People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[70sFan]

Im not sure what you guys have against Ewing lol. He was a great post player in addition to being able to face up. He can hit the turn around jumper over either shoulder from anywhere in and around the paint. Jump hooks over either shoulder. He had mini dream shakes in his repitoire. Up and unders. Running hooks. Leaners. Fadaways. He could go over top. He can go outside, inside. And most importantly he can chain these things together fluidly.

That's a defensive response.

Ewing wasn't known in his own time for his diverse array in the post. He was a stiff, mechanical offensive player who did his best offensive work leveraging his first step against slower big men and wielding his jumper. He was pretty good at that in the RS. He had like 2 good postseason runs as a primary scorer because his offensive game was not particularly special. This isn't news.

There's a reason he looked like stank ass against Olajuwon, and it wasn't just strong individual defense. He struggled in general when he didn't physically overwhelm his opponent because his skill set was neither advanced nor diverse.

These are just your characterizations of Ewing not necessarily facts: "He worked better shooting jumpers, hes mechanical, and he's not special". Ok, that could all be true, or false. But when I turn on the tape and watch Ewing work in the post I see better footwork and more moves. Plain and simple. I see Ewing chain these moves together in a way I don't see from Wilt. Now if you want to bring passing into it or athleticism then that's something else. But as far as moves and footwork in the post...I see more of that of Ewing.

Ewing also spent his career going against better more modern defense then Wilt Chamberlain did. So if he struggled here or didn't match up well there then that just speaks to how good his peers were and how strong the defense was. You point out that he looked like "stank ass"(so disrespectful) against Olajuwon. Ok. Thats Hakeem Olajuwon, a great post and team defender from a more modern era. Thats also just one series at the tail end of his prime. Put the '90 or '91 version of Pat Ewing up against Bill Russell and lets see what those numbers look like.

So when someone watches the game and comes to different conclusions than you it's a "characterization, not fact", but when you talk about your opinions they seem to be indeed factual, right?

Even when you make factually incorrect statements, like with Ewing using hook shots over the right shoulder.

[Stalwart]

That's a defensive response.

Ewing wasn't known in his own time for his diverse array in the post. He was a stiff, mechanical offensive player who did his best offensive work leveraging his first step against slower big men and wielding his jumper. He was pretty good at that in the RS. He had like 2 good postseason runs as a primary scorer because his offensive game was not particularly special. This isn't news.

There's a reason he looked like stank ass against Olajuwon, and it wasn't just strong individual defense. He struggled in general when he didn't physically overwhelm his opponent because his skill set was neither advanced nor diverse.

These are just your characterizations of Ewing not necessarily facts: "He worked better shooting jumpers, hes mechanical, and he's not special". Ok, that could all be true, or false. But when I turn on the tape and watch Ewing work in the post I see better footwork and more moves. Plain and simple. I see Ewing chain these moves together in a way I don't see from Wilt. Now if you want to bring passing into it or athleticism then that's something else. But as far as moves and footwork in the post...I see more of that of Ewing.

Ewing also spent his career going against better more modern defense then Wilt Chamberlain did. So if he struggled here or didn't match up well there then that just speaks to how good his peers were and how strong the defense was. You point out that he looked like "stank ass"(so disrespectful) against Olajuwon. Ok. Thats Hakeem Olajuwon, a great post and team defender from a more modern era. Thats also just one series at the tail end of his prime. Put the '90 or '91 version of Pat Ewing up against Bill Russell and lets see what those numbers look like.

So when someone watches the game and comes to different conclusions than you it's a "characterization, not fact", but when you talk about your opinions they seem to be indeed factual, right?

Even when you make factually incorrect statements, like with Ewing using hook shots over the right shoulder.

I didn't say they weren't facts. I said they weren't necessarily facts. I even said his conclusions could all be true. Did you miss that part?

Those conclusions, however, are irrelevant to the point. The point being that Ewing had more moves, better footwork, and better technique. Ewing was nothing short of dominate at his peak. Spectacular even.

[70sFan]

These are just your characterizations of Ewing not necessarily facts: "He worked better shooting jumpers, hes mechanical, and he's not special". Ok, that could all be true, or false. But when I turn on the tape and watch Ewing work in the post I see better footwork and more moves. Plain and simple. I see Ewing chain these moves together in a way I don't see from Wilt. Now if you want to bring passing into it or athleticism then that's something else. But as far as moves and footwork in the post...I see more of that of Ewing.

Ewing also spent his career going against better more modern defense then Wilt Chamberlain did. So if he struggled here or didn't match up well there then that just speaks to how good his peers were and how strong the defense was. You point out that he looked like "stank ass"(so disrespectful) against Olajuwon. Ok. Thats Hakeem Olajuwon, a great post and team defender from a more modern era. Thats also just one series at the tail end of his prime. Put the '90 or '91 version of Pat Ewing up against Bill Russell and lets see what those numbers look like.

So when someone watches the game and comes to different conclusions than you it's a "characterization, not fact", but when you talk about your opinions they seem to be indeed factual, right?

Even when you make factually incorrect statements, like with Ewing using hook shots over the right shoulder.

I didn't say they weren't facts. I said they weren't necessarily facts. I even said his conclusions could all be true. Did you miss that part?

Those conclusions, however, are irrelevant to the point. The point being that Ewing had more moves, better footwork, and better technique. Ewing was nothing short of dominate at his peak. Spectacular even.

You still do it. Ewing having better footwork and technique is your opinion, not a fact. You also don't back up your claims with anything substantial. Ewing didn't have more moves either, do you really want me to make a detalied comparison?

[penbeast0]

Please stop sniping at each other and return to substantive discussion.

Thank you,
penbeast0

[falcolombardi]

Im not sure what you guys have against Ewing lol. He was a great post player in addition to being able to face up. He can hit the turn around jumper over either shoulder from anywhere in and around the paint. Jump hooks over either shoulder. He had mini dream shakes in his repitoire. Up and unders. Running hooks. Leaners. Fadaways. He could go over top. He can go outside, inside. And most importantly he can chain these things together fluidly.

That's a defensive response.

Ewing wasn't known in his own time for his diverse array in the post. He was a stiff, mechanical offensive player who did his best offensive work leveraging his first step against slower big men and wielding his jumper. He was pretty good at that in the RS. He had like 2 good postseason runs as a primary scorer because his offensive game was not particularly special. This isn't news.

There's a reason he looked like stank ass against Olajuwon, and it wasn't just strong individual defense. He struggled in general when he didn't physically overwhelm his opponent because his skill set was neither advanced nor diverse.

These are just your characterizations of Ewing not necessarily facts: "He worked better shooting jumpers, hes mechanical, and he's not special". Ok, that could all be true, or false. But when I turn on the tape and watch Ewing work in the post I see better footwork and more moves. Plain and simple. I see Ewing chain these moves together in a way I don't see from Wilt. Now if you want to bring passing into it or athleticism then that's something else. But as far as moves and footwork in the post...I see more of that of Ewing.

Ewing also spent his career going against better more modern defense then Wilt Chamberlain did. So if he struggled here or didn't match up well there then that just speaks to how good his peers were and how strong the defense was. You point out that he looked like "stank ass"(so disrespectful) against Olajuwon. Ok. Thats Hakeem Olajuwon, a great post and team defender from a more modern era. Thats also just one series at the tail end of his prime. Put the '90 or '91 version of Pat Ewing up against Bill Russell and lets see what those numbers look like.

Citation needed?

Ewing played in a league that had illegal defense rules, a (lightly used) 3 point line and allowed offensive post up player to initiate more contact and had looser dribbling rules

Ewing era was easier to be a post up player than wilt era

[Stalwart]

That's a defensive response.

Ewing wasn't known in his own time for his diverse array in the post. He was a stiff, mechanical offensive player who did his best offensive work leveraging his first step against slower big men and wielding his jumper. He was pretty good at that in the RS. He had like 2 good postseason runs as a primary scorer because his offensive game was not particularly special. This isn't news.

There's a reason he looked like stank ass against Olajuwon, and it wasn't just strong individual defense. He struggled in general when he didn't physically overwhelm his opponent because his skill set was neither advanced nor diverse.

These are just your characterizations of Ewing not necessarily facts: "He worked better shooting jumpers, hes mechanical, and he's not special". Ok, that could all be true, or false. But when I turn on the tape and watch Ewing work in the post I see better footwork and more moves. Plain and simple. I see Ewing chain these moves together in a way I don't see from Wilt. Now if you want to bring passing into it or athleticism then that's something else. But as far as moves and footwork in the post...I see more of that of Ewing.

Ewing also spent his career going against better more modern defense then Wilt Chamberlain did. So if he struggled here or didn't match up well there then that just speaks to how good his peers were and how strong the defense was. You point out that he looked like "stank ass"(so disrespectful) against Olajuwon. Ok. Thats Hakeem Olajuwon, a great post and team defender from a more modern era. Thats also just one series at the tail end of his prime. Put the '90 or '91 version of Pat Ewing up against Bill Russell and lets see what those numbers look like.

Citation needed?

Ewing played in a league that had illegal defense rules, a (lightly used) 3 point line and allowed offensive post up player to initiate more contact and had looser dribbling rules

Ewing era was easier to be a post up player than wilt era

Perhaps the rules were more favorable but when you factor in the caliber of athlete, the physicality, the defensive schemes I don't think it was actually easier in practice. Post players in the 80s and 90s routinely dealt with double teams.

[70sFan]

These are just your characterizations of Ewing not necessarily facts: "He worked better shooting jumpers, hes mechanical, and he's not special". Ok, that could all be true, or false. But when I turn on the tape and watch Ewing work in the post I see better footwork and more moves. Plain and simple. I see Ewing chain these moves together in a way I don't see from Wilt. Now if you want to bring passing into it or athleticism then that's something else. But as far as moves and footwork in the post...I see more of that of Ewing.

Ewing also spent his career going against better more modern defense then Wilt Chamberlain did. So if he struggled here or didn't match up well there then that just speaks to how good his peers were and how strong the defense was. You point out that he looked like "stank ass"(so disrespectful) against Olajuwon. Ok. Thats Hakeem Olajuwon, a great post and team defender from a more modern era. Thats also just one series at the tail end of his prime. Put the '90 or '91 version of Pat Ewing up against Bill Russell and lets see what those numbers look like.

Citation needed?

Ewing played in a league that had illegal defense rules, a (lightly used) 3 point line and allowed offensive post up player to initiate more contact and had looser dribbling rules

Ewing era was easier to be a post up player than wilt era

Perhaps the rules were more favorable but when you factor in the caliber of athlete, the physicality, the defensive schemes I don't think it was actually easier in practice. Post players in the 80s and 90s routinely dealt with double teams.

Can you name one of these defensive schemes?

Post players in the 60s and 70s routinely dealt with double teams. The difference is that they dealt with both soft and hard doubles, while in the 80s and 90s they didn't have to worry about soft doubles, as they were illegal. Hard double team is the easiest defense to exploit for post player.

[penbeast0]

Perhaps the rules were more favorable but when you factor in the caliber of athlete, the physicality, the defensive schemes I don't think it was actually easier in practice. Post players in the 80s and 90s routinely dealt with double teams.

Although the "caliber" of the athlete was improved by weight work and a high probability of PEDs like steroids, the gene pool for 7' athletes was still generally limited to the USA with very few foreign players and yet there were roughly 3 times as many teams in the league. So there were most likely a lot more "less outstanding" 7 footers on the weaker teams and as reserves than when there were only 9 teams in the league instead of 27. In the 2000s, you can make the argument that introducing European and world players rebalanced that factor but not in the 80s and 90s. So, the odds were that the 7 footers of the 80s and 90s were weaker on the average than those of the 90s although there were incredible great big men in each era.

[ceiling raiser]

I really try and stay out of the Jordan and Lebron pissing matches, but I think people are lying to themselves if they say "nothing" would really change their minds. Like, a huge part of Lebron's "GOAT" case is the plethora of lineup data we have for his entire career showing he basically had Top-5 all-time "impact". Hell, KG's entire case as a Top-15 guy is based on RAPM and overall impact data. You're telling me that if we had reliable lineup data for Jordan's peak years ('87-'93) that confirmed the eye test and showed he basically had something like peak KG/Curry level impact (+20 on/off), that it wouldn't have you revaluate (assuming he's not already your clear GOAT)? I'd argue at that point you're just letting your bias cloud any sort of objective analysis.

So this was exactly my point. I don’t have LeBron as the GOAT by a mile but I have him as a candidate (along with Duncan), and have Curry/KG in my top ten.

I think in order to be logically consistent, one would need to have MJ as GOAT if his RAPM was Curry level or higher, with an exception for people who heavily weight longevity outside of MVP/All-NBA First Team caliber seasons.

