How can Scottie Pippen be Overrated when...

[zay_24]

SP career minutes: 41069
MJ career minutes: 41013
(almost identical)

SP career assists: 6135
MJ career assists: 5633

SP career rebounds: 7494
MJ career rebounds: 6672

SP career blocks: 947
MJ career blocks: 893

[juju151111]

SP career minutes: 41069
MJ career minutes: 41013
(almost identical)

SP career assists: 6135
MJ career assists: 5633

SP career rebounds: 7494
MJ career rebounds: 6672

SP career blocks: 947
MJ career blocks: 893
Who said he was overrated?

[1987_Lakers]

Scottie Pippen is a top 30 player all time and #6 on the greatest small forwards list.

[Horatio33]

pippen played 18 seasons

jordan played 15 and a half seasons

[JJ81]

Who said he was overrated?

+1

[zay_24]

pippen played 18 seasons

jordan played 15 and a half seasons
Guess you missed this fanboy...

SP career minutes: 41069
MJ career minutes: 41013
(almost identical)

[liverpooty]

No one said he was overrated, and if they did their dumb.

[zay_24]

No one said he was overrated, and if they did their dumb.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125276

[A Roc 23]

Scottie is considered right where he should be by most people. In fact I'm impressed that people rate him where he belongs considering all those years as a veteran role player towards the end of his career.

Scottie was an amazing defender and all-around player. Obviously no where near Jordan's level on offense though.

[2LeTTeRS]

Pippen does get overrated from time to time around here, I've seen by people claim he was better than Bird or as good or better than Kobe or Bron, and the truth is he wasn't. Still a very good player, but he had a relatively short prime, and didn't have (or at least didn't show) the ability to take over a game the way most stars do.

[highwhey]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125276
90% of ISH=IQ below 70

An IQ below 70 can qualify you as a "challenged" person.

[Psileas]

How can Scottie Pippen be Overrated when...

SP career minutes: 41069
MJ career minutes: 41013
(almost identical)

SP career assists: 6135
MJ career assists: 5633

SP career rebounds: 7494
MJ career rebounds: 6672

SP career blocks: 947
MJ career blocks: 893

When there are people who really think that there were seasons when Pippen was the 2nd best player in the game.

[Horatio33]

i'm not a fanboy. i think bill russell is the best player ever. not jordan

i got my facts mixed up. you sound like the fanboy

[DuMa]

pip is definitely more underrated than he is overrated. but hes definitely not comparable to jordan. jordan was undisputely the man in all the years they played together.

[zay_24]

i'm not a fanboy. i think bill russell is the best player ever. not jordan

i got my facts mixed up. you sound like the fanboy
Bill Russel?Let Bill Russel in his prime play against Rodman. You'll see how dominat Russel really is.

[Psileas]

Bill Russel?Let Bill Russel in his prime play against Rodman. You'll see how dominat Russel really is.

We've seen "Russel" play and dominate against a lot of bigs. One more (who probably wouldn't even guard him if they had played against each other, since Russell was a C, and not usually concentrated on scoring) wouldn't make any difference, just because he's from another era.

[zay_24]

Rodman played in the most defensive Era in NBA history.
Russel played scrubs. You see the difference?
Russel and wilt would both get dominated by rodman,barkely and especially shaq.

[2LeTTeRS]

Rodman played in the most defensive Era in NBA history.
Russel played scrubs. You see the difference?
Russel and wilt would both get dominated by rodman,barkely and especially shaq.

How old are you?

[zay_24]

How old are you?
It doesn't matter. Rodman averaged 18 rpg in the 90's.

Tell me 5 players russel played against that would be an allstar in todays league?

[Psileas]

Rodman played in the most defensive Era in NBA history.
Russel played scrubs. You see the difference?
Russel and wilt would both get dominated by rodman,barkely and especially shaq.

ROFL. Let me repeat the question of the above: How old are you?
And what else do you know about Wilt, except for the numbers 100 and 20,000?

[Psileas]

It doesn't matter. Rodman averaged 18 rpg in the 90's.

Tell me 5 players russel played against that would be an allstar in todays league?

Is that all?

Wilt
Thurmond
Bellamy
Reed
Lucas

And in a league with way less teams, which means that he was facing them a lot more often.

BTW, I love how even you, the topic starter, get out of your own topic when you meet a view that you don't agree with.

[zay_24]

Is that all?

Wilt
Thurmond
Bellamy
Reed
Lucas

And in a league with way less teams, which means that he was facing them a lot more often.

BTW, I love how even you, the topic starter, get out of your own topic when you meet a view that you don't agree with.
I'll give you reed. That's about it. Wilt was strong too, but he wouldn't be averaging no 50ppg in todays league.

[2LeTTeRS]

I'll give you reed. That's about it. Wilt was strong too, but he wouldn't be averaging no 50ppg in todays league.

Do you even know who those players are? And who said Wilt would average 50 a game? You claimed he would get dominated by "Rodman, Barkely and especially Shaq," when of all those guys the only one who would even be matched up against him is prime Shaq. Rodman and Barkley are way to small to match up against Wilt, and Barkley wasn't even a good defender. In todays league Wilt would be the best center in the league, by a pretty fair margin.

[Psileas]

I'll give you reed. That's about it. Wilt was strong too, but he wouldn't be averaging no 50ppg in todays league.

And because Wilt wouldn't average 50 today, this means what, exactly? Wilt averaged 50 in his era only for 1 season, as well.
The fact alone that you accept Reed but argue Wilt, who was a much greater player, shows how confused you are about these guys.

Suggestion: Back to Pippen.

[zay_24]

Do you even know who those players are? And who said Wilt would average 50 a game? You claimed he would get dominated by "Rodman, Barkely and especially Shaq," when of all those guys the only one who would even be matched up against him is prime Shaq. Rodman and Barkley are way to small to match up against Wilt, and Barkley wasn't even a good defender. In todays league Wilt would be the best center in the league, by a pretty fair margin.It's funny. You say rodman was too short to do anything to Wilt, but yet rodman was only 2 inches shorter than Russel.(Russel used to dominate Wilt)

[dnyk1337]

We all know Russell would be a 7 ppg, 14 rpg, 3 apg, 2 bpg player in this day and age. Close to Ben Wallace numbers.

Wilt would be around 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 2 bpg numbers... kinda like Shaq.

[jrong]

90% of ISH=IQ below 70

An IQ below 70 can qualify you as a "challenged" person.

So now subscribing to a popular opinion is the litmus test for intelligence? Well, that was my thread, and I'm the one who asserted that Pippen is overrated.

I cited my reasons which I am not going to rehash again here, but essentially I compared him to a healthy Grant Hill. Hill was a fantastic player, but he's usually not rated as highly as Pippen. I contend, however, that a Jordan/ Hill combo would have produced a dynasty just as Jordan/ Pippen did. And thus I call Scottie overrated.

However, if you disagree with this, I won't take issue with your standing as a smart person. I do take issue, though, if you suggest that I am unintelligent for voicing an opinion, and one I defended rationally, just because a lot of others happen not to share it.

[2LeTTeRS]

It's funny. You say rodman was too short to do anything to Wilt, but yet rodman was only 2 inches shorter than Russel.(Russel used to dominate Wilt)

False. The Celts as a team used to dominate Wilt's teams. Wilt always got his against Russel.


We all know Russell would be a 7 ppg, 14 rpg, 3 apg, 2 bpg player in this day and age. Close to Ben Wallace numbers.

Wilt would be around 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 2 bpg numbers... kinda like Shaq.

Russel is a much better offensive player than that. if he wasn't playing on a team with 5 other hall of famers he would have scored more. I see him getting at least 12-15 points a night if he played today, and a lot more than 2 blocks a night.

[Mikaiel]

I usually hate those era arguments, but is it really that unreasonable to think Rodman would dominate in Russell's era ? He was a greater rebounder than Wilt if you judge by their rebound rate. Yeah I know that stat only existed for Wilt in his last three years in the league but when he grabbed 18-19 rebounds a game in his Laker days, that translated to a 18-20 rebound rate. Which is lower than Rodman's career average (23.4). Rodman's career best was an insane 29.7, which means for every 10 rebounds that were available, Rodman grabbed 3 of them. All this while being smaller than his opponents. Russell and Wilt were either about the same height or taller.

So is it really that unreasonable ? :confusedshrug:

[Psileas]

It's funny. You say rodman was too short to do anything to Wilt, but yet rodman was only 2 inches shorter than Russel.(Russel used to dominate Wilt)

Russell was 6'9.5 barefoot, which is about the height of the average center of today. And Russell never dominated Wilt. He only reduced his scoring total and efficiency numbers. Wilt still averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against him.

[zay_24]

Russell was 6'9.5 barefoot, which is about the height of the average center of today. And Russell never dominated Wilt. He only reduced his scoring total and efficiency numbers. Wilt still averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg against him.
When it mattered(playoffs) Wilt couldnt seem to get pass him.

Just admit it, Rodman would out rebound Wilt and most likely make him start crying.

[2LeTTeRS]

I usually hate those era arguments, but is it really that unreasonable to think Rodman would dominate in Russell's era ? He was a greater rebounder than Wilt if you judge by their rebound rate. Yeah I know that stat only existed for Wilt in his last three years in the league but when he grabbed 18-19 rebounds a game in his Laker days, that translated to a 18-20 rebound rate. Which is lower than Rodman's career average (23.4). Rodman's career best was an insane 29.7, which means for every 10 rebounds that were available, Rodman grabbed 3 of them. All this while being smaller than his opponents. Russell and Wilt were either about the same height or taller.

So is it really that unreasonable ? :confusedshrug:

Who said Rodman wouldn't dominate in the 60s? The only comments were how Russel or Wilt would have performed in todays game. As far as Rodman, he obviously wouldn't have been any worse than he was in the 90s, so he would have been a hellish rebounder and defender, and its very likely that based off his athleticism he would have been able to score more points.

[Psileas]

I usually hate those era arguments, but is it really that unreasonable to think Rodman would dominate in Russell's era ? He was a greater rebounder than Wilt if you judge by their rebound rate. Yeah I know that stat only existed for Wilt in his last three years in the league but when he grabbed 18-19 rebounds a game in his Laker days, that translated to a 18-20 rebound rate. Which is lower than Rodman's career average (23.4). Rodman's career best was an insane 29.7, which means for every 10 rebounds that were available, Rodman grabbed 3 of them. All this while being smaller than his opponents. Russell and Wilt were either about the same height or taller.

So is it really that unreasonable ?

No-one said that Rodman wouldn't be a dominant rebounder in any era he played in. But that's leagues away from crap like "Rodman dominating Wilt", etc.
BTW, if Rodman wanted to win rebounding titles, he'd still have to play 40+ minutes a game season after season (35 mpg wouldn't be enough to get him to Wilt's and Russell's averages) and not miss games (which he did quite often after the early 90's), since, up to 1969, leading rebounders were judged by totals, not averages.

[2LeTTeRS]

When it mattered(playoffs) Wilt couldnt seem to get pass him.

Just admit it, Rodman would out rebound Wilt and most likely make him start crying.
Do you realize how stacked those Celtics teams were? Contrary to popular belief, they weren't out there playing one-on-one, and Russel normally had a far superior supporting cast. When Wilt had a comparable team he won.

[zay_24]

The players in todays game are too athletic. Sure wilt was athletic for his time too.
But compared to todays players, there's no way Wilt would be 50% as dominant in todays game as he was in his time.

[Psileas]

When it mattered(playoffs) Wilt couldnt seem to get pass him.

Just admit it, Rodman would out rebound Wilt and most likely make him start crying.

When it mattered, Jordan couldn't "get pass" Bird's Celtics and Isiah's Pistons. How about that?

Yeah, Rodman would make Wilt cry. From laughter.

[2LeTTeRS]

The players in todays game are too athletic. Sure wilt was athletic for his time too.
But compared to todays players, there's no way Wilt would be 50% as dominant in todays game as he was in his time.

Besides Dwight no center in today's leauge is half the athlete that Wilt was, even in the twilight of his career as a Laker.

[zay_24]

When it mattered, Jordan couldn't "get pass" Bird's Celtics and Isiah's Pistons. How about that?

Yeah, Rodman would make Wilt cry. From laughter.
Is that why Jordan stopped several great NBA players from getting a ring?

[Mikaiel]

The players in todays game are too athletic. Sure wilt was athletic for his time too.

For his time ? He could be one of the most, if the not the most, athletic player today if he was born a few decades later ...

[2LeTTeRS]

Is that why Jordan stopped several great NBA players from getting a ring?

Wow you're reasoning is so child-like its funny. Again how old are you?

[zay_24]

Besides Dwight no center in today's leauge is half the athlete that Wilt was, even in the twilight of his career as a Laker.
You're right. Centers today aren't as athletic as they once were. PF's, now that's a different story.

[Psileas]

The players in todays game are too athletic. Sure wilt was athletic for his time too.
But compared to todays players, there's no way Wilt would be 50% as dominant in todays game as he was in his time.

Generally, you are another kid who thinks that basketball was invented in the 80's or 90's and before that there only existed some tall dudes who walked with the help of nurses and couldn't touch the rim when they jumped.

You thought that Rodman and Barkley would embarass Wilt, then you assumed that Reed was better than Wilt, now you're saying that he was athletic "for his time". Get some years of studying about these guys, instead of believing anything your friends say in chat rooms, then come back and discuss. Or, better, get back to your own topic. This is the only way to have some decent discussion.

[pete's montreux]

I have nothing to say about this thread, except, it's learning time, kiddo.

[zay_24]

Generally, you are another kid who thinks that basketball was invented in the 80's or 90's and before that there only existed some tall dudes who walked with the help of nurses and couldn't touch the rim when they jumped.

You thought that Rodman and Barkley would embarass Wilt, then you assumed that Reed was better than Wilt, now you're saying that he was athletic "for his time". Get some years of studying about these guys, instead of believing anything your friends say in chat rooms, then come back and discuss. Or, better, get back to your own topic. This is the only way to have some decent discussion.
Nope, it's opinion.
Seeing as how most players back in that day weren't athletic, there's no way you could prove that wilt would be a dominant player in todays game.
Unless you can PROVE he will be, it's just your opinion FACT.

[Scott Pippen]

You're right. Centers today aren't as athletic as they once were. PF's, now that's a different story.
Wilt Chamberlain was a physical freak by TODAY's standards, playing back then.

[Scott Pippen]

Wilt Chamberlain strength and domination



Blocking

* "When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-10, and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'" [1]

* Of all his memories of Wilt Chamberlain, the one that stood out for Larry Brown happened long after Chamberlain's professional career had ended. On a summer day in the early 1980s, when Brown was coaching at UCLA, Chamberlain showed up at Pauley Pavilion to take part in one of the high-octane pickup games that the arena constantly attracted. "Magic Johnson used to run the games," Brown recalled Tuesday after hearing that Chamberlain, his friend, had died at 63, "and he called a couple of chintzy fouls and a goaltending on Wilt. "So Wilt said: 'There will be no more layups in this gym,' and he blocked every shot after that. That's the truth, I saw it. He didn't let one [of Johnson's] shots get to the rim." Chamberlain would have been in his mid-40s at the time, and he remained in top physical shape until recently[1].


Dunking

* "What's unfortunate is that most people regard the great leapers as being only the short guys who could dunk," said the 7-1 1/16 Wilt Chamberlain. "My sergeant [vertical leap] was higher than Michael Jordan's. When I went to Kansas, they had a 12-foot basket in the gym, because Dr. Phog Allen was advocating the 12-foot basket. I used to dunk on that basket. It was an effort, but I could do it." [2]

* Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy." [2]

* "When I was a freshman, I fooled around with shooting free throws this way: For some reason, I thought you had to stay within the top half of that free-throw circle, so I would step back to just inside the top of the circle, take off from behind the line and dunk. They outlawed that, but I wouldn't have done it in a game, anyway. I was a good free throw shooter in college." Actually he was a 62% free throw shooter, which is poor except in comparison to his 51% as a pro. [2]

* Legends abound of the truly great leapers who could touch the top of the board. Almost always the feat involves money-claims that the player could grab a dollar bill off the top of the board, or could pluck off a quarter and leave two dimes and a nickel change ... "I defy anyone to say they took change off the top of the backboard," Chamberlain said. "I could. Someone would put a quarter up and I'd snatch it down. I've heard stories about Jackie Jackson doing it, but I've never seen anyone (but himself) come close." Sonny Hill, a Philadelphia leaping legend of the '60s, backs Wilt, saying, "The only man that's been to the top, that's Wilt. I asked Kareem if he ever did, and he could jump a little bit. He told me, `Sonny, no.'" [2]



Scoring

* In Denver, Nugget Coach Dan Issel said, "As I grew up, Wilt the Stilt was the player. Just the things he was able to do. I guess one year they told him he couldn't make as much money as he wanted because he couldn't pass the ball, so he went out and led the league in assists. "Watching Wilt, you always kind of got the idea he was just playing with people. That he was on cruise control and still 10 times better than anybody else that was playing at that time." [1]

* "I just remember he was dominating, a scoring machine, unstoppable," Walt Frazier, the Knicks' Hall of Famer, said. "The guy looked indestructible. He was such a physical specimen, I never thought something like this would happen to him at 63. "His legacy is comical. When you read about his records, it makes you laugh. He has records that are just remarkable. I don't care if he was 10 feet tall, the things that he did.[3]

* Darrall Imhoff, who as a 6-foot-10 rookie center for the New York Knicks had the misfortune of guarding Chamberlain during his 100-point game in 1962, said, "I spent 12 years in his armpits, and I always carried that 100-point game on my shoulders. "After I got my third foul, I said to one of the officials, Willy Smith, 'Why don't you just give him 100 points and we'll all go home?' Well, we did." Two nights later, at Madison Square Garden, Chamberlain tried to go for the century mark again. But Imhoff held him to 54 points. The fans gave Imhoff a standing ovation. "He was an amazing, strong man," Imhoff said. "I always said the greatest record he ever held wasn't 100 points, but his 55 rebounds against Bill Russell. Those two players changed the whole game of basketball. The game just took an entire step up to the next level." [1]

* Former NBA center and Chicago Bull coach Johnny "Red" Kerr, who played part of one season in Philadelphia with Wilt and against him for six-plus years, said, "He was the NBA. He was the guy on the top. Wilt was the guy you talked about--he and Bill Russell. He was the most dominating center--the best center to ever play in the NBA." [1]


Strength

* Former Celtics guard K.C. Jones remembered his casual run-in with Wilt. "He stopped me dead in my tracks with his arm, hugged me and lifted me off the floor with my feet dangling," Jones said. "It scared the hell out of me. When I went to the free-throw line, my legs were still shaking. Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game. [Source: Goliath's Wonderful Life, Hoop Magazine; May 1999; Chris Ekstrand]

* Several years after Wilt stopped playing, he toyed with the idea of a comeback. On the day he visited the Knicks' offices in Madison Square Garden, he talked to Red Holzman, then strode out to the elevator. When it opened, two deliverymen were struggling with a dolly piled high with boxes of office supplies, mostly letterheads and envelopes. The load was so heavy, the elevator had stopped maybe four inches below the floor level and now the deliverymen were huffing and puffing, but they couldn't raise the dolly high enough to get it on the floor level. After maybe two minutes of the deliverymen's huffing and puffing, Wilt, his biceps bulging in a tank top, peered down at them and intoned, "Gentlemen, maybe I can help." They stepped back, he stepped into the elevator, grabbed each end of the rope slung under the dolly and without much exertion, quickly lifted the dolly onto the floor level. Looking up in awe, the deliverymen said, "Thank you." Wilt said, "You're welcome." Wilt stepped into the elevator and rode down to the street level as another witness followed the two deliverymen toward the Knick offices and asked, "How much does all this weigh?" They quickly surveyed the stack of big boxes of office supplies. "Close to 600 pounds," one said. [Source: The Good Natured Giant Wasn't Belligerent, Sports of the Times; Oct 13, 1999; Dave Anderson]


Post-NBA life

* In 1982, when he was 45 and Philadelphia 76er owner Harold Katz was hot after him, the Houston Chronicle's George White asked Elvin Hayes if Chamberlain could still play. "Some things about Wilt, you never forgot," Hayes said. "He was such an awesome physical specimen. To go up under Wilt Chamberlain, to be down there and look up at him when he's towering up over you waiting to dunk, was a terrifying picture. To see him poised up there, knowing he was about to sweep down with that big jam . . . that must be the most frightening sight in sports. The ball goes shooting through the net and you better have your body covered up because he could really hurt someone. I was scared. Everyone was scared when he got that look in his eye, that don't-try-to-stop-this look that he got when he really wanted it. . . . "I think Russell realized there was no way he could have stopped Wilt if he had been fully intent on making it a two-man game. No one who ever put on a uniform could have done it. When I played him, I kept this foremost in my mind: Above all, don't make him mad. Don't embarrass him. You wanted to keep him quiet as long as possible." [4]



Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Chamberlain

* "Chamberlain played the game the same way Russell did, except he scored so much more. But his teams had to get more points from him. He'd score 45 points and his teams would still lose."

* "Wilt had to fight people's dissatisfaction that his teams didn't win. There he was, this great dominating player, and his teams didn't win championships. Well, Wilt wasn't playing for the right team. As an individual, he was in a class by himself, but his teammates--they were OK, but not the supporting cast Russell had."

* "If you want to get Wilt ticked off or bitter, just mention Bill Russell. You will incite him."
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, in an 1998 interview with Playboy magazine

[pete's montreux]

Nope, it's opinion.
Seeing as how most players back in that day weren't athletic, there's no way you could prove that wilt would be a dominant player in todays game.
Unless you can PROVE he will be, it's just your opinion FACT.

That's a two way street buddy, unless you can prove he won't be dominant, then It's just your opinion.

[zay_24]

Wilt Chamberlain was a physical freak by TODAY's standards, playing back then.
Yes, compared to todays CENTERS he may be an allstar. But if he played against the PF's of todays league, it's another story.

Tim Duncan
Dirk
Amare
Kg
durant
Pau Gasol
Al jefferson
would all be more than enough for Wilt to handle.

[The_Yearning]

i hate it when chumps talk about players from the past, i mean nothing wrong with that but don't go back 4o years...as far as im concerned, basketball was invented in 1980....who give a damn...it's all about the present and future...

[zay_24]

That's a two way street buddy, unless you can prove he won't be dominant, then It's just your opinion.
I know.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Lmao @ Kb42pah.

[pete's montreux]

I know.

Then what are you trying to prove? This thread was a complete waste.

[zay_24]

Then what are you trying to prove? This thread was a complete waste.
Rodman would out rebound wilt.

[Mikaiel]

Yes, compared to todays CENTERS he may be an allstar. But if he played against the PF's of todays league, it's another story.

Tim Duncan
Dirk
Amare
Kg
durant
Pau Gasol
Al jefferson
would all be more than enough for Wilt to handle.

Yeah, I'm sure if Gasol or Dirk played in Wilt's era, you'd just say "Yeah he just dominated against skinny white boys, look at Gasol and Dirk, today those guys would be complete jokes".

[zay_24]

Yeah, I'm sure if Gasol or Dirk played in Wilt's era, you'd just say "Yeah he just dominated against skinny white boys, look at Gasol and Dirk, today those guys would be complete jokes".
Gasol is a better post player.
Wilt won't be able to guard Dirk on the perimeter.

[Mikaiel]

Gasol is a better post player.
Wilt won't be able to guard Dirk on the perimeter.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[pete's montreux]

Rodman would out rebound wilt.

You know you're the only person who thinks that, right?

[zay_24]

You know you're the only person who thinks that, right?
You mean I'm the only person in this thread who thinks that.

[zay_24]

Welcome to my ignore list.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Godfather]

You guys honestly don't think Rodman would have out rebounded Wilt?

Rodman would have soley focused on rebounding and defending, while Wilt would have focused on all aspects of the game.

[monkeypox]

It's simple: Pippin is overrated only if you're talking about Jordan. Pippin is underrated when you're talking about those championship bulls teams. It depends on what point you're trying to make.

[guy]

Back to the topic. I'm a huge Bulls fan, but IMO Scottie Pippen is one of the most overrated players ever. Here's a few things I've heard fans/media say plenty of times:

1. Pippen was close to the level of Bird - Some will say he's even better.
2. Pippen was better then Kobe, and more important to the Bulls dynasty then Kobe was to the Laker dynasty.
3. Jordan would've never won a title without Pippen - This really shouldn't matter at all, cause when you take important players off a team without a suitable replacement, any team will see less success. It also sometimes implies that Jordan couldn't have won titles with anyone else in Pippen's place, like an all-star center for example.
4. Pippen was close to or just as important to the Bulls as Jordan was.
5. Pippen is comparable to Lebron.
6. Pippen was the 2nd best player in the league - This is what was said on many occassions by the media during the dynasty.
7. Pippen's 94 season is one of the greatest ever - People don't really say that, but its hyped to death as if it is one of the greatest seasons ever, when there are probably about 10-20 seasons since then that are just as good or better.

IMO what has happened is that people think he was so underrated or underappreciated that they have overrated him in the process.

[zay_24]

Everyone gets overrated.

An overrated player is someone who constantly gets more hype than they deserve.

Pippen getting overrated every now and then doesn't make him overrated.

[zay_24]

Back to the topic. I'm a huge Bulls fan, but IMO Scottie Pippen is one of the most overrated players ever. Here's a few things I've heard fans/media say plenty of times:

1. Pippen was close to the level of Bird - Some will say he's even better.200 steals and 100 blocks
2. Pippen was better then Kobe, and more important to the Bulls dynasty then Kobe was to the Laker dynasty.About tied IMO
3. Jordan would've never won a title without Pippen - This really shouldn't matter at all, cause when you take important players off a team without a suitable replacement, any team will see less success. It also sometimes implies that Jordan couldn't have won titles with anyone else in Pippen's place, like an all-star center for example.If it was just those bull teams without scottie and no one to replace him, they wouldn't win 6 rings
4. Pippen was close to or just as important to the Bulls as Jordan was. HE is
5. Pippen is comparable to Lebron.
6. Pippen was the 2nd best player in the league - This is what was said on many occassions by the media during the dynasty.
Only the last two were unreasonable.

[1987_Lakers]

Back to the topic. I'm a huge Bulls fan, but IMO Scottie Pippen is one of the most overrated players ever. Here's a few things I've heard fans/media say plenty of times:

1. Pippen was close to the level of Bird - Some will say he's even better.
2. Pippen was better then Kobe, and more important to the Bulls dynasty then Kobe was to the Laker dynasty.
3. Jordan would've never won a title without Pippen - This really shouldn't matter at all, cause when you take important players off a team without a suitable replacement, any team will see less success. It also sometimes implies that Jordan couldn't have won titles with anyone else in Pippen's place, like an all-star center for example.
4. Pippen was close to or just as important to the Bulls as Jordan was.
5. Pippen is comparable to Lebron.
6. Pippen was the 2nd best player in the league - This is what was said on many occassions by the media during the dynasty.

I too have heard all of this. Especially from 97 bulls. Some overrated Pippen and others underrate him. For the most part I think most knowledgeable NBA fans place Pippen somewhere between the top 30 all-time list which I think is fair.

[1987_Lakers]

Only the last two were unreasonable.

No

[zay_24]

"1. Pippen was close to the level of Bird - Some will say he's even better."

Career averages:
Pippen-17.5ppg,7.6 rpg,5apg(Note, had to play 2nd fiddle to MJ,Career averages dropped severly when going to portland)
Bird-24.3ppg,10rpg,6.3apg

"2. Pippen was better then Kobe, and more important to the Bulls dynasty then Kobe was to the Laker dynasty."
Not better, but in importance, they were about tied. Pippen led the bulls out of the FIRST round(kobe) without MJ. Mj never even did that.

"3. Jordan would've never won a title without Pippen - This really shouldn't matter at all, cause when you take important players off a team without a suitable replacement, any team will see less success. It also sometimes implies that Jordan couldn't have won titles with anyone else in Pippen's place, like an all-star center for example."
With that team, he would've won a title, but no way he wins 6 of them without Scottie.

"4. Pippen was close to or just as important to the Bulls as Jordan was."
I agree. Pippen was a better blocker,rebounder,passer, and may be a better defender. He also led the bulls farther than Mj ever led the bulls without pippen.

[97 bulls]

I too have heard all of this. Especially from 97 bulls. Some overrated Pippen and others underrate him. For the most part I think most knowledgeable NBA fans place Pippen somewhere between the top 30 all-time list which I think is fair.
i too put him in about the top 30 range. but i feel he couldve been higher if he had 10 years as the number 1 option. cuz honestly, if hes able to be top 30 as the second fiddle then thats amazing

[Psileas]

Originally Posted by Mikaiel
Welcome to my ignore list.

Good for you, I'll do the same.
The guy is blaming others for posting opinions, while he does nothing better, especially while not recognising that he has to prove a lot more than them.

I especially love the quote "seeing how players back then weren't athletic". Probably he means that one day that he couldn't find anything better to do, he spent a whole quarter of an hour watching random 20-second Youtube clips from each player.

I also love the usual exaggeration of the importance of athleticism, which proves why Gasol, Yao and Ilgauskas, with zero athleticism each, are/were all-star candidates in today's era. Definitely these guys would be too much for Wilt and Russell athleticially. :oldlol:

[puppychili]

What made Pippen great was that he knew his role and accepted it. You cannot underestimate that. There were never any shaq/Kobe like drama between Pippen and Jordan. Jordan relied on Pippen a lot during those championship years and Pippen came through for the Bulls. But Pippen never felt the need to be the man when Jordan was around, all he wanted to do was win. And win he did.

And when Pippen played with Jordan he was the 2nd best player in the NBA. He was the perfect compliment. On his own it was a different story who can forget the implosions with the Bulls when Jordan was gone or the choke job in the playoffs with the Blazers. But that doesnt take way from the fact that Pippen is one of the greatest players of all time.

[guy]

"1. Pippen was close to the level of Bird - Some will say he's even better."

Career averages:
Pippen-17.5ppg,7.6 rpg,5apg(Note, had to play 2nd fiddle to MJ,Career averages dropped severly when going to portland)
Bird-24.3ppg,10rpg,6.3apg

Those Pippen averages are wrong. It was 16.1 ppg/6.4 rpg/5.2 apg. It doesn't matter though, since Pippen is clearly better then what his career stats indicate. And playing 2nd fiddle to Jordan really doesn't matter, cause his stats didn't really shoot up that much after Jordan's first retirement. He's not close to Bird though. He didn't have the skills Bird had or mentality/leadership to lead a team to a championship like Bird did.



"2. Pippen was better then Kobe, and more important to the Bulls dynasty then Kobe was to the Laker dynasty."
Not better, but in importance, they were about tied. Pippen led the bulls out of the FIRST round(kobe) without MJ. Mj never even did that.

No they weren't. Kobe was clearly more important. The Lakers literally went through many games where Shaq was significantly limited due to foul trouble/hack-a-Shaq, and Kobe had to be their go-to guy as a result. How often did that ever happen with Jordan/Pippen? And please, look at the supporting cast Pippen had compared to Jordan, and who they had to play in those first rounds, before you make the comparison. And in Pippen's first season, where Jordan led the Bulls past the 1st round, he was a role player/scrub. Technically, Jordan never got out of the first round without Pippen, but its not like Pippen significantly contributed when Jordan eventually did.



"3. Jordan would've never won a title without Pippen - This really shouldn't matter at all, cause when you take important players off a team without a suitable replacement, any team will see less success. It also sometimes implies that Jordan couldn't have won titles with anyone else in Pippen's place, like an all-star center for example."
With that team, he would've won a title, but no way he wins 6 of them without Scottie.

If you take Pippen off the team, with no replacement, I agree. But who cares? This is always something said to discredit Jordan and/or hype Pippen, but its never said about anyone else. If Bird didn't have McHale or Parish, wouldn't he have less titles? What about Magic without Kareem or Worthy? What about Kareem without Magic or Worthy? Shaq without Kobe? Russell without Havlicek, Cousy, or Sam? Duncan without Robinson, Ginobili or Parker?

If Pippen was replaced with someone else, like an all-star center for example, the Bulls could've still won 6 titles, maybe more, depending on who we are talking about.



"4. Pippen was close to or just as important to the Bulls as Jordan was."
I agree. Pippen was a better blocker,rebounder,passer, and may be a better defender. He also led the bulls farther than Mj ever led the bulls without pippen.

No. Jordan was a better passer, and they were about equal in all those other aspects. Jordan was clearly a better scorer and was million times more clutch.

[Stringer Bell]

Overrated and underrated is subjective.

It depends on who is doing the rating. Pippen was a great player and the greatest small forward of the 90s IMO. Hill would be 2nd.

Overall I think Pippen got his credit in terms of accolades (except maybe winning a DPOY award). I would say more "overlooked" by a lot of fans because he played with MJ.

[guy]

And when Pippen played with Jordan he was the 2nd best player in the NBA. He was the perfect compliment.

No he wasn't. In fact he wasn't even close. He was rarely ever even a top 5 player. Malone and Hakeem was always better. Robinson was always better except for the year he missed. Barkley and Ewing were better until after the 93 season. Drexler and Bird were better till after 92. Magic was better till he retired. Shaq was better by the 95 season. Grant Hill was better by the 97 season. In 98, he clearly wasn't even close due to his injury, which effected him pretty much the whole season.

[guy]

I would say more "overlooked" by a lot of fans because he played with MJ.

I would say the exact opposite. Do you really think he would get even more mention on boards like this if he didn't play with MJ? Overlooked is someone like Clyde Drexler, who Pippen would probably be looked at like if he didn't play with MJ.

[Spudjjay]

Scottie Pippen is a top 30 player all time and #6 on the greatest small forwards list.

He's not better than Pierce.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

We all know Russell would be a 7 ppg, 14 rpg, 3 apg, 2 bpg player in this day and age. Close to Ben Wallace numbers.

Wilt would be around 27 ppg, 13 rpg, 2 bpg numbers... kinda like Shaq.

The thing is this really is the truth I feel regardless of how insane BULLS is.

About as accurate as a speculation as a speculation can get.

[Godfather]

He's not better than Pierce.

I completely agree...

[Spudjjay]

I completely agree...

:cheers:

I truly believe Paul Pierce is a better player than Scotte Pippen. Replace Pippen with Pierce during the bull championships years, would they still not win 6 titles?

[AirJordan23]

"guy" has made some great posts about Pippen. I'd like to add that Scottie can be both underrated and overrated depending on the way you put it. If someone says, he isn't worthy of top 50 all time, then it's clearly underrating him. But, posts like these are overrating him:

And when Pippen played with Jordan he was the 2nd best player in the NBA.
Pippen wasn't better than lets say Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Shaq etc. He didn't have the impact or skill set those guys had. When looking at a guy like Scottie, one shouldn't look at numbers. His impact goes far beyond on numbers because defense isn't shown by numbers except for steals and blocks. And those stats aren't really a great way to measure a player's impact on defense. He was a very versatile and great all-around defender. Even if he had a bad shooting night, he could have great game due to his vicious D. Apart from post-D, he didn't have any weakness.

[Godfather]

:cheers:

I truly believe Paul Pierce is a better player than Scotte Pippen. Replace Pippen with Pierce during the bull championships years, would they still not win 6 titles?

That I have to disagree with. Individually Pierce was better than Scottie, but he wouldn't have been able to compliment Jordan like Pippen did.

Pierce is a scorer who loves to have the ball in his hands come clutch time.

I don't know how that would have worked with Jordan.

[guy]

That I have to disagree with. Individually Pierce was better than Scottie, but he wouldn't have been able to compliment Jordan like Pippen did.

Pierce is a scorer who loves to have the ball in his hands come clutch time.

I don't know how that would have worked with Jordan.

I think they could've still won 6 titles, but I don't think they would be as good of a team.

[Psileas]

The thing is this really is the truth I feel regardless of how insane BULLS is.

About as accurate as a speculation as a speculation can get.

How can such a thing be the as close to the truth as possible is beyond me: Russell had seasons at the top-10 in passing regardless of position (with the today's equivalent of 6 apg), with better numbers than starting PG's, yet it's assumed that he'd only average 3 apg. He possessed incredible defensive reflexes, mobility and instinct, averaging God knows how many blocked shots, occassionally blocked Wilt's shots, yet it's assumed that he'd be a little better shot-blocker than Wade. :oldlol: Honstly, there's not one thing that Olajuwon had defensively and Russell didn't. Hell, Hakeem averaged 2.5 bpg as a crippled 36 year old, way past his prime and you're telling me that an athlete like Russell wouldn't do so in his sleep? Plus, he was not as indifferent as Wallace or Rodman offensively, so as to average a measly 7 ppg. When given the green light, Russell averaged 20+ ppg in certain playoff series, including even one against Wilt. He was also a 20 ppg scorer in college, and not just a small-time college, but the 2-time NCAA champions. Rodman and Big Ben couldn't dream of doing this for a whole series of games.

Similarly, Wilt was as tall as any starting center in the league not named Yao or Zydrunas, with long arms, not to mention his athletic abilities, and he'd get 2 blocks a game? Are people who believe so serious? Wilt unofficially averaged 5.5 blocked shots in his last season, playing against HOF centers who even played at the same era with Magic and Bird, but now he'd just be an OK blocker? When did modern centers become 8 feet tall? Even 13 rpg is a low figure, given that Dwight, clearly shorter, not more athletic or fundamentally sound and not playing more than 36-37 mpg manages more than this.

[Alpha Wolf]

It's simple: Pippin is overrated only if you're talking about Jordan. Pippin is underrated when you're talking about those championship bulls teams. It depends on what point you're trying to make.




What was Jordan's playoff record without Pippen as a teammate?

: ONE win and NINE loses.

Did Jordan ever get out of the first round of the playoffs without having Scottie Pippen as a teammate?

No, Jordan was knocked out in the first round all three years that he made the playoffs without Pippen. In Jordan's other two losing-record seasons with the Wizards, he did not make the playoffs.


Did Scottie Pippen ever get the Bulls past the first round of the playoffs without Michael Jordan?

Yes, in 1994, the year after Jordan's first retirement. Got them to the 2nd round, where they lost in 7 games.



get your facts straight

Michael Jordan was NOTHING without Pippen......Pippen made the Bull's CHAMPIONS ..MJ sold shoes...










Scottie Pippen

[raiderfan19]

i just read this entire thread.

One-to the guy who said wilt couldnt handle dirk on the perimeter. You are correct. Then again no center in the nba can handle dirk on the perimeter so it doesnt make any sense to point that out. Also, and i love dirk, but do you really think dirk could have handled wilt on the other end???

To the pippen pierce point, they dont play remotely the same game. Pierce is an average to slightly above average when hes really into it defender. Pippen is the greatest wing defender in nba history and a signifigantly better passer than pierce.

As to the why did pippen have his best season when jordan wasnt there post, well its really simple, jordans touches didnt just go away. They got distributed to the remaining players and pippen got alot of them.

Pippen was a great player and imo the prototype sf. I know after saying that this may not sound like it makes sense but he also wasnt as good as bird or lebron. He was what you would want a normal sf to be and he was pretty much perfect at it but thats just because i wouldnt generally want my go to guy to be a sf. Bird and now lebron were just special and yes they were better than him.

[zay_24]

[QUOTE=Alpha Wolf]What was Jordan's playoff record without Pippen as a teammate?

: ONE win and NINE loses.

Did Jordan ever get out of the first round of the playoffs without having Scottie Pippen as a teammate?

No, Jordan was knocked out in the first round all three years that he made the playoffs without Pippen. In Jordan's other two losing-record seasons with the Wizards, he did not make the playoffs.


Did Scottie Pippen ever get the Bulls past the first round of the playoffs without Michael Jordan?

Yes, in 1994, the year after Jordan's first retirement. Got them to the 2nd round, where they lost in 7 games.



get your facts straight

Michael Jordan was NOTHING without Pippen......Pippen made the Bull's CHAMPIONS ..MJ sold shoes...










Scottie Pippen

[2LeTTeRS]

Think about it: Jordan never had a winning record apart from Pippen. Pippen played on many playoff teams in Portland and Houston without Jordan.

Think about it, the years Jordan didn't have Pippen his supporting cast sucked. Comparing those Bulls teams the first few years he was in the league with the Bulls teams fresh off 3 titles, or the Rockets with Hakeem and Charles Barkley or the Blazer with Sabonis, Sheed, Z Bo, Steve Smith and Damon Stoudamire is stupid.

[juju151111]

[QUOTE=Alpha Wolf]What was Jordan's playoff record without Pippen as a teammate?

: ONE win and NINE loses.

Did Jordan ever get out of the first round of the playoffs without having Scottie Pippen as a teammate?

No, Jordan was knocked out in the first round all three years that he made the playoffs without Pippen. In Jordan's other two losing-record seasons with the Wizards, he did not make the playoffs.


Did Scottie Pippen ever get the Bulls past the first round of the playoffs without Michael Jordan?

Yes, in 1994, the year after Jordan's first retirement. Got them to the 2nd round, where they lost in 7 games.



get your facts straight

Michael Jordan was NOTHING without Pippen......Pippen made the Bull's CHAMPIONS ..MJ sold shoes...










Scottie Pippen

[guy]

What was Jordan's playoff record without Pippen as a teammate?

: ONE win and NINE loses.

Did Jordan ever get out of the first round of the playoffs without having Scottie Pippen as a teammate?

You're right. Jordan finally got out of the first round in 1988, and led the team to a winning record. I guess Scottie Pippen and his 8 ppg in 21 mpg was the main reason for that, not Jordan who was the league MVP and DPOY.



No, Jordan was knocked out in the first round all three years that he made the playoffs without Pippen. In Jordan's other two losing-record seasons with the Wizards, he did not make the playoffs.


Did Scottie Pippen ever get the Bulls past the first round of the playoffs without Michael Jordan?

Yes, in 1994, the year after Jordan's first retirement. Got them to the 2nd round, where they lost in 7 games.



get your facts straight

Michael Jordan was NOTHING without Pippen......Pippen made the Bull's CHAMPIONS ..MJ sold shoes...

HAHA. No, a combination of Jordan's greatness and him having a talented enough supporting cast that played their roles to perfection is what made the Bulls champions.

[QUOTE=Alpha Wolf]
Scottie Pippen

[shortlunatic]

This thread is stupid. Pipen is not overrated, but JOrdan was definitely something without Pippen. The only people that start these threads are haters, like when they say Phil Jackson and LeBron overrated

[zay_24]

Jordan never led the bulls to a winning record without scottie.

[Scott Pippen]

Comon guy, good answer, but the person you just quoted has 1 post. Obviously a troll. Let us not use trolls opinions to make the conclusion that Pip was overrated. :ohwell:

[Scott Pippen]

This thread is stupid. Pipen is not overrated, but JOrdan was definitely something without Pippen. The only people that start these threads are haters, like when they say Phil Jackson and LeBron overrated
This is correct. :applause:

[Mikaiel]

Even 13 rpg is a low figure, given that Dwight, clearly shorter, not more athletic or fundamentally sound and not playing more than 36-37 mpg manages more than this.

By my own calculations, so I could be wrong, if you adjust for pace and minutes played, Wilt's rebounding in the 61-62 season is the same as Dwight's this year. I used this season because I have the average possessions per game for that year.

Although if Wilt played today, he wouldn't play 48+ minutes per game and he probably wouldn't be the unique scoring option like he was so he would have more energy, so he would probably grab a few more.

[Psileas]

By my own calculations, so I could be wrong, if you adjust for pace and minutes played, Wilt's rebounding in the 61-62 season is the same as Dwight's this year. I used this season because I have the average possessions per game for that year.

Although if Wilt played today, he wouldn't play 48+ minutes per game and he probably wouldn't be the unique scoring option like he was so he would have more energy, so he would probably grab a few more.

First of all, I'd never assume that a player who plays 48 minutes night in and night out would have the same rebounding (and everything else) ratio per minute if he plays only for 40 (and vice versa). Getting some rest is important when it comes to ratios.
Second, I want to ask you if you adjusted Wilt's numbers directly from his team's total or if you added the personal rebounds of each player. Boxscore keepers up to '68 used to add the so called "team rebounds" to the personal rebounds of players, thus inflating the total rebounding numbers of teams. So, by today's measuring, the '62 Warriors didn't grab 5,939 rebounds, but 5,105, quite a difference.

[Mikaiel]

First of all, I'd never assume that a player who plays 48 minutes night in and night out would have the same rebounding (and everything else) ratio per minute if he plays only for 40 (and vice versa). Getting some rest is important when it comes to ratios.

That's why I wrote the second part of my post ...


Second, I want to ask you if you adjusted Wilt's numbers directly from his team's total or if you added the personal rebounds of each player. Boxscore keepers up to '68 used to add the so called "team rebounds" to the personal rebounds of players, thus inflating the total rebounding numbers of teams. So, by today's measuring, the '62 Warriors didn't grab 5,939 rebounds, but 5,105, quite a difference.

I just took the average number of possessions back in '62 (125.5) and adjusted the numbers for today's pace (91.7). And then I adjusted the minutes. Maybe what I calculated doesn't mean anything, I don't know. But it seems legit to me.

[guy]

Comon guy, good answer, but the person you just quoted has 1 post. Obviously a troll. Let us not use trolls opinions to make the conclusion that Pip was overrated. :ohwell:

IMO Pippen is overrated. He's still one of the greats, top 30-35 all-time, but I just think alot of people hype him up as better then he was.

[Scott Pippen]

IMO Pippen is overrated. He's still one of the greats, top 30-35 all-time, but I just think alot of people hype him up as better then he was.
Any unbiased person who watched him does not underrate or overrate him. By the general public he is rated just right, with some severely overrating him and some severely underrating him. But that would be the equivalent of saying that LeBron/Kobe, etc is overrated just because of some biased fans ranking them higher than they should be. Pip is just an odd case sometimes to rate because of strong bias from both sides. Plus his game was immeasurable by statistics.

[Mikaiel]

Maybe what I calculated doesn't mean anything.

Yeah now that I think about it, it really doesn't mean anything. Sorry, brain fart.

Interesting fact : Wilt's rebounding rate in his last year in the league, when he was 37 years old, would rank 5th in the league right now.

IIRC, in his last year he focused mainly on defense and rebounding, so I think it's safe to say he could be the best rebounder in the league right now in his prime.

[97 bulls]

Any unbiased person who watched him does not underrate or overrate him. By the general public he is rated just right, with some severely overrating him and some severely underrating him. But that would be the equivalent of saying that LeBron/Kobe, etc is overrated just because of some biased fans ranking them higher than they should be. Pip is just an odd case sometimes to rate because of strong bias from both sides. Plus his game was immeasurable by statistics.
exactly, pips game shouldnt be measured by stats. not to mention the only stat that isnt on par with other greats is his scoring. and i have routinely shot this down. i have just come to the copnclusion that people like guy, 87 lakers and a few others dont really know basketball.

[guy]

exactly, pips game shouldnt be measured by stats. not to mention the only stat that isnt on par with other greats is his scoring. and i have routinely shot this down. i have just come to the copnclusion that people like guy, 87 lakers and a few others dont really know basketball.

HAHA. Ok, anyone that thinks that Pippen's scoring is on par with other greats like Bird, Jordan, Lebron, Kobe clearly does not know basketball.

[97 bulls]

Yeah now that I think about it, it really doesn't mean anything. Sorry, brain fart.

Interesting fact : Wilt's rebounding rate in his last year in the league, when he was 37 years old, would rank 5th in the league right now.

IIRC, in his last year he focused mainly on defense and rebounding, so I think it's safe to say he could be the best rebounder in the league right now in his prime.
but that isnt saying much considering that the leagues big men today arent that good.and the few good centers have big holes in their games or are too young.

[guy]

Any unbiased person who watched him does not underrate or overrate him. By the general public he is rated just right, with some severely overrating him and some severely underrating him. But that would be the equivalent of saying that LeBron/Kobe, etc is overrated just because of some biased fans ranking them higher than they should be. Pip is just an odd case sometimes to rate because of strong bias from both sides. Plus his game was immeasurable by statistics.

Well I guess it matters who you ask. The people that underrate him are usually trolls, but I've heard reasonable posters overrate him. Example: Puppychili is someone I think is a reasonable poster, but he made a comment overrating him saying he was the 2nd best player in the league at the time.

[97 bulls]

HAHA. Ok, anyone that thinks that Pippen's scoring is on par with other greats like Bird, Jordan, Lebron, Kobe clearly does not know basketball.
your right about that. but my rebuttal to this is since he was a number 2 scoring option to jordan, well never know. although he would ever be a 30 ppg scorer. and dont take my previous post as a insult guy. i like you. and thats why im trying to teach you to learn to see the big picture. i tried with 87 but i came to the conclusion that hes a lost cause. lol

[guy]

your right about that. but my rebuttal to this is since he was a number 2 scoring option to jordan, well never know. although he would ever be a 30 ppg scorer. and dont take my previous post as a insult guy. i like you. and thats why im trying to teach you to learn to see the big picture. i tried with 87 but i came to the conclusion that hes a lost cause. lol

People completely overrate how much a 1st option effects the stats on a 2nd option.

Pippen's career high w/Jordan - 1994: 22 ppg
Pippen's career high w/o Jordan - 1992: 21 ppg

Sure, maybe he would've had 1 or 2 25 ppg seasons, but thats still not up to par with players I mentioned, who averaged 27+ for most of their career.

[97 bulls]

People completely overrate how much a 1st option effects the stats on a 2nd option.

Pippen's career high w/Jordan - 1994: 22 ppg
Pippen's career high w/o Jordan - 1992: 21 ppg

Sure, maybe he would've had 1 or 2 25 ppg seasons, but thats still not up to par with players I mentioned, who averaged 27+ for most of their career.
i would tend to agree with that. but. none of those guys hold a candle to pip defensively. and thats where he makes up the gap in scoring. you just dont put as much of a premium on defense as i do. and please dont bring up bruce bowen or raja bell. or some ignorant sh/t like that.

[jrong]

IMO Pippen is overrated. He's still one of the greats, top 30-35 all-time, but I just think alot of people hype him up as better then he was.

I'd say that's still considerably too high of a placement for him. Top seventy-five or top one-hundred I can see.

If prime Pippen were in the league today, he would not be a top five player. All of the following go in front of him without a moment's deliberation:

Kobe; LeBron; Wade; CP; Howard; Duncan

So the highest he would be is seventh. But, even then there are a few guys who I would consider putting above him.

Again, it sounds like I'm hating on Pip, but I'm not. Like I said, he was basically a pre-injury Grant Hill. And the six guys I listed above are without a doubt better than Hill too.

[2LeTTeRS]

I'd say that's still considerably too high of a placement for him. Top seventy-five or top one-hundred I can see.

If prime Pippen were in the league today, he would not be a top five player. All of the following go in front of him without a moment's deliberation:

Kobe; LeBron; Wade; CP; Howard; Duncan

So the highest he would be is seventh. But, even then there are a few guys who I would consider putting above him.

If all those guys continue playing the way their playing now when they retire they'll all be top 25-30 of all time so I don't see how you can argue that being a worse player than them should put him at 75th to 100th all time.


Again, it sounds like I'm hating on Pip, but I'm not. Like I said, he was basically a pre-injury Grant Hill. And the six guys I listed above are without a doubt better than Hill too.

You're underrating pre-injury Grant Hill as well. Had he stayed healthy he could have been a top 20 player of all time. I'm not sure how you rank players but you seem to put too heavy an emphasis on scoring, while de-emphasizing play on the boards, and defense. The only players at his position who at their peak I would take over Hill are Bird, Dr. J, Elgin Baylor and LeBron.

[guy]

I'd say that's still considerably too high of a placement for him. Top seventy-five or top one-hundred I can see.

If prime Pippen were in the league today, he would not be a top five player. All of the following go in front of him without a moment's deliberation:

Kobe; LeBron; Wade; CP; Howard; Duncan

So the highest he would be is seventh. But, even then there are a few guys who I would consider putting above him.

Again, it sounds like I'm hating on Pip, but I'm not. Like I said, he was basically a pre-injury Grant Hill. And the six guys I listed above are without a doubt better than Hill too.

You can think of 75-100 players better then Pippen? I can't. Top 75 is someone is someone like Mitch Richmond or Reggie Miller, not Scottie Pippen. Even Grant Hill is higher then that, so I don't see how Pippen couldn't be.

[guy]

i would tend to agree with that. but. none of those guys hold a candle to pip defensively. and thats where he makes up the gap in scoring. you just dont put as much of a premium on defense as i do. and please dont bring up bruce bowen or raja bell. or some ignorant sh/t like that.

Well we weren't talking about that. You said people claim that Pippen wasn't on par with other greats in scoring, and that you have refuted that, which you haven't or you tried and failed, cause there no way anyone can reasonably say that Pippen could score like those guys, 2nd option or not.

And yes, I don't put as much of a premium on defense as you do. So what? How is bringing up Bruce Bowen being ignorant? 5 Carmelos vs. 5 Bowens, Who wins? Another thing about Pippen is that although he was a great all-around player, he was not incredible at anything on offense. He was a great scorer, passer, and rebounder, but he was not incredible at any of those things, but for some reason he's close to the level of Larry Bird?

[guy]

Back to the topic. I'm a huge Bulls fan, but IMO Scottie Pippen is one of the most overrated players ever. Here's a few things I've heard fans/media say plenty of times:

1. Pippen was close to the level of Bird - Some will say he's even better.
2. Pippen was better then Kobe, and more important to the Bulls dynasty then Kobe was to the Laker dynasty.
3. Jordan would've never won a title without Pippen - This really shouldn't matter at all, cause when you take important players off a team without a suitable replacement, any team will see less success. It also sometimes implies that Jordan couldn't have won titles with anyone else in Pippen's place, like an all-star center for example.
4. Pippen was close to or just as important to the Bulls as Jordan was.
5. Pippen is comparable to Lebron.
6. Pippen was the 2nd best player in the league - This is what was said on many occassions by the media during the dynasty.
7. Pippen's 94 season is one of the greatest ever - People don't really say that, but its hyped to death as if it is one of the greatest seasons ever, when there are probably about 10-20 seasons since then that are just as good or better.

IMO what has happened is that people think he was so underrated or underappreciated that they have overrated him in the process.

I forgot to add:

8. Pippen should've won MVP in 1994 - clearly Hakeem rightfully won.

[jrong]

If all those guys continue playing the way their playing now when they retire they'll all be top 25-30 of all time so I don't see how you can argue that being a worse player than them should put him at 75th to 100th all time.

Hmm, I see your point in theory, but I don't know if all those guys are top thirty. Duncan is already top twenty and Kobe probably also. James will be-- in fact, both he and Kobe could get into the top ten.

I think Wade is already the #3 SG in terms of talent, but I don't have faith that he'll stay healthy enough to be top thirty. I mean he just played the first sixty-odd games of the season for the first time in his career, and his body has been breaking down for the last couple weeks now. Plus, I'm so used to him being overlooked that I reflexively assume that the "experts" wouldn't put him up there even if he deserves it. I'll just be happy if he is widely acknowledged as top fifty when he's done.

As far as the other guys, CP could end up being the third best PG ever, so that would put him in the top twenty. And Dwight will be a top ten center, but there's a lot of depth there historically, so it may be difficult for him to be top twenty.


You're underrating pre-injury Grant Hill as well. Had he stayed healthy he could have been a top 20 player of all time. I'm not sure how you rank players but you seem to put too heavy an emphasis on scoring, while de-emphasizing play on the boards, and defense. The only players at his position who at their peak I would take over Hill are Bird, Dr. J, Elgin Baylor and LeBron.

Actually, I put the most emphasis on versatility. I guess I don't remember Hill being quite at that level, although there is definitely less depth at SF than at the center spot, so maybe there aren't that many guys who would be ahead of him.

[guy]

Hmm, I see your point in theory, but I don't know if all those guys are top thirty. Duncan is already top twenty and Kobe probably also. James will be-- in fact, both he and Kobe could get into the top ten.

I think Wade is already the #3 SG in terms of talent, but I don't have faith that he'll stay healthy enough to be top thirty. I mean he just played the first sixty-odd games of the season for the first time in his career, and his body has been breaking down for the last couple weeks now. Plus, I'm so used to him being overlooked that I reflexively assume that the "experts" wouldn't put him up there even if he deserves it. I'll just be happy if he is widely acknowledged as top fifty when he's done.

As far as the other guys, CP could end up being the third best PG ever, so that would put him in the top twenty. And Dwight will be a top ten center, but there's a lot of depth there historically, so it may be difficult for him to be top twenty.



Actually, I put the most emphasis on versatility. I guess I don't remember Hill being quite at that level, although there is definitely less depth at SF than at the center spot, so maybe there aren't that many guys who would be ahead of him.

Wade is already top 50. I don't see how he's not. And it shouldn't take much for him to be top 30 IMO. Even if he plays only 6-7 years and only averages about 60 games a year, as long as there's not a huge drop off from what he's been since the championship season, he will be top 30 easily.

[Godfather]

I'd say that's still considerably too high of a placement for him. Top seventy-five or top one-hundred I can see.

If prime Pippen were in the league today, he would not be a top five player. All of the following go in front of him without a moment's deliberation:

Kobe; LeBron; Wade; CP; Howard; Duncan

So the highest he would be is seventh. But, even then there are a few guys who I would consider putting above him.

Again, it sounds like I'm hating on Pip, but I'm not. Like I said, he was basically a pre-injury Grant Hill. And the six guys I listed above are without a doubt better than Hill too.

:roll:

I would love to see your top 100 list...

[97 bulls]

Well we weren't talking about that. You said people claim that Pippen wasn't on par with other greats in scoring, and that you have refuted that, which you haven't or you tried and failed, cause there no way anyone can reasonably say that Pippen could score like those guys, 2nd option or not.

And yes, I don't put as much of a premium on defense as you do. So what? How is bringing up Bruce Bowen being ignorant? 5 Carmelos vs. 5 Bowens, Who wins? Another thing about Pippen is that although he was a great all-around player, he was not incredible at anything on offense. He was a great scorer, passer, and rebounder, but he was not incredible at any of those things, but for some reason he's close to the level of Larry Bird?
wow, why do people insist on changing what i post. i dont feel that pip is on those guys level as far as scoring, show me where i said otherwise. and we or i guess everyone but you is include all facets of basketball (including defence), when talking about this subject. hence the topic.

and as far as the 5 carmelos against 5 bowens, thats not indicative of a fair comparison. simply because carmelo isnt a one dimensional scorer. he can score in the post, shoot the 3 and drive to the basket. and bowen is a great on the ball defender nothing else. a fairer comparison would be trevor ariza whos a very good defender, against lets say tony allen from boston who also is one dimensional in that he can only attack the basket.

not to mention if a prime larry bird and prime pip play 1-1 id say pip wins.

[jrong]

You can think of 75-100 players better then Pippen? I can't. Top 75 is someone is someone like Mitch Richmond or Reggie Miller, not Scottie Pippen. Even Grant Hill is higher then that, so I don't see how Pippen couldn't be.

Ok, I probably exaggerated. I guess when I think of "the all-time top 50", it just seems like such a special designation it's hard to imagine putting a sidekick on there. But, maybe he does crack top fifty. If he does, though, it has to be near the bottom of that fifty.

I'm thinking about the list of SFs that 2Letters mentioned above as being the only ones he'd take above Pippen and Hill. Obviously, Larry, the Dr., Elgin, and LeBron are no-brainers.

But, what about a guy like Dominique Wilkins? He doesn't have the same all-around game, but in terms of on-court dominance....

Or how about James Worthy? People make a grave mistake if they believe that Magic "made" Worthy....

[97 bulls]

Ok, I probably exaggerated. I guess when I think of "the all-time top 50", it just seems like such a special designation it's hard to imagine putting a sidekick on there. But, maybe he does crack top fifty. If he does, though, it has to be near the bottom of that fifty.

I'm thinking about the list of SFs that 2Letters mentioned above as being the only ones he'd take above Pippen and Hill. Obviously, Larry, the Dr., Elgin, and LeBron are no-brainers.

But, what about a guy like Dominique Wilkins? He doesn't have the same all-around game, but in terms of on-court dominance....

Or how about James Worthy? People make a grave mistake if they believe that Magic "made" Worthy....
james worthy was overrated. he was a product of the fast break offense he played in.

[guy]

wow, why do people insist on changing what i post. i dont feel that pip is on those guys level as far as scoring, show me where i said otherwise. and we or i guess everyone but you is include all facets of basketball (including defence), when talking about this subject. hence the topic.

This is what you said: "not to mention the only stat that isnt on par with other greats is his scoring. and i have routinely shot this down." Maybe I took that the wrong way, but from what it sounds like it means you think he was on par with them in scoring. And I do value defense. If it wasn't for his defense, he probably wouldn't even be close to the top 30-35 all-time that I think he is.



and as far as the 5 carmelos against 5 bowens, thats not indicative of a fair comparison. simply because carmelo isnt a one dimensional scorer. he can score in the post, shoot the 3 and drive to the basket. and bowen is a great on the ball defender nothing else. a fairer comparison would be trevor ariza whos a very good defender, against lets say tony allen from boston who also is one dimensional in that he can only attack the basket.

not to mention if a prime larry bird and prime pip play 1-1 id say pip wins.

Great offensive player, bad defensive player vs. Great defensive player, bad offensive player. I wasn't taking versatility into account. Shaq isn't versatile at all, but he's still one of the GOAT offensive players. Whatever, here's a better comparison that covers all aspects:

Team Offense
Amare Stoudemire
Zach Randolph
Carmelo Anthony
Allen Iverson
Steve Nash

vs.

Team Defense
Marcus Camby
Ben Wallace
Bruce Bowen
Raja Bell (he isn't even a bad offensive player but I couldn't really think of anyone else.)
Eric Snow

The defensive team would lose. And I don't care about Pippen vs Bird 1-on-1 cause the NBA has always been 5-on-5. Someone like Jason Richardson or JR Smith would probably beat alot of players that are better then them in a 1-on-1 game.

We don't really need to argue about this. I'm not sure where you rank Pippen, but I rank him top 30-35, so unless you rank him much higher then that, then we probably don't really disagree that much.

[Brunch@Five]

I believe that by the time of the 2nd three-peat, Pippen had closed the gap to Jordan and was a better defender and playmaker, but obviously not the scorer. Jordan averaged only 4 assists those seasons and shot sub-50%.

[97 bulls]

This is what you said: "not to mention the only stat that isnt on par with other greats is his scoring. and i have routinely shot this down." Maybe I took that the wrong way, but from what it sounds like it means you think he was on par with them in scoring. And I do value defense. If it wasn't for his defense, he probably wouldn't even be close to the top 30-35 all-time that I think he is.



Great offensive player, bad defensive player vs. Great defensive player, bad offensive player. I wasn't taking versatility into account. Shaq isn't versatile at all, but he's still one of the GOAT offensive players. Whatever, here's a better comparison that covers all aspects:

Team Offense
Amare Stoudemire
Zach Randolph
Carmelo Anthony
Allen Iverson
Steve Nash

vs.

Team Defense
Marcus Camby
Ben Wallace
Bruce Bowen
Raja Bell (he isn't even a bad offensive player but I couldn't really think of anyone else.)
Eric Snow

The defensive team would lose. And I don't care about Pippen vs Bird 1-on-1 cause the NBA has always been 5-on-5. Someone like Jason Richardson or JR Smith would probably beat alot of players that are better then them in a 1-on-1 game.

We don't really need to argue about this. I'm not sure where you rank Pippen, but I rank him top 30-35, so unless you rank him much higher then that, then we probably don't really disagree that much.
those teams you use arent fair. all of those defensive guys are 1 dimentional defensively. all of the offensive players are versitle offensively.all those guys can shoot, pass, run the floor, and are just overall great offensive weapons. now a fairer more defensive minded team would be the offensive team you mentioned vs

tim duncan
kevin garnett
andrei keralenko
gerald wallace
(prime) jason kidd

now this team smokes the team you picked and they are more like pippen in that they are all good scorers but great defenders.

[guy]

those teams you use arent fair. all of those defensive guys are 1 dimentional defensively. all of the offensive players are versitle offensively.all those guys can shoot, pass, run the floor, and are just overall great offensive weapons. now a fairer more defensive minded team would be the offensive team you mentioned vs

tim duncan
kevin garnett
andrei keralenko
gerald wallace
(prime) jason kidd

now this team smokes the team you picked and they are more like pippen in that they are all good scorers but great defenders.

Its fair because all of those guys I mentioned are about as good defensively as the other guys are offensively. The comparison you used is not even close to fair. Clearly that team smokes the team I picked because all of those guys are also great on the offensive end, while the offensive team I picked is pretty horrible defensively, like the Spurs vs. Suns. And yes, I realize Pippen was like that, and not just a great defensive player with no offensive skills, but my point in the comparison was to show you why offense should hold more weight then defense. That doesn't mean defense isn't important, it just means that offense > defense, but a team that is balanced with both is better. I don't see why my comparison doesn't work. It covers on-ball and help.

[1987_Lakers]

exactly, pips game shouldnt be measured by stats. not to mention the only stat that isnt on par with other greats is his scoring. and i have routinely shot this down. i have just come to the copnclusion that people like guy, 87 lakers and a few others dont really know basketball.

Whoa, what is your problem man? What did I say to make think this?

Just the other day you called John Stockton the GOAT PG and I have heard you say Scottie Pippen was on the same level as Larry Bird.:oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Its fair because all of those guys I mentioned are about as good defensively as the other guys are offensively. The comparison you used is not even close to fair. Clearly that team smokes the team I picked because all of those guys are also great on the offensive end, while the offensive team I picked is pretty horrible defensively, like the Spurs vs. Suns. And yes, I realize Pippen was like that, and not just a great defensive player with no offensive skills, but my point in the comparison was to show you why offense should hold more weight then defense. That doesn't mean defense isn't important, it just means that offense > defense, but a team that is balanced with both is better. I don't see why my comparison doesn't work. It covers on-ball and help.
you still dont get it. your list is comprised of a bunch of 1 dimensional defensive players vs versitle offensive players. try making a list of offensive players that arent good at everything like jason kapono. vs a 1 dimensional player like a prime bruce bowen. and you may feel that offense is more important than defense but i have facts and history on my side. you remind me of don nelson. he a coach that believes that you can stockpile an enormous amount of offensive talent and just try to outscore the opposition. and yet every year he gets smacked in the playoffs. youd think hed get a clue. but coaches like greg popovich, pat riley, phil jackson, red aurbach, larry brown, rudy t, chuck daily all know that offense wins games but defense wins championships. another example of an offensive minded coach is dantoni. great offenses no rings. in fact, i cant think of one offensive minded coach that has a ring.

[97 bulls]

Whoa, what is your problem man? What did I say to make think this?

Just the other day you called John Stockton the GOAT PG and I have heard you say Scottie Pippen was on the same level as Larry Bird.:oldlol:
what can magic (who is great), do that stock cant? maybe post up players. i just think that if stock had the talent magic had, hed have the same amount of rings. not to mention stock was a far superior jump shooter and defender. and im sorry 87 but you just are the type that goes solely on stats as your argument for everything. ive never ever once seen you think outside the box. cuz if you did, your name would be 96 bulls.

[joshwake]

so applying this logic is larry bird better than either?

min
34443
reb
8974
asists
5660
blocks
755

Picking some stats and comparing overall numbers does not show an overall picture. Hell, any way you crunch numbers no matter how well you think those stats represent how good someone was you will always find other stats that will make those numbers suspect.

[guy]

you still dont get it. your list is comprised of a bunch of 1 dimensional defensive players vs versitle offensive players. try making a list of offensive players that arent good at everything like jason kapono. vs a 1 dimensional player like a prime bruce bowen. and you may feel that offense is more important than defense but i have facts and history on my side. you remind me of don nelson. he a coach that believes that you can stockpile an enormous amount of offensive talent and just try to outscore the opposition. and yet every year he gets smacked in the playoffs. youd think hed get a clue. but coaches like greg popovich, pat riley, phil jackson, red aurbach, larry brown, rudy t, chuck daily all know that offense wins games but defense wins championships. another example of an offensive minded coach is dantoni. great offenses no rings. in fact, i cant think of one offensive minded coach that has a ring.

Ummm, no I don't think that way, did you even read my post? I said a balanced team is best. Balanced team > all offense, no defense > all defense, no offense. I acknowledged that the Tim Duncan team you made up would be better then my all offense team. Can you think of one championship team that didn't have a great offense, or at least great offensive players? No. I think D'Antoni and Nelson are two of the most overrated coaches ever, especially Nelson. But just like all offense, no defense teams don't win any championships, neither do all defense, no offense teams. And you clearly did not get my comparison by bringing up great defensive players that were clearly superb on offense as well.

[1987_Lakers]

what can magic (who is great), do that stock cant? maybe post up players. i just think that if stock had the talent magic had, hed have the same amount of rings. not to mention stock was a far superior jump shooter and defender. and im sorry 87 but you just are the type that goes solely on stats as your argument for everything. ive never ever once seen you think outside the box. cuz if you did, your name would be 96 bulls.
lol, you gotta be kidding me

Lead his team to 5 NBA Championships
Win the NBA MVP 3 Times

If you really think Stockton was better than Magic...then you have no credibility what so ever.

[guy]

what can magic (who is great), do that stock cant? maybe post up players. i just think that if stock had the talent magic had, hed have the same amount of rings. not to mention stock was a far superior jump shooter and defender. and im sorry 87 but you just are the type that goes solely on stats as your argument for everything. ive never ever once seen you think outside the box. cuz if you did, your name would be 96 bulls.

Magic was a greater overall scorer and rebounder, and most of all, he had the ability to dominate a game on a consistent basis. I can't believe you made this comparison. I will say that this is worse then the Bird-Pippen comparison. The main difference between guys like Jordan, Magic, Bird and Pippen & Stockton is that they dominated games on a consistent basis to the point that everyone else on the court was almost irrelevant. Thats why I say they don't really come close.

[Psileas]

what can magic (who is great), do that stock cant? maybe post up players. i just think that if stock had the talent magic had, hed have the same amount of rings. not to mention stock was a far superior jump shooter and defender. and im sorry 87 but you just are the type that goes solely on stats as your argument for everything. ive never ever once seen you think outside the box. cuz if you did, your name would be 96 bulls.

Without needing to elaborate (87_Lakers and guy already answered this, I'll just add that Magic produced a certain stat 138 times vs Stockton's 1, and not only can't Stockton make this up by being a much superior scorer, he actually losses a lot more ground after this), you say that if Stockton had Magic's talent, he'd have the same amount of rings (meaning that he doesn't), while you also say that there's not a thing Magic could do and Stockton couldn't. Which is not only wrong, but it contrasts with your other quote, as well. The only way there wouldn't be a contrast would be if Magic was more talented, but he wasn't a hard worker and wasn't taking advantage of his superior talent to seperate himself, which of course is also false.

[guy]

Without needing to elaborate (87_Lakers and guy already answered this, I'll just add that Magic produced a certain stat 138 times vs Stockton's 1, and not only can't Stockton make this up by being a much superior scorer, he actually losses a lot more ground after this), you say that if Stockton had Magic's talent, he'd have the same amount of rings (meaning that he doesn't), while you also say that there's not a thing Magic could do and Stockton couldn't. Which is not only wrong, but it contrasts with your other quote, as well. The only way there wouldn't be a contrast would be if Magic was more talented, but he wasn't a hard worker and wasn't taking advantage of his superior talent to seperate himself, which of course is also false.

I think he meant if Stockton had the same talent Magic had, as in Magic's teammates.

[Psileas]

I think he meant if Stockton had the same talent Magic had, as in Magic's teammates.

Ah, he means the same talent around him.

