Printable View
People don't really hold Pippen's lack of an MVP against him (or the voters) because he played alongside a guy who pretty much monopolized the voters' attention every year.
That year, Pippen was the second player ever (Dave Cowens) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. He led the bulls to 55 wins (two fewer than with MJ)
His impact was immense. They were 4-6 (33 win pace) without him--and that was with them facing a soft schedule during that time. They went 51-21 with him (58 win pace). Their net offensive rating was +2.2 with him (8th); -2.6 without him (21st).
Missing those 10 games hurt him, directly and indirectly. Missing games reduces your value and hence directly loses you MVP votes and indirectly because it cost the Bulls the #1 seed. If the Bulls won the #1 seed without MJ it would be hard to deny Pippen the MVP.
[QUOTE=Vino24;14026741]People don't really hold Pippen's lack of an MVP against him (or the voters) because he played alongside a guy who pretty much monopolized the voters' attention every year.
That year, Pippen was the second player ever (Dave Cowens) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. He led the bulls to 55 wins (two fewer than with MJ)[/QUOTE]
That was 1995. I think Scottie was one of best players of 1990s but was behind Robinson & Hakeem in 1994
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14026751]His impact was immense. They were 4-6 (33 win pace) without him--and that was with them facing a soft schedule during that time. They went 51-21 with him (58 win pace). Their net offensive rating was +2.2 with him (8th); -2.6 without him (21st).
Missing those 10 games hurt him, directly and indirectly. Missing games reduces your value and hence directly loses you MVP votes and indirectly because it cost the Bulls the #1 seed. If the Bulls won the #1 seed without MJ it would be hard to deny Pippen the MVP.[/QUOTE]
8 of 10 games Pippen missed were away.
Trio of Horace, BJ & Kukoc may have been enough to reach playoffs that year.
As you've mention with all players fit team on pace for over 60 wins.
[QUOTE=aceman;14026758]8 of 10 games Pippen missed were away.
Trio of Horace, BJ & Kukoc may have been enough to reach playoffs that year.
As you've mention with all players fit team on pace for over 60 wins.[/QUOTE]
Yeah the annual circus trip, but look at how bad those teams were (win total listed) and how terrible the Bulls were:
Hawks 57 (W)
Bucks 20 (W)
Celtics 32 (L)
Sonics 63 (L)
Blazers 47 (L)
Lakers 33 (W)
Kings 28 (L)
Rockets 58 (L)
Spurs 56 (L)
Mavs 13 (W)
So their wins came against 57, 20, 33, 13 win teams. So three terrible teams. Their losses came against 32, 63, 47, 28, 58 win teams. Their losses were more respectable.
Their point differential? 87 PPG versus 96 PPG. For perspective, the worst team in the league (Dallas) had a -9 differential, same as the Bulls without Pippen.
The problem with Grant, BJ, Kukoc is solid defense but zero scoring. They averaged 87 PPG. For perspective, the lowest scoring team that year averaged 95 PPG (Dallas). Grant was a good player but he was limited offensively, scoring a lot on dunks and putbacks. Kukoc was a rookie who averaged 9/4/3 after the all-star break (12/4/4 before). He wasn't ready. The Bulls got production out of Kukoc in these 10 games, production they wouldn't have over a full season after he hit a rookie wall.
That would mean BJ Armstrong would have to be the #1 option. :lol
[QUOTE=Vino24;14026741]People don't really hold Pippen's lack of an MVP against him (or the voters) because he played alongside a guy who pretty much monopolized the voters' attention every year.
That year, Pippen was the second player ever (Dave Cowens) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. He led the bulls to 55 wins (two fewer than with MJ)[/QUOTE]
Pippen was probably the favorite for MVP at the all-star break in 1994, but the Bulls went on a losing streak right after that where they lost 8 of 11 games and that essentially knocked him out of the top spot.
Those losses cost him - Pippen certainly would have been the MVP if Chicago won 58 games instead of 55.
Hakeem would've been a close second as the Rockets also won 58 games, the difference though would've been Chicago as #1 seed in the East whereas the Rockets were 2nd in the West and 5 games behind Seattle.
So it was just a matter of a few games that kept Pippen from that trophy. Had Pippen played his entire career without Jordan I think he would've won that award eventually because of his spectacular all-around game.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14026751]His impact was immense. They were 4-6 (33 win pace) without him--and that was with them facing a soft schedule during that time. They went 51-21 with him (58 win pace). Their net offensive rating was +2.2 with him (8th); -2.6 without him (21st).
