Scottie Pippen in the playoffs from 1991-93

.
[B]THREAD CLIFFS[/B]


Pippen's stats are on a similar level to most prominent sidekicks, yet MJ was the only 1st option that won 6 rings and 3-peated - Magic actually received more production from Kareem or Worthy, yet he only won 5.. Bird also got more from McHale and Parish or DJ, yet Bird only has 3.

And on down the line..

Everyone got at least 16 ppg with terrible efficiency from their sidekick, yet only MJ three-peated twice.. Yikes.. only mj could get ANYWHERE NEAR six rings with pippen and no third option..

tbh, only the very top guys at their PEAK could win with just Pippen and no 3rd option.. aka 71' Kareem or 00' Shaq (the only other times where the scoring champ won title).. and maybe a [I]small handful of other top seasons - that's the only level that wins with Pippen.[/I]

[QUOTE=3ball;14055024].
[B]THREAD CLIFFS[/B]


Pippen's stats are on a similar level to most prominent sidekicks, yet MJ was the only 1st option that won 6 rings and 3-peated - Magic actually received more production from Kareem or Worthy, yet he only won 5.. Bird also got more from McHale and Parish or DJ, yet Bird only has 3.

And on down the line..

Everyone got at least 16 ppg with terrible efficiency from their sidekick, yet only MJ three-peated twice.. Yikes.. only mj could get ANYWHERE NEAR six rings with pippen and no third option..

tbh, only the very top guys at their PEAK could win with just Pippen [B][U]and no 3rd option[/U][/B].. aka 71' Kareem or 00' Shaq (the only other times where the scoring champ won title).. and maybe a [I]small handful of other top seasons - that's the only level that wins with Pippen.[/I][/QUOTE]

[B]So Horace Grant wasn't a good 3rd option? :confusedshrug: He was Top 5 Defensive PF in the 90s and a 15-10 guy and All Star when Jordan wasn't around. He then left to the 94-95 Magic and got passed MJ and Pippen and played great that series. He was a great 3rd option! :no:[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound;14055050][B]So Horace Grant wasn't a good 3rd option? :confusedshrug: He was Top 5 Defensive PF in the 90s and a 15-10 guy and All Star when Jordan wasn't around. He then left to the 94-95 Magic and got passed MJ and Pippen and played great that series. He was a great 3rd option! :no:[/B][/QUOTE]

Horace is comparable to all-defender Varejao in 2010, or Mosgov who changed the Cavs' fortunes in 2015.. or Zydrunas averaged 2.5 blocks and Bosh is one of the pioneers of elite PNR defense..

So don't give me "b-b-but horace".. Lebron had tons of guys that were vastly superior...

Ultimately, horace was a 1-time all-star and Bosh was an 11-time all-star. while Love was a 1-time best PF in the game... Even Zydrunas and Jamison were 2-time all-stars while playing with lebron or 1 year removed.

Again, Lebron had tons of guys that were vastly superior... Heck, birdman compared defensively, and prime Haslem compared as well..

Lebron played with WAY better players than MJ, and much more OF them (7 all-stars to 1 for MJ)

[QUOTE=3ball;14055052]Horace is comparable to all-defender Varejao in 2010, or Mosgov who changed the Cavs' fortunes in 2015.. or Zydrunas averaged 2.5 blocks and Bosh is one of the pioneers of elite PNR defense..

So don't give me "b-b-but horace".. Lebron had tons of guys that were vastly superior...

Ultimately, horace was a 1-time all-star and Bosh was an 11-time all-star. while Love was a 1-time best PF in the game... Even Zydrunas and Jamison were 2-time all-stars while playing with lebron or 1 year removed.

Again, Lebron had tons of guys that were vastly superior... Heck, birdman compared defensively, and prime Haslem compared as well..

Lebron played with WAY better players than MJ, and much more OF them (7 all-stars to 1 for MJ)[/QUOTE]

[B]I wasn´t talking abou Lebron at all :confusedshrug:...i was just saying that Horace was a very good 3rd option. Which he was...:rolleyes:[/B]

[QUOTE=Round Mound;14055055][B]I wasn´t talking abou Lebron at all :confusedshrug:...i was just saying that Horace was a very good 3rd option. Which he was...:rolleyes:[/B][/QUOTE]

No, Larry Nance was a good 3rd option because the definition of "option" is that they can be relied upon to make a play offensively - so bangers/play-finishers like Grant don't qualify..

Schrempf was a great 3rd option - everything Kukoc was supposed to be, and he outplayed Pippen in the Finals despite being 3rd option

Dumas was 4th option but he was like a new age Pippen with better efficiency - aka 16 on 57% in the Finals - eerily similar to Kawhi's scoring in 14', aka torching Pippen in a Siakam-like, breakout performance in Game 5.

Divac and Perkins destroyed Horace in the 91' Finals - were both sophisticated, do-it-all bigs that averaged 18/9, while Horace's predictable play-finishing spots dried up.

Hornacek is underrated as a 3rd guy and Majerle was ahead of his time..

All these guys had something dynamic offensively that the defense had to be wary of OTHER than 2-point dunker-role type stuff

And maybe that's the problem with how you're looking at it.. aka through today's beginner format lense, where ALL the bigmen play like Horace ("dunker role", overly-spaced, beginner crap)... But back then, he was a replaceable robot because the good bigs could affect the game by creating for themselves.

[QUOTE=3ball;14055063]No, Larry Nance was a good 3rd option because the definition of "option" is that they can be relied upon to make a play offensively - so bangers/play-finishers like Grant don't qualify..

Schrempf was a great 3rd option - everything Kukoc was supposed to be, and he outplayed Pippen in the Finals despite being 3rd option

Dumas was 4th option but he was like a new age Pippen with better efficiency - aka 16 on 57% in the Finals - eerily similar to Kawhi's scoring in 14', aka torching Pippen in a Siakam-like, breakout performance in Game 5.

Divac and Perkins destroyed Horace in the 91' Finals - were both sophisticated, do-it-all bigs that averaged 18/9, while Horace's predictable play-finishing spots dried up.

Hornacek is underrated as a 3rd guy and Majerle was ahead of his time..

All these guys had something dynamic offensively that the defense had to be wary of OTHER than 2-point dunker-role type stuff

And maybe that's the problem with how you're looking at it.. aka through today's beginner format lense, where ALL the bigmen play like Horace ("dunker role", overly-spaced, beginner crap)... But back then, he was a replaceable robot because the good bigs could affect the game by creating for themselves.[/QUOTE]

[B]Offense is no the whole game what Pippen and Grant brought to the BULLS WAS TOP LEVEL ALL NBA TYPE DEFENSE (and versatility in Point-Forward Pippen).

To measure the level of a 2nd and 3rd option is to see them play without their 1st option, so here we go:

- 2nd Option Pippen: What happened after 1st option MJ left? 55 Wins (two wins less than with 1st option) and a Call Away From Getting to the Confrence Finals. Pippen was GREAT and Grant was "Very Good"

- 3rd Option Grant Leaves to the Magic. 2nd Option Pippen and 1st Option MJ loose to young Shaq, Penny and yes a "Very Good" 3rd option in Grant.[/B]

:confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=Round Mound;14055050][B]So Horace Grant wasn't a good 3rd option? :confusedshrug: He was Top 5 Defensive PF in the 90s and a 15-10 guy and All Star when Jordan wasn't around. He then left to the 94-95 Magic and got passed MJ and Pippen and played great that series. He was a great 3rd option! :no:[/B][/QUOTE]

It is funny, whenever the 94' season comes up MJ stans will sing songs about how great a [U]second[/U] option Grant was. So Grant was a great second option, but sucked as a third option. #Agendas :lol

20 pages of MJ stans saying how great a "supporting cast" the Bulls had in 94' and how they "should" have won the chip without MJ. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481147-1994-Pippen-should-have-been-mvp[/url]

If the "cast" is awesome when it is Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc then surely it is awesome when it is Pippen/Grant/Armstrong since Pippen/Grant/Armstrong>>>Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14056640]It is funny, whenever the 94' season comes up MJ stans will sing songs about how great a [U]second[/U] option Grant was. So Grant was a great second option, but sucked as a third option. #Agendas :lol

20 pages of MJ stans saying how great a "supporting cast" the Bulls had in 94' and how they "should" have won the chip without MJ. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481147-1994-Pippen-should-have-been-mvp[/url]

If the "cast" is awesome when it is Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc then surely it is awesome when it is Pippen/Grant/Armstrong since Pippen/Grant/Armstrong>>>Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc.[/QUOTE]

:lol

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14056640]It is funny, whenever the 94' season comes up MJ stans will sing songs about how great a [U]second[/U] option Grant was. So Grant was a great second option, but sucked as a third option. #Agendas :lol

20 pages of MJ stans saying how great a "supporting cast" the Bulls had in 94' and how they "should" have won the chip without MJ. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481147-1994-Pippen-should-have-been-mvp[/url]

If the "cast" is awesome when it is Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc then surely it is awesome when it is Pippen/Grant/Armstrong since Pippen/Grant/Armstrong>>>Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc.[/QUOTE]

MJ fans by year

1993: Team was shit without MJ he carried those bums
1994: They still had Pippen and Kukoc, both were so good they should have won 65 games and a chip!!!11!!1!!!!
1996: Team was shit without MJ he carried those bums

:lol

[QUOTE=TheCorporation;14057032]MJ fans by year

1993: Team was shit without MJ he carried those bums
1994: They still had Pippen and Kukoc, both were so good they should have won 65 games and a chip!!!11!!1!!!!
1996: Team was shit without MJ he carried those bums

:lol[/QUOTE]

:roll: perfect! Especially the part of erasing 1995 altogether! :lol

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14056640]It is funny, whenever the 94' season comes up MJ stans will sing songs about how great a [U]second[/U] option Grant was. So Grant was a great second option, but sucked as a third option. #Agendas :lol

20 pages of MJ stans saying how great a "supporting cast" the Bulls had in 94' and how they "should" have won the chip without MJ. [url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481147-1994-Pippen-should-have-been-mvp[/url]

If the "cast" is awesome when it is Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc then surely it is awesome when it is Pippen/Grant/Armstrong since Pippen/Grant/Armstrong>>>Grant/Armstrong/Kukoc.[/QUOTE]

that thread had a lot of bad back and forths haha. Some from you included tbf. I like taylor a lot but you cant just cite his opinions as an end all be all. I still take ewing in 94 but 90s ewing does get a bit overrated however i think(he's a lot closer to pippen than hakeem or drob). I think ewings cast is better too. The RS wins are close but the knicks had an obvious edge in point differential.

It is some bad faith when people say the bulls cast in 94 is awesome and/or the bulls and knicks were evenly matched but at the same time downplay the cast in 93 and/or prop the 93 Knicks as one of the toughest challenges. It's definitely not consistent

[QUOTE]It is some bad faith when people say the bulls cast in 94 is awesome and/or the bulls and knicks were evenly matched but at the same time downplay the cast in 93 and/or prop the 93 Knicks as one of the toughest challenges. It's definitely not consistent[/QUOTE]

Exactly. The Knicks were the Bulls' top competitor in the 90's and they always say how great they were but then in 94' say the Bulls were so much better than the Knicks that the Bulls without MJ should have beaten them anyway.

The reality is the Bulls played the Knicks and Cavs in 92', 93', and 94'. Three years in a row. There was a decline but the Bulls didn't fall off a cliff in 94' like they present it as.

Bulls vs. Cavs 1992-1994: 4-2, 4-0, 3-0
Bulls vs. Knicks 1992-1994: 4-3, 4-2, 3-4

We know the last two were closer than the line suggests. Hue Hollins stole Game 5 from the Bulls in 94' and the Knicks almost won Game 5 in 93' (the "Charles Smith game") to take a 3-2 lead. A few bounces go differently and those series shift. The difference is the Bulls had a harder time obtaining those wins in 94' than in 93'.

Bulls' point differential vs. Knicks 1992-1994: +3.8, +4.7, +1.2
Bulls' point differential vs. Cavs 1992-1994: +1.8, +8.5, +6.6

[QUOTE] I like taylor a lot but you cant just cite his opinions as an end all be all.[/QUOTE]

It is usually to back up my overall point. Anyone can make personal declarations. I like bringing stats, expert opinions, reporting, etc. to back up my points. Notice the other side never does that in that thread (they bring stats up occasionally--but only to diss Pippen, not do a real comparison)? You know why. What I do is no different than a newspaper reporter saying something and then quoting an expert or source to back the point up or a historian saying "experts thought X at the time" and then quoting a newspaper or someone relevant about it or a lawyer citing evidence to support his/her case. Etc. This tendency is just a product of my background.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057181]
It is usually to back up my overall point. Anyone can make personal declarations. I like bringing stats, expert opinions, reporting, etc. to back up my points. Notice the other side never does that in that thread (they bring stats up occasionally--but only to diss Pippen, not do a real comparison)? You know why. What I do is no different than a newspaper reporter saying something and then quoting an expert or source to back the point up or a historian saying "experts thought X at the time" and then quoting a newspaper or someone relevant about it or a lawyer citing evidence to support his/her case. Etc. This tendency is just a product of my background.[/QUOTE]

Alright that's really fair. you still argued better than soundwave. all he had at the end was offering up a couple series where pippen got outplayed. Making conclusions from one series will always have issues just because of sample size.

Okay ewing outplayed him in 94, that's not necessarily enough to give him an edge. Horace outplayed pippen in 95 but statistically also outplayed penny his own better teammate, it doesnt mean he was more important to the magic than penny(lol at him calling penny just a 2nd year player).

Hate to pull out whataboutism since it's a lazy argument but if tpols wants to put so much emphasis on ewing vs pippen h2h, then his boy curry is in some trouble when it comes to lebron haha. I like curry too but unlike him, i'm not putting a much stock into a series as a h2h matchup especially when the two guys arent guarding each other.

[QUOTE]Okay ewing outplayed him in 94, that's not necessarily enough to give him an edge. Horace outplayed pippen in 95 but statistically also outplayed penny his own better teammate[/QUOTE]

It also is a case where stats don't tell the story. Grant was literally left unguarded almost the entire series. Jackson's bet was Grant would choke under the pressure and he didn't want to leave shooters Anderson, Scott open when they doubled Shaq or Penny so Grant was the default choice in addition to Jackson thinking he wouldn't handle the pressure. The bet failed--Grant hit his shots but it wasn't a case where Grant was torching the defense.

Yeah, and if you use stats/game score Pippen outplayed Penny as well in 95' and 96' but you never see any of them ever say that about Pippen vs. Penny.

Ewing did have a better ECSF than Pippen in 94' but he also didn't face the same defense Pippen did. He scored on Cartwright/Longley while Pippen was facing a defense known to stifle perimeter stars.

It also ignores that Pippen outplayed Ewing in 91', 93'. It wasn't as if Ewing always got the better of Pippen. It is a recurring theme: they will never credit Pippen for having a better series than any other star.

[QUOTE]Hate to pull out whataboutism since it's a lazy argument but if tpols wants to put so much emphasis on ewing vs pippen h2h, then his boy curry is in some trouble when it comes to lebron haha. I like curry too but unlike him, i'm not putting a much stock into a series as a h2h matchup especially when the two guys arent guarding each other.[/QUOTE]

:lol using that logic Irving>Curry, right?

He is a hypocrite. He makes it all about 7 games against the #1 defense but whenever Miller, Stockton, Kobe having bad series comes up his excuse is they faced elite defenses. :oldlol:

It also shows how high a standard Pippen is held to. Pippen was 22/8/5 on 41% while leading his team in scoring, rebounding (Grant averaged only 6 as Oakley crushed him on the glass), assists, steals while ranking second in blocks and anchoring the defense. That is a letdown. Yet many of the same people (especially tpols) will hype Miller for going 17/2/2 on 42% in the 98' ECF.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057220]

:lol using that logic Irving>Curry, right?

He is a hypocrite. He makes it all about 7 games against the #1 defense but whenever Miller, Stockton, Kobe having bad series comes up his excuse is they faced elite defenses. :oldlol:

It also shows how high a standard Pippen is held to. Pippen was 22/8/5 on 41% while leading his team in scoring, rebounding (Grant averaged only 6 as Oakley crushed him on the glass), assists, steals while ranking second in blocks and anchoring the defense. That is a letdown. Yet many of the same people (especially tpols) will hype Miller for going 17/2/2 on 42% in the 98' ECF.[/QUOTE]

yea some people hold pippen to a high standard for sure. I think you may be underrating miller though yes i'm not taking him over pippen all time or during the majority of seasons. I think taylor does overrate him a bit since he is so high on offball shooting and using screens to get open but very low on guys who handle all the time(besides lebron). Basically even if harden scored 35 and curry scored 25 next year good chance he has curry higher in the mvp race. still he has a solid point when it comes to offball scoring's value and it not even being in the box score.

When reggie comes off a screen and 2 defenders run at him and some big gets an open layup, he gets no assist credit though that play was mostly due to him. The impact numbers all grade out as strong offensively, better than his counterpart guards who got more awards. his cheap foul drawing is unlikable but elite almost harden level. a 40% ftr is absurd for someone who takes mostly spot ups, floaters, and pull ups and leads to elite efficiency; efficiency and foul rate carried over to the playoffs.

RS: 27.5pts/100 61.4ts% 40.4%ftr, PS: 30.5pts/100 60.1ts% 41.1%ftr

I'll add as an argument Larry Brown was notoriously bad as an offensive coach after like 1980. Some of his teams got significantly better offensively after he left like the pacers and pistons. Had some talent too like drob, iverson and the pistons big 4. He only coached two top ten offenses and that was the 95 and 96 pacers lead by miller on not particularly loaded teams. Even with his "low scoring" the pacers scared around 80ppg without him in 95. that seems like middle of the pack though i dont have the ppg in front of me so not elite production wise either.

Finally brown likely had a negative impact on miller's value because of how bad offensively he is. We saw how much better curry got after kerr replaced mark and even mj saw a clear improvement once phil replaced collins, that didnt all come from self improvement. The impact metrics bear it out according to Taylor. "In scaled adjusted plus-minus, his first seven seasons (1994-2000) are above the 75th percentile, with three seasons between the 93rd and 96th percentile." According to the graphs he posted his highest 3 seasons in apm were 98-00.