1. Your bending my words. Theres a handful of guys on the list that were #1 options that didn't win championships. Drexler led his Blazers team to two Finals without a real superstar to play with unlike Pippen. 2. Your right. Since the 50 list is so stacked, I would put Duncan and Bryant in before Garnett because of your reason stated. He would be considered, but not before those two. 3. The key word you said about Bryant was "was" 2nd banana. After Shaq left, he scored the second highest point in a game in the Nba. Is an elite defender. An mvp, and won a championship without O'neal. So stop bending what I'm trying to say. Pippen doesn't belong on list, I don't care what you people have to say. There are like 10 people more deserving on that list then him. Walker and Robinson was #1 option on their team because their team had a bunch of scrubs and thier teams wasn't that good. Your bending my words as well. I didn't say all #1 options were 50 worthy. I'm saying the list is so stacked,compared to other people on the list, and the up and coming hall of famers coming up, Pippen was a 2nd fiddle star, compared to Duncan, Kobe, and D Wilkins.
On the contrary, I think Nash is highly overrated and shouldn't even come close to being top 50 of all time. First, his defense is nonexistent. Second, he was a decent to good player all-time wise for most of his career, not anywhere near great, so we're talking about a 2-3 year peak that are his only years worthy of all time consideration out of a 13-15 year career. Third, MVP counting has almost become like ring counting, because team success is heavily counted in MVP voting, and I always thought that the mere presence of rings (without considering the circumstances behind it, how the player contributed, comparing to competitors for historical context, etc.) is not an argument in itself for how great a player is. Fourth, Steve Nash can only succeed in D'Antoni's gimmick system which is known to not produce actual contenders. Fifth, I don't see how Nash is significantly better than a guy like Mark Price, KJ, or Tim Hardaway, who will not sniff the Hall of Fame nor any top 50 list. Steve Nash would have won 0 MVP's in the 1990's and would be considered about the 5th best PG in the NBA behind Stockton, Payton, Penny Hardaway, KJ, and competing with Price and Tim Hardaway. If I wanted to replace Wilkens I'd replace him with Payton or Kidd long before I put Nash on the list.
Again, its just a bad criterion. Pippen was a 2nd fiddle star because his teammate was Michael Jordan. Take every other guard/wing on that top 50 list and put them on the same team with Jordan, and they wouldn't be a #1 option either. Even Dominique Wilkins would not be a #1 option playing alongside Jordan. Put him on the Bulls instead of Pippen, and you'd just have a scorer who doesn't create shots for others and is a mediocre defender, as opposed one of the most versatile and greatest defensive wings in the history of the league.
No, It's common sense, he didn't do anything in his career other than post big numbers and lose. He was pretty much Stephon Marbury, but somehow he managed to make it to the 50 Greatest player ever, I am a fan of his Homework basketball, but seeing tapes and seeing videos, I am not impressed with his ability to put up the WIN for his team.
Ok, wise guy. So are you saying Pippen is a way better player then Duncan or Kobe? Who would you replace to make room for Duncan or Kobe if not Pippen? And don't say they all great players and you can't replace them.
I kind of agree with Bizzle. I didn't want to say anything before because I knew I would get attacked like you doing to him. But yeah. RIP Pistol Pete. That being said. He played and put up numbers on scrub teams. I would replace him with Kobe.
There are several players on the top 50 list I'd take out before I removed Pippen. James Worthy, Hal Greer, Earl Monroe, just to name a few at the guard/wing position. You're insistence to remove Pippen because he was a "second fiddle" is what's so strange. He played a far more significant offensive role on his teams than, say, Bill Russell did. And from a defensive standpoint, he was really one of the greats to ever play at his position.
Have you seen George Gervin play? Or John Havlicek? Or how about George Mikan? What constitute them to having a place on the all-time list whereas Pippen should be omitted? Because one can wikipedia their stats and that's it? Havlicek was one of the biggest stars on 8 Championship teams but it probably wouldn't have been possible without Russell. Gervin led the league in scoring a four times but his teams weren't good. George Mikan is considered to be the first true "big man" but some could argue that he won/dominated was because he was just bigger than the rest and not by talent. As far as the list goes, it shouldn't even be messed with because the list was voted by not only the media but by former players and coaches. That in itself should lend some credibility to the list. I can understand why some can hate Scottie Pippen for two-facing the Rockets organization but to be a detractor and say that he doesn't belong because he played second fiddle to Michael Jordan is questionable. Answer this question for me: How many rings did Jordan win without Pippen? "Well that's not a fair question because Jordan was dominant that any 2nd fiddle player could have stepped in and did the work that Pippen did" Okay, name me another SECOND FIDDLE player during the 1990s that was on the All-NBA team (1st,2nd and 3rd in various years) AND FIRST All-Defensive team spanning 7 years from 1992-1998. In fact, you'd probably be hard pressed to find another wing player that did that as a #1 option.
Second fiddle is not a good word choice but Pippen was never a dominant scorer, Jordan or not. When Jordan left for baseball, Pippen's shots per game average went up one shot. Those Bulls teams without Jordan didn't continue winning because of Pippen demonstrating he was a dominant scorer, they won because they added Toni Kukoc and had a deep championship tested team. Furthermore, you're referencing opinion related accolades that were affected by playing with Jordan. If Pippen played in Golden State/Sacramento and Mitch Richmond played with Michael Jordan for most of his career the Bulls probably would have won seven or eight titles because Richmond came in as a high scoring ROY whereas Pippen struggled when he came into the league. The Bad Boy Pistons could have never tripled teamed Jordan with a shooter and scorer like Mitch Richmond on the other side of the floor.
Did I actually read this? Wait, I'm a forgiving kind of guy. If you're older than me, kudos for voicing your opinion, although a minority one. If you're younger than me, your opinion of yourself is so *****ing overrated.
I don't get why people that consider themselves to be NBA knowledgeable always brings up the "dominant scorer" angle as THE primary "must-have" for a great player. If you managed to look up Pippen's shot attempts in 1993-1994 you probably also skimmed past the fact that his PER for that season was the 4th best in the NBA, behind THREE centers (Robinson, O'Neal and Olajuwon) and was the best among all wing players. FYI, this happened despite only being in the Top 10 in scoring that same year. You realized that without Pippen and Horace Grant, Jordan probably would have never gotten past the Pistons right? Jordan didn't need another high scoring, no defense wing player on his team. Why would you want another player taking away the shot attempts that Jordan would get? I have nothing against The Rock but to say Mitch Richmond would have made THAT much of a difference in place of Pippen is laughable. Check Pippen's PER for the season BEFORE the Bulls' 1st championship and the season they won their 1st Now check Richmond's PER those same years. In fact, Richmond didn't come into his own until his Sactown days. You might want to argue that PER doesn't say EVERYTHING but be hard to find anyone argue that it doesn't have more validity than points per game.
I'm not gonna say who's right or wrong because I wasn't there never saw him play, but bizzle backed up his opinion and intrigued me. Lets not just go say this or that about someone else, why don't you back it up with stats and information? I'm not trying to start anything I just want to hear the other side of the story.
Pistol Pete was a a game changer. He is the type of player that came in and introduced something to the game that can only be truly appreciated in retrospect. He brought casual fans in, and captivated young ball players to add their own personal flair. Without players like him the league would not have grown into what it is today. I'm sorry BizzleRocket/WeMiss/ / / are wrong.
