RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 3)

[AlexanderRight]

- '91 Finals: Pippen outcored, outrebounded, and had twice as many steals per game as Magic. Pip also player great defense on Worthy and shut Magic down when he was on him. Pippen was easily the best player in the closeout Game 5 of that series. Magic does not have a clear edge over Pippen. I'm fine with calling them 2a and 2b.
- '92 Finals: Pippen had 20.8/8.3/7.7/1.5/0.7 on .561 TS% and Drexler had 24.8/7.8/5.3/1.3/1.0 on .522 TS%. Pippen had better efficiency and better defense that Clyde in that series. He was the second best player on the court.
- '93 Finals: Barkley was the second best player on the court and Pippen was third. Pretty clear.
- '96 Finals: The first Finals where MJ is not the best hands down the best player on the floor. Kemp had a series on par with MJ's. So they're 1a and 1b. Pippen and Payton also performed similarly. So they're 3a and 3b.
- '97 Finals: Pippen and Malone had the same apg and spg. Malone had 4 more ppg and Pippen had 1.5 more bpg. But Scottie was far more efficient with .541 TS% to Malone .485 TS%. Pippen's defense was terrific that series as he provided tremendous value by being the primary rim protector for the Bulls. Pippen had the better series. I'm not trading 1.5 blocks and better shooting for 4 more points on poor efficiency. Pip gets 2nd.
- '98 Finals: Malone has a better series but Pippen performs way better than a 35-year old Stockton so Pip was the 3rd best performer.

So in 6 Finals, Pippen's performances rank 2(a), 2, 3, 3a, 2, and 3. In half of their Finals, Pippen is the 2nd best player on the floor and in the other half he's the 3rd best. It's weird how that 6-0 Finals record looks different when you consider the second best player of MJ's rivals. Pippen is the best second banana of all-time and that certainly can't hurt when it comes to winning.

You do realize there's more than two players on a team right? You do understand that outside of Magic and Worthy, the Lakers still had an 18ppg and 16ppg scorer on the team right? Do you think Pippen guarded Magic and Worthy at the same time? You do understand that MJ still had to play defense on one of those two right? It ain't like MJ got to take half the game off and only had to worry about scoring points. Wanna talk about defense? MJ had more blocks and steals than Pippen while still averaging way more assists and still having less turnovers.

In the 92-93 Finals Pippen was great, but considering that MJ averaged 38/6/6 on 50%+ between both those Finals, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that MJ wasn't winning those rings with just about any competent #2. Pippen deserves credit and he's gotten it, but pretending like MJ's ability to win rings in that era would have compromised without him is huuuuuuuge stretch.

That 96 Finals is known more for Payton's defense on MJ and Kemp going off than anything Pippen was doing. While Kemp was flying all over the place and blocking more shots than anyone Payton playing the best defense we've seen anyone play on MJ while averaging more points and assists than Pippen. You pretending like Pippen was on par with them with his 34% shooting is pretty hilarious. You'd be better off giving credit to Rodman, who at least was getting boards. It's unfortunate that's all he was doing cause he and Pippen certainly weren't doing a damn thing about Kemp bangin all over their heads for six games.

Nobody is tossing MVP Malone for a 1997 Scottie Pippen. I'm sorry, you're on your own on that one. Malone averaged more points, rebounding and better FG% in that series. The fact that they tied up in steals and assists is more of a negative for Pippen than a positive considering he's supposed to be the point forward and defensive guru. If you wanna talk about TS% all of a sudden I can point out that Stockton had a bigger gap in TS% above Pippen than Pippen did above Malone while averaging 5 more APG, more steals per game and averaging only 5 less PPG. Both Malone and Stockton had a better offensive and defensive rating than Pippen in that Finals.

I hesitate to say Pippen played "way better" than Stockton in 98 considering Stockon still accounted for more points through his scoring and passing while still averaging more steals and much better FG%. Redgardless, after Game 4 Pippen was absolutely done. He mustered up 6 points on 2/16 in Game 5 and was barely able to clock in 25 minutes for 8 points in Game 6 while MJ was scoring over half the team's points. He was a play away from a wheelchair in that close out game and probably wouldn't even have been able to suit up for a Game 7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes Pippen did his part but calling him the greatest 2nd option ever over Kobe/Kareem/ KD-Steph really makes my eyes roll. What makes them roll even more is you trying so hard to use Pippen to discredit MJ while your GOAT (Russell) literally had the MVP of the freaking league in his first year. Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years while Wilt didn't have a single one for his first 5 years and only 1 teammate that made All-NBA with him for a whole decade before getting to LA.

But yeah, MJ is the one who really had it easy...

[MavsDirk41]

Of the teams that MJ faced in his 6 Finals, he was always the best player on the court except arguably against the Sonics. Pippen sometimes performed as well the the #1 option on the other team. And when he didn't he was easily the 3rd best player on the court.

In the first 3 Finals Pippen averaged around 22/9/8 while playing ferocious, stifling defense. Pippen outperformed Kevin Johnson in the one Finals when they met and had a much bigger defensive impact including stretches guarding Barkley effectively. Your team does not get better swapping Pippen for KJ.

I think it's fair to say that MJ had better help relative to his competition at the time. That's not a knock on MJ. He was still usually the best player on the court but he also had the better teammates.

You can't penalize MJ for being the best player on the floor or not being an "underdog" in a series. That defeats the whole idea of being the GOAT in the first place. It's a backwards argument. MJ was never outplayed in a series, unlike Russell who averages less points, rebounds, assists per game and FG% than Wilt head to head.

Pippen never matched or outperformed the other #1 option in a Finals. He did not match or outperform Clyde, Barkely, Payton/Kemp, Malone in any of those Finals. That 91 Lakers squad had 4 guys averaging over 16ppg in that Finals, it wasn't just about Magic. That Portland team had 6 guys averaging double digits in the playoffs. Phoenix had 7 guys doing that over the regular season and 4 guys averaging over 15ppg in the Finals. Pippen averaged 34% in the 96 Finals while Kemp in that series averaging 23/10 on 55% shooting. He was the 2nd highest scorer in that series while blocking more shots than everyone on the floor (2 Bpg). This notion that MJ was playing against rec YMCA teams in the Finals just isn't true in the real world...

I'm not saying Kevin Johnson was better than Pippen. I'm saying that there were plenty competent number #2 options on Finals teams that would have been just as competent if not more competent playing next to MJ. If they made the Finals as a #2 without MJ, it'd be ridiculous to assume they wouldn't have done the same with him. You can't just presume these players would have been the same or ignore how the team would have been structured going forward if you swapped them out with Pippen as they developed in completely separate environments.

I'm not sure why you're being defensive over me acknowledging that MJ was the best player on the court. That's weird. I didn't knock him for it or give him credit for it because the topic was his teammates. Speaking of which:

- '91 Finals: Pippen outcored, outrebounded, and had twice as many steals per game as Magic. Pip also player great defense on Worthy and shut Magic down when he was on him. Pippen was easily the best player in the closeout Game 5 of that series. Magic does not have a clear edge over Pippen. I'm fine with calling them 2a and 2b.
- '92 Finals: Pippen had 20.8/8.3/7.7/1.5/0.7 on .561 TS% and Drexler had 24.8/7.8/5.3/1.3/1.0 on .522 TS%. Pippen had better efficiency and better defense that Clyde in that series. He was the second best player on the court.
- '93 Finals: Barkley was the second best player on the court and Pippen was third. Pretty clear.
- '96 Finals: The first Finals where MJ is not the best hands down the best player on the floor. Kemp had a series on par with MJ's. So they're 1a and 1b. Pippen and Payton also performed similarly. So they're 3a and 3b.
- '97 Finals: Pippen and Malone had the same apg and spg. Malone had 4 more ppg and Pippen had 1.5 more bpg. But Scottie was far more efficient with .541 TS% to Malone .485 TS%. Pippen's defense was terrific that series as he provided tremendous value by being the primary rim protector for the Bulls. Pippen had the better series. I'm not trading 1.5 blocks and better shooting for 4 more points on poor efficiency. Pip gets 2nd.
- '98 Finals: Malone has a better series but Pippen performs way better than a 35-year old Stockton so Pip was the 3rd best performer.

So in 6 Finals, Pippen's performances rank 2(a), 2, 3, 3a, 2, and 3. In half of their Finals, Pippen is the 2nd best player on the floor and in the other half he's the 3rd best. It's weird how that 6-0 Finals record looks different when you consider the second best player of MJ's rivals. Pippen is the best second banana of all-time and that certainly can't hurt when it comes to winning.

I get that Russell is hard to understand for many. I'll let Havlicek explain it:

"Russell was the kind of player who never concerned himself with personal goals. He put his team above all else, and in the process, he made his teammates better players. If you were a scorer, you were six to eight points better because Russell was around. If you were a good defensive player, you became a great defensive player.
The most important things to Bill were championships, rings, and winning. He was never after the personal stats. Wilt could raise the level of his game. He could do things that were eye-popping when you reviewed the box score, but he could never figure out how to make his teammates around him better."

Russell elevated his teammates on both ends of the floor. He did the hard things that his team needed and made the game easier for his team. His style allowed his teammates to make sacrifices as well for the good of the team. Russell played to win, so he got outplayed in just one series in his career and that was the only time he lost to Wilt.

Disagree that Jordan typically had the stronger rosters in the finals.

91
You can say Pippen played Magic to a draw but Magic (19/12/8) was better game 1 with the big triple double. Pippen was better games 2 and closeout game 5 although Magic had a ton of assist he shot poorly. Magic was better game 4 and game 3 was probably even. Pippen playing Magic, who was 2nd in MVP voting that year, about even was impressive though. Even if you take Divac out what the Lakers got from Perkins and Worthy was no more if not less impressive than what Chicago got from Grant/Paxson/Cartwright. Perkins to me was more probably more valuable than Grant. Perk was 5/13 from 3 as a big and averaged 1.5 blocks a game. He averaged 17/8 while Grant averaged 15/8. Worthy missed the closeout game but played well in the series averaging 19ppg.

92- Drexler averaged 25/8/5 and Pippen averaged 21/9/7. Pippen was better game 1 but Drexler was better the rest of the series. The closeout game was probably about even. But Portlands supporting cast of Porter, Kersey, Ainge, Cliff Robinson, Buck Williams, and Duckworth was better than Grant, Paxson, Wennington, and Cartwright. Its not even close. That Portland team was deep.

93- no doubt Pippen was better than Kevin Johnson. But Thunder Dan, Dumas, and Ainge was just as good as Grant, Paxson, BJ and Cartwright. Barkley was amazing and KJ was very good (17/3/7) but with Pippen the Bulls had 2 of the 3 best players on the court.

95- take Jordan and Kemp out and Payton (18/6/7) was just as good as Pippen in this series (16/8/5). I mean this was probably a draw. Now would you take Kukoc (13/5/4) Rodman (8/15) and Longley (12/4) over Detlef (16/5/3), Hawkins (13/4) and Perkins (11/5)? This was Rodmans best finals with the Bulls but Detlef was better than Kukoc (Detelf was a good defender too). I would take Longley over Brickowski which might be the difference.

97- i would take Pippen over Stockton but Pippen shot poorly in the series (42%) averaging 20/8/4 while Stockton was efficient (50%) averaging 15/4/9. Kukoc averaged 8/3 on 41% while Rodman averaged 2/8 only getting double digit boards in 2 games. Were they better then Hornacek 12/4/2 and Russell 11/6 along with Eisely? The games in this series were close. Bulls won by double digits game 2 and Utah did game 3.

98- Jordans supporting cast was better this series. Pippen obviously got hurt and was ineffective in the closeout game 6 but Kukoc played well games 5 and 6. But no, Jordan didnt always have the better supporting cast in the finals.

[KayDee35]

You can't penalize MJ for being the best player on the floor or not being an "underdog" in a series. That defeats the whole idea of being the GOAT in the first place. It's a backwards argument. MJ was never outplayed in a series, unlike Russell who averages less points, rebounds, assists per game and FG% than Wilt head to head.

Pippen never matched or outperformed the other #1 option in a Finals. He did not match or outperform Clyde, Barkely, Payton/Kemp, Malone in any of those Finals. That 91 Lakers squad had 4 guys averaging over 16ppg in that Finals, it wasn't just about Magic. That Portland team had 6 guys averaging double digits in the playoffs. Phoenix had 7 guys doing that over the regular season and 4 guys averaging over 15ppg in the Finals. Pippen averaged 34% in the 96 Finals while Kemp in that series averaging 23/10 on 55% shooting. He was the 2nd highest scorer in that series while blocking more shots than everyone on the floor (2 Bpg). This notion that MJ was playing against rec YMCA teams in the Finals just isn't true in the real world...

I'm not saying Kevin Johnson was better than Pippen. I'm saying that there were plenty competent number #2 options on Finals teams that would have been just as competent if not more competent playing next to MJ. If they made the Finals as a #2 without MJ, it'd be ridiculous to assume they wouldn't have done the same with him. You can't just presume these players would have been the same or ignore how the team would have been structured going forward if you swapped them out with Pippen as they developed in completely separate environments.

I'm not sure why you're being defensive over me acknowledging that MJ was the best player on the court. That's weird. I didn't knock him for it or give him credit for it because the topic was his teammates. Speaking of which:

- '91 Finals: Pippen outcored, outrebounded, and had twice as many steals per game as Magic. Pip also player great defense on Worthy and shut Magic down when he was on him. Pippen was easily the best player in the closeout Game 5 of that series. Magic does not have a clear edge over Pippen. I'm fine with calling them 2a and 2b.
- '92 Finals: Pippen had 20.8/8.3/7.7/1.5/0.7 on .561 TS% and Drexler had 24.8/7.8/5.3/1.3/1.0 on .522 TS%. Pippen had better efficiency and better defense that Clyde in that series. He was the second best player on the court.
- '93 Finals: Barkley was the second best player on the court and Pippen was third. Pretty clear.
- '96 Finals: The first Finals where MJ is not the best hands down the best player on the floor. Kemp had a series on par with MJ's. So they're 1a and 1b. Pippen and Payton also performed similarly. So they're 3a and 3b.
- '97 Finals: Pippen and Malone had the same apg and spg. Malone had 4 more ppg and Pippen had 1.5 more bpg. But Scottie was far more efficient with .541 TS% to Malone .485 TS%. Pippen's defense was terrific that series as he provided tremendous value by being the primary rim protector for the Bulls. Pippen had the better series. I'm not trading 1.5 blocks and better shooting for 4 more points on poor efficiency. Pip gets 2nd.
- '98 Finals: Malone has a better series but Pippen performs way better than a 35-year old Stockton so Pip was the 3rd best performer.

So in 6 Finals, Pippen's performances rank 2(a), 2, 3, 3a, 2, and 3. In half of their Finals, Pippen is the 2nd best player on the floor and in the other half he's the 3rd best. It's weird how that 6-0 Finals record looks different when you consider the second best player of MJ's rivals. Pippen is the best second banana of all-time and that certainly can't hurt when it comes to winning.

I get that Russell is hard to understand for many. I'll let Havlicek explain it:

"Russell was the kind of player who never concerned himself with personal goals. He put his team above all else, and in the process, he made his teammates better players. If you were a scorer, you were six to eight points better because Russell was around. If you were a good defensive player, you became a great defensive player.
The most important things to Bill were championships, rings, and winning. He was never after the personal stats. Wilt could raise the level of his game. He could do things that were eye-popping when you reviewed the box score, but he could never figure out how to make his teammates around him better."

Russell elevated his teammates on both ends of the floor. He did the hard things that his team needed and made the game easier for his team. His style allowed his teammates to make sacrifices as well for the good of the team. Russell played to win, so he got outplayed in just one series in his career and that was the only time he lost to Wilt.

Disagree that Jordan typically had the stronger rosters in the finals.

91
You can say Pippen played Magic to a draw but Magic (19/12/8) was better game 1 with the big triple double. Pippen was better games 2 and closeout game 5 although Magic had a ton of assist he shot poorly. Magic was better game 4 and game 3 was probably even. Pippen playing Magic, who was 2nd in MVP voting that year, about even was impressive though. Even if you take Divac out what the Lakers got from Perkins and Worthy was no more if not less impressive than what Chicago got from Grant/Paxson/Cartwright. Perkins to me was more probably more valuable than Grant. Perk was 5/13 from 3 as a big and averaged 1.5 blocks a game. He averaged 17/8 while Grant averaged 15/8. Worthy missed the closeout game but played well in the series averaging 19ppg.

92- Drexler averaged 25/8/5 and Pippen averaged 21/9/7. Pippen was better game 1 but Drexler was better the rest of the series. The closeout game was probably about even. But Portlands supporting cast of Porter, Kersey, Ainge, Cliff Robinson, Buck Williams, and Duckworth was better than Grant, Paxson, Wennington, and Cartwright. Its not even close. That Portland team was deep.

93- no doubt Pippen was better than Kevin Johnson. But Thunder Dan, Dumas, and Ainge was just as good as Grant, Paxson, BJ and Cartwright. Barkley was amazing and KJ was very good (17/3/7) but with Pippen the Bulls had 2 of the 3 best players on the court.

95- take Jordan and Kemp out and Payton (18/6/7) was just as good as Pippen in this series (16/8/5). I mean this was probably a draw. Now would you take Kukoc (13/5/4) Rodman (8/15) and Longley (12/4) over Detlef (16/5/3), Hawkins (13/4) and Perkins (11/5)? This was Rodmans best finals with the Bulls but Detlef was better than Kukoc (Detelf was a good defender too). I would take Longley over Brickowski which might be the difference.

97- i would take Pippen over Stockton but Pippen shot poorly in the series (42%) averaging 20/8/4 while Stockton was efficient (50%) averaging 15/4/9. Kukoc averaged 8/3 on 41% while Rodman averaged 2/8 only getting double digit boards in 2 games. Were they better then Hornacek 12/4/2 and Russell 11/6 along with Eisely? The games in this series were close. Bulls won by double digits game 2 and Utah did game 3.

98- Jordans supporting cast was better this series. Pippen obviously got hurt and was ineffective in the closeout game 6 but Kukoc played well games 5 and 6. But no, Jordan didnt always have the better supporting cast in the finals.

You caught me exaggerating I was making the most extreme case I could.

If I'm being honest, the difference between MJ and everyone else in most of those Finals is impressive and was often the biggest single contributor to the Bulls success.

91- I agree on how well the guys on both teams played. Pippen and Magic were about even only due to the Bulls defense of Pip and MJ on Magic. Sleepy Sam had a good series.

92- That Portland bench was very good. But MJ vastly outperformed Drexler. He opens with the shrug game and you could just see that MJ was on another level. Pippen also had a better game 5 that Drexler but Drexler had a better series overall.

93- That Suns team could score in a hurry and Majerle was pretty good for them. However, he was unable to really slow MJ down. KJ actually had the most success preventing penetration but MJ could shoot over him quite easily. Barkley was good but gapped by Jordan.

95- Agree on the Glove and Pip playing to a draw in that series. The Sonics were the only team that looked like they could beat those Bulls because MJ wasn't the best player on the floor for once (he was even with Kemp, imo). Rodman did have a great series, as you said. 15 rebounds per game is phenomenal. The Bulls defense was also very good in this series thanks to Pip, Rodman, and MJ. I'd take Longley over Brickowski who didn't seem to do very much in that series.

97- I agree that Scottie shot poorly and Stockton was solid. The Bulls dug up Bison Dele who took quite a few minutes from Rodman and played the heady veteran role well. MJ is a good deal better than Malone in this series but the Jazz probably have the better cast once you look past Pippen and the two-headed snake of Rodman/Dele.

98- Agreed.

You are correct that MJ does not always have the best supporting cast. But he had good teams and Pippen who was sometimes the second best player on the court. Nevertheless, MJ outperforms every one of his rivals in all his 6 Finals but one! I'm not sure that can be said of anyone else.

[ScrantonBulls]

I'm not sure why you're being defensive over me acknowledging that MJ was the best player on the court. That's weird. I didn't knock him for it or give him credit for it because the topic was his teammates. Speaking of which:

- '91 Finals: Pippen outcored, outrebounded, and had twice as many steals per game as Magic. Pip also player great defense on Worthy and shut Magic down when he was on him. Pippen was easily the best player in the closeout Game 5 of that series. Magic does not have a clear edge over Pippen. I'm fine with calling them 2a and 2b.
- '92 Finals: Pippen had 20.8/8.3/7.7/1.5/0.7 on .561 TS% and Drexler had 24.8/7.8/5.3/1.3/1.0 on .522 TS%. Pippen had better efficiency and better defense that Clyde in that series. He was the second best player on the court.
- '93 Finals: Barkley was the second best player on the court and Pippen was third. Pretty clear.
- '96 Finals: The first Finals where MJ is not the best hands down the best player on the floor. Kemp had a series on par with MJ's. So they're 1a and 1b. Pippen and Payton also performed similarly. So they're 3a and 3b.
- '97 Finals: Pippen and Malone had the same apg and spg. Malone had 4 more ppg and Pippen had 1.5 more bpg. But Scottie was far more efficient with .541 TS% to Malone .485 TS%. Pippen's defense was terrific that series as he provided tremendous value by being the primary rim protector for the Bulls. Pippen had the better series. I'm not trading 1.5 blocks and better shooting for 4 more points on poor efficiency. Pip gets 2nd.
- '98 Finals: Malone has a better series but Pippen performs way better than a 35-year old Stockton so Pip was the 3rd best performer.

So in 6 Finals, Pippen's performances rank 2(a), 2, 3, 3a, 2, and 3. In half of their Finals, Pippen is the 2nd best player on the floor and in the other half he's the 3rd best. It's weird how that 6-0 Finals record looks different when you consider the second best player of MJ's rivals. Pippen is the best second banana of all-time and that certainly can't hurt when it comes to winning.

I get that Russell is hard to understand for many. I'll let Havlicek explain it:


Russell elevated his teammates on both ends of the floor. He did the hard things that his team needed and made the game easier for his team. His style allowed his teammates to make sacrifices as well for the good of the team. Russell played to win, so he got outplayed in just one series in his career and that was the only time he lost to Wilt.

Disagree that Jordan typically had the stronger rosters in the finals.

91
You can say Pippen played Magic to a draw but Magic (19/12/8) was better game 1 with the big triple double. Pippen was better games 2 and closeout game 5 although Magic had a ton of assist he shot poorly. Magic was better game 4 and game 3 was probably even. Pippen playing Magic, who was 2nd in MVP voting that year, about even was impressive though. Even if you take Divac out what the Lakers got from Perkins and Worthy was no more if not less impressive than what Chicago got from Grant/Paxson/Cartwright. Perkins to me was more probably more valuable than Grant. Perk was 5/13 from 3 as a big and averaged 1.5 blocks a game. He averaged 17/8 while Grant averaged 15/8. Worthy missed the closeout game but played well in the series averaging 19ppg.

92- Drexler averaged 25/8/5 and Pippen averaged 21/9/7. Pippen was better game 1 but Drexler was better the rest of the series. The closeout game was probably about even. But Portlands supporting cast of Porter, Kersey, Ainge, Cliff Robinson, Buck Williams, and Duckworth was better than Grant, Paxson, Wennington, and Cartwright. Its not even close. That Portland team was deep.

93- no doubt Pippen was better than Kevin Johnson. But Thunder Dan, Dumas, and Ainge was just as good as Grant, Paxson, BJ and Cartwright. Barkley was amazing and KJ was very good (17/3/7) but with Pippen the Bulls had 2 of the 3 best players on the court.

95- take Jordan and Kemp out and Payton (18/6/7) was just as good as Pippen in this series (16/8/5). I mean this was probably a draw. Now would you take Kukoc (13/5/4) Rodman (8/15) and Longley (12/4) over Detlef (16/5/3), Hawkins (13/4) and Perkins (11/5)? This was Rodmans best finals with the Bulls but Detlef was better than Kukoc (Detelf was a good defender too). I would take Longley over Brickowski which might be the difference.

