[QUOTE=greensborohill]Didn't Pippen quit on his team one time? Very LeBron esque.[/QUOTE]
Lol I guess they're similar in more ways than their vesitility.
Printable View
[QUOTE=greensborohill]Didn't Pippen quit on his team one time? Very LeBron esque.[/QUOTE]
Lol I guess they're similar in more ways than their vesitility.
[QUOTE=juju151111]Why in every thread you proclaim that you won? You didn't win anything you dumb ass.[/QUOTE]
:oldlol: :oldlol:
97 bulls is such an idiot :roll:
[QUOTE=juju151111]Why in every thread you proclaim that you won? You didn't win anything you dumb ass.[/QUOTE]
Lol so now you've called me a "tard" and a "dumb ass". What is your problem?
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Why does every thread that were in together revolve around my stance on pippen? [/QUOTE]
Because it shows that you've engaged in a pattern of idiocy. You make statements like Pippen >= Bird, Pippen = Magic if he played in the 80's, Pippen was as valuable as Jordan to the Bulls, and now this new joke of a statement that Mullin is as talented as Bird and just as good offensively. All of these statements are a joke, so that's why people keep harping on them.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Jesus, you're so obtuse. :oldlol: Mullin isn't even CLOSE to Bird in terms of talent, and I say that as a big Mullin fan (even played against him one time briefly when he visited Xaverian HS in Brooklyn back in the day).[/QUOTE]
I think Bird is a much better player than Mullin, but skillwise they were close, but Bird was bigger and stronger which is one of the reason that their impact on the court was different.
Also, did you go to Xaverian? What year did you graduate?
[QUOTE=Kobe 4 The Win]They are similar only in that they are both white dudes who could shoot. [/QUOTE]
Yes, they could shoot, but they also shared great court vision, great anticipation/feel for the game, great passing skills, and they both had very quick hands that made up for relatively slow feet on defensive.
Other than the jump shot, I think Bird is better in all this, but they were close. Bird was tougher and much better rebounder, but their games are more similiar than say Mullin and Reggie Miller or Mullin and Chuck Person or other long distance shooters.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]Because it shows that you've engaged in a pattern of idiocy. You make statements like Pippen >= Bird, Pippen = Magic if he played in the 80's, Pippen was as valuable as Jordan to the Bulls, and now this new joke of a statement that Mullin is as talented as Bird and just as good offensively. All of these statements are a joke, so that's why people keep harping on them.[/QUOTE]
It just shows how people can take things out of context. Including you. I said, if pippen played in the 80s, his stats would be higher due to the way the game was played. I threw out some numbers, that noone has really disagreed with. The response I got were that that those are "bird type numbers". And here lies the problem. You guys DON'T WANT THEM to look like birds. All I did was use simple math. I never said he'd lead the league in scoring or avg 30 ppg etc. I've repeatedly stated that bird is ranked higher than pippen and has accomplished more individually. Talent-wise yeas, I don't see a difference. Definaetely not to the point of "clear", "miles", "lightyears", "its not even close" or what ever other word or statement you want to use that would imply that bird is that much better than pippen, or mullin or whoever.
I don't think pippen is better than mullin talent-wise. Their roles and styles were different but that's about it.
When I was asked who I would start a franchise with between magic and pippen, I said pippen cuz I know what he would do with a bad team. Magic has never been on a bad team. And he's always struck me as a crybaby and pouter. And magic was a triflen defender. But as far as rank, magic is higher than pippen.
I feel everything I said is reasonable. Not that you or anyone else has to agree. But lets discuss it. I don't call people asshole, and an idiot etc. I don't need to. This is the internet. Attack my point of view not me. Cuz I'm sure if I was standing in front of you and anyone else on here the conversation would be different.
Another problem is the way people take things out of context. Like when I said I was more impressed with how marion was playing lebron james to a standstill than what dirk was doing during the finals. That got turned around into me saying marion was better than dirk.
The problem as I see it is that I expose you and others as being a hypocrite. And once that happens, your credibilty is shot cuz you talk out of both sides of your mouth. I'm consistant. In all aspect of my pov.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Yes, they could shoot, but they also shared great court vision, great anticipation/feel for the game, great passing skills, and they both had very quick hands that made up for relatively slow feet on defensive.
Other than the jump shot, I think Bird is better in all this, but they were close. Bird was tougher and much better rebounder, but their games are more similiar than say Mullin and Reggie Miller or Mullin and Chuck Person or other long distance shooters.[/QUOTE]
This is all I'm sayn. I don't see much of a difference past rebounding. Cuz mullin played with hardaway a good portion of his career. Bird handled the ball more. But rebounding is definately in birds favor.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]I agree its circumstantial cuz none of these players had the same career. But "circumstantial", "if", "context" whats the difference?[/quote]
Are you really asking what the difference between two distinct words are? I'll break it down for you easily. Do I think Pippen (with supporting cast similar to what he had in '94) could lead a team team like he did in '94, putting up better all-around numbers in a faster pace-driven league? Absolutely. Do I think he could do it consistently, say like Magic and Bird? Of course not. And that reason lies within his mentality and role during the Bulls dynasty.
[quote]But when you want to discuss the bulls and their dominance, then you want "context".[/quote]
Why wouldn't I or anyone else? You're indicating that there isn't an anomaly in speculating what someone's numbers would be another ERA versus dissecting a teams competition. A little perverse don't you think?
[QUOTE=catch24]Are you really asking what the difference between two distinct words are? I'll break it down for you easily. Do I think Pippen (with supporting cast similar to what he had in '94) could lead a team team like he did in '94, putting up better all-around numbers in a faster pace-driven league? Absolutely. Do I think he could do it consistently, say like Magic and Bird? Of course not. And that reason lies within his mentality and role during the Bulls dynasty.
Why wouldn't I or anyone else? You're indicating that there isn't an anomaly in speculating what someone's numbers would be another ERA versus dissecting a teams competition. A little perverse don't you think?[/QUOTE]
I sense a double standard comming. But I'm gonna indulge this. Why or what did pippen show in 94 or in any other year he played during his prime, makes you think he couldn't. Play at that high of a level for a few years?
And no there isn't an anomoly. I've seen it done all the time. Wilts stats are routinely translated from the 60s to now. I've seen posters say russell would be the equal of rodman or wallace due to the 60s pace. Kobe fans love to say that he'd avg higher numbers if he didn't have to worry about the zone. Jordan fans say jordan would've avg 40 ppg in this no hand check era. This kind of stuff is done all the time. People say Dwight howard in the 90s would put up mourning type numbers cuz the competiton would be better. Its done all the time. I've seen people compare ming to smits for the same reason. Its done all the time. Its all context.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]I sense a double standard comming. But I'm gonna indulge this. Why or what did pippen show in 94 or in any other year he played during his prime, makes you think he couldn't. Play at that high of a level for a few years?[/quote]
Because he wasn't that type of player. Look how much his production dwindled in the postseason and the following year right before MJ came back out of retirement. He barely shot 43% (on a relatively low volume) cracking under pressure vs NY displaying awful leadership qualities. Leadership qualities NEEDED to excel and beat those super-teams of the 80's.
Despite the influx of teams playing no defense and fast-pace play being prevalent, the ERA was definitely STILL physical. I can't imagine a Pippen led team getting one game on those Pistons, Celtics or Lakers of the 80's. They'd expose him for what he was, mentally soft. You can call Magic a "whiner" and "pouter" all you want, but he was FAR and AWAY a better leader, player and winner.
[quote]And no there isn't an anomoly. I've seen it done all the time. Wilts stats are routinely translated from the 60s to now.[/quote]
I don't care what you've seen done to Wilt here. The fact you don't see a difference in discussing team competition and what a players stats would be a few decades ago is disturbing.
Look, we're going wayyyyy off track here. Just admit you were off-base claiming there was no significant difference between Bird and Mullin offensively.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I think Bird is a much better player than Mullin, but skillwise they were close, but Bird was bigger and stronger which is one of the reason that their impact on the court was different.
Also, did you go to Xaverian? What year did you graduate?[/QUOTE]
No, I had a couple of friends who used to be on the team back in the mid-90's, and Mullin would occasionally go down there to show face at his alma mater and play sometimes with current/former players. I was able to get into a couple of these sessions due to my friends. Dude is an INCREDIBLE shooter and a cool guy.