Ben’s data doesn’t seem to suggest MJ was an outlier in the PS, but neither was Shaq. If we have a large sample of RAPM showing MJ is on that highest echelon *and* he had amazing defensive impact I think he is the GOAT for me.

Obviously Russell, Wilt, Kareem will always be question marks but I don’t think we can patch together stint data/PbP for them, plus there aren’t enough games available to track. I do think for MJ and *possibly* Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, the potential does exist.

[Stalwart]

I really try and stay out of the Jordan and Lebron pissing matches, but I think people are lying to themselves if they say "nothing" would really change their minds. Like, a huge part of Lebron's "GOAT" case is the plethora of lineup data we have for his entire career showing he basically had Top-5 all-time "impact". Hell, KG's entire case as a Top-15 guy is based on RAPM and overall impact data. You're telling me that if we had reliable lineup data for Jordan's peak years ('87-'93) that confirmed the eye test and showed he basically had something like peak KG/Curry level impact (+20 on/off), that it wouldn't have you revaluate (assuming he's not already your clear GOAT)? I'd argue at that point you're just letting your bias cloud any sort of objective analysis.

So this was exactly my point. I don’t have LeBron as the GOAT by a mile but I have him as a candidate (along with Duncan), and have Curry/KG in my top ten.

I think in order to be logically consistent, one would need to have MJ as GOAT if his RAPM was Curry level or higher, with an exception for people who heavily weight longevity outside of MVP/All-NBA First Team caliber seasons.

Ben’s data doesn’t seem to suggest MJ was an outlier in the PS, but neither was Shaq. If we have a large sample of RAPM showing MJ is on that highest echelon *and* he had amazing defensive impact I think he is the GOAT for me.

Obviously Russell, Wilt, Kareem will always be question marks but I don’t think we can patch together stint data/PbP for them, plus there aren’t enough games available to track. I do think for MJ and *possibly* Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, the potential does exist.

RAPM and Ben Taylor. This is what NBA analysis has turned into.

[penbeast0]

RAPM and Ben Taylor. This is what NBA analysis has turned into.

So give us something better, that's what this board is about. I came here as a Wilt=GOAT fan who was skeptical of Russell but over the years, outstanding posters convinced me not only that Russell was better than Wilt in their time but that he was more impactful than Jordan as well. If new evidence comes up that convinces me differently, I will be more than happy to change my opinion.

[Stalwart]

RAPM and Ben Taylor. This is what NBA analysis has turned into.

So give us something better, that's what this board is about. I came here as a Wilt=GOAT fan who was skeptical of Russell but over the years, outstanding posters convinced me not only that Russell was better than Wilt in their time but that he was more impactful than Jordan as well. If new evidence comes up that convinces me differently, I will be more than happy to change my opinion.

Id be curious to know on what basis have these outstanding posters convinced you that Russell was more impactful that both Wilt and Jordan? Are these the same posters who pretend the game didn't evolve for 30 years?

I don't have an issue with people considering metrics like RAPM its the negating of literally everything else that's the problem. In your guys desire to dig beneath the surface you've gotten to point where you ignore everything thats actually on the surface. You've drifted further and further into theoretical black holes. You just hand wave away tangible accomplishments altogether. Championships, accolades, achievements, box scores, impact, influence, eye test, intangibles. ALL of these things have been brushed to the side in favor of made up statistical formulas like RAPM or whatever Ben Taylor says this week. Thats a very limited view of NBA history to say the least.

[AEnigma]

My NBA Mount Rushmore used to be Wilt, Jordan, Kobe, and Shaq, but then I met Ben Taylor and he showed me RAPM that brainwashed me into believing the actual Mount Rushmore should be DRob, Garnett, Nash, and Chris Paul. Someone needs to bring Ben Taylor to justice for the harm he has done.

[falcolombardi]

My NBA Mount Rushmore used to be Wilt, Jordan, Kobe, and Shaq, but then I met Ben Taylor and he showed me RAPM that brainwashed me into believing the actual Mount Rushmore should be DRob, Garnett, Nash, and Chris Paul. Someone needs to bring Ben Taylor to justice for the harm he has done.

A real ben taylor (cultist) anjoyer would know that the mount rushmore of nba players is draymond green- curry- miller- klay

Portability >>>>>

[capfan33]

RAPM and Ben Taylor. This is what NBA analysis has turned into.

So give us something better, that's what this board is about. I came here as a Wilt=GOAT fan who was skeptical of Russell but over the years, outstanding posters convinced me not only that Russell was better than Wilt in their time but that he was more impactful than Jordan as well. If new evidence comes up that convinces me differently, I will be more than happy to change my opinion.

Id be curious to know on what basis have these outstanding posters convinced you that Russell was more impactful that both Wilt and Jordan? Are these the same posters who pretend the game didn't evolve for 30 years?

I don't have an issue with people considering metrics like RAPM its the negating of literally everything else that's the problem. In your guys desire to dig beneath the surface you've gotten to point where you ignore everything thats actually on the surface. You've drifted further and further into theoretical black holes. You just hand wave away tangible accomplishments altogether. Championships, accolades, achievements, box scores, impact, influence, eye test, intangibles. ALL of these things have been brushed to the side in favor of made up statistical formulas like RAPM or whatever Ben Taylor says this week. Thats a very limited view of NBA history to say the least.

Most of us aren't negating everything else though, very few people on this forum are going "RAPM, check, RAPTOR, check, BPM, check, yup that settles it, KG is the GOAT hurdeduhr."

Like I know you may imagine this forum as a bunch of stat nerds crunching formulas all day to come up with the exact probability that x player was better than y player, but I can assure you that's not the case. In fact, the greatest value I've gotten from this forum is the film analysis that posters like Blackmill, Colts18, SideshowBob, and yes, Ben Taylor have posted that I don't have the time, patience, or knowledge to do. Hell, I'm lazy, but I've posted like 5 actual statistics in the greatest peaks thread lmao I'm definitely not one of these people.

Quickly to Ben Taylor, I don't agree with him on everything, I still think he underrates Kareem quite a bit, but I can't argue with his knowledge or dedication. Moreover, I'm not sure how familiar you are with him, because the greatest value I've gotten from Ben, once again, are his film breakdowns. It's not an exaggerration to say that he's probably watched more film than anyone on the planet outside of people actually working for basketball organizations. He uses stats to reinforce what he sees on film but he rarely just uses stats to draw any sort of conclusions. And yes, what he says about basketball should hold some weight, he definitely knows more about basketball than 99% of fans if not 99% of this forum. Just because you or I disagree with some of the conclusions doesn't change that.

Finally, impact, influence, and intangibles (???) are by definition not tangible in any way that's actually measurable. So I'm not sure what those are doing on that list. And honestly, from what I've seen. society generally is too content to just look at the surface when it comes to a myriad of issues, when 90% of the time the surface is merely a symptom of the root cause. So if we're going too far in the other direction, I don't think that's a bad thing.

[JordansBulls]

My NBA Mount Rushmore used to be Wilt, Jordan, Kobe, and Shaq, but then I met Ben Taylor and he showed me RAPM that brainwashed me into believing the actual Mount Rushmore should be DRob, Garnett, Nash, and Chris Paul. Someone needs to bring Ben Taylor to justice for the harm he has done.

Yet all of your new Mount Rushmore lost with HCA several times and none won finals mvp.

[penbeast0]

Id be curious to know on what basis have these outstanding posters convinced you that Russell was more impactful that both Wilt and Jordan? Are these the same posters who pretend the game didn't evolve for 30 years?

I don't have an issue with people considering metrics like RAPM its the negating of literally everything else that's the problem. In your guys desire to dig beneath the surface you've gotten to point where you ignore everything thats actually on the surface. You've drifted further and further into theoretical black holes. You just hand wave away tangible accomplishments altogether. Championships, accolades, achievements, box scores, impact, influence, eye test, intangibles. ALL of these things have been brushed to the side in favor of made up statistical formulas like RAPM or whatever Ben Taylor says this week. Thats a very limited view of NBA history to say the least.

I have several posts in this thread and the current Russell thread that set out my reasoning. None of which mention either RAPM or Ben Taylor. You might also check the top 100 GOAT threads including the past ones where, if they go back far enough, you might see that actual arguments that brought me around to the way of thinking of posters that knew more than I did.

Also, read Owly every time he posts, he almost always has something very insightful to say.

[OhayoKD]

I really try and stay out of the Jordan and Lebron pissing matches, but I think people are lying to themselves if they say "nothing" would really change their minds. Like, a huge part of Lebron's "GOAT" case is the plethora of lineup data we have for his entire career showing he basically had Top-5 all-time "impact". Hell, KG's entire case as a Top-15 guy is based on RAPM and overall impact data. You're telling me that if we had reliable lineup data for Jordan's peak years ('87-'93) that confirmed the eye test and showed he basically had something like peak KG/Curry level impact (+20 on/off), that it wouldn't have you revaluate (assuming he's not already your clear GOAT)? I'd argue at that point you're just letting your bias cloud any sort of objective analysis.

So this was exactly my point. I don’t have LeBron as the GOAT by a mile but I have him as a candidate (along with Duncan), and have Curry/KG in my top ten.

I think in order to be logically consistent, one would need to have MJ as GOAT if his RAPM was Curry level or higher, with an exception for people who heavily weight longevity outside of MVP/All-NBA First Team caliber seasons.

Ben’s data doesn’t seem to suggest MJ was an outlier in the PS, but neither was Shaq. If we have a large sample of RAPM showing MJ is on that highest echelon *and* he had amazing defensive impact I think he is the GOAT for me.

Obviously Russell, Wilt, Kareem will always be question marks but I don’t think we can patch together stint data/PbP for them, plus there aren’t enough games available to track. I do think for MJ and *possibly* Magic, Bird, Hakeem, Shaq, Robinson, the potential does exist.

How does having an rapm comparable to a non-goat get you to goat status? (also we have some of jordan's rapm and it doesn't really say goat)

[Sark]

Perhaps the rules were more favorable but when you factor in the caliber of athlete, the physicality, the defensive schemes I don't think it was actually easier in practice. Post players in the 80s and 90s routinely dealt with double teams.

Although the "caliber" of the athlete was improved by weight work and a high probability of PEDs like steroids, the gene pool for 7' athletes was still generally limited to the USA with very few foreign players and yet there were roughly 3 times as many teams in the league. So there were most likely a lot more "less outstanding" 7 footers on the weaker teams and as reserves than when there were only 9 teams in the league instead of 27. In the 2000s, you can make the argument that introducing European and world players rebalanced that factor but not in the 80s and 90s. So, the odds were that the 7 footers of the 80s and 90s were weaker on the average than those of the 90s although there were incredible great big men in each era.

This is a sort of weird statement to make considering that Ewing was not US born. Neither were many other centers from the 80s and 90s, such as Oljuwon, Smits, Divac, Longley, as well as others.

[OhayoKD]

RAPM and Ben Taylor. This is what NBA analysis has turned into.

So give us something better, that's what this board is about. I came here as a Wilt=GOAT fan who was skeptical of Russell but over the years, outstanding posters convinced me not only that Russell was better than Wilt in their time but that he was more impactful than Jordan as well. If new evidence comes up that convinces me differently, I will be more than happy to change my opinion.

Id be curious to know on what basis have these outstanding posters convinced you that Russell was more impactful that both Wilt and Jordan? Are these the same posters who pretend the game didn't evolve for 30 years?

I don't have an issue with people considering metrics like RAPM its the negating of literally everything else that's the problem. In your guys desire to dig beneath the surface you've gotten to point where you ignore everything thats actually on the surface. You've drifted further and further into theoretical black holes. You just hand wave away tangible accomplishments altogether. Championships, accolades, achievements, box scores, impact, influence, eye test, intangibles. ALL of these things have been brushed to the side in favor of made up statistical formulas like RAPM or whatever Ben Taylor says this week. Thats a very limited view of NBA history to say the least.

We don't have rapm for Russell and Ben didn't list russell as the #1 peak. The basis for Russell being more impactful than jordan(and really any modern great) is that he won twice as much, won with less help at least once(69), won regardless of team context, and was producing unprecedented results before he was drafted(2 ncaa titles with a team that had never made the tournament, set the record for olympics point differential).

The only thing that even looks similar to the 69 season(where russell shouldn't be at his best) in any sort of winning based framework is lbj's 09 rs, KG's 04 rs, lbj's 15 and maybe 16 playoffs, and duncan's 03 rs and postseason.

Of all the winning-related evidence we have, basically all of it favors russell over modern players and none of it contradicts that hypothesis. Thus, in absence of a compelling counterargument, Russell wins any "relative to era" comparison with modern greats, of which most the evidence we have contradicts the idea jordan was the best of them.