posed in 1994 (and included Hakeem, Robinson).

if hakeem and drob come up, i'll certainly take them over shaq. that 47 win team also made the conference finals(one game away from the finals) and penny was a great rookie but not even an all star yet

[3ball]

The Knicks and the Bulls both had 2 all stars that year outside Pippen and Ewing. That's as apples to apples a square off as you'll ever see in the 2nd round. And Ewing's team was 1 rookie toni kukoc shot away from being up 3-0 on Pippen's squad. And of course ultimately won with Ewing outplaying Scottie in every way. So we saw how that plays out in real life... dont even need a hypothetical.

Then Shaq vs Ewing... Shaq got swept out the playoffs that year averaging 10 ppg less than he did in the regular season. Reggie went nuts... 29 ppg on 55% shooting. While Ewing led a team that went 4 rounds deep and was a single shot away from a championship.

So Pat Ewing it is.

This

and the 94' Bulls had a brand advantage on the entire league, along with 3-peat swagger and know-how - aka they had everything going for them

Yet Ewing outplayed Pippen convincingly and won with a worse, uglier brand of ball.. and Pippen had a bad foul in the clutch that infact lost the series - this was worse than his sit-out game because Kukoc couldn't save the day this time. Then he was horrible in Game 7 - so that's 3 chokes in 1 series.. No wonder the Bulls always gave it to MJ in the clutch.. even Phil preferred Kukoc - that's how bad Pippen was in the clutch- there's no better evidence - simply the worst clutch player ever.. jittery and can't shoot

Btw, in the 90"s, this would never even be a question - NO ONE thought Pippen compared to Shaq or Ewing.. no one.. in b4 dumb quotes via Round Rock from people who didn't think Pippen was anywhere bear Ewing or Shaq

[Roundball_Rock]

if hakeem and drob come up, i'll certainly take them over shaq. that 47 win team also made the conference finals(one game away from the finals) and penny was a great rookie but not even an all star yet

I get the explanation for losing the series but 1) not winning a game 2) 50-32 (if they had a high seed they wouldn't draw the Pacers in the first place)? You have the MVP, Penny, Anderson, Scott, Skiles and 50-32 and 0-3 in the playoffs with the MVP on the team? :confusedshrug: Atlanta won 2 games against the Pacers and their best player by the PO was Danny Manning.

The Pacers getting to the ECF was a bit of a fluke. The two best EC teams were in the other bracket, Orlando wet the bed despite Shaq being the MVP, and Atlanta (the 1 seed) screwed themselves by trading their best player at the all-star break and weren't the same team thereafter. How many 47 win teams get to the ECF/WCF?

[NBAGOAT]

I get the explanation for losing the series but 1) not winning a game 2) 50-32 (if they had a high seed they wouldn't draw the Pacers in the first place)? You have the MVP, Penny, Anderson, Scott, Skiles and 50-32 and 0-3 in the playoffs with the MVP on the team? :confusedshrug: Atlanta won 2 games against the Pacers and their best player by the PO was Danny Manning.

The Pacers getting to the ECF was a bit of a fluke. The two best EC teams were in the other bracket, Orlando wet the bed despite Shaq being the MVP, and Atlanta (the 1 seed) screwed themselves by trading their best player at the all-star break and weren't the same team thereafter. How many 47 win teams get to the ECF/WCF?

atlanta still went 19-7 with manning, they were a good team still. and in a 3 game series, shit happens though yes Magic still lose in a longer series. i'm not going make big changes to a list over that. No not many 47 win teams make the finals but indiana was not a typical one(their mov more indicative of a 51 win team) and we saw that in the playoffs..

[Marchesk]

We can all admit Pippen was a top 5 player in 94 and deserving of being in the MVP chase, but in the absence of Jordan, there were no great teams. The Sonics were the only 60+ win team, and they get upset in the first round. Kemp was their leading scorer at 18 ppg. The Bulls were one of eight to ten good teams that year all with a shot, if things went right in the playoffs. If the Sonics get past the Nuggets, maybe Houston doesn't make it to the finals.

[tpols]

This

and the 94' Bulls had a brand advantage on the entire league, along with 3-peat swagger and know-how - aka they had everything going for them

Yet Ewing outplayed Pippen convincingly and won with a worse, uglier brand of ball.. and Pippen had a bad foul in the clutch that infact lost the series - this was worse than his sit-out game because Kukoc couldn't save the day this time. Then he was horrible in Game 7 - so that's 3 chokes in 1 series.. No wonder the Bulls always gave it to MJ in the clutch.. even Phil preferred Kukoc - that's how bad Pippen was in the clutch- there's no better evidence - simply the worst clutch player ever.. jittery and can't shoot

Btw, in the 90"s, this would never even be a question - NO ONE thought Pippen compared to Shaq or Ewing.. no one.. in b4 dumb quotes via Round Rock from people who didn't think Pippen was anywhere bear Ewing or Shaq

It is especially damning that Phil let a rookie take the season deciding shot over Pippen... in the end.. it's because he knew Scottie couldn't close, and they would've lost that game and the series in short fashion had he decided to let Pippen take it.

A ****ing rookie. :lol

Damn man... I can see why Pippen was pissed, he was trying to shed that factual label.

[3ball]

Why did Miller always outplay Pippen against common opponents?... aka 94' Knicks, 95' Magic, 00' Lakers, and more

Miller was a 1st option who destroyed the Knicks and outplayed 00' Kobe, while Pippen was a true 2nd option that was destroyed by 99' Kobe.

