RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #3 (Michael Jordan)

[DQuinn1575]

Official vote


1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain

Jordan by my numbers has the most impact on championships of the players eligible, highlighted my playoff performances that rarely faltered.

Wilt is my pick at second right now, as I work thru my numbers. His impact is really helped by the fact he played virtually the whole game in almost all of his seasons, and playing at x level for 4,000 minutes is worth a lot more than doing it for 3,000.
Although Russell is great, my system is also giving a lot of credit to his teammates.

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote - Bill Russell

His impact on the Celtics defense is jaw dropping. He's boosted their DRTG so high that the gap between them and 2nd place was the same as 2nd and last. Even as other teams started to adopt modern defensive principles that Russell helped innovate the Celtics were still the #1 defense nearly every year regardless of their roster.

Bill also showed the ability to dominate college as an NCAA champion and when him and the Celtics were older and past their prime. He didn't just benefit from having a stacked team (as many GOAT candidates had teams more stacked than his own).

Ability wise he was fast, tall, strong and a great leaper. His b-ball IQ is obviously great as he not only understood how to shot block like a modern person would, but he understood the fear of the shot block was more important than the actual block. Along with him winning a title while coaching a team he pretty much has the best evidence to having the goat B-ball IQ. Decision making is the most important thing for superstar players assuming their other attributes are at a certain threshold.

The best defender of all time, top 3 rebounder, top 3 shot blocker, good passer, decent enough scorer for a defensive juggernaut.

[ceoofkobefans]

(This is my voting post)

3. Michael Jordan

I already mentioned why I have MJ here so I’ll just run back over it which is t2 peak but just not enough longevity to justify putting him over LeBron or Kareem

Nomination: Shaquille O’Neal

Same thing as MJ pretty much from a peak-longevity standpoint

Can’t wait for Shaq to get nominated so I can finally get to my bean prop

[Moonbeam]

Your assertion was that measuring standard deviations above the mean was a better way of measuring a team’s likelihood to win a title than looking at SRS. I disputed that, because that claim basically amounts to saying that a team that wins a lower percent of its games (or outscores opponents by less) in a high-parity league is as likely, if the standard deviations above the mean are the same, to win the title as a team that wins a higher percent of its games (or outscores opponents by more) in a lower-parity league. I don’t think that’s right.

Historical data suggests it's reasonable to use the Z scores of a team's SRS to determine title odds.



In this graph, I've plotted Z scores of team SRS vs. their raw SRS, and color-coded the title winners in red. The red dots appear to be randomly scattered vertically within the band of points here.

[lessthanjake]

Your assertion was that measuring standard deviations above the mean was a better way of measuring a team’s likelihood to win a title than looking at SRS. I disputed that, because that claim basically amounts to saying that a team that wins a lower percent of its games (or outscores opponents by less) in a high-parity league is as likely, if the standard deviations above the mean are the same, to win the title as a team that wins a higher percent of its games (or outscores opponents by more) in a lower-parity league. I don’t think that’s right.

Historical data suggests it's reasonable to use the Z scores of a team's SRS to determine title odds.



In this graph, I've plotted Z scores of team SRS vs. their raw SRS, and color-coded the title winners in red. The red dots appear to be randomly scattered vertically within the band of points here.

Well it’s obviously “reasonable,” in that teams with higher SRS Z scores are certainly going to be much more likely to win the title. The question is whether it’s a better method than looking at raw SRS. And I don’t think it is.

That graph is interesting info. I’d be careful drawing conclusions from plots like that though, because in the earlier eras of the NBA a good team was substantially more likely to win the title because there were fewer teams (and also fewer playoff rounds). And so if there’s a correlation between the years the NBA was smaller and when years are lower-variance (or higher-variance) in terms of SRS, then you’d get results that would suggest good teams are more likely to win titles in a certain variance environment when what’s really happening is that good teams were more likely to win in an NBA that’s smaller. Which is why I’ve specified that a good team in a high-parity league is less likely to win the playoffs *holding everything else constant.*

[eminence]

.

I've got old-fart eyes, could you tell me the median champion coordinates?

