Scottie Pippen appreciation thread.

[QUOTE=kizut1659]I am not sure he would have been that close actually. 1993-1994 was a weird season, with Atlanta led by aging Dominique Wilkins and then Danny freaking Manning WINNING the East. As such, 55 games by the Bulls is kind of impressive but not THAT special. The fact that Bulls almost knocked out the Knicks is also impressive but one has to consider that the team was full of role players who knew how to win coming of three straight championships -Grant, BJ Armstrong, Cartwright. Also, the Knicks were almost knocked out by a 47-win Indiana Pacers so its not like they were some kind of juggernaut.

In 1994-1995, the Bulls were a .500 team untill Jordan came back. We all know what happened to Pippen after 1998. So I frankly don't think he would have been as succesful as Barkley or even Ewing on his own.[/QUOTE]

Don't just look at basketball reference to recap what happened in a season.

Wilkins was traded for Manning late in the season, they never played together.

1993-94 was a lousy NBA year and 55 wins were easier to come by than five years prior, but still it deserves credit. If you gave Pippen another 20+ per game score, even if he was one dimensional, I believe the Bulls could have been as good as the Ewing Knicks or Robinson Spurs if not better.

I'm not sure he would have been as successful as those guys, but I do feel pretty sure he wasn't going to win a title.

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Don't just look at basketball reference to recap what happened in a season.

Wilkins was traded for Manning late in the season, they never played together.

1993-94 was a lousy NBA year and 55 wins were easier to come by than five years prior, but still it deserves credit. If you gave Pippen another 20+ per game score, even if he was one dimensional, I believe the Bulls could have been as good as the Ewing Knicks or Robinson Spurs if not better.

I'm not sure he would have been as successful as those guys, but I do feel pretty sure he wasn't going to win a title.[/QUOTE]

they were as good as the knicks.
that series could have gone either way.
remember that the bulls had 3 all stars that year!

[QUOTE=G.O.A.T]Don't just look at basketball reference to recap what happened in a season.

Wilkins was traded for Manning late in the season, they never played together.

1993-94 was a lousy NBA year and 55 wins were easier to come by than five years prior, but still it deserves credit. If you gave Pippen another 20+ per game score, even if he was one dimensional, I believe the Bulls could have been as good as the Ewing Knicks or Robinson Spurs if not better.

I'm not sure he would have been as successful as those guys, but I do feel pretty sure he wasn't going to win a title.[/QUOTE]

Sorry if my post I wasn't clear. I know that Manning was traded for Wilkins, (one of the stupidest trades ever in my opinion) which actually reinforces my point - the best player on the team with the best record in the East was an aging Wilkins and then Danny Manning/Kevin Willis.

I agree about another 20+ per scorer on the Bulls but that was kind of my point - Ewing and Robinson did not have another 20+ point scorer. That said, I don't necessarily put Pippen below either of the two - i think all 3 are in the same tier. (with Barkley and Malone however in the higher tier.)

[QUOTE=kizut1659]Sorry if my post I wasn't clear. I know that Manning was traded for Wilkins, (one of the stupidest trades ever in my opinion) which actually reinforces my point - the best player on the team with the best record in the East was an aging Wilkins and then Danny Manning/Kevin Willis.

I agree about another 20+ per scorer on the Bulls but that was kind of my point - Ewing and Robinson did not have another 20+ point scorer. That said, I don't necessarily put Pippen below either of the two - i think all 3 are in the same tier. (with Barkley and Malone however in the higher tier.)[/QUOTE]

Gotcha, and I agree about Chuck and Karl too. I have them above Robinson, Pippen and Drexler even though they never got rings.

[QUOTE=Teanett]they were as good as the knicks.
that series could have gone either way.
remember that the bulls had 3 all stars that year![/QUOTE]

The Knicks also had three All-Stars that year.

They had more regular season injuries, had to use seven different guards in their top three because of those injuries and still won more games.

Then the Knicks beat them in the playoffs. They never trailed in the series and never lost a home game. They won game seven handily, it's not fair to the Knicks to say that series could have gone either way. No the Knicks were not dramatically better than the Bulls, but they were better and proved it by beating them.

[QUOTE]it's not fair to the Knicks to say that series could have gone either way. [/QUOTE]

It can be argued that the Knicks were indeed the superior team but the quoted statement is a head scratcher.

[IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BquY6zd9Wxo/SDC2CV0FEaI/AAAAAAAAC10/RDyDc0jijrc/s320/phantomfoul-731723.jpg[/IMG]

It also is not as if the games were blow outs. Games 1, 2, 3 and the infamous Game 5 went right down the wire. (Unfortunately, the Bulls blew significant leads in the first two games, although Pippen getting, pardon the pun, nicked up at the end of one game because Oakley or Starks intentionally tripped him contributed to one loss.) Of the three double digit wins, two of them were Chicago victories.

The injuries issue cuts both ways. Had Pippen had the health of Ewing the Bulls would have had HCA, and as you noted, thanks to what happened in Game 5, the home team won every game in the series. The Bulls had injuries to their top two players and three of their top four during the regular season--a stark change from their health the previous season.

People always look at 55 wins versus 57. The last game was between the Bulls and Knicks and was meaningless. (the Knicks won) On paper the Knicks may have been significantly superior but judging by performance, both overall performance and head-to-head performance, the teams were at parity--despite the Bulls having a D-Leaguer as their starting SG because MJ retired 2 days before training camp.

Robinson Spurs? They won 55 games too but got bounced 1-3 in the first round despite enjoying HCA.

Jordan wouldnt be sh*t without Pippen.



[COLOR="White"]dawg, u have been trolled[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]It can be argued that the Knicks were indeed the superior team but the quoted statement is a head scratcher. [/quote]

Not if you had the ability to think rationally on the subject.

No one ever says the 1992 ECSF could have gone either way or that the Knicks were as good as the Bulls, and they actually won a road game in that series.

Or in 1993 when the Knicks were up 2-0 on the Bulls and won more regular season games than them, I've not seen you post how "if the Knicks get a few calls to go their way in game five they win that series"

The Knicks earned home court, protected it and had control of that series and game seven from start to finish.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]It also is not as if the games were blow outs. Games 1, 2, 3 and the infamous Game 5 went right down the wire. (Unfortunately, the Bulls blew significant leads in the first two games, although Pippen getting, pardon the pun, nicked up at the end of one game because Oakley or Starks intentionally tripped him contributed to one loss.) Of the three double digit wins, two of them were Chicago victories. [/quote]

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The injuries issue cuts both ways. [B]Had Pippen had the health of Ewing the Bulls would have had[/B] HCA[/quote]

I love how you state it like it's a fact. And the best part, you probably think it is because of the teams record with Pippen and Grant healthy. Like that's all that goes into it.

What was the Knicks record without Starks?

How about if the Knicks had the same two starters at guard for more than eight games in a row once all year? Would that have made any difference?

You only look at things the way you want to see them. Because of this, most people just ignore you. (Like I should be doing)


[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] The Bulls had injuries to their top two players and three of their top four during the regular season--a stark change from their health the previous season. [/quote]

Speaking of Stark, John Starks, the Knicks second best player missed more games than Pippen and Grant combined.

In addition Hubert Davis, Derek Harper and Rolondo Blackman, three of the Knicks top five guards, all missed over 25 games leaving the PG duties to Greg Anthony, not a starting caliber player.

But you either didn;t know that (I doubt it) or ignore it all the time when talking about 1994.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock] People always look at 55 wins versus 57. The last game was between the Bulls and Knicks and was meaningless. (the Knicks won) On paper the Knicks may have been significantly superior but judging by performance, both overall performance and head-to-head performance, the teams were at parity--despite the Bulls having a D-Leaguer as their starting SG because MJ retired 2 days before training camp. [/quote]

Oh you mean Pete Myers, who put up better numbers than Greg Anthony who was forced into a primary role for the Knicks?

All the problems are the Bulls though right?

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Robinson Spurs? They won 55 games too but got bounced 1-3 in the first round despite enjoying HCA.[/QUOTE]

Robinson also took teams to the second round three times and conference finals once while only playing with two all-stars the whole time (Pip had two in '94 alone) in a stronger conference.

But let's not let facts get in the way of what we want other people to believe.

[QUOTE]What was the Knicks record without Starks?[/QUOTE]

With Starks:

40-19 (.678)

Without Starks:

17-6 (.739)

Didn't affect their record at all. Guy was a poor decision making chucker, might have been the second best player on the Knicks but he didn't have Pippen/Grant type of impact for his team.

[QUOTE]You only look at things the way you want to see them.[/QUOTE]
Says the guy who spent hours typing [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4982924&postcount=98"]this post[/URL] which was shortly shredded/exposed asbeing a [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4986678&postcount=110"]biased hit piece[/URL], still awaiting a response hypocrite. I see you've been salty since then though, no response but negging away LOL.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhgB53mcNXs"]Scottie Pippen: A Tribute Part 1[/URL]

[QUOTE=Da_Realist][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhgB53mcNXs"]Scottie Pippen: A Tribute Part 1[/URL][/QUOTE]
Great post real. Its funny when people say that pippen was a product of the triangleand couldn't create his own shot.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Great post real. Its funny when people say that pippen was a product of the triangleand couldn't create his own shot.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, man :cheers: Hardest video I've ever done

[QUOTE=Da_Realist][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhgB53mcNXs"]Scottie Pippen: A Tribute Part 1[/URL][/QUOTE]
Great post. Repped. I was thinking of working on something like that but there's so much 90s Bulls footage, that there's a lot to go through. "Part 1" means there will be part 2, part 3...? :eek:

[QUOTE=Fatal9]

Says the guy who spent hours typing [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4982924&postcount=98"]this post[/URL] which was shortly shredded/exposed asbeing a [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4986678&postcount=110"]biased hit piece[/URL], still awaiting a response hypocrite. I see you've been salty since then though, no response but negging away LOL.[/QUOTE]

:lol That ownage at it's greatest point.

[QUOTE=97 bulls]Great post real. Its funny when people say that pippen was a product of the triangleand couldn't create his own shot.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that when people say that he "couldn't" create his own shot, it's all relative, right? He's a tier 1 NBA player - OF COURSE he can create his on shot. His ability to do so was well below where it should have been based on his athletic traits and the level of player he was, however.

[QUOTE=OldSchoolBBall]You do realize that when people say that he "couldn't" create his own shot, it's all relative, right? He's a tier 1 NBA player - OF COURSE he can create his on shot. His ability to do so was well below where it should have been based on his athletic traits and the level of player he was, however.[/QUOTE]

But, he still could create his own shot though...:confusedshrug: