Where would ‘97 MJ rank today?

[No-more-rings]

Or even if not, do you not think he’d easily be a top 3 offensive player along with Curry and Jokic, and easily the best player in the league when considering defense and postseason resilience?

No, I don't think that's a guarantee. I believe it's a possibility, but I don't think it's a guarantee.

Who aside from Jokic and Curry might be better on offense than peak Jordan then?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Or even if not, do you not think he’d easily be a top 3 offensive player along with Curry and Jokic, and easily the best player in the league when considering defense and postseason resilience?

No, I don't think that's a guarantee. I believe it's a possibility, but I don't think it's a guarantee.

Who aside from Jokic and Curry might be better on offense than peak Jordan then?

Replace Curry with Luka, and yeah this is a great point.

[LukaTheGOAT]

(voted top 5)

We've seen Demar Derozan play the same exact way as the late 90s MJ and average 28 PPG in this modern on 60 TS%. He averages just 1.3 3 pointers per game. And he's 33 years old also. Are you telling me that MJ can't do the same exact same thing but average 30-32 PPG?

Does it really matter? Was DeRozan anything more than a top 15-20 player?

Considering Derozan is arguably the biggest playoff-dropper of any star ever, and MJ arguably has the biggest rise ever per Box-Score components, I do think it matters.

And then, the fact that 97 Jordan is an all-league defender, and that can swing the scale in his favor considerably. That could make him top 5 like you said or much higher than just that.

[FJS]

the question is translating the same player as he was in 97. Or the player he could be being 33 (athletic condition) but adding some qualities right now are a must to be elite?
I mean, Jordan would develop a 3. With his ethic work and desire to be the best would improve for sure. But if he is the exact player, I'm not sure if he would be the best, but for sure in the top 5.

[Mazter]

Who aside from Jokic and Curry might be better on offense than peak Jordan then?

Peak Jordan?

I'm certain that this topic is about MJ'97 and I'm not sure I would consider that anywhere close to peak Jordan.
Would you?

[No-more-rings]

Who aside from Jokic and Curry might be better on offense than peak Jordan then?

Peak Jordan?

I'm certain that this topic is about MJ'97 and I'm not sure I would consider that anywhere close to peak Jordan.
Would you?

No of course not. But some of tsherkin’s posts seemed that he questioned even younger Jordan’s adaptability to today’s game.

But like I said if we’re talking peak-ish Jordan like 88-91 versions, I really don’t see any current players being better.

[AEnigma]

Or even if not, do you not think he’d easily be a top 3 offensive player along with Curry and Jokic, and easily the best player in the league when considering defense and postseason resilience?

No, I don't think that's a guarantee. I believe it's a possibility, but I don't think it's a guarantee.

Who aside from Jokic and Curry might be better on offense than peak Jordan then?

Luka…

EDIT: Just noticed this

Overall, it does sort of seem there's like an active coalition of a few posters who are openly trying to knock Jordan down and prop Lebron up.

The response by another poster in that thread sort of summed it up, when he said lets not turn this into a Lebron stan forum, or something along those lines.

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

[No-more-rings]

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this. 70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player. tsherkin...well no comment as I just think he changes his mind a lot.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

Mostly there isn't much point in engaging at length because it just results in the same BS talking points being regurgitated, same ad hominems, and useless emojis in almost every post.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away.

[AEnigma]

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this.

Because you are attempting to just brush away any criticisms of Jordan rather than actually counter anything yourself.

70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player.

True, he voted Jordan higher in the peaks project so you of course can trust that he has not been swayed by this devious Lebron conspiracy.

tsherkin...well no comment

Lol.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something?

I am actually every anti-Jordan argument you have ever read. That article Ohayo likes to post about box scores correlating weakly to real impact? That was me. That graph on playoff on/off? Ben took that from me.

I am falco, I am FuSheng, I am Unibro, I am homecourtloss, I am LukasGOAT, I am every person who has ever voted Lebron over Jordan. I am legion, and I am here to drag Jordan down from his rightful throne. Congratulations on figuring it out.

It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both,

Have you tried making better points.

uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

Yeah I tend to +1 posts that have thought and effort behind them going beyond those basketball truisms you love so much. I am sure I will +1 his next one in this thread too, oooh, how devious.

Mostly there isn't much point in engaging at length because it just results in the same BS talking points being regurgitated

1. As opposed to “count the rings” and “check basketball-reference”.

2. Maybe if you ever refuted them they would stop being regurgitated.

same ad hominems

“Ad hom is when someone says I need to think more about basketball than about narratives. Ad hom is not when I accuse all Lebron supporters of engaging in conspiracy and being the same person. ”

and useless emojis in almost every post.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative

“Why can everyone not get along and just agree and accept that Jordan is impeccable????”

teenage style of debating

“Teenagers are when analysing the game and the players impacting it rather than analysing the stories and the box scores.”

have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away.

Well obviously that is just part of the conspiracy. We want to drive away good posters like yourself who simply know that Jordan is the best no question it is all right there on the statsheet… by nefariously challenging you to uh actually try to look at the entirety of what is happening on the court.

