Scottie Pippen in the playoffs from 1991-93

[magnax1]

I factored all that in. Cassell played 60 games, Sprewell was old and Wally was good for a years. Even with Cassell's injury, Sprewell being old I would still take Cassell/Sprewell/Wally over second year Kukoc/Armstrong/old, post-injury Harper.



I don't really dispute any of that. So we both agree they were comparably bad "casts." So why is one guy criticized for producing the same results and the other lionized?

I never knew he was lionized.
Though I'd still take Kukoc Armstrong and Harper because they brought alot more defensive intensity. Plus KG's coach was quite a bit worse

[Alhazred]

Good point. You could even argue that the 99' Bulls were better than the 95' Bulls without Pippen or Jordan. Kukoc would be the best player on either team and in 99' he was at his peak, not a second year player new to American basketball. BJ Armstrong>99' Harper but the rest of the team is similar. If anything the 99' team was slightly better. Brent Barry>whoever you count as the 95' Bulls' third best player in this scenario (Will Perdue? Kerr? ), It doesn't even matter beyond this. It is scrubs vs. scrubs after this.

Yeah, that sounds about right, actually. I think Phil Jackson had a big impact, too. If he had coached the 99 squad, they probably could have won 30, 35 games over an 82 game season. With Tim Floyd, though? They were doomed.

Keep in mind in 95' Pippen became the second player in history to lead his team in scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. He led them in minutes too I believe. He ran their offense, anchored their defense. If his team was so good why was he asked to do so much?

He is in the conversation for top 5 PF of all-time. You mentioned 87'. He was 4th in MVP voting that year. Legit "sidekicks" do not finish that high in MVP voting or make all-NBA first team. The sad thing is being a "sidekick" will hurt him when he is, say, compared to Dirk. They are comparable in terms of talent but one was "the man" on his team for years and losing as "the man">winning as a "sidekick" according to a lot of people.

The thing you have to ask yourself is, would Dirk be willing to do the things McHale did for Boston, like be a scoring threat in the post and play defense? It's like when comparing Scottie with other players. It would be cool to team Michael with another star like a prime Vince Carter, but would he be willing to do all of the same things that Scottie was asked to do? Same goes for Glen Rice, Adrian Dantley, or any of the 80s high-scoring forwards.

The 95' Bulls would have been good if they had a rebounding/defensive PF like Grant or Rodman. What do you expect from a team whose starting "power" forward is averaging 5 boards and was not exactly a tough defender? Kukoc was a very good scorer and playmaker but having him as a PF is a joke. All he had was the height of a PF. He lacked the mentality or strength needed to be a viable PF. Who did the Bulls have at center? Will Perdue and Luc Longley.

Yep, I wish Horace had stayed, but apparently he and Krause were on bad terms. It's a shame he left, he was a very good role player, almost good enough to be a number 2.

It is a shame the Bulls used their free agent $$$$ on what turned out to be a washed up Ron Harper and not a PF that year. They could survive with a scrub at SG; they could not survive zero rebounding and Kukoc and Perdue as their "intimidators" in the paint.

True, but although it seemed like a bad decision that year, at least Ron helped out with the second three peat.

[Roundball_Rock]

I never knew he was lionized.
Though I'd still take Kukoc Armstrong and Harper because they brought alot more defensive intensity. Plus KG's coach was quite a bit worse

Lionized is too strong but those years are used as a mark in his favor. "Oh man, remember when KG led scrubs to 45 wins? What a great player!"

I can see a case for Kukoc/Armstrong/Harper but they weren't significantly better, if at all. Legit point on the coach, though.

Yeah, that sounds about right, actually. I think Phil Jackson had a big impact, too. If he had coached the 99 squad, they probably could have won 30, 35 games over an 82 game season. With Tim Floyd, though? They were doomed.

Jackson would have helped but I don't think a coach is worth 20 wins, although it is difficult to gauge a coach's impact. Yeah, maybe he could get them to 25-30 but I can't see a coach being worth 20 wins. Look at Jackson himself with prime Kobe. They struggled to get to 45 ish wins. Imagine he with prime Kukoc as his best guy. I think what a great coach can do is get a team to the next level. Look at PJ. The Bulls and Lakers did not get over the hump until he showed up. Or look at what Riley did with the Knicks and then the Heat. They never won (I am talking about the 90's Heat) but they went from run-of-the-mill playoff teams to legit contenders under him.

The thing you have to ask yourself is, would Dirk be willing to do the things McHale did for Boston, like be a scoring threat in the post and play defense? It's like when comparing Scottie with other players. It would be cool to team Michael with another star like a prime Vince Carter, but would he be willing to do all of the same things that Scottie was asked to do?

Great points. People ignore roles, aside from a generic pecking order. A lot of these fantasy pairings would be dead on arrival because few superstars would be willing to accept "sidekick" status. McHale or Pippen easily could have asked for a trade to another team where they could be "the man."

Yep, I wish Horace had stayed, but apparently he and Krause were on bad terms. It's a shame he left, he was a very good role player, almost good enough to be a number 2.

Yeah, and then there was the Reinsdorf he-said she said thing. He also was tired of Jackson. I think he was good enough to be a #2 on a championship team--so long as he was teamed with a top 3-4 player like he was with Pippen in 94'. The thing is he was not a great or very good #2. He was as good as Starks and a bit better than Thorpe or Smits. I would take Willis over him, but not by much. All these guys were "#2's" on contenders. He wasn't as good as Kemp and light years worse than 94' Stockton but he was comparable to the typical "#2" in the L. He was a regular "#2" but he was very good as a #3. Just compare him to the #3's on these teams. Grant was a legit all-star, unlike BJ Armstrong who was voted in by the fans while putting up 10' AI type numbers.

True, but although it seemed like a bad decision that year, at least Ron helped out with the second three peat.

He was a bust in the sense that he was brought in to be a second scorer who also would fill a glaring need at SG. He had been a 18- 20ish ppg guy perennially but wound up being a single digit scorer on the Bulls. He was an upgrade over Myers but at what cost? That money would have been better used on any rebounding/defensive PF, even if it was not one of the caliber of Grant.

You are right, though, that he played a significant role on the title teams as a defensive specialist, especially against Stockton when Jordan was old and MJ's energy had to be conserved on defense.

[Alhazred]

Jackson would have helped but I don't think a coach is worth 20 wins, although it is difficult to gauge a coach's impact. Yeah, maybe he could get them to 25-30 but I can't see a coach being worth 20 wins. Look at Jackson himself with prime Kobe. They struggled to get to 45 ish wins. Imagine he with prime Kukoc as his best guy. I think what a great coach can do is get a team to the next level. Look at PJ. The Bulls and Lakers did not get over the hump until he showed up. Or look at what Riley did with the Knicks and then the Heat. They never won (I am talking about the 90's Heat) but they went from run-of-the-mill playoff teams to legit contenders under him.

I'd agree with you regarding most coaches, but this is Phil we're talking about, arguably the GOAT. Then again, you may be right.

Great points. People ignore roles, aside from a generic pecking order. A lot of these fantasy pairings would be dead on arrival because few superstars would be willing to accept "sidekick" status. McHale or Pippen easily could have asked for a trade to another team where they could be "the man."

Yeah, I think McHale in Milwaukee would have made a pretty nice team along with Marques Johnson and Sidney Moncrief. Pippen, likewise would have fit in with a number of teams, such as Seattle, Portland or Denver, even with Dikembe.

Yeah, and then there was the Reinsdorf he-said she said thing. He also was tired of Jackson. I think he was good enough to be a #2 on a championship team--so long as he was teamed with a top 3-4 player like he was with Pippen in 94'. The thing is he was not a great or very good #2. He was as good as Starks and a bit better than Thorpe or Smits. I would take Willis over him, but not by much. All these guys were "#2's" on contenders. He wasn't as good as Kemp and light years worse than 94' Stockton but he was comparable to the typical "#2" in the L. He was a regular "#2" but he was very good as a #3. Just compare him to the #3's on these teams. Grant was a legit all-star, unlike BJ Armstrong who was voted in by the fans while putting up 10' AI type numbers.

I agree about Kemp. He was a fave of mine all the way back to 1996. Grant simply wasn't at the same level. He's still one of my favorite Bulls players, though, especially after reading the Jordan Rules.

He was definitely a much better third option, though, I agree.

He was a bust in the sense that he was brought in to be a second scorer who also would fill a glaring need at SG. He had been a 18- 20ish ppg guy perennially but wound up being a single digit scorer on the Bulls. He was an upgrade over Myers but at what cost? That money would have been better used on any rebounding/defensive PF, even if it was not one of the caliber of Grant.

Yeah, that's true. I actually read a few people say Scottie was just a system player or something like that as a putdown, which I found odd considering the Triangle offense isn't easy. Like you said, Harper had trouble adjusting. Jason Kidd didn't adjust well to it, either from what I read in the Book of Basketball. Here's what Simmons had to say.

The Dallas(Mavericks) situation imploded for three reasons:three young stars were given too much money, too soon; two feuded over singer Toni Braxton(who can rank splitting up the mid-nineties Mavs right up there with her six Grammy awards); and new Mavs coach Jim Cleamons decided to adopt Chicago's "triangle" even though he had the most gifted open-court point guard since Magic Johnson. (I remember almost crying the first time I went to a game and saw Kidd completely shackled in that triangle. It was like paying for a Sharon Stone movie back then where she didn't get naked.)

[OldSchoolBBall]

Right. Increased minutes automatically makes have a career series .

No, not JUST increased mpg, but also increased FGA (+4) and the fact that the team's 20+ ppg scorer was missing, necessitating more scoring from their other players, especially Robertson, who was a proven 17+ ppg scorer just a season prior.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'd agree with you regarding most coaches, but this is Phil we're talking about, arguably the GOAT. Then again, you may be right.

It is an interesting question I have not given much thought. It is a good topic for a thread, though. I haven't look at "before/after" records of teams after great coaches leaving. My guess is that even the ones who can turn teams around take time. Look at Larry Brown. Time after time he joins a team and makes it a contender but has he ever really went to a team and improved it 15-20 wins right off the bat?

The thing is Jackson with arguably peak Kobe and prime Odom struggled to get 45 wins so it is hard to see him winning 35 games with peak Kukoc and scrubs. I am not saying it would be impossible, though. We have seen teams in the past overachieve despite lacking talent on paper, with the 10' Rockets being a great example.

Yeah, I think McHale in Milwaukee would have made a pretty nice team along with Marques Johnson and Sidney Moncrief. Pippen, likewise would have fit in with a number of teams, such as Seattle, Portland or Denver, even with Dikembe.

Yeah, I just tried to name random teams. I think McHale was comparable in ability to someone like Dirk, Drexler, Ewing or Payton. All four led teams to the NBA finals as "the man" and had several deep playoff runs. I think McHale would have had a similar record and perhaps won a ring as "the man." People forget that Ewing literally was one shot away from a ring in 94', Dirk came close--imagine Dallas winning Game 3, and Drexler was on the verge of forcing a Game 7 until Pippen led the bench to a legendary fourth quarter comeback. Drexler also averaged a near triple double as a "sidekick" in 95'. All of these nuances are lost in the "did he or did he not win a ring as the man?" that. People look at it so simplistically that guys like Dominique Wilkins and King who never got out the second round or a player like T Mac is generally lumped in with a guy like Ewing who was one shot away or Payton who happened to have the worst possible timing to have his best team.

Pippen with Mutumbo? That would have been criminal defensively.

I agree about Kemp. He was a fave of mine all the way back to 1996. Grant simply wasn't at the same level. He's still one of my favorite Bulls players, though, especially after reading the Jordan Rules.

I liked Kemp as well. It is a shame he lost focus later in his career. He was on his way to the HOF. Seeing him as a scrub in Portland really was sad.

I like Grant too. I was just comparing him to the other "sidekicks" on the elite teams in 94'. He was similar to most of them. Kemp and Stockton were the only ones who were much better than him. Grant grew on me after reading that book and some other stuff too. He seems like an honest, hardworking guy. Supposedly he wasn't the brightest bulb out there--which made the alleged Reinsdorf situation even worse.

Yeah, that's true. I actually read a few people say Scottie was just a system player or something like that as a putdown, which I found odd considering the Triangle offense isn't easy. Like you said, Harper had trouble adjusting. Jason Kidd didn't adjust well to it, either from what I read in the Book of Basketball. Here's what Simmons had to say.

I saw one person saying it and we know what his agenda is...It is a difficult offense but regarding assists simple common sense shows you how it deflates assists. The more ball movement there is, the less likely it is that a primary playmaker will get an assist.

Simmons made a good point, although I believe Dallas ran a hybrid type of offense, not the full triangle. You have to look at offensive schemes people are in. That is why I mentioned Pippen winning wherever he went. He almost won a ring under the Dunleavy system. Not bad for a "system player"! Also look at what Pippen did on the Dream Team. He played a lot of PG on that up tempo team and led the team in assists.

[Alhazred]

It is an interesting question I have not given much thought. It is a good topic for a thread, though. I haven't look at "before/after" records of teams after great coaches leaving. My guess is that even the ones who can turn teams around take time. Look at Larry Brown. Time after time he joins a team and makes it a contender but has he ever really went to a team and improved it 15-20 wins right off the bat?

I don't know about records improving overnight. 35 wins may have been overstating it. 30 wins is a more realistic scenario.

Yeah, I just tried to name random teams. I think McHale was comparable in ability to someone like Dirk, Drexler, Ewing or Payton. All four led teams to the NBA finals as "the man" and had several deep playoff runs. I think McHale would have had a similar record and perhaps won a ring as "the man." People forget that Ewing literally was one shot away from a ring in 94', Dirk came close--imagine Dallas winning Game 3, and Drexler was on the verge of forcing a Game 7 until Pippen led the bench to a legendary fourth quarter comeback. Drexler also averaged a near triple double as a "sidekick" in 95'. All of these nuances are lost in the "did he or did he not win a ring as the man?" that. People look at it so simplistically that guys like Dominique Wilkins and King who never got out the second round or a player like T Mac is generally lumped in with a guy like Ewing who was one shot away or Payton who happened to have the worst possible timing to have his best team.

The "sidekick" label and "rings as the man" thing doesn't really make much sense, imo.

Ewing and a lot of other players have taken crap for supposedly "choking" in the playoffs, which is unfair. His detractors rarely mention his game 7 performance in the 94 ECF when he went 22/24/7/5.

I liked Kemp as well. It is a shame he lost focus later in his career. He was on his way to the HOF. Seeing him as a scrub in Portland really was sad.

Yeah, I wish Seattle had just given him a bigger contract earlier, especially after he had that awesome performance in the Finals. His career probably would have been better had he stuck with Karl and GP.

I like Grant too. I was just comparing him to the other "sidekicks" on the elite teams in 94'. He was similar to most of them. Kemp and Stockton were the only ones who were much better than him. Grant grew on me after reading that book and some other stuff too. He seems like an honest, hardworking guy. Supposedly he wasn't the brightest bulb out there--which made the alleged Reinsdorf situation even worse.

I never mistook Grant for an intellectual. Still, I take his side regarding the whole situation. Bulls management was notoriously stingy back in the 90s. Wasn't Scottie at one point the 122nd highest paid player in the league? That was in his prime, too.

I saw one person saying it and we know what his agenda is...It is a difficult offense but regarding assists simple common sense shows you how it deflates assists. The more ball movement there is, the less likely it is that a primary playmaker will get an assist.

Simmons made a good point, although I believe Dallas ran a hybrid type of offense, not the full triangle.

Apparently, Cleamons was a former assistant of Phil Jackson's. He was only there for a season with Kidd, though and it seems like they were just experimenting with it.

You have to look at offensive schemes people are in. That is why I mentioned Pippen winning wherever he went. He almost won a ring under the Dunleavy system. Not bad for a "system player"! Also look at what Pippen did on the Dream Team. He played a lot of PG on that up tempo team and led the team in assists.

Scottie could fit in with multiple different systems, no doubt.

Thanks for mentioning the 1992 Dream Team. He and Michael both led the team in assists and steals, even with Magic and Stockton.

[Roundball_Rock]

[Round Mound]

[BigShotBob]

Great second option. Can't do much more though outside of that unfortunately.

[Roundball_Rock]

[3ball]

.
Sidekick help while trying to 3-peat

Per 100 Possessions - Playoffs

14' Wade.....' 28.6 pts.. 6.2 ast.. 56.0 ts.. 106 ortg.. 18.5 PER.. 0.086 ws/48
93' Pippen... 26.2 pts.. 7.4 ast.. 50.0 ts.. 102 ortg.. 16.9 PER.. 0.083 ws/48

Pippen also shot 45.9% true shooting in the Finals - so he was horrible in the 93' Playoffs (worse than 14' Wade)

Ultimately, Pippen had 2 decent playoff runs with regular 2nd option numbers, because he sucked in 1993 and every other year (94', 95, 96-98', 88-90') - a horrible playoff performer and worst clutch player ever

[Rico2016]

It was the greatest consecutive three-year stretch for a number two option in NBA history. You won't find a better one. Pip averaged something crazy like 21/9/8/2/1 on 46% and obviously top-level defense.

[Rico2016]

.
Sidekick help while trying to 3-peat

Per 100 Possessions - Playoffs

14' Wade.....' 28.6 pts.. 6.2 ast.. 56.0 ts.. 106 ortg.. 18.5 PER.. 0.086 ws/48
93' Pippen... 26.2 pts.. 7.4 ast.. 50.0 ts.. 102 ortg.. 16.9 PER.. 0.083 ws/48

Pippen also shot 45.9% true shooting in the Finals - so he was horrible in the 93' Playoffs (worse than 14' Wade)

Ultimately, Pippen had 2 decent playoff runs with regular 2nd option numbers, because he sucked in 1993 and every other year (94', 95, 96-98', 88-90') - a horrible playoff performer and worst clutch player ever

Per 100

Comparing one single year and using per 100 as your only shred of an argument. Embarrassing. Whatever happened to what they actually did for that year? You know, per game?

[Roundball_Rock]

It was the greatest consecutive three-year stretch for a number two option in NBA history. You won't find a better one. Pip averaged something crazy like 21/9/8/2/1 on 46% and obviously top-level defense.

His playoff record was so strong I had to divide it into two threads, with multiple posts in each (the character limit was a lot longer back then too).