Missing those 10 games hurt him, directly and indirectly. Missing games reduces your value and hence directly loses you MVP votes and indirectly because it cost the Bulls the #1 seed. If the Bulls won the #1 seed without MJ it would be hard to deny Pippen the MVP.[/QUOTE]
Big facts
Played 6th easiest schedule, didn't even win division behind Hawks, finished bottom half in the league in team offense, only eighth in league in scoring but not top 50 in true shooting (terrible inefficiency), shot 66 percent from the line and wasn't even top 50 in Ftr (ungodly bad), got locked down and knocked out of the playoffs by Knicks in second round... Player of the decade and MVP ladies and gentleman. Also, he didn't lead team in rebounds so don't know what is up with that.
[QUOTE=goozeman;14026787]Played 6th easiest schedule, didn't even win division behind Hawks, finished bottom half in the league in team offense, only eighth in league in scoring but not top 50 in true shooting (terrible inefficiency), shot 66 percent from the line and wasn't even top 50 in Ftr (ungodly bad), got locked down and knocked out of the playoffs by Knicks in second round... Player of the decade and MVP ladies and gentleman. Also, he didn't lead team in rebounds so don't know what is up with that.[/QUOTE]
Ether.
Not in my top 10 for the 90's.
[QUOTE]Pippen was probably the favorite for MVP at the all-star break in 1994, but the Bulls went on a losing streak right after that where they lost 8 of 11 games and that essentially knocked him out of the top spot.[/QUOTE]
True but they rallied. Horace Grant did his "blue flu" shenanigans in the second half of the season (48 win pace without him), Kukoc hit a rookie wall and those things hurt them but they had the heart of champions and rallied.
The Bulls' low point was 37-21 but they went 19-7 afterwards. Going into the final weekend of the season the standings looked like this:
1) ATL 56-25
2) CHI 55-25
3) NY 54-25
4) ORL 49-31
5) CLE/IND 45-35
So the Bulls were right there but in the 81st game they suffered a double OT loss against the lowly Celtics, probably because they were looking ahead to game 82 against New York. That loss eliminated them from contention for the #1 seed.
The Knicks had the tiebreaker against the Bulls so the 82nd game wound up meaningless for both teams (ATL had locked up the #1 seed with the tiebreaker over NY), but history will record the Knicks won 57 games and the Bulls 55 wins. I guess in retrospect it would have looked better if they both won 56 even with the tiebreaker going to NY.
The other thing to note is Pippen played hurt the first two games and the Bulls went 1-1. He had surgery, missed 10 games to recover. So from Pippen's return through game 81 the Bulls went 50-19 (59 win pace).
If Pippen played 80 games like Hakeem, Robinson none of this stuff would matter. The Bulls would have won the #1 seed with MJ playing baseball.
[QUOTE]So it was just a matter of a few games that kept Pippen from that trophy. Had Pippen played his entire career without Jordan I think he would've won that award eventually because of his spectacular all-around game.[/QUOTE]
Agree that he likely would have. Some people will scoff at that but Harden, Rose, Nash, Iverson, etc. are all lesser players who won MVP at some point.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14026793]True but they rallied. Horace Grant did his "blue flu" shenanigans in the second half of the season (48 win pace without him), Kukoc hit a rookie wall and those things hurt them but they had the heart of champions and rallied.
The Bulls' low point was 37-21 but they went 19-7 afterwards. Going into the final weekend of the season the standings looked like this:
1) ATL 56-25
2) CHI 55-25
3) NY 54-25
4) ORL 49-31
5) CLE/IND 45-35
So the Bulls were right there but in the 81st game they suffered a double OT loss against the lowly Celtics, probably because they were looking ahead to game 82 against New York. That loss eliminated them from contention for the #1 seed.
The Knicks had the tiebreaker against the Bulls so the 82nd game wound up meaningless, but history will record the Knicks won 57 games and the Bulls 55 wins. I guess in retrospect it would have looked better if they both won 56 even with the tiebreaker going to NY.
The other thing to note is Pippen played hurt the first two games and the Bulls went 1-1. He had surgery, missed 10 games to recover. So from Pippen's return through game 81 the Bulls went 50-19 (59 win pace).
If Pippen played 80 games like Hakeem, Robinson none of this stuff would matter. The Bulls would have won the #1 seed with MJ playing baseball.
Agree that he likely would have. Some people will scoff at that but Harden, Rose, Nash, Iverson, etc. are all lesser players who won MVP at some point.[/QUOTE]
Pippen can never win MVP because he's not a dynamic enough of a scorer and he's not efficient enough. Too many players did like what he did and then some.
