What is the minimum number of Michael Jordan's prime seasons that you need over Stockton's entire career?

[WestGOAT]

Note you are trying to maximize the chances of winning a championship. Don't take player salary into account.

[Jaivl]

3 seasons is too little, 5 seasons I'd clearly take. 4 seasons could go either way... I'd say 4, but 5 could be possible.

[AEnigma]

If Stockton has a 5% chance on average of winning a championship every year, over twenty years, he has a 74% chance at winning at least one title.

A player with a 50% title rate only needs two years to surpass that — but despite perhaps common sentiment, that is not Jordan on an average roster. That might apply to Russell and Mikan in their eras, but even then.

A player with a 30% title rate only needs three seasons to surpass that. That tends to be where someone like Elgee lands with his CORP models. But his models are also higher on Stockton. Say Stockton has 10% odds in an average season. Now we are at 88% odds of at least one title over twenty years. That takes roughly six years for the 30% guy, which feels about right. Lower Jordan to 25%, and we are at seven or eight years (call it eight with an injury in there) to match twenty years of 10% Stockton. If we are lower on both players and think 5% for Stockton and 25% for Jordan is fair, then Jordan needs five years.

Will lean six years just to account for injury possibility, as well as my belief that a majority of front offices are slow to construct true contenders when randomly provided a superstar. Giannis and Jokic have decent front offices, and six years covers both of their playoff primes to this point (one title each). Lebron was all-NBA for six years at the start of his career in Cleveland and never had one supporting cast I would call typical of a title contender. Jordan did not win a title his first six years and only contended once. Same with Hakeem. Same with Shaq, despite good support. Kareem won one title in his first ten years. Garnett was never winning in Minnesota and only had one year of contention. People here are high on Robinson, but in his seven superstar years, he never came all that close to a title (closest in 1995 and 1990).

The reality is these top players tend not to be able to be jump directly onto 50-win rosters during their prime, and I do think that is roughly what Jordan would need to compete in an average season (although there are always down years — e.g. 2006 — which permit breakthroughs with lesser support). You would need some unprecedented cap spike to make that feasible in the modern NBA. So maybe I should go with seven years, but for now I will leave it at six.

[70sFan]

Based on my CORP evaluation, it's 5 seasons (1988-92), but I think I'd go with 6 (1988-93).

[rand]

2 at the most

Think about how many titles Jordan would have won between 1988-1993 if he were on Utah instead of Stockton. The gap here is pretty big. Stockton, CP3 and Nash all failed to win titles. Players on that level are difference makers of course but they don't almost singlehandedly put your team into the Finals like a Jordan or LeBron can.

With a random supporting cast, I'll take two seasons of the GOAT prime over 19 seasons of mostly 2nd-team All-NBA caliber play with a few marginal seasons at the beginning and end.

[Colbinii]

2 at the most

Think about how many titles Jordan would have won between 1988-1993 if he were on Utah instead of Stockton. The gap here is pretty big. Stockton, CP3 and Nash all failed to win titles. Players on that level are difference makers of course but they don't almost singlehandedly put your team into the Finals like a Jordan or LeBron can.

With a random supporting cast, I'll take two seasons of the GOAT prime over 19 seasons of mostly 2nd-team All-NBA caliber play with a few marginal seasons at the beginning and end.

THat isn't how this works though.

LeBron didn't win a single title in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

[Dutchball97]

Usually I'd say I'd need to see about 4 or 5-ish seasons from a MVP caliber player to even consider them over someone with 10-15 years of All-Star level play but the part about maximizing your chances of winning a championship is throwing me off.

Assuming they get around league average levels of help on their team, am I crazy for thinking you have a higher chance to win a ring with 1 year of Jordan than with 15 years of Stockton? Now don't get me wrong, I agree Jordan even in his prime isn't just going to stroll to a title with average help. However, I do think Jordan with an ok team around him has A chance at a ring as long as there are no insane superteams around. Stockton leading a team of average NBA players just doesn't sound like you'd ever get particularly close to a title, even if you tried 50 times.

But then again if it's stacked teams we're talking about, like at a level where they're already title contenders before adding MJ or Stockton it'd swing the complete opposite way. A contender adding another star player is likely going to be the favorite every year, I'm not even sure Jordan has enough prime seasons to beat Stockton at any point in that comparison. Doesn't really matter if the team would be better and win more games with Jordan than Stockton, if adding Stockton is bringing them rings all the same.

So long story short, it depends I guess?

[rand]

2 at the most

Think about how many titles Jordan would have won between 1988-1993 if he were on Utah instead of Stockton. The gap here is pretty big. Stockton, CP3 and Nash all failed to win titles. Players on that level are difference makers of course but they don't almost singlehandedly put your team into the Finals like a Jordan or LeBron can.

With a random supporting cast, I'll take two seasons of the GOAT prime over 19 seasons of mostly 2nd-team All-NBA caliber play with a few marginal seasons at the beginning and end.

THat isn't how this works though.

LeBron didn't win a single title in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

LeBron didn't have Karl Malone in all of those seasons and the one time he had a player on that level in 2011 he didn't win only because he personally choked in the Finals as a massive favorite. The next time he had a MVP caliber player in 2020 he won again. And he won in 2016 with a supporting cast which would have struggled to make the playoffs without him. Replace LeBron from '12-'20 with Stockton from '89 to '97 and Stockton wins zero titles. Put '09-'18 LeBron on '89-'98 Stockton's Jazz teams and the result is a big pile of rings.

[OhayoKD]

2 at the most

Think about how many titles Jordan would have won between 1988-1993 if he were on Utah instead of Stockton. The gap here is pretty big. Stockton, CP3 and Nash all failed to win titles. Players on that level are difference makers of course but they don't almost singlehandedly put your team into the Finals like a Jordan or LeBron can.

With a random supporting cast, I'll take two seasons of the GOAT prime over 19 seasons of mostly 2nd-team All-NBA caliber play with a few marginal seasons at the beginning and end.

THat isn't how this works though.

LeBron didn't win a single title in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

LeBron didn't have Karl Malone in all of those seasons and the one time he had a player on that level in 2011 he didn't win only because he personally choked in the Finals as a massive favorite. The next time he had a MVP caliber player in 2020 he won again. And he won in 2016 with a supporting cast which would have struggled to make the playoffs without him. Replace LeBron on all of his title teams with a random Stockton from '89 to '97 and Stockton wins zero titles. Put '09-'18 LeBron on '89-'98 Stockton's Jazz teams and the result is a big pile of rings.

how does a more valuable player than mj being able to win with a level of support mj never won with help mj here?

[Djoker]

I think, generally speaking, Ben Taylor's CORP values are way overestimating the value of an all-star player vs. a strong MVP type player. In Ben's estimation it's like 3 all-star seasons equaling 1 strong MVP season. However there is 24 all-stars in any given season but only 2-3 strong MVP type guys. From a scarcity standpoint, the value ratio is like 10:1 and it makes sense to look at this way because lower quality players are way more easily replaceable. And of course a guy like MJ is even more valuable than just an average strong MVP type player.

Since Stockton made 10 all-star games, I'm pretty confident in saying that 2 prime MJ seasons are more valuable than Stockton's entire career.

[rand]

THat isn't how this works though.

LeBron didn't win a single title in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018 and 2019.

LeBron didn't have Karl Malone in all of those seasons and the one time he had a player on that level in 2011 he didn't win only because he personally choked in the Finals as a massive favorite. The next time he had a MVP caliber player in 2020 he won again. And he won in 2016 with a supporting cast which would have struggled to make the playoffs without him. Replace LeBron on all of his title teams with a random Stockton from '89 to '97 and Stockton wins zero titles. Put '09-'18 LeBron on '89-'98 Stockton's Jazz teams and the result is a big pile of rings.

how does a more valuable player than mj being able to win with a level of support mj never won with help mj here?

I consider LeBron and MJ interchangeable in value here and am not interested in the GOAT argument. There's a long thread for that.

For the rest the point was that a GOAT prime increases the odds of your team winning a title by a very large amount over a 2nd team All-NBA player (obviously) and this can be visualized by identifying collections of teams that could have won the title with MJ/LeBron but couldn't with Stockton instead. It takes an exceptionally loaded supporting cast just to give a Stockton led team a chance at winning a title. Therefore I would rather take two seasons of GOAT prime level player with a random cast than a large number of seasons with a random cast and a player who averages out at a 2nd team All-NBA level.

[1993Playoffs]

Why is ‘87 MJ not being included?

38 ppg , flawed but positive defensively, a legit top 5-10 player in the league.

That’s clearly better than Stockton ever was

[rand]

Why is ‘87 MJ not being included?

38 ppg , flawed but positive defensively, a legit top 5-10 player in the league.

That’s clearly better than Stockton ever was

True. '96-'98 MJ was also clearly better than Stockton ever was but still not his prime. The smaller the gap between the versions of Jordan and Stockton the more seasons you'd tend to need from him to equal Stockton's entire prime (however long that was).

[OhayoKD]

LeBron didn't have Karl Malone in all of those seasons and the one time he had a player on that level in 2011 he didn't win only because he personally choked in the Finals as a massive favorite. The next time he had a MVP caliber player in 2020 he won again. And he won in 2016 with a supporting cast which would have struggled to make the playoffs without him. Replace LeBron on all of his title teams with a random Stockton from '89 to '97 and Stockton wins zero titles. Put '09-'18 LeBron on '89-'98 Stockton's Jazz teams and the result is a big pile of rings.

how does a more valuable player than mj being able to win with a level of support mj never won with help mj here?

I consider LeBron and MJ interchangeable in value here and am not interested in the GOAT argument. There's a long thread for that.

Well your argument currently hinges on their value being interchangeable. You are literally listing things Jordan did not come close to doing as evidence on the assumption that the player who did do those things and carries a bunch of advantages over the other was not actually advantaged in terms of what he could win with.

It takes an exceptionally loaded supporting cast just to give a Stockton led team a chance at winning a title. Therefore I would rather take two seasons of GOAT prime level player with a random cast than 15 seasons with a random cast and a player who averages out at a 2nd team All-NBA level.

And in 15 years you have a better chance of building that "exceptionally loaded" cast than you do with 2. That's probably why actual studies on the relationship between peak/longevity and championships do not support "2>15" even when they assume Jordan was the goat prime on the basis of expected impact on hypothetical 70-win teams.

as is, it took an exceptionally loaded cast for Jordan to break through. There was no 2016 equivalent. There wasn't even a "2015" one either. There certainly was not a 2020 approximation if we compare corresponding seasons.

Even if we took your longetivity/peak guess at face-value, your claim still hinges on an assumption that doesn't line up with what you yourself decided to bring up

[rand]

how does a more valuable player than mj being able to win with a level of support mj never won with help mj here?

I consider LeBron and MJ interchangeable in value here and am not interested in the GOAT argument. There's a long thread for that.

Well your argument currently hinges on their value being interchangeable. You are literally listing things Jordan did not come close to doing as evidence on the assumption that the player who did do those things and carries a bunch of advantages over the other was not actually advantaged in terms of what he could win with.

It takes an exceptionally loaded supporting cast just to give a Stockton led team a chance at winning a title. Therefore I would rather take two seasons of GOAT prime level player with a random cast than 15 seasons with a random cast and a player who averages out at a 2nd team All-NBA level.

And in 15 years you have a better chance of building that "exceptionally loaded" cast than you do with 2. That's probably why actual studies on the relationship between peak/longevity and championships do not support "2>15" even when they assume Jordan was the goat prime on the basis of expected impact on hypothetical 70-win teams.

as is, it took an exceptionally loaded cast for Jordan to break through. There was no 2016 equivalent. There wasn't even a "2015" one either. There certainly was not a 2020 approximation if we compare corresponding seasons.

Even if we took your longetivity/peak guess at face-value, your claim still hinges on an assumption that doesn't line up with what you yourself decided to bring up

My original argument had nothing to do with LeBron and had zero reliance upon the interchangeability of their value. Colbinii interjected LeBron and I followed down that path. We can dismiss LeBron from the conversation and return to MJ and Stockton in OP's question without further reference to LeBron or his seasons.

If you replace prime Jordan with prime Stockton, there is no chance the Bulls win a title in any of those seasons. If that's true then not even with an exceptionally loaded cast (by your own assessment) could Stockton have won a title, the cast would have to be some superlative beyond exceptionally loaded. Or perhaps exceptionally loaded with an exceptionally weak run of playoff opponents. On the other hand if you had replaced prime Stockton with prime Jordan, the Jazz win a stack of titles. This alone illustrates the magnitude of increase in championship viability between adding players of these comparative values.

edit: the above is too harsh. "no chance" should be replaced with "little chance"

[AEnigma]

The OP just says to win a championship, but it is fair to point out that one player is substantially more likely be on at least sort of dynastic team. I still think potential injuries need to be factored, as well as how the shrinking of sample years limits the ability of teams to develop that dynasty core, but I could see going down to four or five years.

And has been pointed out, yes, most teams will have outright no serious chance to win a title with Stockton — but given twenty years, most teams manage to put together some form of contender. Do we see more variation over twenty years or over three? On the other hand, there is a functional inadequacy to just assigning different teams odds to win. There is not really a 1% title team in the NBA. Closest is maybe the 1995 Rockets, but even then. If you are below a certain threshold of likelihood, I think it is fair to say your real chances are zero. And that can quickly take Stockton from twenty seasons with a shot to maybe three to six.

So maybe I need to adjust my perception of this a bit and take a season off my point of equivalence for most all-timers. Idk. I hate small samples. Always something that can go wrong. But I do take the point that Stockton on a random team makes for a total non-contender almost every time.

[Colbinii]

I think, generally speaking, Ben Taylor's CORP values are way overestimating the value of an all-star player vs. a strong MVP type player. In Ben's estimation it's like 3 all-star seasons equaling 1 strong MVP season. However there is 24 all-stars in any given season but only 2-3 strong MVP type guys. From a scarcity standpoint, the value ratio is like 10:1 and it makes sense to look at this way because lower quality players are way more easily replaceable. And of course a guy like MJ is even more valuable than just an average strong MVP type player.

Since Stockton made 10 all-star games, I'm pretty confident in saying that 2 prime MJ seasons are more valuable than Stockton's entire career.

This is good rationale and a similar line of thinking for LeBron > Jordan. The number of Strong MVP Season's a player has is vitally important for title odds.

[Djoker]

Calling the 1990's Bulls exceptionally loaded is a major exaggeration.

They were definitely a capable cast hovering at a 50-win pace and +3.8 MOV without Jordan and with Pippen (141 games) but with him and Pippen they were at a 66-win pace and +9.7 MOV (458 games). And this is for the entire 1991-1998 stretch so it's a large sample.

And in Ben Taylor's Jordan Plus-Minus video, he cited the first threepeat 91-93 Bulls as a 75th percentile cast meaning they are the 7th or 8th best team in the league. And this is inline with what the 1994 and 1995 Bulls accomplished without MJ. With Jordan though, they weren't just 1st in the league but on a very short list of greatest teams in history. Just about all of MJ's lift was on offense of course which is typical for a perimeter player but lifting a league average offense to historic heights is insane.

Also worth noting that without Pippen but with Jordan the Bulls were at a 60-win pace and +6.5 MOV (45 games) which is still title contender territory. And mind you most of that sample is from the 1998 season when the Bulls cast was probably at its weakest but there's strong indication that those Bulls teams could still contend, though nowhere near as dominant of course, even without Pippen.

WOWY Combinations 1991-1998 Bulls

With Jordan 400-103 W-L -- 65-win pace +9.38 MOV
Without Jordan 90-63 W-L -- 48-win pace +3.38 MOV

With Jordan With Pippen 367-91 W-L -- 66-win pace +9.67 MOV
With Jordan Without Pippen 33-12 W-L -- 60-win pace +6.47 MOV
Without Jordan With Pippen 86-55 W-L -- 50-win pace +3.79 MOV
Without Jordan Without Pippen 4-8 W-L -- 27-win pace -1.42 MOV

With that out of the way, Jordan + Malone on those Utah teams would be an absolute bloodbath. I think defensively they would never reach the Bulls' heights and stay more or less the same but offensively those teams would shatter all the records IMO. The 1997 Jazz and 1998 Jazz are already the 7th and 18th greatest offenses in history by rORtg and then we're replacing Stockton with MJ. Come on now...

[1993Playoffs]

Why is ‘87 MJ not being included?

38 ppg , flawed but positive defensively, a legit top 5-10 player in the league.

That’s clearly better than Stockton ever was

True. '96-'98 MJ was also clearly better than Stockton ever was but still not his prime. The smaller the gap between the versions of Jordan and Stockton the more seasons you'd tend to need from him to equal Stockton's entire prime (however long that was).

Yeah I’d actually put MJ top 3 that year instead of top 5-10. But yeah same point lol.

[OhayoKD]

I consider LeBron and MJ interchangeable in value here and am not interested in the GOAT argument. There's a long thread for that.

Well your argument currently hinges on their value being interchangeable. You are literally listing things Jordan did not come close to doing as evidence on the assumption that the player who did do those things and carries a bunch of advantages over the other was not actually advantaged in terms of what he could win with.

It takes an exceptionally loaded supporting cast just to give a Stockton led team a chance at winning a title. Therefore I would rather take two seasons of GOAT prime level player with a random cast than 15 seasons with a random cast and a player who averages out at a 2nd team All-NBA level.

And in 15 years you have a better chance of building that "exceptionally loaded" cast than you do with 2. That's probably why actual studies on the relationship between peak/longevity and championships do not support "2>15" even when they assume Jordan was the goat prime on the basis of expected impact on hypothetical 70-win teams.

as is, it took an exceptionally loaded cast for Jordan to break through. There was no 2016 equivalent. There wasn't even a "2015" one either. There certainly was not a 2020 approximation if we compare corresponding seasons.

Even if we took your longetivity/peak guess at face-value, your claim still hinges on an assumption that doesn't line up with what you yourself decided to bring up

My original argument had nothing to do with LeBron and had zero reliance upon the interchangeability of their value. Colbinii interjected LeBron and I followed down that path. We can dismiss LeBron from the conversation and return to MJ and Stockton in OP's question without further reference to LeBron or his seasons.

One of the first things you said was "players like lebron or jordan can near-single handedly make the finals". There is no objective bar for near single-handedly, but the closest Lebron has come to "single-handedly" leading a finals team was 2015, with a set of teammates that played like the 84 bulls without him before his best two teammates proceeded to miss nearly(or more than) half the playoffs.

Jordan never made the finals nor led a comparable team before 91 despite his help spiking massively the year before to the tune of a big in-the-same year srs jump proceeding the 90 playoffs.

You interjected Lebron referencing something Lebron has arguably done and Jordan has absolutely not. Colibini quite reasonably pointed out Lebron didn't win a bunch, you replied by bringing up a bunch of other things Jordan didn't do or even come particularly close to.

Jordan has never beaten a team on the level of the 2016 warriors(as part of one of the very best team-wide playoff runs ever), let alone with support that would "struggle to make the playoffs without him". He also did not make the finals or lead a +10 psrs playoff team with the two best players on a team that would "struggle to make the playoffs without him" absent for half or 3/4ths of the playoffs.

There's very little reason to think their value is interchangeable when the events you bring up to showcase Lebron's value advantage are not things Jordan has managed. And of course without that assumption, the entirety of what you are arguing falls apart.

edit: the above is too harsh. "no chance" should be replaced with "little chance"

I am not seeing why it would be "little chance" in 91 or 94 which...gets you to two potential titles. Jordan is going to need his years to lineup just right to match that. Simple switcheroos also obviously do not capture the whole range of "on a random team".

Calling the 1990's Bulls exceptionally loaded is a major exaggeration.

The bulls posted a 53-win srs without their best and 3rd best players absent and their second best player not wanting to be there. It's not a "major exaggeration", it's an understatement.