Pippen Writing Memoir, Tells His Side of Story

[dougthonus]

Ok. Those guys make just about every top 15 small forwards of all time list. Pippen usually is listed as 5th or 6th with LBJ, Bird, Durant and Dr. J ahead of him and pretty much consensus top 4. I looked at 5 different lists including ESPN and I am pretty confident that will be consistent in any respected list you look at.

Old timers Elgin Baylor and Havlicek are occasionally rated above Pip and occasionally below him.

I am not debating. Just trying to understand your cutoff. It appears you are cutting off the superstar label right at Pippen. And that is fair.

Pippen is in the next tier below the superstar group to me. As I said, for me, a requirement to be a superstar by my definition is to be a #1 scorer that can carry a championship team, and Pippen fails that test, it doesn't matter to me what else he does, he can't be a superstar while failing that test.

In Pippen's defense, that is literally maybe the worst thing you can say about him, he's more or less outstanding at everything else and wasn't a bad scorer or anything.

Here's a link discussing Bill Simmons from his basketball pyramid book updated in 2020:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/4/19/21225904/scottie-pippen-bill-simmons-book-of-basketball-hall-of-fame-pyramid

He has him ranked 28th as of last year (I doubt anyone passed him in the past season either).

Here's the original (2009 list)
https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/simmons_pyramid.html

When looking at that list, I agree Pippen is just below the line of guys I'd generally consider superstar which was ~20. The four guys who passed him I'd all put on my superstar list though which means about 24 guys.

Personally I call the 5th or 6th best small forward of all time a superstar...and probably a half dozen more after him. It's just a difference in where we draw the line.

I agree that the term superstar is just made up, I mean I agree Pippen is a first ballot HOF worthy player. When looking at criteria, to me superstar requires a guy that can be your #1 scorer on a title team, and I just don't see Pippen as that possibility. In the same vein, I would probably not view Bill Russell as a superstar for the same reason, but I never watched him play, and the era was so laughably different that the comparison is sort of difficult for me to make.

[CobyWhite0]

I agree that the term superstar is just made up, I mean I agree Pippen is a first ballot HOF worthy player. When looking at criteria, to me superstar requires a guy that can be your #1 scorer on a title team, and I just don't see Pippen as that possibility. In the same vein, I would probably not view Bill Russell as a superstar for the same reason, but I never watched him play, and the era was so laughably different that the comparison is sort of difficult for me to make.

You answered my comment before I could even post it lol.

I think if you're in your sports' HOF, you were almost certainly a superstar. But I definitely agree that "superstar" doesn't have a single, specific definition, it can vary widely from person to person.

[Stratmaster]

Ok. Those guys make just about every top 15 small forwards of all time list. Pippen usually is listed as 5th or 6th with LBJ, Bird, Durant and Dr. J ahead of him and pretty much consensus top 4. I looked at 5 different lists including ESPN and I am pretty confident that will be consistent in any respected list you look at.

Old timers Elgin Baylor and Havlicek are occasionally rated above Pip and occasionally below him.

I am not debating. Just trying to understand your cutoff. It appears you are cutting off the superstar label right at Pippen. And that is fair.

Pippen is in the next tier below the superstar group to me. As I said, for me, a requirement to be a superstar by my definition is to be a #1 scorer that can carry a championship team, and Pippen fails that test, it doesn't matter to me what else he does, he can't be a superstar while failing that test.

In Pippen's defense, that is literally maybe the worst thing you can say about him, he's more or less outstanding at everything else and wasn't a bad scorer or anything.

Here's a link discussing Bill Simmons from his basketball pyramid book updated in 2020:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/4/19/21225904/scottie-pippen-bill-simmons-book-of-basketball-hall-of-fame-pyramid

He has him ranked 28th as of last year (I doubt anyone passed him in the past season either).

Here's the original (2009 list)
https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/simmons_pyramid.html

When looking at that list, I agree Pippen is just below the line of guys I'd generally consider superstar which was ~20. The four guys who passed him I'd all put on my superstar list though which means about 24 guys.

Personally I call the 5th or 6th best small forward of all time a superstar...and probably a half dozen more after him. It's just a difference in where we draw the line.

