Jordan and Pippen

["Sampath, Venkatesh" <Venkatesh.Sampath@microcell.ca>]

Hi Shawn, 
     Was away for a bit, so couldn't respond to your post. 

While I agree with you that Shaq doesn't deserve to be on the list based
on what he has accomplished so far, I do not think the "50 greatest" is
a scam. One wrong entry out of fifty does not lead to the trashing of
the list as a whole. Yes, I do believe that Pippen belongs on that list.
He is perhaps not leadership material, but that doesn't take away his
basketball abilities. I agree he is not in Bird's class (or Jordan's for
that matter), but I sure as hell would put him up there with Charles
Barkley. Remember that the point we are discussing is whether Jordan
would have won as many championships as he did without Pippen. To my
mind, that's like saying would Bird have won those two without McHale
(whom incidentally, I rate much higher than Barkley; in fact, Barkley
himself, in a rare show of humility, confessed as much). It's pure
conjecture, as you pointed out. Let's just say that given the choice,
you would pick Barkley in the twinkling of an eyelid (over Pippen),
whereas I would give the matter considerable thought (before eventually
picking ......... Pippen???).    

>----------
>From: 	Shawn Roth[SMTP:ufpdev!shawnr@uunet.uu.net]
>Sent: 	26 August 1998 13:01
>To: 	celtics@igtc.com
>Subject: 	Re: Malone & $20mil
>
>Venkat,
>   
>   The NBA's 50 greatest players was a shame.  Come on, Shaq?, Pippen?, do
>they
>   really belong in the list of 50 greatest players of all times.  Shaq is
>   good, but hasn't won crap, Pippen has at least one championships, but is
>one
>   of the 50 best.  Could he have lead a team by himself.  Could he have
>scored
>   at will like Jordan?  I think that the NBA 50 best list was just for pub.
>I
>   really don't think you can use that list as a reason Pippen shouldn't be
>   trashed.
>
>   Pippen is important to Jordan, but Jordan is more important to Pippen.
>   Pippen is an average shooting/point/small gaurd/forward.  And although he
>   can do all those things well, I still do not look at him in the same class
>   as a Jordan, Bird, Tragic Johnson, or even a Charles Barkley.  He can not
>be
>   counted on game in and game out to give 110% effort.  His outside shooting
>   is streaky at times, and his attitude sucks.  Anyway, that is just my
>   thoughts.  
>
>Have a good day,
>
>Shawn
>
>Originally from Sampath, Venkatesh:
>> 
>> Don't agree, Hart. While it's true that Pippen didn't win the
>> championship (!) without Jordan, I have no doubt in my mind that a
>> line-up of Jordan, Paxson, Cartwright and Grant would have had major
>> difficulties winning a championship as would a line-up of Jordan,
>> Rodman, Harper and Longley. 
>> I don't know why Pippen keeps getting trashed on this list. He is one of
>> the 50 best all-time. The defence he played on Mark Jackson during the
>> conference finals was one of the reasons the Bulls got past the Pacers.
>> I don't think Jordan keeps insisting Pippen be a part of any team he
>> plays on because he (Jordan) likes the shape of his (Pippen's) face. In
>> any case, this is a hypothetical argument and will remain one unless
>> Pippen goes elsewhere, Jordan stays on with the rest of the Bulls and
>> there's an NBA season (with or without drug-testing!). 
>> 
>> venkat
>> 
>> >----------
>> >From: 	Sherry & Hart[SMTP:hartleyo@ix.netcom.com]
>> >Sent: 	26 August 1998 11:05
>> >To: 	MH348@aol.com
>> >Cc: 	celtics@igtc.com
>> >Subject: 	Re: Malone & $20mil
>> >
>> >MH348@aol.com wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Jordan didn't excactly carry the Bulls to six titles. If it wasn't for
>> >>Pippen
>> >> he wouldn't even have one ring.
>> >
>> >I doubt that!
>> >Jordan without Pippen means Bulls stll win, Bulls still win. 
>> >Pippen without Jordan means Bull lose, Bulls lose.
>> >Regards,
>> >Hart
>> >
>> 
>> 
>
>