Pippen could have won a championship as the 1st option

[OldSchoolBBall]

lol @ saying that Pippen "led" the 200 Blazers to 59 wins. Sorry, but that was an ensemble cast with no defined leader. Yeah, I'm sure Pippen's 12 pts/6 reb/5 ast/45% FG warrants him getting credit as the leader of that team.

[ConanRulesNBC]

The Blazers had an amazing team that season but Pippen was definitely the leader.

[97 bulls]

lol @ saying that Pippen "led" the 200 Blazers to 59 wins. Sorry, but that was an ensemble cast with no defined leader. Yeah, I'm sure Pippen's 12 pts/6 reb/5 ast/45% FG warrants him getting credit as the leader of that team.

I do think the blazer were lead by committee. Maybe pip was the leader due to age, but his role with them wasn't the one of go to guy or anywhere near the role that he had in chicago.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I do think the blazer were lead by committee. Maybe pip was the leader due to age, but his role with them wasn't the one of go to guy or anywhere near the role that he had in chicago.

At least you're not completely oblivious. Unlike ConanRules, apparently.

ConanRules, are you using the term "leader" in the sense of "best player," which is how it's commonly used? If Pippen wins a title with the 2000 Blazers, do you think he'd get (or deserves) equal credit to guys like MJ/Duncan/Shaq for that title, or even equal credit to a guy like Isiah in '89/'90? My answer is that no, he wouldn't have deserved it.

[guy]

I have a ton of respect for Scottie, I'm just saying, if we're handing out championships to everyone who led a team to 50+ wins, you might as well give one to Barkley, Ewing, Nash, Malone, Grant Hill, LeBron, Reggie Miller, T-Mac, etc. too.

Most of those guys likely would've won multiple titles paired with Jordan as well, I'm sure most of them would've killed to have the benefit of playing with MJ for several years.

Just for the record too, I'm pretty certain a 34 or even 36 year old Jordan would've taken those 2000 Trail Blazers to the title.

Great post, especially the bolded. I can literally name 15-20 players that aren't as highly regarded as Pippen that have done exactly that.

[ShaqAttack3234]

At least you're not completely oblivious. Unlike ConanRules, apparently.

ConanRules, are you using the term "leader" in the sense of "best player," which is how it's commonly used? If Pippen wins a title with the 2000 Blazers, do you think he'd get (or deserves) equal credit to guys like MJ/Duncan/Shaq for that title, or even equal credit to a guy like Isiah in '89/'90? My answer is that no, he wouldn't have deserved it.

Of course he wasn't that caliber of player, but he was the best player on that team and a top 15-20 player, IMO as well as arguably the best perimeter defender even then.

[97 bulls]

Great post, especially the bolded. I can literally name 15-20 players that aren't as highly regarded as Pippen that have done exactly that.

Try it, better yet just give 5. He gave his and I punched huge holes in each one. Your not in my league as a debater guy. I guarantee ill make you look silly.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Of course he wasn't that caliber of player, but he was the best player on that team and a top 15-20 player, IMO as well as arguably the best perimeter defender even then.

Pippen was not the best player on the 200 Blazers. That would be Rasheed. Pippen/Sabonis/Stoudamire all were roughly on the same level. Pippen certainly was not the best player to any meaningful (or noticeable) degree.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Pippen was not the best player on the 200 Blazers. That would be Rasheed. Pippen/Sabonis/Stoudamire all were roughly on the same level. Pippen certainly was not the best player to any meaningful (or noticeable) degree.

Sabonis and Stoudamire roughly on Pippen's level in 2000?

I'd take Pippen over Sheed that year. More of a leader, had a bigger impact on his teammates as a facilitator, was Portland's most important defender, IMO, their smartest player and he only averaged 0.7 fewer rpg than Sheed. In fact, Scottie averaged more rebounds than Sheed in the playoffs

Sheed was a great low post scorer back then, very good defensively and good range for a big man, but he was inconsistent and a head case.

You brought up Pippen's stats, but were Sheed's any better?

Pippen
Regular Season- 13/6/5, 1.4 spg, 0.5 bpg, 45 FG%, 53 TS%
Playoffs- 15/7/4, 2 spg, 0.4 bpg, 42 FG%, 52 TS%

Sheed
Regular Season- 16/7/2, 1.3 bpg, 1.1 spg, 52 FG%, 56 TS%
Playoffs- 18/6/2, 1.3 bpg, 0.9 spg, 49 FG%, 55 TS%

And I'd definitely give the intangibles edge to Scottie. Steve Smith was the 3rd best player on that team, ahead of both Stoudamire and Sabonis.

And I don't think the gap was big between Pippen and Sheed, but I've always thought that Scottie was the best player on the 2000 Blazers, and after 10+ years, I don't see myself changing my mind on that one.

We did see a lot of what Sheed was capable of in the WCF when he dominated the Lakers power forwards(which was a big weakness for the 2000 Lakers), but Pippen's overall defensive impact was at least as impressive in that series.

[guy]

Try it, better yet just give 5. He gave his and I punched huge holes in each one. Your not in my league as a debater guy. I guarantee ill make you look silly.

LOL okay tough guy. Every one of the following players have led teams to 50+ wins in a season:

Dominique Wilkins
Alonzo Mourning
Dikembe Mutombo
Reggie Miller
Chris Mullin
Grant Hill
Kevin Johnson
Glen Rice
Gary Payton
Chris Webber
Jason Kidd
Allen Iverson
Dirk Nowitzki
Steve Nash
Tracy McGrady
Yao Ming
Chris Paul
Ray Allen
Carmelo Anthony
Brandon Roy
Deron Williams
Joe Johnson
Kevin Durant

Thats actually 23 players. Where are the holes? I'm not arguing who had more help or not. I'm just pointing out that a star or superstar leading a team to over 50+ wins isn't some ridiculously rare accomplishment that automatically shows they could lead a team to a title.

[97 bulls]

LOL okay tough guy. Every one of the following players have led teams to 50+ wins in a season:

Dominique Wilkins
Alonzo Mourning
Dikembe Mutombo
Reggie Miller
Chris Mullin
Grant Hill
Kevin Johnson
Glen Rice
Gary Payton
Chris Webber
Jason Kidd
Allen Iverson
Dirk Nowitzki
Steve Nash
Tracy McGrady
Yao Ming
Chris Paul
Ray Allen
Carmelo Anthony
Brandon Roy
Deron Williams
Joe Johnson
Kevin Durant

Thats actually 23 players. Where are the holes? I'm not arguing who had more help or not. I'm just pointing out that a star or superstar leading a team to over 50+ wins isn't some ridiculously rare accomplishment.

I thought you were gonna give me guys that lead their team to 50 wins with similar talent to pippen 94 bulls. Even still all those guys have 2 MAJOR advantages over pippen and didn't get it done.

1. They had another quality guy to help them.

2. They had 5 to 7 years to try to win a championship.

Guys like durant, williams, johnson. Guys that are playing now. The jury is still out.

[guy]

I thought you were gonna give me guys that lead their team to 50 wins with similar talent to pippen 94 bulls. Even still all those guys have 2 MAJOR advantages over pippen and didn't get it done.

1. They had another quality guy to help them.

2. They had 5 to 7 years to try to win a championship.

Guys like durant, williams, johnson. Guys that are playing now. The jury is still out.

1. The game isn't played with just 2 players. There's more then just 2 players. Pippen still had much of a championship core and one of the greatest coaches behind him. His team wasn't filled with enormous talent, but they were still solid, experienced, and well-coached. For example, Ray Allen wasn't in a better situation in 2005 when he led the Sonics to 52 wins just cause he had Rashard Lewis, who's probably better then any of Pippen's teammates in 94. And even with all that being said, some of those players didn't have a teammate any better then Horace Grant. Some of those players were not in better situations then Pippen in 94. For example, I definitely know for sure that I wouldn't say Hill in 97, Rice in 97, AI in 01, Ray in 05, or Nash in 06 were in better situations.

2. First of all, alot of those guys weren't in that situation for that long, or they had that one season where the team overachieved in comparison to their talent. Thats why for many years they were leading there teams to under 50 wins. Second, you kind of prove my point. ALOT of really good players have led teams with just average or above average talent to over 50 wins and have had the opportunity to do that for multiple years, but they never led a team to a championship. Thats why that just because Pippen led a team to 55 wins, that doesn't mean its very strong evidence that he could've led a team to a title as the best player. (Let me reiterate, I'm not saying he couldn't have done it all. If Chauncey Billups could technically do it, I'm sure Pippen could. I just don't think he could've done it in the dominant fashion as most of the best players on championship teams and would've needed more help.)

Every decade, there's only a few players that have a led a team to a championship as that dominant no. 1. In the 60s, it was Russell and Wilt only. In the 70s, it was Kareem, Barry, and Walton (most of the other teams its very arguable who was the best on those teams). In the 80s, it was Kareem, Bird, Moses, and Magic. In the 90s, it was Jordan, Hakeem, and Duncan. In the 00s, it was Shaq, Duncan, Wade, and Kobe. But there's a BUNCH of players that have led teams to over 50 wins but not always a champioship in each decade. In this year alone, there's about 6 guys doing it (Rose, Lebron, Howard, Dirk, Kobe, Durant). So its not outrageous or an insult to think a Pippen-led team couldn't have won a champioship.

[97 bulls]

1. The game isn't played with just 2 players. There's more then just 2 players. Pippen still had much of a championship core and one of the greatest coaches behind him. His team wasn't filled with enormous talent, but they were still solid, experienced, and well-coached. For example, Ray Allen wasn't in a better situation in 2005 when he led the Sonics to 52 wins just cause he had Rashard Lewis, who's probably better then any of Pippen's teammates in 94. And even with all that being said, some of those players didn't have a teammate any better then Horace Grant. Some of those players were not in better situations then Pippen in 94. For example, I definitely know for sure that I wouldn't say Hill in 97, Rice in 97, AI in 01, Ray in 05, or Nash in 06 were in better situations.

2. First of all, alot of those guys weren't in that situation for that long, or they had that one season where the team overachieved in comparison to their talent. Thats why for many years they were leading there teams to under 50 wins. Second, you kind of prove my point. ALOT of really good players have led teams with just average or above average talent to over 50 wins and have had the opportunity to do that for multiple years, but they never led a team to a championship. Thats why that just because Pippen led a team to 55 wins, that doesn't mean its very strong evidence that he could've led a team to a title as the best player. (Let me reiterate, I'm not saying he couldn't have done it all. If Chauncey Billups could technically do it, I'm sure Pippen could. I just don't think he could've done it in the dominant fashion as most of the best players on championship teams and would've needed more help.)

Every decade, there's only a few players that have a led a team to a championship as that dominant no. 1. In the 60s, it was Russell and Wilt only. In the 70s, it was Kareem, Barry, and Walton (most of the other teams its very arguable who was the best on those teams). In the 80s, it was Kareem, Bird, Moses, and Magic. In the 90s, it was Jordan, Hakeem, and Duncan. In the 00s, it was Shaq, Duncan, Wade, and Kobe. But there's a BUNCH of players that have led teams to over 50 wins but not always a champioship in each decade. In this year alone, there's about 6 guys doing it (Rose, Lebron, Howard, Dirk, Kobe, Durant). So its not outrageous or an insult to think a Pippen-led team couldn't have won a champioship.

Again, all the guys you've named had more than 1 year to get it done. Just cherry picking one particular year isn't really a strong measurement to determine that this guy couldn't do it or not. Now if pippen was the man for a good 5 years id put him in the same boat. 55 wins in 94 or not.

Obviously you need talent and talented help. But you also need time. Pippen didn't have neither. Especially the second. I mean, kobe didn't win in his 1st or second year as the leader of a team. In fact, the lakers flat out sucked. And he had at least 500 talent. Kobes only won cuz he's been on the best team the last few years. Its the same with jordan. He gets a pass for not winning in his first few years cuz he didn't have sufficient help. Which I agree with. Its just hypocritical.

And even still let's say pippen does win a championship as the clear cut best player on his team and puts up 22/9/8 on 49% and is a defensive beast. How is that not dominant? Cuz it ain't 30 ppg? That magic johnson/larry bird type numbers.

[guy]

Again, all the guys you've named had more than 1 year to get it done.

Get what done? Win a title? Grant Hill, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Glen Rice, Chris Mullin, Carmelo Anthony, Joe Johnson, Deron Williams had no chance winning titles with the teams they've been on. Winning over 50 games? Sure. Winning titles? Hell no. And alot of those guys didn't have that many chances. They played on good teams for a few years here and there, but its not like they were in those situations for there whole career, and its not like they were always the leader. I would not say those players had significantly greater chances then Pippen regardless of them actually playing more years as the undisputed leader.

Just cherry picking one particular year isn't really a strong measurement to determine that this guy couldn't do it or not.

Its mainly the people that say Pippen could dominate to the degree of Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, et.c that do this.

Obviously you need talent and talented help. But you also need time. Pippen didn't have neither. Especially the second. I mean, kobe didn't win in his 1st or second year as the leader of a team. In fact, the lakers flat out sucked. And he had at least 500 talent. Kobes only won cuz he's been on the best team the last few years. Its the same with jordan. He gets a pass for not winning in his first few years cuz he didn't have sufficient help. Which I agree with. Its just hypocritical.

The Lakers were a mess in 2005 with injuries, coaching changes, and they didn't really have that much talent. His 06 team definitely wasn't .500 talent.

And who's being hypocritical? I don't think anyone thinks Pippen had enough help in 94 to win a championship. I don't think anyone is crazy enough to have expected that. I'm not basing that much of my opinion on what he could do as the clear best player of a team for multiple years on that.

And even still let's say pippen does win a championship as the clear cut best player on his team and puts up 22/9/8 on 49% and is a defensive beast. How is that not dominant? Cuz it ain't 30 ppg? That magic johnson/larry bird type numbers.

Those aren't Magic or Bird numbers except for maybe a few years in their career when they weren't in their prime. Its not just scoring 30 ppg, and its not necessarily just about numbers. Those are great numbers, but its still hard for me to see Pippen ever winning a championship in the dominant manner we've discussed. He was dominant, just not that dominant.

[97 bulls]

Get what done? Win a title? Grant Hill, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen, Glen Rice, Chris Mullin, Carmelo Anthony, Joe Johnson, Deron Williams had no chance winning titles with the teams they've been on. Winning over 50 games? Sure. Winning titles? Hell no. And alot of those guys didn't have that many chances. They played on good teams for a few years here and there, but its not like they were in those situations for there whole career, and its not like they were always the leader. I would not say those players had significantly greater chances then Pippen regardless of them actually playing more years as the undisputed leader.




Its mainly the people that say Pippen could dominate to the degree of Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, Magic, et.c that do this.



The Lakers were a mess in 2005 with injuries, coaching changes, and they didn't really have that much talent. His 06 team definitely wasn't .500 talent.

And who's being hypocritical? I don't think anyone thinks Pippen had enough help in 94 to win a championship. I don't think anyone is crazy enough to have expected that. I'm not basing that much of my opinion on what he could do as the clear best player of a team for multiple years on that.



Those aren't Magic or Bird numbers except for maybe a few years in their career when they weren't in their prime. Its not just scoring 30 ppg, and its not necessarily just about numbers. Those are great numbers, but its still hard for me to see Pippen ever winning a championship in the dominant manner we've discussed. He was dominant, just not that dominant.

2 things. 1st, let's start from the top. If you don't think pippen could lead a team to a championship, please say on what basis you'd make that claim. What did pippen do in his career that would leave you that impression?

2nd. Compare scottie pippens 22 9 and 7 and being the best defender on the pererimeter, to magics 23 6 11 and terrible defense. And mind you the diferent reas the two played in. And please explain to me why magics is more dominant.

Also, please stop using guys like ray allen, glen rice, and grant hill in your argument. In no way shape or form are they on pippens level. Hill was but his prime was killed by injuries. I think guys like ewing, barkley, malone and robinson are more on pippens level. And those guys had ample opportunities to win.