If Pippen won in 1994 - Where does he rank alltime

[migya]

If the Bulls beat the Knicks in game 7 in 94, then beat Indiana and do the amazing and beat Olajuwon's Rockets in the finals, where does he then rank alltime? He probably ranks around 25-30 alltime by most.

[TheGOATRises007]

Depends on how he'd play.

This hypothetical seems fairly improbable though.

[GSP]

Too much of a hypothetical. Pippen aint that guy to be a title teams best player never was just too limited a player. Only reason Knicks didnt go up 3-0 and effectively end the series is b/c he was benched for the last possession and Kukoc hit the gamewinner

Pippen was AWFUL that series. Ewing was by far the best player on the floor on both ends. Ho Grant was the Bulls best player that series and Bj Armstrong arguably outplayed Pippen too.

[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.

[OhayoKD]

Too much of a hypothetical. Pippen aint that guy to be a title teams best player never was just too limited a player. Only reason Knicks didnt go up 3-0 and effectively end the series is b/c he was benched for the last possession and Kukoc hit the gamewinner

Pippen was AWFUL that series. Ewing was by far the best player on the floor on both ends. Ho Grant was the Bulls best player that series and Bj Armstrong arguably outplayed Pippen too.

The Bulls were a 58-win team at full-strength(thats about where the best david robinson led teams performed), got better in the playoffs(swept the 52-win srs, 47-win record cavs(net-rating and record both went up with their final playoff rotation)) and whatever happened in game 3(pippen and kukoc had a long-bewing beef that wouldn't really be replicable in most situations), pippen was easily the bulls best player for the season, for the series, and probably the best player on either team in game 7 where he basically nuetralized ewing(grant's rim protection was pretty bleh all game) for 3 quarters, and created a metric ton. Here's blockedbybam's tracking:

FOR PIPPEN GAME 7 1994
20 OPPURTUNITIES CREATED
4 great defensive plays
17 good defensive plays
7 defenisve breakdowns
5 fouls drawn
20 points on 19 shots
4 turnovers
Think its fair to say scottie pippen was easily the best player in this game
Incidentally bulls never recovered from the knicks turning a 4 point defecit into a 4 point lead in the few minuites pippen was rested at the end of the third quarter
did the brunt of the ball handling
Was probably the bulls best rim protector as well as best perimiter defender

Having watched this myself I feel some of the creations are generous and after discourse she started differentiating between creation quality(the previous standard was simply "draws extra defensive attention to create a look"). Nonetheless, it was a fantastic performance in spite of meh scoring and one could very easily argue that ewing getting going when scottie was rested is what decided the series.

We don't say Lebron was too soft to win as a first option because he had a meltdown in the nba finals. We don't call kareem a fraud when he literally derailed an entire season for the bucks breaking his hand and we also don't say Jordan was too soft to win because he actively helped set back a franchise when he left chicago.

If we're going to avoid referendums on those players when they've **** up entire series and seasons with their mental follicles, why would we do the same to scottie over a possession?

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...).

Even with his best(non-jordan) teammate gone the bulls were still pretty good.

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.

[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.

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.

*team results over a small sample without context

[SilentA]

At the SF position (for those who care about that), it seems to almost be universally 1. Lebron, 2. Bird.

From there, I think it tends to be 3. Dr J, 4. Kevin Durant, and 5. Scottie Pippen in that order. But the gap is closer, particularly between Dr J and KD, whereas Lebron is clear #1 and Bird being clear #2 without much dispute (excluding cultural impact of Dr J, so just on court impact and postseason success).

In the scenario being described, I think Scottie has a chance of being in the same tier as Dr J or Durant in more people's eyes to be #4. #3 could be tougher, depending on the person's criteria, but maybe you could make a case. But I don't see him reaching Bird.

For those who do NOT care about positions, I guess there's the more predictable answer of "he moves up a few places but it depends a lot on criteria and where he ranked to begin with for that person, could be anywhere between 20-30 range to just within top 50" etc. etc.

FWIW I think Blazers 2000 championship for older Pippen is more likely than 94 Bulls but still not impossible.

[Owly]

My first glance notes

1) The lead ... always the lead for this question ... how does his play change ... if it's not any different then he should stay where he is.

2) He's hard to measure because the majority of his value is on the harder to gauge end ... moreso because prime is mostly outside the play-by-play databall era.

3) I don't think Pippen was of the quality of the typical best player on a champ otoh. That isn't to say he couldn't be that defense makes things fuzzy etc.

4) I don't think a Bulls title is too wild (if taking their general performance versus the Knicks as a given). If they do take out the Knicks (whom they do outscore) the two teams with an SRS any significant distance above 5 (Sonics, Knicks) are gone. Not that the Bulls are by any means great but the door is now wide open for some seemingly unexceptional team.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

There's no way Pippen would've matched peak Hakeem blow for blow in the NBA Finals that year.

[Owly]

There's no way Pippen would've matched peak Hakeem blow for blow in the NBA Finals that year.

I'm not quite sure what that means, or what we are supposed to infer from it.

In any case, the question isn't regarding regarding Pippen outplaying(?) Olajuwon. It's about the (changes in) perception of Pippen in the first instance and secondarily, indirectly, the probability of the Bulls winning the title (as expressed by OP via Indiana and Houston).

Fwiw, "no way" seems quite absolute, especially regarding something so small sampled as single players over a single series.

[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.

[OhayoKD]

There's no way Pippen would've matched peak Hakeem blow for blow in the NBA Finals that year.

