What's more impressive

[3ba11]

Serious replies only

[1987_Lakers]

Hakeem won back to back without a Pippen like player.

[3ba11]

Hakeem won back to back without a Pippen like player.


Actually, their 24-year old rookie Sam Cassell was their secret weapon because he was an all-star-caliber player that was 6th option

Cassell, Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell were rich man's versions of Paxson, while Thorpe was a rich man's version of Horace, while Horry was the antithesis of Pippen - a clutch-shooting assassin with "it factor" confidence that elevated teams - Horry infact had zero respect for Pippen and told Rachel Nichols that he would've easily "locked up" the "sorry-ass" Pippen (video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZpVlMVYr-A&t=24s)).

Horry reached a higher peak caliber of play in the Finals since Pippen is 0/6 in matching Horry's gamescore from the 95' Finals and always trailed Horry by a mile in clutch-time impact or spacing - Pippen was a massive lane-clogger that afforded opposing coaches the rare luxury of packing the paint ala Ben Simmons or Zion, which hurt MJ's game a lot compared to Horry's spacing and clutch).

In addition to all this, Hakeem added another elite producer and franchise player teammate in Drexler, while MJ remained with zero franchise player teammates or elite-producing teammates, so he had to defeat max defensive attention (carry scoring load on championship level) more than anyone ever has - he's the only guy that won titles as usage or scoring champ, so he's the only guy that was good enough to play a championship brand of ball while carrying the league's biggest burden.

[Full Court]

Hakeem won back to back without a Pippen like player.

Up there with the best rings of all time. I have Hakeem ranked above Lebron.

[1987_Lakers]

Actually, their 24-year old rookie Sam Cassell was their secret weapon because he was an all-star-caliber player that was 6th option

Cassell, Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell were rich man's versions of Paxson, while Thorpe was a rich man's version of Horace, while Horry was the antithesis of Pippen - a clutch-shooting assassin with "it factor" confidence that elevated teams - Horry infact had zero respect for Pippen and told Rachel Nichols that he would've easily "locked up" the "sorry-ass" Pippen (video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZpVlMVYr-A&t=24s)).

Horry reached a higher peak caliber of play in the Finals since Pippen is 0/6 in matching Horry's gamescore from the 95' Finals and always trailed Horry by a mile in clutch-time impact or spacing - Pippen was a massive lane-clogger that afforded opposing coaches the rare luxury of packing the paint ala Ben Simmons or Zion, which hurt MJ's game a lot compared to Horry's spacing and clutch).

In addition to all this, Hakeem added another elite producer and franchise player teammate in Drexler, while MJ remained with zero franchise player teammates or elite-producing teammates, so he had to defeat max defensive attention (carry scoring load on championship level) more than anyone ever has - he's the only guy that won titles as usage or scoring champ, so he's the only guy that was good enough to play a championship brand of ball while carrying the league's biggest burden.

This is why nobody takes you serious. Comparing Pippen to Horry. :oldlol:

[3ba11]

Hakeem won back to back without a Pippen like player.


Evidence that Horry > Pippen (but Pip simply played with the goat that elevated him)



Evidence #1 - Horry was far superior early in their careers (2nd best player on a champion):



ROOKIE HORRY.............. starter
ROOJKIE PIPPEN............ bench-warmer

2nd YEAR HORRY........... 2nd-best player on title team & historic clutch performer
2ND YEAR PIPPEN.......... bum

3RD YEAR HORRY........... played better in 95' Finals than Pippen ever played
3RD YEAR PIPPEN.......... historic "migraine" choke cost MJ title



Evidence #2 - Horry had higher peak capability:



FINALS


95' Horry...... 19.0 gamescore... 18/10/4/3/2 on 57 TS

92' Pippen.... 18.1 gamescore.... 21/8/7/2/1 on 56 TS
91' Pippen.... 17.5 gamescore.... 21/9/7/2/1 on 53 TS
93' Pippen.... 15.6 gamescore.... 20/9/8/2/1 on 46 TS
97' Pippen.... 15.1 gamescore.... 20/8/3/2/2 on 54 TS
96' Pippen.... 13.4 gamescore.... 16/7/5/2/1 on 43 TS
98' Pippen.... 13.0 gamescore.... 16/8/5/2/1 on 50 TS



Evidence #3 - Everyone went off on Pippen, so Horry would join the many forwards that regularly outplayed Pippen:



http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?513893-Pippen-s-defense-was-overrated-he-couldn-t-contain-opposing-SF-s&p=14827646&viewfull=1#post14827646



Evidence #4 - Horry agrees with me that he would destroy Pippen:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZpVlMVYr-A&t=24s



Evidence #5 - Horry was historic clutch performer and floor-spacer, while Pippen was historic bricklayer, lane-clogger, and choker with the worst clutch stats in history



* Horry hit 100 big shots to win 7 rings and provided Hakeem with great spacing
* Pippen hit 0 big shots to win 6 rings and clogged the lanes for MJ





TLDR: MJ would've won titles EARLIER and EASIER with horry than pippen.. MJ didn't need Pippen's passing just like Kobe didn't need it and paxson can easily be replaced by any PG like sam vincent let alone someone like derek harper

[1987_Lakers]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llgnf6gY_gM&t

Pippen outscores MJ in the 2nd half to clinch a Finals birth. Reporters immediately go to interview Pippen instead of MJ after the game. :lol

[3ba11]

This is why nobody takes you serious. Comparing Pippen to Horry. :oldlol:


2nd year Horry was the 2nd-best player on a champion and historic clutch performer, while 2nd-year Pippen was bum, so MJ would've won earlier and easier with Horry than pippen.. And we already know that 3rd year Horry played better than Pippen ever played in the Finals, so that obviously allows MJ to win earlier and easier as well.

Pippen was just a transition player that was coddled by a system that coddled weak iso players - outside the system, he was worse than Jeff Green - he couldn't get out of the first round with Hakeem, while Horry repeated with Hakeem.. so your argument backfires - MJ never had a guy like Horry or cast like Hakeem had - Hakeem had 3 rich man's Paxson, a rich man's Horace, and a clutch assassiin that reached higher level on the championship level than Pippen ever did.

[3ba11]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llgnf6gY_gM&t

Pippen outscores MJ in the 2nd half to clinch a Finals birth. Reporters immediately go to interview Pippen instead of MJ after the game. :lol


1993 ECF

Jordan...... 32/7/7... 2.3 tov... 2.5 spg... 1.0 bpg
Pippen...... 22/7/4... 4.0 tov... 1.8 spg... 0.5 bpg


So you're bragging about 1 game where MJ and Pippen scored basically the same, while every other sidekick in the 90's was a real 1b that led entire SERIES and led their team to the Finals

Terry Porter, Stockton, Dumars or Kemp all carried their teams for conference finals to carry their team to the Finals..

Pippen was the only notable sidekick that wasn't a 1b that could get elite stats and lead the team to conference finals or Finals.. Even KJ was routinely making WCF before Barkley arrived and this includes domination and upset of Magic's 1 seed in 1990 - Pippen isn't on this level.. Even X-Man led the 87 Sonics to the WCF and dominated Lakers and then the old X-Man dominated Pippen in 92' Playoffs

so you simply don't know the history of potty pippen - he was nowhere near other sidekicks - he had the worst passing, shooting, efficiency, clutch or peak capability (not on scouting report according to Shaq) of any notable 90's sidekick.

[elementally morale]

I'm not sure. Co-existing is hard. At first glance the answer seems obvious but as I think about it, it's actually hard to win if there is no clear pecking order. Winning is hard. :-)

[3ba11]

I'm not sure. Co-existing is hard. At first glance the answer seems obvious but as I think about it, it's actually hard to win if there is no clear pecking order. Winning is hard. :-)


2 decades has shown that Lebron cannot achieve great chemistry or perennial favorite status/dominance with any lineup or sidekick

How many decades will it take before you concede Lebron isn't capable of a #1 offense, perennial favorite or "sure thing" regardless of cast?... 3 decades??... 4??... Will 4 decades be a big enough sample size?

ball-dominator like Lebron, Luka or Westbrook cannot fit with another ball-dominator, whereas expert jumpshooter like curry, mj, kobe or bird fit with anyone or any system, so they have max chemistry and strategic capacity/coaching, thereby yielding the best team ceiling/Finals records

specifically, Lebron lacks expert jumpshooting skill - this lack of off-ball ability yields a point guard hold-time and assisted rate (abnormal ball-dominance for his size/position), which imposes spot-up roles upon teammates (reduces their assists and increases their assisted rate) - these spot-up roles prevent teammate development, elite chemistry or strategic capacity/coaching, thereby yielding perennial underdogs, weak records and Finals losers regardless of cast.. FYI - zero young players grew from single-digits to meaningful producer on his watch because he imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win (can't win organically).

[3ba11]

Lebron-ball could NEVER win with this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/V4lLnPIsmOw


https://media.tenor.com/zdFtiktD6-wAAAAM/accomplished-job.gif


:oldlol:

it takes superior brand of ball to win with bums like Wiggins or Pippen or klay, while ball-dominators need kareem

[elementally morale]

2 decades has shown that Lebron cannot achieve great chemistry or perennial favorite status/dominance with any lineup or sidekick

How many decades will it take before you concede Lebron isn't capable of a #1 offense, perennial favorite or "sure thing" regardless of cast?... 3 decades??... 4??... Will 4 decades be a big enough sample size?

Relax.