Yes, I know, my villainy knows no bounds.

[OhayoKD]

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this.

Because you are attempting to just brush away any criticisms of Jordan rather than actually counter anything yourself.

70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player.

True, he voted Jordan higher in the peaks project so you of course can trust that he has not been swayed by this devious Lebron conspiracy.

tsherkin...well no comment

Lol.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something?

I am actually every anti-Jordan argument you have ever read. That article Ohayo likes to post about box scores correlating weakly to real impact? That was me. That graph on playoff on/off? Ben took that from me.

I am falco, I am FuSheng, I am Unibro, I am homecourtloss, I am LukasGOAT, I am every person who has ever voted Lebron over Jordan. I am legion, and I am here to drag Jordan down from his rightful throne. Congratulations on figuring it out.

FOR THE HONOR OF GRAYSKULL

[AEnigma]

I am sure I will +1 his next one in this thread too, oooh, how devious.

My mistake.

[OhayoKD]

I mean honestly, i'm not sure i'll really get an objective or rational response to that. You've made it clear for a while now that you have a bit of a bias against Jordan for one reason or another. I'm unsure if it's because you need it to help prop up some of your favorite players(Lebron and Curry) or what. And it's not because you pick some other players over him, it's because almost every time he is being comapared, your takes on him are overwhelmingly negative, and you resort to your usual condescending "hehe, boxscores" remarks(see above) like Jordan was this empty box stat stuffer or something. I think you're too smart to know that's not the case, which is what leads me to believe you have an agenda when it comes to him.

Overall, it does sort of seem there's like an active coalition of a few posters who are openly trying to knock Jordan down and prop Lebron up.

The response by another poster in that thread sort of summed it up, when he said lets not turn this into a Lebron stan forum, or something along those lines.

You think Giannis and Curry are better than Jordan, I get it. Don't think you'll find anyone who's really going to agree with that not even Warrior or Bucks fans.

Alright friend. Let's start with the personal stuff. For the sake of readers who might just want to discuss basketball, I'll break this up into 2 sections. Skip to the next "Re" if you want to avoid the "discussion about discussion" stuff.

Re: Bias
think we can both agree that accusing people of bias, "or having an agenda" requires at least some attempt at justification to not be in bad-faith. We can also probably agree that, "holds opinions i disagree with it" or "comes across as negative to me" isn't a very strong standard. With that in mind, let me propose four indicators for someone possibly being biased:
1. Inconsistency in rationale
2. Uncharacteristic hostility around certain subjects
3.Repeatedly bringing up a subject in unrelated discussions
4. Quality of argumentation tends to suffer around a specific subject



Here's an example of what I think a well-crafted argument for a poster being biased might look like:

1. Inconsistency in rationale

Oh jeez lol. Does this guy realize the Nets are considerably better on d with KD off the floor? All this video tells me is that KD is a good one on one defender. But this has been the case the past several years, KD’s defense gets overrated based on highlight plays and some blocks. Not a DPOY guy, and never resembled a top 10 type of defender in the league for that matter.

Beyond on that point, can anyone explain why the Celtics are only ranked 22nd in DRTG so far this year? It’s a sample size that may stabilize somewhat but is uncharacteristic to say the least.

You highlight both how durant's defense fares without him and his team's defensive rating. Yet when similar argumentation is offered for a certain player:

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

I'm not even sure how to respond to a comparison to 2015, other than...you're just trolling at this point and have nothing.

...

It just shows who actually followed what went on in some of these seasons, and who just reads off impact stats and calls a player better.

Congrats. If you're going to be this arrogant and condescending, at least know what you are using.

Enigma's point is a fleshed out variant of the one you yourself made for durant that uses more evidence including that which is made up by the largest possible sample. You dismissed it as "trolling" and proceeded to insult the people making it. Which brings us to
2. Uncharacteristic hostility around certain subjects
While I don't think claiming someone is biased inofitself is necessarily a hostile act, to do so repeatedly without prompt or proof can probably be classified as being combative. I don't think you're always like this, but when Lebron or Jordan comes up...

Overall, it does sort of seem there's like an active coalition of a few posters who are openly trying to knock Jordan down and prop Lebron up.

you're just trolling at this point and have nothing.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away.

I mean honestly, i'm not sure i'll really get an objective or rational response to that.

(FWIW, I will try my best to offer a "rational" response. I value engaging others as opposed to attacking my worst possible conception of them )
3. Repeatedly bringing up a subject in unrelated discussions
No post in this thread has mentioned Lebron, yet you dedicated several paragraphs to claiming(without proof) that I and various other posters are biased towards him. You also brought up Lebron in a completely unrelated discussion in the shaq vs duncan discussion:

Funny you say this, because this is the same thing Lebron fans tend to do with some of this seasons. They'll point to how great his team was during "x y and z" with "bad or mediocre support" and then when an underperformance happens in a series or the postseason they go "well he was playing with garbage".

This also is an example of
Quality of argumentation tends to suffer around a specfic subject.
You're perfectly capable of making sharp on-point counters:

If you're going to harp on the Lakers' postseason defense, maybe you should talk about the Spurs' offensive decline in the postseason.

