The Scottie Pippen Paradox: A Legacy Built on Michael Jordan’s Greatness

Scottie Pippen, a name synonymous with the Chicago Bulls’ dynasty, has recently found himself in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

His ongoing criticism of Michael Jordan, the player who elevated his career to legendary status, raises eyebrows and questions about his gratitude.

As Pippen embarks on a “No Bull” tour in Australia alongside former teammates Luke Longley and Horace Grant, one can’t help but wonder about the motivations behind this venture.

This trio, with a combined one All-Star appearance over 28 seasons, seems ill-equipped to challenge the legacy of the greatest player of all time.

Their grievances stem from the portrayal of the Bulls’ dynasty in the documentary “The Last Dance,” which highlighted Jordan’s incredible talent and leadership.

Pippen’s backlash against the documentary reveals a revisionist narrative surrounding Jordan’s success.

Many claim that Jordan could not have won championships without Pippen, but this perspective overlooks the facts.

Jordan was drafted in 1984, while Pippen joined the Bulls three years later in 1987.

This leaves a brief window of Jordan’s career where he played without Pippen, showcasing his individual brilliance.

In his rookie season, Jordan averaged an impressive 28.2 points, 6.5 rebounds, and 5.9 assists per game, quickly establishing himself as a force in the league.

Despite suffering a broken foot in his second season, Jordan returned in his third year to deliver one of the most remarkable individual seasons in NBA history.

In the 1986-87 season, he averaged an astounding 37.1 points per game, leading the league in scoring by a significant margin.

Yet, despite these accolades, critics often point to his early playoff failures as evidence that he needed Pippen to succeed.

However, context is crucial here.

In those early years, Jordan faced the formidable Boston Celtics, a team that boasted five Hall of Famers and won 67 games in the 1985-86 season.

Jordan’s playoff performances against such a dynasty were nothing short of extraordinary, averaging 44 points per game in one series despite being eliminated.

Comparatively, LeBron James faced criticism for his early playoff failures, but the circumstances were vastly different.

Jordan’s early playoff exits came against some of the best teams in NBA history, while LeBron struggled against less formidable opponents.

When Pippen finally arrived, expectations were high.

However, his rookie season was far from impressive, averaging just 7.9 points per game.

Meanwhile, Jordan continued to shine, earning First Team All-NBA honors, Defensive Player of the Year, and leading the league in scoring.

The narrative that Pippen was essential to Jordan’s success begins to falter under scrutiny.

In the years that followed, Pippen’s contributions improved, but they often fell short in critical moments.

During the Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons in 1989, Pippen averaged a mere 9.7 points per game while Jordan carried the team.

In the decisive Game 7 of the 1990 Eastern Conference Finals, Pippen scored only two points on 1-of-10 shooting.

This lackluster performance raises serious questions about his reliability as a second option.

It wasn’t until Jordan’s third championship run that Pippen truly began to shine.

From 1991 to 1993, he averaged over 20 points per game, but Jordan was still the undisputed leader, winning Finals MVP in each of those championships.

When Jordan retired to pursue baseball, Pippen had a chance to prove his worth as the team’s primary star.

Despite having a stellar individual season in 1993-94, leading the Bulls to the playoffs, Pippen’s leadership was called into question when he refused to re-enter a game after a play was drawn up for another player.

Jordan’s return in 1995 marked a resurgence for the Bulls, who went on to win three more championships.

During this second three-peat, Pippen’s production declined, averaging just 17.6 points per game in the playoffs.

Jordan, on the other hand, maintained his status as the league’s premier player, averaging over 31 points during that same stretch.

As the 1997-98 season unfolded, Pippen’s struggles became more pronounced.

In the Finals that year, he battled injuries and managed only six points in Game 5, while Jordan scored 45 points in a legendary performance.

Pippen’s overall playoff averages of 16.1 points, 6.4 rebounds, and 5.2 assists over 17 seasons pale in comparison to Jordan’s dominance.

When examining Pippen’s career, it becomes apparent that his legacy is heavily intertwined with Jordan’s greatness.

While he was a vital part of the Bulls’ success, his individual accomplishments do not match those of his legendary teammate.

Pippen’s seven All-Star selections and three All-NBA First Team nods are commendable, but they don’t place him in the same stratosphere as Jordan.

In fact, Chris Bosh, who played a key role in LeBron’s Miami Heat championships, has a more impressive All-Star resume than Pippen.

Pippen’s recent tour and criticisms of Jordan seem less about honoring his own legacy and more about seeking relevance in a narrative that has largely overshadowed him.

Instead of expressing gratitude for the opportunities Jordan provided, Pippen appears to be attempting to rewrite history.

His discontent with the portrayal of their relationship in “The Last Dance” reflects a deeper insecurity about his own standing in basketball history.

In conclusion, Scottie Pippen’s legacy is one built on the coattails of Michael Jordan’s greatness.

While he undoubtedly contributed to the Bulls’ success, his recent behavior suggests a lack of appreciation for the role he played in one of the greatest dynasties in sports history.

Instead of celebrating their shared accomplishments, Pippen’s attempts to diminish Jordan’s legacy only serve to highlight his own shortcomings.

As he embarks on his “No Bull” tour, one can only hope he reflects on the gratitude he should have for the player who made him a household name.

In the end, Pippen’s narrative may be more about seeking attention than honoring the legacy of the man who brought him to prominence.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.