What impact metrics show MJ as a GOAT candidate?

[Heej]

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.

The one push back I'd have on that is that the late 90s had an unusually weak crop of high tier age 24-30 seasons to measure him up against. He wasn't exactly competing against a stacked field of people firmly in their primes the way older heads like Bron Steph and KD have to do now. I mean the best young guys were Shaq, Grant Hill, and an injured Penny Hardaway.

I'd agree otherwise tho that extrapolating from that should still put him in the conversation, but I don't think it's as impressive a feat as a 33/34yo doing it in the last few years or so

[spree8]

He has Lebron at number 1 for career. He has Jordan number 3.

Always hilarious when you geniuses do this.

Where? And you need to chill out with the personal insults chief.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh?si=WdOW0p7KTJqzzTAgDddO-Q

You need to chill out with taking a thread explicitly about impact and asking why no one is paying attention to “the average fan’s eye test”.

Yeah not talking about career… I would even agree Lebron had a better career than Michael. He’s just not the better player. And again, impact isn’t entirely quantifiable… it’s part of my point that stats aren’t everything and not entirely accurate.

[OhayoKD]

Not sure what you're asking here, could you clarify a bit?

Instead of looking at "rapm at x-age" we looked at "rapm with x minuties/seasons played". Does that change how he ranks?

Well there is WOWY(okay technially its indirect evidence) which paints Russell as a god among ants, but I guess you're using a stricter definition of metric then

Ahh, interesting thought, from that perspective (ignoring college minutes, which I'm not sure is completely legit) we'd be looking (roughly) at '97/'98 MJ vs '09/'10 Kobe or '14/'15 LeBron.

I imagine LeBron would have the edge in a minutes based aging model.

To put it bluntly, WOWY is a pretty poor metric compared to play-by-play data of today.

Okay so WOWY is a misnomer i think. I've been rather laxly using it to describe extrapolations from seasons before and after a player departs(which i value significantly as you get the largest per-season samples possible(82 games)). What i'm actually referring to is the Celtics having a virtually identical roster, seeing their second best player improve, and winning 35 games(there were some decreases to counter this but as I think 70's covered well in the russ teammate thread, there's really not much reason to expect a massive downgrade in cast from 1969 where they were bad anyway). Remembering the goal is championships, not raw rs win totals(depressed int he 60's), Russell, as a player coach on his last-legs(also era-longetivity adjustment boosts russell here) not only wins, but wins beating two teams that, at least per srs, were two of the best of the era. For what it's worth, there's also what happened in game 7 of that win where russell being on 5 fouls(and therefore not being able to defend nearly as effectively) almost sparked a big lakers comeback despite Wilt being off.

All in all, from what we have, 1969 Russell looks like maybe the most valuable player ever?(at least from a corp standpoint). Like straight up, looking at with/without/raw whatever, uh, 2016 Lebron?(09 gets nuked by playoffs), Wilt in his near losses with the warriors? Maaaaaaybe Hakeem in 94?(assume the cast didn't improve from 1992 and take the 62-win pace in the playoffs at face value). And that's Russell when he's a player coach about to retire. That seems kinda godly to me tbh.

I haven't seen a version that paints Russell as a god among ants that (I believe Oscar topped Bens first calculation of it). But you'll see massive swings in who is atop the leaderboard based off quite small parameter changes, not near as robust as play by play.

I think you're referencing the average over his prime? Oscar side(all the 60's greats get juiced from a corp standpoint), if we make a modern comparison, wowyr puts Russell's cast at 40-wins throughout, wowy puts it at 35-wins throughout. Winning 11 rings with, on average a 40-win cast or a 35-win cast is just video-game nonsense. I put little stock in that due to samples, but fwiw that actually paints a more impressive picture than the 1969/1970 stuff.