Yet, when it comes to Lebron or MJ...

Exhibit A:

Funny you say this, because this is the same thing Lebron fans tend to do with some of this seasons. They'll point to how great his team was during "x y and z" with "bad or mediocre support" and then when an underperformance happens in a series or the postseason they go "well he was playing with garbage"

.
This...

I'll push more strongly on the idea that Lebron being an anchor wasn't clear-cut here. These defenses generally collapsed without him(moreso in the second cleveland stint), dropped as his own indvidual influence faded, and regularized data like drapm, dpipm, ect, ect has him leading the team across the board for the rs and the playoffs. This is true whether you go with his first mvp years, the heatles, or the second cavs stint.

is not the "same thing" as this...

I looked at body of work from start to finish. If you want to dock Shaq for a “collapsing defense” in the postseason it would help if you provided evidence that it was due to his own performance, and that 23 games of a weaker defense somehow overrides an entire season of all time dominance.

Pointing out it is possible Shaq was let down by his teammates and therefore team results shouldn't be considered is not the same as using available evidence to make an educated estimate(via various lines of analysis) at what a player's level of support is.
Exhibit B:

And I'll remind you, that what matters here is outpacing everyone else, not outpacing your own granulars from when you originally played. Jordan having higher free-throw rates now doesn't help him if the gap between how often he wins free-throws and everyone else does, doesn't increase

Yeah but not everyone plays the same either. If you don't think softer whistles don't benefit a super athlete who drives relentlessly to the hole, you aren't really being honest about the topic. If we're talking about those older Jordan versions who shot more jumpers that's a different story but I was referencing him when he was at or near his athletic peak.

You say "yeah" to the notion that a player's raw production(in this case ftr) increasing from era to era isn't what determines player quality...and then in the same sentence say I'm not "honest" if I argue his raw production increasing would not determine if he became a better player. Needless to say you never actually address the point of relativity here.

Exhibit C:

You think Giannis and Curry are better than Jordan, I get it. Don't think you'll find anyone who's really going to agree with that not even Warrior or Bucks fans.

Here's what I actually said:

Definitely among the very best players (with Curry, Jokic and Giannis being the other candidates). I think I'd trust him more than the rest in the playoffs, so likely number 1.

Giannis probably has the best argument(at least relative to era). More questions in the playoffs but is probably a better rs "floor-raiser" going off 2020. I guess the question is whether 2021/2022 addresses the playoff concerns well enough and how much you want to project 2020 carrying capability onto 2021/2022. Maybe 2023 Giannis well blend both together anyway.

If you don't care about era-relativity current curry vs mj might get interesting. Otherwise, i don't think 2023 curry has a case in the rs or po.

I can't see a case for jokic tho. Not being able to protect the paint is a massive knock for a big-man.

To be clear: am talking about peak mj in general. I don't have a strong opinion in how 93 compares to the other years.

Honestly, saying he'd "easily be the best" in a league with two players who led 70 win teams with less help seems wildly optimistic.

I'm not sure appealing to popularity should be the "gold-standard" of realgm debating, nor do I think its unreasonable for someone to take the position you're ridiculing for no discernible reason, but uh...that's a strawman. You do this alot actually:

I guess shooting the ball better from everywhere on the floor, better overall numbers, more minutes, greater team success, anchoring a better defense and offense isn't evidence of anything?

Your whole counter to that is "well his RAPM is a little better".

What we actually said:

What "isn't up for discussion" is that his box-stats dipped, and even then, slashlines are pretty much always subjective. The "motor" is as debatable as 2016 lebron being "smarter". I think the better question here to ask is what you using as proof of productoin(box-score) and whether that's actually good evidence.

2016 Lebron, compared to 2013 lebron, consistently posts higher defensive impact whether you go by PIPM, RAPM, or if you looked at how the defenses were affected by Lebron's depature. How precisely does the box-score or box-score aggregates contradict metrics that like defense more preferring 2016 lebron's regular season?

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

Obviously, I can't read your mind, but given your pattern of unprovoked hostility, your tendency to bring up this subject when it's not relevant, your arguments here being inconsistent with your arguments elsewhere, the honestly massive drop in post quality when you talk about these two, and your repeated decision to dismiss people who disagree with you on this as biased(without real proof), I don't think its unfair of me to assume you're projecting your own bias onto me.

Re: Basketball

Umm, a past peak MJ also led a 70+ win team, and Giannis never did that so not sure what you're talking about there.

Alright, that's my bad. To be accurate, Giannis led a 69 win pace team pre-covid which subsequently collapsed to 62 wins with a major bubble-induced drop-off. He did so with a team that went sub-500 without him while breaking or coming close to breaking basically every regularized or box-related stat despite, as has been documented by many, many, many posts you have chosen to completely ignore, those metrics skewing towards offense. The Bulls won 55 games without Jordan and were > .500(50 win per srs) without Jordan and Grant who was properly replaced for 96. It's a pretty unfavorable comp to what happened with Giannis during the pre-covid season, but if you want to use the 62 win mark, I won't oppose too strongly.

