The amount of help Jordan got from Pippen Offensively

[bledredwine]

Year 2003
Tim Duncan
24.2 PPG 17 RPG 5.3 APG 1 SPG 5.3 BPG GmSC 24.1

Next best player was David Robinson, at 11.9.

12.2 difference for the 2nd best player on the team.

That would be the 2nd best difference in MJ's career.

Shal I continue? Oh my. How difficult it is to find other players with comparable finals to MJ.

lol cherry picking one finals to make a point, seriously?

Duncan played a weak Nets team... probably the weakest finals team other than AI's 76ers. The highest on the other team was Kidd with 14! Compare that to Magic Barkley etc... We all know Duncan's had plenty of help, and guess what? The game scores reflect it.

2006 SPURS

Duncan 15.9
Manu 14.1

Chauncey 17.3

2007
Parker 16.2
Duncan 15.3

2014
Kawhi 16.8
Duncan 12.9
Parker 11.9

Seems accurate to me!

Shall I continue?

Well done speaking of Shaq's 3 with a young Kobe, in which everyone knew Shaq was Jordan-esque dominant and carrying that team. Still, Kobe (exception first one) played better than Pippen and had higher Gamescores as well. And yes, rule changes took place in 1999

I see a lot of discounting of game score, but the order of these players sure seems consistent to me.

[Galloisdaman]

Of course a team is much better with Jordan and without Jordan,no ring in the 1990s for the bulls but losing Grant and not have Rodman was a huge reason why they lost against the Magic in 1995.Their defense was not good and Shaq had 6-7 offensive rebounds per game in this series.

If Grant was so great and his loss was the reason they only had 34 wins then they should not have gone 13-4 just by adding Jordan.

No 1 guy will win alone but Jordan was not 100% Jordan when he came back. He was not in nearly as great shape. Nick Anderson never does that to a in 100% sharp in shape Jordan. If Jordan was Jordan they would be fine with any rebounder. It would not have to be Grant or Rodman. Grant was not much more than a solid starter. He was never really an all star player (I know he got in once). Rodman only averaged around 55 starts a year as a Bull. Rodman averaged double digit rebounds but his defense was not great as a Bull (or a Spur) and he only averaged 5ppg. Trying to frame any of the Bulls championships around 34-36 year old Rodman is like saying Cleveland couldn't have won without Tristan Thomson.

Jordan had 31 PPG in the series against Orlando and overall their offense had been great in this series…With Grant or Rodman,I don't think that Shaq would dominate on the offensive rebounds like that.Shaq had only 14 offensive rebounds vs Bulls in 1996 and 38 in 6 games in 1995!

The bulls had 44.4% in offensive rebounds in 4 games in 1996 against the Magic!

And no,I don't think the cavs would won against the warriors without Thompson in 2016...He was the 3rd best player on this team in this finals...Still not good as Grant or Rodman was for the Bulls.

You should probably go look at the Bulls vs Utah finals again.

Rodman 2ppg 7rpg in 1997 and 3ppg 8rpg in 1998 was not a large factor.

[Joao Saraiva]

Year 2003
Tim Duncan
24.2 PPG 17 RPG 5.3 APG 1 SPG 5.3 BPG GmSC 24.1

Next best player was David Robinson, at 11.9.

12.2 difference for the 2nd best player on the team.

That would be the 2nd best difference in MJ's career.

Shal I continue? Oh my. How difficult it is to find other players with comparable finals to MJ.

lol cherry picking one finals to make a point, seriously?

Duncan played a weak Nets team... probably the weakest finals team other than AI's 76ers. The highest on the other team was Kidd with 14! Compare that to Magic Barkley etc... We all know Duncan's had plenty of help, and guess what? The game scores reflect it.

2006 SPURS

Duncan 15.9
Manu 14.1

Chauncey 17.3

2007
Parker 16.2
Duncan 15.3

2014
Kawhi 16.8
Duncan 12.9
Parker 11.9

Seems accurate to me!

Shall I continue?

Well done speaking of Shaq's 3 with a young Kobe, in which everyone knew Shaq was Jordan-esque dominant and carrying that team. Still, Kobe (exception first one) played better than Pippen and had higher Gamescores as well. And yes, rule changes took place in 1999

I see a lot of discounting of game score, but the order of these players sure seems consistent to me.

Are we ready to tell the world KD in 2012 was a tougher opponent than any MJ had besides Barkley?

Are we ready to say KD in 2017 played better basketball in the finals than MJ ever did? While LeBron played exactly at the level MJ played in his best finals?

If you are then you're are shooting youself in the foot big time. KD had a higher GmSC than MJ ever did, and he beat LeBron who was a much better opponent than any opponent MJ faced (actually equal to MJ in his best finals!). So players have dominated in the finals more than MJ ever did!

We saw that with Shaq, we saw that with KD and even with LeBron in a losing effort in the same finals.

If you are not going to admit, then you'll have to say to the world you went out there with GmSC because you thought it did fit your agenda. But now that it doesn't, it's time to change to whatever narrative suits you the best.

Good luck.

[Joao Saraiva]

Are we forgetting?

2006 NBA finals
Wade 25.4 GmSC
Shaq 9.6

That is 15.9 difference in GmSC between the 1st and 2nd option.

Bigger than any difference between MJ and his 2nd option.

So Wade at his peak actually needed less help to win than MJ.

So far:
- We've seen guys with higher GmSC than MJ. And it's not once,
- We've seen a guy having the best GmSC in the finals more times than MJ,
- We've seen guys winning with a bigger difference in GmSC to their 2nd option than MJ;
- We've seen guys defeating other guys who not only had a higher GmSC than any MJ opponent, but had actually the same GmSC as MJ at his best.

OP it's time to stop.

[Jiminy Glick]

Year 2003
Tim Duncan
24.2 PPG 17 RPG 5.3 APG 1 SPG 5.3 BPG GmSC 24.1

Next best player was David Robinson, at 11.9.

12.2 difference for the 2nd best player on the team.

That would be the 2nd best difference in MJ's career.

Shal I continue? Oh my. How difficult it is to find other players with comparable finals to MJ.

lol cherry picking one finals to make a point, seriously?

Duncan played a weak Nets team... probably the weakest finals team other than AI's 76ers. The highest on the other team was Kidd with 14! Compare that to Magic Barkley etc... We all know Duncan's had plenty of help, and guess what? The game scores reflect it.

2006 SPURS

Duncan 15.9
Manu 14.1

Chauncey 17.3

2007
Parker 16.2
Duncan 15.3

2014
Kawhi 16.8
Duncan 12.9
Parker 11.9

Seems accurate to me!

Shall I continue?

Well done speaking of Shaq's 3 with a young Kobe, in which everyone knew Shaq was Jordan-esque dominant and carrying that team. Still, Kobe (exception first one) played better than Pippen and had higher Gamescores as well. And yes, rule changes took place in 1999

I see a lot of discounting of game score, but the order of these players sure seems consistent to me.

Are we ready to tell the world KD in 2012 was a tougher opponent than any MJ had besides Barkley?

Are we ready to say KD in 2017 played better basketball in the finals than MJ ever did? While LeBron played exactly at the level MJ played in his best finals?

If you are then you're are shooting youself in the foot big time. KD had a higher GmSC than MJ ever did, and he beat LeBron who was a much better opponent than any opponent MJ faced (actually equal to MJ in his best finals!). So players have dominated in the finals more than MJ ever did!

We saw that with Shaq, we saw that with KD and even with LeBron in a losing effort in the same finals.

If you are not going to admit, then you'll have to say to the world you went out there with GmSC because you thought it did fit your agenda. But now that it doesn't, it's time to change to whatever narrative suits you the best.

Good luck.

Incorrect. Malone won MVP in 1997, Durant didn't until 2014. Malone was just as good of a scorer, and a better rebounder, and defender. 1992 Drexler was a better player than 2012 Durant, much better passer and a better defender. 1991 Magic was better than 2012 Durant. Also 1996 Payton was better than 2012 Durant. No Durant did not play better basketball in the 2017 finals than any finals Jordan played in. The rules in 2017 favored offense much more so and his team was stacked offensively and damn good defensively.

[Joao Saraiva]

lol cherry picking one finals to make a point, seriously?

Duncan played a weak Nets team... probably the weakest finals team other than AI's 76ers. The highest on the other team was Kidd with 14! Compare that to Magic Barkley etc... We all know Duncan's had plenty of help, and guess what? The game scores reflect it.

2006 SPURS

Duncan 15.9
Manu 14.1

Chauncey 17.3

2007
Parker 16.2
Duncan 15.3

2014
Kawhi 16.8
Duncan 12.9
Parker 11.9

Seems accurate to me!

Shall I continue?

Well done speaking of Shaq's 3 with a young Kobe, in which everyone knew Shaq was Jordan-esque dominant and carrying that team. Still, Kobe (exception first one) played better than Pippen and had higher Gamescores as well. And yes, rule changes took place in 1999

I see a lot of discounting of game score, but the order of these players sure seems consistent to me.

Are we ready to tell the world KD in 2012 was a tougher opponent than any MJ had besides Barkley?

Are we ready to say KD in 2017 played better basketball in the finals than MJ ever did? While LeBron played exactly at the level MJ played in his best finals?

If you are then you're are shooting youself in the foot big time. KD had a higher GmSC than MJ ever did, and he beat LeBron who was a much better opponent than any opponent MJ faced (actually equal to MJ in his best finals!). So players have dominated in the finals more than MJ ever did!

We saw that with Shaq, we saw that with KD and even with LeBron in a losing effort in the same finals.

If you are not going to admit, then you'll have to say to the world you went out there with GmSC because you thought it did fit your agenda. But now that it doesn't, it's time to change to whatever narrative suits you the best.

Good luck.

Incorrect. Malone won MVP in 1997, Durant didn't until 2014. Malone was just as good of a scorer, and a better rebounder, and defender. 1992 Drexler was a better player than 2012 Durant, much better passer and a better defender. 1991 Magic was better than 2012 Durant. Also 1996 Payton was better than 2012 Durant. No Durant did not play better basketball in the 2017 finals than any finals Jordan played in. The rules in 2017 favored offense much more so and his team was stacked offensively and damn good defensively.

1st of all there is a possibility that several players were better than the 97 MVP in 2012. I'm not saying this is true, but being the MVP in a season while another player isn't in another season doesn't make him better.

I'm not saying KD was the best opponent ever a guy faced in the finals - altough he was much better than you're suggesting. However, OP made comparisons strictly from a GmSC point of view to point this and that. I'm just showing that GmSC alone won't tell the entire the truth. Isolating a single stat is dangerous and produces a ton of results that aren't true. While it can be a guide line, it can't be taken this way.

The 2017 don't favor offense that much. Court is just a lot more spread because players nowadays are way better shooters. You got nobodies hitting 3s at high % in several games like it's nothing. However, players who can score even if they do so at high high rates can't impact the game as much as they did back then, because those extra points will hold less value when teams are shooting lights out.

KD's team in 17 was damn good on both ends. Should we give him credit for that too? Or he wasn't part of the team?

Also if the rules were so good for offense, then somebody needs a ton more of credit for making defensive impact in the 10s. Let's start with KD in the Warriors, go trough LBJ closing down the middle of a D with no real C in his best years, and then end up with Kawih who is an elite defender in an era that it makes it so much more difficult to defend - this all according to your own criteria.

[Jiminy Glick]

Are we ready to tell the world KD in 2012 was a tougher opponent than any MJ had besides Barkley?

Are we ready to say KD in 2017 played better basketball in the finals than MJ ever did? While LeBron played exactly at the level MJ played in his best finals?

If you are then you're are shooting youself in the foot big time. KD had a higher GmSC than MJ ever did, and he beat LeBron who was a much better opponent than any opponent MJ faced (actually equal to MJ in his best finals!). So players have dominated in the finals more than MJ ever did!

We saw that with Shaq, we saw that with KD and even with LeBron in a losing effort in the same finals.

If you are not going to admit, then you'll have to say to the world you went out there with GmSC because you thought it did fit your agenda. But now that it doesn't, it's time to change to whatever narrative suits you the best.

Good luck.

Incorrect. Malone won MVP in 1997, Durant didn't until 2014. Malone was just as good of a scorer, and a better rebounder, and defender. 1992 Drexler was a better player than 2012 Durant, much better passer and a better defender. 1991 Magic was better than 2012 Durant. Also 1996 Payton was better than 2012 Durant. No Durant did not play better basketball in the 2017 finals than any finals Jordan played in. The rules in 2017 favored offense much more so and his team was stacked offensively and damn good defensively.

1st of all there is a possibility that several players were better than the 97 MVP in 2012. I'm not saying this is true, but being the MVP in a season while another player isn't in another season doesn't make him better.

I'm not saying KD was the best opponent ever a guy faced in the finals - altough he was much better than you're suggesting. However, OP made comparisons strictly from a GmSC point of view to point this and that. I'm just showing that GmSC alone won't tell the entire the truth. Isolating a single stat is dangerous and produces a ton of results that aren't true. While it can be a guide line, it can't be taken this way.

The 2017 don't favor offense that much. Court is just a lot more spread because players nowadays are way better shooters. You got nobodies hitting 3s at high % in several games like it's nothing. However, players who can score even if they do so at high high rates can't impact the game as much as they did back then, because those extra points will hold less value when teams are shooting lights out.

KD's team in 17 was damn good on both ends. Should we give him credit for that too? Or he wasn't part of the team?

Also if the rules were so good for offense, then somebody needs a ton more of credit for making defensive impact in the 10s. Let's start with KD in the Warriors, go trough LBJ closing down the middle of a D with no real C in his best years, and then end up with Kawih who is an elite defender in an era that it makes it so much more difficult to defend - this all according to your own criteria.

True I wouldn't give him MVP in 1997 either, but he was an elite player. Yes 2017 was a season of offense, after 1995 the league changed a lot because of the rules like phasing out hand-checking and other things. We definitely should give Durant credit for the team being so good, he was a great player.

Are you saying they stopped LeBron in 2017 because they didn't look at his stats. Yes it was a good defense though, having Green at center is similar to Rodman at center and Durant has the height of a power forward so it was an interesting defense.

[Joao Saraiva]

Incorrect. Malone won MVP in 1997, Durant didn't until 2014. Malone was just as good of a scorer, and a better rebounder, and defender. 1992 Drexler was a better player than 2012 Durant, much better passer and a better defender. 1991 Magic was better than 2012 Durant. Also 1996 Payton was better than 2012 Durant. No Durant did not play better basketball in the 2017 finals than any finals Jordan played in. The rules in 2017 favored offense much more so and his team was stacked offensively and damn good defensively.