Pippen doesn't stack up against Miller, which is why NO ONE considered Pippen anywhere near Ewing or Shaq

If the Knicks had offered Krause Ewing for Pippen, Krause would've instantly said yes.. no brainer, especially before Pippen had won many rings.. he's vastly inflated historically because of ring count, which 2nd options shouldn't get as much credit for

[Roundball_Rock]

Atlanta was 34-13 before the trade, 23-12 after the trade. There is a clear drop-off. Danny Manning isn't Dominique Wilkins.


and in a 3 game series, shit happens though yes Magic still lose in a longer series. i'm not going make big changes to a list over that.

The argument we have heard about Shaq connected to 1994 (which led to the OP) is he was arguably the MVP. If you are the MVP, if you are the best or second best player, if you have a great supporting cast and the results are 50-32 and 0-3 in the PO--something doesn't add up...

The answer is obvious: intangibles, leadership matter. Shaq slipped from 29 PPG to 21 PPG in the PO. MVP, doe?


No not many 47 win teams make the finals but indiana was not a typical one(their mov more indicative of a 51 win team) and we saw that in the playoffs..

True but it was 52 the next year, 50 the year after (then 44 before 59 four years later). They weren't a dominant team--they benefited from some bracket luck and Orlando wetting its pants.

[Marchesk]

Atlanta was 34-13 before the trade, 23-12 after the trade. There is a clear drop-off. Danny Manning isn't Dominique Wilkins.

I remember thinking out of KU Danny could be that good. But then the Clippers had to draft him.

[knicksman]

you go for shaq or ewing IMO. Pippen is just great coz hes playing 101% of the time trying to prove himself. While shaq and ewing arent. Weve seen how overrated draymond is when the team was contending but nowhere to be found right now when their team isnt. And thats what would happen to pippen when he wasnt contending, He will just be another iguodala.

[Roundball_Rock]

I remember thinking out of KU Danny could be that good. But then the Clippers had to draft him.

Is that the only time in history a team in 1st (tied with Chicago) has traded away its best player? Manning was good but he wasn't a superstar like Wilkins.

[3ball]

Why only 94' Pippen?.. what's the difference between 94' and 95' Pippen

what's so special about 94

This is someone comparing larry Nance to Barkley and Malone 30 years after the fact.. aka preposterous

[NBAGOAT]

Atlanta was 34-13 before the trade, 23-12 after the trade. There is a clear drop-off. Danny Manning isn't Dominique Wilkins.



The argument we have heard about Shaq connected to 1994 (which led to the OP) is he was arguably the MVP. If you are the MVP, if you are the best or second best player, if you have a great supporting cast and the results are 50-32 and 0-3 in the PO--something doesn't add up...

The answer is obvious: intangibles, leadership matter. Shaq slipped from 29 PPG to 21 PPG in the PO. MVP, doe?



True but it was 52 the next year, 50 the year after (then 44 before 59 four years later). They weren't a dominant team--they benefited from some bracket luck and Orlando wetting its pants.

again i dispute the cast being great. penny was a rookie, grant wasnt there yet and the depth was poor as always. anderson and scott are certainly good starters tbf. You're using the talent cup evaluation and it often fails.

[knicksman]

Why only 94' Pippen?.. what's the difference between 94' and 95' Pippen

what's so special about 94

This is someone comparing larry Nance to Barkley and Malone 30 years after the fact.. aka preposterous

coz thats the absolute best for pippen. We know he would just be another iguodala or dray when not motivated.

[Marchesk]

Is that the only time in history a team in 1st (tied with Chicago) has traded away its best player? Manning was good but he wasn't a superstar like Wilkins.

Good question. I don't know. Wilkins averaged 29 ppg for the Clippers to finish the season.

[3ball]

This is preposterous

No one was taking Pippen over Ewing and Shaq in the 90's, including 94' - people were surprised that pippen didn't collapse in 94' regular season, but they still weren't taking him over Ewing and Shaq - to think that is to say they thought he could do what MJ did - aka win as a perimeter player

No one thought Pippen could duplicate MJ and win as a perimeter player, so they would take Shaq and Ewing.. instantly

[Roundball_Rock]

again i dispute the cast being great. penny was a rookie, grant wasnt there yet and the depth was poor as always. anderson and scott are certainly good starters tbf. You're using the talent cup evaluation and it often fails.

Well, that is part of my point. Orlando underachieved and part of that is Shaq didn't have the leadership or intangibles to get the most out of that team. Part of it is his and their inexperience. You are selling the "cast" short, though.

Nick Anderson was 20/6/3 in 93' as well as 92'. His numbers took a hit because Shaq took a step forward and Penny got there but he was the same player.

Dennis Scott was 20/4/2 in 92', although his numbers decreased when Shaq got there in 93' and then more when Penny got there as well in 94'. Same player as 92', though.

Skiles was 17/3/8 in 91' and 15/4/9 in 93' before Penny.

Then you had Penny who wasn't a superstar in 94' but was still very good.

Anderson was 26, Scott 25, Skiles 29--all squarely in their primes.

Anderson or Scott would be the #2 scorers on the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets or Spurs and these guys were the Magic's #3 and #4. How much more help did 94' Shaq need? :lol

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Well, that is part of my point. Orlando underachieved and part of that is Shaq didn't have the leadership or intangibles to get the most out of that team. Part of it is his and their inexperience. You are selling the "cast" short, though.

Nick Anderson was 20/6/3 in 93' as well as 92'. His numbers took a hit because Shaq took a step forward and Penny got there but he was the same player.

Dennis Scott was 20/4/2 in 92', although his numbers decreased when Shaq got there in 93' and then more when Penny got there as well in 94'. Same player as 92', though.

Skiles was 17/3/8 in 91' and 15/4/9 in 93' before Penny.

Then you had Penny who wasn't a superstar in 94' but was still very good.

Anderson was 26, Scott 25, Skiles 29--all squarely in their primes.

Anderson or Scott would be the #2 scorers on the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets or Spurs and these guys were the Magic's #3 and #4. How much more help did 94' Shaq need? :lol

I think you're being a little too hard on Shaq.

