1994 Pippen should have been mvp

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057492]

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).[/QUOTE]

I mean this year alone, is anyone else even being discussed from Giannis and Lebron? Nope. Usually by the time we get to April ( or March this year), 2 frontrunners clearly emerge with an odd 3rd darkhorse candidate as an upstart choice. You may start November with 4-5 names but that's whittled down. Luka was getting MVP talk in November.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14057488]


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]

I mean, I suppose you could say that whoever has a top 5 MVP finish is 'MVP worthy' but there's levels to it. My recollection of that year was Hakeem, Admiral and Scottie getting the MVP talk. Doesn't mean the other two aren't MVP caliber in a vacuum, but they didn't have strong cases over those three. And from what I see, usually by December the media starts picking out a few candidates and runs with it through seasons end. I don't recall someone sneaking in at the end who wasn't identified early on. Remember Steve Nash in 05? People were crowning him MVP before Christmas lol.

[QUOTE]I mean this year alone, is anyone else even being discussed from Giannis and Lebron? Nope. Usually by the time we get to April ( or March this year), 2 frontrunners clearly emerge with an odd 3rd darkhorse candidate as an upstart choice. You may start November with 4-5 names but that's whittled down. Luka was getting MVP talk in November.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Yeah, Harden and Luka were in the mix earlier in the year but both faded. Davis got some talk as well. These players will finish 3rd-5th but we know the real race is Giannis vs. LeBron.

Now imagine 26 years later someone saying Anthony Davis should have been ahead of LeBron in MVP. The analogy isn't exactly perfect since LeBron will be 2nd instead of 3rd but you get my point: no one was arguing Davis (or Harden or Luka) as MVP at the end of the season just like no one was doing that with Ewing or Shaq. They will finish in the top 5 because 5 players have to but we know it was a two-way race this year, just as 08' was a three way race with Kobe, CP, KG and 93' was between Hakeem, Barkley, MJ. 94' was Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson.

[QUOTE]I suppose you could say that whoever has a top 5 MVP finish is 'MVP worthy' but there's levels to it. [B]My recollection of that year was Hakeem, Admiral and Scottie getting the MVP talk[/B]. [/QUOTE]

Agreed on levels. As to what I bolded, yeah, that is what I remember and that's what the SI, Tribune articles say and what Hubie Brown says at 0:27 that Pippen is a contender for MVP up there with Hakeem, Robinson. No mention of Shaq or Ewing. [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjZ0bPR7Iw"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DjZ0bPR7Iw[/URL]

We haven't seen anything in 22 pages showing a case for Ewing or Shaq as MVP being made at the time. It doesn't exist--they weren't in the discussion as we both recall and as the reporting that has been produced from then backs up.

Ewing plays in New York and isn't in the mix. That says it all.

#nopipnochip

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057519]Exactly. Yeah, Harden and Luka were in the mix earlier in the year but both faded. Davis got some talk as well. These players will finish 3rd-5th but we know the real race is Giannis vs. LeBron.

[/QUOTE]

I wonder if Harden had kept up that 39ppg pace( remember the early season buzz was him doing 40 a game), and let's say the Rockets were in the ballpark of LA at least, how would that have played out? Once January hit it's like a switch literally flipped and Westbrook started scoring more than Harden, and all the talk on him died down. This was actually shaping up with some interesting storylines that have been lost with covid. Remember when Lillard went crazy on offense for a period after Kobe's passing? Luka was flirting with a triple double early on. Seems like ages ago now.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057466]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]

When did I argue that the media didn't make it about 3 players? I don't care what the media said. That wasn't my argument.

You can say that it was a 3 man race as far as the media goes - sure, and you'd be right. But that doesn't mean that the media's choice stands up to scrutiny. Furthermore, I'm not debating that the voters got it wrong. Clearly they did as Hakeem won it, though Robinson really was neck and neck with him.

I'm merely saying that it is a conversation between Pippen, Shaq, and Ewing. When you consider the arguments for Ewing, then it clearly IS a conversation. Just because Pippen was the prevailing player in terms of voting, doesn't mean that it wasn't a conversation.

We're having this conversation now because someone made a post saying [B]"1994 Pippen Should Have Been MVP."[/B] Yet you blame MJ stans? How ironic.

[QUOTE]I wonder if Harden had kept up that 39ppg pace( remember the early season buzz was him doing 40 a game), and let's say the Rockets were in the ballpark of LA at least, how would that have played out? Once January hit it's like a switch literally flipped and Westbrook started scoring more than Harden, and all the talk on him died down.[/QUOTE]

For sure. It would be a three way race then. Harden's numbers faded and the Rockets slipped to 6th in the West. If they remained in the hunt for 1st, Harden kept the big numbers he would have been up there. I think no one was going to beat Giannis but Harden could have been 2nd again if things broke that way.

