Scottie Pippen

[97Bulls]

And you must be a homer Bulls' fan to not even admit something as simple as Hill was a better offensive player than Pippen.

Because hill isn't. Did he have a season in which he score more points than pippen sure. And kobe bryant is second with 81 pts in a game. Yet I wouldn't call him the second greatest acorer ever. I wouldn't sacrifice pippens defensive dominance for an xtra point.

 

[97Bulls]

My memory obviously failed me in regard to where Stojakovic and P.J. finished in MVP voting, but I guarantee you that P.J. Brown was never the 14th best player in the NBA.

MVP voting doesn't equate to how good a player is.

True, but its not just the mvp rankings. Pippens won more awards all together. Be it all-nba, all-D, championships.

 

[97Bulls]

My memory obviously failed me in regard to where Stojakovic and P.J. finished in MVP voting, but I guarantee you that P.J. Brown was never the 14th best player in the NBA.

MVP voting doesn't equate to how good a player is.

Your right it doesn't. I referred to that cuz you said pippen was never one of the best players in the league.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

True, but its not just the mvp rankings. Pippens won more awards all together. Be it all-nba, all-D, championships.

So now you are bringing up All-NBA awards (which are bullshit, by the way)?

Since you claimed Pippen's prime was between 1992 and 1998, you should fing this interesting:

In 1997, Pippen was All-NBA 2nd team.

In 1997, Hill was All-NBA 1st team.

In 1998, Pippen was All-NBA 3rd team.

In 1998, Hill was All-NBA 2nd team.

There. So even by your own logic, Hill was greater than Pippen in both of their primes.

 

[FirstTimer]

I want to know how Rush got Scottie Pippen to post here.

 

[houheffna]

I love how all of the "Pippen is better than Lebron" talk ends once Pip himself says Lebron may be the greatest ever....interesting...

 

[97Bulls]

So now you are bringing up All-NBA awards (which are bullshit, by the way)?

Since you claimed Pippen's prime was between 1992 and 1998, you should fing this interesting:

In 1997, Pippen was All-NBA 2nd team.

In 1997, Hill was All-NBA 1st team.

In 1998, Pippen was All-NBA 3rd team.

In 1998, Hill was All-NBA 2nd team.

There. So even by your own logic, Hill was greater than Pippen in both of their primes.

In 97, hill had a better season.plain and simple

In 98, pippen missed 38 games.

 

[97Bulls]

I want to know how Rush got Scottie Pippen to post here.

The truth hurts don't it? And nothing I said is out of whack. You call. Yourself a bulls fan, what makes more sense, me saying that pippen and hill put up similar stats or rami
saying hill and pippen are similar defensively?

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

In 97, hill had a better season.plain and simple

In 98, pippen missed 38 games.

Now you're fetching at straws.

In 1996-97, Hill had a better season than Scottie Pippen ever had. Which was my entire point. And Hill's best season was 1999-00.

And I'm well aware that Pippen missed the first 35 games in 1997-98. But Hill had a better season, and still would have if Pippen played all 82 games.

 

[FirstTimer]

The truth hurts don't it?

You're not able to follow the conversation at all. No one is saying Hill>>>Pippen in general. The conversation is Hill's prime would have been better than Pippen's had Hill stayed healthy.

You're not "proving" anything.

 

[97Bulls]

I love how all of the "Pippen is better than Lebron" talk ends once Pip himself says Lebron may be the greatest ever....interesting...

And you know what's even funnier? Bulls fans (not all) are the only fans that will discredit anyone on their team not named jordan. Ive never see the same from any other fanbase. Lakers fans love what worthy contributed to their team. Same with the pistons and rodman. The celtics and mchale.

And in response to your lebron james/ pippen comparison, I've never said pippen was better than james. Especially not after this year. And what pippen said wasn't bad. He said james could end up being the best ever. Not that he may be. Provided that james continues to rack up legendary games/ seasons/ and championships. Id tend to agree.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

And you know what's even funnier? Bulls fans (not all) are the only fans that will discredit anyone on their team not named jordan. Ive never see the same from any other fanbase. Lakers fans love what worthy contributed to their team. Same with the pistons and rodman. The celtics and mchale.

Who the hell here doesn't appreciate or love Pippen? That wasn't the question. The question was, 'who was better in their prime: Grant Hill or Scottie Pippen?'

You, yourself, seem to believe the answer to that question is Hill. But I don't think you will bring yourself to admit it.

 

[97Bulls]

You're not able to follow the conversation at all. No one is saying Hill>>>Pippen in general. The conversation is Hill's prime would have been better than Pippen's had Hill stayed healthy.

You're not "proving" anything.

And I replied that pippen played behind jordan. Did it help him as far as winning? Hell yeah. But it killed his ability to rack up personal accomplishments. And better stats. What you saw from hill was a spike. All players have a year or two thaat higher than the norm. Kobe was routinely in the high 20s and then he spiked in 05 with 35 ppg. I doubt hill would've continued to achieve 26 ppg. Considereing his first 5-6 seasons he barely cracked 21. And he was the go to guy.

Pippen never had that chance cuz he played behind jordan. You think hill would avg 26 ppg with jordan on his team? Especially when most of his career he managed 20? And in an offense as stagnant as the triangle?

You gotta admit it makes a little sense.

 

[FirstTimer]

And you know what's even funnier? Bulls fans (not all) are the only fans that will discredit anyone on their team not named jordan..

No one's discrediting Pippen. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what's going on in here.

Saying Grant>Pippen as a prime player isn't a slight at Pippen. It's an amazing large compliment towards Hill. What can you not understand about that?

 

[FirstTimer]

What you saw from hill was a spike.

And frighteningly we may have never seen Hill's prime...and that's a HUGE part of the point that you seem to be continually missing. How? I don't know.

All players have a year or two thaat higher than the norm. Kobe was routinely in the high 20s and then he spiked in 05 with 35 ppg.

That's an asinine comparison. Kobe was averaging high 20's along side Shaq who was soaking up massive amounts of scoring. I think it's a fair assumption Kobe could have gone for a few seasons over 30 had Shaq not been there. We also Pippen in his prime with no Jordan and he was an fantastic player for that year and a half. The point is right as Hill was entering what would have been his prime his body went out. We saw one prime season from Hill. The rest were wasted with injuries. What you are counting as "prime" seasons for Hill may not have been actual prime seasons. Those were just the best of what we have to choose from because IMO Hill's prime seasons, or what should have been were cut out/short/ etc by his injuries.

I don't know how to explain it anymore clearly than that.

You gotta admit it makes a little sense.

The only thing that makes little sense is your continually off subject responses.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

And I replied that pippen played behind jordan. Did it help him as far as winning? Hell yeah. But it killed his ability to rack up personal accomplishments. And better stats. What you saw from hill was a spike. All players have a year or two thaat higher than the norm. Kobe was routinely in the high 20s and then he spiked in 05 with 35 ppg. I doubt hill would've continued to achieve 26 ppg. Considereing his first 5-6 seasons he barely cracked 21. And he was the go to guy.

Pippen never had that chance cuz he played behind jordan. You think hill would avg 26 ppg with jordan on his team? Especially when most of his career he managed 20? And in an offense as stagnant as the triangle?

You gotta admit it makes a little sense.

Nothing you just said shows you know anything that happened on the court in the 90's.

First of all, All-NBA awards are notorious for putting at least 2 players on the best teams on that 'roster.' And they are also notorious for putting guys ahead of others who are more deserving simply because they have accomplished more in their career. So even though some players are well past their prime, they get thrown ahead of younger/better "up-and-coming" players as a lifetime achievement award.

Second of all, Pippen played nearly one year and a half without Jordan and never cracked 22 points per-game. Hill played with Jerry Stackhouse who was just as prolific a scorer as Pippen was.

If Grant Hill played on the Bulls in the 90's I will tell you one thing for sure: he would have averaged more points, rebounds, and assists than Pippen did in the triangle. And the Bulls wouldn't have lost very much defensive ability at all.

 

[97Bulls]

Who the hell here doesn't appreciate or love Pippen? That wasn't the question. The question was, 'who was better in their prime: Grant Hill or Scottie Pippen?'

You, yourself, seem to believe the answer to that question is Hill. But I don't think you will bring yourself to admit it.

I don't know how you came to this conclusion. I said I feel pippens numbers were hindered from playing behind jordan. And that he would've scored more if jordan wouldn't have came back (though im happy he did) he would've rebounded more if rodman wasn't there, and all his stats would've improved if he could dominate the ball like hill did.

Do you think hill could still avg 20 ppg and 8 rbds with rodman and jordan playing alongside him?

 

[97Bulls]

And frighteningly we may have never seen Hill's prime...and that's a HUGE part of the point that you seem to be continually missing. How? I don't know.


That's an asinine comparison. Kobe was averaging high 20's along side Shaq who was soaking up massive amounts of scoring. I think it's a fair assumption Kobe could have gone for a few seasons over 30 had Shaq not been there. We also Pippen in his prime with no Jordan and he was an fantastic player for that year and a half. The point is right as Hill was entering what would have been his prime his body went out. We saw one prime season from Hill. The rest were wasted with injuries. What you are counting as "prime" seasons for Hill may not have been actual prime seasons. Those were just the best of what we have to choose from because IMO Hill's prime seasons, or what should have been were cut out/short/ etc by his injuries.

I don't know how to explain it anymore clearly than that.







The only thing that makes little sense is your continually off subject responses.

First, let say that it was unfortuante what happened to hil. But he did have 5 years in the league. He did look like he was well on hi way to superstadom. But he did have FIVE YEARS. Pippen had 1.


This is where I question your loyalty as a bulls fan. You make concessions that kobes production was limited cuz of shaq, even though kobe was still avg around 20 shots a game and even took more shots than shaq. And after the two. The next closests scorer avg about 8 ppg. Shaq didn't hinder kobe from shooting.

But say fail to admit pippens prime was spent behind jordan. And he had rodman canibalizing possible rebounds. How can you see kobes so called hinderance but not pippen?

Im sure you been following this discussion, and say your a pippen fan. Why not check rami when he says that pippen and hill were similar defensively? I asked you this before and ill ask again. What's more farfetched, saying that hill and pippen were similar statistically or that hill and pippen were similar defensivley?

 

[97Bulls]

Nothing you just said shows you know anything that happened on the court in the 90's.

First of all, All-NBA awards are notorious for putting at least 2 players on the best teams on that 'roster.' And they are also notorious for putting guys ahead of others who are more deserving simply because they have accomplished more in their career. So even though some players are well past their prime, they get thrown ahead of younger/better "up-and-coming" players as a lifetime achievement award.

Second of all, Pippen played nearly one year and a half without Jordan and never cracked 22 points per-game. Hill played with Jerry Stackhouse who was just as prolific a scorer as Jordan was.

If Grant Hill played on the Bulls in the 90's I will tell you one thing for sure: he would have averaged more points, rebounds, and assists than Pippen did in the triangle. And the Bulls wouldn't have lost very much defensive ability at all.

Jerry stackhouse was just as prolific scorer as jordan? You should be banned for saying such. And Id avy bet you that satckhouse never took more shots than jordan. And he definately wasn't as efficient. Which is probably another reason why hill avg the rebounds he did.

And the bulls wouldn't have lost much defensively with hill in pippens place? Then why didn't hey win rami? Your saying that hill and stackhouse were as productive as jordan and pippen. Your nuts

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

In regard to the SF position, offense>defense. We are talking about the 2nd best perimeter scorer in the NBA and a well-above average perimeter defender vs. a top five perimeter scorer and the best perimeter defender.

Hill was a better rebounder than Pippen and all you need to do is watch them play to figure that out. Let's have none of this Rodman stealing rebounds from Pippen chatter. Same thing in regard to passing and ball-handling.

You are yet to concede any of those things. Instead, you want to focus on the 'per-game' and 'All-NBA' aspect of the argument (both of which favor Hill).