He didn't even score over 25 points in the second round. Not even once, and he was extremely inefficient. So this proved that he just couldn't handle being the man and leading a team, especially after the meltdown temper tantrum sit down.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14026766]Yeah the annual circus trip, but look at how bad those teams were (win total listed) and how terrible the Bulls were:
Hawks 57 (W)
Bucks 20 (W)
Celtics 32 (L)
Sonics 63 (L)
Blazers 47 (L)
Lakers 33 (W)
Kings 28 (L)
Rockets 58 (L)
Spurs 56 (L)
Mavs 13 (W)
So their wins came against 57, 20, 33, 13 win teams. So three terrible teams. Their losses came against 32, 63, 47, 28, 58 win teams. Their losses were more respectable.
Their point differential? 87 PPG versus 96 PPG. For perspective, the worst team in the league (Dallas) had a -9 differential, same as the Bulls without Pippen.
The problem with Grant, BJ, Kukoc is solid defense but zero scoring. They averaged 87 PPG. For perspective, the lowest scoring team that year averaged 95 PPG (Dallas). Grant was a good player but he was limited offensively, scoring a lot on dunks and putbacks. Kukoc was a rookie who averaged 9/4/3 after the all-star break (12/4/4 before). He wasn't ready. The Bulls got production out of Kukoc in these 10 games, production they wouldn't have over a full season after he hit a rookie wall.
That would mean BJ Armstrong would have to be the #1 option. :lol[/QUOTE]
Good post. Playoff berth just over 0.5 so they were not without hope but rookie kukoc may have dropped off.
Kukoc would be no.1 option rookie or not. Would've played post in triangle & isolated at top for big shot.
[B]For me 93-94 Pippen was no surprise. I knew how good Pippen was when Jordan was playing with him. He turned out to be great from 1990 onwards. He deserved the MVP that season in the same why Hakeem deserved in 92-93 and Barkley in 89-90. Relative to teamates Pippen was the most impfactfull player that 93-94 season. He was a top 10 player for all the 90's.[/B]
[QUOTE=aceman;14026797]Good post. Playoff berth just over 0.5 so they were not without hope but rookie kukoc may have dropped off.
Kukoc would be no.1 option rookie or not. Would've played post in triangle & isolated at top for big shot.[/QUOTE]
They would need 42 wins without Pippen to get there. I suppose doable--but would be tough. Without Grant they fell off a lot so imagine the drop-off without Pippen. The caveat is the had the SRS of a 52 win team (42-23 pre-MJ but their record was 34-31) so maybe minus Pippen they could scrape together 40-43 wins. The difference between the two years is the Bulls' offense was better in 95' with Kukoc playing as a solid #2 option, Pippen becoming even more efficient, and still having BJ. Their problem was rebounding minus Grant/Rodman. Kukoc was a much better #2 option than Grant. If they signed anyone better than Larry Krystkowiak (yes, I am not kidding) to replace Grant they would have been fine for 95'. Rebounding, plus the scoring/creation combo skills of Pippen, Kukoc along with the shooting of Armstrong, Kerr and the #2 defense would have been a contender.
[QUOTE]For me 93-94 Pippen was no surprise. I knew how good Pippen was when Jordan was playing with him. He turned out to be great from 1990 onwards. He deserved the MVP that season in the same why Hakeem deserved in 92-93 and Barkley in 89-90. Relative to teamates Pippen was the most impfactfull player that 93-94 season. He was a top 10 player for all the 90's[/QUOTE]
:applause:
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14026802]They would need 42 wins without Pippen to get there. I suppose doable--but would be tough. Without Grant they fell off a lot so imagine the drop-off without Pippen. The caveat is the had the SRS of a 52 win team (42-23 pre-MJ but their record was 34-31) so maybe minus Pippen they could scrape together 40-43 wins. The difference between the two years is the Bulls' offense was better in 95' with Kukoc playing as a solid #2 option, Pippen becoming even more efficient, and still having BJ. Their problem was rebounding minus Grant/Rodman. Kukoc was a much better #2 option than Grant. If they signed anyone better than Larry Krystkowiak (yes, I am not kidding) to replace Grant they would have been fine for 95'. Rebounding, plus the scoring/creation combo skills of Pippen, Kukoc along with the shooting of Armstrong, Kerr and the #2 defense would have been a contender.
:applause:[/QUOTE]
Kobe nor Shaq have more than 1 mvp nor Hakeem. Pippen wasn't as good as either of them.
no he didn't Hakeem deserve it. Pip had two other all-stars with him
Not even close. It was a feel good story for the regular season and Pip has every right to hold his head up high, but really he has no case to be above Hakeem, DRob, or Shaq and not even Ewing quite honestly.