It's not like Ewing did either, but the knicks still came extremely close

[VanWest82]

It’d be huge for him but given what we know about Pippen it just seems like a bridge too far. His biggest weaknesses were mental as a leader in high pressure situations and operating as a #1 option (or even as #2 option). We saw him come up small too many times for it to be an accident or coincidence, and I’ll go to my grave believing that had Pippen been drafted into a different situation where he was expected to be the man earlier in his career that he’d have been badly exposed.

[magicman1978]

It would probably vault him into the top 20. I think the only other team in the 3pt era with a sub 3 SRS to win a championship was the Rockets in 95 and they were a different team after the Drexler trade. So Pippen leading the Bulls to a championship in 94 after losing Jordan would have been seen as one of the greatest accomplishments in the modern era and would lead people to question if Pippen was equally as important to Jordan.

[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.

[Cavsfansince84]

At the SF position (for those who care about that), it seems to almost be universally 1. Lebron, 2. Bird.

From there, I think it tends to be 3. Dr J, 4. Kevin Durant, and 5. Scottie Pippen in that order. But the gap is closer, particularly between Dr J and KD, whereas Lebron is clear #1 and Bird being clear #2 without much dispute (excluding cultural impact of Dr J, so just on court impact and postseason success).

In the scenario being described, I think Scottie has a chance of being in the same tier as Dr J or Durant in more people's eyes to be #4. #3 could be tougher, depending on the person's criteria, but maybe you could make a case. But I don't see him reaching Bird.

For those who do NOT care about positions, I guess there's the more predictable answer of "he moves up a few places but it depends a lot on criteria and where he ranked to begin with for that person, could be anywhere between 20-30 range to just within top 50" etc. etc.

FWIW I think Blazers 2000 championship for older Pippen is more likely than 94 Bulls but still not impossible.

I think there is a case to have him at #5 on the sf list but I don't see it as anywhere close to being a consensus. I have Hondo ahead(somewhat easily) and Baylor and Barry also have cases(as may Kawhi either now or soon). I think if he had won in 94 he's more comfortably at that 5 sport and probably widely seen as top 25-30. Personally I think a lot of people who grew up in that Bulls era over rate him compared to other sf's.

[OhayoKD]

At the SF position (for those who care about that), it seems to almost be universally 1. Lebron, 2. Bird.

From there, I think it tends to be 3. Dr J, 4. Kevin Durant, and 5. Scottie Pippen in that order. But the gap is closer, particularly between Dr J and KD, whereas Lebron is clear #1 and Bird being clear #2 without much dispute (excluding cultural impact of Dr J, so just on court impact and postseason success).

In the scenario being described, I think Scottie has a chance of being in the same tier as Dr J or Durant in more people's eyes to be #4. #3 could be tougher, depending on the person's criteria, but maybe you could make a case. But I don't see him reaching Bird.

For those who do NOT care about positions, I guess there's the more predictable answer of "he moves up a few places but it depends a lot on criteria and where he ranked to begin with for that person, could be anywhere between 20-30 range to just within top 50" etc. etc.

FWIW I think Blazers 2000 championship for older Pippen is more likely than 94 Bulls but still not impossible.

I think there is a case to have him at #5 on the sf list but I don't see it as anywhere close to being a consensus. I have Hondo ahead(somewhat easily) and Baylor and Barry also have cases(as may Kawhi either now or soon). I think if he had won in 94 he's more comfortably at that 5 sport and probably widely seen as top 25-30. Personally I think a lot of people who grew up in that Bulls era over rate him compared to other sf's.

Do they? From what I've seen, it's common to assume the 1994 Bulls were a fake 55 win team that just tried hard in the regular season(in fact they didn't go all out in the regular season, were 58-win at full-strength, and improved in the playoffs) and then they use 1995 as proof 1994 was a fluke(grant leaving and the pippen/krause beef is overlooked). It also seems common to take Pippen's regular season production from 1990 without realizing that his production and his responsibility skyrocketed in the ensuing postseason.

If Pippen is being overrated rather than underrated, what misconception is causing that?

[OhayoKD]

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

[Cavsfansince84]

Do they? From what I've seen, it's common to assume the 1994 Bulls were a fake 55 win team that just tried hard in the regular season(in fact they didn't go all out in the regular season, were 58-win at full-strength, and improved in the playoffs) and then they use 1995 as proof 1994 was a fluke(grant leaving and the pippen/krause beef is overlooked). It also seems common to take Pippen's regular season production from 1990 without realizing that his production and his responsibility skyrocketed in the ensuing postseason.

If Pippen is being overrated rather than underrated, what misconception is causing that?

I'd say he is. Its pretty common to see people put him as high as top 20-25 for quite a while. Of course some people minimize him(who are likely MJ homers) but I think people have a hard time figuring out how much credit he deserves. I just think he isn't really cut out to be the de facto leader/#1 on a team and sort of got into a very favorable position to be seen that way in 94/95.

[OhayoKD]

Do they? From what I've seen, it's common to assume the 1994 Bulls were a fake 55 win team that just tried hard in the regular season(in fact they didn't go all out in the regular season, were 58-win at full-strength, and improved in the playoffs) and then they use 1995 as proof 1994 was a fluke(grant leaving and the pippen/krause beef is overlooked). It also seems common to take Pippen's regular season production from 1990 without realizing that his production and his responsibility skyrocketed in the ensuing postseason.

If Pippen is being overrated rather than underrated, what misconception is causing that?

I'd say he is. Its pretty common to see people put him as high as top 20-25 for quite a while. Of course some people minimize him(who are likely MJ homers) but I think people have a hard time figuring out how much credit he deserves. I just think he isn't really cut out to be the de facto leader/#1 on a team and sort of got into a very favorable position to be seen that way in 94/95.

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?