Scottie Pippen appreciation thread.

[QUOTE=jlip][I]"On the Bulls he [Pippen] was probably the player most liked by the others. He mingled. He could bring out the best in the players and communicate the best. [B]Leadership, real leadership, is one of his strengths[/B]. Everybody would say Michael is a great leader. He leads by example, by rebuke, by harsh words. [B]Scottie's leadership was equally dominant[/B], but it's a leadership of patting the back, support."[/I]

Phil Jackson
[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1017938/5/index.htm[/url]

"[I][B]Scottie was our team leader.[/B] He was the guy that directed our offense and he was the guy that took on a lot of big challenges defensively...[/I]"

Phil Jackson
[url]http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2005/12/scottie-pippens-place-in-basketball.html[/url]

Bill Wennington echoes the same sentiments in his book, entitled [I]Bill Wennington's Tales from the Bulls Hardwood[/I]. He says

[I]"Scottie was my favorite Bull. It's not the most popular thing to say in Chicago, because Michael is supposed to be everybody's favorite. And I loved Michael as a person and as a teammate. I just appreciated Scottie more...

Michael will test you everyday. But Michael will also let you burn in the coach's eyes to see how you handle the situation. [B]Scottie handled his relationships with his teammates differently, and better, in my opinion [/B]...

My first season with the Bulls was the 1993-94 season, the first one Michael did not play because of his initial retirement. In that season I saw Scottie as No. 1...I played with a lot of players--Chris Webber, Mark Aguirre, Sam Perkins--[B]Scottie was head and shoulders above all of those players in terms of leadership [/B]and what he stood for as a team basketball player...

...But what Scottie represented to me is a player whom I would pick 1st for my team every time. Even if Michael was available, I would pick Scottie Pippen...

...[B]Scottie led that team[/B] ['93-'94 Bulls] to 55 wins...Maybe it's apples to oranges, but t[B]hat season was an indication of what Scottie was capable of doing as a team leader.[/B]"[/I]
[url]http://books.google.com/books?id=EipQcbzkyvoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bill+wennington&hl=en&ei=vTiaTKq6MoG0lQeMvJTuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false[/url] pp.11-17[/QUOTE]

Very good stuff.

How's Wennington's book overall?

I was under more of the impression that Pippen was more like a Sam Jones who preferred not having the attention on him and kind of a loner.

Scottie Pippen dunking from the FT line.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB0qWqBsMBc[/url]

Pippen had such underrated hops, you rarely ever hear people talk about how great a dunker he was.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Very good stuff.

How's Wennington's book overall?

I was under more of the impression that Pippen was more like a Sam Jones who preferred not having the attention on him and kind of a loner.[/QUOTE]

Thanks.
I only read half of it, but from what I did read, it's a solid piece. I wouldn't say that it's a bestseller quality book though. It's somewhat of a brief, informal first person memoir of his days with the Bulls. He pretty much takes you into the practices and addresses other "non game" matters such as the relationships between the players and his perspectives on them. One thing that I did find rather revealing as well as interesting is that Phil Jackson's mind games and unorthodox psychological approaches baffled his players as much as they do everyone else.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Really? Read the thread. It is insecure MJ fans who hijacked a "cheers to Scottie" thread.
[/quote]
My response was directly to you. Don't you always do this stuff? You say stuff like "ZOMG, Pippen! Wtf?! He was a better team player than MJ! He wasn't just a sidekick! He was the leader of the team!"

Which is shockingly ok. And I won't truly argue with. It's a great argument to say Magic and Bird were better team players than Jordan, but he actually got the criticism forever. I think people even acknowledge that Magic and Bird did make their much teammates better and landed a better impact than Jordan. At least whoever watched them play. Pippen can do things similar.

However, some people do underrate/overrate things. Like the whole Pippen issue. I like this one guy who said, "Jordan fans underrate Pippen. Jordan haters overrate Pippen."

But then you said:

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
:oldlol: at this "sidekick" label. "Sidekicks" are not legit MVP candidates. [/quote]
THAT is just not true at all. Mostly all of the greats had sidekicks that were legit MVP candidates. Some were arguably better than they were in that specific time in their careers. And most of them were better than Pippen. There is no attack towards them. wtf?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]
Kareem -- took a 2nd year expansion team that won 27 games the year before to the ECF as a rookie without Oscar or Magic

Shaq -- always had great teams so there isn't anything to say about him.