Ewing led the Knicks to a better record, had better individual stats, and also led the Knicks to the no.1 defence in the NBA, while outplaying Pippen head-to-head in their playoff round where Ewing's team beat Pippen's en route to the NBA Finals.
[QUOTE=houston;14026891]no he didn't Hakeem deserve it. Pip had two other all-stars with him[/QUOTE]
Was there a bit difference between Grant and Thorpe? Agree with your overall point but the counter is the Rockets had 5 NBA starters and the Bulls only 4. No one else had a G League/CBA player starting except the Bulls because MJ retired right before the season in October so they couldn't sign a Kendall Gill type.
[QUOTE=Soundwave;14026892]Not even close. It was a feel good story for the regular season and Pip has every right to hold his head up high, but really he has no case to be above Hakeem, DRob, or Shaq and not even Ewing quite honestly.
Ewing led the Knicks to a better record, had better individual stats, and also led the Knicks to the no.1 defence in the NBA, while outplaying Pippen head-to-head in their playoff round where Ewing's team beat Pippen's en route to the NBA Finals.[/QUOTE]
Pippen for sure has a case over Shaq. Shaq shouldn't be ahead of Ewing, for starters. Pippen was for sure top 3.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;14026898]Pippen for sure has a case over Shaq. Shaq shouldn't be ahead of Ewing, for starters. Pippen was for sure top 3.[/QUOTE]
Shaq averaged 29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 3 blocks per game on 60% shooting from the field ... lets be freaking real here, Shaq was a way, way, way better player.
The only reason Shaq didn't win the scoring title that year was because the Spurs stat padded David Robinson to 71 points in the last game of the year.
Hakeem, Shaq, DRob, and Ewing were all better than Pippen that year, "feel good" narratives put aside.
[QUOTE=Vino24;14026741]People don't really hold Pippen's lack of an MVP against him (or the voters) because he played alongside a guy who pretty much monopolized the voters' attention every year.
That year, Pippen was the second player ever (Dave Cowens) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks. He led the bulls to 55 wins (two fewer than with MJ)[/QUOTE]
You might want to actually do your research, Pippen did not lead the Bulls in rebounds or blocks in 93-94. Horace Grant did. 94-95 was the only year Pippen led the Bulls in rebounds, but Jordan averaged more points and assists.
57 wins for the Bulls in 92-93 was an outlier in part because Pippen and Grant themselves had poor regular seasons compared to the year before. Every other Bulls team with Jordan on it basically played at a 60+ win rate all through the 1990s, even including the 94-95 Bulls went 13-4 with an out of shape Jordan, going from a barely .500 team to a 60+ win rate overnight.
Rodman said it best
[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/8cMt4xhH/Screenshot-20200605-001435.jpg[/IMG]
In what world is '94 Pippen even close to Hakeem in terms of MVP? He played 8 less games, led a similar supporting cast to a worse record and wasn't better on either end of the court. Hakeem had 0 all-star teammates. Armstrong & Grant both averaged more points than his 2nd option.
[QUOTE=Soundwave;14026926]Shaq averaged 29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 3 blocks per game on 60% shooting from the field ... lets be freaking real here, Shaq was a way, way, way better player.
The only reason Shaq didn't win the scoring title that year was because the Spurs stat padded David Robinson to 71 points in the last game of the year.
Hakeem, Shaq, DRob, and Ewing were all better than Pippen that year, "feel good" narratives put aside.[/QUOTE]
I know what he averaged, and I don't care. Robinson didn't win just because he padded. He outscored Shaq by .5 a game.
Game is game. Numbers don't mean shit on their own.
Shaq had a better team around him than Ewing and won less. I'm looking at play and the impact is a result of it. Pippen played better.
[QUOTE=Soundwave;14026928]You might want to actually do your research, Pippen did not lead the Bulls in rebounds or blocks in 93-94. Horace Grant did. 94-95 was the only year Pippen led the Bulls in rebounds, but Jordan averaged more points and assists.
57 wins for the Bulls in 92-93 was an outlier in part because Pippen and Grant themselves had poor regular seasons compared to the year before. Every other Bulls team with Jordan on it basically played at a 60+ win rate all through the 1990s, even including the 94-95 Bulls went 13-4 with an out of shape Jordan, going from a barely .500 team to a 60+ win rate overnight.[/QUOTE]
All of this is credit btw, and I don't disagree with any of it. But Pippen was exceptional. Not that I think you're dumb in who you're choosing over him, but I don't see it the same way.
