Let's re-imagine scottie pippen's career if he doesn't play with michael jordan

[falcolombardi]

You should also imagine what that Bulls team would look like without a high level group of battle tested, championship level, high IQ veteran role players who all knew their assignments within the system who also weren't highly motivated to prove themselves without Jordan. It would probably look like the 95 Bulls.

The 95 bulls were an above average team even after losing horace grant, their second best player in 94

Sure but they werent a championship caliber team

Never said they were

But that they lost jordan and could still be a low end contender, then lost their third best player and remained a good team shows how good pippen was and how solid those bulls teams krause built around jordan actually were

[Sark]

Pippen became great due to playing with Jordan, he even said so himself.

Source: GoogleBooks

Pippen, unlike other Bulls who usually kept their distance from Jordan, tried to learn all he could from Jordan in practice. In turn, Jordan worked with Pippen on his moves, jump shot, and defense and taught him mental toughness.

Pippen relates on how his game improved - Link

“He was very competitive, so he went at me and that helped me learn,” said Pippen. “You continue to compete against the very best every day, and you will get better, or you’ll be embarrassed.”

“I went to a small school, so I had to be a jack of all trades and master a few,” said Pippen. “Defense was one thing I was really able to work at and get better.

“A lot of my instincts came from guarding Michael all the time in practice,” he added. “I had four other guys on my team, but I had schemes that I would throw out there depending on what he did. I’d say, ‘If I make Michael do this, then you go trap him.’ There were things I tried to do on defense to trigger him into a
mistake. He was a great player, and if you couldn’t try it on him in practice, there was nowhere else to try it.”

Pippen realized himself that going against MJ is what made him better.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-krausejordan090909

“Michael was great at identifying things,” Krause said. “Would Pippen have been great someplace else? Michael absolutely killed Scottie in practice every day for his first two years. Mike just tore Pip up. He made Pip learn how to compete and forced him into playing hard. Had there not been someone to challenge Scottie like that, I’m not sure what would’ve happened to him.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_091030.html

Sam: I know there's that "he's a rookie thing," though I thought more with Rose was the way he drove and then was so quick he could avoid the contact. I think with him he was more accustomed to having just come out of playing in the Chicago playgrounds where you aren't going to get calls going to the basket. I remember watching Jordan not long after Pippen joined the Bulls showing Pippen how to drive and go into a defender and then finish your shot. Wade was a more mature player having gone to college several years, and Anthony played in the post and inside a lot. That's one area for Rose for improve. He's a quick study and I think you'll see him taking the hit since he's strong and can do it and drawing more calls this season.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_091023.html

Would you still consider pippen to be included on the 50 greatest players list? I know that he pioneered/changed the way that his position was played creating more of a point-forward spot, which paved the way for players like melo and lebron. But he never did accomplish anything by himself, and proved in Portland that he couldn't carry a team.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sam: You can't judge with Portland given he was well past his athletic prime and had lost basically all his explosiveness and was operating on guile. He was a much smarter player than ever given credit for, though many still question his top 50 inclusion. The notion is if not for Jordan, there would be no chance. And I tend to agree. If he were picked by the Clippers at No. 4 in that draft as he should have been, he would not have been a top 50 player because he couldn't create that much for himself. But he wasn't and he was the No. 2 part of six championships and was a multiple defensive player and gold medalist on the Dream Team. So he deserves the recognition and will be inducted into the Hall of Fame as a result. Most everyone who has succeeded has benefitted from good timing on occasion. Pippen did as well, but he also made the most of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/ask-sam-sam-smith-opens-his-mailbag-033012.html

Sam: I remember Jordan helping Pippen with this. In Pippen’s first several seasons, he rarely got calls on drives. Jordan used to show him — we were permitted to watch practice then — how to drive into contact and then react to the contact. Pippen used to practice it all the time with Jordan showing him.

I hate this type of anecdotical, that guy said type of thinking. Pippen was always going to be good because he was a freak athlete, and he could handle the ball at 6'7". Ask him now if he still thinks it that way.

There's a lot of freak athletes that never pan out.

How many Division II players become superstars? It took the right nurturing environment for Pippen to develop properly. There's no guarantee he gets that anywhere else.