1) I wasn't talking about LeBron
2) I don't even like LeBron's game
3) I tried to answer your question

Don't ask if you won't accept the answer. I think it is actually hard to win either way. Sometimes it's addition via subtraction.

[RRR3]

Relax.

1) I wasn't talking about LeBron
2) I don't even like LeBron's game
3) I tried to answer your question

Don't ask if you won't accept the answer. I think it is actually hard to win either way. Sometimes it's addition via subtraction.
Never read a post by Op Before?

[SATAN]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llgnf6gY_gM&t

Pippen outscores MJ in the 2nd half to clinch a Finals birth. Reporters immediately go to interview Pippen instead of MJ after the game. :lol

:lebronamazed:

[Spurs m8]

Hakeem won back to back without a Pippen like player.

And how did that turn out once Jordan properly returned?

Jordan x3 years before.

Hakeem without the GOAT opponent.

Jordan x3 right after.

Can't make this shit up.

Time to wax your vag, 1987

[Phoenix]

Relax.

1) I wasn't talking about LeBron
2) I don't even like LeBron's game
3) I tried to answer your question

Don't ask if you won't accept the answer. I think it is actually hard to win either way. Sometimes it's addition via subtraction.

That's the hilarity of it. He's not interested in your reply unless it's 1:1 with his. Even more hilarious, people on this board know this and engage for multiple pages anyway.

[ShawkFactory]

I'm not sure. Co-existing is hard. At first glance the answer seems obvious but as I think about it, it's actually hard to win if there is no clear pecking order. Winning is hard. :-)

There’s actually something to this. Look at the best teams in the NBA right now. All of them have a clear #1, #2, and #3. More importantly, the guys understand and accept these roles.

[elementally morale]

There’s actually something to this. Look at the best teams in the NBA right now. All of them have a clear #1, #2, and #3. More importantly, the guys understand and accept these roles.

Back in the day when I was playing competitive basketball, we had this team I was either the best or second best player on. At the time it was a bit of a duel as to who is the best. In retrospect I think it wasn't me... but it is besides the point. Which is: our team was better when one of us was out of the lineup. We were like 15 at the time, so take it with a grain of salt. But it was very competitive basketball. A year later two teams merged and we finally got a teammate who later made it to the NBA (Kornel David, Bulls). He was a lot better than both of us and it magically solved all co-existing problems.

[3ba11]

Relax.

1) I wasn't talking about LeBron
2) I don't even like LeBron's game
3) I tried to answer your question

Don't ask if you won't accept the answer. I think it is actually hard to win either way. Sometimes it's addition via subtraction.


No

it's easier to win with 2 superstars assuming they are good fits, which they will be if one of them is an expert jumpshooter (Curry, MJ, Kobe, Bird).. But if they're both spotty-shooting ball-dominators, then they'll have weak fit and win less than expected like lebron-westbrook or lebron-ingram or lebron-hughes or lebron-wade

[John8204]

It's obviously much harder to win with franchise players coming together...71'Bucks, 83'76ers, 95'Rockets, amd 08'Celtics

[elementally morale]

No

it's easier to win with 2 superstars assuming they are good fits, which they will be if one of them is an expert jumpshooter (Curry, MJ, Kobe, Bird).. But if they're both spotty-shooting ball-dominators, then they'll have weak fit and win less than expected like lebron-westbrook or lebron-ingram or lebron-hughes or lebron-wade


I'm not convinced. The Lakers had that superteam with prime Shaq and Kobe plus Malone and Payton. Then another one great on paper with Nash and Dwight plus the original championship team's core. Didn't quite work. Could have if not for a few things here and there? Sure. But there always seem to be a few things here and there. Winning is hard and it is hard for different reasons.

Anyway, you had a question. Some people agree with you, others say the opposite. I'm agnostic.

The question you asked is a good one. The answer is not that easy.

[elementally morale]

Never read a post by Op Before?

I sure have but I'm patient. :-)
If we can have a discussion it's a lot better than simple name-calling.

[Axe]

And how did that turn out once Jordan properly returned?

Jordan x3 years before.

Hakeem without the GOAT opponent.

Jordan x3 right after.

Can't make this shit up.

Time to wax your vag, 1987
Yet jordan was like 10-13 against hakeem h2h. Learn to know history, you casual bogan.

[Nb1]

Winning with total different teammates is always more impressive. And other than Wade, the other ones were/are known losers. Never won anything when they weren't being carried by Bron.

Many times after playing with the same guys for a while, you gel, find a perfect system, know each other and what everyone is gonna do which makes everything easier. You could be a bum and become a star thrown into that oiled system.

But take on a whole new team and win? You need Bron for that! No one else was able to do it and those who tried miserably failed.

Put any other star in Lebrons shoes with a new team and it's 0 rings. Put Lebron on those Warriors and he'd have 16 rings by now lol.