It's certainly not a bad thing that Russell has a great WOWY score, but if anyone is using MJs WOWY to claim he has no GOAT case they've never calculated the stat

Yeah, again, misnomer. What we're actually using is those large 82 or 60 game samples concentrated in a season. And in this case, ironically I might add, we've been juicing Jordan's stuff by ignoring his cast getting better. Basically, take Bulls performance over 82 games in 1984, ignore oakley(if we took the raw stuff at face value, that's a 2 point swing), and then take 88 MJ's srs, and pretend the improvement from 27 wins to 50 wins was entirely Micheal Jordan. Wins that's 23, by SRS that's +8. I just spiked MJ's numbers artifically and he still falls well short of the best stuff from various other players including basically being matched or exceeded by all the signals we have for kareem and Lebron's prime. When we replaced the 1993 regular season with the 1992 regular season(best bulls rs) and jucied the bulls to a full-strength rating of +10, it only gets first-three peat Mj to +5 which is way short(and uh not great for a ceiling raiser case?). Like, that is the most "complete" data we have for Jordan's prime and it doesn't really look on the level.

compared to play-by-play data of today

Well we have some play by play data for MJ's best years and er...his very best signal(88) is below an 8-year average from the only member of the big four we have data for. And honestly if we apply a little more scrutiny to your age case...basically what it amounts to is... when they were the same age, Lebron, on way more milage got injured. Them being comparable per-possession when Lebron has much longer with no real-break isn't really a win here. And uh...

Ahh, interesting thought, from that perspective (ignoring college minutes, which I'm not sure is completely legit) we'd be looking (roughly) at '97/'98 MJ vs '09/'10 Kobe or '14/'15 LeBron.

15 Lebron scores higher than every single MJ year we have including 88.

When I said "no goat level impact" I was pretty explicit with the bar of "generally speaking, you don't look the best in any impact stuff", and I think that's definitely been met here,

[AEnigma]

so what I get outta that is there’s no need to watch games, “it’s not about that”, just read the stat sheet? Now that’s incredible.

Nope. Another half-assed strawman from someone incapable of interacting with the sport in any meaningful way.

There are good eye tests which can potentially be more insightful than raw data. I would trust Popovich breaking down the film. I would trust Lebron or Draymond or Chris Paul. I would even trust some people here.

But all of them also know the data. They supplement their eye tests because they are not inane enough to believe that their eyes capture everything. And most importantly, you are not them. I assume your eyetest is garbage because you have done nothing to suggest otherwise, and in fact have repeatedly equated your own eyetest with the garbage eyetests of the average casual fan. You have no credibility, and your approach has been akin to me sitting a five year old down and asking them which player looks like the best.

Dude, I’m just asking you to explain your data. The data analytics departments of sports teams know what they’re doing and what the numbers mean (and responsible gm’s do NOT think it’s the end all be all, that’s why they watch the games correct? And have actual basketball people on staff, not just number crunchers)

I never said that. You were the one arguing against data entirely. Eye tests can be good. Relying wholly on them is almost always foolish. And should go without saying, but apparently does not, that all their eye tests are magnitudes better informed than the average fan’s.

so why can’t you simply explain what metrics you’re using, and create a story if you will of what they’re telling you? It’s what any common sensed person would require in such a discussion.

What?

Why can you not just explain why your eyetest performs better at measuring how a player is advancing their team’s chance at winning. You have the extreme stance here, so you need to justify it.

Which, by the way, is what people who go against Jordan recognise. The common view is one way, so more effort is involved to explain why it is wrong. Problem is that you see that effort and laugh and pretend Norm from Cheers has more insight than anything quantified by those apparently unnecessary analytics departments, which often hire the people who provide accessible analytics to the public.

You just don’t know how to present the data responsibly. It’s ok to admit that you’ve just seen others list stats that fit your narrative and you ran with them, but you don’t truly know wth they even mean or if they’d even hold up under scrutiny, and that’s ok, just admit it lol.

Nope, that seems to be your issue. No understanding so you throw it out rather than making the effort, and then go troll those who do.

Prove your eyetest is more valuable than all data. Do it. You think analytics are a waste of time and investment? Make a case, rather than continuing to deliberately waste everyone’s time.

Deflection at its finest lol. I’m not here to prove “my” eye test is better than “the data”….I’m asking to see and hear an explanation as to why the general consensus (based on almost everyone’s eye test with the exception of a small handful here) is being disregarded when compared to this definitive data that says Lebron is better. Yet you can’t produce the numbers or explanations of them.

Dude, you’re scared and frustrated, I get it, I’ll leave it at that lol.

No, scared and frustrated is when someone hears that Lebron has a stronger data case than Jordan and proceeds to aggressively derail a thread about that data with “but consensus eye test?????”

I know you are not here to prove your eye test is better, because you would need to have a coherent standard for proof. You do not have one. What you have is a gut feeling that your eyes tell you all you need to know, so why bother?

Just do not get mad when no one humours your bad faith attempts to waste their time with explanations that mean nothing to you.

[Heej]

You’re basically telling me “oh what you’ve watched and studied for years up until this very moment on MJ & LBJ isn’t as reliable as these stats that I don’t even understand how to decipher and knowingly aren’t very accurate since they’re relatively new and don’t cover beyond a certain date. Furthermore what you’ve watched isn’t reliable because these other stats on people thinking they saw something during a possible crime during a blip in time isn’t reliable either” …I mean seriously, if that’s your best argument, go back to the drawing board.

Again, if you want to use metrics as your foundation, then be prepared to break them down to their core and come correct with comprehensive explanation proving you have a clue as to what you’re using as evidence, especially if you’re trying to make your case for why one player should dethrone another.

No one cares about your subjective eyetest; it does not match many of ours. And no one cares about your gish gallop attempt to force people to justify the use of data over your eye test.

If you want to make a case why your eye test has super special merit, feel free. Otherwise, you are indistinguishable from any lush at a bar shouting at the screen about which guy looks more impressive.

Translation “I’m not gunna go eye test vs eye test, instead I’ll throw these stats out at you that I don’t understand, and when you ask me to explain them, I’ll say I don’t have to”

And hate to break it to you, but my eye test matches the majority of basketball fans on planet earth. MJ > Lebron. Don’t believe it? The onus is on you to explain yourself with your stats. Don’t be scared.

As someone who takes particular pride in my eye test I feel that you are someone who can hardly identify all the major pnr coverages teams use nowadays, let alone be someone I believe reliably remembers how wide open teams used to leave the paint for MJs parking lot isos by spamming illegal defense rule exploits. The people who try to tell people their eye test is so good it makes other people's usage of stats worthless, are usually without exception people with some of the weakest ability to breakdown film that I've seen.

[TheGOATRises007]

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.

I don't think the converse has ever happened either(LeBron vs MJ) until this thread

[AEnigma]

Where? And you need to chill out with the personal insults chief.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh?si=WdOW0p7KTJqzzTAgDddO-Q

You need to chill out with taking a thread explicitly about impact and asking why no one is paying attention to “the average fan’s eye test”.

Yeah not talking about career… I would even agree Lebron had a better career than Michael. He’s just not the better player. And again, impact isn’t entirely quantifiable… it’s part of my point that stats aren’t everything and not entirely accurate.

What does it mean to be “better”. Who “looks” the best? What does that mean?

I said the goal of basketball was not to look the coolest, and you laughed it off. So again, what exactly is your eye test assessing. What exactly makes it clear to you that Jordan is “the better player.”

No one said stats are everything; that is just what people like you reflexively pretend was said when you dislike how much Lebron arguments are relying on data. The argument has never been who is a visually more arresting player. The argument is who is the better contributor to a team.

[spree8]

No one cares about your subjective eyetest; it does not match many of ours. And no one cares about your gish gallop attempt to force people to justify the use of data over your eye test.

If you want to make a case why your eye test has super special merit, feel free. Otherwise, you are indistinguishable from any lush at a bar shouting at the screen about which guy looks more impressive.

Translation “I’m not gunna go eye test vs eye test, instead I’ll throw these stats out at you that I don’t understand, and when you ask me to explain them, I’ll say I don’t have to”

And hate to break it to you, but my eye test matches the majority of basketball fans on planet earth. MJ > Lebron. Don’t believe it? The onus is on you to explain yourself with your stats. Don’t be scared.

As someone who takes particular pride in my eye test I feel that you are someone who can hardly identify all the major pnr coverages teams use nowadays, let alone be someone I believe reliably remembers how wide open teams used to leave the paint for MJs parking lot isos by spamming illegal defense rule exploits. The people who try to tell people their eye test is so good it makes other people's usage of stats worthless, are usually without exception people with some of the weakest ability to breakdown film that I've seen.

lol so since I don’t support the guy in your avatar, I’m suddenly someone who supposedly has a weak ability to breakdown film? Good to know. And who the hell are you exactly?

[spree8]

Nope. Another half-assed strawman from someone incapable of interacting with the sport in any meaningful way.

There are good eye tests which can potentially be more insightful than raw data. I would trust Popovich breaking down the film. I would trust Lebron or Draymond or Chris Paul. I would even trust some people here.

But all of them also know the data. They supplement their eye tests because they are not inane enough to believe that their eyes capture everything. And most importantly, you are not them. I assume your eyetest is garbage because you have done nothing to suggest otherwise, and in fact have repeatedly equated your own eyetest with the garbage eyetests of the average casual fan. You have no credibility, and your approach has been akin to me sitting a five year old down and asking them which player looks like the best.


I never said that. You were the one arguing against data entirely. Eye tests can be good. Relying wholly on them is almost always foolish. And should go without saying, but apparently does not, that all their eye tests are magnitudes better informed than the average fan’s.


What?

Why can you not just explain why your eyetest performs better at measuring how a player is advancing their team’s chance at winning. You have the extreme stance here, so you need to justify it.

Which, by the way, is what people who go against Jordan recognise. The common view is one way, so more effort is involved to explain why it is wrong. Problem is that you see that effort and laugh and pretend Norm from Cheers has more insight than anything quantified by those apparently unnecessary analytics departments, which often hire the people who provide accessible analytics to the public.


Nope, that seems to be your issue. No understanding so you throw it out rather than making the effort, and then go troll those who do.

Prove your eyetest is more valuable than all data. Do it. You think analytics are a waste of time and investment? Make a case, rather than continuing to deliberately waste everyone’s time.

Deflection at its finest lol. I’m not here to prove “my” eye test is better than “the data”….I’m asking to see and hear an explanation as to why the general consensus (based on almost everyone’s eye test with the exception of a small handful here) is being disregarded when compared to this definitive data that says Lebron is better. Yet you can’t produce the numbers or explanations of them.

Dude, you’re scared and frustrated, I get it, I’ll leave it at that lol.

No, scared and frustrated is when someone hears that Lebron has a stronger data case than Jordan and proceeds to aggressively derail a thread about that data with “but consensus eye test?????”

I know you are not here to prove your eye test is better, because you would need to have a coherent standard for proof. You do not have one. What you have is a gut feeling that your eyes tell you all you need to know, so why bother?

Just do not get mad when no one humours your bad faith attempts to waste their time with explanations that mean nothing to you.

Again, interpreting this as “I don’t know how to explain the data, so I’ll deflect some more”

[eminence]

Instead of looking at "rapm at x-age" we looked at "rapm with x minuties/seasons played". Does that change how he ranks?Well there is WOWY(okay technially its indirect evidence) which paints Russell as a god among ants, but I guess you're using a stricter definition of metric then

Ahh, interesting thought, from that perspective (ignoring college minutes, which I'm not sure is completely legit) we'd be looking (roughly) at '97/'98 MJ vs '09/'10 Kobe or '14/'15 LeBron.

I imagine LeBron would have the edge in a minutes based aging model.

To put it bluntly, WOWY is a pretty poor metric compared to play-by-play data of today.

Okay so WOWY is a misnomer i think. I've been rather laxly using it to describe extrapolations from seasons before and after a player departs(which i value significantly as you get the largest per-season samples possible(82 games)). What i'm actually referring to is the Celtics having a virtually identical roster, seeing their second best player improve, and winning 35 games(there were some decreases to counter this but as I think 70's covered well in the russ teammate thread, there's really not much reason to expect a massive downgrade in cast from 1969 where they were bad anyway). Remembering the goal is championships, not raw rs win totals(depressed int he 60's), Russell, as a player coach on his last-legs(also era-longetivity adjustment boosts russell here) not only wins, but wins beating two teams that, at least per srs, were two of the best of the era. For what it's worth, there's also what happened in game 7 of that win where russell being on 5 fouls(and therefore not being able to defend nearly as effectively) almost sparked a big lakers comeback despite Wilt being off.

