RealGM

From the peaks project...
LeBron:

+8.84 in 2009 (would be 4th all time), +9.73 in 2011 (would be 2nd all time), +9.5 in 2012 (would be 2nd all time), +6.4 in 2013 (would be 13th all time), 6.79 in 2014, 8.7 in 2015, +8.62 in 2016 (would be 4th all time), 6.62 in 2017, 1.56 in 2018 (holy coasting! wow!), 3.44 in 2019.

Jordan:

+7.47 in 1988 (would be 8th all time. 43 game sample where Bulls just barely performed better than their average season level), +6.40 in 1991 (57 games where Bulls drastically underperformed their average season level), +7.17 in 1996 (21 games sample where Bulls performed at their average season level), +5.85 in 1997 (full season sample), +6.15 in 1998.```

The data isn't complete, but so far lebron has 4 different seasons that score signifcantly higher than any of MJ's. Is this just noise? Or does this suggest Lebron was more impactful?

Interestingly while all of lebron's defenses seem to collapse when he leaves, the bulls got much better defensively between 89 and 91 as jordan's defense was declining and were unaffected defensively in 94 when jordan left. So maybe defense is the difference here? Jordan hasn't actually ever anchored elite playoff defenses while lebron arguably did in 09, 11, 13, 15, and 16.

It suggests that Jordan understands how to be apart of a team rather than be the team itself

Stalwart wrote:It suggests that Jordan understands how to be apart of a team rather than be the team itself

then how come he only won 50 games before his superteam was assembled?

OhayoKD wrote:

Stalwart wrote:It suggests that Jordan understands how to be apart of a team rather than be the team itself

then how come he only won 50 games before his superteam was assembled?

I don't know what superteam you're talking about. But Jordan does a much better job utilizing and maximizing the talent around him. Through leadership and holding guys accountable his teammates actually become better basketball players over the course of time. That a allows the supporting cast to play well on their own like a good team should.

Stalwart wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Stalwart wrote:It suggests that Jordan understands how to be apart of a team rather than be the team itself

then how come he only won 50 games before his superteam was assembled?

I don't know what superteam you're talking about. But Jordan does a much better job utilizing and maximizing the talent around him. Through leadership and holding guys accountable his teammates actually become better basketball players over the course of time. That a allows the supporting cast to play well on their own like a good team should.

The bulls defense went from average to best itw with jordan declining as a defender. The bulls went from an average to league best offense with jordan getitng more turnover prone and less effcient. You're callign that leadership? Jordan got mad at his gm for trying to get him a lottery pick when he got hurt. I think that's just luck.

Lebron won 66 games with less help in 09 and 61 games with less help in 10. Hakeem won 55 games with less help in 92, and KG won 58 games with less help than 04. If jordan "understood how to win" more than these players how come he only won 50 games when he had a tough hand?

OhayoKD wrote:

Stalwart wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:then how come he only won 50 games before his superteam was assembled?

I don't know what superteam you're talking about. But Jordan does a much better job utilizing and maximizing the talent around him. Through leadership and holding guys accountable his teammates actually become better basketball players over the course of time. That a allows the supporting cast to play well on their own like a good team should.

The bulls defense went from average to best itw with jordan declining as a defender. The bulls went from an average to league best offense with jordan getitng more turnover prone and less effcient. You're callign that leadership? Jordan got mad at his gm for trying to get him a lottery pick when he got hurt. I think that's just luck.

Its not me calling that leadership but rather the players themselves. Most of the key role players from the 90s Bulls all attest to the fact that Jordan, through leadership and accountability, forced them all to work harder and become better individual players. Thats why the team could still perform when he wasn't on the court.

Lebron won 66 games with less help in 09 and 61 games with less help in 10. Hakeem won 55 games with less help in 92, and KG won 58 games with less help than 04. If jordan "understood how to win" more than these players how come he only won 50 games when he had a tough hand?

Less help than what? None of these guys took worse teams to better records than Jordan did. All of those guys you mentioned had better rosters than any of Jordan's sub-55 game seasons.

Stalwart wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

Stalwart wrote:
I don't know what superteam you're talking about. But Jordan does a much better job utilizing and maximizing the talent around him. Through leadership and holding guys accountable his teammates actually become better basketball players over the course of time. That a allows the supporting cast to play well on their own like a good team should.

The bulls defense went from average to best itw with jordan declining as a defender. The bulls went from an average to league best offense with jordan getitng more turnover prone and less effcient. You're callign that leadership? Jordan got mad at his gm for trying to get him a lottery pick when he got hurt. I think that's just luck.

Most of the key role players from the 90s Bulls all attest to the fact that Jordan, through leadership and accountability, forced them all to work harder and become better individual players. Thats why the team could still perform when he wasn't on the court.

Lebron won 66 games with less help in 09 and 61 games with less help in 10. Hakeem won 55 games with less help in 92, and KG won 58 games with less help than 04. If jordan "understood how to win" more than these players how come he only won 50 games when he had a tough hand?

Less help than what? None of these guys took worse teams to better records than Jordan did. All of those guys you mentioned had better rosters than any of Jordan's sub-55 game seasons.

How was jordan coaching the bulls when they won almost 30 games before he was even drafted? If jordan's coaching was so good why did they play the same when he broke his foot the next year? 92 rockets, 08-10 cavs, and the 04 wolves were all worse than the 1984 bulls(or the jordan-less 85 bulls) without their superstars and the cavs were way worse than the 1984 bulls the seasons before and after lebron arrived.

I think lebron, kg, and hakeem being better defenders is a much better explanation for their superior impact than jordan allegedly teaching the bulls how to win while he was in college.

Its not me calling that leadership but rather the players themselves.

so that same thing 90% of role players ever say about their superstar? Unlike mj, lebron and kg actually organzied their team's offenses and defenses on and off. Hakeem had a way worse owner but never started beef with him(or his own teammates) like mj did.

Can't compare RAPM numbers that way, different distributions each year.

LeBron looks a little bit better but it's marginal, Jordan absolutely does as well as expected.

aenigma wrote:Can't compare RAPM numbers that way, different distributions each year.

LeBron looks a little bit better but it's marginal, Jordan absolutely does as well as expected.

different distributions? what does that mean?

also, is it marginal? Lebron has like 4 +8's and 3 +9's while jordan only has 1 +7 and two +6's. Ben taylor had players like nash at +6 and players like lebron/shaq/and jordan at +7. Is the scale here different?

OhayoKD wrote:How was jordan coaching the bulls when they won almost 30 games before he was even drafted? If jordan's coaching was so good why did they play the same when he broke his foot the next year? 92 rockets, 08-10 cavs, and the 04 wolves were all worse than the 1984 bulls(or the jordan-less 85 bulls) without their superstars and the cavs were way worse than the 1984 bulls the seasons before and after lebron arrived.

I think lebron, kg, and hakeem being better defenders is a much better explanation for their superior impact than jordan allegedly teaching the bulls how to win while he was in college.

I never claimed that Jordan coached anyone or taught them how to win though, especially as a college player.

so that same thing 90% of role players ever say about their superstar? Unlike mj, lebron and kg actually organzied their team's offenses and defenses on and off. Hakeem had a way worse owner but never started beef with him(or his own teammates) like mj did.

Other superstars may also be great leaders. But few could match Jordans leadership especially someone like Lebron.

Stalwart wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:How was jordan coaching the bulls when they won almost 30 games before he was even drafted? If jordan's coaching was so good why did they play the same when he broke his foot the next year? 92 rockets, 08-10 cavs, and the 04 wolves were all worse than the 1984 bulls(or the jordan-less 85 bulls) without their superstars and the cavs were way worse than the 1984 bulls the seasons before and after lebron arrived.

I think lebron, kg, and hakeem being better defenders is a much better explanation for their superior impact than jordan allegedly teaching the bulls how to win while he was in college.

I never claimed that Jordan coached anyone or taught them how to win though, especially as a college player.

Then jordan wasn't why his team was better without him than the other players i mentioned. Jordan didn't become a worse defender or less effecient offensive player between 89 and 91 so that his teammates would learn how to win.

I think LeBron was more impactful than Jordan.

OhayoKD wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Can't compare RAPM numbers that way, different distributions each year.

LeBron looks a little bit better but it's marginal, Jordan absolutely does as well as expected.

different distributions? what does that mean?

also, is it marginal? Lebron has like 4 +8's and 3 +9's while jordan only has 1 +7 and two +6's. Ben taylor had players like nash at +6 and players like lebron/shaq/and jordan at +7. Is the scale here different?

In layman terms, the process of calculating RAPM involves some math that distorts the "real scale" of the numbers in favor of accuracy. The scale is just different for each season. I prefer to use rank, and use the number itself as a rough ballpark.

ElGee's ratings are subjective, they are not subject to a formula, although the scale he uses (average player is +0, max value peaks around +7-something) leans on findings supported by +/- data.

Impact netrics are not infallible but lebron ones being the best ever (of the ones we have) are a feather in his goat case cap

Whether it is raw +/-, RAPM, Boxscore composites like bpm or estimated plus minus, Win record with and without

He is at the top or near the top of all of them, usuallyim in both peak and career averages, the latter being specially impressive for a guy playing 19-37

Does this mean he is necesarrily better than players with slightly worse metrics? No

Does it suggest he may be? To a extent yes

Stalwart wrote:It suggests that Jordan understands how to be apart of a team rather than be the team itself

Now, one can’t compare RAPM results the way OP is doing especially since we don’t have complete data sets for Jordan and I’m not sure about other parameters, but this post shows that you have absolutely zero understanding what RAPM data is.

Jaivl wrote:Can't compare RAPM numbers that way, different distributions each year.

LeBron looks a little bit better but it's marginal, Jordan absolutely does as well as expected.

Jordan has done as well as expected but from the data we have, he has not increased his GOAT case. The data that we have do not equate with the relative % of people who have him as the clear-cut GOAT but it’s incomplete data and of course not the be-all, end-all.

falcolombardi wrote:Impact netrics are not infallible but lebron ones being the best ever (of the ones we have) are a feather in his goat case cap

Whether it is raw +/-, RAPM, Boxscore composites like bpm or estimated plus minus, Win record with and without

He is at the top or near the top of all of them, usuallyim in both peak and career averages, the latter being specially impressive for a guy playing 19-37

Does this mean he is necesarrily better than players with slightly worse metrics? No

Does it suggest he may be? To a extent yes

Agree erer.

I think LeBron at his peak was the slightly better rs player or at the very least has a strong argument. The playoffs is mainly where MJ was more consistently great(at least from 88-93). Then obviously LeBron also has something of a prime/longevity argument over him as well. They're a similar tier of player. Which guy you have above the other is a matter of criteria/taste.

Cavsfansince84 wrote:I think LeBron at his peak was the slightly better rs player or at the very least has a strong argument. The playoffs is mainly where MJ was more consistently great(at least from 88-93). Then obviously LeBron also has something of a prime/longevity argument over him as well. They're a similar tier of player. Which guy you have above the other is a matter of criteria/taste.

Pretty much, if you don't want to be sensible and divide by eras then the tiered approach is the right way to go.

You can’t compare RAPMs across eras like that. Aside from that I don’t even know who you quoted or what RAPM source it is. Not really much more I can say about it.

No-more-rings wrote:You can’t compare RAPMs across eras like that. Aside from that I don’t even know who you quoted or what RAPM source it is. Not really much more I can say about it.

This.

Also all plus minus metrics depend on a lot of things including role on the team, substitution patterns in games, quality of backups etc. which are all highly situational. If Jordan had consistently negative RAPM or something you could question his GOAT case. But he gets a +7 there where another guy gets a +8 doesn't present a convincing case whatsoever.

2004 KG has some of the best impact stats ever. Would anyone fathom taking him over prime MJ? No, not in a million years.

Djoker wrote:Would any fathom taking him over prime MJ? No, not in a million years.

I mean...yeah