[penbeast0]

There's a lot of freak athletes that never pan out.

How many Division II players become superstars? It took the right nurturing environment for Pippen to develop properly. There's no guarantee he gets that anywhere else.

That's the first time I've ever heard either Michael Jordan or Jerry Krause referred to as creating a "nurturing environment." Luckily for the Bulls and Pippen, he was the type of personality who thrived on competition and verbal abuse and turned out to be a good fit with Jordan and the team. Imagine how many championships they win if he turned out to be a freak athlete named Kwame Brown.

[Sark]

There's a lot of freak athletes that never pan out.

How many Division II players become superstars? It took the right nurturing environment for Pippen to develop properly. There's no guarantee he gets that anywhere else.

That's the first time I've ever heard either Michael Jordan or Jerry Krause referred to as creating a "nurturing environment." Luckily for the Bulls and Pippen, he was the type of personality who thrived on competition and verbal abuse and turned out to be a good fit with Jordan and the team. Imagine how many championships they win if he turned out to be a freak athlete named Kwame Brown.

It's tough love. I'd rather not argue over semantics.

Either way, the environment definitely helped him develop into what he became, and he has said so himself.

[homecourtloss]

You should also imagine what that Bulls team would look like without a high level group of battle tested, championship level, high IQ veteran role players who all knew their assignments within the system who also weren't highly motivated to prove themselves without Jordan. It would probably look like the 95 Bulls.

The 95 bulls were an above average team even after losing horace grant, their second best player in 94

Sure but they werent a championship caliber team

Both 1994 and 1995 Bulls are a championship contending team with even a slightly positive player replacing replacement level player Myers who played 2,000 minutes. Actually, the 1994 Chicago Bulls wear a championship contending team and out played in many ways the eventual runner-up that lost in seven games.

Not only that, Pippen and Horace Grant, the two best players on the 1994 Bulls missed more than 20 games and still they won 55 games.

And, by the way, a team with some role players who really want to prove themselves isn’t going to win 55 games even with the two best players missing 20+ games, and isn’t going to outplay in many ways the eventual runner-up team that lost in seven games just because they’re plucky, and want to prove everybody wrong, etc., unless we want to ignore all logic, all other evidence that points to these players actually being really good and Scottie Pippen having a fantastic season in 1994.

[Jaivl]

There's a lot of freak athletes that never pan out.

How many Division II players become superstars? It took the right nurturing environment for Pippen to develop properly. There's no guarantee he gets that anywhere else.

That's the first time I've ever heard either Michael Jordan or Jerry Krause referred to as creating a "nurturing environment." Luckily for the Bulls and Pippen, he was the type of personality who thrived on competition and verbal abuse and turned out to be a good fit with Jordan and the team. Imagine how many championships they win if he turned out to be a freak athlete named Kwame Brown.

It's tough love. I'd rather not argue over semantics.

Either way, the environment definitely helped him develop into what he became, and he has said so himself.

This applies to, LITERALLY, every human being in history, nevermind basketball player. Of course only Jordan gets credit for it.

[falcolombardi]

That's the first time I've ever heard either Michael Jordan or Jerry Krause referred to as creating a "nurturing environment." Luckily for the Bulls and Pippen, he was the type of personality who thrived on competition and verbal abuse and turned out to be a good fit with Jordan and the team. Imagine how many championships they win if he turned out to be a freak athlete named Kwame Brown.

It's tough love. I'd rather not argue over semantics.

Either way, the environment definitely helped him develop into what he became, and he has said so himself.

This applies to, LITERALLY, every human being in history, nevermind basketball player. Of course only Jordan gets credit for it.

Is also disrespectful to pippen to reduce him to "jordan made him" to prop up jordan as if mike needed it

Let pippen accomplishments be for pippen for gods sake

[AEnigma]

Ackshually I am pretty sure the league would have collapsed if Jordan did not save it, so every NBA player drafted after at least 1993 owes their career to Jordan too.

[Owly]

How many Division II players become superstars? It took the right nurturing environment for Pippen to develop properly. There's no guarantee he gets that anywhere else.

In assessing Pippen and the impact of someone on him ... as a pro ... this seems to be the wrong question.

