how much have you changed your basketball "beliefs" over the years?

[70sFan]

Thanks, it looks interesting. I don't think it could simply replace traditional rTS%, cause it simply captures different things. I mean, this stat shows how efficient you are within your specific role, but it doesn't show how efficient your role is.

The best examples are Giannis and Melo - Melo looks quite good by this stat, but I don't think being +2.3 in Melo role is less impactful than +0.9 at Giannis.

That said, it does look interesting. These two stats, along with volume numbers and minutes played could capture the scoring profile better than without it.

Of course, one is the primary volume scorer and the other merely a 5th option. Here is the list for the top 30 scorers that season:

Code: Select all

Player            rTS%   aTS%   PPG
Stephen Curry            8,3   8,0   32,0
Bradley Beal         2,1   4,1   31,3
Damian Lillard            5,1   2,7   28,8
Joel Embiid           6,4   5,3   28,5
Giannis Antetokounmpo   6,1   0,9   28,1
Luka Dončić            1,5   1,7   27,7
Zach LaVine         6,2   4,5   27,4
Zion Williamson         7,6   -0,7   27,0
Kyrie Irving         4,2   6,7   26,9
Kevin Durant         9,4   10,7   26,9
Nikola Jokić         7,5   9,3   26,4
Jayson Tatum         0,5   1,9   26,4
Donovan Mitchell      -0,2   1,1   26,4
Devin Booker         1,5   3,6   25,6
Trae Young         1,7   1,1   25,3
De'Aaron Fox         -0,7   -0,6   25,2
LeBron James         3,0   1,4   25,0
Kawhi Leonard         5,1   6,9   24,8
Karl-Anthony Towns      4,0   2,4   24,8
Jaylen Brown         1,4   3,3   24,7
James Harden         4,6   2,0   24,6
Collin Sexton         0,1   0,1   24,3
Julius Randle         -0,5   1,7   24,1
Brandon Ingram         1,2   3,7   23,8
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander   5,1   2,5   23,7
Nikola Vučević         -1,3   4,0   23,4
Paul George         2,6   3,8   23,3
CJ McCollum         0,5   4,3   23,1
Jerami Grant         -1,6   -1,5   22,3
Russell Westbrook      -6,3   -4,0   22,2



Thank you, will play with these numbers later!

[WestGOAT]

I started to question efficiency based on (r)TS% recently. I started to think that efficiency should be looked at depending on the role and shot selection some one has. I mean, when the league average is 67.5% from the RA and 41.5% from midrange, who is more efficient, someone shooting 60% solely in the RA or someone shooting 50% solely from midrange?

That's quite interesting approach, using relative efficiency to roles and shot selection. I'm not sure it's possible to create one, simple metric to capture that, but I may think about it while tracking old games.

Do you have any suggestions?

Someone else, here, might:

https://aminoapps.com/c/nba/page/blog/createastatistic-position-relative-true-shooting-percentage-prts/MQZ6_vJJfku20k3zQppqRYbQ57jeMGYK630

I (vaguely) recall the following posters adjusting TS% to take distance / type of shots in account.

[sp6r=underrated]

basically what have you changed with time, maybe even from a year ago to now, in what you believe/think about basketball topics?

everythingh from player evaluation, to basketball general "theory" among any other related topic

who are you higher or lower on, how differently do you evaluate players, what do you think about the directión of the sport compared to years ago, etc

enormously since I joined this website.
1. I was wrong about the importance of the shooting. I underestimated it. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
2. I was really wrong about how learnable shooting is. I severely underestimated how much it could be taught. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
3. I used to think the corner was a cool but necessary gimmick shot. But due to points 1-2, I think it needs to be eliminated.
4. I didn't appreciate how much the 2004 rule changes would permanently alter basketball into a guards/wings game. I wish I wasn't wrong about this. Game is a little too unbalanced.
5. Rebounding is less important than I thought and much more of a team strategy than individual skill. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
6. I thought the % of the NBA that was foreign would be much higher in 2022 than it actually is. I thought back then NBA would have a significant African contingent (20% of the league). Really sad I was wrong about this. Majority of planet is non-American basketball quality would be much higher with greater foreign adoption.

