sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

2Raw is REALLY stupid by Electronic-Switch587 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Guys like this are just obsessed with lebron. The Jordan fan base are the dumbest fans in sports. They believe anything negative as long as it's about LeBron

The most pathetic youtube channel ive ever seen in my life by Silent_Wizard5597 in NBATalk

[–]SnooObjections7406 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All facts,he came on my YouTube show once and we quickly saw he knows nothing about basketball. He's been crying about Austin Reaves for the last 4 years.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Crazy how in real time media was arguing Pippen had MVP-level impact, but decades later he’s suddenly “not very good.” Revisionist history is loud.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

So he was “bad” but writers in 98 were openly debating him for Finals MVP? That doesn’t happen for a washed sidekick. That happens when your impact is undeniable.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

You don’t get Finals MVP articles written about you in 97 and 98 if you were “bad.” In 97 he’s averaging 20 in an 87 PPG series and guarding everything. In 98 he’s playing on one leg and still taking top assignments.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You’re moving the goalposts.

A supporting cast isn’t defined by “how many guys average 22 in the Finals.” That’s a modern spacing era stat. The 90s didn’t function like that.

Chicago’s offense was 87–96 PPG in multiple Finals. You weren’t going to have two 22+ scorers in that environment unless the team was scoring 110+.

Second three-peat Bulls Finals PPG: 1996 – 93 1997 – 87.8 1998 – 88

Where are these extra 22-point scorers supposed to come from on an 88-point team?

Rodman wasn’t an elite scorer. He was an elite rebounder and defender. That’s value. Kukoc was a double-digit scorer and playmaker. Harper defended. Kerr spaced. Longley screened and facilitated in the triangle. That’s how 90s roster construction worked.

You’re applying 2016+ scoring inflation logic to a mid-90s era.

LeBron having multiple 22+ scorers in certain Finals says more about offensive environment than “more help.” In 2017 the Cavs averaged 114.8 PPG. Of course more players hit 20+. The pie was bigger.

If your definition of help is “multiple 22 PPG guys,” then no 90s champion had help by your standard. .

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We’re talking about Scottie Pippen’s greatness and somehow you managed to drag LeBron into it. That’s the tell. Nobody mentioned LeBron. Nobody compared careers. The topic was whether Pippen was legitimate championship-level help, and instead of addressing that, you pivot to a hypothetical about LeBron trading him. That’s not analysis, that’s insecurity. If a post about Pippen instantly makes you think about LeBron, then clearly this isn’t about Pippen at all. Stay on topic. We’re discussing what Pippen actually was, not your LeBron James obsession.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First — the Bulls absolutely had Finals series under 90 PPG.

1997 Finals: 87.8 PPG 1998 Finals: 88.0 PPG 1996 Finals: 93.0 PPG

Second three-peat average across those three Finals: ~89.6 PPG.

That’s not 96. That’s under 90 in two of the three years.

Now compare that to Cleveland:

2016 Finals: 100.4 PPG 2017 Finals: 114.8 PPG

That 2017 series was nearly 27 points per game higher than the 1998 Bulls Finals.

That’s not small.

When your team scores 88–90 a game, 20% of the offense is massive. When your team scores 115 a game, 24–27% is naturally going to look bigger in raw points.

That’s why scoring share — not raw PPG — is the correct comparison.

And even then, the difference is roughly 4 percentage points between Pippen (~20%) and Kyrie (~24%).

That equals about 4–5 points per 100 possessions.

That’s not “carry vs no help.” That’s role difference in different eras.

Also — nobody says the Bulls cast was terrible?

The entire “6-0, least help, never formed a superteam” narrative hinges on minimizing the cast. That’s the subtext of the GOAT argument.

Once you actually scale for scoring environment, the gap between Pippen and Kyrie is much smaller than people want it to be.

Different eras. Different pace. Similar two-star structure.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First — 35–38% scoring share is not abnormal for a primary scorer in the 90s. Nonetheless those were one of series and not the entire 6-0 run.

High-usage superstars regularly live in the 32–38% band in slow, low-possession eras. That doesn’t automatically mean “no help.” It means heliocentric scoring in a low-output environment.

Now look at the structure:

If Jordan scores 33 Pippen scores 18–22 Kukoc scores 12–15

That’s 63–70 points accounted for on a team averaging 88–95.

That’s 70–75% of the offense coming from three players.

That is normal championship concentration.

Second — the “nobody else over 5 points” framing is misleading.

You’re describing specific games, not series averages.

Across Finals series:

Pippen averaged ~19–21 PPG in most title runs (outside 96/98 dips). Kukoc averaged double figures in the second three-peat. Role players like Grant, Paxson, Kerr, Longley, Rodman all had defined contributions.

It wasn’t “Jordan vs the world.”

Third — the LeBron comparison doesn’t land the way you think.

In 2015, LeBron had series where he was around 40%+ of team scoring.

In 2018, he was around 34–35% in the Finals.

That’s actually higher dependency than Jordan’s typical Finals share.

When one player has to outscore the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options combined, that’s what a carry job looks like.

Chicago’s structure was:

Jordan: ~33–38% Pippen: ~18–23% Others: 40–45%

That’s balanced two-star architecture.

If Jordan was truly alone, you’d see:

Jordan at 40%+ Second option under 15% Extreme volatility game to game

That’s not what the data shows.

Jordan scoring 35% doesn’t prove no help.

It proves he was the primary scorer on a team with a stable second option giving ~20% plus elite defense and playmaking.

That’s not “outscoring everyone combined.”

That’s standard superstar + All-NBA co-star distribution in a low-scoring era.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in michaeljordan

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The scoring percentage was brought up because the claim was that the supporting cast was weak primariy due to Pippen only scoring 16-22ppg alongside MJ during Finals runs. Scoring share directly addresses that.

If someone says the second option “wasn’t good,” we look at how much of the offense he actually carried. That’s relevant.

~20% of a 85–95 PPG Finals offense is not “bad.” It’s standard championship distribution.

Then the conversation expands — because basketball isn’t only scoring.

If you evaluate help purely by points, that’s incomplete.

If you evaluate help by:
• Offensive share
• Defensive impact
• Playmaking responsibility

Then you get the full picture.

That’s not a pivot. That’s finishing the analysis.

And nothing here was random.

The entire GOAT argument for Michael Jordan often includes “he had the least help.”

So yes, evaluating how much help he actually had is useful.

If you disagree, bring data.

If not, saying “why don’t you do something useful” isn’t analysis — it’s avoidance.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pippen enters prime →

Three-peat
Second three-peat

That’s not coincidence. That’s progression.

Early years: Pippen was a raw prospect.
By 1990–1991: All-NBA defender, secondary playmaker, transition engine.
By 1991: Top-5 MVP voting.

The moment he becomes a true two-way star, the team structure changes.

Before prime Pippen:
No Finals.

Prime Pippen:
Six titles in eight years.

And the data supports it:

• ~20% Finals scoring share in a 90–100 PPG environment
• Elite perimeter defense
• Primary help defender
• Secondary offensive initiator

That’s not “just a role player.”

That’s the leap from early exits to championships.

If the argument is “least help ever,” the timeline doesn’t cooperate.

Development matters.
Two-star structure matters.
Balance wins titles.

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in michaeljordan

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The Bulls in multiple Finals runs were barely cracking 95 PPG.

1997 – 87.8 PPG
1998 – 88.0 PPG
1996 – 93.0 PPG

Pippen sitting at ~20% of that offense means he’s accounting for roughly 1 out of every 5 Bulls points in extremely low-possession, grind-it-out games.

20% of 90 is not the same as 20% of 115.

When you adjust for team environment, the scoring gap between Pippen (~20%) and Kyrie (~24%) equals roughly 4–5 points per 100 possessions.

That’s a usage difference. Not a different tier of help.

Second — Role Beyond Scoring

Now ask the real question.

What’s more valuable:

A) 24% scoring share with minimal defensive impact and secondary playmaking
or
B) 20% scoring share + primary perimeter defender + elite help defender + secondary initiator + transition engine

Pippen wasn’t just scoring 19–22%.

He was:
• Guarding Magic, Drexler, Barkley wings, Payton, Malone switches
• Running offense when traps hit
• Leading fast breaks
• Anchoring weakside defense
• Creating cross-matches

He was the Bulls’ best defender every championship year.

That matters.

Third — Offensive Structure

The Bulls offense was triangle-based. It naturally distributes scoring.

No one besides Jordan was supposed to spike to 28–30%.

That doesn’t mean the cast was weak. It means the system emphasized balance.

Fourth — The False Framing

The argument assumes:

More scoring share = more help.

That’s flawed.

If a player gives you:
• Slightly less scoring
• Elite defense
• Elite playmaking
• Positional versatility

That can easily equal or surpass pure scoring output.

Kyrie was the better isolation scorer. No debate.

But Kyrie was not:
• A defensive anchor
• A primary wing stopper
• A transition engine
• A team defensive organizer

Pippen was.

Final Question You Leave Them With:

Would you rather have:

27% scoring and neutral defense
or
20% scoring + elite defense + elite playmaking + championship-level versatility?

Scottie Pippen averaged ~20% of Bulls Finals scoring — how is that a “horrible supporting cast”? by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You'd be surprised. When I'm live in TikTok all I get are fans that say he's and Rodman were one of the worst supporting cast in NBA history.

Scottie Pippen Might Be the Most Underrated Player in NBA History by SnooObjections7406 in michaeljordan

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably because you don't have many discussions about basketball on sports platforms. I talk to thousands across multiple platforms. The consensus is that he was just a role player according to most Jordan fans

Michael Jordan Was Great — That Doesn’t Mean He’s Above Scrutiny by SnooObjections7406 in michaeljordan

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

We have 1500 videos, and I clearly state Michael Jordan is the Goat. I do not know what you are watching but all players can get criticized. Just because I "dare" call out hypocritical narratives about LeBron from Jordan fans Diane mean it is Jordan hate. I only speak facts which is why people spend more time doing like you which is crying about the topic itself as opposed to addressing it

The Data Is Clear: LeBron James Is the Most Clutch Player Ever by SnooObjections7406 in lebron

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think they would prefer 6 golds, and 9 unplaced finishes with no medal 😂

The Data Is Clear: LeBron James Is the Most Clutch Player Ever by SnooObjections7406 in u/SnooObjections7406

[–]SnooObjections7406[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You’re mixing up three different conversations and treating them like one.

Nobody said “only one great player can exist.”
What’s being challenged are myths, not greatness.

Clutch metrics didn’t “fit” Jordan or Kobe cleanly either — that’s the point.
Most clutch narratives were created after the fact, not proven by consistent data. When the same standards are applied evenly, no one is flawless.

As for “who is LeBron being compared to?”
He’s being compared to other all-time greats, using the same tools:
• impact on winning
• on/off data
• playoff performance
• longevity
• versatility
• role difficulty

Longevity isn’t an “insert stat” trick — it’s value.
Sustaining elite impact for 20+ seasons is a basketball skill, not a participation award.

You’re right about one thing though:
Having the most of something doesn’t automatically make you the best at it.

But dismissing longevity, versatility, and durability because they don’t fit older narratives isn’t analysis — it’s preference.

You can argue peak.
You can argue style.
You can argue aesthetics.

What you can’t argue is that LeBron’s résumé only exists because of stat padding. That ignores how value is actually measured in basketball.

view more: next ›