Curry's team by all indicatiors was worse. If you go by apm stuff they were roughly a 45 win team and if you go by how they performed in the playoffs without curry they weren't nearly as good as the 94 Bulls.

"Post-peak" doesn't really help MJ here because we have a pretty good idea what the upper-bound of "Lift" for MJ at his peak, and the rs comparison is flatly not favorable against either. Jordan joined a 27 win team, and managed to reach a whopping 50 wins with the cast incrementally improving. The team then saw its srs skyrocket upon a schematic shift(with jordan's impact sloping downards), before seeing their defense skyrocket between 90 and 91 with Jordan's impact and defensive indicators, again, sloping downward.

Jordan played against less talent and ultimately wasn't able to generate the same results as giannis or curry in the regular season. Pushing for MJ on the basis of playoff resiliency is one thing, but arguing he is "easily better" teleported against much better competition is excessive. Even having a terrible offensive series, Giannis nearly brute-defenced his way past what was effectively a 60-win team + Gasol + Kawhi + Nick Nurse.

You've repeatedly gotten incredulous at the suggestion Jordan might get worse facing better talent without offering rationale for why MJ should not get worse beyond "well his ftr will go up" which doesn't actually address how jordan would compare to his peers. Even going by the film-tracking of someone who sees jordan as the #1 peak, Jordan completed significantly less good passes than Kobe Bryant, lacks the size, reach, or speed to mimick a giannis as a rim-threat, is on the record saying he didn't want to shoot 3's, and(as you've rather consistently ignored) doesn't have that impressive of an impact footprint on the defensive end in a league where gambling(17th percentile) was harder to punish.


There's really nothing to support this level of confidence here besides in-era box-production and/or box-related metrics, and you have repeatedly(several receipts in this post) gone out of your way to antagonize, belittle, and misrepresent people who don't follow what you think "the numbers" say they should follow.

It is one thing to struggle to keep up in in-depth discussion. I certainly have lost track of threads myself. It is another thing to consistently miss or ignore what other people are saying, and then to go on a childish tirades like.

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this. 70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player. tsherkin...well no comment as I just think he changes his mind a lot.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

Mostly there isn't much point in engaging at length because it just results in the same BS talking points being regurgitated, same ad hominems, and useless emojis in almost every post.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away...

This is not what good posters do. This is not even what bad posters do. If you are concerned about the quality of discourse in this board, then the first place to start is with yourself. Assuming you have a scrap of self-awareness, it should be apparent there's room for improvement.

[AEnigma]

I value engaging others as opposed to attacking my worst possible conception of them

Confirmed not me.

[tsherkin]

I think it's almost a given MJs effeciency would just be greater today than his era with the amount of open driving lanes and emphasis on hands off defense from the perimeter by the officials.

It isn't a given. It's a possibility. Not the same thing. Remember that he was doing most of his work as a mid-range shooter. Fewer drives, lower FTr. Wasn't a 3pt shooter. Not really much to suggest that his efficiency would rise IF he played the same game he did in 97. It is possible that not letting centers camp down low would be a problem, just as it is possible that the restricted area would cause him some grief. It's possible that his lack of elite FT shooting would short change him a little compared to someone like DeRozan, as I noted before. There are a bunch of little variables. The trick here, though, is that his efficiency could rise and it still wouldn't replicate the impact he had in his own time. He was reasonably efficient at 33, but the odds of him rising enough compared to the present league environment to have similar rTS without a 3pt shot and without 88%+ FT shooting is a lot lower.

In terms of MJ being exhausted from constant driving into the lane, I think that's nothing compared to having to grapple more for position in the paint. Also I think we both agree in terms of stamina, MJ was an outlier there too. And the focus now on time management.. I'm not sure why you think that would be a problem for MJ.

I'd suggest, without seeming to be condescending, watching more MJ. He did a lot of just-in-time catches and movement without the ball which helped him evade a lot of aggressive jockeying for position... and was quite comfortable getting shoved out even to 20 feet if that had to be the case. He'd turn and pop that J wherever, and if he was too far, he'd face up instead. And he didn't really back down, he just shimmied and looked for which shoulder over which he was going to shoot, or if he was gonna spin. He didn't need to aggressively jockey for position.

If we contrast thr game of MJ and DeRozen, any one can see that even tho there game has some similarities, MJ is more visibly athletic, quicker, more fluid and have a greater array of shots in his arsenal.

If Derozen can average 28ppg at 60% ts then its not hard to see MJ averaging 32+ ppg with 63%+ ts in today's league with great defense (although adjustment would have to be made from him in where he places his hand when defending from perimeter).

MJ's defense wasn't great in 97. It was situationally good when he locked in and wasn't conserving energy, very much like Kobe at the same age (but with athletic advantage). Also, that's again something of a non-sequitur when we're discussing his offense.

DeRozan is a better FT shooter than MJ ever was and has generally been better about drawing fouls than Jordan, so IMHO, I don't think this is as compelling a notion as you believe.