[QUOTE=ImKobe;14026950]In what world is '94 Pippen even close to Hakeem in terms of MVP? He played 8 less games, led a similar supporting cast to a worse record and wasn't better on either end of the court. Hakeem had 0 all-star teammates. Armstrong & Grant both averaged more points than his 2nd option.[/QUOTE]
The real world circa 1994. Pippen "led" the Bulls to 4-6 when he was out? With him they had the same win pace as the Rockets...those missed games may have cost him the MVP.
The "supporting cast" talk ignores Houston had 5 NBA starters, the Bulls 4. The Bulls were playing 4 on 5 on offense for most of the game.
MVP isn't a "best player" award.
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14026970]The real world circa 1994. Pippen "led" the Bulls to 4-6 when he was out? With him they had the same win pace as the Rockets...those missed games may have cost him the MVP.
The "supporting cast" talk ignores Houston had 5 NBA starters, the Bulls 4. The Bulls were playing 4 on 5 on offense for most of the game.
MVP isn't a "best player" award.[/QUOTE]
Pippen - 51 - 21
Hakeem - 57 - 23
Rockets were 2nd in the WC, Bulls 3rd in the East, Rockets won more games than any EC team. Hakeem played more games than Pippen and led his team to more wins, those things matter in the MVP discussion. Hakeem was the best player on the 2nd best team in the league in the RS.
I'm sorry, but what's your argument again? That Pippen had a worse supporting cast around him? Did he produce better than Hakeem to make up for it? No? Then there's nothing to argue here. There's a reason why Hakeem got 66 first place votes to Pippen's 7. It wasn't close.
[QUOTE]Pippen - 51 - 21
Hakeem - 57 - 23[/QUOTE]
51-20 in games that mattered (59 win pace). The 82nd game was meaningless--the Knicks had the tiebreaker for the 2nd seed and the Hawks had the tiebreaker over the Knicks for the 1st seed. So irrelevant for both teams.
All this cast talk but nothing about injuries? Grant missed 12 games (Bulls 7-5 without him); Thorpe played all 82.
[U]Rockets' Key Cast[/U]
Thorpe 82 games
Horry 81 games
Smith 78 games
Maxwell 75 games
[U]Bulls' Key Cast[/U]
Grant 70 games
Armstrong 82 games
Cartwright 42 games
Kukoc 75 games
Plus Pippen himself missed 10 games, Hakeem only 2.
The Bulls' had a tougher road to hoe than the Rockets, given injuries and MJ retiring at the last minute and not having 5 NBA starters as a result.
The vote totals were with Pippen missing 10 games and the Bulls' being the 3 seed. What would the vote totals have been if he played 80-82 like he usually did and the Bulls win the #1 seed with Pete Myers "replacing" Jordan?
Shaq had a lot of 3rd place MVP finishes too because he missed 10-12 games.
Then again, you think Carmelo>Pippen, evidently. :lol
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;14026978]51-20 in games that mattered (59 win pace). The 82nd game was meaningless--the Knicks had the tiebreaker for the 2nd seed and the Hawks had the tiebreaker over the Knicks for the 1st seed. So irrelevant for both teams.
All this cast talk but nothing about injuries? Grant missed 12 games (Bulls 7-5 without him); Thorpe played all 82.
[U]Rockets' Key Cast[/U]
Thorpe 82 games
Horry 81 games
Smith 78 games
Maxwell 75 games
[U]Bulls' Key Cast[/U]
Grant 70 games
Armstrong 82 games
Cartwright 42 games
Kukoc 75 games
Plus Pippen himself missed 10 games, Hakeem only 2.
The Bulls' had a tougher road to hoe than the Rockets, given injuries and MJ retiring at the last minute and not having 5 NBA starters as a result.
The vote totals were with Pippen missed 10 games and the Bulls' being the 3 seed. What would the vote totals have been if he played 80-82 like he usually did and the Bulls win the #1 seed with Pete Myers "replacing" Jordan?
Shaq had a lot of 3rd place MVP finishes too because he missed 10-12 games.[/QUOTE]
These excuses don't matter. Hakeem was the best player on the 2nd best team in the league. Sonics didn't have a superstar so he was a very easy pick, given that he was one of the best scorers/rebounders and the best defensive player in the league. He produced more than Scottie, played more games and led his team to a better record as a result. There's no argument here. It's one thing if Pippen produced better and you could then make the argument that his team was a lot worse, but the reality is that their supporting casts were about even but one produced way more and played more games than the other guy.
It wasn't an easy choice nor was Hakeem the consensus best player at the time. That is historical revisionism after the fact. At the time Hakeem vs. Robinson was close for MVP and best player. Pippen--not Ewing (whose team was the #2 seed) or Shaq for the record--was the third horse in the race.
