Teammate career rankings between Jordan and Lebron -- The Reality

Jordan is better than Lebron, but I'll take Lebron's 2016 Finals against any of Jordan's. Yes Jordan had some incredible Finals, especially 93 where he averaged 41 points, but Lebron absolutely dominated a 73 win team. He led the series (not just his team) in Points, Assists, Rebounds, Steals and Blocks.

Has any other player in NBA history led the series in all 5 statistical categories? Then to have it bein the finals against a 73 win team in a 7 game series is unbelievable. Haters will downplay it, but not many more impressive playoff accomplishments. And spare me "Kyrie hit the big shot." Paxon, Kerr and others hit big shots throughout the Bulls title run.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112630]I only "disregard" Ewing when the claims are that Pippen wasn't on his level or a #1 himself. Secondly, Ewing hardly outplayed Pippen in 93. And lastly, this is raw data. Post the impact stats that go along with the raw lines. We know that during their primes Pippen (91-98) beats Ewing (88-98) in WS, WS48, VORP, ORTG, BPM, OBPM and now APM/RAPM. So, all the major impact metrics.



With APM and RAPM, the tally is something like 11-2 in advanced data. All in Pippen's favor. And again for reference



9 years worth of prime data. So not only was Pippen #1 caliber, like Ewing was, but even [U]better[/U] based on the impact.[/QUOTE]

"Hardly outplayed". He OUTPLAYED him. The stats are right there. He OUTPLAYED him in '93 and outplayed & beat him when both were #1 options and Pippen had better 2nd & 3rd options. What does WS/48 or VORP say about quitting on your team in a tie game?

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14112640]"Hardly outplayed". He OUTPLAYED him. The stats are right there. He OUTPLAYED him in '93 and outplayed & beat him when both were #1 options and Pippen had better 2nd & 3rd options. What does WS/48 or VORP say about quitting on your team in a tie game?[/QUOTE]

You are stalling. Find the impact data, like you do for AD vs LeBron, and post it here.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112646]You are stalling. Find the impact data, like you do for AD vs LeBron, and post it here.[/QUOTE]

They have nothing. It is a joke, but amusing to observe.

We are hearing--from guys who talk scoring 24/7--Grant was a better scorer than Starks. :roll: This guy (IMKobe, 3ball's own beta poodle) is as ignorant as he is dishonest. Youtube.com, son. Watch some games if you are going to jackoff to MJ every day. You will enjoy. He was really good.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14112621]Ewing outplayed Pippen in 4 out of 5 series in the 90s, including when both were #1 options, but somehow Pippen was the better player. Put Ewing with Jordan from '88, how many rings do they win?[/QUOTE]

Ewing/MJ would win every year from 88-99'

And MJ could average 24 ppg because Ewing could carry the load.. yet people say MJ needed Pippen, aka MJ "needed" a sidekick that made him carry the goat scoring load and assist 33% more often

[QUOTE=Sarcastic;14112599]Way to obfuscate with a bunch of nonsense. You refuted absolutely nothing that I said.

Just have a look at the numbers.
[B]92 Pippen[/B] - 21/8/7 on .555 TS and 21.5 PER [B]93 Pippen[/B] - 19/8/6 on .510 TS and 19.2 PER
[B]92 Grant[/B] - 14/10/3 on .618 TS and 20.6 PER [B]93 Grant[/B] - 13/10/3 on .534 TS and 17.5 PER

You also conveniently left out Toni Kukoc, who was All Rookie 2nd team, and was saving Pippen with game winners during the regular season and the playoffs.

[video=youtube;uUTfJlezXPY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUTfJlezXPY&ab_channel=HoopsMadness[/video][/QUOTE]

Wow Reggie just taking a dump on pippy poo and the bulls.

Bowing after it and everything.

:roll:

Pure gangster.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112630]

I only "disregard" Ewing when the claims are that Pippen wasn't on his level

[B]or a #1 himself. [/B]


[/Quote]
^^^ that's a low bar..

anyone can be a 1st option - there's 30 in the league every year...but ELITE first options average nearly 30 in various seasons or series of their career - Pippen couldn't because he was an Iggy-level scorer that barely averaged 20 at his peak

He was never considered on the level of MJ, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, or Ewing, who could average about 30 and were 1st option Finals guys (top tier of the 90's)

Carry on posting about stats that Nate McMillan beats him at

[QUOTE=3ball;14112749]He was [B]never[/B] considered on the level of MJ, [B]Barkley, Malone[/B], Hakeem, or Ewing, who could average about 30 and were 1st option Finals guys (top tier of the 90's)[/QUOTE]

That is news to all-NBA voters. :lol 1994: Pippen 94 votes, Malone 68, and Barkley even further behind on the second team (Malone at least was close to Pippen when he trailed him in 96', the year before the Bulls-Jazz finals). MJ's 2nd option ahead of his finals' opponent from the previous year's 1st option. Damn. What a stacked team. :bowdown:

[QUOTE=3ball;14112749]^^^ that's a low bar..

anyone can be a 1st option - there's 30 in the league every year...but ELITE first options average nearly 30 in various seasons or series of their career - Pippen couldn't because he was an Iggy-level scorer that barely averaged 20 at his peak[/QUOTE]

So based on the data, you agree that Ewing was a weak #1. And the "low bar" Pippen allegedly had was higher than Ewing's? That's a weird way to cope with results, but fair enough. Now you can add him to your list in that thread you made. Ultimately the [U]real[/U] and [U]only[/U] logical conclusion is Pippen >.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112757]So based on the data, you agree that Ewing was a weak #1. And the "low bar" Pippen allegedly had was higher than Ewing's? That's a weird way to cope with results, but fair enough. Now you can add him to your list in that thread you made. Ultimately the [U]real[/U] and [U]only[/U] logical conclusion is Pippen >.[/QUOTE]

He still hasn't explained why MJ lost three years in a row to a team whose best player peaked at 23 PPG 6-7 years prior to owning MJ on a 37-45 win team. When Detroit was a contender (1987-1991), Isiah was 18.8 PPG. MJ was scoring up to twice that and taking L's in the first round.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112757]So based on the data, you agree that Ewing was a weak #1. And the "low bar" Pippen allegedly had was higher than Ewing's? That's a weird way to cope with results, but fair enough. Now you can add him to your list in that thread you made. Ultimately the [U]real[/U] and [U]only[/U] logical conclusion is Pippen >.[/QUOTE]
Pippen peaked at 22 ppg... Ewing at 29

with better efficiency across the board

Ewing was an elite scorer, which was required to be a 1st option Finals guy (top caliber)... All the top players of the 90's were 1st option Finals guys, aka MJ, Hakeem, Malone, Ewing, Shaq, Barkley, Drexler, Robinson..

Pippen was never considered on this level and was considered a 2nd option, which has become synonymous with "Pippen"

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112685]They have nothing. It is a joke, but amusing to observe.

We are hearing--from guys who talk scoring 24/7--Grant was a better scorer than Starks. :roll: This guy (IMKobe, 3ball's own beta poodle) is as ignorant as he is dishonest. Youtube.com, son. Watch some games if you are going to jackoff to MJ every day. You will enjoy. He was really good.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, BPM likes Pippen over 90's-era Hakeem. It likes Pippen over almost every big man. For example: 90-98 Pippen 5.7 bpm vs 90's Shaq 6.0 bpm. BPM thinks Pippen was as good as prime Shaq. Garbage argument for garbage stat. Basically, almost all metrics are in agreement that on Pippen was at best a borderline top-50 player for his career. The raw numbers and advanced stats support this as well. Even if you use his so-called "prime" years, his rankings in PER, OBPM, and WS/48 would be 61, 49, and 51 respectively. Only BPM thinks he's a career top-50 player, and I've already explained this is a side-effect how BPM credits defensive stars (high steals) on good defensive teams, i.e. why Stockton is top 10 player according to BPM. Give you an idea how stupid this metric is, Stockton has a 3.7 DBPM one year. To put that in perspective, Mutombo's best defensive year according to BPM was a 3.0. Ben Wallace's best year was a 3.5. [B]That's right... BPM thinks John Stockton was a better peak defender than two guys who won DPOY eight times between them!!![/B] :oldlol: What's crazy about it is that Mutombo's best defensive season would only be Stockton's fourth best. So BPM thinks Stockton was not just a little bit better than Mutumbo,[I] but perennially better.[/I]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112804]He still hasn't explained why MJ lost three years in a row to a team whose best player peaked at 23 PPG 6-7 years prior to owning MJ on a 37-45 win team. When Detroit was a contender (1987-1991), Isiah was 18.8 PPG. MJ was scoring up to twice that and taking L's in the first round.[/QUOTE]

Another error on his part. Ouch. Gooseman, what do you think 3ball meant here? I've been asking you pertinent questions for a while now, but you seem a little timid to reply. Get out of your safe space dude.

[QUOTE=3ball;14112805]Pippen peaked at 22 ppg... Ewing at 29

with better efficiency across the board.

Pippen was never considered on this level and was considered a 2nd option, which has become synonymous with "Pippen"[/QUOTE]

Prime Pippen had more impact and therefor was better. Higher ortg-bpm-obpm-apm-rapm-vorp-ws-ws48-ortg. Many of those stats are in the OP too which you've conceded were great measures. So again, the only conclusion we can draw from that is Pippen being better.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112834]Prime Pippen had more impact and therefor was better. Higher ortg-bpm-obpm-apm-rapm-vorp-ws-ws48-ortg. Many of those stats are in the OP too which you've conceded were great measures. So again, the only conclusion we draw from that then is Pippen being better.[/QUOTE]

The graphics speak for themselves. The two players usually aren't even close.

[IMG]https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Ewing-player-card.png[/IMG]

[IMG]https://backpicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Pippen-GOAT-card.png[/IMG]

Pippen is far ahead in 4 of 5 of these stats. In the one Ewing is ahead, he is barely ahead--108th all-time versus 110th for Pippen.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112834]Another error on his part. Ouch. Gooseman, what do you think 3ball meant here? I've been asking you pertinent questions for a while now, but you seem a little timid to reply. Come out of your safe space dude.



Prime Pippen had more impact and therefor was better. Higher ortg-bpm-pbpm-apm-rapm-vorp-ws-ws48-ortg. Many of those stats are in the OP too which you've conceded were great measures. So again, the only conclusion we draw from that then is Pippen being better.[/QUOTE]

Who cares about Ewing. Address the issue of how BPM has Pippen over 90's Hakeem and on par with Shaq or how BPM thinks Stockton was a better peak defender than Mutumbo and Ben Ben Wallace. I'm waiting.

[QUOTE=Soundwave;14112856]Who cares about Ewing. Address the issue of how BPM[/QUOTE]

You are the guy who made a thread using BPM and some of these other stats. :roll: Shamelessly backpedaled after it got inconvenient. You are a dishonest MJ stain but at least play out your posts next time to avoid such embarrassment.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112866]You are the guy who made a thread using BPM and some of these other stats. :roll: Shamelessly backpedaled after it got inconvenient. You are a dishonest MJ stain but at least play out your posts next time to avoid such embarrassment.[/QUOTE]

I put BPM in there to show you how it does not correlate at all with the other metrics, i.e. that it is a garbage stat. I explained it in the OP. Read it again.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112834]


Prime Pippen had more impact and therefor was better.


.[/QUOTE]

Not based on the facts - Pippen wasn't good enough to be a 1st option like Ewing, and got destroyed by Ewing in 94'... 94' Ewing ascended to the top tier as a 1st option Finals guy, and Pippen descended to an ordinary, early round loser with bad efficiency

But it was no surprise to anyone - Ewing was [U]expected[/U] to wipe the floor with Pippen... And did.. it would've been a sweep if Kukoc hadn't saved them from 0-3 deficit

They have nothing. They cherry pick data, then when an honest comparison of the same data is done, they flip flop. They say we can't use accolades. We can't use all-time rankings. We can't use what people thought at the time. We just have to take the word of the most dishonest fan base in sports for everything.

One thing this is revealing: MJ stains cannot say a single word of criticism of ANY 90's star, except Pippen. They present every other 90's star as flawless. :lol That is because they have no beliefs whatsoever. Just one agenda and every word they write flows from that. The most disgusting fan base by far.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112856]Who cares about Ewing. Address the issue of how BPM has Pippen over 90's Hakeem and on par with Shaq or how BPM thinks Stockton was a better peak defender than Mutumbo and Ben Ben Wallace. I'm waiting.[/QUOTE]

Ewing is related to your topic and here is why. He had less impact than Pippen who is "weak help" in your opinion. If that's the case then Jordan's competition was in fact mediocre. Your OP doesn't just list BPM either, so don't make things up. We see metrics ORTG-WS48 there which all favor Prime Pippen > Ewing. Back up your claims.

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112875]I put BPM in there to show you how it does not correlate at all with the other metrics, i.e. that it is a garbage stat. I explained it in the OP. Read it again.[/QUOTE]

That isn't true. You used it here to say LeBron's help > Jordan. Now you're running away from your own words.

[QUOTE=3ball;14112901]Not based on the facts - Pippen wasn't good enough to be a 1st option like Ewing, and got destroyed by Ewing in 94'... 94' Ewing ascended to the top tier as a 1st option Finals guy, and Pippen descended to an ordinary, early round loser with bad efficiency

But it was no surprise to anyone - Ewing was [U]expected[/U] to wipe the floor with Pippen... And did.. it would've been a sweep if Kukoc hadn't saved them from 0-3 deficit[/QUOTE]

No, the facts say Pippen bested Prime Ewing from a 9 year span. When they were at their best too. So the facts and evidence are all on my side, not yours. We also know the same numbers you agreed with OP on are the ones that paint Pippen being more impactful as a player. And thus, unequivocally better.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112932]Ewing is related to your topic and here is why. He had less impact than Pippen who is "weak help" in your opinion. If that's the case then Jordan's competition was in fact mediocre. Your OP doesn't just list BPM either, so don't make things up. We see metrics ORTG-WS48 there which all favor Prime Pippen > Ewing. Back up your claims.



That isn't true. You used it here to say LeBron's help > Jordan. Now you're running away from your own words.



No, the facts say Pippen bested Prime Ewing from a 9 year span. When they were at their best too. So the facts and evidence are all on my side, not yours. We also know the same numbers you agreed with OP on are the ones that paint Pippen being more impactful as a player. And thus, unequivocally better.[/QUOTE]

No, all the scoring data says Ewing was elite 1st option for his entire career, while Pippen was a lesser 2nd or 3rd option for his entire career

1-9ball uses these same stats to argue Kukoc>Pippen, Grant>Kukoc. tpols (1-9ball Junior II) uses oRTG for every player. His "analysis" is basically that. IMKobe (1-9ball Junior I) just does whatever 1-9ball says. Gooseman (Soundwave's trolling account) posted an OP chock full of these stats.

Yet when Pippen trumps the best player on the Bulls' best comp, flip flops and obfuscations. It is possible Pippen sucked but MJ's era was so bad Pippen wound up a top player in it. Okay. So Pippen sucked and MJ's rangz can't be taken seriously per his own stans.

[QUOTE=1-9ball]No, all the scoring data[/QUOTE]

That is one category. :facepalm Dale Ellis scored 29 PPG too in the same era (the year before Ewing did it). Ellis the alpha alpha!

Just took a quick look in this thread and saw the agenda filled Pippen vs Ewing debate but was wondering who was considered the better player at their peaks/prime when both were playing? They are pretty similar and I just want the opinion of those who lived the era.

[QUOTE=3ball;14112952]No, all the scoring data says Ewing was elite 1st option for his entire career, while Pippen was a lesser 2nd or 3rd option for his entire career[/QUOTE]

Nope wrong. The scoring is irrelevant when Pippen had better impact across the board. The same impact measures you already cosigned OP with. So unless you are taking back your own admission, Prime Pippen>Ewing is still a fact.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112961]1-9ball uses these same stats to argue Kukoc>Pippen, Grant>Kukoc. tpols (1-9ball Junior II) uses oRTG for every player. His "analysis" is basically that. IMKobe (1-9ball Junior I) just does whatever 1-9ball says. Gooseman (Soundwave's trolling account) posted an OP chock full of these stats.

Yet when Pippen trumps the best player on the Bulls' best comp, flip flops and obfuscations. It is possible Pippen sucked but MJ's era was so bad Pippen wound up a top player in it. Okay. So Pippen sucked and MJ's rangz can't be taken seriously per his own stans.



That is one category. :facepalm Dale Ellis scored 29 PPG too in the same era (the year before Ewing did it). Ellis the alpha alpha![/QUOTE]

Bingo. Every word of this post.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112971]Nope wrong. The scoring is irrelevant when Pippen had better impact across the board. The same impact measures you already cosigned with. So unless you are taking back your own admission, Prime Pippen>Ewing is still a fact.

Bingo. Every word of this post.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, these are their own self-selected metrics. They are just too lazy to think it through. Apparently, though, saying Pippen wasn't Iggy is "agenda filled" per the "Miller fan". :lol

He made an interesting point. We haven't seen anything from MJ stans about how Ewing was perceived then in any of these threads hyping Ewing (or for Miller in any of the threads hyping Miller or Stockton or X or Y or Z). Pippen fans have posted it. Of course, the "Miller fan" dismissed that evidence as "walls of BS." One the one hand: "What did people think at the time?" On the other: "I don't like what people said at the time. Walls of BS!" More hypocrisy from this ilk.

If they simply admitted they are out to destroy Pippen because MJ didn't win without him (which no one other than LeBron stans holds against him) and LeBron keeps succeeding without Wade that would be one thing but they keep badly trying to disguise the obvious agenda.

Maybe its just me but if I have to select between Peak Ewing and Peak Pippen it wont be an easy choice because both were great outside of injuries.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14112966]Just took a quick look in this thread and saw the agenda filled Pippen vs Ewing debate but was wondering who was considered the better player at their peaks/prime when both were playing? They are pretty similar and I just want the opinion of those who lived the era.[/QUOTE]

Virtually nobody during that time considered Pippen to be an equal or better basketball player then Ewing.

Anybody could say that peak Pippen is better than peak Ewing and it wont be a bad opinion but it also applies for the opposite because both were that good at their peaks.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112988]Yeah, these are their own self-selected metrics. They are just too lazy to think it through. Apparently, though, saying Pippen wasn't Iggy is "agenda filled" per the "Miller fan". :lol

He made an interesting point. We haven't seen anything from MJ stans about how Ewing was perceived then in any of these threads hyping Ewing (or for Miller in any of the threads hyping Miller or Stockton or X or Y or Z). Pippen fans have posted it. Of course, the "Miller fan" dismissed that evidence as "walls of BS." One the one hand: "What did people think at the time?" On the other: "I don't like what people said at the time. Walls of BS!" More hypocrisy from this ilk.

If they simply admitted they are out to destroy Pippen because MJ didn't win without him (which no one other than LeBron stans holds against him) and LeBron keeps succeeding without Wade that would be one thing but they keep badly trying to disguise the obvious agenda.[/QUOTE]

Yeah not sure what "[U]agenda filled[/U]" actually means then. Those ridiculous comparisons to Iggy and Cooper have to mean....something....Maybe "idiocy" is a more appropriate word, Roundball.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14113004]Maybe its just me but if I have to select between Peak Ewing and Peak Pippen it wont be an easy choice because both were great outside of injuries.[/QUOTE]

Peak Ewing vs Peak Pippen is close however if its prime vs prime, I am taking Pippen without blinking. The statistical evidence for Pippen is paramount. Better playmaking and while not the conventional bigman on defense, Pippen's impact there was [U]bigman-like[/U]. Ewing was a better scorer and rebounder, but the data still favors Pippen.

People didn't compare a SF to a C then. There wouldn't be a "George vs. Davis" thread back then. We can use all-NBA to get a window on what all-NBA voters thought of PF's versus SF's because they were on the same ballot but the debate was Malone vs. Barkley, not Pippen vs. Barkley due to positions.

Neither Pippen or Ewing ever got to the "best player" debate, although Pippen did get the "best all-around player" talk among some (not the same as actual best player but still more than Ewing did), so we can't compare them the same way we can MJ to Barkley or Magic to Bird etc.

What we do know is Pippen was consensus the best perimeter player when MJ was retired and second best behind him for several years when MJ wasn't. That means he was considered better than Drexler, Payton, Miller, Wilkins--guys MJ stans hype to varying degrees--as well as Price, both Hardaways, Hill, Richmond, Johnson, and Rice. It changed year-to-year but from 1994-1995 it was clearly Pippen and then in 96' Pippen behind MJ. Pippen was getting MVP talk and comparisons to MJ in 96' before he got hurt late in the season.

And Ewing? He wasn't even all-NBA from 1993-1996. That means for several prime years he wasn't even considered top 3 at his position by those voters. Was he ever considered the best player at his position let along the "best big" like Pippen was the "best perimeter"?

In MVP, Ewing was never higher than 4th. Pippen had one prime year as a #1 and was 3rd (Ewing was 5th that year). That favors Pippen. Ewing's team had the best record in the East, second best record in the NBA in 93' and he still was "only" 4th in MVP?

[QUOTE=Reggie43]Anybody could say that peak Pippen is better than peak Ewing and it wont be a bad opinion but it also applies for the opposite because both were that good at their peaks.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Hard to say since one was a wing and another a C. The thing is, the argument made by the MJ stans is Ewing>>>>>>>>>>Pippen, who=Iggy. Ewing has a case over Pippen--but not statistically, and that is the terrain these guys selected.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112971]

Nope wrong. The scoring is irrelevant


[/Quote]
Scoring determines 1st or 2nd option status and is ultimately the difference between Pippen (2nd option) and the top caliber guys (1st option Finals guys)

Pippen was a 2nd option without the 27-30 ppg capability required to be 1st option Finals guy (top caliber player)

[QUOTE=3ball;14113047]Scoring determines 1st or 2nd option status and is ultimately the difference between Pippen (2nd option) and the top caliber guys (1st option Finals guys)

And that's why Pippen is below all those guys and overrated by many.... he was a 2nd option without the 27-30 ppg capability required to be 1st option Finals guy (top caliber player)[/QUOTE]

The scoring isnt important if you're not impacting the games. This is why data is surmises what goes on the court [U]better[/U] than any "one" raw stat. Scoring is nice, but if you aren't effecting the bottom line, who cares? This reason alone is why the impact numbers suggest Pippen's playmaking & defense were more valuable. Why the same stats you agreed with OP on also say Pippen>Ewing.

[QUOTE=Reggie43;14113020]Anybody could say that peak Pippen is better than peak Ewing and it wont be a bad opinion but it also applies for the opposite because both were that good at their peaks.[/QUOTE]

We don't need to speculate on that.

"MVP" Pippen saw Ewing in the playoffs in 1994 and was completely outclassed and bounced out the playoffs.

Ewing had better productions and efficiencies. A double whammy.

[video=youtube;iyQXVE5xH6U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyQXVE5xH6U[/video]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14113038]People didn't compare a SF to a C then. There wouldn't be a "George vs. Davis" thread back then. We can use all-NBA to get a window on what all-NBA voters thought of PF's versus SF's because they were on the same ballot but the debate was Malone vs. Barkley, not Pippen vs. Barkley due to positions.

Neither Pippen or Ewing ever got to the "best player" debate, although Pippen did get the "best all-around player" talk among some (not the same as actual best player but still more than Ewing did), so we can't compare them the same way we can MJ to Barkley or Magic to Bird etc.

What we do know is Pippen was consensus the best perimeter player when MJ was retired and second best behind him for several years when MJ wasn't. That means he was considered better than Drexler, Payton, Miller, Wilkins--guys MJ stans hype to varying degrees--as well as Price, both Hardaways, Hill, Richmond, Johnson, and Rice. It changed year-to-year but from 1994-1995 it was clearly Pippen and then in 96' Pippen behind MJ. Pippen was getting MVP talk and comparisons to MJ in 96' before he got hurt late in the season.

And Ewing? He wasn't even all-NBA from 1993-1996. That means for several prime years he wasn't even considered top 3 at his position by those voters. Was he ever considered the best player at his position let along the "best big" like Pippen was the "best perimeter"?

In MVP, Ewing was never higher than 4th. Pippen had one prime year as a #1 and was 3rd (Ewing was 5th that year). That favors Pippen. Ewing's team had the best record in the East, second best record in the NBA in 93' and he still was "only" 4th in MVP?



Fair enough. Hard to say since one was a wing and another a C. The thing is, the argument made by the MJ stans is Ewing>>>>>>>>>>Pippen, who=Iggy. Ewing has a case over Pippen--but not statistically, and that is the terrain these guys selected.[/QUOTE]

To be fair even if the general opinion back then selects one over the other it doesnt mean that it was right. These guys are some of the most underrated players ever.

Guys have won league MVP's without leading their teams in scoring. Magic, Nash, Russell being the prime examples. Isiah never won MVP but was 18.8 PPG on those Pistons contenders.

No one cares about scoring except MJ fans who use it out of convenience: MJ has the highest career PPG.

[QUOTE=Insidious]The scoring isnt important if you're not impacting the games. This is why data is surmises what goes on the court better than any "one" raw stat. Scoring is nice, but if you aren't effecting the bottom line, who cares?[/QUOTE]

The second best scorer of that era was Wilkins--and he got traded for Manning when the Hawks were tied with the Bulls for 1st. That is damning. They thought they could give away a guy who averaged 30 the year before and still win a chip...

[QUOTE=Reggie43]To be fair even if the general opinion back then selects one over the other it doesnt mean that it was right. These guys are some of the most underrated players ever.[/QUOTE]

True. My point is it wasn't really debate back then at all because people wouldn't debate a SF with a C like we do now. We can just extrapolate from how they were viewed within positions but even that is limited. In 94' arguably the top 5 players were four centers plus Pippen (Wilbon's list, wrote for the WaPo back then). MVP gives us another data point, but MVP gets mixed in with team results (FWIW, Ewing's team won more yet he was 5th to Pippen's 3rd).

So is "tpol" also "ImKobe"? Interesting that he and "ImKobe" used that 94 series to compare the two. We know that Pippen didn't have a servicable backup for Jordan (Pete Myers anyone?!?!?), so why is this a talking point? The better team won, who cares. Do you also think LeBron>Kobe because LeBron's teams had a winning record over the Lakers?

[QUOTE=insidious301;14113101]So is "tpol" also "ImKobe"? Interesting that he and "ImKobe" used that 94 series to compare the two. We know that Pippen didn't have a servicable backup for Jordan (Pete Myers anyone?!?!?), so why is this a talking point? The better team won, who cares.[/QUOTE]

No, I doubt it (based on their styles, writing, etc.--although their views are carbon copies of each other) they are both just 1-9ball's betas who I call 1-9ball Junior I and 1-9ball Junior II. They follow him from thread to thread echoing him and the same TP. They also base their "views" on every given topic via their agenda. You won't ever see them deviating from the MJ party line (or gooseman or these other guys). The irony? They love to call players betas but they are the ultimate examples of betas on ISH.

This is what the world has come to. 1-9ball has groupies. :lol

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14113121]No, I doubt it (based on their styles, writing, etc.--although their views are carbon copies of each other) they are both just 1-9ball's betas who I call 1-9ball Junior I and 1-9ball Junior II. They follow him from thread to thread echoing him and the same TP. They also base their "views" on every given topic via their agenda. You won't ever see them deviating from the MJ party line (or gooseman or these other guys). The irony? They love to call players betas but they are the ultimate examples of betas on ISH.

This is what the world has come to. 1-9ball has groupies. :lol[/QUOTE]

LeBron also beats Kobe H2H in individual numbers. Will they apply the same context? Time will tell! Thanks for clearing that up btw. I don't go around accusing any posters of alts or whatever, but it is weird that these people literally hate/love the same players. Equally. I don't agree with you on Giannis and where Jordan ranks all time (Jordan>Jabbar imo). These guys are like blues brothers though. Almost like they have a group text for their daily political campaign.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14113062]The scoring isnt important if you're not impacting the games. This is why data is surmises what goes on the court [U]better[/U] than any "one" raw stat. Scoring is nice, but if you aren't effecting the bottom line, who cares? This reason alone is why the impact numbers suggest Pippen's playmaking & defense were more valuable. Why the same stats you agreed with OP on also say Pippen>Ewing.[/QUOTE]

Again, all the top guys were 1st option Finals guys - MJ, Malone, Barkley, Shaq, Ewing, Hakeem, Drexler, Robinson - Pippen was a 2nd option and therefore isn't on that level

This is common knowledge.. no one compared Pippen to these guys until the lebron media took over.. heck, Drexler and Penny were compared to Jordan, while Pippen is nowhere near Jordan

[QUOTE=3ball;14113147]Again, all the top guys were 1st option Finals guys - MJ, Malone, Barkley, Shaq, Ewing, Hakeem, Drexler, Robinson - Pippen was a 2nd option and therefore isn't on that level

This is common knowledge[/QUOTE]

Another post where you miss the point. Scoring doesn't matter if it doesn't anchor the endgame. You cosigned Gooseman on all the same numbers that paint Prime Pip > Pat. Don't know why you're still confused, but I cleared this up pages ago.