Draymond Green vs. Scottie Pippen

[mattg]

People have already said it, but it deserves to be said again: Draymond is in the perfect situation for his offensive talents. He's obviously great defensively and in a good situation for his defensive skillset, but you could imagine an even better situation.

I am hard-pressed to imagine a better offensive situation for him to be in, though.97 Rockets, maybe?

Why are first options never docked points with this same line of thinking?

"Jordan was in the perfect situation where he could take over the offense and shoot as much as he wanted while surrounded with great offensive rebounding".

Because of portability. It's simply easier to find offensive rebounding to put next to Michael Jordan's skillset (because his best attributes don't rely on playing off of others to excel at the highest level) than it is to find 2-3 top 5 in NBA history shooters (2 of whom happen to be top 5 in history scorers overall as well). Dray would still be valuable if the shooters weren't as good, but his impact is not the same if he doesn't have the same level of space to play in that is created by the gravity of his teammates. There's just a big difference between guys who create the space vs guys who are good at using it.

[pelifan]

do people really think Green is better than Pippen on defense?

If you believe that you oughta hand in your basketball card.

There is zero context where I'd rather have Draymond than Pippen. I think Pippen is clearly better in ever facet of the game. And in some areas way better.

I watched all of Scottie Pippen's career. Heck, I was watching for nearly a decade before. I think it's absolutely ludicrous to put him on the same levels as a legitimate defensive player of the year winner.

Scottie was great at guarding wings, but he wasn't quick enough to defend quick guards. In almost every playoff series, Michael Jordan had the tougher perimeter assignment. I would say Grant was a better defender than Pippen as well, who could not guard bigger players. Later on, both Harper and Rodman were also better (plus Jordan).

Scottie Pippen has an enlarged reputation because of Jordan detractors, and people who didn't watch him and the Bulls play. Draymond Green is one of those rare players who plays amazing defence despite his size. Ben Wallace was another guy like that.

I reply to you, telling me to hand in my basketball card, to sit down and watch the damn game. Because you clearly are either too young to have watched Scottie Pippen live, or you weren't paying attention.

Now on offence, you can make a case for Scottie. Maybe he is better because of it. But to those of us who watched, definitely not on defence.

Like the poster above you said he had the Bulls 2nd in D in 95. Dray is not defending quick guards either. I've seen Pip defend Barkely at an elite level. If you think Pip is not an elite defender you are to focused on one on one ball. Pipp would be a great Kirilenko esque 4 today.

[Red Skies]

Like the poster above you said he had the Bulls 2nd in D in 95. Dray is not defending quick guards either. I've seen Pip defend Barkely at an elite level. If you think Pip is not an elite defender you are to focused on one on one ball. Pipp would be a great Kirilenko esque 4 today.

Barkley wasn't really a big man. He played like one, didn't have the measurables. But sure, I will concede that.

Everything back then was one on one ball though. Up until the last few years, most defence played was man to man, and there still isn't any real zone played (it would be suicide with shooters). So what other defence is there that isn't one on one? If you are a big man guarding the paint okay. But Scottie didn't do that.

Unless you are really versatile on defence like Jordan or Rodman was for instance, how can you compare to a big man on that side?

[Ron Swanson]

Call me skeptical of the narrative that "Pippen proved he could be an MVP-caliber/franchise player". It was one season in largely the same system that won 3-straight Finals, and people always bring up the 55-wins, but then completely overlook the next season when they went 34-32 before Jordan came back. MJ comes back late in the season, and they go 13-4 the rest of the way.

I view both Pippen and Draymond as being a level below the true MVP-tier guys, and always have.

lol right. Pippen was 2nd in the league in BPM in 94 with a 8.4 and the team went 4-6 without him, but it was in the same system. That's hilarious bringing up the 95 bulls who let an all star pf walk and replaced him with nothing. Also hilarious how you note their 34-32 record but not that they were injured all season long and were 8-2 in their last 10 before Jordan returned.

Because that would be cherry-picking and ignoring that they went 4-6 in the 10-game stretch before that? Like you just did? I have no idea what you're talking about with injuries. The Top-4 lineup players outside of Pippen played between 77 and all 82 games (Kukoc, Armstrong, Kerr, Harper). Unless we're gonna try and say that Luc Longley missing 28 games impacted the team to that extent?

I mean sure, include Jordan's 17 games in the larger sample size if you want, that team still incredibly underachieved going 47-35 when they had a 54-28 point differential, which BTW, was in big part buoyed by that 13-4 stretch w/Jordan (+118). Mainly because Pippen "carrying the Bulls to great success" in Jordan's absence is largely a misleading narrative when looking at the data.

[pandrade83]

This thread is stupid. The most common argument I've heard for Green is that he's a step above Pippen on the Defensive end and that unless he's your #1 option, that you should take Green.

Both of those are not grounded in reality.

From a defensive perspective, Pippen anchored Chicago defenses without Jordan at elite levels. He guarded anyone & everyone. There's no reason why Pippen wouldn't be as effective defensively today, but there's valid reasons why Green wouldn't be as effective defensively in Pippen's era (too many quality bigs; lineup of death takes a big hit).

From an offensive perspective, Pippen is light years ahead of Green. Is he an ideal #1? No - but he has multiple years of hitting 20 + ppg while also having a TS% above league average. That makes him a solid #2. Green is not a high impact offensive player.

Unless you're seriously prepared to argue that Green is an all-time Top 30 player, threads like this should not exist. But hey - if you're willing to entertain this discussion, hop in the Top 100 thread and nominate Draymond Green.

[so_bored]

LMAO at this thread. Draymond Green continues to be the most overrated player ever.

[Pg81]

Call me skeptical of the narrative that "Pippen proved he could be an MVP-caliber/franchise player". It was one season in largely the same system that won 3-straight Finals, and people always bring up the 55-wins, but then completely overlook the next season when they went 34-32 before Jordan came back. MJ comes back late in the season, and they go 13-4 the rest of the way.

I view both Pippen and Draymond as being a level below the true MVP-tier guys, and always have.

Are you seriously expecting Pippen to drag that sorry roster anywhere after also losing Grant?

So let me get this straight, Jordan with a bad roster barely scraping by at .500 is getting lauded.
Pippen doing the same though is "not a franchise player". Cause reasons.

You guys need to seriously examine your double standards.

[Long2s]

Green is an underrated low post defender. He can hold his own against power forwards and some centers.

Pippen couldn't really do that. Pip at his best was more like Miami Lebron. It's no coincidence that Riley and Spo instituted a swarm and blitz type defense with Wade and Lebron, it was basically a repeat of Jordan and Pippen.

[benson13]

this stuff has got to stop.

Why is it so difficult to so many people to admit, that some new unique player might be better than legends from the past?

It's not difficult. Steph Curry has rewrote the book on what kind of player can lead a team to a title, and he's been embraced for it.

Scottie Pippen outperforms Draymond Green in almost every way category. He actually performed as a team's top dog. He performed as a great second fiddle. He played well as a role player in Portland. If the comparison is ridiculous it should be called as much.

[Pg81]

Call me skeptical of the narrative that "Pippen proved he could be an MVP-caliber/franchise player". It was one season in largely the same system that won 3-straight Finals, and people always bring up the 55-wins, but then completely overlook the next season when they went 34-32 before Jordan came back. MJ comes back late in the season, and they go 13-4 the rest of the way.

I view both Pippen and Draymond as being a level below the true MVP-tier guys, and always have.

lol right. Pippen was 2nd in the league in BPM in 94 with a 8.4 and the team went 4-6 without him, but it was in the same system. That's hilarious bringing up the 95 bulls who let an all star pf walk and replaced him with nothing. Also hilarious how you note their 34-32 record but not that they were injured all season long and were 8-2 in their last 10 before Jordan returned.

Because that would be cherry-picking and ignoring that they went 4-6 in the 10-game stretch before that? Like you just did? I have no idea what you're talking about with injuries. The Top-4 lineup players outside of Pippen played between 77 and all 82 games (Kukoc, Armstrong, Kerr, Harper). Unless we're gonna try and say that Luc Longley missing 28 games impacted the team to that extent?

I mean sure, include Jordan's 17 games in the larger sample size if you want, that team still incredibly underachieved going 47-35 when they had a 54-28 point differential, which BTW, was in big part buoyed by that 13-4 stretch w/Jordan (+118). Mainly because Pippen "carrying the Bulls to great success" in Jordan's absence is largely a misleading narrative when looking at the data.

What a bunch of nonsense. The Bulls roster was castrated in 95. The best and third best player left the team and were replaced with nothing. The players you mentioned were for the most part roleplayers. If they would have not played on a title team like the Bulls you would barely remember them I am sure of that.
And yeah, almost leading a MJ less roster to the ECF is a damn fine accomplishment. How many players do you think would have accomplished that? Were did Kobe lead the Lakers after the departure of Shaq? Where would have Malone or Stockton have led their teams alone when there was little talent left? What would have Stark done if Ewing would have jumped ship and the Knicks would have gotten a scrub as replacement?`
What Pippen has done in 94 was amazing and 95 too and far more impressive than anything Green has done to date.
The disrespect is baffling here.

[dhsilv2]

People have already said it, but it deserves to be said again: Draymond is in the perfect situation for his offensive talents. He's obviously great defensively and in a good situation for his defensive skillset, but you could imagine an even better situation.

I am hard-pressed to imagine a better offensive situation for him to be in, though.97 Rockets, maybe?

Why are first options never docked points with this same line of thinking?

"Jordan was in the perfect situation where he could take over the offense and shoot as much as he wanted while surrounded with great offensive rebounding".

Because of portability. It's simply easier to find offensive rebounding to put next to Michael Jordan's skillset (because his best attributes don't rely on playing off of others to excel at the highest level) than it is to find 2-3 top 5 in NBA history shooters (2 of whom happen to be top 5 in history scorers overall as well). Dray would still be valuable if the shooters weren't as good, but his impact is not the same if he doesn't have the same level of space to play in that is created by the gravity of his teammates. There's just a big difference between guys who create the space vs guys who are good at using it.

Bold might be one of the best ways I've heard that said, and it really takes the old "those who draw 2" notion and advances it for the modern game.

[dhsilv2]

this stuff has got to stop.

Why is it so difficult to so many people to admit, that some new unique player might be better than legends from the past?

It's not difficult. Steph Curry has rewrote the book on what kind of player can lead a team to a title, and he's been embraced for it.

Scottie Pippen outperforms Draymond Green in almost every way category. He actually performed as a team's top dog. He performed as a great second fiddle. He played well as a role player in Portland. If the comparison is ridiculous it should be called as much.

Pippen was running the point for the Blazers. My god, if that's a role player....just NO, STOP IT!

[dhsilv2]

This thread is stupid. The most common argument I've heard for Green is that he's a step above Pippen on the Defensive end and that unless he's your #1 option, that you should take Green.

Both of those are not grounded in reality.

From a defensive perspective, Pippen anchored Chicago defenses without Jordan at elite levels. He guarded anyone & everyone. There's no reason why Pippen wouldn't be as effective defensively today, but there's valid reasons why Green wouldn't be as effective defensively in Pippen's era (too many quality bigs; lineup of death takes a big hit).

From an offensive perspective, Pippen is light years ahead of Green. Is he an ideal #1? No - but he has multiple years of hitting 20 + ppg while also having a TS% above league average. That makes him a solid #2. Green is not a high impact offensive player.

Unless you're seriously prepared to argue that Green is an all-time Top 30 player, threads like this should not exist. But hey - if you're willing to entertain this discussion, hop in the Top 100 thread and nominate Draymond Green.

Dray has shown elite rim protection skills as a small 5 or more traditional 4. He's mobile and strong enough to body guys like Oakley or Grant from the 90's and still able to rotate over on a scoring center as well as guard any of them (if rodman can guard shaq so can green).

Now the rest of what you said is 100% correct. Green is not pippen level, not even close.

[bledredwine]

Pippen by a good bit.

This. It's not even a question. Pippen is Lebron with worse scoring passing abilities (though still good) and way better defense.

[Ron Swanson]

Yeah, ok. That entire Bulls roster was "castrated" when the only change to the Top-9 man rotation was subtracting Horace Grant but adding Ron Harper. Sure....

A big deal to be sure because Grant was a really good player, but let's stop with the hyperbolic nonsense. I even picked Pippen clearly over Draymond, but as I've seen in the past, the legend of Scottie Pippen proving himself to be a Top-5 MVP impact type guy gets a little cloudy once you look beyond the narrative IMO.

[LakerLegend]

Yeah, ok. That entire Bulls roster was "castrated" when the only change to the Top-9 man rotation was subtracting Horace Grant but adding Ron Harper. Sure....

A big deal to be sure because Grant was a really good player, but let's stop with the hyperbolic nonsense. I even picked Pippen clearly over Draymond, but as I've seen in the past, the legend of Scottie Pippen proving himself to be a Top-5 MVP impact type guy gets a little cloudy once you look beyond the narrative IMO.

Are you talking about 95 compared to 94?

Not sure why you expect a whole lot out of a roster when the 2nd highest scorer is putting up 15 a game, no one on the team outside Pippen averaged more than 7 rebounds and not one player besides Pippen averaged more than 5 assists.

[Coleman]

Draymond is actually better in traffic. The way to guard Draymond is to leave him wide open on the three point line. the Warriors have not adjusted to this strategy. Draymond is an ok three point shooter but his best attribute is when he dives the lane or drives the lane and draws defense then dishes off for a dunk.

[mattg]

Draymond is actually better in traffic. The way to guard Draymond is to leave him wide open on the three point line. the Warriors have not adjusted to this strategy. Draymond is an ok three point shooter but his best attribute is when he dives the lane or drives the lane and draws defense then dishes off for a dunk.

Yeah, the fact that NBA teams have not started treating him like Rondo offensively is completely baffling and IMO the biggest strategical failing of the last 5 years in this game. It's honestly shocking teams haven't tried it after seeing how much it destroyed Rondo. Instead you have teams literally using Durant's defender to double Curry at arc and other garbage.

[pandrade83]

This thread is stupid. The most common argument I've heard for Green is that he's a step above Pippen on the Defensive end and that unless he's your #1 option, that you should take Green.

Both of those are not grounded in reality.

From a defensive perspective, Pippen anchored Chicago defenses without Jordan at elite levels. He guarded anyone & everyone. There's no reason why Pippen wouldn't be as effective defensively today, but there's valid reasons why Green wouldn't be as effective defensively in Pippen's era (too many quality bigs; lineup of death takes a big hit).

From an offensive perspective, Pippen is light years ahead of Green. Is he an ideal #1? No - but he has multiple years of hitting 20 + ppg while also having a TS% above league average. That makes him a solid #2. Green is not a high impact offensive player.

Unless you're seriously prepared to argue that Green is an all-time Top 30 player, threads like this should not exist. But hey - if you're willing to entertain this discussion, hop in the Top 100 thread and nominate Draymond Green.

Dray has shown elite rim protection skills as a small 5 or more traditional 4. He's mobile and strong enough to body guys like Oakley or Grant from the 90's and still able to rotate over on a scoring center as well as guard any of them (if rodman can guard shaq so can green).

Now the rest of what you said is 100% correct. Green is not pippen level, not even close.

This may or may not make sense. The skills required to be a strong rim protector in 2017 are different than 1992. I think he'd be an elite defender in '92, but I don't see him as a primary rim protector role in Pippen's prime. He's a 4 in that era, not really playing any 5. It doesn't mean he's not valuable, but I don't play him as a 5 in that era and the death lineup doesn't work as well.

[dhsilv2]

This thread is stupid. The most common argument I've heard for Green is that he's a step above Pippen on the Defensive end and that unless he's your #1 option, that you should take Green.

Both of those are not grounded in reality.

From a defensive perspective, Pippen anchored Chicago defenses without Jordan at elite levels. He guarded anyone & everyone. There's no reason why Pippen wouldn't be as effective defensively today, but there's valid reasons why Green wouldn't be as effective defensively in Pippen's era (too many quality bigs; lineup of death takes a big hit).

From an offensive perspective, Pippen is light years ahead of Green. Is he an ideal #1? No - but he has multiple years of hitting 20 + ppg while also having a TS% above league average. That makes him a solid #2. Green is not a high impact offensive player.

Unless you're seriously prepared to argue that Green is an all-time Top 30 player, threads like this should not exist. But hey - if you're willing to entertain this discussion, hop in the Top 100 thread and nominate Draymond Green.

Dray has shown elite rim protection skills as a small 5 or more traditional 4. He's mobile and strong enough to body guys like Oakley or Grant from the 90's and still able to rotate over on a scoring center as well as guard any of them (if rodman can guard shaq so can green).

Now the rest of what you said is 100% correct. Green is not pippen level, not even close.

This may or may not make sense. The skills required to be a strong rim protector in 2017 are different than 1992. I think he'd be an elite defender in '92, but I don't see him as a primary rim protector role in Pippen's prime. He's a 4 in that era, not really playing any 5. It doesn't mean he's not valuable, but I don't play him as a 5 in that era and the death lineup doesn't work as well.

So we're in the world of "heck if I know" so I think oakley for example was a SUPER great defender. Grant was better due to guarding guards. But Green he's so much better than both and they are kinda my go to "4's of that era" . Maybe I need a new choice? For me green is a rim protector AND can go out on guards. He's Rodman with a bit less mobility and a LOT more rim protection so....hell I think he'd be a hair or 10 better than Rodman (feels wrong saying it but that's my gut).