Who is in your GOAT tier?

[falcolombardi]

He's not the only player to consistently beat his opposition.

consistency is a large part of the reason i still have jordan as the GOAT (though if i was only ranking based on total career value, it would be lebron). there are various holes that can be poked in the mythos of jordan. his team won 55 when he wasn't there. in the decade of the 90's where there were no superteams to be found, jordan found himself paired with another star in pippen and even a 3rd star in rodman or very good player in horace grant and, thus, him winning a lot doesn't seem that surprising. maybe his excellent defense isn't that important because he's a SG. his teams didn't soar to huge win totals until pippen came along.

but what's really hard to do with jordan is find true failures. horrible big games. bad series where his team lost when they should have won because he didn't play well. inconsistent ups and downs. times a rival got the better of him. like it's almost impossible. i mean you might be able to find a playoff game where he went 9-30, but then you look at the series and he's at 35 ppg on 50% shooting. you might be able to find a series where he didn't shoot that great like the 1997 ECF against miami, but he still fills the stat sheet and his team still easily wins. he didn't win a ton early in his career, but it's usually in the context of him scoring 63 points and being called "god dressed as michael jordan" by larry bird or putting up huge games against the bad boys while his teammates suck. or him making the conference finals as a 6th seed and then winning the only 2 games of the playoffs against the pistons as they sweep every other round.

he never lost a series with homecourt (24-0). he never lost a series with an SRS advantage (25-0). even russell can't say those things. meaning jordan didn't throw a single championship chance away. the worst blown lead he ever had in a series was 1-0 in the aforementioned 6 seed vs 1 seed ECF versus the pistons. that crazy stat where he didn't lose 3 games in a row with the bulls after 1991. in the last 40+ years, a high volume offensive engine seems to be the one most consistent feature of championship teams (with titles for bird/magic/jordan/hakeem/shaq/duncan/kobe/lebron/steph/wade/dirk/kawhi/giannis vastly outnumbering the few 2004 pistons/2014 spurs type titles). it is an extremely difficult role to fill, with even an amazingly consistent guy like lebron still having his 2011 finals moments, or 2007 finals moments, or 2-18 with 10 TO's moments in 2008 against the celtics, or even struggling a little at the beginning of the 2013 finals at his peak. and again, lebron is a level above everyone else in avoiding bad moments.

and yet jordan seems to have none of these, even at a young age going against teams like the 1986 celtics. he never scored less than 27 ppg in a series and only scored below 29 ppg 3 times (and 2 of those are from mid-90's series with a pace of about 84). he had the highest game score for both teams in a series 35 out of 37 times, beating out lebron who was at 38 of 45 (as of june 6, 2020), with no one else even above 56%. he remarkably had more 50 point playoff games than games below 20 points, which given his 33 ppg average is closer to 20 than 50, shows how seldom he truly cratered. he took on the most difficult role and basically never failed (in any meaningful way) to deliver. yes, he focused on scoring and would likely outperform more well rounded players in some of these measures, but he is lapping the field in most of these things, and by field i mostly just mean lebron, because he is arguably double-lapping everyone else.

the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell (though again he did lose with homecourt, +4 SRS advantage, but he did get injured in the series). but i would argue that being a rim protector is a much lower variance job than offensive engine and bucket-getter. based on my research, in almost every game bill russell played, he was tall and athletic. those things will show up every night. being a consistent rim protector is easier than being a consistent offensive engine. now i suppose you could argue that excelling at the low variance part of the game makes you more valuable because you essentially can't be stopped from having your usual impact, but then i would argue you are just shifting the high variance offensive part of the game to your teammates. and i would also argue i think russell's massive defensive impact/below average offensive impact style of winning would likely not survive the modern game, where we essentially haven't seen it work except for the 2004 pistons, while i think jordan would just be a supercharged jerry west, who already made the finals 9 times, and translate better to the older days. the reason toppling jordan is so hard is because you have to take on the high variance role required of leading a team to a title in the modern game, and then you have to basically never allow that variance to be displayed, at least in the downward direction. the incredibly high floor of his game is just unparalleled.

and i'm saying this as a jordan hater. i'm a rockets fan who hated the stockton/malone jazz more than any other team and i still found myself rooting for them over jordan in the finals.

Him having the best stats is somewhat debatable.

i would say the preponderance of the evidence is on his side though. his BBRef page is basically just black ink, whether for the regular season or the playoffs. you'd have to almost exclusively focus on a bunch of +/- stats to not still give him the overall advantage.

Russell and Mikan both beat their opposition. Pointing out that Russell was upset once in his 11 championship seasons doesn't really refute that.

Michael Jordan does not have the best boxscore stats of all time. You do not need to exclusively look at +/- for that.

Also boston only losses ever were as the big underdog (67) or with russel literally injured and missing games

He won literally everythingh else in his career down to making no-name san francisco university a two time ncaa champion

[HeartBreakKid]

consistency is a large part of the reason i still have jordan as the GOAT (though if i was only ranking based on total career value, it would be lebron). there are various holes that can be poked in the mythos of jordan. his team won 55 when he wasn't there. in the decade of the 90's where there were no superteams to be found, jordan found himself paired with another star in pippen and even a 3rd star in rodman or very good player in horace grant and, thus, him winning a lot doesn't seem that surprising. maybe his excellent defense isn't that important because he's a SG. his teams didn't soar to huge win totals until pippen came along.

but what's really hard to do with jordan is find true failures. horrible big games. bad series where his team lost when they should have won because he didn't play well. inconsistent ups and downs. times a rival got the better of him. like it's almost impossible. i mean you might be able to find a playoff game where he went 9-30, but then you look at the series and he's at 35 ppg on 50% shooting. you might be able to find a series where he didn't shoot that great like the 1997 ECF against miami, but he still fills the stat sheet and his team still easily wins. he didn't win a ton early in his career, but it's usually in the context of him scoring 63 points and being called "god dressed as michael jordan" by larry bird or putting up huge games against the bad boys while his teammates suck. or him making the conference finals as a 6th seed and then winning the only 2 games of the playoffs against the pistons as they sweep every other round.

he never lost a series with homecourt (24-0). he never lost a series with an SRS advantage (25-0). even russell can't say those things. meaning jordan didn't throw a single championship chance away. the worst blown lead he ever had in a series was 1-0 in the aforementioned 6 seed vs 1 seed ECF versus the pistons. that crazy stat where he didn't lose 3 games in a row with the bulls after 1991. in the last 40+ years, a high volume offensive engine seems to be the one most consistent feature of championship teams (with titles for bird/magic/jordan/hakeem/shaq/duncan/kobe/lebron/steph/wade/dirk/kawhi/giannis vastly outnumbering the few 2004 pistons/2014 spurs type titles). it is an extremely difficult role to fill, with even an amazingly consistent guy like lebron still having his 2011 finals moments, or 2007 finals moments, or 2-18 with 10 TO's moments in 2008 against the celtics, or even struggling a little at the beginning of the 2013 finals at his peak. and again, lebron is a level above everyone else in avoiding bad moments.

and yet jordan seems to have none of these, even at a young age going against teams like the 1986 celtics. he never scored less than 27 ppg in a series and only scored below 29 ppg 3 times (and 2 of those are from mid-90's series with a pace of about 84). he had the highest game score for both teams in a series 35 out of 37 times, beating out lebron who was at 38 of 45 (as of june 6, 2020), with no one else even above 56%. he remarkably had more 50 point playoff games than games below 20 points, which given his 33 ppg average is closer to 20 than 50, shows how seldom he truly cratered. he took on the most difficult role and basically never failed (in any meaningful way) to deliver. yes, he focused on scoring and would likely outperform more well rounded players in some of these measures, but he is lapping the field in most of these things, and by field i mostly just mean lebron, because he is arguably double-lapping everyone else.

the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell (though again he did lose with homecourt, +4 SRS advantage, but he did get injured in the series). but i would argue that being a rim protector is a much lower variance job than offensive engine and bucket-getter. based on my research, in almost every game bill russell played, he was tall and athletic. those things will show up every night. being a consistent rim protector is easier than being a consistent offensive engine. now i suppose you could argue that excelling at the low variance part of the game makes you more valuable because you essentially can't be stopped from having your usual impact, but then i would argue you are just shifting the high variance offensive part of the game to your teammates. and i would also argue i think russell's massive defensive impact/below average offensive impact style of winning would likely not survive the modern game, where we essentially haven't seen it work except for the 2004 pistons, while i think jordan would just be a supercharged jerry west, who already made the finals 9 times, and translate better to the older days. the reason toppling jordan is so hard is because you have to take on the high variance role required of leading a team to a title in the modern game, and then you have to basically never allow that variance to be displayed, at least in the downward direction. the incredibly high floor of his game is just unparalleled.

and i'm saying this as a jordan hater. i'm a rockets fan who hated the stockton/malone jazz more than any other team and i still found myself rooting for them over jordan in the finals.




i would say the preponderance of the evidence is on his side though. his BBRef page is basically just black ink, whether for the regular season or the playoffs. you'd have to almost exclusively focus on a bunch of +/- stats to not still give him the overall advantage.

Russell and Mikan both beat their opposition. Pointing out that Russell was upset once in his 11 championship seasons doesn't really refute that.

Michael Jordan does not have the best boxscore stats of all time. You do not need to exclusively look at +/- for that.

Also boston only losses ever were as the big underdog (67) or with russel literally injured and missing games

He won literally everythingh else in his career down to making no-name san francisco university a two time ncaa champion

Yup. Making it seem like just because Russell had a loss where he had "homecourt advantage" and ignoring that he was injured in that series isn't a strong point.

There are plenty of things you could say Russell did that Jordan did not do.


Using home court advantage as some type of definition for beating top opposition doesn't make a lot of sense either.

[f4p]

Yup. Making it seem like just because Russell had a loss where he had "homecourt advantage" and ignoring that he was injured in that series isn't a strong point.

you mean other than me specifically saying "the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell (though again he did lose with homecourt, +4 SRS advantage, but he did get injured in the series)"?

Using home court advantage as some type of definition for beating top opposition doesn't make a lot of sense either.

where did i say "top competition"? i said "he never lost a series with homecourt (24-0). he never lost a series with an SRS advantage (25-0)." having homecourt would theoretically be against your weaker opponents. i simply pointed out that jordan is unique for guys with lots of series in having never lost a homecourt series. it's not the same as homecourt, but for SRS favorite, isiah thomas at 11-1 is the best 1 loss person i can find.

plus, i also did not say russell wasn't as consistent as jordan, i said "the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell", thus putting them in the same bucket. though i did go on to explain why i think jordan doing it as the offensive/scoring engine is more impressive.

i also did not mention +/- in an argument about box score stats. you simply said "stats", which is what i responded to and took to mean everything. as for box score stats, i think it is fairly inarguable he is best at those. he and lebron are largely tied in the playoffs and while i consider that by far the most important factor, jordan being able to basically dominate the regular season box score stats at the same level seems like a good tiebreaker.

[AEnigma]

I think f4p is being reasonable enough here. Main problem is whether the best mark of a “peak” is sustained consistency in your role as a favourite.

If I needed to win at a disadvantage, Lebron looks like an easy pick. Maybe Hakeem. And in the modern league it seems a lot less likely that I could consistently trust any given team to have the best roster. There are fewer clueless front offices now. Most of them use analytics heavily, pretty much all of them have competent scouting departments, pretty much all of them are open to international players… disparities obviously still exist, but they are less pronounced than ever among them, and player movement further subtracts from the potential competitive advantage of any random front office. And at the top, there is a lot more variance in results as an underdog / road team / less talented team than there is as a true favourite, even if sure Jordan never had a home loss and Lebron had three early on (imo with the less talented team for two of those and while putting up GOAT numbers for one of them, but whatever).

[OhayoKD]

Yup. Making it seem like just because Russell had a loss where he had "homecourt advantage" and ignoring that he was injured in that series isn't a strong point.

you mean other than me specifically saying "the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell (though again he did lose with homecourt, +4 SRS advantage, but he did get injured in the series)"?

Using home court advantage as some type of definition for beating top opposition doesn't make a lot of sense either.

where did i say "top competition"? i said "he never lost a series with homecourt (24-0). he never lost a series with an SRS advantage (25-0)." having homecourt would theoretically be against your weaker opponents. i simply pointed out that jordan is unique for guys with lots of series in having never lost a homecourt series. it's not the same as homecourt, but for SRS favorite, isiah thomas at 11-1 is the best 1 loss person i can find.

plus, i also did not say russell wasn't as consistent as jordan, i said "the only other person that can arguably claim the same consistency is russell", thus putting them in the same bucket. though i did go on to explain why i think jordan doing it as the offensive/scoring engine is more impressive.

I have an issue here with how you are framing consistency.

1. You are framing "consistency" as a matter of how you perform relative to expectations. But expectations rise when players play better, so as you're using it, we're penalizing players who perform better at certain points of the season.

2. You are basing "expectation" on srs/home-court, factors which are directly influenced by how impactful a player is in the regular season. This means that a better regular season would be held against the player in question.

To this end, Bill Russell is not "arguably" more consistent if we aren't holding him to an artificially inflated standard. And, if we aren't using regular season goodness to inflate standards, Jordan does not have a clear "consistency" advantage against Kareem, Hakeem, or Lebron when we look at his worst seasons.

i also did not mention +/- in an argument about box score stats. you simply said "stats", which is what i responded to and took to mean everything. as for box score stats, i think it is fairly inarguable he is best at those. he and lebron are largely tied in the playoffs and while i consider that by far the most important factor, jordan being able to basically dominate the regular season box score stats at the same level seems like a good tiebreaker.

For posterity, I'll repost this break-down of the various statstical comparisons, since i'm not sure what you are referring to with "everything":

We're looking at the best years. Obviously given that jordan played vastly less and that his worst years as a basketball player weren't in the nba, jordan's career averages being higher don't indicate anything. Averages go down the more you play.

Best ten or twelve years is the best way to compare players at their best. Obviously that doesn't favor Lebron as he is further behind Jordan but it fits your point.

Averaging their best scoring 10 year playoff stretches with
ws/48:
09-18 Lebron: .264.3
88-98 Jordan: .233

PER:
09-18 Lebron: 29.67
88-98 Jordan: 28.95

BPM:
88-98 Jordan: 11.74
09-18 Lebron: 10.83

So lebron comes out ahead in 2 out of 3 stats. Off course if we actually compare them at their best as opposed to pretending their worst years are indicative of where they were at their peak(lebron's 2 lowest scoring years come in this stretch), the gap widens for the first 2 and bpm flips.

Off course these are probably the worst metrics to use here because
A. they are the least predictive:
https://fansided.com/2019/01/08/nylon-calculus-best-advanced-stat/
and
B. Box-score metrics skew towards offense

If we use metrics that account for defense better:

viewtopic.php?t=2212552

That's a paddlin.

If we use the most accurate metric, RAPM, Lebron has 5 different seasons that score signifcantly higher than Jordan's best data(+7.4 from 88):
viewtopic.php?f=64&p=100076062

Ditto for playoff on/off where, 16-18 Lebron come out ahead of jordan's best 3 year stretch which is tied with the best from shaq and curry

While we're at it, Tim Duncan's best years score higher in RAPM and playoff AUPM and playoff on/off.


And this is all with the artiifical caps that come with using adjusted plus minus data.

Using real-impact signals, mj's gap with lebron widens, but he's also stuck with a lot of unfavorable comparison to other non-lebron greats, including, most prominently, Russell

Now... if I assume you are accounting for all this when you argue for jordan statistcally, you are basically arguing that jordan having better regular season stuff(marginally) in the least predictive metrics outweighs 2 different families of more predictive(and winning-based) data, and an advantage for lebron in the box-score data when the playoffs hit.

Again, if i was to take their best years, Lebron is way ahead using box-score aggregates. If i am to restrict lebron or mj to consecutive 10 or 12 post-season stretches lebron comes out ahead(specfically with 10 years, if you use migya's method you get a split decision)

and if I am to leave box-score and opt for winning-based metrics(which again, predict winning better), or just look at raw winning, lebron comes out signifcantly ahead by a margin in both the regular season and the playoffs and depending on how far down we go various other players look better. Duncan for example posts a higher apm than what we got for 88 and 91 mj, has a higher on/off, has higher 3 year aupm, and whi;e we don't have big off-samples for a clean comparison, winning 58 and 61(and then a title) with what he had does strike me as more impressive.

Additionally, this translates in multiple contexts including ones which should be less favorable for lebron(Per cieling raiser theory) like 2012, 2015, 2020, ect.


Is your position here that box-score aggregates are more useful? And if so, why?

[migya]

My GOAT tier, in no order:

LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

I think if Durant never joins GS and Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving don’t go down in 2015, Bron would theoretically have 3 more rings right now and he would be probably be seen as the GOAT…but that’s an incredibly slippery slope that doesn’t really accomplish anything. You could make up the same scenarios for other players.

Michael…his is storybook. Dominates the sport the second he’s first laces em up as a pro. Three-peats, retires, plays baseball and sucks ass, returns to to the league to three-peat again, retires. But then comes back and sucks ass cause his body is just breaking down. Widely seen as the GOAT. He had the attitude, the look, the money, and he grabbed the NBA and took it from the moon where Magic and Bird left it and launched it past the stars. But I guess behind all that, the league was definitely not as talented as it is today, every year the talent is preposterously delightful. The game is not as stoic and bland as it was back then either. Michael still has the accolades and stats to give him a nice cushioned seat at the table however. Always will.

Kareem is perhaps the most winning basketball player ever. Not as flashy as James or Jordan, but a monster just the same.

If Kyrie didn't hit that incredible shot to win the championship, and the Warriors not have the injuries and lack of heart, AND Ray Allen not made that incredible three to take it to OT in game 6 and Duncan not miss an easy shot near the basket at the end of game 7, Lebron could have two less championships and be considered a choker of the worst among stars.

[DCasey91]

1. Jordan - Obvious reasons.

2. Lebron - Longevity undeniable. Like Wilt suffered initially due to team dysfunction. Jordan got the equivalent of PG and Horford (Pippen and Grant can argue with me on it but the metrics, W/S, BPM, VORP, and value difference etc, is F all) age wise if given to Lebron. I’m sure 24/25 yr old Horford/George and James would have been very very successful.

3. KAJ - GOAT level resume when including college accolades, again longevity undeniable

4. Wilt - Better performer individually than Russell, on worst teams holistically. Peaked as high as anyone can possibly do imo.

5. Russell - Not a fan as his scoring is suspect at best, greatest continuity and best team for the majority of the 12 years, but was the anchor on one side of the ball.

All in all they’ve all had 5 or more seasons whether post/reg that are what I consider to be among the greatest of all time that’s why they are on my GOAT tier.

[Gooner]

He's not the only player to consistently beat his opposition. Him having the best stats is somewhat debatable - him having the the best style visually...is incredibly subjective.

The 90s does not define the current era at all. You're letting your age bubble yourself. People who are 15 years old do not care about the 90s and would hardly see any similarities to today's game if they saw a game from 1992.

You should accept the same way you dismiss eras before your time that people will do the same with yours. There is nothing special about the time you grew up in.

It's not about age for me at all, and it's not about similarities between eras, it's the fact that Jordan and his generation of players made the NBA bigger, and a lot of players and everybody involved with the NBA are benefitting from that today.

What about George Mikan then? First star player in the league who set the tone for decades to come by showing a blueprint of a team built around a dominant center, which was the primary way of building succesful teams untill very recently. Without Mikan there is no Russell, no Wilt, no Kareem, no Hakeem, no Shaq, no Duncan, no Moses, no Robinson etc etc. This isn't as much the case in recent years because of the 3-point revolution but guess what? Mikan introduced the 3-point shot to professional basketball as ABA commissioner. That's not even mentioning being responsible for the lane being widened, the shotclock being introduced and defensive goaltending to be banned.

Jordan was massive for basketball but he didn't increase the popularity of the game on his own. Without Magic and Bird there is no way for MJ to become the global icon he is today. Shouldn't we also extend the same courtesy of praise to the stars of the 60s who grew the sport from niche entertainment to a succesful and sustainable pro league before the problems of the mid-late 70s eroded most of that popularity for a brief period? What about the players who came after MJ and his contemporaries who continue to grow the game, especially on an international level?

I also have MJ as my GOAT but that's because of how consistently dominant he was throughout his career, not because of his impact on the game. He didn't even really change the way the game was played, at best you could say he inspired a generation of heroball wings that went extinct almost as quickly as they appeared because MJ's style can't be emulated succesfully by just about anyone.

I never said Jordan was the only one that moved the NBA forward, but his era was and still is the peak of NBA basketball. I also believe that earlier generations deserve more credit. Ignorant social media fans today disrespect those players calling them "plumbers" and stuff like that.

I don't know what you consider as heroball, but some players today are most ball dominant in history of the NBA. Guys like Harden and Westbrook in their prime, Luka Doncic now etc... And obviously you have a guy like LBJ and all marketing around him is a product of trying to find a successor to MJ. He would have never gotten that deal with NIKE in higschool without MJ.

There is more emphasis on individuals today than ever, and that's MJ's impact. For me that's not positive in a team sport, but it's not MJ's fault for being so great. What people forget is that he was dominant while being a team player. Now you have too many individuals who chase stats and put themselves ahead of the team.

[Jaivl]

My GOAT tier, in no order:

LeBron James
Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul Jabbar

I think if Durant never joins GS and Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving don’t go down in 2015, Bron would theoretically have 3 more rings right now and he would be probably be seen as the GOAT…but that’s an incredibly slippery slope that doesn’t really accomplish anything. You could make up the same scenarios for other players.

Michael…his is storybook. Dominates the sport the second he’s first laces em up as a pro. Three-peats, retires, plays baseball and sucks ass, returns to to the league to three-peat again, retires. But then comes back and sucks ass cause his body is just breaking down. Widely seen as the GOAT. He had the attitude, the look, the money, and he grabbed the NBA and took it from the moon where Magic and Bird left it and launched it past the stars. But I guess behind all that, the league was definitely not as talented as it is today, every year the talent is preposterously delightful. The game is not as stoic and bland as it was back then either. Michael still has the accolades and stats to give him a nice cushioned seat at the table however. Always will.

Kareem is perhaps the most winning basketball player ever. Not as flashy as James or Jordan, but a monster just the same.

If Kyrie didn't hit that incredible shot to win the championship, and the Warriors not have the injuries and lack of heart, AND Ray Allen not made that incredible three to take it to OT in game 6 and Duncan not miss an easy shot near the basket at the end of game 7, Lebron could have two less championships and be considered a choker of the worst among stars.

Indeed, every ring ever has a decent component of luck.

[70sFan]

I never said Jordan was the only one that moved the NBA forward, but his era was and still is the peak of NBA basketball.

Based on what?

[Jaivl]

I never said Jordan was the only one that moved the NBA forward, but his era was and still is the peak of NBA basketball.

Based on what?

He played a more advanced kind of basketball.

[penbeast0]

I never said Jordan was the only one that moved the NBA forward, but his era was and still is the peak of NBA basketball.

Based on what?

Highlight reels. A great dunk is cooler looking than a great 3 point shot or 3 passes to find an open man.

[f4p]

I have an issue here with how you are framing consistency.

