RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[UglyBugBall]

Where is Bill Russell on the poll? Come on.

He has no case. He dominated his era, and that's it. Olympic 100 meter medalists from the 60s wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics today. The gap in training, competition, nutrition and medical resources is just too big. You drop Bill into the NBA today and he will look more like Rudy Gobert than the 11 time champion.

[lessthanjake]

I do not find artificial formulas to be particularly relevant “data”, no. Like I said, Engelmann’s data is far higher on Lebron in 2016 that your newest RAPM database of choice, and although there are not one-years available on the NBA RAPM website, Lebron being top ten in 2015/16 gives a pretty strong indication which way that year leans. However, if you insist on box composites, your newly discovered MAMBA goes against your narrative, as does dPIPM Wins Added. But you were never trying to be inclusive here, because the goal was not to take a measured approach and arrive to a conclusion organically.

Again, single-season RAPM is understood to not be reliable. You know this but are suggesting it should be used over multiple data types that are widely understood to be superior, because the more reliable data sources do not support your argument. And, even then, you’re trying to pick and choose which single-season RAPM source you look at, because many of those don’t support you either. It’s obviously a very weak point data-wise, and that point is also not supported by the actual all-defensive votes at the time.

As for MAMBA, there’s two important points there:

First, LeBron originally ranked 31st in D-MAMBA for 2016—which would be consistent with everything else and not supportive of your argument—but, as you know, the creator of the metric explicitly changed the metric with the intention of improving how LeBron did in it despite acknowledging that those changes did not actually improve the metric’s overall performance (indeed, the creator mentioned that some of the changes for defense did *not* improve accuracy), so I don’t really find a point that relies on that improvement to be persuasive.

Second, EPM is the most sophisticated one of these measures in terms of defense (at least in the tracking-data era), because it uses a ton of tracking data. Which is why I chose to highlight that one. Indeed, the creator of MAMBA specifically wrote that: “I would likely say that EPM BOX is probably better than this, as that also incorporates tracking data and EPM Defense always tested very well, outdoing the previous iteration of MAMBA’s defense by a decent margin.”

So yeah, you can look at MAMBA if you want, but that basically just involves looking at a measure that was specifically changed with the purpose of improving LeBron’s standing (and which did not support your argument prior to those changes) and which the creator acknowledges is less good regarding defense than the measure I used that does not support your point. It’s a data source one can look at anyways, but definitely doesn’t seem persuasive in the face of the mountain of other data.

As for PIPM, while that’s obviously a *much* less sophisticated data source than anything else we’ve talked about (it doesn’t use RAPM or any tracking data), if we wanted to look at it, TheBasketballDatabase lists PIPM and LeBron’s D-PIPM in 2016 is ranked 43rd and behind the same sorts of guys as LeBron is behind in the other measures I’ve discussed. Not sure where you’re getting “dPIPM wins added” but given possession numbers listed on TheBasketballDatabase and how much higher other people’s D-PIPM is than LeBron’s D-PIPM, it seems clear that it does not actually support your narrative that year. His 2020 PIPM is ranked highly though, so that goes along with the one-year RAPM you’re able to point to for that year as some of the only pieces of data you have. I wouldn’t be all that comfortable arguing a data case using scattered single-seasons of RAPM from certain RAPM sources, scattered single-season PIPM, and a revised version of an all-in-one that was explicitly revised to make LeBron look better, when things like five-year RAPM and EPM do not support your argument and nor does actual contemporaneous all-defensive team voting. You’ve got a very weak case here.

Did I miss something and the sixth highest-voted forward makes all-defense? Or are you just making another transparently nonsense point?

Do you think there are four objective best forwards every year which the voters in aggregate select correctly every time?

The discussion is whether LeBron was an all-defense level player in these other years. All-defense has a meaning, and it is not being the 6th best forward defensively. The fact that the contemporaneous voting put him there one year obviously demonstrates that contemporaneous perception did not have him as an all-defense level player in that year. It may indicate he was close, but the argument is not about whether he was close to all-defense level. It’s about whether he was all-defense level, and both the all-defense voting itself and the data picture in general clearly tells us he wasn’t. So you’re left pointing to things like certain single-season RAPM sources—even though single-season RAPM is widely understood to not be reliable—and nonsensically claiming that being voted 6th supports your argument.

[AEnigma]

I do not find artificial formulas to be particularly relevant “data”, no. Like I said, Engelmann’s data is far higher on Lebron in 2016 that your newest RAPM database of choice, and although there are not one-years available on the NBA RAPM website, Lebron being top ten in 2015/16 gives a pretty strong indication which way that year leans. However, if you insist on box composites, your newly discovered MAMBA goes against your narrative, as does dPIPM Wins Added. But you were never trying to be inclusive here, because the goal was not to take a measured approach and arrive to a conclusion organically.

Again, single-season RAPM is understood to not be reliable. You know this but are suggesting it should be used over multiple data types that are widely understood to be superior, because the more reliable data sources do not support your argument. And, even then, you’re trying to pick and choose which single-season RAPM source you look at, because many of those don’t support you either. It’s obviously a very weak point data-wise, and that point is also not supported by the actual all-defensive votes at the time.

It is prone to noise, but as I already illustrated, Lebron stays high in both two and three year spans, which you dislike.

As for MAMBA, there’s two important points there:

First, LeBron originally ranked 31st in D-MAMBA for 2016—which would be consistent with everything else and not supportive of your argument—

Again just blindly going by ranks even after the possession and position issue has been repeatedly highlighted for you.

but, as you know, the creator of the metric explicitly changed the metric with the intention of improving how LeBron did in it despite acknowledging that those changes did not actually improve the metric’s overall performance (indeed, the creator mentioned that some of the changes for defense did *not* improve accuracy), so I don’t really find a point that relies on that improvement to be persuasive.

Funny how this is your characterisation when the blog post you selectively read specifically says the formula was changed to better advantage bigs and rim protection.

Second, EPM is the most sophisticated one of these measures in terms of defense (at least in the tracking-data era), because it uses a ton of tracking data. Which is why I chose to highlight that one. Indeed, the creator of MAMBA specifically wrote that: “I would likely say that EPM BOX is probably better than this, as that also incorporates tracking data and EPM Defense always tested very well, outdoing the previous iteration of MAMBA’s defense by a decent margin.”

Which does not mean it gives you objective answers in select player comparisons. Once more, either you are somehow so inept you do not understand this, or you are acting in bad faith.

So yeah, you can look at MAMBA if you want, but that basically just involves looking at a measure that was specifically changed with the purpose of improving LeBron’s standing

If that were true, it should be easy to quote him saying that he only cares about boosting Lebron by any means necessary.

Unfortunately, what actually happened was that he made an off-hand comment about how he felt it underrated a few top tier stars (including Lebron) in a way that made the metric look less facially valuable (even if the average value was statistically fine for the league overall), and because you dislike how the changes improved Lebron’s standing, you are inventing a cheap reason to dismiss those changes.

and which did not support your argument prior to those changes)

Based on a rank, not a comparative analysis (for example, Paul George is ranked over thirty spots lower).

and which the creator acknowledges is less good regarding defense than the measure I used that does not support your point.

There is a difference between being more personally confident in EPM and clinging to it because it prefers Kevin Durant and Covington (playing under 2000 minutes).

It’s a data source one can look at anyways, but definitely doesn’t seem persuasive in the face of the mountain of other data.

Great illustration of the molehill idiom.

As for PIPM, while that’s obviously a *much* less sophisticated data source than anything else we’ve talked about (it doesn’t use RAPM or any tracking data)

But it does have a plus/minus component.

if we wanted to look at it, TheBasketballDatabase lists PIPM and LeBron’s D-PIPM in 2016 is ranked 43rd and behind the same sorts of guys as LeBron is behind in the other measures I’ve discussed.

My copy is from when PIPM went private and gives substantially different values — Lebron has the third highest D-PIPM among high minute forwards — but I suppose it is theoretically possible this database obtained a copy which revamped itself, so I will leave it.

Not sure where you’re getting “dPIPM wins added” but given possession numbers listed on TheBasketballDatabase and how much higher other people’s D-PIPM is than LeBron’s D-PIPM, it seems clear that it does not actually support your narrative that year.

Not by their copy, no.

His 2020 PIPM is ranked highly though, so that goes along with the one-year RAPM you’re able to point to for that year as some of the only pieces of data you have. I wouldn’t be all that comfortable arguing a data case using scattered single-seasons of RAPM from certain RAPM sources, scattered single-season PIPM,

Single, double, triple…

and a revised version of an all-in-one that was explicitly revised to make LeBron look better,

Again not actually true. It made him look better, but by further emphasising a defensive archetype that does not apply to him. There is no boost for players named Lebron, or players with Lebron’s weight, or players with Lebron’s specific stat profile.

when things like five-year RAPM

Which gives you a better sense of a specific year why exactly.

nor does actual contemporaneous all-defensive team voting. You’ve got a very weak case here.

Do you think people buy that a contemporaneous placement of sixth is not “all-defensive-level”.

Did I miss something and the sixth highest-voted forward makes all-defense? Or are you just making another transparently nonsense point?

Do you think there are four objective best forwards every year which the voters in aggregate select correctly every time?

The discussion is whether LeBron was an all-defense level player in these other years. All-defense has a meaning, and it is not being the 6th best forward defensively. The fact that the contemporaneous voting put him there one year obviously demonstrates that contemporaneous perception did not have him as an all-defense level player in that year. It may indicate he was close, but the argument is not about whether he was close to all-defense level. It’s about whether he was all-defense level, and both the all-defense voting itself and the data picture in general clearly tells us he wasn’t.

And this is what I mean when I talk about agendas. A normal person coming at this from a position of honesty would be able to recognise that these demarcations are not so definite that you would ever be able to confidently say that the fourth ranked forward is absolutely better than the sixth ranked forward. But you have fully committed yourself to trying to sell people on the idea that Lebron only had five years as an elite defender, and that necessitates this laughable insistence that 2016 and 2020 (and frankly 2021 with how indifferent you are to possession counts) do not qualify because some metrics prefer guys like Millsap or George.

So you’re left pointing to things like certain single-season RAPM sources—even though single-season RAPM is widely understood to not be reliable

Yet again, or two, or three… but you would rather push four or five for a single season assessment and then immediately balk at anything longer because after five it magically becomes too disconnected from yearly fluctuations.

—and nonsensically claiming that being voted 6th supports your argument.

Yes, because I am not an ideologue shamelessly pretending to have absolute confidence in which four forwards are the most defensively valuable as a rule in any given year. I do not mind that Lebron was not on all-defensive teams those years, because I would not have put him on the first teams, and even if I think he merited second team, it was not by some dominant margin where I am baffled that preference would be shown to comparable defenders on better defences. But at no point have you offered any case that someone like George or Millsap was objectively better beyond any reasonable margin for error, which is why you would rather hide behind posting ranks and expanding the RAPM range wide enough for Lebron to fall out of contention based on lesser defensive years.

[lessthanjake]

.

There’s almost nothing of real substance in your very long post and I am not going to go comment-by-comment when you’ve spliced my post into a huge number of responses, so I’ll just address a few things in general (note: Point #3 below is most important IMO):

1. You suggest that three-year RAPM supports your argument, but it doesn’t really. His three-year DRAPM ranks in periods that have any years after 2009-2013 are, in chronological order (using TheBasketballDatabase): 198th, 75th, 64th, 51st, 532nd, 267th, 53rd, 5th, 30th, 97th, and 204th. I guess you’ve got that one 5th place there you can hang your hat on, but it’s actually generally worse rankings than the five-year RAPM, and three-year RAPM is noisier. So I wouldn’t say it makes him look better. It just is a noisier measure that mostly makes him look worse than the less noisy measure but happens to once make him look a good deal better. That doesn’t really support your argument much at all, and really just looks like indexing on a time period that happens to have positive noise (and probably a healthy dose of collinearity). I definitely think that the overall picture in three-year RAPM supports the view I’ve espoused. In general, there’s just a sea of data indicating you’re wrong, and you’re trying to cling to scattered bits of lower-reliability data that might on rare occasions support your argument. This is not a serious approach at all—especially in a context in which the data in question is inherently noisy—and I think you know that.

2. My point #3 below is more important than this, but to address the thing about MAMBA: The creator of MAMBA specifically said he thought the original version underrated LeBron’s post-Miami defense, and then created a revised version that improved LeBron’s standing, while noting that changes were made because LeBron “w[as] underrated in the Prior” (albeit that particular comment came specifically in a bullet point about offense, but it certainly further indicates the sentiment about how the prior was revised). Improving LeBron’s standing of course wasn’t the only reason changes were made, but I don’t think anyone could fairly read through both lengthy write ups the creator made and fail to come to the conclusion that improving LeBron’s standing was a major purpose of the revision. The creator also specifically said that the defense part was “in its alpha stage” and that “Offense was far better than defense” and then updated the defense side with changes he admitted did not increase accuracy. The fact that it did not increase accuracy for defense is relevant because that actually means there’s no particular reason to prefer new MAMBA for these purposes compared to old MAMBA, except that the creator happened to like the output more (which, again, was obviously in part a result of it placing LeBron higher). That’s relevant, because old MAMBA really doesn’t support your argument. Meanwhile, the creator admitted EPM defense was superior (not a surprise, since it uses more sophisticated defensive data). And, again, EPM’s defensive measure does not support your argument. So yeah, while I’m always in favor of at least looking at everything (more on that below!), I think it’s fair to say we should put more weight on EPM here than on the revised MAMBA. Which is very problematic for you.

3. More importantly, I note that EPM is far from the only all-in-one that supports what I’m saying. As I’ve previously mentioned, in terms of all-in-ones, we have EPM, RAPTOR, DPM, LEBRON, and original MAMBA all saying very similar things. Revised MAMBA is pretty much off on its own on this—which you surely know, since I’m sure you looked at those other measures to see if you could point to them—and even then it doesn’t support your argument for most years. Meanwhile, of course, multiple five-year RAPM sources also say something similarly contrary to your argument. As does four-year RAPM. As discussed above, three-year RAPM also says something similar but is a noisier measure than five-year RAPM and so somewhat unsurprisingly does have one very good period for LeBron (with the rest of the periods generally looking worse than five-year RAPM). One-year RAPM is very noisy and so unsurprisingly can support your argument in scattered years depending on which one-year RAPM measure we look at. Given that data in basketball is always noisy, we will tend to have at least a little data going both directions on almost anything, but I think it is extremely clear which side the data supports overall. Which you obviously find upsetting, since you cannot help making ad hominem attacks while discussing it.

4. Your insistence that finishing 6th amongst forwards one year in all-defense voting suggests that LeBron was all-defense level is just odd. I get your point that there may not be a massive difference between the 4th best defensive forward and the 6th best defensive forward, but if LeBron was voted 6th, then the contemporaneous perception objectively was that he was not all-defense level! You might be able to argue that the contemporaneous perception is that he was close to all-defense level. And if you want to amend your argument to say that LeBron remained not far off of all-defense level after that 2009-2013 time period, then that’s an argument I wouldn’t have nearly as much issue with. But that’s not the argument you are making. The argument you are making is one that is obviously contrary to contemporaneous perception and to the overall data picture.

[AEnigma]

1. You suggest that three-year RAPM supports your argument, but it doesn’t really.

Only when you disingenuously argue cold ranks with no further comparison of position or playing time is all that is needed to assess a player’s candidacy.

Here's the list of guys ahead of LeBron for the 3 year '15-'17 sample using the previous method/source:

1. Draymond Green

I'm not one to 100% commit to a particular ordinal ranking, but LeBron was a very very good defender for plenty of seasons outside of '09-'13.

But that goes against your desired narrative.

2. My point #3 below is more important than this, but to address the thing about MAMBA: The creator of MAMBA specifically said he thought the original version underrated LeBron’s post-Miami defense, and then created a revised version that improved LeBron’s standing, while noting that changes were made because LeBron “w[as] underrated in the Prior” (albeit that particular comment came specifically in a bullet point about offense, but it certainly further indicates the sentiment about how the prior was revised). Improving LeBron’s standing of course wasn’t the only reason changes were made, but I don’t think anyone could fairly read through both lengthy write ups the creator made and fail to come to the conclusion that improving LeBron’s standing was a major purpose of the revision.

Or you could just share his actual changes.

Defense:
Charges Drawn was heavily inflating some bigs who drew many charges but weren’t great rim protectors, but it was a very powerful predictor. While there are likely more sophisticated ways to do this, simply setting arbitrary caps on charges drawn based on analysis of the dataset by position, ended up being a pretty solid way to do things. Bigs and bigger players were emphasized by other components anyways, so this helped balance it out to an extent.
Added Field Goals Missed Against, and added a small effect where (+0.25*blocks) were added to it. Note: I don’t actually believe this improved testing results at all, but the results generally made more sense + I did want to emphasize bigs in the box score prior.
Some fo those changes on defense may not have increased overall accuracy, but I did want to emphasize rim protectors more for basketball reasons, and within the framework of this metric I did believe it did help present players in a more “in a vacuum” type way, from the prior to do so, while also having things like Charges Drawn balance the overall picture out. I made other changes and testing as well, but this was was a brief summary of the big changes

Wow, so rigged for Lebron.

there’s no particular reason to prefer new MAMBA for these purposes compared to old MAMBA, except that the creator happened to like the output more (which, again, was obviously in part a result of it placing LeBron higher).

Or the creator understands that a marginally higher correlation to a desired impact measure on average across hundreds of players is generally not worth people like you using it to misrepresent the players at the top of the scale.

As discussed above, three-year RAPM also says something similar but is a noisier measure than five-year RAPM and so somewhat unsurprisingly does have one very good period for LeBron (with the rest of the periods generally looking worse than five-year RAPM). One-year RAPM is very noisy and so unsurprisingly can support your argument in scattered years depending on which one-year RAPM measure we look at. Given that data in basketball is always noisy, we will tend to have at least a little data going both directions on almost anything, but I think it is extremely clear which side the data supports overall.

Yes, basketball is noisy. That does not mean players are assessed by taking five year chunks and declaring them more representative of a single year in that chunk, which you obtusely only acknowledge in the context of how long-term RAPM discredits your “Lebron’s defence was a five-year flash in the pan” lie.

Which you obviously find upsetting, since you cannot help making ad hominem attacks while discussing it.

I find bad faith and dishonesty upsetting, yes. It is the sole reason I engaged in this thread at all: because you specifically are and have always been a bad faith poster who posts with the intent to mislead and misrepresent. And fortunately few people fall for it, but there is always a risk some may (which is why you bother at all).

4. Your insistence that finishing 6th amongst forwards one year in all-defense voting suggests that LeBron was all-defense level is just odd. I get your point that there may not be a massive difference between the 4th best defensive forward and the 6th best defensive forward, but if LeBron was voted 6th, then the contemporaneous perception objectively was that he was not all-defense level! You might be able to argue that the contemporaneous perception is that he was close to all-defense level. And if you want to amend your argument to say that LeBron remained not far off of all-defense level after that 2009-2013 time period, then that’s an argument I wouldn’t have nearly as much issue with. But that’s not the argument you are making. The argument you are making is one that is obviously contrary to contemporaneous perception and to the overall data picture.

No, the argument I am making is that he was all-defence level by any standard which is not “he was either voted all-defence or he objectively by every measure was a top four defender at his position.” Which again is facially obvious, because player rankings have ranges to them based on confidence intervals, and even if you feel that Lebron is mostly on the outside, you cannot and accordingly have not made any such case that he outright would not belong as a selection.

[Zadeh]

No Tim Duncan ??????? No Magic Johnson ????????????????????????????????????

On this list only two player has no losing season, Bill russell and Larry Bird. Tim and Magic also has never losing season. But they are not on the list.

Tim has five rings at six final without help of Stern unlike Jordan. 19 season He kept the team in the championship race from his first season to his last season. His teams never won less than 50 except when season has 50 games.

And he is not on the list ???

Jordan can't do it, lebron can't do it, except bird and russell no one in this list can do it.

And Duncan did it without drama or help of Stern unlike Jordan and Lebron.

[lessthanjake]

.

Okay, you said nothing new there, so any response would just be me repeating things, while fending off the types of ad hominem attacks against me that have gotten you suspended before and warned repeatedly by mods for toxic behavior. Anyone reading this exchange and the rest of the posts in this thread can make up their own mind, and, given how this discussion has gone, I am *very* comfortable with that.

[OdomFan]

I think it's ridiculous that people over look Duncan so much.

Helping a aging 90s core finally get the 1 thing they couldn't accoplish before his arrival. the 1999 championship, then continuing on with great success after Robinsons retirement.

Helping late 1st round 28th pick Tony Parker and 2nd round 57th pick Manu Ginobli go from little known-unknown prospects to becoming household names. Becoming one of the top trios in the NBA. Their unselfish ball movement and consistently great defense show casing guys like Stephen Jacksons shooting ability getting a lot of shine early on in the 2003 season. Stopping Shaq and Kobe from 4 peating. Duncan and those Spurs put a stop to so many legends that many have higher than him on these lists from accomplishing more. all under one coach who came into coaching as a rookie head coach at the same time as Duncan and building their legacies together simultaneously.

I have him 2nd all time right behind Jordan.

[Special_Puppy]

I think it's ridiculous that people over look Duncan so much.

Helping a aging 90s core finally get the 1 thing they couldn't accoplish before his arrival. the 1999 championship, then continuing on with great success after Robinsons retirement.

Helping late 1st round 28th pick Tony Parker and 2nd round 57th pick Manu Ginobli go from little known-unknown prospects to becoming household names. Becoming one of the top trios in the NBA. Their unselfish ball movement and consistently great defense show casing guys like Stephen Jacksons shooting ability getting a lot of shine early on in the 2003 season. Stopping Shaq and Kobe from 4 peating. Duncan and those Spurs put a stop to so many legends that many have higher than him on these lists from accomplishing more. all under one coach who came into coaching as a rookie head coach at the same time as Duncan and building their legacies together simultaneously.

I have him 2nd all time right behind Jordan.

His overall portfolio of traditional and advanced stats is closer to Kevin Garnett than true GOAT candidates like LeBron

[OdomFan]

I think it's ridiculous that people over look Duncan so much.

Helping a aging 90s core finally get the 1 thing they couldn't accoplish before his arrival. the 1999 championship, then continuing on with great success after Robinsons retirement.

Helping late 1st round 28th pick Tony Parker and 2nd round 57th pick Manu Ginobli go from little known-unknown prospects to becoming household names. Becoming one of the top trios in the NBA. Their unselfish ball movement and consistently great defense show casing guys like Stephen Jacksons shooting ability getting a lot of shine early on in the 2003 season. Stopping Shaq and Kobe from 4 peating. Duncan and those Spurs put a stop to so many legends that many have higher than him on these lists from accomplishing more. all under one coach who came into coaching as a rookie head coach at the same time as Duncan and building their legacies together simultaneously.

I have him 2nd all time right behind Jordan.

His overall portfolio of traditional and advanced stats is closer to Kevin Garnett than true GOAT candidates like LeBron

True goat candidate how? what makes Lebron such a "true goat candidate" I don't get yall with this logic. He did nothing before joining up with the Heat. Constantly left teams behind to look to start big 3's with other already established star 1 after the other.

Im sorry but that will never be more impressive to me than what Duncan built with Ginobli and Parker in San Antonio. Not 1 of Lebrons coaches will be remembered or talked about the way we still hail Popovich to this day for the work he put in with Duncan and the Spurs.

All Lebron has is longevity stats. That might be good enough for you but Im not with it. The results speak for it self when it comes down to the head to head matchups between Duncan led team (Spurs) vs Lebron and the Cavs and Heat.

[ScrantonBulls]

I think it's ridiculous that people over look Duncan so much.

Helping a aging 90s core finally get the 1 thing they couldn't accoplish before his arrival. the 1999 championship, then continuing on with great success after Robinsons retirement.

Helping late 1st round 28th pick Tony Parker and 2nd round 57th pick Manu Ginobli go from little known-unknown prospects to becoming household names. Becoming one of the top trios in the NBA. Their unselfish ball movement and consistently great defense show casing guys like Stephen Jacksons shooting ability getting a lot of shine early on in the 2003 season. Stopping Shaq and Kobe from 4 peating. Duncan and those Spurs put a stop to so many legends that many have higher than him on these lists from accomplishing more. all under one coach who came into coaching as a rookie head coach at the same time as Duncan and building their legacies together simultaneously.

I have him 2nd all time right behind Jordan.

His overall portfolio of traditional and advanced stats is closer to Kevin Garnett than true GOAT candidates like LeBron

True goat candidate how? what makes Lebron such a "true goat candidate" I don't get yall with this logic. He did nothing before joining up with the Heat. Constantly left teams behind to look to start big 3's with other already established star 1 after the other.

Im sorry but that will never be more impressive to me than what Duncan built with Ginobli and Parker in San Antonio. Not 1 of Lebrons coaches will be remembered or talked about the way we still hail Popovich to this day for the work he put in with Duncan and the Spurs.

All Lebron has is longevity stats. That might be good enough for you but Im not with it. The results speak for it self when it comes down to the head to head matchups between Duncan led team (Spurs) vs Lebron and the Cavs and Heat.

Let's be honest here for a minute. You have Kobe above LeBron in your rankings. This type of conversation has been had with you multiple times before. Whether intentionally or not, it goes in one ear and our the other with you. You don't understand or you don't want to understand. It's not worth anybody's time explaining this to you for the 10th time.

[OdomFan]

His overall portfolio of traditional and advanced stats is closer to Kevin Garnett than true GOAT candidates like LeBron

True goat candidate how? what makes Lebron such a "true goat candidate" I don't get yall with this logic. He did nothing before joining up with the Heat. Constantly left teams behind to look to start big 3's with other already established star 1 after the other.

Im sorry but that will never be more impressive to me than what Duncan built with Ginobli and Parker in San Antonio. Not 1 of Lebrons coaches will be remembered or talked about the way we still hail Popovich to this day for the work he put in with Duncan and the Spurs.

All Lebron has is longevity stats. That might be good enough for you but Im not with it. The results speak for it self when it comes down to the head to head matchups between Duncan led team (Spurs) vs Lebron and the Cavs and Heat.

Let's be honest here for a minute. You have Kobe above LeBron in your rankings. This type of conversation has been had with you multiple times before. Whether intentionally or not, it goes in one ear and our the other with you. You don't understand or you don't want to understand. It's not worth anybody's time explaining this to you for the 10th time.

Yet Im not the one who brought up Kobe here. It looks more like youre the one having things go in 1 ear and out the other anytime someone disagrees with you. Anyway if youre not gonna actually tackle my points on Duncan over Lebron i have nothing else to say to you amigo.

[michaelm]

.

There’s almost nothing of real substance in your very long post and I am not going to go comment-by-comment when you’ve spliced my post into a huge number of responses, so I’ll just address a few things in general (note: Point #3 below is most important IMO):

1. You suggest that three-year RAPM supports your argument, but it doesn’t really. His three-year DRAPM ranks in periods that have any years after 2009-2013 are, in chronological order (using TheBasketballDatabase): 198th, 75th, 64th, 51st, 532nd, 267th, 53rd, 5th, 30th, 97th, and 204th. I guess you’ve got that one 5th place there you can hang your hat on, but it’s actually generally worse rankings than the five-year RAPM, and three-year RAPM is noisier. So I wouldn’t say it makes him look better. It just is a noisier measure that mostly makes him look worse than the less noisy measure but happens to once make him look a good deal better. That doesn’t really support your argument much at all, and really just looks like indexing on a time period that happens to have positive noise (and probably a healthy dose of collinearity). I definitely think that the overall picture in three-year RAPM supports the view I’ve espoused. In general, there’s just a sea of data indicating you’re wrong, and you’re trying to cling to scattered bits of lower-reliability data that might on rare occasions support your argument. This is not a serious approach at all—especially in a context in which the data in question is inherently noisy—and I think you know that.

2. My point #3 below is more important than this, but to address the thing about MAMBA: The creator of MAMBA specifically said he thought the original version underrated LeBron’s post-Miami defense, and then created a revised version that improved LeBron’s standing, while noting that changes were made because LeBron “w[as] underrated in the Prior” (albeit that particular comment came specifically in a bullet point about offense, but it certainly further indicates the sentiment about how the prior was revised). Improving LeBron’s standing of course wasn’t the only reason changes were made, but I don’t think anyone could fairly read through both lengthy write ups the creator made and fail to come to the conclusion that improving LeBron’s standing was a major purpose of the revision. The creator also specifically said that the defense part was “in its alpha stage” and that “Offense was far better than defense” and then updated the defense side with changes he admitted did not increase accuracy. The fact that it did not increase accuracy for defense is relevant because that actually means there’s no particular reason to prefer new MAMBA for these purposes compared to old MAMBA, except that the creator happened to like the output more (which, again, was obviously in part a result of it placing LeBron higher). That’s relevant, because old MAMBA really doesn’t support your argument. Meanwhile, the creator admitted EPM defense was superior (not a surprise, since it uses more sophisticated defensive data). And, again, EPM’s defensive measure does not support your argument. So yeah, while I’m always in favor of at least looking at everything (more on that below!), I think it’s fair to say we should put more weight on EPM here than on the revised MAMBA. Which is very problematic for you.

3. More importantly, I note that EPM is far from the only all-in-one that supports what I’m saying. As I’ve previously mentioned, in terms of all-in-ones, we have EPM, RAPTOR, DPM, LEBRON, and original MAMBA all saying very similar things. Revised MAMBA is pretty much off on its own on this—which you surely know, since I’m sure you looked at those other measures to see if you could point to them—and even then it doesn’t support your argument for most years. Meanwhile, of course, multiple five-year RAPM sources also say something similarly contrary to your argument. As does four-year RAPM. As discussed above, three-year RAPM also says something similar but is a noisier measure than five-year RAPM and so somewhat unsurprisingly does have one very good period for LeBron (with the rest of the periods generally looking worse than five-year RAPM). One-year RAPM is very noisy and so unsurprisingly can support your argument in scattered years depending on which one-year RAPM measure we look at. Given that data in basketball is always noisy, we will tend to have at least a little data going both directions on almost anything, but I think it is extremely clear which side the data supports overall. Which you obviously find upsetting, since you cannot help making ad hominem attacks while discussing it.

4. Your insistence that finishing 6th amongst forwards one year in all-defense voting suggests that LeBron was all-defense level is just odd. I get your point that there may not be a massive difference between the 4th best defensive forward and the 6th best defensive forward, but if LeBron was voted 6th, then the contemporaneous perception objectively was that he was not all-defense level! You might be able to argue that the contemporaneous perception is that he was close to all-defense level. And if you want to amend your argument to say that LeBron remained not far off of all-defense level after that 2009-2013 time period, then that’s an argument I wouldn’t have nearly as much issue with. But that’s not the argument you are making. The argument you are making is one that is obviously contrary to contemporaneous perception and to the overall data picture.

I find your discussion of the validity of metrics much more substantive than the application of metrics to LeBron or Jordan, particularly retrospectively. How has DRAPM been validated and can it really be validated ?.

Sure there is a blizzard of metrics which most people can’t be bothered to explore which seem to be viewed as a non sequitur by those who can be bothered when employed by them.

In medical research not all of which involves well designed studies you can get a p value which meets the standard of significance by chance by looking at a sufficient number of parameters. Prospective clinical trials are also given much more weight than retrospective trials, and counter intuitive results lead to re-examination of the methodology.

I am fine with metrics which are predictive of outcomes. There is a smart guy, an ex mod, on the GSW forum who was actually in employment involving advanced NBA basketball metrics whom I followed avidly because what he said was predicted by the advanced metrics available to him often came to pass. He is not a fan of DRAPM as it happens.

As far as the actual recent debate I am in agreement with the guy on the Jordan side of the debate that LeBron’s defensive efforts since the Lakers won the title when he was 35 don’t add to his case vs Jordan, if not with that poster’s selective application of metrics to LeBron to diminish him as a defensive player over his very long prime/peak years. Both players were obviously excellent defenders for a long time, including when their teams won the last titles with which either player was involved when both were 35 years old. If LeBron gave less consistent defensive effort than Jordan while still near his peak it doesn’t really matter imo since he could still bring it if needed. As I recall both defended well for their last title winning teams, although my memory of watching Jordan in sports bars in various US cities is getting hazy.

Bottom line for me is that if LeBron has greater longevity than Jordan as a defensive player it is mainly because he started earlier, and not because of what either player did after the age of 35.

[lessthanjake]

I find your discussion of the validity of metrics much more substantive than the application of metrics to LeBron or Jordan, particularly retrospectively. How has DRAPM been validated and can it really be validated ?.

Sure there is a blizzard of metrics which most people can’t be bothered to explore which seem to be viewed as a non sequitur by those who can be bothered when employed by them.

In medical research not all of which involves well designed studies you can get a p value which meets the standard of significance by chance by looking at a sufficient number of parameters. Prospective clinical trials are also given much more weight than retrospective trials, and counter intuitive results lead to re-examination of the methodology.

I am fine with metrics which are predictive of outcomes. There is a smart guy, an ex mod, on the GSW forum who was actually in employment involving advanced NNA basketball metrics whom I followed avidly because what he said was predicted by the advanced metrics available to him often came to pass. He is not a fan of DRAPM as it happens.

I don’t know if everything I’m about to say is entirely responsive to you, but some additional thoughts I have on this stuff:

I’m not really familiar with anyone putting a confidence interval on RAPM, though it’s something that would conceptually be very helpful to have IMO. That said, I’ll note that there isn’t exactly sampling error with RAPM, because it actually uses all data within the relevant timeframe being measured. The error comes from the fact that you’re trying to measure the effect of one player based on what happens when they’re on and off the court, but there’s a lot of other confounding factors that affect that (i.e. how well other players happen to play in those circumstances) and those factors can be very random unless the timeframe is large enough. This is very similar to how a player’s on-off in a given season can be really random. It is also similar to the error from confounders in a clinical trial, where there’s less variance the larger the trial. I imagine that someone who is more in-the-weeds in terms of the actual calculation of RAPM might be able to say more about how we might measure that variance over different timeframes in order to get a confidence interval. What I do know is that there is definitely a pretty strong consensus amongst people who run RAPM that single-season RAPM is very noisy, and that five-year RAPM reduces the vast majority of the noise.

On the variance issue, some RAPM measures try to correct for this to some degree with “luck” adjustments. The way they do this is identify things that they think are just random and not affected by the player, and then control for those things to try to take away variance caused by them. The most common one to do that with is FT%. A “luck” adjustment will control for whether players shot better or worse than normal on their FTs. A lot of “luck” adjustments also assume that differences in three-point % is just variance. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of luck adjustments. I definitely think it’s wrong to assume a player being on the court has no effect on his teammates’ or opponents’ three-point shooting. A luck adjustment for FT% is much more defensible IMO, though even that may not be *all* luck (for instance, it may be that getting other guys involved more helps them be in rhythm when shooting FTs, or maybe being weak on defense requires teammates to chase guys all around the court and makes them tired and worse at FTs, etc.). I’m not sure how much a FT% luck adjustment lowers variance, though. I’m inclined to think it wouldn’t do a whole lot in that regard.

Since single-season RAPM is very noisy and “luck” adjustments can only do so much on that, a lot of measures include some sort of box and/or tracking stat prior in order to reduce the noise when looking at a single season. What these models do is basically create a model of box/tracking data that correlates well with larger-sample RAPM (typically five-year RAPM). And then when looking at a single season, they essentially use that box/tracking data model as the prior for the single-season RAPM. This reduces the variance a lot, because it starts everyone at something that is closer to where they probably belong. That said, this can introduce its own problems, because that box/tracking data prior might generally correlate well with five-year RAPM but it can understate or overstate the quality of particular players—which will then make the overall model probably understate or overstate that player. It’s also worth noting that not all these box/tracking data priors are equal and some utilize a lot more sophisticated data than others (i.e. for instance, using tracking data vs. just normal box data)—which I imagine likely reduces the issue of understating and overstating players because the prior will be more granular and less of a blunt instrument. Overall, though, these hybrid measures are almost certainly better than single-season RAPM, but, while we might make an inference that more sophisticated hybrid measures are better, it’s not entirely clear which one of them is best. My attitude is generally to at least look at all of them, because only looking at one will tend to just result in indexing on whatever understating or overstating that particular model does for particular players, while looking at all models should reduce that as much as possible (because different models’ priors will likely overstate or understate different people).

Anyways, when it comes to DRAPM specifically, I believe the variance is even higher, because we’re basically working with half the amount of data (since defensive possessions are only half the possessions). It also is a bit more suspect than RAPM as a whole, since offense and defense aren’t entirely separate, so someone can appear to have an effect on defense that actually is derivative of their effect on offense (i.e. if they improve their team’s offense, then the other team is stuck in half-court offense more often, which is good for the defense). And vice versa can be true too, of course. This factor is a bit complicated by the fact that there’s a rubber-band effect in basketball where teams do worse when they’re ahead, so if you hold a player’s defense constant, making their offense a lot better will lead to their team being ahead more often, which would put downwards pressure on their team’s defense due to the rubber band effect. It’s not clear how these factors play out overall. Some RAPM measures do adjust for the rubber-band effect, though, in which case being good at offense would likely tend to make someone’s defense look more impactful than it is, though it wouldn’t matter when looking at overall RAPM.

[michaelm]

I find your discussion of the validity of metrics much more substantive than the application of metrics to LeBron or Jordan, particularly retrospectively. How has DRAPM been validated and can it really be validated ?.

Sure there is a blizzard of metrics which most people can’t be bothered to explore which seem to be viewed as a non sequitur by those who can be bothered when employed by them.

In medical research not all of which involves well designed studies you can get a p value which meets the standard of significance by chance by looking at a sufficient number of parameters. Prospective clinical trials are also given much more weight than retrospective trials, and counter intuitive results lead to re-examination of the methodology.

I am fine with metrics which are predictive of outcomes. There is a smart guy, an ex mod, on the GSW forum who was actually in employment involving advanced NNA basketball metrics whom I followed avidly because what he said was predicted by the advanced metrics available to him often came to pass. He is not a fan of DRAPM as it happens.

I don’t know if everything I’m about to say is entirely responsive to you, but some additional thoughts I have on this stuff:

I’m not really familiar with anyone putting a confidence interval on RAPM, though it’s something that would conceptually be very helpful to have IMO. That said, I’ll note that there isn’t exactly sampling error with RAPM, because it actually uses all data within the relevant timeframe being measured. The error comes from the fact that you’re trying to measure the effect of one player based on what happens when they’re on and off the court, but there’s a lot of other confounding factors that affect that (i.e. how well other players happen to play in those circumstances) and those factors can be very random unless the timeframe is large enough. This is very similar to how a player’s on-off in a given season can be really random. It is also similar to the error from confounders in a clinical trial, where there’s less variance the larger the trial. I imagine that someone who is more in-the-weeds in terms of the actual calculation of RAPM might be able to say more about how we might measure that variance over different timeframes in order to get a confidence interval. What I do know is that there is definitely a pretty strong consensus amongst people who run RAPM that single-season RAPM is very noisy, and that five-year RAPM reduces the vast majority of the noise.

On the variance issue, some RAPM measures try to correct for this to some degree with “luck” adjustments. The way they do this is identify things that they think are just random and not affected by the player, and then control for those things to try to take away variance caused by them. The most common one to do that with is FT%. A “luck” adjustment will control for whether players shot better or worse than normal on their FTs. A lot of “luck” adjustments also assume that differences in three-point % is just variance. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of luck adjustments. I definitely think it’s wrong to assume a player being on the court has no effect on his teammates’ or opponents’ three-point shooting. A luck adjustment for FT% is much more defensible IMO, though even that may not be *all* luck (for instance, it may be that getting other guys involved more helps them be in rhythm when shooting FTs, or maybe being weak on defense requires teammates to chase guys all around the court and makes them tired and worse at FTs, etc.). I’m not sure how much a FT% luck adjustment lowers variance, though. I’m inclined to think it wouldn’t do a whole lot in that regard.

Since single-season RAPM is very noisy and “luck” adjustments can only do so much on that, a lot of measures include some sort of box and/or tracking stat prior in order to reduce the noise when looking at a single season. What these models do is basically create a model of box/tracking data that correlates well with larger-sample RAPM (typically five-year RAPM). And then when looking at a single season, they essentially use that box/tracking data model as the prior for the single-season RAPM. This reduces the variance a lot, because it starts everyone at something that is closer to where they probably belong. That said, this can introduce its own problems, because that box/tracking data prior might generally correlate well with five-year RAPM but it can understate or overstate the quality of particular players—which will then make the overall model probably understate or overstate that player. It’s also worth noting that not all these box/tracking data priors are equal and some utilize a lot more sophisticated data than others (i.e. for instance, using tracking data vs. just normal box data)—which I imagine likely reduces the issue of understating and overstating players because the prior will be more granular and less of a blunt instrument. Overall, though, these hybrid measures are almost certainly better than single-season RAPM, but, while we might make an inference that more sophisticated hybrid measures are better, it’s not entirely clear which one of them is best. My attitude is generally to at least look at all of them, because only looking at one will tend to just result in indexing on whatever understating or overstating that particular model does for particular players, while looking at all models should reduce that as much as possible (because different models’ priors will likely overstate or understate different people).

Anyways, when it comes to DRAPM specifically, I believe the variance is even higher, because we’re basically working with half the amount of data (since defensive possessions are only half the possessions). It also is a bit more suspect than RAPM as a whole, since offense and defense aren’t entirely separate, so someone can appear to have an effect on defense that actually is derivative of their effect on offense (i.e. if they improve their team’s offense, then the other team is stuck in half-court offense more often, which is good for the defense). And vice versa can be true too, of course. This factor is a bit complicated by the fact that there’s a rubber-band effect in basketball where teams do worse when they’re ahead, so if you hold a player’s defense constant, making their offense a lot better will lead to their team being ahead more often, which would put downwards pressure on their team’s defense due to the rubber band effect. It’s not clear how these factors play out overall. Some RAPM measures do adjust for the rubber-band effect, though, in which case being good at offense would likely tend to make someone’s defense look more impactful than it is, though it wouldn’t matter when looking at overall RAPM.

Thanks, accords with what I vaguely thought.

I do think there is an issue with retrospective analyses per se. And it is pretty much a truism in medical research that there is a tendency for investigators to find what they are looking for/want to find.

[Zadeh]

I think it's ridiculous that people over look Duncan so much.

Helping a aging 90s core finally get the 1 thing they couldn't accoplish before his arrival. the 1999 championship, then continuing on with great success after Robinsons retirement.

Helping late 1st round 28th pick Tony Parker and 2nd round 57th pick Manu Ginobli go from little known-unknown prospects to becoming household names. Becoming one of the top trios in the NBA. Their unselfish ball movement and consistently great defense show casing guys like Stephen Jacksons shooting ability getting a lot of shine early on in the 2003 season. Stopping Shaq and Kobe from 4 peating. Duncan and those Spurs put a stop to so many legends that many have higher than him on these lists from accomplishing more. all under one coach who came into coaching as a rookie head coach at the same time as Duncan and building their legacies together simultaneously.

I have him 2nd all time right behind Jordan.

His overall portfolio of traditional and advanced stats is closer to Kevin Garnett than true GOAT candidates like LeBron

Goat candidate like Lebron who is missing play-off 4 time even two of them lakers ????
Who has one less ring ??

Why ???

Duncan is much better player than lebron, also there is six players better than lebron and three of them not on the list.

I dont care about stats, your so called supr stars dont bother to give basket chance at last second, because their advanced stats is hurt.

You better ask yourself. If any of this six players (Duncan, Bird, Jabbar, Magic, Jokic and Jordan) played for cavs, heat and lakers, instead of LeBron. Those teams was going to be better or worst ?

There is team and there is "I".

Duncan choose the team, never sell his team or his teammates unlike Lebron.

Duncan prefers to get three ribaunds instead of four, because this way his team get six instead of five.

Could you measure it with metrics ???

Neither Jordan nor Lebron could be a GOAT. Reason is simple, they only care about their success, not for team. If there was not rules and whistle changes over last forty years neither of then could win ring.


If Duncan wants to be finals MVP all the time he get all five Final MVP awards. Lebron doesn't let Davis but Duncan let it for Parker or Kawhi. Like Jokic, Duncan always let his teammates work, if they fail he close the gap. This is ture greatness. But there is not a single stat for this. Because of this, new players play for metrics instead of team success.

If teammates scores enough Duncan didnt try to score like Jokic. At 2003 if Lebron has a team like Spurs, he try to trade Parker with tons of picks to Nets.

My age not eneough to watch Russell and Chamberlain. Best of the of the players who I watching is Duncan.

My list is in order : Duncan, Jabbar, Bird, Magic, Jordan, Jokic and Lebron.

Only Duncan, Bird an Magic dont have any losing season. From start to finish.

[NZB2323]

The person complaining about poll, about Wilt not being in the first one, so I put Wilt in this one now they have a sook about Russell not being on the poll and thinks I'm trolling, wow just wow.

Mods if you want block this one start your own etc I'm not fussed I'm done here.

Just wow.

Ummm yeah, Bill Russell is one of the more common GOAT choices. Leaving him off of a GOAT list with 10 choices with inexcusable. Leaving Wilt off is a joke, leaving Bill off is an even bigger joke.

I am actually in full agreement with you on this. Sure a different era and a different NBA then, but in other discussions I have asked what exactly more should or could Bill have done ?.

Having a TS% above 50% would help him in the debate.

[bledredwine]

I think it's ridiculous that people over look Duncan so much.

Helping a aging 90s core finally get the 1 thing they couldn't accoplish before his arrival. the 1999 championship, then continuing on with great success after Robinsons retirement.

Helping late 1st round 28th pick Tony Parker and 2nd round 57th pick Manu Ginobli go from little known-unknown prospects to becoming household names. Becoming one of the top trios in the NBA. Their unselfish ball movement and consistently great defense show casing guys like Stephen Jacksons shooting ability getting a lot of shine early on in the 2003 season. Stopping Shaq and Kobe from 4 peating. Duncan and those Spurs put a stop to so many legends that many have higher than him on these lists from accomplishing more. all under one coach who came into coaching as a rookie head coach at the same time as Duncan and building their legacies together simultaneously.

I have him 2nd all time right behind Jordan.

I just don't understand how one can rank Duncan over Hakeem and especially Kareem.

I've heard numerous players call Hakeem better (or even significantly better) than Duncan, including
mutual teammate Robert Horry who said Hakeem was a much better player. Mario Elie was another.

Hakeem was a stronger defender and scorer. Duncan's main advantage is his teammates and coach.
He has some individual skills that are better (using the backboard, for example) but Hakeem outnumbers him in skills as well.

I definitely consider Duncan around that 10 spot rather than near the GOAT contention.
I consider GOAT a transcendent player, like Wilt, Jordan, Kareem.

I've got Hakeem right after Magic/Bird and would never pick Duncan over either.
I also agree with the comment that he's closer to a KG level than GOAT, though I think Duncan's more dominant than KG.

[OdomFan]

I think it's ridiculous that people over look Duncan so much.

Helping a aging 90s core finally get the 1 thing they couldn't accoplish before his arrival. the 1999 championship, then continuing on with great success after Robinsons retirement.

Helping late 1st round 28th pick Tony Parker and 2nd round 57th pick Manu Ginobli go from little known-unknown prospects to becoming household names. Becoming one of the top trios in the NBA. Their unselfish ball movement and consistently great defense show casing guys like Stephen Jacksons shooting ability getting a lot of shine early on in the 2003 season. Stopping Shaq and Kobe from 4 peating. Duncan and those Spurs put a stop to so many legends that many have higher than him on these lists from accomplishing more. all under one coach who came into coaching as a rookie head coach at the same time as Duncan and building their legacies together simultaneously.

I have him 2nd all time right behind Jordan.

I just don't understand how one can rank Duncan over Hakeem and especially Kareem.

I've heard numerous players call Hakeem better (or even significantly better) than Duncan, including
mutual teammate Robert Horry who said Hakeem was a much better player. Mario Elie was another.

Hakeem was a stronger defender and scorer. Duncan's main advantage is his teammates and coach.
He has some individual skills that are better (using the backboard, for example) but Hakeem outnumbers him in skills as well.

I definitely consider Duncan around that 10 spot rather than near the GOAT contention.
I consider GOAT a transcendent player, like Wilt, Jordan, Kareem.

I've got Hakeem right after Magic/Bird and would never pick Duncan over either.
I also agree with the comment that he's closer to a KG level than GOAT, though I think Duncan's more dominant than KG.

I can understand it pretty well. Kareem and Hakeem took more shots in their teams offense than Duncan did. Some say Duncan should have shot the ball more, but what he did worked for him and the Spurs. When it comes down to it. Despite not having the individual accolades that they had, he still led his team to more in the playoffs with the help of the people I mentioned above. He was simply a better leader imo. More young players developed into stars next to him and the results speak for itself year after year. young talent as well as all those players such as Boris Diaw for example that was overlooked by teams until the Spurs put them on their roster for them to shine inside of that great team offense. Duncans unselfishness was phenomenal.

I respect Kareem and all, but I can't look pass the fact that he didn't win another ring after 1971 until Magic came along. Failed to lead every other time. Left the Bucks and then spent like 4 seasons on the Lakers before Magic not winning anything. His individual records. Scoring, blocks, etc look great, but when it comes down to it I view the results of leadership over individual stats.

[michaelm]

Ummm yeah, Bill Russell is one of the more common GOAT choices. Leaving him off of a GOAT list with 10 choices with inexcusable. Leaving Wilt off is a joke, leaving Bill off is an even bigger joke.

I am actually in full agreement with you on this. Sure a different era and a different NBA then, but in other discussions I have asked what exactly more should or could Bill have done ?.

Having a TS% above 50% would help him in the debate.

Why did he need to have such a TS% ?. If you watch some of his interviews he said he what he decided to do in his career was help his teams/make his teams win, He was rather successful in that endeavour.