Greatest team ever/Greatest bulls team ever

[houheffna]

And bird never played against prime pippen. So its still a relative wash statistically. And its funny how you have all the celtics being able to maintain their or even improve their production against three of the greatest defenders of all time. But the bulls are supposed to have problems producing on their end? Mchale was not a bad rebounder. But he was nowhere the caliber of rodman. Rodman alone with his 16-17 rebounds, accounts for 2 of the celtics frontline players.

As far as 95, I wouldn't have pulled robinson of olajuwan either. He was a great defender in his own right. And in no way shape or form is mchale on the level of hakeem olajuwan. You need to take off you celtics glasses. Mchale was good. But not that good. And he wasn't that much taller than rodman. He was 6'9 to 6'10 not 7'0. Rodman was listed at 6'8

Pippen and Bird a statistical wash??? I don't think so.

The reason I would pick the Bulls over the Celtics, or any team...is Number 23...plain and simple. He is the difference maker. And Rodman was not 6'8", he was closer to 6'6" while McHale was 6'11" with a '90 wingspan...nobody can deal with that.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

How do you know that rami? You weren't even born when they played.

Any idiot knows that. Why, do you disagree?

If so, it's sad that somebody younger than you knows a LOT more about NBA basketball than you do.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Larry Bird is a way bigger difference-maker than Scottie Pippen. He's simply better.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

the impressive thing about bird is he put up those impressive stats and was tough on D while having a lot of nagging injuries..especially near the end of his career.

 

[97Bulls]

Any idiot knows that. Why, do you disagree?

If so, it's sad that somebody younger than you knows a LOT more about NBA basketball than you do.

Then you need to say you've been told that they were the best ever. But the general consensus is that the bulls were the best ever. Google it.

 

[97Bulls]

Pippen and Bird a statistical wash??? I don't think so.

The reason I would pick the Bulls over the Celtics, or any team...is Number 23...plain and simple. He is the difference maker. And Rodman was not 6'8", he was closer to 6'6" while McHale was 6'11" with a '90 wingspan...nobody can deal with that.

Yes pippen and bird were a statistical wash

Bird
26 ppg, 8 rbds, 6 asts, 50%, with 1 stl and 1 bk in just over 39 min per

Pippen
20 ppg, 5 rbds, 6 asts, 53%, with 2 stls and a bk in 32 minutes

If pippen was able to play 40 min like bird, the statistical comparison would favor him. His stats wod be somewhere around 24/7/8/3/2

And this doesn't include pippens defense. And, a large portion of birds best numbers were against brad sellers.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Then you need to say you've been told that they were the best ever. But the general consensus is that the bulls were the best ever. Google it.

The 1992 Bulls were nowhere close to the best team ever. Re-read the original post again.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Yes pippen and bird were a statistical wash

Bird
26 ppg, 8 rbds, 6 asts, 50%, with 1 stl and 1 bk in just over 39 min per

Pippen
20 ppg, 5 rbds, 6 asts, 53%, with 2 stls and a bk in 32 minutes

If pippen was able to play 40 min like bird, the statistical comparison would favor him. His stats wod be somewhere around 24/7/8/3/2

And this doesn't include pippens defense. And, a large portion of birds best numbers were against brad sellers.

the problem with that statement is it's a complete hypothetical therefore there is no definite answer as to what pippen's stats would look like in 40 min(secondly WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE STATS)

not to mention there's a good reason why bird got more minutes per game with 4 other hall of famers than pippen did,




and thirdly where in the hell did you pull up those stats?

Bird:

career:24.3 PPG,10.0 RPG,6.3 APG,1.7 SPG

85-86(year in question):
26 PPG,10 RPG,7 APG,2 SPG 38 MPG

Pippen:

career:16.1 PPG,6 RPG,5.2 APG, 2.0 SPG 35 MPG

95-96(year in question)
19.4 PPG,6.4 RPG,5.9 APG,1.7 SPG, in 36.7 MPG

either those stats you listed are completely inaccurate or they pertain to a playoff series or something you did not specify

plus you dont factor that bird was the leader of his team(not to mention he's quite a bit better overall player than pippen) while pippen was the sidekick

in this case, the advantage is easily bird

shooting-bird

athleticism-pippen

IQ-bird

rebounding-bird

passing-bird

defense-pippen(but not as much as you think)

clutch-bird

my biggest argument for the 85-86 celtics possibly being the best(i think it can go either way between 95-96 bulls and the celts) is that their team was incredibly stacked and dominated in the east with the likes of philly,detroit,etc..

