Kawhi v.s Jordan v.s Shaq (peak only)

[OhayoKD]

Those 5-year offenses you posted have the Bulls with the best averages after Nash's Suns... Better than Magic, Bird, Shaq, Curry and Lebron's teams. Is that supposed to be an indictment against Jordan?

I would say him posting the worst playoff offenses(with 1995 conveniently cut) despite those offenses, unlike the other three, being good without him(+2 in 94, +1 in 95) is a bit of a knock. Certainly doesn't support your appraisal of him.

You also quoted me about heliocentrism which I never posted in this thread.

Did you change your mind between threads?

Anyways this thread is about Jordan vs. Kawhi... The discussion started about that.

And then you brought up Lebron

It might not have gone the way you wanted it to, but you plotted the course. Perhaps consider not equating 11-0 and 13-11 in the future.

Lifting league average offenses (-0.4 in 94 and +0.7 in 95 in games without MJ) to several GOAT level offenses (+7 and above) doesn't support my appraisal of him?

No. Jordan not having unprecedented lift does not justify placing him ahead of players who have seen bigget deltas, even if we insist on using pippen and grant-less games to pretend +2 and +1 offenses were actually bad.

Oscar, Magic, Nash, and Lebron have all lifted their offenses by more and hit higher heights in the regular season or playoffs(or in nash's case both).

Evidence for"Jordan is a great offensive player" does not suddenly turn into evidence for"jordan is offensive goat" just because you want it too.

I simply said that heliocentric players create dependency on their teams which tends to overinflate their impact. But again, that has nothing to do with this thread.

All-time Heliocetric players "create dependency' by being better playmakers/creators yes, hence why Lebron goes 11-0 with weak support while Jordan goes 13-11 loosely approximating that same play-style. Harden and Luka do not create that same dependency because they, like Jordan, are not nearly as good at all the non-scoring aspects of offense.

You mentioned Lebron (and Magic and Nash) when you made a ridiculous claim that Jordan's decision-making and playmaking is not top tier.

And by "ridiculous" you meant demonstrably true?

jordan archangel, 13-11, +2 net, with a team that won 27 before he got there

lebron archangel, 11-0 +8 net with starters(- mo williams) that won at an 18-win pace(15 by record) without Lebron but with Mo-Williams

More relevant to this thread; you also spent a few posts arguing how Kawhi vs, Jordan is actually a close comparison. B

Why don't you read for yourself?
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=109018561#p109018561

I simply said that heliocentric players create dependency on their teams which tends to overinflate their impact. But again, that has nothing to do with this thread.

You mentioned Lebron (and Magic and Nash) when you made a ridiculous claim that Jordan's decision-making and playmaking at not top tier. Of course I responded with Box Creation and cTOV% numbers both of which are superior to Lebron and then you started making excuses about how those numbers don't measure playmaking and turnover economy well. With of course a lot of unprovable claims like Jordan handling the ball less or receiving less defensive attention.

More relevant to this thread; you also spent a few posts arguing how Kawhi vs, Jordan is actually a close comparison. Based on what exactly? Maybe a whole lot of conjecture because you won't find many numbers if any at all that agree with you.

More of a post around where the convo has gone and nothing regarding you Djoker. Just using some of your last post here.

I honestly start questioning who has actually played competitive sports at a decent level when I read these threads versus those who only play NBA2K. I would be embarrassed as a coach if my team completely fell apart as soon as my star player left. And by fall apart, I am not suggesting that your best player doesn't elevate your team to it's highest level but that if players 2-12 haven't gotten better, and haven't elevated themselves to be somewhat more competitve and skilled, then what type of team did you actually have?

It would be like saying, I don't want to debate against DoctorMJ, just agree with him and add supporting context to all his posts on this forum, but at the same time as soon as he leaves RealGM the site basically falls apart, almost closes down, and no one else could continue to add informative value, even if different or at not quite the same degree.

So many words to say "robert horry top 5".

The irony here of course is that most of what is being used against Jordan isn't a funky formula created 20-years after the fact. It's data that has been publicly available for decades but ignored because it was inconvenient to a certain generation's preferred narratives.

[MacGill]

So many words to say "robert horry top 5".

The irony here of course is that most of what is being used against Jordan isn't a funky formula created 20-years after the fact. It's data that has been publicly available for decades but ignored because it was inconvenient to a certain generation's preferred narratives.

No, that is just complete nonsense. Robert Horry

The irony here, of course, is that you have most of the consensus top 10 ATG's stating that MJ is the GOAT, was the GOAT, prior to him even retiring.

Magic, who played with KAJ thinks so. Bird who played against Magic/KAJ and has one of the greatest teams in the history of the league, thinks so. Shaq who played with Kobe...thinks so. Hakeem thinks so, and even young LBJ thought so before the media company.

The funny thing is that the non-pro players, many who probably don't play very competitively, try to use 'math' to explain that what all these other pro players actually witnessed and thought was incorrect because 'we understand what the impact numbers really mean'. We all know that many great players can't evaluate lesser talent, we now MJ couldn't, but when you asked him about his starting 5, all of a sudden he could easily put together a fantastic team. Otherwise, should we prepare for a decade down the road when new stats are out that we were all wrong about Lebron?

You would think that you just put Michael Jordan on a dyno and stated that he didn't have the HP & torque that you thought he had because it was all in his suspension. Like you could read his air/fuel ratios on every basketball ref. advanced stat printed. And do you think that even in 2023 that these preferred narratives aren't being heard now?

Jordan hit on everything and mashed it all together at the combined highest level. Stats, accolades, winning, image and legacy. It can't be re-written, it can't be diluted, there can only be focus on other values which then try to demish what the game was all about before the social media effect.

And even yet, MJ's brand has never been bigger. When did he last post about anything? And the dude doesn't even have to say a word in the 'modern' nba because that is what real legacy is. Nothing has ever been ignored about MJ. All the good with the bad. But if it was so apparent and so easy to showcase that he really wasn't the athlete and icon that he was why do only a very small amount of people globally only agree with you.

Are they still keeping the last version of Wizards MJ alive from over 20 years ago? Or could it just be something else...but the numbers can't be wrong....right.

[penbeast0]

So many words to say "robert horry top 5".

The irony here of course is that most of what is being used against Jordan isn't a funky formula created 20-years after the fact. It's data that has been publicly available for decades but ignored because it was inconvenient to a certain generation's preferred narratives.

No, that is just complete nonsense. Robert Horry

The irony here, of course, is that you have most of the consensus top 10 ATG's stating that MJ is the GOAT, was the GOAT, prior to him even retiring.

Magic, who played with KAJ thinks so. Bird who played against Magic/KAJ and has one of the greatest teams in the history of the league, thinks so. Shaq who played with Kobe...thinks so. Hakeem thinks so, and even young LBJ thought so before the media company.

The funny thing is that the non-pro players, many who probably don't play very competitively, try to use 'math' to explain that what all these other pro players actually witnessed and thought was incorrect because 'we understand what the impact numbers really mean'. We all know that many great players can't evaluate lesser talent, we now MJ couldn't, but when you asked him about his starting 5, all of a sudden he could easily put together a fantastic team. Otherwise, should we prepare for a decade down the road when new stats are out that we were all wrong about Lebron?

You would think that you just put Michael Jordan on a dyno and stated that he didn't have the HP & torque that you thought he had because it was all in his suspension. Like you could read his air/fuel ratios on every basketball ref. advanced stat printed. And do you think that even in 2023 that these preferred narratives aren't being heard now?

Jordan hit on everything and mashed it all together at the combined highest level. Stats, accolades, winning, image and legacy. It can't be re-written, it can't be diluted, there can only be focus on other values which then try to demish what the game was all about before the social media effect.

And even yet, MJ's brand has never been bigger. When did he last post about anything? And the dude doesn't even have to say a word in the 'modern' nba because that is what real legacy is. Nothing has ever been ignored about MJ. All the good with the bad. But if it was so apparent and so easy to showcase that he really wasn't the athlete and icon that he was why do only a very small amount of people globally only agree with you.

Are they still keeping the last version of Wizards MJ alive from over 20 years ago? Or could it just be something else...but the numbers can't be wrong....right.

The problem with any "definitive" ATG is that there are difference studies/stats/data and depending on how you weight them, you get different answers. That and both understanding and the history of basketball are fluid with new history being created each day. So, you can certainly look at a select group of numbers and weight it to have Jordan 1st, or LeBron, or Kareem, or Russell, or even Wilt (gets harder after that but maybe Mikan or Duncan as well). If it was just math, this kind of discussion wouldn't be any fun.

[MacGill]

The problem with any "definitive" ATG is that there are difference studies/stats/data and depending on how you weight them, you get different answers. That and both understanding and the history of basketball are fluid with new history being created each day. So, you can certainly look at a select group of numbers and weight it to have Jordan 1st, or LeBron, or Kareem, or Russell, or even Wilt (gets harder after that but maybe Mikan or Duncan as well). If it was just math, this kind of discussion wouldn't be any fun.

I 100% understand it, and have never debated against that line of thinking. It's actually why I am posting the way I am. I just think that the statistical side is almost trying to redefine what actually happened or how it was actually meant to be. Instead of what is was. Beast, not as long as you but I've been on these boards for quite some time, longer than my start date would indicate.

I've been on record here many times stating that the reason I want the game of basketball to keep growing is because I want records to change and new elite players to emerge. I have zero problem embracing change and you, for instance, were one of the earlier day posters who opened my eyes about Russell as an example.

You know I've always argues against Wilt and it's simply because we mostly only have highlight reel footage, super small sample of actual games, and he was given opportunities (as he was there to grow the league) that no other player in nba history was awarded.

KAJ - aside from the ABA, almost a full decade as being the best player in a somewhat diluted league but......

LBJ - we've never had a player hold control of his own outcome like him. Joined arguably 3 of the top 10 players all in their peak/primes and has the worst losses of anyone in the top 10.

I mention these, not to get others upset or to get into more of this or that contests, but these things all happened. If I am being biased about more modern times then why is Russell my #2 or even more of my 1b? I'm not posting as an MJ stan, I never even really defended him in the past but I am simply pointing out that he did the most with the least and trying to dilute his impact stats isn't going to change that. You can't change

-He was drafted to a bottom feeder team going nowhere.
-Had one of the best rookie campaigns ever (raw stats)
-Suffered a 95% season ending injury early in year two.
-Team and record continued to grow and PS success slowly grew
-Meshed with Pippen (draft pick) and continued to grow
-Dealt with coaching changes, new system, and started winning
-Continued winning while only keeping core of Pippen/Jackson together
-Retired twice while being able to still come back and be competitive in the league after long layoffs
-Was still able to practice and hang with youth until he was close to 50
-Played 82 games 9 seasons, I believe, maybe 10

Nothing about the above has anything to do with stats but it has everything to do with MJ the competitor and athlete. There is no formula for this and no equation diminishes or increases was he factually did. We're in an nba where Westbrook can average multiple seasons of what used to make Oscar seem untouchable and yet he was voted in at #92 all-time in the history of the game (the mention is just for context). Kobe played Kawhi, scored on Kawhi and if Kawhi was young, well Kobe was also old. Kobe played against MJ, LBJ, Shaq. A lot of modern stars overlapped people who starting playing in MJ's final era. Yet some want to act like we're going back 60 years?

Apologies for the rant, but raw stats are almost a complete given for any superstar. Perhaps the heavier evaluations should be for the mid-card and bench. It just seems like now more than in any other time that I can remember, we're using formula's not to really evaluate the players impact and performance, but more about whose stats can I use today to make yesterday's performers seem overvalued.

Respectfully, my friend.

[Djoker]

...

I've posted Box Creation and cTOV% stats in which Jordan is way better and then you chose to ignore them and rationalize why they don't show playmaking well.

Then you're talking about deltas as if you don't realize that lifting a team from +0.7 (1995 without MJ) to +7.5 offense (1996) is about as high as you can lift an offense. You are pretty much hitting the ceiling of how good an offense can get with +7.5 and you get it by just adding Jordan to a roughly league average offensive team. And mind you this is the version of Jordan that isn't a volume ball handler in 1996 the way he was at his peak and yet he still gave his team this much of a lift.

You've also ignored context (for people who are remotely objective in this discussion) that the Bulls were likely less talented on offense than most if not all of the other offensive dynasties. Nor were they ever offensively slanted at the expense of defense.