90s Bulls without MJ--how bit a threat would they have been to winning a ring?

[97 bulls]

Because it was never his job to do so early in his career. After a certain point you are what you are and won't change very much going forward. I can't think of a person going from a pippen role for 3 rings/5 years, then morph into a lead role successfully.

Even more. Pippen was a PG. That's what he was in high school and College. He was being compared to Magic and Rodman comming out of College.

[97 bulls]

I disagree about Pip. The guy played 17 seasons and had several seasons where he was given the keys to be "the man". He is what he is. He peaked at 22ppg. I don't know if having his own team from the start would've changed that. As you said, maybe sacrifice some D and other aspects and score a bit more points on less efficiency but that's not saying much. He just didn't have that iso game against set defenders and defenses.

Lol. Pippen had TWO legitimate seasons where he was the "man" 94 and 00. And he was 34 with a bunch of mileage and injuries by the time he joined Portland in 00. Some of you guys can be so unreasonable.

[guy]

Even if people want to argue that players like Pippen and Grant would've ended up the players they were regardless and didn't need Jordan "pushing" them, that doesn't mean that team as a whole unit develops exactly the same. Without Jordan there, they don't get the experience from getting deep into the playoffs every year and learning how to deal with high pressure situations and adversity against the better teams. That's not a lesson from Jordan, but just a normal lesson that all teams go through. Younger teams don't just jump from the lottery one year to the ECF/Finals within a few years unless maybe they have a transcendent talent i.e. Shaq (who needed another all-star anyway), Lebron (who did it in a historically weak conference) for example. A team like this year's Warriors might debunk that trend but they're an exception and are clearly more talented then any Jordanless Bulls teams.

That team is probably a ~30-35 win lottery team from 1988 to 1990, then a ~40-47 win 1st round team for a few years, then a ~48-55 2nd round win team for a few more years, then after Grant leaves and Rodman comes in, they get up to 60 wins and make a couple of conference finals and maybe 1 Finals. And that's not taking into account the reality that that core wouldn't have stayed together that long since the lack of any notable success wouldn't have justified management keeping it together and not making relatively significant changes.

Now if we just recreated the situation in 1994 where Jordan retired before every season from 91-98 with everything else still in place and they still have the same experience up until that point, here's how my educated guess:

1991: 40-44 wins 1st round exit
1992: 47-52 wins 2nd round exit
1993: 43-48 wins 2nd round exit
1996: 50-55 wins ECF
1997: 47-52 wins 1st round exit
1998: 37-42 wins no playoffs

I don't see them doing better then they did in 94 in any other year except for possibly 96. They had their best mix of experience+youth in 94.

[97 bulls]

Even if people want to argue that players like Pippen and Grant would've ended up the players they were regardless and didn't need Jordan "pushing" them, that doesn't mean that team as a whole unit develops exactly the same. Without Jordan there, they don't get the experience from getting deep into the playoffs every year and learning how to deal with high pressure situations and adversity against the better teams. That's not a lesson from Jordan, but just a normal lesson that all teams go through. Younger teams don't just jump from the lottery one year to the ECF/Finals within a few years unless maybe they have a transcendent talent i.e. Shaq (who needed another all-star anyway), Lebron (who did it in a historically weak conference) for example. A team like this year's Warriors might debunk that trend but they're an exception and are clearly more talented then any Jordanless Bulls teams.

That team is probably a ~30-35 win lottery team from 1988 to 1990, then a ~40-47 win 1st round team for a few years, then a ~48-55 2nd round win team for a few more years, then after Grant leaves and Rodman comes in, they get up to 60 wins and make a couple of conference finals and maybe 1 Finals. And that's not taking into account the reality that that core wouldn't have stayed together that long since the lack of any notable success wouldn't have justified management keeping it together and not making relatively significant changes.

Now if we just recreated the situation in 1994 where Jordan retired before every season from 91-98 with everything else still in place and they still have the same experience up until that point, here's how my educated guess:

1991: 40-44 wins 1st round exit
1992: 47-52 wins 2nd round exit
1993: 43-48 wins 2nd round exit
1996: 50-55 wins ECF
1997: 47-52 wins 1st round exit
1998: 37-42 wins no playoffs

I don't see them doing better then they did in 94 in any other year except for possibly 96. They had their best mix of experience+youth in 94.

Theres just too many variables to make an eduacted decision. Do theh get to be in the draft? Sign free agents etc? The fact is the Bulls without Jordan were a very good team. With one if the greatest. Why all this space time continuum nonsense?

[guy]

Theres just too many variables to make an eduacted decision. Do theh get to be in the draft? Sign free agents etc? The fact is the Bulls without Jordan were a very good team. With one if the greatest. Why all this space time continuum nonsense?

Well it's a hypothetical and the assumption is that it's just the exact same team but without Jordan. OP didn't say anything about replacing him with anybody. Obviously in reality you can't just assume that's how it would be, but that's the assumption here.

[24-Inch_Chrome]

Without MJ, like ever?

They aint even sniffing playoffs.

[Smoke117]

Pip had a chance to show what he can do as "the man" in 1993-94 and most of 1994-95. And what we found out was that he is one of the most impactful wing players ever. He filled up the stat sheets. In those two years, he put up 21.7 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 5.4 apg, 2.9 spg and 1.0 bpg. That's pretty impressive.

But what we also found out was that he did NOT have the offensive game to carry the load and take over like an MJ/Kobe/Wade/McGrady, etc. could do. So in that sense, MJ and Pip complimented each other perfectly. MJ to carry the offensive load while Pip plays 2nd fiddle and doing a little bit of everything.

The 1994 Bulls weren't even constructed for Scottie to just "take over". The 1994 Bulls were successful because they played the most polished and pure form of the triangle I've ever seen. Scottie could have launched up 20-22 shots a game and scored 25-27 points a game, but what is the point? The team wasn't going to win that way after losing Michael Jordan and replacing him with god damn Pete Myers. That's without even mentioning the fact that the triangle offense is a slow down offense and they were playing even slower in 94 than they previously had. Pippens best asset as a scorer was always in the open court where he was basically unstoppable, so he literally has never played in an offense geared toward his skills. He would add a lot of stuff to his game between 93-95 though...he frankly was just always too unselfish.

Look at Antoine Walker and how many shots he was taking to get his points for instance: He averaged a career high 23.4 ppg...on 21.2 shots. Is he a better scorer than Pippen because he peaked at a higher ppg? (even though it was on laughable efficiency?) People are going to tell me Scottie couldn't have averaged 25+ points on 21 shots? If he actually wanted to shoot and score I believe he could have and at good efficiency. By that 93-94 season he had very good post game, had worked on his jumper to a consistent level, was great off the dribble, and unstoppable in the open court.

[97 bulls]

The 1994 Bulls weren't even constructed for Scottie to just "take over". The 1994 Bulls were successful because they played the most polished and pure form of the triangle I've ever seen. Scottie could have launched up 20-22 shots a game and scored 25-27 points a game, but what is the point? The team wasn't going to win that way after losing Michael Jordan and replacing him with god damn Pete Myers. That's without even mentioning the fact that the triangle offense is a slow down offense and they were playing even slower in 94 than they previously had. Pippens best asset as a scorer was always in the open court where he was basically unstoppable, so he literally has never played in an offense geared toward his skills. He would add a lot of stuff to his game between 93-95 though...he frankly was just always too unselfish.

Look at Antoine Walker and how many shots he was taking to get his points for instance: He averaged a career high 23.4 ppg...on 21.2 shots. Is he a better scorer than Pippen because he peaked at a higher ppg? (even though it was on laughable efficiency?) People are going to tell me Scottie couldn't have averaged 25+ points on 21 shots? If he actually wanted to shoot and score I believe he could have and at good efficiency. By that 93-94 season he had very good post game, had worked on his jumper to a consistent level, was great off the dribble, and unstoppable in the open court.

Exactly. Pippen felt the Bulls had a better chance if winning with the team playing through the offense. Not him going out and scoring 25-26 ppg on 44% shooting. Which he could've easily did. Again theh didnt win because of Pippen not scoring enough. They couldn't win because they didny fill the void Jordan left when he abruptly retired.

[DatAsh]

Without MJ, like ever?

They aint even sniffing playoffs.

Huh, they made the playoffs without him...that happened.