boston has a massive advantage in the frontcourt against the bulls, although the bulls would have an advantage in the backcourt(but dont sleep on ainge and johnson)

and yes i do agree with 97 about the fact that you cant look at individual matchups and decide games from there because thats not how basketball works all the time, you have to think about units(consider cycles of substitutions,help D,etc.)

the whole game is not simply 1 v 1 times 5

 

[97Bulls]

The 1992 Bulls were nowhere close to the best team ever. Re-read the original post again.

You said the 87 lakers and the 86 celtics were better than the 92 bulls. How you can say that is beyond me cuz you've never seen any of those teams play.

And don't think they could beat the 92 bulls. Either of them. The celtics barely beat the pisttons in 87. And the pistons should've beat the lakers in 88.

The bulls not only beat the pistons, they swept them. And should've swept the lakers too. And that was not the bulls best team talent-wise.

 

[houheffna]

I might have to retire from all conversations concerning Pippen...a guy says Pippen was a better player than Barkley (no) and a statistical wash with Bird (Hell no!) and then when a younger fan gives his opinion, he is rebuked because he wasn't born yet (hello, ESPN Classics, NBA Channel anyone?). There is a reason why nobody will say Mo Cheeks or Norm Van Lier were better players than Tiny Archibald...because Tiny was a beast that could score in his prime at a high level consistently, and could create offense. And offense is the premium, not defense.


As if anyone watched a lot of Larry Bird in his prime...I was 10 years old. There are not many, if any on this forum my age and older. No I was not analyzing Bird's game at 10!!! Rami might have watched as much if not more of this stuff than I did...I saw Magic in his prime, and really didn't give a damn. Not until Jordan came along...I knew Magic was good because I was told he was good. When I got older, I found out how great he was as a player and a leader. Same with Bird.

But I did know when I was 15 that you can't with any statistical integrity put Bird and Pippen on the same level...not even an argument should be had. Here is the thing...

All of the Pippen arguments I see are based on hypothetical statements. "if Pippen was the number one guy he wins a title", "If Pippen played 40 minutes a game Pippen puts up Bird's numbers"...that is all fantasy...and the latter statement is just silly. Bird could score 30 a game...Pippen couldn't because Pippen wasn't nearly as good an offensive player as Bird...period. And when I point out that Pippen isn't as good as a top 10-15 player all time and a proven franchise player who would win multiple MVPs and titles?

Than my loyalty as a Bulls fan is questioned...lol...wow.

 

[clonetrooper264]

I might have to retire from all conversations concerning Pippen...a guy says Pippen was a better player than Barkley (no) and a statistical wash with Bird (Hell no!) and then when a younger fan gives his opinion, he is rebuked because he wasn't born yet (hello, ESPN Classics, NBA Channel anyone?). There is a reason why nobody will say Mo Cheeks or Norm Van Lier were better players than Tiny Archibald...because Tiny was a beast that could score in his prime at a high level consistently, and could create offense. And offense is the premium, not defense.


As if anyone watched a lot of Larry Bird in his prime...I was 10 years old. There are not many, if any on this forum my age and older. No I was not analyzing Bird's game at 10!!! Rami might have watched as much if not more of this stuff than I did...I saw Magic in his prime, and really didn't give a damn. Not until Jordan came along...I knew Magic was good because I was told he was good. When I got older, I found out how great he was as a player and a leader. Same with Bird.

But I did know when I was 15 that you can't with any statistical integrity put Bird and Pippen on the same level...not even an argument should be had. Here is the thing...

All of the Pippen arguments I see are based on hypothetical statements. "if Pippen was the number one guy he wins a title", "If Pippen played 40 minutes a game Pippen puts up Bird's numbers"...that is all fantasy...and the latter statement is just silly. Bird could score 30 a game...Pippen couldn't because Pippen wasn't nearly as good an offensive player as Bird...period. And when I point out that Pippen isn't as good as a top 10-15 player all time and a proven franchise player who would win multiple MVPs and titles?