[VanWest82]

I'm sure somebody has made this comment already, but didn't Demar Derozan last year have like +85 TS Add and was in the MVP race for half the year with something approximating a poor man's version of 97 MJ only without the defense (edit: I guess someone did make that point lol...right above my post)? And we're arguing over whether he would translate, let alone whether obsessive MJ would've found ways to modernize and become even more effecient?? C'mon.

He'd easily be top 5, and might even be best player in the league. He was basically modern Kawhi, only if Kawhi played 82 games and shot more.

[ShaqAttac]

I mean honestly, i'm not sure i'll really get an objective or rational response to that. You've made it clear for a while now that you have a bit of a bias against Jordan for one reason or another. I'm unsure if it's because you need it to help prop up some of your favorite players(Lebron and Curry) or what. And it's not because you pick some other players over him, it's because almost every time he is being comapared, your takes on him are overwhelmingly negative, and you resort to your usual condescending "hehe, boxscores" remarks(see above) like Jordan was this empty box stat stuffer or something. I think you're too smart to know that's not the case, which is what leads me to believe you have an agenda when it comes to him.

Overall, it does sort of seem there's like an active coalition of a few posters who are openly trying to knock Jordan down and prop Lebron up.

The response by another poster in that thread sort of summed it up, when he said lets not turn this into a Lebron stan forum, or something along those lines.

You think Giannis and Curry are better than Jordan, I get it. Don't think you'll find anyone who's really going to agree with that not even Warrior or Bucks fans.

Alright friend. Let's start with the personal stuff. For the sake of readers who might just want to discuss basketball, I'll break this up into 2 sections. Skip to the next "Re" if you want to avoid the "discussion about discussion" stuff.

Re: Bias
think we can both agree that accusing people of bias, "or having an agenda" requires at least some attempt at justification to not be in bad-faith. We can also probably agree that, "holds opinions i disagree with it" or "comes across as negative to me" isn't a very strong standard. With that in mind, let me propose four indicators for someone possibly being biased:
1. Inconsistency in rationale
2. Uncharacteristic hostility around certain subjects
3.Repeatedly bringing up a subject in unrelated discussions
4. Quality of argumentation tends to suffer around a specific subject



Here's an example of what I think a well-crafted argument for a poster being biased might look like:

1. Inconsistency in rationale

Oh jeez lol. Does this guy realize the Nets are considerably better on d with KD off the floor? All this video tells me is that KD is a good one on one defender. But this has been the case the past several years, KD’s defense gets overrated based on highlight plays and some blocks. Not a DPOY guy, and never resembled a top 10 type of defender in the league for that matter.

Beyond on that point, can anyone explain why the Celtics are only ranked 22nd in DRTG so far this year? It’s a sample size that may stabilize somewhat but is uncharacteristic to say the least.

You highlight both how durant's defense fares without him and his team's defensive rating. Yet when similar argumentation is offered for a certain player:

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

I'm not even sure how to respond to a comparison to 2015, other than...you're just trolling at this point and have nothing.

...

It just shows who actually followed what went on in some of these seasons, and who just reads off impact stats and calls a player better.

Congrats. If you're going to be this arrogant and condescending, at least know what you are using.

Enigma's point is a fleshed out variant of the one you yourself made for durant that uses more evidence including that which is made up by the largest possible sample. You dismissed it as "trolling" and proceeded to insult the people making it. Which brings us to
2. Uncharacteristic hostility around certain subjects
While I don't think claiming someone is biased inofitself is necessarily a hostile act, to do so repeatedly without prompt or proof can probably be classified as being combative. I don't think you're always like this, but when Lebron or Jordan comes up...

Overall, it does sort of seem there's like an active coalition of a few posters who are openly trying to knock Jordan down and prop Lebron up.

you're just trolling at this point and have nothing.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away.

I mean honestly, i'm not sure i'll really get an objective or rational response to that.

(FWIW, I will try my best to offer a "rational" response. I value engaging others as opposed to attacking my worst possible conception of them )
3. Repeatedly bringing up a subject in unrelated discussions
No post in this thread has mentioned Lebron, yet you dedicated several paragraphs to claiming(without proof) that I and various other posters are biased towards him. You also brought up Lebron in a completely unrelated discussion in the shaq vs duncan discussion:

Funny you say this, because this is the same thing Lebron fans tend to do with some of this seasons. They'll point to how great his team was during "x y and z" with "bad or mediocre support" and then when an underperformance happens in a series or the postseason they go "well he was playing with garbage".

This also is an example of
Quality of argumentation tends to suffer around a specfic subject.
You're perfectly capable of making sharp on-point counters:

If you're going to harp on the Lakers' postseason defense, maybe you should talk about the Spurs' offensive decline in the postseason.

Yet, when it comes to Lebron or MJ...

Exhibit A:

Funny you say this, because this is the same thing Lebron fans tend to do with some of this seasons. They'll point to how great his team was during "x y and z" with "bad or mediocre support" and then when an underperformance happens in a series or the postseason they go "well he was playing with garbage"

.
This...

I'll push more strongly on the idea that Lebron being an anchor wasn't clear-cut here. These defenses generally collapsed without him(moreso in the second cleveland stint), dropped as his own indvidual influence faded, and regularized data like drapm, dpipm, ect, ect has him leading the team across the board for the rs and the playoffs. This is true whether you go with his first mvp years, the heatles, or the second cavs stint.

is not the "same thing" as this...

I looked at body of work from start to finish. If you want to dock Shaq for a “collapsing defense” in the postseason it would help if you provided evidence that it was due to his own performance, and that 23 games of a weaker defense somehow overrides an entire season of all time dominance.

Pointing out it is possible Shaq was let down by his teammates and therefore team results shouldn't be considered is not the same as using available evidence to make an educated estimate(via various lines of analysis) at what a player's level of support is.
Exhibit B:

And I'll remind you, that what matters here is outpacing everyone else, not outpacing your own granulars from when you originally played. Jordan having higher free-throw rates now doesn't help him if the gap between how often he wins free-throws and everyone else does, doesn't increase

Yeah but not everyone plays the same either. If you don't think softer whistles don't benefit a super athlete who drives relentlessly to the hole, you aren't really being honest about the topic. If we're talking about those older Jordan versions who shot more jumpers that's a different story but I was referencing him when he was at or near his athletic peak.

You say "yeah" to the notion that a player's raw production(in this case ftr) increasing from era to era isn't what determines player quality...and then in the same sentence say I'm not "honest" if I argue his raw production increasing would not determine if he became a better player. Needless to say you never actually address the point of relativity here.

Exhibit C:

You think Giannis and Curry are better than Jordan, I get it. Don't think you'll find anyone who's really going to agree with that not even Warrior or Bucks fans.

Here's what I actually said:

Definitely among the very best players (with Curry, Jokic and Giannis being the other candidates). I think I'd trust him more than the rest in the playoffs, so likely number 1.

Giannis probably has the best argument(at least relative to era). More questions in the playoffs but is probably a better rs "floor-raiser" going off 2020. I guess the question is whether 2021/2022 addresses the playoff concerns well enough and how much you want to project 2020 carrying capability onto 2021/2022. Maybe 2023 Giannis well blend both together anyway.

If you don't care about era-relativity current curry vs mj might get interesting. Otherwise, i don't think 2023 curry has a case in the rs or po.

I can't see a case for jokic tho. Not being able to protect the paint is a massive knock for a big-man.

To be clear: am talking about peak mj in general. I don't have a strong opinion in how 93 compares to the other years.

Honestly, saying he'd "easily be the best" in a league with two players who led 70 win teams with less help seems wildly optimistic.

I'm not sure appealing to popularity should be the "gold-standard" of realgm debating, nor do I think its unreasonable for someone to take the position you're ridiculing for no discernible reason, but uh...that's a strawman. You do this alot actually:

I guess shooting the ball better from everywhere on the floor, better overall numbers, more minutes, greater team success, anchoring a better defense and offense isn't evidence of anything?

Your whole counter to that is "well his RAPM is a little better".

What we actually said:

What "isn't up for discussion" is that his box-stats dipped, and even then, slashlines are pretty much always subjective. The "motor" is as debatable as 2016 lebron being "smarter". I think the better question here to ask is what you using as proof of productoin(box-score) and whether that's actually good evidence.

2016 Lebron, compared to 2013 lebron, consistently posts higher defensive impact whether you go by PIPM, RAPM, or if you looked at how the defenses were affected by Lebron's depature. How precisely does the box-score or box-score aggregates contradict metrics that like defense more preferring 2016 lebron's regular season?

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

Obviously, I can't read your mind, but given your pattern of unprovoked hostility, your tendency to bring up this subject when it's not relevant, your arguments here being inconsistent with your arguments elsewhere, the honestly massive drop in post quality when you talk about these two, and your repeated decision to dismiss people who disagree with you on this as biased(without real proof), I don't think its unfair of me to assume you're projecting your own bias onto me.

Re: Basketball

Umm, a past peak MJ also led a 70+ win team, and Giannis never did that so not sure what you're talking about there.

Alright, that's my bad. To be accurate, Giannis led a 69 win pace team pre-covid which subsequently collapsed to 62 wins with a major bubble-induced drop-off. He did so with a team that went sub-500 without him while breaking or coming close to breaking basically every regularized or box-related stat despite, as has been documented by many, many, many posts you have chosen to completely ignore, those metrics skewing towards offense. The Bulls won 55 games without Jordan and were > .500(50 win per srs) without Jordan and Grant who was properly replaced for 96. It's a pretty unfavorable comp to what happened with Giannis during the pre-covid season, but if you want to use the 62 win mark, I won't oppose too strongly.

Curry's team by all indicatiors was worse. If you go by apm stuff they were roughly a 45 win team and if you go by how they performed in the playoffs without curry they weren't nearly as good as the 94 Bulls.

"Post-peak" doesn't really help MJ here because we have a pretty good idea what the upper-bound of "Lift" for MJ at his peak, and the rs comparison is flatly not favorable against either. Jordan joined a 27 win team, and managed to reach a whopping 50 wins with the cast incrementally improving. The team then saw its srs skyrocket upon a schematic shift(with jordan's impact sloping downards), before seeing their defense skyrocket between 90 and 91 with Jordan's impact and defensive indicators, again, sloping downward.

