The amount of help Jordan got from Pippen Offensively

[bledredwine]

1. Pippen was a fantastic 2nd option to Jordan, but Jordan did carry the bulls.

I noticed that a lot of posters don't seem to know the dynamic of impact between Jordan and Pippen in the 90s as first and second option. I wanted to give you an idea by addressing every finals series (not much different from playoffs). In 1993, Magic and Isiah stated that the Bulls were mainly Michael Jordan, and if you take both team's best players away, the Bulls would lose every time. He was known as the player who carried the team, with his domination. See the stats in the six championship wins below if you disagree with that assertion.

2. Jordan distanced himself from the elite stars of the time

Additionally, I want to show you guys how much Jordan distanced himself from the elite stars at their time. He played Charles Barkley during the absolute peak of his career, Clyde and Malone at their peaks as well (alongside prime Stockton/Porter/KJ/Payton as 2nd options, then the loaded but past-prime Lakers which actually remind me very much of this previous decade's Spurs finals teams).

If you compare the performances of teammates to other greats' teammates in won championships, Jordan is among the very greatest in terms of "carry jobs", only surpassed by players like Hakeem in his situation. Of course, I'm speaking offensively primarily because it is hard to measure defense in stats, and it takes a team to play great defense anyway. Jordan and Pippen both played phenomenal defense every single finals.

3. Feel free to post examples of other players in this thread with the same relative stats (their stats, the 2nd best player in the series' stats, and the 2nd best on their team)

I encourage anyone to post the scores of 1st and 2nd options on championship teams from the past who won it as well. I want to see who compares, in that regard. Modern game scores and PER numbers are inflated, with multiple players averaging 30 in the finals as recently as a couple of years ago, so posting 1st and 2nd option will be a much better way of understanding contributions.

4. Note regarding statistics in the 90s vs. statistics over the last couple of decades

Keep in mind, this is with Pippen taking over point duties (In an interview, Pippen said that Jordan would average triple doubles but he was asked to play the point with Jordan scoring off ball... if you're a fan of the 90s, you know this to be true but a heads up for those who may have not been acquainted).

Worth noting - before the court opened up, players played system ball, a game score of 20 was all-time great and 30 was absolutely ridiculous.

THE STATS

1991 Finals
Jordan - 31.2 ppg, 11.4 ast, 6.6 reb, 2.8 steals, 29.4 gmscr
Pippen - 20.8 ppg, 6.6 ast, 9.4 reb, 2.4 steals, 17.5 gmscr

Next highest gmscr = Magic with 20
Jordan gets the 3rd highest assists average in a finals series, behind Russell (much higher pace) and Magic (he's... Magic)
He also hits 13 field goals straight, finishing with "the move"

Won 4 to 1, including a slaughter

1992 Finals
Jordan - 35.8 ppg, 6.5 ast, 4.8 reb, 1.7 stl, 25.8 gmscr
Pippen - 20.8 ppg, 7.7 ast, 8.3 reb, 1.5 stl, 18.1 gmscr

Next highest gmscr = 18.4 (Clyde, heavily limited with Jordan guarding him, to .400 FG%)
From what I remember, Pippen was awesome this series... Jordan just that much better.
Jordan sets record for 3's in a half, most points in a half, ends the series early.

Won 4 to 2, including a slaughter

1993 Finals
Jordan - 41 ppg, 6.3 ast, 8.5 reb, 1.7 stl, 29.6 gmscr
Pippen - 21.2 ppg, 7.7 ast, 9.3 reb, 2 stl, 15.6 gmscr

Next highest - Barkley with 23.4 gmscr (A couple of posters like to pretend Pippen was at the same level of Barkley, which was... never the case until his steep decline. The 90s fans knew it. Pippen is great, but was a 2nd option).

Bulls win 4 to 2 but this series was down to the wire. Phoenix has so much fire-power and without Jordan going off every game in the clutch, Chicago doesn't stand a chance. Jordan hits all 12 4th quarter points before Pax seals it with the 3. I still remember being at a friend's watching Home Alone on a different TV simultaneously when this happened.
First three-peat - Jordan more efficient than Pippen by nearly .1.... basically between .070 and .100 FG% depending on championship.


OK. 2nd three-peat

1996 Finals (VERY defensive series, IMO to of the greatest defensive teams ever)
Jordan - 27.3 ppg, 4.2 ast, 5.3 reb, 1.7 stl gmscr 18.5
Pippen - 15.7 ppg, 5.3 ast, 8.2 reb, gmscr 13.5

Sean Kemp had the highest gmscr of the series with 18.9. Jordan was the better player in this series, especially defensively, shutting Payton down in a pivotal game (forgot which).
Payton gmscr - 14.4
Pippen 4th in gmscr

1997 finals
Jordan - 32.3 ppg, 6 ast, 7 reb, 1.2 stl gmscr 23.4 gmscr
Pippen - 20 ppg, 3.5 ast, 8 reb, 1.7 stl gmscr 15.1 gmscr

Malone and Stockton had 16.8, 14.9 Gmscr's respectively. Pippen did have a great series. Honestly, all players played great. But Jordan distanced himself from all of them.

1998 Finals
Jordan - 33.5 ppg, 2.3 ast, 4 reb, 1.8 stl gmscr 21.4
Pippen - 15.7 ppg, 4.8 ast, 6.8 reb, 1.7 stl gmscr 13.0

Malone gmscr 18.5
Stockton 10.0


My reasoning behind this post? Because there's been a lot of false assertions about Pippen being the best help a star could have... when we've seen pretty ridiculous help and much more from nearly every championship winner.

Jordan was in a different stratosphere than Pippen, not even close. Pippen was known as a 2nd option, and with reason. If Jordan wasn't so far apart, then you'd think Pippen would go off at least for one series. But the fact is, in 1991, Magic was much better, in 1992 Clyde was much better, in 1993 Barkley was much better, and so on. This is what we knew in the 90s.

The only logic stated against this is Pippen's excellent season with the Bulls afterwards, but let's not forget that's shortly after the Bulls won 3 championships in dominant fashion. I have no doubt that prime Jordan does at least as well. Bulls fans know that we won a lot of close calls and our point differential wasn't nearly as good as our record indicated. Pippen was awesome in the playoffs but lost in the second round. 55 wins was great but we overachieved.

In the year (err after) Pippen's Bulls won 45 games, one series against the Hornets in the Eastern Conference, then got beaten 4-2 by Orlando. That's it. Jordan returns and they have roster changes... get 72-10, the best record of all time (until GS) just a couple of years later then that.

If the Bulls documentary doesn't teach this and also refresh everyone's memory who witnessed it about these things, I thought this post would. It's easy to forget and even re-write the past.

[Homer38]

The Bulls were not only great on offense...They were great in rebounds and defense too...

[Dupp]

Jordans dynasty bulls had a great cast but the greatness was not in scoring help it was every other part of the game. Mainly defense but also rebounding, passing and even coaching.

[Colbinii]

The Bulls were not only great on offense...They were great in rebounds and defense too...

I hope OP can deliver an in-depth analysis on defense that goes beyond simple statistics [where this one starts and stops at].

I am curious what value Gamescore has. I have never looked twice at the statistic when using statistics to help analyze players but perhaps there is some worth to the statistic. I have always viewed it as a single game PER. Does anyone have any in-depth analysis or factoids about Gamescore and it's worth as a statistic?

Worth noting - before the court opened up, players played system ball, a game score of 20 was all-time great and 30 was absolutely ridiculous.

It sounds like you know a good bit about Gamescore. Why do you like using it? What do you feel like it does a good job capturing within a game? Do you feel like it misses things or does a poor job of covering certain areas of basketball [defense?]?

Jordans dynasty bulls had a great cast but the greatness was not in scoring help it was every other part of the game. Mainly defense but also rebounding, passing and even coaching.

It is almost as if the was team build around Jordan to maximize his strength's as a player and cover his weaknesses as well as they could.

[bledredwine]

The Bulls were not only great on offense...They were great in rebounds and defense too...

Yep! And Portland/Phoenix was more loaded offensively, Sonics defensively and offensively, and so on.

When you take into account how loaded everything was on both sides, Jordan carried those teams. It doesn’t make sense to just call the Bulls stacked as I’ve heard a few posters do. I’ve shown the stats to prove it, offensively. Defensively? Many attribute the Bulls’ intensity to Jordan anyway, including Pipp thanking Jordan for having him constantly guard him in practices. Whatever you say, there’s no denying that he was by far the most dominant player on the court, even against the prime season stars he faced.

[Homer38]

The Bulls were not only great on offense...They were great in rebounds and defense too...

Yep! And Portland/Phoenix was more loaded offensively, Sonics defensively and offensively, and so on.

When you take into account how loaded everything was on both sides, Jordan carried those teams. It doesn’t make sense to just call the Bulls stacked as I’ve heard a few posters do. I’ve shown the stats to prove it, offensively. Defensively? Many attribute the Bulls’ intensity to Jordan anyway, including Pipp thanking Jordan for having him constantly guard him in practices. Whatever you say, there’s no denying that he was by far the most dominant player on the court, even against the prime season stars he faced.

Jordan was the best player but this is also true that his teams was also loaded...Win 55 games in 1994 and only lose in 7 games against a team who almost won the title.

[bledredwine]

Jordans dynasty bulls had a great cast but the greatness was not in scoring help it was every other part of the game. Mainly defense but also rebounding, passing and even coaching.

You could say that about any team, even more so back then. You can say that about Hakeem’s rockets. It doesn’t change how much they depended on him, just like the Bulls and Jordan’s carrying them in important games time and time again.

Everyone played system ball. There was no effortless running around with space to pass and play point-scorer like Westbrook, Lebron, Harden, Giannis and so on. So yes, passing as a team was very important. But you could also use that as a knock about player-dependent teams now and their styles like Lebron, Westbrook, Harden and so on vs say, Golden State or the Spurs.

So you’re right... But Jordan’s scoring was incredibly important. He won many games that the Bulls would have lost. As Pippen stated, he knew if the Bulls were within seven going into the forth that they’d win it (when asked about Jordan dominating 4th quarters).

[bledredwine]

The Bulls were not only great on offense...They were great in rebounds and defense too...

Yep! And Portland/Phoenix was more loaded offensively, Sonics defensively and offensively, and so on.

When you take into account how loaded everything was on both sides, Jordan carried those teams. It doesn’t make sense to just call the Bulls stacked as I’ve heard a few posters do. I’ve shown the stats to prove it, offensively. Defensively? Many attribute the Bulls’ intensity to Jordan anyway, including Pipp thanking Jordan for having him constantly guard him in practices. Whatever you say, there’s no denying that he was by far the most dominant player on the court, even against the prime season stars he faced.

Jordan was the best player but this is also true that his teams was also loaded...Win 55 games in 1994 and only lose in 7 games against a team who almost won the title.

That’s not good logic. As I mentioned, the Bulls overachieved and their point differential indicated a much worse record. The next year, they had 45 wins. They beat Charlotte and Cleveland in he playoffs. That’s it. That’s not loaded, compared to six championships. And if the Bulls had their 91-93 rosters? They wouldn’t have done nearly as well. Those rosters were definitely not loaded, hence both Isiah and Magic stating “When you’re talking about the Bulls, you’re really only talking about Michael Jordan. If you take the best player off of his team and the best player off of ours, we win it every time. But the fact of the matter is, he’s still there”- Isiah. Then Magic said almost the same thing. Earlier in his career, Bird had stated “God disguised as Michael Jordan”. That’s the best three contemporaries of Jordan’s first half of his career, two staying those things in 1993.

Jordan dominated, man.

And even if his teams were hypothetically loaded as some people like to act (They weren't, especially when you consider the opposing teams).... Bulls leading the Bulls' to 6 championships with FMVP every single series as the undisputed most dominant player made them one of the top 1-3 dynasties of all time and aren't nearly as loaded as the other 2 in Russell's Celtics and Magic's Lakers (now a realgm article, btw).

So ultimately, it's more of an excuse than anything... Jordan consistently dominated and got the job done. The Bulls without Jordan didn't get past the 2nd round and got past the 1st against 2 weak EC playoff teams in Cleveland and Charlotte. Charlotte had some star power but the Bulls had also added Kukoc, who was in his prime and sick at the time, putting on performances sometimes as well as Pippen.

So I'll agree with you that 1996 was loaded with Harper/Kukoc/Rodman. But the Sonics were just as loaded due to the defensive and offensive prowess of the trio Kemp/Payton and Schrempf, who was way the hell better than any big we had and was slightly better than Kukoc at a more important position in the game (He could stretch but often played inside).

Hornacek was also more effective than Kukoc in the jazz series. That backcourt was one of the best shooting backcourts in history- heavily underrated.
The next year Jazz were just as loaded due to Hornacek (offensively and defensively), Ostertag being a much better defender than Luc, and Stockton/Malone playing out of their minds. There were many games that were down to the wire and should have been lost if not for Jordan taking over. I think we all can agree on that.

[Homer38]

Yep! And Portland/Phoenix was more loaded offensively, Sonics defensively and offensively, and so on.

When you take into account how loaded everything was on both sides, Jordan carried those teams. It doesn’t make sense to just call the Bulls stacked as I’ve heard a few posters do. I’ve shown the stats to prove it, offensively. Defensively? Many attribute the Bulls’ intensity to Jordan anyway, including Pipp thanking Jordan for having him constantly guard him in practices. Whatever you say, there’s no denying that he was by far the most dominant player on the court, even against the prime season stars he faced.

Jordan was the best player but this is also true that his teams was also loaded...Win 55 games in 1994 and only lose in 7 games against a team who almost won the title.

That’s not good logic. As I mentioned, the Bulls overachieved and their point differential indicated a much worse record. The next year, they had 45 wins. They beat Charlotte and Cleveland in he playoffs. That’s it. That’s not loaded, compared to six championships. And if the Bulls had their 91-93 rosters? They wouldn’t have done nearly as well. Those rosters were definitely not loaded, hence both Isiah and Magic stating “When you’re talking about the Bulls, you’re really only talking about Michael Jordan. If you take the best player off of his team and the best player off of ours, we win it every time. But the fact of the matter is, he’s still there”- Isiah.

Jordan dominated, man.

I know that without Jordan,no ring but my point his supporting cast was great on defense and in offensive rebounds...After the 1994 season they lose Grant but they sign Rodman before the 1996 season.Rodman has been huge for the Bulls in 1996 to 1998,one of the big reason why the Bulls were one of the best or the best defense and in offensive rebounds in the NBA.

[bledredwine]

That’s not good logic. As I mentioned, the Bulls overachieved and their point differential indicated a much worse record. The next year, they had 45 wins. They beat Charlotte and Cleveland in he playoffs. That’s it. That’s not loaded, compared to six championships. And if the Bulls had their 91-93 rosters? They wouldn’t have done nearly as well. Those rosters were definitely not loaded, hence both Isiah and Magic stating “When you’re talking about the Bulls, you’re really only talking about Michael Jordan. If you take the best player off of his team and the best player off of ours, we win it every time. But the fact of the matter is, he’s still there”- Isiah.

Jordan dominated, man.

I know that without Jordan,no ring but my point his supporting cast was great on defense and in offensive rebounds...After the 1994 season they lose Grant but they sign Rodman before the 1996 season.Rodman has been huge for the Bulls in 1996 to 1998,one of the big reason why the Bulls were one of the best or the best defense and in offensive rebounds in the NBA.

AH!

Now rebounds specifically, I can't disagree with you there. You are right. But consider that Rodman was an inefficient 5 and 3 player offensively. Luca was 7 ppg (crap for center).

That's how it functioned in the 90s. Your bigs rebounded, so all teams had help that way. You didn't have Westbrook and Lebron soaring through the entire court to grab rebounds... that was impossible with the traffic.

And for the Bulls? Yes... rebounding, Rodman was the best help you could ask for, period. But do consider that him and Luc were both gaping holes on offense. Towards the last season, there was even talk of getting rid of Rodman. Jordan stood up for him, saying he loves Dennis and his intensity/competitiveness.

Defensively, Jordan had plenty of help with Pippen/Grant and then Pippen/Rodman. Offensively? Some of the smallest help among greats in history, among probably anyone not named Hakeem. That I would agree with. Even for the second three-peat.... Strictly offensively, Pippen was top 15-20 and Kukoc was between 30-40 in the league.

Horace Grant was a top 20 defensive player and maybe top 70 offensively, thriving off of Jordan/Pipp dishing. That first three-peat is where Jordan really did a ton of carrying compared to other guys. And the Bulls three-peating was amazing. Once again, you have to consider how much help someone has relative to the other contenders of the era. That's the key. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.

You had Pippen/Kukoc/Harper, but then you had Luc/Rodman in the starting line-up. When you consider the entire line-up, no the Bulls were not loaded. They were well-rounded and loaded with great role players! They had the perfect 3 point specialist in Kerr, perfect 6th man in Kukoc, perfect second option for Jordan in particular in Pippen.

[Texas Chuck]

Most on brand OP in board history.

Sent from my LGMP450 using RealGM mobile app

[bledredwine]

Most on brand OP in board history.

Sent from my LGMP450 using RealGM mobile app

Thanks!
What I would like to see is those posters who can discuss this objectively or even join in on the praise, just as they do with threads supporting their favorite players

But I suppose the response is going to depend specifically on the preferences and desires of anyone who replies, regardless of content.

[Texas Chuck]

What I would like to see is those posters who can discuss this objectively or even join in on the praise, .

Funny that it's either be objective or join in the praise.

Cheap jokes aside I'll offer an objective response. In terms of scoring you are totally on to something. Jordan got relatively very little scoring help in terms of other players scoring points. But that doesn't make these notable carry jobs. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't have to tell you as a Bulls fan, that the team had tremendous defenses in every title year--starting with your subject matter Pippen among the best wings of all-time and a guy who saved Jordan a ton of energy for the offensive end. But also guys like Grant and Rodman and Harper among lessor lights. He benefited offensively from Pippen's versatility and ability to run the point, shooters and offensive rebounders and a shot creator in Kukoc the 2nd 3-peat, BJ in the first.

No, Mike was an all-time great, but he had very strong supporting casts overall. Hence 6 championships. Before he got those players despite his huge individual numbers he wasn't winning everything. His own history destroys your argument. If he was truly the guy doing the GOAT carry job we'd have seen it sooner.

[bledredwine]

What I would like to see is those posters who can discuss this objectively or even join in on the praise, .

Funny that it's either be objective or join in the praise.

Cheap jokes aside I'll offer an objective response. In terms of scoring you are totally on to something. Jordan got relatively very little scoring help in terms of other players scoring points. But that doesn't make these notable carry jobs. Quite the opposite in fact. I don't have to tell you as a Bulls fan, that the team had tremendous defenses in every title year--starting with your subject matter Pippen among the best wings of all-time and a guy who saved Jordan a ton of energy for the offensive end. But also guys like Grant and Rodman and Harper among lessor lights. He benefited offensively from Pippen's versatility and ability to run the point, shooters and offensive rebounders and a shot creator in Kukoc the 2nd 3-peat, BJ in the first.

No, Mike was an all-time great, but he had very strong supporting casts overall. Hence 6 championships. Before he got those players despite his huge individual numbers he wasn't winning everything. His own history destroys your argument. If he was truly the guy doing the GOAT carry job we'd have seen it sooner.

Thanks for the real reply.
This is where I must disagree.

The 'Hence 6 championships" comment is trying to pin championships on help. That's not the case.
6 championships comes from dominance every single series. Yes, it takes a team to win, but nearly every championship is won by one of the league's best players, and we know how much that first option matters. In the stats I posted, it's clear that Jordan showed up much more than any other player in all six series, something you can say about few others (anyone? I can't think of anyone) in NBA history.

I do agree that Jordan got a lot more help defensively than offensively, but every star player in the finals got plenty of help defensively and/or offensively. If you compare his squads to other championship teams, he did not get much more help, if at all. In a pic from 1993, it compared Jordan to other all time greats and all of their teams' collective All-star appearances were ridiculous in comparison and Jordan was at 3 with Pippen among teammates.

You can call it help all you want, but 3 championships with nothing in common but Phil and Pippen is impressive consistency.

Once again, it's a top 3 dynasty ever, putting the Chicago Bulls on the map. And the other two dynasties had significantly more help, with multiple hall of famers and all-NBA types. Calling those three-peats with two different supporting casts "help" is an excuse. There have also been plenty of teams who were loaded and didn't win it.

Shall we call all of Duncan's championships merely due to "help"?? Or anyone's, for that matter? Not at all. Basketball is maybe the most star-reliant team sport. Six championships implies a ton of consistency and domination, as backed up by the stats posted here. And Jordan dominated defensively as well. So you can say he had help, but you can't deny that he dominated every single series or that he won many of those games nearly single-handedly in the 4th, either.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm not attempting to give Mike no credit or assign it all to his "help". That's silly. Of course he was the main driving force on those teams, the clear cut best player on all of them. He was incredible.

I'm just pointing out he was incredible before the Bulls got him a running mate in Pippen, but he wasn't going deep in the playoffs every year the way he would have if he was really this great carry master who could do it all alone offensively.

Mike was a beast. But he played on good teams. After all those teams when he was playing baseball were winning over 50 games without him. That's an absurdly strong cast. The 2011 Mavs don't make the playoffs without Dirk--we saw what happened when he missed 10 games the team literally couldn't score. That's an offensive carry job even if Dirk didn't score nearly as many points. But the entire offense was built around the space he created for everyone else.

Surely you can see the difference?

[mcraft]

Michael Jordan being the clear cut best and most dominant player on the floor in every finals run and having a really good supporting cast aren’t mutually exclusive. The Bulls were a well constructed team that fit very well.

[Blackmill]

> Makes observation that GameScore is a poor stat.

Modern game scores and PER numbers are inflated, with multiple players averaging 30 in the finals as recently as a couple of years ago

> Uses GameScore to make argument.

1991 Finals
Jordan - 31.2 ppg, 11.4 ast, 6.6 reb, 2.8 steals, 29.4 gmscr
Pippen - 20.8 ppg, 6.6 ast, 9.4 reb, 2.4 steals, 17.5 gmscr

---

More seriously, while the Bulls weren't stacked with offensive talent, the fit was excellent and the supporting cast checked a lot of boxes.

In the first three-peat, the Bulls featured quality shooters in Paxson and Armstrong (Hodges too, in limited minutes until 1993) who could spot up or run off screens. In 1991 the trio combined for 20.5 PPG (minus FTs) on 52.8 EFG%, and in 1992 for 19.2 PPG (minus FTs) on 50.5 EFG%. Obviously, they often had Jordan or Pippen to thank for being open, but Jordan and Pippen also had Paxson/Armstrong/Hodges to thank for being such excellent options when the defense helped. It was symbiotic. In 1993 Paxson's minutes would drop and Hodges would leave, which certainly hurt the Bulls. But in 1991 and 1992 the Bulls were getting excellent shooting from Paxson, Armstrong and Hodges. In particular, Paxson played a crucial role in several finals games.

Both Grant and Cartwright could get their own shot from the post, and while this was more like a fourth option, it was production that didn't require Jordan or Pippen to expend themselves. As a decent option that let Jordan and Pippen rest, this was valuable. More importantly, Grant and Cartwright were both capable rebounders (Grant especially, who was among the best in the league) and this let them accrue value even when they weren't taking shots. Grant was also a very good finisher in traffic who didn't require the whole dinner table be set for him. Between him and Pippen, the Bulls had some of the best finishers near the rim.

As for Pippen, I don't think anything needs to be said. It's true that the Bulls didn't have as many high-profile scorers as some teams, but the collective contributions were significant. The outside shooting, interior finishing, and offensive rebounding were all good to extremely good for the 1991 and 1992 teams. The second three-peat teams would add a wealth of playmaking talent to this while losing some finishing. And this is before considering their defensive contributions.

[Joao Saraiva]

PER is a relative stats to your own league. It doesn't matter stats from the past.

So if stats are inflated, they're inflated for the entire league. Therefore, inflated or not inflated numbers have no effect on PER.

This is what happens when the numbers don't fit an agenda, people try to discredit them by using false statements.

[Joao Saraiva]

So you want players who had finals like MJ. Sure let's go.
I'll even use the same lines you gave me.

Year 2000
Shaq
38 PPG 16.7 RPG 2.3 APG 1 SPG 2.7 BPG 30.6 GmSC

So Shaq had a better GmSC in 2000 than Jordan had in his entire career.

The 2nd best player for the Lakers was Kobe.

Kobe 2000
15.6 PPG 4.6 RPG 4.2 APG 1 SPG 1.4 BPG 9.7 GmSC

With Kobe having a 9.7 GmSC as the 2nd best player, Shaq had a 19.1 better GmSC than his 2nd option. The biggest diference from MJ to his 2nd option was 14.

[Joao Saraiva]

Year 2001
Shaq
33 PPG 15.8 RPG 4.8 APG 0.4 SPG 3.4 BPG 27.4 GmSC

Kobe GmSC 17.2

10.2 difrence for his 2nd best player.

It would the be the 3rd biggest difference to the 2nd star if it was for MJ.

Year 2002
Shaq
36.3 PPG 12.3 RPG 3.8 APG 0.5 SPG 2.8 BPG 30.1 GmSC

Another finals with a higher GmSC than MJ ever had.

Kobe GmSC 20.3

So that is a 9.8 difference for the 2nd best player on his team. Jordan sure had some finals with a shorter GmSC distance to his 2nd best player like you pointed out.

Shall I continue or were stats inflated 1 year shortened season after MJ left the league?