If Pippen won in 1994 - Where does he rank alltime

[OhayoKD]

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.

I'm not concerned with why or how Pippen became the player he is and I'm not sure why we're getting into that. I'm concerned with Pippen the player and how he would do on different teams. The point wasn't "well if we replace pippen with this other version of pippen he'd be better". Take Pippen, as he was, and then answer these two questions:

1. Would Pippen as the no.1 going to have trade-request inducing beef with the fo and his "help" on every single team he played on every single year?
2. Does a team's best player actively beefing with management help or hurt team performance. Does a team's best player filing a trade request help or hurt team performance?

If the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is yes, then 94/95 does not demonstrate the full capacity of what Pippen could do as a no.1. And if Pippen was not at full capacity in Chicago and Chicago still played 58-win ball with their best two players and 53-win ball without their second best player.

"How would he develop" isn't really relevant

[OhayoKD]

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.

I'm not concerned with why or how Pippen became the player he is and I'm not sure why we're getting into that. I'm concerned with Pippen the player and how he would do on different teams. The point wasn't "well if we replace pippen with this other version of pippen he'd be better". Take Pippen, as he was, and then answer these two questions:

1. Would Pippen as the no.1 going to have trade-request inducing beef with the fo and his "help" on every single team he played on every single year?
2. Does a team's best player actively beefing with management help or hurt team performance. Does a team's best player filing a trade request help or hurt team performance?

If the answer to 1 is no and the answer to 2 is yes, then 94/95 does not demonstrate the full capacity of what Pippen could do as a no.1. And if Pippen was not at full capacity in Chicago and Chicago still played 58-win ball with their best two players and 53-win ball without their second best player.

"How would he develop" isn't really relevant

[Owly]

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.

I'm not concerned with why or how Pippen became the player he is and I'm not sure why we're getting into that. I'm concerned with Pippen the player and how he would do on different teams. The point wasn't "well if we replace pippen with this other version of pippen he'd be better". Take Pippen, as he was

The question is "as he was" ... when?

You seem to think, if I've understood correctly that the Krause relationship was an "anchor", that made the Bulls team a "low-end" place for Pippen to be at his apex ...

I haven't seen much evidence that the relationship harmed the Bulls on court at that time and think that the "problems" (Bulls are willing to play hardball/cheap/whatever you want to call it, Scottie chose to lock in, Krause likes Kukoc) were in place before 94-95 and that being on the Bulls affects his development (in whatever direction) at least somewhat and that alters what that peak would be (note I granted that this could be "what if traded when MJ first retires" - but that divorces the reality of the Bulls role in developing him and having him secure on those contracts [with the issues that entails for Pippen] with what he becomes).

fwiw ...
Not sure I follow 1) but is if it's does he issue trade demands on all teams ... it depends on circumstances but no, not on all teams.
On 2 ... that depends on professionalism, context etc. The second three-peat saw a team that might have been the most dominant of all-time and Krause was still self-aggrandizing, Pippen and Jordan still disliked him. Jordan perhaps particularly demeaning, mean-spirited ... and there's little evidence it mattered. Jackson - with his own healthy ego and a relationship with Krause that was growing strained - was able to foster a team-unit identity within the core day to day basketball team. Even though though there were reports Pippen wasn't talking to Rodman (maybe both MJ and Pippen ... don't recall perfectly and seems hard to buy as literally true, but has been said/written). I would expect that to do harm but there isn't any evidence of it so...

[giordunk]

I know it's all hypothetical but if you just base on how when Dirk won his ring a lot of people had him over Barkley/Malone etc., I think Pippen winning one would have put him in that echelon. The narrative would also change that Michael Jordan isn't as dominant as we think he was because Pippen was able to win one by himself.

Pippen might have ended up around top 15-20? Then later gets bumped down two spots by Steph and KD.

[OhayoKD]

I know it's all hypothetical but if you just base on how when Dirk won his ring a lot of people had him over Barkley/Malone etc., I think Pippen winning one would have put him in that echelon. The narrative would also change that Michael Jordan isn't as dominant as we think he was because Pippen was able to win one by himself.

Pippen might have ended up around top 15-20? Then later gets bumped down two spots by Steph and KD.

is KD actually bumping Pippen in this scenario? Durant has "couldn't win with steph" tied to his championships while Pippen would both have more championships and one without his steph equivalent

[Cavsfansince84]

I know it's all hypothetical but if you just base on how when Dirk won his ring a lot of people had him over Barkley/Malone etc., I think Pippen winning one would have put him in that echelon. The narrative would also change that Michael Jordan isn't as dominant as we think he was because Pippen was able to win one by himself.

Pippen might have ended up around top 15-20? Then later gets bumped down two spots by Steph and KD.

is KD actually bumping Pippen in this scenario? Durant has "couldn't win with steph" tied to his championships while Pippen would both have more championships and one without his steph equivalent

I don't really get people being this high on Pippen. Just for argument's sake, if Pippen hadn't won any rings but everything else is basically the same(say he has a few conf finals under his belt), where would you rank him? I feel like you are sort of saying that Pippen and KD's careers are the same but Pippen having the 94 title puts him above KD.

[penbeast0]

Conversely, if Pippen won titles in both the years Jordan was off playing at baseball, would people still rank Jordan as high?

Titles matter, multiple titles even more so since you can't make the fluke argument as easily. You have to figure out how a team became the best team in the league considering its personnel. It's one reason I had to reevaluate my opinion on Kobe after he won twice with Gasol/Odom etc. His teams performed better than my evaluation suggested they should.

[OhayoKD]

is KD actually bumping Pippen in this scenario? Durant has "couldn't win with steph" tied to his championships while Pippen would both have more championships and one without his steph equivalent

I don't really get people being this high on Pippen.

Well in this case I'm talking about general perception. 5 rings + 1 ring as the clear best player/leader(there are those who default to the latter label so they can mantain steph was outplayed on the court) would be worth alot. Curry went from being seen as worse or tied with durant after 2019 to being "the bus driver" for all his championship after his 2022 win and being etched above. Now imagine the affect when you have a pos-hoc boost for 6 championshps.



That said, you haven't really offered much to support your scottie skepticism besides assuming he doesn't score enough to be the leader of a championship calibre team(based on???), saying that pippen didnt have the mental makeup to be a leader(definitely would apply to durant), and he was the beneficary of a good system(as was kd to a higher degree).

You seem to arbitrary weigh different attributes against each other(2007's lebron's offensive load > 86 hakeem's defense because...) and then arrive at a conclusion with those judgements. But if the components are weighed differently than the conclusion changes as well, and as of now, there's no real concrete basis to your weightings(historical precedent, trends, impact, team success?). You can't really assess how performance contributes to results concretely when you exclude winning entirely. The goal is to win. Pippen winning instead of losing changes things and while you can conjure up some hypothetical where Pippen doesn't change at all, realistically, there's a good chance Pippen would be involved in that team-level improvement.

Just for argument's sake, if Pippen hadn't won any rings but everything else is basically the same(say he has a few conf finals under his belt), where would you rank him? I feel like you are sort of saying that Pippen and KD's careers are the same but Pippen having the 94 title puts him above KD.

[/quote]
It would depend on the specifics of those runs, the cast, the regular season, and his performances. I don't really have any problems with ranking harden and nash over kd even though they didn't make the finals(yes, yes harden made the final as a 6th man, no i dont care). But in this hypothetical, Pippen would have won a ring with less help than Durant has had as well as contributed signficantly to 5 others. On what basis would you be considering Durant a different calibre of player?

[Cavsfansince84]

It would depend on the specifics of those runs, the cast, the regular season, and his performances. I don't really have any problems with ranking harden and nash over kd even though they didn't make the finals(yes, yes harden made the final as a 6th man, no i dont care). But in this hypothetical, Pippen would have won a ring with less help than Durant has had as well as contributed signficantly to 5 others. On what basis would you be considering Durant a different calibre of player?

Just as an all around player and obviously as one of the most talented scorers of all time. I mean Pippen was one of the better players in his league for about 6-7 years(probably top 5 like twice) while KD was probably a top 3 player in his league around 5-6 times and top 5 another 5. I don't think they are close to being on level ground if you take the playoffs out of this and even including the playoffs I don't think you could say Pippen was known as a guy who elevated his play that much.

[OhayoKD]

It would depend on the specifics of those runs, the cast, the regular season, and his performances. I don't really have any problems with ranking harden and nash over kd even though they didn't make the finals(yes, yes harden made the final as a 6th man, no i dont care). But in this hypothetical, Pippen would have won a ring with less help than Durant has had as well as contributed signficantly to 5 others. On what basis would you be considering Durant a different calibre of player?

Just as an all around player and obviously as one of the most talented scorers of all time.

Pippen is a much better ball-handler, passer, man defender, help defender, and rim-protector. Durant is the less "well rounded one". So we're back to you weighing kd's scoring advantage vs everything else. How exactly would you be deciding that Durant's scoring is worth more than Pippen's "everything else" when its Pippen who wins without a superteam in 94 and wins 6 other rings with less help than Durant had at Golden State

I mean Pippen was one of the better players in his league for about 6-7 years(probably top 5 like twice) while KD was probably a top 3 player in his league around 5-6 times and top 5 another 5.

Again, based on what? Why would you assume Pippen to be top 5 less frequently of he can win a title with less help than durant needed? These weightings are arbitrary.

if you take the playoffs out of this and even including the playoffs I don't think you could say Pippen was known as a guy who elevated his play that much.

[/quote]
Hs production(and role generally) elevated a bunch in 90 and 91. His teams were playoff-risers and that happened in 94(without Jordan) as well. KD's a playoff-faller whose teams tend to underperform. And in this hypothetical where Pippen has just led the 94 Bulls to a championship, I'm not seeing what KD's argument as a comparable postseason performer would be.

[Cavsfansince84]

Again, based on what? Why would you assume Pippen to be top 5 less frequently of he can win a title with less help than durant needed? These weightings are arbitrary.

Most every metric known to bb for one. If you know of any that rate Pippen higher you are welcome to share them here. Of course we can say that Pippen did more things well outside of scoring but otoh when I say all around I am combining everything and as I said, I don't see Pippen as being that strong of a playoff performer. I think you are just really high on Pippen as a player which is your right but I don't see him the same way. I think we are conflating the possibility of Pippen winning a title in 94 with what actually happened that year as well.

[OhayoKD]

Again, based on what? Why would you assume Pippen to be top 5 less frequently of he can win a title with less help than durant needed? These weightings are arbitrary.

Most every metric known to bb for one.

Be specific. What metrics. Would they be the ones that rate peak Durant's defense as similar to peak Pippen because they evaluate defense on the basis of blocks and steals and award more credit to non-bigs than bigs when they make a block? The metrics that have no input for when a player directs the offense and the defense. deters a defender allowing his teammate to collect a block, or the ability to differentiate between creation quality.(kd averaged as many assists as steph in 2017 so i guess he's a similar playmaker?) BPM and the like would favor Durant yes. Those stats are also under the impression Durant is a similar calibre of defender, and crucially, are inflated relative to his discernable "influence" on winning. Durant consistently underperforms is box-stuff with on/off, rapm, pipm, and the like. When we do wowy-esque or indirect analysis Durant doesn't really look nearly as special.

If you know of any that rate Pippen higher you are welcome to share them here

I just offered you one. OKC without Durant played 48-win basketball at full-strength and by all indicators plus-minus, adjusted, box, or otherwise, Westbrook elevated in the playoffs but KD failed to capitalize. Base Pippen led a contender without his best teammate, had them playing 53-win ball without his best two teammates, and was generally a playoff riser. His production was similar from the 90 postseason to 96 and with substantial wowy from the second three-peat we see him turning a mid-50 win contender into a 65-win all-timer(which aligns with the Bulls skyrocketing in 90 as he was given the keys to Mike's offense), which matches what Durant did with the thunder in the regular season for 2016 (except there was a postseason drop-off cancelling out westbrook's elevation).

2014 gives KD a 1-year regular season edge, but there's no reason to assume a big-gap unless you're also willing to commit to takes like "KD was the best player on the Warriors" and "KD ~ Pippen on defense"

This version of Pippen we're discussing would have actually won a title beating a 61-win team en route before toppling Hakeem's rockets(who played at 65-win pace in the 94 and 95 playoffs). And he would have done so without an equivalent to playoff westbrook with weaker support than Durant had when he was not-winning on the Thunder(or going 4-5 vs the healthy Rockets with a team that could 65+ win basketball without him). By "winning", that would easily be the best playoff run either has had. Citing PER and BPM would look rather silly.

I think you are just really high on Pippen as a player which is your right but I don't see him the same way. I think we are conflating the possibility of Pippen winning a title in 94 with what actually happened that year as well.

