Printable View
[QUOTE=ShaqAttack3234]No way would the Bulls be as good with Dumars. They lose the versatility of having either Jordan or Pippen guard positions 1-3, they lose Pippen running the offense like a point guard from the SF position, they lose Pippen's rebounding and they lose Pippen's open court game.[/QUOTE]
Co-sign
I guess I didn't really think about losing versatility, but they definitely aren't much worse. He was the closest fit to Pippen i could think of. There aren't many players like Pippen. Payton is closer, but they still lose a bit of versatility.
[QUOTE]I agree he was the absoulute best player no question, but on offense he wouldn't have to score 20 ppg and do everything for the team in the last couple minutes of a close game.[/QUOTE]
You are simultaneously right and wrong. I agree, in such a situation he would not need to score a ton every night but that does not necessarily mean he would not have to carry a huge load. Look at what he actually did on the 2000 Blazers in the playoffs:
*Serve as their primary playmaker
*Serve as their defensive anchor
*Lead them in rebounding
*Lead them in minutes (why was an ancient Pippen getting so many minutes? He was that important to the team)
*Be their on-court leader
*Be their locker room leader
*Score only 3 less ppg than their leading scorer (Wallace)
If he was in his prime he would have been asked to do even more, especially regarding scoring! This is what is lost in the shuffle. Given his versatility and all-around game he carried an unusually large workload, especially in the years he was a "sidekick." How many "sidekicks" had as much responsibility on their team as Pippen did? People talk about 94' but forget that he had to do practically everything for that team, to the point that commentators were laughing in amazement over it. He lead them in every category in the playoffs (23/8/5 etc.), aside from blocks where he was "only" second, while serving as their leader and defensive anchor.
[QUOTE]Quite a large difference from Horace grant Toni Kukoc [/QUOTE]
Kukoc was a 11/4/3 43% shooting rookie in 94'.
Not really a big difference. Dumars' best years were the early 90's when Isiah had declined, right? Look at what Pippen did in 95' after Grant left. Before MJ came back he had his team in 6th and closing rapidly on 5th (third best record in the East after the ASG at 11-6. Keep in mind they lost two starters from the previous season. They elevated Kukoc from 6th man to starter without finding an adequate replacement. it took time to adjust to significant changes.). Did he have a great "supporting cast"? Kukoc was his second best player and Kukoc was playing out of position at PF, where he was a joke on the glass (5 rpg) and defensively. The Bulls had zero interior defense and zero rebounding. What Pippen is criticized by some for in 95' is what KG, Kobe, Durant and Wade are lionized for doing recently.
A top 5 player could lead practically any team to above .500 imo; Dumars was not at that level.
[QUOTE]I guess I didn't really think about losing versatility, but they definitely aren't much worse. He was the closest fit to Pippen i could think of. There aren't many players like Pippen. Payton is closer, but they still lose a bit of versatility.[/QUOTE]
You tend to compare players based on skill-sets. You have to factor in skill level too, though. Iggy is a similar player to Pippen. Does that mean you could plug Iggy onto the Bulls and win rings? Of course Dumars is closer to Pippen than Iggy is but you get my point.
Can anyone explain why there is such an obsession over who else Jordan could have won with? Prime Pippen would have won with Rasheed Wallace as his "sidekick." Does that somehow make Jordan a worse player?
[QUOTE]You are simultaneously right and wrong. I agree, in such a situation he would not need to score a ton every night but that does not necessarily mean he would not have to carry a huge load. Look at what he actually did on the 2000 Blazers in the playoffs:
*Serve as their primary playmaker
*Serve as their defensive anchor
*Lead them in rebounding
*Lead them in minutes (why was an ancient Pippen getting so many minutes? He was that important to the team)
*Be their on-court leader
*Be their locker room leader
*Score only 3 less ppg than their leading scorer (Wallace)
[/QUOTE]
He had to carry a huge load, he just didn't have to be the absoulute first option on offense in the last minutes.
[QUOTE]This is what is lost in the shuffle. Given his versatility and all-around game he carried an unusually large workload, especially in the years he was a "sidekick." How many "sidekicks" had as much responsibility on their team as Pippen did? People talk about 94' but forget that he had to do practically everything for that team. He lead them in every category in the playoffs (23/8/5 etc.), aside from blocks where he was "only" second, while serving as their leader and defensive anchor.
[/QUOTE]
Kevin McHale could've done the same without Bird, its not like its unusual for the second best player on a championship team to be able to bring a team into the playoffs. thats not taking away from what he did, I'm just saying pretty much every championship team except for a few had great second options, probably most were as good as Pippen.
[QUOTE]Not really a big difference. Dumars' best years were the early 90's when Isiah had declined, right? Look at what Pippen did in 95'. Before MJ came back he had his team in 6th and closing rapidly on 5th (third best record in the East after the ASG at 11-6). Did he have a great "supporting cast"? Kukoc was his second best player and Kukoc was playing out of position at PF, where he was a joke on the glass (5 rpg) and defensively. The Bulls had zero interior defense and zero rebounding. What Pippen is criticized by some for in 95' is what KG, Kobe, Durant and Wade are lionized for doing recently.
[/QUOTE]
The bulls did suck that year.
[QUOTE]You tend to compare players based on skill-sets. You have to factor in skill level too, though. Iggy is a similar player to Pippen. Does that mean you could plug Iggy onto the Bulls and win rings? Of course Dumars is closer to Pippen than Iggy is but you get my point.[/QUOTE]
Payton is the closest. Basically flat even even though they are different positions.
[QUOTE]He had to carry a huge load, he just didn't have to be the absoulute first option on offense in the last minutes. [/QUOTE]
He would have been if he was in his prime back then. Plus, why boil down a game to the final 2-3 minutes and even then only to scoring? When was Bill Russell the first option to score?
[QUOTE]Kevin McHale could've done the same without Bird, its not like its unusual for the second best player on a championship team to be able to bring a team into the playoffs[/QUOTE]
Was McHale asked to do as much as Pippen? For instance, was McHale running his team's offense? McHale is not a good example. He was a guy who would be "the man" on practically any other team.
All that said, McHale had a year without Bird when he was 30 or 31. He had the whole team intact minus Bird (sound familiar?). The result? Below .500 without Bird. I have heard he was hurt a bit that year but he was still putting up 23/8.
[QUOTE]I'm just saying pretty much every championship team except for a few had great second options, probably most were as good as Pippen.[/QUOTE]
I am not surprised to hear you say that but I will pose this for general readers. Let's look at the most recent champions and their "second options."
Gasol, Pierce, Parker, 06' Shaq, whoever it was on the 04' Pistons, and :oldlol: 03' Spurs. Were any close to Pippen? Certainly none had the responsibilities Pippen had.
For further context here are the "#2 options" the Bulls defeated in the NBA finals:
Worthy, Terry Porter, K. Johnson, Kemp, (old) Stockton.
How about the ECF? Dumars, Daughetry, Starks, Penny, Mourning, Smits.
None of these players listed were as good as Pippen. You make it seem as if Pippen was a dime a dozen player.
[QUOTE]The bulls did suck that year. [/QUOTE]
edit: did you mean the team or the Bulls' "cast" pre-Jordan?
Why did you ignore KG, Kobe, Wade, and Durant? In Pippen's case all that matters is they did not win 50+; the others are heroes for reaching .500. Pippen had the team in 6th and closing rapidly on 5th. They were on pace for 45 wins even without Jordan and that would have gotten them 5th place, ahead of the 43 win Cavs. KG missed the playoffs how many times? Durant may miss it this year. We know about Kobe. Wade? May miss it this year, barely got past .500 last year (43-39). Yet they are all heroes for getting to 43-45 wins?
[QUOTE]Payton is the closest. Basically flat even even though they are different positions.[/QUOTE]
Except for that crucial difference in height and hence versatility. Pippen did everything Payton did but was more versatile and an excellent rebounder. Garnett and Lebron are similar players to Pippen as well. I notice Jordan fans (and whatever you are. Let's call you a Jazz fan who strongly admires MJ) only compare Pippen to players everyone else agrees were worse them him, Payton or even Iggy or Odom. Why not Havelick, Garnett, and Lebron? The all-time great most similar to Pippen is Havelick.
Speaking of Payton, he would have won a ring as the best player on his team in 96' had he not run into a 72 win juggernaut. He had horrible timing.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]He would have been if he was in his prime back then. Plus, why boil down a game to the final 2-3 minutes and even then only to scoring? When was Bill Russell the first option to score?
[/QUOTE]
I'm not! I'm just saying that would be a very good place for him to win. He'd be the best player.
[QUOTE]Was McHale asked to do as much as Pippen? For instance, was McHale running his team's offense?[/QUOTE]
I certainly can't say he did less for his team.
[QUOTE]I am not surprised to hear you say that but I will pose this for general readers. Let's look at the most recent champions and their "second options."
Gasol, Pierce, Parker. Were any close to Pippen? Certainly none had the responsibilities Pippen had.[/QUOTE]
No, not in the 00's but since the 90's BBall has fallen off in my opinion. Especially the early thousands. Looking at teams that had obviously defined first and second best player the second best were
Pierce
Kobe
McHale
Drexler
Wilt
Oscar
Shaq
etc.
Most are pretty close to Pippen
[QUOTE]Why did you ignore KG, Kobe, Wade, and Durant? In Pippen's case all that matters is they did not win 50+; the others are heroes for reaching .500. Pippen had the team in 6th and closing rapidly on 5th. They were on pace for 45 wins even without Jordan and that would have gotten them 5th place, ahead of the 43 win Cavs. KG missed the playoffs how many times? Durant may miss it this year. We know about Kobe. Wade? May miss it this year, barely got past 42 wins last year.[/QUOTE]
All those teams were still worse then Pippens. Especially Kobe and KG's. In 07 KG's best players were Ricky Davis and Mark Blount. You'd have trouble winning a championship with those as your fifth and sixth best players. And I'm sure everyone knows about Kobe in 06.
[QUOTE]Speaking of Payton, he would have won a ring as the best player on his team in 96' had he not run into a 72 win juggernaut. He had horrible timing.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt they'd make it past the Magic, but they'd definitely have a chance.
[quote=Roundball_Rock]All that said, McHale had a year without Bird when he was 30 or 31. He had the whole team intact minus Bird (sound familiar?). The result? Below .500 without Bird. I have heard he was hurt a bit that year but he was still putting up 23/8.[/quote]
Roundball, I agree with you about Pippen, but don't be too hard on Kevin. Parish and DJ were both in their mid-thirties and they had a new coach. Also, Ainge was traded away to Sacramento for Ed Pinckney. With all of that going on, they still finished a game above .500(42-40 overall).
The team with Bird in the lineup that year was 2-4, by the way.
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/birdla01/gamelog/1989/[/url]
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1989.html[/url]
[quote]All those teams were still worse then Pippens. Especially Kobe and KG's. In 07 KG's best players were Ricky Davis and Mark Blount. You'd have trouble winning a championship with those as your fifth and sixth best players. And I'm sure everyone knows about Kobe in 06.[/quote]
The 95 Bulls were pretty weak, you have to admit.
[QUOTE=Alhazred]The 95 Bulls were pretty weak, you have to admit.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but you couldn't compare them to KG or Kobe's 06-07 teams. Both would've been below 15 wins without them.
[QUOTE]I certainly can't say he did less for his team. [/QUOTE]
But he did. He wasn't running his team's offense. He did not have the same defensive importance. He scored about as much as Pippen. The only area where he did more was rebounding, which is to be expected since he was a PF.
[QUOTE]No, not in the 00's but since the 90's BBall has fallen off in my opinion. Especially the early thousands. Looking at teams that had obviously defined first and second best player the second best were
Pierce
Kobe
McHale
Drexler
Wilt
Oscar
Shaq
etc.
Most are pretty close to Pippen[/QUOTE]
I edited my last post to include the "#2" guys on the teams they defeated in the NBA finals and ECF. Pippen>all of them on all-time lists, except Stockton who is always ranked right around Pippen. You could argue Penny being comparable as well since young Penny was a superstar but that is about it. Penny, Stockton, maybe Mourning and Stockton was old by the time the Bulls faced him.
[QUOTE]All those teams were still worse then Pippens. Especially Kobe and KG's.[/QUOTE]
That is debatable but besides the point. The point is Pippen with trash in his prime was able to lead them to contention, just like those guys.
Looking at Wade and Durant this year, Beasely and Westbrook are better than 95' Kukoc. Plus, you can't just look at talent. The Bulls had a glaring weakness in the interior with no PF or C.
How about KG? He was in the 45-50 win range perennially and then had two years of missing the playoffs. Let's look at a few of his teams.
44 wins in 05' (KG was 28 years old): He had Sprewell, Wally Z, and Sam Cassell
33 wins in 06': He had Wally scoring 20 ppg and Davis 19 ppg
Second year Kukoc and BJ Armstrong are light years better? Cassell>Kukoc, Sprewell>Armstrong, Z>Harper?
Even in Kobe's case, Odom>Kukoc, although I agree as a whole Kobe had a much worse team.
The Bulls in 94' sucked without Pippen and that was when they had Grant. They were a 25-30 win caliber team without Pippen. What do you think the 95' Bulls would have done without Pippen before MJ came back? Kukoc was better in his second year, Harper was an upgrade at PG, but they lost their second best player a year after losing Jordan and they also lost their starting C.
[QUOTE]I doubt they'd make it past the Magic, but they'd definitely have a chance.[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind Grant got hurt in the ECF that year. I can't see the Magic beating the Sonics without Grant.
[QUOTE]
Roundball, I agree with you about Pippen, but don't be too hard on Kevin. Parish and DJ were both in their mid-thirties and they had a new coach. Also, Ainge was traded away to Sacramento for Ed Pinckney. With all of that going on, they still finished a game above .500(42-40 overall).[/QUOTE]
I like him. As I said, he would be the "#1" guy on practically any other team. He is an example of too much being made out of the "sidekick" thing. If McHale played for a random team instead of being on the same team as arguably one of the 5 greatest players ever does that suddenly make McHale a better player than he was?
Good info, though. I assumed they were above .500 with Bird and just below without him. Still, that team>the 95' Bulls. They still had Parish and DJ as effective players. Of course, McHale was hurt so it wasn't prime McHale. I am sure with prime McHale they would win 50+.
[QUOTE=magnax1]Yeah, but you couldn't compare them to KG or Kobe's 06-07 teams. Both would've been below 15 wins without them.[/QUOTE]
The 95 Bulls would have been pretty bad minus Pippen, too. No MJ, Scottie, or Grant/Rodman? Sounds like the 99 Bulls to me.
[quote]I like him. As I said, he would be the "#1" guy on practically any other team. He is an example of too much being made out of the "sidekick" thing. If McHale played for a random team instead of being on the same team as arguably one of the 5 greatest players ever does that suddenly make McHale a better player than he was?[/quote]
Good point. In 87, he averaged a 26/10 on a stacked Celtics team. Imagine if he was given more scoring opportunities.
[quote]Good info, though. I assumed they were above .500 with Bird and just below without him. Still, that team>the 95' Bulls. They still had Parish and DJ as effective players. Of course, McHale was hurt so it wasn't prime McHale. I am sure with prime McHale they would win 50+.[/quote]
Yeah, Bird was dealing with his own injuries at the time. 1989 just wasn't the Celtics' year. I admit that the 89 Celtics were better than the 95 Bulls, though. With Grant, I thought the Bulls were pretty solid but they missed him quite a bit when he left for Orlando.
[QUOTE]I edited my last post to include the "#2" guys on the teams they defeated in the NBA finals and ECF. Pippen>all of them on all-time lists, except Stockton who is always ranked right around Pippen. You could argue Penny being comparable as well since young Penny was a superstar but that is about it. Penny, Stockton, maybe Mourning and Stockton was old by the time the Bulls faced him.
[/QUOTE]
Thats true, and thats one of the reasons they didn't win. The only ones I can think of are Tim hardaway/mourning and Kevin Johnson
That is debatable but besides the point. The point is Pippen with trash in his prime was able to lead them to contention, just like those guys.
[QUOTE]Looking at Wade and Durant this year, Beasely and Westbrook are better than 95' Kukoc. Plus, you can't just look at talent. The Bulls had a glaring weakness in the interior with no PF or C.[/QUOTE]
yeah, so its fairly similar though BJ armstrong and Ron Harper were quite a bit better then anything beyond Jermaine O'Neal and Beasley. Durants cast is quite a bit better then Pippen's
[QUOTE]How about KG? He was in the 45-50 win range perennially and then had two years of missing the playoffs. Let's look at a few of his teams.
44 wins in 05' (KG was 28 years old): He had Sprewell, Wally Z, and Sam Cassell[/QUOTE]
Cassel was injured, Sprewell played terrible and Wally wasn't even very good. Even though they still won about the same amount of games as Pippen
[QUOTE]33 wins in 06': He had Wally scoring 20 ppg and Davis 19 ppg[/QUOTE]
Davis was traded for Wally, and both just plain sucked. Especially Davis.
[QUOTE]Second year Kukoc and BJ Armstrong are light years better? Cassell>Kukoc, Sprewell>Armstrong, Z>Harper? [/QUOTE]
Kukoc>Injured Cassell who only started 40 games, Sprewell=Armstrong and Wally was a bit better the Harper
this is sorta unrelated to this thread, but i didnt want to start a random ass thread just to talk about the old days (i hate that. most of them threads are trash)
but watch this video
[url]http://30for30.espn.com/film/winning-time-reggie-miller-vs-the-new-york-knicks.html[/url]
a few notes:
1: anyone who still doubts the 90s perimeter guys had it tougher than now is either too young or ignorant, or too-on-kobe's-nuts
2: i love how they showed clips of pacers and knicks talking about how rough and bad ass they were... yet they never won nothing. not cause they weren't good. but cause jordan/pip was that bad ass. ESPECIALLY jordan (yup roundball), who stood up to the Knicks more than anyone else on his team.
[QUOTE=Alhazred]The 95 Bulls would have been pretty bad minus Pippen, too. No MJ, Scottie, or Grant/Rodman? Sounds like the 99 Bulls to me.[/QUOTE]
Good point. You could even argue that the 99' Bulls were better than the 95' Bulls without Pippen or Jordan. Kukoc would be the best player on either team and in 99' he was at his peak, not a second year player new to American basketball. BJ Armstrong>99' Harper but the rest of the team is similar. If anything the 99' team was slightly better. Brent Barry>whoever you count as the 95' Bulls' third best player in this scenario (Will Perdue? Kerr? ), It doesn't even matter beyond this. It is scrubs vs. scrubs after this.
Keep in mind in 95' Pippen became the second player in history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. He led them in minutes too I believe. He ran their offense, anchored their defense. If his team was so good why was he asked to do so much?
[QUOTE]
Good point. In 87, he averaged a 26/10 on a stacked Celtics team. Imagine if he was given more scoring opportunities.
[/QUOTE]
He is in the conversation for top 5 PF of all-time. You mentioned 87'. He was 4th in MVP voting that year. Legit "sidekicks" do not finish that high in MVP voting or make all-NBA first team. The sad thing is being a "sidekick" will hurt him when he is, say, compared to Dirk. They are comparable in terms of talent but one was "the man" on his team for years and losing as "the man">winning as a "sidekick" according to a lot of people.
[QUOTE]Yeah, Bird was dealing with his own injuries at the time. 1989 just wasn't the Celtics' year. I admit that the 89 Celtics were better than the 95 Bulls, though. With Grant, I thought the Bulls were pretty solid but they missed him quite a bit when he left for Orlando.[/QUOTE]
The 95' Bulls would have been good if they had a rebounding/defensive PF like Grant or Rodman. What do you expect from a team whose starting "power" forward is averaging 5 boards and was not exactly a tough defender? Kukoc was a very good scorer and playmaker but having him as a PF is a joke. All he had was the height of a PF. He lacked the mentality or strength needed to be a viable PF. Who did the Bulls have at center? Will Perdue and Luc Longley.
It is a shame the Bulls used their free agent $$$$ on what turned out to be a washed up Ron Harper and not a PF that year. They could survive with a scrub at SG; they could not survive zero rebounding and Kukoc and Perdue as their "intimidators" in the paint.
[QUOTE]yeah, so its fairly similar though BJ armstrong and Ron Harper were quite a bit better then anything beyond Jermaine O'Neal and Beasley. Durants cast is quite a bit better then Pippen's[/QUOTE]
Harper was not as good as O'Neal imo. That was washed up, defensive specialist Harper not prime 20 ppg Harper.
[QUOTE]Cassel was injured, Sprewell played terrible and Wally wasn't even very good. Even though they still won about the same amount of games as Pippen[/QUOTE]
I factored all that in. Cassell played 60 games, Sprewell was old and Wally was good for a years. Even with Cassell's injury, Sprewell being old I would still take Cassell/Sprewell/Wally over second year Kukoc/Armstrong/old, post-injury Harper.
[QUOTE]Kukoc>Injured Cassell who only started 40 games, Sprewell=Armstrong and Wally was a bit better the Harper[/QUOTE]
So we both agree they were comparably bad "casts." So why is one guy criticized for producing the same results and the other lionized? :confusedshrug: