RealGM

Have been thinking about this a lot the last few months.

Offense: Probably pretty close. Jordan is a better scorer and scorer at volume, but Magic is a better ball-handler and creator.
Defense: Jordan had better tools, but we saw Magic could fit well in certain schemes. He was a great roamer in Dunleavy's system.
Modernism: Magic is built for the modern game. Jordan's playstyle has somewhat been aged out in the past couple decades.
Impact Data: Seems to be a push, from what we have so far.

ceiling raiser wrote:Have been thinking about this a lot the last few months.

Offense: Probably pretty close. Jordan is a better scorer and scorer at volume, but Magic is a better ball-handler and creator.
Defense: Jordan had better tools, but we saw Magic could fit well in certain schemes. He was a great roamer in Dunleavy's system.
Modernism: Magic is built for the modern game. Jordan's playstyle has somewhat been aged out in the past couple decades.
Impact Data: Seems to be a push, from what we have so far.

You are overplaying Magic's defense and underplaying his offense I think.

I think rs impact generally favors magic though Jordan has a solid case as the better riser.

I tend to like players who aren't as exploitable defensively in playoff matchups, but that is somewhat "vibes". Still prefer Jordan, but there are certainly reasonable grounds to prefer Magic and I'd certainly consider him the better offensive player

Yeah, it is perfectly possible. But,

ceiling raiser wrote:Offense: Probably pretty close. Jordan is a better scorer and scorer at volume, but Magic is a better ball-handler and creator.

Magic handled the ball more. Better? Ehhh.

ceiling raiser wrote:Defense: Jordan had better tools, but we saw Magic could fit well in certain schemes. He was a great roamer in Dunleavy's system.

Feels like a pretty convoluted way of avoiding saying Jordan was noticeably better, moreso when his tools would probably shine the brightest when playing the same role as early Magic, a role he never had the luxury of playing.

ceiling raiser wrote:Modernism: Magic is built for the modern game. Jordan's playstyle has somewhat been aged out in the past couple decades.

Every ATG is, they trascend eras. And even then, I don't think the Magic archtype is inherently more valuable than the Jordan archtype, at all (neither inherently less valuable).

It's not. btw, imagine if magic gets drafted by the 85 bulls.

OhayoKD wrote:

ceiling raiser wrote:Have been thinking about this a lot the last few months.

Offense: Probably pretty close. Jordan is a better scorer and scorer at volume, but Magic is a better ball-handler and creator.
Defense: Jordan had better tools, but we saw Magic could fit well in certain schemes. He was a great roamer in Dunleavy's system.
Modernism: Magic is built for the modern game. Jordan's playstyle has somewhat been aged out in the past couple decades.
Impact Data: Seems to be a push, from what we have so far.

You are overplaying Magic's defense and underplaying his offense I think.

I think rs impact generally favors magic though Jordan has a solid case as the better riser.

I tend to like players who aren't as exploitable defensively in playoff matchups, but that is somewhat "vibes". Still prefer Jordan, but there are certainly reasonable grounds to prefer Magic and I'd certainly consider him the better offensive player

It’s interesting for sure and there’s discussions to be had. From the available data we have, which is of course incomplete, prime Magic seems to have a case against most.

Moonbeam wrote:Here is a spreadsheet with up to 100 positive coefficients for each 5-year window for Ridge, Lasso, and ENet.

Moonbeam’s RWOWY for Jordan (Jordan in the Ridge set, Jordan in the LASSO set)

This was a cursory count, and others can do their own, but I took out every player who only played one year in the data segments unless stated or the player in question, and I also took out every player who didn’t at least play solid rotational minutes for two of the years in the data segments (1,000+ minutes a season in at least two seasons).

1981-1985: 4th, 3rd
1982-1986: 12th, 20th [here you have a large off segment]
1983-1987: 16th, 30th [Again a large of segment]
1984-1988: 30th, 21st [and again]
1985-1989: 40th, 17th [and again]
1986-1990: 65th, 27th [And again, including 1990, close to his consensus peak]
1987-1991: 56th, 52nd [Includes his peak and 1990]
1988-1992: 23rd, 7th
1989-1993: 15th, 5th
1990-1994: 7th, 5th
1991-1995: 2nd, 4th
1992-1996: 1st, 1st
1993-1997: 1st, 2nd
1994-1998: 2nd, 3rd
1995-1999: 1st, 2nd
1996-2000: 9th, not listed
1997-2001: 3rd, 4th
1998-2002: 6th, 18th
1999-2003: not listed, not listed
2000-2004: 86th, not listed [note: did not check for players were only played one year or non-rotational minutes in this segment]
2001-2005: not listed, not listed
2002-2006: not listed, not listed
2003-2007: not listed, not listed

