What impact metrics show MJ as a GOAT candidate?

[Lost92Bricks]

How is this thread even real anyways? They didn't track plus/minus stats in the 80's.

[DraymondGold]

How is this thread even real anyways? They didn't track plus/minus stats in the 80's.

Interestingly, we do have some!

People have worked hard to manually track on/off in a number of games, mostly from ~80-96. From there, you can use that data to get actual plus minus numbers (based on incomplete samples)... specifically we have some samples of raw on/off, RAPM, and playoff Augmented Plus Minus. Most of that work was published by Squared2020 on their website and in Thinking Basketball's "I tracked every Michael Jordan playoff game for a decade" video. It's great work by them!

We also have WOWY (with or without you) and Adjusted WOWY (WOWYR, with or without you regressed), which is an impact metric based on actual impact data.

You can find the links to all this stuff throughout the past few pages

[ShaqAttac]

How is this thread even real anyways? They didn't track plus/minus stats in the 80's.

Interestingly, we do have some!

People have worked hard to manually track on/off in a number of games, mostly from ~80-96. From there, you can use that data to get actual plus minus numbers (based on incomplete samples)... specifically we have some samples of raw on/off, RAPM, and playoff Augmented Plus Minus. Most of that work was published by Squared2020 on their website and in Thinking Basketball's "I tracked every Michael Jordan playoff game for a decade" video. It's great work by them!

We also have WOWY (with or without you) and Adjusted WOWY (WOWYR, with or without you regressed), which is an impact metric based on actual impact data.

You can find the links to all this stuff throughout the past few pages

soooo bruh sayin this brongm when he dont even kno if the stats they talkin bout exist

thats p funny

[JRoy]

The only stats that matter, 6-0 finals record with him the best player on his team every title.

I’m not even a fan of The Bald Satan.

[The High Cyde]

The only stats that matter, 6-0 finals record with him the best player on his team every title.

I’m not even a fan of The Bald Satan.

Well then what about Bill Russell?

[NbaAllDay]

The only stats that matter, 6-0 finals record with him the best player on his team every title.

I’m not even a fan of The Bald Satan.

Bill Russell agrees. And smokes MJ with "the only stat that matters"

[JRoy]

The only stats that matter, 6-0 finals record with him the best player on his team every title.

I’m not even a fan of The Bald Satan.

Bill Russell agrees. And smokes MJ with "the only stat that matters"

Good point. Was he the best player on his team every year? Did his Celts ever lose in the finals?

Curious.

[Homer38]

The only stats that matter, 6-0 finals record with him the best player on his team every title.

I’m not even a fan of The Bald Satan.

Bill Russell agrees. And smokes MJ with "the only stat that matters"

Good point. Was he the best player on his team every year? Did his Celts ever lose in the finals?

Curious.

11-1 is much better that 6-0 and Russell was the best players of his team almost every time

[Jaivl]

The only stats that matter, 6-0 finals record with him the best player on his team every title.

I’m not even a fan of The Bald Satan.

Bill Russell agrees. And smokes MJ with "the only stat that matters"

Good point. Was he the best player on his team every year? Did his Celts ever lose in the finals?

Curious.

Yes and yes.

12 >>>>>> 6
11 >>>>> 6

Did Russell ever not make the Conference Finals? That's a "stat" Jordan does sweep Russell in, 7 to 0.

If judging winning (eyeroll), logically winning more is better than winning less, so winning the Finals > losing on the Finals > losing on the Conference Finals > etc.

[LA Bird]

Bill Russell agrees. And smokes MJ with "the only stat that matters"

Good point. Was he the best player on his team every year? Did his Celts ever lose in the finals?

Curious.

Yes and yes.

12 >>>>>> 6
11 >>>>> 6

Did Russell ever not make the Conference Finals? That's a "stat" Jordan does sweep Russell in, 7 to 0.

If judging winning (eyeroll), logically winning more is better than winning less, so winning the Finals > losing on the Finals > losing on the Conference Finals > etc.

For people who only watch NBA during the Finals, it kind of makes sense that a player losing in the Finals is worse than not making the Finals at all. Winning > Not winning / not losing > Losing.

[Sark]

There was no such thing as a Conference Final for Russell's rings. The majority of the time he only had to win 2 series total.

[Heej]

So cringe when people try to hold on so desperately to "undefeated in the Finals!!" As if his finals opponents weren't historically weak to average

[70sFan]

So cringe when people try to hold on so desperately to "undefeated in the Finals!!" As if his finals opponents weren't historically weak to average

Some are weaker, some are stronger. I certainly wouldn't call his finals competition weak overall. Historically average is closer to reality.

[Heej]

So cringe when people try to hold on so desperately to "undefeated in the Finals!!" As if his finals opponents weren't historically weak to average

Some are weaker, some are stronger. I certainly wouldn't call his finals competition weak overall. Historically average is closer to reality.

Eh idk.

Lakers - weak with Scott and Worthy injuries
Portland - Weak
Suns - strongest opponent MJ faced, honestly slightly above average but had a weak defense
Sonic - Average
Jazz - solid in 97, fairly weak in 98 with Stockton having a down year returning halfway thru after knee surgery and Hornacek being injured iirc.

Maybe his opponents are average depending on how much you weigh the mess that was the 70s. Relative to the modern era, calling those teams average is a bit generous in my eyes. The 2017 Cavs for example would decimate every single one those teams. I think weak to average is more accurate

[HeartBreakKid]

There was no such thing as a Conference Final for Russell's rings. The majority of the time he only had to win 2 series total.

Because his teams often earned byes in the first round.

[HeartBreakKid]

The only stats that matter, 6-0 finals record with him the best player on his team every title.

I’m not even a fan of The Bald Satan.

Bill Russell agrees. And smokes MJ with "the only stat that matters"

Good point. Was he the best player on his team every year? Did his Celts ever lose in the finals?

Curious.

You know if you dont make the finals that means you lost, right?

[dygaction]

He is the metrics to compare for anyone that wants to be in GOAT conversation

[70sFan]

So cringe when people try to hold on so desperately to "undefeated in the Finals!!" As if his finals opponents weren't historically weak to average

Some are weaker, some are stronger. I certainly wouldn't call his finals competition weak overall. Historically average is closer to reality.

Eh idk.

Lakers - weak with Scott and Worthy injuries
Portland - Weak
Suns - strongest opponent MJ faced, honestly slightly above average but had a weak defense
Sonic - Average
Jazz - solid in 97, fairly weak in 98 with Stockton having a down year returning halfway thru after knee surgery and Hornacek being injured iirc.

Maybe his opponents are average depending on how much you weigh the mess that was the 70s. Relative to the modern era, calling those teams average is a bit generous in my eyes. The 2017 Cavs for example would decimate every single one those teams. I think weak to average is more accurate

There is nothing weak about 1992 Portland. By such criteria, there are a lot of weak finalists in modern era. What exactly makes 2022 Celtics, 2021 Suns, 2020 Heat, 2019 Warriors, 2018 Cavs stronger?

[Heej]

Some are weaker, some are stronger. I certainly wouldn't call his finals competition weak overall. Historically average is closer to reality.

Eh idk.

Lakers - weak with Scott and Worthy injuries
Portland - Weak
Suns - strongest opponent MJ faced, honestly slightly above average but had a weak defense
Sonic - Average
Jazz - solid in 97, fairly weak in 98 with Stockton having a down year returning halfway thru after knee surgery and Hornacek being injured iirc.

Maybe his opponents are average depending on how much you weigh the mess that was the 70s. Relative to the modern era, calling those teams average is a bit generous in my eyes. The 2017 Cavs for example would decimate every single one those teams. I think weak to average is more accurate

There is nothing weak about 1992 Portland. By such criteria, there are a lot of weak finalists in modern era. What exactly makes 2022 Celtics, 2021 Suns, 2020 Heat, 2019 Warriors, 2018 Cavs stronger?

2022 Celtics - 2 20ppg scorers, DPOY, and overall deep roster. Started off slow and went 33-10 to end the season. I'd put them at about average. JT+JB probably play Clyde and Terry Porter to a relative standstill but the Celtics had a better rotation

2021 Suns - 2 All Stars, deep roster, nuff said. Actually was a fairly dominant team then choked.

2019 Warriors - LOL at actually comparing that squad to the Blazers even without KD. Still had 2 all stars and championship continuity. Steph would soundly outperform Clyde here lol

2018 Cavs - Weak Finals contender but LeBron was literally playing at GOAT level. I'd still barely take the Cavs here but that series could go either way

Only team Portland might be better than there is the 2018 Cavs and even then Bron probably dominates them and likely takes it if they get late in the series. It's not like Clyde had a great series, he got his numbers but was inefficient

Now comparing the rest of the decade. I'm taking 2011 Heat, 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs, 2014 Heat over them. With 2015 Cavs playing out similar to 2018 except better defensively and worse offensively.

So the blazers would be in like the bottom 3 in like a decade+ of runner ups? Yeah, I think summing up their one man band with defensive role players and Terry Porter being Clyde's 2nd option as weak sounds about right.

[Jaivl]

Lol @ "2 All Stars, 2 All Stars, 2 All Stars" versus "one man band" cause peak Terry Porter happened to have his only non-all star pick between 1991 and 1993. Way to show your knowledge of the Blazers begins and ends with the Shrug Game.