97- i would take Pippen over Stockton but Pippen shot poorly in the series (42%) averaging 20/8/4 while Stockton was efficient (50%) averaging 15/4/9. Kukoc averaged 8/3 on 41% while Rodman averaged 2/8 only getting double digit boards in 2 games. Were they better then Hornacek 12/4/2 and Russell 11/6 along with Eisely? The games in this series were close. Bulls won by double digits game 2 and Utah did game 3.

98- Jordans supporting cast was better this series. Pippen obviously got hurt and was ineffective in the closeout game 6 but Kukoc played well games 5 and 6. But no, Jordan didnt always have the better supporting cast in the finals.

You caught me exaggerating I was making the most extreme case I could.

If I'm being honest, the difference between MJ and everyone else in most of those Finals is impressive and was often the biggest single contributor to the Bulls success.

91- I agree on how well the guys on both teams played. Pippen and Magic were about even only due to the Bulls defense of Pip and MJ on Magic. Sleepy Sam had a good series.

92- That Portland bench was very good. But MJ vastly outperformed Drexler. He opens with the shrug game and you could just see that MJ was on another level. Pippen also had a better game 5 that Drexler but Drexler had a better series overall.

93- That Suns team could score in a hurry and Majerle was pretty good for them. However, he was unable to really slow MJ down. KJ actually had the most success preventing penetration but MJ could shoot over him quite easily. Barkley was good but gapped by Jordan.

95- Agree on the Glove and Pip playing to a draw in that series. The Sonics were the only team that looked like they could beat those Bulls because MJ wasn't the best player on the floor for once (he was even with Kemp, imo). Rodman did have a great series, as you said. 15 rebounds per game is phenomenal. The Bulls defense was also very good in this series thanks to Pip, Rodman, and MJ. I'd take Longley over Brickowski who didn't seem to do very much in that series.

97- I agree that Scottie shot poorly and Stockton was solid. The Bulls dug up Bison Dele who took quite a few minutes from Rodman and played the heady veteran role well. MJ is a good deal better than Malone in this series but the Jazz probably have the better cast once you look past Pippen and the two-headed snake of Rodman/Dele.

98- Agreed.

You are correct that MJ does not always have the best supporting cast. But he had good teams and Pippen who was sometimes the second best player on the court. Nevertheless, MJ outperforms every one of his rivals in all his 6 Finals but one! I'm not sure that can be said of anyone else.

I think it's pretty indisputable that MJ had the best supporting cast in all 6 of those finals. Which series do you think the other team's #1 option had a better cast? On paper, the Sun's cast around Barkley looks the best. But then when you factor in defense - it's pretty clear the Bulls cast was better. They won 55 games without MJ the next year. It's no contest imo.

[MavsDirk41]

I'm not sure why you're being defensive over me acknowledging that MJ was the best player on the court. That's weird. I didn't knock him for it or give him credit for it because the topic was his teammates. Speaking of which:

- '91 Finals: Pippen outcored, outrebounded, and had twice as many steals per game as Magic. Pip also player great defense on Worthy and shut Magic down when he was on him. Pippen was easily the best player in the closeout Game 5 of that series. Magic does not have a clear edge over Pippen. I'm fine with calling them 2a and 2b.
- '92 Finals: Pippen had 20.8/8.3/7.7/1.5/0.7 on .561 TS% and Drexler had 24.8/7.8/5.3/1.3/1.0 on .522 TS%. Pippen had better efficiency and better defense that Clyde in that series. He was the second best player on the court.
- '93 Finals: Barkley was the second best player on the court and Pippen was third. Pretty clear.
- '96 Finals: The first Finals where MJ is not the best hands down the best player on the floor. Kemp had a series on par with MJ's. So they're 1a and 1b. Pippen and Payton also performed similarly. So they're 3a and 3b.
- '97 Finals: Pippen and Malone had the same apg and spg. Malone had 4 more ppg and Pippen had 1.5 more bpg. But Scottie was far more efficient with .541 TS% to Malone .485 TS%. Pippen's defense was terrific that series as he provided tremendous value by being the primary rim protector for the Bulls. Pippen had the better series. I'm not trading 1.5 blocks and better shooting for 4 more points on poor efficiency. Pip gets 2nd.
- '98 Finals: Malone has a better series but Pippen performs way better than a 35-year old Stockton so Pip was the 3rd best performer.

So in 6 Finals, Pippen's performances rank 2(a), 2, 3, 3a, 2, and 3. In half of their Finals, Pippen is the 2nd best player on the floor and in the other half he's the 3rd best. It's weird how that 6-0 Finals record looks different when you consider the second best player of MJ's rivals. Pippen is the best second banana of all-time and that certainly can't hurt when it comes to winning.

I get that Russell is hard to understand for many. I'll let Havlicek explain it:


Russell elevated his teammates on both ends of the floor. He did the hard things that his team needed and made the game easier for his team. His style allowed his teammates to make sacrifices as well for the good of the team. Russell played to win, so he got outplayed in just one series in his career and that was the only time he lost to Wilt.

Disagree that Jordan typically had the stronger rosters in the finals.

91
You can say Pippen played Magic to a draw but Magic (19/12/8) was better game 1 with the big triple double. Pippen was better games 2 and closeout game 5 although Magic had a ton of assist he shot poorly. Magic was better game 4 and game 3 was probably even. Pippen playing Magic, who was 2nd in MVP voting that year, about even was impressive though. Even if you take Divac out what the Lakers got from Perkins and Worthy was no more if not less impressive than what Chicago got from Grant/Paxson/Cartwright. Perkins to me was more probably more valuable than Grant. Perk was 5/13 from 3 as a big and averaged 1.5 blocks a game. He averaged 17/8 while Grant averaged 15/8. Worthy missed the closeout game but played well in the series averaging 19ppg.

92- Drexler averaged 25/8/5 and Pippen averaged 21/9/7. Pippen was better game 1 but Drexler was better the rest of the series. The closeout game was probably about even. But Portlands supporting cast of Porter, Kersey, Ainge, Cliff Robinson, Buck Williams, and Duckworth was better than Grant, Paxson, Wennington, and Cartwright. Its not even close. That Portland team was deep.

93- no doubt Pippen was better than Kevin Johnson. But Thunder Dan, Dumas, and Ainge was just as good as Grant, Paxson, BJ and Cartwright. Barkley was amazing and KJ was very good (17/3/7) but with Pippen the Bulls had 2 of the 3 best players on the court.

95- take Jordan and Kemp out and Payton (18/6/7) was just as good as Pippen in this series (16/8/5). I mean this was probably a draw. Now would you take Kukoc (13/5/4) Rodman (8/15) and Longley (12/4) over Detlef (16/5/3), Hawkins (13/4) and Perkins (11/5)? This was Rodmans best finals with the Bulls but Detlef was better than Kukoc (Detelf was a good defender too). I would take Longley over Brickowski which might be the difference.

97- i would take Pippen over Stockton but Pippen shot poorly in the series (42%) averaging 20/8/4 while Stockton was efficient (50%) averaging 15/4/9. Kukoc averaged 8/3 on 41% while Rodman averaged 2/8 only getting double digit boards in 2 games. Were they better then Hornacek 12/4/2 and Russell 11/6 along with Eisely? The games in this series were close. Bulls won by double digits game 2 and Utah did game 3.

98- Jordans supporting cast was better this series. Pippen obviously got hurt and was ineffective in the closeout game 6 but Kukoc played well games 5 and 6. But no, Jordan didnt always have the better supporting cast in the finals.

You caught me exaggerating I was making the most extreme case I could.

If I'm being honest, the difference between MJ and everyone else in most of those Finals is impressive and was often the biggest single contributor to the Bulls success.

91- I agree on how well the guys on both teams played. Pippen and Magic were about even only due to the Bulls defense of Pip and MJ on Magic. Sleepy Sam had a good series.

92- That Portland bench was very good. But MJ vastly outperformed Drexler. He opens with the shrug game and you could just see that MJ was on another level. Pippen also had a better game 5 that Drexler but Drexler had a better series overall.

93- That Suns team could score in a hurry and Majerle was pretty good for them. However, he was unable to really slow MJ down. KJ actually had the most success preventing penetration but MJ could shoot over him quite easily. Barkley was good but gapped by Jordan.

95- Agree on the Glove and Pip playing to a draw in that series. The Sonics were the only team that looked like they could beat those Bulls because MJ wasn't the best player on the floor for once (he was even with Kemp, imo). Rodman did have a great series, as you said. 15 rebounds per game is phenomenal. The Bulls defense was also very good in this series thanks to Pip, Rodman, and MJ. I'd take Longley over Brickowski who didn't seem to do very much in that series.

97- I agree that Scottie shot poorly and Stockton was solid. The Bulls dug up Bison Dele who took quite a few minutes from Rodman and played the heady veteran role well. MJ is a good deal better than Malone in this series but the Jazz probably have the better cast once you look past Pippen and the two-headed snake of Rodman/Dele.

98- Agreed.

You are correct that MJ does not always have the best supporting cast. But he had good teams and Pippen who was sometimes the second best player on the court. Nevertheless, MJ outperforms every one of his rivals in all his 6 Finals but one! I'm not sure that can be said of anyone else.

I agree with you sir.
After Jordan had a big game in game 3 of the 96 finals i think everyone, them included, thought the series was over. Then Seattle mopped the floor with them in game 4. Detlef to me was the X factor for them because he played really well for them in those finals. He could score, pass the ball, rebound, defend. And of course Kemp was awesome. 93 finals was the best i ever saw Barkley. Of course he was league MVP and then in the finals Chicago couldnt keep him off the boards. He ate up the Bulls. Jordan was better but Barkley was phenomenal. The 98 finals was two old teams just trying to make it to the finish line lol.

Jordans worst finals was 96
I think Barkley was the best player against the Bulls in the finals
Kemp/Payton was the best duo against the Bulls in the finals.
Portland was the deepest team the Bulls played in the finals.

[KayDee35]

- '91 Finals: Pippen outcored, outrebounded, and had twice as many steals per game as Magic. Pip also player great defense on Worthy and shut Magic down when he was on him. Pippen was easily the best player in the closeout Game 5 of that series. Magic does not have a clear edge over Pippen. I'm fine with calling them 2a and 2b.
- '92 Finals: Pippen had 20.8/8.3/7.7/1.5/0.7 on .561 TS% and Drexler had 24.8/7.8/5.3/1.3/1.0 on .522 TS%. Pippen had better efficiency and better defense that Clyde in that series. He was the second best player on the court.
- '93 Finals: Barkley was the second best player on the court and Pippen was third. Pretty clear.
- '96 Finals: The first Finals where MJ is not the best hands down the best player on the floor. Kemp had a series on par with MJ's. So they're 1a and 1b. Pippen and Payton also performed similarly. So they're 3a and 3b.
- '97 Finals: Pippen and Malone had the same apg and spg. Malone had 4 more ppg and Pippen had 1.5 more bpg. But Scottie was far more efficient with .541 TS% to Malone .485 TS%. Pippen's defense was terrific that series as he provided tremendous value by being the primary rim protector for the Bulls. Pippen had the better series. I'm not trading 1.5 blocks and better shooting for 4 more points on poor efficiency. Pip gets 2nd.
- '98 Finals: Malone has a better series but Pippen performs way better than a 35-year old Stockton so Pip was the 3rd best performer.

So in 6 Finals, Pippen's performances rank 2(a), 2, 3, 3a, 2, and 3. In half of their Finals, Pippen is the 2nd best player on the floor and in the other half he's the 3rd best. It's weird how that 6-0 Finals record looks different when you consider the second best player of MJ's rivals. Pippen is the best second banana of all-time and that certainly can't hurt when it comes to winning.

You do realize there's more than two players on a team right? You do understand that outside of Magic and Worthy, the Lakers still had an 18ppg and 16ppg scorer on the team right? Do you think Pippen guarded Magic and Worthy at the same time? You do understand that MJ still had to play defense on one of those two right? It ain't like MJ got to take half the game off and only had to worry about scoring points. Wanna talk about defense? MJ had more blocks and steals than Pippen while still averaging way more assists and still having less turnovers.

In the 92-93 Finals Pippen was great, but considering that MJ averaged 38/6/6 on 50%+ between both those Finals, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that MJ wasn't winning those rings with just about any competent #2. Pippen deserves credit and he's gotten it, but pretending like MJ's ability to win rings in that era would have compromised without him is huuuuuuuge stretch.

