Teammate career rankings between Jordan and Lebron -- The Reality

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112932]Ewing is related to your topic and here is why. He had less impact than Pippen who is "weak help" in your opinion. If that's the case then Jordan's competition was in fact mediocre. Your OP doesn't just list BPM either, so don't make things up. We see metrics ORTG-WS48 there which all favor Prime Pippen > Ewing. Back up your claims.



That isn't true. You used it here to say LeBron's help > Jordan. Now you're running away from your own words.



No, the facts say Pippen bested Prime Ewing from a 9 year span. When they were at their best too. So the facts and evidence are all on my side, not yours. We also know the same numbers you agreed with OP on are the ones that paint Pippen being more impactful as a player. And thus, unequivocally better.[/QUOTE]

No, all the scoring data says Ewing was elite 1st option for his entire career, while Pippen was a lesser 2nd or 3rd option for his entire career

1-9ball uses these same stats to argue Kukoc>Pippen, Grant>Kukoc. tpols (1-9ball Junior II) uses oRTG for every player. His "analysis" is basically that. IMKobe (1-9ball Junior I) just does whatever 1-9ball says. Gooseman (Soundwave's trolling account) posted an OP chock full of these stats.

Yet when Pippen trumps the best player on the Bulls' best comp, flip flops and obfuscations. It is possible Pippen sucked but MJ's era was so bad Pippen wound up a top player in it. Okay. So Pippen sucked and MJ's rangz can't be taken seriously per his own stans.

[QUOTE=1-9ball]No, all the scoring data[/QUOTE]

That is one category. :facepalm Dale Ellis scored 29 PPG too in the same era (the year before Ewing did it). Ellis the alpha alpha!

Just took a quick look in this thread and saw the agenda filled Pippen vs Ewing debate but was wondering who was considered the better player at their peaks/prime when both were playing? They are pretty similar and I just want the opinion of those who lived the era.

[QUOTE=3ball;14112952]No, all the scoring data says Ewing was elite 1st option for his entire career, while Pippen was a lesser 2nd or 3rd option for his entire career[/QUOTE]

Nope wrong. The scoring is irrelevant when Pippen had better impact across the board. The same impact measures you already cosigned OP with. So unless you are taking back your own admission, Prime Pippen>Ewing is still a fact.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112961]1-9ball uses these same stats to argue Kukoc>Pippen, Grant>Kukoc. tpols (1-9ball Junior II) uses oRTG for every player. His "analysis" is basically that. IMKobe (1-9ball Junior I) just does whatever 1-9ball says. Gooseman (Soundwave's trolling account) posted an OP chock full of these stats.

Yet when Pippen trumps the best player on the Bulls' best comp, flip flops and obfuscations. It is possible Pippen sucked but MJ's era was so bad Pippen wound up a top player in it. Okay. So Pippen sucked and MJ's rangz can't be taken seriously per his own stans.



That is one category. :facepalm Dale Ellis scored 29 PPG too in the same era (the year before Ewing did it). Ellis the alpha alpha![/QUOTE]

Bingo. Every word of this post.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112971]Nope wrong. The scoring is irrelevant when Pippen had better impact across the board. The same impact measures you already cosigned with. So unless you are taking back your own admission, Prime Pippen>Ewing is still a fact.

Bingo. Every word of this post.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, these are their own self-selected metrics. They are just too lazy to think it through. Apparently, though, saying Pippen wasn't Iggy is "agenda filled" per the "Miller fan". :lol

He made an interesting point. We haven't seen anything from MJ stans about how Ewing was perceived then in any of these threads hyping Ewing (or for Miller in any of the threads hyping Miller or Stockton or X or Y or Z). Pippen fans have posted it. Of course, the "Miller fan" dismissed that evidence as "walls of BS." One the one hand: "What did people think at the time?" On the other: "I don't like what people said at the time. Walls of BS!" More hypocrisy from this ilk.

If they simply admitted they are out to destroy Pippen because MJ didn't win without him (which no one other than LeBron stans holds against him) and LeBron keeps succeeding without Wade that would be one thing but they keep badly trying to disguise the obvious agenda.

Maybe its just me but if I have to select between Peak Ewing and Peak Pippen it wont be an easy choice because both were great outside of injuries.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14112966]Just took a quick look in this thread and saw the agenda filled Pippen vs Ewing debate but was wondering who was considered the better player at their peaks/prime when both were playing? They are pretty similar and I just want the opinion of those who lived the era.[/QUOTE]

Virtually nobody during that time considered Pippen to be an equal or better basketball player then Ewing.

Anybody could say that peak Pippen is better than peak Ewing and it wont be a bad opinion but it also applies for the opposite because both were that good at their peaks.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112988]Yeah, these are their own self-selected metrics. They are just too lazy to think it through. Apparently, though, saying Pippen wasn't Iggy is "agenda filled" per the "Miller fan". :lol

He made an interesting point. We haven't seen anything from MJ stans about how Ewing was perceived then in any of these threads hyping Ewing (or for Miller in any of the threads hyping Miller or Stockton or X or Y or Z). Pippen fans have posted it. Of course, the "Miller fan" dismissed that evidence as "walls of BS." One the one hand: "What did people think at the time?" On the other: "I don't like what people said at the time. Walls of BS!" More hypocrisy from this ilk.

If they simply admitted they are out to destroy Pippen because MJ didn't win without him (which no one other than LeBron stans holds against him) and LeBron keeps succeeding without Wade that would be one thing but they keep badly trying to disguise the obvious agenda.[/QUOTE]

Yeah not sure what "[U]agenda filled[/U]" actually means then. Those ridiculous comparisons to Iggy and Cooper have to mean....something....Maybe "idiocy" is a more appropriate word, Roundball.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14113004]Maybe its just me but if I have to select between Peak Ewing and Peak Pippen it wont be an easy choice because both were great outside of injuries.[/QUOTE]

Peak Ewing vs Peak Pippen is close however if its prime vs prime, I am taking Pippen without blinking. The statistical evidence for Pippen is paramount. Better playmaking and while not the conventional bigman on defense, Pippen's impact there was [U]bigman-like[/U]. Ewing was a better scorer and rebounder, but the data still favors Pippen.

People didn't compare a SF to a C then. There wouldn't be a "George vs. Davis" thread back then. We can use all-NBA to get a window on what all-NBA voters thought of PF's versus SF's because they were on the same ballot but the debate was Malone vs. Barkley, not Pippen vs. Barkley due to positions.

Neither Pippen or Ewing ever got to the "best player" debate, although Pippen did get the "best all-around player" talk among some (not the same as actual best player but still more than Ewing did), so we can't compare them the same way we can MJ to Barkley or Magic to Bird etc.

What we do know is Pippen was consensus the best perimeter player when MJ was retired and second best behind him for several years when MJ wasn't. That means he was considered better than Drexler, Payton, Miller, Wilkins--guys MJ stans hype to varying degrees--as well as Price, both Hardaways, Hill, Richmond, Johnson, and Rice. It changed year-to-year but from 1994-1995 it was clearly Pippen and then in 96' Pippen behind MJ. Pippen was getting MVP talk and comparisons to MJ in 96' before he got hurt late in the season.

And Ewing? He wasn't even all-NBA from 1993-1996. That means for several prime years he wasn't even considered top 3 at his position by those voters. Was he ever considered the best player at his position let along the "best big" like Pippen was the "best perimeter"?

In MVP, Ewing was never higher than 4th. Pippen had one prime year as a #1 and was 3rd (Ewing was 5th that year). That favors Pippen. Ewing's team had the best record in the East, second best record in the NBA in 93' and he still was "only" 4th in MVP?

[QUOTE=Reggie43]Anybody could say that peak Pippen is better than peak Ewing and it wont be a bad opinion but it also applies for the opposite because both were that good at their peaks.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Hard to say since one was a wing and another a C. The thing is, the argument made by the MJ stans is Ewing>>>>>>>>>>Pippen, who=Iggy. Ewing has a case over Pippen--but not statistically, and that is the terrain these guys selected.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112971]

Nope wrong. The scoring is irrelevant


[/Quote]
Scoring determines 1st or 2nd option status and is ultimately the difference between Pippen (2nd option) and the top caliber guys (1st option Finals guys)

Pippen was a 2nd option without the 27-30 ppg capability required to be 1st option Finals guy (top caliber player)

[QUOTE=3ball;14113047]Scoring determines 1st or 2nd option status and is ultimately the difference between Pippen (2nd option) and the top caliber guys (1st option Finals guys)

And that's why Pippen is below all those guys and overrated by many.... he was a 2nd option without the 27-30 ppg capability required to be 1st option Finals guy (top caliber player)[/QUOTE]

The scoring isnt important if you're not impacting the games. This is why data is surmises what goes on the court [U]better[/U] than any "one" raw stat. Scoring is nice, but if you aren't effecting the bottom line, who cares? This reason alone is why the impact numbers suggest Pippen's playmaking & defense were more valuable. Why the same stats you agreed with OP on also say Pippen>Ewing.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14113020]Anybody could say that peak Pippen is better than peak Ewing and it wont be a bad opinion but it also applies for the opposite because both were that good at their peaks.[/QUOTE]

We don't need to speculate on that.

"MVP" Pippen saw Ewing in the playoffs in 1994 and was completely outclassed and bounced out the playoffs.

Ewing had better productions and efficiencies. A double whammy.

[video=youtube;iyQXVE5xH6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyQXVE5xH6U[/video]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14113038]People didn't compare a SF to a C then. There wouldn't be a "George vs. Davis" thread back then. We can use all-NBA to get a window on what all-NBA voters thought of PF's versus SF's because they were on the same ballot but the debate was Malone vs. Barkley, not Pippen vs. Barkley due to positions.

Neither Pippen or Ewing ever got to the "best player" debate, although Pippen did get the "best all-around player" talk among some (not the same as actual best player but still more than Ewing did), so we can't compare them the same way we can MJ to Barkley or Magic to Bird etc.

What we do know is Pippen was consensus the best perimeter player when MJ was retired and second best behind him for several years when MJ wasn't. That means he was considered better than Drexler, Payton, Miller, Wilkins--guys MJ stans hype to varying degrees--as well as Price, both Hardaways, Hill, Richmond, Johnson, and Rice. It changed year-to-year but from 1994-1995 it was clearly Pippen and then in 96' Pippen behind MJ. Pippen was getting MVP talk and comparisons to MJ in 96' before he got hurt late in the season.

And Ewing? He wasn't even all-NBA from 1993-1996. That means for several prime years he wasn't even considered top 3 at his position by those voters. Was he ever considered the best player at his position let along the "best big" like Pippen was the "best perimeter"?

In MVP, Ewing was never higher than 4th. Pippen had one prime year as a #1 and was 3rd (Ewing was 5th that year). That favors Pippen. Ewing's team had the best record in the East, second best record in the NBA in 93' and he still was "only" 4th in MVP?



Fair enough. Hard to say since one was a wing and another a C. The thing is, the argument made by the MJ stans is Ewing>>>>>>>>>>Pippen, who=Iggy. Ewing has a case over Pippen--but not statistically, and that is the terrain these guys selected.[/QUOTE]

To be fair even if the general opinion back then selects one over the other it doesnt mean that it was right. These guys are some of the most underrated players ever.

Guys have won league MVP's without leading their teams in scoring. Magic, Nash, Russell being the prime examples. Isiah never won MVP but was 18.8 PPG on those Pistons contenders.

No one cares about scoring except MJ fans who use it out of convenience: MJ has the highest career PPG.

[QUOTE=Insidious]The scoring isnt important if you're not impacting the games. This is why data is surmises what goes on the court better than any "one" raw stat. Scoring is nice, but if you aren't effecting the bottom line, who cares?[/QUOTE]

The second best scorer of that era was Wilkins--and he got traded for Manning when the Hawks were tied with the Bulls for 1st. That is damning. They thought they could give away a guy who averaged 30 the year before and still win a chip...

[QUOTE=Reggie43]To be fair even if the general opinion back then selects one over the other it doesnt mean that it was right. These guys are some of the most underrated players ever.[/QUOTE]

True. My point is it wasn't really debate back then at all because people wouldn't debate a SF with a C like we do now. We can just extrapolate from how they were viewed within positions but even that is limited. In 94' arguably the top 5 players were four centers plus Pippen (Wilbon's list, wrote for the WaPo back then). MVP gives us another data point, but MVP gets mixed in with team results (FWIW, Ewing's team won more yet he was 5th to Pippen's 3rd).