Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=LostCause;13976266][
If you're not undermining them I'm not sure what you're doing then. I saw an earlier post you implied I was bringing these players up to imply Pippen had "enough to win" and you compared that to Jordan in 86. No idea where that idea came from given I've highlighted their offensive woes and that I didn't see them as legit threats to Houston[/QUOTE]
The general consensus is that Jordan's teammates werent very good without him. 94 and 95 shows that's not true. They were very good. And Pippe. Showed that he was a bonafide star.
[QUOTE]Never argued the bolded. I posted the graphic to illustrate Jordan wasn't replaced, their offense tanked to below league average without him while gaining some quality players. Without the players mentioned it would've been even worse. That seems like a fairly straightforward conclusion[/QUOTE]
He was replaced. His replacement wasnt a scrub. The players you mentioned (outside of rookie Kukoc and we will get to him later), assumed the role of other players. I broke that down for you.
[QUOTE]Kukoc played over 1800 minutes that season at 24 per game. Would've probably been closer to or possibly above 2000 but he missed 12 games. His playtime was right around Kerr/Myers who had the most PT outside of Grant/Pip/Armstrong
I really don't understand what's so hard to get about Kukoc's impact here. He was very valuable in both the RS (3rd in BPM, PER and VORP ahead of even BJ, and the playoffs (He led the team in BPM for the playoffs, 2nd in PER and was 3rd in VORP). Is your argument that he played too little to make much of a difference? Or he just didn't make a difference at all? What's the actual counterargument here[/QUOTE]
I have a question. How many wins do you think the Bulls net without Kukoc in 94?
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=Turbo Slayer;13976261]I have a question. What is the best way to argue against people who say that Jordan was 1-9 before Pippen "saved" him?[/QUOTE]
I think 1-9 is a shorthand for people making the point MJ needed a strong team around him to win chips, versus being a serious point. It is the counter to "3-6", which itself is shorthand to say LeBron failed on the biggest stage.
Pippen was a rookie on the bench in 88' so hard to credit him with them winning 50 games and making it to the second round (although he had a big game in Game 5, his first start, to help the Bulls win the series). In 89' the Bulls started 13-11 and then made Pippen a permanent starter. They lost the first game but then went on a roll (something like 11 wins in 13 games or 12 in 14. You can look up the specifics but you get the point).
Ultimately I think Jordan needed Pippen to have a dynasty. He did not need him to have [I]some[/I] team success. Here is why. In the 90's teams won chips with the following second options Dumars, Pippen (6x), Thorpe, Drexler, older Robinson. Teams made the finals and lost with these second options: Porter (2x), Worthy, K. Johnson, Starks, Penny, Kemp, Stockton (2x, although Hornacek was the second scorer, when people say "option" they often mean second best player and that was Stockton). The 99' Knicks had Houston, old Ewing, and Sprewell all score about the same but I would say Houston was the 1a and Ewing the 1b. At any rate, Ewing was hurt in the ECF.
So that list runs from superstars to former superstars who were "just" stars by then to guys who were stars but never superstars and finally a few "merely" good players. Starks, Porter, Thorpe were all one-time all-stars. They are the names that stick out to me. It is hard to get a Pippen or Drexler but not that hard to get a Starks or Thorpe or Porter (Grant was a comparable caliber guy on the Bulls as an example, and he was their #3). I assume MJ could win chips with guys like that if lesser players won a chip (Hakeem) or made the finals with them (Ewing and Drexler twice).
I think MJ was winning chips with or without Pippen. The big question is how much? Probably 1-2 with those type of guys (which he had in Grant), maybe has a losing finals trip or two as well. Maybe they could acquire a star, but unlikely, since their best trade assets would be Grant, Armstrong, Kukoc and they would have low draft picks. Unlikely to get a star back for them (although Houston pulled it off with Drexler).
All roads lead back to "6" and "6-0". MJ stans make it all about those numbers so 1) people who are opposed will chip away at them 2) MJ stans will go to extreme lengths to preserve the myth that it was inevitable no matter what.
If MJ stans simply said MJ was a better player because he was a better player all this wouldn't be necessary and you wouldn't see this effort on the LeBron side, previously with Kobe fans, to chip away at his team success narrative.
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
But you're not getting it, you're acting as if there were no adjustments made to the Bulls in 1993-94, as if to say the addition of Kukoc, Kerr, Longley had no impact, as well as guys like Armstrong, Pippen, and Grant hitting their stride. All three players hit their prime years and that season could be characterized as their peak year.
The above mentioned players assumed their roles with greater facilitation from new guys. You're operating as if they're simply not there and didn't bring something extra to the team. Kerr was an improvement to Paxson and Longley/Wennington to that of Cartwright/Williams. Kukoc was a nice addition as well. When you combine those improvements as well your three best players all entering their peak years, it makes for some kind of success.
I'm not giving you Imhoff/Clark if you can't accede to the Bulls supporting cast getting additions and their best players hitting their peak years. Neither Imhoof nor Clark were all-stars their first year in Philadelphia. And if you think Archie Clark's 13 points somehow makes up for Wilt's offense and defensive presence, then I don't know what to say. Wilt was a 24-24-9 player his last year in Philadelphia.
My point about KD wasn't to parallel the situations. My point was to show that a great player leaving a team doesn't necessitate them falling off the map. And MJ's situation is a bit unique being that he left in the midst of his prime, something we haven't seen in NBA history. Even if Wilt does the same, then the 76ers had enough to work with where they could be successful, and quite frankly, they still won 55 games with Archie Clark for crying out loud.
Even if Clark isn't there, someone else from that team would fill his shoes and at least score 9 points. You're making it out to be an ALL or NOTHING. As if players evolving doesn't exist, prime years don't have peak years, rookies can't contribute and play well, etc. So sure, Myers came in, but so did a lot of other guys who were far more important to the Bulls success of 1993-94.
What your'e doing is making this out to be the Scottie Pippen show exclusively like MJ fans would make his teams out to be the MJ show exclusively.
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE]Kukoc played over 1800 minutes that season at 24 per game. Would've probably been closer to or possibly above 2000 but he missed 12 games. His playtime was right around Kerr/Myers[/QUOTE]
Kukoc played 75 games but yeah he is another player who missed time. 55 wins with Cartwright missing half the season, Pippen 10 games, Grant 12, etc. That his PT was around Myers and Kerr is not a good thing for his value (look at his PT compared to Kerr in subsequent years). A healthy 94' Bulls likely easily win 60+.
[QUOTE]Is your argument that he played too little to make much of a difference?[/QUOTE]
That his role is inflated for 94' and then erased altogether for when he played with MJ, years in which his impact was greater. Not saying you did it but ask 97. Whenever the 94' Bulls come up Kukoc quickly does as well--but the same people never mention him for any other year.
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13976277]Kukoc played 75 games but yeah he is another player who missed time. 55 wins with Cartwright missing half the season, Pippen 10 games, Grant 12, etc. That his PT was around Myers and Kerr is not a good thing for his value (look at his PT compared to Kerr in subsequent years). A healthy 94' Bulls likely easily win 60+.
That his role is inflated for 94' and then erased altogether for when he played with MJ, years in which his impact was greater. Not saying you did it but ask 97. Whenever the 94' Bulls come up Kukoc quickly does as well--but the same people never mention him for any other year.[/QUOTE]
You're dissecting this way too deeply and ignoring team dynamics, coaching, as well as focusing more on the players who missed time while not even considering the opponent they faced and what irregularities they had in their lineup.
I think we can all agree on somethings:
1- MJ is the GOAT
2- Despite being the GOAT, he couldn't do it alone
3- Scottie Pippen was a great player and key contributor to the first 3 chips
4- Jordan needed Pippen and co. as does any great player needing support
5- The Bulls of the early 90s had great teams
6- Jordan's supporting cast wasn't as great as other dynasties
7- A great player leaving doesn't necessitate a team falling apart
8- The Bulls' had some key additions and their best players hit their peak years
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;13976279]You're dissecting this way too deeply and ignoring team dynamics, coaching, as well as focusing more on the players who missed time while not even considering the opponent they faced and what irregularities they had in their lineup.
I think we can all agree on somethings:
1- MJ is the GOAT
2- Despite being the GOAT, he couldn't do it alone
3- Scottie Pippen was a great player and key contributor to the first 3 chips
4- Jordan needed Pippen and co. as does any great player needing support
5- The Bulls of the early 90s had great teams
[B]6- Jordan's supporting cast wasn't as great as other dynasties [/B]
7- A great player leaving doesn't necessitate a team falling apart
8- The Bulls' had some key additions and their best players hit their peak years[/QUOTE]
I gotta give some pushback here. Which dynasty did better without their star?
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=97 bulls;13976283]I gotta give some pushback here. Which dynasty did better without their star?[/QUOTE]
You think MJ had the best supporting cast of all time? (Honest question)
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
Matter of fact, let's make a new post about it lol
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=97 bulls;13976271]He was replaced. His replacement wasnt a scrub. The players you mentioned (outside of rookie Kukoc and we will get to him later), assumed the role of other players. I broke that down for you. [/quote]]
It wasn't apples to apples though, as I also explained (ie Kerr was WAY better for them than Paxson was in 93)
[quote]I have a question. How many wins do you think the Bulls net without Kukoc in 94?[/QUOTE]
Really hard to guess things like that but they went 55-23 with him and without him they went 2-5. Pippen/Grant/Armstrong were all present for each of those losses except the one to Miami (Grant was out). I'm sure there's more nuance to it than that and I doubt the Bulls would be on a 23-win pace without Kukoc as that record suggests, but he was definitely important and if all else remained the same and you just subtracted him from the team, I could see them losing around 5-8 more games
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock;13976277]Kukoc played 75 games but yeah he is another player who missed time. 55 wins with Cartwright missing half the season, Pippen 10 games, Grant 12, etc. That his PT was around Myers and Kerr is not a good thing for his value (look at his PT compared to Kerr in subsequent years)[/quote]
I think for a rookie coming into a vet team, especially one led by a guy who disliked him, that isn't bad. It was moreso to point out his minute allocation on the team. Of course he got better in later seasons and ate up more minutes but for that team, without MJ, he provided some valuable play
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=LostCause;13976293]]
It wasn't apples to apples though, as I also explained (ie Kerr was WAY better for them than Paxson was in 93)
Really hard to guess things like that but they went 55-23 with him and without him they went 2-5. Pippen/Grant/Armstrong were all present for each of those losses except the one to Miami (Grant was out). I'm sure there's more nuance to it than that and I doubt the Bulls would be on a 23-win pace without Kukoc as that record suggests, but he was definitely important and if all else remained the same and you just subtracted him from the team, I could see them losing around 5-8 more games[/QUOTE]
How many wins is Kukoc worth in 96?
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE]well as focusing more on the players who missed time while not even considering the opponent they faced and what irregularities they had in their lineup.[/QUOTE]
That's because it is in contrast to the health they had in 93'. Armstrong played 82, Pippen 81, Grant 77, Cartwright 63 (MJ played 78). In 94' it was Armstrong 82, Pippen 72, Grant 70, Cartwright 42. So Pippen missed 9 more games, Grant 7 more, and Cartwright 21 more.
[QUOTE]6- Jordan's supporting cast wasn't as great as other dynasties[/QUOTE]
This is another reason why 94' keeps coming up. Who else had a team that could contend for the #1 seed with a scrub replacing the best player? No examples have been provided because they do not exist. What people keep making the mistake of is comparing rosters in vacuums. Teams don't play in vacuums. They play in leagues. The issue is the [I]relative[/I] advantage a team has over its competition, not rosters from different eras.
In the 90s only one team had two MVP caliber players for an extended period (Orlando did for 2 years). In the 90s Reggie Miller could be the #1 option on a contender; in the 10s Miller would be Klay without the defense and the #3 option on the KD-era Warriors. In the 90s you could contend or even win with Terry Porter, John Starks, and Otis Thorpe as your second best player. In the 80s or 60s or 10s you would have no shot if that is your #2. And so on.
[QUOTE]Which dynasty did better without their star?[/QUOTE]
They can't name one. We have raised examples here and the "best" example they have produced so far is OKC (which wasn't a dynasty) went from a 59 win level and the WCF with KD to 47 wins and losing in the first round.
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=guy;13975333]Hmmm let's see because Pippen himself literally called it a "wasted season" (sorry not "lost") and said he didn't try as hard and wasn't as motivated. Oh and he was an all-star too that year.
[url]https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bulls/michael-jordan-im-back-fax-1995-nba[/url]
[B]“This is a wasted season,” he said. “It all started last summer when they tried to trade me behind my back, never came to me about it and then lied to me when I asked them about it. I was so upset I hardly worked out. I did not report to camp in good shape and things just got worse. Now I see what Michael went through when he first came here,” he said. “He sacrificed a lot of his game to make his teammates better. I’m sacrificing in some areas for the same reason but not getting the same result because we no longer have as much talent.”[/B]
Do you really think in those other seasons where a superstar left, that the same lack of motivation was never present?
I didn't say Grant ascended. I said he was in his prime. BJ was either ascending or in his prime. Who cares. The point is its not like Jordan left a bunch of rookies or old dudes. He left a championship supporting cast that were in their primes and had a ton of experience having won 3 straight titles and had been to 5 straight ECF.
The Warriors lost Durant, Curry, and Klay. There situation was not remotely the same.[/QUOTE]
Wow, even more examples I forgot of Scottie being a total selfish, pouty, bitchy, malcontent. What an absolute terrible excuse for a “leader” and as if 1994, and 1998 weren’t glaringly selfish examples of piss poor selfish, entitled malcontent attitude.
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=Ronin45;13976414]Wow, even more examples I forgot of Scottie being a total selfish, pouty, bitchy, malcontent. What an absolute terrible excuse for a “leader” and as if 1994, and 1998 weren’t glaringly selfish examples of piss poor selfish, entitled malcontent attitude.[/QUOTE]
Pippen was one of the best in-game leaders up until the Kukoc game-winner. Had Toni missed that shot, it would've followed Pippen forever.
I've already seen 80% of the Last Dance doc. Pip talks about the incident. I didn't like the way he handled it then and don't like his "explanation" now. Yeah he's one of the greatest all-around players ever. No doubt. But Mike was the guy who made everyone go on that team. Him and Phil. The times players 'lacked energy'? Jordan was on their ass. And he never held back.
Re: Scottie Pippen won 55 games with Horrace Grant as a #2 option
[QUOTE=kuniva_dAMiGhTy;13976424]Pippen was one of the best in-game leaders up until the Kukoc game-winner. Had Toni missed that shot, it would've followed Pippen forever.
I've already seen 80% of the Last Dance doc. Pip talks about the incident. I didn't like the way he handled it then and don't like his "explanation" now. Yeah he's one of the greatest all-around players ever. No doubt. But Mike was the guy who made everyone go on that team. Him and Phil. The times players 'lacked energy'? Jordan was on their ass. And he never held back.[/QUOTE]
Damn. How did you already see 80% of the doc?! As for the rest? Yup.