I agree that the term superstar is just made up, I mean I agree Pippen is a first ballot HOF worthy player. When looking at criteria, to me superstar requires a guy that can be your #1 scorer on a title team, and I just don't see Pippen as that possibility. In the same vein, I would probably not view Bill Russell as a superstar for the same reason, but I never watched him play, and the era was so laughably different that the comparison is sort of difficult for me to make.

All good. I didn't agree with the comparisons to Centers and that why I liked at position.

I guess it might also be fair to say that until the 3 point explosion, it was a lot easier to be a clear "superstar" the bigger that you were. Chamberlain, Russell, Kareem, Shaq etc. But that didn't necessarily mean you were better at basketball in general.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[TheJordanRule]

Agree 100%

I do wish Shaq worked harder. If he could fix the ft issue and stay in better shape, I think he'd be up there with Bron in all time ranking.

Of the guys I have watched play as a hard core basketball fan (watching 100+ games a year), my rankings are:
1: Jordan
2: LeBron
3: Shaq

This doesn't include Magic/Bird/Kareem (whom I watched some but were before my time as a heavy watcher)

Those are the only three guys I've seen play were I just felt like there is just never an answer for them. Other guys like Tim Duncan, Steph Curry, or Kevin Durant occasionally touch that level but, not the game in game out laughably unstoppable level of those other three where you felt like you could double team them and it didn't matter, and sometimes even a triple team didn't matter.

Maybe I'm overrating, but I feel like Curry should also be looked at as an all-time great like a Dirk/Duncan - maybe not Shaq/Jordan/Lebron/Kobe, but in next tier. Curry as a leader is top notch, changed the game in 3 point shot, can pass, dribble, etc... I like Curry more than Durant due to his leadership skills and transformational skills from 3. Durant could have been better long-term, but is not as tough mentally/leader.

In general, while an all-time great, I don't think Lebron is comfortably number 2 like many do. I feel like Lebron has cherry-picked many things and has not shown up too much consistently to be in top 2. Others have let down, but not as easy - plus Lebron played in a much weaker East than the other greats. I honestly would pick Bird, Magic, Hakeem from what I have seen over Lebron. Stats wise, Lebron is top notch, but overall, I just feel like many others could have won more rings/faded less with the teams Lebron has had the last decade against the competition he has had.

Lebron gets to #2 based on durability. Sure, 'Bron's prime was nuts, but so were the primes of every all time great. The clincher in Lebron's pocket is his insanely lengthy high quality performances season after season. He rarely ever wavered. There have been all time greats who were brighter than Lebron in the thick of their primes, but they never went this distance. In his 18th season, 'Bron's career PER average is 27.39, which is just a fraction below MJ's career PER of 27.91... but 'Bron's played THREE more seasons than MJ, and is still going strong. If you ask me, without Lebron's freakish durability, it would be MUCH easier to equate his brightness to the other players you've named. And that's coming from me, and I ain't no 'Bron fan. I would absolutely HATE it if Lebron somehow managed to win another 2 chips, because that would vault him up from the #2 spot to a virtual tie with Jordan. That would be so cringe.

[TheStig]

Yes without a doubt.

Malone, Shaq, Dirk, and Steph for sure. Kawhi, I'm not sure about in the fact that Kawhi takes off a lot and to me is not a real leader. Pippen during his prime may not have had as many highs, but did not have as many lows. Pippen and Leonard are similar, but Pippen was a better defender/facilitator for longer while Leonard is a better scorer/more clutch. Ewing I would say was probably more impactful, but Pippen did more winning things. I think the thing I would say is Pippen was like a Supreme Iguodola but longer and better perimeter shooter. He would do things that don't show on stat sheet that would win games, but way more impactful.

I agree.. Kawhi is not a better basketball player than Pippen was.

Curry is only a better shooter. Not a better overall player.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

How is Kawhi not a better player? He has a very similar build, defense and is a much better and more efficent scorer. ANd he has actually carried a team to a ring. I wouldn't hesitate to take Kawhi over Pip.

[TheGOATRises007]

Malone, Shaq, Dirk, and Steph for sure. Kawhi, I'm not sure about in the fact that Kawhi takes off a lot and to me is not a real leader. Pippen during his prime may not have had as many highs, but did not have as many lows. Pippen and Leonard are similar, but Pippen was a better defender/facilitator for longer while Leonard is a better scorer/more clutch. Ewing I would say was probably more impactful, but Pippen did more winning things. I think the thing I would say is Pippen was like a Supreme Iguodola but longer and better perimeter shooter. He would do things that don't show on stat sheet that would win games, but way more impactful.

I agree.. Kawhi is not a better basketball player than Pippen was.

Curry is only a better shooter. Not a better overall player.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

How is Kawhi not a better player? He has a very similar build, defense and is a much better and more efficent scorer. ANd he has actually carried a team to a ring. I wouldn't hesitate to take Kawhi over Pip.

It's not even close honestly.

Kawhi's playoff run in 2017, 2019 and even 2021 far eclipses anything Pippen did in his career.

[TheGOATRises007]

Shaq was big. That was his skill. The refs let him get away with the basketball equivalent of murder. He started in an era that favored big men and he was the biggest of them. He has one season where he carried a team, just like Pippen. His real success came playing alongside superstars. In my opinion he is the most overrated player in NBA history.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

This is an egregious take.

Pippen is nowhere near Shaq as a player.

And Shaq was clearly the best player during the Lakers 3-peating.

not by the end. and it's closer than you think w/ scottie

The only time Kobe-Shaq were 1ab and 1b was during the 2001 season.

In the 2000 season and 2002 season, Shaq was clearly the superior player.

And no I don't think Pippen is close to Shaq at all. Shaq probably has at least 5 seasons much better than Pippen's best season.

[kulaz3000]

I agree that the term superstar is just made up, I mean I agree Pippen is a first ballot HOF worthy player. When looking at criteria, to me superstar requires a guy that can be your #1 scorer on a title team, and I just don't see Pippen as that possibility. In the same vein, I would probably not view Bill Russell as a superstar for the same reason, but I never watched him play, and the era was so laughably different that the comparison is sort of difficult for me to make.

While I agree for the most part, but there are those unique players who like Pippen you can build around and be championship contenders, though of course depends on the players you build around them. Not only Bill Russell who was predominately a defensive player, you could say the same for someone like KG, who I think is a supreme utility player like Pippen.

It's hard to say for certain what a team centered around Pippen would look and perform like, but I think it would be doable, and he was a capable enough offensively, like KG, where he doesn't hurt you on either end. That said, he would have needed someone of the calibre of like Latrell Sprewell or Ray Allen as a side kick, a consistent All-Star but not a exactly a superstar.

[TheStig]

I agree that the term superstar is just made up, I mean I agree Pippen is a first ballot HOF worthy player. When looking at criteria, to me superstar requires a guy that can be your #1 scorer on a title team, and I just don't see Pippen as that possibility. In the same vein, I would probably not view Bill Russell as a superstar for the same reason, but I never watched him play, and the era was so laughably different that the comparison is sort of difficult for me to make.

While I agree for the most part, but there are those unique players who like Pippen you can build around and be championship contenders, though of course depends on the players you build around them. Not only Bill Russell who was predominately a defensive player, you could say the same for someone like KG, who I think is a supreme utility player like Pippen.

It's hard to say for certain what a team centered around Pippen would look and perform like, but I think it would be doable, and he was a capable enough offensively, like KG, where he doesn't hurt you on either end. That said, he would have needed someone of the calibre of like Latrell Sprewell or Ray Allen as a side kick, a consistent All-Star but not a exactly a superstar.

Bill Russell? I'm confident if you put 6 other hall of famers around me, we could be a contending team too. Not trying to discount Russell but that team had more hall of famers than any other team and the league wasn't deep. You could make that anology with anyone.

KG was easily better than Pip. He had years he led the league in Per, WS, BPM and Vorp.

[kulaz3000]

I agree that the term superstar is just made up, I mean I agree Pippen is a first ballot HOF worthy player. When looking at criteria, to me superstar requires a guy that can be your #1 scorer on a title team, and I just don't see Pippen as that possibility. In the same vein, I would probably not view Bill Russell as a superstar for the same reason, but I never watched him play, and the era was so laughably different that the comparison is sort of difficult for me to make.

While I agree for the most part, but there are those unique players who like Pippen you can build around and be championship contenders, though of course depends on the players you build around them. Not only Bill Russell who was predominately a defensive player, you could say the same for someone like KG, who I think is a supreme utility player like Pippen.