[QUOTE=catch24]Because he wasn't that type of player. Look how much his production dwindled in the postseason and the following year right before MJ came back out of retirement. He barely shot 43% (on a relatively low volume) cracking under pressure vs NY displaying awful leadership qualities. Leadership qualities NEEDED to excel and beat those super-teams of the 80's.
Despite the influx of teams playing no defense and fast-pace play being prevalent, the ERA was definitely STILL physical. I can't imagine a Pippen led team getting one game on those Pistons, Celtics or Lakers of the 80's. They'd expose him for what he was, mentally soft. You can call Magic a "whiner" and "pouter" all you want, but he was FAR and AWAY a better leader, player and winner.
I don't care what you've seen done to Wilt here.
[B]lol sure you don't. You said that trying to generalize stats across eras wasn't the norm. When I show you multiple examples, you don't care. [/B]
The fact you don't see a difference in discussing team competition and what a players stats would be a few decades ago is disturbing.
[B]The similarity is the context. You know what I'm saying is true. Your just acting as if there isn't a parralel.[/B]
Look, we're going wayyyyy off track here. Just admit you were off-base claiming there was no significant difference between Bird and Mullin offensively.[/QUOTE]
Pippen shot bad that bulls/knicks series. But I wouldn't say that was indicative of what he was year by year. That series as a whole was a defensive struggle. Its not like he's the first player to have a bad shooting series against a strong defensive team. He still avg almost. 24 points 9 rebounds and played great defense. And 43% wasn't that bad considering the league avg that year was about 46%. As an example, bird shot 47% in 81 in a league that avg 49%. The difference is bird had a much better team. And the fact that he played against the 40-42 rockets definately helped.
But I stand by assertion that mullin and bird were similar offensively.
[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]No, I had a couple of friends who used to be on the team back in the mid-90's, and Mullin would occasionally go down there to show face at his alma mater and play sometimes with current/former players. I was able to get into a couple of these sessions due to my friends. Dude is an INCREDIBLE shooter and a cool guy.[/QUOTE]
OK. So you're younger than me. I watched one of these sessions his senior year in college. I think it was mostly college age guys who were with him then.
The funny part of the story was I saw him in the locker room and figured I would hang around and took a seat in the stands and when he first came out he was awful and I thought: Wow glad no scouts are watching this. Turns out that was his younger brother who looks just like him, but not as tall. When he came out he didn't miss. It was INCREDIBLE. Just like dribbling all around the floor turning and shooting from what seemed like 25-30 feet out and hitting everthing. Not even set shots, just wrong foot turnarounds while warming up. All net each time.
[QUOTE=97 bulls]Pippen shot bad that bulls/knicks series. But I wouldn't say that was indicative of what he was year by year. That series as a whole was a defensive struggle. Its not like he's the first player to have a bad shooting series against a strong defensive team. He still avg almost. 24 points 9 rebounds and played great defense. And 43% wasn't that bad considering the league avg that year was about 46%. As an example, bird shot 47% in 81 in a league that avg 49%. The difference is bird had a much better team. And the fact that he played against the 40-42 rockets definately helped.
But I stand by assertion that mullin and bird were similar offensively.[/QUOTE]
[quote]lol sure you don't. You said that trying to generalize stats across eras wasn't the norm. When I show you multiple examples, you don't care.[/quote]
I don't. Although, I may consider the source. A kid who props up his favorite player any chance he gets is irrelevant to me (look how many times you've been called an idiot this thread; use your head) :oldlol: at taking Scottie Pippen over one of the greatest players ever in an NBA draft. There's no way anyone is gonna agree with that, let alone a GM. The only exception is you because you're a zealot.
[quote]The fact you don't see a difference in discussing team competition and what a players stats would be a few decades ago is disturbing.
The similarity is the context. You know what I'm saying is true. Your just acting as if there isn't a parralel.[/quote]
Team competition isn't adjusting an entire ERA's pace for individual players numbers whilst estimating what said players numbers would be. How can you be this clueless? Context is thrown out the window when Pippen had keys to the porsche and refused to comeback in during a pivotal playoff game because a play wasn't drawn up for him. But yeah, Magic is the pouter. Good one :oldlol:
And again, there's a bit of a difference saying Bird/Mullin had similar skillsets and there not being a sigincant difference in their offense.