NBA structure
1. I didn't recognize how damaging the rookie scale was. IT is the biggest source of tanking & NBA teams not signing mid level vets. Every draft spot plays better than their set salary. Of course teams are going to try to just live off rookies/token superstar.
2. I was pro-player when I joined this forum. Back then I was a terminal student. Now, I'm a middle aged professional. I'm much more pro-player than I used to be.
3. I thought players fans were weirdos. Now I think it makes sense to follow players not teams.
4. NBA teams don't move enough.

[WestGOAT]

basically what have you changed with time, maybe even from a year ago to now, in what you believe/think about basketball topics?

everythingh from player evaluation, to basketball general "theory" among any other related topic

who are you higher or lower on, how differently do you evaluate players, what do you think about the directión of the sport compared to years ago, etc

enormously since I joined this website.
1. I was wrong about the importance of the shooting. I underestimated it. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
2. I was really wrong about how learnable shooting is. I severely underestimated how much it could be taught. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
3. I used to think the corner was a cool but necessary gimmick shot. But due to points 1-2, I think it needs to be eliminated.
4. I didn't appreciate how much the 2004 rule changes would permanently alter basketball into a guards/wings game. I wish I wasn't wrong about this. Game is a little too unbalanced.
5. Rebounding is less important than I thought and much more of a team strategy than individual skill. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
6. I thought the % of the NBA that was foreign would be much higher in 2022 than it actually is. I thought back then NBA would have a significant African contingent (20% of the league). Really sad I was wrong about this. Majority of planet is non-American basketball quality would be much higher with greater foreign adoption.

NBA structure
1. I didn't recognize how damaging the rookie scale was. IT is the biggest source of tanking & NBA teams not signing mid level vets. Every draft spot plays better than their set salary. Of course teams are going to try to just live off rookies/token superstar.
2. I was pro-player when I joined this forum. Back then I was a terminal student. Now, I'm a middle aged professional. I'm much more pro-player than I used to be.
3. I thought players fans were weirdos. Now I think it makes sense to follow players not teams.
4. NBA teams don't move enough.

Always interesting to see a veteran posters like you make a cameo once and a while! I was going through some old posts about RAPM and you raised some very informative / constructive posts.

What is your current view on it and has it changed over the years?

[G35]

I haven't changed my view much as far as how I rank players in terms of all time. But I have become disillusioned with the whole exercise given the way everyone else has changed.

There used to be much more uniform standards by which we measure players. We used to use things like championships, accolades, box scores, reputation, impact, and intangibles. But over the past 10 years or so pretty much all if those categories have been minimized to such a degree that many people ignore those things altogether. Now it seems all standard, objective measures have been removed and rankings are based on what each person personally values and how they see the game. On its face that seems appropriate until you see this play out in practice. In practice it allows fans to use arguments that are ultimately inconsistent, biased, and illogical while justifying them based on what they personally value or how they see the game. Because how can you argue with someone personal values or philosophy?

Example: Kevin Garnett. Going by traditional standards it would be difficult to put him in the top 20. But with these new, entirely subjective standards of evaluation KG can jump all the way into the top 10 no problem. When asked how KG could be ranked ahead more dominant and successful players like Jerry West, Dr. J, Hakeem, Oscar, Kobe, Bird, ect they will fall back on "hey, I just personally value KG's defense and rebounding bro. Have you seen his impact metrics??" And since it all comes down to subjective value and personal taste there is not much you can argue at that point.

The opposite effect has happened to guys luke Kobe Bryant. By traditional standards Kobe is an unquestionable top 10 player. Going by todays subjective standards Kobe has been all but removed from the top 10 due almost entirely to personal bias and narrative. We've gotten to a point where guys like Dirk Nowitzki are being ranked ahead.

So its all getting very silly at this point. We've entered an era where the NBA community is dominated by ESPN narratives backed up by online 'experts' who have completely distorted the traditional standards of evaluation to such a degree that its become almost meaningless.
And its all being done according to personal agendas and fandom. Its now become an excercise in propping up and knocking down players with arguments based on logical fallacies and personal bias with actual accomplishments and results being increasingly marginalized.

+1

There is a very influential echo chamber in the PC board....

