Teammate career rankings between Jordan and Lebron -- The Reality

The Canadian version of NBA.com did a top 15 list for the 90's for the spring. The top 10 were: MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Robinson, Pippen, Shaq, Barkley, Stockton, Ewing, Payton--in that order. [url]https://ca.nba.com/news/power-rankin...81wfdvi7yp5yrj[/url] This was based on the votes of 9 writers, not Jordanstan.com.

[QUOTE=Round Mound;14113435][B]Mine is pretty close to yours:

1-MJ
2-Hakeem
3-Sir Charles
4-Malone
5-Robinson
6-Shaq
7-Ewing
8-Drexler
9-Pippen
10:11-Stockton/Payton

HMs: Hill, Kidd, Richmond, Kemp, Miller, Mourning, Webber, Coleman, Baker etc[/B][/QUOTE]

Good list (it seems you weighed peak play more than I did). Hard to quibble more than a couple spots here and there. We are having real world conversations, not comparing Pippen to Iggy. :lol

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Wait! Ya'll really believe Pippen > Shaq?[/QUOTE]

You didn't watch back then but Shaq didn't play for 30% of the decade. Since you may be slow, that means he had 0 value for 30% of the decade and Shaq wasn't Shaq for another 10% of the decade. All-time, I have Shaq 6th--so higher than almost everyone.

Where do you have Pippen in the 90's and who is your top 10? I could use a laugh. The Chiefs game is not competitive.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14113374]The numbers I posted are career numbers. Cherry-picking Pippen's best years as second-option while coattail riding with GOAT player with GOAT team versus first options is not a good argument for you. Pippen's career stats are not better than Ewing's. Ewing bests him in PER, WS/48, eFG%, TS%. Pippen does have a superior career OBPM, but he also has a higher career OBPM than Hakeem, another center that played in the same era and had the same prime as Ewing, so what? Does that therefore mean Pippen > Hakeem on offensive? Please indulge me and attempt to make that argument. All it means is that OBPM favors Pippen's perimeter play over post play. Raw number tell the real story when comparing different positions (something which BPM cannot do), and Ewing/Hakeem blow Pippen away there.[/quote]

The numbers I posted were prime years from a 8-9 sample. Basically Ewing and Pippen at their best, so there is no cherry-picking needed. Like 3ball you are being willfully ignorant. Your overall point regarding the 2nd banana is also thick-witted. A #1 has more volume and offensive load to obtain numbers. So the fact Pippen still had more impact, impact like bpm-rapm-apm, which also attempts to adjust [U]separate[/U] of team, is damning. Then there is ortg-ws-ws48-vorp which also favor Pippen. All of these numbers span from 91-98 and 88-97 for Ewing. Once again, this tell us Ewing's scoring wasn't poignant like you or his raw numbers claim. We know that impact stats matter because most of them have players like LeBron, Jordan, Kareem as cream of the crop. Look at backpicks all-time rankings for example. Advanced stats are used everywhere there, and the top 10 has the same names you would ordinary see here.

What years are you talking about Pippen>Hakeem btw. Your points are vague and not specific.

[quote]Lebron's teammates overall have clearly been better than Jordan's. Are you arguing differently? Make your case. I must say I don't see how this is even a debate though. The stats depict Lebron's career as serial team-hopper who has played with half the all-stars in the league, Finals MVP's, MVP's, scoring champs, and multiple guys with top 5 PER's. All told this teammates just in the last decade account for over 60 total all-star selections.[B][SIZE=7] Sixty.[/SIZE][/B] Lol, there are so many you can't keep up with them all. How many all-star teammates did Jordan play with in his career? Even in little Pippy's so-called prime, he failed to make the all-star team in a couple of championship seasons.[/quote]

If you bothered reading posts, you would know that I have already said this. LeBron's teammates were better. The thing is though, according to your OP, these same numbers paint Pippen>Ewing. So if that is the case, where does Pippen really rank? Where does Ewing rank among LeBron's best teammates? We know where you stand on Pippen so these are the questions a rationale mind asks. But if you are consistent there wouldn't be an issue answering this directly. Instead you've been avoiding this, and have gone as far to say the numbers you originally used are flawed, which again, would then make your OP irrelevant.

[quote]Pippen literally never bested Ewing at anything in his entire career. Jordan and the Bulls beat the Ewing and the Knicks. That's it. The one time Pippen's Bulls went up against prime Ewing and the Knicks Pippen quit on the bench and watched a rookie save the season. Bulls go down 0-3 and likely get swept without Kukoc's heroics. At the end of the day, they were a second-round level playoff team that got eliminated by the very player that you claim to be inferior to Pippen. Great argument you have there. :facepalm[/QUOTE]

Prime Pippen [U]literally[/U] bests Prime Ewing with the numbers from your OP. From 91-98 Pippen averaged better [B]ortg-ws-ws48-bpm-obpm-apm-rapm-vorp[/B] than 88-97 Ewing. Look up "literally" in the dictionary, and use it correctly.

Great points, Insidious. The #2 stuff is really bizarre. It's easier to rack up stats as a #1. It's no coincidence Pippen's best statistical years were 94' and 95', and we have a real world experiment built into 95'. Jordan came back and Pippen's numbers fell significantly. Anyone can look it up on BBR.

The other argument he made is further damning of MJ'S comp. The Bulls' top comp was so bad they could not beat a one man team even once? Even worse, when that one man left the one man team, the Knicks beat that team by the thinnest of margins. A shady foul call in Game 5, Cartwright foul trouble in Game 7 (he shut Ewing down but Ewing feasted on Longley).

So Ewing is so awesome, flawless in fact, but he can't lead a team he awesomely is leading to a W against a one man team and then barely beats that team with Pete Myers replacing MJ? This is a case for or is it a case to damn Ewing? :lol

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14113615]Great points, Insidious. The #2 stuff is really bizarre. It's easier to rack up stats as a #1. It's no coincidence Pippen's best statistical years were 94' and 95', and we have a real world experiment built into 95'. Jordan came back and Pippen's numbers fell significantly. Anyone can look it up on BBR.

The other argument he made is further damning of MJ'S comp. The Bulls' top comp was so bad they could not beat a one man team even once? Even worse, when that one man left the one man team, the Knicks beat that team by the thinnest of margins. A shady foul call in Game 5, Cartwright foul trouble in Game 7 (he shut Ewing down but Ewing feasted on Longley).

So Ewing is so awesome, flawless in fact, but he can't lead a team he awesomely is leading to a W against a one man team and then barely beats that team with Pete Myers replacing MJ? This is a case for or is it a case to damn Ewing? :lol[/QUOTE]

The reason this perspective seems bizaare is because you guys have a zero-sum, video game mentality when it comes to the advanced metrics. You take them as the gospel truth when in fact they are only estimations with various limiatations and weaknesses. The simple belief that shots equals production and that more shots equals more production is just an example of this zero-sum mentality and poor understanding. This a mistake many GM's have made in the past of giving more and more touches to a middling offensive talent who struggles in creating his own shot and team shooting efficiency falls off the cliff. This type of basketball post hoc analysis is a common mistake and why a lot of GM's fail with player development because they draft of the box score and they don't look at how the player is getting their production. In truth, shots are not production at all. It's the exact opposite [i]-- production is getting shots.[/i] You guys are putting the cart before the horse. Before a player can be a shooter, they have to be a shot creator.

History has always shown that Pippen-type players forced to be first options are are efficiency black holes in the clutch and in the playoffs. This is why Phil was okay with sitting Pippen's ass on the bench in a playoff game in the fourth quarter. They always get exposed. Pippen was in the process of getting exposed in 1995 before Jordan unretired. Also why without Jordan in 94 and 95 Pippen's shot making as overall trend remained relatively flat to his entire career. His attempts didn't deviate all that much because Pippen continued to play the same role in Phil's triangle. On the one hand, you are giving Pippen too much credit and on the other you are not recognizing Pippen was self-aware and intelligent enough as player to not try to force his game. The result was that the Bulls were still a decent team thanks to experience and coaching, but not a threat to win anything overall. When playoff basketball came around, Pippen's efficiency predictably plummeted. Because in the playoffs against good teams possessions are at a premium, Pippen was forced to create offense and ended up getting shut down by the Knicks. Likewise when Jordan came back those shots that Pippen could never seem to find suddenly came back because Jordan was a far superior at creating offense than Pippen.

In the same way, Ewing as a primary offensive threat was a superior shot creator. That's why you can't compare Pippen's role to Ewing's and why BPM/OBPM having a secondary offensive talent like Pippen ranked higher than scoring centers like Ewing and Hakeem must mean that OBPM and BPM is a flawed stat on some level. The best way to use these stats is to ideally compare players at the same position and the same role and in multiple scenarios. BPM tries normalize for this by creating coefficients for both player position and player role, but it obviously has some issues. If I had an example of the player position/role regression it would be easy to analyze and figure why there is such a huge discrepancy. My theory is that the revamped BPM 2.0 is more geared toward evaluating modern players who mostly play on perimeter anyway. Any stat that has MVP-level Moses Malone as the fourth best player on his roster has issues.. Of course, you guys keep ignoring these very basic critiques of BPM as methodology because you can't explain them away with group think because they are such obvious biases.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14113604]
Prime Pippen [U]literally[/U] bests Prime Ewing with the numbers from your OP. From 91-98 Pippen averaged better [B]ortg-ws-ws48-bpm-obpm-apm-rapm-vorp[/B] than 88-97 Ewing. Look up "literally" in the dictionary, and use it correctly.[/QUOTE]

If you bothered to actually do a little research you would know that bpm-obpm-vorp or basically the same thing and that the creator of bpm pegs his formula of his regression to rapm, so whatever rapm says that what bpm tries to emulate using the box score. I've already explained to you that how you using BPM (cherry picking years, comparing different positions, and comparing different roles) is a flawed way of using those stats. This is why when I used these stats I compared Pippen to the entire population of other players all-time and used multiple stats, not one. That gives you a better idea and it shows the entire trajectory of player's career, i.e. development, prime, post-prime, good teams and bad teams, etc.

Your analysis is flawed and so are your conclusions. The fact of the matter is that you can't address the obvious glaring fact that the same stat you quote as the gospel when you cherry pick the data has Pippen > Hakkem , Pippen = Shaq, etc. You can't address who MVP Malone is the fourth best player on his team according to BPM. Nor can you address how BPM thinks John Stockton was a better defender than Ben Wallace and DiKembe Mutumbo. When you actually do a position-by-position comparision, Pippen's case falls apart with these stats. For example, you guys have consistently argued Pippen > Drexler, but the by your own logic Drexler destroys Pippen. But OBPM also says Drexler was a better offensive player than Hakeem the year Olajuwan was utterly dominant, winning NBA championship and Finals MVP on 30-plus against Shaq. So it is crappy little stat that ya'll quote like the gospel and don't understand anyway.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14114255]If you bothered to actually do a little research you would know that bpm-obpm-vorp or basically the same thing and that the creator of bpm pegs his formula of his regression to rapm, so whatever rapm says that what bpm tries to emulate using the box score. I've already explained to you that how you using BPM (cherry picking years, comparing different positions, and comparing different roles) is a flawed way of using those stats. This is why when I used these stats I compared Pippen to the entire population of other players all-time and used multiple stats, not one. That gives you a better idea and it shows the entire trajectory of player's career, i.e. development, prime, post-prime, good teams and bad teams, etc.

Your analysis is flawed and so are your conclusions. The fact of the matter is that you can't address the obvious glaring fact that the same stat you quote as the gospel when you cherry pick the data has Pippen > Hakkem , Pippen = Shaq, etc. You can't address who MVP Malone is the fourth best player on his team according to BPM. Nor can you address how BPM thinks John Stockton was a better defender than Ben Wallace and DiKembe Mutumbo. When you actually do a position-by-position comparision, Pippen's case falls apart with these stats. For example, you guys have consistently argued Pippen > Drexler, but the by your own logic Drexler destroys Pippen. But OBPM also says Drexler was a better offensive player than Hakeem the year Olajuwan was utterly dominant, winning NBA championship and Finals MVP on 30-plus against Shaq. So it is crappy little stat that ya'll quote like the gospel and don't understand anyway.[/QUOTE]

seriously, raw stats are already misleading. Raw stats have told us that harden, giannis, westbrook are the best players in the league. Yet these guys take it too far with these advanced stats. I dont even trust raw stats how much more for advance stats

[QUOTE=knicksman;14114259]seriously, raw stats are already misleading. Raw stats have told us that harden, giannis, westbrook are the best players in the league. Yet these guys take it too far with these advanced stats. I dont even trust raw stats how much more for advance stats[/QUOTE]

Advanced stats love Harden and Westbrook. Harden is top 10 according to BPM. Westbrook is the player that actually exposed BPM as being flawed because he posted a 15.6 which was 20 percent higher score than any season in history. Myers forced to rewrite it to take some of the shine off perimeter players but it still overvalues them completely in certain contexts.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14114255]If you bothered to actually do a little research you would know that bpm-obpm-vorp or basically the same thing and that the creator of bpm pegs his formula of his regression to rapm, so whatever rapm says that what bpm tries to emulate using the box score. I've already explained to you that how you using BPM (cherry picking years, comparing different positions, and comparing different roles) is a flawed way of using those stats. This is why when I used these stats I compared Pippen to the entire population of other players all-time and used multiple stats, not one. That gives you a better idea and it shows the entire trajectory of player's career, i.e. development, prime, post-prime, good teams and bad teams, etc.

Your analysis is flawed and so are your conclusions. The fact of the matter is that you can't address the obvious glaring fact that the same stat you quote as the gospel when you cherry pick the data has Pippen > Hakkem , Pippen = Shaq, etc. You can't address who MVP Malone is the fourth best player on his team according to BPM. Nor can you address how BPM thinks John Stockton was a better defender than Ben Wallace and DiKembe Mutumbo. When you actually do a position-by-position comparision, Pippen's case falls apart with these stats. For example, you guys have consistently argued Pippen > Drexler, but the by your own logic Drexler destroys Pippen. But OBPM also says Drexler was a better offensive player than Hakeem the year Olajuwan was utterly dominant, winning NBA championship and Finals MVP on 30-plus against Shaq. So it is crappy little stat that ya'll quote like the gospel and don't understand anyway.[/QUOTE]

Are you high? You literally used those stats in your OP. And under the premise LeBron's help was greater than Jordan's. There is nothing wrong with these metrics, except for the outliers you'd find with any other stat. BPM is one of the best measures out there because it A) adjusts for possession B) separates individual from team C) induces everything you do in a gamelog. By your logic however, PPG is "flawed" because Karl Malone and Bob Pettit score more than Jabbar & Kobe. If I were you I'd brush up on the stats before making another jerky claim. And no, Pippen rates fairly in all advanced metrics, in fact 90s Pippen was top 10 in most of the major advanced stats. That suggests Pippen was a superstar and a true #1. And how couldn't he be? Ewing is often brought up because Pippen out-impacted him with most of the numbers in your OP. So if that's a [U]fact[/U], where does Ewing rate among the players you noted?

You keep talking about flaws, but you haven't done anything to support your argument. Repeating that John Stockton has a good BPM isn't saying anything. Again, if we went by your logic, then PPG is a joke. Pettit>Jabbar. Remember? Unlike you though people are willing to adopt context. When doing so they also understand there are statistical outliers for everything. BPM-OBPM-APM-RAPM all rank the elite players reasonably and the cream of the crop will [U]rise to the top[/U]. The bottom line is that unless you're willing to dismiss your own OP then acknowledge where Ewing and Pippen rank. Tell us why Pippen had more impact than the #1 who was on Chicago's best comp.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14115272]Are you high? You literally used those stats in your OP. [/QUOTE]

:lol

He is so ashamed of his stupidity he is hiding behind an alt. He would never post things this explicitly dumb under his "respectable" account (same agenda but dressed up in a suit).

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14115335]:lol

He is so ashamed of his stupidity he is hiding behind an alt. He would never post things this explicitly dumb under his "respectable" account (same agenda but dressed up in a suit).[/QUOTE]

I'll let him carry on with his jargon, Roundball. If you are going to outright reject stats however, make sure they're ones you don't use. Having a little awareness never hurt anyone.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14115358]I'll let him carry on with his jargon, Roundball. If you are going to outright reject stats however, make sure they're ones you don't use. Having a little awareness never hurt anyone.[/QUOTE]

They (the idiots populating this thread) aren't the sharpest knives. Look at the 20' Raptors thread. Per 3ball Junior, on the one hand they were a one man team (Kawhi), on the other hand the expectation should be 60 wins and the ECF without that one man--not 20 wins and the lottery!

[QUOTE=insidious301;14115272]Are you high? You literally used those stats in your OP. And under the premise LeBron's help was greater than Jordan's. There is nothing wrong with these metrics, except for the outliers you'd find with any other stat. BPM is one of the best measures out there because it A) adjusts for possession B) separates individual from team C) induces everything you do in a gamelog. By your logic however, PPG is "flawed" because Karl Malone and Bob Pettit score more than Jabbar & Kobe. If I were you I'd brush up on the stats before making another jerky claim. And no, Pippen rates fairly in all advanced metrics, in fact 90s Pippen was top 10 in most of the major advanced stats. That suggests Pippen was a superstar and a true #1. And how couldn't he be? Ewing is often brought up because Pippen out-impacted him with most of the numbers in your OP. So if that's a [U]fact[/U], where does Ewing rate among the players you noted?

You keep talking about flaws, but you haven't done anything to support your argument. Repeating that John Stockton has a good BPM isn't saying anything. Again, if we went by your logic, then PPG is a joke. Pettit>Jabbar. Remember? Unlike you though people are willing to adopt context. When doing so they also understand there are statistical outliers for everything. BPM-OBPM-APM-RAPM all rank the elite players reasonably and the cream of the crop will [U]rise to the top[/U]. The bottom line is that unless you're willing to dismiss your own OP then acknowledge where Ewing and Pippen rank. Tell us why Pippen had more impact than the #1 who was on Chicago's best comp.[/QUOTE]

Pippen was not a "superstar." Being in the top 10 in some categories does not make you a superstar. By your logic Karl Anthony-Towns, Trae Young, and Bradley Beal are superstars. A superstar is a player that gives a franchise instant championship credibility -- a transcendent player. Shaq is a superstar. Barkley is a superstar. Wade is a superstar. Pippen was a career second option, and his best and only full season as primary offensive threat Partick Ewing and the Knicks eliminated Pippen's team in the second round. Those are FACTS.

BTW, I've shown quite a number of examples win which BPM or OBPM utterly defies common sense (eye test and basketball consensus) and you can't address to those issues. Those examples are not "outliers" as you claim, but are common instances of the aggregate box-score estimation undervaluing big-man defensive and offensive contributions. You can find countless examples of OBMP and DBPM inexplicably ranking guard play over post play. For example, do you think Marc Jackson was a better offensive player than Ewing also? OBPM likes Marc Jackson over Ewing 89, 91, and 92. That includes a season in which Jackson only started 21 games and averaged 9ppg. OBPM also likes Starks over Ewing some years. BPM also likes Maurice Cheeks, Greg Anthony, and Doc Rivers over Ewing and Oakley in DBPM some seasons because of his high steal count. Greg Anthony was a reserve playing 20mpg so how can he be a better defender than all-defensive first team Oakley? If you just looked at the stats and took them at face value one could conclude that Greg Anthony was a better defender than one of the greatest defensive enforcers of all-time in Oakley, which is ludicrous.

In 1994 Ewing carried the Knicks to 60 wins and the Finals with Starks being the only other all-star on the roster. Oakley was just an alternate because Barkley declined to play. Meanwhile Pippen had two other all-stars in Grant and B.J. Armstrong (first team), and the Bulls had added the best player in Europe in Kukoc. The Bulls were on paper the more talented team even without Jordan, and Pippen still lost to Ewing. These are facts. Scottie even got outplayed by Grant in the Knicks series. The only other time we hear of Pippen as a possible marquee was when he signed a huge contract with Houston. There were high expectations there based on the success of the Bulls, but he ended up being the Rockets third best player behind an old ass Barkley and Hakeem and flaming out demanding a trade, alienating his teammates, Houston's front office and the fans. Do you think a 32-year-old Ewing is Houston's third best player? Ewing was putting up 24pts-11reb-2blk on 56ts% at that age. Keep dreaming.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14114276]Advanced stats love Harden and Westbrook. Harden is top 10 according to BPM. Westbrook is the player that actually exposed BPM as being flawed because he posted a 15.6 which was 20 percent higher score than any season in history. Myers forced to rewrite it to take some of the shine off perimeter players but it still overvalues them completely in certain contexts.[/QUOTE]

The thing with one man army types is they make everybody dependent on them like a QB in football. So if the star QB gets knocked out? The team is usually ****ed, but superstar players that can fit in a ball sharing system and play off ball as well as on, allow other teammates to develop "QB" skills while they play the WR role. This elevates the ceiling of the team dramatically.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14115434][B]People should really stop engaging with Ttrolls as if he’s an honest actor. Every post he makes about basketball can be understood by realizing that the fact that LeBron James surpassed Kobe Bryant as a basketball player ruined his life[/B]. If you remember that fact, you will understand why he makes the posts he makes. Take his current stance for instance: the Raptors were apparently the 37-45 2008 Hawks without Kawhi. He can’t admit that Kawhi had an amazing supporting cast because he’s obsessed with maintaining his delusion that “any star player can win out East” in order to make LeBron look bad.[/QUOTE]

#Truth.

As to Gooseman, he is Soundwave/LostCause (the Confederate name has been retired) hiding behind a trolling account. Too ashamed to post this under his main account.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14115452]#Truth.

As to Gooseman, he is Soundwave/LostCause (the Confederate name has been retired) hiding behind a trolling account. Too ashamed to post this under his main account.[/QUOTE]

Lol, wtf are you talking about? I have no idea who that person is. If anybody has alts on here it's all the tard Pippen fans spamming this forum. If I hosted a basketball convention for people under 35 you'd be lucky to find a handful of people who had ever even heard of career second-option Scottie Maurice Pippen, but you guys spamming ever thread with retarded crap like Pippen = Shaq on here. :wtf: Projecting much?