[QUOTE=Whoah10115;14026961]I know what he averaged, and I don't care. Robinson didn't win just because he padded. He outscored Shaq by .5 a game.
Game is game. Numbers don't mean shit on their own.
Shaq had a better team around him than Ewing and won less. I'm looking at play and the impact is a result of it. Pippen played better.[/QUOTE]
60% shooting for Shaq on 19 FGA/game is practically historic efficiency, I don't know if we've seen that in the NBA since. 93-94 arguably might be the 2nd best season Shaq ever had.
And the Magic were still finding themselves that year, they did not have Horace Grant yet and Penny was just a rookie who being mentored by Scott Skiles.
Scottie Pippen was never better than Shaq at any point of either of their 20s-early 30s age for age, year for year. No way.
Ewing was also better than Pippen that year, and so were DRob and Hakeem. Pippen was maybe the 5th best player in the league that year, this is just an instance of a narrative story line over riding actual play on the court.
If the Bulls had the best record in the league or something, OK I get him getting the trophy on the "Steve Nash" argument, but that would be the Sonics, and apparently Kemp or Payton got dick all in credit for that, lol. Which other season is the team with the no.1 record in the league not even given a top 5 candidate for MVP? The Bulls didn't even have the top record in their own division.
To be honest the Atlanta Hawks winning 57 games after only winning 43 the season prior AND trading Dominique Wilkins (so I guess ... Stacey Augmon was "the man"?) mid-season is more shocking all around. 93-94 was a bizarre year all around, right from the Jordan retirement to the OJ Simpson chase interrupting the NBA Finals towards the end. I'll never forget watching that, it was surreal.
Not even close. He shouldn't have even finished 3rd. He got voted that high because it was a feel good story at the time, since the Bulls were without Jordan. You can make an argument for multiple players ahead of Pippen in 94, aside from Hakeem and Robinson, including Shaq, Ewing, Kemp, and Malone.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic;14027640]Not even close. He shouldn't have even finished 3rd. He got voted that high because it was a feel good story at the time, since the Bulls were without Jordan. You can make an argument for multiple players ahead of Pippen in 94, aside from Hakeem and Robinson, including Shaq, Ewing, Kemp, and Malone.[/QUOTE]
You can't make an argument for any version of Kemp
[QUOTE=Soundwave;14027611]60% shooting for Shaq on 19 FGA/game is practically historic efficiency, I don't know if we've seen that in the NBA since. 93-94 arguably might be the 2nd best season Shaq ever had.
And the Magic were still finding themselves that year, they did not have Horace Grant yet and Penny was just a rookie who being mentored by Scott Skiles.
Scottie Pippen was never better than Shaq at any point of either of their 20s-early 30s age for age, year for year. No way.
Ewing was also better than Pippen that year, and so were DRob and Hakeem. Pippen was maybe the 5th best player in the league that year, this is just an instance of a narrative story line over riding actual play on the court.
If the Bulls had the best record in the league or something, OK I get him getting the trophy on the "Steve Nash" argument, but that would be the Sonics, and apparently Kemp or Payton got dick all in credit for that, lol. Which other season is the team with the no.1 record in the league not even given a top 5 candidate for MVP? The Bulls didn't even have the top record in their own division.
To be honest the Atlanta Hawks winning 57 games after only winning 43 the season prior AND trading Dominique Wilkins (so I guess ... Stacey Augmon was "the man"?) mid-season is more shocking all around. 93-94 was a bizarre year all around, right from the Jordan retirement to the OJ Simpson chase interrupting the NBA Finals towards the end. I'll never forget watching that, it was surreal.[/QUOTE]
I get all that, but Pippen was simply a basketball player.
They had a solid team, but Pippen had to be his best version. He was just as good the next year but the teammates were much worse.
It does mean a lot to win 55 post Jordan. Especially since many of the players had been in 3 straight Finals.
[QUOTE=Sarcastic;14027640]Not even close. He shouldn't have even finished 3rd. He got voted that high because it was a feel good story at the time, since the Bulls were without Jordan. You can make an argument for multiple players ahead of Pippen in 94, aside from Hakeem and Robinson, including Shaq, Ewing, Kemp, and [B]Malone[/B].[/QUOTE]
Pippen beat Malone 94-68 in all-NBA voting that year (narrative not an excuse for all-NBA voting). He was the highest overall vote getter but hard to compare across positions. We don't need to do that with forwards, though. Only in retrospect is it argued by MJ stans/Pippen detractors Malone was considered better than Pippen in 94'.
