Phil Jackson on Scottie Pippen's as a leader

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]What do MJ stans think about Derek Fisher's leadership role on the Lakers? Fisher-Kobe was a similar dynamic to Pippen-Jordan, with the exception of Fisher not serving as the "quarterback of the defense" (Phil Jackson's words...) like Pippen did.[/QUOTE]
If they both did a good cop / bad cop thing like Pip / MJ did with teammates, yea ... effective forms of leadership. I value the captain / lieutenant dynamic based of leadership as well as on court performance.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]my question is, how can a so-called "leader" go 1-9 in the playoffs without his so-called "beta sidekick", but the so-called "beta sidekick" can 15+ wins without the so-called "leader"?

not like "sidekick" pippen had amazing talent to work either. :confusedshrug:

truth is, jordan is a top 3 perimeter player of all time, but basketball is about winning- and jordan was honestly just another TMac when it pertained to playoff basketball.[/QUOTE]
This is the type of shit I'm talking about :facepalm

[QUOTE=LBJFTW]Why does everything about lebron have to be so negative? Just because Jordan and Pippen were much better leaders doesn't mean Bron isn't a good player. Not everyone got to see Jordan/Pippen and for some of them, Bron (while not as good of a leader) is all these kids have.[/QUOTE]

off the top of my head, I can only think of Malone and Shaq in recent history outside of Lebron to have the ability to continuously pack on weight/size as muscle instead of fat at this age.

I don't know if the 29 years old prime fits for these type of players.

not when their own playing style is still slowly being adjusted.


compared to other player who reach the prime of their physicality weight wise at an age around 25-26, then they really figure it out by the time they get to 29.


I think this is why I have the general assumptions that big man developes slower compared to their peer.


I don't even know if going small/losing size would be ideal for Lebron, because playing big has been so efficient for him.

[QUOTE=juju151111]This is the type of shit I'm talking about :facepalm[/QUOTE]

:confusedshrug:

was jordan not 1-9 without "beta pippen"?

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]It's not nearly as impressive in context. The east was horrendous. Boobie shot them into the Finals, then he laid an egg in the Finals performance wise ... got swept being guarded by old AF Bruce Bowen.

MJ's '88 - '90 >>> LeBron's 2007

[/QUOTE]

Jordan's supporting cast in 1988 and 1989 was about equal to Lebron's supporting cast in 2007, at least relative to the rest of the East, which was clearly a tougher conference back then. I definitely don't think regular season record is the end all be all as far as determining how good a team is, but if you want to go strictly by record, the 89 Bulls actually beat a tougher team in the 89 Cavs who won 57 games then the 07 Cavs did who beat the 07 Pistons who won 53 games. That's also not taking into account the fact that the 89 Cavs won more games in a tougher conference then the 07 Pistons did. 89 Bulls also beat the 89 Knicks who 52 games, which may have been more in a weaker conference like the 07 East. Just pointing this out cause its something that doesn't seem to come up when people bring this discussion up.

[QUOTE=guy]Jordan's supporting cast in 1988 and 1989 was about equal to Lebron's supporting cast in 2007, at least relative to the rest of the East, which was clearly a tougher conference back then. I definitely don't think regular season record is the end all be all as far as determining how good a team is, but if you want to go strictly by record, the 89 Bulls actually beat a tougher team in the 89 Cavs who won 57 games then the 07 Cavs did who beat the 07 Pistons who won 53 games. That's also not taking into account the fact that the 89 Cavs won more games in a tougher conference then the 07 Pistons did. 89 Bulls also beat the 89 Knicks who 52 games, which may have been more in a weaker conference like the 07 East. Just pointing this out cause its something that doesn't seem to come up when people bring this discussion up.[/QUOTE]
I assumed RR knew this when trolling. That's why I consider MJ's back to back seasons, plus superior overall performance in both those playoffs to be easily superior than Bron's 2007 run. in '89 MJ gave the undefeated playoff Bay Boys their only losses. The team that swept the Finals. Meanwhile Bron played like ass, and couldn't even weasel out one victory in the Finals.

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]I assumed RR knew this when trolling. That's why I consider MJ's back to back seasons, plus superior overall performance in both those playoffs to be easily superior than Bron's 2007 run. in '89 MJ gave the undefeated playoff Bay Boys their only losses. The team that swept the Finals. Meanwhile Bron played like ass, and couldn't even weasel out one victory in the Finals.[/QUOTE]

That's another thing. People don't seem to realize that Lebron had arguably one of the worst playoff runs of this career in 07, at least statistically.

[QUOTE=guy]That's another thing. People don't seem to realize that Lebron had arguably one of the worst playoff runs of this career in 07, at least statistically.[/QUOTE]
It's skewed in perception by one historic game.

Jordan like Kobe was sometimes a cancer in practice and on the court. Only morons respond to screamings and putdowns.

Pip :applause:

So 14 pages in, after numerous temper tantrums not a single person has disputed the evidence in the OP, which comes from Phil Jackson:

*Pippen ran the offense
*Pippen ran the defense
*Pippen was the team's vocal leader
*Teammates turned to Pippen for various forms of leadership, i.e. support, advice, help, and inspiration

Pippen's teammates echo these same sentiments. His coaches and teammates in Portland say he did the same things there. Yet we have Jordan mythologists dismissing these facts because they do not suit their ridiculous desire to see the world as they want to see it, paramount of which is the goal of denying anyone else any credit for Chicago's success. Is there any fan base outside of the Church of Jordan like this?

[QUOTE=SamuraiSWISH]I'm not tearing down Pippen? We're all responding to Roundball's obvious agenda. And that dude ADMITS he hates Jordan.

I don't dislike Pippen at all. He is what he is ... what I've always claimed. I take nothing away from him. He's the 2nd in command of a dynasty. A guy who finally got mentally tough, and skilled enough to supplement the greatest player of all-time. Then they ran rough shot over the league.

OP literally making the case that Pippen was THE LEADER of the Bulls. No one with a brain, or whoever played for Chicago, certainly not against them in the 90s would make that asinine claim.

:oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Wasnt directed at you specifically, nor did it pertain to just this thread...

[QUOTE]So 14 pages in, after numerous temper tantrums not a single person has disputed the evidence in the OP, which comes from Phil Jackson:

*Pippen ran the offense
*Pippen ran the defense
*Pippen was the team's vocal leader
*Teammates turned to Pippen for various forms of leadership, i.e. support, advice, help, and inspiration

Pippen's teammates echo these same sentiments. His coaches and teammates in Portland say he did the same things there. Yet we have Jordan mythologists dismissing these facts because they do not suit their ridiculous desire to see the world as they want to see it, paramount of which is the goal of denying anyone else any credit for Chicago's success. Is there any fan base outside of the Church of Jordan like this?[/QUOTE]

Are you of the belief that they were co-leaders?? I'm fine with that opinion...
Or do u think Pip was the main/better leader?

What I go by is the available historical evidence, whether it is regarding a basketball team a presidential administration or another historical entity. The evidence I have seen suggests they both had leadership roles, performed different functions (Cartwright also was a leader) of leadership. This is the case on probably every team. The Lakers had Fisher and Kobe. Miami had Haslem and LeBron. The idea that among 12-15 people there will be a sole leader is unrealistic and unhealthy for a team.

Some of what also has been suggested, the notion of there being a hierarchy with people reporting to one player, is absurd. Basketball teams are not like normal workplaces with layers of authority. Teams have 12-15 co-equal players--no player has coercive supervisory power--a head coach and a couple of assistant coaches. In a normal workplace you would indeed have some front line supervisor of small groups. That isn't the case in basketball. Those duties are performed by the coach and assistant coaches. For players to lead they need to convince their peers--their co-workers--to follow them. They can't force it and there is no "captain and lieutenant" type relationship where one player reports to and serves as the deputy to another. Just more mythology.

just go ahead and walk into a gym, and if there's someone there busting their ass off, working off their tail bones.

that might just give you enough motivation to do a few extra reps.


if you're that guy already, good for you.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Yeah, but you weren't in the huddle. You weren't in the locker room. You weren't at the practices. You simply don't want to believe he was and are reaching a conclusion based on faith. [/quote]

How were things in the huddle and locker room?


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]To me there simply is too much evidence in the other direction to reach any conclusion but that Pippen was a great team leader.[/quote]

You've demonstrated that you are not unbiased though, you've presented the same evidence you've seen to everyone here and most no one is convinced.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The purpose of this thread, though, was to directly refute the NUMEROUS statements made attacking Pippen's leadership by MJ stans over the years.[/quote]

Honestly I've never heard or seen this happen once. You are just really really in love with Pippen it seems.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]What this thread does--and what the teammates thread also will do--is present evidence from people who would know what really happened on those teams.[/quote]

Just not evidence to draw the conclusion you'd like to draw.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]It is then up to people to reach their conclusions based on the evidence. [/quote]

And they have. Pippen was a good leader, but not THE LEADER on the Bulls.


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]They are perfectly free to reject it. What is pathetic, though, is MJ stans' attempts to chill debate by throwing a collective temper tantrum everyone time they hear something that does not fit with the dictates of the Church of Jordan.[/quote]

Have not seen this happening either. No idea what you are talking about.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The usual MJ stans were in this thread and you even had hypocritical temper tantrums from 2 others who strangely view anything in favor of Pippen as an attack on Jordan--and an attack on Jordan is a heinous deed indeed. Meanwhile Pippen gets ripped for 10 pages by 6-7 posters and those individuals don't say a word. :oldlol: [/quote]

The reason I've had conversations with you for the past week is to decide if you are or are not what you describe above. You obviously know the history pretty well, but you have a pretty one-dimensional fanatic approach.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Jordan mythology does not have the same chokehold it did a few years ago. I am glad to see that and hope the nuanced reality that was the 90's Bulls continues to break free from the cloak of mythology.[/QUOTE]

This sentence here sounds like something a Politician would say about an opponent.

To me, it makes you sounds a bit delusional or "butt-hurt" as the kids say. It reminds me of the multitude of Kobe Fans here and their constant clinging to any hope that their hero could be as good as Jordan. Or Shaq. Or Duncan. Or LeBron. etc.

I think you need to listen to the more informed, respectful posters in these threads who are trying to tell you how your threads are being perceived. Ignore the "stans" as you call them. If that's what they are, they should be on your ignore list.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]So 14 pages in, after numerous temper tantrums not a single person has disputed the evidence in the OP, which comes from Phil Jackson:

*Pippen ran the offense
*Pippen ran the defense
*Pippen was the team's vocal leader
*Teammates turned to Pippen for various forms of leadership, i.e. support, advice, help, and inspiration[/QUOTE]

No one wants to dispute the truth, just the conclusion you are drawing from it. Lots of us have done that. The burden is on you, not those of us with the consensus opinion.

I don't think it's fair to say Pippen ran the offense though. The triangle runs itself and as Jackson has often said, without all five guys working within it at once it breaks down. So lets not pretend he was John Stockton or anything. Pippen initiated the offense from a one guard front as oppose to the traditional two guard front in the triangle.

Idiots like the OP call us "Jordan Mythologists" yet here they are spewing bullshit about how Pippen was the man on those Bulls teams. :facepalm

Makes you wonder how insecure these idiots are. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]How were things in the huddle and locker room?
[/QUOTE]

That will be in the upcoming teammate thread.

I am not going to get into the various personal aspersions and condescension (see how people react to that kind of "leadership" :lol ).This thread achieved its objective--my one error was responding to the trolls and allowing the thread to get derailed, but if you remove MJ stans there was a good discussion. I did want to address, though:

[QUOTE]You've demonstrated that you are not unbiased though, you've presented the same evidence you've seen to everyone here and most no one is convinced. [/QUOTE]

1) "Most no one is convinced." If you count MJ stans. Outside of them several posters were. My audience is not MJ stans. If no one is convinced--if it is mere trolling--why not ignore it? Every Pippen thread has the same crew of MJ stans.

2) I have never claimed to be unbiased (while demonstrating various consistent biases like some). My objective here, at least regarding the 90's Bulls, is to counter the claims of MJ stans. People can reach their own conclusions but there is a need to hear something beyond the existing narrative. This is where the board suffered from the loss of Fatal9 and ShaqAttack3234. I've received several positive private messages from those glad to hear a different perspective since my return (I rarely posted in 2012 and 2013--yet Mike fans were still ripping Pippen. DatAsh, what say you?). Again, it often is not me talking. I do what historians do and cite primary and secondary sources. It is up to readers to reach conclusions from that and other information they have. Isn't that what a forum is for?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]1) "Most no one is convinced." If you count MJ stans. [B]Outside of them several posters were.[/B] My audience is not MJ stans. If no one is convinced--if it is mere trolling--why not ignore it? Every Pippen thread has the same crew of MJ stans.[/QUOTE]

You mean stans of other players? :oldlol:

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]That will be in the upcoming teammate thread.

1) "Most no one is convinced." If you count MJ stans. Outside of them several posters were. My audience is not MJ stans.[/quote]

Again, ignore the "stans" no reason not to. I'm almost to that point with you. And yes they are your audience as you constantly are referring to them. Stop.

And no, no one has been convinced. Some people agree with you I'm sure, but I doubt the even read what you posted, they just hate MJ or like you, hate that MJ is considered the best player ever by almost everyone.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]2) I have never claimed to be unbiased (while demonstrating consistent biases like some). My objective here, at least regarding the 90's Bulls, is to counter the claims of MJ stans. People can reach their own conclusions but there is a need to hear something beyond the existing narrative. This is where the board suffered from the loss of Fatal9 and ShaqAttack3234.[/QUOTE]

You're not doing what those guys did though.

[QUOTE=Asukal]You mean stans of other players? :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

In some cases yes. I am not familiar enough with the posting history of some of the others to comment. Stans of other players exist in the populace. MJ stans, too, are a part of the basketball fan mosaic. I am just not here to convince them and don't expect them to. Frankly, I don't judge things by how many people are or are not convinced. This isn't a focus group with that kind of data available. Moreover, most people "on" message boards are lurkers.


[QUOTE]You're not doing what those guys did though.[/QUOTE]

I was accused of [I]being[/I] Fatal9 for years. [I]You[/I] may distinguish me from him; most people viewed me as another side of his coin and MJ stans swore for years that I actually was him (now some of them call me pauk). :roll: We basically said the same things, as far as the 90's Bulls were concerned, while using different approaches.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]In some cases yes. I am not familiar with the posting history of some of the others to comment. Stans of other players exist in the populace. MJ stans, too, are a part of the basketball fan mosaic. I am just not here to convince them and don't expect them to. Frankly, I don't judge things by how many people are or are not convinced. This isn't a focus group with that kind of data available. Moreover, most people "on" message boards are lurkers.




I was accused of [I]being[/I] Fatal9 for years. [I]You[/I] may distinguish me from him; most people viewed me as another side of his coin and MJ stans swore for years that I actually was him (now some of them call me pauk). :roll: We basically said the same things, as far as the 90's Bulls were concerned, while using different approaches.[/QUOTE]
They thought you was troll Fatal9 When he first came here he was trolling and admitted it . Shaqattack is a far superior poster. You just try to downplay MJ. And no the offense DoD not run through Pippen.

When did he admit to "trolling"? What is the definition of "trolling"?

Yeah, ShaqAttack was the best poster on here. He just provided a more favorable view of Pippen than some and was a regular in Pippen threads.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]When did he admit to "trolling"? What is the definition of "trolling"?

Yeah, ShaqAttack was the best poster on here. He just provided a more favorable view of Pippen than some and was a regular in Pippen threads.[/QUOTE]
After he got exposed. This guy was putting up Mj avatars for God sakes.

Link?

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Again, ignore the "stans" no reason not to. I'm almost to that point with you. And yes they are your audience as you constantly are referring to them. Stop.

And no, no one has been convinced. Some people agree with you I'm sure, but I doubt the even read what you posted, they just hate MJ or like you, hate that MJ is considered the best player ever by almost everyone.

You're not doing what those guys did though.[/QUOTE]

Quit with the patronising rhetoric or the implication that people are unbiased - show me someone who says they're unbiased and I'll show you a liar. You're nobody to tell anybody else how to post. Especially considering that it's clear as day you don't agree with the OP, and not so much how he is posting. You're not the arbiter of fairness or what passes as a legitimate discussion. Honestly, the pretension is grating.

[QUOTE=LeBird]Quit with the patronising rhetoric or the implication that people are unbiased - show me someone who says they're unbiased and I'll show you a liar. You're nobody to tell anybody else how to post. Especially considering that it's clear as day you don't agree with the OP, and not so much how he is posting. You're not the arbiter of fairness or what passes as a legitimate discussion. Honestly, the pretension is grating.[/QUOTE]

Exactly--but I am glad he did it. This thread moved away from the 90's Bulls to a discussion about forms of leadership. He took a rude, condescending approach. Guess what? It didn't work. I, like most people, recoiled in response.

It is obvious he is upset because he does not like what has been posted. For a man who claims to be so objective, the anger is amusing. He actually is a major reason I posted the thread given his past comments on Pippen as a leader (including on Saturday). Yet he is upset at someone responding with evidence of Pippen's leadership? No bias? It is very hypocritical to go around making claims regarding a subject and then to denounce someone for merely presenting evidence contrary to your claims.

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Exactly--but I am glad he did it. This thread moved away from the 90's Bulls to a discussion about forms of leadership. He took a rude, condescending approach. Guess what? It didn't work. I, like most people, recoiled in response.

It is obvious he is upset because he does not like what has been posted. For a man who claims to be so objective, the anger is amusing. He actually is a major reason I posted the thread given his past comments on Pippen as a leader (including on Saturday). Yet he is upset at someone responding with evidence of Pippen's leadership? No bias? It is very hypocritical to go around making claims regarding a subject and then to denounce someone for merely presenting evidence contrary to your claims.

:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with no agreeing with you. It's your unwillingness to try and reach common ground. My sincere goal is to able to make as many relationships with people on here who share my passion and interest for the history of basketball.

And I assure you, despite some rudeness in my posts, there is no anger. I'm in the midst of a two month vacation from work and getting to spend half my time with my family here at our cottage and the rest talking and writing about my favorite subject in the world. If I got angry, I'd go fishing.

I'm sorry if it comes across as condescending, I'm only trying to illustrate my frustration, I'm not real good at communicating with strangers online yet. In my opinion it feels like you've consistently ignored anything I've said that could bring us together on this issue. You refuse to budge from your stance or even discuss why someone might think differently than you.

To me this is now a debate about Leadership. I think we mostly agree. So I'll do what my favorite high school teacher had me do when debates became heated and devolved. I'll list the things we agree on...

I think we both feel like there are a lot of leaders on any given team.

I think we both feel like Pippen was well-liked and respected by his teammates and coaches, more so as a person than Jordan.

I think we both feel like Jordan was the best and most important player on the Bulls.

I think we both feel like Pippen was more than just a #2 option on that team and that his contributions were essential to them winning a title.

Correct me if I am wrong about any of these assumptions.

Here's where I think we differ...

You think there is a narrative that has caused people to overrate Michael Jordan. I believe only a casual observer (not even a fan) would fall for something like that.

You think Pippen's leadership skills were as valuable or more valuable to those Bulls teams than Michael Jordan's. I disagree because I even though Pippen's leadership is applicable in more situations, without Jordan's leadership style the teams would not have done any better than Portland did under Pippen's leadership.

I think the best player needs to be the teams leader for the team to maximize it's potential, you feel the best leader (objectively) is best for the job.

You think "stans" are worth responding to. I don't.


How's that?

The thing is I have been posting here for years. I joined only a few months before you did so we have overlapped for 90% of my time as a poster and 100% of yours. Why the sudden concern about my posting? What is being said about me was said--by the same people--about Fatal9. Many of them actually thought we were the same person and those who didn't would refer to us together as "Fatal/Roundball say...". Yet you place him in a different category than me despite us, as far as the 90's Bulls go (what those who thought we were the same person missed is we were different on other subjects and like any 2 people had differences in posting style), making the same points.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The thing is I have been posting here for years. I joined only a few months before you did so we have overlapped for 90% of my time as a poster and 100% of yours. Why the sudden concern about my posting? What is being said about me was said--by the same people--about Fatal9. Many of them actually thought we were the same person and those who didn't would refer to us together as "Fatal/Roundball say...". Yet you place him in a different category than me despite us, as far as the 90's Bulls go (what those who thought we were the same person missed is we were different on other subjects and like any 2 people had differences in posting style), making the same points.[/QUOTE]
The thing is you still have no point. Pippen is still a sidekick after all these years of debating. You have changed literally noting. He hasn't moved up on anyone list or thought of better then he was. He Is still looked at has a sidekick to the Goat.

Great thread OP.
Pippen's leadership and versatility was very important for Bulls team. Without him, Bulls would have 0 championship.

and LOL at insecure Jordan stans in this thread.

Both styles of leadership are almost equally important and both are needed, but the one who disciplines and criticizes more will be regarded as the alpha and ultimate leader (assuming he performs greatly on the court). One sets the bar high and the other helps others get to the bar.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The thing is I have been posting here for years. I joined only a few months before you did so we have overlapped for 90% of my time as a poster and 100% of yours. Why the sudden concern about my posting? What is being said about me was said--by the same people--about Fatal9. Many of them actually thought we were the same person and those who didn't would refer to us together as "Fatal/Roundball say...". Yet you place him in a different category than me despite us, as far as the 90's Bulls go (what those who thought we were the same person missed is we were different on other subjects and like any 2 people had differences in posting style), making the same points.[/QUOTE]

I've had you on ignore for a longtime, didn't remember the reason, just that you liked Pippen, when I came back here and liked some of your posts so I removed you.

Shaqattack3234 and Fatal9 are people I remember seeing post a lot and don't remember them clinging to a player like you have to Pippen. I can see how would confuse you with fatal9 since you seem to have a lot of the same opinions, I was just Saying that this thread is not one like I remember them doing.

Regardless of anything said in online debates, it's nothing personal I don't even know you. Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention.

I think you have an exaggerated view of my positions. Allow me to explain.

[QUOTE]You think there is a narrative that has caused people to overrate Michael Jordan. I believe only a casual observer (not even a fan) would fall for something like that. [/QUOTE]

I don't think he is overrated as a player. He does, though, have a series of myths around him such as "he won by himself", "MJ could 'will' his teams to victory", that he is heads and shoulders above any other player, "MJ would never do ______" even if MJ himself actually did in fact do what is in question (a perfect example is people going around saying MJ would have played with cramps even though MJ did leave a game due to cramps). MJ in basketball reminds me a lot of what Reagan is to conservatives: a legitimately great figure from the past (even though I disagreed with most of Reagan's agenda the fact is he was successful in getting his agenda through and changing the course of the nation) who has been super-sized into a figure of myth, a mythical figure that is often used to diminish their modern day counterparts like MJ now is. You see it all the time, i.e. Reagan would oppose whatever pathway to legalization bill is before Congress--even though Reagan himself went a step further and did outright amnesty. What has caused a bit of a backlash to develop against MJ is the type of myths referenced. It doesn't change the fact that he was a great player and arguably the GOAT, just as Reagan, objectively speaking, was a successful president and leader even though there are now myths around him.

[QUOTE]You think Pippen's leadership skills were as valuable or more valuable to those Bulls teams than Michael Jordan's. I disagree because I even though Pippen's leadership is applicable in more situations, without Jordan's leadership style the teams would not have done any better than Portland did under Pippen's leadership. [/QUOTE]

I am not sure on their relative value. What I have questioned is that Jordan was THE leader--not necessarily asserted that Pippen was or that Pippen was a more important leader. If I had to guess there likely was no "THE" leader. We are talking about a basketball team and the interplay between co-workers. That is what they were: co-workers. A lot of people speak as if MJ was the director and Pippen was the deputy director, or in Samurai's words, the captain and lieutenant. This is not the type of organization we are talking about. A basketball team is not a hierarchical entity among players with many layers of authority like a normal workplace is. To the extent there is a hierarchy, it is the coach at the top and his assistants next.

Look at the workplaces you have been in. There always will be people viewed as leaders, even if they are technically your co-equal or they are senior to you but are in a different wing and thus hold no authority over you. Often these individuals will be among the most experienced people at the workplace. They fulfill valuable roles in a number of ways. However, there is no singular "THE" leader and it is not possible to create "leadership shares" for them. They perform important--but different functions. There is no metric to gauge the importance of one rebuke versus one word of encouragement. However, since MJ has to be #1 in everything MJ fans zealously have to promote the "captain and lieutenant" narrative, suggesting a hierarchy among peers. It also eliminates Cartwright from the equation.

I also am skeptical of MJ's approach and how much impact it actually had because it is counter-intuitive. I used it before and have seen others do it and I have never seen it succeed. Yeah, it can have an impact but any such leader will box himself/herself in because several people will tune said leader out and several more will listen, but to a limited degree (this is what happened to MJ in Washington--compare that to Pippen continuing to be a leader in Portland). A leader like Pippen has no constraints. He can go to anyone on the team and have a dialogue and a leader like that will, because people like him, be given a more receptive ear. When I shifted to the Pippen-style approach it paid big dividends--where they had previously tuned me out they began to defer to me (even though I was acknowledged to be the "best player" in terms of skills and knowledge). Maybe I am biased by my own experiences and maybe a basketball team is a different animal than a normal workplace. I also have read so many biographies, articles and other things concerning leaders that I am skeptical of the MJ approach because I don't see those traits among great leaders. I don't recall reading about George Washington punching Alexander Hamilton or Lincoln insulting William Seward or MLK refusing to talk to Jesse Jackson. Again, this could bias me but this is part of where I am coming from.

All that said, even if there were limits to MJ's approach that is not to say it did not produce results--but MJ's approach (which also was/is Kobe's) requires a Pippen and Jackson there (or a Fisher and Jackson in the case of the Lakers) there, and much more than the other way around. Someone like Pippen could join almost any group and emerge as a leader.

Think of the military. You need drill sergeants to whip people into shape but a great general understands the importance of morale and having people willing and able to follow your direction. Dwight Eisenhower didn't go around denigrating troops before D-Day.

[QUOTE]I think the best player needs to be the teams leader for the team to maximize it's potential, you feel the best leader (objectively) is best for the job. [/QUOTE]

I think ideally the best player emerges as the best leader. The reason I think a great leader will emerge as such is because of the study of people who were/are leaders I mentioned before. Pretty much all of them always were leaders, even at a young age. Part of this is the "alpha" talk we frequently here. Leaders will tend to be "alpha's" and that will emerge pretty much wherever they go.

[QUOTE]I think we both feel like there are a lot of leaders on any given team.

I think we both feel like Pippen was well-liked and respected by his teammates and coaches, more so as a person than Jordan.

I think we both feel like Jordan was the best and most important player on the Bulls.

I think we both feel like Pippen was more than just a #2 option on that team and that his contributions were essential to them winning a title. [/QUOTE]

Correct.

[QUOTE]with fatal9 since you seem to have a lot of the same opinions, I was just Saying that this thread is not one like I remember them doing.
[/QUOTE]

Fatal was more aggressive. For example, he posted a thread about MJ's anti-clutch log and another about Bird "owning" Jordan. All I did here was post a thread saying Scottie Pippen was a leader--according to his coach.

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Scottie was a mental midget of the highest (or lowest) order and this was just a continuation of that. His 'migraines' potentially cost Chicago another championship. And as the above proved, he was not made to be the alpha dog and was not above pouting like a petulant child and endangering the team if he didn't get his way (he did the same in Houston).

Of course players will like his style of leadership more- he was like the grandmother whose shoulder they could cry on and bake them cookies when their father berated them for being f*ck ups. Some people don't respond well to being challenged and pushed to their limits, they'd rather be coddled by a mother hen.

But then when the chips are down and guys are looking for someone to close the show and all they have is the mother hen sitting at the end of the bench crying because she didn't get her way... well...[/QUOTE]

[URL=http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Haskel45/media/montahandshk_zps1c0900c6.gif.html][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/Haskel45/montahandshk_zps1c0900c6.gif[/IMG][/URL]

pip and mike co leaders

Pippen with goat leadership skills

[QUOTE=AirBonner;14260475]Pippen with goat leadership skills[/QUOTE]


Pippen actually quit on his team during the playoffs. He was butthurt that Phil called the last play for kucoc, threw a hissy fit and refused to go back in the game. Sure enough Toni hit the game winner.

Pippen and Phil both walked off the.ciurt stone faced while the rest of the team was celebrating. Bizarre scene.

.
Everyone in history that won 3 Finals needed a teammate to win FMVP or average 25 ppg for at least 1 of the Finals.. But Pippen is 0/6 in FMVP and peaked at 21 ppg, so only MJ could win 3 or 3-peat with Pippen.

Furthermore, everyone in history needed an equal-scoring partner (1b) for half of their rings except the goat, who won 6 rings with a true 2nd option that averaged far less in every playoffs.

Teammate scoring matters because equal-scoring teammates attract equal defensive attention, so only MJ faced "1-man team" defensive attention for his entire career, (thus giving maximum integrity to his stats and rings).. Kenny Smith talks about MJ being the only 1-man show [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s]here[/url].

Ultimately, rings with 2nd options are greater than rings with 1b's and Jordan has 4 more rings with 2nd options than anyone else in history - that's his irrefutable goat argument.

[QUOTE=3ball;14260484].
Everyone in history that won 3 Finals needed a teammate to win FMVP or average 25 ppg for at least 1 of the Finals.. But Pippen is 0/6 in FMVP and peaked at 21 ppg, so only MJ could win 3 or 3-peat with Pippen.

Furthermore, everyone in history needed an equal-scoring partner (1b) for half of their rings except the goat, who won 6 rings with a true 2nd option that averaged far less in every playoffs.

Teammate scoring matters because equal-scoring teammates attract equal defensive attention, so only MJ faced "1-man team" defensive attention for his entire career, (thus giving maximum integrity to his stats and rings).. Kenny Smith talks about MJ being the only 1-man show [url=https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UF6Xx3F2Lo&t=01m54s]here[/url].

Ultimately, rings with 2nd options are greater than rings with 1b's and Jordan has 4 more rings with 2nd options than anyone else in history - that's his irrefutable goat argument.[/QUOTE]
1-9

Is op still alive?