RealGM

This is the Michael Jordan thread for the Wins Added by Season Survey Project. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1241811 Please read the project guidelines before posting in the thread.

For those who have already read the guidelines, just copy and paste the years below and fill in your answers.

Michael Jordan
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
2002
2003

1985- +3
1986- +0.5
1987- +2
1988- +6.5
1989- +4
1990- +7
1991- +7.5
1992- +6.5
1993- +5.5
1995- +1
1996- +7
1997- +6.5
1998- +5.5
2002- 0
2003- -1

1985 +8
1986 +2
1987 +9
1988 +9
1989 +11
1990 +22
1991 +24
1992 +21
1993 +19
1995 +3
1996 +18
1997 +18
1998 +16
2002 -2
2003 -4

colts18 wrote:1985- +3
1986- +0.5
1987- +2
1988- +6.5
1989- +4
1990- +7
1991- +7.5
1992- +6.5
1993- +5.5
1995- +1
1996- +7
1997- +6.5
1998- +5.5
2002- 0
2003- -1

Curious how you justify his '96 form being worth more to an average team than his '92 or '93 forms.

Jordan23Forever wrote:

colts18 wrote:1985- +3
1986- +0.5
1987- +2
1988- +6.5
1989- +4
1990- +7
1991- +7.5
1992- +6.5
1993- +5.5
1995- +1
1996- +7
1997- +6.5
1998- +5.5
2002- 0
2003- -1

Curious how you justify his '96 form being worth more to an average team than his '92 or '93 forms.

96 and 92 are on the same level. But 93 won only 57 games with 3 all-stars in his cast. 96 Jordan won 72 games. How do you explain that 15 win difference? If jordan was worse, where are those extra 20 wins coming from? Pippen was basically the same player in 93 that he was in 96.

Question, how is Michael Jordan worth around 5 wins in 93 when the same group of guys the next year won just 2 less games without him????

Not every version of MJ was the GOAT. 2nd 3peat Jordan was not the same player off the baseball retirement. Still the best in his league, but lost elevation, first step quickness and lateral quickness off the layoff. He was not nearly as efficient offensively because he couldn't get to the rack as often and finish as easily, and he was not the same defender. Yes he could still dominate from mid range offensively, but first 3peat MJ had a wet mid range J too and was the best athlete on the planet.

LeBron is clearly a more a valuable basketball player than 2nd 3peat MJ, and peak Kobe was at least comparable. Jordan late 80s through the first 3 peat is another argument though

Not Bias wrote:Question, how is Michael Jordan worth around 5 wins in 93 when the same group of guys the next year won just 2 less games without him????

It wasnt the same group of guys.........Kukoc, Myers, Kerr, Wennington, Longley...........

96 and 92 are on the same level. But 93 won only 57 games with 3 all-stars in his cast. 96 Jordan won 72 games. How do you explain that 15 win difference? If jordan was worse, where are those extra 20 wins coming from? Pippen was basically the same player in 93 that he was in 96.

A couple of things:

- You have '96 at +7 but '92 at +6.5, so they're not the same.

- "3 all-stars in his cast" is incredibly misleading. Pippen was the only all-star that year. The following year, when Grant and Armstrong made the ASG, it was one of the weakest all-star crops in history, and Armstrong/Grant in particular were two of the weakest AS picks ever. Regardless, they played better in '94 than in '93, so I don't see how their performance in '94 is relevant to the '93 Bulls' performance. Armstrong in '93 was giving them 12 ppg/57% TS. Derek Fisher gave LA 12 ppg/56% TS plus better defense in '08 - was he an "all star" too?

- Both Pippen and Grant had down years in '93 as compared to '92 and '94. All of their numbers regressed in both the regular and postseasons. Jordan's numbers, by contrast, were better across the board. So I don't see the logic in pinning what you terms their "underperforming" on him as opposed to Pippen/Grant. His personal ability was roughly the same as in '92 with a very slight drop-off.

- The '93 Bulls were playing in a stronger league than the '96 Bulls were, and the '96 Bulls actually had MORE talent than the '93 Bulls (especially when compared to the league overall). So it' no surprise their record was better. It had little to do with any increase in Jordan's ability in '96 relative to his ability in '93.

So imo if '92 MJ was a +6.5, '93 would be a +6.5 or +6.0 and '96 would be +5.0-5.5.

Not Bias wrote:Question, how is Michael Jordan worth around 5 wins in 93 when the same group of guys the next year won just 2 less games without him????

...and here come the tired "arguments" from the usual suspects.

Not Bias wrote:Question, how is Michael Jordan worth around 5 wins in 93 when the same group of guys the next year won just 2 less games without him????

I'm assuming you are referring to colts. He's using the SRS scale, not the wins scale. +5.5 on that scale in 93 would translate to 15-16 wins on a 41/41 team.

Jordan23Forever wrote:

Not Bias wrote:Question, how is Michael Jordan worth around 5 wins in 93 when the same group of guys the next year won just 2 less games without him????

...and here come the tired "arguments" from the usual suspects.

...And here comes the usual Jordan defender

In terms of SRS

1985 +5.0
1986 +5.0
1987 +6.0
1988 +7.5
1989 +8.0
1990 +9.0
1991 +9.0
1992 +9.0
1993 +8.0
1995 +5.5
1996 +7.0
1997 +6.5
1998 +6.0
2002 +2.5
2003 +2.0

1985- +5.5
1986- +5.5
1987- +6.5
1988- +8.0
1989- +8.0
1990- +8.5
1991- +8.5
1992- +8.5
1993- +7.5
1995- +3.0
1996- +7.0
1997- +6.5
1998- +5.5
2002- +2.0
2003- +1.0

colts18 wrote:

Jordan23Forever wrote:

colts18 wrote:1985- +3
1986- +0.5
1987- +2
1988- +6.5
1989- +4
1990- +7
1991- +7.5
1992- +6.5
1993- +5.5
1995- +1
1996- +7
1997- +6.5
1998- +5.5
2002- 0
2003- -1

Curious how you justify his '96 form being worth more to an average team than his '92 or '93 forms.

96 and 92 are on the same level. But 93 won only 57 games with 3 all-stars in his cast. 96 Jordan won 72 games. How do you explain that 15 win difference? If jordan was worse, where are those extra 20 wins coming from? Pippen was basically the same player in 93 that he was in 96.

Like this exchange -- just some things to consider for all players going forward:

The actual RS SRS of a team isn't a perfect indicator of their strength. This is part of the reason why I emphasized play at the end of the season. IMO, the 93 Bulls playing at their PS level for 82 games are winning WAY more games against the rest of the league. They were a 10.7 SRS team in the 93 PS (+9.8 ORtg, -2.1 DRtg) over 19 games.

So, does that make them closer to an 11 SRS with Jordan and co in full gear? Or closer to a 6 SRS team? There's room for interpretation, don't you guys think?

Michael Jordan
1985: +3.0
1986: +2.5
1987: +5.5
1988: +8.0
1989: +7.5
1990: +9.0
1991: +9.5
1992: +9.0
1993: +8.5
1995: +5.0
1996: +7.5
1997: +7.0
1998: +6.0
2002: +1.0
2003: +0.5

I'm not at all comfortable with my evaluation of 1986 or 1995 but those are the project rules, so I'll just go with it.

ElGee wrote:The actual RS SRS of a team isn't a perfect indicator of their strength.

Why?

DavidStern wrote:

ElGee wrote:The actual RS SRS of a team isn't a perfect indicator of their strength.

Why?

'01 Lakers, '07 Mavs, '09 Cavs, '12 Heat, I can go on.

DavidStern wrote:

ElGee wrote:The actual RS SRS of a team isn't a perfect indicator of their strength.

Why?

Because teams aren't actually playing at their true level. This obviously isn't going to be true in every case, and on a macro level, SRS is a great indicator of team strength, but it makes sense to look at each case individually as well. Take Miami this season for example. They played like a 4 SRS team for the first 34 games of the season and have played like a 11 SRS team since, and their playoff level may be higher still. Yet, their full RS SRS is still only a +7.2 right now.

Or take the 2010 Celtics. 3.4 SRS in the regular season, and (off the top of my head) proceeded to play like a +11 team through the Eastern Conference Playoffs, and a +9 team through the Finals.

So why not always look at playoffs SRS?

And BTW, if teams are not playing at their actual true level in regular season, then everyone should answer one question: why is it happening?