Jordan bad. 90s wack. Pippen though!
Think you guys have been talking about the same stuff for months now.
Printable View
Jordan bad. 90s wack. Pippen though!
Think you guys have been talking about the same stuff for months now.
19 pages in and "Pippen haters" have not had a single word of criticism towards any other superstar/star mentioned in the thread. So the pose of solemn objectivity driving criticism of Pippen, but not one word towards any other player that has come up in the thread. In fact, even when their own professed criteria was applied to other players, their response often was to defend those players who fared even worse based on [I]their own[/I] criteria (the other response was simply to ignore other players and focus on bashing Pippen). Pippen does it, he sucks; anyone else does it to an even worse degree--they are awesome!
Players who came up in this thread include Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Miller, Drexler, Stockton, Payton, and Kemp. Only one was subject to scrutiny by "Pippen haters." No bias, no agenda whatsoever. Simple objective analysis.
:roll:
[QUOTE=Round Mound;14032255][B]1993-94 Pippen;
- 3rd in Plus/Minus
- 4th in PER
- 5th In Defensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Offensive Plus/Minus
- 5th In Value Over Replacement Player
- 7th in Defensive Win Shares
- 7th in Win Shares
- 7th In Defensive Rating
- 9th in Win Shares Per 48 Minutes
And Lead his Team to 55 wins (two wins less than the prior season) WITHOUT MJ.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's not a strong enough season to win MVP. It's a very nice season, but not MVP worthy.
His response is to the people saying Pippen didn't even have a case and shouldn't have even been a candidate because he was a bum. Those are MVP-caliber numbers (a statistical comparison of Pippen and Ewing was done earlier after a MJ fan said Ewing had better stats; it was so lopsided a Knicks fan called for a ban :lol ). As to who wins, a lot of factors go into it. Personally, Hakeem was the right choice but Pippen would have gotten my second vote if I were a MVP voter.
David Robinson put up 29.8/10.7/4.8 on .577 TS, with a 30.7 PER, .296 ws/48, and 11.9 BPM. He also led his team to 55 wins, except he didn't have 2 other All Stars, and a top rookie on his team the way Pippen did.
Shaq also put up numbers far superior to Pippen in 94, beating him PER, ws/48, and win shares, along with traditional box score numbers.
The correct order should have been
1 Hakeem
2 Robinson
(gap)
3 Shaq
(gap)
4 Pippen
5 Ewing
6 Payton or Kemp
7 Payton or Kemp
Wow, a real response for once in this thread? :lol One caveat is Pippen missed 10 games and was hurt for another 2 (Bulls started 5-7 as a result). That hurt his MVP case but also hurt his stats. If we are assessing performance we have to look per game (while docking him in season long consideration).
VORP: Robinson 11.4, Hakeem 7.3, Shaq 7.2, Pippen 6.8 (7.7 over 82), Ewing 5.5
BPM: Robinson 11.9, Pippen 7.7 (8.8. over 82), Hakeem/Shaq 6.8, Ewing 5.2
PER: Robinson 30.7, Shaq 28.5, Hakeem 25.3, Pippen 23.2, Ewing 22.9
WS? Robinson ahead by a mile.
If it is about stats, then it should have been Robinson in a landslide with the order behind him varying based on which stats you value. Of course, these advanced stats didn't exist back then. :oldlol: Pippen would be 2nd in BPM and VORP if he played a full season and was 4th in PER (which penalizes ballhandlers due to turnovers). So probably 2nd.
[QUOTE]along with traditional box score numbers.[/QUOTE]
Center versus SF numbers are apples to oranges. The big difference is rebounding. Prime Kareem matches Jordan in scoring, assists (KAJ ahead in blocks, MJ in steals) but crushes him in rebounding but I never see anyone say prime Kareem>prime Jordan statistically.
[QUOTE] He also led his team to 55 wins, except he didn't have 2 other All Stars, and a top rookie on his team the way Pippen did.[/QUOTE]
The Bulls went 50-20 (59 win pace) with a healthy Pippen, with one loss in a meaningless 82nd game. People keep acting like 55 wins was their performance level. 59 wins would be #1 in the East and second best in the NBA. He deserves to be docked for missing games, but his personal performance and team performance was better than the raw stats suggest.
True, Robinson had less help--but he also had perfect health for his team. Their top 5 guys all played 77+ games. The Bulls had injury issues, which always gets overlooked.
The Bulls weren't great without Pippen. They scored 87 PPG, had a -9 point differential. It isn't like he had the 19' Raptors "cast" or something, even if better than the Spurs'.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14033070]Wow, a real response for once in this thread? :lol One caveat is Pippen missed 10 games and was hurt for another 2 (Bulls started 5-7 as a result). That hurt his MVP case but also hurt his stats. If we are assessing performance we have to look per game (while docking him in season long consideration).
VORP: Robinson 11.4, Hakeem 7.3, Shaq 7.2, Pippen 6.8 (7.7 over 82), Ewing 5.5
BPM: Robinson 11.9, Pippen 7.7 (8.8. over 82), Hakeem/Shaq 6.8, Ewing 5.2
PER: Robinson 30.7, Shaq 28.5, Hakeem 25.3, Pippen 23.2, Ewing 22.9
WS? Robinson ahead by a mile.
If it is about stats, then it should have been Robinson in a landslide with the order behind him varying based on which stats you value. Of course, these advanced stats didn't exist back then. :oldlol: Pippen would be 2nd in BPM and VORP if he played a full season and was 4th in PER (which penalizes ballhandlers due to turnovers). So probably 2nd.
Center versus SF numbers are apples to oranges. The big difference is rebounding. Prime Kareem matches Jordan in scoring, assists (KAJ ahead in blocks, MJ in steals) but crushes him in rebounding but I never see anyone say prime Kareem>prime Jordan statistically.
The Bulls went 50-20 (59 win pace) with a healthy Pippen, with one loss in a meaningless 82nd game. People keep acting like 55 wins was their performance level. 59 wins would be #1 in the East and second best in the NBA. He deserves to be docked for missing games, but his personal performance and team performance was better than the raw stats suggest.
True, Robinson had less help--but he also had perfect health for his team. Their top 5 guys all played 77+ games. The Bulls had injury issues, which always gets overlooked.
The Bulls weren't great without Pippen. They scored 87 PPG, had a -9 point differential. It isn't like he had the 19' Raptors "cast" or something, even if better than the Spurs'.[/QUOTE]
:hammertime:
:dancin
[QUOTE=Shooter;14041783]:hammertime:
:dancin[/QUOTE]
Stats suddenly stop mattering in this thread when the stats for all players at issue are presented comparatively, not in an agenda-driven vacuum. :lol
Pip was a great player but he absolutely has no argument for mvp that year. Drob, shaq and hakeem all had good records and all had better stats which according to yall is the most important thing. Shit they scored like 800 more points than pip that year and they all had a bigger impact defensively. They also had more rebounds and better shooting percentage. Wtf are yall talking about? :facepalm
Shaq wasn't even a real MVP candidate that year on his 50 win team (with Penny, Anderson, Scott, and Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round (in other words, Orlando wasn't a contender) as he struggled to produce against Rik Smits. A lot of revisionism but it was a three horse race then--with Orlando and New York complaining their guys were [I]not[/I] in it.
As to stats, that was covered earlier. Robinson was the landslide winner statistically. Pippen was 2nd per game in VORP and BPM, 4th in PER. That ended the statistical discussion. As to raw traditional stats (PPG, RPG, APG, etc.), We also are comparing a wing's stats to 2-4 centers. Using that logic, doesn't something like 30/16/4>33/6/5? ; )
Pippen's impact? A team that went from 4-6 and a -9 point differential while scoring a paltry 87 PPG went 50-20 with a healthy Pippen. Yet we keep hearing (albeit from MJ and a couple Knicks fans) he had [I]no[/I] case when he was a legit contender at the time in a three-way race? Yet somehow guys who were not real MVP candidates not only had cases, but should have been over Pippen 26 years later.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14041868]Shaq wasn't even a real MVP candidate that year on his 50 win team (with Penny, Anderson, Scott, and Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round (in other words, Orlando wasn't a contender) as he struggled to produce against Rik Smits. A lot of revisionism but it was a three horse race then--with Orlando and New York complaining their guys were [I]not[/I] in it.
As to stats, that was covered earlier. Robinson was the landslide winner statistically. Pippen was 2nd per game in VORP and BPM, 4th in PER. That ended the statistical discussion. As to raw traditional stats (PPG, RPG, APG, etc.), We also are comparing a wing's stats to 2-4 centers. Using that logic, doesn't something like 30/16/4>33/6/5? ; )
Pippen's impact? A team that went from 4-6 and a -9 point differential while scoring a paltry 87 PPG went 50-20 with a healthy Pippen. Yet we keep hearing (albeit from MJ and a couple Knicks fans) he had [I]no[/I] case when he was a legit contender at the time in a three-way race? Yet somehow guys who were not real MVP candidates not only had cases, but should have been over Pippen 26 years later.[/QUOTE]
Nobody uses vorp bpm and per to be honest but ill concede shaq. He sti has no argument over drob who literally better at everything other than passing.
And the no mj argument means nothing. Mj has nothing to do with it. The Bulls were a goat team with mj just like warriors were a goat team with kd. Curry dosnt get more credit now for whatever he does without kd. They're still a great team with a great coach and system.
If it is about stats, then Robinson should have been MVP easily.
It was a three horse race. Pippen's "value" is evident based on their performance with and without him. Yet we are hearing he didn't have a case at all 26 years later and that guys who weren't candidates then should have been ahead of him?
[QUOTE]Mj has nothing to do with it. The Bulls were a goat team with mj just like warriors were a goat team with kd[/QUOTE]
MJ won MVP in 98' for keeping the Bulls at a 56 win pace for not even half a season as the Bulls' eroded much worse without Pippen than they did without Jordan. The Bulls had a 59 win pace with healthy Pippen in 94', which would have meant their record would have improved and they would have had the #1 seed without Jordan. 55 wins understates how good they were with Pippen. As a comparison, the Bulls went from 69 wins to a 56 win pace without Pippen in 98' (67 win pace with Pippen back). That is a double digit win slide...
If it is about PPG/RPG/APG (98' #s):
Jordan: 29/6/4
Malone: 27/10/4
Shaq: 28/11/2
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14041894]If it is about stats, then Robinson should have been MVP easily.
It was a three horse race. Pippen's "value" is evident based on their performance with and without him. Yet we are hearing he didn't have a case at all 26 years later and that guys who weren't candidates then should have been ahead of him?
MJ won MVP in 98' for keeping the Bulls at a 56 win pace for not even half a season as the Bulls' eroded much worse without Pippen than they did without Jordan. The Bulls had a 59 win pace with healthy Pippen in 94', which would have meant their record would have improved and they would have had the #1 seed without Jordan. 55 wins understates how good they were with Pippen. As a comparison, the Bulls went from 69 wins to a 56 win pace without Pippen in 98' (67 win pace with Pippen back). That is a double digit win slide...
If it is about PPG/RPG/APG (98' #s):
Jordan: 29/6/4
Malone: 27/10/4
Shaq: 28/11/2[/QUOTE]
well i never argued mj deserved 98 mvp in the first place but he does have some arguments over those guys that pip didnt have against drob. Mj was a much better closer than malone and shaq. He was also a better defender than malone. Pip wasnt a better defender than drob and he wasnt a better closer than drob. Pip is a great 2nd option but hes not a guy you build your team around to win championships. He cant score good enough. Almost every championship team have one of the best scorers or a dominant big. Bron, kd, steph,kobe, shaq, mj, duncan, bird, hakeem, kg and now kawhi. Magic is the exception but even he was still the best at something which was passing. Pip is more of a jack of all trades kind of guy. Offensively Hes good at everything but not great at anything.
I brought MJ up because a lot of the people ripping the Bulls' performance will praise the Bulls' 98 performance (for less than half a season) despite a much greater decline in team performance sans Pippen than sans Jordan (in theory the opposite would be true).
A lot of the argument here revolved around win totals. Many people said since the Rockets, Knicks, and Spurs won more games that therefore their best player should be ahead of Pippen in MVP (they also said Shaq should be but you can't expect consistency from those with an agenda). What were those win totals?
Rockets 58
Knicks 57
Spurs 56
Bulls 55
Magic 50
Of course, Pippen missed 10 games and was injured for another 2. In other contexts the same people love to note that but mysteriously want to charge Pippen for losses he was not part of. Here are win totals in games these players actually played (includes 2 injured games for Pippen, Chicago 1-1):
Hakeem 57-23 (58 win pace)
Robinson 54-26 (55 win pace)
Ewing 56-23 (58 win pace)
Pippen 51-21 (58 win pace)
Shaq 49-32 (50 win pace)
If you remove the two injured Pippen games, the Bulls went 50-20, a 59 win pace. So if it is about regular season performance (a professed standard of many Pippen haters here) Pippen comes out looking great.
[QUOTE]Pip is a great 2nd option but hes not a guy you build your team around to win championships[/QUOTE]
Speculation (since he had a grand total of one playoff run as a #1 option) but you can say that about Robinson, Ewing, Malone, Drexler, Payton and even non-superstars like Reggie Miller and Shawn Kemp--all guys praised relative to Pippen throughout this thread. Robinson had nearly a full decade as a #1 option and got past the second round once. Ewing melted down in his finals appearance.
You also can say that about players who actually won MVP. Can you win a chip with Harden, Westbrook, Iverson, etc. as your best player? Your post implies no, that you basically need a top 10 all-time caliber player. Those guys don't win every time but the lion's share of NBA chips have went to teams with one of those players.
KG is an interesting case. KG won only when he played with two other HOF players and people said what you just said about him prior to that: you couldn't win with him as the best player. KG scored 24.2 PPG as his high, 23.0 was his second highest. Is that an Earth shattering difference with 22.0 (in only one full season as a #1 option)? People said it about Dirk too until 2011. Pippen is dismissed because in one year where MJ screwed them they lost. Maybe if MJ left over the summer and they signed Kendall Gill to replace him they win instead of playing 4 on 5 on offense.
Put prime Pippen on the Celtics with Pierce and Allen or prime Pippen on Portland. Those teams don't win chips with him as the best player?
Hakeem deserved the MVP. An argument could be made for Pippen, though I don't think it's strong enough to overcome guys like Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, and maybe even Ewing (though I'd have to look at it more closely).
As for the debate between Miller and Pippen, then Pippen gets that edge. Reggie was a better shooter and more clutch, but Pippen's combination of scoring, defense, and playmaking is more valuable to a team than Miller's ability to score 24 PPG on high efficiency shooting.
[QUOTE]Hakeem deserved the MVP. An argument could be made for Pippen, though I don't think it's strong enough to overcome guys like Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, and maybe even Ewing (though I'd have to look at it more closely).[/QUOTE]
Shaq and Ewing weren't even real MVP candidates that year. 26 years later MJ fans now say they should have been ahead of Pippen when their own teams publicly complained they were left out the conversation? :confusedshrug: You guys do a good job of pushing the "Overton" window. 10 years from now we will hear how Pippen should have been all-NBA 3rd team in 94'.
[QUOTE]Miller's ability to score 24 PPG on high efficiency shooting.[/QUOTE]
Except in series that mattered (I like how 2001 is added in to get him to 24 PPG BTW). :lol Pippen and Miller were in the same series (both scored 17 PPG--Miller did it on 2 less shots--throw him a parade). Miller was outplayed by Kukoc--forget Pippen--in that series and in Game 7.
Miller was 21 PPG in the ECF; guess what Pippen was in the ECF? 20. The hypocrisy of the same people dissing Pippen's scoring (around 19-20) hyping Miller, a 21 PPG guy in his prime. If 20 sucks for a 2nd option, how can 21 be awesome for an alleged 1st option? The 1 extra point?
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057239][B]Shaq[/B] and Ewing weren't even real MVP candidates that year. 26 years later MJ fans now say they should have been ahead of Pippen when their own teams publicly complained they were left out the conversation? :confusedshrug: You guys do a good job of pushing the "Overton" window. 10 years from now we will hear how Pippen should have been all-NBA 3rd team in 94'.[/quote]
That isn't true. Shaq had 3 first place points and overall 4th in MVP voting, behind Pippen. How was he not a "real" candidate? Pippen might've had the best year of his career however Hakeem was the rightful MVP. The next best choice would go to Robinson, who had 24 first place points.
[quote=HoopsNY]Ewing[/quote]
Ewing never had a case over Pippen.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057239]Shaq and Ewing weren't even real MVP candidates that year. 26 years later MJ fans now say they should have been ahead of Pippen when their own teams publicly complained they were left out the conversation? :confusedshrug: You guys do a good job of pushing the "Overton" window. 10 years from now we will hear how Pippen should have been all-NBA 3rd team in 94'.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I didn't anoint Ewing ahead of Pippen. I said, "maybe even Ewing (though I would have to take a look at it)." Ewing averaged more points, rebounds, blocks, higher WS/48, with the #1 seed in the East, but he doesn't deserve a comparison at least?
I don't know what makes someone a "real MVP candidate," but Shaq was definitely one of them.
Who are "you" guys? It's insane that people can't have an opinion with this you, even when comparing players of the same era who were also in the same tier.
[QUOTE]Except in series that mattered (I like how 2001 is added in to get him to 24 PPG BTW). :lol Pippen and Miller were in the same series (both scored 17 PPG--Miller did it on 2 less shots--throw him a parade). Miller was outplayed by Kukoc--forget Pippen--in that series and in Game 7.
[/QUOTE]
You're so triggered. I merely mentioned 24 PPG because for Miller's prime years, he did just about that (about 23.5 PPG in the playoffs). But what difference does it make? A point here, a point there; Pippen was still the better overall player.
Miller was 21 PPG in the ECF; guess what Pippen was in the ECF? 20. The hypocrisy of the same people dissing Pippen's scoring (around 19-20) hyping Miller, a 21 PPG guy in his prime. If 20 sucks for a 2nd option, how can 21 be awesome for an alleged 1st option? The 1 extra point?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=insidious301;14057255]That isn't true. Shaq had 3 first place points and overall 4th in MVP voting, behind Pippen. How was he not a "real" candidate? Pippen might've had the best year of his career however Hakeem was the rightful MVP. The next best choice would go to Robinson, who had 24 first place points.
[B]Ewing never had a case over Pippen.[/B][/QUOTE]
In that season? Maybe. But that's just the point, they're comparable. It could go either way.
[QUOTE]I don't know what makes someone a "real MVP candidate," but Shaq was definitely one of them.[/QUOTE]
News to his GM, who complained publicly about it being a 3 horse race (same as Riley did for Ewing).
Shaq was on a 50 win team (that had Penny, Anderson, D. Scott, Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round. How often does a 50 win team produce a MVP candidate? Shaq's stats on basketballreference obscure that his team wasn't good enough.
[QUOTE]. But what difference does it make? A point here, a point there[/QUOTE]
Apparently--all the difference. Miller's entire "case" relies on scoring so we see shady accounting to get him to 24 PPG (tpols uses 01' to get him there, you cut off his prime in 98' to do it).
Either way, the Miller stuff is amusing. It is all about scoring and we are talking 23 PPG in the PO (24 if we cook the books for him) and 21 PPG in the RS for his prime. The problem is those "playoff" numbers come from monster 1st round series. He wasn't that player for the rest of the PO. If he was, I would agree with the Miller crew.
So that leaves us with this: basically arguing Miller scoring 21 PPG in the ECF on around 14 shots a game and Pippen scoring 20 PPG in the ECF on around 16 shots a game (some of these were end of quarter/end of shot clock bailouts--Miller wasn't taking those for Indiana). It almost is a joke: this whole thing is about 1 point and 2 shots.
Here is the problem: those extra 2 Miller shots don't disappear. They go to his (lesser) teammates. Let's say they convert 45% of them. That's 0.9 field goals per game they get that they wouldn't have if Miller missed 2 more shots.
So this whole "efficiency" argument is based on 1 FG a game that Miller generates over Pippen and looks strictly at shooting. How many FG was Pippen generating for Chicago via his playmaking, via being an elite rebounder for a non-big (more possession), via defense (more possessions), etc.?
[QUOTE]In that season? Maybe. But that's just the point, they're comparable. It could go either way.[/QUOTE]
Only to a certain fan base 26 years later.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14057275]In that season? Maybe. But that's just the point, they're comparable. It could go either way.[/QUOTE]
Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.
[QUOTE=insidious301;14057292]Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.[/QUOTE]
Context. First, no one compares efficiency of a SF to a C. That is an ISH shtick but I doubt any MVP voter did that. If they compared efficiency, it would be C's to C's (so Ewing vs. Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq).
The context for the Knicks was going from 60 wins and the 1 seed to 57 wins and the 2 seed. The same core came back (although Rivers got hurt). So if Ewing was 4th in MVP when he was better, his team was better why would he suddenly finish higher when he and his team took steps back? That is why he finished 5th in 94'. Ewing wasn't even all-NBA in 94'. MVP, doe?
The Bulls similarly stepped back, going from 57 wins and the 2 seed to 55 wins and the 3 seed but obviously with losing MJ and "replacing" him with Myers. Moreover, people recognized the Bulls with Pippen were much better (50-20 with him healthy) so he got some credit for that (e.g., the Bulls with Pippen>the Knicks with Ewing that year) but he also lost votes because he missed 10 games and was injured for 2 more.
It is obvious why the Bulls' 55 was viewed as more impressive than the Knicks' 57 (the Knicks won the 82nd game against the Bulls, a meaningless game for each team so the actual delta in real games was 56 versus 55).
The other thing that hurt Ewing was he got annihilated by Hakeem and Robinson H2H. Hard to be MVP when the two MVP candidates at your own position embarrass you.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057303]Context. First, no one compares efficiency of a SF to a C. That is an ISH shtick but I doubt any MVP voter did that. If they compared efficiency, it would be C's to C's (so Ewing vs. Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq).
The context for the Knicks was going from 60 wins and the 1 seed to 57 wins and the 2 seed. The same core came back (although Rivers got hurt). So if Ewing was 4th in MVP when he was better, his team was better why would he suddenly finish higher when he and his team took steps back? That is why he finished 5th in 94'. Ewing wasn't even all-NBA in 94'. MVP, doe?
The Bulls similarly stepped back, going from 57 wins and the 2 seed to 55 wins and the 3 seed but obviously with losing MJ and "replacing" him with Myers. Moreover, people recognized the Bulls with Pippen were much better (50-20 with him healthy) so he got some credit for that (e.g., the Bulls with Pippen>the Knicks with Ewing that year) but he also lost votes because he missed 10 games and was injured for 2 more.
It is obvious why the Bulls' 55 was viewed as more impressive than the Knicks' 57 (the Knicks won the 82nd game against the Bulls, a meaningless game for each team so the actual delta in real games was 56 versus 55).
The other thing that hurt Ewing was he got annihilated by Hakeem and Robinson H2H. Hard to be MVP when the two MVP candidates at your own position embarrass you.[/QUOTE]
My post is more matter of fact. Ewing didn't only have better efficiency, but had more rebounds too. Another category centers rule in. Even if what you say is true, and they are good points, New York still finished #1 and Ewing had better stats to a degree. The MVP is year-by-year award. Jordan's bulls were a dynasty in hindsight, but he was awarded an MVP in 1998 with Chicago winning 62 games(we can point to injuries, but are we willing to do that for everyone else?). This after winning 70 and 67 games the years prior. Everything is case by case.
[QUOTE]Even if what you say is true, and they are good points, New York still finished #1 and Ewing had better stats to a degree.[/QUOTE]
They didn't finish #1--Atlanta did. The Knicks, Bulls were behind them.
Frankly, seeding wasn't a big factor. The Knicks, Bulls, Hawks went to the final weekend neck-and-neck and the MVP race became a 3 horse race between Hakeem, Robinson, Pippen before it was known how those teams would shake out. That said, the Knicks being in a three-way battle for 1st was a step back from the prior year, when they finished 3 games ahead of the Bulls and 6 games ahead of the third place Cavs.
[QUOTE]The MVP is year-by-year award. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. My point is he had a lot more going for him in 93' and he finished 4th so it isn't surprising he finished lower (5th) in 94'. 93' they were 1st, 60 wins and he was 2nd team all-NBA behind Hakeem. 94', 2nd, 57 wins and no all-NBA.
[QUOTE]Ewing didn't only have better efficiency, but had more rebounds too. Another category centers rule in[/QUOTE]
True. Pippen fared better in advanced stats but they didn't exist back then but the point was Pippen then was being compared to Hakeem, Robinson; not Ewing or Shaq. For example:
[I]Sports Illustrated[/I]
[QUOTE]SI article on the 94’ MVP race, DPOY and other awards (COY PJ):
As the regular season draws to a close, [B]the races for the individual awards are so close that it might be fairest to chop up the trophies and spread them around. For instance, Most Valuable Player honors could be divvied up as follows: the M to the Rockets' Hakeem Olajuwon, the V to the Spurs' David Robinson and the P to the Bulls' Scottie Pippen[/B]. There hasn't been a season in recent memory with so many photo finishes, but, well, the time has come to name our winners:
MVP: Hakeem Olajuwon, Rockets
Notwithstanding the unequivocal pronouncement on the cover of a certain magazine (SI, March 7) that Robinson is the Man, no one has come closer to single-handedly carrying a team than Olajuwon, who at week's end was third in the league in scoring (27.3 points per game) and tied for third in rebounding (12.0). Robinson, the scoring leader at 29.2, has been brilliant, but he has had rebounding maniac Dennis Rodman to relieve him of some of his responsibilities on the boards and even to guard opposing centers from time to time. Pippen has played like an MVP, but he has had lapses in which he hasn't comported himself like one, such as the night he reacted to booing by Chicago fans by pointing out that teammate Toni Kukoc hadn't received similarly harsh treatment despite having missed all of his field goal attempts.[/QUOTE]
Ewing, Shaq weren't even worth mentioning. Their beef with Pippen was basically PR stuff.
[I]Chicago Tribune[/I]
[QUOTE]Although O'Neal has proved far better than his critics will admit, the second NBA player not named Michael, Larry or Earvin to win an MVP award since 1983 will be named David or Hakeem. Or possibly Scottie.
[B]With just a month left in the MVP voting among national media, Robinson and Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon have emerged as the favorites, with the Bulls' Scottie Pippen hanging around on the edge[/B].[/QUOTE]
So a three-horse race again, which is what everyone watching back then understood it as (Hubie Brown says the same at the outset of Bulls-Cavs Game 1--that game is on YT).
[QUOTE]Olajuwon, the angry one, has calmed noticeably, no longer fighting with himself and management.
Pippen has done the impossible, making Jordan's shadow disappear, and Robinson, with the addition of Dennis Rodman to rebound and motivate him, has become an angry man, or at least more determined.[/QUOTE]
Shaq and Ewing are mentioned as non-candidates with their GM and coach complaining about their exclusion:
[QUOTE][B]There is some other anger around, notably from those who think they are deserving of the award but being overlooked[/B].
"Shaq is leading the league in scoring, is second in rebounding and shooting on one of the league's most improved teams," noted Orlando General Manager Pat Williams. "He should be right there with Hakeem and Robinson."
Patrick Ewing should, too, says his coach, Pat Riley.
"If there ever was a time he deserved to be MVP, it was last year," said Riley, "when his team won 60 games and 24 of the last 28. And he's had a great season again."
But Ewing's poor performances against Olajuwon and Robinson-he's averaging 13 points a game against them this season to 33 for them-and publicity-shy ways make him a long shot.[/QUOTE]
This "5 horse race" thing is revisionism from MJ/Knicks fans (some overlap--Knicks fans love MJ for some reason--Stockholm Syndrome?) 26 years later. Ewing's own coach and Shaq's own GM recognized they weren't candidates. :lol
[URL="https://vault.si.com/vault/1994/04/25/the-nba"]https://vault.si.com/vault/1994/04/25/the-nba[/URL]
[quote]They didn't finish #1--Atlanta did. The Knicks, Bulls were behind them.[/quote]
New York and Atlanta both had the same record and win percentage. Record and Team Play have always been a mainstay in MVP narrative. Or do you disagree?
[quote]haq and Ewing are mentioned as non-candidates with their GM and coach complaining about their exclusion:[/quote]
Orlando management isn't something I would hang my hat on. The Ewing argument is at least understandable, because, frankly, he didn't get many votes. Shaq however had a number of them. Nearly the same first place and total points as Pippen. Right or wrong that was the shake out.
[QUOTE]New York and Atlanta both had the same record and win percentage. Record and Team Play have always been a mainstay in MVP narrative. [/QUOTE]
True--but Atlanta had HCA so the tiebreaker mattered. I agree record is a factor--one reason why Shaq wasn't in it--but it wasn't all positive for Ewing. His team went from 1st to 2nd, they won 3 less games, and he personally regressed. So it would be odd to see him improve on 4th in MVP in 93'.
Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP. Right or wrong, MVP voters never gave him much consideration.
[QUOTE]Orlando management isn't something I would hang my hat on. The Ewing argument is at least understandable, because, frankly, he didn't get many votes. Shaq however had a number of them. Nearly the same first place and total points as Pippen. Right or wrong that was the shake out.[/QUOTE]
Pippen was hurt directly by missing 10 games and indirectly but that costing the Bulls the #1 seed. So the fact Pippen was ahead of him in the first place tells you something because if two players are equal and one plays the full season and the other doesn't, the guy playing the full season would win out.
Total points was Pippen 390, Shaq 289, Ewing 255.
The ballots are 1-5, though. That gives us a better look to who voters viewed them.
1st place: Hakeem 66, Robinson 24, Pippen 7, Shaq 3, Ewing 1
2nd place: Robinson 57, Hakeem 28, Pippen 9, Shaq/Ewing 3, Price 1
3rd place: Pippen 37, Shaq 21, Ewing 19, Robinson 17, Hakeem 6, Payton 1
Shaq got the most 4th place votes, Ewing the most 5th place votes. So each line on the ballot was consistent with the order of finish.
Pippen had 7 first place, Shaq 3 but if you combine first and second the gap is 16-6. Then on third Pippen is ahead again 37-21. Shaq got the most 4th place and second most 5th place votes. In other words, Shaq wasn't competing with Pippen for votes but with Hakeem. Pippen was in his own tier in the voting but we don't know what it would have looked like if he played 82 games.
You can see full ballots through 2001 at [URL="http://www.apbr.org/nbamvps.html"]http://www.apbr.org/nbamvps.html[/URL]. It is interesting in 96' Hakeem was slightly ahead of Pippen but Pippen led him 11-1 in second place votes (MJ got 99% of the first place votes) and 18-9 in third place votes.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057354]True--but Atlanta had HCA so the tiebreaker mattered. I agree record is a factor--one reason why Shaq wasn't in it--but it wasn't all positive for Ewing. His team went from 1st to 2nd, they won 3 less games, and he personally regressed. So it would be odd to see him improve on 4th in MVP in 93'.
Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP. Right or wrong, MVP voters never gave him much consideration.[/quote]
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ewing was the MVP either. With how it is voted upon though, Ewing could have gotten more recognition. We saw Chicago win less games than years prior yet the league still gave Jordan MVP. The criteria is often unclear.
[quote]Pippen was hurt directly by missing 10 games and indirectly but that costing the Bulls the #1 seed. So the fact Pippen was ahead of him in the first place tells you something because if two players are equal and one plays the full season and the other doesn't, the guy playing the full season would win out.
Total points was Pippen 390, Shaq 289, Ewing 255.
The ballots are 1-5, though. That gives us a better look to who voters viewed them.
1st place: Hakeem 66, Robinson 24, Pippen 7, Shaq 3, Ewing 1
2nd place: Robinson 57, Hakeem 28, Pippen 9, Shaq/Ewing 3, Price 1
3rd place: Pippen 37, Shaq 21, Ewing 19, Robinson 17, Hakeem 6, Payton 1
Shaq got the most 4th place votes, Ewing the most 5th place votes. So each line on the ballot was consistent with the order of finish. [/quote]
This is all fair. My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot. But neither would Pippen. They still garnered enough votes to be legitimate candidates though.
[QUOTE]Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ewing was the MVP either. With how it is voted upon though, Ewing could have gotten more recognition. We saw Chicago win less games than years prior yet the league still gave Jordan MVP. The criteria is often unclear.[/QUOTE]
Barkley won it in 93'--MJ was third (in the same situation as Ewing: 2nd seed with 57 wins) but I get your point. It is odd Ewing never finished higher than 4th despite being a superstar on a contender for much of his prime in the market where the national media is based. It isn't a good look for Ewing, though, since it suggests MVP voters didn't think of him as highly as fans then or now do. Look at his C peers. Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq all won MVP's. So did the best PF's of his time, Barkley and Malone. So all the top 40 AT big men won one in that era but Ewing never came close. That says something.
[QUOTE] My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot.[/QUOTE]
In the sense that it was a "3 horse" race. This year it is 2 horses, sometimes it is 3 (e.g., 08').
Shaq's problem was his team record. If your team is 50-32 it is hard to win MVP, especially when he had a strong "cast" around him and the result was "only" 50 wins. There are exceptions. Westbrook, Jordan, Kareem but the exceptions prove the rule: GOAT candidates in their primes or Westbrook having a historic season. Shaq was the third best player at his own position in 94' (if we go by all-NBA) so he didn't stick out.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057425]Barkley won it in 93'--MJ was third (in the same situation as Ewing: 2nd seed with 57 wins) but I get your point. It is odd Ewing never finished higher than 4th despite being a superstar on a contender for much of his prime in the market where the national media is based. It isn't a good look for Ewing, though, since it suggests MVP voters didn't think of him as highly as fans then or now do. Look at his C peers. Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq all won MVP's. So did the best PF's of his time, Barkley and Malone. So all the top 40 AT big men won one in that era but Ewing never came close. That says something.[/quote]
I meant that Jordan won MVP in 1998. And Chicago won less games that year than in 96 and 97. Mentioned this above so assumed you knew where I was going. That is my fault for not being clear. Ewing never being a top 3 candidate is weird. Never put much thought into it but like you said, the big market should have overrated him.
[quote]In the sense that it was a "3 horse" race. This year it is 2 horses, sometimes it is 3 (e.g., 08').[/quote]
You only meant Top 3? Fair enough. 1994 was Shaq's second year though, so its crazy he got that many points to begin with.
[QUOTE=insidious301;14057292]Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even saying he deserved more acclaim than Pippen. I'm saying it's - at the VERY least - a conversation. The mere fact that we're having this conversation proves it.
Rounball is just an bitter MJ hater who boils everything down to MJ being overrated by "stans". I mean, after I clearly said that Ewing and Pippen's 1993-94 season were comparable (not necessarily one being CLEARLY over the other), he responds with this:
[QUOTE]Only to a certain fan base 26 years later.[/QUOTE]
This is the kind of rhetoric that is mind boggling. As if to say, nope, no way, not in the conversation. Like this is some David Wingate vs Scottie Pippen comparison.
I don't believe it's so weird that Ewing never finished closer than 4th in MVP. I don't think at any point in his career he would have been considered like the 4th best player in any given season ( yes, I know best player doesn't always and necessarily mean MVP). But his peak coincided with peak MJ, Barkley, Magic, then David Robinson came in, Mailman, Shaq then enters the league, Hakeem takes it up a gear. His best just happened to coincide with a really strong period for superstars.
[QUOTE=insidious301;14057420]Don't get me wrong, I don't think Ewing was the MVP either. With how it is voted upon though, Ewing could have gotten more recognition. We saw Chicago win less games than years prior yet the league still gave Jordan MVP. The criteria is often unclear.
This is all fair. My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot. But neither would Pippen. They still garnered enough votes to be legitimate candidates though.[/QUOTE]
Shaq had MVP numbers. But so did Hakeem and Admiral and on teams with better records. And you simply couldn't ignore Scottie leading the Bulls to a better record as well beyond what I think most of us would have imagined at the time. Plus, as silly as it may seem, I think there's a thing about 'paying dues' and 94 Shaq was a second year player. It wasn't 'his time' yet.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057286]News to his GM, who complained publicly about it being a 3 horse race (same as Riley did for Ewing).
Shaq was on a 50 win team (that had Penny, Anderson, D. Scott, Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round. How often does a 50 win team produce a MVP candidate? Shaq's stats on basketballreference obscure that his team wasn't good enough[/QUOTE]
Right, because rookie Penny Hardaway was the acclaimed player that everyone came to know and love in 1998. Give me a break man. Penny was a rookie, with no defense, averaging 16 ppg. Scott Skiles, who didn't crack 10 ppg and averaged 6 assists, not to mention only started 46 of 81 games.
You're making Shaq's supporting cast out to be Chicago's supporting cast here. Who would you rather have? A trio of Penny-Anderson-Scott or Grant-Bj-Kukoc in that year? Better yet, swap Shaq and Pippen and what are the Bulls doing that year?
Furthermore, Shaq damn near won the scoring title if David Robinson wasn't stat padding. You seem to think that Scottie's 22 ppg is somehow comparable to Shaq's 29.3. There's a significant difference there. And if you say defense, then what was Shaq defensively? Some slouch? Shaq was always an excellent defender.
[QUOTE]Apparently--all the difference. Miller's entire "case" relies on scoring so we see shady accounting to get him to 24 PPG (tpols uses 01' to get him there, you cut off his prime in 98' to do it).[/QUOTE]
You need to get out more. Why are you so bothered by what I wrote? I merely used Miller's best years in the playoffs (1990-02), where he averaged 23.5 PPG. Why is that a crime? I merely tried to establish who he was as a scorer/playoff performer. So what are we going to say now, that Scottie was the better scorer/shooter with higher efficiency numbers? Or was Reggie the better player in that regard?
And even after that, I CLEARLY said Pippen > Miller. You would think Roundball is George Bush, you're either with us or against us. We're all "stans" cause we don't agree - to the very letter of HIS law - and therefore we ALL have some kind of "agenda." Go figure.
[QUOTE]Either way, the Miller stuff is amusing. It is all about scoring and we are talking 23 PPG in the PO (24 if we cook the books for him) and 21 PPG in the RS for his prime. The problem is those "playoff" numbers come from monster 1st round series. He wasn't that player for the rest of the PO. If he was, I would agree with the Miller crew.[/QUOTE]
And I previously showed you that Miller has great performances in all rounds. Yes there seems to be a drop off but why does that matter when he faced strong defensive teams in the 1st and 2nd rounds? You're acting like he was doing it against severely weak defensive teams in the 1st round. Newsflash Roundball, Indiana wasn't a consistent #1 or #2 seed to have that luxury of facing easier competition in Round 1.
[B]Indiana finished 8th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 8th, 8th between 1989-02.[/B]
Indiana was [I]usually[/I] facing elite teams in the 1st round.
[QUOTE]So that leaves us with this: basically arguing Miller scoring 21 PPG in the ECF on around 14 shots a game and Pippen scoring 20 PPG in the ECF on around 16 shots a game (some of these were end of quarter/end of shot clock bailouts--Miller wasn't taking those for Indiana). It almost is a joke: this whole thing is about 1 point and 2 shots.
[/QUOTE]
So what's your point?
[QUOTE]I meant that Jordan won MVP in 1998. And Chicago won less games that year than in 96 and 97.[/QUOTE]
True, but he got credit for keeping them afloat without MJ (Pippen didn't get the same credit when he did the same--for a full season, not half a season).
[QUOTE]You only meant Top 3? Fair enough.[/QUOTE]
I mean the names that come up when MVP is discussed. This year it is Giannis and LeBron. In 08' it was Kobe, Paul, KG. Sure other people get votes but only 2-3 players have a legitimate chance of actually winning it. The others get votes because each ballot has 5 spots. In 94', it was Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson. I posted SI, the Tribune, and anyone can go to the TNT opening of the Bulls-Cavs Game 1 and see Hubie Brown say MVP is between Pippen, Robinson, Hakeem. Shaq, Ewing aren't even mentioned in two of these cases--in one they are mentioned as [I]not[/I] being viable candidates.
[QUOTE]I don't believe it's so weird that Ewing never finished closer than 4th in MVP. I don't think at any point in his career he would have been considered like the 4th best player in any given season ( yes, I know best player doesn't always and necessarily mean MVP). But his peak coincided with peak MJ, Barkley, Magic, then David Robinson came in, Mailman, Shaq then enters the league, Hakeem takes it up a gear. [/QUOTE]
I mostly meant relative to his reputation. Look at this thread. He is being presented as being far better than Pippen, a player who was 3rd in MVP his one full prime season as a #1. Yet the "superior" player could never do it?
Some of it is weird outside his reputation. Both Hardaways finished 3rd in the 90's, Drexler was 2nd, Payton was 3rd in 98'. Ewing was arguably better than all these players and had the benefit of playing in New York--not Seattle, Orlando, Portland or even Miami.
Some of his reputation is agena-driven. Ewing gets hyped by the same people who hype Malone, Miller, Stockton, Drexler, Payton, et al. for obvious reasons and here Ewing has the value of diminishing Pippen. Notice they go on and on about Ewing vs. Pippen but don't make a case for Ewing over Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem? If he was a serious MVP candidate, he would have a case over them but we aren't hearing it.
[QUOTE]Shaq had MVP numbers.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but it is tough when your team is 50-32 to win MVP. Everyone else being discussed won 55+.
If Shaq won it would have been perhaps the most embarrassing MVP: the MVP getting swept in the first round by a 47 win team? Can you imagine that? :lol
[QUOTE] I mean, after I clearly said that Ewing and Pippen's 1993-94 season were comparable (not necessarily one being CLEARLY over the other), he responds with this:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, backed by 3 media sources from the time plus a quote from Ewing's own coach. Can you point to one that had Pippen and Ewing on par in the MVP race? Thanks in advance.
Drop the shtick. You guys put a narrative-based spin and then feign it as objective when in reality it was a 3 horse race and Ewing wasn't one of them, Pippen was. We are having this conversation because MJ stans successfully re-write history via mass repetition (it's mostly the MJ/Knicks crowd hyping Ewing in this thread). The same reason we have to talk about Pippen's scoring every day when you all will praise Miller as a great scorer for scoring 1 more point in the next breath. :oldlol:
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057466]
I mostly meant relative to his reputation. Look at this thread. He is being presented as being far better than Pippen, a player who was 3rd in MVP his one full prime season as a #1.
Some of it is weird even considering his reputation. Both Hardaways finished 3rd in the 90's, Drexler was 2nd, Payton was 3rd in 98'. Ewing was arguably better than all these players and had the benefit of playing in New York--not Seattle, Orlando, Portland or even Miami.
Yeah, but it is tough when your team is 50-32 to win MVP. Everyone else being discussed won 55+.
[/QUOTE]
I've caught little tidbits of this thread so not sure of everything that's been said, but sort of honed in on Ewing on this last page. Perhaps some of his reputation was based on the market? Or maybe all those Bulls-Knicks battles. In other words, if he was dropping 25/10 on some 40 win team( or small market team) would he get as much attention ( then and now)? But just looking at the situation, it is weird that 'worse' players ranked higher in other seasons but every season has a different story I guess. I mean in 93, you had Barkley, Hakeem and MJ all on top of their games. Talk about a tough nut to crack.
Yeah,that's what I was saying about Shaq. He had the numbers but the numbers argument applied to Hakeem and Admiral too who yielded higher team records. Scottie's numbers weren't anything to sneeze at either at 22/9/6/3/1 49%...and also a higher team record. So Shaq shouldn't have been an MVP candidate over the aforementioned 3 and that's how the voters saw it as well.
[quote=HoopsNY]I'm not even saying he deserved more acclaim than Pippen. I'm saying it's - at the VERY least - a conversation. The mere fact that we're having this conversation proves it.[/quote]
Yeah I know, Hoops. Just threw that in there myself. You’re right though. I had mentioned to Roundball that Ewing could’ve gotten more recognition. Although depending on the story line, the “criteria” can get murky.
[quote=Phoenix] Shaq had MVP numbers. But so did Hakeem and Admiral and on teams with better records. And you simply couldn't ignore Scottie leading the Bulls to a better record as well beyond what I think most of us would have imagined at the time. Plus, as silly as it may seem, I think there's a thing about 'paying dues' and 94 Shaq was a second year player. It wasn't 'his time' yet[/quote]
That wasn't he argument, Phoenix. We all agree that Hakeem and Robinson were better candidates. And that Hakeem’s MVP was justified(at least I do). Not ignoring Scottie either. My only contention is that Shaq and Ewing were “real” candidates as well. Not the MVP’s but they deserved recognition. In fairness that is me talking with hindsight, and I know there will be disagreement.
[quote=Roundball_Rock] I mean the names that come up when MVP is discussed. This year it is Giannis and LeBron. In 08' it was Kobe, Paul, KG. Sure other people get votes but only 2-3 players have a legitimate chance of actually winning it. The others get votes because each ballot has 5 spots. In 94', it was Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson. I posted SI, the Tribune, and anyone can go to the TNT opening of the Bulls-Cavs Game 1 and see Hubie Brown say MVP is between Pippen, Robinson, Hakeem. Shaq, Ewing aren't even mentioned in two of these cases--in one they are mentioned as not being viable candidates.[/quote]
Got you. It is rare to have 4 or 5 legitimate names in the race, you’re right. Ewing could have gotten more points/votes, and if for nothing else, his teams record. If wins and losses are often a talking point in the MVP discussion, then I don’t see why not. Not a big deal though. Hakeem was obviously the right choice.
[QUOTE]Perhaps some of his reputation was based on the market? Or maybe all those Bulls-Knicks battles. In other words, if he was dropping 25/10 on some 40 win team( or small market team) would he get as much attention ( then and now)?[/QUOTE]
I updated my last post. I think some of it is agenda driven. The people hyping Ewing here hype anyone MJ played against. They also use Ewing, like some of the others, to unfavorably contrast Pippen to diminish him.
Outside of that, I think the market was a big factor. Look at Robinson, a better player in the same era who didn't get nearly the hype playing in San Antonio. The Knicks-Bulls rivalry helped since you had a lot of high profile games between the largest and third largest markets, with the Bulls being the most popular team. People didn't care about Knicks-Pacers or Knicks-Heat the same way.
I suspect some of it is a statistical bias to centers. His line includes double digit rebounds, the efficiency crowd will credit his high RS shooting percentage (he was a C--what do you expect?).
All of these things boost him beyond what he was as a player--but of these New York probably is the biggest factor.
[QUOTE]So Shaq shouldn't have been an MVP candidate over the aforementioned 3 and that's how the voters saw it as well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah and some of it is the MVP race can only have so much room. When is the last time there was a legit 4 or 5 way MVP race? In modern times I can recall only 2 or 3 way races (if there was a race, e.g., in 96' MJ won in a walk).
Pippen was in no way better than Hakeem, D-Rob, or Shaq.
Shaq wasn’t even better the following year in essence. As far as explosion and mobility Shaq peaked from 94-96.
Pippen wasn’t ****ing with him, and we saw how good Orlando really was without Shaq right after he left. Penny was also not developed yet, and Shaq still got them to a better team performance.
Really Shaq was the best offensive player on the planet that season.
[QUOTE]Pippen wasn’t ****ing with him, and we saw how good Orlando really was without Shaq right after he left[/QUOTE]
If that is your metric, the Bulls without Pippen in 94' sucked. Orlando without Shaq was still a playoff team. The Bulls had a 33 win pace without Pippen with a -2.6 rORTG.
Pippen was ahead of Shaq 16-6 in 1st/2nd place votes and crushed him in 3rd place votes for a reason.
[QUOTE] It is rare to have 4 or 5 legitimate names in the race, you’re right. Ewing could have gotten more points/votes, and if for nothing else, his teams record. If wins and losses are often a talking point in the MVP discussion, then I don’t see why not. Not a big deal though. Hakeem was obviously the right choice.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah--it just seems MVP voters didn't value him the same way others did then or now.
Some of what hurts the record angle is the narrative is set before the 82nd game. The Knicks, Bulls, Hawks were neck and neck all year. Maybe if the Knicks led all year the narrative would have been better but they were in a close race and finished in the middle of those 3 teams.
For example, here are their wins at the end of March, February, January, December:
March: Knicks/Hawks 50, Bulls 46
February: Hawks 38, Bulls 37, Knicks 36
January: Hawks/Knicks 30, Bulls 29
December: Hawks 19, Bulls/Knicks 18
Even in mid-April the Knicks, Hawks, Bulls all had 54 wins on April 15.
So the order shifted for these teams across the season (Bulls didn't lead at the end of any of these months but they were tied with Atlanta for 1st at the all-star break).