Stephen A. Smith has spent years defending Michael Jordan’s place atop the NBA’s GOAT debate. So when Rich Paul reignited the debate by arguing that Michael Jordan’s success cannot be separated from Scottie Pippen’s presence, the ESPN analyst wasn’t about to stay quiet.

“If you lower Michael Jordan an inch in anybody’s mind, you simultaneously must elevate LeBron,” he said via First Take. “Rich Paul will deny it till the cows come home. He’s got his podcast and plenty of airspace to do that.”

Smith then made it clear he had no intention of allowing Jordan’s legacy to be diminished like that

But ultimately, they’re going to come back to First Take. And they’re going to see a brother named Stephen A. Smith on national television who doesn’t take many days off. Looking you right in the camera in front of the national and international audience and letting you know there is no way in hell that will ever happen. As long as I’m breathing and I’m on this show, you can try it every way.

“But when you bring up Jordan, and you talk about [Scottie] Pippen and what Jordan wouldn’t be without Pippen. If they didn’t have Pippen, they would’ve had somebody else, just like LeBron had somebody else, just like Steph [Curry] had somebody else. It doesn’t take away the greatness of Michael Jordan, who by the way, is still the greatest closer in NBA history.”

Smith concluded with another direct response to Paul’s argument.

“You can try that nonsense someplace else. It ain’t working because it all comes back to first take, baby. And I’m right here to knock down that nonsense.”

Notably, the argument by Rich Paul that Stephen A. Smith referred to occurred during a recent episode of Game Over alongside Max Kellerman and Gilbert Arenas.

The debate began when Arenas argued that Scottie Pippen’s six NBA championships should not be viewed on the same level as Michael Jordan’s because Pippen was never the Bulls’ best player during their title runs. Arenas characterized Pippen’s championships as those of a secondary star rather than the franchise centerpiece, prompting immediate pushback from Rich Paul.

Paul rejected the idea that Pippen’s rings carried less value, arguing that the Hall of Famer was indispensable to Chicago’s dynasty. He contended that Pippen’s all-around impact often goes underappreciated in discussions about the Bulls’ success and took the argument a step further by claiming that Jordan would not have won any of his six championships without his longtime running mate. That led to Paul’s now-viral assertion.

“If you unplug Scottie Pippen off the team, Jordan’s 0 for 6,” Paul said to highlight the Hall of Famer’s importance to Chicago’s championship run. “You could replace him with another All-Star, but just because it’s an All-Star doesn’t mean it’s Scottie Pippen… You’re talking about a guy that’s 6’9″ who plays both sides of the ball. He’s got a 7’3″ wingspan, he can initiate the offense. You had three guys on that team that were on the All-Defensive Team.”

Smith’s argument can’t be overlooked either. LeBron James won rings alongside Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Kyrie Irving, and Anthony Davis. Stephen Curry had Kevin Durant and Klay Thompson, and the list goes on. 

Yet Rich Paul’s suggestion that Michael Jordan would go 0-6 without Pippen should be the highest elevation the legendary forward ever received. This brings us to an important question: How did MJ perform without Scottie Pippen?

Jordan had finished 5 seasons with a losing record in his career. Notably, he didn’t have Pippen by his side on all those occasions. However, the context and situation matter. 

In MJ’s first three seasons before Pippen’s debut, Jordan played alongside an unstable side. Players like Orlando Woolridge and Quintin Dailey dealt with substance abuse. On top of it, Jordan suffered a leg injury in his sophomore season, leaving him out for a long time. In his final two seasons, he played for the Wizards after coming out of retirement.

On the other hand, Air Jordan still posted a winning percentage of 50.8% (193–187) in games without Pippen and built a legacy as the greatest closer in the league’s history. The shooting guard’s clutch plays, defense, and passing abilities arguably placed him above his peers.

While Rich Paul’s argument may elevate Pippen’s value, it does little to diminish MJ’s six Finals MVPs and two three peats.  Nevertheless, Smith argued that Paul attempted to “elevate” LeBron James at the expense of MJ. But was that really the point Rich Paul was trying to make?

The LeBron James angle that Stephen A. Smith may have missed

Rich Paul had made several arguments in the GOAT debate, siding with LeBron James. However, the star agent’s takes weren’t necessarily an attack on Michael Jordan’s legacy. 

Instead, he used it to set the context and highlight the contrasting circumstances Bron faces.

In a conversation with Rich Eisen, Paul listed various situations that Jordan faced that were different from Bron’s.

“Michael’s never been the underdog in any Finals. Not one time. Michael never had a 24-hour, 365-day news cycle. He never had shows built strictly to criticize him. People made millions of dollars criticizing LeBron. That was their entire job.”

He further emphasized the organizational stability MJ maintained throughout his career. From Dean Smith at North Caroline to Phil Jackson in Chicago, he had the best men around him. However, that wasn’t the case for LeBron James, who had to go through multiple franchises and roster changes every odd season.

“I am the biggest Michael Jordan fan,” Paul concluded. “I’m not up here to discredit Michael Jordan.”

Although Stephen A. Smith countered it instantly, Rich Paul’s intention may not be only to attack MJ. But to establish that LeBron James maneuvered through different circumstances.