Shaq was only 21 years old in 1994. Was he really that much worse then 2006 Lebron who played terrible in elimination series vs pistons?

Shaq put up 29/13/3 and led a top 3 offense in 1994.
1995 he eliminated Jordan/Pippen. Even arguably outplayed Hakeem offensively in the finals.

[3ball]

.

Anderson or Scott would be the #2 scorers on the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets or Spurs and these guys were the Magic's #3 and #4. How much more help did 94' Shaq need? :lol

Pippen needed a 3-peat system and experience

Whereas Shaq could win 50 with nothing and won 50+ basically every year

You can find quotes of people saying Pippen was so great but no one would take him over Shaq or Ewing.. this is why our country is in decline.. preposterous notions like this get credence

[NBAGOAT]

Well, that is part of my point. Orlando underachieved and part of that is Shaq didn't have the leadership or intangibles to get the most out of that team. Part of it is his and their inexperience. You are selling the "cast" short, though.

Nick Anderson was 20/6/3 in 93' as well as 92'. His numbers took a hit because Shaq took a step forward and Penny got there but he was the same player.

Dennis Scott was 20/4/2 in 92', although his numbers decreased when Shaq got there in 93' and then more when Penny got there as well in 94'. Same player as 92', though.

Skiles was 17/3/8 in 91' and 15/4/9 in 93' before Penny.

Then you had Penny who wasn't a superstar in 94' but was still very good.

Anderson or Scott would be the #2 scorers on the Bulls, Knicks, Rockets or Spurs and these guys were the Magic's #3 and #4. How much more help did 94' Shaq need? :lol

their scoring numbers are kind of insignificant because the magic were the worse team in the league in 92, also random regression can happen and anderson and scott saw large efficiency increases too after 93, their numbers didnt take a hit technically. Who cares if they would be #2 scorers on the those teams(they would not be scoring 20 with those teams depth), they wouldnt be the 2nd best player on any of those teams, some not even the 3rd.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm pro-Shaq. I have him higher than 99% of ISH (6th all-time). I am, though, holding him accountable for 94', partly because the team underachieved in the RS and the team and Shaq in the PO but mainly to measure him against the standard set at ISH over recent weeks and in the thread that led to the OP.

This is what we always run into: these guys get presented as flawless and 10 feet tall when they are invoked as tools to diminish another player, then we we take the claims at face value and judge the player against the proferred standards (in this case, Shaq as MVP and the 2nd or 3rd best player) and the flawless' flaws get revealed as the lights turn on, and then we get nothing but excuses for those players. :lol


their scoring numbers are kind of insignificant because the magic were the worse team in the league in 92,

Not everyone can score 20 in the NBA, irrespective of the team. In 93' they tied the mighty Pacers and Anderson still put up 20/6/3 and Skiles 15/4/9. As to Scott, he scored 18 in 96' on a contender so he showed he could do it on a good team.

Their numbers regressed because the team got stacked.

[kawhileonard2]

Ewing, Shaq, Scottie

[3ball]

their scoring numbers are kind of insignificant because the magic were the worse team in the league in 92, also random regression can happen and anderson and scott saw large efficiency increases too after 93, their numbers didnt take a hit technically. Who cares if they would be #2 scorers on the those teams(they would not be scoring 20 with those teams depth), they wouldnt be the 2nd best player on any of those teams, some not even the 3rd.

It's clear that 20 ppg is nothing considering Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott and even Kukoc nearly achieved it

Everyone does it, so it's a shame that 20 or so is pippen's PEAK scoring ability.. sad.. nowhere near elite

[NBAGOAT]

It's clear that 20 ppg is nothing considering Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott and even Kukoc nearly achieved it

Everyone does it, so it's a shame that 20 or so is pippen's PEAK scoring ability.. sad.. nowhere near elite

scoring 20ppg on a sub 25 win team can be whatever. scottie hasnt played a season on a non playoff team.

[Roundball_Rock]

Only 3ball would compare 20 on a bad or average team to 22 on a contender. :lol

[Whoah10115]

scoring 20ppg on a sub 25 win team can be whatever. scottie hasnt played a season on a non playoff team.

I'd take Ewing at that point. He could lead a team in a say Shaq really never did.

Of course, as all-time great as Pat is, Shaq's talent advantage is actually stupid (so people understand I'm not saying Patrick was the better player in prime or greater player).

[knicksman]

Only 3ball would compare 20 on a bad or average team to 22 on a contender. :lol

yeah coz you guys dont compare motivated pippen to nonmotivated players or statpadder lebron to team players.

[NBAGOAT]

yeah coz you guys dont compare motivated pippen to nonmotivated players or statpadder lebron to team players.

name those nonmotivated players besides richmond. most great 90s guys were on playoff teams. As always you throw out some statement with nothing to back it up.

[Roundball_Rock]

It shows how dumb the scoring obsession is on ISH. Nick Anderson was putting up 20/6/3 when Reggie Miller was 21/3/3 during the same time (identical team records) and half of ISH creams itself over Reggie scoring 21. :lol

[knicksman]

name those nonmotivated players besides richmond. most great 90s guys were on playoff teams. As always you throw out some statement with nothing to back it up.

draymond is a prime example of a motivated and non motivated. Just like rondo who gets motivated in the playoffs. Replace pippen with iguodala and you guys would be saying the same with iguodala. And second, pippen is also lucky to play with jordan who is the exact opposite of lebron. Jordan maximizes his teammates first and takes whats left while lebron maximizes himself first and let his teammates takes whats left. So its no surprise why pippen is looking like a superstar playing with jordan. But nah who cares if jordan made pippen better. We only care about results.

