If Pippen won in 1994 - Where does he rank alltime

[Texas Chuck]

Look what Pippen did IRL in 1994 should have erased the doubts. But it didn't. Because the pro-Jordan crowd has convinced themselves for Jordan to seen as great, Pip must be minimized at all costs. It's rubbish of course. And its a sign they know that he never caught Russell and that Lebron passed him. Because anyone who really, truly believes Jordan is GOAT wouldn't have to resort to trashing Pippen in a misguided attempt to help Mike.

The Bulls lost the best player in the world, replaced him with Pete Myers and Toni Kukoc and barely missed a beat. Pippen, out of his ideal role, was a legit MVP level player that year.

Them not winning the title has nothing to do with any of that.

[Cavsfansince84]

Could you expound on that? The 94/95 was far from an optimal situation in terms of what was happening off the court. Do you think the roster fit Pippen unusually well?

Well it was a cast that already knew how to win and were wired to go out there and perform every night. Phil to me is the obvious leader of those teams. Which is part of another criticism I have that people over look coaching way too much in general on here. Nothing against Scottie but I just see him the way I do. I still think he's like top 35-40 but I think there's limitations he has which boiled over into things we saw happen and even how he still acts now. He takes things personally very easily.

[capfan33]

Realistically there not winning that year, but they could conceivably make the finals and make it competitive.

Also, a small thing I want to point out for all those that are claiming Pippen wasn't a viable first option, the Bulls in the series against an ATG Knicks defense had a +8.5 oRTG (yes small sample), which compared to all playoff runs of 10+ games would rank roughly in the 90 percentile. Not too shabby as a first option.

[OhayoKD]

Could you expound on that? The 94/95 was far from an optimal situation in terms of what was happening off the court. Do you think the roster fit Pippen unusually well?

Well it was a cast that already knew how to win and were wired to go out there and perform every night. Phil to me is the obvious leader of those teams. Which is part of another criticism I have that people over look coaching way too much in general on here. Nothing against Scottie but I just see him the way I do. I still think he's like top 35-40 but I think there's limitations he has which boiled over into things we saw happen and even how he still acts now. He takes things personally very easily.

The coach would be expected to be a "leader" in some sense but Pippen ran the offense and the defense like draymond does. Even if we assume he did nothing else(though iirc Kerr credited Pippen for helping build chemistry), that's an unusual amount of "leadership" from anyone, even superstars.

As for "things we saw happen", fine, but let's not cherry pick....

White players are more often willing to run patterns and to work collectively

"Because of the predominance of blacks in pro basketball, the sport is rapidly disintegrating into a one-on-one sport. There are only five or six NBA teams who play with more than a superficial degree of team unity.

^^^ Phil Jackson

According to one official, Hughes was explicitly told by Jordan to get him the ball if he wanted to play. When Hughes began passing it to Stackhouse as much as to Jordan, he was soon benched. Point guard Tyronn Lue, the official said, obliged and began finding Jordan every time he played. ''He was scared to death of what would happen to him in his career if he didn't,'' the player said of Lue. ''He was always looking at the bench at Michael.''

Late last fall, Richard Hamilton and Jordan got into an ugly shouting match. The two officials said it began when Hamilton told Jordan he was tired of being a ''Jordannaire,'' the term used for Jordan's role players in Chicago. ''Rip was a young, brash guy who threatened the idea of Michael being the guy here,'' the official said. ''He was promptly gotten rid of for Stackhouse.'' A person close to Jordan denied Hamilton was traded because of a personality conflict. He insisted contractual issues led to the Stackhouse deal.

In the season's final weeks, players openly complained about the double standards for Jordan. Promptly dressed and ready to speak with reporters after games, they were forced to wait in the locker room for 15 or 20 minutes while Jordan showered and dressed in a private room.

^^^ MJ

Hill has spent this exhibition season trying to bring Rodman's behavior closer in line with the rest of the team. That meant no more late arrivals at games and practices. And no more locker room and hotel visits by Madonna, although Rodman has said their brief whatever-it-was has long been over.

"We're just trying to get his attention as best we can," Hill said. "We've pretty much planted our feet on the kind of team we want to have ... He needs to become a part of that."

^^^Rodman

I don't see why Pippen stands out here

[Cavsfansince84]

^^^Rodman

I don't see why Pippen stands out here

MJ, Rodman and Phil have their faults too. No doubt about it. This is expressly about Scottie though and not them. In terms of leadership, do I consider him to be a bad leader? No. I just think Phil had a clear stamp on that team which is a big part of how they became a dynasty. Just as Phil goes to the Lakers and they go from paper tiger to 3x champ/dynasty even with personalities like Kobe and Shaq. I'm just going off what I saw and the impressions I got. Scottie always had a bit of a reputation for being a bit flakey in some ways. He was better off as a #2. I mean you see it now even 30 years later he still feels disrespected and all of that.

[tsherkin]

Saying Pippen was incapable of winning as the guy is just silly. He may need more to win than top 10-top 20 players, but he was an exceptional player who had his share of good and bad moments off the court. There's no need to cherrypick one or the other to force a narrative.

"Incapable" does seem a bit extreme a word. What season are we talking about, what teammates, right? What happens if you put him on the 2004 Pistons (in his 94 form) instead of Tayshaun Prince? Is he then "the Man" on that team? At what point can he create a defensive dynasty with just enough offense around him to squeak through for the one title we're talking about?

Pip was great. He was not a particularly amazing scorer, but he moved the ball well, was a strong rebounder and a really nasty defensive presence, particularly in his hey-day in the early/mid 90s. You could do a lot with that in his own time depending on what he had around him. He wasn't a classic "dominant perimeter scorer" anchor type as we've come to envision post-Jordan and all that, but there are scenarios one could envision where he wins a title as the best plater, for sure.

replacing grant with ben wallace in 94 might do it tbh

I could see that, especially since the line hasnt been put in. Wallace was a monster. Id have some questions about who was actually the best player on that team, but fewer questions about if they could win a ring, for sure.