That 96 Finals is known more for Payton's defense on MJ and Kemp going off than anything Pippen was doing. While Kemp was flying all over the place and blocking more shots than anyone Payton playing the best defense we've seen anyone play on MJ while averaging more points and assists than Pippen. You pretending like Pippen was on par with them with his 34% shooting is pretty hilarious. You'd be better off giving credit to Rodman, who at least was getting boards. It's unfortunate that's all he was doing cause he and Pippen certainly weren't doing a damn thing about Kemp bangin all over their heads for six games.

Nobody is tossing MVP Malone for a 1997 Scottie Pippen. I'm sorry, you're on your own on that one. Malone averaged more points, rebounding and better FG% in that series. The fact that they tied up in steals and assists is more of a negative for Pippen than a positive considering he's supposed to be the point forward and defensive guru. If you wanna talk about TS% all of a sudden I can point out that Stockton had a bigger gap in TS% above Pippen than Pippen did above Malone while averaging 5 more APG, more steals per game and averaging only 5 less PPG. Both Malone and Stockton had a better offensive and defensive rating than Pippen in that Finals.

I hesitate to say Pippen played "way better" than Stockton in 98 considering Stockon still accounted for more points through his scoring and passing while still averaging more steals and much better FG%. Redgardless, after Game 4 Pippen was absolutely done. He mustered up 6 points on 2/16 in Game 5 and was barely able to clock in 25 minutes for 8 points in Game 6 while MJ was scoring over half the team's points. He was a play away from a wheelchair in that close out game and probably wouldn't even have been able to suit up for a Game 7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes Pippen did his part but calling him the greatest 2nd option ever over Kobe/Kareem/ KD-Steph really makes my eyes roll. What makes them roll even more is you trying so hard to use Pippen to discredit MJ while your GOAT (Russell) literally had the MVP of the freaking league in his first year. Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years while Wilt didn't have a single one for his first 5 years and only 1 teammate that made All-NBA with him for a whole decade before getting to LA.

But yeah, MJ is the one who really had it easy...

KD/Kobe/Kareem were all temporary second bananas. Magic was 2nd when he started his career, later they were about even, and only after that did Kareem become a 2nd option. Kobe had a similar arc to Magic's where he eventually became option 1a/1b with Shaq. KD was at GS for a short time.

MJ had Pippen as his 2nd option for all 6 rings. Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league for all those 6 years when you consider both sides of the ball. Was there another 2nd option who was capable of finishing 3rd in MVP voting at that time?

The difference between playing with a high usage player like MJ and Russell is that your stats will take a hit when playing with with MJ. So your chances of getting awards goes way down. Scottie made the all-NBA 3rd team when they won ring #3, then MJ left and Pip made all-NBA 1st team for 3 years in a row.

Wilt had better talent around him later in his career and had the better record multiple times. Wilt was such a high usage player that he depressed the statistics of his teammates, especially early in his career, which reduced their chances of getting awards. Rookie Russell was hyper-focused on winning, not hyper-focused on his stats, like a young MJ and Wilt, and that's why he's the greatest winner the game has ever seen.

NBA players voted on MVP in 1962. That was the year that Wilt averaged 50ppg, Oscar averaged a 30-point triple-double, and Baylor averaged 38 and 16. Can you guess which one of them won MVP? That's right, it was Bill Russell.

[AlexanderRight]

- '91 Finals: Pippen outcored, outrebounded, and had twice as many steals per game as Magic. Pip also player great defense on Worthy and shut Magic down when he was on him. Pippen was easily the best player in the closeout Game 5 of that series. Magic does not have a clear edge over Pippen. I'm fine with calling them 2a and 2b.
- '92 Finals: Pippen had 20.8/8.3/7.7/1.5/0.7 on .561 TS% and Drexler had 24.8/7.8/5.3/1.3/1.0 on .522 TS%. Pippen had better efficiency and better defense that Clyde in that series. He was the second best player on the court.
- '93 Finals: Barkley was the second best player on the court and Pippen was third. Pretty clear.
- '96 Finals: The first Finals where MJ is not the best hands down the best player on the floor. Kemp had a series on par with MJ's. So they're 1a and 1b. Pippen and Payton also performed similarly. So they're 3a and 3b.
- '97 Finals: Pippen and Malone had the same apg and spg. Malone had 4 more ppg and Pippen had 1.5 more bpg. But Scottie was far more efficient with .541 TS% to Malone .485 TS%. Pippen's defense was terrific that series as he provided tremendous value by being the primary rim protector for the Bulls. Pippen had the better series. I'm not trading 1.5 blocks and better shooting for 4 more points on poor efficiency. Pip gets 2nd.
- '98 Finals: Malone has a better series but Pippen performs way better than a 35-year old Stockton so Pip was the 3rd best performer.

So in 6 Finals, Pippen's performances rank 2(a), 2, 3, 3a, 2, and 3. In half of their Finals, Pippen is the 2nd best player on the floor and in the other half he's the 3rd best. It's weird how that 6-0 Finals record looks different when you consider the second best player of MJ's rivals. Pippen is the best second banana of all-time and that certainly can't hurt when it comes to winning.

You do realize there's more than two players on a team right? You do understand that outside of Magic and Worthy, the Lakers still had an 18ppg and 16ppg scorer on the team right? Do you think Pippen guarded Magic and Worthy at the same time? You do understand that MJ still had to play defense on one of those two right? It ain't like MJ got to take half the game off and only had to worry about scoring points. Wanna talk about defense? MJ had more blocks and steals than Pippen while still averaging way more assists and still having less turnovers.

In the 92-93 Finals Pippen was great, but considering that MJ averaged 38/6/6 on 50%+ between both those Finals, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that MJ wasn't winning those rings with just about any competent #2. Pippen deserves credit and he's gotten it, but pretending like MJ's ability to win rings in that era would have compromised without him is huuuuuuuge stretch.

That 96 Finals is known more for Payton's defense on MJ and Kemp going off than anything Pippen was doing. While Kemp was flying all over the place and blocking more shots than anyone Payton playing the best defense we've seen anyone play on MJ while averaging more points and assists than Pippen. You pretending like Pippen was on par with them with his 34% shooting is pretty hilarious. You'd be better off giving credit to Rodman, who at least was getting boards. It's unfortunate that's all he was doing cause he and Pippen certainly weren't doing a damn thing about Kemp bangin all over their heads for six games.

Nobody is tossing MVP Malone for a 1997 Scottie Pippen. I'm sorry, you're on your own on that one. Malone averaged more points, rebounding and better FG% in that series. The fact that they tied up in steals and assists is more of a negative for Pippen than a positive considering he's supposed to be the point forward and defensive guru. If you wanna talk about TS% all of a sudden I can point out that Stockton had a bigger gap in TS% above Pippen than Pippen did above Malone while averaging 5 more APG, more steals per game and averaging only 5 less PPG. Both Malone and Stockton had a better offensive and defensive rating than Pippen in that Finals.

I hesitate to say Pippen played "way better" than Stockton in 98 considering Stockon still accounted for more points through his scoring and passing while still averaging more steals and much better FG%. Redgardless, after Game 4 Pippen was absolutely done. He mustered up 6 points on 2/16 in Game 5 and was barely able to clock in 25 minutes for 8 points in Game 6 while MJ was scoring over half the team's points. He was a play away from a wheelchair in that close out game and probably wouldn't even have been able to suit up for a Game 7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes Pippen did his part but calling him the greatest 2nd option ever over Kobe/Kareem/ KD-Steph really makes my eyes roll. What makes them roll even more is you trying so hard to use Pippen to discredit MJ while your GOAT (Russell) literally had the MVP of the freaking league in his first year. Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years while Wilt didn't have a single one for his first 5 years and only 1 teammate that made All-NBA with him for a whole decade before getting to LA.

But yeah, MJ is the one who really had it easy...

KD/Kobe/Kareem were all temporary second bananas. Magic was 2nd when he started his career, later they were about even, and only after that did Kareem become a 2nd option. Kobe had a similar arc to Magic's where he eventually became option 1a/1b with Shaq. KD was at GS for a short time.

MJ had Pippen as his 2nd option for all 6 rings. Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league for all those 6 years when you consider both sides of the ball. Was there another 2nd option who was capable of finishing 3rd in MVP voting at that time?

The difference between playing with a high usage player like MJ and Russell is that your stats will take a hit when playing with with MJ. So your chances of getting awards goes way down. Scottie made the all-NBA 3rd team when they won ring #3, then MJ left and Pip made all-NBA 1st team for 3 years in a row.

Wilt had better talent around him later in his career and had the better record multiple times. Wilt was such a high usage player that he depressed the statistics of his teammates, especially early in his career, which reduced their chances of getting awards. Rookie Russell was hyper-focused on winning, not hyper-focused on his stats, like a young MJ and Wilt, and that's why he's the greatest winner the game has ever seen.

NBA players voted on MVP in 1962. That was the year that Wilt averaged 50ppg, Oscar averaged a 30-point triple-double, and Baylor averaged 38 and 16. Can you guess which one of them won MVP? That's right, it was Bill Russell.

If Pippen finishing 3rd in MVP voting when MJ wasn't even playing is important than Kareem and Bob Cousy winning literal MVPs WITH Russell and Magic playing has to be important. You have to apply your logic consistently. Kobe finished Top 5 in MVP voting playing with Shaq 3 times. Kareem 5 times playing with Magic. Cousy 3 times playing with Russell.

Just because Kobe/ Kareem/ Cousy were #1s earlier or later in the careers, doesn't mean they weren't 2nd bananas for the most successful runs they had. Saying "you have to be a 2nd banana your entire career to be a 2nd banana" is just you trapping yourself in an arbitrary definition to make a meaningless claim. "Scottie Pippen is the greatest 2nd banana that stayed 2nd banana his whole career." Uh, okay but even Pippen didn't play 2nd banana his whole career. The fact that Pippen's entire career is in MJ's shadow unlike Kareem to Magic, Cousy to Russell, Kobe to Shaq says more about MJ and less about Pippen than any kind of "2nd banana award".

MJ played next to an All NBA 1st Team Pippen for a season and a playoff run. Great. Kobe was ALL NBA 1st Team 3 times next to Shaq. Kareem was All NBA 1st Team 4 times next to Magic. Cousy was All NBA 1st Team 5 times next to Russell. If Cousy/Kobe/Kareem weren't the 2nd bananas than were Shaq/Magic/Russell were because you're gonna have a harder time pretending like Pippen was better than those guys.

"Wilt had better talent late in his career". You do know that only 1 season in Wilt's whole career did he have 2 All NBA teammates playing next to him right? Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

Face it my guy. There's no world where you can hype up MJ's help, without also hyping up Russell's and Magic's and Larry's and Shaq's and Lebron's.

If you still think Russell is better than Wilt, that's fine. If Russell is your favorite player, that's perfectly okay. But to pretend that Russell didn't have drastically more help than Wilt or that MJ benefited from this "unfair supporting cast" that every other all time great didn't have is just some fairytale.

[ScrantonBulls]

You do realize there's more than two players on a team right? You do understand that outside of Magic and Worthy, the Lakers still had an 18ppg and 16ppg scorer on the team right? Do you think Pippen guarded Magic and Worthy at the same time? You do understand that MJ still had to play defense on one of those two right? It ain't like MJ got to take half the game off and only had to worry about scoring points. Wanna talk about defense? MJ had more blocks and steals than Pippen while still averaging way more assists and still having less turnovers.

In the 92-93 Finals Pippen was great, but considering that MJ averaged 38/6/6 on 50%+ between both those Finals, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that MJ wasn't winning those rings with just about any competent #2. Pippen deserves credit and he's gotten it, but pretending like MJ's ability to win rings in that era would have compromised without him is huuuuuuuge stretch.

That 96 Finals is known more for Payton's defense on MJ and Kemp going off than anything Pippen was doing. While Kemp was flying all over the place and blocking more shots than anyone Payton playing the best defense we've seen anyone play on MJ while averaging more points and assists than Pippen. You pretending like Pippen was on par with them with his 34% shooting is pretty hilarious. You'd be better off giving credit to Rodman, who at least was getting boards. It's unfortunate that's all he was doing cause he and Pippen certainly weren't doing a damn thing about Kemp bangin all over their heads for six games.

Nobody is tossing MVP Malone for a 1997 Scottie Pippen. I'm sorry, you're on your own on that one. Malone averaged more points, rebounding and better FG% in that series. The fact that they tied up in steals and assists is more of a negative for Pippen than a positive considering he's supposed to be the point forward and defensive guru. If you wanna talk about TS% all of a sudden I can point out that Stockton had a bigger gap in TS% above Pippen than Pippen did above Malone while averaging 5 more APG, more steals per game and averaging only 5 less PPG. Both Malone and Stockton had a better offensive and defensive rating than Pippen in that Finals.

I hesitate to say Pippen played "way better" than Stockton in 98 considering Stockon still accounted for more points through his scoring and passing while still averaging more steals and much better FG%. Redgardless, after Game 4 Pippen was absolutely done. He mustered up 6 points on 2/16 in Game 5 and was barely able to clock in 25 minutes for 8 points in Game 6 while MJ was scoring over half the team's points. He was a play away from a wheelchair in that close out game and probably wouldn't even have been able to suit up for a Game 7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes Pippen did his part but calling him the greatest 2nd option ever over Kobe/Kareem/ KD-Steph really makes my eyes roll. What makes them roll even more is you trying so hard to use Pippen to discredit MJ while your GOAT (Russell) literally had the MVP of the freaking league in his first year. Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years while Wilt didn't have a single one for his first 5 years and only 1 teammate that made All-NBA with him for a whole decade before getting to LA.

But yeah, MJ is the one who really had it easy...

KD/Kobe/Kareem were all temporary second bananas. Magic was 2nd when he started his career, later they were about even, and only after that did Kareem become a 2nd option. Kobe had a similar arc to Magic's where he eventually became option 1a/1b with Shaq. KD was at GS for a short time.

MJ had Pippen as his 2nd option for all 6 rings. Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league for all those 6 years when you consider both sides of the ball. Was there another 2nd option who was capable of finishing 3rd in MVP voting at that time?

The difference between playing with a high usage player like MJ and Russell is that your stats will take a hit when playing with with MJ. So your chances of getting awards goes way down. Scottie made the all-NBA 3rd team when they won ring #3, then MJ left and Pip made all-NBA 1st team for 3 years in a row.

Wilt had better talent around him later in his career and had the better record multiple times. Wilt was such a high usage player that he depressed the statistics of his teammates, especially early in his career, which reduced their chances of getting awards. Rookie Russell was hyper-focused on winning, not hyper-focused on his stats, like a young MJ and Wilt, and that's why he's the greatest winner the game has ever seen.

NBA players voted on MVP in 1962. That was the year that Wilt averaged 50ppg, Oscar averaged a 30-point triple-double, and Baylor averaged 38 and 16. Can you guess which one of them won MVP? That's right, it was Bill Russell.

If Pippen finishing 3rd in MVP voting when MJ wasn't even playing is important than Kareem and Bob Cousy winning literal MVPs WITH Russell and Magic playing has to be important. You have to apply your logic consistently. Kobe finished Top 5 in MVP voting playing with Shaq 3 times. Kareem 5 times playing with Magic. Cousy 3 times playing with Russell.

Just because Kobe/ Kareem/ Cousy were #1s earlier or later in the careers, doesn't mean they weren't 2nd bananas for the most successful runs they had. Saying "you have to be a 2nd banana your entire career to be a 2nd banana" is just you trapping yourself in an arbitrary definition to make a meaningless claim. "Scottie Pippen is the greatest 2nd banana that stayed 2nd banana his whole career." Uh, okay but even Pippen didn't play 2nd banana his whole career. The fact that Pippen's entire career is in MJ's shadow unlike Kareem to Magic, Cousy to Russell, Kobe to Shaq says more about MJ and less about Pippen than any kind of "2nd banana award".

MJ played next to an All NBA 1st Team Pippen for a season and a playoff run. Great. Kobe was ALL NBA 1st Team 3 times next to Shaq. Kareem was All NBA 1st Team 4 times next to Magic. Cousy was All NBA 1st Team 5 times next to Russell. If Cousy/Kobe/Kareem weren't the 2nd bananas than were Shaq/Magic/Russell were because you're gonna have a harder time pretending like Pippen was better than those guys.

"Wilt had better talent late in his career". You do know that only 1 season in Wilt's whole career did he have 2 All NBA teammates playing next to him right? Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

Face it my guy. There's no world where you can hype up MJ's help, without also hyping up Russell's and Magic's and Larry's and Shaq's and Lebron's.

If you still think Russell is better than Wilt, that's fine. If Russell is your favorite player, that's perfectly okay. But to pretend that Russell didn't have drastically more help than Wilt or that MJ benefited from this "unfair supporting cast" that every other all time great didn't have is just some fairytale.

Scottie was without question the best #2 I'm the league in then 90s. Then you have All-Defensive players and HOFers like Grant, Rodman, Kukoc+ the GOAT coach and deep teams.

Why is it so bothersome to you that MJ had clearly the best #2 and supporting casts during that decade? It's a fact. I'm not sure why it is so controversial to you.

[AlexanderRight]

KD/Kobe/Kareem were all temporary second bananas. Magic was 2nd when he started his career, later they were about even, and only after that did Kareem become a 2nd option. Kobe had a similar arc to Magic's where he eventually became option 1a/1b with Shaq. KD was at GS for a short time.

MJ had Pippen as his 2nd option for all 6 rings. Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league for all those 6 years when you consider both sides of the ball. Was there another 2nd option who was capable of finishing 3rd in MVP voting at that time?

The difference between playing with a high usage player like MJ and Russell is that your stats will take a hit when playing with with MJ. So your chances of getting awards goes way down. Scottie made the all-NBA 3rd team when they won ring #3, then MJ left and Pip made all-NBA 1st team for 3 years in a row.

Wilt had better talent around him later in his career and had the better record multiple times. Wilt was such a high usage player that he depressed the statistics of his teammates, especially early in his career, which reduced their chances of getting awards. Rookie Russell was hyper-focused on winning, not hyper-focused on his stats, like a young MJ and Wilt, and that's why he's the greatest winner the game has ever seen.

NBA players voted on MVP in 1962. That was the year that Wilt averaged 50ppg, Oscar averaged a 30-point triple-double, and Baylor averaged 38 and 16. Can you guess which one of them won MVP? That's right, it was Bill Russell.

If Pippen finishing 3rd in MVP voting when MJ wasn't even playing is important than Kareem and Bob Cousy winning literal MVPs WITH Russell and Magic playing has to be important. You have to apply your logic consistently. Kobe finished Top 5 in MVP voting playing with Shaq 3 times. Kareem 5 times playing with Magic. Cousy 3 times playing with Russell.

Just because Kobe/ Kareem/ Cousy were #1s earlier or later in the careers, doesn't mean they weren't 2nd bananas for the most successful runs they had. Saying "you have to be a 2nd banana your entire career to be a 2nd banana" is just you trapping yourself in an arbitrary definition to make a meaningless claim. "Scottie Pippen is the greatest 2nd banana that stayed 2nd banana his whole career." Uh, okay but even Pippen didn't play 2nd banana his whole career. The fact that Pippen's entire career is in MJ's shadow unlike Kareem to Magic, Cousy to Russell, Kobe to Shaq says more about MJ and less about Pippen than any kind of "2nd banana award".

MJ played next to an All NBA 1st Team Pippen for a season and a playoff run. Great. Kobe was ALL NBA 1st Team 3 times next to Shaq. Kareem was All NBA 1st Team 4 times next to Magic. Cousy was All NBA 1st Team 5 times next to Russell. If Cousy/Kobe/Kareem weren't the 2nd bananas than were Shaq/Magic/Russell were because you're gonna have a harder time pretending like Pippen was better than those guys.

"Wilt had better talent late in his career". You do know that only 1 season in Wilt's whole career did he have 2 All NBA teammates playing next to him right? Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

Face it my guy. There's no world where you can hype up MJ's help, without also hyping up Russell's and Magic's and Larry's and Shaq's and Lebron's.

If you still think Russell is better than Wilt, that's fine. If Russell is your favorite player, that's perfectly okay. But to pretend that Russell didn't have drastically more help than Wilt or that MJ benefited from this "unfair supporting cast" that every other all time great didn't have is just some fairytale.

Scottie was without question the best #2 I'm the league in then 90s. Then you have All-Defensive players and HOFers like Grant, Rodman, Kukoc+ the GOAT coach and deep teams.

Why is it so bothersome to you that MJ had clearly the best #2 and supporting casts during that decade? It's a fact. I'm not sure why it is so controversial to you.

I'm not bothered by anyone that says Pippen was the best #2 in the 90s, for whatever that's worth, even though most agree he wouldn't of been that without MJ. I just find it hilarious and easily refutable when Pippen is used as a crutch to dismiss MJ as the GOAT as if every single other All Time great hasn't had equal if not more help over the totality of their careers. MJ had 6 all star selections playing next to him. Bill Russell had 27. Kareem had 25. Magic had 20. Larry had 22. Wilt had 27. Oscar had 20. Lebron has 17 and counting with Luka. This notion that MJ had it better than most when he literally had only a single All Star player his entire career is just laughable to me.

[KayDee35]

You do realize there's more than two players on a team right? You do understand that outside of Magic and Worthy, the Lakers still had an 18ppg and 16ppg scorer on the team right? Do you think Pippen guarded Magic and Worthy at the same time? You do understand that MJ still had to play defense on one of those two right? It ain't like MJ got to take half the game off and only had to worry about scoring points. Wanna talk about defense? MJ had more blocks and steals than Pippen while still averaging way more assists and still having less turnovers.

In the 92-93 Finals Pippen was great, but considering that MJ averaged 38/6/6 on 50%+ between both those Finals, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that MJ wasn't winning those rings with just about any competent #2. Pippen deserves credit and he's gotten it, but pretending like MJ's ability to win rings in that era would have compromised without him is huuuuuuuge stretch.

That 96 Finals is known more for Payton's defense on MJ and Kemp going off than anything Pippen was doing. While Kemp was flying all over the place and blocking more shots than anyone Payton playing the best defense we've seen anyone play on MJ while averaging more points and assists than Pippen. You pretending like Pippen was on par with them with his 34% shooting is pretty hilarious. You'd be better off giving credit to Rodman, who at least was getting boards. It's unfortunate that's all he was doing cause he and Pippen certainly weren't doing a damn thing about Kemp bangin all over their heads for six games.

Nobody is tossing MVP Malone for a 1997 Scottie Pippen. I'm sorry, you're on your own on that one. Malone averaged more points, rebounding and better FG% in that series. The fact that they tied up in steals and assists is more of a negative for Pippen than a positive considering he's supposed to be the point forward and defensive guru. If you wanna talk about TS% all of a sudden I can point out that Stockton had a bigger gap in TS% above Pippen than Pippen did above Malone while averaging 5 more APG, more steals per game and averaging only 5 less PPG. Both Malone and Stockton had a better offensive and defensive rating than Pippen in that Finals.

I hesitate to say Pippen played "way better" than Stockton in 98 considering Stockon still accounted for more points through his scoring and passing while still averaging more steals and much better FG%. Redgardless, after Game 4 Pippen was absolutely done. He mustered up 6 points on 2/16 in Game 5 and was barely able to clock in 25 minutes for 8 points in Game 6 while MJ was scoring over half the team's points. He was a play away from a wheelchair in that close out game and probably wouldn't even have been able to suit up for a Game 7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes Pippen did his part but calling him the greatest 2nd option ever over Kobe/Kareem/ KD-Steph really makes my eyes roll. What makes them roll even more is you trying so hard to use Pippen to discredit MJ while your GOAT (Russell) literally had the MVP of the freaking league in his first year. Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years while Wilt didn't have a single one for his first 5 years and only 1 teammate that made All-NBA with him for a whole decade before getting to LA.

But yeah, MJ is the one who really had it easy...

KD/Kobe/Kareem were all temporary second bananas. Magic was 2nd when he started his career, later they were about even, and only after that did Kareem become a 2nd option. Kobe had a similar arc to Magic's where he eventually became option 1a/1b with Shaq. KD was at GS for a short time.

MJ had Pippen as his 2nd option for all 6 rings. Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league for all those 6 years when you consider both sides of the ball. Was there another 2nd option who was capable of finishing 3rd in MVP voting at that time?

The difference between playing with a high usage player like MJ and Russell is that your stats will take a hit when playing with with MJ. So your chances of getting awards goes way down. Scottie made the all-NBA 3rd team when they won ring #3, then MJ left and Pip made all-NBA 1st team for 3 years in a row.

Wilt had better talent around him later in his career and had the better record multiple times. Wilt was such a high usage player that he depressed the statistics of his teammates, especially early in his career, which reduced their chances of getting awards. Rookie Russell was hyper-focused on winning, not hyper-focused on his stats, like a young MJ and Wilt, and that's why he's the greatest winner the game has ever seen.

NBA players voted on MVP in 1962. That was the year that Wilt averaged 50ppg, Oscar averaged a 30-point triple-double, and Baylor averaged 38 and 16. Can you guess which one of them won MVP? That's right, it was Bill Russell.

If Pippen finishing 3rd in MVP voting when MJ wasn't even playing is important than Kareem and Bob Cousy winning literal MVPs WITH Russell and Magic playing has to be important. You have to apply your logic consistently. Kobe finished Top 5 in MVP voting playing with Shaq 3 times. Kareem 5 times playing with Magic. Cousy 3 times playing with Russell.

Just because Kobe/ Kareem/ Cousy were #1s earlier or later in the careers, doesn't mean they weren't 2nd bananas for the most successful runs they had. Saying "you have to be a 2nd banana your entire career to be a 2nd banana" is just you trapping yourself in an arbitrary definition to make a meaningless claim. "Scottie Pippen is the greatest 2nd banana that stayed 2nd banana his whole career." Uh, okay but even Pippen didn't play 2nd banana his whole career. The fact that Pippen's entire career is in MJ's shadow unlike Kareem to Magic, Cousy to Russell, Kobe to Shaq says more about MJ and less about Pippen than any kind of "2nd banana award".

MJ played next to an All NBA 1st Team Pippen for a season and a playoff run. Great. Kobe was ALL NBA 1st Team 3 times next to Shaq. Kareem was All NBA 1st Team 4 times next to Magic. Cousy was All NBA 1st Team 5 times next to Russell. If Cousy/Kobe/Kareem weren't the 2nd bananas than were Shaq/Magic/Russell were because you're gonna have a harder time pretending like Pippen was better than those guys.

"Wilt had better talent late in his career". You do know that only 1 season in Wilt's whole career did he have 2 All NBA teammates playing next to him right? Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

Face it my guy. There's no world where you can hype up MJ's help, without also hyping up Russell's and Magic's and Larry's and Shaq's and Lebron's.

If you still think Russell is better than Wilt, that's fine. If Russell is your favorite player, that's perfectly okay. But to pretend that Russell didn't have drastically more help than Wilt or that MJ benefited from this "unfair supporting cast" that every other all time great didn't have is just some fairytale.

Look, the Pippen/2nd banana argument is simply to say that Pippen was the best available 2nd option for that era. The fact that you have to keep going outside the 90s to make your comparisons says that Pippen was indeed the best 2nd option available at that time. Those Bulls teams were very good thanks to MJ who was the best player of the era and Pippen who was the best 2nd option of the era. They set the regular season record for wins because they also had loaded teams compared to the rest of the league. The next year, they tied the previous record for regular season wins! And in their down year, they had 62 wins.They had 67 wins in year two!

Those Celtics teams had multiple 1st team All-NBA players for several before Russell showed up.
'52- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'53- Two 1st All-NBA, and one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'54- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'55- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'56- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'57- Two 1st All-NBA + Russell - YES title
'58- Two 1st All-NBA, one 2nd all-NBA (Russell) + Russell injury in Finals - NO title

There's a very clear pattern here. Bill Russell = Rings.

Wilt had 4 years in a row of better teams that Russell.

'66- Wilt's team has the better record but loses 4-1 to Russell's Celtics but clearly Wilt needs more help
'67- Wilt's roster is the essentially the same as the last year and they set the record for regular season wins.They beat Boston 4-1 and win a ring. One of the greatest individual and team seasons to this day! Suddenly Wilt has enough help.
'68- Wilt's team is mostly unchanged. They have the best record in the league. They blow a 3-1 lead to the Celtics and get eliminated. Suddenly Wilt needs more help.
'69- Wilt goes over to the Lakers who made the Finals the previous year with West and Baylor to form a Big 3. Take the best player from the #1 team in the East and put them on the #1 team in the West at the exact position (center) where they were weak and you have the first version of KD joining the Warriors. The Lakers were the #1 seed in the West. The Celtics were the #4 seed in the East who had to upset two higher seeds on their way to the Finals. The Lakers secured a 3-2 lead in the Finals before losing. The Celtics were the lowest seeded team to win a ring. Clearly Wilt needs even more help.

Russell won when his teams were expected to win and when his teams were not expected to win. His impact on winning is unparalleled in the sport.

[MavsDirk41]

KD/Kobe/Kareem were all temporary second bananas. Magic was 2nd when he started his career, later they were about even, and only after that did Kareem become a 2nd option. Kobe had a similar arc to Magic's where he eventually became option 1a/1b with Shaq. KD was at GS for a short time.

MJ had Pippen as his 2nd option for all 6 rings. Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league for all those 6 years when you consider both sides of the ball. Was there another 2nd option who was capable of finishing 3rd in MVP voting at that time?

The difference between playing with a high usage player like MJ and Russell is that your stats will take a hit when playing with with MJ. So your chances of getting awards goes way down. Scottie made the all-NBA 3rd team when they won ring #3, then MJ left and Pip made all-NBA 1st team for 3 years in a row.

Wilt had better talent around him later in his career and had the better record multiple times. Wilt was such a high usage player that he depressed the statistics of his teammates, especially early in his career, which reduced their chances of getting awards. Rookie Russell was hyper-focused on winning, not hyper-focused on his stats, like a young MJ and Wilt, and that's why he's the greatest winner the game has ever seen.

NBA players voted on MVP in 1962. That was the year that Wilt averaged 50ppg, Oscar averaged a 30-point triple-double, and Baylor averaged 38 and 16. Can you guess which one of them won MVP? That's right, it was Bill Russell.

If Pippen finishing 3rd in MVP voting when MJ wasn't even playing is important than Kareem and Bob Cousy winning literal MVPs WITH Russell and Magic playing has to be important. You have to apply your logic consistently. Kobe finished Top 5 in MVP voting playing with Shaq 3 times. Kareem 5 times playing with Magic. Cousy 3 times playing with Russell.

Just because Kobe/ Kareem/ Cousy were #1s earlier or later in the careers, doesn't mean they weren't 2nd bananas for the most successful runs they had. Saying "you have to be a 2nd banana your entire career to be a 2nd banana" is just you trapping yourself in an arbitrary definition to make a meaningless claim. "Scottie Pippen is the greatest 2nd banana that stayed 2nd banana his whole career." Uh, okay but even Pippen didn't play 2nd banana his whole career. The fact that Pippen's entire career is in MJ's shadow unlike Kareem to Magic, Cousy to Russell, Kobe to Shaq says more about MJ and less about Pippen than any kind of "2nd banana award".

MJ played next to an All NBA 1st Team Pippen for a season and a playoff run. Great. Kobe was ALL NBA 1st Team 3 times next to Shaq. Kareem was All NBA 1st Team 4 times next to Magic. Cousy was All NBA 1st Team 5 times next to Russell. If Cousy/Kobe/Kareem weren't the 2nd bananas than were Shaq/Magic/Russell were because you're gonna have a harder time pretending like Pippen was better than those guys.

"Wilt had better talent late in his career". You do know that only 1 season in Wilt's whole career did he have 2 All NBA teammates playing next to him right? Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

Face it my guy. There's no world where you can hype up MJ's help, without also hyping up Russell's and Magic's and Larry's and Shaq's and Lebron's.

If you still think Russell is better than Wilt, that's fine. If Russell is your favorite player, that's perfectly okay. But to pretend that Russell didn't have drastically more help than Wilt or that MJ benefited from this "unfair supporting cast" that every other all time great didn't have is just some fairytale.

Look, the Pippen/2nd banana argument is simply to say that Pippen was the best available 2nd option for that era. The fact that you have to keep going outside the 90s to make your comparisons says that Pippen was indeed the best 2nd option available at that time. Those Bulls teams were very good thanks to MJ who was the best player of the era and Pippen who was the best 2nd option of the era. They set the regular season record for wins because they also had loaded teams compared to the rest of the league. The next year, they tied the previous record for regular season wins! And in their down year, they had 62 wins.They had 67 wins in year two!

Those Celtics teams had multiple 1st team All-NBA players for several before Russell showed up.
'52- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'53- Two 1st All-NBA, and one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'54- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'55- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'56- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'57- Two 1st All-NBA + Russell - YES title
'58- Two 1st All-NBA, one 2nd all-NBA (Russell) + Russell injury in Finals - NO title

There's a very clear pattern here. Bill Russell = Rings.

Wilt had 4 years in a row of better teams that Russell.

'66- Wilt's team has the better record but loses 4-1 to Russell's Celtics but clearly Wilt needs more help
'67- Wilt's roster is the essentially the same as the last year and they set the record for regular season wins.They beat Boston 4-1 and win a ring. One of the greatest individual and team seasons to this day! Suddenly Wilt has enough help.
'68- Wilt's team is mostly unchanged. They have the best record in the league. They blow a 3-1 lead to the Celtics and get eliminated. Suddenly Wilt needs more help.
'69- Wilt goes over to the Lakers who made the Finals the previous year with West and Baylor to form a Big 3. Take the best player from the #1 team in the East and put them on the #1 team in the West at the exact position (center) where they were weak and you have the first version of KD joining the Warriors. The Lakers were the #1 seed in the West. The Celtics were the #4 seed in the East who had to upset two higher seeds on their way to the Finals. The Lakers secured a 3-2 lead in the Finals before losing. The Celtics were the lowest seeded team to win a ring. Clearly Wilt needs even more help.

Russell won when his teams were expected to win and when his teams were not expected to win. His impact on winning is unparalleled in the sport.

During the Bulls second 3 peat when they won all of the games you mentioned:

Jordan played all 82 for all 3 seasons 95/96-97/98
Rodman missed 47 games
Pippen missed 43 games
Kukoc missed 34 games

Jordan did a pretty good job keeping the train on the tracks i would say. When Pippen missed 38 games in 97/98, the Bulls went 26-12 without that 2nd banana. Jordan was pretty good lol.

[AlexanderRight]

KD/Kobe/Kareem were all temporary second bananas. Magic was 2nd when he started his career, later they were about even, and only after that did Kareem become a 2nd option. Kobe had a similar arc to Magic's where he eventually became option 1a/1b with Shaq. KD was at GS for a short time.

MJ had Pippen as his 2nd option for all 6 rings. Pippen was the best 2nd option in the league for all those 6 years when you consider both sides of the ball. Was there another 2nd option who was capable of finishing 3rd in MVP voting at that time?

The difference between playing with a high usage player like MJ and Russell is that your stats will take a hit when playing with with MJ. So your chances of getting awards goes way down. Scottie made the all-NBA 3rd team when they won ring #3, then MJ left and Pip made all-NBA 1st team for 3 years in a row.

Wilt had better talent around him later in his career and had the better record multiple times. Wilt was such a high usage player that he depressed the statistics of his teammates, especially early in his career, which reduced their chances of getting awards. Rookie Russell was hyper-focused on winning, not hyper-focused on his stats, like a young MJ and Wilt, and that's why he's the greatest winner the game has ever seen.

NBA players voted on MVP in 1962. That was the year that Wilt averaged 50ppg, Oscar averaged a 30-point triple-double, and Baylor averaged 38 and 16. Can you guess which one of them won MVP? That's right, it was Bill Russell.

If Pippen finishing 3rd in MVP voting when MJ wasn't even playing is important than Kareem and Bob Cousy winning literal MVPs WITH Russell and Magic playing has to be important. You have to apply your logic consistently. Kobe finished Top 5 in MVP voting playing with Shaq 3 times. Kareem 5 times playing with Magic. Cousy 3 times playing with Russell.

Just because Kobe/ Kareem/ Cousy were #1s earlier or later in the careers, doesn't mean they weren't 2nd bananas for the most successful runs they had. Saying "you have to be a 2nd banana your entire career to be a 2nd banana" is just you trapping yourself in an arbitrary definition to make a meaningless claim. "Scottie Pippen is the greatest 2nd banana that stayed 2nd banana his whole career." Uh, okay but even Pippen didn't play 2nd banana his whole career. The fact that Pippen's entire career is in MJ's shadow unlike Kareem to Magic, Cousy to Russell, Kobe to Shaq says more about MJ and less about Pippen than any kind of "2nd banana award".

MJ played next to an All NBA 1st Team Pippen for a season and a playoff run. Great. Kobe was ALL NBA 1st Team 3 times next to Shaq. Kareem was All NBA 1st Team 4 times next to Magic. Cousy was All NBA 1st Team 5 times next to Russell. If Cousy/Kobe/Kareem weren't the 2nd bananas than were Shaq/Magic/Russell were because you're gonna have a harder time pretending like Pippen was better than those guys.

"Wilt had better talent late in his career". You do know that only 1 season in Wilt's whole career did he have 2 All NBA teammates playing next to him right? Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

Face it my guy. There's no world where you can hype up MJ's help, without also hyping up Russell's and Magic's and Larry's and Shaq's and Lebron's.

If you still think Russell is better than Wilt, that's fine. If Russell is your favorite player, that's perfectly okay. But to pretend that Russell didn't have drastically more help than Wilt or that MJ benefited from this "unfair supporting cast" that every other all time great didn't have is just some fairytale.

Look, the Pippen/2nd banana argument is simply to say that Pippen was the best available 2nd option for that era. The fact that you have to keep going outside the 90s to make your comparisons says that Pippen was indeed the best 2nd option available at that time. Those Bulls teams were very good thanks to MJ who was the best player of the era and Pippen who was the best 2nd option of the era. They set the regular season record for wins because they also had loaded teams compared to the rest of the league. The next year, they tied the previous record for regular season wins! And in their down year, they had 62 wins.They had 67 wins in year two!

Those Celtics teams had multiple 1st team All-NBA players for several before Russell showed up.
'52- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'53- Two 1st All-NBA, and one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'54- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'55- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'56- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'57- Two 1st All-NBA + Russell - YES title
'58- Two 1st All-NBA, one 2nd all-NBA (Russell) + Russell injury in Finals - NO title

There's a very clear pattern here. Bill Russell = Rings.

Wilt had 4 years in a row of better teams that Russell.

'66- Wilt's team has the better record but loses 4-1 to Russell's Celtics but clearly Wilt needs more help
'67- Wilt's roster is the essentially the same as the last year and they set the record for regular season wins.They beat Boston 4-1 and win a ring. One of the greatest individual and team seasons to this day! Suddenly Wilt has enough help.
'68- Wilt's team is mostly unchanged. They have the best record in the league. They blow a 3-1 lead to the Celtics and get eliminated. Suddenly Wilt needs more help.
'69- Wilt goes over to the Lakers who made the Finals the previous year with West and Baylor to form a Big 3. Take the best player from the #1 team in the East and put them on the #1 team in the West at the exact position (center) where they were weak and you have the first version of KD joining the Warriors. The Lakers were the #1 seed in the West. The Celtics were the #4 seed in the East who had to upset two higher seeds on their way to the Finals. The Lakers secured a 3-2 lead in the Finals before losing. The Celtics were the lowest seeded team to win a ring. Clearly Wilt needs even more help.

Russell won when his teams were expected to win and when his teams were not expected to win. His impact on winning is unparalleled in the sport.

So Russell deserves credit for walking onto a team with two 1st Team All NBA teammates and winning but MJ doesn't deserve the same credit for going to a bottom feeder franchise, building the culture from scratch and winning? Really dude...

I'm not saying the Pippen wasn't the best #2 in the 90's. I'm saying that you can use that argument against every All-Time great so what exactly do you think you're proving with Pippen? Shaq had Kobe, Magic had Kareem, LBJ arguably had the 2nd best player in the league two different times (Wade/AD)/ Cousy was the MVP in Russell's first year and All NBA 1st five times with Russell. If Jordan is compromised because of Pippen, then everyone's success is compromised, including Russell.

Just be consistent in your argument my guy...

"Bill Russell = Rings", yeah it is generally expected when you combine an all time defender with 2 All NBA 1 Team players that there will be some winning. The Lakers and Celtics became All Time teams the minute Bird and Magic stepped on the floor too. Magic/ Russell/ Kobe walked into the league playing with All Time players, but for some reason you wanna pretend MJ had this "unfair advantage".

Wilt never had a better team than Russell besides Wilt's 1st year with the Lakers and maybe his last year with Philly, which were Russell's two last years. Just because Wilt had a better record by 1 game in 66 doesn't mean he had a better roster. The story isn't that Wilt didn't have enough help, than when he won he had enough help, then when he lost he all of a sudden didn't have enough help. The story is that Russell always had more help for basically a decade, Wilt broke though once and another time in LA after Russell was gone.

Again, Russell had two All-NBA teammates his first 8 years and 9 of of his 13-year career. Wilt didn't have a single one for 5 years and only 1 teammate that even made it for almost a decade. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

There is no objective argument for Wilt having more help than Russell and there's certainly no objective argument for discounting MJ's GOAT case because of his help without doing the same for virtually every other all time player, especially Russell...

[JasonStern]

As with the previous 2 threads...

GOAT sucks because it's such a generic term with no real criteria.

Career wise, LeBron wins this. He's on pace to be wearing Depends under his basketball shorts and still putting up 8ppg. So, if you value longevity, he's your man.

Peak single season is Shaq. For 1 or maybe 2 seasons, he was completely unstoppable. Rule changes and modern style of play would make him ineffective at the modern game. But, he had a window.

And here's where we get to Jordan. Peak Jordan is better than LeBron. But, he took 2 years of his prime off. And his career was shorter than LeBron's still active career is. Plus what was so impressive about Jordan was that he was a terrible shot entering the league. But, as his athleticism declined, he developed a lethal long-range shot to remain dominant.

So:
Best Total Career - LeBron
Best Single Season - Shaq
Best Combination of Peak Performance Over A Career - Jordan

The GOAT nomenclature really depends on what you value most.

[KayDee35]

Spoiler:

If Pippen finishing 3rd in MVP voting when MJ wasn't even playing is important than Kareem and Bob Cousy winning literal MVPs WITH Russell and Magic playing has to be important. You have to apply your logic consistently. Kobe finished Top 5 in MVP voting playing with Shaq 3 times. Kareem 5 times playing with Magic. Cousy 3 times playing with Russell.

Just because Kobe/ Kareem/ Cousy were #1s earlier or later in the careers, doesn't mean they weren't 2nd bananas for the most successful runs they had. Saying "you have to be a 2nd banana your entire career to be a 2nd banana" is just you trapping yourself in an arbitrary definition to make a meaningless claim. "Scottie Pippen is the greatest 2nd banana that stayed 2nd banana his whole career." Uh, okay but even Pippen didn't play 2nd banana his whole career. The fact that Pippen's entire career is in MJ's shadow unlike Kareem to Magic, Cousy to Russell, Kobe to Shaq says more about MJ and less about Pippen than any kind of "2nd banana award".

MJ played next to an All NBA 1st Team Pippen for a season and a playoff run. Great. Kobe was ALL NBA 1st Team 3 times next to Shaq. Kareem was All NBA 1st Team 4 times next to Magic. Cousy was All NBA 1st Team 5 times next to Russell. If Cousy/Kobe/Kareem weren't the 2nd bananas than were Shaq/Magic/Russell were because you're gonna have a harder time pretending like Pippen was better than those guys.

"Wilt had better talent late in his career". You do know that only 1 season in Wilt's whole career did he have 2 All NBA teammates playing next to him right? Russell literally had 2 other All-NBA players on his team for his first 8 years and 9 out of his 13 years. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

Face it my guy. There's no world where you can hype up MJ's help, without also hyping up Russell's and Magic's and Larry's and Shaq's and Lebron's.

If you still think Russell is better than Wilt, that's fine. If Russell is your favorite player, that's perfectly okay. But to pretend that Russell didn't have drastically more help than Wilt or that MJ benefited from this "unfair supporting cast" that every other all time great didn't have is just some fairytale.

Look, the Pippen/2nd banana argument is simply to say that Pippen was the best available 2nd option for that era. The fact that you have to keep going outside the 90s to make your comparisons says that Pippen was indeed the best 2nd option available at that time. Those Bulls teams were very good thanks to MJ who was the best player of the era and Pippen who was the best 2nd option of the era. They set the regular season record for wins because they also had loaded teams compared to the rest of the league. The next year, they tied the previous record for regular season wins! And in their down year, they had 62 wins.They had 67 wins in year two!

Those Celtics teams had multiple 1st team All-NBA players for several before Russell showed up.
'52- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'53- Two 1st All-NBA, and one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'54- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'55- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'56- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'57- Two 1st All-NBA + Russell - YES title
'58- Two 1st All-NBA, one 2nd all-NBA (Russell) + Russell injury in Finals - NO title

There's a very clear pattern here. Bill Russell = Rings.

Wilt had 4 years in a row of better teams that Russell.

'66- Wilt's team has the better record but loses 4-1 to Russell's Celtics but clearly Wilt needs more help
'67- Wilt's roster is the essentially the same as the last year and they set the record for regular season wins.They beat Boston 4-1 and win a ring. One of the greatest individual and team seasons to this day! Suddenly Wilt has enough help.
'68- Wilt's team is mostly unchanged. They have the best record in the league. They blow a 3-1 lead to the Celtics and get eliminated. Suddenly Wilt needs more help.
'69- Wilt goes over to the Lakers who made the Finals the previous year with West and Baylor to form a Big 3. Take the best player from the #1 team in the East and put them on the #1 team in the West at the exact position (center) where they were weak and you have the first version of KD joining the Warriors. The Lakers were the #1 seed in the West. The Celtics were the #4 seed in the East who had to upset two higher seeds on their way to the Finals. The Lakers secured a 3-2 lead in the Finals before losing. The Celtics were the lowest seeded team to win a ring. Clearly Wilt needs even more help.

Russell won when his teams were expected to win and when his teams were not expected to win. His impact on winning is unparalleled in the sport.

So Russell deserves credit for walking onto a team with two 1st Team All NBA teammates and winning but MJ doesn't deserve the same credit for going to a bottom feeder franchise, building the culture from scratch and winning? Really dude...

I'm not saying the Pippen wasn't the best #2 in the 90's. I'm saying that you can use that argument against every All-Time great so what exactly do you think you're proving with Pippen? Shaq had Kobe, Magic had Kareem, LBJ arguably had the 2nd best player in the league two different times (Wade/AD)/ Cousy was the MVP in Russell's first year and All NBA 1st five times with Russell. If Jordan is compromised because of Pippen, then everyone's success is compromised, including Russell.

Just be consistent in your argument my guy...

"Bill Russell = Rings", yeah it is generally expected when you combine an all time defender with 2 All NBA 1 Team players that there will be some winning. The Lakers and Celtics became All Time teams the minute Bird and Magic stepped on the floor too. Magic/ Russell/ Kobe walked into the league playing with All Time players, but for some reason you wanna pretend MJ had this "unfair advantage".

Wilt never had a better team than Russell besides Wilt's 1st year with the Lakers and maybe his last year with Philly, which were Russell's two last years. Just because Wilt had a better record by 1 game in 66 doesn't mean he had a better roster. The story isn't that Wilt didn't have enough help, than when he won he had enough help, then when he lost he all of a sudden didn't have enough help. The story is that Russell always had more help for basically a decade, Wilt broke though once and another time in LA after Russell was gone.

Again, Russell had two All-NBA teammates his first 8 years and 9 of of his 13-year career. Wilt didn't have a single one for 5 years and only 1 teammate that even made it for almost a decade. Wilt teammates have 10 All NBA selections playing next to him. Russell's teammates, 22 times...

There is no objective argument for Wilt having more help than Russell and there's certainly no objective argument for discounting MJ's GOAT case because of his help without doing the same for virtually every other all time player, especially Russell...

[AlexanderRight]

MJ is the GOAT across all eras. - Here is where we disagree.

You claim that Russell had so much help that it was obvious that he should have won a ring every season! So, I guess Russell should have had 13 rings instead of 11? Yet you have no explanation for the fact that the Celtics fielded teams with multiple 1st All-NBA players and yet never won a ring without Bill, including in the Finals when Russell was hurt. You cannot just handwave years of data away and be considered reasonable. I await your explanation. Here are the seasons again:

Spoiler:

'52- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'53- Two 1st All-NBA, and one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'54- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'55- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'56- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'57- Two 1st All-NBA + Russell - YES title
'58- Two 1st All-NBA, one 2nd all-NBA (Russell) + Russell injury in Finals - NO title

You have no explanation for the 4 seasons in which Wilt's teams had home court advantage. Yet, Wilt went 1-3 against Russell.
-'66: Philly has 1 more win and home court, but loses 4-1 to the Celtics. This is expected because Russell's teams are loaded
-'67: Philly sets the record for most wins in a season with 68, which is 8 more wins than Boston. They beat the Celtics 4-1. Finally, Wilt got enough help to beat Russell's stacked teams
-'68: Philly wins 62 games, again 8 more wins than Boston. They go up 3-1 on Boston, but then the Celtics win the series 4-3. Wilt obviously needs more help against these superteams that Russell has created
-'69: Wilt pulls a KD and goes to LA and joining West and Baylor. Finally, Wilt has enough help to beat Russell and his superhuman teams. The Celtics get the #4 seed in the East while the Lakers secure the #1 seed in the West. The face each other in the Finals, the Lakers go up 3-2 but the Celtics come back and win it all. Russell's team became the lowest seed ever to win a ring. Besides Hakeem's #6 Rockets, every NBA champion has had a higher rank. But once again, Russell's team must have been loaded

Russell went 27-2 in playoff series. For one of those losses, he was injured and the team was unable to win with him missing games and not at full strength in the Finals. The other series loss came when he faced the record-setting 68-win Philly team with Wilt. This is the only time his team lost when he was healthy and available. He has 3 rings when his team did not have the best record in the league including one as the 2nd lowest seed ever to win a title.

Russell won with great teams and he won with good to decent teams. He won 11 rings in 13 seasons. How could he have done better? He can't un-injure himself to help his team win the Finals in his sophomore year so let's forget about that one. So that means he should have beaten the team that set the record for most wins in a season and had won 8 more games that the Celtics? I don't think you'd argue that for anyone else.

MJ is great for his era. But he has gap years that do not help. His absence let a weak Rockets team win 2 rings. MJ fans say that his team could have beaten those Rockets and then he'd have 8 titles in a row. You know what's better than 8 hypothetical rings in a row? 8 actual championships in a row, which is what Bill Russell has.

6 rings as the #1 seed is terrific but falls way short. Had MJ won 8 rings as the best team in the league, then he'd begin approaching Russell. He'd still have to win 3 more as an underdog to match Bill. And any additional rings would put him past Russell.

Both MJ and Russell never lost with home court advantage. But Russell did it for two more years. Russell also has 3 rings without having the #1 seed. MJ has none. Russell also took the 2nd lowest seed ever to a ring. MJ did not.

We'll never what what MJ's teams could have done in his 2 gap years and in the 2-3 years after the 2nd 3-peat. He could have had multiple rings. Those would likely have been very productive years for Jordan. MJ chose to walk away from the game. He was not forced out by injury.

If we're being honest, we will all arrive at two very different answers to the question of "What more could Russell/Jordan have done to enhance their winning?" I can't think of anything more Russell could have done besides heal himself magically in one series and best the best team the NBA had ever seen in the other series. When it comes to MJ, I would simply say that he could have played 5 more seasons but chose not to.

In the end, MJ fans wish he had played those 5 seasons. But he didn't, of his own volition, and that's the biggest knock against him. Going AWOL for 5 years should severely hurt your GOAT case. I'd ding anybody else for doing the same.

Just because the Celtics didn't win a ring before Russell, doesn't mean Russell didn't have the best supporting cast in the league. Two things can be true at the same time. Russell can be the missing catalyst that kick started the dynasty while also having the best resources and teammates around him to do so. No other team in that whole era had three All NBA 1st Team players. Had MJ walked onto a team with 2 other All NBA 1st Team players you bet your ass he'd have more than 6 rings.

But you did ask a valid question. What more could Russell have done? And to that I answer, not have been outplayed at his own position. The fact is Wilt averaged more PPG, RPG APG, and FG% for his career. Head to Head. Wilt had better PPG, RPG, and FG% against Russell in the RG and playoffs. Despite having a better team, Russell never averaged not even a full assist more than Wilt while shooting 37% in the RG and 41% in the playoffs against him for a measly 14ppg. Meanwhile Wilt was doubling those points against him on 50% shooting. Had Wilt had the luxury of having 2 ALL NBA players every season for the first 8 years of his career, instead of none for the first 5 years and 1 All NBA teammate for his first 9, most would agree that Russell would have less rings on his fingers which would severely hurt his case.

The only "real failure" Wilt had against Russell was 68. Because they were up 3-1. I'll give you that. Wilt won in all it 67 and everything before that Russell easily had the better team. In that Lakers/Celtics series, Wilt still had better PPG, RPG, and FG% while Russell was the 7th leading scorer on his team on under 40% shooting. If you wanna call that 'Russell beating Wilt" than so be it...

In all honesty I'm not even debating that Wilt was better. It's just obvious that if Wilt had the same level help as Russell had throughout his whole career, Russell career would look a lot different. Nobody besides Lebron stans actually think Pippen "saved MJ". It's actually the other way around. Russell got outplayed and out shined individually in his own era and that's why he's not the consensus GOAT. Nevermind the fact that he had more help than anyone in the history of the league, I'm sure that had something to do with his rings.

[KayDee35]

MJ is the GOAT across all eras. - Here is where we disagree.

You claim that Russell had so much help that it was obvious that he should have won a ring every season! So, I guess Russell should have had 13 rings instead of 11? Yet you have no explanation for the fact that the Celtics fielded teams with multiple 1st All-NBA players and yet never won a ring without Bill, including in the Finals when Russell was hurt. You cannot just handwave years of data away and be considered reasonable. I await your explanation. Here are the seasons again:

Spoiler:

'52- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'53- Two 1st All-NBA, and one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'54- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'55- One 1st All-NBA, one 2nd All-NBA - NO title
'56- Two 1st All-NBA - NO title
'57- Two 1st All-NBA + Russell - YES title
'58- Two 1st All-NBA, one 2nd all-NBA (Russell) + Russell injury in Finals - NO title

You have no explanation for the 4 seasons in which Wilt's teams had home court advantage. Yet, Wilt went 1-3 against Russell.
-'66: Philly has 1 more win and home court, but loses 4-1 to the Celtics. This is expected because Russell's teams are loaded
-'67: Philly sets the record for most wins in a season with 68, which is 8 more wins than Boston. They beat the Celtics 4-1. Finally, Wilt got enough help to beat Russell's stacked teams
-'68: Philly wins 62 games, again 8 more wins than Boston. They go up 3-1 on Boston, but then the Celtics win the series 4-3. Wilt obviously needs more help against these superteams that Russell has created
-'69: Wilt pulls a KD and goes to LA and joining West and Baylor. Finally, Wilt has enough help to beat Russell and his superhuman teams. The Celtics get the #4 seed in the East while the Lakers secure the #1 seed in the West. The face each other in the Finals, the Lakers go up 3-2 but the Celtics come back and win it all. Russell's team became the lowest seed ever to win a ring. Besides Hakeem's #6 Rockets, every NBA champion has had a higher rank. But once again, Russell's team must have been loaded

Russell went 27-2 in playoff series. For one of those losses, he was injured and the team was unable to win with him missing games and not at full strength in the Finals. The other series loss came when he faced the record-setting 68-win Philly team with Wilt. This is the only time his team lost when he was healthy and available. He has 3 rings when his team did not have the best record in the league including one as the 2nd lowest seed ever to win a title.

Russell won with great teams and he won with good to decent teams. He won 11 rings in 13 seasons. How could he have done better? He can't un-injure himself to help his team win the Finals in his sophomore year so let's forget about that one. So that means he should have beaten the team that set the record for most wins in a season and had won 8 more games that the Celtics? I don't think you'd argue that for anyone else.

MJ is great for his era. But he has gap years that do not help. His absence let a weak Rockets team win 2 rings. MJ fans say that his team could have beaten those Rockets and then he'd have 8 titles in a row. You know what's better than 8 hypothetical rings in a row? 8 actual championships in a row, which is what Bill Russell has.

6 rings as the #1 seed is terrific but falls way short. Had MJ won 8 rings as the best team in the league, then he'd begin approaching Russell. He'd still have to win 3 more as an underdog to match Bill. And any additional rings would put him past Russell.

Both MJ and Russell never lost with home court advantage. But Russell did it for two more years. Russell also has 3 rings without having the #1 seed. MJ has none. Russell also took the 2nd lowest seed ever to a ring. MJ did not.

We'll never what what MJ's teams could have done in his 2 gap years and in the 2-3 years after the 2nd 3-peat. He could have had multiple rings. Those would likely have been very productive years for Jordan. MJ chose to walk away from the game. He was not forced out by injury.

If we're being honest, we will all arrive at two very different answers to the question of "What more could Russell/Jordan have done to enhance their winning?" I can't think of anything more Russell could have done besides heal himself magically in one series and best the best team the NBA had ever seen in the other series. When it comes to MJ, I would simply say that he could have played 5 more seasons but chose not to.

In the end, MJ fans wish he had played those 5 seasons. But he didn't, of his own volition, and that's the biggest knock against him. Going AWOL for 5 years should severely hurt your GOAT case. I'd ding anybody else for doing the same.

Just because the Celtics didn't win a ring before Russell, doesn't mean Russell didn't have the best supporting cast in the league. Two things can be true at the same time. Russell can be the missing catalyst that kick started the dynasty while also having the best resources and teammates around him to do so. No other team in that whole era had three All NBA 1st Team players. Had MJ walked onto a team with 2 other All NBA 1st Team players you bet your ass he'd have more than 6 rings.

But you did ask a valid question. What more could Russell have done? And to that I answer, not have been outplayed at his own position. The fact is Wilt averaged more PPG, RPG APG, and FG% for his career. Head to Head. Wilt had better PPG, RPG, and FG% against Russell in the RG and playoffs. Despite having a better team, Russell never averaged not even a full assist more than Wilt while shooting 37% in the RG and 41% in the playoffs against him for a measly 14ppg. Meanwhile Wilt was doubling those points against him on 50% shooting. Had Wilt had the luxury of having 2 ALL NBA players every season for the first 8 years of his career, instead of none for the first 5 years and 1 All NBA teammate for his first 9, most would agree that Russell would have less rings on his fingers which would severely hurt his case.

The only "real failure" Wilt had against Russell was 68. Because they were up 3-1. I'll give you that. Wilt won in all it 67 and everything before that Russell easily had the better team. In that Lakers/Celtics series, Wilt still had better PPG, RPG, and FG% while Russell was the 7th leading scorer on his team on under 40% shooting. If you wanna call that 'Russell beating Wilt" than so be it...

In all honesty I'm not even debating that Wilt was better. It's just obvious that if Wilt had the same level help as Russell had throughout his whole career, Russell career would look a lot different. Nobody besides Lebron stans actually think Pippen "saved MJ". It's actually the other way around. Russell got outplayed and out shined individually in his own era and that's why he's not the consensus GOAT. Nevermind the fact that he had more help than anyone in the history of the league, I'm sure that had something to do with his rings.

Your suggestion that Russell should have pumped up his own stats fundamentally misunderstands that era and fails to recognize how Russell built some of the best team chemistry ever through sacrificing.

You should ask yourself why arguably the GOAT coach who turned MJ into a winner prefers Russell over everyone else: