When would you generally say LeBron surpassed MJ all-time?

[HeartBreakKid]

The post Jordan era was the 2000s where people overrated PPG, a bunch of star players were inefficient and overvalued iso ball, it was boring for fans to watch as they were low scoring and had little passing, and objectively speaking was terrible in ratings compared to the 90s and 10s.

Jordan strangely enough played in the 2000s as a Wizard and basically was a caricature of that era as well as a cancer on his team. Chucker, hero ball, no defense from volume scorers, poor passing, toxic attitude, boring team - Post Jordan era in a nut shell.

Also, superstar calls and the NBA continuing to put more emphasis on stars over teams...all came from Jordan. People buying a ton of shoes they cant afford and other dopey forms of commercialism...is from Jordan.

The NBA becoming more show than sport is directly from Jordan. But yeah, James ruined the NBA because of free agency.

It's incredible that you don't notice most of the things people complain about the NBA came from the 90s when it coincidentally (or not) became more popular.

[Gooner]

Huh? Are we talking on court impact or some type of legacy argument which isn’t what anyone is looking at or cares about in this forum

I’d love to hear how LeBron has a negative on court impact if that’s what you’re saying

Impact on the game in general.

So you mean “influence” in which like I said no one here cares about we’re looking at how good they were at basketball because that’s what matters

MJ was definitely better at basketball than LBJ. His skills were much better. LBJ is not a great player to watch, his personality is egotistical, the NBA has gotten softer through him, it became more oriented towards the individual and the rules were adjusted to that...the biggest thing LBJ accomplished is a cult of personality, which is what the league and his sponsors wanted. There are plenty of people on social media that idolize him. But the ratings are still going down, down, down, down...

[ceoofkobefans]

Impact on the game in general.

So you mean “influence” in which like I said no one here cares about we’re looking at how good they were at basketball because that’s what matters

MJ was definitely better at basketball than LBJ. His skills were much better. LBJ is not a great player to watch, his personality is egotistical, the NBA has gotten softer through him, it became more oriented towards the individual and the rules were adjusted to that...the biggest thing LBJ accomplished is a cult of personality, which is what the league and his sponsors wanted. There are plenty of people on social media that idolize him. But the ratings are still going down, down, down, down...

It personally sounds to me that you grew up watching MJ so you have nostalgia bias for him and refuse to believe that anyone could be better than him so you make up any dumb excuse possible to push your MJ > LeBron agenda instead of just being honest. Like I get it I hate LeBron too and don’t like admitting he’s the GOAT. I try and try to find ways to push an anti LeBron agenda but when you’re being Objective and actually looking at how good they are at basketball it’s just really hard to argue anyone over LeBron

[ceoofkobefans]

The post Jordan era was the 2000s where people overrated PPG, a bunch of star players were inefficient and overvalued iso ball, it was boring for fans to watch as they were low scoring and had little passing, and objectively speaking was terrible in ratings compared to the 90s and 10s.

Jordan strangely enough played in the 2000s as a Wizard and basically was a caricature of that era as well as a cancer on his team. Chucker, hero ball, no defense from volume scorers, poor passing, toxic attitude, boring team - Post Jordan era in a nut shell.

Also, superstar calls and the NBA continuing to put more emphasis on stars over teams...all came from Jordan. People buying a ton of shoes they cant afford and other dopey forms of commercialism...is from Jordan.

The NBA becoming more show than sport is directly from Jordan. But yeah, James ruined the NBA because of free agency.

It's incredible that you don't notice most of the things people complain about the NBA came from the 90s when it coincidentally (or not) became more popular.

Ok enough of him read the essay I posted I think it was #175 on this post

[ceoofkobefans]

The post Jordan era was the 2000s where people overrated PPG, a bunch of star players were inefficient and overvalued iso ball, it was boring for fans to watch as they were low scoring and had little passing, and objectively speaking was terrible in ratings compared to the 90s and 10s.

Jordan strangely enough played in the 2000s as a Wizard and basically was a caricature of that era as well as a cancer on his team. Chucker, hero ball, no defense from volume scorers, poor passing, toxic attitude, boring team - Post Jordan era in a nut shell.

Also, superstar calls and the NBA continuing to put more emphasis on stars over teams...all came from Jordan. People buying a ton of shoes they cant afford and other dopey forms of commercialism...is from Jordan.

The NBA becoming more show than sport is directly from Jordan. But yeah, James ruined the NBA because of free agency.

It's incredible that you don't notice most of the things people complain about the NBA came from the 90s when it coincidentally (or not) became more popular.

Ok enough of him read the essay I posted I think it was #175 on this post

[Gooner]

So you mean “influence” in which like I said no one here cares about we’re looking at how good they were at basketball because that’s what matters

MJ was definitely better at basketball than LBJ. His skills were much better. LBJ is not a great player to watch, his personality is egotistical, the NBA has gotten softer through him, it became more oriented towards the individual and the rules were adjusted to that...the biggest thing LBJ accomplished is a cult of personality, which is what the league and his sponsors wanted. There are plenty of people on social media that idolize him. But the ratings are still going down, down, down, down...

It personally sounds to me that you grew up watching MJ so you have nostalgia bias for him and refuse to believe that anyone could be better than him so you make up any dumb excuse possible to push your MJ > LeBron agenda instead of just being honest. Like I get it I hate LeBron too and don’t like admitting he’s the GOAT. I try and try to find ways to push an anti LeBron agenda but when you’re being Objective and actually looking at how good they are at basketball it’s just really hard to argue anyone over LeBron

That's not true at all. You are just making assumptions. I'm just an objecitve observer. LBJ doesn't have nowhere near the skill as MJ, his impact on the game is not as big, but he is putting up numbers in a weaker era more centered around the individual. He is an artifical MJ.

[Gooner]

The post Jordan era was the 2000s where people overrated PPG, a bunch of star players were inefficient and overvalued iso ball, it was boring for fans to watch as they were low scoring and had little passing, and objectively speaking was terrible in ratings compared to the 90s and 10s.

Jordan strangely enough played in the 2000s as a Wizard and basically was a caricature of that era as well as a cancer on his team. Chucker, hero ball, no defense from volume scorers, poor passing, toxic attitude, boring team - Post Jordan era in a nut shell.

Also, superstar calls and the NBA continuing to put more emphasis on stars over teams...all came from Jordan. People buying a ton of shoes they cant afford and other dopey forms of commercialism...is from Jordan.

The NBA becoming more show than sport is directly from Jordan. But yeah, James ruined the NBA because of free agency.

It's incredible that you don't notice most of the things people complain about the NBA came from the 90s when it coincidentally (or not) became more popular.

That era that you are talking about was much better than this one. You had Kobe, Shaq, Iverson, McGrady, Pierce, Garnett, Carter, Allen, Webber, Duncan, Nowitzki, Kidd, Nash...You had to earn your points back then and we coudl objectively see who is a great player and who isn't. It's easy to be efficient when there is no defense. Jordan on the Wizards was better than LeBron is right now.

[70sFan]

I try and try to find ways to push an anti LeBron agenda but when you’re being Objective and actually looking at how good they are at basketball it’s just really hard to argue anyone over LeBron

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

[OhayoKD]

Wanna talk about the WOWY **** for mainly Russell and Jordan.

Yes Russell was able to consistently win with different teammates shuffling in and out of the lineups but that doesn’t really matter because all of the players shuffling in and out of the lineup are every good players

What is the basis for every player who shuffled in and out of Bill's lineups over 13 years being "very good"? Why can't I deny russell always had an "amazing supporting cast"? You seem to assume this is true, but none of the available evidence, including that which you yourself provide, support this...

I don’t think a 52 game Sample size over 13 years (or a 28 game sample) is enough

I agree:

I don't think we should be putting this much stock into WOWYR

The thing is...we have an 82 game sample from 1970 saying the same thing. It is as good of a sample you will find for russell's supporting cast without russell and it directly contradicts your claims:

Luckily, we don't need to rely on a smattering of minutes to assess Russell, because we actually have an 82 game sample of "without" for Russell in 1970. The celtics, despite seeing their offense improve(second best player sees his volume skyrocket), dropped to 35 wins with Russell retiring. The previous year, Bill beat a superteam to win a championship as a player-coach on his last legs. With more help in 1990(The Bulls were a 27 win team before they drafted Jordan, incrementally improved after drafting Pippen and Grant, then saw their srs skyrocket with the introduction of the triangle) Apex Jordan managed 55 wins and a close loss in the Conference Finals.

Hondo and the offense got better after Russell's depature, yet the celtics were a 35 win team.. Jordan has never won with that level of support, yet Russell was able to do it a year before retiring. It is the best evidence we have and it firmly goes agianst your conclusions. As does your own data when we consider era-context:

3-5 record (31 win pace)
2.25 pt differential (48 win pace)
99.4 PPG (no Fg% but 75.2 FT% on 30.8 FTA/g)
97.1 PPGA

Looking at 86 MJ WOWY

With
9-9 record (41 win pace)
-3.6 NRTG (30 win pace)
109 ORTG
112.6 DRTG

Without
21-43 record (27 win pace)
-3.9 NRTG (30 win pace)
109 ORTG
112.9 DRTG

Both jordan and russell are working with 30 win casts. But Jordan barely makes the playoffs before being swept. Bill wins a title beating a superteam(1969 lakers) and another one of the best teams in the era(Frazier's knicks).

Even though the wins total may look similar, The Celtics are much better. Russell is starting from the same point as Jordan and achieving vastly better results. And if you want an ideal sample, we have 82 games in 1970 telling us the exact same story. Focusing on how many regular season games the greatest dynasty in nba history won year to year really misses the point.

66-68 Sam Jones

With
151-61 (58 win pace)
5.87 PT Differential (58 win pace)
116.9 PPG (no FG% but 73.7 FT% on 35.9 FTA/g)
111 PPGA

Without
17-14 (45 win pace)
4.35 PT Differential (54 win pace)
110.3 PPG (no FG% but 72.6 FT% on 35.4 FTA/g)
105.9 PPGA




+4 win differential based on pt differential is pretty good for A 58 win team.

The mistake you are making here is assuming a 58 win team in 1960 is the same as a 58 win team in 1990. The Celtics won 11 rings. The Bulls won 6. Even though the bulls "won more games", the celtics were a much better team. 58 wins in 1960 is like 70+ in 1990:

At the height of their dynasty, the Celtics were comically dominant. From 1962-65, their average margin-of-victory (MOV) was over 8 points per game. During the same time span, only two other teams even eclipsed 4 points per game – the ’64 Royals and the ’64 Warriors. And all of Boston’s separation was created by its historic defense, anchored by Russell:

This "4-win differential" translates to the celtics going from being more than twice as good as anyone else(excepting 2 teams) for 4 years to... still being more than twice as good as everyone else.


Simply put:

There is simply nothing more valuable than a big man in the early days of the NBA

...

the raw impact of a center in the 60s can't really be replicated by perimeter players even in today's era of spacing

In a relative to era comparison, what we have suggests that Russell had less or similar help and still won vastly more.
While there are reasonable cases to be made against Russell in a time-machine argument as...

there is Ty's point that the league has been expanding and growing at a rapid rate across decades and players have to contend with both more top end talent and a higher level of average player in the league as time goes on.

As far as in-era dominance goes, from what we have, Russell(and maybe wilt at points) is basically unassailable. You'd basically have to assume that every celtics team was on par with what rookie russell had, and there's just no discernible evidence for the celtics mantaining that type of supporting cast whether we go with the largest possible samples(1970), prime-wide data(wowyr), or the stretches you yourself curated(1986 vs 1969).

