What impact metrics show MJ as a GOAT candidate?

[AEnigma]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

[Dutchball97]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

Great mask off post. So many of the anti-MJ crowd are battling so hard in this thread to convince people they're being objective and definitely aren't trying to say Jordan shouldn't be in the GOAT conversation and then you drop this gem.

We're back to the emotionally biased view that all people who have Jordan at #1 have to be Jordan fans but you'd balk at the idea of this being the case for anyone like LeBron or Kareem. You're hyping up your own approach as being better than what anyone has done before and you're flat out stating LeBron becoming the best a decade ago as some sort of fact based once again on your own preferred way of looking at basketball and analytics. Beautiful, honestly.

[spree8]

That’s why I’ve had posters like this tell me that what I watch (phrased it as eye-witness testimony) is unreliable? I’m not deeply mistaken… gaslighting attempts are too frequent around here.

Furthermore, d'you know how unreliable eye witness testimony is? D'you know how unreliable eye witness testimony is after a month? D'you know how unreliable it is after decades? If a human being can choose between their own observations and memories for a large set of information, OR a libraries worth of recorded data and statistics, they should choose the latter every time. That's kinda why we started writing stuff down.

The foundations you're laying down are unsubstantiated. "What my eyes have told me can't be a lie" becaauuuse, why exactly, you don't want them to be?

He’s not the only one either. I’ve had “reputable” posters here try to convince me that what I’ve been watching wasn’t truly the case.

Hmmm ...

I don't quite understand. Are you say your output on what you saw isn't your testimony, through your brain, of things that you witnessed? That your brain isn't fallible? You seem to simultaneously take personally a criticism of eyewitness testimony and ... I don't know, are you objecting to it as characterizing what your recollections of events are ("what I watch"/"what I've been watching" perhaps being distinct, being stored somewhere other than your head, perfectly preserved, with no personal interpretation or difference from any other "eye-test"?).

This post wasn't about gaslighting you or about you in particular at all. It's about recording things versus any one person's memory. It's how reliable is the human brain at tracking every detail and then preserving it perfectly. Now box-scores don't track everything and the don't track everything they do track perfectly and some stuff is fuzzy at the edges. And impact side stuff is noisy, especially on smaller samples. But, for myself, I do tend to trust that it's generally tracked accurately and the data has access to far more basketball than any of us can have watched.

Without writing stuff down down (and without others doing so) do I think I'd know the difference between a 44% 3pt shooter over a season and a 38% one (heck even just seeing the shots in a compilation, rather than over a season, seeing the games I happen to see or imagining I catch them all, and am remembering over the months)? Or even who's winning a game and by how much if no one tracks (i.e. so not informed by play-style because of those who are tracking it) nor displays it until the end? My guess, for myself, would be no in each case.

As has been outlined watching and looking at data aren't mutually exclusive. It's just a matter of what information is most reliable and how can it be best aggregated. And that's tricky and complex which is why everyone's lists differ.


And hopefully you'll all be on a new page soon and so long as no-one quotes the spoilery stuff, there'll be a readable page.

I’m saying that comparing watching (closely) years and years of Jordan games live in addition to rewatching them and other games of his via the internet or NBA classics, to the statistics of “eye witness testimony” (as in an old lady walking a dog and thinking she witnessed certain characteristics of a perpetrator committing a crime from a far, and being asked to recall every detail precisely) is not the same. It’s a false equivalency to say the least.

And yes comparing data (which is not accurate in assessing a players true impact because of how nuanced the game is and how faulty these computations are due to penalizing or propping up a player for things out of their control) to years (past and present) of “eye test” is tricky.

I’m simply stating that when people use data (they don’t truly understand) to tell you what you’ve been watching for years is incorrect because you’re not capable of comprehending what you’re watching (based on even more bs ”eye-witness data”), is a concern, and yeah, it’s bordering on gaslighting.

[spree8]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

Welp, case in point. I’m not a Jordan fan by any stretch. I despised him growing up because he kept my team from a championship for the better part of a decade. However, I do appreciate greatness when I see it. I’ve watched Lebron’s whole career and have yet to see any evidence that backs up these “metrics” that he is a better player on the court than what I witnessed with Jordan. It’s just not close. Has he had a great career? Absolutely. I’d put him in the top 2-3 all time in terms of “best player”, but he doesn’t have what it takes to convince me that he’s a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. Sorry. There’s also just some aspects of the game/players that aren’t quantifiable, and I don’t think a lot of people here can make peace with that fact.