Bird -- took a 29 win team to the ECF as a rookie, won a ring with McHale averaging about 10 points on the bench.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed. But so did Hakeem. He took a 29 win team to a 48 win team in his first year. Then he expanded that team to not only beat the Showtime Lakers and went on to the Finals all in his second year. Hakeem actually had a better start and more impact than Jordan too initially. Would you also consider him better than Jordan? Especially as a team player?

You can even argue that LBJ had better impact than Shaq with the impacts on his team.

It's all about having the right chemistry, being at the right time and at the right place. Wilt even acknowledge this when he was asked if he would've been with the Celtics rather than Russel. He felt that team wouldn't do as well. Similar with all the other great players. It all depends.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The real question is strength relative to the league, something MJ fans conveniently ignore due to expansion. Who wins? An average team from 1965 or 1995? The answer is the former. Jordan had a team that won 55 games while replacing him with a D-League scrub. How many other superstars of that era had a team of that strength? Let's see hard facts, not speculation about teams that wound up winning 56 games despite their top player being out for a while but went 8-9 without the superstar in question, as MJ fans did previously when this question was posed.
[/quote]

Kareem had that team too! Hell, they won the title without him despite him being MVP and all. Bird may had that team when Mchale was healthy and hit his prime, being like the best PF ever in the 80s (also fourth in MVP only behind Bird, Magic, and Jordan). But that is speculating which you don't want to do.

But the Bulls also had prime Grant, which goes unnotice too. Then you have the season after 94, which it things didn't look too promising with the Bulls after Grant got out. With your logic, I can make a argument saying Grant was the most important piece to the puzzle instead of Pippen from 88-94.

Grant got traded to the Magic, who ironically enough beat the Bulls and went to the Finals. Did you also know that this was the first time in Shaq's career that he went pass the first round? That was when Grant came in. Without Grant, they may got another knock out in the first round. Hell, they went to the finals with Grant.

Even after Shaq left, they all was pretty decent. They were still in the playoffs with Penny hurt. Grant was battling injuries. They almost beat the Heat too who later on went to the conference finals against the Bulls. If they were more healthy, then would've been a better team.

Meanwhile, Pippen was on his way just to be a mere .500 team without Grant. Then Jordan came back into the picture and got them a few wins. And this is prime Pippen. Once Jordan got back, they were 13-4. And this is when Jordan was a year and half out of practice. The first 17 games with only Pippen, they were 9-8.

The reason why they sucked is because they had lack of talent. Lack of rebounding and etc. Same thing with Jordan in his rookie career. You need talent to win, good coaching, and good system to win. What the Bulls lacked when Jordan left was another scorer. There was no guards in the quality of Jordan and really no real replacement for him unless they could've got a Chris Mullin or someone like him, which I can't think of atm.


Going back to speculation, you are basically claiming that Pippen is a better team player than Jordan. Do you REALLY think that Pippen would've done any better and have more impact than Jordan as a rookie when competition was tougher and with GOAT teams facing you? Do you really think that Pippen would have carried a Bulls team to success without a Grant/Rodman/Jordan?

But....the Bulls 1985-86 had a lot of potential. They brought in some very nice pieces. They just failed because of injuries and not just Jordan. They had the Ice man, still had Woolridge, had Oakley (the re bounder that they were missing, but a rookie). If they would've been healthy then things would've been interesting. My guess they would be looking at a winning record. Shame.

Just to reply to some of your point micku, I can't really think of a better number 2 guy thn pippen since I've been watching basketball. And this goes back to the 80s.

And I don't agree with the notion that horace grant was as valuable as pippen based on the won loss record. Or even in orlando. Look at who they replaced grant with. They had a trio of pfs larry krystowiak, corie blount and then settled in on kukoc. 2 were 12th men at best a kukoc was not a PF. So you basically are replacing jordan with pete myers, and grant with the guys I mentioned. Im surprised that team was even 500. in fact they were on pace to finish at 43-39 which is damn good when you consider their starting five was

Armstrong
Myers
longley
pippen
kukoc

Then you bring up grant when shaq left. But neglect to mention that they replaced shaq with rony seikly. Who was a damn good center himself

Like I've stated as well as others, pippen was a bonafied superstar that accepted a position that hurt his personal accolades and stats. And for people to knock him for that is disgraceful.

[B]Best All Around SF of the 90s and Best SF of the 90s

He could make others better like Bird, Magic, Barkley and Hakeem

He Was Multi Dimensional Played like a PG and Defended like the Best Forwards[/B]

[QUOTE=97 bulls]
And I don't agree with the notion that horace grant was as valuable as pippen based on the won loss record. Or even in orlando. [/QUOTE]

I was making a point in saying how I can say that Jordan is to Pippen what Pippen is to Grant type of a deal. Grant was Pippen's second option like Jordan was Pippen second option. They both were very important to their success.

Grant was also in the all defensive second team for multiple years. He was very important to their success as the 3rd or 2nd option player.


[QUOTE=97 bulls] Look at who they replaced grant with. They had a trio of pfs larry krystowiak, corie blount and then settled in on kukoc. 2 were 12th men at best a kukoc was not a PF. So you basically are replacing jordan with pete myers, and grant with the guys I mentioned. Im surprised that team was even 500. in fact they were on pace to finish at 43-39 which is damn good when you consider their starting five was

Armstrong
Myers
longley
pippen
kukoc
[/QUOTE]

I agree. But I don't know if they were on pace to win 43-39 or not, because they flirting with the .500 mark.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Then you bring up grant when shaq left. But neglect to mention that they replaced shaq with rony seikly. Who was a damn good center himself[/QUOTE]

I did fail to mention that. It was my mistake to express the significance of Grant of a compare and contrast of Pippen.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Like I've stated as well as others, pippen was a bonafied superstar that accepted a position that hurt his personal accolades and stats. And for people to knock him for that is disgraceful.[/QUOTE]

The thing is that Pippen had a chance to show what he could do for a year and half. I think Pippen did show us what he could do with being the main guy. He isn't the type of guy to explode in stats, not like other second options. Imagine if they didn't have Phil Jackson and the crew either.

Pippen isn't a Mchale, Oscar, Magic, Kobe, Kareem, Shaq, Wade, West, or anything. All of the other greats that played the second fiddle were better than Pippen and they won championships. Some of the second options actually won MVP.

Pippen is overrated in this forum by some people to a degree. Probably because of the popularity of Jordan. For an example, Mchale had more potential than Pippen to be one of the greats if he stayed healthy and wasn't overshadow by Bird. I see no threads on him and his potential.

With that said, I think Pippen was overall the best SF in the 90s. But I think you can label a lot teams are champions that have two guys who are the best or one of the best at their specific position. That's common. I agree with people and say Pippen ain't no joke. He is one of the best defenders out there and a jack of all trades.

But where does Pippen really rank among the all time great second option? He is up against a lot of competition. Some are even in the most ppl top 10. That's the discussion people are not having.

Its just funny how much of a double standard I see here. Pippens suppose to win 2 championships, and 2 mvps with talent that wasn't anywhere as good as other great players. I just don't see why. I mean, jordan had pippen, bird had mchale, magic had worthy, shaq had kobe, kobe has gasol. And pippen had grant. But he's supposed to do all the things these guys did in 2 seasons. Damn its unfair.

[QUOTE=Micku]
But the Bulls also had prime Grant, which goes unnotice too. [B]Then you have the season after 94, which it things didn't look too promising with the Bulls after Grant got out. With your logic, I can make a argument saying Grant was the most important piece to the puzzle instead of Pippen from 88-94.[/B][/quote]

The '95 Bulls problems ran deeper than Horace. The Bulls' entire frontline was pretty much decimated after '94. Horace left via free agency (more on that later). Bill Cartwright retired. Scott Williams also left via free agency. To compound this the Bulls lost Luc Longley to start the season with a stress fracture in his foot and he didn't come back until after January. So they had to play musical chairs at the PF spot with Dickey Simpkins, Greg Foster, Larry Krystowiak, and Corey Blount and feature Will Perdue at center...a rather mediocre interior core to say the least.

[quote]Grant got traded to the Magic, who ironically enough beat the Bulls and went to the Finals. Did you also know that this was the first time in Shaq's career that he went pass the first round? That was when Grant came in. Without Grant, they may got another knock out in the first round. Hell, they went to the finals with Grant. [/quote]

The Bulls didn't trade Horace. He left as a free agent and nothing was gonna make him come back to the Bulls after '94. Jerry Krause in particular pissed off Horace during contract negotiations when he slighted him and named PFs that he thought were better and did this publicly right before the playoffs which was pretty damn stupid on a GMs part. I'm not sure if this affected Horace's play but his numbers dropped drastically during the playoffs...especially his rebounding numbers.

[quote]Meanwhile, Pippen was on his way just to be a mere .500 team without Grant. [/quote]

Which is what happens when a team loses its frontline.

[quote]Then Jordan came back into the picture and got them a few wins. And this is prime Pippen. Once Jordan got back, they were 13-4.[/quote]

Before Jordan came back the team was starting to gel with Longley in the lineup and they had won 8 out of their last 10 games.

[quote]And this is when Jordan was a year and half out of practice. The first 17 games with only Pippen, they were 9-8. [/quote]

Which is what happens when you don't have a frontline or talented scorers around.

[quote]The reason why they sucked is because they had lack of talent. Lack of rebounding and etc. Same thing with Jordan in his rookie career. You need talent to win, good coaching, and good system to win. What the Bulls lacked when Jordan left was another scorer. There was no guards in the quality of Jordan and really no real replacement for him unless they could've got a Chris Mullin or someone like him, which I can't think of atm. [/quote]

Exactly.

Pippen is better than LeBron. More rings, better defense and much ferocious hunger and hatred against his opponents. He would never join forces with his competition.

Pippen hated the Knicks. Pippen hated Miller and the Pacers. Pippen hated the Jazz. He hated the Pistons. He played with heart, he never quit. Pip is a legend. I still don't understand why people look down on him, just because Jordan was the GOAT.

People don't look down on Kobe between 2000-07 did they? And he played with one of the most dominating center ever.

Pippen deserves more respect.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]It's only unfair if you're trying to say he was on the same level as guys like Bird, Shaq, Kobe or Jordan. You shouldn't be trying to do that as he was not that type of player.

You may believe he could have been, but he wasn't.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I just don't see why he couldn't have been. That's what frustrates me. I think he could've been based on what I saw how well he did in 94 and 95.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]You're right, I just don't see why he couldn't have been. That's what frustrates me. I think he could've been based on what I saw how well he did in 94 and 95.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, and I don't think that's unfair to think.

My guess, for what that's worth, is that it probably would have ended for Pippen the way it did for Barkley and Patrick Ewing. Close, but no cigar.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Maybe, and I don't think that's unfair to think.

My guess, for what that's worth, is that it probably would have ended for Pippen the way it did for Barkley and Patrick Ewing. Close, but no cigar.[/QUOTE]
Even with them. I never saw a season where I believed that these guys had the best team in the league. Maybe 93 for barkley. Either way, im just sick of people saying he couldn't. At least you leave it open as a possibility

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Maybe, and I don't think that's unfair to think.

My guess, for what that's worth, is that it probably would have ended for Pippen the way it did for Barkley and Patrick Ewing. Close, but no cigar.[/QUOTE]

I am not sure he would have been that close actually. 1993-1994 was a weird season, with Atlanta led by aging Dominique Wilkins and then Danny freaking Manning WINNING the East. As such, 55 games by the Bulls is kind of impressive but not THAT special. The fact that Bulls almost knocked out the Knicks is also impressive but one has to consider that the team was full of role players who knew how to win coming of three straight championships -Grant, BJ Armstrong, Cartwright. Also, the Knicks were almost knocked out by a 47-win Indiana Pacers so its not like they were some kind of juggernaut.

In 1994-1995, the Bulls were a .500 team untill Jordan came back. We all know what happened to Pippen after 1998. So I frankly don't think he would have been as succesful as Barkley or even Ewing on his own.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I am not sure he would have been that close actually. 1993-1994 was a weird season, with Atlanta led by aging Dominique Wilkins and then Danny freaking Manning WINNING the East. As such, 55 games by the Bulls is kind of impressive but not THAT special. The fact that Bulls almost knocked out the Knicks is also impressive but one has to consider that the team was full of role players who knew how to win coming of three straight championships -Grant, BJ Armstrong, Cartwright. Also, the Knicks were almost knocked out by a 47-win Indiana Pacers so its not like they were some kind of juggernaut.

In 1994-1995, the Bulls were a .500 team untill Jordan came back. We all know what happened to Pippen after 1998. So I frankly don't think he would have been as succesful as Barkley or even Ewing on his own.[/QUOTE]
Wow, spoken like a true hater. All I read in this post is jealousy, excuses,and hatred.

I'll never forget that nasty dunk he had on Ewing, and then just walking over to Spike Lee and mouthing off. :applause:

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Wow, spoken like a true hater. All I read in this post is jealousy, excuses,and hatred.[/QUOTE]

I actually liked Pippen (even though i rooted against the Bulls) untill the debacle in Houston, where he blamed Barkley while himself shooting 32% from the field. Pippen's subsequent tenure in the JailBlazers did not help matters

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I actually liked Pippen (even though i rooted against the Bulls) untill the debacle in Houston, where he blamed Barkley while himself shooting 32% from the field. Pippen's subsequent tenure in the JailBlazers did not help matters[/QUOTE]
Lol ok bro. This is similar to the ever popular term, "im not racist, some of my best friends are black. But I don't want them living next to me."

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Wow, spoken like a true hater. All I read in this post is jealousy, excuses,and hatred.[/QUOTE]

How is he a hater for saying that? Barkley, Malone never won despite having star talent by their side and despite being perenial MVP candidates.

[QUOTE=Duncan21formvp]How is he a hater for saying that? Barkley, Malone never won despite having star talent by their side and despite being perenial MVP candidates.[/QUOTE]
First, he questions their competition, players were old, he says the knicks weren't that good. And actually, the 95 bulls were I believe 3 games over 500 when jordan came back.and even if they were .500 as talent goes, they werent even that good. That was a 30 win team. Why not just give credit where credit is due. Like I told old school basketball. I could poke holes in any season and find excuses as to why a team did or didn't win.

I just checked and the hawks had wilkins who in 34 minutes avg 24 ppg, kevin willis was avg 19 and 12, danny manning, and arguably the best defensive backcourt that year with mookie blaylock and stacy augmon. And both of them chipped in 14 to 15 ppg. And craig ehlo was a solid 6th man. Why is that not a mid 50 win team? And the knicks were the bulls biggest rival with jordan. But once jordan leaves, they're not good enough? Come on

[QUOTE=97 bulls]I just checked and the hawks had wilkins who in 34 minutes avg 24 ppg, kevin willis was avg 19 and 12, danny manning, and arguably the best defensive backcourt that year with mookie blaylock and stacy augmon. And both of them chipped in 14 to 15 ppg. And craig ehlo was a solid 6th man. Why is that not a mid 50 win team? And the knicks were the bulls biggest rival with jordan. But once jordan leaves, they're not good enough? Come on[/QUOTE]

Nique and Manning were traded for each other. They never played together.

[QUOTE=guy]Nique and Manning were traded for each other. They never played together.[/QUOTE]
Oh well then I guess they're really a 40 win team then. Lol

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Oh well then I guess they're really a 40 win team then. Lol[/QUOTE]

Never said that. Just correcting you.

[QUOTE=guy]Never said that. Just correcting you.[/QUOTE]
I know. Im just joking

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I am not sure he would have been that close actually. 1993-1994 was a weird season, with Atlanta led by aging Dominique Wilkins and then Danny freaking Manning WINNING the East. As such, 55 games by the Bulls is kind of impressive but not THAT special. The fact that Bulls almost knocked out the Knicks is also impressive but one has to consider that the team was full of role players who knew how to win coming of three straight championships -Grant, BJ Armstrong, Cartwright. Also, the Knicks were almost knocked out by a 47-win Indiana Pacers so its not like they were some kind of juggernaut.

In 1994-1995, the Bulls were a .500 team untill Jordan came back. We all know what happened to Pippen after 1998. So I frankly don't think he would have been as succesful as Barkley or even Ewing on his own.[/QUOTE]

Don't just look at basketball reference to recap what happened in a season.

Wilkins was traded for Manning late in the season, they never played together.

1993-94 was a lousy NBA year and 55 wins were easier to come by than five years prior, but still it deserves credit. If you gave Pippen another 20+ per game score, even if he was one dimensional, I believe the Bulls could have been as good as the Ewing Knicks or Robinson Spurs if not better.

I'm not sure he would have been as successful as those guys, but I do feel pretty sure he wasn't going to win a title.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Don't just look at basketball reference to recap what happened in a season.

Wilkins was traded for Manning late in the season, they never played together.

1993-94 was a lousy NBA year and 55 wins were easier to come by than five years prior, but still it deserves credit. If you gave Pippen another 20+ per game score, even if he was one dimensional, I believe the Bulls could have been as good as the Ewing Knicks or Robinson Spurs if not better.

I'm not sure he would have been as successful as those guys, but I do feel pretty sure he wasn't going to win a title.[/QUOTE]

they were as good as the knicks.
that series could have gone either way.
remember that the bulls had 3 all stars that year!

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Don't just look at basketball reference to recap what happened in a season.

Wilkins was traded for Manning late in the season, they never played together.

1993-94 was a lousy NBA year and 55 wins were easier to come by than five years prior, but still it deserves credit. If you gave Pippen another 20+ per game score, even if he was one dimensional, I believe the Bulls could have been as good as the Ewing Knicks or Robinson Spurs if not better.

I'm not sure he would have been as successful as those guys, but I do feel pretty sure he wasn't going to win a title.[/QUOTE]

Sorry if my post I wasn't clear. I know that Manning was traded for Wilkins, (one of the stupidest trades ever in my opinion) which actually reinforces my point - the best player on the team with the best record in the East was an aging Wilkins and then Danny Manning/Kevin Willis.

I agree about another 20+ per scorer on the Bulls but that was kind of my point - Ewing and Robinson did not have another 20+ point scorer. That said, I don't necessarily put Pippen below either of the two - i think all 3 are in the same tier. (with Barkley and Malone however in the higher tier.)

[QUOTE=kizut1659]Sorry if my post I wasn't clear. I know that Manning was traded for Wilkins, (one of the stupidest trades ever in my opinion) which actually reinforces my point - the best player on the team with the best record in the East was an aging Wilkins and then Danny Manning/Kevin Willis.

I agree about another 20+ per scorer on the Bulls but that was kind of my point - Ewing and Robinson did not have another 20+ point scorer. That said, I don't necessarily put Pippen below either of the two - i think all 3 are in the same tier. (with Barkley and Malone however in the higher tier.)[/QUOTE]

Gotcha, and I agree about Chuck and Karl too. I have them above Robinson, Pippen and Drexler even though they never got rings.

[QUOTE=Teanett]they were as good as the knicks.
that series could have gone either way.
remember that the bulls had 3 all stars that year![/QUOTE]

The Knicks also had three All-Stars that year.

They had more regular season injuries, had to use seven different guards in their top three because of those injuries and still won more games.

Then the Knicks beat them in the playoffs. They never trailed in the series and never lost a home game. They won game seven handily, it's not fair to the Knicks to say that series could have gone either way. No the Knicks were not dramatically better than the Bulls, but they were better and proved it by beating them.

[QUOTE]it's not fair to the Knicks to say that series could have gone either way. [/QUOTE]

It can be argued that the Knicks were indeed the superior team but the quoted statement is a head scratcher.

[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BquY6zd9Wxo/SDC2CV0FEaI/AAAAAAAAC10/RDyDc0jijrc/s320/phantomfoul-731723.jpg[/IMG]

It also is not as if the games were blow outs. Games 1, 2, 3 and the infamous Game 5 went right down the wire. (Unfortunately, the Bulls blew significant leads in the first two games, although Pippen getting, pardon the pun, nicked up at the end of one game because Oakley or Starks intentionally tripped him contributed to one loss.) Of the three double digit wins, two of them were Chicago victories.

The injuries issue cuts both ways. Had Pippen had the health of Ewing the Bulls would have had HCA, and as you noted, thanks to what happened in Game 5, the home team won every game in the series. The Bulls had injuries to their top two players and three of their top four during the regular season--a stark change from their health the previous season.

People always look at 55 wins versus 57. The last game was between the Bulls and Knicks and was meaningless. (the Knicks won) On paper the Knicks may have been significantly superior but judging by performance, both overall performance and head-to-head performance, the teams were at parity--despite the Bulls having a D-Leaguer as their starting SG because MJ retired 2 days before training camp.

Robinson Spurs? They won 55 games too but got bounced 1-3 in the first round despite enjoying HCA.

Jordan wouldnt be sh*t without Pippen.



[COLOR="White"]dawg, u have been trolled[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]It can be argued that the Knicks were indeed the superior team but the quoted statement is a head scratcher. [/quote]

Not if you had the ability to think rationally on the subject.

No one ever says the 1992 ECSF could have gone either way or that the Knicks were as good as the Bulls, and they actually won a road game in that series.