[Moonbeam]

Well it’s obviously “reasonable,” in that teams with higher SRS Z scores are certainly going to be much more likely to win the title. The question is whether it’s a better method than looking at raw SRS. And I don’t think it is.

That graph is interesting info. I’d be careful drawing conclusions from plots like that though, because in the earlier eras of the NBA a good team was substantially more likely to win the title because there were fewer teams (and also fewer playoff rounds). And so if there’s a correlation between the years the NBA was smaller and when years are lower-variance (or higher-variance) in terms of SRS, then you’d get results that would suggest good teams are more likely to win titles in a certain variance environment when what’s really happening is that good teams were more likely to win in an NBA that’s smaller. Which is why I’ve specified that a good team in a high-parity league is less likely to win the playoffs *holding everything else constant.*

Fair enough. Here's the same graph for teams since 1983-84 (when the league adopted a 16-team playoff format). The pattern is pretty much the same.



If there was a tendency for Z scores to undersell high-SRS teams, I'd expect those red points to cluster toward the top rather than be randomly scattered.

[Moonbeam]

.

I've got old-fart eyes, could you tell me the median champion coordinates?

Sure!

The median Z score is 1.3476 for all years and 1.352 from 1984 onward. The median SRS is 5.9743 for all years and 6.447 from 1984 onward.

[eminence]

.

I've got old-fart eyes, could you tell me the median champion coordinates?

Sure!

The median Z score is 1.3476 for all years and 1.352 from 1984 onward. The median SRS is 5.9743 for all years and 6.447 from 1984 onward.

Thank you much!

On random vertical scattering - this would indicate similar effectiveness for SRS/Z-Score would it not (in this particular pursuit)? If one were strongly more predictive than the other we should see the red dots pull to one side of the distribution correct?

[lessthanjake]

Well it’s obviously “reasonable,” in that teams with higher SRS Z scores are certainly going to be much more likely to win the title. The question is whether it’s a better method than looking at raw SRS. And I don’t think it is.

That graph is interesting info. I’d be careful drawing conclusions from plots like that though, because in the earlier eras of the NBA a good team was substantially more likely to win the title because there were fewer teams (and also fewer playoff rounds). And so if there’s a correlation between the years the NBA was smaller and when years are lower-variance (or higher-variance) in terms of SRS, then you’d get results that would suggest good teams are more likely to win titles in a certain variance environment when what’s really happening is that good teams were more likely to win in an NBA that’s smaller. Which is why I’ve specified that a good team in a high-parity league is less likely to win the playoffs *holding everything else constant.*

Fair enough. Here's the same graph for teams since 1983-84 (when the league adopted a 16-team playoff format). The pattern is pretty much the same.



If there was a tendency for Z scores to undersell high-SRS teams, I'd expect those red points to cluster toward the top rather than be randomly scattered.

Well, but also there’s a title-winner every year. So every low-variance year is going to produce some red dot that’s clustering towards the bottom. It’s therefore essentially definitionally true that overall the red dots will be randomly scattered around the trend line, since title-winners are going to inherently be equally distributed between high- and low-variance years. The question is whether an individual really good team is more likely to win in a low-variance or high-variance year. What we see in the graph is that the individual data points at the far end in terms of z-score that are noticeably below the trend line (i.e. high standard deviation teams in low-variance years) don’t actually do all *that* well (there’s a lot of black dots below the trend line when you look past about 1.5 SRS Z score and above). And, to my eye at least, the opposite isn’t as true (though it’s hard to visualize *exactly* where the trend line would be). The high-SRS teams above the trend line (i.e. high SRS teams in high-variance years) seems to me to have a higher success rate. And that actually supports my point! But it doesn’t look like there’s an *enormous* difference and obviously really good teams can win or lose in both types of environments.

[Moonbeam]

I've got old-fart eyes, could you tell me the median champion coordinates?

Sure!

The median Z score is 1.3476 for all years and 1.352 from 1984 onward. The median SRS is 5.9743 for all years and 6.447 from 1984 onward.

Thank you much!

On random vertical scattering - this would indicate similar effectiveness for SRS/Z-Score would it not (in this particular pursuit)? If one were strongly more predictive than the other we should see the red dots pull to one side of the distribution correct?

Not really --- I think the league context is important. It's easier for a 4 SRS team to win in a low-variance SRS league than a high one. Since the whole purpose is to compare across years, I think it makes sense to consider the Z scores here, in the same manner it's wise to consider various other player measures relative to league environment (e.g. TS%).

[f4p]

.

.

Thanks Dray. That was kind of my memory, though I couldn't remember well enough to say for sure.

On the overall discussion, I expect standard deviations are probably a marginal upgrade on 'raw' SRS, which is itself a marginal upgrade on MOV, which is at least a somewhat meaningful predictive upgrade on Win% - though debatable if being more predictive is really what we're going for in this project.

So my basic position - two levels deeper than practical and really a waste of time.

i haven't had a chance to read the z-score discussion (which i see has grown since the post i quoted), but i've seen it in the past and, from what i remember, i'm not sure i see the value. if we're trying to determine who is more likely to win the championship, i suspect higher z-scores make it more likely, but it would presumably be reflected in the SRS prediction of the playoff series anyway, and it doesn't seem to say anything about the quality of the team, merely the distribution of talent in the rest of the league.

if the celtics are +8 and the other 8 teams all cluster at exactly -1, the celtics will have an enormous z-score and also be extremely likely to win the title, as beating two -1 teams is extremely likely. if those same 8 teams instead spread out into -8, -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, and 6 teams. the average is still -1 but the z-score will be much lower. and beating a +2 and +6 team will be much less likely. but the celtics will still be the same team, having accumulated a +8 against a cumulative -8 league (with the cumulative of the others always balancing out your own SRS). and in fact, the celtics basically lived in that first example for many years. with all the other teams clustered around the "lukewarm dog water" level of team play. making their titles extremely likely by historical standards, especially with only 2 rounds to play.

[eminence]

Not really --- I think the league context is important. It's easier for a 4 SRS team to win in a low-variance SRS league than a high one. Since the whole purpose is to compare across years, I think it makes sense to consider the Z scores here, in the same manner it's wise to consider various other player measures relative to league environment (e.g. TS%).

I agree conceptually, I'm having a hard time (literally) seeing it on the graph. Could you do an image with the trendline for the whole set and just the champions dots?

[lessthanjake]

.

Thanks Dray. That was kind of my memory, though I couldn't remember well enough to say for sure.

On the overall discussion, I expect standard deviations are probably a marginal upgrade on 'raw' SRS, which is itself a marginal upgrade on MOV, which is at least a somewhat meaningful predictive upgrade on Win% - though debatable if being more predictive is really what we're going for in this project.

So my basic position - two levels deeper than practical and really a waste of time.

i haven't had a chance to read the z-score discussion (which i see has grown since the post i quoted), but i've seen it in the past and, from what i remember, i'm not sure i see the value. if we're trying to determine who is more likely to win the championship, i suspect higher z-scores make it more likely, but it would presumably be reflected in the SRS prediction of the playoff series anyway, and it doesn't seem to say anything about the quality of the team, merely the distribution of talent in the rest of the league.

if the celtics are +8 and the other 8 teams all cluster at exactly -1, the celtics will have an enormous z-score and also be extremely likely to win the title, as beating two -1 teams is extremely likely. if those same 8 teams instead spread out into -8, -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, and 6 teams. the average is still -1 but the z-score will be much lower. and beating a +2 and +6 team will be much less likely. but the celtics will still be the same team, having accumulated a +8 against a cumulative -8 league (with the cumulative of the others always balancing out your own SRS). and in fact, the celtics basically lived in that first example for many years. with all the other teams clustered around the "lukewarm dog water" level of team play. making their titles extremely likely by historical standards, especially with only 2 rounds to play.

Yeah, these are good points.

Honestly, the chance of winning a title is probably actually best determined by doing something more targeted at the other top contenders: Perhaps something like looking at a team’s SRS gap against the average of the top few other teams in terms of SRS. Because, ultimately, your chance of winning is probably more about that than where you stand compared to the league as a whole, as your example illustrates pretty well. I’m inclined to think the SRS gap against the top few other teams is likely to be higher in a higher-variance environment overall, but that doesn’t have to be the case, as the hypothetical you gave above illustrates.

Just as an example of this, let’s take the 1996 Bulls compared to the 2014 Spurs and the 2007 Spurs—the two Spurs teams that apparently were closest in terms of z score (though that data includes playoffs, otherwise the 2016 Spurs would surely be up there). The 1996 Bulls had an 11.8 SRS. The next highest in their conference was 5.4, and the highest couple in the other conference were 7.40 and 6.25. So the Bulls had a huge SRS gap against the other contenders. They were way better than everyone. In contrast, the 2014 Spurs had a 8.00 SRS, but there was a team in their conference with a 7.27 SRS and another with 6.66 SRS and the highest in the other conference was 4.15. With the 2007 Spurs, they had a 8.35 SRS, but there were two teams in their conference with 7.28 SRS and the best team in the other conference had a 4.52 SRS. Obviously all these teams won the title, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the 1996 Bulls had easily the best shot at winning, since they had a massive SRS gap against everyone they could’ve faced. Meanwhile, despite their high SRS and apparently very high z-score, the Spurs had some teams that one wouldn’t be surprised to see beat them (for instance, the Suns in 2007, which was one of the teams with a 7.28 SRS and might well have actually beaten them except for the Amare suspension). And I think your point about a lot of those Celtics teams is that they’d look more like the Bulls in this regard except just with a scaled down SRS, but still no other team close to them. That SRS gap to other top contenders is probably the best way to assess title chances IMO.

[f4p]

Official Vote
1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell

Nominate:
Magic Johnson

Here is my post from the #1 thread for Jordan

Spoiler:

I'm voting for Michael Jordan. Is he going to win? No. I accept that the thing that makes me like this place is also why Michael Jordan isn't going to win. And who knows, maybe he shouldn't.

Has Michael Jordan produced more career value than Lebron James? Obviously not. Lebron passed him some time ago.

Does Michael Jordan solve more problems at a high level for a team than Lebron James? Obviously not. There's basically nothing Lebron can't do. Somehow able to drive high-level offenses, guard his own man, and be an unbelievable help defender who can even be a rim protector. A unique combination in NBA history.

If we simulated the careers of Michael Jordan and Lebron James 10,000 times, giving them every possible set of teammates and coaches and opponents, would Jordan win more titles than Lebron? I suspect not. They can both win with good teams, they can both lose with bad teams, and I suspect the Lebron wins/Jordan loses subset of teams is slightly larger than the Jordan wins/Lebron loses subset of teams.

In 5 years, will I still pick Michael Jordan over Lebron James? Perhaps not. Someone may finally pull out that 1001st impact metric that finally wears me down. I'm certainly open to the idea that Lebron James, with his mega-floor raising profile, ability to turn dumpster fire Cleveland teams into 60 win teams, ability to morph his game this way and that through 20 years of NBA changes, ability to decipher everything that is happening on a basketball court, ability to rack up massive playoff runs well into his 30s at a level Jordan really didn't even manage, ability to stay healthy while piling up more NBA mileage than any star in history, ability to hit more playoff game-winners than anyone, ability to win titles with 3 different teams, ability to handle the pressure of being Lebron James from the time he was 16 years old, ability to beat 73 win teams while leading an entire series in every box score stat, just might have a pretty good argument for best player ever. He might even have peak and prime and career over Jordan.

And yet...

I'm not voting for Lebron. Why?

Is career value all there is? After all, Michael Jordan retired under unique circumstances the first time, and as a living god who had no more worlds left to conquer the second time. Everyone who played against him said he was the best. Everyone who coached against him said he was the best. Everyone who watched him said he was the best. He was the biggest star. A global icon. He had more titles as the best player on his team than anyone who anyone had actually seen play (not Bill's fault he started playing in 1957, but doesn't make it untrue). Does one need to ruin the fairytale ending just to win a message board career value battle 25 years in the future? I would say no (though he ruined the fairytale anyway by coming back).

Do you have to solve all of your teams problems if you solve most of them, and solve a few (or at least one, scoring) in ways no one else ever has? And in the biggest moments, and consistently for your whole career?