[sp6r=underrated]

basically what have you changed with time, maybe even from a year ago to now, in what you believe/think about basketball topics?

everythingh from player evaluation, to basketball general "theory" among any other related topic

who are you higher or lower on, how differently do you evaluate players, what do you think about the directión of the sport compared to years ago, etc

enormously since I joined this website.
1. I was wrong about the importance of the shooting. I underestimated it. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
2. I was really wrong about how learnable shooting is. I severely underestimated how much it could be taught. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
3. I used to think the corner was a cool but necessary gimmick shot. But due to points 1-2, I think it needs to be eliminated.
4. I didn't appreciate how much the 2004 rule changes would permanently alter basketball into a guards/wings game. I wish I wasn't wrong about this. Game is a little too unbalanced.
5. Rebounding is less important than I thought and much more of a team strategy than individual skill. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
6. I thought the % of the NBA that was foreign would be much higher in 2022 than it actually is. I thought back then NBA would have a significant African contingent (20% of the league). Really sad I was wrong about this. Majority of planet is non-American basketball quality would be much higher with greater foreign adoption.

NBA structure
1. I didn't recognize how damaging the rookie scale was. IT is the biggest source of tanking & NBA teams not signing mid level vets. Every draft spot plays better than their set salary. Of course teams are going to try to just live off rookies/token superstar.
2. I was pro-player when I joined this forum. Back then I was a terminal student. Now, I'm a middle aged professional. I'm much more pro-player than I used to be.
3. I thought players fans were weirdos. Now I think it makes sense to follow players not teams.
4. NBA teams don't move enough.

Always interesting to see a veteran posters like you make a cameo once and a while! I was going through some old posts about RAPM and you raised some very informative / constructive posts.

What is your current view on it and has it changed over the years?

I'm not upto date on the current versions of NBA stats. I will say over a very long sample size plus/minus is extremely valuable and has to be used in calculations. I don't care at all about 1 game plus/minus.

Not sure if that answers your question. Thanks for the kinds words.

[WestGOAT]

enormously since I joined this website.
1. I was wrong about the importance of the shooting. I underestimated it. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
2. I was really wrong about how learnable shooting is. I severely underestimated how much it could be taught. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
3. I used to think the corner was a cool but necessary gimmick shot. But due to points 1-2, I think it needs to be eliminated.
4. I didn't appreciate how much the 2004 rule changes would permanently alter basketball into a guards/wings game. I wish I wasn't wrong about this. Game is a little too unbalanced.
5. Rebounding is less important than I thought and much more of a team strategy than individual skill. I'm glad I was wrong about this.
6. I thought the % of the NBA that was foreign would be much higher in 2022 than it actually is. I thought back then NBA would have a significant African contingent (20% of the league). Really sad I was wrong about this. Majority of planet is non-American basketball quality would be much higher with greater foreign adoption.

NBA structure
1. I didn't recognize how damaging the rookie scale was. IT is the biggest source of tanking & NBA teams not signing mid level vets. Every draft spot plays better than their set salary. Of course teams are going to try to just live off rookies/token superstar.
2. I was pro-player when I joined this forum. Back then I was a terminal student. Now, I'm a middle aged professional. I'm much more pro-player than I used to be.
3. I thought players fans were weirdos. Now I think it makes sense to follow players not teams.
4. NBA teams don't move enough.

Always interesting to see a veteran posters like you make a cameo once and a while! I was going through some old posts about RAPM and you raised some very informative / constructive posts.

What is your current view on it and has it changed over the years?

I'm not upto date on the current versions of NBA stats. I will say over a very long sample size plus/minus is extremely valuable and has to be used in calculations. I don't care at all about 1 game plus/minus.

Not sure if that answers your question. Thanks for the kinds words.

Oh yea definitely helped. I was particularly intrigued by this topic on NPI and PI-RAPM ( in the context of the eternal discussion of Duncan vs Garnett: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1316036

[Frosty]

The entire reason you guys think championships don't matter is because of ESPN/Fox Sports. The entire reason Lebron is on the GOAT discussion is because of ESPN/Fox Sports narratives. And on and on.

One more thing - this is complete bullsh*t. Before MJ era, most people didn't care about rings in GOAT evalutation.

I wouldn’t agree with that. The biggest knock against Jordan was his lack of rings during the 80’s. He was viewed as a great scorer but teams didn’t win with great scorers.

Then he turned that on its head.

[70sFan]

The entire reason you guys think championships don't matter is because of ESPN/Fox Sports. The entire reason Lebron is on the GOAT discussion is because of ESPN/Fox Sports narratives. And on and on.

One more thing - this is complete bullsh*t. Before MJ era, most people didn't care about rings in GOAT evalutation.

I wouldn’t agree with that. The biggest knock against Jordan was his lack of rings during the 80’s. He was viewed as a great scorer but teams didn’t win with great scorers.

Then he turned that on its head.

Oscar Robertson was viewed as the GOAT candidate with only one ring.

[Frosty]

One more thing - this is complete bullsh*t. Before MJ era, most people didn't care about rings in GOAT evalutation.

I wouldn’t agree with that. The biggest knock against Jordan was his lack of rings during the 80’s. He was viewed as a great scorer but teams didn’t win with great scorers.

Then he turned that on its head.

Oscar Robertson was viewed as the GOAT candidate with only one ring.

I missed that era. I started watching during the early 80’s and it was Wilt, Kareem, Bill and then Magic/Bird.

Jordan was constantly dismissed because no one thought he could be a winner.

Not saying the ring count was the determining factor but without one you weren’t in the conversation

[Stalwart]

One more thing - this is complete bullsh*t. Before MJ era, most people didn't care about rings in GOAT evalutation.

I wouldn’t agree with that. The biggest knock against Jordan was his lack of rings during the 80’s. He was viewed as a great scorer but teams didn’t win with great scorers.

Then he turned that on its head.

Oscar Robertson was viewed as the GOAT candidate with only one ring.

Yes, but that was when the league was 25-30 yrs old. And that was before Kareem won 6 of them, Magic won 5, Bird 3, and then of course MJ with 6.

Ever since the 80s, ie all of modern basketball, championships have carried as much weight as anything when talking about the all time greats. It was only when the NBA and sports media wanted to elevate Lebron past first Kobe and then MJ that things like stats and analytics(theories) arguments began to take precedent. That's when you began to see narratives about how Lebron is the GOAT because he avg'd an extra rebound and assist per game and how titles aren't that important.

[70sFan]

Yes, but that was when the league was 25-30 yrs old. And that was before Kareem won 6 of them, Magic won 5, Bird 3, and then of course MJ with 6.

No, Oscar was in GOAT debates well into the 1980s. Actually, the idea that you need to have the most rings was created by Jordan fandom in the 1990s... except that they didn't realize that Jordan doesn't have the most rings.

Ever since the 80s, ie all of modern basketball,

There is nothing modern about 1980s basketball compared to 2010s basketball. 1960s are closer to the 1980s both in terms of style and actual time than 1980s are to 2010s.

championships have carried as much weight as anything when talking about the all time greats. It was only when the NBA and sports media wanted to elevate Lebron past first Kobe and then MJ that things like stats and analytics(theories) arguments began to take precedent. That's when you began to see narratives about how Lebron is the GOAT because he avg'd an extra rebound and assist per game and how titles aren't that important.

Nobody ever picked LeBron over Jordan because of extra rebound or assist. That's your problem, you don't understand what you're talking about.

[Stalwart]

No, Oscar was in GOAT debates well into the 1980s. Actually, the idea that you need to have the most rings was created by Jordan fandom in the 1990s... except that they didn't realize that Jordan doesn't have the most rings.

It's never been about the most rings as Jordan was being called the GOAT after winning 3 of them. Bird was in a GOAT candidate after winning 3. The whole "rangz" thing is a red herring as its never been about just rings. But, rings did carry a lot of weight until a certain somebody couldn't win any.

There is nothing modern about 1980s basketball compared to 2010s basketball. 1960s are closer to the 1980s both in terms of style and actual time than 1980s are to 2010s.

1979-80, Magic & Larry, has long been the traditional demarcation point for the modern NBA. But I guess thats not true now either. Grass is blue and skies are green these days.

Nobody ever picked LeBron over Jordan because of extra rebound or assist. That's your problem, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Lebron's whole case was based on him being the better all around player whereas Jordan was just a scorer. This was evidenced by Lebron averaging and extra 1-2 assists and rebounds per game. What else could it be? He didn't average more of anything else. He didnt have better analytics. He had less titles and less accolades. So what else were Lebron fans and media pointing to pre-2016 if not his better all around box score numbers ie rebounds and assists?

[Frosty]

Yes, but that was when the league was 25-30 yrs old. And that was before Kareem won 6 of them, Magic won 5, Bird 3, and then of course MJ with 6.

No, Oscar was in GOAT debates well into the 1980s. Actually, the idea that you need to have the most rings was created by Jordan fandom in the 1990s... except that they didn't realize that Jordan doesn't have the most rings.

Ever since the 80s, ie all of modern basketball,

There is nothing modern about 1980s basketball compared to 2010s basketball. 1960s are closer to the 1980s both in terms of style and actual time than 1980s are to 2010s.

[

Many people, including myself consider the ‘modern NBA’ to be since the 3 point line was introduced. So we just differ on that.

Based on my experience from the 80’s when the web didn’t exist, TV coverage was limited as was print media. I can’t remember much talk of Oscar for goat but that may be more around the region you are in and the friends/media you had access to.

From my experience the ring thing started with Magic and Bird fanboys who first tried to hold Jordan back with the rings claim and then after the first one said well he only has one. Then it became a measuring stick. Personally I think that it doesn’t matter a lot although I think 2 in a row gets you some credit in my books as it shows you didn’t just luck out in a playoffs.

[falcolombardi]

Yes, but that was when the league was 25-30 yrs old. And that was before Kareem won 6 of them, Magic won 5, Bird 3, and then of course MJ with 6.

No, Oscar was in GOAT debates well into the 1980s. Actually, the idea that you need to have the most rings was created by Jordan fandom in the 1990s... except that they didn't realize that Jordan doesn't have the most rings.

Ever since the 80s, ie all of modern basketball,

There is nothing modern about 1980s basketball compared to 2010s basketball. 1960s are closer to the 1980s both in terms of style and actual time than 1980s are to 2010s.

[

Many people, including myself consider the ‘modern NBA’ to be since the 3 point line was introduced. So we just differ on that.

Based on my experience from the 80’s when the web didn’t exist, TV coverage was limited as was print media. I can’t remember much talk of Oscar for goat but that may be more around the region you are in and the friends/media you had access to.

From my experience the ring thing started with Magic and Bird fanboys who first tried to hold Jordan back with the rings claim and then after the first one said well he only has one. Then it became a measuring stick. Personally I think that it doesn’t matter a lot although I think 2 in a row gets you some credit in my books as it shows you didn’t just luck out in a playoffs.

why would it have to be in a row? duncan won 4 and bird 3, neither of them won back to back

would they get more credit if they won only 2 but consecutively?

[falcolombardi]

No, Oscar was in GOAT debates well into the 1980s. Actually, the idea that you need to have the most rings was created by Jordan fandom in the 1990s... except that they didn't realize that Jordan doesn't have the most rings.

It's never been about the most rings as Jordan was being called the GOAT after winning 3 of them. Bird was in a GOAT candidate after winning 3. The whole "rangz" thing is a red herring as its never been about just rings. But, rings did carry a lot of weight until a certain somebody couldn't win any.

There is nothing modern about 1980s basketball compared to 2010s basketball. 1960s are closer to the 1980s both in terms of style and actual time than 1980s are to 2010s.

1979-80, Magic & Larry, has long been the traditional demarcation point for the modern NBA. But I guess thats not true now either. Grass is blue and skies are green these days.

Nobody ever picked LeBron over Jordan because of extra rebound or assist. That's your problem, you don't understand what you're talking about.

Lebron's whole case was based on him being the better all around player whereas Jordan was just a scorer. This was evidenced by Lebron averaging and extra 1-2 assists and rebounds per game. What else could it be? He didn't average more of anything else. He didnt have better analytics. He had less titles and less accolades. So what else were Lebron fans and media pointing to pre-2016 if not his better all around box score numbers ie rebounds and assists?

i find a lot of of odd thinghs with your argument

you say that people stopped evaluating players based on rings cause lebron couldnt win, even though lebron has won 4 rings?

lebron won his first ring younger than jordan and won his 3rd ring at nearly the same age aa jordan won his 3rd

if Jordan was a goat candidate after 93, why not lebron after 2016? he had just as many accolades if that is what you are looking at


jordan doesnt have better advanced stats than lebron, mostly because jordan doesnt have complete advanced stats in the first place, we dont have full plus minus of jordan career so with that in mind is hard to make an advanced stats comparision in the first place

[Frosty]

Spoiler:

No, Oscar was in GOAT debates well into the 1980s. Actually, the idea that you need to have the most rings was created by Jordan fandom in the 1990s... except that they didn't realize that Jordan doesn't have the most rings.


There is nothing modern about 1980s basketball compared to 2010s basketball. 1960s are closer to the 1980s both in terms of style and actual time than 1980s are to 2010s.

[

Many people, including myself consider the ‘modern NBA’ to be since the 3 point line was introduced. So we just differ on that.

Based on my experience from the 80’s when the web didn’t exist, TV coverage was limited as was print media. I can’t remember much talk of Oscar for goat but that may be more around the region you are in and the friends/media you had access to.

From my experience the ring thing started with Magic and Bird fanboys who first tried to hold Jordan back with the rings claim and then after the first one said well he only has one. Then it became a measuring stick. Personally I think that it doesn’t matter a lot although I think 2 in a row gets you some credit in my books as it shows you didn’t just luck out in a playoffs.

why would it have to be in a row? duncan won 4 and bird 3, neither of them won back to back

would they get more credit if they won only 2 but consecutively?

I just said it gets some credit in my books for showing that you can get another title as most of these guys had similar casts for more than one year.

This isn't going to be popular but look at Duncan. His titles came in years that were extremely favorable. Just like I wasn't that happy when Jordan beat the Lakers and they weren't at full health, many of Duncans titles came in years where his prime opposition suffered injuries. I think you need to win in the years you have good matchups and bad matchups.

[falcolombardi]

Spoiler:

Many people, including myself consider the ‘modern NBA’ to be since the 3 point line was introduced. So we just differ on that.

Based on my experience from the 80’s when the web didn’t exist, TV coverage was limited as was print media. I can’t remember much talk of Oscar for goat but that may be more around the region you are in and the friends/media you had access to.

From my experience the ring thing started with Magic and Bird fanboys who first tried to hold Jordan back with the rings claim and then after the first one said well he only has one. Then it became a measuring stick. Personally I think that it doesn’t matter a lot although I think 2 in a row gets you some credit in my books as it shows you didn’t just luck out in a playoffs.

why would it have to be in a row? duncan won 4 and bird 3, neither of them won back to back

would they get more credit if they won only 2 but consecutively?

I just said it gets some credit in my books for showing that you can get another title as most of these guys had similar casts for more than one year.

This isn't going to be popular but look at Duncan. His titles came in years that were extremely favorable. Just like I wasn't that happy when Jordan beat the Lakers and they weren't at full health, many of Duncans titles came in years where his prime opposition suffered injuries. I think you need to win in the years you have good matchups and bad matchups.

there is no reason to think that winning in consecutive years means you won harder rings, it may just as easily mean you were lucky to be good in periods where others were weaker

[70sFan]

Many people, including myself consider the ‘modern NBA’ to be since the 3 point line was introduced. So we just differ on that.

A three point line didn't make any difference throughout the 1980s. They played identical basketball they did in 1970s, except that illegal defense made offenses more efficient because of artifical space created.

Seriously, if you watched games back in the 1980s then you should know that teams didn't care about the three point line back then.

[70sFan]

It's never been about the most rings as Jordan was being called the GOAT after winning 3 of them. Bird was in a GOAT candidate after winning 3. The whole "rangz" thing is a red herring as its never been about just rings. But, rings did carry a lot of weight until a certain somebody couldn't win any.

Certain who? LeBron who won more rings than Bird? LeBron who collected his first three rings at a younger age than Jordan?

1979-80, Magic & Larry, has long been the traditional demarcation point for the modern NBA. But I guess thats not true now either. Grass is blue and skies are green these days.

Watch a game from 1975, then watch a game from 1980. You won't find any difference in styles. Why should I use arbitrary moment to call a game "modern"? As I said, three point line didn't make a difference in the 1980s. Magic and Bird weren't the first great players drafted.

I love how some Jordan fanboys here force the narrative that people don't care about the history of the league, yet they don't know anything about pre-1980 game.

Lebron's whole case was based on him being the better all around player whereas Jordan was just a scorer. This was evidenced by Lebron averaging and extra 1-2 assists and rebounds per game. What else could it be?

Again, you proved you have no idea what you're talking about. I have to admit, now I understand why you have your thoughts about analytics and everything - you just have no idea how it works. People don't care about LeBron rebounding numbers, you create strawman after strawman...

He didnt have better analytics.

What does it mean to you?