If you want to use data to try to disprove what I’ve witnessed almost my whole life, please be prepared to explain in great detail what your data is truly calculating and just how reliable it is in capturing the truth.

[Jaivl]

Jordan not GOAT is gaslighting, now THAT's a take!

[AEnigma]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

Great mask off post. So many of the anti-MJ crowd are battling so hard in this thread to convince people they're being objective and definitely aren't trying to say Jordan shouldn't be in the GOAT conversation and then you drop this gem.

We're back to the emotionally biased view that all people who have Jordan at #1 have to be Jordan fans but you'd balk at the idea of this being the case for anyone like LeBron or Kareem. You're hyping up your own approach as being better than what anyone has done before and you're flat out stating LeBron becoming the best a decade ago as some sort of fact based once again on your own preferred way of looking at basketball and analytics. Beautiful, honestly.

I did not say he became the best, I am saying that people could identify him as being a better player that early. Frankly, anyone who in the wake of 2013 was not considering the possibility that Lebron could be better than Jordan should not be taken seriously.

Pretty disgusting to routinely be subjected to this type of willful misinterpretation, always in order to manufacture some false “gotcha” moment — and yes, it is very obviously willful, because all you people do is use your eyetest to assess peak/prime and move from there. No one had some spreadsheet (or at the time, notebook) marking when exactly Jordan “passed” Magic or Oscar. They watched him and saw he was better.

Mahomes is better than Brady. But he is not the GOAT. Connor McDavid might be better than Gretzky, Orr, Howe, and Lemieux. But he is not the GOAT, and if he ends up going the way of his similar predecessor in Crosby, he never will be. Federer was better than Sampras before he had fourteen slams — as were Nadal and Djokovic. But they needed time, because anyone can be a flash in the pan and burn out (see also: Bill Walton).

How many people have already put Giannis above Garnett? How many people already have Jokic in their top twenty (without a title!). Hell, how many people were saying Luka could be a top ten all-time guy based off one (historically impressive) Clippers series? Do you seriously have the gall to act as this is not a normative way people project players???

The only “mask off” moment here is the guy pretending to be interested in honest discussion, pretending to not cape for Jordan at every opportunity, and pretending to think all arguments are valid and everyone can have their own stances, immediately jumping to misrepresent a position because it is the only thing you ever have in your arsenal. Hate conflict yet start it up at every opportunity. Not a Jordan stan yet devote a large bulk of your posts to attacking any who dare not place him on a pedestal.

I had always felt you deserved at least some benefit of the doubt and for the most part were trying to post with good faith intent, if not execution. I was evidently wrong to do so. Will not make that mistake again.

[spree8]

Jordan not GOAT is gaslighting, now THAT's a take!

If that’s what you took from it then I suppose it proves my point even more. Thanks

[Dutchball97]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

Great mask off post. So many of the anti-MJ crowd are battling so hard in this thread to convince people they're being objective and definitely aren't trying to say Jordan shouldn't be in the GOAT conversation and then you drop this gem.

We're back to the emotionally biased view that all people who have Jordan at #1 have to be Jordan fans but you'd balk at the idea of this being the case for anyone like LeBron or Kareem. You're hyping up your own approach as being better than what anyone has done before and you're flat out stating LeBron becoming the best a decade ago as some sort of fact based once again on your own preferred way of looking at basketball and analytics. Beautiful, honestly.

I did not say he became the best, I am saying that people could identify him as being a better player that early.

Always love the willful misinterpretation in order to manufacture some “gotcha” moment — and yes, it is pretty obviously willful, because all you people do is use your eyetest to assess peak/prime and move from there. No one had some spreadsheet (or at the time, notebook) marking when exactly Jordan “passed” Magic or Oscar. They watched him and saw he was better.

Mahomes is better than Brady. But he is not the GOAT. Connor McDavid might be better than Gretzky, Orr, Howe, and Lemieux. But he is not the GOAT, and if he ends up going the way of his similar predecessor in Crosby, he never will be. Federer was better than Sampras before he had fourteen slams — as were Nadal and Djokovic. But they needed time, because anyone can be a flash in the pan and burn out (see also: Bill Walton).

The only “mask off” moment here is the guy pretending to be interested in honest discussion, pretending to not cape for Jordan at every opportunity, and pretending to think all arguments are valid and everyone can have their own stances, immediately jumping to misrepresent a position because it is the only thing you ever have in your arsenal. Frankly, anyone who in the wake of 2013 was not considering the possibility that Lebron could be better than Jordan should not be taken seriously. With hindsight, I suppose those of us who consume the sport rather than the story already knew that.

I had always felt you deserved some benefit of the doubt and for the most part were trying to post with good faith intent if not execution, but I was evidently wrong to do so. Will not make that mistake again.

Nah man. How can you say it's willful misrepresentation of your point when you worded it exactly like this: "a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago"? You didn't say something along the lines of people have been able to produce legitimate arguments for LeBron being the best player to ever play the game a decade ago (let's say after the 2013 ring? maybe the 2012 ring even?) and he just needed some extra longevity to cement himself to become a GOAT candidate and possibly even the frontrunner for the GOAT title.

If you had said the latter I might even have agreed with you or at least it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest. Sometimes it's easy to forget that I'm still actively debating who I'll go with as my #1 for the upcoming top 100 and the only reason I'm constantly sticking up for Jordan is the implication that he does not have a case for being the GOAT. If someone was saying something similar for LeBron, Kareem or Russell I'd also go against that but for some reason there's not a lot of talk like that going on here unlike how it is for Jordan. But then you keep feeling the need to paint everyone who sticks up for Jordan as a desperate Jordan stan who is pulling every tactic out of the hat just to keep our hero from falling off the throne. It's getting weird.

[AEnigma]

Great mask off post. So many of the anti-MJ crowd are battling so hard in this thread to convince people they're being objective and definitely aren't trying to say Jordan shouldn't be in the GOAT conversation and then you drop this gem.

We're back to the emotionally biased view that all people who have Jordan at #1 have to be Jordan fans but you'd balk at the idea of this being the case for anyone like LeBron or Kareem. You're hyping up your own approach as being better than what anyone has done before and you're flat out stating LeBron becoming the best a decade ago as some sort of fact based once again on your own preferred way of looking at basketball and analytics. Beautiful, honestly.

I did not say he became the best, I am saying that people could identify him as being a better player that early.

Always love the willful misinterpretation in order to manufacture some “gotcha” moment — and yes, it is pretty obviously willful, because all you people do is use your eyetest to assess peak/prime and move from there. No one had some spreadsheet (or at the time, notebook) marking when exactly Jordan “passed” Magic or Oscar. They watched him and saw he was better.

Mahomes is better than Brady. But he is not the GOAT. Connor McDavid might be better than Gretzky, Orr, Howe, and Lemieux. But he is not the GOAT, and if he ends up going the way of his similar predecessor in Crosby, he never will be. Federer was better than Sampras before he had fourteen slams — as were Nadal and Djokovic. But they needed time, because anyone can be a flash in the pan and burn out (see also: Bill Walton).

The only “mask off” moment here is the guy pretending to be interested in honest discussion, pretending to not cape for Jordan at every opportunity, and pretending to think all arguments are valid and everyone can have their own stances, immediately jumping to misrepresent a position because it is the only thing you ever have in your arsenal. Frankly, anyone who in the wake of 2013 was not considering the possibility that Lebron could be better than Jordan should not be taken seriously. With hindsight, I suppose those of us who consume the sport rather than the story already knew that.

I had always felt you deserved some benefit of the doubt and for the most part were trying to post with good faith intent if not execution, but I was evidently wrong to do so. Will not make that mistake again.

Nah man. How can you say it's willful misrepresentation of your point when you worded it exactly like this: "a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago"? You didn't say something along the lines of people have been able to produce legitimate arguments for LeBron being the best player to ever play the game a decade ago (let's say after the 2013 ring? maybe the 2012 ring even?) and he just needed some extra longevity to cement himself to become a GOAT candidate and possibly even the frontrunner for the GOAT title.

If you had said the latter I might even have agreed with you or at least it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest.

Nope, if you cared about genuine communication, you would have clarified. You can go in my profile right now and see exactly when I had Lebron pass Jordan on my list (range was 2016-18, and then 2020 is when he took #1 overall). But you do not, because your sole purpose here is to cast aspersions on people making actual effort to explain and defend their positions.

Luka has been talked about as better than Harden, potentially even better than Magic. Giannis has been talked about as better than Malone and Garnett and Dirk and Barkley. People take peaks and extrapolate, or they take early primes and extrapolate. That is what has always happened. Jordan was crowned before he had anywhere near the career value to have a real case, because people thought he was the best they had ever seen. No damn different — except in this specific instance, it gives you a half-assed opportunity to tell other people to write me off.

But then you keep feeling the need to paint everyone who sticks up for Jordan as a desperate Jordan stan who is pulling every tactic out of the hat just to keep our hero from falling off the throne. It's getting weird.

… That is you. That is you consistently and constantly. Every Jordan thread, rather than every engage with anything real, you talk about the “cartel”. Rather than try to make a single argument for yourself, you just accuse everyone else of engaging in fantasy. That is hero worship. Nothing objective. No real position. No interest in countering anything or putting in any analysis. Just pure witchhunting. Good job! Really great addition.

[magicman1978]

Would like to try to shift this away from a Jordan vs LeBron discussion back to a GOAT discussion if possible, because at this point it's just people trading barbs at each other. I think most of us can reasonably agree that there are other candidates in the GOAT discussion. Where do those other candidates rank using the same criteria - do any of them have impact metrics that would show them as a GOAT candidate? Because what I seem to be gathering from metrics posted here is that LeBron may be the only candidate based on impact metrics.

[mcraft]

I don’t see how eye test is relevant to this particular thread since the title refers specifically to impact metrics. Of course actually watching is important but that’s not what this thread is about.

[OhayoKD]

Would like to try to shift this away from a Jordan vs LeBron discussion back to a GOAT discussion if possible, because at this point it's just people trading barbs at each other. I think most of us can reasonably agree that there are other candidates in the GOAT discussion. Where do those other candidates rank using the same criteria - do any of them have impact metrics that would show them as a GOAT candidate? Because what I seem to be gathering from metrics posted here is that LeBron may be the only candidate based on impact metrics.

Russell smokes Lebron prime for prime era-relative based on what we have. Lebron's dominance of the metrics doesn't really say anything about how he compares to Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Oscat, West, Walton, ect tho the "raw impact approach favors him over all but russell and wilt(have to think about oscar and west a bit).

But it's honestly completely possible a guy like russell has more career value.

[McBubbles]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

Welp, case in point. I’m not a Jordan fan by any stretch. I despised him growing up because he kept my team from a championship for the better part of a decade. However, I do appreciate greatness when I see it. I’ve watched Lebron’s whole career and have yet to see any evidence that backs up these “metrics” that he is a better player on the court than what I witnessed with Jordan. It’s just not close. Has he had a great career? Absolutely. I’d put him in the top 2-3 all time in terms of “best player”, but he doesn’t have what it takes to convince me that he’s a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. Sorry. There’s also just some aspects of the game/players that aren’t quantifiable, and I don’t think a lot of people here can make peace with that fact.

If you want to use data to try to disprove what I’ve witnessed almost my whole life, please be prepared to explain in great detail what your data is truly calculating and just how reliable it is in capturing the truth.

What evidence would you require? Clearly it's not statistical.

[magicman1978]

Would like to try to shift this away from a Jordan vs LeBron discussion back to a GOAT discussion if possible, because at this point it's just people trading barbs at each other. I think most of us can reasonably agree that there are other candidates in the GOAT discussion. Where do those other candidates rank using the same criteria - do any of them have impact metrics that would show them as a GOAT candidate? Because what I seem to be gathering from metrics posted here is that LeBron may be the only candidate based on impact metrics.

Russell smokes Lebron prime for prime era-relative based on what we have. Lebron's dominance of the metrics doesn't really say anything about how he compares to Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Oscat, West, Walton, ect tho the "raw impact approach favors him over all but russell and wilt(have to think about oscar and west a bit).

But it's honestly completely possible a guy like russell has more career value.

Can you clarify what those are? Apologies if that's somewhere earlier in the thread, but it'd be like trying to find it in a 1000 page book at this point.

[CzBoobie]

The top 100 is going to be such a mess if half the board now gets mad at others even saying Jordan has an argument for being the GOAT.

As opposed to the other half saying that no one else has an argument, right? How dare someone challenge the holy numbers of MJ.

That's never happened on the PC board.

I agree, both of those quotes have never happened on the PC board. Funny how that works when one was said only as reaction to the other.

[Squared2020]

I have only short clip (around 10 min) from 1980 Rockets vs Celtics series, but I don't think you will be interested in it.

That's extremely impressive collection. I wonder if you counted your pre-1975 playoff games as well. I'd appreciate it if you give us even an estimated number.

I have a few clips from that series, but I'd be happy to get full games.

Pre-1975... maybe 40 games, tops. The earliest is a Hawks-Celtics game from 1958, but the video itself was given under stipulation of never sharing it. Instead, I converted it into a play-by-play.

I have probably less than 30 games from that period and not all of them are full unfortunately. That's a great information that there are still so many games from that period.

I have been working on tracking Wilt and Russell shooting and defensive possessions from available footage, so if you can share at least PbP data, it would help me tremendously (as I assume you can't share footage).

There are a lot of games still out there. There's a collector in the Chicago area who has teased me about having the 1985 Golden State game where Jordan breaks his foot. He's shown me the tip off and first minute as proof. Some of these collectors are pretty wild.

[Heej]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

Welp, case in point. I’m not a Jordan fan by any stretch. I despised him growing up because he kept my team from a championship for the better part of a decade. However, I do appreciate greatness when I see it. I’ve watched Lebron’s whole career and have yet to see any evidence that backs up these “metrics” that he is a better player on the court than what I witnessed with Jordan. It’s just not close. Has he had a great career? Absolutely. I’d put him in the top 2-3 all time in terms of “best player”, but he doesn’t have what it takes to convince me that he’s a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. Sorry. There’s also just some aspects of the game/players that aren’t quantifiable, and I don’t think a lot of people here can make peace with that fact.

If you want to use data to try to disprove what I’ve witnessed almost my whole life, please be prepared to explain in great detail what your data is truly calculating and just how reliable it is in capturing the truth.

What evidence would you require? Clearly it's not statistical.

It's almost as if playing against weaker competition makes you look more dominant while people watch you

[eminence]

I don't place high value on WOWY precise numbers - they're quite rough estimates in most cases I've seen. Rougher tiers than even a non-prior informed rapm.

Given that I would personally only make strong impact metric based GOAT arguments for players '97 and onwards.

For me at least MJs '97/'98 rapm results would be reasonably indicative of a GOAT tier prime. Top tier of the league in big minutes for an age 33/34 player is not a particularly common thing in the two+ decades since (would have to go through and figure out some types of cutoffs, but I'm not sure anyone has matched MJs age 33/34 seasons in total impact). If one assumed (and I think this is a reasonable assumption) that '97/'98 were merely good MJ and not peak MJ I think he has a clear impact based argument for GOAT tier peak as well.

[70sFan]

I have a few clips from that series, but I'd be happy to get full games.

Pre-1975... maybe 40 games, tops. The earliest is a Hawks-Celtics game from 1958, but the video itself was given under stipulation of never sharing it. Instead, I converted it into a play-by-play.

I have probably less than 30 games from that period and not all of them are full unfortunately. That's a great information that there are still so many games from that period.

I have been working on tracking Wilt and Russell shooting and defensive possessions from available footage, so if you can share at least PbP data, it would help me tremendously (as I assume you can't share footage).

There are a lot of games still out there. There's a collector in the Chicago area who has teased me about having the 1985 Golden State game where Jordan breaks his foot. He's shown me the tip off and first minute as proof. Some of these collectors are pretty wild.

That's very encouraging news. I hope I will be able to find some new 1960s and 1970s games in the future.

[AEnigma]

For me at least MJs '97/'98 rapm results would be reasonably indicative of a GOAT tier prime. Top tier of the league in big minutes for an age 33/34 player is not a particularly common thing in the two+ decades since (would have to go through and figure out some types of cutoffs, but I'm not sure anyone has matched MJs age 33/34 seasons in total impact).

2020/21 Lebron is right on par — and then personally it is tough to imagine similar not being true or said of Russell and Wilt in their last two years.