Do we need to simulate their careers 10,000 random times? After all, GM's don't just randomly put teammates around you (or at least you hope they don't). Maybe some of those circumstances where Lebron would win out are very low probability circumstances, as no one would build around Lebron or Jordan in those ways.

I wrote this in a different thread that I guess was talking about 1998 Game 6 but I think it sums things up:

"I tried to tell myself that Jordan going 15-35 while his teammates went 19-32 in game 6 against the Jazz meant Jordan was just hogging the ball. But I couldn't get there. If my life depended on winning a playoff series, and I got one player to pick to come up big, to play in any era, to make sure nothing went wrong if we had the advantage, to maybe eke it out against a stronger team, to make sure they came up big in the 4th quarter and could even hit the final shot, I just can't pick someone other than Michael Jordan. I can get close with Lebron, but I still want MJ. In that game 6 where his teammates shot 60% from the field and he shot 43% and only had 1 assist, those numbers didn't seem to matter. At age 35, he scored over half of his team's points, with Pippen hobbling and Rodman no longer Rodman. He scored 8 points in something like the last 2:30 of the game. With his legacy of finals perfection on the line, with the highest ratings of any NBA game ever, with the thought it was probably his last game ever and what everyone would remember him for most, his team was down 3 with a minute to go and...? He calmly made a tough layup. Then calmly made a great defensive read and stole the ball from the other team's best player. Then, even though his team was the one trailing, he calmly wound the clock down because he knew. I hoped somehow he would miss and we would have game 7 and someone would finally beat Jordan in a finals. But I knew. And if you were a Jazz fan in the stands, you knew. And if you were one of the millions watching at home, you knew. That shot was going in. Dribble right, stop on a dime, rise up, perfect swish. Inevitable."

Overly dramatic? I think not. Hagiographic, that's for you to decide. But it's how Jordan seemed (and I didn't even like him). Was he truly inevitable? Well, he didn't win a title 9 times in 15 years, so obviously not. But I just can't escape the fact that I trusted Jordan more over the totality of his career. Give me a contending-level team and Jordan is turning it into a champion. Seemingly every time. Lebron reached that level post-2011. Maybe even surpassed it. But he wasn't at that level before 2011. You could shake Lebron. Maybe Lebron would be a force of nature and drop 48 and 9 on you, but you could get him feeling shaky about his jumper. You could even do it a little bit as far out as the first 3 games of the 2013 Finals when the Spurs pulled the 2011 Mavs trick of backing way off of him. But Jordan had it from day 1. Jordan was walking to The Garden and dropping 63 on Larry Bird as a 2nd year player coming off an injury. He was fearless, and feared.

The guy who was the most athletic and dazzling guy in the league, miles ahead of the average player in the league, was also incredibly fundamentally sound. And skilled. And smart. And driven. And cocky. And confident. Confident in ways Lebron wasn't until almost the middle of his career. He could get mad at someone and decide he wanted to drop 45 on them, and then do it. Is scoring all there is? No, but to put it in a different context, one less centered on some "alpha male" ego thing just wanting to score 45. One of the craziest Jordan stats is that he never lost 3 games in a row with the Bulls after some point in 1991. Do you know how easy it is to lose 3 games in a row? An injury here, a lull there, a little team turmoil over there. Not losing 3 in a row, for 6 years, regular season, or playoffs, is basically the team version of deciding you are going to score 45 on someone because they made you mad. Jordan could decide that losing 2 in a row made him mad, and then stop #3 from happening. Lebron has had all sorts of regular season lulls and LeBattical's and chemistry issues that have allowed long stretches of losing to happen.

And in the playoffs? Well, Lebron has been nearly perfect since 2011. If you think beating a 73 win team while leading the series in every stat is the greatest accomplishment ever (I do), maybe he's even exceeded what could be expected of anyone else in history in the playoffs since 2011. But there's 2011. Lebron straight up threw a title away. Jordan never did that. Jordan never even got close to doing that. All Lebron had to do was play halfway acceptable Lebron James basketball and he would have had his 1st title. But he choked. Badly. Blew a 15 point lead with under 8 minutes to go in game 2. Scored 8 points in game 5 in a close loss. These are simply things Jordan would never, ever, ever do. Not in 10,000 simulations, not in 1,000,000. Is it an unforgivable sin? Maybe not in a comparison with anyone else. But against Jordan?