There's no way of proving this. Would Stockton be able to do what Magic did in '80? Run the Sixers like Magic did in '82? Would he be able to dominate like Magic did in '87? And do the same stuff at the same age? Stockton was a bench player up to the age of 24 (and this for a team which only got early playoff exits). Magic was the second best player in the world by that age and had already led his team in 4 finals and 2 championships.

[dawsey6]

SP career minutes: 41069
MJ career minutes: 41013
(almost identical)

SP career assists: 6135
MJ career assists: 5633

SP career rebounds: 7494
MJ career rebounds: 6672

SP career blocks: 947
MJ career blocks: 893

Not saying I don't agree with you that Scottie Pippen isn't overrated, but being that Pip is a forward, and MJ is a guard, he should have more rebounds and blocks. He's also notably a very gifted passer, hence the assists. It's a pretty weak argument, because everyone would pretty much already guess that Pip's career assist, rebound, and block numbers to be higher than Jordan's.

[guy]

Ah, he means the same talent around him.

There's no way of proving this. Would Stockton be able to do what Magic did in '80? Run the Sixers like Magic did in '82? Would he be able to dominate like Magic did in '87? And do the same stuff at the same age? Stockton was a bench player up to the age of 24 (and this for a team which only got early playoff exits). Magic was the second best player in the world by that age and had already led his team in 4 finals and 2 championships.

Plus its not like Stockton had crap for teammates. Could you imagine Magic running Showtime with Karl Malone?

[BIZARRO]

james worthy was overrated. he was a product of the fast break offense he played in.


:no: No way. IMO Worthy is one of the most underrated players in history and rarely brought up today which is a crime. He was extraordinarily efficient, almost always shot a very high percentage, brought his game WAY up at playoff time (hence Big Game James), played D at a high level, ran like a deer at 6'9, had a SICK first step, was great in the post, etc. etc.
"James Worthy was one of the top 10 -- top five -- players in playoff history"- Magic Johnson

Nothing more needs to be said really. Big Game James is criminally underrated today.


Secondly, Psileas is one of my favorite posters, but he made a comment earlier in the thread about Scottie Pippen never being top 2 in the league. (Though I have argued this as well in another thread or two)
I disagree, and we could debate back and forth all day about it, but I remember that period VERY well, and Pippen was regularly called the best all around and often best in general, in the league that season 1994 (almost exclusively in the 2nd half) of that season. And the best all around in 94-95, and best after Hakeem. Coming off the All Star Game MVP performance> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlOCXLt-9DU was when this talk took form and held 'til Hakeem in the '95 playoffs, which made such talk null and void.
A 2nd year Chris Webber for example, called Pippen the "best player in basketball player in the league. Period." in a March 15th, 1995 Chicago Tribune article.
I made a mental note back then to never forgot how good Pippen was, etc. at that time as he was an INCREDIBLE all court terror those two seasons. It was just for that REALLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, though he bookended it was a lot of top 10 seasons, but he was top two in my opinion those two years.
Certainly, Robinson, Ewing, and a young Shaq are arguable, but if we could take a time machine back, this absolute prime Pip was second only to Hakeem for those 18 months and you would be able to see what I mean.
In fact 1995 (here where he had 40 against the Lakers, check out the Pip block at 5:07 :bowdown: ) Pippen with the BIG FRO>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nupax9ebg-g, could also be one of the smoothest players ever as well.:D
I mean from late 93-95 we're talking top 10 scorer, top five passer, 8.5 boards, 3 steals, top 2 defender, but even stats don't tell it, he just dictated the flow so well those two years and was EVERYWHERE on the court.
Similar to how D-Wade is lately>> (Which is great when you get a superstar at a rare time when they are at the height of their powers with a chip on their shoulder and just going all out and conserving very little.)
Very inspired stuff.
Anyway, I remember late 93-94 and 94-95 very well and IMO Pip was second to "The Dream" for that very small window of time. So yes, Pip IMO was indeed top 2, if just for a short while.

[guy]

:no: No way. IMO Worthy is one of the most underrated players in history and rarely brought up today which is a crime. He was extraordinarily efficient, almost always shot a very high percentage, brought his game WAY up at playoff time (hence Big Game James), played D at a high level, ran like a deer at 6'9, had a SICK first step, was great in the post, etc. etc.
"James Worthy was one of the top 10 -- top five -- players in playoff history"- Magic Johnson

Nothing more needs to be said really. Big Game James is criminally underrated today.


Secondly, Psileas is one of my favorite posters, but he made a comment earlier in the thread about Scottie Pippen never being top 2 in the league.
I disagree, and we could argue back and forth all day about it, but I remember that period VERY well, and Pippen was regularly called the best all around and often best in general, in the league that season 1994 (almost exclusively in the 2nd half) of that season. And the best all around in 94-95, and best after Hakeem. Coming off the All Star Game MVP performance> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlOCXLt-9DU was when this talk took form and held 'til Hakeem in the '95 playoffs, which made such talk null and void.
A 2nd year Chris Webber for example, called Pippen the "best player in basketball player in the league. Period." in a March 15th, 1995 Chicago Tribune article.
I made a mental note back then to never forgot how good Pippen was, etc. at that time as he was an INCREDIBLE all court terror those two seasons. It was just for that REALLY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, though he bookended it was a lot of top 10 seasons, but he was top two in my opinion those two years.
Certainly, Robinson, Ewing, and a young Shaq are arguable, but if we could take a time machine back, this absolute prime Pip was second only to Hakeem for those 18 months and you would be able to see what I mean.
In fact 1995 (here where he had 40 against the Lakers, check out the Pip block at 5:07 :bowdown: ) Pippen with the BIG FRO>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nupax9ebg-g, could also be one of the smoothest players ever as well.:D

Anyway, I remember late 93-94 and 94-95 very well and IMO Pip was second to "The Dream" for that very small window of time. So yes, Pip IMO was indeed top 2, if just for a short while.

How long was this short while? Like a month or two? Cause there is no way for either of those years he was better then Robinson, and I don't think he was better then Malone or Shaq in 95.. Robinson averaged 27-30/10-11 both years and led a pretty weak supporting cast to 55 and 62 wins.

I don't even remember that being that time where he people were calling him top 2, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was. I remember alot during the 2nd-threepeat people were calling him the 2nd best player in the league, right behind Jordan. Don't get me wrong, from 94-96, he was at least top 5 for most of that time, but top 2 is pushing it for me.

[BIZARRO]

How long was this short while? Like a month or two? Cause there is no way for either of those years he was better then Robinson, and I don't think he was better then Malone or Shaq in 95.. Robinson averaged 27-30/10-11 both years and led a pretty weak supporting cast to 55 and 62 wins.

I don't even remember that being that time where he people were calling him top 2, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was. I remember alot during the 2nd-threepeat people were calling him the 2nd best player in the league, right behind Jordan. Don't get me wrong, from 94-96, he was at least top 5 for most of that time, but top 2 is pushing it for me.

We'll agree to disagree. :applause: He was indeed thought of in that light regularly during that short period of time, but the Webber quote is the only one I could remember exactly, though MJ, BJ, Kukoc, Horace, Phil Jackson, Lenny Wilkens, and some others made similar comments as well.

It is one of those thing that you watched back then and remember exactly how you felt and how things were being said (and I made a mental note to remember in this case in '95) and I would take Pippen over D-Rob all day in 94-95, regardless of statistics (thoguh Pip's were SICK as well).

It really is difficult as well to compare swingmen to big men, and even though I put Pip number 2 for those seasons and nothing can sway me from that, I can understand the other side of the argument evee if I don't agree, and I have know problem saying Pip is just the top non center from those two years if I took the other side. :D

[BallPhunk]

Without needing to elaborate (87_Lakers and guy already answered this, I'll just add that Magic produced a certain stat 138 times vs Stockton's 1.

Shortest thread killer in quite some time. And I'll add that Magic did it 138 times PLUS 30 times in the playoffs (all time leader).


Magic was a greater overall scorer and rebounder, and most of all, he had the ability to dominate a game on a consistent basis. I can't believe you made this comparison. I will say that this is worse then the Bird-Pippen comparison. The main difference between guys like Jordan, Magic, Bird and Pippen & Stockton is that they dominated games on a consistent basis to the point that everyone else on the court was almost irrelevant. Thats why I say they don't really come close.

:applause:

[guy]

We'll agree to disagree. :applause: He was indeed thought of in that light regularly during that short period of time, but the Webber quote is the only one I could remember exactly, though MJ, BJ, Kukoc, Horace, Phil Jackson, Lenny Wilkens, and some others made similar comments as well.

It is one of those thing that you watched back then and remember exactly how you felt and how things were being said (and I made a mental note to remember in this case in '95) and I would take Pippen over D-Rob all day in 94-95, regardless of statistics (thoguh Pip's were SICK as well).

It really is difficult as well to compare swingmen to big men, and even though I put Pip number 2 for those seasons and nothing can sway me from that, I can understand the other side of the argument evee if I don't agree, and I have know problem saying Pip is just the top non center from those two years if I took the other side. :D

Well if thats the case, then I'm sure what you're saying is true. On a sidenote, not that this really has anything to do with what you said, but I don't really take what a player/coach says too seriously. Not because I'm one of those people that think "just because he played/coached doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about", because I definitely do think they do. Its just that first of all, alot of them are biased. Almost all of the people you mentioned were part of the Bulls with Pippen. Second, players/coaches are fans too, which means they are just as fickle as us. I can't think of how many different times this year I've changed my opinion about best player in the league between Kobe, Wade, Lebron, and even CP3. But what a player like Webber said at the moment in a magazine or on TV is what people remember, not knowing that there's a good chance he changed his opinion a few days later.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Wow @ anyone who thinks that Pippen was better than DRob, Shaq, or Hakeem (at the very least) in '94 and '95. Wow. :oldlol:

Pippen is a system player who had a great year playing in a system he knew intimately, with a coach he knew, with teammates he had been to war with for the previous 5-6 seasons. He thrived in that circumstance, but his talent level, ability, and value outside of that structured environment is nowhere near what the other guys' were.

[97 bulls]

lol, you gotta be kidding me

Lead his team to 5 NBA Championships
Win the NBA MVP 3 Times

If you really think Stockton was better than Magic...then you have no credibility what so ever.
john stocktons accolades are right there with magic. but magic had better teams. and yes magic was a better rebounder.

[1987_Lakers]

Magic was a greater overall scorer and rebounder, and most of all, he had the ability to dominate a game on a consistent basis. I can't believe you made this comparison. I will say that this is worse then the Bird-Pippen comparison. The main difference between guys like Jordan, Magic, Bird and Pippen & Stockton is that they dominated games on a consistent basis to the point that everyone else on the court was almost irrelevant. Thats why I say they don't really come close.

He also called Kevin McHale a Rasheed Wallace with no range.
:roll:

[97 bulls]

Magic was a greater overall scorer and rebounder, and most of all, he had the ability to dominate a game on a consistent basis. I can't believe you made this comparison. I will say that this is worse then the Bird-Pippen comparison. The main difference between guys like Jordan, Magic, Bird and Pippen & Stockton is that they dominated games on a consistent basis to the point that everyone else on the court was almost irrelevant. Thats why I say they don't really come close.
there you go referring to stats. sure magics stats are better, he played in an uptempo era in an uptempo offense. and not to mention, he was a better rebounder but he was also a 6'9. stock was 6'1. he better be a better rebounder. but magic was a horrible defender. stock was strong on both sides of the ball.

[97 bulls]

Wow @ anyone who thinks that Pippen was better than DRob, Shaq, or Hakeem (at the very least) in '94 and '95. Wow. :oldlol:

Pippen is a system player who had a great year playing in a system he knew intimately, with a coach he knew, with teammates he had been to war with for the previous 5-6 seasons. He thrived in that circumstance, but his talent level, ability, and value outside of that structured environment is nowhere near what the other guys' were.
im of the opinion that the triangle held pip back.

[97 bulls]

Shortest thread killer in quite some time. And I'll add that Magic did it 138 times PLUS 30 times in the playoffs (all time leader).



:applause:
lol im ressurecting the thread how many all defense teams does magic have? ill give you a hint, its less than 1.

[1987_Lakers]

lol im ressurecting the thread how many all defense teams does magic have? ill give you a hint, its less than 1.

And how many championships and NBA MVP's does Stockton have?

[Psileas]

lol im ressurecting the thread how many all defense teams does magic have? ill give you a hint, its less than 1.

1) If you're playing against a team with Julius Erving, good luck defending him with "All-D" Stockton, like the Lakers did with Magic in '82.
2) Maurice Cheeks has even better defensive accolades than Stockton. So?
3) How many All-NBA 1st teams did Magic make and how many did Stockton?

[97 bulls]

And how many championships and NBA MVP's does Stockton have?
i already adressed it. and championships are a team accomplishment. i see no reason stock doesnt get the same if hes on the lakers instead of magic.

[1987_Lakers]

1) If you're playing against a team with Julius Erving, good luck defending him with "All-D" Stockton, like the Lakers did with Magic in '82.
2) Maurice Cheeks has even better defensive accolades than Stockton. So?
3) How many All-NBA 1st teams did Magic make and how many did Stockton?

This

And I'm pretty sure Stockton doesn't lead the lakers to victory in the 1980 NBA Finals in game 6 with Kareem injured. And I'm 100% positive Magic's performance in the '87 Finals wouldn't be matched by Stockton, not even close.

[97 bulls]

1) If you're playing against a team with Julius Erving, good luck defending him with "All-D" Stockton, like the Lakers did with Magic in '82.
2) Maurice Cheeks has even better defensive accolades than Stockton. So?
3) How many All-NBA 1st teams did Magic make and how many did Stockton?
lol magic slowed down julius in 82? dr j average like 25 ppg on 50 plus percentage shootage. stock could do that

[BallPhunk]

lol im ressurecting the thread how many all defense teams does magic have? ill give you a hint, its less than 1.

ssshhhh. Don't say that too loud - you'll hurt Magic's legacy. :sleeping

And if Stockton being a 5x NBA All-Defensive Second Team Selection is your answer to:

Magic: 168 triple doubles
Stockton: 1

then wow.

[guy]

there you go referring to stats. sure magics stats are better, he played in an uptempo era in an uptempo offense. and not to mention, he was a better rebounder but he was also a 6'9. stock was 6'1. he better be a better rebounder. but magic was a horrible defender. stock was strong on both sides of the ball.

LOL. Where in my post do I bring up stats or even say the word "stats"?

[Mdog1]

ssshhhh. Don't say that too loud - you'll hurt Magic's legacy. :sleeping

And if Stockton being a 5x NBA All-Defensive Second Team Selection is your answer to:

Magic: 168 triple doubles
Stockton: 1

then wow.
:applause:

[97 bulls]

LOL. Where in my post do I bring up stats or even say the word "stats"?
how do you arrive at the notion that magic is a beter rebounder and scorer?

[97 bulls]

ssshhhh. Don't say that too loud - you'll hurt Magic's legacy. :sleeping

And if Stockton being a 5x NBA All-Defensive Second Team Selection is your answer to:

Magic: 168 triple doubles
Stockton: 1

then wow.
then it must be wow cuz magic was a terrible defender. if you want to say offensive pg then yes magic was a better offensive pg. but as far as the prototypical pg offense and defense it stockton.

[OldSchoolBBall]

im of the opinion that the triangle held pip back.

I disagree entirely. It helped him get scores he wouldn't otherwise have been able to get. You could see this pre-triangle and also after he left Chicago. On the rare occasions when they were not running triangle sets, his offense was notcieably worse. He was a system scorer -- he knew where to be and how to capitalize on things within the offense.

There is a chance that an offense more centered around him would be enough to offset the fact that he'd be less capable/effective in a more free-flowing offense, however. I do not believe that under any circumstances (on a non-run-and-gun team) he could have been a 25-26 ppg scorer on 48+% shooting from '90-'97. He didn't have that ability. Grant Hill was a much better scorer than Pippen imo.

[Psileas]

Magic wasn't a "horrible", "terrible" defender, except if you compare him to Russell or Hakeem. He was an average personal defender and a good to very good team defender, who also excelled at stealing the ball at his young stage. Stockton was better defensively and is excellent at steals, but he couldn't shut players down, neither could he do that much against players with a clear size/athleticism advantage (and these were many), let alone his earned reputation as one of the dirtiest players in the league. In other words, his defensive advantage his in no way large enough to cover the gap there exists between them offensively.

[BallPhunk]

Magic wasn't a "horrible", "terrible" defender, except if you compare him to Russell or Hakeem. He was an average personal defender and a good to very good team defender, who also excelled at stealing the ball at his young stage. Stockton was better defensively and is excellent at steals, but he couldn't shut players down, neither could he do that much against players with a clear size/athleticism advantage (and these were many), let alone his earned reputation as one of the dirtiest players in the league. In other words, his defensive advantage his in no way large enough to cover the gap there exists between them offensively.

Well said, and some great history about Stockton being dirty. He was a "crafty" sob to say the least. Great at pulling, pushing, holding, grabbing...

It's fairly simple - not a GM in the world (including McHale) would start building their team around Stockton over Magic.

[Duncan21formvp]

Pippen is the most overrated player ever. You would think a guy who played in 6 finals and won 6 titles would have a finals mvp.

Dude didn't show up most of the time.

[Scott Pippen]

Pippen is the most overrated player ever. You would think a guy who played in 6 finals and won 6 titles would have a finals mvp.

Dude didn't show up most of the time.
Please stop trolling TmacsRRockets/Kgisbigticket.

You have to understand about the concept of playing within the team and your team role. Plus it would not make sense to try to out perform Jordan (arguably the best Finals performer of all time) just for the sake of Finals MVP.

[guy]

how do you arrive at the notion that magic is a beter rebounder and scorer?

Wow. You serious? Magic dominated games by scoring, while Stockton rarely ever did. He was definitely a more versatile scorer because of his size. He can drive, post-up, and was able to draw more fouls. Stockton was a better 3-point shooter, and thats about it. I can't even believe this is a discussion. Do I really even need to get into why a 6'8 220 lbs guy is a better rebounder then a 6'1 160 lbs guy?

[97 bulls]

Magic wasn't a "horrible", "terrible" defender, except if you compare him to Russell or Hakeem. He was an average personal defender and a good to very good team defender, who also excelled at stealing the ball at his young stage. Stockton was better defensively and is excellent at steals, but he couldn't shut players down, neither could he do that much against players with a clear size/athleticism advantage (and these were many), let alone his earned reputation as one of the dirtiest players in the league. In other words, his defensive advantage his in no way large enough to cover the gap there exists between them offensively.
lol i remember mychal thompson saying that magic was a terrible defender because he gambled far too much which would get the big men in foul trouble. and the notion that he a very good team defender is rediculous. magic never had the reputation of being any kind of a good defender. otherwise im sure he wouldve gotten at least 1 all defense team. seeing as how the nba likes to build players. hell, bird had a few all D appointments.

[97 bulls]

Wow. You serious? Magic dominated games by scoring, while Stockton rarely ever did. He was definitely a more versatile scorer because of his size. He can drive, post-up, and was able to draw more fouls. Stockton was a better 3-point shooter, and thats about it. I can't even believe this is a discussion. Do I really even need to get into why a 6'8 220 lbs guy is a better rebounder then a 6'1 160 lbs guy?
no, stockton was a better shooter flat out. and they played in differnt styles. i appreciate stocks all around game more. and by all around i mean defense too.

[97 bulls]

Well said, and some great history about Stockton being dirty. He was a "crafty" sob to say the least. Great at pulling, pushing, holding, grabbing...

It's fairly simple - not a GM in the world (including McHale) would start building their team around Stockton over Magic.
you interviewed all the gms in the world? if not, then how do you know?

[97 bulls]

I disagree entirely. It helped him get scores he wouldn't otherwise have been able to get. You could see this pre-triangle and also after he left Chicago. On the rare occasions when they were not running triangle sets, his offense was notcieably worse. He was a system scorer -- he knew where to be and how to capitalize on things within the offense.

There is a chance that an offense more centered around him would be enough to offset the fact that he'd be less capable/effective in a more free-flowing offense, however. I do not believe that under any circumstances (on a non-run-and-gun team) he could have been a 25-26 ppg scorer on 48+% shooting from '90-'97. He didn't have that ability. Grant Hill was a much better scorer than Pippen imo.
lol, what do you mean "pre-triangle" pip always played in the triangle. and his role in houston was much much different than in chicago. and he was like 35 in portland.

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol, what do you mean "pre-triangle" pip always played in the triangle. and his role in houston was much much different than in chicago. and he was like 35 in portland.

The triangle wasn't implemented until 1990 (Pip's third year), and even that year they didn't run it all the time (not as much as they did in 1991). And of course the age excuse is always going to be brought up after he left Chicago despite the fact that he was hardly ancient.

[symbol33]

The players in todays game are too athletic. Sure wilt was athletic for his time too.
But compared to todays players, there's no way Wilt would be 50% as dominant in todays game as he was in his time.

Actually you should know one important thing that the sports scientific had made great development in the pass 3 decades. The players today is more athletic than before because they received more supports from the coach team and the healthcare technology. You simply can not take a energetic 1990s Rodman back to the 1960s era without thinking of the support form the background.
In wilt and russel's era, they are the best, but Rodman, just great rebounder.
However, there was only one season Wilt Avg 50, this number in today should also be more than 30+, what do you think of the best scorer this season, 29+, Lebon.
I also want to know how old you are? You just discuss with others in the players who you have no idea of who they really are?

[symbol33]

Yes, compared to todays CENTERS he may be an allstar. But if he played against the PF's of todays league, it's another story.

Tim Duncan
Dirk
Amare
Kg
durant
Pau Gasol
Al jefferson
would all be more than enough for Wilt to handle.

come on, how can you put guys such as durant, Gasol etc in this list to compare to Wilt

[guy]

no, stockton was a better shooter flat out. and they played in differnt styles. i appreciate stocks all around game more. and by all around i mean defense too.

haha ok man. Stockton > Magic. Stockton is better all-around then the guy with 138 triple-doubles in his career.

[97 bulls]

The triangle wasn't implemented until 1990 (Pip's third year), and even that year they didn't run it all the time (not as much as they did in 1991). And of course the age excuse is always going to be brought up after he left Chicago despite the fact that he was hardly ancient.
he wasnt too old in houston. but his role changed. houston offense was post olajuwan wait for the double team then kick out to the open man. there was no chemistry in houston. not to mention pip called out players like barkley by saying he was extremely lazy and that the team would never win a championship. and as far as portland, im sorry but once you get to a certain age, you just dont have it anymore.

[97 bulls]

haha ok man. Stockton > Magic. Stockton is better then the guy with 138 triple-doubles in his career.
lol im not saying magic wasnt great. but im sick of people saying its blasphemy if you have an opinion thats not for bird or magic. they both were great but i try to put everytrhing into perspective. i heard this morning bernrd king say that carmello anthony is the closest type of player to him today which i agree with. but if someone says this on this forum its like your insulting that person.

[guy]

lol im not saying magic wasnt great. but im sick of people saying its blasphemy if you have an opinion thats not for bird or magic. they both were great but i try to put everytrhing into perspective. i heard this morning bernrd king say that carmello anthony is the closest type of player to him today which i agree with. but if someone says this on this forum its like your insulting that person.

There's nothing wrong with saying Melo and King are comparable, but saying Pippen = Bird or Stockton = Magic is kind of ridiculous. They didn't have the presence, and they didn't dominate like I said. Sorry, whenever I watched Pippen or Stockton, I rarely ever said, "Man he's killing the other team". Not saying I never saw them do it, EX: 97 WCF Finals Game 6, but it wasn't anywhere near as much as Bird or Magic.

[Psileas]

lol i remember mychal thompson saying that magic was a terrible defender because he gambled far too much which would get the big men in foul trouble. and the notion that he a very good team defender is rediculous. magic never had the reputation of being any kind of a good defender. otherwise im sure he wouldve gotten at least 1 all defense team. seeing as how the nba likes to build players. hell, bird had a few all D appointments.

And I remember at least one sportcaster who called Magic arguably the best team defender in the league (not necessarily true, but I heard it), and that's in the late 80's. I think I had seen it on Youtube as well (maybe Da_Realist uploaded this video). Yes, young Bird made a few All-D second teams, and he still wasn't clearly better, which goes to show how loosely adapted the criteria for All-D teams can be at times.


no, stockton was a better shooter flat out. and they played in differnt styles. i appreciate stocks all around game more. and by all around i mean defense too.

Steve Kerr was a better shooter than Stockton, they just played in different styles. Not to mention that he played along with Jordan, Pippen and Duncan, which didn't let him shine as he could. Therefore, I appreciate Kerr's all-around game more than Stockton's. I'd also like to add the underrated Brian Williams (Bison Dele), whose defense in his prime was clearly superior to Barkley's, which obviously makes him a better all-around player.

PS. Now that I'm re-thinking it, these may actually make sense to you. You have already said you appreciate Stockton over Magic, Pippen over Bird, Rodman over McHale/Worthy (hint: there's a pattern here), so maybe you'll agree with these remarks, as well.

[97 bulls]

And I remember at least one sportcaster who called Magic arguably the best team defender in the league (not necessarily true, but I heard it), and that's in the late 80's. I think I had seen it on Youtube as well (maybe Da_Realist uploaded this video). Yes, young Bird made a few All-D second teams, and he still wasn't clearly better, which goes to show how loosely adapted the criteria for All-D teams can be at times.



Steve Kerr was a better shooter than Stockton, they just played in different styles. Not to mention that he played along with Jordan, Pippen and Duncan, which didn't let him shine as he could. Therefore, I appreciate Kerr's all-around game more than Stockton's. I'd also like to add the underrated Brian Williams (Bison Dele), whose defense in his prime was clearly superior to Barkley's, which obviously makes him a better all-around player.

PS. Now that I'm re-thinking it, these may actually make sense to you. You have already said you appreciate Stockton over Magic, Pippen over Bird, Rodman over McHale/Worthy (hint: there's a pattern here), so maybe you'll agree with these remarks, as well.
you dont know what in hell your talking about. as far as a prototypical pg stock is in my opinion the best ever. i stated my reason for saying such and your not disagreeing. obviously my criteria is different from yours. steve kerr was never more than a great jumpshooter. dele i feel couldve been very good but i never compared him to barkley. nor have i ever compared rodman too worthy or mchale.

and to bring up some reporter saying that magic is arguably the best defender in the league is well, A LIE.

[97 bulls]

There's nothing wrong with saying Melo and King are comparable, but saying Pippen = Bird or Stockton = Magic is kind of ridiculous. They didn't have the presence, and they didn't dominate like I said. Sorry, whenever I watched Pippen or Stockton, I rarely ever said, "Man he's killing the other team". Not saying I never saw them do it, EX: 97 WCF Finals Game 6, but it wasn't anywhere near as much as Bird or Magic.
pip had a rep for taking over games not with his scoring but by doing everything else. and of cousre theres nothing wrong with sayng king and melo are comparable. just like theres nothing wrong with the others cuz they are comparable. obviously you guys agree cuz you guys take the time to respond. if i were to say something like magic sucked you guys would call me a troll and move on. oops, maybe i shouldnt have said that cuz now you guys will be saing that i said magic sucks.

[guy]

pip had a rep for taking over games not with his scoring but by doing everything else. and of cousre theres nothing wrong with sayng king and melo are comparable. just like theres nothing wrong with the others cuz they are comparable. obviously you guys agree cuz you guys take the time to respond. if i were to say something like magic sucked you guys would call me a troll and move on. oops, maybe i shouldnt have said that cuz now you guys will be saing that i said magic sucks.

No he didn't. At least not to the the extent that guys like Jordan, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Lebron, Kobe, Wade have. And I'm not talking about dominating just by scoring.

[Psileas]

you dont know what in hell your talking about. as far as a prototypical pg stock is in my opinion the best ever. i stated my reason for saying such and your not disagreeing. obviously my criteria is different from yours. steve kerr was never more than a great jumpshooter. dele i feel couldve been very good but i never compared him to barkley. nor have i ever compared rodman too worthy or mchale.

I know well what I'm talking about. I've read for the first time in my lifetime (and I've read a lot about basketball) the opinion that Stockton was in any way comparable to Magic when it comes to all-around skills. A guard who never in his 1500 career games managed to score more than 34 points (without even playing for a super-deep team), who only had 1 triple-double and could play at exactly 1 position and who, unlike Magic, never ever in his career had been remotely close to being described as the most all-around player in the game, let alone the fact that he also never ever came remotely close to winning an MVP, is somehow compared to Magic, in Magic's own strongest point, because he was a tougher defender. This to me makes as much sense as comparing the all-around skills of Barkley to the skills of another PF who happened to be good at both sides of the floor, but excellent in neither.


and to bring up some reporter saying that magic is arguably the best defender in the league is well, A LIE.

I don't care if I convince you or not, I couldn't care less. I know what I heard and that's more than enough to me.

Here, take another "lie":

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22magic+johnson%22+team+defender&sa=N&start=10

The sixth link (taken from 1990, not Magic's strongest defensive period) writes:


...Magic (Johnson) is a 6-9 guard and even though he is an excellent team defender-probably the best team defender in the NBA...

As if I needed to make up stories to compare Magic to Stockton. :rolleyes:

[AirJordan23]

. A guard who never in his 1500 career games managed to score more than 34 points (without even playing for a super-deep team)
:eek:
Wow, I knew Stockton didn't need to carry the scoring load a lot and his main job was orchestrate the offense but I didn't expect his career high to be that low.

[1987_Lakers]

PS. Now that I'm re-thinking it, these may actually make sense to you. You have already said you appreciate Stockton over Magic, Pippen over Bird, Rodman over McHale/Worthy (hint: there's a pattern here)

Ya, I also see the pattern. 97 bulls has stated James Worthy, Robert Parish, & Kevin McHale were all overrated, he thinks Stockton > Magic, and he has said Pippen was on the same level as Larry Bird. (notice these are all Lakers and Celtics players from the 80's)

97 bulls is nothing more than a 80's hater who states these stupid remarks so he can make himself think the 90's were the best era of basketball and the '97 Bulls were the GOAT team.

[97 bulls]

I know well what I'm talking about. I've read for the first time in my lifetime (and I've read a lot about basketball) the opinion that Stockton was in any way comparable to Magic when it comes to all-around skills. A guard who never in his 1500 career games managed to score more than 34 points (without even playing for a super-deep team), who only had 1 triple-double and could play at exactly 1 position and who, unlike Magic, never ever in his career had been remotely close to being described as the most all-around player in the game, let alone the fact that he also never ever came remotely close to winning an MVP, is somehow compared to Magic, in Magic's own strongest point, because he was a tougher defender. This to me makes as much sense as comparing the all-around skills of Barkley to the skills of another PF who happened to be good at both sides of the floor, but excellent in neither.



I don't care if I convince you or not, I couldn't care less. I know what I heard and that's more than enough to me.

Here, take another "lie":

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22magic+johnson%22+team+defender&sa=N&start=10

The sixth link (taken from 1990, not Magic's strongest defensive period) writes:



As if I needed to make up stories to compare Magic to Stockton. :rolleyes:
so, you go to the la times archives (hint hint), to prove your theory that magic is a great help defender? thats sad. so if i were to go to a local utah papers archive and find a writer saying that stockton is the best pg ever does that prove my point? come on, you can do better than that.

[97 bulls]

Ya, I also see the pattern. 97 bulls has stated James Worthy, Robert Parish, & Kevin McHale were all overrated, he thinks Stockton > Magic, and he has said Pippen was on the same level as Larry Bird. (notice these are all Lakers and Celtics players from the 80's)

97 bulls is nothing more than a 80's hater who states these stupid remarks so he can make himself think the 90's were the best era of basketball and the '97 Bulls were the GOAT team.
yes i see a pattern too. the pattern is someone finally setting you guys straight on the how to judge greatness. basketball is the only sport in which you can be great at 1 half of the game and be an alltime great. and as far as the 80s 90s bebate 87, im gonna tell you this one more time. neither was better. 80s was more exciting and that all nothing more nothing less. and the fact is that magic doesnt get anywhere near the mvp or championship if not for his team.

[97 bulls]

:eek:
Wow, I knew Stockton didn't need to carry the scoring load a lot and his main job was orchestrate the offense but I didn't expect his career high to be that low.
i swear to god you guys are amazing. HE A PG HE DOESNT HAVE TO SCORE 40 PTS. GEEZE.

[guy]

yes i see a pattern too. the pattern is someone finally setting you guys straight on the how to judge greatness. basketball is the only sport in which you can be great at 1 half of the game and be an alltime great.

LOL do you realize how dumb that comment is? Have you ever even watched other sports? I guess Dan Marino must've been one hell of a linebacker.

[AirJordan23]

i swear to god you guys are amazing. HE A PG HE DOESNT HAVE TO SCORE 40 PTS. GEEZE.

That IS not the point. I expected his career high to be higher than 34, that was my point. Even for a pass first PG, I expected it to be higher than that because Stockton had the ability to score. He was a great efficient shooter and took over when he wanted to (mostly in the clutch).

[1987_Lakers]

yes i see a pattern too. the pattern is someone finally setting you guys straight on the how to judge greatness. basketball is the only sport in which you can be great at 1 half of the game and be an alltime great. and as far as the 80s 90s bebate 87, im gonna tell you this one more time. neither was better. 80s was more exciting and that all nothing more nothing less. and the fact is that magic doesnt get anywhere near the mvp or championship if not for his team.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Psileas]

so, you go to the la times archives (hint hint), to prove your theory that magic is a great help defender? thats sad. so if i were to go to a local utah papers archive and find a writer saying that stockton is the best pg ever does that prove my point? come on, you can do better than that.

You can just admit that you were wrong about me posting lies. After all, I still don't need to post references to make a point which is obvious to people who watch Magic play. I just did so to prove you wrong and because I had 5 minutes to spare.
And the fact that the LA Times posted something about an LA player doesn't mean that they can write whatever crap they want. It still must have some basis. If they wanted to really be out of the top, they could write that Magic is the best individual defender in the game or that he's the greatest 3-point shooter in the game, not this. Pretty much anyone knew that Magic was a good team defender.
BTW, you still haven't referenced anything to counter about Magic's team defense.


and the fact is that magic doesnt get anywhere near the mvp or championship if not for his team.

This "fact" is supported by...
blank
blank
blank
blank
...yeah, nothing. You just take advantage of the fact that the Lakers were usually a stacked team and nothing else.

Magic went to a team which was talented, but not good enough to win the title. They had lost in the '79 Western Conference Semifinals. They won the title with him being a rookie. Stockton went to a team which had lost in the '84 Western Conference Semifinals. And what happened with Stockton as a rookie? They didn't make half a step ahead. Neither could they do so up to '91, and even when they did, most of the credit went to Malone. On the other hand, Magic, after the early 80's, took the team's leadership from Kareem and led the Lakers to more titles as the #1 guy.
Hell, Magic came back at the age of 36-37, after 4.5 years of rust (or 3.5, if you really consider the '92 Olympics NBA-level competition, which I don't) and led the 24-18 Lakers to a 53-29 record. Prime Magic, playing from the beginning of the season with the same team? Easily 58-60 wins and at least top-3 in MVP candidacy. With those Lakers.

Not to mention that I can easily reverse your argument: That team would go nowhere without Magic.

[97 bulls]

LOL do you realize how dumb that comment is? Have you ever even watched other sports? I guess Dan Marino must've been one hell of a linebacker.
let me clear it up for you. when i say all around i mean for their position. dan marino was an excellent pocket passer thats it. but elway, montanna, favre, young etc were more versitle. meanig they were not only great pocket passers but great at scrambling, play action, clutch, 2 minute, arm strength, acuracy etc. and thats why for some hes one of the greatest but not the greatest.

tailback. if you can only run for yardage but not block and catch out of the back field, your not gonna be the best ever. marshall faulk, jim brown, emmit smith, were all great at this. and even though barry sanders put up amazing stats, he was soley a runner.

[guy]

let me clear it up for you. when i say all around i mean for their position. dan marino was an excellent pocket passer thats it. but elway, montanna, favre, young etc were more versitle. meanig they were not only great pocket passers but great at scrambling, play action, clutch, 2 minute, arm strength, acuracy etc. and thats why for some hes one of the greatest but not the greatest.

tailback. if you can only run for yardage but not block and catch out of the back field, your not gonna be the best ever. marshall faulk, jim brown, emmit smith, were all great at this. and even though barry sanders put up amazing stats, he was soley a runner.

Ummm, wow you took my football comment seriously? Do you realize why I said it? To point out how dumb saying "basketball is the only sport in which you can be great at 1 half of the game (assuming you mean offense and/or defense) and be an alltime great." You really just wasted your time typing all that.

[97 bulls]

You can just admit that you were wrong about me posting lies. After all, I still don't need to post references to make a point which is obvious to people who watch Magic play. I just did so to prove you wrong and because I had 5 minutes to spare.
And the fact that the LA Times posted something about an LA player doesn't mean that they can write whatever crap they want. It still must have some basis. If they wanted to really be out of the top, they could write that Magic is the best individual defender in the game or that he's the greatest 3-point shooter in the game, not this. Pretty much anyone knew that Magic was a good team defender.
BTW, you still haven't referenced anything to counter about Magic's team defense.



This "fact" is supported by...
blank
blank
blank
blank
...yeah, nothing. You just take advantage of the fact that the Lakers were usually a stacked team and nothing else.

Magic went to a team which was talented, but not good enough to win the title. They had lost in the '79 Western Conference Semifinals. They won the title with him being a rookie. Stockton went to a team which had lost in the '84 Western Conference Semifinals. And what happened with Stockton as a rookie? They didn't make half a step ahead. Neither could they do so up to '91, and even when they did, most of the credit went to Malone. On the other hand, Magic, after the early 80's, took the team's leadership from Kareem and led the Lakers to more titles as the #1 guy.
Hell, Magic came back at the age of 36-37, after 4.5 years of rust (or 3.5, if you really consider the '92 Olympics NBA-level competition, which I don't) and led the 24-18 Lakers to a 53-29 record. Prime Magic, playing from the beginning of the season with the same team? Easily 58-60 wins and at least top-3 in MVP candidacy. With those Lakers.

Not to mention that I can easily reverse your argument: That team would go nowhere without Magic.
i wasnt calling you a lier i was calling the announcer a lier. i know that everything you say is your opinion. but alot of what these people, they dont believe themselves. and im not trying to discredit anything magic has accomplished. i just feel that with the same talent stock could do the same. your telling me stock couldnt run the fast break and play as you suggested great "help defense"?

[Psileas]

Btw, that "pure PG" thing is nonsense. Nobody penalizes other players for doing more things than their position requires, so I don't get why we should penalize Magic for this.

SG=Must be good shooters and not be able to play in another position. Therefore, GOAT "pure SG"=Reggie.

[97 bulls]

Ummm, wow you took my football comment seriously? Do you realize why I said it? To point out how dumb saying "basketball is the only sport in which you can be great at 1 half of the game (assuming you mean offense and/or defense) and be an alltime great." You really just wasted your time typing all that.
lol, how am i supposed to know when your serious? i cant read your face. but your comment was a valid one. and i elaborated on my previous post. hoping to show you my point. and like i said in other sports, you must be great at multiple tasks. in basketball, you can be a great offensive player and terrible man defender and be considered the best. i mean think about that concept, you cant play defense but your still the best? you can score or assist on a score, but on the other end, your a liability? and you guys are ok with that?

[97 bulls]

Btw, that "pure PG" thing is nonsense. Nobody penalizes other players for doing more things than their position requires, so I don't get why we should penalize Magic for this.

SG=Must be good shooters and not be able to play in another position. Therefore, GOAT "pure SG"=Reggie.
lol you guys are penalizing stockton for not being a great rebounder. and what position on the court doesnt require you to play defense. to me, a pg that cant play defense, is like a center that cant rebound.

[Psileas]

i wasnt calling you a lier i was calling the announcer a lier. i know that everything you say is your opinion. but alot of what these people, they dont believe themselves. and im not trying to discredit anything magic has accomplished. i just feel that with the same talent stock could do the same. your telling me stock couldnt run the fast break and play as you suggested great "help defense"?

Of course Stockton could run a team. But I doubt he could run those Lakers as a 6'9 PG could or generally do as many things. Even his assists were kind of benefitted by Sloan's plays that involved the pick-n-roll a lot of times and
required from Stockton to be the final passer more often than Magic did. When the Lakers ran a fastbreak, it wasn't uncommon for Magic to be the guy who grabbed the defensive rebound, passed quickly to Scott and he, in turn, would serve it to Worthy. For the Jazz, Stockton wasn't going to be the guy going for the rebound. He would be the guy waiting for the rebounder to get him the ball and then he'd try to serve it to a teammate. That's why Utah would sometimes not have any other player averaging more than 3 apg, while the Lakers also had Cooper or Scott or even Kareem average that many.

[guy]

lol, how am i supposed to know when your serious? i cant read your face. but your comment was a valid one. and i elaborated on my previous post. hoping to show you my point. and like i said in other sports, you must be great at multiple tasks. in basketball, you can be a great offensive player and terrible man defender and be considered the best. i mean think about that concept, you cant play defense but your still the best? you can score or assist on a score, but on the other end, your a liability? and you guys are ok with that?

A valid one? I said Dan Marino must've been a great linebacker. How is that valid? Whatever, not the point. Okay you brought up liability. Shaq and his FT shooting has been one of the greatest liabilities in NBA history. Kevin Garnett on the other hand, really has no weakness. Are you going to tell me that KG is anywhere near as great as Shaq then? And really, I think you're overstating things. Magic and Bird were never liabilities on defense. They were never great defenders, sometimes they were bad, but its not like they were liabilities, and opposing players were scoring 30+ on them regularly.

[Psileas]

lol you guys are penalizing stockton for not being a great rebounder. and what position on the court doesnt require you to play defense. to me, a pg that cant play defense, is like a center that cant rebound.

I didn't penalize Stockton for this. A PG's main job isn't to be a rebounder, so Stockton not being a rebounder isn't a minus. But, if a PG can rebound, this is a plus for him, so Magic will certainly get a boost for his ability, without needing to drop Stockton.

[guy]

lol you guys are penalizing stockton for not being a great rebounder. and what position on the court doesnt require you to play defense. to me, a pg that cant play defense, is like a center that cant rebound.

Its not a penalty to Stockton, more like a bonus to Magic. Point guards aren't penalized for not being able to rebound, but you think a team doesn't benefit at all if they can? I doubt Byron Scott or Jerry Sloan is complaining about CP3 or Deron's rebounding numbers but I'm sure they would absolutely love it if they could give them 8 a game. So you're saying that Magic's rebounding as well as he did should be irrelevant when comparing the two?

[97 bulls]

i agree with both you guys but not playing defense is a big minus

[97 bulls]

Its not a penalty to Stockton, more like a bonus to Magic. Point guards aren't penalized for not being able to rebound, but you think a team doesn't benefit at all if they can? I doubt Byron Scott or Jerry Sloan is complaining about CP3 or Deron's rebounding numbers but I'm sure they would absolutely love it if they could give them 8 a game. So you're saying that Magic's rebounding as well as he did should be irrelevant when comparing the two?
no magics rebounding is definatly a plus. some pf dont get 8 a game.

[guy]

i agree with both you guys but not playing defense is a big minus

There is a difference between not playing defense and being average at defense.