Moonbeam’s RWOWY for Magic (Magic in the Ridge set, Magic in the LASSO set)

1976-1980: 7th, 6th [counting one year of Bird]
1977-1981: 3rd, 7th
1978-1982: 2nd, 3rd
1979-1983: 1st, 2nd
1980-1984: 1st, 3rd
1981-1985: 2nd, 3rd
1982-1986: 3rd, 2nd
1983-1987: 4th, 4th
1984-1988: 4th, 2nd
1985-1989: 3rd, 1st
1986-1990: 3rd, 1st
1987-1991: 5th, 1st
1988-1992: 4th, 2nd
1989-1993: 2nd, 1st
1990-1994: 1st, 2nd
1991-1999: Magic has only one year samples (i.e., 1991 and 1996) but he’s basically
top 5 in Ridge in every segment of 1991-1995, 1992-1996, 1993-1997, 1994-1998, 1995-1999

So basically top 5 every year which is beyond ridiculous in a pure, non-prior informed set. This is what one would expect Jordan’s peak years to look like given the mythological and unassailable status it has reached

In Squared2020’s partial RAPM, Magic Johnson looks every bit as good and maybe even peaks higher. Additionally, those who have been saying that Jordan’s defense in his younger/peak years was overrated have some data that possibly corroborates that:

DRAPM
1985 Magic, +2.01; 1985 Jordan, -.13
1988 Magic, -.16: 1988 Jordan, -.05
1991 Magic, +.43: 1991 Jordan, +.61

Overall RAPM
1985 Magic, +8.92; 1985 Jordan, +5.03
1988 Magic, +6.62; 1988 Jordan, +7.47
1991 Magic, +4.00; 1991 Jordan, +6.40

None of this is definitive in any way, but I think for me at least, the mythological 1988-1993 steps down a bit and Magic rises.

As far as 80's early 90's stars go....I think offensively, that Jordan, Magic and Bird are the only 3 in Tier 1 (GOAT tier). But Jordan and Bird were also good to great defenders, early in their careers at least. Jordan's game ramps better in the playoffs according to numbers, but Magic and Bird played different roles. Floor leaders pretty much always play the same even in a tightened rotation. Where as pure scorers like Jordan can just gobble up all extra shot attempts as the rotations tighten. Bird was a primary scorer too, and its true that iso game wasn't his forte, despite his clutch shot reputation (his fader and stepback were pretty unblockable though). For the most part he always took what the defense gave him and, like Magic, was a very cerebral player.

Floor leaders (on offense and defense) are force multipliers, as they raise the level of their teammates as well as themselves. Jordan did this somewhat, but he was more of a pure assassin. Where as a huge part of Bird and Magic's game was as floor leaders, though they could be an assassin when the situation called for it. I do think that Jordan is the scorer least held back by the best defenders of their generation, and as such he is probably the best ceiling raiser his generation, and perhaps all-time.. But does that make him the best offensive player? I think Bird and Magic are clearly the better floor raisers. They are the best floor raisers of their generation and are in the mix for best all-time as well. Jordan is the better ceiling raiser but not by as big of a margin.

No, and please let me be honest here as a satellite/lurker when saying that I'm tired of what seem to be 'agenda posts'; they erode the credibility of this forum for me. In parallel with the Top 100 Project, I've already been seeing recent takes that Karl Malone (a player beaten by MJ on the way to a championship) is A) a worse prospect than Pau Gasol and B) maybe not even a positive defender. I don't have a horse in this race, i.e., I don't have MJ as the goat, but this is tiresome. If MJ and Magic were close in primes, then don't you think they would have been close in any of this board's peak projects? 2022: MJ is #1 and Magic is #10; 2019: identical; 2015: identical; 2012: MJ #1; Magic #8. It almost feels to me now that comparing someone to MJ is like comparing someone to Hitler in Internet arguments.

If you think it's reasonable to think Bird wasn't a top 30 or even top 50 player of all-time, then sure I think it's within reason to believe Magic possibly had a better prime.

I think both are very unlikely, but both fall in the same stratosphere of possibility.

Anything's possible in your mind.

onedayattatime wrote:No, and please let me be honest here as a satellite/lurker when saying that I'm tired of what seem to be 'agenda posts'; they erode the credibility of this forum for me.

Guessing a lot of the posts you like are agenda posts too. In some capacity, most posts are.

In parallel with the Top 100 Project, I've already been seeing recent takes that Karl Malone (a player beaten by MJ on the way to a championship) is A) a worse prospect than Pau Gasol

That was part of an anti-Kobe agenda lol.

and B) maybe not even a positive defender.

Which “anti-Jordan” people are arguing that.

I don't have a horse in this race, i.e., I don't have MJ as the goat, but this is tiresome. If MJ and Magic were close in primes, then don't you think they would have been close in any of this board's peak projects? 2022: MJ is #1 and Magic is #10; 2019: identical; 2015: identical; 2012: MJ #1; Magic #8.

I think Kobe and Bird were close in their primes, yet the peaks project would disagree. Many of us think Russell was reasonably close or even better than the primes of Wilt and Shaq, yet the peaks project would disagree. How does this matter? Are those discussions also dead on arrival because of some spot gaps?

It almost feels to me now that comparing someone to MJ is like comparing someone to Hitler in Internet arguments.

In the sense that making the comparison at all turns into a total discussion killer, sure, but considering the rest of your post, I doubt that was the angle you intended.

The fact people see the comparison as ridiculous is why the comparison is apparently necessary. This was not a ridiculous comparison thirty years ago, even if Jordan was preferred. I guess now we have BPM and PER so we need to pretend otherwise.

onedayattatime wrote:No, and please let me be honest here as a satellite/lurker when saying that I'm tired of what seem to be 'agenda posts'; they erode the credibility of this forum for me. In parallel with the Top 100 Project, I've already been seeing recent takes that Karl Malone (a player beaten by MJ on the way to a championship) is A) a worse prospect than Pau Gasol and B) maybe not even a positive defender. I don't have a horse in this race, i.e., I don't have MJ as the goat, but this is tiresome. If MJ and Magic were close in primes, then don't you think they would have been close in any of this board's peak projects? 2022: MJ is #1 and Magic is #10; 2019: identical; 2015: identical; 2012: MJ #1; Magic #8. It almost feels to me now that comparing someone to MJ is like comparing someone to Hitler in Internet arguments.

so coz ppl voted mj above before, ceilin cant say otherwise now?

idk, seems to me like ur the one with an agenda. maybe the reason mj kept goin at 1 because posters like u cried bout credibility whenever someone pointed out his goat arg kinda sucks

kendogg wrote:As far as 80's early 90's stars go....I think offensively, that Jordan, Magic and Bird are the only 3 in Tier 1 (GOAT tier). But Jordan and Bird were also good to great defenders, early in their careers at least. Jordan's game ramps better in the playoffs according to numbers, but Magic and Bird played different roles. Floor leaders pretty much always play the same even in a tightened rotation. Where as pure scorers like Jordan can just gobble up all extra shot attempts as the rotations tighten. Bird was a primary scorer too, and its true that iso game wasn't his forte, despite his clutch shot reputation (his fader and stepback were pretty unblockable though). For the most part he always took what the defense gave him and, like Magic, was a very cerebral player.

Floor leaders (on offense and defense) are force multipliers, as they raise the level of their teammates as well as themselves. Jordan did this somewhat, but he was more of a pure assassin. Where as a huge part of Bird and Magic's game was as floor leaders, though they could be an assassin when the situation called for it. I do think that Jordan is the scorer least held back by the best defenders of their generation, and as such he is probably the best ceiling raiser his generation, and perhaps all-time.. But does that make him the best offensive player? I think Bird and Magic are clearly the better floor raisers. They are the best floor raisers of their generation and are in the mix for best all-time as well. Jordan is the better ceiling raiser but not by as big of a margin.

magic was a really good riser according to fp4s playoff risin thing. bird was one of the worst though

I don’t put Magic above Jordan, but I think there’s kind of a case to be made for Magic above anyone, since the impact signals we do have from him are really good, he is probably the GOAT passer (with Nash being up there for me too), and was IMO extremely good every season he played. There’d be a lot of counterarguments, and I do ultimately find those counterarguments persuasive enough that there’s a handful of players I put above Magic, but given that we are in a world where we have limited info, I think it’s actually probably possible Magic is the greatest player of all time.

AEnigma wrote:

onedayattatime wrote:and B) maybe not even a positive defender.

Which “anti-Jordan” people are arguing that.

Not to derail the thread, or speak for anyone else, but I have been(though I'm the opposite of anti-Jordan). On the basis that Malone's D-RAPM is underwhelming at best across the board. People keep saying he was a good defender, and I keep saying I haven't seen any statistical evidence, box, impact, or otherwise, to back that up. If someone can show it to me, I'll eat crow. But I mean, Malone's been inducted, so I'm not inclined to spend much more time debating him.

It almost feels to me now that comparing someone to MJ is like comparing someone to Hitler in Internet arguments.

In the sense that making the comparison at all turns into a total discussion killer, sure, but considering the rest of your post, I doubt that was the angle you intended.

The fact people see the comparison as ridiculous is why the comparison is apparently necessary. This was not a ridiculous comparison thirty years ago, even if Jordan was preferred. I guess now we have BPM and PER so we need to pretend otherwise.

To be fair, thirty years ago, Jordan had three fewer championships and three fewer ATG teams under his belt.

Gibson22 wrote:It's not. btw, imagine if magic gets drafted by the 85 bulls.

hed be busy not winning anything till he got a superteam?

OldSchoolNoBull wrote:

AEnigma wrote:

onedayattatime wrote:and B) maybe not even a positive defender.

Which “anti-Jordan” people are arguing that.

Not to derail the thread, or speak for anyone else, but I have been(though I'm the opposite of anti-Jordan). On the basis that Malone's D-RAPM is underwhelming at best across the board. People keep saying he was a good defender, and I keep saying I haven't seen any statistical evidence, box, impact, or otherwise, to back that up. If someone can show it to me, I'll eat crow. But I mean, Malone's been inducted, so I'm not inclined to spend much more time debating him.

It almost feels to me now that comparing someone to MJ is like comparing someone to Hitler in Internet arguments.

In the sense that making the comparison at all turns into a total discussion killer, sure, but considering the rest of your post, I doubt that was the angle you intended.

The fact people see the comparison as ridiculous is why the comparison is apparently necessary. This was not a ridiculous comparison thirty years ago, even if Jordan was preferred. I guess now we have BPM and PER so we need to pretend otherwise.

To be fair, thirty years ago, Jordan had three fewer championships and three fewer ATG teams under his belt.

id wanna see a arg for malone bein good on d too tbh. is it just coz he big

AEnigma wrote:Guessing a lot of the posts you like are agenda posts too. In some capacity, most posts are.

Well, of course bias is inevitable. I try to focus on posts with a lot of factual information that I hadn't thought of before. Am I perfect at it? Of course not.

That was part of an anti-Kobe agenda lol.

Case in point: I hadn't realized this, so of course I like this post.

Which “anti-Jordan” people are arguing that.

This was already answered in the thread, but I'll talk about it here to try to avoid writing a lot of posts. I'm not the statistician that some people here are, but I was quite impressed by Malone's placement in career DWS. This is the top 5 for that category (in order): Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt. Pretty much what you might expect: players who were active for a long time and renowned as great defenders. The next 5 (in order): Karl Malone, KG, Elvin Hayes, Ewing, DRob. Again, pretty much what you'd expect - great defenders with good or great longevity. LeBron, with basically the same longevity as Malone is 11th. Stockton, Malone's teammate who always seems to be viewed as a great defender, is 20th. So is this a fluke? He's just up there with these great defenders because he played a lot of games? At the very least, it matches my 'eye test': I always saw Malone as a defender strong enough to guard Shaq but also with quick hands.

I think Kobe and Bird were close in their primes, yet the peaks project would disagree. Many of us think Russell was reasonably close or even better than the primes of Wilt and Shaq, yet the peaks project would disagree. How does this matter? Are those discussions also dead on arrival because of some spot gaps?

No, I simply mean to allude to the amount of evidence that was argued in those threads over so many years. The truth, from my perspective, is that any legitimate GOAT candidate can't possibly be overrated. By definition, there is a reasonable perspective or value system through which that player could be declared the best ever.

onedayattatime wrote:

AEnigma wrote:Guessing a lot of the posts you like are agenda posts too. In some capacity, most posts are.

Well, of course bias is inevitable. I try to focus on posts with a lot of factual information that I hadn't thought of before. Am I perfect at it? Of course not.

This was already answered in the thread, but I'll talk about it here to try to avoid writing a lot of posts.

It was answered by a pro-jordan poster who is skeptical of Malone's defense. What "anti-mj" poster did you spot arguing Malone was a negative defender?

I think Kobe and Bird were close in their primes, yet the peaks project would disagree. Many of us think Russell was reasonably close or even better than the primes of Wilt and Shaq, yet the peaks project would disagree. How does this matter? Are those discussions also dead on arrival because of some spot gaps?

No, I simply mean to allude to the amount of evidence that was argued in those threads over so many years.

Maybe cite the evidence you think refutes what has been offered for Magic here so emphatically the discussion should not be humored?

Your original post complained about the comparison citing consensus from past peak projects. If anything, that would qualify as an agenda post. Jordan is a legtimate goat candidate(opinion), Magic is not(also opinion). Would you prefer if we gatekept people who disagree with you?

Very few posters here have Magic>MJ, in spite of a bunch of novel evidence/argumentation being offered over the last few months. You are preaching to the choir. The difference is that some of the board are willing to engage and address people who disagree with them.

You, having addressed nothing, are trying to shut down the discourse. that is an agenda-post.

If the points raised are found to be unconvincing, then opinion on the subject will not shift. If they are, and opinion on the subject does shift, on a board that has always voted MJ as the #1 peak, then there may well be merit to what is being argued.

Certainly, if you find defensive winshares compelling, I'm not sure on what grounds you have to dismiss what has been offered here as "agenda posting".