Scottie Pippen in the playoffs from 1991-93

[QUOTE][QUOTE]He would have been if he was in his prime back then. Plus, why boil down a game to the final 2-3 minutes and even then only to scoring? When was Bill Russell the first option to score?
[/QUOTE]
I'm not! I'm just saying that would be a very good place for him to win. He'd be the best player.

[QUOTE]Was McHale asked to do as much as Pippen? For instance, was McHale running his team's offense?[/QUOTE]
I certainly can't say he did less for his team.


[QUOTE]I am not surprised to hear you say that but I will pose this for general readers. Let's look at the most recent champions and their "second options."

Gasol, Pierce, Parker. Were any close to Pippen? Certainly none had the responsibilities Pippen had.[/QUOTE]
No, not in the 00's but since the 90's BBall has fallen off in my opinion. Especially the early thousands. Looking at teams that had obviously defined first and second best player the second best were
Pierce
Kobe
McHale
Drexler
Wilt
Oscar
Shaq
etc.
Most are pretty close to Pippen

[QUOTE]Why did you ignore KG, Kobe, Wade, and Durant? In Pippen's case all that matters is they did not win 50+; the others are heroes for reaching .500. Pippen had the team in 6th and closing rapidly on 5th. They were on pace for 45 wins even without Jordan and that would have gotten them 5th place, ahead of the 43 win Cavs. KG missed the playoffs how many times? Durant may miss it this year. We know about Kobe. Wade? May miss it this year, barely got past 42 wins last year.[/QUOTE]
All those teams were still worse then Pippens. Especially Kobe and KG's. In 07 KG's best players were Ricky Davis and Mark Blount. You'd have trouble winning a championship with those as your fifth and sixth best players. And I'm sure everyone knows about Kobe in 06.




[QUOTE]Speaking of Payton, he would have won a ring as the best player on his team in 96' had he not run into a 72 win juggernaut. He had horrible timing.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt they'd make it past the Magic, but they'd definitely have a chance.

[quote=Roundball_Rock]All that said, McHale had a year without Bird when he was 30 or 31. He had the whole team intact minus Bird (sound familiar?). The result? Below .500 without Bird. I have heard he was hurt a bit that year but he was still putting up 23/8.[/quote]

Roundball, I agree with you about Pippen, but don't be too hard on Kevin. Parish and DJ were both in their mid-thirties and they had a new coach. Also, Ainge was traded away to Sacramento for Ed Pinckney. With all of that going on, they still finished a game above .500(42-40 overall).

The team with Bird in the lineup that year was 2-4, by the way.

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01/gamelog/1989/[/url]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1989.html[/url]

[quote]All those teams were still worse then Pippens. Especially Kobe and KG's. In 07 KG's best players were Ricky Davis and Mark Blount. You'd have trouble winning a championship with those as your fifth and sixth best players. And I'm sure everyone knows about Kobe in 06.[/quote]

The 95 Bulls were pretty weak, you have to admit.

[QUOTE=Alhazred]The 95 Bulls were pretty weak, you have to admit.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but you couldn't compare them to KG or Kobe's 06-07 teams. Both would've been below 15 wins without them.

[QUOTE]I certainly can't say he did less for his team. [/QUOTE]

But he did. He wasn't running his team's offense. He did not have the same defensive importance. He scored about as much as Pippen. The only area where he did more was rebounding, which is to be expected since he was a PF.

[QUOTE]No, not in the 00's but since the 90's BBall has fallen off in my opinion. Especially the early thousands. Looking at teams that had obviously defined first and second best player the second best were
Pierce
Kobe
McHale
Drexler
Wilt
Oscar
Shaq
etc.
Most are pretty close to Pippen[/QUOTE]

I edited my last post to include the "#2" guys on the teams they defeated in the NBA finals and ECF. Pippen>all of them on all-time lists, except Stockton who is always ranked right around Pippen. You could argue Penny being comparable as well since young Penny was a superstar but that is about it. Penny, Stockton, maybe Mourning and Stockton was old by the time the Bulls faced him.

[QUOTE]All those teams were still worse then Pippens. Especially Kobe and KG's.[/QUOTE]

That is debatable but besides the point. The point is Pippen with trash in his prime was able to lead them to contention, just like those guys.

Looking at Wade and Durant this year, Beasely and Westbrook are better than 95' Kukoc. Plus, you can't just look at talent. The Bulls had a glaring weakness in the interior with no PF or C.

How about KG? He was in the 45-50 win range perennially and then had two years of missing the playoffs. Let's look at a few of his teams.

44 wins in 05' (KG was 28 years old): He had Sprewell, Wally Z, and Sam Cassell

33 wins in 06': He had Wally scoring 20 ppg and Davis 19 ppg

Second year Kukoc and BJ Armstrong are light years better? Cassell>Kukoc, Sprewell>Armstrong, Z>Harper?

Even in Kobe's case, Odom>Kukoc, although I agree as a whole Kobe had a much worse team.

The Bulls in 94' sucked without Pippen and that was when they had Grant. They were a 25-30 win caliber team without Pippen. What do you think the 95' Bulls would have done without Pippen before MJ came back? Kukoc was better in his second year, Harper was an upgrade at PG, but they lost their second best player a year after losing Jordan and they also lost their starting C.

[QUOTE]I doubt they'd make it past the Magic, but they'd definitely have a chance.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind Grant got hurt in the ECF that year. I can't see the Magic beating the Sonics without Grant.

[QUOTE]
Roundball, I agree with you about Pippen, but don't be too hard on Kevin. Parish and DJ were both in their mid-thirties and they had a new coach. Also, Ainge was traded away to Sacramento for Ed Pinckney. With all of that going on, they still finished a game above .500(42-40 overall).[/QUOTE]

I like him. As I said, he would be the "#1" guy on practically any other team. He is an example of too much being made out of the "sidekick" thing. If McHale played for a random team instead of being on the same team as arguably one of the 5 greatest players ever does that suddenly make McHale a better player than he was?

Good info, though. I assumed they were above .500 with Bird and just below without him. Still, that team>the 95' Bulls. They still had Parish and DJ as effective players. Of course, McHale was hurt so it wasn't prime McHale. I am sure with prime McHale they would win 50+.

[QUOTE=magnax1]Yeah, but you couldn't compare them to KG or Kobe's 06-07 teams. Both would've been below 15 wins without them.[/QUOTE]

The 95 Bulls would have been pretty bad minus Pippen, too. No MJ, Scottie, or Grant/Rodman? Sounds like the 99 Bulls to me.

[quote]I like him. As I said, he would be the "#1" guy on practically any other team. He is an example of too much being made out of the "sidekick" thing. If McHale played for a random team instead of being on the same team as arguably one of the 5 greatest players ever does that suddenly make McHale a better player than he was?[/quote]

Good point. In 87, he averaged a 26/10 on a stacked Celtics team. Imagine if he was given more scoring opportunities.

[quote]Good info, though. I assumed they were above .500 with Bird and just below without him. Still, that team>the 95' Bulls. They still had Parish and DJ as effective players. Of course, McHale was hurt so it wasn't prime McHale. I am sure with prime McHale they would win 50+.[/quote]

Yeah, Bird was dealing with his own injuries at the time. 1989 just wasn't the Celtics' year. I admit that the 89 Celtics were better than the 95 Bulls, though. With Grant, I thought the Bulls were pretty solid but they missed him quite a bit when he left for Orlando.

[QUOTE]I edited my last post to include the "#2" guys on the teams they defeated in the NBA finals and ECF. Pippen>all of them on all-time lists, except Stockton who is always ranked right around Pippen. You could argue Penny being comparable as well since young Penny was a superstar but that is about it. Penny, Stockton, maybe Mourning and Stockton was old by the time the Bulls faced him.
[/QUOTE]
Thats true, and thats one of the reasons they didn't win. The only ones I can think of are Tim hardaway/mourning and Kevin Johnson


That is debatable but besides the point. The point is Pippen with trash in his prime was able to lead them to contention, just like those guys.

[QUOTE]Looking at Wade and Durant this year, Beasely and Westbrook are better than 95' Kukoc. Plus, you can't just look at talent. The Bulls had a glaring weakness in the interior with no PF or C.[/QUOTE]
yeah, so its fairly similar though BJ armstrong and Ron Harper were quite a bit better then anything beyond Jermaine O'Neal and Beasley. Durants cast is quite a bit better then Pippen's

[QUOTE]How about KG? He was in the 45-50 win range perennially and then had two years of missing the playoffs. Let's look at a few of his teams.

44 wins in 05' (KG was 28 years old): He had Sprewell, Wally Z, and Sam Cassell[/QUOTE]
Cassel was injured, Sprewell played terrible and Wally wasn't even very good. Even though they still won about the same amount of games as Pippen

[QUOTE]33 wins in 06': He had Wally scoring 20 ppg and Davis 19 ppg[/QUOTE]
Davis was traded for Wally, and both just plain sucked. Especially Davis.
[QUOTE]Second year Kukoc and BJ Armstrong are light years better? Cassell>Kukoc, Sprewell>Armstrong, Z>Harper? [/QUOTE]
Kukoc>Injured Cassell who only started 40 games, Sprewell=Armstrong and Wally was a bit better the Harper

this is sorta unrelated to this thread, but i didnt want to start a random ass thread just to talk about the old days (i hate that. most of them threads are trash)

but watch this video

[url]http://30for30.espn.com/film/winning-time-reggie-miller-vs-the-new-york-knicks.html[/url]

a few notes:

1: anyone who still doubts the 90s perimeter guys had it tougher than now is either too young or ignorant, or too-on-kobe's-nuts

2: i love how they showed clips of pacers and knicks talking about how rough and bad ass they were... yet they never won nothing. not cause they weren't good. but cause jordan/pip was that bad ass. ESPECIALLY jordan (yup roundball), who stood up to the Knicks more than anyone else on his team.

[QUOTE=Alhazred]The 95 Bulls would have been pretty bad minus Pippen, too. No MJ, Scottie, or Grant/Rodman? Sounds like the 99 Bulls to me.[/QUOTE]

Good point. You could even argue that the 99' Bulls were better than the 95' Bulls without Pippen or Jordan. Kukoc would be the best player on either team and in 99' he was at his peak, not a second year player new to American basketball. BJ Armstrong>99' Harper but the rest of the team is similar. If anything the 99' team was slightly better. Brent Barry>whoever you count as the 95' Bulls' third best player in this scenario (Will Perdue? Kerr? ), It doesn't even matter beyond this. It is scrubs vs. scrubs after this.

Keep in mind in 95' Pippen became the second player in history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. He led them in minutes too I believe. He ran their offense, anchored their defense. If his team was so good why was he asked to do so much?

[QUOTE]
Good point. In 87, he averaged a 26/10 on a stacked Celtics team. Imagine if he was given more scoring opportunities.
[/QUOTE]

He is in the conversation for top 5 PF of all-time. You mentioned 87'. He was 4th in MVP voting that year. Legit "sidekicks" do not finish that high in MVP voting or make all-NBA first team. The sad thing is being a "sidekick" will hurt him when he is, say, compared to Dirk. They are comparable in terms of talent but one was "the man" on his team for years and losing as "the man">winning as a "sidekick" according to a lot of people.

[QUOTE]Yeah, Bird was dealing with his own injuries at the time. 1989 just wasn't the Celtics' year. I admit that the 89 Celtics were better than the 95 Bulls, though. With Grant, I thought the Bulls were pretty solid but they missed him quite a bit when he left for Orlando.[/QUOTE]

The 95' Bulls would have been good if they had a rebounding/defensive PF like Grant or Rodman. What do you expect from a team whose starting "power" forward is averaging 5 boards and was not exactly a tough defender? Kukoc was a very good scorer and playmaker but having him as a PF is a joke. All he had was the height of a PF. He lacked the mentality or strength needed to be a viable PF. Who did the Bulls have at center? Will Perdue and Luc Longley.

It is a shame the Bulls used their free agent $$$$ on what turned out to be a washed up Ron Harper and not a PF that year. They could survive with a scrub at SG; they could not survive zero rebounding and Kukoc and Perdue as their "intimidators" in the paint.

[QUOTE]yeah, so its fairly similar though BJ armstrong and Ron Harper were quite a bit better then anything beyond Jermaine O'Neal and Beasley. Durants cast is quite a bit better then Pippen's[/QUOTE]

Harper was not as good as O'Neal imo. That was washed up, defensive specialist Harper not prime 20 ppg Harper.

[QUOTE]Cassel was injured, Sprewell played terrible and Wally wasn't even very good. Even though they still won about the same amount of games as Pippen[/QUOTE]

I factored all that in. Cassell played 60 games, Sprewell was old and Wally was good for a years. Even with Cassell's injury, Sprewell being old I would still take Cassell/Sprewell/Wally over second year Kukoc/Armstrong/old, post-injury Harper.

[QUOTE]Kukoc>Injured Cassell who only started 40 games, Sprewell=Armstrong and Wally was a bit better the Harper[/QUOTE]

So we both agree they were comparably bad "casts." So why is one guy criticized for producing the same results and the other lionized? :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE]I factored all that in. Cassell played 60 games, Sprewell was old and Wally was good for a years. Even with Cassell's injury, Sprewell being old I would still take Cassell/Sprewell/Wally over second year Kukoc/Armstrong/old, post-injury Harper.



I don't really dispute any of that. So we both agree they were comparably bad "casts." So why is one guy criticized for producing the same results and the other lionized? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]
I never knew he was lionized.
Though I'd still take Kukoc Armstrong and Harper because they brought alot more defensive intensity. Plus KG's coach was quite a bit worse

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Good point. You could even argue that the 99' Bulls were better than the 95' Bulls without Pippen or Jordan. Kukoc would be the best player on either team and in 99' he was at his peak, not a second year player new to American basketball. BJ Armstrong>99' Harper but the rest of the team is similar. If anything the 99' team was slightly better. Brent Barry>whoever you count as the 95' Bulls' third best player in this scenario (Will Perdue? Kerr? ), It doesn't even matter beyond this. It is scrubs vs. scrubs after this.[/quote]

Yeah, that sounds about right, actually. I think Phil Jackson had a big impact, too. If he had coached the 99 squad, they probably could have won 30, 35 games over an 82 game season. With Tim Floyd, though? They were doomed.

[quote]Keep in mind in 95' Pippen became the second player in history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. He led them in minutes too I believe. He ran their offense, anchored their defense. If his team was so good why was he asked to do so much?[/quote]

:applause:

[quote]He is in the conversation for top 5 PF of all-time. You mentioned 87'. He was 4th in MVP voting that year. Legit "sidekicks" do not finish that high in MVP voting or make all-NBA first team. The sad thing is being a "sidekick" will hurt him when he is, say, compared to Dirk. They are comparable in terms of talent but one was "the man" on his team for years and losing as "the man">winning as a "sidekick" according to a lot of people.[/quote]

The thing you have to ask yourself is, would Dirk be willing to do the things McHale did for Boston, like be a scoring threat in the post and play defense? It's like when comparing Scottie with other players. It would be cool to team Michael with another star like a prime Vince Carter, but would he be willing to do all of the same things that Scottie was asked to do? Same goes for Glen Rice, Adrian Dantley, or any of the 80s high-scoring forwards.

[quote]The 95' Bulls would have been good if they had a rebounding/defensive PF like Grant or Rodman. What do you expect from a team whose starting "power" forward is averaging 5 boards and was not exactly a tough defender? Kukoc was a very good scorer and playmaker but having him as a PF is a joke. All he had was the height of a PF. He lacked the mentality or strength needed to be a viable PF. Who did the Bulls have at center? Will Perdue and Luc Longley.[/quote]

Yep, I wish Horace had stayed, but apparently he and Krause were on bad terms. It's a shame he left, he was a very good role player, almost good enough to be a number 2.

[quote]It is a shame the Bulls used their free agent $$$$ on what turned out to be a washed up Ron Harper and not a PF that year. They could survive with a scrub at SG; they could not survive zero rebounding and Kukoc and Perdue as their "intimidators" in the paint.[/quote]

True, but although it seemed like a bad decision that year, at least Ron helped out with the second three peat.

[QUOTE]I never knew he was lionized.
Though I'd still take Kukoc Armstrong and Harper because they brought alot more defensive intensity. Plus KG's coach was quite a bit worse[/QUOTE]

Lionized is too strong but those years are used as a mark in his favor. "Oh man, remember when KG led scrubs to 45 wins? What a great player!"

I can see a case for Kukoc/Armstrong/Harper but they weren't significantly better, if at all. Legit point on the coach, though.

[QUOTE]Yeah, that sounds about right, actually. I think Phil Jackson had a big impact, too. If he had coached the 99 squad, they probably could have won 30, 35 games over an 82 game season. With Tim Floyd, though? They were doomed.[/QUOTE]

Jackson would have helped but I don't think a coach is worth 20 wins, although it is difficult to gauge a coach's impact. Yeah, maybe he could get them to 25-30 but I can't see a coach being worth 20 wins. Look at Jackson himself with prime Kobe. They struggled to get to 45 ish wins. Imagine he with prime Kukoc as his best guy. I think what a great coach can do is get a team to the next level. Look at PJ. The Bulls and Lakers did not get over the hump until he showed up. Or look at what Riley did with the Knicks and then the Heat. They never won (I am talking about the 90's Heat) but they went from run-of-the-mill playoff teams to legit contenders under him.

[QUOTE]The thing you have to ask yourself is, would Dirk be willing to do the things McHale did for Boston, like be a scoring threat in the post and play defense? It's like when comparing Scottie with other players. It would be cool to team Michael with another star like a prime Vince Carter, but would he be willing to do all of the same things that Scottie was asked to do?[/QUOTE]

Great points. People ignore roles, aside from a generic pecking order. A lot of these fantasy pairings would be dead on arrival because few superstars would be willing to accept "sidekick" status. McHale or Pippen easily could have asked for a trade to another team where they could be "the man."

[QUOTE]Yep, I wish Horace had stayed, but apparently he and Krause were on bad terms. It's a shame he left, he was a very good role player, almost good enough to be a number 2.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and then there was the Reinsdorf he-said she said thing. He also was tired of Jackson. I think he was good enough to be a #2 on a championship team--so long as he was teamed with a top 3-4 player like he was with Pippen in 94'. The thing is he was not a great or very good #2. He was as good as Starks and a bit better than Thorpe or Smits. I would take Willis over him, but not by much. All these guys were "#2's" on contenders. He wasn't as good as Kemp and light years worse than 94' Stockton but he was comparable to the typical "#2" in the L. He was a regular "#2" but he was very good as a #3. Just compare him to the #3's on these teams. Grant was a legit all-star, unlike BJ Armstrong who was voted in by the fans while putting up 10' AI type numbers.

[QUOTE]True, but although it seemed like a bad decision that year, at least Ron helped out with the second three peat.[/QUOTE]

He was a bust in the sense that he was brought in to be a second scorer who also would fill a glaring need at SG. He had been a 18- 20ish ppg guy perennially but wound up being a single digit scorer on the Bulls. He was an upgrade over Myers but at what cost? That money would have been better used on any rebounding/defensive PF, even if it was not one of the caliber of Grant.

You are right, though, that he played a significant role on the title teams as a defensive specialist, especially against Stockton when Jordan was old and MJ's energy had to be conserved on defense.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
[b]Jackson would have helped but I don't think a coach is worth 20 wins, although it is difficult to gauge a coach's impact. Yeah, maybe he could get them to 25-30 but I can't see a coach being worth 20 wins.[/b] Look at Jackson himself with prime Kobe. They struggled to get to 45 ish wins. Imagine he with prime Kukoc as his best guy. I think what a great coach can do is get a team to the next level. Look at PJ. The Bulls and Lakers did not get over the hump until he showed up. Or look at what Riley did with the Knicks and then the Heat. They never won (I am talking about the 90's Heat) but they went from run-of-the-mill playoff teams to legit contenders under him.[/quote]

I'd agree with you regarding most coaches, but this is Phil we're talking about, arguably the GOAT. Then again, you may be right.


[quote]Great points. People ignore roles, aside from a generic pecking order. A lot of these fantasy pairings would be dead on arrival because few superstars would be willing to accept "sidekick" status. McHale or Pippen easily could have asked for a trade to another team where they could be "the man."[/quote]

Yeah, I think McHale in Milwaukee would have made a pretty nice team along with Marques Johnson and Sidney Moncrief. Pippen, likewise would have fit in with a number of teams, such as Seattle, Portland or Denver, even with Dikembe.



[quote]Yeah, and then there was the Reinsdorf he-said she said thing. He also was tired of Jackson. I think he was good enough to be a #2 on a championship team--so long as he was teamed with a top 3-4 player like he was with Pippen in 94'. The thing is he was not a great or very good #2. He was as good as Starks and a bit better than Thorpe or Smits. I would take Willis over him, but not by much. All these guys were "#2's" on contenders. He wasn't as good as Kemp and light years worse than 94' Stockton but he was comparable to the typical "#2" in the L. He was a regular "#2" but he was very good as a #3. Just compare him to the #3's on these teams. Grant was a legit all-star, unlike BJ Armstrong who was voted in by the fans while putting up 10' AI type numbers.[/quote]

I agree about Kemp. He was a fave of mine all the way back to 1996. Grant simply wasn't at the same level. He's still one of my favorite Bulls players, though, especially after reading the Jordan Rules.

He was definitely a much better third option, though, I agree.

[quote]He was a bust in the sense that he was brought in to be a second scorer who also would fill a glaring need at SG. He had been a 18- 20ish ppg guy perennially but wound up being a single digit scorer on the Bulls. He was an upgrade over Myers but at what cost? That money would have been better used on any rebounding/defensive PF, even if it was not one of the caliber of Grant.[/quote]

Yeah, that's true. I actually read a few people say Scottie was just a system player or something like that as a putdown, which I found odd considering the Triangle offense isn't easy. Like you said, Harper had trouble adjusting. Jason Kidd didn't adjust well to it, either from what I read in the Book of Basketball. Here's what Simmons had to say.

[quote]The Dallas(Mavericks) situation imploded for three reasons:three young stars were given too much money, too soon; two feuded over singer Toni Braxton(who can rank splitting up the mid-nineties Mavs right up there with her six Grammy awards); and [b]new Mavs coach Jim Cleamons decided to adopt Chicago's "triangle" even though he had the most gifted open-court point guard since Magic Johnson. (I remember almost crying the first time I went to a game and saw Kidd completely shackled in that triangle.[/b] It was like paying for a Sharon Stone movie back then where she didn't get naked.)[/quote]

[QUOTE=Fatal9]Right. Increased minutes automatically makes have a career series :rolleyes:. [/QUOTE]

No, not JUST increased mpg, but also increased FGA (+4) and the fact that the team's 20+ ppg scorer was missing, necessitating more scoring from their other players, especially Robertson, who was a proven 17+ ppg scorer just a season prior.

[QUOTE]I'd agree with you regarding most coaches, but this is Phil we're talking about, arguably the GOAT. Then again, you may be right.
[/QUOTE]

It is an interesting question I have not given much thought. It is a good topic for a thread, though. I haven't look at "before/after" records of teams after great coaches leaving. My guess is that even the ones who can turn teams around take time. Look at Larry Brown. Time after time he joins a team and makes it a contender but has he ever really went to a team and improved it 15-20 wins right off the bat?

The thing is Jackson with arguably peak Kobe and prime Odom struggled to get 45 wins so it is hard to see him winning 35 games with peak Kukoc and scrubs. I am not saying it would be impossible, though. We have seen teams in the past overachieve despite lacking talent on paper, with the 10' Rockets being a great example.

[QUOTE]Yeah, I think McHale in Milwaukee would have made a pretty nice team along with Marques Johnson and Sidney Moncrief. Pippen, likewise would have fit in with a number of teams, such as Seattle, Portland or Denver, even with Dikembe.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I just tried to name random teams. I think McHale was comparable in ability to someone like Dirk, Drexler, Ewing or Payton. All four led teams to the NBA finals as "the man" and had several deep playoff runs. I think McHale would have had a similar record and perhaps won a ring as "the man." People forget that Ewing literally was one shot away from a ring in 94', Dirk came close--imagine Dallas winning Game 3, and Drexler was on the verge of forcing a Game 7 until Pippen led the bench to a legendary fourth quarter comeback. Drexler also averaged a near triple double as a "sidekick" in 95'. All of these nuances are lost in the "did he or did he not win a ring as the man?" that. People look at it so simplistically that guys like Dominique Wilkins and King who never got out the second round or a player like T Mac is generally lumped in with a guy like Ewing who was one shot away or Payton who happened to have the worst possible timing to have his best team.

Pippen with Mutumbo? That would have been criminal defensively. :bowdown:

[QUOTE]I agree about Kemp. He was a fave of mine all the way back to 1996. Grant simply wasn't at the same level. He's still one of my favorite Bulls players, though, especially after reading the Jordan Rules.[/QUOTE]

I liked Kemp as well. It is a shame he lost focus later in his career. He was on his way to the HOF. Seeing him as a scrub in Portland really was sad.

I like Grant too. I was just comparing him to the other "sidekicks" on the elite teams in 94'. He was similar to most of them. Kemp and Stockton were the only ones who were much better than him. Grant grew on me after reading that book and some other stuff too. He seems like an honest, hardworking guy. Supposedly he wasn't the brightest bulb out there--which made the alleged Reinsdorf situation even worse.

[QUOTE]Yeah, that's true. I actually read a few people say Scottie was just a system player or something like that as a putdown, which I found odd considering the Triangle offense isn't easy. Like you said, Harper had trouble adjusting. Jason Kidd didn't adjust well to it, either from what I read in the Book of Basketball. Here's what Simmons had to say.[/QUOTE]

I saw one person saying it and we know what his agenda is...It is a difficult offense but regarding assists simple common sense shows you how it deflates assists. The more ball movement there is, the less likely it is that a primary playmaker will get an assist.

Simmons made a good point, although I believe Dallas ran a hybrid type of offense, not the full triangle. You have to look at offensive schemes people are in. That is why I mentioned Pippen winning wherever he went. He almost won a ring under the Dunleavy system. Not bad for a "system player"! Also look at what Pippen did on the Dream Team. He played a lot of PG on that up tempo team and led the team in assists.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]It is an interesting question I have not given much thought. It is a good topic for a thread, though. I haven't look at "before/after" records of teams after great coaches leaving. My guess is that even the ones who can turn teams around take time. Look at Larry Brown. Time after time he joins a team and makes it a contender but has he ever really went to a team and improved it 15-20 wins right off the bat?[/quote]

I don't know about records improving overnight. 35 wins may have been overstating it. 30 wins is a more realistic scenario.

[quote]Yeah, I just tried to name random teams. I think McHale was comparable in ability to someone like Dirk, Drexler, Ewing or Payton. All four led teams to the NBA finals as "the man" and had several deep playoff runs. I think McHale would have had a similar record and perhaps won a ring as "the man." People forget that Ewing literally was one shot away from a ring in 94', Dirk came close--imagine Dallas winning Game 3, and Drexler was on the verge of forcing a Game 7 until Pippen led the bench to a legendary fourth quarter comeback. Drexler also averaged a near triple double as a "sidekick" in 95'. All of these nuances are lost in the "did he or did he not win a ring as the man?" that. People look at it so simplistically that guys like Dominique Wilkins and King who never got out the second round or a player like T Mac is generally lumped in with a guy like Ewing who was one shot away or Payton who happened to have the worst possible timing to have his best team.[/quote]

The "sidekick" label and "rings as the man" thing doesn't really make much sense, imo.

Ewing and a lot of other players have taken crap for supposedly "choking" in the playoffs, which is unfair. His detractors rarely mention his game 7 performance in the 94 ECF when he went 22/24/7/5.


[quote]I liked Kemp as well. It is a shame he lost focus later in his career. He was on his way to the HOF. Seeing him as a scrub in Portland really was sad.[/quote]

Yeah, I wish Seattle had just given him a bigger contract earlier, especially after he had that awesome performance in the Finals. His career probably would have been better had he stuck with Karl and GP.

[quote]I like Grant too. I was just comparing him to the other "sidekicks" on the elite teams in 94'. He was similar to most of them. Kemp and Stockton were the only ones who were much better than him. Grant grew on me after reading that book and some other stuff too. He seems like an honest, hardworking guy. Supposedly he wasn't the brightest bulb out there--which made the alleged Reinsdorf situation even worse.[/quote]

I never mistook Grant for an intellectual. Still, I take his side regarding the whole situation. Bulls management was notoriously stingy back in the 90s. Wasn't Scottie at one point the 122nd highest paid player in the league? :wtf: That was in his prime, too.

[quote]I saw one person saying it and we know what his agenda is...It is a difficult offense but regarding assists simple common sense shows you how it deflates assists. The more ball movement there is, the less likely it is that a primary playmaker will get an assist.

Simmons made a good point, although I believe Dallas ran a hybrid type of offense, not the full triangle.[/quote]

Apparently, Cleamons was a former assistant of Phil Jackson's. He was only there for a season with Kidd, though and it seems like they were just experimenting with it.

[quote]You have to look at offensive schemes people are in. That is why I mentioned Pippen winning wherever he went. He almost won a ring under the Dunleavy system. Not bad for a "system player"! Also look at what Pippen did on the Dream Team. He played a lot of PG on that up tempo team and led the team in assists.[/QUOTE]

Scottie could fit in with multiple different systems, no doubt.

Thanks for mentioning the 1992 Dream Team. He and Michael both led the team in assists and steals, even with Magic and Stockton. :lol

:cheers:

:applause:

Great second option. Can't do much more though outside of that unfortunately.