[OhayoKD]

Realistically there not winning that year, but they could conceivably make the finals and make it competitive.

Also, a small thing I want to point out for all those that are claiming Pippen wasn't a viable first option, the Bulls in the series against an ATG Knicks defense had a +8.5 oRTG (yes small sample), which compared to all playoff runs of 10+ games would rank roughly in the 90 percentile. Not too shabby as a first option.

if they're realistically making the finals, why couldn't they realistically beat the team the knicks were maybe the biggest 2-possession collapse ever away from beating in 6

[tsherkin]

Realistically there not winning that year, but they could conceivably make the finals and make it competitive.

Also, a small thing I want to point out for all those that are claiming Pippen wasn't a viable first option, the Bulls in the series against an ATG Knicks defense had a +8.5 oRTG (yes small sample), which compared to all playoff runs of 10+ games would rank roughly in the 90 percentile. Not too shabby as a first option.

What happened to that O in 95, when Grant left? And where was it during the 94 RS? His low-efficiency scoring was average for that postseason, and Chicago about maintained its middling RS offense against New York. That's impressive given the quality D, but it had more to do with ball protection and offensive rebounding than with good scoring. As in the RS, their D carried them much further than their O, for sure.

As a first-option guy, Pippen was definitely lackluster compared to real offensive stars. His value was clearly on the other end. Which is its own thing, but if New York has fielded a decent offense, Chicago would have tanked that series. Instead, the Bulls faced a team worse than them on O and squeaked through because New York was running bruisers out with Ewing and over-relying on Pat. Oakley, Starks, Doc Rivers and Anthony Mason? blech.

[OhayoKD]

Realistically there not winning that year, but they could conceivably make the finals and make it competitive.

Also, a small thing I want to point out for all those that are claiming Pippen wasn't a viable first option, the Bulls in the series against an ATG Knicks defense had a +8.5 oRTG (yes small sample), which compared to all playoff runs of 10+ games would rank roughly in the 90 percentile. Not too shabby as a first option.

What happened to that O in 95, when Grant left? And where was it during the 94 RS? His low-efficiency scoring was average for that postseason, and Chicago about maintained its middling RS offense against New York. That's impressive given the quality D, but it had more to do with ball protection and offensive rebounding than with good scoring. As in the RS, their D carried them much further than their O, for sure.

As a first-option guy, Pippen was definitely lackluster compared to real offensive stars. His value was clearly on the other end. Which is its own thing, but if New York has fielded a decent offense, Chicago would have tanked that series. Instead, the Bulls faced a team worse than them on O and squeaked through because New York was running bruisers out with Ewing and over-relying on Pat. Oakley, Starks, Doc Rivers and Anthony Mason? blech.

I think people care a little too much about o/d-rating splits. What matters is the overall results which were pretty clearly contention-worthy.

That said, the Bulls(with all of their lineup playing) were still a +2 offense in 94 for the entire season(+5 overall). There is a lot of external context to consider with 93(strife with management ultimately led to a trade request) and even then, winning record without second best player(a very good, 53-win pace by srs) is a solid result(the offense was still above average iirc).

Pippen's scoring was weak for a superstar, but his ability to function as a primary offensive orchestrator is a rare perk, and he was a top 3-4 creator during the 90's(Pippen and MJ split creation by the 90's). He also was able to function as the primary ball-handler(again, not a given for the time period), and was a very strong rebounder on both ends(unusual for a player leading an offense).

Does this make him bird or mj? No. But I'm comfortably taking him as an offensive 1 over the likes of stockton or kyrie. He did not have the value of the very best attackers. Nor does he have the value of the very best defenders. But Scottie could function as a second-tier anchor on both ends which isn't as common as people might assume.

[tsherkin]

That said, the Bulls(with all of their lineup playing) were still a +2 offense in 94 for the entire season(+5 overall). There is a lot of external context to consider with 93(strife with management ultimately led to a trade request) and even then, winning record without second best player(a very good, 53-win pace by srs) is a solid result(the offense was still above average iirc).

Tons to consider, for sure.

They were 14th of 27 on O in 94 (which was +0.1, though they were +3.4 net because of that nasty defense). They had a lot of roster turnover and had lost Jordan, which is not a trivial thing to endure as a team. And I agree with you that while his scoring was bleh, his facilitation was definitely a strength (and so too his knowledge of the triangle in particular).

BJ and Grant stepped up that year. They added Kerr and Kukoc, as well as Longley. Lots of new guys, but lots of good contributors, simultaneously.

In 95, Grant was gone and they'd added Ron Harper. The 3pt line was pulled in, and they got 17 games of Jordan right at the end, so they ended up 10th of 27 (+1.2 ORTG, +5.2 net). They were 34-31 without MJ, 13-4 with him. Facilitation goes only so far, particularly in the context of the triangle. Pippen didn't exert a ton of rim pressure, and he didn't stun as a scorer. He fit very, very well into the team model and when he had a bit more of an ensemble to work with, he could certainly guide the ship until he ran into stiffer competition, definitely. If the 95 team still had Grant, then I think people might reflect a little differently on his time leading Chicago, in fairness to Scottie.

Does this make him bird or mj? No. But I'm comfortably taking him as an offensive 1 over the likes of stockton or kyrie. He did not have the value of the very best attackers. Nor does he have the value of the very best defenders. But Scottie could function as a second-tier anchor on both ends which isn't as common as people might assume.

Mmmm. What value a second-tier anchor? Serious question, it's an interesting one to ponder. He's definitely a good case of someone you really ought not to have piloting the ship if you want to contend seriously, IMHO, but in a franchise's intermediary phase, he's a guy you can build a solid team around while you chase a proper franchise centerpiece. In the 90s and into the early 2000s, I imagine his value as being higher due to his defensive impact. I envision a franchise like Utah or Portland, perpetually in the playoffs and maybe even making the Finals once or twice over a long stretch, and Pippen playing like a poor man's Drexler type of role as far as value to franchise, if that makes sense.

[Sark]

If you switch Pippens shooting percentages against the Knicks in '93 with '94 then the Bulls probably lose with MJ and then win the rematch without MJ.

In fact, keeping everything the same you only have to switch Pippens FG% from both game 5s and the 94 Bulls win 4-2 without MJ while the 93 Bulls with MJ are 3-3 going back to NY where they are 0/2 RS + 0/3 PS. All it takes for that is 3 of Pippens shots bouncing differently.

And if Pippen plays as bad in game 6 in 93 as he did in 94 then the MJ Bulls lose 2-4 while the no-MJ Bulls win in 4-2 against the exact same opponent (who actually improved from SRS 5.9 to SRS 6.5 in '94)

That would have been a gigantic shift in narrative. A huge chunk of the credit MJ is getting would get transferred to Pippen. MJ goes to 2 or 3 all time while Pippen goes top20.

And all that with exactly zero change in Pippen's or MJs overall performance.
A prime example of how stupid it is to judge players by team results.

That completely ignores the fact that Pippen shot well in 93 because Jordan got all the defensive attention, whereas in 94 the Knicks gave him more attention, hence his percentages going down.


The people that actually watched those series knows that the Knicks probably should have swept them in 94, if not for the Kukoc miracle shot. Then Derek Harper got injured, which is what allowed the series to be extended further.

Knicks were the better team and Ewing was the superior player.

[OhayoKD]

That said, the Bulls(with all of their lineup playing) were still a +2 offense in 94 for the entire season(+5 overall). There is a lot of external context to consider with 93(strife with management ultimately led to a trade request) and even then, winning record without second best player(a very good, 53-win pace by srs) is a solid result(the offense was still above average iirc).

Tons to consider, for sure.

They were 14th of 27 on O in 94 (which was +0.1, though they were +3.4 net because of that nasty defense). They had a lot of roster turnover and had lost Jordan, which is not a trivial thing to endure as a team. And I agree with you that while his scoring was bleh, his facilitation was definitely a strength (and so too his knowledge of the triangle in particular).

[/quote]
Yes, but Pippen and Grant both missed a substantial amount of time. At full-strength they were a +2 offense and played at a 58-win pace for the season. They were +8 in the playoffs.

BJ and Grant stepped up that year. They added Kerr and Kukoc, as well as Longley. Lots of new guys, but lots of good contributors, simultaneously.

In 95, Grant was gone and they'd added Ron Harper. The 3pt line was pulled in, and they got 17 games of Jordan right at the end, so they ended up 10th of 27 (+1.2 ORTG, +5.2 net). They were 34-31 without MJ, 13-4 with him.

I mean
1. Variance/Luck, the Bulls were a 53-win team by SRS(which is generally more predictive) before Jordan came back. Aenigma also mentioned hot-shooting though I can't recall the specifics.

2. Off-Court context, Pippen was hell-bent on leaving until Jordan returned(to his credit, Jordan's talent was enough to refocus Pippen)
3. Fatigue? 4 straight title pushes+an olympics and the festering lockeroom situation from above. Jordan on other hand had been on break and can reasonably be interpreted to have "breathed new life" into the team with his return

Regardless, even if we decide to chuck the srs and take the record at face-value, the Bulls end up folding(with mj specifically folding down the stretch for games 1, 3 and 6) and play a less competitive series against a far less competitive eventual finalist than the 94 Bulls manage. The 93 and 92 Bulls were pushed to the very limit by weaker iterations of the Knicks. The 95 Bulls faced a weaker opponent and weren't as competitive. The 94 Knicks were "stiffer competition" and survived by the skin of their teeth. I'm not really sure how one can argue the 94 Bulls were not "contending seriously". The only real knocks on them are their performance in games without their best or second best player and, them underperforming their SRS the next year as the second best player left(a player whose next team saw dramatic improvement upon his arrival).


Frankly, with the application of context, 95 is pretty strong evidence in scottie's favor.

Does this make him bird or mj? No. But I'm comfortably taking him as an offensive 1 over the likes of stockton or kyrie. He did not have the value of the very best attackers. Nor does he have the value of the very best defenders. But Scottie could function as a second-tier anchor on both ends which isn't as common as people might assume.

Mmmm. What value a second-tier anchor? Serious question

Using anchor as a synonym for "centerpiece everything is built around", a 2nd-tier anchor can carry good or very good offenses or defenses but they can't carry great ones(barring very specific context). Pippen is a 2nd-tier anchor on both ends which puts him on par with the likes of barkley, ewing, and malone(who can be considered 1st-tier on one side of the court). He can lead the right teams to legitimate contention(as he did in 94) and can lead good teams while undermanned(as he did in 95). You say his "value came on the defensive end" but I imagine the distribution of his value on either end is roughly equal

He was also a legitimate creator and in Jordan's absence created a high volume og of open looks during the regular season, and he turned it up a notch in the postseason(especially so in the 94 series vs the knicks. He was not merely a facilitator.

[tsherkin]

Yes, but Pippen and Grant both missed a substantial amount of time. At full-strength they were a +2 offense and played at a 58-win pace for the season. They were +8 in the playoffs.

That's true, yes. Though +8 in those playoffs isn't suuuuuper impressive. They spanked the Hell out of Cleveland in the first round, which padded their numbers, and then dropped a deuce against the Knicks (though to be fair, the Knicks and that D), so it's a bit skewed.

I mean
1. Variance/Luck, the Bulls were a 53-win team by SRS(which is generally more predictive) before Jordan came back. Aenigma also mentioned hot-shooting though I can't recall the specifics.

The idea that this played out enough to drop them 10 wins over the 65 games before Jordan returned seems... inaccurate to me. They were on 42-win pace prior to Jordan's return in 95. And again, understandable, because they'd lost an All-Star forward who was a key piece of their offense. In 94, Grant's All-Star year, he was a 15/11/3 guy and had like the second-best offensive rebounding season of his entire career, plus he was excellent about protecting the ball. That's a large amount of value to lose for a team whose offensive strategy was more about ball protection and possession control than scoring efficacy.

I didn't mean to heavily penalize the 95 Bulls for their season, it's understandable. My point was more that Pippen's game was only so capable of driving offense without peripheral talent. It's not quite the same as someone who can handle high-usage scoring with efficiency. At some point, it's just a game of proportionate efficiency of possessions, and Pippen loses ground to high-end offensive stars that way, so he needs more from the team to drive unit offense than a particularly good scorer (not even Jordan-level, mind).

The 94 Knicks were "stiffer competition" and survived by the skin of their teeth. I'm not really sure how one can argue the 94 Bulls were not "contending seriously".

I mean, they gave New York a hell of a series in the second round, sure. I suspect they'd have lost to Indiana, though, because Indiana wasn't a boob offensive team like the Knicks and Chicago wasn't really killing it on O, but attacking New York's already-unimpressive offense. But that's supposition.

Frankly, with the application of context, 95 is pretty strong evidence in scottie's favor.

I very much disagree with that. I can't really accept the idea that they were barely above .500 and this is evidence in his favor more than anything else. Sure, he did well having lost Grant and with what he had around him, no doubt. That's solid for building a perennial playoff squad, but that does nothing to really stir my interest in him as a first-option offensive anchor. If you look at him as a defensive anchor and you're hoping to add offensive pieces around him, then there's something there, for sure, but I've already agreed with that. And generally, I'd rather build around an offensive anchor than a defensive one, particularly a wing defensive one. If I had a true big man who was a defensive anchor, then that might be a little different, but it'd depend on what flavor of player we're discussing, right? Mutombo or Mourning or Hakeem/D-Rob, etc.

Using anchor as a synonym for "centerpiece everything is built around", a 2nd-tier anchor can carry good or very good offenses or defenses but they can't carry great ones(barring very specific context). Pippen is a 2nd-tier anchor on both ends which puts him on par with the likes of barkley, ewing, and malone(who can be considered 1st-tier on one side of the court). He can lead the right teams to legitimate contention(as he did in 94) and can lead good teams while undermanned(as he did in 95). You say his "value came on the defensive end" but I imagine the distribution of his value on either end is roughly equal

We can agree to disagree about his offensive utility, then, because I don't look at him super favorably in that regard as the feature piece.

He was also a legitimate creator and in Jordan's absence created a high volume og of open looks during the regular season, and he turned it up a notch in the postseason(especially so in the 94 series vs the knicks. He was not merely a facilitator.

Ah, I see. You assume I meant facilitator like "Shandon Anderson in Jerry Sloan's system." I did not. Pippen was a savvy playmaker, it's the major offensive feature of his I respect. Even old and falling apart in Portland, he made that clear enough.

[OhayoKD]

Yes, but Pippen and Grant both missed a substantial amount of time. At full-strength they were a +2 offense and played at a 58-win pace for the season. They were +8 in the playoffs.

That's true, yes. Though +8 in those playoffs isn't suuuuuper impressive. They spanked the Hell out of Cleveland in the first round, which padded their numbers, and then dropped a deuce against the Knicks (though to be fair, the Knicks and that D), so it's a bit skewed.

Cleveland were a pretty decent first round opponent, even without Nance and Daughtery. Their playoff rotation posted a +5.8 net rating and went 11-5(admittedly against on average weaker opposition though 3-5 vs playoff teams isn't unusual), 48-win pace by record(idk the net-rating) if I count games without price. You say they stat-padded their numbers, but they also overperformed vs the Knicks.

And even if we say the playoff rating is nonsense, they were a +4.7 SRS, 55-win pace team when healthy in the 94 regular season. Are we calling that noise too? If anything, given how things were proceeding, I'd expect their regular season to be worse than their playoffs(teams that have already won typically sit back a bit in the regular season and Pippen/management strife was already in full-effect with the Bulls losing a lot of games in the second half amid the tension reaching a boiling point)

I mean
1. Variance/Luck, the Bulls were a 53-win team by SRS(which is generally more predictive) before Jordan came back. Aenigma also mentioned hot-shooting though I can't recall the specifics.

The idea that this played out enough to drop them 10 wins over the 65 games before Jordan returned seems... inaccurate to me. They were on 42-win pace prior to Jordan's return in 95.

What do you mean inaccurate? Are you skeptical about the srs being 53-win worthy? I suppose BT does mess up data on occasion, but I got it from his excerpt:

Still, the ’94 Bulls added Toni Kukoc and Luc Longley, replaced Jordan with a defensive-centric Pete Myers, and posted close-to-contending results. In 1995, with key cog Horace Grant lost to Orlando (and Ron Harper aboard), a healthy Bulls team still played at a 52-win pace (3.8 SRS) with an rORtg of +1.1 before Michael Jordan returned.

A 1.1 offensive rating and a +3.8 SRS without Grant actually seems pretty impressive to me all things considered. When Jordan came back they played at a 59-win pace and were a +4.3 offense(big offensive impact, relatively small overall impact, unsure if that's scheme or Jordan's defense being bleh with the rust).

If you mean you think the record is more indicative than their SRS, i'd like to hear why. As it is, taking the record difference at face-value would make 95 the most impressive signal of Jordan's career. Still not on par with the best impact stuff we've seen, but it would outpace a juiced +8 from 88 derived from an 82 game sample(I assume Oakley doesn't exist and the Bulls personnel doesn't improve at all after they draft MJ) or an intentionally inflated drop-off between 93 and 94(i take the 92 regular season score and replace the 93 rs with it). The SRS gap is more in-line with the other stuff and SRS is(at least from what I've heard) supposed to be more predictive.

I didn't mean to heavily penalize the 95 Bulls for their season, it's understandable. My point was more that Pippen's game was only so capable of driving offense without peripheral talent. It's not quite the same as someone who can handle high-usage scoring with efficiency. At some point, it's just a game of proportionate efficiency of possessions, and Pippen loses ground to high-end offensive stars that way, so he needs more from the team to drive unit offense than a particularly good scorer (not even Jordan-level, mind).

The 94 Knicks were "stiffer competition" and survived by the skin of their teeth. I'm not really sure how one can argue the 94 Bulls were not "contending seriously".

Sure.

I mean, they gave New York a hell of a series in the second round, sure. I suspect they'd have lost to Indiana, though, because Indiana wasn't a boob offensive team like the Knicks and Chicago wasn't really killing it on O, but attacking New York's already-unimpressive offense. But that's supposition.

Perhaps.

That's solid for building a perennial playoff squad, but that does nothing to really stir my interest in him as a first-option offensive anchor. If you look at him as a defensive anchor and you're hoping to add offensive pieces around him, then there's something there, for sure, but I've already agreed with that.

I mean, I'm looking at him as both. Generally I'd think it's easier to construct balanced teams around two-way anchors. And as I have said before, history seems to suggest paint-protection is the easiest thing to optimize(and Pippen is the rare breed of non-big who can actually function as a primary paint-protector). I don't see the need to call him an offensive or defensive anchor.

He was also a legitimate creator and in Jordan's absence created a high volume og of open looks during the regular season, and he turned it up a notch in the postseason(especially so in the 94 series vs the knicks. He was not merely a facilitator.

Ah, I see. You assume I meant facilitator like "Shandon Anderson in Jerry Sloan's system." I did not. Pippen was a savvy playmaker, it's the major offensive feature of his I respect. Even old and falling apart in Portland, he made that clear enough.

gotcha

[OhayoKD]

The Bulls were a contender, and they were a contender even through pippen was constantly at odds with management largely to being, arguably, exploited because he had too many mouths to feed at home(pippen took a small contract because he couldn't afford to take risks with his domestic situation and then management kept trying to replace him with kukoc...).

I'd be wary of using "exploited" for "underpaid for a sports star given changes in market conditions, on a contract they agreed to".

I can't be sure on motivation and haven't read Scottie's book yet but don't see a lot that says they were trying to replace him with Kukoc. They wanted Kukoc because they owned his rights (which they got at a value position in the draft). MJ and Pip didn't like Krause and took his interest in Toni personally. As a playmaking forward does Toni make it easier to trade Pippen? Yes. (Does Pippen's apparent early inability to get along with/resentment of Kukoc make a move more likely? Yes). Were the Bulls willing to trade Pippen? Yes (in '94 a deal nearly done with Seattle for Kemp, Pierce and reportedly picks going in the final incarnations of the deal ... as ever these things are difficult to confirm ... with Seattle the ones backing out). Does this mean they "kept trying to replace him" ... I don't think so. They were very happy to have a player of his caliber at his contract. They were willing to move him ... after the sit out and considering pivoting (on the face of it for a younger, bigger [mattered at the time], burgeoning star plus additional pieces) ...actively, repeatedly seeking to replace him ... seems less plausible to me, though I could be wrong.

Not using Pippen's boom as a source. Main source is this actually:

Watch on YouTube

Feel free to list if you have concerns(draft/contract stuff/pippen's family is corraborated by others. Haven't vetted the rest tbh)

Ay point for me is that Krause valued Pippen as a 5th pick but insisted on paying him like an 8th pick. I am not contesting Krause had the legal right to offer the contract he did, but if we were to put Pippen in various situations or certain events at home don't happen, this probably doesn't become an off-the-court anchor on on-the-court play. Assuming we agree Pippen's ability to be a no.1 includes what he would be capable of on other franchises, I think that is fair to note.

[Owly]

The Bulls were a contender, and they were a contender even through pippen was constantly at odds with management largely to being, arguably, exploited because he had too many mouths to feed at home(pippen took a small contract because he couldn't afford to take risks with his domestic situation and then management kept trying to replace him with kukoc...).

I'd be wary of using "exploited" for "underpaid for a sports star given changes in market conditions, on a contract they agreed to".

I can't be sure on motivation and haven't read Scottie's book yet but don't see a lot that says they were trying to replace him with Kukoc. They wanted Kukoc because they owned his rights (which they got at a value position in the draft). MJ and Pip didn't like Krause and took his interest in Toni personally. As a playmaking forward does Toni make it easier to trade Pippen? Yes. (Does Pippen's apparent early inability to get along with/resentment of Kukoc make a move more likely? Yes). Were the Bulls willing to trade Pippen? Yes (in '94 a deal nearly done with Seattle for Kemp, Pierce and reportedly picks going in the final incarnations of the deal ... as ever these things are difficult to confirm ... with Seattle the ones backing out). Does this mean they "kept trying to replace him" ... I don't think so. They were very happy to have a player of his caliber at his contract. They were willing to move him ... after the sit out and considering pivoting (on the face of it for a younger, bigger [mattered at the time], burgeoning star plus additional pieces) ...actively, repeatedly seeking to replace him ... seems less plausible to me, though I could be wrong.

Not using Pippen's boom as a source. Main source is this actually:

Watch on YouTube

Feel free to list if you have concerns(draft/contract stuff/pippen's family is corraborated by others. Haven't vetted the rest tbh)

Ay point for me is that Krause valued Pippen as a 5th pick but insisted on paying him like an 8th pick. I am not contesting Krause had the legal right to offer the contract he did, but if we were to put Pippen in various situations or certain events at home don't happen, this probably doesn't become an off-the-court anchor on on-the-court play. Assuming we agree Pippen's ability to be a no.1 includes what he would be capable of on other franchises, I think that is fair to note.

Seen it before (so not presently looking to rewatch, if you want to point something out that's fine).

Krause was tight (with Jerry R's money ... some think Jerry R is tight). He made some ... self-interested ... suggestions (supposedly suggested to Majerle he should make his stock slip so he could be picked up in ... like the third round or something ... Majerle ... rightly was ... again apparently ... like "and this benefits me ... how?" and passed. All paraphrased and otoh. So that JK would want to try to pay him like an 8th pick seems entirely plausible. Don't suspect otoh that he took less because of it (now there's no rookie scale so he could have got less than later picks) and if he did I'd say that's on him and his agent ... and they would have some leverage ... rookie holdouts were not unheard of and at the time some teams were hoping Robinson would use his military obligations to re-enter the draft to make his way to them. Otoh Krause (otoh, could have been Jerry R, but think it''s Krause) self-reported as saying he begged Pippen not to take it and that the Bulls wouldn't renegotiate. That's probably hyperbole on the former (and I don't think Krause is above reproach as a source) but ... this still very much seems like his choices. Were the Bulls more hard-line on re-negotiations with Pippen than other teams with stars ... yes. Did that cost them goodwill with him ... yes (though he would return). Were there reasonable motivations to opt for security ... probably, yes ... but that's his choice and he's the one best informed about that ... very unfortunate but not the Bulls' problem if Pippen takes the contracts and they're willing to live with some resentment.

My understanding is Pippen twice sacrificed freedom to maximize total cash by betting on himself (and changes in market) for longer term contract giving greater security).
Do I think this constitutes exploitation ... no (and the Bulls would have been on the hook for more cash if he failed than him going on shorter contracts). Was Toni coveted by Krause ... yes. Was he putting more effort into getting a new piece than keeping old one's happy? Yes. Per above is there an indication that Kukoc is a replacement ... not really.

So I'm open to watching again or checking other sources but I'd stand by what I said as of right now.

I'm not sure that (if I'm reading you correctly) that Krause's tightness was an anchor that affected Pippen on court. I guess Krause pursuing Kukoc might have impacted the sit-down but I'm not sure Krause did anything wrong in pursuing Kukoc.

[OhayoKD]

I'd be wary of using "exploited" for "underpaid for a sports star given changes in market conditions, on a contract they agreed to".

I can't be sure on motivation and haven't read Scottie's book yet but don't see a lot that says they were trying to replace him with Kukoc. They wanted Kukoc because they owned his rights (which they got at a value position in the draft). MJ and Pip didn't like Krause and took his interest in Toni personally. As a playmaking forward does Toni make it easier to trade Pippen? Yes. (Does Pippen's apparent early inability to get along with/resentment of Kukoc make a move more likely? Yes). Were the Bulls willing to trade Pippen? Yes (in '94 a deal nearly done with Seattle for Kemp, Pierce and reportedly picks going in the final incarnations of the deal ... as ever these things are difficult to confirm ... with Seattle the ones backing out). Does this mean they "kept trying to replace him" ... I don't think so. They were very happy to have a player of his caliber at his contract. They were willing to move him ... after the sit out and considering pivoting (on the face of it for a younger, bigger [mattered at the time], burgeoning star plus additional pieces) ...actively, repeatedly seeking to replace him ... seems less plausible to me, though I could be wrong.

Not using Pippen's boom as a source. Main source is this actually:

Watch on YouTube

Feel free to list if you have concerns(draft/contract stuff/pippen's family is corraborated by others. Haven't vetted the rest tbh)

Ay point for me is that Krause valued Pippen as a 5th pick but insisted on paying him like an 8th pick. I am not contesting Krause had the legal right to offer the contract he did, but if we were to put Pippen in various situations or certain events at home don't happen, this probably doesn't become an off-the-court anchor on on-the-court play. Assuming we agree Pippen's ability to be a no.1 includes what he would be capable of on other franchises, I think that is fair to note.

Seen it before (so not presently looking to rewatch, if you want to point something out that's fine).

Krause was tight (with Jerry R's money ... some think Jerry R is tight). He made some ... self-interested ... suggestions (supposedly suggested to Majerle he should make his stock slip so he could be picked up in ... like the third round or something ... Majerle ... rightly was ... again apparently ... like "and this benefits me ... how?" and passed. All paraphrased and otoh. So that JK would want to try to pay him like an 8th pick seems entirely plausible. Don't suspect otoh that he took less because of it (now there's no rookie scale so he could have got less than later picks) and if he did I'd say that's on him and his agent ... and they would have some leverage ... rookie holdouts were not unheard of and at the time some teams were hoping Robinson would use his military obligations to re-enter the draft to make his way to them. Otoh Krause (otoh, could have been Jerry R, but think it''s Krause) self-reported as saying he begged Pippen not to take it and that the Bulls wouldn't renegotiate. That's probably hyperbole on the former (and I don't think Krause is above reproach as a source) but ... this still very much seems like his choices. Were the Bulls more hard-line on re-negotiations with Pippen than other teams with stars ... yes. Did that cost them goodwill with him ... yes (though he would return). Were there reasonable motivations to opt for security ... probably, yes ... but that's his choice and he's the one best informed about that ... very unfortunate but not the Bulls' problem if Pippen takes the contracts and they're willing to live with some resentment.

My understanding is Pippen twice sacrificed freedom to maximize total cash by betting on himself (and changes in market) for longer term contract giving greater security).
Do I think this constitutes exploitation ... no (and the Bulls would have been on the hook for more cash if he failed than him going on shorter contracts). Was Toni coveted by Krause ... yes. Was he putting more effort into getting a new piece than keeping old one's happy? Yes. Per above is there an indication that Kukoc is a replacement ... not really.

So I'm open to watching again or checking other sources but I'd stand by what I said as of right now.

I'm not sure that (if I'm reading you correctly) that Krause's tightness was an anchor that affected Pippen on court. I guess Krause pursuing Kukoc might have impacted the sit-down but I'm not sure Krause did anything wrong in pursuing Kukoc.

Don't want to get into morality weeds honestly. My larger point is there was a bunch odd off-court drama that wouldn't typically happen. If it's Pippen's decision, fine, but that doesn't change that there were external factors outside of Pippen that allowed that scenario(and Pippen's response) to happen in the first place.


Simply put, if Pippen is on another team, most of this probably doesn't happen anyway. If you are only interested in assessing Pippen's capacity as a team-leader on the 90's Bulls, cool. If not, then consider that the amount of off-court hostility present was unusual(at this point teams usually combust) and all of it is not going to show up in every single scenario Pippen could play in. IOW, 94/95 can be argued to be a low-end for what Pippen is capable of as the best player on a team. If it's plausible that such drama would not have occurred had he just been drafted by the first team that was planning to pick him or one of his siblings didn't experience life-long paralysis, then Pippen and the team he's leading potentially performs better in other situations

The Bulls best player was threatening to leave for consecutive seasons and went ahead and filed a trade request. The Bulls still did pretty well(58-win srs 1 year, 53-win srs with second best player leaving). Doing that well in such a scenario establishes a pretty high floor for a Pippen-led team(or at least Pippen with whatever amount of help he had in Chicago)

[OhayoKD]

If you switch Pippens shooting percentages against the Knicks in '93 with '94 then the Bulls probably lose with MJ and then win the rematch without MJ.

That completely ignores the fact that Pippen shot well in 93 because Jordan got all the defensive attention, whereas in 94 the Knicks gave him more attention, hence his percentages going down.

Game-game shooting is noisy, and Pippen has shot as well as he did in 93 game 3 without Jordan. He was also more effecient in the 94 postseason than the 93 postseason. But yes, Jordan has "gravity" too! Well spotted.

the Knicks probably should have swept them in 94, if not for the Kukoc miracle shot.

The Knicks trailed in the 4th quarter for the first three games and only narrowly won their two home fixtures. "Should have swept" is a uh, interesting interpretation of events. Kukoc's "miracle shot" was to avoid overtime and the Knicks proceeded to win the next game by double digits.

Maybe the Bulls sweep if they have home court.

As it is, the Bulls should have won 4 straight after going down 2-0

The people that actually watched those series

Uhuh. And what injury took Harper out of the series you actually watched?

[parapooper]

If you switch Pippens shooting percentages against the Knicks in '93 with '94 then the Bulls probably lose with MJ and then win the rematch without MJ.

In fact, keeping everything the same you only have to switch Pippens FG% from both game 5s and the 94 Bulls win 4-2 without MJ while the 93 Bulls with MJ are 3-3 going back to NY where they are 0/2 RS + 0/3 PS. All it takes for that is 3 of Pippens shots bouncing differently.

And if Pippen plays as bad in game 6 in 93 as he did in 94 then the MJ Bulls lose 2-4 while the no-MJ Bulls win in 4-2 against the exact same opponent (who actually improved from SRS 5.9 to SRS 6.5 in '94)

That would have been a gigantic shift in narrative. A huge chunk of the credit MJ is getting would get transferred to Pippen. MJ goes to 2 or 3 all time while Pippen goes top20.

And all that with exactly zero change in Pippen's or MJs overall performance.
A prime example of how stupid it is to judge players by team results.

That completely ignores the fact that Pippen shot well in 93 because Jordan got all the defensive attention, whereas in 94 the Knicks gave him more attention, hence his percentages going down.

That completely ignores the fact that Pippen had clearly better efficiency in the 94 season and postseason than in the 93 season and postseason despite getting more attention.

The people that actually watched those series knows that the Knicks probably should have swept them in 94, if not for the Kukoc miracle shot. Then Derek Harper got injured, which is what allowed the series to be extended further.

Knicks were the better team and Ewing was the superior player.

Yes, the Knicks were a better team in 94 vs 93 by SRS, that's a pro-Pippen fact
Things can always go this or that way when teams are closely matched and have multiple close games.

As I listed above, switch Pippens shooting (consistent with him shooting better in 94 without MJ than in 93 with MJ) and the Pippen Bulls beat an improved version of the Knicks which the MJ Bulls (likely) lose to. And they have a good shot to win a ring without MJ.

So based on a few Pippen-shots bouncing differently:
The idiotic ring-based narrative could then switch from "MJ single-handedly won 6 rings" to "MJ got a bunch of Kevin Durant rings on a team that was better without him".
Pippen would then get a large chunk of MJs credit.

[Owly]

Not using Pippen's boom as a source. Main source is this actually:

Watch on YouTube

Feel free to list if you have concerns(draft/contract stuff/pippen's family is corraborated by others. Haven't vetted the rest tbh)

Ay point for me is that Krause valued Pippen as a 5th pick but insisted on paying him like an 8th pick. I am not contesting Krause had the legal right to offer the contract he did, but if we were to put Pippen in various situations or certain events at home don't happen, this probably doesn't become an off-the-court anchor on on-the-court play. Assuming we agree Pippen's ability to be a no.1 includes what he would be capable of on other franchises, I think that is fair to note.

Seen it before (so not presently looking to rewatch, if you want to point something out that's fine).

Krause was tight (with Jerry R's money ... some think Jerry R is tight). He made some ... self-interested ... suggestions (supposedly suggested to Majerle he should make his stock slip so he could be picked up in ... like the third round or something ... Majerle ... rightly was ... again apparently ... like "and this benefits me ... how?" and passed. All paraphrased and otoh. So that JK would want to try to pay him like an 8th pick seems entirely plausible. Don't suspect otoh that he took less because of it (now there's no rookie scale so he could have got less than later picks) and if he did I'd say that's on him and his agent ... and they would have some leverage ... rookie holdouts were not unheard of and at the time some teams were hoping Robinson would use his military obligations to re-enter the draft to make his way to them. Otoh Krause (otoh, could have been Jerry R, but think it''s Krause) self-reported as saying he begged Pippen not to take it and that the Bulls wouldn't renegotiate. That's probably hyperbole on the former (and I don't think Krause is above reproach as a source) but ... this still very much seems like his choices. Were the Bulls more hard-line on re-negotiations with Pippen than other teams with stars ... yes. Did that cost them goodwill with him ... yes (though he would return). Were there reasonable motivations to opt for security ... probably, yes ... but that's his choice and he's the one best informed about that ... very unfortunate but not the Bulls' problem if Pippen takes the contracts and they're willing to live with some resentment.

My understanding is Pippen twice sacrificed freedom to maximize total cash by betting on himself (and changes in market) for longer term contract giving greater security).
Do I think this constitutes exploitation ... no (and the Bulls would have been on the hook for more cash if he failed than him going on shorter contracts). Was Toni coveted by Krause ... yes. Was he putting more effort into getting a new piece than keeping old one's happy? Yes. Per above is there an indication that Kukoc is a replacement ... not really.

So I'm open to watching again or checking other sources but I'd stand by what I said as of right now.

I'm not sure that (if I'm reading you correctly) that Krause's tightness was an anchor that affected Pippen on court. I guess Krause pursuing Kukoc might have impacted the sit-down but I'm not sure Krause did anything wrong in pursuing Kukoc.

Don't want to get into morality weeds honestly. My larger point is there was a bunch odd off-court drama that wouldn't typically happen. If it's Pippen's decision, fine, but that doesn't change that there were external factors outside of Pippen that allowed that scenario(and Pippen's response) to happen in the first place.


Simply put, if Pippen is on another team, most of this probably doesn't happen anyway. If you are only interested in assessing Pippen's capacity as a team-leader on the 90's Bulls, cool. If not, then consider that the amount of off-court hostility present was unusual(at this point teams usually combust) and all of it is not going to show up in every single scenario Pippen could play in. IOW, 94/95 can be argued to be a low-end for what Pippen is capable of as the best player on a team. If it's plausible that such drama would not have occurred had he just been drafted by the first team that was planning to pick him or one of his siblings didn't experience life-long paralysis, then Pippen and the team he's leading potentially performs better in other situations

The Bulls best player was threatening to leave for consecutive seasons and went ahead and filed a trade request. The Bulls still did pretty well(58-win srs 1 year, 53-win srs with second best player leaving). Doing that well in such a scenario establishes a pretty high floor for a Pippen-led team(or at least Pippen with whatever amount of help he had in Chicago)

Okay well without wanting to go too into the weeds either

1) I'd stand by all I said regarding "replacement" and "exploitation". And I suppose that I'm not sure that the off court stuff was an anchor on it.

2) Bulls as the low end outcome seems very ... bullish (pun semi-intentional). First though, I'm very much not one of those "MJ made Pippen" guys. But the idea that this was the worst possible scenario ... maybe there's intended to be nuance because we're talking about one (or two, I'd read the slash as "the 94-95 season" but could be both) but I'd say it's all part of a package and the issues are created earlier. So unless this is specific to "we take Pippen's development as a given and then trade him immediately as MJ retires ..." which isn't a line of thinking that seems optimal to me...

Things that helped Scottie about the Bulls
1) The Bulls were invested in him. They gave him long contracts. They traded up to get him. They knew he was going to be around and they actively persued him.
1a) They were invested in him ... when others might not have been. Krause likes to make a big deal of discovering guys. They traded up so either their interest leaked or others were plausibly interested. That said the narrative story of Pippen emphasizes he started as equipment manager, didn't go to a big school, grew taller but even on draft night the announcer talk about how you might not have heard of Scot Pippen. It's somewhat possible that without Krause's interest he goes lower.
2) Krause was invested in him. See above. It suited him for one of his picks ... an unheralded one ... to be a star, especially given MJ wasn't "his".
3) Bulls weren't completely "win now". Krause dumped (distressed) assets for additional picks that became Pippen, King, Armstrong, (maybe one could add Oakley, where Bulls sent Whatley to get the pick they wanted). For the most part their moves suggested they saw their timeline as the team of the 90s (Ooakley out for Cartwright the obvious exception).

All the above could mean greater minutes and resource investment into developing Pippen. And he was not a finished product on arrival by any means.

3) Coaching: Don't claim to know the ins and outs of staff as development coaches. But I'd guess Jackson as part of the team and then his team (Winter, Bach) were pretty solid.
4) Fit: I'd be inclined to think Pippen looks worse if his early evaluation and effort is with him requiring more focus on offense and perception is guided by his capacity as an offensive "alpha" or similar.


It's super noisy. We're dealing with hypotheticals about human beings. I don't think there's one single, specific outcome even if we were to say Pippen lands on team X at this pick. And I'm avoiding the MJ "made" him stuff. I do think given the vast array of possible outcomes and my uncertainty that there was any great cost on court to the friction with the organization (and honestly the main incident ... ignoring a coach's instruction and sitting out when you don't get the play called for you ... is hard not to say was wrong, childish, on him etc ... it's one game, he was forgiven, they won ... it doesn't end up mattering but ... [and it's not like Kukoc wasn't a better shooter and hadn't taken and made clutch buzzer beaters earlier in the season - it shouldn't have been a a surprise]) ... it would just seem like a surprise to me is there weren't many worse situations where he doesn't pan out as well.

I'm not even on the Kawhi-Spurs thing where "he's so lucky to be with a good organization". These two were good players, not everyone developed as they did etc. But I don't really see a good argument for "low-end" (not really convinced it's low-side, if forced to guess based on some of the above [plus maybe some regression to the mean for stars in general, e.g. maybe they land on a cheap club with weak medical staff, or no one cares] I think I'd tilt higher side, granting significant uncertainty). At the margins too, there's an argument that his legacy and perception benefits substantially from being on the Bulls and that that is in play in how we perceive his peak and perceived it at the time. He's better and more aggressive but could could I see a scenario with (more offenisvely active) McKey comp being floated in some scenarios ... it doesn't seem that wild (as an opinion that could bet thrown out ... could be worse if his offense develops less well) - and if that were a perspective, he'd clearly be being viewed as a very different tier than he is or was after titles.

That's how it comes to me at the moment anyhow. Don't have time to develop/revise/edit further. This is otoh.