Or in 1993 when the Knicks were up 2-0 on the Bulls and won more regular season games than them, I've not seen you post how "if the Knicks get a few calls to go their way in game five they win that series"

The Knicks earned home court, protected it and had control of that series and game seven from start to finish.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]It also is not as if the games were blow outs. Games 1, 2, 3 and the infamous Game 5 went right down the wire. (Unfortunately, the Bulls blew significant leads in the first two games, although Pippen getting, pardon the pun, nicked up at the end of one game because Oakley or Starks intentionally tripped him contributed to one loss.) Of the three double digit wins, two of them were Chicago victories. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The injuries issue cuts both ways. [B]Had Pippen had the health of Ewing the Bulls would have had[/B] HCA[/quote]

I love how you state it like it's a fact. And the best part, you probably think it is because of the teams record with Pippen and Grant healthy. Like that's all that goes into it.

What was the Knicks record without Starks?

How about if the Knicks had the same two starters at guard for more than eight games in a row once all year? Would that have made any difference?

You only look at things the way you want to see them. Because of this, most people just ignore you. (Like I should be doing)


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] The Bulls had injuries to their top two players and three of their top four during the regular season--a stark change from their health the previous season. [/quote]

Speaking of Stark, John Starks, the Knicks second best player missed more games than Pippen and Grant combined.

In addition Hubert Davis, Derek Harper and Rolondo Blackman, three of the Knicks top five guards, all missed over 25 games leaving the PG duties to Greg Anthony, not a starting caliber player.

But you either didn;t know that (I doubt it) or ignore it all the time when talking about 1994.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] People always look at 55 wins versus 57. The last game was between the Bulls and Knicks and was meaningless. (the Knicks won) On paper the Knicks may have been significantly superior but judging by performance, both overall performance and head-to-head performance, the teams were at parity--despite the Bulls having a D-Leaguer as their starting SG because MJ retired 2 days before training camp. [/quote]

Oh you mean Pete Myers, who put up better numbers than Greg Anthony who was forced into a primary role for the Knicks?

All the problems are the Bulls though right?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Robinson Spurs? They won 55 games too but got bounced 1-3 in the first round despite enjoying HCA.[/QUOTE]

Robinson also took teams to the second round three times and conference finals once while only playing with two all-stars the whole time (Pip had two in '94 alone) in a stronger conference.

But let's not let facts get in the way of what we want other people to believe.

[QUOTE]What was the Knicks record without Starks?[/QUOTE]

With Starks:

40-19 (.678)

Without Starks:

17-6 (.739)

Didn't affect their record at all. Guy was a poor decision making chucker, might have been the second best player on the Knicks but he didn't have Pippen/Grant type of impact for his team.

[QUOTE]You only look at things the way you want to see them.[/QUOTE]
Says the guy who spent hours typing [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4982924&postcount=98"]this post[/URL] which was shortly shredded/exposed asbeing a [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4986678&postcount=110"]biased hit piece[/URL], still awaiting a response hypocrite. I see you've been salty since then though, no response but negging away LOL.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhgB53mcNXs"]Scottie Pippen: A Tribute Part 1[/URL]

[QUOTE=Da_Realist][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhgB53mcNXs"]Scottie Pippen: A Tribute Part 1[/URL][/QUOTE]
Great post real. Its funny when people say that pippen was a product of the triangleand couldn't create his own shot.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Great post real. Its funny when people say that pippen was a product of the triangleand couldn't create his own shot.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, man :cheers: Hardest video I've ever done

[QUOTE=Da_Realist][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhgB53mcNXs"]Scottie Pippen: A Tribute Part 1[/URL][/QUOTE]
Great post. Repped. I was thinking of working on something like that but there's so much 90s Bulls footage, that there's a lot to go through. "Part 1" means there will be part 2, part 3...? :eek:

[QUOTE=Fatal9]

Says the guy who spent hours typing [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4982924&postcount=98"]this post[/URL] which was shortly shredded/exposed asbeing a [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4986678&postcount=110"]biased hit piece[/URL], still awaiting a response hypocrite. I see you've been salty since then though, no response but negging away LOL.[/QUOTE]

:lol That ownage at it's greatest point.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Great post real. Its funny when people say that pippen was a product of the triangleand couldn't create his own shot.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that when people say that he "couldn't" create his own shot, it's all relative, right? He's a tier 1 NBA player - OF COURSE he can create his on shot. His ability to do so was well below where it should have been based on his athletic traits and the level of player he was, however.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]You do realize that when people say that he "couldn't" create his own shot, it's all relative, right? He's a tier 1 NBA player - OF COURSE he can create his on shot. His ability to do so was well below where it should have been based on his athletic traits and the level of player he was, however.[/QUOTE]

But, he still could create his own shot though...:confusedshrug: