Pippen's Scoring Compared to Opposing Sidekicks in Title Runs (Each Series)

[Roundball_Rock]

It is a joke this thread even has to be made but let's set the record straight. This is scoring only. Points generated via assists aren't factored in here, nor is defense or rebounding (Pippen, a SF, led his team in rebounding in 91', 94', 95' and tied Grant in 92'). Just PPG since that is the daily obsession. :lol If someone is in parentheses, they wre the first option.

1991 1R: Pippen 20, Vandweghe 17 (Ewing 17)
1991 ECSF: Pippen 23, Hawkins 20 (Barkley 26)
1991 ECF: Pippen 22, Dumars 13 (Isiah 17)
1991 Finals: Pippen 21, Worthy 19 (Magic 19)
1992 1R: Pippen 24, Seiklay 21 (Rice 19)
1992 ECSF: Pippen 16, McDaniel 19
1992 ECF: Pippen 20, Daughtery 18 (Price 19)
1992 Finals: Pippen 21, Porter 16 (Drexler 25)
1993 1R: Pippen 15, Willis 17
1993 ECSF: Pippen 18, Daughtery 17 (Price 14)
1993 ECF: Pippen 23, Starks 15 (Ewing 26)
1993 Finals: Pippen 21, Johnson 17
1996 1R: Pippen 20, Mourning 18 (Hardaway 18)
1996 ECSF: Pippen 16, Starks 13
1996 ECF: Pippen 19, Penny 26
1996 Finals: Pippen 16, Kemp 23
1997 1R: Pippen 17, Howard 19 (Webber 16)
1997 ECSF: Pippen 22, Laettner 16 (Smith 18)
1997 ECF: Pippen (injured) 17, Mourning 16; Pippen (healthy) 21
1997 Finals: Pippen 20, Stockton 15 (Malone 24)
1998 1R: Pippen 18, Kittles 16 (Van Horn* 13)
1998 ECSF: Pippen 18, Mason 13
1998 ECF: Pippen 17, Smits 16 (Miller 17)
1998 Finals: Pippen (injured) 16, Stockton 10; Pippen (healthy) 20

Series after series he outscores the other #2 option--in many of them he exceeds, matches or is close to the opposing #1 option. :pimp: Like I said, it is a joke this thread even has to be made but fun-house mirrors lead to up being down, down being up.

*Cassell injured for the playoffs.

[LAmbruh]

incredible post and breakdown :applause:


bookmarked


5 stars

[Roundball_Rock]

incredible post and breakdown :applause:


bookmarked


5 stars

:cheers:

This should be pasted into every 3ball thread. :lol

[Hey Yo]

It is a joke this thread even has to be made but let's set the record straight. This is scoring only. Points generated via assists aren't factored in here, nor is defense or rebounding (Pippen, a SF, led his team in rebounding in 91', 94', 95' and tied Grant in 92'). Just PPG since that is the daily obsession. :lol If someone is in parentheses, they wre the first option.

1991 1R: Pippen 20, Vandweghe 17 (Ewing 17)
1991 ECSF: Pippen 23, Hawkins 20 (Barkley 26)
1991 ECF: Pippen 22, Dumars 13 (Isiah 17)
1991 Finals: Pippen 21, Worthy 19 (Magic 19)
1992 1R: Pippen 24, Seiklay 21 (Rice 19)
1992 ECSF: Pippen 16, McDaniel 19
1992 ECF: Pippen 20, Daughtery 18 (Price 19)
1992 Finals: Pippen 21, Porter 16 (Drexler 25)
1993 1R: Pippen 15, Willis 17
1993 ECSF: Pippen 18, Daughtery 17 (Price 14)
1993 ECF: Pippen 23, Starks 15 (Ewing 26)
1993 Finals: Pippen 21, Johnson 17
1996 1R: Pippen 20, Mourning 18 (Hardaway 18)
1996 ECSF: Pippen 16, Starks 13
1996 ECF: Pippen 19, Penny 26
1996 Finals: Pippen 16, Kemp 23
1997 1R: Pippen 17, Howard 19 (Webber 16)
1997 ECSF: Pippen 22, Laettner 16 (Smith 18)
1997 ECF: Pippen (injured) 17, Mourning 16; Pippen (healthy) 21
1997 Finals: Pippen 20, Stockton 15 (Malone 24)
1998 1R: Pippen 18, Kittles 16 (Van Horn* 13)
1998 ECSF: Pippen 18, Mason 13
1998 ECF: Pippen 17, Smits 16 (Miller 17)
1998 Finals: Pippen (injured) 16, Stockton 10; Pippen (healthy) 20

Series after series he outscores the other #2 option--in many of them he exceeds, matches or is close to the opposing #1 option. :pimp: Like I said, it is a joke this thread even has to be made but fun-house mirrors lead to up being down, down being up.

*Cassell injured for the playoffs.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQuNsPupPbvKy5zBkq6M4LzsdlHnC7 yL6UcmQ&usqp=CAU

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I don't get his crusade. As we talked about in the other thread, that Pippen was able to succeed alongside MJ (both on and off the court) is a credit to MJ. A big weakness LeBron has is how he integrates with other stars, which is why his teams never have a high ceiling relative to other champs helmed by an ATG of LeBron's caliber or relative to their comp (even when they won, his teams had 7 games ECF's in 12', 13' and 7 Game finals in 13', 16').

3ball loves to bring names like Worthy and KJ up. Those guys never were MVP candidates or 1st team all-NBA. Yes, Pippen's best years came away from MJ but in 96' he was still 1st team all-NBA and top 5 in MVP (things Worthy,Daughtery, Starks, Smits, KJ, Dumars, Porter, Kemp, Stockton, etc. never did).

Yup. We know that Pippen had some rough postseason runs AND ones you could argue he was a bad scorer in (compared to other sidekicks we know he was a good scorer though ie. your OP).

What we can’t do is pretend that Pippen didn’t do anything else. Like a Carmelo or Iverson. One of the reasons 3ball puts Scottie down is to rationalize the THOUSANDS of hours he’s jerked off to MJ youtube clips. What he doesn’t get though is berating Pippen kills his entire argument. The takeaway then is Mike single-handedly beat teams, and gives credence to the weak era talk.

If 3ball were halfway competent, he would accept Pippen for what he is: A Top Tier SF and easily one of the Top 10 best players in that era. Would go a long way for later debates, whether thats for All Time Best Teams, Best Eras or even Best Duos.

Decided to reply here. Looks more appropriate :lol Anyway that's just me thinking out loud. :confusedshrug:

[Roundball_Rock]

What we can’t do is pretend like Pippen didn’t do anything else like a Carmelo or Iverson. One of the reasons 3ball puts Scottie down is to rationalize the THOUSANDS of hours he’s jerked off to MJ youtube clips. What he doesn’t get though is berating Pippen kills his entire argument. The takeaway here then is Mike single-handedly beat teams and gives credence to the weak era talk.

Exactly! :lol That is what is bizarre: if you accept all his arguments that means:

*The comp was so weak a one man team beat them.
*The era was so weak Pippen (who 3ball and co. consider basically Iggy) could be a MVP candidate, 1st team all-NBA multiple years, etc. but is the (implied) type of player who would be a 4th or 5th option on a contender in today's era.
*Pippen sucked, but the "comp's" sidekicks were much worse, more evidence of a weak era.


If 3ball were halfway competent, he would accept Pippen for what he is: A Top Tier SF and easily one of the Top 10 best players in that era. Would go a long way for later debates, whether thats for is All Time Best Teams, Best Eras or even Best Duos.

Or he could even argue the Bull's scoring 3-12 was less than other teams. That would be disingenuous since they were getting so much scoring/usage from their top two (only 1 ball) but at least there would be a factual basis for that discussion.

[Round Mound]

:applause:

[ArbitraryWater]

Lmao, destroyed 3ball's existence.

And this is not even accounting for defense..

[AirBonner]

Lmao, destroyed 3ball's existence.

And this is not even accounting for defense..

Bingo. On offense alone Pippen was the best 2nd option

[Roundball_Rock]

Lmao, destroyed 3ball's existence.

And this is not even accounting for defense..