Luka was getting a lot of MVP talk early in the year but I never thought his team would have the record to keep him viable.

Kawhi got some whispers early on but that faded quickly--he misses too many games.

Davis will be top 5--which is an achievement (it is rare for teammates to finish in the top 5) but hard to actually win when you are your team's second MVP candidate.

[QUOTE]This was actually shaping up with some interesting storylines that have been lost with covid. Remember when Lillard went crazy on offense for a period after Kobe's passing? Luka was flirting with a triple double early on. Seems like ages ago now.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, hopefully the finish to the RS and the PO make up for it but who knows. MLB's start is not promising.

[QUOTE]We're having this conversation now because someone made a post saying "1994 Pippen Should Have Been MVP." Yet you blame MJ stans? How ironic.[/QUOTE]

22 pages of MJ stans with a few Knicks fans sprinkled in arguing against Pippen but it has nothing to do with MJ. :lol We still haven't seen a case for Ewing or Shaq--merely how they should have beaten that darn Pippen (awfully inconvenient he was a MVP candidate with MJ away). It has been 22 pages of "Why Pippen Sucks" or "Why Pippen had no case" versus a legitimate discussion of the 94' race.

Re Ewing or Shaq, it's like if someone says Davis or Luka should have been ahead of LeBron 26 years now when no one was saying that at the time.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057553]For sure. It would be a three way race then. Harden's numbers faded and the Rockets slipped to 6th in the West. If they remained in the hunt for 1st, Harden kept the big numbers he would have been up there. I think no one was going to beat Giannis but Harden could have been 2nd again if things broke that way.

Luka was getting a lot of MVP talk early in the year but I never thought his team would have the record to keep him viable.

Kawhi got some whispers early on but that faded quickly--he misses too many games.

Davis will be top 5--which is an achievement (it is rare for teammates to finish in the top 5) but hard to actually win when you are your team's second MVP candidate.



Yeah, hopefully the finish to the RS and the PO make up for it but who knows. MLB's start is not promising.



22 pages of MJ stans with a few Knicks fans sprinkled in arguing against Pippen but it has nothing to do with MJ. :lol We still haven't seen a case for Ewing or Shaq--merely how they should have beaten that darn Pippen (awfully inconvenient he was a MVP candidate with MJ away). It has been 22 pages of "Why Pippen Sucks" or "Why Pippen had no case" versus a legitimate discussion of the 94' race.

Re Ewing or Shaq, it's like if someone says Davis or Luka should have been ahead of LeBron 26 years now when no one was saying that at the time.[/QUOTE]

You complain about unending pages, but do you realize it's arguably half your writing?

I already mentioned why Ewing and Shaq are in the conversation. If you don't agree, then fine. It doesn't make my view illegitimate or me trying to "further my agenda" (whatever that is). You're too paranoid. You need help.

You posted a 1993 MVP race thread. How many of these people advocated for Ewing then? I believe zero even though his case was stronger then. :lol

This is a great thread for many reasons. That's why I linked to it--which led you bring this dead thread up.

[QUOTE]I already mentioned why Ewing and Shaq are in the conversation.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, we still haven't seen a case for them to actually be MVP. Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson have had actual cases presented. As to your posts:

[QUOTE]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]

[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?[/QUOTE]

None of this is a case for either Ewing or Shaq as MVP. It's the same line throughout this thread "Pippen shouldn't have even finished 3rd" from Team Jordan, which some take to greater extremes but the consistency is every MJ fan, outside of Phoenix who isn't part of the crusade, said Pippen was not only not MVP but should have finished worse than he actually did. (You also cherry picked statistics that favor Ewing :oldlol: --nothing about VORP, BPM, assists, steals conveniently.)

Shaq, Ewing are tools to get Pippen lower than his actual finish. We even heard Malone, Kemp (a 2nd option) come up in this thread--implying Pippen shouldn't have even been top 5. There is a Ewing thread up and none of this crowd is in it because they don't care about Ewing per se.

Ewing keeps getting credit for the Knicks doing something they didn't even do. Maybe that helps explain some of the delta 26 years later.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;14057510]I mean this year alone, is anyone else even being discussed from Giannis and Lebron? Nope. Usually by the time we get to April ( or March this year), 2 frontrunners clearly emerge with an odd 3rd darkhorse candidate as an upstart choice. You may start November with 4-5 names but that's whittled down. Luka was getting MVP talk in November.



I mean, I suppose you could say that whoever has a top 5 MVP finish is 'MVP worthy' but there's levels to it. My recollection of that year was Hakeem, Admiral and Scottie getting the MVP talk. Doesn't mean the other two aren't MVP caliber in a vacuum, but they didn't have strong cases over those three. And from what I see, usually by December the media starts picking out a few candidates and runs with it through seasons end. I don't recall someone sneaking in at the end who wasn't identified early on. Remember Steve Nash in 05? People were crowning him MVP before Christmas lol.[/QUOTE]

All good points. I had a problem with the "real" verbiage, as if Shaq or Ewing didn't get votes. Roundball clarified his position though and it is fair. Top 3 is the norm in an MVP race, no argument there. I also want to make it clear that I am not for Shaq and Ewing winning MVP. Rather with hindsight, both could have gotten more votes. Ewing mainly because of team record.

@HoopsNY good post

What is odd is none of the people in this thread advocate for Ewing as a MVP candidate for 93'--when he had better team and individual results (and was 4th, not 5th, in MVP). Hoops did a thread on the 93' race--didn't even mention Ewing there. :oldlol: We have 22 pages with Ewing constantly coming up but the same logic evidently doesn't transfer to the 1993 season.

60 wins>57 wins
1 seed>2 seed
All-NBA 2nd team>0 All-NBA

But magically he has this great case for 94' but not for 93' as almost all these people with passionate opinions on the 94' race (only as it relates to the 3rd place finisher, evidently) have nothing to say about 93'.

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481911-The-1992-93-MVP-should-have-went-to"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481911-The-1992-93-MVP-should-have-went-to[/URL]

I never saw that thread. And to be fair, it doesn't look like it had many views or replies. Ewing should have gotten more credit that year. Especially now that you reminded me New York won more games in 93.

[QUOTE=insidious301;14057592]it doesn't look like it had many views or replies.[/QUOTE]

Of course. No one really cares who the MVP should have been 26 or 27 years ago. That's not what this thread was. The theme in this thread, after the cavalry showed up (not the OP's intent), was "Pippen shouldn't have finished 3rd" or "Why Pippen sucked" not "who should have been MVP in 94'". That's what drew the usual suspects here but 93' isn't relevant to their (non-existent) agenda. Ewing is a tool to argue Pippen shouldn't have been even 3rd. That's it.

I didn't mean you. I meant the others who came in through the thread.

Yeah that is bogus and a clear double standard. Since Pippen is attached to the hip with Jordan, you're going to get more buzz. It is similar to a poster giving Pippen praise, and a Jordan Stan thinking you're putting them on equal footing. I have only been active recently, but that has been my experience posting here.

EWING 4 PREZ!

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14057561]You posted a 1993 MVP race thread. How many of these people advocated for Ewing then? I believe zero even though his case was stronger then. :lol[/QUOTE]

90% of the people on this forum are probably too young to have remembered Ewing, let alone the 1993-94 season. You realize that's 26 years ago? The point isn't what people were saying then; the point is to evaluate how players ARE ranked in that given season.

[QUOTE]None of this is a case for either Ewing or Shaq as MVP. It's the same line throughout this thread "Pippen shouldn't have even finished 3rd" from Team Jordan, which some take to greater extremes but the consistency is every MJ fan, outside of Phoenix who isn't part of the crusade, said Pippen was not only not MVP but should have finished worse than he actually did. (You also cherry picked statistics that favor Ewing :oldlol: --nothing about VORP, BPM, assists, steals conveniently.)[/QUOTE]

I never said that these guys do in fact deserve the MVP over Hakeem or Robinson. I'm saying it puts them in the conversation, and at the very least makes Ewing and Shaq comparable to Pippen more than Ewing and Shaq being comparable to Hakeem to Robinson. Is that better?

Furthermore, the statistics are close. My entire point was to show that they are in fact [I]comparable[/I]. I'm sorry you're disturbed by this.

Ewing: 24.5/11.2/2.3/1.1/2.7 on 50/29/76

PER: 22.9
TS%: .551
WS: 13.1
WS/48: .211
OBPM: 2.5
DBPM: 2.7
VORP: 5.5

Pippen: 22.0/8.7/5.6/2.9/0.8 on 49/32/66

PER: 23.2
TS%: .544
WS: 11.2
WS/48: .191
OBPM: 4.5
DBPM: 3.2
VORP: 6.8

So Ewing leads [B]8 categories[/B] here while Pippen leads in [B]7[/B]. Pippen led his team to 55 wins while Ewing led his to 57. Ewing led his team to the second best SRS and the best defense in the league.

But this is all "cherry picking." How ironic it is that the Knicks ended up beating Chicago, winning the ECF, and ultimately coming within 1 game of winning a championship. But no. Not comparable at all, cause to Roundball, Ewing is akin to David Wingate or some other nobody. Lord forgive us for drawing such a comparison between him and Scottie Pippen, thinking that Ewing had a [I]similar[/I] case for MVP!!!

[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]

Nothing about this is unfair, except in Roundball's mind. I guess you must be an MJ stan too!

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]

Maybe because Miller was able to average [I]more[/I] points on [I]less[/I] FGA, with [I]higher[/I] efficiency numbers? I'm not even saying Miller was a better player than Pippen. He wasn't. But I'd take him as a scorer over Pippen. Why not?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14057660]Nothing about this is unfair, except in Roundball's mind. I guess you must be an MJ stan too![/quote]

I wear Nike. Drink Gatorade and chew bubble gum. What else tipped you off?

[quote]Maybe because Miller was able to average [I]more[/I] points on [I]less[/I] FGA, with [I]higher[/I] efficiency numbers? I'm not even saying Miller was a better player than Pippen. He wasn't. But I'd take him as a scorer over Pippen. Why not?[/QUOTE]

Yeah Miller was a better scorer. Come to think of it? His game was a lot like Dale Ellis'.

If Ewing ever was going to win MVP it would have been in 1993. A lot of the arguments made for him here (but not in the 93' thread :lol ) are thin reeds.

Wins/seeding:

The people pushing Ewing here are the same people pushing Shaq (50 wins). Do wins matter or not? :oldlol: For Ewing we keep hearing 57 wins. That's weak in context. First, MVP voters then would know the 57th win meant nothing as the Knicks-Bulls played a meaningless game. It is no different than a football team winning in Week 17 in a meaningless game. No one cares for MVP voting purposes.

Second, MVP voters would know the Bulls with Pippen performed at a higher level than the Knicks with Ewing. It doesn't make logical sense to argue team performance [I]for[/I] MVP in favor of the guy whose team performed worse with him (logically, assuming--as has been done in this thread--the two teams are equal, it implies the other guy was more "valuable").

Third, even if we credit the 57th win, so what? The Spurs won 56, Bulls 55, Rockets 58. Atlanta 57, Phoenix 56. 57 isn't impressive when half a dozen teams are in the same bracket--and three of those have MVP candidates.

Fourth, no one cares about getting the 2 seed. I have never heard "Player X led a team to the 2 seed" as an argument for MVP. If you get the 1 seed it would matter.

In 1993 the Knicks had the 1 seed and they had a gap to the teams behind them. The third best record in the NBA was 57 wins and then came a couple teams at 55. They were 2 games out for the best record in the NBA in 93'; in 94' they were 6 games back.

*Ewing's play:

Ewing was all-NBA over Robinson, Shaq in 93'; in 94' he didn't even make all-NBA. I have never heard of a MVP who didn't make all-NBA. Have you?

As the [I]Tribune[/I] article noted, it hurt Ewing's MVP consideration that he kept getting crushed by Hakeem and Robinson. If you are the "MVP", why are you getting annihilated and embarrassed by the two best players at your own position?

*Narrative:

Jordan won in 91', 92' and it is almost impossible to win three straight. MJ's chances were diminished going into 93' due to voter bias and the Bulls slipping from 67 wins to 57 further damaged him. Barkley had a strong narrative going but Ewing had the next best. Hakeem? The Rockets won 55 games. As we have seen argued throughout this thread, 55 isn't enough to be MVP. :lol In 94' the door was more closed. Hakeem benefited from being 2nd in 93' in the "his turn" sense, Pippen had a great narrative, Robinson and his team had a rebound year with Rodman to give him a narrative, and Shaq emerged as a top 5 player.

[QUOTE]Yeah Miller was a better scorer. [/QUOTE]

No one disputes that--the issue is the exaggerated sense. The way they talk about the two is Miller was Curry and Pippen was Draymond Green. The difference in the ECF was 1 PPG (same as the RS--they rely heavily on Miller scoring 26 in the first round but he didn't come close to that with the pressure and stakes higher in real series...). The "efficiency" difference? 2 FGA--and even that factors in Pippen taking end of quarter and end of shot clock bailouts/heaves that Miller didn't take since his team didn't put the ball in his hands nearly as much.

It is laughable that 21/23 PPG is hyped as this awesome scoring--when we see people criticized for scoring around that all the time on ISH. Duncan is getting hit for that in a thread on the front page, for instance.

[QUOTE=KD7;14026947]Rodman said it best

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/8cMt4xhH/Screenshot-20200605-001435.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

wowowoowow