Printable View
[QUOTE=Smoke117;14028676]Uh...in the one game the Bulls played the Rockets that he played in he destroyed the Rockets in 94, dumb shit.[/QUOTE]
smoke... i was talking about what ewing did to pippen in 1994 playoffs. easy work for pat with no MJ. Pippen wasnt as good of a first option (or player).
jesus, i used to think you were at least a little bit sharp, but turns out you're just another dolt mate. :lol
[QUOTE]I don't think it changes much on those lists although I think he should be higher if that was the case[/QUOTE]
That is the best case scenario. Another scenario would be he basically winds up have a slightly better version of the career Drexler, Payton, Ewing had. Outside of you-know-who, everyone agrees Pippen>Wilkins and Wilkins would be a bad case scenario of being on teams with no team success for his entire career. Wilkins is still top 50-60 AT.
[QUOTE]Also think if Pippen never plays Jordan wouldn't be the GOAT; strip any Top 5 player of their respective #2 when he one and none of them id in the mux anymore.[/QUOTE]
I get that argument but I'm not sure. In the current construct? Sure. It is all about rings (except for Russell, Pippen :oldlol: ). That is the card MJ stans go to time and again and the real reason for the anti-Pippen agenda (to make it look like MJ played with little help so 6 rings were inevitable--although in this thread they let it slip they think the Bulls with Pete Myers=the fully intact Knicks. Reach your own conclusion...).
There was and is a media obsession with pushing MJ. He is the ultimate cash cow. I suspect if MJ wound up with, say, 2 rings, a completely different construct would be used to designate him as GOAT. Evidence of this is his retirement. He retired with 3 MVP's and 3 rings and was universally declared the GOAT. LeBron has 4 MVP's and 3 rings and some people say he isn't even better than Kobe.
[QUOTE]There's cut in the AT and best ever ranks where ATG #2s start to get ranked who are definately better than some, even great, #1s.[/QUOTE]
The amusing thing to me is we hear "options" as an argument even when it is clear as day if the two players in question played together the "#2 option" would be the #1 on the same team.
[QUOTE]Drexler gets treated unfairly. He was a great #2 for that one ring and a first option good enough to lead his team to two finals. What's Ewing's argument over him for example.[/QUOTE]
Longevity perhaps? It is interesting Drexler was considered by many to be the 2nd best player in the league at his peak. Ewing was never at that level.
[QUOTE]Drexler would play SF I'm pretty sure, but let's say he is the 2nd option for a threepeat, a great one at that I'm sure he wouldn't be ranked in the 40s and as low as 57[/QUOTE]
57 was an outlier. What would his resume be in that scenario? He made all-NBA 1st team only once. Who is the highest AT who has only one 1st team? Rings can only carry you so far. I can see him moving up a few spots if his resume stays the same but he has more rings but I can't see him cracking the top 30. Plus, keep in mind if he plays with MJ his resume gets deflated. Look at Pippen's outside of the MJ retirement years.
[QUOTE=Smoke117;14028676]Uh...in the one game the Bulls played the Rockets that he played in he destroyed the Rockets in 94, dumb shit.[/QUOTE]
You are responding to someone who implied Patrick Ewing was better than LeBron James.
[QUOTE]I think the undervalued great on bad teams, aka McGrady, or the afforementioned Dirk career are the most likely cases for Pippen sans the Bulls[/QUOTE]
What brought T Mac down is injuries and team success. If he had a full prime he would be considered top 50 easily and better than some of the names we have discussed here.
[QUOTE]As said I only think Robinson was a better player than Pippen on that list. Stockton is way overrated on them.[/QUOTE]
Agree on Robinson>Pippen. Stockton is an odd case. He had great longevity but a low peak and a low prime (look at the charts posted earlier). I suspect he gets a large boost for having the assists record. Would anyone draft Stockton over Kidd or Payton, for example?
[QUOTE]Yeah, David had Lebron level floor raising impact. I liked Sean Elliott, but he definately wouldn't tip the scale enough to win in the 90s.[/QUOTE]
That's what these MJ D riders don't get. Robinson was rolling with Elliott, Ewing with Starks, Barkley with Hawkins and later KJ (choked in 93' finals), Drexler with Porter, Hakeem with Thorpe, etc. They act like every team had Pippen.
[QUOTE]Uh...in the one game the Bulls played the Rockets that he played in he destroyed the Rockets in 94, dumb shit.[/QUOTE]
Yup, the Bulls went 2-1 against the Rockets when Pippen played without MJ those years. :lol
[QUOTE]i was talking about what ewing did to pippen in 1994 playoffs. easy work for pat with no MJ.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because the Knicks dominated the series in Jordanstan, right? :roll:
Pippen haters/MJ stans think Ewing played Pippen when in the real world he played Cartwright/Longley.
We saw earlier what happened when he faced real comp at C...it hurt his MVP chances in 94' in fact. When you average 13 PPG against 33 PPG for the top centers against you it kills your case...hard to be league MVP when you are the 4th best player at your own position.
T-Mac declined abnormally quickly. When he was at his best he was playing with absolute shit for supporting casts in Orlando.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14028680]
There was and is a media obsession with pushing MJ. He is the ultimate cash cow. I suspect if MJ wound up with, say, 2 rings, a completely different construct would be used to designate him as GOAT. Evidence of this is his retirement. He retired with 3 MVP's and 3 rings and was universally declared the GOAT. LeBron has 4 MVP's and 3 rings and some people say he isn't even better than Kobe.[/QUOTE]
I read, I think it was in a thread here that Jordan's media coverage started the GOAT talk and there wasn't much before him, but watching old games from the 80s shows that without team success he definately wouldn't remain GOAT. Lebron's biggest problem are his plunders, but that's a topic for another thread.
[QUOTE]
The amusing thing to me is we hear "options" as an argument even when it is clear as day if the two players in question played together the "#2 option" would be the #1 on the same team.
[/QUOTE]
Let's again take Ewing. I don't think Pippen becomes the first scoring option over him even, but Pippen would be still the better player if he joined the Knicks.
[QUOTE]
Longevity perhaps? It is interesting Drexler was considered by many to be the 2nd best player in the league at his peak. Ewing was never at that level.[/QUOTE]
Even his longevity isn't that much better.
[QUOTE]
57 was an outlier. What would his resume be in that scenario? He made all-NBA 1st team only once. Who is the highest AT who has only one 1st team? Rings can only carry you so far. I can see him moving up a few spots if his resume stays the same but he has more rings but I can't see him cracking the top 30. Plus, keep in mind if he plays with MJ his resume gets deflated. Look at Pippen's outside of the MJ retirement years.[/QUOTE]
I think the low 30s would be his landing place, but that's close to where I'd rank him rn.
Go to the end of the article about H2H hurting Ewing's chances:
[QUOTE]There is some other anger around, notably from those who think they are deserving of the award but being overlooked.
"Shaq is leading the league in scoring, is second in rebounding and shooting on one of the league's most improved teams," noted Orlando General Manager Pat Williams. "He should be right there with Hakeem and Robinson."
Patrick Ewing should, too, says his coach, Pat Riley.
"If there ever was a time he deserved to be MVP, it was last year," said Riley, "when his team won 60 games and 24 of the last 28. And he's had a great season again."
But [B]Ewing's poor performances against Olajuwon and Robinson-he's averaging 13 points a game against them this season to 33 for them-and publicity-shy ways make him a long shot[/B].[/QUOTE]
Here are the game logs. RS only, since we covered the finals vs. Hakeem several times...
[U]Versus Hakeem[/U]
Ewing 12/11/3 on 38% TS, Hakeem 29/20/2 on 55% TS
Ewing 12/8/1 on 28% TS, Hakeem 37/13/5 on 62% TS
[U]Versus Robinson[/U]
Ewing 15/10/2 42% TS, Robinson 32/10/5 67% TS
[U]Versus Shaq[/U]
Ewing 22/18/4 39% TS, Shaq 23/11/3 51% TS
Ewing 31/11/2 63% TS, Shaq 30/16/3 52% TS
Ewing 32/9/3 73% TS, Shaq 22/13/3 53% TS
Ewing 36/9/5 51% TS, Shaq 37/17/5 62% TS
Ewing 26/19/3 58% TS, Shaq 26/5/3 62% TS
[U]Versus Mourning[/U]
Ewing 17/6/4 48%, Mourning 28/9/4 60% TS
This is the MVP? Getting annihilated by the two best players at his position, getting outplayed by Mourning in their one meeting? He had success against Shaq, but that undercuts all the Shaq for MVP hype in this thread. Hakeem, Robinson, even Mourning handled Ewing easily but Shaq couldn't?
We also haven't heard a word from Pippen haters/MJ stans about the playoff performances of the other players in 1994:
Shaq 21/13/2 52% TS
Smits 16/5/3 47% TS
So he outplayed Smits but didn't dominate him as his team got swept out the first round by a lower seed.
Robinson 20/10/4 47% TS (lost 3-1 to a lower seed in the 1st round)
Pippen 23/8/5 52% TS (lost in 7 to NY in the ECSF)
Ewing 22/12/3 50% TS (lost in 7 to HOU)
50-52% TS is terrible efficiency for centers.
Wait a second, how come Mitch Richmond hasn't been brought up? He played the entire 90s.
Also, Chris Mullin played the entire 90s, and was a 25+ ppg scorer in the early 90s.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14028683]What brought T Mac down is injuries and team success. If he had a full prime he would be considered top 50 easily and better than some of the names we have discussed here.
[/QUOTE]
Just the first player that came to my mind as a great player without team success, because of shit teams. Hill would be another, even closer to Pippen in style, but he also had that career altering injuries.
[QUOTE]
Agree on Robinson>Pippen. Stockton is an odd case. He had great longevity but a low peak and a low prime (look at the charts posted earlier). I suspect he gets a large boost for having the assists record. Would anyone draft Stockton over Kidd or Payton, for example?
[/QUOTE]
Agree, but I'm biased. Kidd is my fav PG AT, I liked Payton and hated the Jazz. Maybe there's greatness I don't see as a hater.
[QUOTE]Let's again take Ewing. I don't think Pippen becomes the first scoring option over him even, but Pippen would be still the better player if he joined the Knicks.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's what I meant generally. In a case like Miller he becomes the first scoring option too.
[QUOTE]I think the low 30s would be his landing place, but that's close to where I'd rank him rn.[/QUOTE]
How much of the difference is playing in Portland versus playing in New York?
[QUOTE]Wait a second, how come Mitch Richmond hasn't been brought up? He played the entire 90s.
Also, Chris Mullin played the entire 90s, and was a 25+ ppg scorer in the early 90s.[/QUOTE]
Mullin was good only briefly (I did include him in AT rankings). Mullin's last all-NBA season was 1992. Richmond>Miller for the 90's and was consistently beating him in accolades but he is the forgotten man of the 90's.
If we want to include Mullin we have to include Price, Daughtery.
The table I pasted was based on candidates proferred as the best non-MJ perimeter player of the 90's in a thread a month ago. Most people said Pippen, but Drexler had a contingent (mostly MJ stans, though, as they drove by to say "Drexler, but here is why Pippen really, really sucks..." :lol ).
Mullin was an absolute beast from 88-89 to 92-93. Shame he got hurt.
[QUOTE=RRR3;14028801]Mullin was an absolute beast from 88-89 to 92-93. Shame he got hurt.[/QUOTE]
True. Look at his line from that time: 26/6/4 on 60% TS (imagine him in today's league).
GS had bad luck. Mullin broke down after 93' (his age 29 season). Hardaway had injury problems as well around the same time, including missing all of the 94' season. They also foolishly (in retrospect) traded Mitch Richmond for Billy Owens.
Compare these two 90's SG's:
All-NBA 2nd team: Player A 3x, Player B 0x
All-NBA 2nd/3rd team: Player A 5x, Player B 3x
All-star: Player A 6x, Player B 5x
Player A: 23/4/4 (prime)
Player B: 21/3/3 (prime)
Player A clearly is better, right? Player A is Mitch Richmond; Player B is Reggie Miller. Yet look at their reputations today. This is a (real) example of reputation inflation decades later.
Mulin > Pippen
Hardaway >Pippen
Penny > Pippen
BigShotSlob at it again.
[QUOTE=BigShotBob;14028906]Mulin > Pippen
Hardaway >Pippen
Penny > Pippen[/QUOTE]
We get it. Every 90's All-NBA player was better than Pippen according to unbiased fans who randomly hate a random 90's superstar (impossible to determine why Drexler, Robinson, Ewing, etc. don't get the same hate. What, what could it be?) while loving Pippen's teammate. Therefore, Pippen belongs in the class of random all-stars (if he is below every all-NBA player).
The real question for "Pippen haters" (whoever they might be!) is what stars was Pippen actually better than? When I asked your intellectual leader his response was Detlef Schrempf, Sean Elliott, etc. Crazy but at least he stepped up to the plate and said it versus implying it like other "Pippen haters" do.
RRR and Smoke, when have you seen these guys ever say Pippen was better than anyone?