1st of all there is a possibility that several players were better than the 97 MVP in 2012. I'm not saying this is true, but being the MVP in a season while another player isn't in another season doesn't make him better.

I'm not saying KD was the best opponent ever a guy faced in the finals - altough he was much better than you're suggesting. However, OP made comparisons strictly from a GmSC point of view to point this and that. I'm just showing that GmSC alone won't tell the entire the truth. Isolating a single stat is dangerous and produces a ton of results that aren't true. While it can be a guide line, it can't be taken this way.

The 2017 don't favor offense that much. Court is just a lot more spread because players nowadays are way better shooters. You got nobodies hitting 3s at high % in several games like it's nothing. However, players who can score even if they do so at high high rates can't impact the game as much as they did back then, because those extra points will hold less value when teams are shooting lights out.

KD's team in 17 was damn good on both ends. Should we give him credit for that too? Or he wasn't part of the team?

Also if the rules were so good for offense, then somebody needs a ton more of credit for making defensive impact in the 10s. Let's start with KD in the Warriors, go trough LBJ closing down the middle of a D with no real C in his best years, and then end up with Kawih who is an elite defender in an era that it makes it so much more difficult to defend - this all according to your own criteria.

True I wouldn't give him MVP in 1997 either, but he was an elite player. Yes 2017 was a season of offense, after 1995 the league changed a lot because of the rules like phasing out hand-checking and other things. We definitely should give Durant credit for the team being so good, he was a great player.

Are you saying they stopped LeBron in 2017 because they didn't look at his stats. Yes it was a good defense though, having Green at center is similar to Rodman at center and Durant has the height of a power forward so it was an interesting defense.

Well I don't think you got the point of the MVP thing.

What I said is basically. You got player A, B, C and D.

A, B, C are better than D. But they all played in 2012. Only one of them won MVP.

D played in 1997 and won the MVP. That doesn't mean he's better than player B just cause he didn't win the MVP.

About Malone, I wouldn't give him the MVP in 97 either. But I'd give it to him in 98.

Hand-checking got out. Zone D is in. Illegal defense is out, allowing a lot more help D. But court is more spread than ever.

It's not as much about the rules, it's about offenses generating more points per possession because there is indeed a lot more depth of talent in the league and offenses are constructed for shots that reward you more PPP more than ever before.

Yes Durant deserves his credit.

I'm not saying they stopped LeBron. They didn't. I'm saying Kevin Durant still had a hell of a series. Bettter than any MJ ever had? I don't believe that. How many times in history a team got two clear MVP candidates, one all-star who is also a candidate for GOAT shooter (at least top 5), a DPOY candidate in Green... Never.

Context is needed for everything.

I just want OP to see how ridiculous he gets here all the time saying MJ is the GOAT and everyone is crap when compared to him. Yes he can be considered the GOAT. It's not like he's a tier above everyone else, there are no other candidates and no other guys did things that MJ did before, or even better even if not having the complete package required for a GOAT contention. That's all.

[Jiminy Glick]

In terms of the thread it seems to be about how the poster thinks Pippen is overrated offensively. You can agree or disagree it doesn't matter. The fact is they won 6 championships. Pippen was a great second option. And he also was a quality offensive player. He racks up more 1994 seasons if he wasn't playing with Jordan. He was a quality scorer and passer.

[Brooklyn_Ball33]

Scottie Pippen was a truly elite player. During the championship years, including the year Jordan missed, he was a 6.0 BPM player. Sixth highest in the league during that time - and higher than both Hakeem and Shaq over that period.

I hope you're not seriously suggesting that Pippen was better than Hakeem and Shaq in the early-mid 90's.

He was an absurdly good player during that era who fit seamlessly with Jordan offensively and may have been the best perimeter defender of all-time.

Pippen was very good. He wasn't "absurdly good." That's reserved for guys like MJ, Shaq, Dream, Barkley, Lebron, or even prime DRob.

Focusing purely on the offensive end does Pippen a disservice. The Bulls weren't a dynasty because Jordan was the greatest of all-time. He was just as good, if not better, when the Bulls struggled to escape the first round.

Jordan was not anywhere near as good in 1987 or 1988 (the year they didn't get past the first round or only made it to the second round) as he was even in 1989, much less as good as he was in 1990-1993. For starters, his range improved, his off-ball play went from good to elite, his defense became more focused and disciplined while still being disruptive, and by 1990 he was among the very best midrange shooters in the league. In addition, his game management and team play improved in terms of knowing when to turn it on, how/when to get his teammates involved etc. 1991 or '92 Jordan is about 15-25% better than, say, 1988 Jordan in terms of making a difference in the W-L column on good teams.

So no, the addition of Pippen and Jackson was far from the only thing that changed between 1987-1991. And Pippen didn't even became a legit all-star level player until 1991 anyway - his 4th year in the league.

The difference between those early teams and the dominant teams was the addition of Pippen and Jackson. They were the difference between a middling 40ish wins and winning more than 60 games a season.

Incorrect. See above. Also, the Bulls made the ECF in 1989 and gave the Pistons their only two losses of the postseason with Pippen averaging 13/7/4/54% TS and being nowhere near the defender he'd become in later years.

Treating the Bulls as a one-man show, even offensively, does a disservice to the likes of Pippen. He contributed massively to their success and saying that he wasn't as good as Magic or Barkley (which is an absurdly high standard to judge a player) doesn't change that.

He did contribute massively, but I don't think he contributed any more than many secondary stars have in the championship runs of other superstars like Shaq, Kobe, Lebron, Magic, Curry, Durant, Bird etc.

[Brooklyn_Ball33]

In terms of the thread it seems to be about how the poster thinks Pippen is overrated offensively. You can agree or disagree it doesn't matter. The fact is they won 6 championships. Pippen was a great second option. And he also was a quality offensive player. He racks up more 1994 seasons if he wasn't playing with Jordan. He was a quality scorer and passer.

He never even BECOMES the player he was if he doesn't play with Jordan. Dude was a mentally fragile player with a shaky jumpshot. Do you REALLY think it's just a coincidence that Pippen developed into one of the greatest defensive and all-around players ever while playing alongside ANOTHER of the greatest all-around and defensive players ever? Just a coincidence, I suppose.

And on top of all that, even after he BECAME the player he was in, say, 1994 or '95, Pippen was still a system offensive player more than anything else. He doesn't average any more than 21-22 ppg on any other type of team structure where he'd be a "normal" first option (i.e., not in the triangle, where he could work the system and due to his intelligence could get buckets that way).

[Jiminy Glick]

In terms of the thread it seems to be about how the poster thinks Pippen is overrated offensively. You can agree or disagree it doesn't matter. The fact is they won 6 championships. Pippen was a great second option. And he also was a quality offensive player. He racks up more 1994 seasons if he wasn't playing with Jordan. He was a quality scorer and passer.

He never even BECOMES the player he was if he doesn't play with Jordan. Dude was a mentally fragile player with a shaky jumpshot. Do you REALLY think it's just a coincidence that Pippen developed into one of the greatest defensive and all-around players ever while playing alongside ANOTHER of the greatest all-around and defensive players ever? Just a coincidence, I suppose.

And on top of all that, even after he BECAME the player he was in, say, 1994 or '95, Pippen was still a system offensive player more than anything else. He doesn't average any more than 21-22 ppg on any other type of team structure where he'd be a "normal" first option (i.e., not in the triangle, where he could work the system and due to his intelligence could get buckets that way).

It certainly helped him to practice with him. However Jordan never won a championship without Pippen. And we don't know how his career would have turned out if he was not on the Bulls.

[King Ken]

Yep! And Portland/Phoenix was more loaded offensively, Sonics defensively and offensively, and so on.

When you take into account how loaded everything was on both sides, Jordan carried those teams. It doesn’t make sense to just call the Bulls stacked as I’ve heard a few posters do. I’ve shown the stats to prove it, offensively. Defensively? Many attribute the Bulls’ intensity to Jordan anyway, including Pipp thanking Jordan for having him constantly guard him in practices. Whatever you say, there’s no denying that he was by far the most dominant player on the court, even against the prime season stars he faced.

Jordan was the best player but this is also true that his teams was also loaded...Win 55 games in 1994 and only lose in 7 games against a team who almost won the title.

That’s not good logic. As I mentioned, the Bulls overachieved and their point differential indicated a much worse record. The next year, they had 45 wins. They beat Charlotte and Cleveland in he playoffs. That’s it. That’s not loaded, compared to six championships. And if the Bulls had their 91-93 rosters? They wouldn’t have done nearly as well. Those rosters were definitely not loaded, hence both Isiah and Magic stating “When you’re talking about the Bulls, you’re really only talking about Michael Jordan. If you take the best player off of his team and the best player off of ours, we win it every time. But the fact of the matter is, he’s still there”- Isiah. Then Magic said almost the same thing. Earlier in his career, Bird had stated “God disguised as Michael Jordan”. That’s the best three contemporaries of Jordan’s first half of his career, two staying those things in 1993.

Jordan dominated, man.

And even if his teams were hypothetically loaded as some people like to act (They weren't, especially when you consider the opposing teams).... Bulls leading the Bulls' to 6 championships with FMVP every single series as the undisputed most dominant player made them one of the top 1-3 dynasties of all time and aren't nearly as loaded as the other 2 in Russell's Celtics and Magic's Lakers (now a realgm article, btw).

So ultimately, it's more of an excuse than anything... Jordan consistently dominated and got the job done. The Bulls without Jordan didn't get past the 2nd round and got past the 1st against 2 weak EC playoff teams in Cleveland and Charlotte. Charlotte had some star power but the Bulls had also added Kukoc, who was in his prime and sick at the time, putting on performances sometimes as well as Pippen.

So I'll agree with you that 1996 was loaded with Harper/Kukoc/Rodman. But the Sonics were just as loaded due to the defensive and offensive prowess of the trio Kemp/Payton and Schrempf, who was way the hell better than any big we had and was slightly better than Kukoc at a more important position in the game (He could stretch but often played inside).

Hornacek was also more effective than Kukoc in the jazz series. That backcourt was one of the best shooting backcourts in history- heavily underrated.
The next year Jazz were just as loaded due to Hornacek (offensively and defensively), Ostertag being a much better defender than Luc, and Stockton/Malone playing out of their minds. There were many games that were down to the wire and should have been lost if not for Jordan taking over. I think we all can agree on that.

They won because they knew how to win. Phil Jackson and they were healthy for the most part. They were a pretty good team without Jordan. With Jordan was like the Raptors with Kawhi plus more value. I know you might be a Jordan diehard but honestly, it was never close between the Bulls and the competition with Jordan on the court.

[Texas Chuck]

He never even BECOMES the player he was if he doesn't play with Jordan. Dude was a mentally fragile player with a shaky jumpshot. Do you REALLY think it's just a coincidence that Pippen developed into one of the greatest defensive and all-around players ever while playing alongside ANOTHER of the greatest all-around and defensive players ever? Just a coincidence, I suppose.

And on top of all that, even after he BECAME the player he was in, say, 1994 or '95, Pippen was still a system offensive player more than anything else. He doesn't average any more than 21-22 ppg on any other type of team structure where he'd be a "normal" first option (i.e., not in the triangle, where he could work the system and due to his intelligence could get buckets that way).

First line is the most heavily repeated lie in this board's history. It's an incredibly Jordan-serving narrative that they know can't be disproved since he did in fact start his career playing with Mike. It ignores he was a high lottery pick with all the physical tools in the world. It ignores he took a team that traded Jordan for Myers and still won over 50 games. It ignores he was the leader of some deep Portland teams as an old man playing PG.



But hur dur points points points. I can't believe in 2020 people still think points = basketball goodness.

Also this post proves the Hartford Whalers capitalization theory. The more words you capitalize for emphasis is a direct correlation to just how weak your actual arguments are.

[bledredwine]

That’s not good logic. As I mentioned, the Bulls overachieved and their point differential indicated a much worse record. The next year, they had 45 wins. They beat Charlotte and Cleveland in he playoffs. That’s it. That’s not loaded, compared to six championships. And if the Bulls had their 91-93 rosters? They wouldn’t have done nearly as well. Those rosters were definitely not loaded, hence both Isiah and Magic stating “When you’re talking about the Bulls, you’re really only talking about Michael Jordan. If you take the best player off of his team and the best player off of ours, we win it every time. But the fact of the matter is, he’s still there”- Isiah. Then Magic said almost the same thing. Earlier in his career, Bird had stated “God disguised as Michael Jordan”. That’s the best three contemporaries of Jordan’s first half of his career, two staying those things in 1993.

Jordan dominated, man.

And even if his teams were hypothetically loaded as some people like to act (They weren't, especially when you consider the opposing teams).... Bulls leading the Bulls' to 6 championships with FMVP every single series as the undisputed most dominant player made them one of the top 1-3 dynasties of all time and aren't nearly as loaded as the other 2 in Russell's Celtics and Magic's Lakers (now a realgm article, btw).

So ultimately, it's more of an excuse than anything... Jordan consistently dominated and got the job done. The Bulls without Jordan didn't get past the 2nd round and got past the 1st against 2 weak EC playoff teams in Cleveland and Charlotte. Charlotte had some star power but the Bulls had also added Kukoc, who was in his prime and sick at the time, putting on performances sometimes as well as Pippen.

So I'll agree with you that 1996 was loaded with Harper/Kukoc/Rodman. But the Sonics were just as loaded due to the defensive and offensive prowess of the trio Kemp/Payton and Schrempf, who was way the hell better than any big we had and was slightly better than Kukoc at a more important position in the game (He could stretch but often played inside).

Hornacek was also more effective than Kukoc in the jazz series. That backcourt was one of the best shooting backcourts in history- heavily underrated.
The next year Jazz were just as loaded due to Hornacek (offensively and defensively), Ostertag being a much better defender than Luc, and Stockton/Malone playing out of their minds. There were many games that were down to the wire and should have been lost if not for Jordan taking over. I think we all can agree on that.

They won because they knew how to win. Phil Jackson and they were healthy for the most part. They were a pretty good team without Jordan. With Jordan was like the Raptors with Kawhi plus more value. I know you might be a Jordan diehard but honestly, it was never close between the Bulls and the competition with Jordan on the court.

No, they weren't.

Watch the 1993 finals and tell me that they were a good team without Jordan.
They had no business winning that series and everyone except BJ and Pax struggled. They were building brick houses in most games and especially in the double nickle game, where Pipp was non-existent, they only showed up in the clutch (credit to BJ for great defense on KJ though and for the team to step it up when Jordan missed 3 in a row before hitting the game winner). But that whole game, they were bricking and Jordan had well over 50% of the team's points until he sat.

[King Ken]

That’s not good logic. As I mentioned, the Bulls overachieved and their point differential indicated a much worse record. The next year, they had 45 wins. They beat Charlotte and Cleveland in he playoffs. That’s it. That’s not loaded, compared to six championships. And if the Bulls had their 91-93 rosters? They wouldn’t have done nearly as well. Those rosters were definitely not loaded, hence both Isiah and Magic stating “When you’re talking about the Bulls, you’re really only talking about Michael Jordan. If you take the best player off of his team and the best player off of ours, we win it every time. But the fact of the matter is, he’s still there”- Isiah. Then Magic said almost the same thing. Earlier in his career, Bird had stated “God disguised as Michael Jordan”. That’s the best three contemporaries of Jordan’s first half of his career, two staying those things in 1993.

Jordan dominated, man.

And even if his teams were hypothetically loaded as some people like to act (They weren't, especially when you consider the opposing teams).... Bulls leading the Bulls' to 6 championships with FMVP every single series as the undisputed most dominant player made them one of the top 1-3 dynasties of all time and aren't nearly as loaded as the other 2 in Russell's Celtics and Magic's Lakers (now a realgm article, btw).

So ultimately, it's more of an excuse than anything... Jordan consistently dominated and got the job done. The Bulls without Jordan didn't get past the 2nd round and got past the 1st against 2 weak EC playoff teams in Cleveland and Charlotte. Charlotte had some star power but the Bulls had also added Kukoc, who was in his prime and sick at the time, putting on performances sometimes as well as Pippen.

So I'll agree with you that 1996 was loaded with Harper/Kukoc/Rodman. But the Sonics were just as loaded due to the defensive and offensive prowess of the trio Kemp/Payton and Schrempf, who was way the hell better than any big we had and was slightly better than Kukoc at a more important position in the game (He could stretch but often played inside).

Hornacek was also more effective than Kukoc in the jazz series. That backcourt was one of the best shooting backcourts in history- heavily underrated.
The next year Jazz were just as loaded due to Hornacek (offensively and defensively), Ostertag being a much better defender than Luc, and Stockton/Malone playing out of their minds. There were many games that were down to the wire and should have been lost if not for Jordan taking over. I think we all can agree on that.

They won because they knew how to win. Phil Jackson and they were healthy for the most part. They were a pretty good team without Jordan. With Jordan was like the Raptors with Kawhi plus more value. I know you might be a Jordan diehard but honestly, it was never close between the Bulls and the competition with Jordan on the court.

No, they weren't.

Watch the 1993 finals and tell me that they were a good team without Jordan.
They had no business winning that series and everyone except BJ and Pax struggled. They were building brick houses in most games and especially in the double nickle game, where Pipp was non-existent, they only showed up in the clutch (credit to BJ for great defense on KJ though and for the team to step it up when Jordan missed 3 in a row before hitting the game winner). But that whole game, they were bricking and Jordan had well over 50% of the team's points until he sat.

So you want to negatively judge the best supporting cast in the NBA at the time negatively because of a playoff series. That's like saying Orlando supporting cast was awful because they stunk up the joint in 96 v. The Bulls. When they played pretty well for the most of the season.

I'll view people on their entire body of work. Not just moments and for short periods of time.

[Joao Saraiva]

That’s not good logic. As I mentioned, the Bulls overachieved and their point differential indicated a much worse record. The next year, they had 45 wins. They beat Charlotte and Cleveland in he playoffs. That’s it. That’s not loaded, compared to six championships. And if the Bulls had their 91-93 rosters? They wouldn’t have done nearly as well. Those rosters were definitely not loaded, hence both Isiah and Magic stating “When you’re talking about the Bulls, you’re really only talking about Michael Jordan. If you take the best player off of his team and the best player off of ours, we win it every time. But the fact of the matter is, he’s still there”- Isiah. Then Magic said almost the same thing. Earlier in his career, Bird had stated “God disguised as Michael Jordan”. That’s the best three contemporaries of Jordan’s first half of his career, two staying those things in 1993.

Jordan dominated, man.

And even if his teams were hypothetically loaded as some people like to act (They weren't, especially when you consider the opposing teams).... Bulls leading the Bulls' to 6 championships with FMVP every single series as the undisputed most dominant player made them one of the top 1-3 dynasties of all time and aren't nearly as loaded as the other 2 in Russell's Celtics and Magic's Lakers (now a realgm article, btw).

So ultimately, it's more of an excuse than anything... Jordan consistently dominated and got the job done. The Bulls without Jordan didn't get past the 2nd round and got past the 1st against 2 weak EC playoff teams in Cleveland and Charlotte. Charlotte had some star power but the Bulls had also added Kukoc, who was in his prime and sick at the time, putting on performances sometimes as well as Pippen.

So I'll agree with you that 1996 was loaded with Harper/Kukoc/Rodman. But the Sonics were just as loaded due to the defensive and offensive prowess of the trio Kemp/Payton and Schrempf, who was way the hell better than any big we had and was slightly better than Kukoc at a more important position in the game (He could stretch but often played inside).

Hornacek was also more effective than Kukoc in the jazz series. That backcourt was one of the best shooting backcourts in history- heavily underrated.
The next year Jazz were just as loaded due to Hornacek (offensively and defensively), Ostertag being a much better defender than Luc, and Stockton/Malone playing out of their minds. There were many games that were down to the wire and should have been lost if not for Jordan taking over. I think we all can agree on that.

They won because they knew how to win. Phil Jackson and they were healthy for the most part. They were a pretty good team without Jordan. With Jordan was like the Raptors with Kawhi plus more value. I know you might be a Jordan diehard but honestly, it was never close between the Bulls and the competition with Jordan on the court.

No, they weren't.

Watch the 1993 finals and tell me that they were a good team without Jordan.
They had no business winning that series and everyone except BJ and Pax struggled. They were building brick houses in most games and especially in the double nickle game, where Pipp was non-existent, they only showed up in the clutch (credit to BJ for great defense on KJ though and for the team to step it up when Jordan missed 3 in a row before hitting the game winner). But that whole game, they were bricking and Jordan had well over 50% of the team's points until he sat.

So the Bulls weren't stacked because they lost against the Knicks in 7 and after that year lost Grant and had less wins?

The 14 Heat won 54 games.

LeBron got out, and in the easy East (as you and other posters usually call it) even when both Wade and Bosh were playing, they were below 50% wins.

If the Bulls were not stacked, what can we say about the Heat when LeBron was there? What a carry job.

Now take away Bosh. No, they're not at the level of the 95 Bulls without MJ and Grant. They are even worse.

Gotta love the narratives arround Jordan's legacy.

This is how I feel about it:
- Take away the #1 option of almost any team and they're not a contender. There can be one year that happens, with something like GSW. Never again in basketball history. That just shows how stupidly stacked GSW were once they acquired Kevin Durant.
- Obviously the Bulls being stacked, doesn't take away any credit on MJ's play and playoff runs. He was indeed the best player in the world, he was the best scorer the NBA ever saw and without him the Bulls wouldn't have a single championship, unless you replaced him with a great SG, someone like Drexler for example. And wouldn't probably have gotten 6.

One thing doesn't take away the other. You see the 96 finals and the Bulls don't win if they didn't have Rodman. He was super high impact on that series. Also in 98 vs Malone. Pippen had his moments when he was super important, starting in the 91 finals when he and MJ took turns defending Magic and slowing him down.

For MJ to have a ton of credit (as he deserves) you don't need to say the other players had no credit or little contribution. That doesn't happen in championships, let alone in dynasties.

Nobody wins it all by themselves. It's a team game.

[bledredwine]

Btw, some sick stats in this

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29035071/why-michael-jordan-scoring-prowess-touched?linkId=86697177

That verifies his consistency and dominance, including in the clutch.

[Texas Chuck]

Btw, some sick stats in this

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29035071/why-michael-jordan-scoring-prowess-touched?linkId=86697177

That verifies his consistency and dominance, including in the clutch.

This is the story you need to stick to. Michael Jordan being a freaking great basketball player because he absolutely was. Arguably the greatest scorer and greatest offensive player of all-time.

Instead of the absurdity of trashing Pippen and other teammates non-stop which does nothing to elevate Mike .

[bledredwine]

Btw, some sick stats in this

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29035071/why-michael-jordan-scoring-prowess-touched?linkId=86697177

That verifies his consistency and dominance, including in the clutch.

This is the story you need to stick to. Michael Jordan being a freaking great basketball player because he absolutely was. Arguably the greatest scorer and greatest offensive player of all-time.

Instead of the absurdity of trashing Pippen and other teammates non-stop which does nothing to elevate Mike .

Trashing? No. I’m starting that he was a second option type, contrary to what people state. I also was showing that yes, MJ had the brunt of the load, despite many posters attributing it to just a great team (yourself included). I was addressing the absurdities.

Let’s not pretend that Pippen’s not used as a scape-goat when addressing jordan. I love pippen, but he was in a different stratosphere than jordan. That’s the point I’m making, and it’s not absurd. No need for drama or “absurdities”. My OP was quality, and made a point that Jordan DID have to carry the Bulls many times. I’m sorry if it’s not your favorite thing to see. But there’s no reason for this negative energy because of it.