Or even playmaking. 3ball and co. boil "offense" down to just PPG (they don't talk about arensal to score--a lot of the guys they hype couldn't do what Pippen could, e.g., post up but Pippen could do what they did--all 20 PPG isn't the same because scoring gets harder in the PO so skill and versatility becomes more important). Or rebounding--you can't be on offense without getting the ball (Pippen was a 99th percentile rebounder for a non-big).

Backpicks on Pippen's rebounding:


He was always a phenomenal rebounder, and his peak defensive rebounding rate (19.4 percent) ranks in the 99th percentile among non-bigs.

The footnote is:


That’s the 34th-best defensive rebounding rate for non-bigs and the 22nd-best relative rate (+5.8 percent) ever.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/

BP on Pippen's passing/creating:


While he was a phenomenal finisher and transition player, Pippen’s best offensive attribute was his passing. By my estimates, he dolled out “good” or “great” passes on about 3 plays per 100, which, for comparison, was slightly behind John Stockton’s rate.

https://backpicks.com/2018/01/29/backpicks-goat-23-scottie-pippen/

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Exactly! :lol That is what is bizarre: if you accept all his arguments that means:

*The comp was so weak a one man team beat them.
*The era was so weak Pippen (who 3ball and co. consider basically Iggy) could be a MVP candidate, 1st team all-NBA multiple years, etc. but is the (implied) type of player who would be a 4th or 5th option on a contender in today's era.
*Pippen sucked, but the "comp's" sidekicks were much worse, more evidence of a weak era.



Or he could even argue the Bull's scoring 3-12 was less than other teams. That would be disingenuous since they were getting so much scoring/usage from their top two (only 1 ball) but at least there would be a factual basis for that discussion.

The Pippen sucks talk is so dumb that I don't even give it a rationale thought. I just immediately insult 3ball :oldlol:

You did a good job here, tho. MJ 'clearly' winning with these sidekicks is debunked. Can't base it on running an offense. Can't base it on rebounding. Definitely can't base it on defense. And now you can't even use scoring. Bravo, RR.

[Roundball_Rock]

The Pippen sucks stuff is so dumb that I don't even give it a rationale thought. I just immediately insult 3ball :oldlol:

You did a good job here. The MJ would win with these "sidekicks" is debunked. Can't base it on running an offense. Can't be it on rebounding. Definitely can't base it on defense. And now you can't even use scoring. Bravo, RR.

Slight disagreement: I think MJ could win with some of these other guys but that is precisely because the other "sidekicks" weren't these 10 feet tall players that 3ball presents them as or when compared to other eras. Terry Porter looks terrible compared to PG or Anthony Davis today or Magic or Dr. J but he is enough to win 1-2 rings compared to the sidekicks of the 90's. Of course if MJ had the team success Hakeem had, 3ball and others wouldn't be MJ stans today.

Ewing almost won with Starks, Miller with Smits, Drexler with Porter; Hakeem actually won with Thorpe. Robinson was in the WCF with Elliott as his 2nd scorer. That is one of the ironies: any of these guys would have won multiple rings if they were the ones who had Pippen (or anyone equal to him). 3ball should be grateful for the 6.

[LAmbruh]

Roundball_Rock is DANGEROUSLY close to be #1 poster of 2020

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Slight disagreement: I think MJ could win with some of these other guys but that is precisely because the other "sidekicks" weren't these 10 feet tall players that 3ball presents them as or when compared to other eras. Terry Porter looks terrible compared to PG or Anthony Davis today or Magic or Dr. J but he is enough to win 1-2 rings compared to the sidekicks of the 90's. Of course if MJ had the team success Hakeem had, 3ball and others wouldn't be MJ stans today.

Ewing almost won with Starks, Miller with Smits, Drexler with Porter; Hakeem actually won with Thorpe. Robinson was in the WCF with Elliott as his 2nd scorer. That is one of the ironies: any of these guys would have won multiple rings if they were the ones who had Pippen (or anyone equal to him). 3ball should be grateful for the 6.

Yeah we talked about who would've won with Mike. I had ~10 other players that could potentially have won SIX w/ him. You had something like 7 or 8. Splitting hairs, and not a big difference really.

MJ could have won w/ a few of these sidekicks too. Doubt Chicago goes goes 6/6 with Kiki Vandweghe. :lol Ditto with Starks and Worthy who 3ball romanticizes.

[Roundball_Rock]

Roundball_Rock is DANGEROUSLY close to be #1 poster of 2020

:cheers:


Also think MJ could have won w/ a few of these sidekicks too. Doubt Chicago goes goes 6/6 with Kiki Vandweghe. Ditto with Starks and Worthy who 3ball romanticizes.

:lol

Yeah, he raves about Worthy, KJ, and Kemp in particular for some reason. The irony is Pippen is the only one of the group who was ever top 10 in scoring. KJ was the best player on a contender for a few seasons--but outside of one year it was Chambers or Hornacek leading the team in scoring (the same Hornacek who Krause tried to trade for to be Pippen's 2nd option in 94'). Worthy and Kemp got exposed somewhat when they were put in #1 option roles. They were still stars but greatly dimmed under the greater attention.

Worthy 1989-1991: 21/6/4 57% TS 23% usage
Worthy 1992: 20/6/5 49% TS 25% usage

Worthy was done after 92' as a star so we can't glean much from 93' and 94' (yet somehow MJ would win more with Worthy?).

Kemp 1995-1997: 19/11/2 61% TS 26% usage
Kemp 1998-2000: 19/9/2 52% TS 29% usage

Both players saw their efficiency fall off a cliff under #1 option scrutiny and volume. Yet 3ball says these guys>>>Pippen, who became a MVP candidate as a #1 option, as a #2 option.

Another amusing quirk: Xavier McDaniel gets toasted by 3ball for scoring 18.6 PPG in one second round series (while not showing up for Game 7 as Pippen went 17/11/11 on him). Meanwhile Pippen is a bum for nearly averaging a triple double in half his finals. :oldlol:

[97 bulls]

Yup. We know that Pippen had some rough postseason runs AND ones you could argue he was a bad scorer in (compared to other sidekicks we know he was a good scorer though ie. your OP).

What we can’t do is pretend that Pippen didn’t do anything else. Like a Carmelo or Iverson. One of the reasons 3ball puts Scottie down is to rationalize the THOUSANDS of hours he’s jerked off to MJ youtube clips. What he doesn’t get though is berating Pippen kills his entire argument. The takeaway then is Mike single-handedly beat teams, and gives credence to the weak era talk.

If 3ball were halfway competent, he would accept Pippen for what he is: A Top Tier SF and easily one of the Top 10 best players in that era. Would go a long way for later debates, whether thats for All Time Best Teams, Best Eras or even Best Duos.

Decided to reply here. Looks more appropriate :lol Anyway that's just me thinking out loud. :confusedshrug:

And thus the 1-9 argument. It centers around Jordan Zealots than literally say Jordan beat everybody inspite of his teammates. That MJ could've won with any decent players.

What it does show is how great the Bulls were. Kukoc stepped up when Pippen was hurt, Rodman did his thing. And Jordan was Jordan.

Saying the Bulls were a 55 win team when MJ left isnt an indictment on MJ. It just means they were a damn good team. And they become arguably the greatest when MJ is there.

[97 bulls]

Roundball_Rock is DANGEROUSLY close to be #1 poster of 2020

Definitely!!!!

[Carbine]

55 win team second round exit in a extremely close series is a damn good team. I don't think any normal unbiased person goes around saying the Bulls sucked without Jordan.

However, something that gets underplayed by the same people who prop up the 55 win stuff is that going from that to a three peat is an incredible leap in team success.

[insidious301]

Roundball this is thorough and timely research. Thank you for posting. Pippen will always be underappreciated next to Jordan.


Definitely!!!!

Who are the good posters from your pov?

[Roundball_Rock]

55 win team second round exit in a extremely close series is a damn good team. I don't think any normal unbiased person goes around saying the Bulls sucked without Jordan.

However, something that gets underplayed by the same people who prop up the 55 win stuff is that going from that to a three peat is an incredible leap in team success.

It all ties together IMO. Jordan was able to take a contender and make it unbeatable.

I'm not sure why people push back on 55 wins logically, although I get the agenda (which 97 referenced and the Bulls without MJ are real life refutation of the myth 3ball pushes of MJ and scrubs). That same group (assuming same injuries) wins 65 with MJ. You don't go from 72 wins to 42 minus one player, no matter who it is. There has to be a certain baseline if the ceiling is that high.

[Carbine]

I think you could go from 42 to 72, especially in an expansion era and possibly the most hungry MJ has ever been after tasting defeat.

We know he had something to prove all season. Kerr has mentioned over and over again there were 10 games that year they should have lost, but MJ was the difference. It's probably a slight overstatement, but I believe the general point he is making. The grizzly game comes to mind - it was a game they should have lost. He got pissed off and it turned into a playoff crunch time mode attitude and he cooked them. I'm sure there are other examples but that one is fresh in my memory.

[Roundball_Rock]

I meant the baseline of the teams' strength. Healthy 94' they win around 60. Add MJ and it's around 70. 92' it was 67, 96' 72. If MJ is removed how far do these teams fall? If they are peaking at 72, 69, 67 etc. there has to be a limit to how bad they could ever be. Even the Kerr quote implies 62 wins in 96' with that team sans MJ.

This is in theory. We know what they did in practice minus MJ and can compare it to the Cavs without Price, Lakers without Magic, Spurs without Robinson--but and Magic without Shaq as contenders who lost their best player for all or nearly all of a season in the same era. The Bulls fell far less than any of these teams. The Cavs, Lakers, Spurs went to the lottery while the Magic to 45 wins and a first round exit. This suggests the Bulls had a strong core. They proved it again without Pippen, going from 69 wins to a 56 win pace (67 win pace with Pippen) in 98'. These teams weren't going to 33 wins like the Cavs or low 40's. (The Pacers didn't have Jackson and Smits for much of 97' and also went to the lottery. Ewing was durable so we have no prime data sans him
)

[Carbine]

Those teams weren't 3 peat caliber teams though. Dropping off from a three peat to what they did in '94 is very significant.

Those other teams never even won a title and in Robinson's case never made a final. There is a big difference between a three peat and losing second round in convincing fashion like Shaq did before he left. It was the second round right?

Coming from three peat status to '94 Bulls is a massive drop.

[NBAGOAT]

I think you could go from 42 to 72, especially in an expansion era and possibly the most hungry MJ has ever been after tasting defeat.

We know he had something to prove all season. Kerr has mentioned over and over again there were 10 games that year they should have lost, but MJ was the difference. It's probably a slight overstatement, but I believe the general point he is making. The grizzly game comes to mind - it was a game they should have lost. He got pissed off and it turned into a playoff crunch time mode attitude and he cooked them. I'm sure there are other examples but that one is fresh in my memory.

naw 30 wins has happened from one player being added but it's never really due to one player. based on impact stats, a goat season that's a lvl beyond jordan's peak would add 9pts/game(no one has gone over 8.5 since 1997). That still adds less than 25 wins. Add on it's impossible to add that much of a point differential to a very good team and obviously if say a team goes 62-20 the max amount of wins you can add is 20. You can replace klay on the 2017 warriors with prime mj, they're not going suddenly start outscoring teams by 20 every game

[TheCorporation]

Lmao, destroyed 3ball's existence.

And this is not even accounting for defense..


:applause:

AW & RB killing the competition.

[Carbine]

I personally don't value regular season wins as a barometer of team success really. It's a long season, a grind. The Warriors won 73 but I never felt during it was happening that they were in the discussion as best team ever. It was validated when they lost in the finals.

The KD Warriors are significantly better than the 73 win Warriors, even though they never achieved those type of wins in the regular season. They proved their level of team, the GOAT team IMO, because of what they did in the playoffs.

It's no different when I look at the success for the Bulls. I don't care if the Bulls won 45 or 65 games without Jordan in '94 if the final result was lost in the second round.

[97 bulls]

I meant the baseline of the teams' strength. Healthy 94' they win around 60. Add MJ and it's around 70. 92' it was 67, 96' 72. If MJ is removed how far do these teams fall? If they are peaking at 72, 69, 67 etc. there has to be a limit to how bad they could ever be. Even the Kerr quote implies 62 wins in 96' with that team sans MJ.

This is in theory. We know what they did in practice minus MJ and can compare it to the Cavs without Price, Lakers without Magic, Spurs without Robinson--but and Magic without Shaq as contenders who lost their best player for all or nearly all of a season in the same era. The Bulls fell far less than any of these teams. The Cavs, Lakers, Spurs went to the lottery while the Magic to 45 wins and a first round exit. This suggests the Bulls had a strong core. They proved it again without Pippen, going from 69 wins to a 56 win pace (67 win pace with Pippen) in 98'. These teams weren't going to 33 wins like the Cavs or low 40's. (The Pacers didn't have Jackson and Smits for much of 97' and also went to the lottery. Ewing was durable so we have no prime data sans him
)

Exactly Rock. From 92 to 98, the Bulls were incredible. Even in 93, most feel the 57 games they won was because they were coasting. And maybe complacency crept in.

94 lose MJ still win 55 games.
95 lose Grant and MJ and still be on pace to win 44 games roughly before MJ came back.
96 get MJ back and get Rodman win 72 games
97 win 69 games
98 win 62 games with Pippen missing half the season.

Even when expansion is taken into consideration. Those 55 wins in 94 was obviously before expansion. Playing in a league with the same amount of teams as the Bad Boy Pistons and Showtime Lakers of the late 80s. The most wins those teams could muster was 63.

[97 bulls]

I personally don't value regular season wins as a barometer of team success really. It's a long season, a grind. The Warriors won 73 but I never felt during it was happening that they were in the discussion as best team ever. It was validated when they lost in the finals.

The KD Warriors are significantly better than the 73 win Warriors, even though they never achieved those type of wins in the regular season. They proved their level of team, the GOAT team IMO, because of what they did in the playoffs.

It's no different when I look at the success for the Bulls. I don't care if the Bulls won 45 or 65 games without Jordan in '94 if the final result was lost in the second round.

But key players went down in the Finals during that run. I dont think the Cavs beat the Warriors if the Warriors dont get hit hard with injuries.

I think the true testament of a teams talent is the grind of the regular season. The playoffs are different because it's more about matchups, gameplan, and seeding, than talent. IMO

[TheCorporation]

And thus the 1-9 argument. It centers around Jordan Zealots than literally say Jordan beat everybody inspite of his teammates. That MJ could've won with any decent players.

What it does show is how great the Bulls were. Kukoc stepped up when Pippen was hurt, Rodman did his thing. And Jordan was Jordan.

Saying the Bulls were a 55 win team when MJ left isnt an indictment on MJ. It just means they were a damn good team. And they become arguably the greatest when MJ is there.

Facts. 97Bulls is the only dude that treats MJ fairly. I actually can appreciate MJ more when guys like you post. When I see 3ball shit I have no choice but to punish him into submission and use his tactics. I know I shouldnt do that to him but sometimes he deserves it. Thanks 97 bulls for being a legitimately good poster.

[Roundball_Rock]

94 lose MJ still win 55 games.
95 lose Grant and MJ and still be on pace to win 44 games roughly before MJ came back.
96 get MJ back and get Rodman win 72 games
97 win 69 games
98 win 62 games with Pippen missing half the season.

Even when expansion is taken into consideration. Those 55 wins in 94 was obviously before expansion. Playing in a league with the same amount of teams as the Bad Boy Pistons and Showtime Lakers of the late 80s. The most wins those teams could muster was 63.

Plus it was 55 with injuries. When Pippen was healthy they had a 59 win pace, when Pippen/Grant were healthy 63 wins. If they had the #1 seed, they come out the East. This is with MJ giving them the gift of Pete Myers being his "replacement."


It's no different when I look at the success for the Bulls. I don't care if the Bulls won 45 or 65 games without Jordan in '94 if the final result was lost in the second round.

It is relevant when the final result for every other team in that situation was missing the playoffs or losing in the first round. The "but the playoffs" excuse doesn't hold water in context. It would if other teams did equal or better in the PO--but no one else came close to their RS or PO success after losing a player like MJ.

Also, it is always conveniently presented as MJ left them with a level playing field. He retired in October--depriving his team of a chance to replace him with a quality SG. All the other teams in that situation, outside of the 92' Lakers, were able to sign quality starters to fill the spot (Seiklay for Shaq in Orlando, Odom/Butler for Shaq in LA, Deng for LeBron in Miami, etc.). The Bulls were going to cut Pete Myers before MJ bounced.

Kendall Gill said he would have signed with the Bulls if he knew MJ would retire. The Bulls with Pippen/Grant/BJ/Gill/Cartwright/Kukoc come out the East if not win it all.


There is a big difference between a three peat and losing second round in convincing fashion like Shaq did before he left. It was the second round right?

ECF, losing to the 72 win Bulls.

What is your point? That the baseline of the Bulls without MJ could have been 42-40? That MJ was worth 30 wins? I know that's what MJ fans wish happened, but we clearly saw otherwise. It is ironic because that is the type of talk before the season when everyone said they would miss the playoffs. Even Phil Jackson told the team that 42-40 would be a best case scenario (based on looking at the type of decline teams that lost GOAT level players had historically).

This is what gets pushback. We keep hearing MJ was carrying an average team to 72 wins (basically the core argument, along with Pippen sucking, that 3ball makes every day) when all the available evidence shows otherwise. Moreover, when MJ had chances to "carry" bad teams--we saw those results as well.

All this credits every improvement and success the Bulls had to MJ. We know when Pippen was removed from the equation in 98' the Bulls looked like, well, the 94' Bulls...we also know when the Bulls lost Grant they took a larger hit than when they lost MJ in W-L. Inconvenient? Maybe, but that's what happened. (FWIW, SRS was similar across years: 58 in 93', 55 when healthy in 94', 52 before MJ in 95'--so minus 6 despite losing MJ, Grant, Cartwright--3 of the 93' team starters.)

[ArbitraryWater]

3ball absolutely nowhere to be SEEN right now

[KobesFinger]

3ball absolutely nowhere to be SEEN right now

He's too busy shifting the goal posts. Now that Roundball is cooking him, he'll talk about difference between 1st and 2nd option PPG as to why Pippen sucks. Magic and Worthy both averaged 19 PPG so Worthy is as good as Magic and could've been first option, but Pippen averaged 21 to Jordans 31, therefore Jordan > Magic = Worthy > Pippen

[Roundball_Rock]

He's too busy shifting the goal posts. Now that Roundball is cooking him, he'll talk about difference between 1st and 2nd option PPG as to why Pippen sucks. Magic and Worthy both averaged 19 PPG so Worthy is as good as Magic and could've been first option, but Pippen averaged 21 to Jordans 31, therefore Jordan > Magic = Worthy > Pippen

:lol yup. It is another7 fake goal post. You never hear of the scoring gap between Malone and Stockton.

The 10 PPG card is a shaky one. We know MJ scored more. We also know Pippen produced more assists, rebounds, blocks, steals and was the superior defender. When you factor all that in, how much of the 10 PPG is left? By his own "raw stats" theory, the gap between the two is close.

Compare that to Magic and Worthy from 1987-1991 (so after KAJ became the 3rd option).

Magic 1987-1991: 22/7/12 with 2 steals, 0 blocks
Worthy 1987-1991: 20/6/3 with 1 steal, 1 block

Magic beat him across the board, except Worthy averaged 0.7 BPG versus 0.3 for Magic. Yet 3ball raves about Worthy. (Also note how often 3ball and co. hype players who scored 19-22 PPG like Worthy, Miller, K. Johnson, Penny, Kemp while tearing down Pippen because...he scored 19-22 PPG :lol ).

[TheCorporation]

3ball absolutely nowhere to be SEEN right now

He's distraught, watching this:

https://i.postimg.cc/sxQfmm9F/23has-Asavior-PIP.jpg

[TheCorporation]

He's too busy shifting the goal posts. Now that Roundball is cooking him, he'll talk about difference between 1st and 2nd option PPG as to why Pippen sucks. Magic and Worthy both averaged 19 PPG so Worthy is as good as Magic and could've been first option, but Pippen averaged 21 to Jordans 31, therefore Jordan > Magic = Worthy > Pippen
Oh that one's easy, Michael Jordan took a much larger share of the available shots for his team. Sometimes 35% ish Hes been cooked with that one as well.

[Hey Yo]

Those teams weren't 3 peat caliber teams though. Dropping off from a three peat to what they did in '94 is very significant.

Those other teams never even won a title and in Robinson's case never made a final. There is a big difference between a three peat and losing second round in convincing fashion like Shaq did before he left. It was the second round right?

Coming from three peat status to '94 Bulls is a massive drop.
Not when you consider the best player on the planet at the time was replaced in the starting line-up (avg. 25mins a game, started 81gms) by a 6th round journeyman who hadn't played in the NBA since December of 1990.

[Roundball_Rock]

Oh that one's easy, Michael Jordan took a much larger share of the available shots for his team. Sometimes 35% ish Hes been cooked with that one as well.

Yup, that is another go to: complain about teammate scoring when MJ takes all the shots. Then post misleading stats about "teammate scoring" and compare it to other teams where the 1st option was taking 20 shots not 25-30. They especially like to do this for the finals when MJ took even more shots.


Not when you consider the best player on the planet at the time was replaced in the starting line-up (avg. 25mins a game, started 81gms) by a 6th round journeyman who hadn't played in the NBA since December of 1990.

Yeah, and the theory doesn't hold up in reality. If MJ was worth 30 wins they would go from 57-25 to 27-55, not 55-27 like they did.

The Bulls were dominant in the RS only when they had both MJ, Pippen; they were dominant in the PO only when they had MJ, Pippen and either Grant/Rodman.

The MJ narrative always conveniently leaves out 95'. That was the one year with MJ but not Grant or Rodman. The result? Another second round loss, except they lost convincingly this time whereas in 94' they probably were one phantom foul away from going to the finals. 95' was a test case: MJ shows up and a lot of people thought MJ back=the chip but that didn't happen. The "rusty" stuff is after the fact excuses (check his PO stats--they were better in 95' than any of the next three years).

Here is what teams that didn't lose the "GOAT" did without their best player (in their primes) in the same era.

1990 Cavs: 42-40 (#2 Daughtery missed half the season)
1991 Cavs w/out Price: 24-42 (30 win pace)
1991 Cavs with Price: 9-7 (46 win pace)
1992 Cavs with Price: 57-25, ECF

1991 Lakers with Magic: 58-24, Finals
1992 Lakers w/out Magic: 43-39, missed playoffs

1996 Magic with Shaq: 60-22, ECF
1997 Magic w/out Shaq: 45-37, 1st round

1996 Spurs with Robinson: 59-23, WCSF
1997 Spurs w/out Robinson: 20-62

1993 Bulls with Jordan: 57-25, champs
1994 Bulls w/out Jordan: 55-27, ECSF

Which one is not like the others? These are just first options, although you can see the Cavs sucked when their 2nd option was out too. The Pacers missed the playoffs when they didn't have Smits, Jackson for much of 97'; with them back they won 58 and got to Game 7 of the ECF.

Only the Bulls showed this capacity to absorb losing a key player, even the GOAT with 0 replacement, and remain a contender.

It is funny how the Blazers, Knicks, Sonics, Suns get hyped but this happened:

1994 Blazers with Drexler: 47-35, 1st round (he missed some games--team maintained at the same above average but non-contender level)
1994 Suns with Barkley: 56-26, WCSF (8-9 without Barkley)
1994 Knicks with Ewing: 57-25, Finals
1994 Sonics with Payton: 63-19, 1st round
1994 Bulls w/out Jordan: 55-27, ECSF (lost to Knicks in 7)

So all these teams are awesome but the Bulls bums? :confusedshrug: Even if you argue they declined a lot (which is arguable but ignores the type of other teams had in that situation), you have to acknowledge they remained a contender.

[ArbitraryWater]

He's distraught, watching this:

https://i.postimg.cc/sxQfmm9F/23has-Asavior-PIP.jpg


:lol

[Roundball_Rock]

Looking at the numbers in the OP, the "average of averages" for Pippen by round comes out to this:

1st round: 19 PPG
2nd round: 19 PPG
ECF: 20 PPG
Finals: 19 PPG

Remarkable consistency. You would expect a player's numbers to decrease the deeper they go in the playoffs since they would tend to face tougher defenses in later rounds.

[Roundball_Rock]

3ball absolutely nowhere to be SEEN right now

Still in hiding. :lol

[TheCorporation]

:lol

:lol

[AirBonner]

3ball retiring after this thread

[Roundball_Rock]

3ball finally back but ducking this thread. :lol