[QUOTE=Round Mound;14023227]:applause:[/QUOTE]

:cheers:

.
[B]Sidekick help while trying to 3-peat[/B]


[Indent][U]Per 100 Possessions - Playoffs[/U]

[B]14' Wade[/B].....' 28.6 pts.. 6.2 ast.. 56.0 ts.. 106 ortg.. 18.5 PER.. 0.086 ws/48
[B]93' Pippen[/B]... 26.2 pts.. 7.4 ast.. 50.0 ts.. 102 ortg.. 16.9 PER.. 0.083 ws/48[/INDENT]


Pippen also shot 45.9% true shooting in the Finals - so he was [B]horrible[/B] in the 93' Playoffs (worse than 14' Wade)

Ultimately, Pippen had 2 decent playoff runs with regular 2nd option numbers, [I][SIZE=4]because he sucked in 1993 and every other year (94', 95, 96-98', 88-90') - a horrible playoff performer and worst clutch player ever[/SIZE][/I]

It was the greatest consecutive three-year stretch for a number two option in NBA history. You won't find a better one. Pip averaged something crazy like 21/9/8/2/1 on 46% and obviously top-level defense.

[QUOTE=3ball;14023265].
[B]Sidekick help while trying to 3-peat[/B]


[Indent][U]Per 100 Possessions - Playoffs[/U]

[B]14' Wade[/B].....' 28.6 pts.. 6.2 ast.. 56.0 ts.. 106 ortg.. 18.5 PER.. 0.086 ws/48
[B]93' Pippen[/B]... 26.2 pts.. 7.4 ast.. 50.0 ts.. 102 ortg.. 16.9 PER.. 0.083 ws/48[/INDENT]


Pippen also shot 45.9% true shooting in the Finals - so he was [B]horrible[/B] in the 93' Playoffs (worse than 14' Wade)

Ultimately, Pippen had 2 decent playoff runs with regular 2nd option numbers, [I][SIZE=4]because he sucked in 1993 and every other year (94', 95, 96-98', 88-90') - a horrible playoff performer and worst clutch player ever[/SIZE][/I][/QUOTE]

Per 100 :lol

Comparing one single year and using per 100 as your only shred of an argument. Embarrassing. Whatever happened to what they actually did for that year? You know, per game?

[QUOTE=Rico2016;14023300]It was the greatest consecutive three-year stretch for a number two option in NBA history. You won't find a better one. Pip averaged something crazy like 21/9/8/2/1 on 46% and obviously top-level defense.[/QUOTE]

His playoff record was so strong I had to divide it into two threads, with multiple posts in each (the character limit was a lot longer back then too). :bowdown:

[QUOTE=juju151111;4011089]Good post. Top 25 and Goat defender.:cheers:[/QUOTE]

Espn ranked him at 21.

[QUOTE=BigShotBob;14023240]Great second option. Can't do much more though outside of that unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

Goat perimeter defender, point guard. 2nd option was just one of roles

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;4016871]Good point. You could even argue that the 99' Bulls were better than the 95' Bulls without Pippen or Jordan. Kukoc would be the best player on either team and in 99' he was at his peak, not a second year player new to American basketball. BJ Armstrong>99' Harper but the rest of the team is similar. If anything the 99' team was slightly better. Brent Barry>whoever you count as the 95' Bulls' third best player in this scenario (Will Perdue? Kerr? ), It doesn't even matter beyond this. It is scrubs vs. scrubs after this.

Keep in mind in 95' Pippen became the second player in history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. He led them in minutes too I believe. He ran their offense, anchored their defense. If his team was so good why was he asked to do so much?



He is in the conversation for top 5 PF of all-time. You mentioned 87'. He was 4th in MVP voting that year. Legit "sidekicks" do not finish that high in MVP voting or make all-NBA first team. The sad thing is being a "sidekick" will hurt him when he is, say, compared to Dirk. They are comparable in terms of talent but one was "the man" on his team for years and losing as "the man">winning as a "sidekick" according to a lot of people.



The 95' Bulls would have been good if they had a rebounding/defensive PF like Grant or Rodman. What do you expect from a team whose starting "power" forward is averaging 5 boards and was not exactly a tough defender? Kukoc was a very good scorer and playmaker but having him as a PF is a joke. All he had was the height of a PF. He lacked the mentality or strength needed to be a viable PF. Who did the Bulls have at center? Will Perdue and Luc Longley.

It is a shame the Bulls used their free agent $$$$ on what turned out to be a washed up Ron Harper and not a PF that year. They could survive with a scrub at SG; they could not survive zero rebounding and Kukoc and Perdue as their "intimidators" in the paint.



Harper was not as good as O'Neal imo. That was washed up, defensive specialist Harper not prime 20 ppg Harper.



I factored all that in. Cassell played 60 games, Sprewell was old and Wally was good for a years. Even with Cassell's injury, Sprewell being old I would still take Cassell/Sprewell/Wally over second year Kukoc/Armstrong/old, post-injury Harper.



So we both agree they were comparably bad "casts." So why is one guy criticized for producing the same results and the other lionized? :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

1995 team got better with return of Longley. Younger Harper with BJ, Kerr & Kukoc. Still not a playoff team, but not 1999.

makes me wonder what his GPA were, since it wasn't the one and done system back then.

[QUOTE=Aceman]1995 team got better with return of Longley. Younger Harper with BJ, Kerr & Kukoc. Still not a playoff team, but not 1999.[/QUOTE]

They were still safely a playoff team. They were in 6th place, right behind the Cavs. There is a myth they were at risk of missing the playoffs that gets pushed so often people start to believe it. The 8th place team in 95' (Celtics) won 35 games so the Bulls had basically done that (34) by when MJ returned.

Right, they got better with Longley and their record did not reflect their SRS. Over time, SRS is the best predictor of win losses and it appeared their SRS was starting to show up in their results before MJ came back (11-6 since the break, 8-2 right before MJ returned). Here is what SRS said the 1995 standings should have been before MJ returned:

[U]1995 East Standings Predicated by SRS[/U]

1) Magic 48-17
2) Bulls 42-23
3) Pacers 39-24
4) Hornets 39-35
5) Knicks 37-25
6) Cavs/Hawks 35-28
8) Heat 28-36

Pippen also missed two full games (0-2) and he basically missed a third when he was ejected in the second quarter against the Clippers (the worst team in the NBA that year). If you project their win pace out with him, they would be 36-31 heading to Indiana, compared to the Pacers 39-24. In other words, if Pippen played every game they would be right in the hunt to win the division. This is compared to a full strength Pacers team whereas the Bulls were down MJ, Grant, Rodman, plus injuries to Longley as you noted.