Than my loyalty as a Bulls fan is questioned...lol...wow.

There's a reason why I'm not even partaking in these crazy debates.

Pippen a statistical wash with Bird? Are you freaking kidding me? Where in the world would you get the stats to support that (and I say that after reading Code's post, which is accurate, and specific to the argument)? Good offense beats good defense every time. That's why Jordan dominated like he did and why Bird dominated like he did. Bird's the best SF for a reason guys. Pippen may be the best defensive SF, but again, good offense will beat good defense.

 

[97Bulls]

the problem with that statement is it's a complete hypothetical therefore there is no definite answer as to what pippen's stats would look like in 40 min(secondly WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THESE STATS)

not to mention there's a good reason why bird got more minutes per game with 4 other hall of famers than pippen did,




and thirdly where in the hell did you pull up those stats?

Bird:

career:24.3 PPG,10.0 RPG,6.3 APG,1.7 SPG

85-86(year in question):
26 PPG,10 RPG,7 APG,2 SPG 38 MPG

Pippen:

career:16.1 PPG,6 RPG,5.2 APG, 2.0 SPG 35 MPG

95-96(year in question)
19.4 PPG,6.4 RPG,5.9 APG,1.7 SPG, in 36.7 MPG

either those stats you listed are completely inaccurate or they pertain to a playoff series or something you did not specify

plus you dont factor that bird was the leader of his team(not to mention he's quite a bit better overall player than pippen) while pippen was the sidekick
I don't see how they're respective rankings on their teams would effect this matchup

in this case, the advantage is easily bird

shooting-bird

athleticism-pippen

IQ-bird I honestly don't see what makes birdss IQ higher than pippens

rebounding-bird id say they're even considering their teammates and the fact that due to the pace and tempo of the 80s there were more rebounds available for bird

passing-bird again this is debateable. Pippen was the psuedo PG like bird

defense-pippen(but not as much as you think)come on

clutch-bird

my biggest argument for the 85-86 celtics possibly being the best(i think it can go either way between 95-96 bulls and the celts) is that their team was incredibly stacked and dominated in the east with the likes of philly,detroit,etc..
detroit wasn't ready for the big time in the mid 80s. And the sixers run was over after 83

boston has a massive advantage in the frontcourt against the bulls, although the bulls would have an advantage in the backcourt(but dont sleep on ainge and johnson)
id say they had the same advabtage vs the lakers. How'd that work. Out for them?

and yes i do agree with 97 about the fact that you cant look at individual matchups and decide games from there because thats not how basketball works all the time, you have to think about units(consider cycles of substitutions,help D,etc.)

the whole game is not simply 1 v 1 times 5

Lastly code... let me say that although we don't always agree. More often than not you come closest to stumping me. Probably the best poster on here. And the fairest.

I got the info in the head to head finder on basketball-reference. It shows what larry bird di vs the bulls while pippen was there. And what pippen did vs the celtics. Obviously this is all conjecture.

 

[97Bulls]

I might have to retire from all conversations concerning Pippen...a guy says Pippen was a better player than Barkley (no) and a statistical wash with Bird (Hell no!) and then when a younger fan gives his opinion, he is rebuked because he wasn't born yet (hello, ESPN Classics, NBA Channel anyone?). There is a reason why nobody will say Mo Cheeks or Norm Van Lier were better players than Tiny Archibald...because Tiny was a beast that could score in his prime at a high level consistently, and could create offense. And offense is the premium, not defense.


As if anyone watched a lot of Larry Bird in his prime...I was 10 years old. There are not many, if any on this forum my age and older. No I was not analyzing Bird's game at 10!!! Rami might have watched as much if not more of this stuff than I did...I saw Magic in his prime, and really didn't give a damn. Not until Jordan came along...I knew Magic was good because I was told he was good. When I got older, I found out how great he was as a player and a leader. Same with Bird.

But I did know when I was 15 that you can't with any statistical integrity put Bird and Pippen on the same level...not even an argument should be had. Here is the thing...

All of the Pippen arguments I see are based on hypothetical statements. "if Pippen was the number one guy he wins a title", "If Pippen played 40 minutes a game Pippen puts up Bird's numbers"...that is all fantasy...and the latter statement is just silly. Bird could score 30 a game...Pippen couldn't because Pippen wasn't nearly as good an offensive player as Bird...period. And when I point out that Pippen isn't as good as a top 10-15 player all time and a proven franchise player who would win multiple MVPs and titles?

Than my loyalty as a Bulls fan is questioned...lol...wow.

All I've ever said as far as pippen is I feel he could've led a team to a title. You said he wouldn't, which is what started this debate.

I think your problem is I've shot down every talking you've had regarding pippen and you can't take it.

You've said pippen couldn't take over games, I showed them to you.

You've said pippen was soft, I shot it down

You've said pippen wasn't much of a scorer, I proved you wrong.

All you've got is something sam smith said, what pippen did as a 35 year old, and 1.8 seconds of a stellar 18 year career.

Your just to damn stubborn to admit that maybe scottie pippen is better than what you give him credit for.

 

[97Bulls]

I'm sure once you guys go and check their head to head stats on basketball-reference. I won't get a reply back.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

i need a little more context on the head to head matchups, so are you saying that those are bird and pippen's head to head stats?

problem with that is,as already mentioned, pippen in the late 80s is different than pippen in the late 90s..bird after around 88 was not the same because of injuries

frankly, this hypothetical concerns 95-96 bulls(and pippen) vs. 85-86 celtics(and bird)

pre injury hampered bird was really good(as shown by the stats i posted from the 85-86 season)

pippen in 95-96 was good but arguably he was not as good as he was in the early 90s which was his peak...

i think its a little bit ironic you are talking about individual matchups when you are the one that is against its use in regards to judging teams(on the flip side, in some cases i think it is plausible to use individual matchups..but you have to consider that,in this case, pippen and bird would not be head to head the entire game at all)

anyway i think the relative status on the team is very reflective of the status of the player itself...in other words, what really elevates bird in this matchup(other than him,imo, being simply better all around is that he is the leader and carrier of that celtics team while pippen plays a sidekick role)

Bird's IQ was incredible..its how he was such a good player despite lack of athleticism
(same with Magic)...pippen had a good basketball IQ as well but Bird's IQ was on another level

bird is larger in size than pippen and rebounded well despite "sharing" rebounding assignments with the likes of mchale,parrish, and walton

pippen was a good point forward...i think bird was slightly better tho(bird was a triple double machine in his prime)..a little more debatable

lol@you seemingly ridiculing me for my statement regarding bird and pippen's D

look pippen is probably the best perimeter defender ever(depends on maybe what aspect...i think jordan and payton may be a little better on the ball but thats another argument)

but larry bird was a great defender

he was on 3 all defensive teams...not on the level of pippen..but defense is not even close to being considered a liability for bird

and bird is just better when it comes to the stat that directly determines the outcome, scoring points

plus, i mean, bird was MVP in 85-86..pippen,by 95-96, was not nearly in contention at all

ok i admit the competition argument is a little weak, although philly,milwaukee were relatively strong in the east while the lakers were the top dog in the west

boston, because of its and talent and health, was simply the total juggernaut that year

kind of the same case with the bulls in 96...

i think overall its hard to compare the competition between 85-86 and 95-96 and decide which was better

as for the lakers comment, first of all the celts swept the lakers in the regular season in 85-86..secondly they had kareem and worthy(he played SF more arguably)...

btw you cant use the minutes argument in this matchup bc pippen in 95-96, the year in question, averaged nearly the same minutes per game that bird did

also, thanks for the compliments, you know your stuff too, makes good discussion

 

[houheffna]

All I've ever said as far as pippen is I feel he could've led a team to a title. You said he wouldn't, which is what started this debate.

I think your problem is I've shot down every talking you've had regarding pippen and you can't take it.

You've said pippen couldn't take over games, I showed them to you.

You've said pippen was soft, I shot it down

You've said pippen wasn't much of a scorer, I proved you wrong.

All you've got is something sam smith said, what pippen did as a 35 year old, and 1.8 seconds of a stellar 18 year career.

Your just to damn stubborn to admit that maybe scottie pippen is better than what you give him credit for.

Like usual, you read what you want to read. I said that Pippen didn't perform well IN THE CLUTCH!

I said that Pippen wasn't as good as many of the greats in his prime like Hakeem, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, etc. I have said that he would not have been a franchise player because he did a poor job of handling the pressure. You didn't shoot anything down, you refused to believe the truth when it is put in front of you.

The way that you compare Pippen to players like Bird, Barkley and others is laughable. I cannot understand for the life of me why people put Pippen on a pedestal he doesn't belong on, and when people don't buy in...then disloyalty is alleged.

You never mentioned that I said Pippen was a great player. I said that waaaaaay before you showed up. I knew he was great when he was playing. At the same time, I have a good idea of where he stands in the pantheon of greats. This fantasy land idea of the Bulls is too much. When someone even debates that the Bulls of 1992, which is an alltime great team, couldn't beat those teams from the 1980's his birth certificate is checked for crying out loud! Who on these forums are old enough to give a sound, cognizant analysis based on what they saw live when it happened?

While you are questioning age, and while some of you like to brag about all of the tapes you have of Bulls games...WATCH LARRY BIRD, WATCH BARKLEY, WATCH MAGIC JOHNSON!!! If you watch Magic, you don't say Paxson outplayed him in the finals...nobody who watched that series would have said that. Nobody who watched Bird play says Bird and Pippen are a wash...are you kidding me? Unbelievable...

 

[97Bulls]

i need a little more context on the head to head matchups, so are you saying that those are bird and pippen's head to head stats?

problem with that is,as already mentioned, pippen in the late 80s is different than pippen in the late 90s..bird after around 88 was not the same because of injuries

frankly, this hypothetical concerns 95-96 bulls(and pippen) vs. 85-86 celtics(and bird)

pre injury hampered bird was really good(as shown by the stats i posted from the 85-86 season)

pippen in 95-96 was good but arguably he was not as good as he was in the early 90s which was his peak...

i think its a little bit ironic you are talking about individual matchups when you are the one that is against its use in regards to judging teams(on the flip side, in some cases i think it is plausible to use individual matchups..but you have to consider that,in this case, pippen and bird would not be head to head the entire game at all)

anyway i think the relative status on the team is very reflective of the status of the player itself...in other words, what really elevates bird in this matchup(other than him,imo, being simply better all around is that he is the leader and carrier of that celtics team while pippen plays a sidekick role)

Bird's IQ was incredible..its how he was such a good player despite lack of athleticism
(same with Magic)...pippen had a good basketball IQ as well but Bird's IQ was on another level

bird is larger in size than pippen and rebounded well despite "sharing" rebounding assignments with the likes of mchale,parrish, and walton

pippen was a good point forward...i think bird was slightly better tho(bird was a triple double machine in his prime)..a little more debatable

lol@you seemingly ridiculing me for my statement regarding bird and pippen's D

look pippen is probably the best perimeter defender ever(depends on maybe what aspect...i think jordan and payton may be a little better on the ball but thats another argument)

but larry bird was a great defender

he was on 3 all defensive teams...not on the level of pippen..but defense is not even close to being considered a liability for bird

and bird is just better when it comes to the stat that directly determines the outcome, scoring points

plus, i mean, bird was MVP in 85-86..pippen,by 95-96, was not nearly in contention at all

ok i admit the competition argument is a little weak, although philly,milwaukee were relatively strong in the east while the lakers were the top dog in the west

boston, because of its and talent and health, was simply the total juggernaut that year

kind of the same case with the bulls in 96...

i think overall its hard to compare the competition between 85-86 and 95-96 and decide which was better

as for the lakers comment, first of all the celts swept the lakers in the regular season in 85-86..secondly they had kareem and worthy(he played SF more arguably)...

btw you cant use the minutes argument in this matchup bc pippen in 95-96, the year in question, averaged nearly the same minutes per game that bird did

also, thanks for the compliments, you know your stuff too, makes good discussion

I only used the head to head stats to show that bird wouldn't "kill" pippen as houheffner put it.

And make no mistake, pippen was very much in his prime from 92-98. He was 5th in mvp voting in 96. Probably would've been higher if his teammate (jordan) hadn't won it. He was runner up for the dpoy award in 95. And 3rd in mvp voting in 94.

The problem is that the stats in the 90s just aren't gonna be the same when compared to stats in the 80s. For example, the avg team in 86, took about 700 more shots than the avg team in 96. 20 ppg would put you in the top. 20 in 96. 20 ppg wouldn't put you in the top 40 back in the 80s. Is that fantasy? No its math

I brought up the lakers to show an example of a team that beat them 2 out of 3 time they played each other in the finals. And the lakers didn't have a big defensive frontline or any real juggernaut defenders like the bulls. And to be honest, the lakers should've won all three of the finals they played vs the celtics. They had a great chance to take a commanding 3-1 series lead in the 84 finals. When they shot themselves in the foot an magic missed 2 fts that would've iced the game. It gave him the nickname "tragic johnson".

 

[97Bulls]

Like usual, you read what you want to read. I said that Pippen didn't perform well IN THE CLUTCH!
I know what you said heff. And as a point of reference, you aluded to some guy that made his own determination as to what clutch is. Someone that's probably never touched a basketball a day in his life.


I said that Pippen wasn't as good as many of the greats in his prime like Hakeem, Robinson, Barkley, Malone, etc. I have said that he would not have been a franchise player because he did a poor job of handling the pressure. You didn't shoot anything down, you refused to believe the truth when it is put in front of you.
and your reasoning for that assinine statement was cuz he didn't win in 94 or 95. Even though he was 3rd in mvp voting in 94 and was 2nd in dpoy voting in 95. And did a better job with the same team than jordan. Who's the greatest ever.


The way that you compare Pippen to players like Bird, Barkley and others is laughable. I cannot understand for the life of me why people put Pippen on a pedestal he doesn't belong on, and when people don't buy in...then disloyalty is alleged.
This is where I question your comprehension. I never said pippen was better than bird. I was comparing their roles in this dream matchup. And I'm sorry, I feel barkley is overrated. Is he great? Yeah but he not the type of player id want leading my team. And I question your loyalty cuz of the inconsistancy in your views. I clearly remember your refernce of pippen and not leading the trailblazers to a championship as a 35 year old with a bad back. But you sure as hell defend 31 year old bird. Staing that he had a bad back.

You never mentioned that I said Pippen was a great player. I said that waaaaaay before you showed up. I knew he was great when he was playing. At the same time, I have a good idea of where he stands in the pantheon of greats. This fantasy land idea of the Bulls is too much. When someone even debates that the Bulls of 1992, which is an alltime great team, couldn't beat those teams from the 1980's his birth certificate is checked for crying out loud! Who on these forums are old enough to give a sound, cognizant analysis based on what they saw live when it happened?
He wasn't alive heff. And he was too young to remember the 92 bulls. Its why I try to stay out of the debates between the 60s and 70 teams.

While you are questioning age, and while some of you like to brag about all of the tapes you have of Bulls games...WATCH LARRY BIRD, WATCH BARKLEY, WATCH MAGIC JOHNSON!!! If you watch Magic, you don't say Paxson outplayed him in the finals...nobody who watched that series would have said that. Nobody who watched Bird play says Bird and Pippen are a wash...are you kidding me? Unbelievable...

Like I said before heff. Your really a sub par poster, and again I question your loyalty as a bull.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

You said the 87 lakers and the 86 celtics were better than the 92 bulls.

Duh

How you can say that is beyond me cuz you've never seen any of those teams play.

Lie^

And don't think they could beat the 92 bulls.
Either of them.

Homer

The celtics barely beat the pisttons in 87. And the pistons should've beat the lakers in 88.

That is horrible reasoning. The Celtics were slowed by injuries and age after their last title and STILL beat the Pistons.

The bulls not only beat the pistons, they swept them. And should've swept the lakers too. And that was not the bulls best team talent-wise.

The Lakers were depleted and old and injured by the time 1991 rolled around. The Bulls were flat out better than the Pistons but the Pistons were nowhere near as good as the '87 Lakers or '86 Celtics.

Don't call my basketball knowledge into question. I definitely know tons more than you. And that isn't being arrogant. You are just making some obvious homer claims.

 

[clonetrooper264]

opcorn: