Teammate career rankings between Jordan and Lebron -- The Reality

I mean everybody here on both sides of the fan camps need to be honest with themselves.

In fact I think the most impartial people to do this ranking would be hard-core Kobe fans.

But let’s rank the overall quality of superstars and sidekicks and each of these guy’s players supporting cast, if you were to draft them:

1) Anthony Davis (Top 25 All Time)
2) Dwyane Wade (Top 25 All Time)
3) Scottie Pippen (Top 40 All Time)
4) Kyrie Irving
5) Chris Bosh
6) Kevin Love
7) Dennis Rodman
8) Horace Grant

Sound about right?

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112370]Sounds like a lot of excuses, but not many facts. ORTG isn't the only stat Pippen beats Ewing in either. He rates better in BPM-OBPM-VORP-WS-WS48-APM-RAPM. Adjusted plus minus is especially [U]key[/U] because it separates individual from team, therefor making your criticism weak.



Here is Oakley on Ewing's limitations. He goes as far to say Ewing actually held NY back.

[video=youtube;mPnEI6HBfwo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPnEI6HBfwo[/video][/QUOTE]

Not many facts? He used ORTG to say that Ewing sucked on offense and hurt his teams on that end, but then you look into it and the Knicks are .4 within Pippen's Bulls and .2 from the Rockets with Starks missing 23 games and had the 2nd highest SRS in the league.

Ok, now give me Stockton vs Pippen in advanced stats? Who's better? Are you going to nit-pick some random advanced metric no one cares about to disregard the PER, WS/48, BPM, OBPM, VORP, WS all being better?

The fact is that Ewing beat Pippen when both were #1 on their respective teams. All this talk about advanced stats & Pippen being Lebron on offense, doesn't change the fact that Ewing beat/outplayed him when it mattered. I could care less about the interview, all I know is that the Knicks win the championship if Starks isn't all-time bad in a 6-point Game 7 loss. Look at Ewing's supporting cast on offense and tell me that those teams were supposed to be any better than they were on offense.

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14112371]I mean everybody here on both sides of the fan camps need to be honest with themselves.

In fact I think the most impartial people to do this ranking would be hard-core Kobe fans.

But let’s rank the overall quality of superstars and sidekicks and each of these guy’s players supporting cast, if you were to draft them:

1) Anthony Davis (Top 25 All Time)
2) Dwyane Wade (Top 25 All Time)
3) Scottie Pippen (Top 40 All Time)
4) Kyrie Irving
5) Chris Bosh
6) Kevin Love
7) Dennis Rodman
8) Horace Grant

Sound about right?[/QUOTE]

Yes. Davis and Wade are by far the two best out of the group. Pippen never played on 2011 Wade's or 2019 Davis' level.

Not sure why you're so obsessed with Kobe though, this list is how the majority of people would rank these guys, regardless of who their favorite player is.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14112378]Not many facts? He used ORTG to say that Ewing sucked on offense and hurt his teams on that end, but then you look into it and the Knicks are .4 within Pippen's Bulls and .2 from the Rockets with Starks missing 23 games and had the 2nd highest SRS in the league.

Ok, now give me Stockton vs Pippen in advanced stats? Who's better? Are you going to nit-pick some random advanced metric no one cares about to disregard the PER, WS/48, BPM, OBPM, VORP, WS all being better?

The fact is that Ewing beat Pippen when both were #1 on their respective teams. All this talk about advanced stats & Pippen being Lebron on offense, doesn't change the fact that Ewing beat/outplayed him when it mattered. I could care less about the interview, all I know is that the Knicks win the championship if Starks isn't all-time bad in a 6-point loss.[/QUOTE]

I will give them to you, but first address Ewing vs Pippen. Those aren't random metrics either, they're commonly accepted and used by ISH and everywhere players are discussed or debated. Prime Pippen > Prime Ewing in nearly all relevant, advanced stat categories. Prime Pippen never had an adquate sidekick to replace Jordan either, so the team h2h record is apples and oranges. You should care about the interview, because it comes from the guy who knows Ewing personally. And played with him throughout the Bulls and Knicks rivalry. Ewing wasn't the guy to get them over the hump and Pippen outplayed him routinely. Just as the impact and advanced numbers intimate.

[QUOTE=Insidious]Sounds like a lot of excuses, but not many facts. ORTG isn't the only stat Pippen beats Ewing in either. He rates better in BPM-OBPM-VORP-WS-WS48-APM-RAPM. Adjusted plus minus is especially key because it separates individual from team, therefor making your criticism weak.[/QUOTE]

That is their MO.

[U]Steps for MJ Stanning: Hyping 90's Star, Except WOAT Pippen[/U]

*Rip Pippen, cherry picking to make him look as bad as possible
*Throw in dashes of lying, like saying Pippen had no post game or the consensus was that Coleman was better
*When inevitably Pippen gets compared to another 90's star, defend that other star--be sure to not utter a single critique of the other star while continuing to hammer WOAT Pippen. When their flaws get brought up--make excuses.
*If you have to flip-flop on a dime, don't be ashamed. We are doing this for our Lord and Savior.
*Remember to keep the focus on Pippen. After all, you aren't here to discuss basketball. You are hear to destroy Pippen.

I wouldn't be shocked if these tools have a manual that basically says the above. :lol

[QUOTE=Insidious]Here is Oakley on Ewing's limitations. He goes as far to say Ewing actually held NY back.[/QUOTE]

Oakley is a bit harsh but there is a kernel of truth to it. The thing is every legend, even HOF players, will have major flaws outside of the GOAT candidates. That is why guys like Pippen and Ewing are where they are. If Ewing could pass and score like Hakeem or Shaq he would be top 10 all-time, not 37th in the most recent ranking. If Pippen could score like Jordan he would be Kobe with better defense and rebounding. He wasn't and he is top 20-30 all-time and not top 10 like Kobe. If Stockton could score he would arguably be better than Magic since he was the better defender. But he couldn't and Magic is borderline top 5 while Stockton is back there a few spots behind Pippen.

But the MJ stan narrative is Ewing, Miller, Malone, Stockton, Payton, Drexler, Kemp, Barkley, Hill, and every 90's star was flawless. So is any player from any other era compared to Pippen. George, Butler are recent examples of this.

That is why you can't have a real discussion with these guys. With honest MJ fans like Kuniva, Phoenix, Bronbron23 you can have a discussion and find that you agree with them on 90% of stuff. But when you have people not even willing to acknowledge basic facts or distorting Miller into=Curry and Ewing>LeBron for agenda purposes, what can you say to them?

[QUOTE=Insidious] Prime Pippen never had an adquate sidekick to replace Jordan either, so the team h2h record is apples and oranges.[/QUOTE]

Case in point. So the excuse is Ewing didn't have a sidekick but somehow that doesn't apply to Pippen. Starks was a better scorer than anyone the Bulls had in 94'. Grant scored his points on dunks and putbacks, along with a few mid-range jumpers. He wasn't a legit option to turn to. BJ was their de facto #2 option in 94' :oldlol: . What could have changed the game is if Kukoc had some experience but he was a rookie in 94' and not capable of that role, like he was in 95'. Kukoc's growth is a big reason why the Bulls' offense improved in 95' versus 94' but by then Grant was gone. If you had Pippen, Grant, second year level Kukoc on a team they win the East in 94'.

[QUOTE=Insidious]And played with him throughout the Bulls and Knicks rivalry.[/QUOTE]

He also played on the Bulls for a while and remained friends with some Bulls, including MJ, so he has further insight through those lens as well.

Ewing himself was on a podcast (Woj's I think) in the spring talking about the Bulls-Knicks rivalry. He said "Michael and Scottie were dominating on the wings" and said he was dominating in the post. The implication there is that he views Pippen, Jordan, himself as the superstars with guys like Grant, Oakley, Starks, Kukoc, BJ, Smith, et al. in tiers behind them.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14112384]I will give them to you, but first address Ewing vs Pippen. Those aren't random metrics either, they're commonly accepted and used by ISH and everywhere players are discussed or debated. Prime Pippen > Prime Ewing in all relevant, advanced stat categories. Prime Pippen never had an adquate sidekick to replace Jordan either, so the team h2h record is apples and oranges. You should care about the interview, because it comes from the guy who knows Ewing personally. And played with him throughout the Bulls and Knicks rivalry. Ewing wasn't the guy to get them over the hump and Pippen outplayed him routinely. Just as the advanced numbers and impact intimate.[/QUOTE]

Ewing wasn't the guy to get them over the hump? He got them within a game of winning the title, how much more can you ask from those Knicks rosters? Do you really think anyone else(apart from Jordan) has a dynasty in his place with those exact teammates? Ewing outplayed Pippen when both were #1 options on their teams in the Playoffs. I don't put much stock into Pippen beating Ewing when he has the GOAT on his side and Ewing has mediocre offensive help.

I'm not disputing the advanced metrics, but I still don't see Ewing as a worse player than Pippen in the 90s, big men just were more valuable, unless we're talking about Jordan. Ewing did have higher peaks in PER, WS, OWS, DWS, WS/48, so it's not like Pippen completely dominates him here. I didn't understand you choosing 8 seasons for Pippen vs 10 for Ewing either. If you go from 89-90 to 96-97, Ewing has the higher PER & WS/48 and is a more efficient scorer at a high volume. Pippen has the BPM & VORP numbers in his favor but that's about it.

BTW catch how in 94' MJ's teammates suddenly go from scrubs to the best roster in the NBA (and back to pumpkins in 95'), per the MJ stain narrative? :lol Pippen sucked as a sidekick but Grant, a 1x all-star but never all-NBA, was a great sidekick. Pippen couldn't score but Grant was a great sidekick, even though the Bulls couldn't run offense for him because of his limitations. Grant=Starks, who was a 19 PPG scorer. Kukoc was great as a rookie playing 19 MPG in the PO--but sucked in his prime.

93' Bulls' key cast: Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, Cartwright, S. Williams, Paxson
94' Bulls' key cast: Grant, Armstrong, Cartwright, Kukoc, Kerr, S. Williams

94'=best roster in the league
93'=MJ and scrubs

You can't make this stuff up.

Moreover, they harp all the time on Pippen's alleged inability to score--he was the SF version of Rodman in their dishonest narrative. Yet somehow a team without a second scorer on it was a legit cast for a player who allegedly couldn't score? #Hypocrisy

That team was built around MJ. If MJ retired in 1990 the roster would be different by 1994: more scoring in the cast, less defense. They built the roster around the arguable GOAT scorer and focused on defense for obvious reasons.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112388]That is their MO.

[U]Steps for MJ Stanning: Hyping 90's Star, Except WOAT Pippen[/U]

*Rip Pippen, cherry picking to make him look as bad as possible
*Throw in dashes of lying, like saying Pippen had no post game or the consensus was that Coleman was better
*When inevitably Pippen gets compared to another 90's star, defend that other star--be sure to not utter a single critique of the other star while continuing to hammer WOAT Pippen. When their flaws get brought up--make excuses.
*If you have to flip-flop on a dime, don't be ashamed. We are doing this for our Lord and Savior.
*Remember to keep the focus on Pippen. After all, you aren't here to discuss basketball. You are hear to destroy Pippen.

I wouldn't be shocked if these tools have a manual that basically says the above. :lol[/quote]

Not sure I've seen anything like it, Roundball. The amount of internal conflict and strive is baffling to me. On one end we are to accept Ewing being better in one or two cateogories. And overall better because his [U]better team[/U] beat Pippen's. And on the other end, they want to ignore the handful of impact data and stats they use in other threads. The same ones that paint Pippen better. That and expel the other series' Chicago beat NY.

Can anyone explain that thought process? What is going on in their heads when putting forth this diarrhea in text format?

[quote]Oakley is a bit harsh but there is a kernel of truth to it. The thing is every legend, even HOF players, will have major flaws outside of the GOAT candidates. That is why guys like Pippen and Ewing are where they are. If Ewing could pass and score like Hakeem or Shaq he would be top 10 all-time, not 37th in the most recent ranking. If Pippen could score like Jordan he would be Kobe with better defense and rebounding. He wasn't and he is top 20-30 all-time and not top 10 like Kobe. If Stockton could score he would arguably be better than Magic since he was the better defender. But he couldn't and Magic is borderline top 5 while Stockton is back there a few spots behind Pippen.[/quote]

He was harsh. And you are correct that the what-if example can be used on just about anyone. Good point. There's also a lot of truth in Oakley's statements, but that was also the league then. A [U]bigmans game[/U]. Perimeter giants like Jordan, who impacted the game like a big? The exception and not the rule.

[quote]That is why you can't have a real discussion with these guys. With honest MJ fans like Kuniva, Phoenix, Bronbron23 you can have a discussion and find that you agree with them on 90% of stuff. But when you have people not even willing to acknowledge basic facts or distorting Miller into=Curry and Ewing>LeBron for agenda purposes, what can you say to them?[/quote]

I'm beginning to wonder if you and Kuniva were right. Maybe these guys are really just Kobe fans, which would mean they never watched 90s ball. Their flip flopping would then make sense, because it would fall on ignorance.

[QUOTE=ImKobe;14112396]Ewing wasn't the guy to get them over the hump? He got them within a game of winning the title, how much more can you ask from those Knicks rosters? Do you really think anyone else(apart from Jordan) has a dynasty in his place with those exact teammates? Ewing outplayed Pippen when both were #1 options on their teams in the Playoffs. I don't put much stock into Pippen beating Ewing when he has the GOAT on his side and Ewing has mediocre offensive help.

I'm not disputing the advanced metrics, but I still don't see Ewing as a worse player than Pippen in the 90s, big men just were more valuable, unless we're talking about Jordan. Ewing did have higher peaks in PER, WS, OWS, DWS, WS/48, so it's not like Pippen completely dominates him here. I didn't understand you choosing 8 seasons for Pippen vs 10 for Ewing either. If you go from 89-90 to 96-97, Ewing has the higher PER & WS/48 and is a more efficient scorer at a high volume. Pippen has the BPM & VORP numbers in his favor but that's about it.[/QUOTE]

Those are Oakley's words. I think he was a little too matter of fact, but he is right that Ewing's offense left a lot on the table. Do the Knicks get better with more offensive help? Fair question although I think keeping Mark Jackson and Xavier Mcdaniel in 1992 would've paid dividends. Lets get back to main debate here: Pippen vs Ewing. Forget that you dont "put much stock" into Pippen beating Ewing (and yet do so for Ewing when Pippen didn't have a legit #2). From 1991-98, Pippen beat Ewing in ORTG, BPM, APM, RAPM, WS, WS48, VORP. That is basically a clean sweep.

PPG, TS and PER are really the only things Ewing bests Pippen in. The years chosen are from when they were in their primes. Ewing began his during the late 80s while Pippen primed in the early 90s. Pretty simple. Not seeing how you can draw any other conclusion than Pip>Pat. I have seen you adopt these same metrics to suggest AD>LeBron so what gives? Where is the consistency on your part?

[QUOTE=Insidious] And overall better because his better team beat Pippen's.[/QUOTE]

Think about their narratives:

*The 90's Bulls were not a super team--it was MJ and scrubs.
*The 90's Knicks were a great team and the Bulls' toughest comp in the 90's, had this great, great flawless legend in Ewing.
*Ewing>Pippen because the Bulls lost to the Knicks narrowly once.

Wait. So the Bulls were not a super team and got weaker by losing their best player without an opportunity to sign a replacement and they faced the "great" team that the Bulls narrowly beat [I]with[/I] MJ in 92' and 93'. Yet the Bulls are expected to beat the Knicks? :wtf:

If you think the Bulls should have won, you have to believe the Bulls were such a super team they could lose MJ, not even replace him and still beat their top comp. Or you have to believe the Knicks sucked so much the Bulls' scrubs could beat the NY scrubs. Or a combination of both. What MJ stans say is wildly and laughably inconsistent.

We could cherry pick Ewing. Ewing was outplayed by Rik Smits twice in three years in the playoffs, for example.

[QUOTE=Insidious] That and expel the other series' Chicago beat NY.[/QUOTE]

Ah, yup: we are to ignore every series in Pippen's prime except one, which came against the #1 D. All the chips he won. All the other big series he was in. They don't count. Yet the same people here will hype one big series Kyrie had as a "sidekick" in 16' in other threads.

[QUOTE=Insidious]Can anyone explain that thought process? What is going on in their heads when putting forth this diarrhea in text format?[/QUOTE]

All they care about is the agenda at a given moment. Look at the OP. He suddenly flip flops on the stats he himself cited hours later.

[QUOTE=Insidious]I'm beginning to wonder if you and Kuniva were right. Maybe these guys are really just Kobe fans, which would mean they never watched 90s ball. Their flip flopping would then make sense, because it would fall on ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Some of them definitely are, IMKobe and tpols are good examples. I think some of the others are MJ fans who never watched him but looked up PPG and saw he had the highest and latched onto him, or hate LeBron and use MJ as a tool to diminish LeBron in their mind. It is obvious most of them never watched the 90's Bulls teams.

No one said Pippen was a one-way player when he played but these idiots take it as gospel that Pippen was Rodman or Ben Wallace. Everyone back then thought he was a great all-around player--the best in the league in the eyes of some or second when MJ was playing. I never heard anyone say "Pippen can rebound, pass, defend, lead but too bad he can't score at all!" I challenged MJ stans to produce one quote from a reputable source from Pippen's prime saying he was a one-way player. Weeks ago. Still nothing.

[QUOTE=Insidious]Fair question although I think keeping Mark Jackson and Xavier Mcdaniel in 1992 would've paid dividends[/QUOTE]

Jackson was key. The only times the Knicks had good or above average offenses were when Jackson was there--but that illustrates the point. They needed an elite playmaker to make their offense work because the rest of the offense was limited offensively in its scoring and playmaking capability. Ewing himself was part of the problem, directly via his poor passing and indirectly via the roster construction the Knicks needed to have a shot with him as their centerpiece. The Knicks forwards were Oakley, Mason, Smith. That's three power forwards. They basically didn't even have a real SF on their roster after 92'. :lol

Even if you take Pippen's prime years (90 to 98), he doesn't rank in the top 50 in anything except BPM and OBPM (ranked 49). Like I said, you can use BPM to argue that Pippen is better than a lot of centers from 80's and 90's.[B] Using the same comparison, BPM has Pippen over Hakeem when he was winning back-to-back championships, averaging 30+ in the Finals, and winning the MVP.[/B] :facepalm [B][I][SIZE=5]Likewise BPM ridiculously has Moses Malone as the fourth best player on the 1983 Sixers.[/SIZE] [/I][/B] :oldlol: Moses had a month long split that season where he flirted with 20pts/20reb average. Moses's 1983 campaign was one of the most dominant ever by center. So BPM clearly favors assist/steal metrics (perimeter skills), which is why according to BPM Chris Paul and Stockton are top 3 and and top 8 players all-time. Nobody believes that. Chris Paul can't even get out of the first round of the playoffs and Stockton never won anything despite playing his entire career with the second most accomplished scorer in NBA history. So much for that. Likewise, Pippen never did anything without Jordan. Nothing. His best season he got eliminated by Ewing's Knicks in the second round and the Bulls were 1-3 versus the Kinicks that year RS. Pippen arguably wasn't even the Bulls' best player in the playoffs that year. Horace Grant was practically tied with Pipen in PER, VORP and BPM and had a higher WS/48 and Game score.

#Hypocrisy #Badfaith

[QUOTE=goozeman;14112477]Even if you take Pippen's prime years (90 to 98), he doesn't rank in the top 50 in anything except BPM and OBPM (ranked 49). Like I said, you can use BPM to argue that Pippen is better than a lot of centers from 80's and 90's.[B] Using the same comparison, BPM has Pippen over Hakeem when he was winning back-to-back championships, averaging 30+ in the Finals, and winning the MVP.[/B] :facepalm [B][I][SIZE=5]Likewise BPM ridiculously has Moses Malone as the fourth best player on the 1983 Sixers.[/SIZE] [/I][/B] :oldlol: Moses had a month long split that season where he flirted with 20pts/20reb average. Moses's 1983 campaign was one of the most dominant ever by center. So BPM clearly favors assist/steal metrics (perimeter skills), which is why according to BPM Chris Paul and Stockton are top 3 and and top 8 players all-time. Nobody believes that. Chris Paul can't even get out of the first round of the playoffs and Stockton never won anything despite playing his entire career with the second most accomplished scorer in NBA history. So much for that. Likewise, Pippen never did anything without Jordan. Nothing. His best season he got eliminated by Ewing's Knicks in the second round and the Bulls were 1-3 versus the Kinicks that year RS. Pippen arguably wasn't even the Bulls' best player in the playoffs that year. Horace Grant was practically tied with Pipen in PER, VORP and BPM and had a higher WS/48 and Game score.[/QUOTE]

bpm is trying to approximate something like rapm using only the box score so yea it favors perimeter guys because those guys impact the game more offensively. playmaking is as valuable as scoring for offense and centers dont usually do that very well (especially moses). according to rapm a lot of centers provide most of their value on defense. embiid is an example this year and and we know moses isnt the defensive center like most of the all time great centers in the top 10. even when shaq had a goat lvl season in 00, the big change from other years during the rs was not his stats but that he had a dpoy lvl year. Yea bpm isnt always too good with its evaluation but so are ws which over rewards efficiency so big man biased especially for guys who are exclusively finishers and per which over rewards volume scoring.

[QUOTE=NBAGOAT;14112489]bpm is trying to approximate something like rapm using only the box score so yea it favors perimeter guys because those guys impact the game more offensively. playmaking is as valuable as scoring for offense and centers dont usually do that very well (especially moses). according to rapm a lot of centers provide most of their value on defense. embiid is an example this year and and we know moses isnt the defensive center like most of the all time great centers in the top 10. even when shaq had a goat lvl season in 00, the big change from other years during the rs was not his stats but that he had a dpoy lvl year. Yea bpm isnt always too good with its evaluation but so are ws which over rewards efficiency so big man biased especially for guys who are exclusively finishers and per which over rewards volume scoring.[/QUOTE]

The guy literally used BPM in his OP. :lol

The best stats are advanced plus-minus, and Pippen peaked at #2 behind David Robinson in 95'. (We have data starting in 94' and even more after 97'.)

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112498]The guy literally used BPM in his OP. :lol

The best stats are advanced plus-minus, and Pippen peaked at #2 behind David Robinson in 95'. (We have data starting in 94' and even more after 97'.)[/QUOTE]

yea i like rapm the most but it's not really available anymore. gotta settle for pipm and rpm and for just box score stuff per 100 or per 75

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14112483]#Hypocrisy #Badfaith[/QUOTE]

It's not arguing in bad faith to show that you are using a broken comparative metric that positionally favors the modern game over classical big men. You don't seem to understand that BPM is geared to rate accurately today's players, not players from earlier generations. Pippen's game lends itself toward BPM more than somebody like Ewing, Hakeem, Moses Malone, etc. [B]The reason BPM doesn't attempt to accurately rank those players is because those type of players don't exist in today's game.[/B] :basketball It has no need to. It only is concerned with accurately ranking perimeter skills. I'll put this in the plainest terms I can, using your metric of choice, BPM has Scottie Pippen from 90 to 98 (up until Pippen turned 32) as only slightly less valuable -- less than point difference -- than prime Shaq's career until the age of 32.[B][I] Do you think prime Pippen = prime Shaq? [/I][/B]That's more or less what you are arguing.