1994 Pippen should have been mvp

[Roundball_Rock]

Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.

Context. First, no one compares efficiency of a SF to a C. That is an ISH shtick but I doubt any MVP voter did that. If they compared efficiency, it would be C's to C's (so Ewing vs. Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq).

The context for the Knicks was going from 60 wins and the 1 seed to 57 wins and the 2 seed. The same core came back (although Rivers got hurt). So if Ewing was 4th in MVP when he was better, his team was better why would he suddenly finish higher when he and his team took steps back? That is why he finished 5th in 94'. Ewing wasn't even all-NBA in 94'. MVP, doe?

The Bulls similarly stepped back, going from 57 wins and the 2 seed to 55 wins and the 3 seed but obviously with losing MJ and "replacing" him with Myers. Moreover, people recognized the Bulls with Pippen were much better (50-20 with him healthy) so he got some credit for that (e.g., the Bulls with Pippen>the Knicks with Ewing that year) but he also lost votes because he missed 10 games and was injured for 2 more.

It is obvious why the Bulls' 55 was viewed as more impressive than the Knicks' 57 (the Knicks won the 82nd game against the Bulls, a meaningless game for each team so the actual delta in real games was 56 versus 55).

The other thing that hurt Ewing was he got annihilated by Hakeem and Robinson H2H. Hard to be MVP when the two MVP candidates at your own position embarrass you.

[insidious301]

Context. First, no one compares efficiency of a SF to a C. That is an ISH shtick but I doubt any MVP voter did that. If they compared efficiency, it would be C's to C's (so Ewing vs. Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq).

The context for the Knicks was going from 60 wins and the 1 seed to 57 wins and the 2 seed. The same core came back (although Rivers got hurt). So if Ewing was 4th in MVP when he was better, his team was better why would he suddenly finish higher when he and his team took steps back? That is why he finished 5th in 94'. Ewing wasn't even all-NBA in 94'. MVP, doe?

The Bulls similarly stepped back, going from 57 wins and the 2 seed to 55 wins and the 3 seed but obviously with losing MJ and "replacing" him with Myers. Moreover, people recognized the Bulls with Pippen were much better (50-20 with him healthy) so he got some credit for that (e.g., the Bulls with Pippen>the Knicks with Ewing that year) but he also lost votes because he missed 10 games and was injured for 2 more.

It is obvious why the Bulls' 55 was viewed as more impressive than the Knicks' 57 (the Knicks won the 82nd game against the Bulls, a meaningless game for each team so the actual delta in real games was 56 versus 55).

The other thing that hurt Ewing was he got annihilated by Hakeem and Robinson H2H. Hard to be MVP when the two MVP candidates at your own position embarrass you.

My post is more matter of fact. Ewing didn't only have better efficiency, but had more rebounds too. Another category centers rule in. Even if what you say is true, and they are good points, New York still finished #1 and Ewing had better stats to a degree. The MVP is year-by-year award. Jordan's bulls were a dynasty in hindsight, but he was awarded an MVP in 1998 with Chicago winning 62 games(we can point to injuries, but are we willing to do that for everyone else?). This after winning 70 and 67 games the years prior. Everything is case by case.

[Roundball_Rock]

Even if what you say is true, and they are good points, New York still finished #1 and Ewing had better stats to a degree.

They didn't finish #1--Atlanta did. The Knicks, Bulls were behind them.

Frankly, seeding wasn't a big factor. The Knicks, Bulls, Hawks went to the final weekend neck-and-neck and the MVP race became a 3 horse race between Hakeem, Robinson, Pippen before it was known how those teams would shake out. That said, the Knicks being in a three-way battle for 1st was a step back from the prior year, when they finished 3 games ahead of the Bulls and 6 games ahead of the third place Cavs.

The MVP is year-by-year award.

Agreed. My point is he had a lot more going for him in 93' and he finished 4th so it isn't surprising he finished lower (5th) in 94'. 93' they were 1st, 60 wins and he was 2nd team all-NBA behind Hakeem. 94', 2nd, 57 wins and no all-NBA.

Ewing didn't only have better efficiency, but had more rebounds too. Another category centers rule in

True. Pippen fared better in advanced stats but they didn't exist back then but the point was Pippen then was being compared to Hakeem, Robinson; not Ewing or Shaq. For example:

Sports Illustrated

SI article on the 94’ MVP race, DPOY and other awards (COY PJ):

As the regular season draws to a close, the races for the individual awards are so close that it might be fairest to chop up the trophies and spread them around. For instance, Most Valuable Player honors could be divvied up as follows: the M to the Rockets' Hakeem Olajuwon, the V to the Spurs' David Robinson and the P to the Bulls' Scottie Pippen. There hasn't been a season in recent memory with so many photo finishes, but, well, the time has come to name our winners:

MVP: Hakeem Olajuwon, Rockets

Notwithstanding the unequivocal pronouncement on the cover of a certain magazine (SI, March 7) that Robinson is the Man, no one has come closer to single-handedly carrying a team than Olajuwon, who at week's end was third in the league in scoring (27.3 points per game) and tied for third in rebounding (12.0). Robinson, the scoring leader at 29.2, has been brilliant, but he has had rebounding maniac Dennis Rodman to relieve him of some of his responsibilities on the boards and even to guard opposing centers from time to time. Pippen has played like an MVP, but he has had lapses in which he hasn't comported himself like one, such as the night he reacted to booing by Chicago fans by pointing out that teammate Toni Kukoc hadn't received similarly harsh treatment despite having missed all of his field goal attempts.

Ewing, Shaq weren't even worth mentioning. Their beef with Pippen was basically PR stuff.

[Roundball_Rock]

Chicago Tribune

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, Robinson and Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon have emerged as the favorites, with the Bulls' Scottie Pippen hanging around on the edge.

So a three-horse race again, which is what everyone watching back then understood it as (Hubie Brown says the same at the outset of Bulls-Cavs Game 1--that game is on YT).

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.

Shaq and Ewing are mentioned as non-candidates with their GM and coach complaining about their exclusion:

There is some other anger around, notably from those who think they are deserving of the award but being overlooked.

"Shaq is leading the league in scoring, is second in rebounding and shooting on one of the league's most improved teams," noted Orlando General Manager Pat Williams. "He should be right there with Hakeem and Robinson."

Patrick Ewing should, too, says his coach, Pat Riley.

"If there ever was a time he deserved to be MVP, it was last year," said Riley, "when his team won 60 games and 24 of the last 28. And he's had a great season again."

But Ewing's poor performances against Olajuwon and Robinson-he's averaging 13 points a game against them this season to 33 for them-and publicity-shy ways make him a long shot.

This "5 horse race" thing is revisionism from MJ/Knicks fans (some overlap--Knicks fans love MJ for some reason--Stockholm Syndrome?) 26 years later. Ewing's own coach and Shaq's own GM recognized they weren't candidates.

https://vault.si.com/vault/1994/04/25/the-nba

[insidious301]

They didn't finish #1--Atlanta did. The Knicks, Bulls were behind them.

New York and Atlanta both had the same record and win percentage. Record and Team Play have always been a mainstay in MVP narrative. Or do you disagree?

haq and Ewing are mentioned as non-candidates with their GM and coach complaining about their exclusion:

Orlando management isn't something I would hang my hat on. The Ewing argument is at least understandable, because, frankly, he didn't get many votes. Shaq however had a number of them. Nearly the same first place and total points as Pippen. Right or wrong that was the shake out.

[Roundball_Rock]

New York and Atlanta both had the same record and win percentage. Record and Team Play have always been a mainstay in MVP narrative.

True--but Atlanta had HCA so the tiebreaker mattered. I agree record is a factor--one reason why Shaq wasn't in it--but it wasn't all positive for Ewing. His team went from 1st to 2nd, they won 3 less games, and he personally regressed. So it would be odd to see him improve on 4th in MVP in 93'.

Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP. Right or wrong, MVP voters never gave him much consideration.

Orlando management isn't something I would hang my hat on. The Ewing argument is at least understandable, because, frankly, he didn't get many votes. Shaq however had a number of them. Nearly the same first place and total points as Pippen. Right or wrong that was the shake out.

Pippen was hurt directly by missing 10 games and indirectly but that costing the Bulls the #1 seed. So the fact Pippen was ahead of him in the first place tells you something because if two players are equal and one plays the full season and the other doesn't, the guy playing the full season would win out.

Total points was Pippen 390, Shaq 289, Ewing 255.

The ballots are 1-5, though. That gives us a better look to who voters viewed them.

1st place: Hakeem 66, Robinson 24, Pippen 7, Shaq 3, Ewing 1
2nd place: Robinson 57, Hakeem 28, Pippen 9, Shaq/Ewing 3, Price 1
3rd place: Pippen 37, Shaq 21, Ewing 19, Robinson 17, Hakeem 6, Payton 1

Shaq got the most 4th place votes, Ewing the most 5th place votes. So each line on the ballot was consistent with the order of finish.

Pippen had 7 first place, Shaq 3 but if you combine first and second the gap is 16-6. Then on third Pippen is ahead again 37-21. Shaq got the most 4th place and second most 5th place votes. In other words, Shaq wasn't competing with Pippen for votes but with Hakeem. Pippen was in his own tier in the voting but we don't know what it would have looked like if he played 82 games.

You can see full ballots through 2001 at http://www.apbr.org/nbamvps.html. It is interesting in 96' Hakeem was slightly ahead of Pippen but Pippen led him 11-1 in second place votes (MJ got 99% of the first place votes) and 18-9 in third place votes.

[insidious301]

True--but Atlanta had HCA so the tiebreaker mattered. I agree record is a factor--one reason why Shaq wasn't in it--but it wasn't all positive for Ewing. His team went from 1st to 2nd, they won 3 less games, and he personally regressed. So it would be odd to see him improve on 4th in MVP in 93'.

Ewing never finished higher than 4th in MVP. Right or wrong, MVP voters never gave him much consideration.

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.

Pippen was hurt directly by missing 10 games and indirectly but that costing the Bulls the #1 seed. So the fact Pippen was ahead of him in the first place tells you something because if two players are equal and one plays the full season and the other doesn't, the guy playing the full season would win out.

Total points was Pippen 390, Shaq 289, Ewing 255.

The ballots are 1-5, though. That gives us a better look to who voters viewed them.

1st place: Hakeem 66, Robinson 24, Pippen 7, Shaq 3, Ewing 1
2nd place: Robinson 57, Hakeem 28, Pippen 9, Shaq/Ewing 3, Price 1
3rd place: Pippen 37, Shaq 21, Ewing 19, Robinson 17, Hakeem 6, Payton 1

Shaq got the most 4th place votes, Ewing the most 5th place votes. So each line on the ballot was consistent with the order of finish.

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.

[Roundball_Rock]

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.

Barkley won it in 93'--MJ was third (in the same situation as Ewing: 2nd seed with 57 wins) but I get your point. It is odd Ewing never finished higher than 4th despite being a superstar on a contender for much of his prime in the market where the national media is based. It isn't a good look for Ewing, though, since it suggests MVP voters didn't think of him as highly as fans then or now do. Look at his C peers. Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq all won MVP's. So did the best PF's of his time, Barkley and Malone. So all the top 40 AT big men won one in that era but Ewing never came close. That says something.

My problem was with you calling Shaq "not a real" candidate. By the numbers, Shaq wouldn't have won MVP by a longshot.

In the sense that it was a "3 horse" race. This year it is 2 horses, sometimes it is 3 (e.g., 08').

Shaq's problem was his team record. If your team is 50-32 it is hard to win MVP, especially when he had a strong "cast" around him and the result was "only" 50 wins. There are exceptions. Westbrook, Jordan, Kareem but the exceptions prove the rule: GOAT candidates in their primes or Westbrook having a historic season. Shaq was the third best player at his own position in 94' (if we go by all-NBA) so he didn't stick out.

[insidious301]

Barkley won it in 93'--MJ was third (in the same situation as Ewing: 2nd seed with 57 wins) but I get your point. It is odd Ewing never finished higher than 4th despite being a superstar on a contender for much of his prime in the market where the national media is based. It isn't a good look for Ewing, though, since it suggests MVP voters didn't think of him as highly as fans then or now do. Look at his C peers. Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq all won MVP's. So did the best PF's of his time, Barkley and Malone. So all the top 40 AT big men won one in that era but Ewing never came close. That says something.

I meant that Jordan won MVP in 1998. And Chicago won less games that year than in 96 and 97. Mentioned this above so assumed you knew where I was going. That is my fault for not being clear. Ewing never being a top 3 candidate is weird. Never put much thought into it but like you said, the big market should have overrated him.

In the sense that it was a "3 horse" race. This year it is 2 horses, sometimes it is 3 (e.g., 08').

You only meant Top 3? Fair enough. 1994 was Shaq's second year though, so its crazy he got that many points to begin with.

[HoopsNY]

Meaning he didn't garner enough votes. You're right that Ewing had more points, reb, blocks, better efficiency(and that New York was the #1 seed). Don't know exactly why Pippen got more acclaim. Maybe it had something to do with him winning without Jordan. On the surface that is a strong narrative.

I'm not even saying he deserved more acclaim than Pippen. I'm saying it's - at the VERY least - a conversation. The mere fact that we're having this conversation proves it.

Rounball is just an bitter MJ hater who boils everything down to MJ being overrated by "stans". I mean, after I clearly said that Ewing and Pippen's 1993-94 season were comparable (not necessarily one being CLEARLY over the other), he responds with this:

Only to a certain fan base 26 years later.

This is the kind of rhetoric that is mind boggling. As if to say, nope, no way, not in the conversation. Like this is some David Wingate vs Scottie Pippen comparison.

[Phoenix]

I don't believe it's so weird that Ewing never finished closer than 4th in MVP. I don't think at any point in his career he would have been considered like the 4th best player in any given season ( yes, I know best player doesn't always and necessarily mean MVP). But his peak coincided with peak MJ, Barkley, Magic, then David Robinson came in, Mailman, Shaq then enters the league, Hakeem takes it up a gear. His best just happened to coincide with a really strong period for superstars.

[Phoenix]

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.

Shaq had MVP numbers. But so did Hakeem and Admiral and on teams with better records. And you simply couldn't ignore Scottie leading the Bulls to a better record as well beyond what I think most of us would have imagined at the time. Plus, as silly as it may seem, I think there's a thing about 'paying dues' and 94 Shaq was a second year player. It wasn't 'his time' yet.

[HoopsNY]

News to his GM, who complained publicly about it being a 3 horse race (same as Riley did for Ewing).

Shaq was on a 50 win team (that had Penny, Anderson, D. Scott, Skiles) that got swept by a 47 win team in the first round. How often does a 50 win team produce a MVP candidate? Shaq's stats on basketballreference obscure that his team wasn't good enough

Right, because rookie Penny Hardaway was the acclaimed player that everyone came to know and love in 1998. Give me a break man. Penny was a rookie, with no defense, averaging 16 ppg. Scott Skiles, who didn't crack 10 ppg and averaged 6 assists, not to mention only started 46 of 81 games.

You're making Shaq's supporting cast out to be Chicago's supporting cast here. Who would you rather have? A trio of Penny-Anderson-Scott or Grant-Bj-Kukoc in that year? Better yet, swap Shaq and Pippen and what are the Bulls doing that year?

Furthermore, Shaq damn near won the scoring title if David Robinson wasn't stat padding. You seem to think that Scottie's 22 ppg is somehow comparable to Shaq's 29.3. There's a significant difference there. And if you say defense, then what was Shaq defensively? Some slouch? Shaq was always an excellent defender.

Apparently--all the difference. Miller's entire "case" relies on scoring so we see shady accounting to get him to 24 PPG (tpols uses 01' to get him there, you cut off his prime in 98' to do it).

You need to get out more. Why are you so bothered by what I wrote? I merely used Miller's best years in the playoffs (1990-02), where he averaged 23.5 PPG. Why is that a crime? I merely tried to establish who he was as a scorer/playoff performer. So what are we going to say now, that Scottie was the better scorer/shooter with higher efficiency numbers? Or was Reggie the better player in that regard?

And even after that, I CLEARLY said Pippen > Miller. You would think Roundball is George Bush, you're either with us or against us. We're all "stans" cause we don't agree - to the very letter of HIS law - and therefore we ALL have some kind of "agenda." Go figure.

Either way, the Miller stuff is amusing. It is all about scoring and we are talking 23 PPG in the PO (24 if we cook the books for him) and 21 PPG in the RS for his prime. The problem is those "playoff" numbers come from monster 1st round series. He wasn't that player for the rest of the PO. If he was, I would agree with the Miller crew.

And I previously showed you that Miller has great performances in all rounds. Yes there seems to be a drop off but why does that matter when he faced strong defensive teams in the 1st and 2nd rounds? You're acting like he was doing it against severely weak defensive teams in the 1st round. Newsflash Roundball, Indiana wasn't a consistent #1 or #2 seed to have that luxury of facing easier competition in Round 1.

Indiana finished 8th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 5th, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 8th, 8th between 1989-02.

Indiana was usually facing elite teams in the 1st round.

So that leaves us with this: basically arguing Miller scoring 21 PPG in the ECF on around 14 shots a game and Pippen scoring 20 PPG in the ECF on around 16 shots a game (some of these were end of quarter/end of shot clock bailouts--Miller wasn't taking those for Indiana). It almost is a joke: this whole thing is about 1 point and 2 shots.

So what's your point?

[Roundball_Rock]

I meant that Jordan won MVP in 1998. And Chicago won less games that year than in 96 and 97.

True, but he got credit for keeping them afloat without MJ (Pippen didn't get the same credit when he did the same--for a full season, not half a season).

You only meant Top 3? Fair enough.

I mean the names that come up when MVP is discussed. This year it is Giannis and LeBron. In 08' it was Kobe, Paul, KG. Sure other people get votes but only 2-3 players have a legitimate chance of actually winning it. The others get votes because each ballot has 5 spots. In 94', it was Pippen, Hakeem, Robinson. I posted SI, the Tribune, and anyone can go to the TNT opening of the Bulls-Cavs Game 1 and see Hubie Brown say MVP is between Pippen, Robinson, Hakeem. Shaq, Ewing aren't even mentioned in two of these cases--in one they are mentioned as not being viable candidates.

I don't believe it's so weird that Ewing never finished closer than 4th in MVP. I don't think at any point in his career he would have been considered like the 4th best player in any given season ( yes, I know best player doesn't always and necessarily mean MVP). But his peak coincided with peak MJ, Barkley, Magic, then David Robinson came in, Mailman, Shaq then enters the league, Hakeem takes it up a gear.

I mostly meant relative to his reputation. Look at this thread. He is being presented as being far better than Pippen, a player who was 3rd in MVP his one full prime season as a #1. Yet the "superior" player could never do it?

Some of it is weird outside his reputation. Both Hardaways finished 3rd in the 90's, Drexler was 2nd, Payton was 3rd in 98'. Ewing was arguably better than all these players and had the benefit of playing in New York--not Seattle, Orlando, Portland or even Miami.

Some of his reputation is agena-driven. Ewing gets hyped by the same people who hype Malone, Miller, Stockton, Drexler, Payton, et al. for obvious reasons and here Ewing has the value of diminishing Pippen. Notice they go on and on about Ewing vs. Pippen but don't make a case for Ewing over Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem? If he was a serious MVP candidate, he would have a case over them but we aren't hearing it.

Shaq had MVP numbers.

Yeah, but it is tough when your team is 50-32 to win MVP. Everyone else being discussed won 55+.

If Shaq won it would have been perhaps the most embarrassing MVP: the MVP getting swept in the first round by a 47 win team? Can you imagine that?

I mean, after I clearly said that Ewing and Pippen's 1993-94 season were comparable (not necessarily one being CLEARLY over the other), he responds with this:

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.

[Phoenix]

I mostly meant relative to his reputation. Look at this thread. He is being presented as being far better than Pippen, a player who was 3rd in MVP his one full prime season as a #1.

Some of it is weird even considering his reputation. Both Hardaways finished 3rd in the 90's, Drexler was 2nd, Payton was 3rd in 98'. Ewing was arguably better than all these players and had the benefit of playing in New York--not Seattle, Orlando, Portland or even Miami.



Yeah, but it is tough when your team is 50-32 to win MVP. Everyone else being discussed won 55+.

I've caught little tidbits of this thread so not sure of everything that's been said, but sort of honed in on Ewing on this last page. Perhaps some of his reputation was based on the market? Or maybe all those Bulls-Knicks battles. In other words, if he was dropping 25/10 on some 40 win team( or small market team) would he get as much attention ( then and now)? But just looking at the situation, it is weird that 'worse' players ranked higher in other seasons but every season has a different story I guess. I mean in 93, you had Barkley, Hakeem and MJ all on top of their games. Talk about a tough nut to crack.

Yeah,that's what I was saying about Shaq. He had the numbers but the numbers argument applied to Hakeem and Admiral too who yielded higher team records. Scottie's numbers weren't anything to sneeze at either at 22/9/6/3/1 49%...and also a higher team record. So Shaq shouldn't have been an MVP candidate over the aforementioned 3 and that's how the voters saw it as well.