All in all, from what we have, 1969 Russell looks like maybe the most valuable player ever?(at least from a corp standpoint). Like straight up, looking at with/without/raw whatever, uh, 2016 Lebron?(09 gets nuked by playoffs), Wilt in his near losses with the warriors? Maaaaaaybe Hakeem in 94?(assume the cast didn't improve from 1992 and take the 62-win pace in the playoffs at face value). And that's Russell when he's a player coach about to retire. That seems kinda godly to me tbh.

I haven't seen a version that paints Russell as a god among ants that (I believe Oscar topped Bens first calculation of it). But you'll see massive swings in who is atop the leaderboard based off quite small parameter changes, not near as robust as play by play.

I think you're referencing the average over his prime? Oscar side(all the 60's greats get juiced from a corp standpoint), if we make a modern comparison, wowyr puts Russell's cast at 40-wins throughout, wowy puts it at 35-wins throughout. Winning 11 rings with, on average a 40-win cast or a 35-win cast is just video-game nonsense. I put little stock in that due to samples, but fwiw that actually paints a more impressive picture than the 1969/1970 stuff.

It's certainly not a bad thing that Russell has a great WOWY score, but if anyone is using MJs WOWY to claim he has no GOAT case they've never calculated the stat

Yeah, again, misnomer. What we're actually using is those large 82 or 60 game samples concentrated in a season. And in this case, ironically I might add, we've been juicing Jordan's stuff by ignoring his cast getting better. Basically, take Bulls performance over 82 games in 1984, ignore oakley(if we took the raw stuff at face value, that's a 2 point swing), and then take 88 MJ's srs, and pretend the improvement from 27 wins to 50 wins was entirely Micheal Jordan. Wins that's 23, by SRS that's +8. I just spiked MJ's numbers artifically and he still falls well short of the best stuff from various other players including basically being matched or exceeded by all the signals we have for kareem and Lebron's prime. When we replaced the 1993 regular season with the 1992 regular season(best bulls rs) and jucied the bulls to a full-strength rating of +10, it only gets first-three peat Mj to +5 which is way short(and uh not great for a ceiling raiser case?). Like, that is the most "complete" data we have for Jordan's prime and it doesn't really look on the level.

compared to play-by-play data of today

Well we have some play by play data for MJ's best years and er...his very best signal(88) is below an 8-year average from the only member of the big four we have data for. And honestly if we apply a little more scrutiny to your age case...basically what it amounts to is... when they were the same age, Lebron, on way more milage got injured. Them being comparable per-possession when Lebron has much longer with no real-break isn't really a win here. And uh...

Ahh, interesting thought, from that perspective (ignoring college minutes, which I'm not sure is completely legit) we'd be looking (roughly) at '97/'98 MJ vs '09/'10 Kobe or '14/'15 LeBron.

15 Lebron scores higher than every single MJ year we have including 88.

When I said "no goat level impact" I was pretty explicit with the bar of "generally speaking, you don't look the best in any impact stuff", and I think that's definitely been met here,

See, you've made a 'MJ is not a GOAT candidate' case.

A 'not a GOAT candidate' case does not mean the GOAT case doesn't exist

Anywho, on the Russell stuff, no, as best I can tell (you're being a bit slippery, what actual numbers/formula are you using?), Russell does not grade out as any sort of God above the ants by single season SRS type change involved with joining/leaving a team (Bird/Robinson/LeBron, potentially others all would be worthy challengers depending on criteria).

[AEnigma]

Deflection at its finest lol. I’m not here to prove “my” eye test is better than “the data”….I’m asking to see and hear an explanation as to why the general consensus (based on almost everyone’s eye test with the exception of a small handful here) is being disregarded when compared to this definitive data that says Lebron is better. Yet you can’t produce the numbers or explanations of them.

Dude, you’re scared and frustrated, I get it, I’ll leave it at that lol.

No, scared and frustrated is when someone hears that Lebron has a stronger data case than Jordan and proceeds to aggressively derail a thread about that data with “but consensus eye test?????”

I know you are not here to prove your eye test is better, because you would need to have a coherent standard for proof. You do not have one. What you have is a gut feeling that your eyes tell you all you need to know, so why bother?

Just do not get mad when no one humours your bad faith attempts to waste their time with explanations that mean nothing to you.

Again, interpreting this as “I don’t know how to explain the data, so I’ll deflect some more”

Arf arf.

Spoiler:

Now call me when you care to explain why anyone should care about your eye test.

[spree8]

No, scared and frustrated is when someone hears that Lebron has a stronger data case than Jordan and proceeds to aggressively derail a thread about that data with “but consensus eye test?????”

I know you are not here to prove your eye test is better, because you would need to have a coherent standard for proof. You do not have one. What you have is a gut feeling that your eyes tell you all you need to know, so why bother?

Just do not get mad when no one humours your bad faith attempts to waste their time with explanations that mean nothing to you.

Again, interpreting this as “I don’t know how to explain the data, so I’ll deflect some more”

Arf arf.

Spoiler:

Now call me when you care to explain why anyone should care about your eye test.

Genius, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I asked you to explain your data as you understand it. You couldn’t. Case closed. It’s not “my” eye test… again, the general consensus amongst basketball fans is that Michael is the best player of all time. You’re telling me that Lebron is better because the data backs it up… so I’m asking you to explain this data. Pretty simple. Stop deflecting and start explaining.

Not sure wth this other dude is coming in here assuming I don’t know how to identify pick and roll coverage and what that’s got to do with you Lebron goaters explaining this end all be all data. But you can’t and neither can he… it’s pretty sad to say you have evidence you can’t explain so you deflect deflect deflect.

[Heej]

Translation “I’m not gunna go eye test vs eye test, instead I’ll throw these stats out at you that I don’t understand, and when you ask me to explain them, I’ll say I don’t have to”

And hate to break it to you, but my eye test matches the majority of basketball fans on planet earth. MJ > Lebron. Don’t believe it? The onus is on you to explain yourself with your stats. Don’t be scared.

As someone who takes particular pride in my eye test I feel that you are someone who can hardly identify all the major pnr coverages teams use nowadays, let alone be someone I believe reliably remembers how wide open teams used to leave the paint for MJs parking lot isos by spamming illegal defense rule exploits. The people who try to tell people their eye test is so good it makes other people's usage of stats worthless, are usually without exception people with some of the weakest ability to breakdown film that I've seen.

lol so since I don’t support the guy in your avatar, I’m suddenly someone who supposedly has a weak ability to breakdown film? Good to know. And who the hell are you exactly?

No, you just speak someone who's incredibly overconfident in likely mediocre ability. If you don't even possess a rudimentary knowledge of basic defensive schemes how can anyone trust you to actually have valuable insights on a players' responsibility within a basic defensive breakdown or whether someone made the right rotation; or even if they made the right read within an offense. All you're doing is sounding defensive now.

If you have no idea what I'm even talking about then I suggest you elevate your ability to breakdown film and then return to this thread instead of coming in here making bombastic and indefensible statements. You asked Enigma to go "eye test for eye test" with you, whatever that means, and yet here you are crying and asking who the hell I am when I'm positing an extremely basic schematic question that most people who pride these in watching film can answer rather easily.

[Heej]

Again, interpreting this as “I don’t know how to explain the data, so I’ll deflect some more”

Arf arf.

Spoiler:

Now call me when you care to explain why anyone should care about your eye test.

Genius, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I asked you to explain your data as you understand it. You couldn’t. Case closed. It’s not “my” eye test… again, the general consensus amongst basketball fans is that Michael is the best player of all time. You’re telling me that Lebron is better because the data backs it up… so I’m asking you to explain this data. Pretty simple. Stop deflecting and start explaining.

Not sure wth this other dude is coming in here assuming I don’t know how to identify pick and roll coverage and what that’s got to do with you Lebron goaters explaining this end all be all data. But you can’t and neither can he… it’s pretty sad to say you have evidence you can’t explain so you deflect deflect deflect.

The fact that you've completely forgotten the part where I mentioned illegal defense rules and the role it played in the 90s tells me all I need to know about you . Gotta love when casuals come in talking a big game and expose their fraudulence

[spree8]

As someone who takes particular pride in my eye test I feel that you are someone who can hardly identify all the major pnr coverages teams use nowadays, let alone be someone I believe reliably remembers how wide open teams used to leave the paint for MJs parking lot isos by spamming illegal defense rule exploits. The people who try to tell people their eye test is so good it makes other people's usage of stats worthless, are usually without exception people with some of the weakest ability to breakdown film that I've seen.

lol so since I don’t support the guy in your avatar, I’m suddenly someone who supposedly has a weak ability to breakdown film? Good to know. And who the hell are you exactly?

No, you just speak someone who's incredibly overconfident in likely mediocre ability. If you don't even possess a rudimentary knowledge of basic defensive schemes how can anyone trust you to actually have valuable insights on a players' responsibility within a basic defensive breakdown or whether someone made the right rotation; or even if they made the right read within an offense. All you're doing is sounding defensive now.

If you have no idea what I'm even talking about then I suggest you elevate your ability to breakdown film and then return to this thread instead of coming in here making bombastic and indefensible statements. You asked Enigma to go "eye test for eye test" with you, whatever that means, and yet here you are crying and asking who the hell I am when I'm positing an extremely basic schematic question that most people who pride these in watching film can answer rather easily.

1. You asked me no question. You made a statement out of the blue and a ridiculous assumption.

2. You’re assuming I have mediocre ability based on what exactly? Because I didn’t engage your awkward interjection?

3. When did I say I have no idea what you’re talking in a basketball context? However, I have no idea how this is even relevant to this discussion about producing and explaining data proving Lebron is better than MJ.

4. Your posts are incredibly pretentious, and you’re trying to conduct yourself like some savant, but you’re not.

[AEnigma]

Again, interpreting this as “I don’t know how to explain the data, so I’ll deflect some more”

Arf arf.

Spoiler:

Now call me when you care to explain why anyone should care about your eye test.

Genius, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I asked you to explain your data as you understand it. You couldn’t. Case closed.

I asked you to explain why your eye test is better than data. You couldn’t. Case closed.

See how that works?

It’s not “my” eye test… again, the general consensus amongst basketball fans is that Michael is the best player of all time.

Yes. Why does that matter. What type of authority is that.

I asked you to explain what your eye test was assessing. You couldn’t. Case closed.

You’re telling me that Lebron is better because the data backs it up… so I’m asking you to explain this data. Pretty simple. Stop deflecting and start explaining.

What thread are you in?

If you cared, you would try to read through and understand the argument. You do not care, so you did not. I am not going to waste extra time on someone who is only here to waste mine.

But you can’t and neither can he… it’s pretty sad to say you have evidence you can’t explain so you deflect deflect deflect.

Yeah, I will deflect trolls all day. You are not interested in honest conversation. Sorry to disappoint, better luck next time.

[spree8]

Arf arf.

Spoiler:

Now call me when you care to explain why anyone should care about your eye test.

Genius, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I asked you to explain your data as you understand it. You couldn’t. Case closed. It’s not “my” eye test… again, the general consensus amongst basketball fans is that Michael is the best player of all time. You’re telling me that Lebron is better because the data backs it up… so I’m asking you to explain this data. Pretty simple. Stop deflecting and start explaining.

Not sure wth this other dude is coming in here assuming I don’t know how to identify pick and roll coverage and what that’s got to do with you Lebron goaters explaining this end all be all data. But you can’t and neither can he… it’s pretty sad to say you have evidence you can’t explain so you deflect deflect deflect.

The fact that you've completely forgotten the part where I mentioned illegal defense rules and the role it played in the 90s tells me all I need to know about you . Gotta love when casuals come in talking a big game and expose their fraudulence

Fraudulence? Please read my last post… how on earth do you believe that me not wasting time repeating your bs point about illegal defense has anything to do with me not knowing wtf it was? I mean, is this guy serious? You’re not very good at this. You’re incessantly looking for gotcha moments that just aren’t there

[OhayoKD]

See, you've made a 'MJ is not a GOAT candidate' case.

A 'not a GOAT candidate' case does not mean the GOAT case doesn't exist

lol, fair enough

Though to be clear it's a 'MJ has no GOAT-LVL impact metrics case'. I was very careful about the semantics

Anywho, on the Russell stuff, no, as best I can tell (you're being a bit slippery, what actual numbers/formula are you using?),

35-wins without(1970, 3-5 in 1969), strong championship run(beating two of the best non-celtic teams of the era even per SRS) with. Or if you pull the 2.2 game WOWY/WOWYR bs, 35-40 win without, 11 rings with.

If we were to be more rigorous, we can basically use relative srs(vs top contenders) as a proxy for corp and you get retiree russell having a 35(or 3-5 if you use 1969) win team right on par with any other team in the regular season followed by playoff-elevation taking them to "best team in the league" which, again, with a 35-win team? 2016 Lebron, and the "wilt took the greatest team ever to 7 with no help!" stuff. Hakeem if you're desperate.

For the WOWYR(hopefully jaivl has done enough to make sure no one ever takes that seriously again), you have the Celtics utterly nuking the comp(4 year stretch where they doubled near everyone in srs) in the rs and then, you know, won 11 rings

Is it exact? No. But bro's prime "corp" obliterates if we're not being pendants.

Russell does not grade out as any sort of God above the ants by single season SRS type change involved with joining/leaving a team (Bird/Robinson/LeBron, potentially others all would be worthy challengers depending on criteria).

11 Rings says "who cares?"(Also you are comparing all these guys to retiree player-coach russell so...)

[spree8]

Arf arf.

Spoiler:

Now call me when you care to explain why anyone should care about your eye test.

Genius, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I asked you to explain your data as you understand it. You couldn’t. Case closed.

I asked you to explain why your eye test is better than data. You couldn’t. Case closed.

See how that works?

It’s not “my” eye test… again, the general consensus amongst basketball fans is that Michael is the best player of all time.

Yes. Why does that matter. What type of authority is that.

I asked you to explain what your eye test was assessing. You couldn’t. Case closed.

You’re telling me that Lebron is better because the data backs it up… so I’m asking you to explain this data. Pretty simple. Stop deflecting and start explaining.

What thread are you in?

If you cared, you would try to read through and understand the argument. You do not care, so you did not. I am not going to waste extra time on someone who is only here to waste mine.

But you can’t and neither can he… it’s pretty sad to say you have evidence you can’t explain so you deflect deflect deflect.

Yeah, I will deflect trolls all day. You are not interested in honest conversation. Sorry to disappoint, better luck next time.

I’ll be sure to quote you the next time you decide to drop anything data related or hide behind it so I can catch you in the act and ask you to defend yourself. Just so you know, you can’t hide forever

[AEnigma]

Genius, how many times do I have to explain this to you? I asked you to explain your data as you understand it. You couldn’t. Case closed.

I asked you to explain why your eye test is better than data. You couldn’t. Case closed.

See how that works?

It’s not “my” eye test… again, the general consensus amongst basketball fans is that Michael is the best player of all time.

Yes. Why does that matter. What type of authority is that.

I asked you to explain what your eye test was assessing. You couldn’t. Case closed.

You’re telling me that Lebron is better because the data backs it up… so I’m asking you to explain this data. Pretty simple. Stop deflecting and start explaining.

What thread are you in?

If you cared, you would try to read through and understand the argument. You do not care, so you did not. I am not going to waste extra time on someone who is only here to waste mine.

But you can’t and neither can he… it’s pretty sad to say you have evidence you can’t explain so you deflect deflect deflect.

Yeah, I will deflect trolls all day. You are not interested in honest conversation. Sorry to disappoint, better luck next time.

I’ll be sure to quote you the next time you decide to drop anything data related or hide behind it so I can catch you in the act and ask you to defend yourself. Just so you know, you can’t hide forever

Yeah man, maybe I will get a head injury and forget who you are. Hope you improve your acting in the meantime.