The EXACT year that Pippen was a #1 option averaging 22ppg was '93/'94 and the pace that year was 95.1. In fact, that pace of 1994 is slightly CLOSER to 2019's pace of 100 than it is to 2004's pace of 90.1. That how backwards y'all have this shyt.
The pace never hit 95 again until 2016. Yes, the pace is 100 now. But 100 is only about 5% more than 95. You know what adding 5% more to 22ppg gives you? It gives you....wait for it....23.4ppg. Claiming that Pippen would have an automatic 27-28ppg give because the pace is 5% higher was just stupid. People who claimed that don't know shyt about basic math.
And yes, the pace was slower in 1996-98, but Pippen only averaged 19-20ppg those years and that's even with the 3pt line moved in (he shot 37% from three those three years even though he was a 31% shooter the rest of his career). So you still have no justification for jumping all the way up to 27-28ppg. That would be damn near 33% more scoring than he was actually producing.
And that's before you even get into the other points we were making, like the talent dilution due to SIX new expansion teams being added or the fact that teams weren't even regularly challenging jump shots yet and usually didn't guard the three at all. But y'all keep wanting to ignore context every time.
I definitely agree that the heavier minutes played before this era can have an effect too. LeBron played half his career in the high-minutes era and half in the lower-minutes era, and his numbers reflect that.
Everyone else notice how this post is so different from his other posts in this thread regarding Luka vs LeBron?
When you wanna knock down the argument that Pippen could average 40ppg in this era you had no problem doing what you typically do which is post a whole bunch of stats and arguments based on extrapolating those numbers to counter that point. But you haven't done that at all when it comes to Luka being better than LeBron at the same age. All have done thus far with that argument is juelz your way with eye test talking points about who their teammates are.
This is why I have no respect for you. If you stayed consistent and did what you always do and went by the numbers, you would argue 20 year old Luka is better than 20 year old LeBron. But no. You actually don't really think stats are an objective measure of basketball ability. You just have an obsession with LeBron and will make whatever argument you can to support your apriori opinion of his greatness. This is what separates me from you. I am CONSISTENT. Nobody on this site can say I contradict myself the way you have contradicted yourself thus far when it comes to Luka vs LeBron. I always go by the eye test. I never give a shyt about stats. Doesn't matter the sport. Doesn't matter the player. I'm not even a LeBron fan. If I was like you I would be in here arguing Luka is better and shoving these analytics down your throat. But I don't believe Luka is better cause I use the eye test. I'm consistent. I saw 20 year old LeBron play and he was light years better than Luka could ever dream of becoming. So I say that. I don't allow my feelings of who I like and who I don't like to change my philosophy on how I look at things. I just call em like I see em.
Stop discussing basketball ever again. You exposed yourself as a fraud in this thread.