DII reflects how he was thought of at circa 18. (In Pippen's case when he wasn't notably tall).
Draft position reflects how he was thought of at the point of entering the pros.

So if we're looking for pro environment and you're picking one of those as a baseline for what did the pro environment do for him (already a process fraught with danger) draft position (e.g. top 5/23rds of the first round) would seem clearly more appropriate and I struggle to think of a reason to favor the former.

[Stalwart]

The 95 bulls were an above average team even after losing horace grant, their second best player in 94

Sure but they werent a championship caliber team

Both 1994 and 1995 Bulls are a championship contending team with even a slightly positive player replacing replacement level player Myers who played 2,000 minutes. Actually, the 1994 Chicago Bulls wear a championship contending team and out played in many ways the eventual runner-up that lost in seven games.

Not only that, Pippen and Horace Grant, the two best players on the 1994 Bulls missed more than 20 games and still they won 55 games.

And, by the way, a team with some role players who really want to prove themselves isn’t going to win 55 games even with the two best players missing 20+ games, and isn’t going to outplay in many ways the eventual runner-up team that lost in seven games just because they’re plucky, and want to prove everybody wrong, etc., unless we want to ignore all logic, all other evidence that points to these players actually being really good and Scottie Pippen having a fantastic season in 1994.

Scottie Pippen had an excellent season in 94. But you said it yourself. Scottie and Horace missed 20 games and the team still won 55 games. That means he had a strong supporting cast. Something else to consider. Due to their desire to prove themselves apart from Jordan the 94 Bulls played every game like it was a playoff game.

[Stalwart]

There's a lot of freak athletes that never pan out.

How many Division II players become superstars? It took the right nurturing environment for Pippen to develop properly. There's no guarantee he gets that anywhere else.

That's the first time I've ever heard either Michael Jordan or Jerry Krause referred to as creating a "nurturing environment." Luckily for the Bulls and Pippen, he was the type of personality who thrived on competition and verbal abuse and turned out to be a good fit with Jordan and the team. Imagine how many championships they win if he turned out to be a freak athlete named Kwame Brown.

You know who else thrived in that environment? Horace Grant, John Paxson, BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Luc,Longley, Toni Kukoc, Dennis Rodman, Scott Williams, and pretty much every other player that played with Jordan from 87-98. All of these guys became the best versions of themselves and able to fill their roles playing in that "abusive" environment.

Something you guys might need to come to terms with is that Bulls Jordan is one of the greatest leaders in NBA history. Perhaps #1. Trying to paint him as a tyrant or a bad teammate conradicts what the teammates themselves.

By the time Jordan got to the Wizards his hardnosed leadership style was no longer as effective with younger players like Kwame Brown and Rip Hamilton. But during the Bulls years Jordan consistently got the most out of his teammates by simply holding them accountable. You were expected to do your job...or else lol.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Let me put Pippen in the 1986 draft and have the Celtics draft him instead of Len Bias.

Pippen wins a championship with the Celtics in 1988 and another championship in 1990.
Pippen is looking good.

[homecourtloss]

Sure but they werent a championship caliber team

Both 1994 and 1995 Bulls are a championship contending team with even a slightly positive player replacing replacement level player Myers who played 2,000 minutes. Actually, the 1994 Chicago Bulls wear a championship contending team and out played in many ways the eventual runner-up that lost in seven games.

Not only that, Pippen and Horace Grant, the two best players on the 1994 Bulls missed more than 20 games and still they won 55 games.

And, by the way, a team with some role players who really want to prove themselves isn’t going to win 55 games even with the two best players missing 20+ games, and isn’t going to outplay in many ways the eventual runner-up team that lost in seven games just because they’re plucky, and want to prove everybody wrong, etc., unless we want to ignore all logic, all other evidence that points to these players actually being really good and Scottie Pippen having a fantastic season in 1994.

Scottie Pippen had an excellent season in 94. But you said it yourself. Scottie and Horace missed 20 games and the team still won 55 games. That means he had a strong supporting cast. Something else to consider. Due to their desire to prove themselves apart from Jordan the 94 Bulls played every game like it was a playoff game.

By “he” here, you mean Jordan? Yes, Jordan had a really good supporting cast and played alongside a top 10 player every year from 1991 to 1998, sometimes a top 5 player, player who was good enough to make the Bulls a contender in a weak league.

[Stalwart]

Both 1994 and 1995 Bulls are a championship contending team with even a slightly positive player replacing replacement level player Myers who played 2,000 minutes. Actually, the 1994 Chicago Bulls wear a championship contending team and out played in many ways the eventual runner-up that lost in seven games.

Not only that, Pippen and Horace Grant, the two best players on the 1994 Bulls missed more than 20 games and still they won 55 games.

And, by the way, a team with some role players who really want to prove themselves isn’t going to win 55 games even with the two best players missing 20+ games, and isn’t going to outplay in many ways the eventual runner-up team that lost in seven games just because they’re plucky, and want to prove everybody wrong, etc., unless we want to ignore all logic, all other evidence that points to these players actually being really good and Scottie Pippen having a fantastic season in 1994.

Scottie Pippen had an excellent season in 94. But you said it yourself. Scottie and Horace missed 20 games and the team still won 55 games. That means he had a strong supporting cast. Something else to consider. Due to their desire to prove themselves apart from Jordan the 94 Bulls played every game like it was a playoff game.

By “he” here, you mean Jordan? Yes, Jordan had a really good supporting cast and played alongside a top 10 player every year from 1991 to 1998, sometimes a top 5 player, player who was good enough to make the Bulls a contender in a weak league.

Sure. But the reason those guys were such a strong supporting cast is due in large part to Jordan's leadership. Thats according to the players themselves. Jordan is a top 5 leader in NBA history.

[G35]

I think a decent comp to Scottie is Grant Hill.

Similar size, Grant was better offensively, Scottie better defensively...that's a simple explanation of their skillset but I think fair.

Grant was seen as a great player but I don't think he was ever top 5 in the league at any point, more top 10 at his best:

Shaq
Jordan
Karl Malone
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Iverson
Payton
Webber
Kemp
Kidd
McGrady
Vince

I think Grant is a best case scenario for Pippen (without the injuries) without the influence of Jordan. Scottie would have needed some offensive help and that would have diminished his perception.....

[AEnigma]

I think a decent comp to Scottie is Grant Hill.

Similar size, Grant was better offensively, Scottie better defensively...that's a simple explanation of their skillset but I think fair.

Grant was seen as a great player but I don't think he was ever top 5 in the league at any point, more top 10 at his best:

Shaq
Jordan
Karl Malone
Duncan
KG
Kobe
Iverson
Payton
Webber
Kemp
Kidd
McGrady
Vince

I think Grant is a best case scenario for Pippen (without the injuries) without the influence of Jordan. Scottie would have needed some offensive help and that would have diminished his perception.....

I agree with the comparison, but Grant’s prime was 1996-2000, and he was definitely better than all but the first five names on that list over that period (maybe can include Payton too, as well as the unlisted Mourning and Robinson). Peaked at third in MVP voting, mainstay on the all-NBA teams…

[homecourtloss]

Scottie Pippen had an excellent season in 94. But you said it yourself. Scottie and Horace missed 20 games and the team still won 55 games. That means he had a strong supporting cast. Something else to consider. Due to their desire to prove themselves apart from Jordan the 94 Bulls played every game like it was a playoff game.

By “he” here, you mean Jordan? Yes, Jordan had a really good supporting cast and played alongside a top 10 player every year from 1991 to 1998, sometimes a top 5 player, player who was good enough to make the Bulls a contender in a weak league.

Sure. But the reason those guys were such a strong supporting cast is due in large part to Jordan's leadership. Thats according to the players themselves. Jordan is a top 5 leader in NBA history.

Jordan could be a great leader AND his teammates were actually really good—these things aren’t mutually exclusive. No amount of “leadership” can get a team to 55 teams and pretty much in the same tier as the two finalists. Giving Jordan credit for the Bulls’ success without him even on the team stretches the bounds of even the Jordan Hagiographists’ theories.

[falcolombardi]

By “he” here, you mean Jordan? Yes, Jordan had a really good supporting cast and played alongside a top 10 player every year from 1991 to 1998, sometimes a top 5 player, player who was good enough to make the Bulls a contender in a weak league.

Sure. But the reason those guys were such a strong supporting cast is due in large part to Jordan's leadership. Thats according to the players themselves. Jordan is a top 5 leader in NBA history.

Jordan could be a great leader AND his teammates were actually really good—these things aren’t mutually exclusive. No amount of “leadership” can get a team to 55 teams and pretty much in the same tier as the two finalists. Giving Jordan credit for the Bulls’ success without him even on the team stretches the bounds of even the Jordan Hagiographists’ theories.

I hate to bring up lebron but tje contrast is insane lol

Lebron teams struggle after he leaves or is in the bench= he made them bad at basketball with his lebron-ball ballhogging

Jordan teams play like a borderline contender when he is on the bench (or not borderline at all) without him (still a big dowmgrade from dominant champion to just contender) = they were only that good because they learned from jordan, jordan portability and non ball dominancd is why his teams thrive...with him on the bench or playing baseball

If lebron left miami to retire after 2013 and they won 55 games and went to 7 againsr a contender the haters would never let him live it down lol

This is not to say that jordan lifting that really good cast into a dinasty has to be diminished, is just to show the double standards

[Sark]

The 95 bulls were an above average team even after losing horace grant, their second best player in 94

Sure but they werent a championship caliber team

Both 1994 and 1995 Bulls are a championship contending team with even a slightly positive player replacing replacement level player Myers who played 2,000 minutes. Actually, the 1994 Chicago Bulls wear a championship contending team and out played in many ways the eventual runner-up that lost in seven games.

Not only that, Pippen and Horace Grant, the two best players on the 1994 Bulls missed more than 20 games and still they won 55 games.

And, by the way, a team with some role players who really want to prove themselves isn’t going to win 55 games even with the two best players missing 20+ games, and isn’t going to outplay in many ways the eventual runner-up team that lost in seven games just because they’re plucky, and want to prove everybody wrong, etc., unless we want to ignore all logic, all other evidence that points to these players actually being really good and Scottie Pippen having a fantastic season in 1994.

94 Bulls were a 2.87 SRS team. They weren't nearly as good as you make them out to be. They massively overachieved in 94.

In 93 they were actually an underachieving team by winning 57 games, but that was due to Grant and Pippen having very down years. Jordan carried them to that 3rd ring.

[homecourtloss]

Sure but they werent a championship caliber team

Both 1994 and 1995 Bulls are a championship contending team with even a slightly positive player replacing replacement level player Myers who played 2,000 minutes. Actually, the 1994 Chicago Bulls wear a championship contending team and out played in many ways the eventual runner-up that lost in seven games.

Not only that, Pippen and Horace Grant, the two best players on the 1994 Bulls missed more than 20 games and still they won 55 games.

And, by the way, a team with some role players who really want to prove themselves isn’t going to win 55 games even with the two best players missing 20+ games, and isn’t going to outplay in many ways the eventual runner-up team that lost in seven games just because they’re plucky, and want to prove everybody wrong, etc., unless we want to ignore all logic, all other evidence that points to these players actually being really good and Scottie Pippen having a fantastic season in 1994.

94 Bulls were a 2.87 SRS team. They weren't nearly as good as you make them out to be. They massively overachieved in 94.

In 93 they were actually an underachieving team by winning 57 games, but that was due to Grant and Pippen having very down years. Jordan carried them to that 3rd ring.

I’m not making them out to be a great team, but they were a contender in 1994 as they outplayed the Knicks in many ways and were perhaps a questionable call from advancing to the ECF in another 50-50 matchup. They outplayed in many ways a team that lost on 7 in the finals. Yes, they weren’t a great team but they didn’t have to be with the weak competition. It outs into perspective what Jordan was facing.

Also, they got to 55 wins and were on par in many ways with the Knicks, Pacers, and Rockets WHILE playing a replacement level player, i.e., Myers, 2000+ minutes,

All of these things happened. Pippen was a top 10/top 5 player.

Imagine the Heat in 2015 or the Cavs in 2011 or 2019 winning 55 games and losing in a controversial 7 games to the eventual runner up.