Feel good story. Ewing had a great case. Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP in his career. He played for New York...no "feel good" story there? It sounds like the voters just didn't give him the same credit. He actually finished 5th in 94', lower than in 93'. It is obvious MVP voters, rightly or wrongly, never really considered him of MVP timber, relative to his team success and reputation--despite having the ultimate boost of playing for New York.
Ewing was not even all-NBA that year. Tough position--but he beat those guys in other years so what's the excuse for 94'? Ewing benefits from the glow of making the finals but that isn't relevant to MVP voting and was unknown to voters when they voted.
Shaq? On a 50 win team? How often is a player on a 50 win team a MVP
Kemp? As the second best player on his own team? :wtf:
We are seeing random names thrown out there. Might as well throw in Mark Price, Mookie Blaylock, Derrick Coleman. Forget top 3. How did Pippen get any MVP votes at all? :mad:
Fact check time:
1) Hakeem 889
2) Robinson 730
3) Pippen 390
4) Shaq 289
5) Ewing 255
6) Payton 20
7) Malone/Kemp 17
9) Price 7
10) Barkley 5
Kemp deserved it over Pippen, though. Only on ISH. :lol
A top 5 player on a team that, when he played, had the best RS performance in his conference being a MVP candidate. What a travesty.
The 94' excuses (the only year worse than 2020 in the annals of history?) ignores Pippen was getting MVP consideration in 96' before he got hurt. Would he have won? No, but he could have finished 3rd instead of 5th had he not gotten hurt the final quarter of the season and his numbers nose-dived.
The argument that Pippen didn't deserve consideration is belied by the implied impact he had. His team was on a 33 win pace without him with a -9 point differential. That would be the worst point differential in the league over a full season. Their offense was 21st without him, 8th with him (so essentially they went from the Kings offense to the Jazz offense with him). As to win pace, with him it was 58 wins and 59 wins if you exclude the meaningless 82nd game. In 95' he missed 3 games total, 2 pre-MJ, so a tiny sample size, but FWIW the Bulls went 0-2 in those games. So that is 4-8 without Pippen, without MJ. You could throw in a game he was ejected in the second quarter as well--a loss to a 17 win team. That would be 4-9.
If certain other players had this type of impact we would never hear the end of it. Smaller impacts get touted routinely on ISH.
MVP isn't a best player award. When were Iverson, Harden, Westbrook, Rose, Nash, Dirk, and so on the best player? Nor does the "Nash changed everything" excuse fly. Robinson won it when Hakeem was the best player, Barkley when MJ was, even back then. Hakeem was 5th in MVP as the best player in 95'. Malone over MJ. Etc. etc.
Many of these names were on the team with the best record but in 94' that wasn't a factor because Seattle had no superstar (Payton arguably became one [I]later[/I]--but he wasn't there in 94', which was his first all-star season).
If you remove the names "Pippen" and "Robinson" and "Ewing" you find their scenarios are very similar. All superstars, all on teams that won 55-57 games, etc. The difference was the road taken to get to those win totals was very different...
The Ewing talk is fascinating whenever the 94' MVP comes up.
Team A: Goes from 60 wins and 1st place to 57 wins and 2nd place
Team B: Goes from 57 wins and 2nd place to 55 wins and 3rd place
On its face, this appears to be the same thing: both teams lost a couple wins, both slipped a spot in the standings.
Except that "Team B" lost the best player in the NBA at his peak at the last minute (so no real replacement) while "Team A" ran the same team back. Even Pippen's biggest detractors are quick--in any other context--to point to the turnover the roster had for 94' (albeit on the bench, aside from SG).
Yet voters were supposed to favor the best player on Team A over Team B? After they ranked him 4th the prior year when his team and he (2nd team all-NBA in 93'; not all-NBA in 94') had done even better? So his team does worse, he does worse and he is supposed to move [U]up[/U] in MVP voting?
Ewing is a convenient tool as is Malone. Utah was the 5 seed (after [U]adding[/U] Hornacek), Pippen and Malone weren't even close in all-NBA but Malone should have been higher in MVP?
Here is what was happening (article from March 28, so right at the end of the season) then:
[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.
With just a month left in the MVP voting among national media, [B]Robinson and Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon have emerged as the favorites, with the Bulls' Scottie Pippen hanging around on the edge[/B].[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]All [B]three leading contenders [/B]have been criticized, doubted and ignored until this season. Robinson wasn't even among the top five in the MVP voting last year, Pippen never has been higher than ninth and Olajuwon wasn't even in the top 20 two years ago.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]And all have answered their potential, if not their accusers.
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]
[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 [B]Ewing's poor performances against Olajuwon and Robinson-he's averaging 13 points a game against them this season to 33 for them[/B]-and publicity-shy ways [B]make him a long shot[/B].[/QUOTE]
So the Knicks' coach, Magic GM are lamenting that Ewing and Shaq aren't even in the hunt but they "clearly" should have finished in the top 3 in the eyes of a collection of "Pippen detractors" 26 years later?
[URL="https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-03-28-9403280103-story.html"]https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1994-03-28-9403280103-story.html[/URL]
[QUOTE=goozeman;14026787]Played 6th easiest schedule, didn't even win division behind Hawks, finished bottom half in the league in team offense, only eighth in league in scoring but not top 50 in true shooting (terrible inefficiency), shot 66 percent from the line and wasn't even top 50 in Ftr (ungodly bad), got locked down and knocked out of the playoffs by Knicks in second round... Player of the decade and MVP ladies and gentleman. Also, he didn't lead team in rebounds so don't know what is up with that.[/QUOTE]
DAMN! :oldlol::roll:
I love Pip but this post will be ignored by the MJ haters.
[QUOTE=goozeman;14026787]Played 6th easiest schedule, didn't even win division behind Hawks, finished bottom half in the league in team offense, only eighth in league in scoring but not top 50 in true shooting (terrible inefficiency), shot 66 percent from the line and wasn't even top 50 in Ftr (ungodly bad), got locked down and knocked out of the playoffs by Knicks in second round... Player of the decade and MVP ladies and gentleman. Also, he didn't lead team in rebounds so don't know what is up with that.[/QUOTE]
I told ya'll it's a wrap. Roundball_Cuck is just talking to himself.
[QUOTE]I love Pip but this post will b[/QUOTE]
Let's put it to the test--and apply the same metrics to other contenders (throwing Ewing, Shaq in there too in addition to the 3 real contenders). See, what Pippen haters can't grasp is all-time rankers, all-NBA voters, MVP voters, etc. have to apply the same criteria to each player. There isn't a special "I hate Pippen" standard. :lol Using his own standards, who is MVP?
[QUOTE]Played 6th easiest schedule,[/QUOTE]
Chicago SOS: 22nd
Houston SOS: 17th
Spurs SOS: 20th
Knicks SOS: 27th (last in the league--27 teams then)
Magic SOS: 21st
As usual, a TP crumbles upon examination. It looks like if they had the Knicks' SOS they would be the team with 57 wins and the Knicks the one with 55.
The other thing is, as shown earlier in the thread "Pippen played" isn't the same as the 82 games because he missed the softest part of the schedule early in the season.
[QUOTE] didn't even win division behind Hawks[/QUOTE]
The Spurs didn't either. That disqualifies Robinson? Orlando was a 50 win team--7 games behind division leader. No Shaq then?
They lost the division because they sucked without Pippen. Ironically, Pippen detractors point to losing the division, losing the #1 seed to argue [I]against[/I] Pippen's value. Points for creativity?
[QUOTE]Finished bottom half in the league in team offense[/QUOTE]
8th in the games he played--21st without him. You undercut your own point: the offense sucked without him (87 PPG) yet that means he was less valuable?
Bulls offensive rank: 8th (healthy), 14th (actual)
Rockets offensive rank: 15th
Knicks offensive rank: 16th
Spurs offensive rank: 4th
Magic offensive rank: 3rd
So that disqualifies Hakeem, Ewing whose offenses sucked with them (Pippen's was equal to the Jazz offense with him). Robinson, Shaq had good offenses but were eliminated earlier (along with Pippen) for their teams losing their division.
[QUOTE] got locked down and knocked out of the playoffs by Knicks in second round.[/QUOTE]
Litigated earlier--deceptive and irrelevant to MVP voting. As relevant as Ewing melting down in the finals or Robinson shrinking from 30 PPG to 20 PPG in the same playoffs (a first round loss to a lower seed) or Shaq getting swept in the first round by a 47 win team. This TP would lead to Hakeem being MVP with Pippen 2nd (Ewing, Robinson melted down and Shaq's team didn't win a playoff game)--but Hakeem was disqualifed earlier for Houston having a below average offense (even worse relative to playoff teams--14th of 16, ahead of Ewing's Knicks and the Nuggets).
This stuff is the ultimate tribute to Pippen: Pippen haters (mostly MJ stans but some Knicks fans sprinkled in) can't come up with an honest, consistent criteria to diminish him. Their own logic frequently helps him. The rub is they are homing missiles to hit Pippen but ignore or conceal the context for other players. The tell always is omitting the corresponding data for other players, teams being discussed or that for his peers (his #'s are presented in vacuums by MJ stans).
By his logic, no one qualifies for MVP. :roll: