RealGM

His advanced stats are not that good, especially in terms of scoring efficiency.

How good or bad Wizards Michael Jordan actually was?

Where will he be ranked if he played in 2023?

I don't think he was even close to all-star level (especially after injury) and he wouldn't be so today either.

Biggest problem - still a major ass, so fits into very few team settings well now that his effectiveness is sub-elite.

Were he not an ass I can see the a poor man's AI role for him of being able to get slightly below average efficiency shots at high volume pretty much whenever he wants, which has some value. Still fine enough on defense. A bit hard to see such a team contending, which leads to increased assholery, a vicious cycle.

A bought in version could've been an elite 6th man sort, but I don't buy that as possible.

eminence wrote:Biggest problem - still a major ass, so fits into very few team settings well now that his effectiveness is sub-elite.

Were he not an ass I can see the a poor man's AI role for him of being able to get slightly below average efficiency shots at high volume pretty much whenever he wants, which has some value. Still fine enough on defense. A bit hard to see such a team contending, which leads to increased assholery, a vicious cycle.

A bought in version could've been an elite 6th man sort, but I don't buy that as possible.

I dont think so. He would get hit pretty hard on the perimeter. I think he can't guard most positions.

IIRC he declined noticeably between the two seasons. The first year he was good enough to be the top guy on a .500 ish team which is generally fringe All-Star level. Not sure what would have happened if he was on a good team with 1 or 2 guys better than him and he had to take a somewhat secondary role (or perhaps awkwardly force himself into a lead role ahead of guys who at that point were better than him) - Washington wasn't that sort of team.

His second year he was really only useful as a (phenomenal) fan distraction.

HeartBreakKid wrote:

eminence wrote:Biggest problem - still a major ass, so fits into very few team settings well now that his effectiveness is sub-elite.

Were he not an ass I can see the a poor man's AI role for him of being able to get slightly below average efficiency shots at high volume pretty much whenever he wants, which has some value. Still fine enough on defense. A bit hard to see such a team contending, which leads to increased assholery, a vicious cycle.

A bought in version could've been an elite 6th man sort, but I don't buy that as possible.

I dont think so. He would get hit pretty hard on the perimeter. I think he can't guard most positions.

That was mostly answering how good he was.

giberish wrote:IIRC he declined noticeably between the two seasons. The first year he was good enough to be the top guy on a .500 ish team which is generally fringe All-Star level. Not sure what would have happened if he was on a good team with 1 or 2 guys better than him and he had to take a somewhat secondary role (or perhaps awkwardly force himself into a lead role ahead of guys who at that point were better than him) - Washington wasn't that sort of team.

His second year he was really only useful as a (phenomenal) fan distraction.

He was actually better in his second year, taking 3.5 less shots per game. More efficent, better shooting all around, better on defense. Impact stats also favor his last sesason. +1.46 in PI RAPM as opposed to +0.9 the year before.

durantbird wrote:His advanced stats are not that good, especially in terms of scoring efficiency.

How good or bad Wizards Michael Jordan actually was?

Where will he be ranked if he played in 2023?

He wasn't great, but I'd say still a positive overall and solid positive on offense.
He was still a +2.13 on offense in 02 (22nd best in the league for players averaging over 30mpg and playing >60 games) and +1.78 in 03, even while being largely inneficient, scoring on 2-4% below league average TS%. That's pretty ok offensive value.
Even then, he averaged way too many minutes and shot way too much. And I should add he got a lot of respect calls back in the day that inflated his FTA's.

giberish wrote:IIRC he declined noticeably between the two seasons. The first year he was good enough to be the top guy on a .500 ish team which is generally fringe All-Star level. Not sure what would have happened if he was on a good team with 1 or 2 guys better than him and he had to take a somewhat secondary role (or perhaps awkwardly force himself into a lead role ahead of guys who at that point were better than him) - Washington wasn't that sort of team.

His second year he was really only useful as a (phenomenal) fan distraction.

I don't think 8 games below .500 is ".500 ish" as you wouldn't say a 48-win team is ".500 ish".

The team manged to have a respectable Offensive Rating [for the era] but it wasn't due to Jordan, who had a TS+ of -155.2, which makes him the most inefficient scorer in the NBA in 2002.

Colbinii wrote:

giberish wrote:IIRC he declined noticeably between the two seasons. The first year he was good enough to be the top guy on a .500 ish team which is generally fringe All-Star level. Not sure what would have happened if he was on a good team with 1 or 2 guys better than him and he had to take a somewhat secondary role (or perhaps awkwardly force himself into a lead role ahead of guys who at that point were better than him) - Washington wasn't that sort of team.

His second year he was really only useful as a (phenomenal) fan distraction.

I don't think 8 games below .500 is ".500 ish" as you wouldn't say a 48-win team is ".500 ish".

The team manged to have a respectable Offensive Rating [for the era] but it wasn't due to Jordan, who had a TS+ of -155.2, which makes him the most inefficient scorer in the NBA in 2002.

I don't think TS fully captures Jordan's efficiency. If it did, there's no way the Wizards would have a 107.6ortg with him on court and 101.0 with him off. Surprisingly, their EFG was higher with him on as well 46.9% vs 45.7%, but what really made the difference was turnovers, 12.9% on vs 16.7% off.

I don't think he was all-star level, but he was still a good player (which is completely negated by his a-holishness). Would have been interesting to see what would have happened if his knees weren't shot and mr. World Piece didn't break his ribs before the season started.

He had one of the lowest efficiency scoring seasons outside of the 1950s and 1960s. He shot and shot and shot and sometimes it worked - such as the handful of 40 and 50 point games - and most of the time it didn't.

That version of Jordan was basically modern day Westbrook if he was allowed to do whatever he wanted, had a coach that enabled him at every opportunity and completely ran the team. It was gross then and it'd be gross in the modern NBA.

Colbinii wrote:

giberish wrote:IIRC he declined noticeably between the two seasons. The first year he was good enough to be the top guy on a .500 ish team which is generally fringe All-Star level. Not sure what would have happened if he was on a good team with 1 or 2 guys better than him and he had to take a somewhat secondary role (or perhaps awkwardly force himself into a lead role ahead of guys who at that point were better than him) - Washington wasn't that sort of team.

His second year he was really only useful as a (phenomenal) fan distraction.

I don't think 8 games below .500 is ".500 ish" as you wouldn't say a 48-win team is ".500 ish".

The team manged to have a respectable Offensive Rating [for the era] but it wasn't due to Jordan, who had a TS+ of -155.2, which makes him the most inefficient scorer in the NBA in 2002.

Jordan had the highest ORAPM of that starting lineup, almost doubling the Hamilton's, who was second. Doesn't that tell us he had by far the biggest share of contribution to the teams offensive rating?

picko wrote:He had one of the lowest efficiency scoring seasons outside of the 1950s and 1960s. He shot and shot and shot and sometimes it worked - such as the handful of 40 and 50 point games - and most of the time it didn't.

That version of Jordan was basically modern day Westbrook if he was allowed to do whatever he wanted, had a coach that enabled him at every opportunity and completely ran the team. It was gross then and it'd be gross in the modern NBA.

That's probably a bit of an exaggeration.
Westbrook's efficiency is 8 points below league average, and that's with him averaging 13.5 fga's. Now imagine his efficiency if he upped his volume to near 20...
Jordan was a ~-4 rTS% in his time as a Wizard. That's horrible, but not current Westbrook horrible.
Besides that, as said above, Jordan was still a ~+2.0 in ORAPM between 01 and 03, comfortably topping his team in both those seasons. That's a very solid positive.
Westbrook is approaching -1.0 ORAPM since 2021.

2002 - Low level All-Star
2003 - Above average starter

I think in both cases more of his value came from shot creation than specifically "scoring", his fall-off there during the '03 season probably the difference in their offense, though there really isn't much difference. Stackhouse for Hamilton at that point is probably a moot change.

IdolW0rm wrote:

picko wrote:He had one of the lowest efficiency scoring seasons outside of the 1950s and 1960s. He shot and shot and shot and sometimes it worked - such as the handful of 40 and 50 point games - and most of the time it didn't.

That version of Jordan was basically modern day Westbrook if he was allowed to do whatever he wanted, had a coach that enabled him at every opportunity and completely ran the team. It was gross then and it'd be gross in the modern NBA.

That's probably a bit of an exaggeration.
Westbrook's efficiency is 8 points below league average, and that's with him averaging 13.5 fga's. Now imagine his efficiency if he upped his volume to near 20...
Jordan was a ~-4 rTS% in his time as a Wizard. That's horrible, but not current Westbrook horrible.
Besides that, as said above, Jordan was still a ~+2.0 in ORAPM between 01 and 03, comfortably topping his team in both those seasons. That's a very solid positive.
Westbrook is approaching -1.0 ORAPM since 2021.

Where does Stackhouse rank in that span if you don't mind me asking?

RCM88x wrote:

IdolW0rm wrote:

picko wrote:He had one of the lowest efficiency scoring seasons outside of the 1950s and 1960s. He shot and shot and shot and sometimes it worked - such as the handful of 40 and 50 point games - and most of the time it didn't.

That version of Jordan was basically modern day Westbrook if he was allowed to do whatever he wanted, had a coach that enabled him at every opportunity and completely ran the team. It was gross then and it'd be gross in the modern NBA.

That's probably a bit of an exaggeration.
Westbrook's efficiency is 8 points below league average, and that's with him averaging 13.5 fga's. Now imagine his efficiency if he upped his volume to near 20...
Jordan was a ~-4 rTS% in his time as a Wizard. That's horrible, but not current Westbrook horrible.
Besides that, as said above, Jordan was still a ~+2.0 in ORAPM between 01 and 03, comfortably topping his team in both those seasons. That's a very solid positive.
Westbrook is approaching -1.0 ORAPM since 2021.

Where does Stackhouse rank in that span if you don't mind me asking?

In ORAPM? He's a +0.8 in 02 with Detroit and a +1.2 in 03 with Washington in the PI Goldstein sheet.

Think I'd go about above average starter both years (top 35-60ish?)

IdolW0rm wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

giberish wrote:IIRC he declined noticeably between the two seasons. The first year he was good enough to be the top guy on a .500 ish team which is generally fringe All-Star level. Not sure what would have happened if he was on a good team with 1 or 2 guys better than him and he had to take a somewhat secondary role (or perhaps awkwardly force himself into a lead role ahead of guys who at that point were better than him) - Washington wasn't that sort of team.

His second year he was really only useful as a (phenomenal) fan distraction.

I don't think 8 games below .500 is ".500 ish" as you wouldn't say a 48-win team is ".500 ish".

The team manged to have a respectable Offensive Rating [for the era] but it wasn't due to Jordan, who had a TS+ of -155.2, which makes him the most inefficient scorer in the NBA in 2002.

Jordan had the highest ORAPM of that starting lineup, almost doubling the Hamilton's, who was second. Doesn't that tell us he had by far the biggest share of contribution to the teams offensive rating?

Don't really like to use single-year NPI RAPM, but the (1998?) prior is probably doing some heavy lifting there.

2002: +0.03
2003: +0.08

Also, "doubling"... yes, but it's like, less than a point, +1.2 to +2.1, man.

Jaivl wrote:Think I'd go about above average starter both years (top 35-60ish?)

IdolW0rm wrote:

Colbinii wrote:
I don't think 8 games below .500 is ".500 ish" as you wouldn't say a 48-win team is ".500 ish".

The team manged to have a respectable Offensive Rating [for the era] but it wasn't due to Jordan, who had a TS+ of -155.2, which makes him the most inefficient scorer in the NBA in 2002.

Jordan had the highest ORAPM of that starting lineup, almost doubling the Hamilton's, who was second. Doesn't that tell us he had by far the biggest share of contribution to the teams offensive rating?

Don't really like to use single-year NPI RAPM, but the (1998?) prior is probably doing some heavy lifting there.

2002: +0.03
2003: +0.08

Also, "doubling"... yes, but it's like, less than a point, +1.2 to +2.1, man.

If it was, I think you'd see it in 02 PI RAPM and then it would drop down in 03, and it didn't, it went up.
From +0.9 in 02 to +1.46 in 03. That's why I don't think that's the reason.
But I'm no stats expert by any means. I actually don't know, but it could be.
And percentually, double is double wether it's from 1 to 2 or 4 to 8 even though they paint completely different pictures.
I was talking about Jordan's share of the offensive "pie" relative to his best team mate. Wasn't to prop Jordan up or anything, I had already posted Jordan's ORAPM numbers a couple of posts back, wasn't trying to pretend he was a +4 or something.

PS: Got my math wrong when I said double anyways, thought it was 1.1 to 2.2.

Despite his inefficiency, no RAPM data source I've seen says Wizards Jordan was a negative offensive player. Some have him as a marginal positive, but some have him as substantial positive. OTOH almost every RAPM data source I've seen also says Wizards Jordan was a negative defensive player. Most have him as a marginal negative, a couple have him as a substantial negative. They generally have him marginally net positive in the top 75-125 range, which is pretty impressive at age 39/40 even for GOAT candidates particularly playing 82 games at 37 MPG while carrying the offensive load for offensively talent poor rosters.

If you plopped 2002 or 2003 Jordan into the present he would be worse offensively than he was since he can't shoot 3's. He would be more efficient than he was in 2002/2003 because driving is easier and open mid-range jumpers are easier to get but a SF who can't shoot 3s is a big schematic liability. This matters less if Jordan has the ball in his hands most of the time as the #1 offensive option, but any 2023 team which has 39/40 year old MJ as the #1 offensive option is bound to have one of the worst offenses in the league. If Jordan is allowed a few months of training time before joining the modern NBA and could succeed in developing a serviceable spot up 3pt shot, he could still have positive offensive impact as a supporting player.

I suspect that Jordan's negative defense in 2002/2003 was a by product of the load he was carrying. Playing 35-38 MPG at age 39/40 with 29-36% offensive usage doesn't leave much energy for the defensive end. The splits between the 15 games in 2003 that Jordan allowed the Wizards to bring him off the bench versus the remaining 67 games are pretty strong. Playing 28.3 MPG off the bench Jordan shot 50.9 TS% with +2.6 plus/minus. In starts the TS% dropped to 48.8 and plus/minus to -0.6 playing 38.9 MPG. But he only scored 16.4 PPG coming off the bench vs 20.8 PPG starting and that seemed to be a big problem to him. I recall that he wanted to keep his career PPG at #1 above Wilt and that would be lost if he spent the rest of the season averaging well under 20 PPG.

But the basic problem with Wizards Jordan is that MJ just wasn't that good anymore. Despite his impressive set of scoring skills, his effectiveness was always buttressed by his athleticism and there was far less of that left for his 2nd comeback than his 1st one. Without a 3pt shot or plus defense there wouldn't be much reason for a team trying to compete to even put him on the floor today.

rand wrote:Despite his inefficiency, no RAPM data source I've seen says Wizards Jordan was a negative offensive player. Some have him as a marginal positive, but some have him as substantial positive.

The issue I have with this is Jordan was fine in his role but it isn't a role that scales up on good teams or even decent supporting casts.

In Jordan's role, he was a positive offensive player but it isn't a role you want him playing on a good team. RAPM is going to like him--he did well in his role, but that doesn't make him a low-end all-star [though it may in 2002] but he was a borderline Top 12 guard. Allen, Kobe, Pierce, McGrady, Nash, Payton, Vince, Kidd, AI, Stockton, Barry and Cassell were all likely better [with strong arguments for B Davis, A Miller, R Miller, E Jones and J Terry] but after that the guard pool falls off a cliff.