What's the strongest data-driven argument for Michael Jordan as GOAT?

[WarriorGM]

A lot of time spent explaining RAPM and other adjusted plus-minus variants but what are we to make of John Stockton having the highest average 5-year RAPM from 1998 to 2002 at the age of 35 to 39?

Anyone...?

I dont think they have it saved in their notes which they copy/paste from.
They usually dissapear when asked to provide data or sources

Oh they have a source for it. Whether they can explain why we should take it seriously is another matter.

[Marrrcuss]

The bulls won 57 games in 1993.

MJ retired.

The bulls then won 55 games in 1994.

Maybe you should hush with team accomplishments. He obviously had a superior team that most stars.

The lakers won 35 games in 2018 srs of -1.44.

added Lebron.

won 37 games srs of -1.33.

Wasnt enough having 2x#2 picks on the team needed more help.

Try this bullshyt on casuals. Im a laker stan, i remember how many games were lost to injuries. I dont know if you just didnt know or if your tried to slip this crap in, lol

Ingram, Lonzo Ball and Rondo missed 30+ games. Bron missed 27. Even Kuzma missed 12

[Marrrcuss]

The bulls won 57 games in 1993.

MJ retired.

The bulls then won 55 games in 1994.

Maybe you should hush with team accomplishments. He obviously had a superior team that most stars.

Did they win the chip?

They got cheated by one of the worst calls in NBA playoff history.

But i agree that they wouldnt have cheated them if MJ was there. Cant remember one bad big call against an MJ team.

[70sFan]

A lot of time spent explaining RAPM and other adjusted plus-minus variants but what are we to make of John Stockton having the highest average 5-year RAPM from 1998 to 2002 at the age of 35 to 39?

Anyone...?

That he's one of the most effective players in the league within the role he had? Do you really think that this is something people are unaware of or are scared to talk about?

Stockton is an all-time great player with unbelievable longevity. He also played limited minutes in limited offensive load. If you think that people create their lists by looking at the order of RAPM studies, then you do nothing but create strawman.

[Marrrcuss]

A lot of time spent explaining RAPM and other adjusted plus-minus variants but what are we to make of John Stockton having the highest average 5-year RAPM from 1998 to 2002 at the age of 35 to 39?

Anyone...?

That he's one of the most effective players in the league within the role he had? Do you really think that this is something people are unaware of or are scared to talk about?

Stockton is an all-time great player with unbelievable longevity. He also played limited minutes in limited offensive load. If you think that people create their lists by looking at the order of RAPM studies, then you do nothing but create strawman.

Playoff wise, 4 of those 5 years were pretty unproductive. Stat padding?

[Gusto1903]

The bulls won 57 games in 1993.

MJ retired.

The bulls then won 55 games in 1994.

Maybe you should hush with team accomplishments. He obviously had a superior team that most stars.

Did they win the chip?

They got cheated by one of the worst calls in NBA playoff history.

But i agree that they wouldnt have cheated them if MJ was there. Cant remember one bad big call against an MJ team.

That Reggie Miller shove on Mike

[WarriorGM]

Anyone...?

That he's one of the most effective players in the league within the role he had? Do you really think that this is something people are unaware of or are scared to talk about?

Yes.

Stockton is an all-time great player with unbelievable longevity. He also played limited minutes in limited offensive load. If you think that people create their lists by looking at the order of RAPM studies, then you do nothing but create strawman.

I'm not one pushing LeBron and Garnett as the greatest and a top 10 player all-time.

[70sFan]

Yes.

Then you act stupid, because Stockton's case has been evaluated many times before

I'm not one pushing LeBron and Garnett as the greatest and a top 10 player all-time.

Yeah, because thinking that Garnett is a top 10 player means you have to use RAPM as your only criteria.

Are you crying that hard because people don't use the same criteria as you?

[70sFan]

Anyone...?

That he's one of the most effective players in the league within the role he had? Do you really think that this is something people are unaware of or are scared to talk about?

Stockton is an all-time great player with unbelievable longevity. He also played limited minutes in limited offensive load. If you think that people create their lists by looking at the order of RAPM studies, then you do nothing but create strawman.

Playoff wise, 4 of those 5 years were pretty unproductive. Stat padding?

What do you mean by "unproductive"?

[Marrrcuss]

Did they win the chip?

They got cheated by one of the worst calls in NBA playoff history.

But i agree that they wouldnt have cheated them if MJ was there. Cant remember one bad big call against an MJ team.

That Reggie Miller shove on Mike

Mike's shove on Russell?

[WarriorGM]

Yes.

Then you act stupid, because Stockton's case has been evaluated many times before

So you say. But I don't see anything remotely convincing. I doubt anyone else here does either.

I'm not one pushing LeBron and Garnett as the greatest and a top 10 player all-time.

Yeah, because thinking that Garnett is a top 10 player means you have to use RAPM as your only criteria.

Are you crying that hard because people don't use the same criteria as you?

I really don't know what criteria you guys use but it doesn't look like it's any good.

[Marrrcuss]

That he's one of the most effective players in the league within the role he had? Do you really think that this is something people are unaware of or are scared to talk about?

Stockton is an all-time great player with unbelievable longevity. He also played limited minutes in limited offensive load. If you think that people create their lists by looking at the order of RAPM studies, then you do nothing but create strawman.

Playoff wise, 4 of those 5 years were pretty unproductive. Stat padding?

What do you mean by "unproductive"?

Playoffs:
1999 - Second round exit
2000 - 2nd round exit exit
2001 - 1st round exit
2002 - 1st round exit

[Dave_R]

Let's be honest - a "data driven argument" isn't even close - it's Wilt (by the way, one of his nicknames was "The Record Book").

[Marrrcuss]

Let's be honest - a "data driven argument" isn't even close - it's Wilt (by the way, one of his nicknames was "The Record Book").

I have Wilt and Kareem 1 and 2.

[70sFan]

Playoff wise, 4 of those 5 years were pretty unproductive. Stat padding?

What do you mean by "unproductive"?

Playoffs:
1999 - Second round exit
2000 - 2nd round exit exit
2001 - 1st round exit
2002 - 1st round exit

Yeah, good players on average teams tend to lose early.

[70sFan]

So you say. But I don't see anything remotely convincing. I doubt anyone else here does either.

Of course you won't find it here, because that is not what I mean. I won't provide dozens of quotes from various threads and various years for you, I believe you are smart enough to do research by yourself.

I really don't know what criteria you guys use but it doesn't look like it's any good.

If you don't know, then maybe instead of saying it's bad because it gives different results than yours, maybe you should ask about the criteria? Does it sound too radical for you?

[Marrrcuss]

What do you mean by "unproductive"?

Playoffs:
1999 - Second round exit
2000 - 2nd round exit exit
2001 - 1st round exit
2002 - 1st round exit

Yeah, good players on average teams tend to lose early.

I totally agree. I started my responses in this topic about how relying totally on team accomplishments is silly.

I am right back where i started, lol

[twyzted]

The bulls won 57 games in 1993.

MJ retired.

The bulls then won 55 games in 1994.

Maybe you should hush with team accomplishments. He obviously had a superior team that most stars.

The lakers won 35 games in 2018 srs of -1.44.

added Lebron.

won 37 games srs of -1.33.

Wasnt enough having 2x#2 picks on the team needed more help.

Try this bullshyt on casuals. Im a laker stan, i remember how many games were lost to injuries. I dont know if you just didnt know or if your tried to slip this crap in, lol

Ingram, Lonzo Ball and Rondo missed 30+ games. Bron missed 27. Even Kuzma missed 12

No actually Lebron missed 17 with injury and when he returned they were 26-25.
Then they had Kuzma, ingram and Lebron for 1 game.
Lebron missed 1 game.
Then kuzma, ingram and Lbj played 4 games (1-3), 29-29 before Lebron activated playoff mode.
They proceed to go 1-4 before Ingram gets injured.
Things didnt get any better from there.
Lebron missed 3 games in the next 13 games.
Before Deactivating playoff mode and skiping the last 6 games.

[Marrrcuss]

The lakers won 35 games in 2018 srs of -1.44.

added Lebron.

won 37 games srs of -1.33.

Wasnt enough having 2x#2 picks on the team needed more help.

Try this bullshyt on casuals. Im a laker stan, i remember how many games were lost to injuries. I dont know if you just didnt know or if your tried to slip this crap in, lol

Ingram, Lonzo Ball and Rondo missed 30+ games. Bron missed 27. Even Kuzma missed 12

No actually Lebron missed 17 with injury and when he returned they were 26-25.
Then they had Kuzma, ingram and Lebron for 1 game.
Lebron missed 1 game.
Then kuzma, ingram and Lbj played 4 games (1-3), 29-29 before Lebron activated playoff mode.
They proceed to go 1-4 before Ingram gets injured.
Things didnt get any better from there.
Lebron missed 3 games in the next 13 games.
Before Deactivating playoff mode and skiping the last 6 games.

The bolded part lets me know how you feel off top, lol. You're one of those people obsessed with (hating) him.

Anyway, we also omitted the early season fight against Houston that got Ingram and Rondo suspended. The team was never able to get any chemistry because of games missed but if you want to, and im sure you do, want to put this all on Brons back, cool.

[WarriorGM]

So you say. But I don't see anything remotely convincing. I doubt anyone else here does either.

Of course you won't find it here, because that is not what I mean. I won't provide dozens of quotes from various threads and various years for you, I believe you are smart enough to do research by yourself.

I really don't know what criteria you guys use but it doesn't look like it's any good.

If you don't know, then maybe instead of saying it's bad because it gives different results than yours, maybe you should ask about the criteria? Does it sound too radical for you?

Oh I've seen the kinds of things cited. What I don't get is how one can logically take it all together and get the results you get. On second thought that's not entirely true. Actually I do get what's going on. Certain criteria are being selectively cited when convenient and then ignored when not. I don't think asking is going to change anything. What would be radical is for those in charge of the process to actually uphold its integrity rather than being witting tools of those making a mockery of it.