Phil Jackson on Scottie Pippen's as a leader

[QUOTE=LeBird]Quit with the patronising rhetoric or the implication that people are unbiased - show me someone who says they're unbiased and I'll show you a liar. You're nobody to tell anybody else how to post. Especially considering that it's clear as day you don't agree with the OP, and not so much how he is posting. You're not the arbiter of fairness or what passes as a legitimate discussion. Honestly, the pretension is grating.[/QUOTE]

Exactly--but I am glad he did it. This thread moved away from the 90's Bulls to a discussion about forms of leadership. He took a rude, condescending approach. Guess what? It didn't work. I, like most people, recoiled in response.

It is obvious he is upset because he does not like what has been posted. For a man who claims to be so objective, the anger is amusing. He actually is a major reason I posted the thread given his past comments on Pippen as a leader (including on Saturday). Yet he is upset at someone responding with evidence of Pippen's leadership? No bias? It is very hypocritical to go around making claims regarding a subject and then to denounce someone for merely presenting evidence contrary to your claims.

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Exactly--but I am glad he did it. This thread moved away from the 90's Bulls to a discussion about forms of leadership. He took a rude, condescending approach. Guess what? It didn't work. I, like most people, recoiled in response.

It is obvious he is upset because he does not like what has been posted. For a man who claims to be so objective, the anger is amusing. He actually is a major reason I posted the thread given his past comments on Pippen as a leader (including on Saturday). Yet he is upset at someone responding with evidence of Pippen's leadership? No bias? It is very hypocritical to go around making claims regarding a subject and then to denounce someone for merely presenting evidence contrary to your claims.

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with no agreeing with you. It's your unwillingness to try and reach common ground. My sincere goal is to able to make as many relationships with people on here who share my passion and interest for the history of basketball.

And I assure you, despite some rudeness in my posts, there is no anger. I'm in the midst of a two month vacation from work and getting to spend half my time with my family here at our cottage and the rest talking and writing about my favorite subject in the world. If I got angry, I'd go fishing.

I'm sorry if it comes across as condescending, I'm only trying to illustrate my frustration, I'm not real good at communicating with strangers online yet. In my opinion it feels like you've consistently ignored anything I've said that could bring us together on this issue. You refuse to budge from your stance or even discuss why someone might think differently than you.

To me this is now a debate about Leadership. I think we mostly agree. So I'll do what my favorite high school teacher had me do when debates became heated and devolved. I'll list the things we agree on...

I think we both feel like there are a lot of leaders on any given team.

I think we both feel like Pippen was well-liked and respected by his teammates and coaches, more so as a person than Jordan.

I think we both feel like Jordan was the best and most important player on the Bulls.

I think we both feel like Pippen was more than just a #2 option on that team and that his contributions were essential to them winning a title.

Correct me if I am wrong about any of these assumptions.

Here's where I think we differ...

You think there is a narrative that has caused people to overrate Michael Jordan. I believe only a casual observer (not even a fan) would fall for something like that.

You think Pippen's leadership skills were as valuable or more valuable to those Bulls teams than Michael Jordan's. I disagree because I even though Pippen's leadership is applicable in more situations, without Jordan's leadership style the teams would not have done any better than Portland did under Pippen's leadership.

I think the best player needs to be the teams leader for the team to maximize it's potential, you feel the best leader (objectively) is best for the job.

You think "stans" are worth responding to. I don't.


How's that?

The thing is I have been posting here for years. I joined only a few months before you did so we have overlapped for 90% of my time as a poster and 100% of yours. Why the sudden concern about my posting? What is being said about me was said--by the same people--about Fatal9. Many of them actually thought we were the same person and those who didn't would refer to us together as "Fatal/Roundball say...". Yet you place him in a different category than me despite us, as far as the 90's Bulls go (what those who thought we were the same person missed is we were different on other subjects and like any 2 people had differences in posting style), making the same points.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The thing is I have been posting here for years. I joined only a few months before you did so we have overlapped for 90% of my time as a poster and 100% of yours. Why the sudden concern about my posting? What is being said about me was said--by the same people--about Fatal9. Many of them actually thought we were the same person and those who didn't would refer to us together as "Fatal/Roundball say...". Yet you place him in a different category than me despite us, as far as the 90's Bulls go (what those who thought we were the same person missed is we were different on other subjects and like any 2 people had differences in posting style), making the same points.[/QUOTE]
The thing is you still have no point. Pippen is still a sidekick after all these years of debating. You have changed literally noting. He hasn't moved up on anyone list or thought of better then he was. He Is still looked at has a sidekick to the Goat.

Great thread OP.
Pippen's leadership and versatility was very important for Bulls team. Without him, Bulls would have 0 championship.

and LOL at insecure Jordan stans in this thread.

Both styles of leadership are almost equally important and both are needed, but the one who disciplines and criticizes more will be regarded as the alpha and ultimate leader (assuming he performs greatly on the court). One sets the bar high and the other helps others get to the bar.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The thing is I have been posting here for years. I joined only a few months before you did so we have overlapped for 90% of my time as a poster and 100% of yours. Why the sudden concern about my posting? What is being said about me was said--by the same people--about Fatal9. Many of them actually thought we were the same person and those who didn't would refer to us together as "Fatal/Roundball say...". Yet you place him in a different category than me despite us, as far as the 90's Bulls go (what those who thought we were the same person missed is we were different on other subjects and like any 2 people had differences in posting style), making the same points.[/QUOTE]

I've had you on ignore for a longtime, didn't remember the reason, just that you liked Pippen, when I came back here and liked some of your posts so I removed you.

Shaqattack3234 and Fatal9 are people I remember seeing post a lot and don't remember them clinging to a player like you have to Pippen. I can see how would confuse you with fatal9 since you seem to have a lot of the same opinions, I was just Saying that this thread is not one like I remember them doing.

Regardless of anything said in online debates, it's nothing personal I don't even know you. Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.

I think you have an exaggerated view of my positions. Allow me to explain.

[QUOTE]You think there is a narrative that has caused people to overrate Michael Jordan. I believe only a casual observer (not even a fan) would fall for something like that. [/QUOTE]

I don't think he is overrated as a player. He does, though, have a series of myths around him such as "he won by himself", "MJ could 'will' his teams to victory", that he is heads and shoulders above any other player, "MJ would never do ______" even if MJ himself actually did in fact do what is in question (a perfect example is people going around saying MJ would have played with cramps even though MJ did leave a game due to cramps). MJ in basketball reminds me a lot of what Reagan is to conservatives: a legitimately great figure from the past (even though I disagreed with most of Reagan's agenda the fact is he was successful in getting his agenda through and changing the course of the nation) who has been super-sized into a figure of myth, a mythical figure that is often used to diminish their modern day counterparts like MJ now is. You see it all the time, i.e. Reagan would oppose whatever pathway to legalization bill is before Congress--even though Reagan himself went a step further and did outright amnesty. What has caused a bit of a backlash to develop against MJ is the type of myths referenced. It doesn't change the fact that he was a great player and arguably the GOAT, just as Reagan, objectively speaking, was a successful president and leader even though there are now myths around him.

[QUOTE]You think Pippen's leadership skills were as valuable or more valuable to those Bulls teams than Michael Jordan's. I disagree because I even though Pippen's leadership is applicable in more situations, without Jordan's leadership style the teams would not have done any better than Portland did under Pippen's leadership. [/QUOTE]

I am not sure on their relative value. What I have questioned is that Jordan was THE leader--not necessarily asserted that Pippen was or that Pippen was a more important leader. If I had to guess there likely was no "THE" leader. We are talking about a basketball team and the interplay between co-workers. That is what they were: co-workers. A lot of people speak as if MJ was the director and Pippen was the deputy director, or in Samurai's words, the captain and lieutenant. This is not the type of organization we are talking about. A basketball team is not a hierarchical entity among players with many layers of authority like a normal workplace is. To the extent there is a hierarchy, it is the coach at the top and his assistants next.

Look at the workplaces you have been in. There always will be people viewed as leaders, even if they are technically your co-equal or they are senior to you but are in a different wing and thus hold no authority over you. Often these individuals will be among the most experienced people at the workplace. They fulfill valuable roles in a number of ways. However, there is no singular "THE" leader and it is not possible to create "leadership shares" for them. They perform important--but different functions. There is no metric to gauge the importance of one rebuke versus one word of encouragement. However, since MJ has to be #1 in everything MJ fans zealously have to promote the "captain and lieutenant" narrative, suggesting a hierarchy among peers. It also eliminates Cartwright from the equation.

I also am skeptical of MJ's approach and how much impact it actually had because it is counter-intuitive. I used it before and have seen others do it and I have never seen it succeed. Yeah, it can have an impact but any such leader will box himself/herself in because several people will tune said leader out and several more will listen, but to a limited degree (this is what happened to MJ in Washington--compare that to Pippen continuing to be a leader in Portland). A leader like Pippen has no constraints. He can go to anyone on the team and have a dialogue and a leader like that will, because people like him, be given a more receptive ear. When I shifted to the Pippen-style approach it paid big dividends--where they had previously tuned me out they began to defer to me (even though I was acknowledged to be the "best player" in terms of skills and knowledge). Maybe I am biased by my own experiences and maybe a basketball team is a different animal than a normal workplace. I also have read so many biographies, articles and other things concerning leaders that I am skeptical of the MJ approach because I don't see those traits among great leaders. I don't recall reading about George Washington punching Alexander Hamilton or Lincoln insulting William Seward or MLK refusing to talk to Jesse Jackson. Again, this could bias me but this is part of where I am coming from.

All that said, even if there were limits to MJ's approach that is not to say it did not produce results--but MJ's approach (which also was/is Kobe's) requires a Pippen and Jackson there (or a Fisher and Jackson in the case of the Lakers) there, and much more than the other way around. Someone like Pippen could join almost any group and emerge as a leader.

Think of the military. You need drill sergeants to whip people into shape but a great general understands the importance of morale and having people willing and able to follow your direction. Dwight Eisenhower didn't go around denigrating troops before D-Day.

[QUOTE]I think the best player needs to be the teams leader for the team to maximize it's potential, you feel the best leader (objectively) is best for the job. [/QUOTE]

I think ideally the best player emerges as the best leader. The reason I think a great leader will emerge as such is because of the study of people who were/are leaders I mentioned before. Pretty much all of them always were leaders, even at a young age. Part of this is the "alpha" talk we frequently here. Leaders will tend to be "alpha's" and that will emerge pretty much wherever they go.

[QUOTE]I think we both feel like there are a lot of leaders on any given team.

I think we both feel like Pippen was well-liked and respected by his teammates and coaches, more so as a person than Jordan.

I think we both feel like Jordan was the best and most important player on the Bulls.

I think we both feel like Pippen was more than just a #2 option on that team and that his contributions were essential to them winning a title. [/QUOTE]

Correct.

[QUOTE]with fatal9 since you seem to have a lot of the same opinions, I was just Saying that this thread is not one like I remember them doing.
[/QUOTE]

Fatal was more aggressive. For example, he posted a thread about MJ's anti-clutch log and another about Bird "owning" Jordan. All I did here was post a thread saying Scottie Pippen was a leader--according to his coach.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Scottie was a mental midget of the highest (or lowest) order and this was just a continuation of that. His 'migraines' potentially cost Chicago another championship. And as the above proved, he was not made to be the alpha dog and was not above pouting like a petulant child and endangering the team if he didn't get his way (he did the same in Houston).

Of course players will like his style of leadership more- he was like the grandmother whose shoulder they could cry on and bake them cookies when their father berated them for being f*ck ups. Some people don't respond well to being challenged and pushed to their limits, they'd rather be coddled by a mother hen.

But then when the chips are down and guys are looking for someone to close the show and all they have is the mother hen sitting at the end of the bench crying because she didn't get her way... well...[/QUOTE]

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Haskel45/media/montahandshk_zps1c0900c6.gif.html][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/Haskel45/montahandshk_zps1c0900c6.gif[/IMG][/URL]

pip and mike co leaders

Pippen with goat leadership skills

[QUOTE=AirBonner;14260475]Pippen with goat leadership skills[/QUOTE]


Pippen actually quit on his team during the playoffs. He was butthurt that Phil called the last play for kucoc, threw a hissy fit and refused to go back in the game. Sure enough Toni hit the game winner.

Pippen and Phil both walked off the.ciurt stone faced while the rest of the team was celebrating. Bizarre scene.

.
Everyone in history that won 3 Finals needed a teammate to win FMVP or average 25 ppg for at least 1 of the Finals.. But Pippen is 0/6 in FMVP and peaked at 21 ppg, so only MJ could win 3 or 3-peat with Pippen.

Furthermore, everyone in history needed an equal-scoring partner (1b) for half of their rings except the goat, who won 6 rings with a true 2nd option that averaged far less in every playoffs.

Teammate scoring matters because equal-scoring teammates attract equal defensive attention, so only MJ faced "1-man team" defensive attention for his entire career, (thus giving maximum integrity to his stats and rings).. Kenny Smith talks about MJ being the only 1-man show [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s]here[/url].

Ultimately, rings with 2nd options are greater than rings with 1b's and Jordan has 4 more rings with 2nd options than anyone else in history - that's his irrefutable goat argument.

[QUOTE=3ball;14260484].
Everyone in history that won 3 Finals needed a teammate to win FMVP or average 25 ppg for at least 1 of the Finals.. But Pippen is 0/6 in FMVP and peaked at 21 ppg, so only MJ could win 3 or 3-peat with Pippen.

Furthermore, everyone in history needed an equal-scoring partner (1b) for half of their rings except the goat, who won 6 rings with a true 2nd option that averaged far less in every playoffs.

Teammate scoring matters because equal-scoring teammates attract equal defensive attention, so only MJ faced "1-man team" defensive attention for his entire career, (thus giving maximum integrity to his stats and rings).. Kenny Smith talks about MJ being the only 1-man show [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s]here[/url].

Ultimately, rings with 2nd options are greater than rings with 1b's and Jordan has 4 more rings with 2nd options than anyone else in history - that's his irrefutable goat argument.[/QUOTE]
1-9

Is op still alive?