"Pippen was the best player in the world in 93, 94, 95" - Dennis Rodman

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13973815]Exactly.

SamuariSwish, Jordan himself said Pippen was the best player in the NBA in 1995.

For me Pippen peaked at 3rd in 94' behind Hakeem and Robinson. In 95' he fell to 4th as Shaq surpassed him. 96' 5th as MJ was back. 97' 5th again. 98', 92' he wasn't top 5 but was close. 91' top 10.

Yet we have people like 3ball saying he was Mo Williams or others saying Kyrie Irving was much better. He was a legitimate superstar, a MVP caliber player. He was similar to Ewing or Drexler at their peaks--players MJ stans love to tell us were great.

People don't realize how hard it is to be the best player. Guys like Barkley, K. Malone, KG, Dirk, West, Oscar, Isiah, Dr. J, D. Robinson all never got to #1. Many legends don't even get into the top 5. Reggie Miller or Dominique were never close to the top 5.[/QUOTE]

People forget how good he was during the first 2/3rds of the 96 season before injuries started piling up. He refused to sit, though, as they were going for the record. He was really beat up in the 96 playoffs, but ironically, led the entire playoffs in BPM. With someone like Pippen you can't just look at individual stats. He just made his teammates better and made the game easier for them and you can't qualify that in something like individual scoring. He has one of the greatest BBIQ's ever and just understood the game so well. There are plenty of players who scored a ton of points, but whose actual impact didn't come close to his. Someone like Carmelo Anthony comes to mind there. As far as being the best player... I'd say you can easily make a case for Kevin Garnett being the best player in 2004. He led the league in bpm, vorp, winshares, per and had a ridiculous 20.2 on/off. I'm curious as to who you think was better than him that season? He was super dominant that season and most of the guys in discussion in the early 2000s didn't have great seasons compared to what they had before.

[QUOTE=FireDavidKahn;13974199]DAMN. First Scottie says LeBron was the GOAT and now Rodman saying the Pippen was the best in 93/94/95

:roll:

[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/aaB1B1Q.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
You do realize that that's basically MJ's retirement and rusty half-season?

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;13974229]You do realize that that's basically MJ's retirement and rusty half-season?[/QUOTE]

Yes, exactly. MJ had the benefit of having the best player in the league (best for 3 years) playing next to him for his career. This peak just shows you how good Pippen really was.

[QUOTE=FireDavidKahn;13974232]Yes, exactly. MJ had the benefit of having the best player in the league (best for 3 years) playing next to him for his career. This peak just shows you how good Pippen really was.[/QUOTE]
One of the best, sure. Better than Olajuwon? Better than Shaq? Nonsense.

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH;13973726]Umm no. Not even close in 1993. Wasn't even the best player at his own position that season. Old, post achilles tear Domonique Wilkins had a MONSTER season. Had a huge down year following the Olympics. Mike at 30 had to pick up his slack. Part of the reason they only won 57 games that year, besides pacing themselves.

1993

1) MJ
2) Barkley
3) Hakeem
4) Ewing
5) Nique

1994

1) Hakeem
2) D-Rob
3) IMO Shaq
4) Pippen
5) Ewing

1995

1) D-Rob
2) Hakeem
3) Shaq
4) K. Malone
5) Ewing

He's not even close in 1995 either. Hell, Mike came out of retirement / baseball for 1.75 years, and in only 17 games he CLEARLY was already the Bulls absolute best player.

Highest he EVER got on the MVP / Best Player ladder, is 3 or 4 depending how you rank him in the much praised 1994 season. Until that semis series against NY really exposed him yet again, in terms of being an alpha and a scorer. Much as it did the year prior, even with Jordan on the floor.[/QUOTE]

Right on the money! NO WAY was Pippen the best player AT ANY POINT in the league!!! The PF's and C's DOMINATED the top 5 players in the league at this time. It took a player on MJ's caliber to SUPERCEDE the guys like Dream, Shaq, Malone, Chuck, Ewing, and David. Once MJ bowed out for a while, NO perimeter players were gonna take the top slot. The bigs I named were too dominant. Pip as great as he was didn't have the alpha dog scoring ability TO BE the top player on the planet.

Pip was the MOST COMPLETE perimeter player in the world once MJ retired. So once Nique and Drexler regressed a bit, it enabled Pip to become the best perimeter player on in the world. But u GOTTA be a legit alpha dog to be the best player in the world though. Pip was the ultimate swiss army knife no doubt. And I give him credit, he redefined the 3 spot. Was the blueprint that G Hill and Bron built their games off of in the point forward sense. But Pip was NEVER the best player on the planet. Best all around AND the best player are two different things sometimes!

[QUOTE=bizil;13974244]Right on the money! NO WAY was Pippen the best player AT ANY POINT in the league!!! The PF's and C's DOMINATED the top 5 players in the league at this time. It took a player on MJ's caliber to SUPERCEDE the guys like Dream, Shaq, Malone, Chuck, Ewing, and David. Once MJ bowed out for a while, NO perimeter players were gonna take the top slot. The bigs I named were too dominant. Pip as great as he was didn't have the alpha dog scoring ability TO BE the top player on the planet.

Pip was the MOST COMPLETE perimeter player in the world in the two way sense once MJ retired. So once Nique and Drexler regressed a bit, it enabled Pip to become the best perimeter player on in the world. But u GOTTA be a legit alpha dog to be the best player in the world though. Pip was the ultimate swiss army knife no doubt. But NEVER was the best player on the planet.[/QUOTE]

Dream had a fast peak, but lost in the first round like 9 times. Shaq didnt win shit until Goatbe in 2000. Ewing never won a damn thing. Drexler. Wow I just dont know anymore.

[QUOTE=Rico2016;13974246]Dream had a fast peak[/QUOTE]
Are you capable of posting something other than garbage?

[QUOTE=tpols;13974094]he also couldnt shoot like him.

Kawhi has been damn near 50/40/90 at times.

dont think there's ever been a DPOY candidate that can shoot like that. Pippen certainly couldn't, his jumper was dead broke.[/QUOTE]

Pippen wasn't as great as Kawhi offensively, ofcourse, but he played a in a tougher era. It isnt fair to compare the 2nd 3peat Pippen with a Kawhi who cant be hanchecked and plays with as much spacing as he does.

Pippen improved his 3 point shooting by the 2nd 3peat. He was streaky but when it went down, he was a threat.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;13974249]Are you capable of posting something other than garbage?[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt lol.

He was never close. Iguodala with a post game would never be close to the best player in the league specially since Pip was nowhere as clutch as Iggy in big moments and often faltered and checked out/folded
Migraine.., Scottie?

Hakeem was easily the best player in that span and it's not close. It's a 3 year run only matched by MJ and Shaq

Players better than Pip in mid 90s

Hakeem
Robinson
Malone
Barkley
Ewing
Shaq
Payton
Stockton

Dudes like Grant, Penny, Zo peaked higher than Pip as well. Pip was a KJ/Mullin level player at best

In 94 Pips peak year as a player when he was supposedly an MVP contender, they were gonna go down 3-0 to the Knicks until Phil Jackson gave Toni Kukoc the last shot with Pip pouting on the bench like a little bitch and Toni won it with Pip crying like a ho and was a much more clutch player offensively than Pip in general. He hit so many game winners in the mid 90s and clutch shots specially the non MJ years. Toni had the 2nd best offensive skillset on the team behind Michael obviously

Oh and in that Knicks series Ewing was easily the best player and Pip wasn't even the best Chicago Bull of the series. He was outplayed by Horace Grant:roll::roll::hammerhead:

[QUOTE=Smoke117;13974228]People forget how good he was during the first 2/3rds of the 96 season before injuries started piling up. He refused to sit, though, as they were going for the record. He was really beat up in the 96 playoffs, but ironically, led the entire playoffs in BPM. With someone like Pippen you can't just look at individual stats. He just made his teammates better and made the game easier for them and you can't qualify that in something like individual scoring. He has one of the greatest BBIQ's ever and just understood the game so well. There are plenty of players who scored a ton of points, but whose actual impact didn't come close to his. Someone like Carmelo Anthony comes to mind there. As far as being the best player... I'd say you can easily make a case for Kevin Garnett being the best player in 2004. He led the league in bpm, vorp, winshares, per and had a ridiculous 20.2 on/off. I'm curious as to who you think was better than him that season? He was super dominant that season and most of the guys in discussion in the early 2000s didn't have great seasons compared to what they had before.[/QUOTE]

Good post. Pippen is a great test for people who look only at stats (usually only scoring). A player like him does a lot of things that don't show up in stats, and he scarified stats for the team. Carmelo is a good example for a guy who looks better on paper than on the court. I'll also nominate Kyrie, even though he isn't an elite scorer like Carmelo was. Look at all the hype he gets for being flashy but when has he ever been a MVP candidate? First team all-NBA? Yet I bet all the guys saying Pippen was a bum would say Kyrie is awesome.

People sleep on that 96' season. That was, until he got hurt, probably when he was closest to MJ.

[QUOTE]Oh and in that Knicks series Ewing was easily the best player and Pip wasn't even the best Chicago Bull of the series. He was outplayed by Horace Grant[/QUOTE]

This is a false statement but then again this guy says Kevin Johnson was better than Pippen.

Ewing did outplay Pippen in the 94' series--but in 93' it was Pippen who was better.

One thing to note, the anti-Pippen crowd isn't giving you specific years. They are listing a bunch of names and saying "Barkley!" "Drexler!" as if players are the same each year. To be fair, a lot of them are MJ stans who didn't watch back then so they don't know those players' histories.

It is interesting MJ stans are ripping Pippen. He is considered the second best perimeter player of that era. If Pippen is a bum (Iggy!), what does that say about MJ's era? This scrub was actually a MVP candidate?

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;13974236]One of the best, sure. Better than Olajuwon? Better than Shaq? Nonsense.[/QUOTE]

You could argue 94' over Shaq based on experience, leadership, etc. but not after that. The Barkley, Drexler, Payton, etc. stuff is weird, though. No one was saying Payton was a superstar in 94' and the other two weren't their previous MVP caliber selves after injuries.

[QUOTE]Hakeem was easily the best player in that span and it's not close. It's a 3 year run only matched by MJ and Shaq[/QUOTE]

It was close. Hakeem vs. David Robinson was a close debate during those two years (in 93' MJ clearly was the best player and Barkley had a strong case for #2 along with Hakeem).

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974486]Good post. Pippen is a great test for people who look only at stats (usually only scoring). A player like him does a lot of things that don't show up in stats, and he scarified stats for the team. Carmelo is a good example for a guy who looks better on paper than on the court. I'll also nominate Kyrie, even though he isn't an elite scorer like Carmelo was. Look at all the hype he gets for being flashy but when has he ever been a MVP candidate? First team all-NBA? Yet I bet all the guys saying Pippen was a bum would say Kyrie is awesome.

People sleep on that 96' season. That was, until he got hurt, probably when he was closest to MJ.



This is a false statement but then again this guy says Kevin Johnson was better than Pippen.

Ewing did outplay Pippen in the 94' series--but in 93' it was Pippen who was better.

One thing to note, the anti-Pippen crowd isn't giving you specific years. They are listing a bunch of names and saying "Barkley!" "Drexler!" as if players are the same each year. To be fair, a lot of them are MJ stans who didn't watch back then so they don't know those players' histories.[/QUOTE]

HIGH IQ, nice post

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974486]Good post. Pippen is a great test for people who look only at stats (usually only scoring). A player like him does a lot of things that don't show up in stats, and he scarified stats for the team. Carmelo is a good example for a guy who looks better on paper than on the court. I'll also nominate Kyrie, even though he isn't an elite scorer like Carmelo was. Look at all the hype he gets for being flashy but when has he ever been a MVP candidate? First team all-NBA? Yet I bet all the guys saying Pippen was a bum would say Kyrie is awesome.

People sleep on that 96' season. That was, until he got hurt, probably when he was closest to MJ.



This is a false statement but then again this guy says Kevin Johnson was better than Pippen.

Ewing did outplay Pippen in the 94' series--but in 93' it was Pippen who was better.

One thing to note, the anti-Pippen crowd isn't giving you specific years. They are listing a bunch of names and saying "Barkley!" "Drexler!" as if players are the same each year. To be fair, a lot of them are MJ stans who didn't watch back then so they don't know those players' histories.[/QUOTE] What happened to Barkley in the mid 90s? Injuries? I never watched the NBA in the 90s. I am very curious and I want to expand my basketball knowledge.