[knicksman]

It shows how dumb the scoring obsession is on ISH. Nick Anderson was putting up 20/6/3 when Reggie Miller was 21/3/3 during the same time (identical team records) and half of ISH creams itself over Reggie scoring 21. :lol

its not as bad as obsession with triple doubles. At least the scorers have the result to back it up.

[NBAGOAT]

Ah you mean current players. Your examples are terrible. Just dumb mentioning rondo if you mean post Celtics rondo. Idc how motivated he is, doesn’t belong in the same book as pippen. Comparing warriors iggy is pretty bad too again even motivated.

Won’t touch the lebron stuff but you’re just wrong there.

[knicksman]

Ah you mean current players. Your examples are terrible. Just dumb mentioning rondo if you mean post Celtics rondo. Idc how motivated he is, doesn’t belong in the same book as pippen. Comparing warriors iggy is pretty bad too again even motivated.

Won’t touch the lebron stuff but you’re just wrong there.

replace pippen with rondo and theyre not missing a beat. You guys are just overrating pippen just like you guys overrated dray. But pippen can be replaced easily.

[Roundball_Rock]

Replace pippen with iguodala and you guys would be saying the same with iguodala

We need to stop the threads comparing Pippen to X, Y, Z. The usual suspects (like knicksman) will always take the other guy.

What we need is a thread to hear who they think Pippen actually was better than. That is what would be interesting...


Jordan maximizes his teammates first and takes whats left while lebron maximizes himself first and let his teammates takes whats left

Jordan is better at integrating with other stars but let's stop the mythology about it being all roses.

Had their best years away from MJ: Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, Oakley, Hamilton, Stackhouse, Cartwright, Kukoc, Harper
Had their best year with MJ: Woolridge (he scored 25 in Denver but much lower efficiency)
The same either way: Kerr (benefited from the WNBA line--his actual career year was 94')

If MJ elevated his teammates the way the hype says, the second list would be as long as the first list but that's not the case.

[Shooter]

94 Shaq vs 94 Pippen?

Pippen in a bloodbath

00 Shaq vs Pippen is different but not 1994

[knicksman]

We need to stop the threads comparing Pippen to X, Y, Z. The usual suspects (like knicksman) will always take the other guy.

What we need is a thread to hear who they think Pippen actually was better than. That is what would be interesting...



Jordan is better at integrating with other stars but let's stop the mythology about it being all roses.

Had their best years away from MJ: Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, Oakley, Hamilton, Stackhouse, Cartwright, Kukoc, Harper
Had their best year with MJ: Woolridge (he scored 25 in Denver but much lower efficiency)
The same either way: Kerr (benefited from the WNBA line--his actual career year was 94')

If MJ elevated his teammates the way the hype says, the second list would be as long as the first list but that's not the case.

just because he did it 1 year with his team just coming off a 3peat doesnt mean he could do it consistently like others did. We already saw how bad the bulls were the next year. You really think he could carry his team consistently like ewing or shaq if he was the man on his team? Coz I dont think so.

Pippen is the same with or without jordan. 22/5.6a without 21/7 with jordan. LOL what a troll. Meanwhile jordan from 37 to 30, from 8apg to 4. Theres no myth in that. Its a fact. And you guys touting pippen as a top 3 player in the 90s is the best proof that jordan elevated his teammates.

[Roundball_Rock]

The Bulls (evidently) felt the loss of Grant more than MJ yet we keep hearing about 95' as an argument for MJ. :lol

SRS tells a different story that is closer to the truth. Their SRS was that of a 59 win team in 93', 55 win team in 94' when healthy, 52 win team in 95' without MJ. That is impressive. They lost their best player, third best player, and a fourth starter with Myers/Harper replacing MJ, bums replacing Grant, and Will Perdue replacing Cartwright and they still had a better SRS than the Knicks, Pacers, and the entire East outside of the Magic. The quintessential super team. :bowdown:

Ewing couldn't anchor a competent offense. That's the problem with Ewing. PPG guzzlers don't factor in making teammates better and playmaking.

[knicksman]

yeah lets compare a motivated team(94) to a non motivated team(93) instead of 92. Thats what trolls do. Same trolls who compares statpadders like westbrook/lebron to team players like kobe/kawhi. But the result speaks for itself anyways.

[Roundball_Rock]

Motivating teams is part of leadership. If Shaq couldn't do it, that helps explain the large gap between their performance and their talent. MVP is about more than selling tickets or shoes.

As to MJ, P.S. it isn't a good look for you all to keep arguing the team hated him so much they were more motivated when he was gone. It's a bad look for him generally and as a leader in particular. He gets hyped as this MLK like leader but according to his own fans the team was more motivated without him. :lol

[knicksman]

if you think they were motivated coz they hate him instead of trying to prove the critics wrong that they were nobodies without jordan. Then no wonder you guys love stats.

[Shooter]

yeah lets compare a motivated team(94) to a non motivated team(93) instead of 92. Thats what trolls do. Same trolls who compares statpadders like westbrook/lebron to team players like kobe/kawhi. But the result speaks for itself anyways.

1993, Pip + MJ = 57 wins
1994, Pip + Pete Myers = 55 wins

Questions?

[Roundball_Rock]

MJ couldn't motivate them about threepeating but Pippen and Cartwright could over MJ playing baseball? Damn. Often MJ fans damn him the most...

How about Ewing? MJ was finally gone. Did he motivate the team to improve and dominate? Or did the team regress and then struggle to come out the East (even against a 47 win team)?

[knicksman]

"I troll like simon coz my posts lack substance" -dmavs

[Roundball_Rock]

1993, Pip + MJ = 57 wins
1994, Pip + Pete Myers = 55 wins

Questions?

Imagine if he had Penny and Nick Anderson instead of Myers and BJ. I'm sure he could motivate and lead them to win playoff games and not get embarrassed by a 47 win team.

[Shooter]

1993, Pip + MJ = 57 wins
1994, Pip + Pete Myers = 55 wins

Questions?

Knicksman?

[Roundball_Rock]

Knicksman, the argument we often hear that the Bulls wanted to show they were good without MJ is not a good look for MJ either. To the extent they felt that way it is because MJ hogged all the credit (examples of which we see 24/7 from his fans and the media to this day). It is no coincidence great leaders share credit and shoulder blame. That's leadership 101. Jordan was better at sharing credit after his experience as a scrub in baseball but before he retired he would do things like throw his teammates under the bus after losing their first finals game (he said everyone else was nervous :lol ).

[72-10]

due to Pippen's butt ugly 94 offensive game and a defensive game that still hadn't rounded into full form, the all-world at both ends Ewing is the clear choice

Shaq was too primitive in his skillset at the time

[HoopsNY]

Well, that is part of my point. Orlando underachieved and part of that is Shaq didn't have the leadership or intangibles to get the most out of that team. Part of it is his and their inexperience. You are selling the "cast" short, though.

So inexperience matters now? Irony


Nick Anderson was 20/6/3 in 93' as well as 92'. His numbers took a hit because Shaq took a step forward and Penny got there but he was the same player.

Dennis Scott was 20/4/2 in 92', although his numbers decreased when Shaq got there in 93' and then more when Penny got there as well in 94'. Same player as 92', though.

Skiles was 17/3/8 in 91' and 15/4/9 in 93' before Penny.

It boils down to this, Would you rather have Penny-Anderson-Scott or Bj-Grant-Kukoc. The answer is simple, since one group provides experience, defense, and proven results. But it's Shaq's fault he had an inexperienced cast?

[insidious301]

This topic has delved into the 94 Orlando Magic vs Chicago Bulls. The OP however isn't about team strength, but instead individual impact. In other words: the best player of the three. I've said why I would pick Shaq. Now let me post his numbers.

1994
29.0 points (2nd)
13 rebounds (2nd)
29 Total PER (2nd)
28 Total WS (2nd)
7.0 Total BPM (5th)

To think Shaq was only in his SECOND year is wild. Complete destruction the minute he stepped onto the floor.

[Roundball_Rock]

due to Pippen's butt ugly 94 offensive game and a defensive game that still hadn't rounded into full form, the all-world at both ends Ewing is the clear choice

Pippen was the more productive offensive player...Ewing scored 2.5 more points but Pippen produced more total offense since he was capable of passing and creating, unlike Ewing (one reason Ewing could never anchor a competent offense--he couldn't make teams pay for doubling him). As to defense, Pippen was DPOY-worthy. What are you talking about "defensive game that still hadn't rounded into form"? :wtf:

Your logic would dictate Pippen being the choice but this thread isn't about logic but diminishing 94' Pippen. ; )


This topic has delved into the 94 Orlando Magic vs Chicago Bulls. The OP however isn't about team strength, but instead individual impact

The two go together. If 94' Shaq is the player he is being touted as in multiple threads and he has the best "cast", why did he have by far the worst team results? Across all these pages in both threads we have yet to get an answer for the discrepancy (outside of my theory about intangibles and leadership--nothing from the people hyping Shaq/Ewing in these threads). We don't even see attempts to square the discrepancy.

[insidious301]

If 94' Shaq is the player he is being touted as in multiple threads and he has the best "cast", why did he have by far the worst team results?

I would assume because one player =/= an entire team. OP is also asking to build around each player. If I had my choice of teammates from Chicago/Orlando/New York then I am going to build a superior team around Shaq. Who by the numbers was arguably more dominant than the other two.

[Roundball_Rock]

I would assume because one player =/= an entire team. OP is also asking to build around each player. If I had my choice of teammates from Chicago/Orlando/New York then I am going to build a superior team around Shaq. Who by the numbers was arguably more dominant than the other two.

You know this thread is an offshoot of the 94' "MVP" thread. The argument put forward for Pippen was exactly that: value (e.g., a 33 win pace to 58 with him). If Shaq is MVP, he has the most "help", and he does the least--that doesn't add up and that is why we never get an answer because the obvious answer doesn't suit the "hyping 94' Shaq" goal.

If we are talking building a team long term it is easily Shaq but the OP talks about one year.

The stats that we see chosen are selective for Shaq and Ewing.

VORP: Shaq 7.2, Pippen 6.8, Ewing 5.5
BPM: Pippen 7.7, Shaq 6.8, Ewing 5.2

VORP is influenced by games played--if you adjust on a per game basis Pippen pulls away.

VORP per 82: Pippen 7.7, Shaq 7.2, Ewing 5.7

So the two biggest advanced stats have Pippen ahead of Shaq, Ewing in value.

Statistically Ewing has no case but the people invoking stats said Ewing>Pippen too. :oldlol: Shaq has a statistical case--but the argument against Shaq is not statistical. Basketball is about more than stats and those areas are where young Shaq fell short of his peers. That isn't a knock on him. You can't expect a 21 year old to be this great leader, etc.

[TheCorporation]

1993, Pip + MJ = 57 wins
1994, Pip + Pete Myers = 55 wins

Questions?

Anyone?

[3ball]

scoring 20ppg on a sub 25 win team can be whatever. scottie hasnt played a season on a non playoff team.

Pippen played a a bunch of years without the triangle and was complete garbage each year

Do you know what brand of basketball is?. It means that strategy plays a part in the winning, not just talent.. the bulls had better strategy than the entire league and that's how they won, because their talent wasn't strong (the 2nd option was a basic rebounders/banger).

[Roundball_Rock]

Anyone?

I like how the "MJ is GOAT" crowd acts like the team winning 55 with Pete Myers "replacing" MJ is no big deal. So the purported GOAT retires at his peak, he is replaced by a G-League caliber player and they win 55. No big deal--that is apparently to be expected! :lol

That in the nutshell is the case for Pippen as 94' MVP, bolstered by the team sucking during the games he missed: the value/team impact. It is a MVP award, not a PPG award like we implicitly keep hearing (even if the difference is 2.5 PPG).

Ewing won 57* games--but with a full deck. Shaq won 50--with a full deck. Robinson 56--with a full deck (added Rodman). Hakeem 58--with a full deck. The Bulls lost the "GOAT" at his peak with 0 replacement for him and still won 55. One of these is not like the others...


Also, a quick check of BR shows Rodman's wrong about Pippen leading the Bulls in every category.

He led them in every category in 95'. In 94' he did in the playoffs, except blocks.

*The Knicks beat the Bulls in a meaningless final game (their seeds were set), keep that in mind when the "57 vs. 55!" crowd shows up. :oldlol:

[3ball]

Pippen played a a bunch of years without the triangle and was complete garbage each year

Do you know what brand of basketball is?. It means that strategy plays a part in the winning, not just talent.. the bulls had better strategy than the entire league and that's how they won, because their talent wasn't strong (the 2nd option was a basic rebounders/banger).

Anyone?

[Roundball_Rock]

3ball, can you answer the question of who 94' Pippen actually was better than? We get he is worse than any star whose name comes up per your peeps. At what point is he actually better than someone? :lol

[3ball]

3ball, can you answer the question of who 94' Pippen actually was better than? We get he is worse than any star whose name comes up per your peeps. At what point is he actually better than someone? :lol

He was worse in many situations than Glenn Robinson - so basically any situation that required scoring.. that's a lot of situations

So it's hard to say who he is better than because so many guys are equal or better scorers and we already know that pippen never scored well outside the triangle or in the clutch

But I'll say he was better than Charles Oakley.. he was better than PJ Brown.. overall, Pippen's impact was similar to peak John Starks (19/6/6 with all-def).. except Starks could really shoot and get hot

[HoopsNY]

I like how the "MJ is GOAT" crowd acts like the team winning 55 with Pete Myers "replacing" MJ is no big deal. So the purported GOAT retires at his peak, he is replaced by a G-League caliber player and they win 55. No big deal--that is apparently to be expected! :lol

That in the nutshell is the case for Pippen as 94' MVP, bolstered by the team sucking during the games he missed: the value/team impact. It is a MVP award, not a PPG award like we implicitly keep hearing (even if the difference is 2.5 PPG).

Ewing won 57* games--but with a full deck. Shaq won 50--with a full deck. Robinson 56--with a full deck (added Rodman). Hakeem 58--with a full deck. The Bulls lost the "GOAT" at his peak with 0 replacement for him and still won 55. One of these is not like the others...



He led them in every category in 95'. In 94' he did in the playoffs, except blocks.

*The Knicks beat the Bulls in a meaningless final game (their seeds were set), keep that in mind when the "57 vs. 55!" crowd shows up. :oldlol:

Everything that you're saying makes sense, which is why Pippen finished 3rd that year in voting. The fact that MJ left and Pippen led that ship to the success that they had was an important factor.

But that isn't the be all, end all. I do agree Pippen probably deserved consideration more than Ewing, though Ewing had a similar case.

The fact that Orlando won 50 games (as opposed to 55), is important. But I think you're underrating Pippen's supporting cast (particularly Kukoc, Grant, and Bj) when comparing them to Anderson, Scott, and Penny, none of whom were good defensively.

The argument goes in several directions. The way you're treating this is as if there is such a tremendous gap between Pippen and Ewing/Shaq. I don't believe that there is. But what's worse is that you think this is some far fetched conspiracy by Mj stans, and that no one in any way should prefer Ewing/Shaq over Pippen in that season (me included I presume).

[Roundball_Rock]

He was worse in many situations than Glenn Robinson - so basically any situation that required scoring.. that's a lot of situations

So it's hard to say who he is better than because so many guys are equal or better scorers and we already know that pippen never scored well outside the triangle or in the clutch

But I'll say he was better than Charles Oakley.. he was better than PJ Brown.. overall, Pippen's impact was similar to peak John Starks (19/6/6 with all-def).. except Starks could really shoot and get hot

So it sounds like you are saying he falls somewhere between Starks and Oakley. It is crazy but at least you admit it, instead of dancing around in 40 player comparisons (Shaq is a legit argument but Miller, Irving, Worthy, Iggy, etc. are not) always taking the "non-Pippen" option without spelling out the actual agenda.

What is interesting about MJ stans' "evaluation" of Pippen a quarter century later is since Pippen was shopped around we have a good handle on how other teams evaluated him and compare to other stars who were traded. Tim Hardaway, Mourning and Rice are all players who have come up on ISH in comparison to Pippen. Miami tried to trade for Pippen the year before they traded for Hardaway and Zo'.

Pippen's value: One of future all-star forwards Rice or Smith (Bulls' choice) and Rony Seiklay (a 17/12 caliber center). In other words, all three of their best players were on the table and they were willing to ship two.

Hardaway's value: an old Kevin Willis and Bimbo Coles--only if future all-star Chris Gatling was tossed in there as well along with Hardaway.

Mourning's/Rice's value: these two were basically traded straight up, with two scrubs attached as fillers on each side of the deal.

So Pippen alone could command Rice/Smith plus Seiklay but Mourning for Rice was basically straight up and GS had to throw in a future all-star to make a Coles/Willis deal work. Hardaway alone couldn't get it done.

Since Hardaway, Mourning were top 10 players--this implies Pippen was considered a tier above.

But hey, the guy sucked. I read about it each day on ISH from MJ fans (not actual NBA front office officials). :oldlol:

[insidious301]

You know this thread is an offshoot of the 94' "MVP" thread. The argument put forward for Pippen was exactly that: value (e.g., a 33 win pace to 58 with him). If Shaq is MVP, he has the most "help", and he does the least--that doesn't add up and that is why we never get an answer because the obvious answer doesn't suit the "hyping 94' Shaq" goal.

If we are talking building a team long term it is easily Shaq but the OP talks about one year.

The stats that we see chosen are selective for Shaq and Ewing.

VORP: Shaq 7.2, Pippen 6.8, Ewing 5.5
BPM: Pippen 7.7, Shaq 6.8, Ewing 5.2

VORP is influenced by games played--if you adjust on a per game basis Pippen pulls away.

VORP per 82: Pippen 7.7, Shaq 7.2, Ewing 5.7

So the two biggest advanced stats have Pippen ahead of Shaq, Ewing in value.

Statistically Ewing has no case but the people invoking stats said Ewing>Pippen too. :oldlol: Shaq has a statistical case--but the argument against Shaq is not statistical. Basketball is about more than stats and those areas are where young Shaq fell short of his peers. That isn't a knock on him. You can't expect a 21 year old to be this great leader, etc.

Yeah its why I asked if this was about "MVP" or not. If the conversation is only about the player in a vacuum? And the kind of impact he carried? I am going to take Shaq. Back then I probably wouldn't but hindsight is 20/20. Fair or not, I know what Shaq did in 1994 wasn't a fluke. The numbers were just a peak of what he would do in his prime. Ewing on the other hand, I am not seeing an argument for. No qualms there.

[Roundball_Rock]

If the conversation is only about the player in a vacuum? And the kind of impact he carried? I am going to take Shaq. Back then I probably wouldn't but hindsight is 20/20. Fair or not, I know what Shaq did in 1994 wasn't a fluke.

Yeah, Shaq is a legit case. I do think if this was asked in 94' the answer would be Pippen (if we are talking for a single season) but we don't know. The NBA needs to publish an official best players list instead of all-NBA. All-NBA can be useful comparing forwards to forwards, guards to guards and C's to C's but doesn't work in 94' when the best players were four centers plus a SF.

I don't get this crusade on scoring. Scoring varies based on how good your team is--it is easier for Zach Lavine to go 26/5/5 on a trash team than on a good team. It matters most in the playoffs against tougher competition. It also varies based on role. Pippen's job was to facilitate first, score second--he keeps getting compared to players who are asked to score first, pass fifth. :oldlol:

Player A in the ECF: 21 PPG on roughly 14 shots (1.5 per shot)
Player B in the ECF: 20 PPG on roughly 16 shots (1.3 per shot)
Player C in the ECF: 24 PPG on roughly 18 shots (1.3 per shot)

A and C are praised as awesome scorers while B "sucks" at scoring per the same people. What is the massive difference here? :lol (We can't use the finals since the other two didn't go there multiple times...)

[97 bulls]

He was worse in many situations than Glenn Robinson - so basically any situation that required scoring.. that's a lot of situations

So it's hard to say who he is better than because so many guys are equal or better scorers and we already know that pippen never scored well outside the triangle or in the clutch

But I'll say he was better than Charles Oakley.. he was better than PJ Brown.. overall, Pippen's impact was similar to peak John Starks (19/6/6 with all-def).. except Starks could really shoot and get hot

Wow. John Starks?

[Roundball_Rock]

Wow. John Starks?

The same Starks who did this as a #2 option (he sucked in 96' but the Knicks weren't contenders that year):

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%

Pippen nearly averaged a triple double in half his finals and is compared to Starks. :oldlol:


If 3ball was the GM of the Bulls, he would've traded Pippen for some magic beans and made some team a dynasty.

Yeah, it is a shame Krause didn't realize how much Pippen sucked and didn't offload him for someone like Starks or Sean Elliott. The Bulls won despite of, not in part because of, Pippen after all.

[97 bulls]

So it sounds like you are saying he falls somewhere between Starks and Oakley. It is crazy but at least you admit it, instead of dancing around in 40 player comparisons (Shaq is a legit argument but Miller, Irving, Worthy, Iggy, etc. are not) always taking the "non-Pippen" option without spelling out the actual agenda.

What is interesting about MJ stans' "evaluation" of Pippen a quarter century later is since Pippen was shopped around we have a good handle on how other teams evaluated him and compare to other stars who were traded. Tim Hardaway, Mourning and Rice are all players who have come up on ISH in comparison to Pippen. Miami tried to trade for Pippen the year before they traded for Hardaway and Zo'.

Pippen's value: One of future all-star forwards Rice or Smith (Bulls' choice) and Rony Seiklay (a 17/12 caliber center). In other words, all three of their best players were on the table and they were willing to ship two.

Hardaway's value: an old Kevin Willis and Bimbo Coles--only if future all-star Chris Gatling was tossed in there as well along with Hardaway.

Mourning's/Rice's value: these two were basically traded straight up, with two scrubs attached as fillers on each side of the deal.

So Pippen alone could command Rice/Smith plus Seiklay but Mourning for Rice was basically straight up and GS had to throw in a future all-star to make a Coles/Willis deal work. Hardaway alone couldn't get it done.

Since Hardaway, Mourning were top 10 players--this implies Pippen was considered a tier above.

But hey, the guy sucked. I read about it each day on ISH from MJ fans (not actual NBA front office officials). :oldlol:

If 3ball was the GM of the Bulls, he would've traded Pippen for some magic beans and made some team a dynasty.

[Roundball_Rock]

If 3ball was the GM of the Bulls, he would've traded Pippen for some magic beans and made some team a dynasty.

With all the BS we hear, it would have been interesting to see if Pippen was traded and they had to do 1996-1998 without him. Obviously, since the main attack against him is he was a "sidekick" (hence the big effort to diminish 94', his one full season as a #1, because it nukes the "sidekick" argument), he would have been better off pulling a Kyrie since he doesn't get any credit for the extra rings (losing in the ECF as a "#1" apparently is better than actually winning). If Pippen is on the Sonics, the Sonics win in 96' and 97' instead of the Bulls and the Pacers win in 98'. I don't know if the Bulls can get past the Magic in 96' with Kemp. (Keep in mind if Kemp is on the Bulls that means not only no Pippen but no Rodman as well since Kemp was a PF.)

[Carbine]

You guys have to stop focusing so much attention of trolls. It's actually sad from my point of view how much time you devote to their narratives.

Pippen is a top 30-35 player ever by 95 percent of the fans. Isn't that good enough?

He gets credit for the rings, it's a top 3 reason why he is held in such high regard.

[insidious301]

You guys have to stop focusing so much attention of trolls. It's actually sad from my point of view how much time you devote to their narratives.

Pippen is a top 30-35 player ever by 95 percent of the fans. Isn't that good enough?

He gets credit for the rings, it's a top 3 reason why he is held in such high regard.

Too much emphasis is on a trolls opinion, you're right. 3ball and tpol are the posters you see frequently underrate Pippen. HoopsNY and I might not be a superfan like Roundball is, but we're generally fair. Most people rank Pippen fairly I would imagine.

[Roundball_Rock]

You guys have to stop focusing so much attention of trolls. It's actually sad from my point of view how much time you devote to their narratives.

It isn't just trolls--that is a copout. The reason it warrants attention is exemplified by this thread. Anyone who was around in 1994 knows the real MVP candidates were Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson. Thanks to the work of "you know who", history has been revised to 1) elevate Shaq, Ewing into MVP candidates 2) cleverly demote Pippen from the first tier to the second tier 26 years later (part of the rationale for pushing Shaq, Ewing--you need others to join him in the second tier). People are fine with history being re-written out in the open? I am not, whether it is basketball history or other forms of history.

Other examples are the "Pippen sucked at scoring/offense" and "Pippen sucked in the playoffs" narratives have taken hold via mass repetition day in, day out from MJ fans. People will diss 20 PPG and shamelessly lionize 21 PPG in the next thread.

This is what happens when there is some form of checking going on--imagine if they were left unchecked to spew the revisionism, etc...

Ewing is an obvious case. Look no further than the 93' MVP race. I don't see armies of MJ fans pushing him as a MVP candidate in that thread (99% of them have no opinion on 93' MVP but have passionate views on 94' MVP :lol )--the year he had the best case--like they did in the 94' thread that led to the OP. If Ewing was ever going to be MVP it would have been 93'. If he isn't a viable candidate in 93', why is he magically so in 94'? You know the answer: the Bulls' candidate happened to be Pippen, not Jordan in 94'.



He gets credit for the rings

We routinely hear a player>Pippen because they lost in the finals as a "#1" versus Pippen winning 6 times as #2. It comes up with others too like McHale (e.g., Miller losing>McHale winning), but he isn't discussed as often as Pippen since Bird fans aren't crusading against him.

You guys are getting too caught up in the particulars of individual posters and ignoring all these people row in the same direction pushing the same narratives--the difference is only in degree. There isn't that much different between 3ball and the median MJ fan on ISH in terms of their general narrative/outlook.

[insidious301]

Hey Roundball? Can you list the "Jordan fans" who are fair and intelligent? In contrast, who are the ones on 3ball level? This will help me weed them out in future conversation.

[Roundball_Rock]

There are several who are good posters, even if biased. They just seem to be getting more extreme as LeBron gains ground, not recognizing diminishing Pippen cuts both ways (it makes MJ's team look worse but it also makes his competition look worse: if Pippen sucked and was all-NBA 1st team, MVP caliber in the 90's but would be Iggy or Green today, that implies MJ's era sucked).

It is just annoying that there are 50 people in each thread pushing the same general narratives and only a handful of people on the other side to combat it. :oldlol:

Phoenix is the best and he seems to do his own thing despite being a MJ fan. Carbine is good and fair as well. I have to give Kuniva credit too--he is willing to go back and forth in a deep discussion. When you do that, you can find you don't disagree on much in substance once you get away from the extreme frames. DR was solid years ago but apparently doesn't post anymore unless there is a MJ documentary.

With almost all the others, whether good posters or bad, its the same themes on a spectrum (Pippen is overrated/easily replaceable, Pippen sucked on offense, Pippen sucked in the playoffs, MJ had to do everything himself because he played with bums*, everybody MJ played against was awesome, etc.)

3ball's value is he pushes the "Overton window" more extreme and he makes the others look moderate. So if 3ball is saying Pippen=Starks, someone else says Worthy>Pippen both are saying Pippen was overrated, just one in a more extreme way.

*Except in 1994, when the Bulls had the best "supporting cast" in the NBA per the same people and should have won the chip. :oldlol: So he makes his teammates better but the only time they weren't bums was in 1994. The inconsistencies can be head spinning.

[insidious301]

Thanks for the info, Roundball. Phoenix, kuniva, Dr(darealist?) have always been cordial and fair. From my vantage point of course. I don't want to stir the pot here, but my exchange with "guy" hasn't been great. Dude jumps into a conversation and assumed a bunch of things that had no relevance to the topic. You made your OP with clear distinction: "Starks vs #2s" Why then did he turn that into "Ewing vs Jordan" and even worse, "LeBron vs Jordan". I told him repeatedly that his examples were apples and oranges. He didn't care and still tried bending the narrative. If that is your typical Jordan fan on here then I can see you frustration. Its like you're talking to a brick wall.