In this case I'm dealing with hypothetical Pippen who won a title without Jordan who you don't seem to think should be ranked higher even though he would have managed, with one-real shot, to do what Durant has never managed despite having the best help of any superstar ever.

[Cavsfansince84]

Be specific. What metrics. Would they be the ones that rate peak Durant's defense as similar to peak Pippen because they evaluate defense on the basis of blocks and steals and award more credit to non-bigs than bigs when they make a block? The metrics that have no input for when a player directs the offense and the defense. deters a defender allowing his teammate to collect a block, or the ability to differentiate between creation quality.(kd averaged as many assists as steph in 2017 so i guess he's a similar playmaker?) BPM and the like would favor Durant yes.

I'm well aware that many metrics won't weigh defense properly. Which is why I was literally asking you to provide any out there which would say that prime Pippen was roughly equal to the player that prime KD was. Part of this is based on eye test as well. Do I think if I built a team around Pippen without the triangle and without Phil it would have similar or better results than if I did around KD? I'd say no. I think KD is better and has better longevity. Even if we judge them as #2's(which Pippen's game is probably better suited for) KD's teams had similar if not better results and many would argue he was co #1 on those teams.

[OhayoKD]

Be specific. What metrics. Would they be the ones that rate peak Durant's defense as similar to peak Pippen because they evaluate defense on the basis of blocks and steals and award more credit to non-bigs than bigs when they make a block? The metrics that have no input for when a player directs the offense and the defense. deters a defender allowing his teammate to collect a block, or the ability to differentiate between creation quality.(kd averaged as many assists as steph in 2017 so i guess he's a similar playmaker?) BPM and the like would favor Durant yes.

I'm well aware that many metrics won't weigh defense properly. Which is why I was literally asking you to provide any out there which would say that prime Pippen was roughly equal to the player that prime KD was.

DId you stop reading at the end of the section you quoted?

Part of this is based on eye test as well.

That's not a basis, that's a method of deriving a basis, and we get back to "i am going to weigh x over y because..."

Do I think if I built a team around Pippen without the triangle and without Phil it would have similar or better results than if I did around KD? I'd say no. I think KD is better and has better longevity. Even if we judge them as #2's(which Pippen's game is probably better suited for)

Again, why. KD runs into problems when he is anything but a tertiary ball-handler/passer(and his scoring tends to fall off as well), and he is entirely incapable of functioning as a defensive anchor. Why do you think it's easier to find Durant an elite playmaker/ball-handler, a secondary piece also capable of solid playmaking and ball-handling, and a defensive centerpiece than it would be to pair Pippen with an elite scorer.

KD's teams had similar if not better results and many would argue he was co #1 on those teams.

What teams? I offered specific examples when I broke down the team stuff, so I'd appreciate you spelling out what you(or many) would argue based on.

[Cavsfansince84]

What teams? I offered specific examples when I broke down the team stuff, so I'd appreciate you spelling out what you(or many) would argue based on.

2017-2019. The metrics you cited seem more like team win totals. I'd also say that I see both as somewhat weak leaders. It's also hard to me to give Pippen too much credit for the one year he have from him in that role. Taking over a team that had just won 3 straight titles and was already working like a well oiled machine at the time Pippen moves from the #2 slot to the #1.

[OhayoKD]

What teams? I offered specific examples when I broke down the team stuff, so I'd appreciate you spelling out what you(or many) would argue based on.

2017-2019.

So when KD had more help(that would include the teams with Jordan on them), one more year, and then went 4-5 against the Rockets in the next two with an overwhelming talent advantage? Calling him a co-#1 is nothing short of disingenuous there. Even if you thought he was steph's peer(though it's odd how much better they did without kd than steph), what matters here is the quality of the overall cast, not the distribution.

The metrics you cited seem more like team win totals.

What do you mean "Like". It wasn't that many words. You can be precise with how you represent things.(or better yet, respond to the specific points?) Cast performance without a star and with a star offers the largest per-game sample, and is all-inclusive. Seems liek a much better starting place to me than "kd is comparable to pippen defensively cause blocks and steals!".

I'd also say that I see both as somewhat weak leaders. It's also hard to me to give Pippen too much credit for the one year he have from him in that role. Taking over a team that had just won 3 straight titles and was already working like a well oiled machine at the time Pippen moves from the #2 slot to the #1.

Are you under the impression that the Warriors were not a well-oiled machine when KD joined? The Bulls became a well-oiled machine with the triangle AND Pippen orchestrating the offense and defense. As it is Pippen started 94 not playing at his natural position because the Bulls sucked at shooting guard. KD walked into a 73-win team replacing harrison barnes.

[Cavsfansince84]

Are you under the impression that the Warriors were not a well-oiled machine when KD joined? The Bulls became a well-oiled machine with the triangle AND Pippen orchestrating the offense and defense. As it is Pippen started 94 not playing at his natural position because the Bulls sucked at shooting guard. KD walked into a 73-win team replacing harrison barnes.

The main difference being KD wasn't thought of as the #1 on the 17-19 teams while Pippen was on the 94 team. You didn't really answer my question if the adjusted win totals were the metric you were referring to. I think the general tone you use in some of these discussions doesn't really lend itself well to people wanting to continue them. I guess your take is that Pippen in his prime was roughly equal to KD in his prime. Then you seem surprised that I am not in agreement with it after I said I think KD was a top 3 player in his league with an argument for #1 in 2014 and Pippen never really came close to those heights in his own league. That's my view. You can say the onus is on me to use metrics or **** tons of data to back all this up but it's just not worth it to me. If you want to see them as equals I'm willing to just let it go right there.

[OhayoKD]

Are you under the impression that the Warriors were not a well-oiled machine when KD joined? The Bulls became a well-oiled machine with the triangle AND Pippen orchestrating the offense and defense. As it is Pippen started 94 not playing at his natural position because the Bulls sucked at shooting guard. KD walked into a 73-win team replacing harrison barnes.

The main difference being KD wasn't thought of as the #1 on the 17-19 teams while Pippen was on the 94 team. You didn't really answer my question if the adjusted win totals were the metric you were referring to.

Yes, though there was some attempt at applying context and noting where things had been replicated

I think the general tone you use in some of these discussions doesn't really lend itself well to people wanting to continue them.

And do you think ignoring half of what someone says every post while not responding to the specifics may contribute to that "tone"? Why did you ask for evidence I already offered without addressing or acknowledging what had been offered? If you're going to repeat yourself and pretend the other person doesn't exist, discourse is not going to be productive.

[Cavsfansince84]

And do you think ignoring half of what someone says every post while not responding to the specifics may contribute to that "tone"? Why did you ask for evidence I already offered without addressing or acknowledging what had been offered? If you're going to repeat yourself and pretend the other person doesn't exist, discourse is not going to be productive.

Because I don't feel like I'm required to reply to every single thing someone writes in a reply. Adjusted win totals I don't really see as a valid metric for comparing two players in their prime. I mean from my pov if you are going to argue that Pippen and KD are roughly equal players in their primes the overwhelming onus has to be on you here because 99.9% of bb fans are going to say KD is better. As someone who saw both of them for their entire careers I don't see much of any argument for Pippen either. Maybe he's the better #2.

[OhayoKD]

And do you think ignoring half of what someone says every post while not responding to the specifics may contribute to that "tone"? Why did you ask for evidence I already offered without addressing or acknowledging what had been offered? If you're going to repeat yourself and pretend the other person doesn't exist, discourse is not going to be productive.

Because I don't feel like I'm required to reply to every single thing someone writes in a reply.

If you ask for something that was already provided, then yeah, you not being bothered to read a paragraph-worth is an issue.

If you are going to bring up something that's already been addressed or covered then ignoring what was said or covered is bad form.

This is the third time you've repeated "watching them play" when my second post(in response to asking you asking why people think so highly of pippen) explained that just "watching them play" or "weghing attributes" arbitrarily(aka, no basis to the weights) doesn't actually lead anywhere. You brought up 17-19 ignoring when I used 17-19 as support. You just turned "why are you asking for stuff that was already provided" into "why dont you respond to every point".

You don't have to respond to anything, but if you are going to respond on something, then you being expected to acknowledge what the other person said is fair.

Adjusted win totals I don't really see as a valid metric for comparing two players in their prime.

Why? And maybe this time you can address the rationale offered for using "adjusted win-totals" instead of pretending that wasn't presented.

I mean from my pov if you are going to argue that Pippen and KD are roughly equal players in their primes the overwhelming onus has to be on you here

[/quote]
And a basis was offered. But instead of reading and responding you acted like nothing had been provided, misrepresented what was offered, and then complained about my tone. If you're not going to read what people say, why reply in the first place?