Jordan played against less talent and ultimately wasn't able to generate the same results as giannis or curry in the regular season. Pushing for MJ on the basis of playoff resiliency is one thing, but arguing he is "easily better" teleported against much better competition is excessive. Even having a terrible offensive series, Giannis nearly brute-defenced his way past what was effectively a 60-win team + Gasol + Kawhi + Nick Nurse.

You've repeatedly gotten incredulous at the suggestion Jordan might get worse facing better talent without offering rationale for why MJ should not get worse beyond "well his ftr will go up" which doesn't actually address how jordan would compare to his peers. Even going by the film-tracking of someone who sees jordan as the #1 peak, Jordan completed significantly less good passes than Kobe Bryant, lacks the size, reach, or speed to mimick a giannis as a rim-threat, is on the record saying he didn't want to shoot 3's, and(as you've rather consistently ignored) doesn't have that impressive of an impact footprint on the defensive end in a league where gambling(17th percentile) was harder to punish.


There's really nothing to support this level of confidence here besides in-era box-production and/or box-related metrics, and you have repeatedly(several receipts in this post) gone out of your way to antagonize, belittle, and misrepresent people who don't follow what you think "the numbers" say they should follow.

It is one thing to struggle to keep up in in-depth discussion. I certainly have lost track of threads myself. It is another thing to consistently miss or ignore what other people are saying, and then to go on a childish tirades like.

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this. 70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player. tsherkin...well no comment as I just think he changes his mind a lot.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

Mostly there isn't much point in engaging at length because it just results in the same BS talking points being regurgitated, same ad hominems, and useless emojis in almost every post.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away...

This is not what good posters do. This is not even what bad posters do. If you are concerned about the quality of discourse in this board, then the first place to start is with yourself. Assuming you have a scrap of self-awareness, it should be apparent there's room for improvement.

mods, id like to report a murder

[ShaqAttac]

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this. 70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player. tsherkin...well no comment as I just think he changes his mind a lot.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

Mostly there isn't much point in engaging at length because it just results in the same BS talking points being regurgitated, same ad hominems, and useless emojis in almost every post.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away.

if eni is a teen u must be 5

[mysticOscar]

Spoiler:

I think it's almost a given MJs effeciency would just be greater today than his era with the amount of open driving lanes and emphasis on hands off defense from the perimeter by the officials.

It isn't a given. It's a possibility. Not the same thing. Remember that he was doing most of his work as a mid-range shooter. Fewer drives, lower FTr. Wasn't a 3pt shooter. Not really much to suggest that his efficiency would rise IF he played the same game he did in 97. It is possible that not letting centers camp down low would be a problem, just as it is possible that the restricted area would cause him some grief. It's possible that his lack of elite FT shooting would short change him a little compared to someone like DeRozan, as I noted before. There are a bunch of little variables. The trick here, though, is that his efficiency could rise and it still wouldn't replicate the impact he had in his own time. He was reasonably efficient at 33, but the odds of him rising enough compared to the present league environment to have similar rTS without a 3pt shot and without 88%+ FT shooting is a lot lower.

In terms of MJ being exhausted from constant driving into the lane, I think that's nothing compared to having to grapple more for position in the paint. Also I think we both agree in terms of stamina, MJ was an outlier there too. And the focus now on time management.. I'm not sure why you think that would be a problem for MJ.

I'd suggest, without seeming to be condescending, watching more MJ. He did a lot of just-in-time catches and movement without the ball which helped him evade a lot of aggressive jockeying for position... and was quite comfortable getting shoved out even to 20 feet if that had to be the case. He'd turn and pop that J wherever, and if he was too far, he'd face up instead. And he didn't really back down, he just shimmied and looked for which shoulder over which he was going to shoot, or if he was gonna spin. He didn't need to aggressively jockey for position.

If we contrast thr game of MJ and DeRozen, any one can see that even tho there game has some similarities, MJ is more visibly athletic, quicker, more fluid and have a greater array of shots in his arsenal.

If Derozen can average 28ppg at 60% ts then its not hard to see MJ averaging 32+ ppg with 63%+ ts in today's league with great defense (although adjustment would have to be made from him in where he places his hand when defending from perimeter).

MJ's defense wasn't great in 97. It was situationally good when he locked in and wasn't conserving energy, very much like Kobe at the same age (but with athletic advantage). Also, that's again something of a non-sequitur when we're discussing his offense.

DeRozan is a better FT shooter than MJ ever was and has generally been better about drawing fouls than Jordan, so IMHO, I don't think this is as compelling a notion as you believe.

I was a much bigger fan of the NBA fan in the 90s than today and pretty much watched as much NBA games where I could of the Bulls, so no need to suggest I need to watch more of MJ.

Yeah, MJ did a lot of evasion of defense working off the ball, but that in itself takes a lot of energy. But to suggest that was the majority of play is not just accurate. A lot of his play was bodying up in the paint, and yes he was really great at it for someone in his position, it still required to exert a lot of energy, much more than driving to the lanes. To think that players today are fine in driving constantly in thr open lanes today, but a 33 yo Jordan who was an outlier in terms of stamina and athleticsm will somehow struggle is just hard to believe.

But I think this is besides the point. Watching Derozens athleticsm and skillet compared to MJ, I find it a STRETCH to think that he won't benefit from the perimeter friendly rules and open space today and find your viewpoint more of a very pessimistic scepticism that doesn't really hold up to the eye test.

[Pick And Roll]

Spoiler:

I think it's almost a given MJs effeciency would just be greater today than his era with the amount of open driving lanes and emphasis on hands off defense from the perimeter by the officials.

It isn't a given. It's a possibility. Not the same thing. Remember that he was doing most of his work as a mid-range shooter. Fewer drives, lower FTr. Wasn't a 3pt shooter. Not really much to suggest that his efficiency would rise IF he played the same game he did in 97. It is possible that not letting centers camp down low would be a problem, just as it is possible that the restricted area would cause him some grief. It's possible that his lack of elite FT shooting would short change him a little compared to someone like DeRozan, as I noted before. There are a bunch of little variables. The trick here, though, is that his efficiency could rise and it still wouldn't replicate the impact he had in his own time. He was reasonably efficient at 33, but the odds of him rising enough compared to the present league environment to have similar rTS without a 3pt shot and without 88%+ FT shooting is a lot lower.

In terms of MJ being exhausted from constant driving into the lane, I think that's nothing compared to having to grapple more for position in the paint. Also I think we both agree in terms of stamina, MJ was an outlier there too. And the focus now on time management.. I'm not sure why you think that would be a problem for MJ.

I'd suggest, without seeming to be condescending, watching more MJ. He did a lot of just-in-time catches and movement without the ball which helped him evade a lot of aggressive jockeying for position... and was quite comfortable getting shoved out even to 20 feet if that had to be the case. He'd turn and pop that J wherever, and if he was too far, he'd face up instead. And he didn't really back down, he just shimmied and looked for which shoulder over which he was going to shoot, or if he was gonna spin. He didn't need to aggressively jockey for position.

If we contrast thr game of MJ and DeRozen, any one can see that even tho there game has some similarities, MJ is more visibly athletic, quicker, more fluid and have a greater array of shots in his arsenal.

If Derozen can average 28ppg at 60% ts then its not hard to see MJ averaging 32+ ppg with 63%+ ts in today's league with great defense (although adjustment would have to be made from him in where he places his hand when defending from perimeter).

MJ's defense wasn't great in 97. It was situationally good when he locked in and wasn't conserving energy, very much like Kobe at the same age (but with athletic advantage). Also, that's again something of a non-sequitur when we're discussing his offense.

DeRozan is a better FT shooter than MJ ever was and has generally been better about drawing fouls than Jordan, so IMHO, I don't think this is as compelling a notion as you believe.

I was a much bigger fan of the NBA fan in the 90s than today and pretty much watched as much NBA games where I could of the Bulls, so no need to suggest I need to watch more of MJ.

Yeah, MJ did a lot of evasion of defense working off the ball, but that in itself takes a lot of energy. But to suggest that was the majority of play is not just accurate. A lot of his play was bodying up in the paint, and yes he was really great at it for someone in his position, it still required to exert a lot of energy, much more than driving to the lanes. To think that players today are fine in driving constantly in thr open lanes today, but a 33 yo Jordan who was an outlier in terms of stamina and athleticsm will somehow struggle is just hard to believe.

But I think this is besides the point. Watching Derozens athleticsm and skillet compared to MJ, I find it a STRETCH to think that he won't benefit from the perimeter friendly rules and open space today and find your viewpoint more of a very pessimistic scepticism that doesn't really hold up to the eye test.

These rule changes turned Mike James into a 20 PPG scorer when he never even approached that before. No reason at all to suggest Jordan would struggle.

[Dutchball97]

Yeah I called up my very close buddies tsherkin and 70sFan and told them it was time to put an analytic hit out on Jordan.

You having this inflated idea of Jordan does not mean criticisms of him or his theoretical translation are invalid — and the perhaps increasing commonality of those criticisms as more people look into his mythos is not some “Lebron stan conspiracy”. Kind-of sad you turn to that rather than actually try to engage with the criticisms in any meaningful way.

I didn't name anyone in particular, but apparently you took offense to this. 70sfan has made it pretty clear that over the years he doesn't have a particular axe to grind with either player. tsherkin...well no comment as I just think he changes his mind a lot.

Serious question but is OhayoKD like your alt account or alter ego or something? It seems like any time I debate one I'm automatically debating both, and uncoincidentally you and-1 like 98% of the same posts and at the same time and almost never disagree on things.

Mostly there isn't much point in engaging at length because it just results in the same BS talking points being regurgitated, same ad hominems, and useless emojis in almost every post.

If the new gold standard of realgm is going to be this combative teenage style of debating, have at it but I think it's driving a lot of good posters away.

if eni is a teen u must be 5

Mixing yourself in a discussion just to insult someone isn't helping either.