1. You are framing "consistency" as a matter of how you perform relative to expectations. But expectations rise when players play better, so as you're using it, we're penalizing players who perform better at certain points of the season.

my whole argument about consistency was about how hard it is to find true failures for jordan. as in he was so consistently great without ever really having an outlier bad moment. no tragic johnson moment, no 2011 finals for lebron moment, no bevy of homecourt losses like bird, things like that. his "worst" moment seems to be better than basically anybody else's worst moment or even moments. maybe there was a better word to use than consistency, but i can't think of one.

2. You are basing "expectation" on srs/home-court, factors which are directly influenced by how impactful a player is in the regular season. This means that a better regular season would be held against the player in question.

that wasn't really the point of my homecourt/SRS 24-0/25-0 point (see above), but even if it were, i'm not sure how it would apply to jordan. i do agree that one can "outperform" in the playoffs by slacking off/playing poorly in the regular season, with someone like shaq being a prime example, but i don't see how it would apply to jordan. a pathologically competitive guy who would be considered a regular season "try-hard" if there ever was one. and even with playing 82 games almost every season, playing hard in almost every game, never even letting a 3 game losing streak happen for almost 6 seasons, with all of that built in regular season success, he still never managed to lose to a team when he had homecourt or an SRS advantage. 25-0 is already remarkable by historical standards. for a non-injured, non-load-managed try-hard, it's even more remarkable.

For posterity, I'll repost this break-down of the various statstical comparisons, since i'm not sure what you are referring to with "everything":

everything was my shorthand for box-score/production metrics plus all of the other things we have like the AuPM, APM, RAPM, WTFPM alphabet of stats this board tends to focus on.

Again, if i was to take their best years, Lebron is way ahead using box-score aggregates. If i am to restrict lebron or mj to consecutive 10 or 12 post-season stretches lebron comes out ahead(specfically with 10 years, if you use migya's method you get a split decision)

i'm a "stats from age 22-35" guy myself and it would be for the playoffs (technically age 21-34 on BBref for Jordan based on his birthday being right after the cutoff):

PER:
Lebron 28.7
Jordan 28.6

WS48
Lebron 0.252
Jordan 0.255

BPM
Lebron 10.4
Jordan 11.1

so yes, something of a split decision, which is why i've never really bought the "jordan's prime was better but lebron has longevity" argument. which is why i mentioned consistency. whatever the average numbers, jordan doesn't have a 2011 finals. lebron literally threw away a title there. up 1-0, up 15 in the 4th in game 2 and then blowing that lead and then losing a close game where lebron scored 8. it's just beyond comprehension that jordan could ever do anything that bad, even from his first days as a rookie, i wouldn't believe it. now i think the 2016 finals balanced a little of that out, as i'm not sure anyone in history could do what lebron did and it speaks to lebron probably having the highest ceiling ever, but still i don't think it makes up for losing a gimme title in 2011.

Is your position here that box-score aggregates are more useful? And if so, why?

for the players we are talking about? yes. for all-time great stat-stuffers, i am fine with the box-score aggregates (BBref trio of PER, WS48, and BPM, specifically). that doesn't mean i don't look at anything else or even ignore the PM stats, but i don't think the box-score aggregates get it very wrong for ATG's. i also tend to focus more on not losing when you have an advantage (having homecourt, having a lead in a series), pulling off upsets, and doing things without star teammates (why i'm higher on luka from last year than the rest of this board which focuses on his PM numbers). so those are non-statistical things i focus more on than i think this board does (probably why i tend to be lower on guys in great situations than this board).

when it comes to the predictive advantage other stats have, maybe i am wrong, but i suspect it is because they are looking at the full universe of NBA players. i have no doubt that if i was trying to evaluate pj tucker or "no stats all star" shane battier, i would definitely not look at their PER or BPM and just end my evaluation. i would not see some 15 ppg, mediocre efficiency 6th man beating them out in PER and think "wow, that guy must be better than battier". because they don't do things that aren't neatly measured with the box score. as imperfect as i think the PM stats are, i would much prefer them for that type of player (and also for the mediocre efficiency 15 ppg 6th man who i might think is an empty calories stats guy).

but for the greats? they're all doing things that can be measured by the box score. and even at this level, the ones who are better tend to do even more measurable things. now, they are likely all doing things that can't be measured by the box score, i am not saying they aren't, but when i look at the top playoff PER's age 22-35 and see lebron/jordan/shaq/hakeem/duncan at the top of the list, it doesn't make me feel worse about box score aggregates (russell, as ever, remains a hard-to-quantify outlier and we don't have any plus/minus stats for him either). when i see "Duncan for example posts a higher apm than what we got for 88 and 91 mj, has a higher on/off, has higher 3 year aupm", it does make me feel worse about those PM stats, because within a 99.9% personal confidence interval, i think jordan is quite a bit better than duncan.

does that mean we should never look at a stat we don't agree with? or that box score aggregates don't have weird results? no. but i find i have fewer "huh?" moments from the box score aggregates. i find them to be more stable year to year. i like that they go back to the beginning of nba history and we're not sometimes quoting a stat that goes back to like 2014 for which we can't possibly find an analog for older players. i like that box score metrics don't tend to need so much sample size and thus work better (imo) for playoff numbers. so for many reasons, i start with all-time great players by looking at the box score stuff. there's a reason we end most games by going "wow, giannis had 40/13/7" and we're not wrong to think that was a great game. i think the box score had a lot of problems when people said "wilt averaged 50, how is he not the GOAT?" without accounting for pace/minutes. but now that we've got these measures that account for pace and minutes, i think the vast majority of the box score problems, at least for great players, have been removed. i like that this place is on the cutting edge of all the PM stuff and tries to think outside the box, but i'm not ready to embrace them as whole-heartedly as many of you, as i find doesn't quite align as well as the box-score numbers with my own eye test or the actual results i see in who wins/loses playoff series and titles.

[No-more-rings]

now i think the 2016 finals balanced a little of that out, as i'm not sure anyone in history could do what lebron did and it speaks to lebron probably having the highest ceiling ever, but still i don't think it makes up for losing a gimme title in 2011.

So is this you saying you believe Lebron has the higher peak, or just that he has the higher one series ceiling?

I think Lebron's seasons with the best argument for peak are 2009, 2012 or 2013. Those are the years he had his foot on the gas from start to finish, you can see it in his numbers and team results as well. 2016-2018 arguably give you a higher ceiling in the playoffs, but there's no question by that time Lebron wasn't going as hard in the regular season.

If you choose 2009 as his peak, you can say his playoffs statistically are well beyond anything Jordan did, but the issues are, sample size, and skillset and mentality are to be considered. I have a hard time picking 2009 given his underperformances in the following 2 years in the playoffs, and those Lebron years he was still a streaky shooter and 2009 he just happened to get insanely hot for 14 games. I don't think it's fair to say that version of Lebron was some whole other level compared to other years. I think physically and mentally he reached the right combo of that in 2012 and 2013, and maxed out mentally in 2017 and 2018 where you simply couldn't rattle him anymore no matter what. I think Jordan reached that point in 1991, except he also was more or less at maximum motor playing hard all 90+ games. That's sort of the difference to me anyway, I mean if you could combine like 2010 or 2013 regular season Lebron with his 2017's playoffs, then sure it would be hard to take Jordan over that, but that's just not how it works.

[AEnigma]

now i think the 2016 finals balanced a little of that out, as i'm not sure anyone in history could do what lebron did and it speaks to lebron probably having the highest ceiling ever, but still i don't think it makes up for losing a gimme title in 2011.

So is this you saying you believe Lebron has the higher peak, or just that he has the higher one series ceiling?

I think Lebron's seasons with the best argument for peak are 2009, 2012 or 2013. Those are the years he had his foot on the gas from start to finish, you can see it in his numbers and team results as well. 2016-2018 arguably give you a higher ceiling in the playoffs, but there's no question by that time Lebron wasn't going as hard in the regular season.

You are not totally off here, but why would it really matter if Lebron is still better when not going at 100%? The Cavaliers played at a 60-win pace with him… but they went 1-5 without him that year so it ends up being an “underwhelming” 57-win season instead. +16 on/off (top four in the league alongside Chris Paul and the Golden State duo) with a team that was +11 with him on the court. Best defender on a -2 defence.

It feels like people get way too caught up with aesthetics with 2016. He was more physical and his shot was falling a little more cleanly in the regular seasons you mentioned, so we should take the postseasons where he was less in complete control? I am taking 2016 Lebron for a title run even if that lessened regular season level costs me, what, two regular season wins? Three?

I think physically and mentally he reached the right combo of that in 2012 and 2013, and maxed out mentally in 2017 and 2018 where you simply couldn't rattle him anymore no matter what. I think Jordan reached that point in 1991, except he also was more or less at maximum motor playing hard all 90+ games. That's sort of the difference to me anyway, I mean if you could combine like 2010 or 2013 regular season Lebron with his 2017's playoffs, then sure it would be hard to take Jordan over that, but that's just not how it works.

But why is an “unrattled” Jordan as valuable as an “unrattled” Lebron? Like you said, 2009 tops anything from Jordan’s résumé pre-1991. Fine, give him a mentality black mark for 2011, but either way they both “ascend” around age 27/28, and those are still in Lebron’s high motor years so… why would it be Jordan when Lebron is better athletically and smarter at basketball even at that point? Yeah, by 2016 I think Lebron goes a step even higher as someone who has seen it all and can dissect anything in front of him, but in a comparison with Jordan, that should not matter because was never at that level anyway.

It feels like you are just arbitrarily penalising Lebron for improving in a way beyond Jordan (I actually do think 1996-98 was savvier in a similar way, but he had lost meaningfully more of his peak athleticism at that point than Lebron had, because Lebron is an outlier among outliers). Why is 2012 Lebron “rattle-able” after how he performed against the Celtics, but Jordan — who certainly had 2013 Spurs-esque series of his own against the Knicks in the subsequent two years — is automatically equated to 2016 Lebron memorising playbooks and taking a calculated game theory approach to every series? It is a trap to act as if peak Jordan’s “intangibles” must equal peak Lebron’s, when the reality is one was just always a smarter player year to year.

[OhayoKD]

now i think the 2016 finals balanced a little of that out, as i'm not sure anyone in history could do what lebron did and it speaks to lebron probably having the highest ceiling ever, but still i don't think it makes up for losing a gimme title in 2011.

So is this you saying you believe Lebron has the higher peak, or just that he has the higher one series ceiling?

I think Lebron's seasons with the best argument for peak are 2009, 2012 or 2013. Those are the years he had his foot on the gas from start to finish, you can see it in his numbers and team results as well. 2016-2018 arguably give you a higher ceiling in the playoffs, but there's no question by that time Lebron wasn't going as hard in the regular season.
.

You can say that, but 2016 Lebron still posts a higher RAPM score than any other season that preceded it, and the cavs ended up winning 57 games with the second best player missing half of the season.

What matters for a "goat peak" case isn't how Lebron compares to other versions of Lebron, it's how he would compare against other peak candidates. If Lebron is still more valuable in the regular season before he hits unprecedneted highs in the postseason, does it really matter how "hard he was going" compared to 2009, 2012, or 2013?
(also fwiw, Lebron's rapm is just as high in 2016 as it is 2013 and using "raw signals" 2016 is quite arguably the second most impressive example of regular impact we see for lebron after the 09 and 10 cavs)

[OhayoKD]

I have an issue here with how you are framing consistency.

1. You are framing "consistency" as a matter of how you perform relative to expectations. But expectations rise when players play better, so as you're using it, we're penalizing players who perform better at certain points of the season.

my whole argument about consistency was about how hard it is to find true failures for jordan. as in he was so consistently great without ever really having an outlier bad moment. no tragic johnson moment, no 2011 finals for lebron moment, no bevy of homecourt losses like bird, things like that. his "worst" moment seems to be better than basically anybody else's worst moment or even moments. maybe there was a better word to use than consistency, but i can't think of one.

Yeah, but your definition of failure is "relative to expectation". In absolute terms. The Wizards and the 95 season were bigger failures than 2011 both in terms of individual impact and overall outcome. Taking one of the worst years of a vastly longer career and deciding to compare it against jordan's best isn't really fair. I could just slide lebron's prime to start in 2012, and Lebron would still be, at least as far as winning/impact based analysis goes, the more valuable player with the more valuable prime over an identical stretch of seasons.

2. You are basing "expectation" on srs/home-court, factors which are directly influenced by how impactful a player is in the regular season. This means that a better regular season would be held against the player in question.

that wasn't really the point of my homecourt/SRS 24-0/25-0 point (see above), but even if it were, i'm not sure how it would apply to jordan. i do agree that one can "outperform" in the playoffs by slacking off/playing poorly in the regular season, with someone like shaq being a prime example, but i don't see how it would apply to jordan. a pathologically competitive guy who would be considered a regular season "try-hard" if there ever was one. and even with playing 82 games almost every season, playing hard in almost every game, never even letting a 3 game losing streak happen for almost 6 seasons, with all of that built in regular season success, he still never managed to lose to a team when he had homecourt or an SRS advantage. 25-0 is already remarkable by historical standards. for a non-injured, non-load-managed try-hard, it's even more remarkable.

It applies to Jordan because the vast majority of evidence we have indicates Lebron was a significantly more valuable regular season player than Jordan was. Even when Lebron "wasn't going as hard" in 2016, Lebron still posted a signifcantly higher apm than anything we have for MJ(including data from 88 and 91), and won 57 games with his second best player missing half of the games. In games without Lebron, those cavs played similarly to the 1984 Bulls, and worse than what we have for the 1986 bulls without MJ.

It especially applies for Russell because his team were perrenial regular season outliers despite never looking as good without Russell as the Jordan-less Bulls in 94.

I think comparing players relative to supporting casts is better than comparing relative to RS-established expectations, whether you aim to argue for a higher "average" level of contribution" or a higher "peak". Lebron lost with home court in 2009 because he did something Jordan has never come close to replicating in the regular season. Are we really going to say Jordan is more consistent because he "overperformed" after winning 50 games in 88.

Whatever the point was, "jordan better because he did worse in the regular season" is a natural byproduct of framing things this way

For posterity, I'll repost this break-down of the various statstical comparisons, since i'm not sure what you are referring to with "everything":

everything was my shorthand for box-score/production metrics plus all of the other things we have like the AuPM, APM, RAPM, WTFPM alphabet of stats this board tends to focus on.

Well it's worth noting alot of the recent arguments have been based on "raw impact" which has trade-offs relative to APM.

Again, if i was to take their best years, Lebron is way ahead using box-score aggregates. If i am to restrict lebron or mj to consecutive 10 or 12 post-season stretches lebron comes out ahead(specfically with 10 years, if you use migya's method you get a split decision)

i'm a "stats from age 22-35" guy myself and it would be for the playoffs (technically age 21-34 on BBref for Jordan based on his birthday being right after the cutoff):

PER:
Lebron 28.7
Jordan 28.6

WS48
Lebron 0.252
Jordan 0.255

BPM
Lebron 10.4
Jordan 11.1

so yes, something of a split decision, which is why i've never really bought the "jordan's prime was better but lebron has longevity" argument. which is why i mentioned consistency. whatever the average numbers, jordan doesn't have a 2011 finals. lebron literally threw away a title there. up 1-0, up 15 in the 4th in game 2 and then blowing that lead and then losing a close game where lebron scored 8. it's just beyond comprehension that jordan could ever do anything that bad, even from his first days as a rookie, i wouldn't believe it. now i think the 2016 finals balanced a little of that out, as i'm not sure anyone in history could do what lebron did and it speaks to lebron probably having the highest ceiling ever, but still i don't think it makes up for losing a gimme title in 2011.

Will point out that you need to add an MJ year for a like to like comparison since he missed a full season.

Is your position here that box-score aggregates are more useful? And if so, why?

for the players we are talking about? yes. for all-time great stat-stuffers, i am fine with the box-score aggregates (BBref trio of PER, WS48, and BPM, specifically). that doesn't mean i don't look at anything else or even ignore the PM stats, but i don't think the box-score aggregates get it very wrong for ATG's. i also tend to focus more on not losing when you have an advantage (having homecourt, having a lead in a series), pulling off upsets, and doing things without star teammates (why i'm higher on luka from last year than the rest of this board which focuses on his PM numbers). so those are non-statistical things i focus more on than i think this board does (probably why i tend to be lower on guys in great situations than this board).

when it comes to the predictive advantage other stats have, maybe i am wrong, but i suspect it is because they are looking at the full universe of NBA players. i have no doubt that if i was trying to evaluate pj tucker or "no stats all star" shane battier, i would definitely not look at their PER or BPM and just end my evaluation. i would not see some 15 ppg, mediocre efficiency 6th man beating them out in PER and think "wow, that guy must be better than battier". because they don't do things that aren't neatly measured with the box score. as imperfect as i think the PM stats are, i would much prefer them for that type of player (and also for the mediocre efficiency 15 ppg 6th man who i might think is an empty calories stats guy).

but for the greats? they're all doing things that can be measured by the box score. and even at this level, the ones who are better tend to do even more measurable things. now, they are likely all doing things that can't be measured by the box score, i am not saying they aren't, but when i look at the top playoff PER's age 22-35 and see lebron/jordan/shaq/hakeem/duncan at the top of the list, it doesn't make me feel worse about box score aggregates (russell, as ever, remains a hard-to-quantify outlier and we don't have any plus/minus stats for him either). when i see "Duncan for example posts a higher apm than what we got for 88 and 91 mj, has a higher on/off, has higher 3 year aupm", it does make me feel worse about those PM stats, because within a 99.9% personal confidence interval, i think jordan is quite a bit better than duncan.

Well, from what I understand it's actually the other way around. Pure box aggregates like PER and the like still do the worst however you split it, but box-heavy impact metrics are better able to account for role players due to stability while less box-based metrics like PIPM, AUPM, On/Off, and RAPM do better with stars because they can better account for defense.

Raw signals in particular have an advantage over RAPM when looking at the most valuable seasons as RAPM(and all plus-minus based stuff really) set artificial caps which end up misattributing superstar value as role player value(lebron and hakeem see this happen several times)

The most predictive metrics are epm and rpm specifically because they draw directly from rapm as opposed to using a bunch of box stuff, though they too, suffer due to setting aritifical caps.


I think the big thing to consider here, is that the specfic metrics you are choosing here, consistently rate primary paint protectors low relative to their raw impact signals, or less offense-skewed data. Steph Curry and Jordan look as good as anyone in say PER(at least in the regular season), but Lebron and Duncan score higher in RAPM, on/off, and AUPM, and then when we go to raw impact, Hakeem, Russell, and Kareem all look as good or better. Considering that Jordan has the least discernable defensive imapct of anyone we've talked about in this thread, relying heavily on box-stuff and dismissing everything else seems questionable.

[ShaqAttac]

A 35 years old russel made the celtics champions in 69 over the big 3 of wilt/west/baylor

Bob cousy was retired for 7 years by then.....

wasn't russells team super loaded?

Not really, its best teammate was pre prime havlicek and no one else was close to a star

Edit and the team wom 30 games next year without russel so yeah, not that good lol. For reference the 94 bulls fampusly won 55 games without jordan then alsoost grant too and were still in a +40 wins pace

70'sfan may be the right man to answer this tho

woah

also, what does pace meean

[OhayoKD]

wasn't russells team super loaded?

Not really, its best teammate was pre prime havlicek and no one else was close to a star

Edit and the team wom 30 games next year without russel so yeah, not that good lol. For reference the 94 bulls fampusly won 55 games without jordan then alsoost grant too and were still in a +40 wins pace

70'sfan may be the right man to answer this tho

woah

also, what does pace meean

Two definitions here:


1. Extrapolate a record out to 82 games (20-20 becomes 41-41)
2. Extrapolate a record based on average mov(margin of victory) with some adjustment for opponent quality

[No-more-rings]

You are not totally off here, but why would it really matter if Lebron is still better when not going at 100%? The Cavaliers played at a 60-win pace with him… but they went 1-5 without him that year so it ends up being an “underwhelming” 57-win season instead. +16 on/off (top four in the league alongside Chris Paul and the Golden State duo) with a team that was +11 with him on the court. Best defender on a -2 defence.

It matters because, I don't think we should just ignore total effort from start to finish. It's the same reason people put 2000 Shaq over 2001, similar playoff run but clearly better regular season effort in 2000. Those are still pretty good regular season, results but not the best of him clearly.

It feels like people get way too caught up with aesthetics with 2016. He was more physical and his shot was falling a little more cleanly in the regular seasons you mentioned, so we should take the postseasons where he was less in complete control? I am taking 2016 Lebron for a title run even if that lessened regular season level costs me, what, two regular season wins? Three?

Well some people tend to in hindsight rank 2016 as this like goat level season, but it just wasn't by an reasonable measures. If you go back and read some of these very threads here, there was a lot of talk in the regular season about him being below clearly below Curry and on a similar level to Westbrook and KD for example. You can say that doesn't matter, but the reality was prior to the ECF and Finals, Lebron wasn't really dominating the way you'd expect him to. Like if you go back and look at the numbers and also footage of his actual play in the 1st 2 rounds, he wasn't playing with nearly the same motor we we're used to seeing. The fact that he only shot 38 free throws over 8 games is pretty telling. You can say the competition was weak and he didn't need to do more, but that's not exactly something that makes his case any stronger.

But why is an “unrattled” Jordan as valuable as an “unrattled” Lebron? Like you said, 2009 tops anything from Jordan’s résumé pre-1991.

I think I've made it clear enough my issues with 2009. If you think Lebron offers a better floor raise in the regular season, fine. But that doesn't take away from the struggles in all the surrounding seasons like 2008, 2010 and 2011 in the playoffs. Jordan didn't have any issues like that between 88-91 or so.

Fine, give him a mentality black mark for 2011, but either way they both “ascend” around age 27/28, and those are still in Lebron’s high motor years so… why would it be Jordan when Lebron is better athletically and smarter at basketball even at that point? Yeah, by 2016 I think Lebron goes a step even higher as someone who has seen it all and can dissect anything in front of him, but in a comparison with Jordan, that should not matter because was never at that level anyway.

I'm not sure how you conclude that Jordan was never at that level.

Lebron had much more notable postseason struggles basically all the way through 2013, and when he finally had this supposed goat level series in 2016, he spent the 1st half of the series playing like ass.

It feels like you are just arbitrarily penalising Lebron for improving in a way beyond Jordan (I actually do think 1996-98 was savvier in a similar way, but he had lost meaningfully more of his peak athleticism at that point than Lebron had, because Lebron is an outlier among outliers).

No I'm really not. We can't just sit back and ignore how Lebron had the advantage of coasting in the regular season in those latter years, while also getting the advantage of more space under the rim than ever before as the league changed the way it did over the years, and more lax officiating than even he was used to.

Why is 2012 Lebron “rattle-able” after how he performed against the Celtics,

He's not, not really. But considering his struggles against the Spurs in 2013, there still left some room for doubt where I don't think was erased for good until the second half of the 2016 finals.

But again, I have 2012 as Lebron's peak anyway so I'm not going to nitpick at a season like that.

but Jordan — who certainly had 2013 Spurs-esque series of his own against the Knicks in the subsequent two years — is automatically equated to 2016 Lebron memorising playbooks and taking a calculated game theory approach to every series? It is a trap to act as if peak Jordan’s “intangibles” must equal peak Lebron’s, when the reality is one was just always a smarter player year to year.

I honestly have no idea how you are measuring "smartness" here. It's not even really something that I've considered between the two, as I think both have a great understanding and feel for the game.

Jordan had "ok" series against the Knicks given the context. Funny enough that's probably about the only thing you can point to during the late 80s or early 90s, even though I don't think either of those years have a serious case for his peak anyway.