Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option

[Mr Feeny]

Kukoc was a rookie just like Luka was. Both seasoned pros. Not saying Toni is on Doncic' level.



The Bulls were as much contenders as the 97 Magic were. The Bulls were a good team without MJ, but no way they win.

They went from perennial champions into a 2nd round team, where they replaced Jordan with Kukoc.

[guy]

Sure but look at teams when Russell, Wilt, Shaq (twice), Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron (thrice) left their teams in or near their primes. All were contenders with those players; only one was without that player and MJ stacked the deck against the team by retiring so late.

This is and always has been a stupid argument that you and others have been spewing for years. In most of those cases you mentioned, the teammates they left behind best days' were usually behind them and/or the franchise was set on a full rebuild so they were considered lost seasons without the desire and motivation to actually try to contend. This was a completely unique situation, not really comparable to the others you mentioned.

In 94, Pippen and Grant were in the heart of their primes, while Kukoc and Armstrong were on the ascension. And by Jordan retiring so late, the Bulls didn't have the chance to tear the team down and commit to a full rebuild. And unlike the other teams you mentioned, the Bulls were constantly considered a one man show that Jordan carried so there was that extra motivation to try and prove themselves without him, especially for Pippen.

For those reasons and for whatever other reasons, unlike the other teams you mentioned, they still had the motivation and belief that they could contend, and they performed well doing so - and you can live in this fantasy world where teams are extremely motivated at all times no matter the situation and their chances but that is simply unrealistic. Not surprisingly, once the 94 offseason hit and the Bulls were close to a full rebuild, Pippen and probably others considered 95 as a "lost season" and it seems like there play reflected that until Jordan came back.

This comparison doesn't really have much of a bearing on how good a superstar's "help" is when they aren't absent and are playing with those teams when compared to others - meaning when the Celtics go 42-40 without Bird and the Bulls go 55-27 without Jordan its really ****ing stupid to reduce about a decade's worth of their teammates play to a 13 win difference by 1 team. But you continue to make these dumb arguments. A bunch of idiots that never watched them play will always support it.

[Roundball_Rock]

Right. And just to add on to the latter of your statement, the other teams actually replaced the players mentioned with some viable, solid players. Not a perennial CBA player like the Bulls did.

Exactly.

ou mean Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington and Pete Myers?

Myers was the last minute "replacement" for PEAK MJ. MJ averaged 33/7/6 in 93'; Myers 0/0/0 because he couldn't make a NBA roster.

Kukoc was drafted several years prior. Wennington was the third/fourth string C that year (he was the 11th man in the playoffs).

The Kukoc thing is funny, we always hear about him in connection to 94' (his rookie season) but never hear a word about him for the following seasons when he was a bigger contributor. I wonder why?

Notice the teams mentioned are led by guys that many feel Pippen has no business being compared to. Hmm.

Exactly. He is a bum, but you have to pull those names to find other examples. Also notice Portland 2000 is on the list too? Who was their leader?

The Bulls were as much contenders as the 97 Magic were.

Team A: 55 wins, nearly win the #1 seed despite injuries to key players and take the EC champs to 7 (who took Houston to 7)
Team B: 45 wins, lose in the first round

A and B are not the same...and B was able to sign Rony Seiklay and get 17/10 from him; Myers was 8/3.

[HoopsNY]

Sure but look at teams when Russell, Wilt, Shaq (twice), Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron (thrice) left their teams in or near their primes. All were contenders with those players; only one was without that player and MJ stacked the deck against the team by retiring so late.

But that's what the OP was about. It was a poor attempt at trying to prop up Pippen while downplaying MJ. The fact remains is that there have been many cases of teams in NBA history that have had a 2nd option that averaged around 15 ppg. These kinds of tear down posts don't serve as analysis, but rather they only stimulate the minds of fanboys who project their opinions based on being fans and not based on being objective analysts.

But while you mentioned what you mentioned, it should be noticed that there is a slight bias in what it is that you've said. For one, the Lakers (Magic, Wilt), Celtics (Bird), Bulls, and Magic (Shaq) all made the playoffs the following year that their best player left.

When Shaq left LA, not only did he leave, but Malone and GP do too, and Rick Fox retires. You're talking about an entire revamp of a team here.

In the case of the Bulls, they were lucky in the first round to face a team that was depleted with injuries. Cleveland didn't have Nance, Daughtery, or Williams. If Cleveland has a full squad, I doubt Chicago even makes it to the second round as the Knicks exposed their flaws. And furthermore, I find it ironic that while that is ignored and the 55 wins is glorified, the next season of Chicago going 34-31 prior to Mike's return is conveniently overlooked.

In the case of Lebron with Cleveland the first time, then not only did Lebron leave, but so did Ilgauskas and Shaq. Mo Williams gets traded about 35 games into the season, and their top rim protector, Anderson Varjaeo ends up missing significant time due to injuries as well as their best player, Antawn Jamison, who only starts in 38 games. It's no surprise that the team fell apart when your best players leave and your other best players miss 2/3 of the season.

To add on, when Lebron leaves Miami, a similar situation occurs. First off, both Bosh and Wade were significantly injured, and when you have your best players injured, needless to say it will have an impact on your team's performance. In addition, Ray Allen left as did their defensive specialist, Shane Battier. But once Wade gets healthy, the team makes the playoffs the following year.

This attempt of trying to tear down Mike based on one year of his retirement while ignoring a plethora of other external circumstances doesn't really prove anything.

[HoopsNY]

This is and always has been a stupid argument that you and others have been spewing for years. In most of those cases you mentioned, the teammates they left behind best days' were usually behind them and/or the franchise was set on a full rebuild so they were considered lost seasons without the desire and motivation to actually try to contend. This was a completely unique situation, not really comparable to the others you mentioned.

In 94, Pippen and Grant were in the heart of their primes, while Kukoc and Armstrong were on the ascension. And by Jordan retiring so late, the Bulls didn't have the chance to tear the team down and commit to a full rebuild. And unlike the other teams you mentioned, the Bulls were constantly considered a one man show that Jordan carried so there was that extra motivation to try and prove themselves without him, especially for Pippen.

For those reasons and for whatever other reasons, unlike the other teams you mentioned, they still had the motivation and belief that they could contend, and they performed well doing so - and you can live in this fantasy world where teams are extremely motivated at all times no matter the situation and their chances but that is simply unrealistic. Not surprisingly, once the 94 offseason hit and the Bulls were close to a full rebuild, Pippen and probably others considered 95 as a "lost season" and it seems like there play reflected that until Jordan came back.

This comparison doesn't really have much of a bearing on how good a superstar's "help" is when they aren't absent and are playing with those teams when compared to others - meaning when the Celtics go 42-40 without Bird and the Bulls go 55-27 without Jordan its really ****ing stupid to reduce about a decade's worth of their teammates play to a 13 win difference by 1 team. But you continue to make these dumb arguments. A bunch of idiots that never watched them play will always support it.

I think Boston won 48 games the following year without Bird, after having won 51 with him in his last season.

[HoopsNY]

Team A: 55 wins, nearly win the #1 seed despite injuries to key players and take the EC champs to 7 (who took Houston to 7)
Team B: 45 wins, lose in the first round

A and B are not the same...and B was able to sign Rony Seiklay and get 17/10 from him; Myers was 8/3.

But you're not being fair. Not only did they lose Shaq but Penny was injured for a lot of that season. In the 1995-96 season, Penny started all 82 games. The next season, Penny plays in 59 games.

[Hey Yo]

They went from perennial champions into a 2nd round team, where they replaced Jordan with Kukoc.

Jordan was a Forward??

Journeyman 6th round pick Pete Myers started 81gms at SG. Kukoc started 8gms and was a SF/PF.

Not sure why you even bother posting about the NBA.

[guy]

I think Boston won 48 games the following year without Bird, after having won 51 with him in his last season.

Was talking about 1989 where Bird missed almost the whole season due to injury.

[HoopsNY]

Was talking about 1989 where Bird missed almost the whole season due to injury.

Oh okay, my mistake.

[97 bulls]

This is and always has been a stupid argument that you and others have been spewing for years. In most of those cases you mentioned, the teammates they left behind best days' were usually behind them and/or the franchise was set on a full rebuild so they were considered lost seasons without the desire and motivation to actually try to contend. This was a completely unique situation, not really comparable to the others you mentioned.

In 94, Pippen and Grant were in the heart of their primes, while Kukoc and Armstrong were on the ascension. And by Jordan retiring so late, the Bulls didn't have the chance to tear the team down and commit to a full rebuild. And unlike the other teams you mentioned, the Bulls were constantly considered a one man show that Jordan carried so there was that extra motivation to try and prove themselves without him, especially for Pippen.

For those reasons and for whatever other reasons, unlike the other teams you mentioned, they still had the motivation and belief that they could contend, and they performed well doing so - and you can live in this fantasy world where teams are extremely motivated at all times no matter the situation and their chances but that is simply unrealistic. Not surprisingly, once the 94 offseason hit and the Bulls were close to a full rebuild, Pippen and probably others considered 95 as a "lost season" and it seems like there play reflected that until Jordan came back.

This comparison doesn't really have much of a bearing on how good a superstar's "help" is when they aren't absent and are playing with those teams when compared to others - meaning when the Celtics go 42-40 without Bird and the Bulls go 55-27 without Jordan its really ****ing stupid to reduce about a decade's worth of their teammates play to a 13 win difference by 1 team. But you continue to make these dumb arguments. A bunch of idiots that never watched them play will always support it.

Oh save it. The fact is that Kevin McHale was an Allstar the year Bird went down to injury. The same for Worthy when Magic abruptly retired. Most were in their early 30s or late 20s. And, they got viable replacements.

Armstrong and Grant never ascended. Their games were what they had always been.

The inconsistencies in these arguments never cease to amaze me.

And why on Gods green earth would you arrive at the conclusion that the 95 Bulls deemed that 95 season as a "lost season" and didn't really try? They lost Grant. The year before, they lost Jordan. That's why they hovered around .500. I mean you cant make this stuff up. These argument are as lame as they come. It seems to me that the Bulls are the only team in which context, common sense, and just flat out credit, can never be utilized.

Look at the Warriors this past year when they lost Curry and Thompson. They fell from perennial title contender to the worse record in the NBA. And again, they went out and got DeAngelo Russell.

[HoopsNY]

Oh save it. The fact is that Kevin McHale was an Allstar the year Bird went down to injury. The same for Worthy when Magic abruptly retired. Most were in their early 30s or late 20s. And, they got viable replacements.
Armstrong and Grant never ascended. Their games were what they had always been.

The inconsistencies in these arguments never cease to amaze me.

And why on Gods green earth would you arrive at the conclusion that the 95 Bulls deemed that 95 season as a "lost season" and didn't really try? They lost Grant. The year before, they lost Jordan. That's why they hovered around .500. I mean you cant make this stuff up. These argument are as lame as they come. It seems to me that the Bulls are the only team in which context, common sense, and just flat out credit, can never be utilized.

Look at the Warriors this past year when they lost Curry and Thompson. They fell from perennial title contender to the worse record in the NBA. And again, they went out and got DeAngelo Russell.

Both Armstrong and Grant were All-Stars in 1994. I'd say they ascended pretty well.

[Roundball_Rock]

But that's what the OP was about.

I know but the discussion shifted a bit.

For one, the Lakers (Magic, Wilt), Celtics (Bird), Bulls, and Magic (Shaq) all made the playoffs the following year that their best player left.

Most of the league makes the playoffs. All the teams you listed 1) struggled to get above .500 2) lost in the first round. The Bulls are the outlier in performance.

You also excluded examples of teams who didn't make the playoffs at all.

When Shaq left LA, not only did he leave, but Malone and GP do too, and Rick Fox retires

Yeah but when he left Orlando...the other four starters remained. What happened? You can poke holes into any given individual case but the overall trend is crystal clear, with only one outlier.

In the case of the Bulls, they were lucky in the first round to face a team that was depleted with injuries

The Cavs were a 47 win team the Bulls swept 4-0 the previous year and beat 4-2 the year before that.

It is interesting injuries count for the Cavs and not the Bulls. If the Bulls had normal health from Pippen and Grant (plus others), they would be the #1 seed, not the #3, and playing the Heat. You didn't run those calculations?

I find it ironic that while that is ignored and the 55 wins is glorified, the next season of Chicago going 34-31 prior to Mike's return is conveniently overlooked.

What's overlooked is the importance of Horace Grant (and failing to replace him). It is funny, the MJ crowd likes to ignore Grant/Rodman but the Bulls suffered more when Grant left than when the GOAT left.

I notice you mentioned Hot Rod Williams for Cleveland but didn't mention Grant, Cartwright, Scott Williams all leaving after 94'. So 2 starters (on top of MJ the year before, so 3 of 5 93' team starters gone) plus a third rotation member from their front line.

In the case of Lebron with Cleveland the first time, then not only did Lebron leave

Like Shaq, you also have to look at the teams when they got hurt and missed significant time. What happened after they left is consistent with that. In those cases only they left...

To add on, when Lebron leaves Miami, a similar situation occurs. First off, both Bosh and Wade were significantly injured,

So Wade being hurt more in 14' doesn't count but being hurt in 15' does? Wade is hurt every year so it's a weak excuse. Wade being hurt is baked into the 14' performance with LeBron.

Bosh was done with health issues (not injury) on February 11. The Heat were 22-30 at that point; the Bulls were 34-13 at the same point.

Shane Battier who played 20 MPG is mentioned but the additions of Deng, Whiteside, and Dragic are not.

while ignoring a plethora of other external circumstances

You are projecting.

I think Boston won 48 games the following year without Bird, after having won 51 with him in his last season.

That was 34 year old Bird. I'm talking about near prime Bird and the 89' season when Bird missed 76 games. They went 42-40 (57-25 the year before).

Jordan was a Forward??

When the facts don't work MJ stans will just lie or deceive with sleights of hands. Pete Myers was MJ's replacement, not a bench SF.

[guy]

Oh save it. The fact is that Kevin McHale was an Allstar the year Bird went down to injury. The same for Worthy when Magic abruptly retired. Most were in their early 30s or late 20s. And, they got viable replacements.

Armstrong and Grant never ascended. Their games were what they had always been.

The inconsistencies in these arguments never cease to amaze me.

And why on Gods green earth would you arrive at the conclusion that the 95 Bulls deemed that 95 season as a "lost season" and didn't really try? They lost Grant. The year before, they lost Jordan. That's why they hovered around .500. I mean you cant make this stuff up. These argument are as lame as they come. It seems to me that the Bulls are the only team in which context, common sense, and just flat out credit, can never be utilized.

Look at the Warriors this past year when they lost Curry and Thompson. They fell from perennial title contender to the worse record in the NBA. And again, they went out and got DeAngelo Russell.

Hmmm let's see because Pippen himself literally called it a "wasted season" (sorry not "lost") and said he didn't try as hard and wasn't as motivated. Oh and he was an all-star too that year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bu...k-fax-1995-nba

“This is a wasted season,” he said. “It all started last summer when they tried to trade me behind my back, never came to me about it and then lied to me when I asked them about it. I was so upset I hardly worked out. I did not report to camp in good shape and things just got worse. Now I see what Michael went through when he first came here,” he said. “He sacrificed a lot of his game to make his teammates better. I’m sacrificing in some areas for the same reason but not getting the same result because we no longer have as much talent.”

Do you really think in those other seasons where a superstar left, that the same lack of motivation was never present?

I didn't say Grant ascended. I said he was in his prime. BJ was either ascending or in his prime. Who cares. The point is its not like Jordan left a bunch of rookies or old dudes. He left a championship supporting cast that were in their primes and had a ton of experience having won 3 straight titles and had been to 5 straight ECF.

The Warriors lost Durant, Curry, and Klay. There situation was not remotely the same.

[sportjames23]

Horrace Grant. In 1994.

Grant did 14.8 ppg

How many other teams won 55 games with your #2 doing under 15ppg? Pippen's impact is incredible.

I like how this chump didn't mention Toni Kukoc was a starter that year.

[LostCause]

On a serious note, my question is do you guys actually understand basketball? I ask because the circumstances in Chicago and these other places you're mentioning aren't just a matter of addition/subtraction. The simplest reason why the Bulls were able to continue to do well and teams like LeBrons Cavs aren't is because of system and personnel. You also see how the Spurs are continually able to do well despite turnover for the same reason. Ben Taylor put it well:


"Dependent talent" isn't what I'd describe the rosters in Chicago as. Chicago filled it's roster with players that fit the triangle. Not players "dependent" on being spoonfed but players who excelled playing in a system that gave them opportunities based on matchups and movement like the triangle. Anyway...

Kerr took Paxsons role. Wennington replaced the role of Scott Williams or Stacey King.

Kukoc was a rookie but fine. So what? The Bulls replaced PRIME Michael Jordan with a perennial CBA player and a rookie 2nd round draft pick that couldn't even speak the language when he first arrived. Really?

Paxson was still on the 94 Bulls, and let's not undersell Kukoc. He was their 2nd leading scorer per 36 and he came off the bench, so his bench production was extremely valuable. Williams also wasn't really "replaced", he averaged double figures against Cleveland.

Chicago cratered offensively without Jordan though, but they did maintain a strong defense.



With the additions to the team, the leftover personnel and coaching philosophies, the team was obviously going to be okay. Not a contender, but a playoff team with lots of recent championship experience. Some of the other players mentioned had more turnover upon their leaving, and for the most part no they didn't bring in as much quality depth as Chicago did. 97 magic lost 15 more games but Penny also missed 23 himself. They were on a 52-win pace for games Penny played (and that team dealt with a lot of injury throughout its roster). Obviously LeBrons Cavs had the most turnover. Coaching change in Cleveland both times, serious injury problems with Wade/Bosh in Miami etc. Those circumstances are a lot different than the circumstances Chicago encountered, which is more similar to the Spurs being able to remain competitive despite losses due to their system not being overly reliant on a single player.

Here's an excerpt from an article in January of 94 regarding these same additions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-07bad33554f4/

So again, let's not underrate the contributions of these guys. That's revisionist history