Jordan was 24-0 with homecourt advantage. 25-0 with an SRS advantage. Led both teams in Game Score in 35 out of 37 series and only a few tenths away from being 37 out of 37 (basically no "off" series). Even Lebron the box score stat stuffer was only at leading 85% of his series by 2020. 6 out of 6 in the finals, even if his finals opponents were significantly weaker than Lebron's. Jordan never threw a title away. Rarely even really got close to it. And then there's something someone else brought up early in the thread.

When Lebron had his Heatles reign, it never quite lived up to the 90's Bulls domination. Now maybe I'm double-counting 2011 here, but I don't think so. The Heat were supposed to win "not 5, not 6...", and yet they just barely won 2. They paired up #1, #2, and #4 in PER. Yes, they paired them up with replacement level players in year 1, but outside of the regular season in 2013, they never quite seemed the sum of their parts. Maybe I'm underrating the 90's bulls supporting cast (after all, they won 55 without Jordan) or overrating the Heat until they stocked up with good role players by 2013. And yes, Wade was basically shot by the time the 2013 playoffs rolled around so it was really only 2 playoffs they were healthy. And Bosh missed a big chunk of the 2012 playoffs and the Heat survived. But 58, 58, 66, and 54 wins, with 2 titles, a finals choke, and 2 game 7's to win one of their finals, one of which was after a game 6 they trailed by 5 points with 20 seconds to go. It never felt like Lebron made it as easy as Jordan did. Should it have been as easy? No. Again, I mentioned many of the things holding the Heat back. But do I think Jordan is winning 2011 and at least not getting taken to 7 by the 2013 Pacers? Yes.

The Bulls averaged 65 wins in the 6 full seasons from 91-98. They had 4 or fewer losses in 4 title runs and only faced 2 game 7's total. Yes, Jordan got lucky with stacked teams. But when he had stacked teams, he cruised. In ways even Russell really didn't when you consider the 10 game 7's Russell faced, often against vastly inferior teams. As stacked as the Bulls were, their second best championship odds by SRS was only 58.7% in 1992. Russell had 7 teams with better odds. When the Bulls were good, they were very good. And didn't need to rest up in the regular season to dominate the playoffs. They just dominated both. Much is made of Lebron being better in Games 5-7 of a series than Jordan. But there was no Game 1 Jordan where he felt the series out. He just stomped you from the beginning. And if he got a lead, he didn't lose it. I believe the only lead he ever lost was 1-0. And he was the 6th seed against the #1 seed Pistons. After having already won 2 upset series. In a series where the Bulls gave the Pistons their only 2 losses of the playoffs. So about as forgivable a blown lead as possible (to be fair, Lebron never lost a 2-0 or 3-1 lead).

And that's the thing. Jordan just doesn't have many lowlights. Sure, you can try to theorize that his limited this or lack of that could have been surpassed by Lebron and turned some of those early Bulls teams into conference finalists or maybe Lebron could have gotten the 1990 Bulls to the Finals. But true "Jordan sucked and cost his team" lowlights? He didn't lose as a favorite, rarely if ever got outplayed by an opponent superstar, his bad series are like 28/9/4 with mediocre FG% and there's precious few of even those series. Threw away a championship? Definitely not. Does Lebron win back a lot of that blown championship with 2016? I think so. But all of it? No. It was a gimme putt to win the Masters. You don't get those back. Chasing Jordan is sort of like chasing perfection, even if he wasn't perfect. He had a perfect career arc, perfect narrative, perfect media presence, dominated 4th quarters, dominated Finals, showed up to big moments with swagger and then backed it up.

I don't like impact metrics as much as most here, but it would be good to have more Jordan impact numbers just to see what they say. Lebron certainly dominates the databall era in a way that is hard to refute. But Jordan dominates the stats that are available to a huge degree as well. I haven't gotten to do the other age ranges I wanted to do yet, but in Age 22-31 box numbers (10 year prime), he's:

Regular Season PER: #1
Regular Season WS48: #1
Regular Season BPM: #1
Postseason PER: #1
Postseason WS48: #1 (unless you want to count Mikan)
Postseason BPM: #1

And not by a little. If you normalize all of these, with 1.0 being top and #250 being 0 (give or take), and then average them, then you get:

Regular Season
Jordan: 1.000
Wilt: 0.913 (no BPM for him)
Lebron: 0.892

Postseason:
Jordan: 1.000
Jokic: 0.905
Lebron: 0.896

In other words, by the box score, you have go to almost 10% of the way from the #1 player to #250 before you hit the 2nd place person. In both the regular season and playoffs. Now I suspect if I do Age 24-33 or 26-35, that the gap will close, but 22-31 is a pretty normal prime age range. And Jordan dominates. While never losing as a favorite. While never choking away a championship. While dominating as much as anyone has when he had good teams. While being athletic and playing with flair but also somehow being fundamentally sound and doing simple things over and over to get great results. While going 6 for 6 in Finals. While stealing the ball from the other team...before dribbling the clock down...before taking the biggest jumper...in the biggest moment...in the biggest game...swish.

when it comes down to it, MJ and russell are their eras two best winners, with the bulls 6 title runs being even more dominant than the celtics. but if i'm being honest, a lot of this is just not having enough faith in a young league with 8 teams. it is simply easier to stand out (think babe ruth hitting more homers than every other team) early on as strategies are ironed out, coaching is in its infancy and providing huge advantages to innovators (Red Auerbach). you have Doctor MJ's great post about russell thinking about strategies and indicating he [Russell] doesn't think other players are thinking about strategy. while it's good that russell was, it's simply an impossible advantage to have later on. even the dumbest player now is playing more strategically than the dumb guys of yesteryear because there's a coaching staff watching tape until their eyes bleed and an analytics department telling them where to shoot from and how to guard. they can't help but be more strategic. professionalization evens out natural advantages and makes standing out harder as time goes by, in any sport or really any endeavor. and it's much easier to stand out with 8 or 9 teams. one or two lopsided trades or good/terrible draft picks can swing the fortunes of the entire league to one team. throw in the fact that i just don't think their was the talent pool to withstand russell, and i am just slightly less impressed by russell than jordan.


also, this didn't affect my vote, but since i just saw some videos, i feel like jordan should get at least a few bonus points for the 2nd 3-peat bulls having the best introduction in sports history. in the world pre-league pass, WGN was one of the few ways to watch a team other than your hometown team outside of national tv games. and that just happened to be chicago's station. when the house lights went down and "Sirius" kicked on and that corny "running of the bulls" animation started, it set the tone right from the start. it was like the other team was already down 6 points.

Watch on YouTube

;t=6s

[lessthanjake]

also, this didn't affect my vote, but since i just saw some videos, i feel like jordan should get at least a few bonus points for the 2nd 3-peat bulls having the best introduction in sports history. in the world pre-league pass, WGN was one of the few ways to watch a team other than your hometown team outside of national tv games. and that just happened to be chicago's station. when the house lights went down and "Sirius" kicked on and that corny "running of the bulls" animation started, it set the tone right from the start. it was like the other team was already down 6 points.

Watch on YouTube

;t=6s

Oh man, that video takes me back! Was such an amazing intro!

[Moonbeam]

Let's look it it the other way, using data from 1984 onward. Here are the mean/median Z scores for champs and non-champs in different SRS bands.

SRS between 2 and 4:

Non-champs: Median 0.64, Mean 0.65 (163 teams)
Champs: Median 0.85, Mean 0.76 (3 teams)

SRS between 4 and 6:

Non-champs: Median 1.06, Mean 1.07 (102 teams)
Champs: Median 1.16, Mean 1.14 (13 Teams)

SRS between 6 and 8:

Non-champs: Median 1.44, Mean 1.48 (69 teams)
Champs: Median 1.60, Mean 1.58 (12 Teams)

SRS above 8:

Non-champs: Median 1.91, Mean 1.92 (11 teams)
Champs: Median 2.09, Mean 2.08 (11 teams)

Within each of these bands, the Z scores are higher for the champs than the non-champs.

What's more, building a model (logistic regression) for a title using either SRS or the Z score, the model with the Z score is more predictive (AIC of 120.07 vs 109.7 using SRS vs Z score for all league history, and AIC of 11.25 vs 8.09 using SRS vs Z score for teams since 1984).

[ZeppelinPage]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Michael Jordan

Nominate: Shaquille O'Neal

My previous post going over what I value and adding some context to Wilt's career:

Spoiler:

My focus is on overall player impact. In other words, how valuable is a player to the team? I tend to see championships more as a team statistic and don't dwell too much on the number a player has won. Although I do recognize that winning can show us indicators of value within players and teams. Simply put, the all-around abilities of these two players allow a team to be built in various ways. They both provide a team with scoring, defense, rebounding, and passing in ways that their peers cannot match.

This is shown in how Wilt adapted his game multiple times to accommodate his team. He was a heavy scorer in his early years, began to pass more by the mid-60s, and eventually transitioned to a defensive role as he aged, achieving resounding success under Bill Sharman. He can fit his playstyle to whatever a coach needs. I know there's a common belief that Wilt had little regard for a team-first approach, but he took cues from coaches like McGuire, Hannum, and Sharman and adapted to how they wanted him to play—few superstars have shown a willingness to do that.

Wilt wasn't as fortunate to have a consistently healthy and deep team, which is why I don't think it's as simple as assessing his championships and blaming him. If a player performs in a playoff setting but his teammates falter, I don't hold him accountable unless there's reason to believe otherwise. After all, basketball is fundamentally a team game played by five players. Wilt faced the most formidable competition of any superstar in NBA history throughout his career, always performing at or above his regular season level that his teammates, either injured or floundering, couldn't match. Much of the time, Wilt was losing to teams with a better SRS, the teams usually being apart of the greatest dynasty in NBA history. Therefore, he was regularly confronted with a steep mountain to climb.

Not only were his teams often the underdogs, but his teammates frequently grappled with injuries. Here are some examples:

1962: The Warriors lose on a last-second Sam Jones buzzer beater in Game 7. Tom Gola, their second-best player and exceptional defender, was essentially out for most of the series, playing only 107 minutes in 4 games. Wilt came close to defeating the Celtics here.

1965: Havlicek stole the ball. Larry Costello played through injury the entire series and averaged only 5 points per game. Another extremely close game was played without a key player.

So, his team's lack of talent was further exacerbated by injuries.

Looking at '68-'73, almost every post-season besides 1972 involved some kind of injury:
1968: Almost the entire starting lineup was injured.
1969: Jerry West had a torn hamstring, and van Breda Kolff didn't put Wilt back in the game.
1970: Wilt returned early from a knee injury, and Jerry West played in the Finals with injuries to both his hands.
1971: Jerry West was out for the playoffs.
1973: Both Wilt and West were injured.

I'm not sure how much blame I can place on Wilt when, in many instances, a key player was either out or playing injured. These injuries are beyond Wilt's control. In the playoffs, he gave his teams a substantial boost, trying to overcome factors beyond his control like injuries and roster construction.

This is a rather drawn-out way of explaining why I don't center my arguments around championships, or the lack thereof, when determining a player's impact. A player can only play with the hand he's dealt and do his best to overcome adversity. Despite Wilt being plagued with untimely injuries and lackluster teammate performances, I believe he offered his team an unparalleled overall boost.

I prefer the all-around impact of Wilt and Jordan over other players. Both consistently performed in the playoffs, and in Wilt's case even with the odds stacked against him. Not a fan of Jordan's toxicity towards his teammates, but it's difficult to deny how impactful he was on the court throughout his prime. I am nominating Shaq, as I believe he warrants some discussion here soon.

Hopefully, I'll have more time in the upcoming threads to delve into my choices in greater detail. I definitely want to provide a more in-depth write-up here soon.

[ty 4191]

........

[ty 4191]

1. Wilt Chamberlain

Outstanding post. One person here is sane (or, at least, right). It's wonderful to know!!!

"Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad."

― George Orwell, 1984