[QUOTE=TheCorporation;13974490]HIGH IQ, nice post[/QUOTE]

:cheers:

[QUOTE]What happened to Barkley in the mid 90s? Injuries? I never watched the NBA in the 90s. I am very curious and I want to expand my basketball knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Back problems mainly but he also had knee, elbow, groin, and hamstring issues that season. Mid-season he injured his tendon and missed 17 games. Barkley even talked about retiring because his back issues during the 94' season. Since he got hurt around the all-star break, we can use the ASG splits to see the impact:

Barkley pre-ASG in 94': 24/12/5 on 53%
Barkley post-ASG in 94': 20/11/4 on on 47%
Barkley 93' (MVP): 26/12/5 on 52%

So he basically started out the season in his MVP-caliber form but fell off considerably after that. He was still a top 10 player but he was never top 5 again after 93'. Some of this was also aging--he turned 30 in 94'--so he was going to decline thereafter anyway but it is pretty clear Barkley in 94' wasn't the 93' or 90'' Barkley the anti-Pippen crowd wants you to think of.

[QUOTE=Turbo Slayer;13974491]What happened to Barkley in the mid 90s? Injuries? I never watched the NBA in the 90s. I am very curious and I want to expand my basketball knowledge.[/QUOTE]

Google?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974502]:cheers:



Back problems mainly but he also had knee, elbow, groin, and hamstring issues that season. Mid-season he injured his tendon and missed 17 games. Barkley even talked about retiring because his back issues during the 94' season. Since he got hurt around the all-star break, we can use the ASG splits to see the impact:

Barkley pre-ASG in 94': 24/12/5 on 53%
Barkley post-ASG in 94': 20/11/4 on on 47%
Barkley 93' (MVP): 26/12/5 on 52%

So he basically started out the season in his MVP-caliber form but fell off considerably after that. He was still a top 10 player but he was never top 5 again after 93'. Some of this was also aging--he turned 30 in 94'--so he was going to decline thereafter anyway but it is pretty clear Barkley in 94' wasn't the 93' or 90'' Barkley the anti-Pippen crowd wants you to think of.[/QUOTE] Thanks. Putting this in my Google doc.

[QUOTE=Turbo Slayer;13974506]Thanks. Putting this in my Google doc.[/QUOTE]

Cool. :cheers:

Round_Mound could probably give you more detail as Barkley is his guy.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13973974]People conflate 93' Barkley with 94' Barkley. He got hurt and his production went down in the second half and he was never again the Barkley we saw before that. Barkley, Malone, Pippen all play the same position so we can get an idea how they were perceived via all-NBA voting. Pippen and Malone were the first team guys and Pippen finished ahead of Malone in all-NBA 2 of 3 years from 1994-1996.[/quote]

They do that because of Barkley's postseason. In 10 games, dude averaged 28/13/5 on ~50/35/74 splits. Ya he may not have moved as well or was as fluid. Statistically though? He was on his MVP level. Pippen was better in the regular-season but Barkley coasted with injuries until the playoffs. And then seized control.

Pre 1995, I doubt any version of 90s Barkley would have led that choke vs Houston. He was spent on offense and it leaked into 96. Where he REALLY fell off.

[quote]In 95' his scoring went down because MJ came back and his stats took a hit across the board. He was scoring the same as 94' before MJ. He was top 20 in rebounding as a SF.[/quote]

That's fair. But even then he unperformed in the 95 playoffs (19ppg on 44% shooting).

I don't blame Mike for Pippen laying bricks. If Scottie played like he did the year earlier, even with lower efficiency, Chicago probably goes all the way. They needed more scoring imo. That and rebounding. Lowkey I think that version of Jordan gets underrated. While 'rusty' he still averaged 30 on 48%FG :oldlol:

[quote]But hey we are at least having a reasonable debate in the real world, not comparing Pippen to Fisher, Mo Wiliams, or James Jones. :oldlol:[/quote]

Yup.

The logic of some of these posters is maddening. So Pippen is a "scrub" because he didnt take a team to a Championship right? But a player like Barkley isnt a scrub even though he never led a team to a Championship? Simply because he scored more? The fact is that many of these great scorers were atrocious on defense. If Barkey was any kind of a defender, Hed have a ring.

I mean what are we arguing here? Pick a side and stick to it. You cant penalize Pippen by saying he didn't win without Jordan simply because he didnt score 25 PPG on 50% shooting. And say players like Barkley and Carmello Anthony were more talented and better when they didnt lead a team to a title either. Because they were shitty defenders.

Pippens impact on the game was just as if not more as Charles Barkley or a Carmelo Anthony. Because of his defense.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;13974706]The logic of some of these posters is maddening. So Pippen is a "scrub" because he didnt take a team to a Championship right? But a player like Barkley isnt a scrub even though he never led a team to a Championship? Simply because he scored more? The fact is that many of these great scorers were atrocious on defense. If Barkey was any kind of a defender, Hed have a ring.[/quote]

Whose calling Pippen a scrub though?

[quote]I mean what are we arguing here? Pick a side and stick to it. You cant penalize Pippen by saying he didn't win without Jordan simply because he didnt score 25 PPG on 50% shooting. And say players like Barkley and Carmello Anthony were more talented and better when they didnt lead a team to a title either. Because they were shitty defenders.[/quote]

I don't know who you're directing this at, but I can do ALL of that. And keep doing it because history is on my side.

Magic didn't play defense. Barkley wasn't the best defender and neither is Curry. Hell, Bill Russell wasn't the best offensive player. They're still revered though. And by all accounts carried major impact, both in numbers and results.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974486]



This is a false statement but then again this guy says Kevin Johnson was better than Pippen.

Ewing did outplay Pippen in the 94' series--but in 93' it was Pippen who was better.

[/QUOTE]

Two things, Kevin Johnson was not better than Pippen, I know you didn't say it. But you did say Patrick Ewing was better than Pippen in 1993. No he wasn't. Not in the regular season and not in the post-season. Pippen wasn't a scrub, but this almost cult-like status he's being elevated to is out of control. I get it, the Branstans are doing it to elevate Lebron and the MJstans are knocking Pippen to elevate Jordan. What it's doing is lifting Pippen to a Jim Morrison type of cult-following. People nit-pick about every little thing players do to knock them down or elevate them. Why don't you all take a look at his first 3 post-season appearances and game 7 of his 4th. I remember them. He was horrible. If those years were on Jordan's resume you guys would have a field day. Pipp has a lot of warts on his resume you guys are turning a blind eye.

[QUOTE=RogueBorg;13974735]Two things, Kevin Johnson was not better than Pippen, I know you didn't say it. But you did say Patrick Ewing was better than Pippen in 1993. No he wasn't. Not in the regular season and not in the post-season. Pippen wasn't a scrub, but this almost cult-like status he's being elevated to is out of control. I get it, the Branstans are doing it to elevate Lebron and the MJstans are knocking Pippen to elevate Jordan. What it's doing is lifting Pippen to a Jim Morrison type of cult-following. People nit-pick about every little thing players do to knock them down or elevate them. Why don't you all take a look at his first 3 post-season appearances and game 7 of his 4th. I remember them. He was horrible. If those years were on Jordan's resume you guys would have a field day. Pipp has a lot of warts on his resume you guys are turning a blind eye.[/QUOTE]

People were bashing Pip waaaayyyyy before Lebron James came on the scene. The argument has stemmed because Jordan stans paint this narrative that Jordan won with little help from his team. Or in spite of his teammates. Like what you just did. Hence the 1-9 reference.

[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy;13974724]Whose calling Pippen a scrub though?



I don't know who you're directing this at, but I can do ALL of that. And keep doing it because history is on my side.

Magic didn't play defense. Barkley wasn't the best defender and neither is Curry. Hell, Bill Russell wasn't the best offensive player. They're still revered though. And by all accounts carried major impact, both in numbers and results.[/QUOTE]

Magic led teams to Championship wins. So has Curry. I brought up guys that were great offensively and didnt get it done. But are considered better than Pippen.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;13974763]Magic [B]led teams[/B] to Championship wins. So has Curry. I brought up guys that were great offensively and didnt get it done. But are considered better than Pippen.[/QUOTE]

Neither has Pippen dude.

Giving him that kind of credit is wacky.

The MAIN REASONS that Pip is a legend is because of his positional versatilty and floor game. Could play and defend four different positions at a very high level. And LEGIT was great at passing, defending, and rebounding his position. BUT here's the thing.... IN NBA history, u have legends whose floor game and positional versatility is JUST AS GOOD OR CLOSE! BUT on top of all that, they are legit alpha dog scorers on top of it. Saying this ISN'T HATING!

It's not ABOUT Pip's PPG so much. Guys like Magic and Isiah averaged under 20 PPG for their careers. And for MOST SEASONS in their career, averaged under 20 PPG. BUT they were pass first PG's who DOMINATED games scoring when it was time. At the DROP OF A HAT, they could switch their mindset and become dominant scorers. If u know the game of hoops, u know guys who average 18-21 PPG who AREN'T alpha dog scorers. And u ALSO know guys who average 18-21 PPG who are among the most lethal scorers in the world. There's a DIFFERENCE!

[QUOTE]They do that because of Barkley's postseason. In 10 games, dude averaged 28/13/5 on ~50/35/74 splits.[/QUOTE]

Small sample sizes will always be more inconsistent. His stats were inflated by going 37/13/6 on 61% against the Warriors in the first round. Against Houston he was down to 23/13/4 on 46% as Kevin Johnson outscored him.

[QUOTE]But even then he unperformed in the 95 playoffs (19ppg on 44% shooting).[/QUOTE]

He was even worse for the playoffs as a whole so I assume you mean the Orlando series. He did average 19 ppg but that came with 10 boards as a SF and 6 assists. A lot of the Bulls' stats nosedived when MJ came in. He came out the blue so late they couldn't adjust as MJ suddenly was consuming 24 shots a game in the season and 25 a game in the playoffs. The next year when they had time to adapt Pippen arguably was having his best season before late season injuries.

If Pippen played at his full season level in the 95' playoffs maybe they go all the way but I'm not sure. Their biggest problems were rebounding and interior defense. Pippen upped it to 10 boards a game. I don't think you are going to get much more from a SF and he didn't have the size to defend Shaq. That's why they needed Rodman to play the Grant role.

[QUOTE]Lowkey I think that version of Jordan gets underrated. While 'rusty' he still averaged 30 on 48%FG[/QUOTE]

It always amuses me because his stats across the board were better in the 95' playoffs than any of the next three years. The "rusty" stuff is used as an excuse because they don't want to acknowledge they needed a Rodman or Grant to win.

[QUOTE]Two things, Kevin Johnson was not better than Pippen, I know you didn't say it. But [B]you did say Patrick Ewing was better than Pippen in 1993.[/B] No he wasn't. Not in the regular season and not in the post-season.[/QUOTE]

No I did not. Ewing was better in 93', Pippen in 94' and thereafter.

[QUOTE]So Pippen is a "scrub" because he didnt take a team to a Championship right? But a player like Barkley isnt a scrub even though he never led a team to a Championship? [/QUOTE]

It is funny because the same people ripping Pippen are the same people who hype Barkley, Malone, Ewing, Drexler, Payton because they played against, not with MJ. Barkley and Malone were better than Pippen but Pippen consistently is higher on the all-time lists than Ewing, Drexler, and Payton. If Pippen is a bum, like MJ stans say, what does that say about MJ's comp?

[QUOTE] I get it, the Branstans are doing it to elevate Lebron and the MJstans are knocking Pippen to elevate Jordan[/QUOTE]

LeBron didn't even play until the 2004 season. Why is everything boiled down to LeBron? Pippen was a popular 90s players. Why is it not within the realm of possibility that guys like me and 97 simply happen to be Pippen fans?

[QUOTE]Why don't you all take a look at his first 3 post-season appearances and game 7 of his 4th. I remember them. He was horrible. If those years were on Jordan's resume you guys would have a field day[/QUOTE]

His stats are misleading for his second season because of a game where he played exactly 1 minute. So it counts as a game played but he gets 0s across the board. By 90' he was 19/7/6 (probably similar numbers in 89' when you take the 1 minute game out). Not exactly "horrible."

[QUOTE]Pipp has a lot of warts on his resume you guys are turning a blind eye.[/QUOTE]

So does every player. It is interesting we get chapter and verse on all of Pippen's but never for his teammate...

[QUOTE]People were bashing Pip waaaayyyyy before Lebron James came on the scene. The argument has stemmed because Jordan stans paint this narrative that Jordan won with little help from his team[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Now Pippen is supposedly a tool of LeBron stans. 10 years ago you and I were called closet Kobe stans on ISH for being Pippen fans. Pippen has fans and they get annoying when they see MJ stans out there every day saying he sucked.

[QUOTE]Neither has Pippen dude.[/QUOTE]

True, but isn't it funny how Magic gets full credit for his sidekick rings, as does Kobe, but Pippen doesn't?

rodman sucked Kim Jung c ock

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974786]. By 90' he was 19/7/6 (probably similar numbers in 89' when you take the 1 minute game out). Not exactly "horrible."[/QUOTE]

No, but what plagued him AT THAT TIME was the wart game 7 of the 1990 ECF, the migraine. Detroit players even talk about it to this day, until Scottie arrives, the Bulls weren't beating them. They knew if they beat up Pipp they win the series. But people here acting like Pippen wasn't part of the beatings at the hands of Detroit, and all of sudden appeared in 1991 and the Bulls started winning. Horace Grant deserves alot of blame to. He shot 3-17 from the field for 10 points in the migraine game.

[QUOTE=RogueBorg;13974792]No, but what plagued him AT THAT TIME was the wart game 7 of the 1990 ECF, the migraine. Detroit players even talk about it to this day, until Scottie arrives, the Bulls weren't beating them. They knew if they beat up Pipp they win the series. But people here acting like Pippen wasn't part of the beatings at the hands of Detroit, and all of sudden appeared in 1991 and the Bulls started winning. Horace Grant deserves alot of blame to. He shot 3-17 from the field for 10 points in the migraine game.[/QUOTE]

MJ molded Pippen but he somehow couldn’t mold his offense

The stats I posted include that game. Pippen did suck that game but he said he couldn't play because of blurred vision (he couldn't tell the jerseys apart). MJ basically bullied him into playing. It is rich then to see MJ stans complain about that performance forevermore with no accountability for MJ's role.

Grant sucked, Pippen sucked. So when the team wins it is all MJ; when they lose it is everybody else?

How about Game 3 of the 93' ECF? Bulls down 0-2 and MJ shots 17% but the rest of the team shows up. We never hear about MJ's bad games.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974786]Small sample sizes will always be more inconsistent. His stats were inflated by going 37/13/6 on 61% against the Warriors in the first round. Against Houston he was down to 23/13/4 on 46% as Kevin Johnson outscored him.[/quote]

Maybe so, but if not for the playoffs, James Harden would be viewed as the best player. Over the last 2 or 3 years.

Barkley's 94 playoff stats look as good as his 93 numbers. More points and even better efficiency.

[quote]He was even worse for the playoffs as a whole so I assume you mean the Orlando series. He did average 19 ppg but that came with 10 boards as a SF and 6 assists. A lot of the Bulls' stats nosedived when MJ came in. He came out the blue so late they couldn't adjust as MJ suddenly was consuming 24 shots a game in the season and 25 a game in the playoffs. The next year when they had time to adapt Pippen arguably was having his best season before late season injuries.[/quote]

Yeah. I'm talking about the postseason. Even with Pippen's poor shooting not having a guy like Rodman hurt them. Worm is STILL underappreciated. Not a lot offense there, but the defense? Rebounding? Athletic ability? The overall toughness? Guy helped Chicago become the most feared team alive.

[quote]If Pippen played at his full season level in the 95' playoffs maybe they go all the way but I'm not sure. Their biggest problems were rebounding and interior defense. Pippen upped it to 10 boards a game. I don't think you are going to get much more from a SF and he didn't have the size to defend Shaq. That's why they needed Rodman to play the Grant role.[/quote]

It wouldn't hurt them. Outside of Jordan though there wasn't a lot of scoring. Some of that is limited time integrating Mike in their offense. Maybe a bit of confusion with roles there. But in the end, it came down to their firepower, or lack there of. The rebounding problem was talked about A LOT after that series from what I can remember.

[quote]It always amuses me because his stats across the board were better in the 95' playoffs than any of the next three years. The "rusty" stuff is used as an excuse because they don't want to acknowledge they needed a Rodman or Grant to win.[/quote]

Yeah. Mike's rhythm could've been off. His TIMING might not have been where he wanted it to be either. Funny thing is though, I think dude was more athletic in that playoff run than ANY games from 97-98. Some of 96 too.

[quote]True, but isn't it funny how Magic gets full credit for his sidekick rings, as does Kobe, but Pippen doesn't?[/quote]

Its a double standard. Can't speak for everyone, but Pippen is definitely the best sidekick of all time. 1a/b with 2000 Kobe. I view 01 and later versions of Bean as a "second option" superstar.

[QUOTE=bizil;13974770]The MAIN REASONS that Pip is a legend is because of his positional versatilty and floor game. Could play and defend four different positions at a very high level. And LEGIT was great at passing, defending, and rebounding his position. BUT here's the thing.... IN NBA history, u have legends whose floor game and positional versatility is JUST AS GOOD OR CLOSE! BUT on top of all that, they are legit alpha dog scorers on top of it. Saying this ISN'T HATING!

It's not ABOUT Pip's PPG so much. Guys like Magic and Isiah averaged under 20 PPG for their careers. And for MOST SEASONS in their career, averaged under 20 PPG. BUT they were pass first PG's who DOMINATED games scoring when it was time. At the DROP OF A HAT, they could switch their mindset and become dominant scorers. If u know the game of hoops, u know guys who average 18-21 PPG who AREN'T alpha dog scorers. And u ALSO know guys who average 18-21 PPG who are among the most lethal scorers in the world. There's a DIFFERENCE![/QUOTE]

And again. These guys had like 10 years to succeed. Pip had 1 because hes in Jordan's shadow. How do you know he couldn't have had 1 epic playoff run in his career? My argument has always been that Pip is being penalized for something he never had a fair opportunity to do. I mean the man averaged 24 ppg in 94 against two damn good defenses. And he didnt have a "sidekick" that could take some pressure off him like others have had.

I know I keep harping on Barkley. But I assume you feel he had that drop of the hat scorers mentality. Why didnt he win a championship? Or Drexler? Or Malone?

Kuniva, I have to ask

If Rodman played today, you think a high percentage of his shots would be 3s? He took occasional 3s back then and it wasn't considered "kosher" for 4s and 5s to do it for the most part then, so I'm wondering if you think he'd try to be a 3 and d guy now.

I feel like he'd have to or he'd clog the paint (unless he was playing with a stretch 5).

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974787]So does every player. It is interesting we get chapter and verse on all of Pippen's but never for his teammate...



[B]Exactly. Now Pippen is supposedly a tool of LeBron stans. 10 years ago you and I were called closet Kobe stans on ISH for being Pippen fans. Pippen has fans and they get annoying when they see MJ stans out there every day saying he sucked.[/B]



True, but isn't it funny how Magic gets full credit for his sidekick rings, as does Kobe, but Pippen doesn't?[/QUOTE]
I see not much has changed. Good to see you still around though

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13974826]The stats I posted include that game. Pippen did suck that game but he said he couldn't play because of blurred vision (he couldn't tell the jerseys apart). MJ basically bullied him into playing. It is rich then to see MJ stans complain about that performance forevermore with no accountability for MJ's role.

Grant sucked, Pippen sucked. So when the team wins it is all MJ; when they lose it is everybody else?

How about Game 3 of the 93' ECF? Bulls down 0-2 and MJ shots 17% but the rest of the team shows up. We never hear about MJ's bad games.[/QUOTE]

Theres been a few times when the team stepped up cuz MJ visibly didn't have it. Game 6 of the 97 when Jackson sat all the starters but Pip including MJ. And the Bulls got back in it. And the 4th quarter of the 92 finals when Jackson sat the starters other than Pip. And they came back and won.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;13974864]Theres been a few times when the team stepped up cuz MJ visibly didn't have it. Game 6 of the 97 when Jackson sat all the starters but Pip including MJ. And the Bulls got back in it. And the 4th quarter of the 92 finals when Jackson sat the starters other than Pip. And they came back and won.[/QUOTE]

Can you debunk the false narrative of "[U]MJ was 1-9 before Pippen[/U]?"

I would love to hear your take/opinion on this topic.

[QUOTE=97 bulls;13974864]Theres been a few times when the team stepped up cuz MJ visibly didn't have it. Game 6 of the 97 when Jackson sat all the starters but Pip including MJ. And the Bulls got back in it. And the 4th quarter of the 92 finals when Jackson sat the starters other than Pip. And they came back and won.[/QUOTE]

This.

[QUOTE=Turbo Slayer;13974874]Can you debunk the false narrative of "[U]MJ was 1-9 before Pippen[/U]?"

I would love to hear your take/opinion on this topic.[/QUOTE]

It's not that Jordan being 1-9 before Pip is false. The problem is why his record before Pip is always brought up. The argument is that Jordan won with little and even in some cases absolutely no help. That you can put any combination of run of the mill to solid players around him and hed find some way to win. So the question is why didnt he donit before Pip came?

I dont see Jordans playoff record before Pippen being an indictment against him because they were solid to run of the mill players. Orlando Woolridge and Charles Oakley were very good basketball players Paxson was there. Why didnt they win? I'd even go so far as to say that Oakley might been more impactful than Grant.

The fact is that Jordan was young. And Woolridge was a solid player while Pippen was a perennial top 5 player.