It's hard to say for certain what a team centered around Pippen would look and perform like, but I think it would be doable, and he was a capable enough offensively, like KG, where he doesn't hurt you on either end. That said, he would have needed someone of the calibre of like Latrell Sprewell or Ray Allen as a side kick, a consistent All-Star but not a exactly a superstar.

Bill Russell? I'm confident if you put 6 other hall of famers around me, we could be a contending team too. Not trying to discount Russell but that team had more hall of famers than any other team and the league wasn't deep. You could make that anology with anyone.

KG was easily better than Pip. He had years he led the league in Per, WS, BPM and Vorp.

The argument wasn't about who is better. I was responding to Doug's approach to what type of player makes a superstar, and can that player score when it mattered. A big knock on KG when he was in his prime was that he faltered as an offensive player, and relied too much on his jump shot despite his size advantage against most player at his position. And when it's all said and done, KG like Pippen's biggest strength was their versatility on the defensive end.

You really can't compare those two anyway, I was just making the comparison in a specific way. Pippen didn't have the opportunity to be the number one player and had a team built around him in his prime, unlike KG, so we really don't know what Pippen's full potential as a player really was, perhaps without Jordan he had developed a more consistent offensive game.

[TheStig]

While I agree for the most part, but there are those unique players who like Pippen you can build around and be championship contenders, though of course depends on the players you build around them. Not only Bill Russell who was predominately a defensive player, you could say the same for someone like KG, who I think is a supreme utility player like Pippen.

It's hard to say for certain what a team centered around Pippen would look and perform like, but I think it would be doable, and he was a capable enough offensively, like KG, where he doesn't hurt you on either end. That said, he would have needed someone of the calibre of like Latrell Sprewell or Ray Allen as a side kick, a consistent All-Star but not a exactly a superstar.

Bill Russell? I'm confident if you put 6 other hall of famers around me, we could be a contending team too. Not trying to discount Russell but that team had more hall of famers than any other team and the league wasn't deep. You could make that anology with anyone.

KG was easily better than Pip. He had years he led the league in Per, WS, BPM and Vorp.

The argument wasn't about who is better. I was responding to Doug's approach to what type of player makes a superstar, and can that player score when it mattered. A big knock on KG when he was in his prime was that he faltered as an offensive player, and relied too much on his jump shot despite his size advantage against most player at his position. And when it's all said and done, KG like Pippen's biggest strength was their versatility on the defensive end.

You really can't compare those two anyway, I was just making the comparison in a specific way. Pippen didn't have the opportunity to be the number one player and had a team built around him in his prime, unlike KG, so we really don't know what Pippen's full potential as a player really was, perhaps without Jordan he had developed a more consistent offensive game.

I think KG was a better scorer than Pip. He was a jump shooting big. Cwebb was too. KG never had any help.

The 93-94 Bulls were better than any of the wolves teams. He had a mix of Cassell and Spree. BJ and Horace were about the same but the Bulls had a all time great coach and more depth. KG had so little talent and a terrible FO. They couldn't even cheat well and lost a pick.

But I get your point now.

[dougthonus]

Bill Russell? I'm confident if you put 6 other hall of famers around me, we could be a contending team too. Not trying to discount Russell but that team had more hall of famers than any other team and the league wasn't deep. You could make that anology with anyone.

KG was easily better than Pip. He had years he led the league in Per, WS, BPM and Vorp.

I generally agree with you quite a bit, but I didn't watch basketball in the Russell era, so I hesitate to talk about it much, all the people in that era thought Bill was the difference maker though, so it's also hard to really discount the opinion of everyone who was there.

Either way, Russell is way down on my greatest of all time list compared to where he shows up on Simmons list.

[Stratmaster]

Malone, Shaq, Dirk, and Steph for sure. Kawhi, I'm not sure about in the fact that Kawhi takes off a lot and to me is not a real leader. Pippen during his prime may not have had as many highs, but did not have as many lows. Pippen and Leonard are similar, but Pippen was a better defender/facilitator for longer while Leonard is a better scorer/more clutch. Ewing I would say was probably more impactful, but Pippen did more winning things. I think the thing I would say is Pippen was like a Supreme Iguodola but longer and better perimeter shooter. He would do things that don't show on stat sheet that would win games, but way more impactful.