Looking at MJ he also doesn’t miss a lot of games very often. The only two times he missed significant time is 1986 where he only played 18 games and only played 25 mpg that year due to him coming off the bench when he came back because Chicago didn’t want to risk an injury to him.

Again, if you are concerned about sample-size, we should look at the biggest possible sample:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1984.html
The Bulls before Jordan are a 27 win team in 1984, right in line with them being a 30 win team in 1986. Their SRS skyrockets with the implementation of the triangle in 1990 setting them at around 40-wins in terms of help, and then their defense goes from average to best placing them as a loaded supporting cast in 1991. Ane extrapolation that is supported with them winning 55 in 94, and posting a 50 win srs without grant. It's hard to parse out exactly how much of the 95 to 96 improvement comes from rodman, but presuming 50+ win help is a pretty reasonable estimate given grant and rodman's similar profile.

As it is, the most substantial data you provided for pippen and grant supports this:

His teammates don’t miss a lot of games really. We get 45 games without Rodman in 1996 and 1997 combined. WOWY data looks like

With
105-14 (72 win pace)
13.7 NRTG (72 win pace)
116.6 ORTG
102.9 DRTG

Without
36-9 record (66 win pace)
10.3 NRTG (67 win pace)
112.5 ORTG
102.2 DRTG

Seems like a pretty good ceiling raiser but the bulls are still a GOAT tier team without Rodman and the ORTG difference gets boosted by a 3.5% difference in 3pt% in favor of the bulls with Rodman which doesn’t make much sense and the bulls shoot a full % better from the FT line with Rodman despite him being a 55% FT shooter.

In 98 Scottie misses 38 games

With
36-8 record (67 win pace)
9.6 NRTG (66 win pace)
112.1 ORTG
102.5 DRTG

Without
26-12 record (56 win pace)
6.1 NRTG (58 win pace)
104.6 ORTG
98.5 DRTG

To be clear, the Bulls don't look like an all-time team without Pippen, rather they look like a fringe-contender. Again, 58 wins in 1998 is not the same as 58 wins in 1968. If we assume lift is linear(its not), subtracting rodman and pippen gets you to 51 or 52 games. Off course, this is misleading as it is harder to lift better teams than worse ones, something obvious even if we take the example of Kevin Durant:

Slotted next to two of the best shooters ever — Thompson and Curry — Durant helped Golden State improve from one of the best full-strength teams ever to the best ever, playing at a mind-bending 73-win pace when healthy (14.4 SRS). Durant missed 19 games, and the otherwise healthy Warriors “only” played at a 67-win clip (10.4 SRS).

That is...pretty comparable to the sample you offered for dennis rodman This isn't to say rodman = durant(these are pretty small samples!), but the data provided suggests rodman is significantly more valuable than you're letting on. As it is, the 95 bulls, fresh off 4 deep playoff runs, and an olympic campaign still posted a 50-win SRS without their best and 3rd best player. It's quite unlikely the Bulls are anything but stacked in the years they're winning and your own data(rodman's lift ~ 2017 durant, pippen elevates a contender to all-time great) arguably paints jordan's co-stars even more favorably. None of this really makes for a favorable comparison in a comp with Russell. Lebron actually does better versions of this with his teams playing close to a 60 win pace in Miami and Cleveland without Wade/Bosh and Kyrie/Love respectively. In 72, Kareem, led a 63 win team without his singular co-star before leading a 50 win srs(45-pace record) team in 75(without Kareem, they played like a 15 win team). Considering that Kareem also was drafted onto a 27 win team and didn't see his team instantly skyrocket due to a schematic shift like the Bulls did with Phil's triangle, it's likely Kareem(who consistently outdoes MJ in WOWY samples) was doing as much with less.
Speaking of which...

MJ pulling off arguably the GOAT floor raising jobs in 88-90. Like the 88 bulls are a +3.75 SRS and a 50 win team despite the second best player being Charles Oakley. This team also has a +1 rORTG SOMEHOW

Yeah uh...no. Even if we're really, really generous and assume Jordan's teammates didn't improve after 1984(check the bulls defense before and after oakley tho), 50 wins with 27 win help(23-win lift) doesn't really constitute "the GOAT floor-raising job". In fact, it really not close. I think Russell's exploits have been well established, but here's some others:
Kareem 1975 - 30+ wins
Kareem 1969 to 1970 - 29 wins
Lebron 2009 - 40+ wins
Lebron 2010-2011 - 40+ wins
Lebron 2015-2017 - 30+ wins
Lebron 2012/2013 - 20+ wins
Hakeem 88 - 30+ wins
Hakeem 92 - 29 wins

2015 in particular serves as a particularly strong counter, as it is considered a pretty significant off-year. So much so that it actively harms Lebron's case vs jordan for some:

I think the main thing I'll need to be convinced of is whether LeBron really got the maximum out of some seasons. I'm mainly talking about 2009, 2010, 2015 and 2019.

Lebron put up some of the worst shooting of his career, needed a mini-vacation to get back to form, and was at a nadir in terms of athleticism, motor, and agility. And yet...

In his 2015 year the Cavs had an extremely promising season . . . right up until the point where both Love and Irving went down with injuries. LeBron almost single-handedly carried his team through the Eastern Conference (indicative both of how insanely dominant LeBron was and how weak the conference was), posting the 65th best PSRS on this list. But, of course, his team couldn’t realistically compete with the Golden State Warriors, who had emerged in the West from relative obscurity (8th ranked in the league, a 1 in 29 shot to win the Finals) to become the clear best team in the league. But they still took six games to beat a Cavs team without Kyrie or Love. In 2016 a rematch was promised, one that would pit a healthy Cavs team against a full-strength Warriors team at the height of their powers. It would be, prognosticators surmised, one of the greatest Finals matchups ever.

But let the record show that in the ‘15 playoffs they posted pretty close to a +10 PSRS with LeBron and a notably weak supporting cast (Tristan Thompson, Iman Shumpert, J.R. Smith, Timofey Mozgov and Matthew Dellavedova). All of those players have serious values to teams, but not one of them has any business being the 2nd best player on a +10 SRS team.

In Sansteere's top 100(https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2012241), the 2015 Cavs come out higher than the 88, 89, or 90 Bulls(all unranked). Tracking support, the cavs without Lebron, and with Kyrie and Love, played at a comparable pace as the 84 Bulls pre-Jordan and a lower pace than the 1986 Bulls with Jordan suffering from injury. While much discussion and debate has centered around whether that drop came from Lebron "minimizing" his co-stars, I think its a safe bet that the Cavs without kyrie or love were a worse cast. Especially when we consider a relative lack of spacing. Yet they swept a 60 win team(55 win srs) and pushed a 67 win team to 6 matching the very best results of the "GOAT floor-raising job" with a physically limited superstar in the absence of comparable support or suitable era-relative spacing.

While your team-breakdowns(and much of your mj analysis) seem to fixate on offense, the differentiator here between Jordan and the various players I just listed comes in their defensive signals. O-rating is all well and good, but the Bulls posted an absurd 35% offensive rebounding rate and their defensive success wasn't really tied to Jordan. It was actually oakley whose arrival and depature coincided with the bulls defense momentarily ascending even with 1988 marking an outlier for Jordan in terms of defensive and holistic metrics. Consequently, despite goatish looking box-score and box-heavy metrics potraying Jordan(and Lebron) as two-of-a-kind outliers from everyone in history(well, besides Russell and Wilt who, when you adjust for the depressed victory margins of their era still come out ahead of everyone), when we look to more inclusive data, claims like "arguably the goat floor-raiser" just don't hold up to snuff.

[Jaqua92]

What a weird thread.

He hasn't. 80% of the basketball world thinks he hasn't either lol

[Dutchball97]

In Sansteere's top 100(viewtopic.php?t=2012241), the 2015 Cavs come out higher than the 88, 89, or 90 Bulls(all unranked). Tracking support, the cavs without Lebron, and with Kyrie and Love, played at a comparable pace as the 84 Bulls pre-Jordan and a lower pace than the 1986 Bulls with Jordan suffering from injury. While much discussion and debate has centered around whether that drop came from Lebron "minimizing" his co-stars, I think its a safe bet that the Cavs without kyrie or love were a worse cast. Especially when we consider a relative lack of spacing. Yet they swept a 60 win team(55 win srs) and pushed a 67 win team to 6 matching the very best results of the "GOAT floor-raising job" with a physically limited superstar in the absence of comparable support or suitable era-relative spacing.

While your team-breakdowns(and much of your mj analysis) seem to fixate on offense, the differentiator here between Jordan and the various players I just listed comes in their defensive signals. O-rating is all well and good, but the Bulls posted an absurd 35% offensive rebounding rate and their defensive success wasn't really tied to Jordan. It was actually oakley whose arrival and depature coincided with the bulls defense momentarily ascending even with 1988 marking an outlier for Jordan in terms of defensive and holistic metrics. Consequently, despite goatish looking box-score and box-heavy metrics potraying Jordan(and Lebron) as two-of-a-kind outliers from everyone in history(well, besides Russell and Wilt who, when you adjust for the depressed victory margins of their era still come out ahead of everyone), when we look to more inclusive data, claims like "arguably the goat floor-raiser" just don't hold up to snuff.

I'm assuming this is towards me as this comes after my quote but I'm not sure since a lot doesn't reflect what I posted. Your 2015 Cavs example (or more so sansterre's example) is a good indication he might've been better that season than on first look, which is something I already said I'd take a closer look at come top 100 time. However, you seem to present an example of LeBron doing something impressive and then using that as an argument over Jordan without making a real comparison to Jordan outside of some of his best seasons being rated lower by sansterre.

My team breakdown was about how the Bulls had a similar drop off on offense without Jordan as the Celtics had without Russell on defense, how is this offense fixated? I never hyped up Jordan's defense and even explicitly said the Bulls didn't drop off much without Jordan in 94 on that end. I never called Jordan the GOAT floor raiser, I'm just more convinced he got the most out of his teams more consistently than Kareem and LeBron. I'm also not sure what inclusive data should mean here. You're not just talking about SRS and win pace, are you?

[OhayoKD]

In Sansteere's top 100(viewtopic.php?t=2012241), the 2015 Cavs come out higher than the 88, 89, or 90 Bulls(all unranked). Tracking support, the cavs without Lebron, and with Kyrie and Love, played at a comparable pace as the 84 Bulls pre-Jordan and a lower pace than the 1986 Bulls with Jordan suffering from injury. While much discussion and debate has centered around whether that drop came from Lebron "minimizing" his co-stars, I think its a safe bet that the Cavs without kyrie or love were a worse cast. Especially when we consider a relative lack of spacing. Yet they swept a 60 win team(55 win srs) and pushed a 67 win team to 6 matching the very best results of the "GOAT floor-raising job" with a physically limited superstar in the absence of comparable support or suitable era-relative spacing.

While your team-breakdowns(and much of your mj analysis) seem to fixate on offense, the differentiator here between Jordan and the various players I just listed comes in their defensive signals. O-rating is all well and good, but the Bulls posted an absurd 35% offensive rebounding rate and their defensive success wasn't really tied to Jordan. It was actually oakley whose arrival and depature coincided with the bulls defense momentarily ascending even with 1988 marking an outlier for Jordan in terms of defensive and holistic metrics. Consequently, despite goatish looking box-score and box-heavy metrics potraying Jordan(and Lebron) as two-of-a-kind outliers from everyone in history(well, besides Russell and Wilt who, when you adjust for the depressed victory margins of their era still come out ahead of everyone), when we look to more inclusive data, claims like "arguably the goat floor-raiser" just don't hold up to snuff.

I'm assuming this is towards me as this comes after my quote but I'm not sure since a lot doesn't reflect what I posted. Your 2015 Cavs example (or more so sansterre's example) is a good indication he might've been better that season than on first look, which is something I already said I'd take a closer look at come top 100 time. However, you seem to present an example of LeBron doing something impressive and then using that as an argument over Jordan without making a real comparison to Jordan outside of some of his best seasons being rated lower by sansterre.

My team breakdown was about how the Bulls had a similar drop off on offense without Jordan as the Celtics had without Russell on defense, how is this offense fixated? I never hyped up Jordan's defense and even explicitly said the Bulls didn't drop off much without Jordan in 94 on that end. I never called Jordan the GOAT floor raiser, I'm just more convinced he got the most out of his teams more consistently than Kareem and LeBron. I'm also not sure what inclusive data should mean here. You're not just talking about SRS and win pace, are you?

Hi Dutch!

I used a couple of things you said to illustrate various points(when possible, I like to draw from as many sources as possible to make discussion feel more collaborative), but it was part of a response to a claim that Jordan's 88-90 was arguably "the goat floor-raising":

MJ pulling off arguably the GOAT floor raising jobs in 88-90. Like the 88 bulls are a +3.75 SRS and a 50 win team despite the second best player being Charles Oakley. This team also has a +1 rORTG SOMEHOW

When I say "inclusive" i'm really talking about
-> maximizing sample size(games without a player offer 48 minuites where a team has time to prepare for their superstar's omission, seasons without a player are as big as a sample size as you can hope for)
-> accounting for non-box aspects(metrics which draw directly from rapm outpredict box-stuff and box-stuff tends to miss defense)
-> and artificial caps(unregularized data can be more accurate than regularized data when dealing with cases where players break past certain tresholds of value).

I go into more detail about these considerations here:

From what I understand it's actually the other way around. Pure box aggregates like PER and the like still do the worst(predictivity and flexibility), 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 specific metrics you are choosing here[bpm/per/ws/48/gamescore(which is really just PER not adjusted for possessions)], 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.

You might notice that generally, even though Ben lists the wowyr at the top, his "impact evalution" feature pure WOWY samples more. In his peaks project vids, he lists WOWY stuff from a couple of seasons, not multi-season WOWYR.

As I understand, regularization offers the same issue with wowy as it does with APM(artificial caps) and Kareem's wowy stuff crosses the treshold where value would be mis-attributed(25-30 wins). Perhaps more significantly, on a per-season basis the sample is relative miniscule and is covering a massive period of time(players change). I'll quote myself here if you don't mind:

Jaivi actually explains this alot more succinctly than I could:

In layman terms, the process of calculating RAPM involves some math that distorts the "real scale" of the numbers in favor of accuracy. The scale is just different for each season. I prefer to use rank, and use the number itself as a rough ballpark.

For what its worth, 2015's WOWY does seem to be corroborated by RAPM with the 2015 regular season coming out ahead of all but one of the seasons we have apm data for regarding mj(partial 1988 sample). Off course though, as Jaivi cautions, cross-season regularized/stabalized metric comaprison is tricky(which is part of why its a good idea to start with "pure impact"/wowy in the first place!)

If you want to take a second look at 2015 i'd probably pay special attention to his paint protection(including non-blocks) and passing

[RCM88x]

Don't you guys get tired of discussing this after all these years?

[ceoofkobefans]

I try and try to find ways to push an anti LeBron agenda but when you’re being Objective and actually looking at how good they are at basketball it’s just really hard to argue anyone over LeBron

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

[MyUniBroDavis]

I try and try to find ways to push an anti LeBron agenda but when you’re being Objective and actually looking at how good they are at basketball it’s just really hard to argue anyone over LeBron

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

It’s always gonna be based on criteria, I don’t have him particularly close but Russell obviously has his case because he won damn near every time among other things

I think the way a lot of people here operate is total career value type of argument, like assigning each season a score and getting the sum or something, and I agree that in that regard it’s hard to see anyone being above bron though, but I feel that saying that’s the only way to evaluate guys isn’t fair either

[Texas Chuck]

I try and try to find ways to push an anti LeBron agenda but when you’re being Objective and actually looking at how good they are at basketball it’s just really hard to argue anyone over LeBron

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

For you is the key.

Because his case has been laid out in part itt and its impossible to look at that and rule him out. That requires either an offensive or era bias. Because in terms of in-era impact, he laps the field.

Now many, including you it appears, don't care about in-era impact--which I've always found a bit odd considering the only fair way to measure a player is against the competition they actually faced. Time machine analysis is pure conjecture and of little value in determining who actually had the best career. Who cares if Russell's game doesn't translate as well today. He could only play when he actually did.

[McBubbles]

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

For you is the key.

Because his case has been laid out in part itt and its impossible to look at that and rule him out. That requires either an offensive or era bias. Because in terms of in-era impact, he laps the field.

Now many, including you it appears, don't care about in-era impact--which I've always found a bit odd considering the only fair way to measure a player is against the competition they actually faced. Time machine analysis is pure conjecture and of little value in determining who actually had the best career. Who cares if Russell's game doesn't translate as well today. He could only play when he actually did.

As someone who often flip flops between having Bill Russell as my GOAT and not, my logic is that focusing on in-era impact with little considerations for the meta of the sport can disproportionately reward players in earlier era's due to it being easier to lap the curve the newer a sport is due to smaller talent pools, worse strategy so easier to be an innovator, less international influence, etc.

Granted, Russell, regardless of era is the GOAT defender and arguably GOAT intangible guy, but that's my logic in this case for not placing as high a value on earlier era's.

[Texas Chuck]

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

For you is the key.

Because his case has been laid out in part itt and its impossible to look at that and rule him out. That requires either an offensive or era bias. Because in terms of in-era impact, he laps the field.

Now many, including you it appears, don't care about in-era impact--which I've always found a bit odd considering the only fair way to measure a player is against the competition they actually faced. Time machine analysis is pure conjecture and of little value in determining who actually had the best career. Who cares if Russell's game doesn't translate as well today. He could only play when he actually did.

As someone who often flip flops between having Bill Russell as my GOAT and not, my logic is that focusing on in-era impact with little considerations for the meta of the sport can disproportionately reward players in earlier era's due to it being easier to lap the curve the newer a sport is due to smaller talent pools, worse strategy, less international influence, etc.

Granted, Russell, regardless of era is the GOAT defender and arguably GOAT intangible guy, but that's my logic in this case for not placing as high a value on earlier era's.

Sure I do think there is a strength of era question to be had. That's a bit different from the part you bolded. But that's on me for kinda conflating two different things and wording my post a bit poorly.

I think era valuation is the most justifiable reason for not having Russell in GOAT conversation. I think offense isn't justifiable at all because his other impact is so incredibly high. And I've seen posters penalize him by saying he'd not be as effective today which may or may not be true, but its also irrelevant because he was born when he was born and he clearly maximized his game for his actual era.

Appreciate you providing some clarification to a point I made poorly.

[Lost92Bricks]

He hasn't surpassed MJ at all.

This opinion is accepted to the extent it is on here because the board is dominated by Lebron fans.

MJ fans are mostly old and don't care about analytics.

The arguments for MJ are naturally gonna be stupid and outdated because the fanbase isn't as smart.

I see right through all of it.

[70sFan]

I try and try to find ways to push an anti LeBron agenda but when you’re being Objective and actually looking at how good they are at basketball it’s just really hard to argue anyone over LeBron

I disagree with that. It's perfectly fine to have LeBron as the GOAT, but I don't agree that it's not possible to pick someone else objectively. For example, Bill Russell case doesn't need to be even explained.

Bill Russell certainly does not have a goat case or close to it for me

Maybe for you, but if you don't see his case then I can't help you.