[QUOTE=GimmeThat;14053217]makes me wonder what his GPA were, since it wasn't the one and done system back then.[/QUOTE]

I assume solid because he was getting a work-study type scholarship and that comes with a minimum requirement (isn't it usually 2.5 or 2.75?). He wasn't a star until late in college when he had his growth spurt so he wouldn't get any "special treatment" like you here about with some players who went to college as big stars.

[B]Best All Around Forward of the 90's![/B]

[QUOTE=Rico2016;14023300]It was the greatest consecutive three-year stretch for a number two option in NBA history. You won't find a better one. Pip averaged something crazy like 21/9/8/2/1 on 46% and obviously top-level defense.[/QUOTE]

Bingo

Riiiiico got these bois spinnin

:dancin

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14053261]They were still safely a playoff team. They were in 6th place, right behind the Cavs. There is a myth they were at risk of missing the playoffs that gets pushed so often people start to believe it. The 8th place team in 95' (Celtics) won 35 games so the Bulls had basically done that (34) by when MJ returned.

Right, they got better with Longley and their record did not reflect their SRS. Over time, SRS is the best predictor of win losses and it appeared their SRS was starting to show up in their results before MJ came back (11-6 since the break, 8-2 right before MJ returned). Here is what SRS said the 1995 standings should have been before MJ returned:

[U]1995 East Standings Predicated by SRS[/U]

1) Magic 48-17
2) Bulls 42-23
3) Pacers 39-24
4) Hornets 39-35
5) Knicks 37-25
6) Cavs/Hawks 35-28
8) Heat 28-36

Pippen also missed two full games (0-2) and he basically missed a third when he was ejected in the second quarter against the Clippers (the worst team in the NBA that year). If you project their win pace out with him, they would be 36-31 heading to Indiana, compared to the Pacers 39-24. In other words, if Pippen played every game they would be right in the hunt to win the division. This is compared to a full strength Pacers team whereas the Bulls were down MJ, Grant, Rodman, plus injuries to Longley as you noted.




I assume solid because he was getting a work-study type scholarship and that comes with a minimum requirement (isn't it usually 2.5 or 2.75?). He wasn't a star until late in college when he had his growth spurt so he wouldn't get any "special treatment" like you here about with some players who went to college as big stars.[/QUOTE]

Without Pippen in 95 not a playoff team

I like Bill Simmons, but that part about Pippen shutting Magic down in the 91 finals is just flat out without debate untrue and revisionist history.

It didn't happen. He's not much of a historian claiming things like that.

[QUOTE=Carbine;14053813]I like Bill Simmons, but that part about Pippen shutting Magic down in the 91 finals is just flat out without debate untrue and revisionist history.

It didn't happen. He's not much of a historian claiming things like that.[/QUOTE]

Stuff like questioning Chris Mullins place on dream team in revisionist - Pippen's defence was reported at time;
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/06/sports/basketball-pippen-performs-magic-on-defense.html[/url]

[QUOTE=aceman]Without Pippen in 95 not a playoff team[/QUOTE]

Oh sorry, misread your post. Yeah, without Pippen for sure. The 94' team wasn't a PO team without him either. Pippen missed 12 full games during the MJ retirement era and a de facto 13th where he was ejected early. The Bulls went 4-9 in those games (25 win pace).

[QUOTE]I like Bill Simmons, but that part about Pippen shutting Magic down in the 91 finals is just flat out without debate untrue and revisionist history.[/QUOTE]

You don't "shut down" a player of Magic's caliber but Game 2 was his worst game.

Phil Jackson said Pippen's defense on Magic turned the tide of the series and Grant said he should have been FMVP, citing that as a reason.

[QUOTE]Stuff like questioning Chris Mullins place on dream team in revisionist - Pippen's defence was reported at time;
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/1991/06/06/s...n-defense.html[/url][/QUOTE]

From that article (the title? Pippen Performs Magic on Defense):

[QUOTE][B]Pippen Performs Magic on Defense[/B]


[U]Johnson Under Wraps
[/U]
Pippen shot better tonight (8 for 16) and scored 20 points. More important, he limited Magic Johnson to 4-for-13 shooting from the field and 14 points over all.

Pippen, who was matched against James Worthy at the start of the game, switched to Johnson with 4 minutes 5 seconds remaining in the first quarter after Jordan had picked up his second foul.

"Pippen did a great job on me," Johnson said. "Once Michael got into early foul trouble, you had to expect they would make that switch.

"They were trying wear me out or take the ball out of my hands, take your pick. Scottie is more physical than Michael so the matchup was a little different."

[U]Full-Court Pressure[/U]

Pippen said, "I was trying to defend Magic full court so he could not pick apart of our offense.[/QUOTE]

Look at Magic's game logs for the series.

Game 1: 19/10/11 80%
[B]Game 2: 14/7/10 31%[/B]
Game 3: 22/6/10 47%
Game 4: 22/6/11 46%
Game 5: 16/11/20 33%

One of these is not like the others. 14/7/10 isn't being shut down but you can see the stark difference with his normal level in the logs.

I watched the games, he didn't shut him down. Throwing box scores at me means nothing, it's no different than 3ball saying Jordan shut Magic down in the OT when Magic is out there shooting wide open uncontested 3 pointers and just missing them, with MJ nowhere in sight.

Strange how NBA.com paints the picture as if Scottie was the primary defender on Magic for the majority of the series.


In the Chicago’s first-ever NBA Finals appearance, Scottie Pippen took the primary responsibility of guarding Magic Johnson in 1991 versus the Los Angeles Lakers. Pippen’s stellar defensive effort altered the scope of the series and set the standard for teams searching for a taller, more athletic point guard to shut down opposing point guards.

At first, all anyone could talk about was the Michael Jordan vs. Magic Johnson match-up. But as the series carried on, it was clear that it was going to take much more than one individual for either team to succeed. Jordan was superb, averaging 31.2 points, 11.4 assists and 6.6 rebounds, but the Bulls were no one-man team. Their defense held the Lakers to a record-low 458 points for a five-game series.

At first, Head Coach Phil Jackson designated Jordan to guard Johnson, with relief help from Pippen.

"It's tough to guard Magic and then go down and be expected to carry the load offensively," Jordan said following the series opener. "It's a challenge, but I have to do it."

However, things changed in Game 2 when the Bulls discovered a new defensive stopper. Pippen switched over onto Johnson after Jordan picked up his second personal foul in the first quarter and did an outstanding job on the Lakers' star, pestering him into 4-for-13 shooting.

“I didn’t know what to expect to be honest,” Pippen said of the assignment.

The Lakers were outmanned by the younger, more athletic Bulls. Wherever Johnson went, he was hounded by the fourth-year Pippen, who combined to pressure his every step and harassed him into 22 turnovers.

"We were all hyped and full of energy because it was our first time [in the Finals] and we were excited,” Pippen recalled.

“I decided I was going to try to work him and wear him down as best as I could. That was my plan, and whether it affected him initially, I didn’t know if it would or not. I just focused on wearing him down for the long haul—not just that game but throughout the whole series.”

The Bulls dropped the opening game in Chicago, but wouldn’t lose again, taking the series, 4-1. Pippen led all scorers in the decisive fifth game with 32 points and 13 boards and averaged 21.6 points, 8.9 rebounds, 5.8 assists, and 2.47 steals in 17 postseason games.


[url]https://www.nba.com/bulls/history/pippen10_1991.html[/url]

Historians place a lot of weight on what was said at the time, both in coverage and by participants. For the press, the first stop is the [I]New York Times[/I] as the nation's "paper of record." If the NYT headline on the next day's story is Pippen's defense, you have quotes from various participants in the game, other press accounts, etc. there is only one conclusion for a historian to reach. He isn't going to get held up on a technicality over the definition of "shut down", especially since we know superstars like that are never really shut down.

The counter argument has to explain how people 1) at the time 2) in the lore that developed over the following 30 years were both incorrect. The NYT reporter watched the game too--that was his job. Did all these people just get it backwards?

[QUOTE] Throwing box scores at me means nothing, it's no different than 3ball saying Jordan shut Magic down in the OT [/QUOTE]

That is one guy with an agenda 30 years later. That isn't the same as the NBA reporter for the nation's "paper of record" saying it in his story on the game.

[QUOTE]Strange how NBA.com paints the picture as if Scottie was the primary defender on Magic for the majority of the series.
[/QUOTE]

That article was written sloppily and therefore conveys that impression. He wasn't and I don't think that's what the writer actually meant. Maybe a short deadline? :oldlol:

Here is more reporting from the time. So people who watched the game live, wrote a story right after the game for the next day's paper. There is this push against this from the MJ crowd "Pippen guarding Magic" (not you but I see it out there)--but that started 20+ years after the fact with a clear agenda. This is what (now four) people said when they wrote their thoughts minutes after the game ended without any agenda other than telling readers what happened.

[U]The Washington Post (David Aldridge)[/U]

[QUOTE][B]Scottie Pippen had 20 points, but it was his defensive job on Magic Johnson that was his bigger contribution tonight[/B]. With Pippen instead of Jordan on Johnson, the Lakers' leader shot four for 13.

Chicago actually did it out of necessity. Jordan picked up his second foul guarding Johnson with 4:05 left in the first period, and Pippen, who had made one of six shots till then, had to switch off to Johnson while Jordan took Byron Scott.

[B]The 6-foot-8 Pippen could obstruct Johnson's passing lanes, which the 6-6 Jordan couldn't do. And Pippen, a few pounds heavier than Jordan, could put a little more muscle on Johnson and turn him back and forth down the floor.[/B]

"Basically,[B] I was trying to defend against Magic full-court," Pippen said, "so he couldn't pick apart our defense.[/B] . . . I had success on Magic tonight but so did Michael."

"[B]He's much more physical than Michael," Johnson said[/B]. "So the matchup's different. I thought all along that they were going to play Scottie on me. But I think they were forced into it."[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1991/06/06/game-2-bulls-surge-107-86/11781a94-f3e9-4ca2-84aa-d94671a10751/"]https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1991/06/06/game-2-bulls-surge-107-86/11781a94-f3e9-4ca2-84aa-d94671a10751/[/URL]

[U]UPI[/U]

Headline: [B]Pippen's defense shadows Magic, Lakers[/B]

[QUOTE]INGLEWOOD, Calif. -- [B]Contrary to some reports, when Magic Johnson removed his jersey after Game 2 of the NBA Finals, he did not find Scottie Pippen underneath.

Pippen, though, did blanket Johnson during the Chicago Bulls' 107-86 rout[/B] of the Lakers Wednesday night. And he'd like to remain up close and personal with the Los Angeles star when the best-of-seven series, tied at one game apiece, resumes Friday night at the Forum.

Early in Game 2, Chicago Coach Phil Jackson took Michael Jordan off Johnson and replaced him with Pippen. [B]The long-armed 6-foot-7 forward hounded the Lakers' playmaker from baseline to baseline, and Johnson finished with just 14 points on 4 of 13 shooting.[/B]

'I wanted to guard Magic,' Pippen said. 'I knew it might take something out of my offense, but I had to try. I got out there and felt very good about guarding him.'
[B]
Johnson, forced to work each time he brought the ball upcourt, played 43 minutes and looked weary[/B]. In his last eight games, he has played fewer than 43 minutes just once.

[B]'When somebody's aggressive like that, guarding you, you know you're going to get tired,' Johnson said.[/B]

Added [B]Los Angeles assistant Randy Pfund: 'That's where (the rout) started. Scottie picked up the pace and that engerized them. He picked up the whole team.'[/B]
[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/06/06/Pippens-defense-shadows-Magic-Lakers/8129676180800/"]https://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/06/06/Pippens-defense-shadows-Magic-Lakers/8129676180800/[/URL]