I agree.. Kawhi is not a better basketball player than Pippen was.

Curry is only a better shooter. Not a better overall player.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

How is Kawhi not a better player? He has a very similar build, defense and is a much better and more efficent scorer. ANd he has actually carried a team to a ring. I wouldn't hesitate to take Kawhi over Pip.

Not sure how old you are but Kawhi can't touch Pips defense, or rebounding. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is Pippen was likely the greatest fast break player ever. Kawhi also can't play point like Pipoen did.

Kawhi has averaged 19 ppg on 18 fga. In his best season he averaged 27.x on 20 shots per game. Pip averaged 17.7 on 14 shots per game for the Bulls and his best season was 22 ppg on 18 shots. Pip played in a much lower scoring era next to the greatest scorer of all time. I am not sure where you get the idea Kawhi was a way better scorer.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Ok. Those guys make just about every top 15 small forwards of all time list. Pippen usually is listed as 5th or 6th with LBJ, Bird, Durant and Dr. J ahead of him and pretty much consensus top 4. I looked at 5 different lists including ESPN and I am pretty confident that will be consistent in any respected list you look at.

Old timers Elgin Baylor and Havlicek are occasionally rated above Pip and occasionally below him.

I am not debating. Just trying to understand your cutoff. It appears you are cutting off the superstar label right at Pippen. And that is fair.

Pippen is in the next tier below the superstar group to me. As I said, for me, a requirement to be a superstar by my definition is to be a #1 scorer that can carry a championship team, and Pippen fails that test, it doesn't matter to me what else he does, he can't be a superstar while failing that test.

In Pippen's defense, that is literally maybe the worst thing you can say about him, he's more or less outstanding at everything else and wasn't a bad scorer or anything.

Here's a link discussing Bill Simmons from his basketball pyramid book updated in 2020:

https://www.theringer.com/nba/2020/4/19/21225904/scottie-pippen-bill-simmons-book-of-basketball-hall-of-fame-pyramid

He has him ranked 28th as of last year (I doubt anyone passed him in the past season either).

Here's the original (2009 list)
https://www.basketball-reference.com/awards/simmons_pyramid.html

When looking at that list, I agree Pippen is just below the line of guys I'd generally consider superstar which was ~20. The four guys who passed him I'd all put on my superstar list though which means about 24 guys.

Personally I call the 5th or 6th best small forward of all time a superstar...and probably a half dozen more after him. It's just a difference in where we draw the line.

I agree that the term superstar is just made up, I mean I agree Pippen is a first ballot HOF worthy player. When looking at criteria, to me superstar requires a guy that can be your #1 scorer on a title team, and I just don't see Pippen as that possibility. In the same vein, I would probably not view Bill Russell as a superstar for the same reason, but I never watched him play, and the era was so laughably different that the comparison is sort of difficult for me to make.

It sounds from your comments like you were a teenager during the Bulls championship runs. I would urge you to go back and watch about 20 games from that time.

It was real easy to have your eyes glued to MJ and not even absorb what Pippen was doing in the floor. Unless you watched just a critically then a you do now, I think you might be surprised.

Like the whole Kawhi discussion, a lot of the comments here reek of a combination of recency bias and Jordan's shadow syndrome.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

Not sure how old you are but Kawhi can't touch Pips defense, or rebounding. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is Pippen was likely the greatest fast break player ever. Kawhi also can't play point like Pipoen did.

Kawhi has averaged 19 ppg on 18 fga. In his best season he averaged 27.x on 20 shots per game. Pip averaged 17.7 on 14 shots per game for the Bulls and his best season was 22 ppg on 18 shots. Pip played in a much lower scoring era next to the greatest scorer of all time. I am not sure where you get the idea Kawhi was a way better scorer.

Kawhi averaged 19.2 on 14 fga per game not 18.

Ignoring shots / points, Kawhi absolutely takes over games and wins them as the primary option, Pippen doesn't. Kawhi took a team of fairly pedestrian talent and won a title. Pippen could not have done the same thing. Kawhi is a much better scorer.

[Stratmaster]

An interesting stat when considering Curry. In 1993-1994 teams averaged 10 3-point attempts per game.

The whole team.

Curry alone averages 8.6 per game by himself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

Not sure how old you are but Kawhi can't touch Pips defense, or rebounding. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is Pippen was likely the greatest fast break player ever. Kawhi also can't play point like Pipoen did.

Kawhi has averaged 19 ppg on 18 fga. In his best season he averaged 27.x on 20 shots per game. Pip averaged 17.7 on 14 shots per game for the Bulls and his best season was 22 ppg on 18 shots. Pip played in a much lower scoring era next to the greatest scorer of all time. I am not sure where you get the idea Kawhi was a way better scorer.

Kawhi averaged 19.2 on 14 fga per game not 18.

Ignoring shots / points, Kawhi absolutely takes over games and wins them as the primary option, Pippen doesn't. Kawhi took a team of fairly pedestrian talent and won a title. Pippen could not have done the same thing. Kawhi is a much better scorer.

My bad. Not sure where I saw the 18.

But I still disagree. Kawhi is a slightly better scorer. And Pippen absolutely took over games wth his defense, fast break skills and passing. If you don't think he could, then again I sincerely suggest you go back and watch some games from his prime. I don't mean that like "did you even watch the games?" snark. I think you watch games a little more critically now than you likely did then, but if you tell me I am wrong I certainly will take your word for it. There was so much to Pippen's game that didn't show up in scoring stats, including his offensive game.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

My bad. Not sure where I saw the 18.

But I still disagree. Kawhi is a slightly better scorer. And Pippen absolutely took over games wth his defense, fast break skills and passing. If you don't think he could, then again I sincerely suggest you go back and watch some games from his prime. I don't mean that like "did you even watch the games?" snark. I think you watch games a little more critically now than you likely did then, but if you tell me I am wrong I certainly will take your word for it. There was so much to Pippen's game that didn't show up in scoring stats, including his offensive game.

I've watched a lot of the Bulls championship era finals games recently. I found out Amazon Prime just has a bunch of them available for free watch, so I would watch them when on the treadmill. That said, it's a pretty limited sampling of games. There's not really an easy way for me to go back and watch old Pippen games, so my opinion on him will probably be where it is (which is still awfully high, ignoring our debate of this great player vs that one, I still think Pippen is a 1st ballot HOF type player, top 50 guy).

Random side note, watching old games really sucks. I wish they had them all in HD.

[DuckIII]

First, Pippen is certainly a superstar on my list. I don’t have a set of rigid criteria someone has to pass. That ignores the context of a player’s career.

Second, Kulaz is making the pertinent point here. Pip never put his team on his back and won a championship. True. But that’s kind of hard to do when you spend the entire prime of your career playing with the GOAT. Hard to put a team on your back when you are already on someone else’s back.

The one full season and postseason we got to see Pip be “the franchise” he was incredible and the team had an amazing season given the circumstances. Pip got that team to over-perform. 55 wins, one terrible call away from reaching the ECF, averaging 22/9/6/3. That’s superstar basketball and just a glimpse of what he could have done.

I have no doubt that had Pippen had entire teams built around him he would have been the type of the player who could have been the #1 on an elite contender.

MJ prevented this. Yet ironically, Pippen may never have turned into what he was without MJ relentlessly driving him. Kind of a catch-22.

[Chi town]

First, Pippen is certainly and superstar on my list. I don’t have a set of rigid criteria someone has to pass. That ignores the context of a player’s career.

Second, Kulaz is making the pertinent point here. Pip never put his team on his back and won a championship. True. But that’s kind of hard to do when you spend the entire prime of your career playing with the GOAT. Hard to out a team on your back when you are already on someone else’s back.

The one full season and postseason we got to see Pip be “the franchise” he was incredible and the team had an amazing season given the circumstances. Pip got that team to over-perform. 55 wins, one terrible call away from reaching the ECF, averaging 22/9/6/3. That’s superstar basketball and just a glimpse of what he could have done.

I have no doubt that had Pippen had entire teams built around him he would have been the type of the player who could have been the #1 on an elite contender.

MJ prevented this. Yet ironically, Pippen may never have turned into what he was without MJ relentlessly driving him. Kind of a catch-22.

I agree with this.

Also think Pip is a byproduct of what he learned from Jordan. The Pip we know wouldn't have been that player without being forced into greatness from the demands of Jordan.