Is Scottie Pippen over- or underrated?
I kind of think there are two ways of looking at this particular issue. The first way is the following: what did Scottie Pippen do? Okay, he was clearly one of the best defenders of all-time. Few guys had his length, his quickness, and his instincts. He is the only player I can remember who would guard slashers or perimeter players, and who was comfortable against any opponent his size or smaller. I mean, there aren't a whole lot of small forwards who you'd want guarding point guards, and yet Scottie was more than capable. In addition, he was a player you could throw down low to body up on the big guys-- not that this was his forte, but he was capable, at least within reason. But, has Scottie's defense been overrated? Do we take a guy who really didn't have that many skills and turn him into a great all-around player? Let's look at the record. Was Scottie a great scorer? No. A very good scorer, but not great. It's quite possible that the only players who have been historically better-regarded than Pippen to have also been worse scorers are Bob Cousy and Bill Russell. Cousy, though, basically invented the point guard position, and Russell's job was so different that it really isn't fair. Additionally, Russell really was that good defensively to justify him. I mean, NO ONE else could shut down Wilt. Only Russell. And that's unique. Could Pippen shut down any opponent on a given night? Yes. But what would have clinched it for him is if there were someone NO ONE else could shut down, and Pippen was the only one. Fortunately for Scottie, though (or unfortunate, for the purposes of this debate), the only "little guy" who fits that bill was on Scottie's own team. You know who I mean. Anyway, being in company with Cousy and Russell is excellent, but perhaps not merited. The 1990s Bulls were not as offensively-balanced as the 1960s Celtics. There were a lot of players on those Celtics teams who could score. They weren't exactly loaded with 40-year-old-John-Salleys and Jud Buechlers and Bill Wenningtons. Pippen was option #2 on an offense with no other legitimate options, and his scoring numbers don't seem to merit the acclaim he's gotten as an offensive player.
Second, on the Scottie-is-overrated front is this critical argument: what is Scottie without MJ? What's interesting about this particular argument is that's its analog does not exist anywhere else in sports. Gehrig without Ruth would have been... a little better than Jimmie Foxx. Which is exactly what we think of him now. Stockton without Malone still would have been great. He would have been extremely underrated, but it's really, really hard to believe that Stockton wouldn't still be a top-5 PG of all time, even without the Mailman. Likewise for Malone without Stockton-- that situation is definitely not analogous, because it's difficult to even determine who the better player of the two was. Magic without Kareem still wins titles, as long as there's a capable center. Rice without Montana would be fine. I mean, seriously-- there isn't another situation like this. You know who the best analog might be? Kobe without Shaq/Gasol. Great player, great statistically, but how great all-time? Top 50? Most definitely. Top 25? If you're very, very generous and blood-related to the guy, then yeah, maybe you leave room for him. Like, somewhere above Grant Hill and below Allen Iverson. That's where you're left. And don't the Blazers/Rockets/inter-Jordan years of Scottie's career confirm this? It's hard to argue against it. Those teams pathologically underachieved. Each time, Scottie was a key component (or even the key component), and couldn't come through to bring those teams over the hump.
And yet, in spite of all of that, I'm going to argue that those principles, while somewhat true, are misguided, misapplied, and that Scottie Pippen is one of the most underrated basketball players of all time. Let's start with the most common argument first: the "who-is-Scottie-without-Michael?" argument. I want to first turn it on its head. An equally important question is this: Who is Michael without Scottie? As I see it, MJ would still be a statistical wunderkind. Like Wilt in the 60s or LeBron today, though, I don't know that it gets him much more than that. Maybe he'd have picked up some sort of mercy-title like The Big O did at the end of his career, but Jordan without Pippen means that the 90s were not the Bulls dynasty. If I were to be asked the following: what the most important thing to Michael Jordan's legacy and what made him so great-- what really separated him from other players? I would say that it's 100% got to be Scottie Pippen. I mean, there are so many things that people usually name: the endorsements (even though other people had them-- look at the LeBron empire today. It's very analogous-- but you don't hear anyone saying that LeBron is Jordan-- and you won't until he gets his Scottie. Of course, that may have just happened with the Antawn Jamison trade, but I digress), the competitiveness (but that was still there when he wasn't winning titles), Phil (this is a good answer, but while Phil is a great coach, even he can't do something with nothing), or his flare (but c'mon: nobody talks about Pistol Pete or even Magic the way they do about Mike). But really, without Scottie, all of those things amount to no titles. Period. Now, does propping up the Jordan empire make Scottie an all-time great, in and of itself? No. But let's examine the facts.
In the one full season Jordan didn't play, Scottie led the Bulls in ALL FIVE MAJOR STATISTICAL CATEGORIES. That's right. All of them. Scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. All. I believe Dave Cowens is the only other player to do this, and him for the '78 Celts. Why does this matter? Because first of all, it proves how great he was at everything there is to do on a basketball court. Second, and more important, is that it proves what Scottie gave up. Scottie allowed himself to be, essentially, a glorified role player in order to win titles. Who else has done that? Cousy, Russell, and (to a lesser extent, and certainly only when he was a Laker) Chamberlain. This fact proves that, the lofty company I mentioned earlier is appropriate for Scottie. I mean, how many basketball players do that? He would probably be a starter on an all-time team of great "team players." That's something special. If you look at that one season of Scottie's career, and you create a normal career arc around a player with a season like that, you're talking about a truly outstanding player. Probably in the top-20 of all-time.
Additionally, let's look at some of the other major things against Scottie Pippen. First, there's the whole "Blazers/Rockets/inter-Jordan" argument. In the Blazers and Rockets years, was it really Scottie's fault, or a problem of too many cooks in the kitchen? Additionally, he was old. And he wasn't even the oldest player on the team at the time. But those teams were quite old, and Scottie wasn't in his prime anymore. As for the inter-Jordan Bulls, name a time when a team with Horace Grant as its second-best player would have ever won a title. The answer is: never. Ever. In history. That team would have had trouble competing when people were still using peach baskets-- okay, maybe I've gone too far. Grant was a solid player. But just that. Solid. Not the #2 of a championship-caliber team. Frankly, if anything, it's possible that those inter-Jordan Bulls teams actually over-achieved. And Scottie would be the man responsible.
I don't know. Perhaps the arguments in my first two paragraphs are more persuasive to you, but for me, Scottie Pippen is one of the greatest players of all time, and certainly in the top 4 or 5 at his position. In my opinion, he has been drastically underrated and merits a review. Decide for yourself, but this is what I believe.
I kind of think there are two ways of looking at this particular issue. The first way is the following: what did Scottie Pippen do? Okay, he was clearly one of the best defenders of all-time. Few guys had his length, his quickness, and his instincts. He is the only player I can remember who would guard slashers or perimeter players, and who was comfortable against any opponent his size or smaller. I mean, there aren't a whole lot of small forwards who you'd want guarding point guards, and yet Scottie was more than capable. In addition, he was a player you could throw down low to body up on the big guys-- not that this was his forte, but he was capable, at least within reason. But, has Scottie's defense been overrated? Do we take a guy who really didn't have that many skills and turn him into a great all-around player? Let's look at the record. Was Scottie a great scorer? No. A very good scorer, but not great. It's quite possible that the only players who have been historically better-regarded than Pippen to have also been worse scorers are Bob Cousy and Bill Russell. Cousy, though, basically invented the point guard position, and Russell's job was so different that it really isn't fair. Additionally, Russell really was that good defensively to justify him. I mean, NO ONE else could shut down Wilt. Only Russell. And that's unique. Could Pippen shut down any opponent on a given night? Yes. But what would have clinched it for him is if there were someone NO ONE else could shut down, and Pippen was the only one. Fortunately for Scottie, though (or unfortunate, for the purposes of this debate), the only "little guy" who fits that bill was on Scottie's own team. You know who I mean. Anyway, being in company with Cousy and Russell is excellent, but perhaps not merited. The 1990s Bulls were not as offensively-balanced as the 1960s Celtics. There were a lot of players on those Celtics teams who could score. They weren't exactly loaded with 40-year-old-John-Salleys and Jud Buechlers and Bill Wenningtons. Pippen was option #2 on an offense with no other legitimate options, and his scoring numbers don't seem to merit the acclaim he's gotten as an offensive player.
Second, on the Scottie-is-overrated front is this critical argument: what is Scottie without MJ? What's interesting about this particular argument is that's its analog does not exist anywhere else in sports. Gehrig without Ruth would have been... a little better than Jimmie Foxx. Which is exactly what we think of him now. Stockton without Malone still would have been great. He would have been extremely underrated, but it's really, really hard to believe that Stockton wouldn't still be a top-5 PG of all time, even without the Mailman. Likewise for Malone without Stockton-- that situation is definitely not analogous, because it's difficult to even determine who the better player of the two was. Magic without Kareem still wins titles, as long as there's a capable center. Rice without Montana would be fine. I mean, seriously-- there isn't another situation like this. You know who the best analog might be? Kobe without Shaq/Gasol. Great player, great statistically, but how great all-time? Top 50? Most definitely. Top 25? If you're very, very generous and blood-related to the guy, then yeah, maybe you leave room for him. Like, somewhere above Grant Hill and below Allen Iverson. That's where you're left. And don't the Blazers/Rockets/inter-Jordan years of Scottie's career confirm this? It's hard to argue against it. Those teams pathologically underachieved. Each time, Scottie was a key component (or even the key component), and couldn't come through to bring those teams over the hump.
And yet, in spite of all of that, I'm going to argue that those principles, while somewhat true, are misguided, misapplied, and that Scottie Pippen is one of the most underrated basketball players of all time. Let's start with the most common argument first: the "who-is-Scottie-without-
In the one full season Jordan didn't play, Scottie led the Bulls in ALL FIVE MAJOR STATISTICAL CATEGORIES. That's right. All of them. Scoring, rebounding, assists, blocks, and steals. All. I believe Dave Cowens is the only other player to do this, and him for the '78 Celts. Why does this matter? Because first of all, it proves how great he was at everything there is to do on a basketball court. Second, and more important, is that it proves what Scottie gave up. Scottie allowed himself to be, essentially, a glorified role player in order to win titles. Who else has done that? Cousy, Russell, and (to a lesser extent, and certainly only when he was a Laker) Chamberlain. This fact proves that, the lofty company I mentioned earlier is appropriate for Scottie. I mean, how many basketball players do that? He would probably be a starter on an all-time team of great "team players." That's something special. If you look at that one season of Scottie's career, and you create a normal career arc around a player with a season like that, you're talking about a truly outstanding player. Probably in the top-20 of all-time.
Additionally, let's look at some of the other major things against Scottie Pippen. First, there's the whole "Blazers/Rockets/inter-Jordan" argument. In the Blazers and Rockets years, was it really Scottie's fault, or a problem of too many cooks in the kitchen? Additionally, he was old. And he wasn't even the oldest player on the team at the time. But those teams were quite old, and Scottie wasn't in his prime anymore. As for the inter-Jordan Bulls, name a time when a team with Horace Grant as its second-best player would have ever won a title. The answer is: never. Ever. In history. That team would have had trouble competing when people were still using peach baskets-- okay, maybe I've gone too far. Grant was a solid player. But just that. Solid. Not the #2 of a championship-caliber team. Frankly, if anything, it's possible that those inter-Jordan Bulls teams actually over-achieved. And Scottie would be the man responsible.
I don't know. Perhaps the arguments in my first two paragraphs are more persuasive to you, but for me, Scottie Pippen is one of the greatest players of all time, and certainly in the top 4 or 5 at his position. In my opinion, he has been drastically underrated and merits a review. Decide for yourself, but this is what I believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment