Where would ‘97 MJ rank today?

[falcolombardi]

So why not include 1990 since it was the first year of their big 3 + phil jackson and it increases the sample size of that core, why not just 92-93 so 93 is not so diluted in the sample when is the more relevant year to compare with 94?


if you are going to go off playoffs then that makes the 94 bulls look actually better than their 2.8 srs by outscoring the knicks in a 7 game series (knicks that would barely miss on the championship themselves) making them look as a real title contender



If the standard for denigrating jordan is pointing out he doesnt look like the best at somethingh then there is always going to be a lot of "denigrating" perceived



I didnt use that word, i said 94 it was on the lower end of drop offs after a superstar leaves...which it is, all other interpretations of me denigrating jordan by pointint it out are not mine




And a team that goes from a +2 srs to a +0.1 srs had a 20x fall in srs, yet i think fall from +4 to +1 is worse

Is still a 3.3 srs drop off no matter how it is described


It is in the smaller end when i compare it to 89 celtics with bird hurt, the 92 lakers without magic, the 2011 cavs, the 2015 heat, the 70 celtics, etc

A 3.3 SRS drop-off is big when you consider where a team is falling from...

Certainly, a much bigger deal than an average playoff team, become worse in the league.

And Idk how using a 3-year sample is so odd. You say include 1990....okay? Like have you ever heard people say, "Let's look at the 4-year sample of this team?" No, typically is 1, 3, 5, etc.

The 2010 cavs fell from a higher srs than the 93 bulls and instead of remaining a strong team they fell to worst in the league

The 89 celtics and 92 lakers fell from a similar srs to mediocrity

The 70 celtics fell from champioms to below average

Now you get what i mean when i say 94 bulls were on the lower end of drop offs?

Let's look at the 4-year sample of this team?" No, typically is 1, 3, 5,

So why 3 and not 2 or 4 then? If you want a bigger sample of the jordan/pippen/grant/phil jackson era the whole thingh is 90-93. But i just brough this up to show how "increasing the sample size" only to the best seasons of that core is arbitrary

No, I don't get what you meant, because you literally named 4 teams (3 players) with biggest SRS drop-offs you could find in history to undersell Jordan.

That's like saying, Lebron, Duncan, and David Robinson have a higher 3-year PS AuPM than Steph, and therefore AuPM suggests that Steph isn't that impactful all-time.

And considering, you didn't address what happened to the Bulls SRS when Jordan came back for a full-season in 96, no, I feel like this is being picky.[/quote]

What? I was pointing out a fact that some all time greats caused bigger down falls with their absence one season (70 celtics, 89 celtics, 92 lakers, 2015 heat) than others (94 bulls, 76 bucks as you point out, 66 warriors)

This is not me being picky, this is me saying that in the measure that was being talked about (full season wowy where a star leaves or is hurt) other top 10 ever players caused bigger drop offs than jordan in 93

[LukaTheGOAT]

A 3.3 SRS drop-off is big when you consider where a team is falling from...

Certainly, a much bigger deal than an average playoff team, become worse in the league.

And Idk how using a 3-year sample is so odd. You say include 1990....okay? Like have you ever heard people say, "Let's look at the 4-year sample of this team?" No, typically is 1, 3, 5, etc.

The 2010 cavs fell from a higher srs than the 93 bulls and instead of remaining a strong team they fell to worst in the league

The 89 celtics and 92 lakers fell from a similar srs to mediocrity

The 70 celtics fell from champioms to below average

Now you get what i mean when i say 94 bulls were on the lower end of drop offs?

Let's look at the 4-year sample of this team?" No, typically is 1, 3, 5,

So why 3 and not 2 or 4 then? If you want a bigger sample of the jordan/pippen/grant/phil jackson era the whole thingh is 90-93. But i just brough this up to show how "increasing the sample size" only to the best seasons of that core is arbitrary

No, I don't get what you meant, because you literally named 4 teams (3 players) with biggest SRS drop-offs you could find in history to undersell Jordan.

That's like saying, Lebron, Duncan, and David Robinson have a higher 3-year PS AuPM than Steph, and therefore AuPM suggests that Steph isn't that impactful all-time.

And considering, you didn't address what happened to the Bulls SRS when Jordan came back for a full-season in 96, no, I feel like this is being picky.

What? I was pointing out a fact that some all time greats caused bigger down falls with their absence one season (70 celtics, 89 celtics, 92 lakers, 2015 heat) than others (94 bulls, 76 bucks as you point out, 66 warriors)

This is not me being picky, this is me saying that in the measure that was being talked about (full season wowy where a star leaves or is hurt) other top 10 ever players caused bigger drop offs than jordan in 93[/quote]





"Like, whatever way we spin or nitpick this, the 94 bulls are still on the smaller end of drop offs after a superstar league"

That is what you said, those are your words.

[falcolombardi]

The 2010 cavs fell from a higher srs than the 93 bulls and instead of remaining a strong team they fell to worst in the league

The 89 celtics and 92 lakers fell from a similar srs to mediocrity

The 70 celtics fell from champioms to below average

Now you get what i mean when i say 94 bulls were on the lower end of drop offs?



So why 3 and not 2 or 4 then? If you want a bigger sample of the jordan/pippen/grant/phil jackson era the whole thingh is 90-93. But i just brough this up to show how "increasing the sample size" only to the best seasons of that core is arbitrary

No, I don't get what you meant, because you literally named 4 teams (3 players) with biggest SRS drop-offs you could find in history to undersell Jordan.

That's like saying, Lebron, Duncan, and David Robinson have a higher 3-year PS AuPM than Steph, and therefore AuPM suggests that Steph isn't that impactful all-time.

And considering, you didn't address what happened to the Bulls SRS when Jordan came back for a full-season in 96, no, I feel like this is being picky.

What? I was pointing out a fact that some all time greats caused bigger down falls with their absence one season (70 celtics, 89 celtics, 92 lakers, 2015 heat) than others (94 bulls, 76 bucks as you point out, 66 warriors)

This is not me being picky, this is me saying that in the measure that was being talked about (full season wowy where a star leaves or is hurt) other top 10 ever players caused bigger drop offs than jordan in 93

Like, whatever way we spin or nitpick this, the 94 bulls are still on the smaller end of drop offs after a superstar league"

That is what you said, those are your words.

I was implicitly comparing jordan to all timer peers, but my mistake if i didnt clarify that

And yes, 94 bulls are among the smaller drop offs among top~10 all timers leaving a team/missing a season on their prime

[mysticOscar]

This is laughable some of the way stats are used on this league to spin a narrative. Great example is using a 3peat year as a baseline SRS to compare a drop off.

Anyone with common sense knows that a team going for 3peat normally goes through a process of saving it for the playoffs.

Comparing it to the following year where everyone else was healthy and a new addition of some key pieces and added to the fact the team had they extra motivation since they had something prove....is not something to be ignored.

Also ppl always ignore how the Bulls were tracking the following year before MJ came back in '95.

Bottom line is Bulls were a well coached team and with experience at this stage with / without MJ...but MJ made that team from good to historically great (3peat worthy great).

Some anti jordan ppl here seem to underestimate how difficult it is to 3peat....Mj did it twice with literal different team make up (outside of Pippen)

[OhayoKD]

This is laughable some of the way stats are used on this league to spin a narrative. Great example is using a 3peat year as a baseline SRS to compare a drop off.

Anyone with common sense knows that a team going for 3peat normally goes through a process of saving it for the playoffs.

I suppose this doesn't apply to teams going for a 4-peat

I was implicitly comparing jordan to all timer peers, but my mistake if i didnt clarify that

And yes, 94 bulls are among the smaller drop offs among top~10 all timers leaving a team/missing a season on their prime

You did...

What? I was pointing out a fact that some all time greats caused bigger down falls with their absence one season (70 celtics, 89 celtics, 92 lakers, 2015 heat) than others (94 bulls, 76 bucks as you point out, 66 warriors)

Multiple times...

This is not me being picky, this is me saying that in the measure that was being talked about (full season wowy where a star leaves or is hurt) other top 10 ever players caused bigger drop offs than jordan in 93

You did say "superstar" initially but you specified top ten-all time several times after so...

That's like saying, Lebron, Duncan, and David Robinson have a higher 3-year PS AuPM than Steph, and therefore AuPM suggests that Steph isn't that impactful all-time.

[/quote]
...in context "that impactful" means an outlier among top 10-all-timers

1. Using a bigger sample, is always more ideal for regularization and it is the period where of their first 3-peat. Some would argue championship teams take their foot off the gas pedal after winning a championship, etc. I noted the sample was from 91-93, so no foul play on my part btw. Also during the first 3 peat, Pippen was not at his peak, so we would expect his improvement in 94 and 95 to make up decent ground, especially for someone like you who believes Pippen was a weak MVP level guy at his peak on the level of say a Patrick Ewing.

But none of the data Falco cited uses "regularization"(which we don't really have the means to pull off with jordan, 2.2 game/season samples aside). Additionally, you are not "increasing the sample" much as the proportion of data points to the length of time you're trying to assess remains the same. It's not really worth the trade-off of making your data less accurate.

Pippen's 1991 playoff performance is arguably his best(using the box stuff you like it ranks 1st in ws/48, 2nd in PER, and 4th in BPM), arguably being his most impressive showing as a defender and a playmaker in addition to being his second best showing as a scorer(behind 94). The Bulls improvement between 1990 and 1991 in the regular season was mainly driven by defense, a part of the game where holistic evidence (and various people's film-tracking) suggests Jordan dropped off between 88 and 91(despite improvement in box-heavy metrics, on/off, squared's rapm, and aupm decline indicating the defense drop outweighed offensive improvement). Mapping 94 onto 91 rather than the similar (large)sample of games that directly preceded it really doesn't make much sense. But even if you were to do so, the drop off there still isn't an outlier for top 10 all-timers as falco originally claimed.

This is in contrast to someone like Kareem who from 72-74 had a Backpicks BPM of 7.0 in the RS and FELL to a 6.3 in the PS during this timespan. Or his WS/48 going from .304 in the RS to a .209 in the PS....., which is a catastrophic drop. You could just as easily interpret Milwaukee's SRS from 72-74 overrating their true team quality under the same guise.

Yet if we use 71-73 Kareem's ws/48(feel free to post his bpm) he looks like an even bigger playoff elevator than Jordan . Considering the 71 and 72 bucks were of the same-calibre as the 91 Bulls at full strength, them getting even better in the playoffs(paired with Kareem likely not having as much as help as Jordan did in 1991) gives Kareem a solid case as a better player. On top of that, ws/48 is a metric we would expect Jordan to do better as
A. All of the stats for players from Kareem's time or earlier are not recorded
B. Jordan is a shooting guard with relatively limited defensive influence, Kareem is a big man whose teams were 4 points defensively with him on the floor.

As has been argued(and as you've perennially ignored despite frequently quoting these arguments), box-heavy stuff is probably the least useful data for this type of comparison:

[b]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.

seems very hard to believe. dudes like PJ tucker and shane battier with pitiful box numbers but big impact are being less well evaluated than extreme defensive guys like hakeem and duncan who still do very well by box numbers (because they just do so much stuff that it can't be ignored)?

Why would you compare hakeem with pj tucker? The idea is that players who are racking up steals and blocks are going to be treated by box-metrics like dpoy-level defensive contributors, which is why your jordan's, kobe's and curry's look much better relative to other all-time greats when you focus on the box and less so when you focus on how the team defense correlates with their presence. One of the things bigger defensive players do is generate opportunities for smaller to rack up steals and blocks in the first place(https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/ktyynk/oc_the_secular_lebron_james_the_case_for_the_king/):

We talk about gravity on offense, but what about defensive gravity? As I said before, Ben touches on the concept when he notes that Walton affected more possessions than Kareem despite Kareem getting alot more blocks, but this reaches a whole new level with players like Larry Bird or 6'6 shooting guard MJ, players who spent their defensve primes playng with one or multiple comparable-better rim deterrents.

This is what most jordan blocks look like:https://youtu.be/fFPi95UEpog?t=55 Jordan gets the block, but is he even the key to this possession? The difficult part of this, holding ewing still, isn't being done by Jordan. Jordan is making this play off his teamamte's, gravity defensively. If you rewatch the section where ben is fawning over Jordan's rim protection...

https://youtu.be/p5aNUS762wM?t=1212

...you might notice that aside for --two-- clips, all these plays have jordan making plays on a defender whose preoccupied worrying about a larger guy at the rim.

Lets compare this to the following non-blocks:https://youtu.be/T-c1NradPN4?t=147Lebron's presence here blows up a potential dunk/layup, a shot even more dangerous than a curry three. Lebron isn't awarded a block here, but this play is more valuable than the majority of plays you'll see in a jordan defensive highlight reel.https://youtu.be/T-c1NradPN4?t=17Lebron here basically prevents a open layup/dunk. These kinds of plays are both extremely valuable and require a combination of strength and size Jordan doesn't have.https://youtu.be/T-c1NradPN4?t=176Here, Lebron isn't rewarded a block and even looks a bit silly, but his presence is what draws draymond's attention and allows for delly to get the block.https://youtu.be/3oAAcEQ8t84?t=1529Lebron ends up getting a block later on the possessions, but the key of this possession is here, where Lebron's presence makes dwight opt for a post up, preventing what is the most dangerous play in basketball, an all time interior threat coming in at the rim. Per r/blockedbybam, Lebron blocked, diverted, or deterred a dwight inside atempt 18 times over the ECF..https://youtu.be/MyWFllfRqaU?t=256.Grant gets the block, and pippen is made to look silly, but it's pippen who sets the play up for grant. Much like a shooter will feed of a slasher's interior gravity, grant makes this play off pippen's defense.https://youtu.be/C7uxePXXfU8?t=63While the possession doesn't end up going chicago's way, what Pippen is doing here, essentially pre-emptively nuetralizing the threat of an Ewing drive is about as valuabe as a play you will get defensively. It doesn't show up in the scoresheet.

There is no granular statistic for the above that gets factored into PER, BPM, or RAPTOR(no plus minus data pre-1997). There is no granular statistic(at least one incorporated in these metrics) for when a player gets blown by and gives up a lay-up because they reached for a steal(recall Jordan was in the 17th percentile for defensive errors). When Rudy Gobert is able to prevent potential layups 3 times in one possession, if he isn't getting a hand to the ball, he isn't getting his credit. Plus-Minus can capture this(aritifical caps aside), WOWY can capture this(relevant when we're talking about outliers). Metrics which capture all this are going to tell you more about a player's defensive value(and whatever other non-scoring factors we consider like...off-ball creation) than box-stuff. Thus...

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.

PER sees someone leading the league in steals and assumes they're the best defender in the league, plus-minus sees that there's not that much correlation between what that someone is doing, and what his team is doing, and adjusts accordingly.

The most predictive metrics are epm and rpm

is this espn's rpm or a different rpm? the one that says steph is the best player every year (well, except when it's kyle lowry)?

Same one I think:

EPM and RPM, which were the only metrics that used RAPM directly with a Bayesian prior, consistently performed the best among all metrics, with EPM taking the lead overall.

RAPTOR scores 3rd as it is has new film-tracking that makes it able to spot stuff more accurately(still "clearly behind" epm and epm due to less direct RAPM) BUT it has no plus-minus(or tracking) data pre-1997(and even 1997/1998 are largely informed by the box-heavy prior of all the previous years) so it is effectively in the same boat as PER/ws48 when talking about players of jordan's era(including jordan):

The older metrics WS and PER had the highest prediction error, with PER struggling mightily (although not as bad when given an after-market team adjustment at the suggestion of Steve Ilardi, which I’ve labeled “aPER”; the adjustment formula was provided by Nathan Walker who adapted BPM's formula).

Ditto with roster continuity where theoretically, your preferred metrics should be making up some ground?

As can be seen in the table above, EPM was the most predictive of team ratings after controlling for roster continuity (coefficient: 3.76); it was nearly half as dependent on rosters staying together than the second most predictive metric (continuity coefficient: 0.23). RPM was the clear second-place metric having gained separation over RAPTOR after controlling for roster continuity.

The older metric WS48 surprised a bit while PER struggled again.[suprised means being second to last instead of last]

RAW RAPM stayed ahead of the box-stuff in both continuity and predictivity despite being hella noisy for when you're trying to account for a full-ass nba roster. And direct RAPM beat out indirect rapm usage with beat out no-rapm usage. Even when the goal is to reduce noise, not properly assessing defense will hold ya back.

Regardless though, when we actually look at their best years, in spite of a lack of recorded data nuking Kareem's rs scores, Kareem outright beats Jordan's 91-93 ws/48 in the playoffs. IOW, you cited a metric which should favor Jordan and, when enough of Kareem's stats are recorded, it favors Kareem. Feel free to post Kareem's best individual BPM years if you're interested in an honest comparison. Also feel free to actually address the thorough explanations offered for why the box-score is less useful here(keep in mind that for Jordan and Kareem, players who peaked before 1997, any of these box-heavy metrics you are using are virtually variations of the least predictive(and flexible) metrics available to us).

The Milwaukee Bucks also lost Oscar Robertson after 1974, which is part of the reason why they did not make the PS in 75

They didn't make the PS in 75 because Kareem missed 18 games with an injury, and in those 18 games, the Bucks played at a 15-win-pace. With Kareem they played like a 45 win team(By record). If you go with srs, they played like the pre-jordan Bulls without Jabbar and the 88-90 Bulls with him. Either way, Kareem looks better. He also looks better in their late-prime years 70's broke down, their rookie year, and, given the absence of a big scheme induced srs boost(1990) and their 72 performance without Oscar, I'd argue it also looks like Kareem needed less help to lead a GOAT-level team.

why I like WOWYR is that it a more objective measure

WOWYR is not "more objective", it is theoretically less noisy if a player was to miss as many games in a season as the corresponding WOWY sample that it is being weighed against. The problem is players rarely miss that amount of time so not only does it suffer in terms of accuracy(artificial caps), it's also vastly noisier. This has actually been explained, at length, in several posts you have directly quoted. But like the box-stuff, it remains perpetually ignored. I suspect the reason you actually like it, is that it confirms your priors, also known as, confirmation bias.

4.The same is true of when he joins LAL in 76. They go from a SRS of -3.94 to an SRS of being barely positive at 0.17. Once again, the shift isn't necessarily more impressive than you see with Jordan. In the first full-season back with the Bulls, and the rust off in ’96, MJ led Chicago to two of the 10-best offensive seasons ever, including the fourth-best of all time in 1997. The Bulls had an SRS of 11.8 in 1996, which is drastically better than the 2.87 posted in 94 without Jordan, and 4.31 in 95 where he only played 17 RS games.

5. The Bulls went from a Team SRS in 93 of 6.19 to a Team SRS in 94 of 2.87. So the Team's SRS fell by over 2x...For a championship team to fall off by that much without 1 player, and Pippen beginning his peak in 94, is quite literally absurd. It is not a "small drop-off for a superstar," no matter how you slice it.

Again the claim was "all-timers" (and you've had multiple posts clarifying this.) And no, Kareem looks better here too:

I think it's very important to be careful to call anything "going nowhere":

1. Lakers finished with the best RS record in 1977, Jordan neve did that before 1991.

2. Lakers finished with +2.95 SRS in 1979, which is better than Bulls in any year in 1987-90 period outside of 1988. It happened in the smaller, more balanced league as well.

3. Lakers lost to two future champions in the playoffs during 1977-79 period. The other time, they lost to future finalists in a 3 games series. That's the same level of playoff success as 1987-89 Bulls.

If you want to say that they did nothing during that period, then I'm afraid you should say the same for Jordan's whole career before 1990.

About WOWY - Jordan's biggest samples don't show him as the better one than Kareem (from Ben's database):

1986 Jordan: +2.0 SRS change, 1.2 WOWY score
1995 Jordan +2.7 SRS change, 1.9 WOWY score

1975 Kareem: +7.1 SRS change, +3.6 WOWY score

I'm afraid Ben's database has an error with 1978 sample, as it shows as clear negative for Kareem, despite all the calculations I made and his own words in Kareem profile:

At the beginning of the ’78 season, Kareem cold-cocked Bucks center Kent Benson and missed substantial time with another broken hand. However, it’s hard to infer much from the injury since LA fired off two trades around that period.10 With Jabbar — and ignoring all the other lineup activity — the Lakers played like a 53-win team (4.1 SRS) in ’78. With a similar roster in ’79 (minus Charlie Scott), LA ticked along at a 50-win clip when healthy (3.1 SRS). Below, I’ve plotted the ’78 team’s performance in 21 games without Kareem, in which the Lakers played at a 36-win pace (-1.7 SRS) after a major offensive drop-off.

Which shows a +5.8 SRS change again. The biggest samples we have show Kareem having a clear advantage. We can also look at the more nuanced samples, when a player even joins or leaves his team:

1984 Bulls without MJ: -4.7 SRS, 27 wins
1985 Bulls with MJ: -0.5 SRS, 38 wins
Change: +4.2 SRS and +11 wins

1993 Bulls with MJ: +6.2 SRS, 57 wins
1994 Bulls without MJ: +2.9 SRS, 55 wins
Change: +3.3 SRS, +2 wins

1995 Bulls without MJ: +3.8 SRS, 52 wins pace
1996 Bulls with MJ: +11.8 SRS, 72 wins
Change: +8 SRS, 20 wins

I wouldn't include 1998-1999, because the whole team changed, including a coach.

1969 Bucks without Kareem: -5.1 SRS, 27 wins
1970 Bucks with Kareem: +4.3 SRS, 56 wins
Change: +9.4 SRS, 29 wins

1975 Bucks with Kareem: +2.6 SRS, 49 wins pace
1976 Bucks without Kareem: -1.6 SRS, 38 wins
Change: +4.2 SRS, 11 wins

1975 Lakers without Kareem: -3.9 SRS, 30 wins
1976 Lakers with Kareem: +0.2 SRS, 40 wins
Change: +4.1 SRS, 10 wins

The difference is that Kareem left Bucks in a trade, which means that Lakers gave a lot of value to Bucks. Jordan samples are clean, as Jordan didn't go to the Bulls in exchange.

I don't know, I don't see the case for MJ > Kareem in terms of WOWY.

[/quote]

RE: Easier to score
1. Ja Morant has dramatically worse efficiency compared to a top tier interior threat like Giannis. Volume needs to be contextualized with efficiency

2. It doesn't matter if it's easier to score in an absolute sense. What matters is how jordan's scoring compares to everyone else he's playing with.

3. I specfically claimed the raptors were better than the pistons in an absolute sense, not a relative one.

Era-Relative goodness vs Absolute goodness is a distinction that has been explained a bunch as well....in posts you've quoted...and ignored.

RE: Below average offense
Okay? As I said, and you ignored(again), distribution doesn't really matter here. If the team gets 30 wins worse without you, I'm not sure why the team being slanted towards defense or offense there is what we should focus on. Curry and MJ have similar holistic results in the regular season throughout their prime when they work with similar(holistically) casts. Winning is what matters here, not disparities in o-rating.

If you're just going to ignore what people write, discussion isn't going to be very productive.

[Mazter]

Look, I don't really understand the back and forth about the first 3-peat Bulls since this should be about Jordan'97. And the talent in shootingh between both seasons is staggering. Just for a difference in point of view, here the midrange efficiency between 1997 and 2023:

Code: Select all

   PLAYER             TEAM   AGE   FG%   Season
1   Kevin Durant       BKN   34   57.3   2023
2   D'Angelo Russell   MIN   26   57.1   2023
3   Bradley Beal       WAS   29   54.9   2023
4   Jaylen Brown       BOS   26   54.1   2023
5   Kyrie Irving       BKN   30   53.2   2023
6   Stephen Curry      GSW   34   51.6   2023
7   Kawhi Leonard      LAC   31   50.9   2023
8   Glen Rice          CHH   30   50.4   1997
9   DeMar DeRozan      CHI   33   49.0   2023
10  Michael Jordan     CHI   34   48.9   1997
11  Cade Cunningham    DET   21   48.2   2023


[mysticOscar]

Look, I don't really understand the back and forth about the first 3-peat Bulls since this should be about Jordan'97. And the talent in shootingh between both seasons is staggering. Just for a difference in point of view, here the midrange efficiency between 1997 and 2023:

Code: Select all

   PLAYER             TEAM   AGE   FG%   Season
1   Kevin Durant       BKN   34   57.3   2023
2   D'Angelo Russell   MIN   26   57.1   2023
3   Bradley Beal       WAS   29   54.9   2023
4   Jaylen Brown       BOS   26   54.1   2023
5   Kyrie Irving       BKN   30   53.2   2023
6   Stephen Curry      GSW   34   51.6   2023
7   Kawhi Leonard      LAC   31   50.9   2023
8   Glen Rice          CHH   30   50.4   1997
9   DeMar DeRozan      CHI   33   49.0   2023
10  Michael Jordan     CHI   34   48.9   1997
11  Cade Cunningham    DET   21   48.2   2023


Watch on YouTube

https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nba/hand-checking.aspx https://runrepeat.com/height-evolution-in-the-nba

[AEnigma]

Look, I don't really understand the back and forth about the first 3-peat Bulls since this should be about Jordan'97. And the talent in shootingh between both seasons is staggering. Just for a difference in point of view, here the midrange efficiency between 1997 and 2023:

Code: Select all

   PLAYER             TEAM   AGE   FG%   Season
1   Kevin Durant       BKN   34   57.3   2023
2   D'Angelo Russell   MIN   26   57.1   2023
3   Bradley Beal       WAS   29   54.9   2023
4   Jaylen Brown       BOS   26   54.1   2023
5   Kyrie Irving       BKN   30   53.2   2023
6   Stephen Curry      GSW   34   51.6   2023
7   Kawhi Leonard      LAC   31   50.9   2023
8   Glen Rice          CHH   30   50.4   1997
9   DeMar DeRozan      CHI   33   49.0   2023
10  Michael Jordan     CHI   34   48.9   1997
11  Cade Cunningham    DET   21   48.2   2023


Watch on YouTube

https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nba/hand-checking.aspx https://runrepeat.com/height-evolution-in-the-nba

Why are you so bad at reading your own links?

I already pointed out that bigs were the ones seeing the most substantial efficiency gains, even with guards and wings drastically increasing their threes (which, again, was never any sort of specialty of Jordan’s no matter how much his fans just assume he would suddenly master and embrace that).

1997 Jordan was a 56.7% scorer in a league averaging 53.6% efficiency, and we know that perimetre players are dramatically more efficient today… right? Well, again, those silly talking head truisms might not be as accurate as you assume. In 1997, the average shooting guard scored at 54.1% efficiency. And today, they score at… 56.1% efficiency. See, turns out the real beneficiaries of a less clogged paint were the players who spent the most time there. Shocking, right? Power forwards have gone from 53.3% efficiency to 58.7% efficiency. And centres? 53.3% to 63.3%!

It is a good approach if you want to argue those modern bigs are the ones with the most “inflated” numbers relative to their predecessors, but for trying to talk about how easy perimetre players have it, it really only conceivably applies to their at-rim finishing — which there again is no longer any particular specialty of old Jordan, even looking at 1998 instead, because even in his own league he was no longer an outlier finisher relative to other top guards.

Attempts in the paint in 1997 for some perimeter players:

Code: Select all

             FGA    FG%
Payton      10.7   .570
P.Hardaway   8.1   .556
Sprewell     8.1   .580
Gill         8.0   .525
Jordan       6.8   .515   
Pippen       6.4   .578
Drexler      6.0   .550


Jordan'97 wasn't the best at getting in the paint and wasn't the most efficient even among guards that season. He settled more for midrange shots than other perimeter players. Which had a high value in 1997, but hardly any in 2022. It might be hard to believe to some but Jordan'97 wasn't heads and shoulder above the rest anymore.

So if we take 1997/98 averages inside three feet for those players, cutting out Pippen because he was a forward, and adding a few others worth mentioning…

Payton: 40.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.4% conversion
Penny: 32.5% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.5% conversion
Sprewell: 29.2% of field goal attempts within three feet; 63.1% conversion
Gill: 34.4% of field goal attempts within three feet; 58.4% conversion
Drexler: 34.2% of field goal attempts within three feet; 61.9% conversion
Stackhouse: 40.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 56.4% conversion
KJohnson: 34.4% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.8% conversion
SSmith: 25.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 57.8% conversion
EJones: 37.7% of field goal attempts within three feet; 60.4% conversion
Strickland: 42% of field goal attempts within three feet; 55.8% conversion
Jordan: 20% of field goal attempts within three feet; 59% conversion

In an absolute sense is that still pretty impressive given Jordan’s volume? Sure. But absolutely no one in the thread has disputed that he would be anything but a league volume leader today too — no matter how many times you want to lie about whether anyone is claiming he would literally be Devin Booker and nothing more.

[mysticOscar]

Look, I don't really understand the back and forth about the first 3-peat Bulls since this should be about Jordan'97. And the talent in shootingh between both seasons is staggering. Just for a difference in point of view, here the midrange efficiency between 1997 and 2023:

Code: Select all

   PLAYER             TEAM   AGE   FG%   Season
1   Kevin Durant       BKN   34   57.3   2023
2   D'Angelo Russell   MIN   26   57.1   2023
3   Bradley Beal       WAS   29   54.9   2023
4   Jaylen Brown       BOS   26   54.1   2023
5   Kyrie Irving       BKN   30   53.2   2023
6   Stephen Curry      GSW   34   51.6   2023
7   Kawhi Leonard      LAC   31   50.9   2023
8   Glen Rice          CHH   30   50.4   1997
9   DeMar DeRozan      CHI   33   49.0   2023
10  Michael Jordan     CHI   34   48.9   1997
11  Cade Cunningham    DET   21   48.2   2023


Watch on YouTube

https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nba/hand-checking.aspx https://runrepeat.com/height-evolution-in-the-nba

Why are you so bad at reading your own links?

I already pointed out that bigs were the ones seeing the most substantial efficiency gains, even with guards and wings drastically increasing their threes (which, again, was never any sort of specialty of Jordan’s no matter how much his fans just assume he would suddenly master and embrace that).

So you are Mazter? Or do you think all my responses has something to do with you? Theres a reason why im posting links and videos so you guys can understand how the rules implementetd has a massive change in how easy it is for perimeter type players, by design.

1997 Jordan was a 56.7% scorer in a league averaging 53.6% efficiency, and we know that perimetre players are dramatically more efficient today… right? Well, again, those silly talking head truisms might not be as accurate as you assume. In 1997, the average shooting guard scored at 54.1% efficiency. And today, they score at… 56.1% efficiency. See, turns out the real beneficiaries of a less clogged paint were the players who spent the most time there. Shocking, right? Power forwards have gone from 53.3% efficiency to 58.7% efficiency. And centres? 53.3% to 63.3%!

It is a good approach if you want to argue those modern bigs are the ones with the most “inflated” numbers relative to their predecessors, but for trying to talk about how easy perimetre players have it, it really only conceivably applies to their at-rim finishing — which there again is no longer any particular specialty of old Jordan, even looking at 1998 instead, because even in his own league he was no longer an outlier finisher relative to other top guards.

I dont know why its so difficult for you to understand without me having to spell it out for you. Those numbers dont mean anything because 70%-80% of the shots now come from the perimeter vs 30-40% in the previous era. Please re-read my posts without jumping into conclusions.

Perimeter players in the past COULDN'T really keep up a high effeciency with high usage where as today. Perimeter players couldnt force the offense by themselves and were a lot more opportunistic with there scoring as compared to today where a perimeter can just force an offense even when the opportunity or a play is not available. Do you see the difference? Or do you need me to spell it even more?

You keep suggesting post players today have a higher %, but players in with the classic post positions dont play the same way as the post player in the past (you don't see many post big men getting fed and operate in the post hardly at all today). So whatever stat you keep trying to provide is just meaningless.

Attempts in the paint in 1997 for some perimeter players:

Code: Select all

             FGA    FG%
Payton      10.7   .570
P.Hardaway   8.1   .556
Sprewell     8.1   .580
Gill         8.0   .525
Jordan       6.8   .515   
Pippen       6.4   .578
Drexler      6.0   .550


Jordan'97 wasn't the best at getting in the paint and wasn't the most efficient even among guards that season. He settled more for midrange shots than other perimeter players. Which had a high value in 1997, but hardly any in 2022. It might be hard to believe to some but Jordan'97 wasn't heads and shoulder above the rest anymore.

So if we take 1997/98 averages inside three feet for those players, cutting out Pippen because he was a forward, and adding a few others worth mentioning…

Payton: 40.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.4% conversion
Penny: 32.5% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.5% conversion
Sprewell: 29.2% of field goal attempts within three feet; 63.1% conversion
Gill: 34.4% of field goal attempts within three feet; 58.4% conversion
Drexler: 34.2% of field goal attempts within three feet; 61.9% conversion
Stackhouse: 40.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 56.4% conversion
KJohnson: 34.4% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.8% conversion
SSmith: 25.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 57.8% conversion
EJones: 37.7% of field goal attempts within three feet; 60.4% conversion
Strickland: 42% of field goal attempts within three feet; 55.8% conversion
Jordan: 20% of field goal attempts within three feet; 59% conversion

In an absolute sense is that still pretty impressive given Jordan’s volume? Sure. But absolutely no one in the thread has disputed that he would be anything but a league volume leader today too — no matter how many times you want to lie about whether anyone is claiming he would literally be Devin Booker and nothing more.

Sigh. MJ didnt need to operate in 3 feet from the paint because his shot was effective in '97. How hard is this for you to understand? He operated a lot more closer to the rim in '98 when his shot wasn't as effective. His effeciency was good in '98 under 3 feet and he was a year older. That tells me that in '97 he had the ability to try score closer to the basket but decided not to.

Also again, getting to the rim in the 90s is not the same as it is today. Drives arent as easy as it was, it was a lot more back to the basket types of shots.

[AEnigma]

Okay, someone else can talk to this brick wall. We get it, Jordan is always the best and the modern perimetre game means he just magically improves at the exact same rate (or is it an even higher rate) even though his biggest strength is no longer as relevant, and no matter how many thousands of words are spilled trying to drill that incredibly basic concept into your skull, we are actually the ones with the reading issue.

[penbeast0]

It's the day after Christmas. Let's take a break from bickering and try to answer using a little positive holiday spirit. This is where people go to escape the arguments, lol.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Look, I don't really understand the back and forth about the first 3-peat Bulls since this should be about Jordan'97. And the talent in shootingh between both seasons is staggering. Just for a difference in point of view, here the midrange efficiency between 1997 and 2023:

Code: Select all

   PLAYER             TEAM   AGE   FG%   Season
1   Kevin Durant       BKN   34   57.3   2023
2   D'Angelo Russell   MIN   26   57.1   2023
3   Bradley Beal       WAS   29   54.9   2023
4   Jaylen Brown       BOS   26   54.1   2023
5   Kyrie Irving       BKN   30   53.2   2023
6   Stephen Curry      GSW   34   51.6   2023
7   Kawhi Leonard      LAC   31   50.9   2023
8   Glen Rice          CHH   30   50.4   1997
9   DeMar DeRozan      CHI   33   49.0   2023
10  Michael Jordan     CHI   34   48.9   1997
11  Cade Cunningham    DET   21   48.2   2023


Because people in the thread have taken shots at peak Jordan, which are the takes I'm largely arguing against

[LukaTheGOAT]

Watch on YouTube

https://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nba/hand-checking.aspx https://runrepeat.com/height-evolution-in-the-nba

Why are you so bad at reading your own links?

I already pointed out that bigs were the ones seeing the most substantial efficiency gains, even with guards and wings drastically increasing their threes (which, again, was never any sort of specialty of Jordan’s no matter how much his fans just assume he would suddenly master and embrace that).

So you are Mazter? Or do you think all my responses has something to do with you? Theres a reason why im posting links and videos so you guys can understand how the rules implementetd has a massive change in how easy it is for perimeter type players, by design.

1997 Jordan was a 56.7% scorer in a league averaging 53.6% efficiency, and we know that perimetre players are dramatically more efficient today… right? Well, again, those silly talking head truisms might not be as accurate as you assume. In 1997, the average shooting guard scored at 54.1% efficiency. And today, they score at… 56.1% efficiency. See, turns out the real beneficiaries of a less clogged paint were the players who spent the most time there. Shocking, right? Power forwards have gone from 53.3% efficiency to 58.7% efficiency. And centres? 53.3% to 63.3%!

It is a good approach if you want to argue those modern bigs are the ones with the most “inflated” numbers relative to their predecessors, but for trying to talk about how easy perimetre players have it, it really only conceivably applies to their at-rim finishing — which there again is no longer any particular specialty of old Jordan, even looking at 1998 instead, because even in his own league he was no longer an outlier finisher relative to other top guards.

I dont know why its so difficult for you to understand without me having to spell it out for you. Those numbers dont mean anything because 70%-80% of the shots now come from the perimeter vs 30-40% in the previous era. Please re-read my posts without jumping into conclusions.

Perimeter players in the past COULDN'T really keep up a high effeciency with high usage where as today. Perimeter players couldnt force the offense by themselves and were a lot more opportunistic with there scoring as compared to today where a perimeter can just force an offense even when the opportunity or a play is not available. Do you see the difference? Or do you need me to spell it even more?

You keep suggesting post players today have a higher %, but players in with the classic post positions dont play the same way as the post player in the past (you don't see many post big men getting fed and operate in the post hardly at all today). So whatever stat you keep trying to provide is just meaningless.

Attempts in the paint in 1997 for some perimeter players:

Code: Select all

             FGA    FG%
Payton      10.7   .570
P.Hardaway   8.1   .556
Sprewell     8.1   .580
Gill         8.0   .525
Jordan       6.8   .515   
Pippen       6.4   .578
Drexler      6.0   .550


Jordan'97 wasn't the best at getting in the paint and wasn't the most efficient even among guards that season. He settled more for midrange shots than other perimeter players. Which had a high value in 1997, but hardly any in 2022. It might be hard to believe to some but Jordan'97 wasn't heads and shoulder above the rest anymore.

So if we take 1997/98 averages inside three feet for those players, cutting out Pippen because he was a forward, and adding a few others worth mentioning…

Payton: 40.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.4% conversion
Penny: 32.5% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.5% conversion
Sprewell: 29.2% of field goal attempts within three feet; 63.1% conversion
Gill: 34.4% of field goal attempts within three feet; 58.4% conversion
Drexler: 34.2% of field goal attempts within three feet; 61.9% conversion
Stackhouse: 40.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 56.4% conversion
KJohnson: 34.4% of field goal attempts within three feet; 62.8% conversion
SSmith: 25.3% of field goal attempts within three feet; 57.8% conversion
EJones: 37.7% of field goal attempts within three feet; 60.4% conversion
Strickland: 42% of field goal attempts within three feet; 55.8% conversion
Jordan: 20% of field goal attempts within three feet; 59% conversion

In an absolute sense is that still pretty impressive given Jordan’s volume? Sure. But absolutely no one in the thread has disputed that he would be anything but a league volume leader today too — no matter how many times you want to lie about whether anyone is claiming he would literally be Devin Booker and nothing more.

Sigh. MJ didnt need to operate in 3 feet from the paint because his shot was effective in '97. How hard is this for you to understand? He operated a lot more closer to the rim in '98 when his shot wasn't as effective. His effeciency was good in '98 under 3 feet and he was a year older. That tells me that in '97 he had the ability to try score closer to the basket but decided not to.

Also again, getting to the rim in the 90s is not the same as it is today. Drives arent as easy as it was, it was a lot more back to the basket types of shots.

Also, this

Watch on YouTube

[LukaTheGOAT]

It's the day after Christmas. Let's take a break from bickering and try to answer using a little positive holiday spirit. This is where people go to escape the arguments, lol.

People go to escape arguments in a thread that is centered around how good a certain prime version of MJ would be in today's game?

[LukaTheGOAT]

This is laughable some of the way stats are used on this league to spin a narrative. Great example is using a 3peat year as a baseline SRS to compare a drop off.

Anyone with common sense knows that a team going for 3peat normally goes through a process of saving it for the playoffs.

I suppose this doesn't apply to teams going for a 4-peat

I was implicitly comparing jordan to all timer peers, but my mistake if i didnt clarify that

And yes, 94 bulls are among the smaller drop offs among top~10 all timers leaving a team/missing a season on their prime

You did...

What? I was pointing out a fact that some all time greats caused bigger down falls with their absence one season (70 celtics, 89 celtics, 92 lakers, 2015 heat) than others (94 bulls, 76 bucks as you point out, 66 warriors)

Multiple times...

This is not me being picky, this is me saying that in the measure that was being talked about (full season wowy where a star leaves or is hurt) other top 10 ever players caused bigger drop offs than jordan in 93

You did say "superstar" initially but you specified top ten-all time several times after so...

That's like saying, Lebron, Duncan, and David Robinson have a higher 3-year PS AuPM than Steph, and therefore AuPM suggests that Steph isn't that impactful all-time.

...in context "that impactful" means an outlier among top 10-all-timers

1. Using a bigger sample, is always more ideal for regularization and it is the period where of their first 3-peat. Some would argue championship teams take their foot off the gas pedal after winning a championship, etc. I noted the sample was from 91-93, so no foul play on my part btw. Also during the first 3 peat, Pippen was not at his peak, so we would expect his improvement in 94 and 95 to make up decent ground, especially for someone like you who believes Pippen was a weak MVP level guy at his peak on the level of say a Patrick Ewing.

But none of the data Falco cited uses "regularization"(which we don't really have the means to pull off with jordan, 2.2 game/season samples aside). Additionally, you are not "increasing the sample" much as the proportion of data points to the length of time you're trying to assess remains the same. It's not really worth the trade-off of making your data less accurate.

Pippen's 1991 playoff performance is arguably his best(using the box stuff you like it ranks 1st in ws/48, 2nd in PER, and 4th in BPM), arguably being his most impressive showing as a defender and a playmaker in addition to being his second best showing as a scorer(behind 94). The Bulls improvement between 1990 and 1991 in the regular season was mainly driven by defense, a part of the game where holistic evidence (and various people's film-tracking) suggests Jordan dropped off between 88 and 91(despite improvement in box-heavy metrics, on/off, squared's rapm, and aupm decline indicating the defense drop outweighed offensive improvement). Mapping 94 onto 91 rather than the similar (large)sample of games that directly preceded it really doesn't make much sense. But even if you were to do so, the drop off there still isn't an outlier for top 10 all-timers as falco originally claimed.

This is in contrast to someone like Kareem who from 72-74 had a Backpicks BPM of 7.0 in the RS and FELL to a 6.3 in the PS during this timespan. Or his WS/48 going from .304 in the RS to a .209 in the PS....., which is a catastrophic drop. You could just as easily interpret Milwaukee's SRS from 72-74 overrating their true team quality under the same guise.

Yet if we use 71-73 Kareem's ws/48(feel free to post his bpm) he looks like an even bigger playoff elevator than Jordan . Considering the 71 and 72 bucks were of the same-calibre as the 91 Bulls at full strength, them getting even better in the playoffs(paired with Kareem likely not having as much as help as Jordan did in 1991) gives Kareem a solid case as a better player. On top of that, ws/48 is a metric we would expect Jordan to do better as
A. All of the stats for players from Kareem's time or earlier are not recorded
B. Jordan is a shooting guard with relatively limited defensive influence, Kareem is a big man whose teams were 4 points defensively with him on the floor.

As has been argued(and as you've perennially ignored despite frequently quoting these arguments), box-heavy stuff is probably the least useful data for this type of comparison:

seems very hard to believe. dudes like PJ tucker and shane battier with pitiful box numbers but big impact are being less well evaluated than extreme defensive guys like hakeem and duncan who still do very well by box numbers (because they just do so much stuff that it can't be ignored)?

Why would you compare hakeem with pj tucker? The idea is that players who are racking up steals and blocks are going to be treated by box-metrics like dpoy-level defensive contributors, which is why your jordan's, kobe's and curry's look much better relative to other all-time greats when you focus on the box and less so when you focus on how the team defense correlates with their presence. One of the things bigger defensive players do is generate opportunities for smaller to rack up steals and blocks in the first place(https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/comments/ktyynk/oc_the_secular_lebron_james_the_case_for_the_king/):

We talk about gravity on offense, but what about defensive gravity? As I said before, Ben touches on the concept when he notes that Walton affected more possessions than Kareem despite Kareem getting alot more blocks, but this reaches a whole new level with players like Larry Bird or 6'6 shooting guard MJ, players who spent their defensve primes playng with one or multiple comparable-better rim deterrents.

This is what most jordan blocks look like:https://youtu.be/fFPi95UEpog?t=55 Jordan gets the block, but is he even the key to this possession? The difficult part of this, holding ewing still, isn't being done by Jordan. Jordan is making this play off his teamamte's, gravity defensively. If you rewatch the section where ben is fawning over Jordan's rim protection...

https://youtu.be/p5aNUS762wM?t=1212

...you might notice that aside for --two-- clips, all these plays have jordan making plays on a defender whose preoccupied worrying about a larger guy at the rim.

Lets compare this to the following non-blocks:https://youtu.be/T-c1NradPN4?t=147Lebron's presence here blows up a potential dunk/layup, a shot even more dangerous than a curry three. Lebron isn't awarded a block here, but this play is more valuable than the majority of plays you'll see in a jordan defensive highlight reel.https://youtu.be/T-c1NradPN4?t=17Lebron here basically prevents a open layup/dunk. These kinds of plays are both extremely valuable and require a combination of strength and size Jordan doesn't have.https://youtu.be/T-c1NradPN4?t=176Here, Lebron isn't rewarded a block and even looks a bit silly, but his presence is what draws draymond's attention and allows for delly to get the block.https://youtu.be/3oAAcEQ8t84?t=1529Lebron ends up getting a block later on the possessions, but the key of this possession is here, where Lebron's presence makes dwight opt for a post up, preventing what is the most dangerous play in basketball, an all time interior threat coming in at the rim. Per r/blockedbybam, Lebron blocked, diverted, or deterred a dwight inside atempt 18 times over the ECF..https://youtu.be/MyWFllfRqaU?t=256.Grant gets the block, and pippen is made to look silly, but it's pippen who sets the play up for grant. Much like a shooter will feed of a slasher's interior gravity, grant makes this play off pippen's defense.https://youtu.be/C7uxePXXfU8?t=63While the possession doesn't end up going chicago's way, what Pippen is doing here, essentially pre-emptively nuetralizing the threat of an Ewing drive is about as valuabe as a play you will get defensively. It doesn't show up in the scoresheet.

There is no granular statistic for the above that gets factored into PER, BPM, or RAPTOR(no plus minus data pre-1997). There is no granular statistic(at least one incorporated in these metrics) for when a player gets blown by and gives up a lay-up because they reached for a steal(recall Jordan was in the 17th percentile for defensive errors). When Rudy Gobert is able to prevent potential layups 3 times in one possession, if he isn't getting a hand to the ball, he isn't getting his credit. Plus-Minus can capture this(aritifical caps aside), WOWY can capture this(relevant when we're talking about outliers). Metrics which capture all this are going to tell you more about a player's defensive value(and whatever other non-scoring factors we consider like...off-ball creation) than box-stuff. Thus...

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. [b]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.

PER sees someone leading the league in steals and assumes they're the best defender in the league, plus-minus sees that there's not that much correlation between what that someone is doing, and what his team is doing, and adjusts accordingly.

is this espn's rpm or a different rpm? the one that says steph is the best player every year (well, except when it's kyle lowry)?

Same one I think:

EPM and RPM, which were the only metrics that used RAPM directly with a Bayesian prior, consistently performed the best among all metrics, with EPM taking the lead overall.

RAPTOR scores 3rd as it is has new film-tracking that makes it able to spot stuff more accurately(still "clearly behind" epm and epm due to less direct RAPM) BUT it has no plus-minus(or tracking) data pre-1997(and even 1997/1998 are largely informed by the box-heavy prior of all the previous years) so it is effectively in the same boat as PER/ws48 when talking about players of jordan's era(including jordan):

The older metrics WS and PER had the highest prediction error, with PER struggling mightily (although not as bad when given an after-market team adjustment at the suggestion of Steve Ilardi, which I’ve labeled “aPER”; the adjustment formula was provided by Nathan Walker who adapted BPM's formula).

Ditto with roster continuity where theoretically, your preferred metrics should be making up some ground?

As can be seen in the table above, EPM was the most predictive of team ratings after controlling for roster continuity (coefficient: 3.76); it was nearly half as dependent on rosters staying together than the second most predictive metric (continuity coefficient: 0.23). RPM was the clear second-place metric having gained separation over RAPTOR after controlling for roster continuity.

The older metric WS48 surprised a bit while PER struggled again.[suprised means being second to last instead of last]

RAW RAPM stayed ahead of the box-stuff in both continuity and predictivity despite being hella noisy for when you're trying to account for a full-ass nba roster. And direct RAPM beat out indirect rapm usage with beat out no-rapm usage. Even when the goal is to reduce noise, not properly assessing defense will hold ya back.

Regardless though, when we actually look at their best years, in spite of a lack of recorded data nuking Kareem's rs scores, Kareem outright beats Jordan's 91-93 ws/48 in the playoffs. IOW, you cited a metric which should favor Jordan and, when enough of Kareem's stats are recorded, it favors Kareem. Feel free to post Kareem's best individual BPM years if you're interested in an honest comparison. Also feel free to actually address the thorough explanations offered for why the box-score is less useful here(keep in mind that for Jordan and Kareem, players who peaked before 1997, any of these box-heavy metrics you are using are virtually variations of the least predictive(and flexible) metrics available to us).

The Milwaukee Bucks also lost Oscar Robertson after 1974, which is part of the reason why they did not make the PS in 75

They didn't make the PS in 75 because Kareem missed 18 games with an injury, and in those 18 games, the Bucks played at a 15-win-pace. With Kareem they played like a 45 win team(By record). If you go with srs, they played like the pre-jordan Bulls without Jabbar and the 88-90 Bulls with him. Either way, Kareem looks better. He also looks better in their late-prime years 70's broke down, their rookie year, and, given the absence of a big scheme induced srs boost(1990) and their 72 performance without Oscar, I'd argue it also looks like Kareem needed less help to lead a GOAT-level team.

why I like WOWYR is that it a more objective measure

WOWYR is not "more objective", it is theoretically less noisy if a player was to miss as many games in a season as the corresponding WOWY sample that it is being weighed against. The problem is players rarely miss that amount of time so not only does it suffer in terms of accuracy(artificial caps), it's also vastly noisier. This has actually been explained, at length, in several posts you have directly quoted. But like the box-stuff, it remains perpetually ignored. I suspect the reason you actually like it, is that it confirms your priors, also known as, confirmation bias.

4.The same is true of when he joins LAL in 76. They go from a SRS of -3.94 to an SRS of being barely positive at 0.17. Once again, the shift isn't necessarily more impressive than you see with Jordan. In the first full-season back with the Bulls, and the rust off in ’96, MJ led Chicago to two of the 10-best offensive seasons ever, including the fourth-best of all time in 1997. The Bulls had an SRS of 11.8 in 1996, which is drastically better than the 2.87 posted in 94 without Jordan, and 4.31 in 95 where he only played 17 RS games.

5. The Bulls went from a Team SRS in 93 of 6.19 to a Team SRS in 94 of 2.87. So the Team's SRS fell by over 2x...For a championship team to fall off by that much without 1 player, and Pippen beginning his peak in 94, is quite literally absurd. It is not a "small drop-off for a superstar," no matter how you slice it.

Again the claim was "all-timers" (and you've had multiple posts clarifying this.) And no, Kareem looks better here too:

I think it's very important to be careful to call anything "going nowhere":

1. Lakers finished with the best RS record in 1977, Jordan neve did that before 1991.

2. Lakers finished with +2.95 SRS in 1979, which is better than Bulls in any year in 1987-90 period outside of 1988. It happened in the smaller, more balanced league as well.

3. Lakers lost to two future champions in the playoffs during 1977-79 period. The other time, they lost to future finalists in a 3 games series. That's the same level of playoff success as 1987-89 Bulls.

If you want to say that they did nothing during that period, then I'm afraid you should say the same for Jordan's whole career before 1990.

About WOWY - Jordan's biggest samples don't show him as the better one than Kareem (from Ben's database):

1986 Jordan: +2.0 SRS change, 1.2 WOWY score
1995 Jordan +2.7 SRS change, 1.9 WOWY score

1975 Kareem: +7.1 SRS change, +3.6 WOWY score

I'm afraid Ben's database has an error with 1978 sample, as it shows as clear negative for Kareem, despite all the calculations I made and his own words in Kareem profile:

At the beginning of the ’78 season, Kareem cold-cocked Bucks center Kent Benson and missed substantial time with another broken hand. However, it’s hard to infer much from the injury since LA fired off two trades around that period.10 With Jabbar — and ignoring all the other lineup activity — the Lakers played like a 53-win team (4.1 SRS) in ’78. With a similar roster in ’79 (minus Charlie Scott), LA ticked along at a 50-win clip when healthy (3.1 SRS). Below, I’ve plotted the ’78 team’s performance in 21 games without Kareem, in which the Lakers played at a 36-win pace (-1.7 SRS) after a major offensive drop-off.

Which shows a +5.8 SRS change again. The biggest samples we have show Kareem having a clear advantage. We can also look at the more nuanced samples, when a player even joins or leaves his team:

1984 Bulls without MJ: -4.7 SRS, 27 wins
1985 Bulls with MJ: -0.5 SRS, 38 wins
Change: +4.2 SRS and +11 wins

1993 Bulls with MJ: +6.2 SRS, 57 wins
1994 Bulls without MJ: +2.9 SRS, 55 wins
Change: +3.3 SRS, +2 wins

1995 Bulls without MJ: +3.8 SRS, 52 wins pace
1996 Bulls with MJ: +11.8 SRS, 72 wins
Change: +8 SRS, 20 wins

I wouldn't include 1998-1999, because the whole team changed, including a coach.

1969 Bucks without Kareem: -5.1 SRS, 27 wins
1970 Bucks with Kareem: +4.3 SRS, 56 wins
Change: +9.4 SRS, 29 wins

1975 Bucks with Kareem: +2.6 SRS, 49 wins pace
1976 Bucks without Kareem: -1.6 SRS, 38 wins
Change: +4.2 SRS, 11 wins

1975 Lakers without Kareem: -3.9 SRS, 30 wins
1976 Lakers with Kareem: +0.2 SRS, 40 wins
Change: +4.1 SRS, 10 wins

The difference is that Kareem left Bucks in a trade, which means that Lakers gave a lot of value to Bucks. Jordan samples are clean, as Jordan didn't go to the Bulls in exchange.

I don't know, I don't see the case for MJ > Kareem in terms of WOWY.

[/quote]

RE: Easier to score
1. Ja Morant has dramatically worse efficiency compared to a top tier interior threat like Giannis. Volume needs to be contextualized with efficiency

2. It doesn't matter if it's easier to score in an absolute sense. What matters is how jordan's scoring compares to everyone else he's playing with.

3. I specfically claimed the raptors were better than the pistons in an absolute sense, not a relative one.

Era-Relative goodness vs Absolute goodness is a distinction that has been explained a bunch as well....in posts you've quoted...and ignored.

RE: Below average offense
Okay? As I said, and you ignored(again), distribution doesn't really matter here. If the team gets 30 wins worse without you, I'm not sure why the team being slanted towards defense or offense there is what we should focus on. Curry and MJ have similar holistic results in the regular season throughout their prime when they work with similar(holistically) casts. Winning is what matters here, not disparities in o-rating.

If you're just going to ignore what people write, discussion isn't going to be very productive.[/quote]

1. I mean I quite clearly offered an interpretation in my posts that suggests, Kareem based on WOWY, is worse. Not just the objective one-number regressions, but also analysis of how they did win they joined new teams. You don't have to agree, but I did offer an explanation.

2. It was mentioned Jordan would not have as much interior scoring value as before. I used Ja Morant as an example. MJ never had Giannis level interior scoring gravity, so no need to bring Giannis up. My point is that there is nothing suggesting MJ would have lesser value.

3. I clearly explained why the Raptors and Knicks example isn't 1 to 1, and why you can't just look at things saying the defense is better in absolute sense, without acknowledging offenses are better in an absolute sense, hence why league average true-shooting is higher. I'm not rehasing that point again. That point went over your head. If you're just going to ignore what people write, discussion isn't going to be very productive

4. "Okay? As I said, and you ignored(again), distribution doesn't really matter here. If the team gets 30 wins worse without you, I'm not sure why the team being slanted towards defense or offense there is what we should focus on. Curry and MJ have similar holistic results in the regular season throughout their prime when they work with similar(holistically) casts. Winning is what matters here, not disparities in o-rating."-Makes no sense, because that wasn't an argument I was making.

5. Why are we talking about 71-73 Kareem? Falco is the one who brought up 72-74 Kareem, and hence I simply shared the results.

6. Jordan clearly outpaces Kareem from 91-93 in playoff production than 72-74 Kareem.

7. I already mentioned the Kareem missing games in 75, but I doubt you really read my posts thoroughly, thanks for the confirmation.

8. I was talking to Falco (you butted in), and he quite clearly used the word "superstars." Don't make it out to seem as if I am wrong for misinterpreting what he said, when he said "superstars."

9. It is YOUR opinion MJ dropped off between 88 and 91. The board's greatest peaks discussion voted 91 as Jordan's peak. You point to Pippen's PS metrics in 91, but don't point to MJ's....I wonder why? Maybe because the 91 PS ranks unanimously as Jordan's best and would give more life to the argument that 91 is his peak?

[tsherkin]

Sigh. MJ didnt need to operate in 3 feet from the paint because his shot was effective in '97. How hard is this for you to understand? He operated a lot more closer to the rim in '98 when his shot wasn't as effective. His effeciency was good in '98 under 3 feet and he was a year older. That tells me that in '97 he had the ability to try score closer to the basket but decided not to.

mystic has something of a point here. Something changed in 98. Jordan shot 12% better inside 3 feet on a higher proportion (+4.1%) of his shots (and same raw FGA/g) that year. It works out to approximately an extra shot per game (~ +0.95 FGA/g) and about +1.1 FGM per game with the increase in FG%.

And then in Washington, he shot better from 0-3 than he did in 97, albeit on something like half volume. He was taking about 2.7 FGA/g in that first season back with the Wizards, but shooting 61.5% from 0-3 feet while taking a shade over 22 FGA/g overall. So, considerably reduced volume in close. Dropped down to 18.6 FGA/g in his second season, 61.4%, but 2.6 FGA/g (13.8% vs 12.2% proportion from 0-3).

Food for thought. Something changed, and quite noticeably. His FTr improved noticeably. But his mid-range jumper dropped off, he lost a quality 3 from his arsenal as the 3pt line pulled back in, but as mystic noted, he was doing a lot better in tight than he had in 97. Which is interesting.

EDIT: That said, that was 98 Jordan, not 97 Jordan, so the relevance goes only so far.

[penbeast0]

It's the day after Christmas. Let's take a break from bickering and try to answer using a little positive holiday spirit. This is where people go to escape the arguments, lol.

People go to escape arguments in a thread that is centered around how good a certain prime version of MJ would be in today's game?

Discussion good, argument (in this context) used as meaning rudeness, personal attacks, etc.

[LukaTheGOAT]

91-93 Jordan in the PS

IA 34.5 pts per 75 (rTS% of 5%)

PER-29.5
WS/48-0.267
Backpicks BPM-9.8

72-74 Kareem in the PS

IA

24.7 pts per 75 (rTS% of 3%)

PER-24.5
WS/48-0.209
Backpicks BPM-6.3

Whose to say the difference in defensive value is largue as the difference in scoring and playmaking value?

[AEnigma]

Sigh. MJ didnt need to operate in 3 feet from the paint because his shot was effective in '97. How hard is this for you to understand? He operated a lot more closer to the rim in '98 when his shot wasn't as effective. His effeciency was good in '98 under 3 feet and he was a year older. That tells me that in '97 he had the ability to try score closer to the basket but decided not to.

mystic has something of a point here. Something changed in 98. Jordan shot 12% better inside 3 feet on a higher proportion (+4.1%) of his shots (and same raw FGA/g) that year. It works out to approximately an extra shot per game (~ +0.95 FGA/g) and about +1.1 FGM per game with the increase in FG%.

And then in Washington, he shot better from 0-3 than he did in 97, albeit on something like half volume. He was taking about 2.7 FGA/g in that first season back with the Wizards, but shooting 61.5% from 0-3 feet while taking a shade over 22 FGA/g overall. So, considerably reduced volume in close. Dropped down to 18.6 FGA/g in his second season, 61.4%, but 2.6 FGA/g (13.8% vs 12.2% proportion from 0-3).

Food for thought. Something changed, and quite noticeably. His FTr improved noticeably. But his mid-range jumper dropped off, he lost a quality 3 from his arsenal as the 3pt line pulled back in, but as mystic noted, he was doing a lot better in tight than he had in 97. Which is interesting.

EDIT: That said, that was 98 Jordan, not 97 Jordan, so the relevance goes only so far.

This is a little more frustrating coming from you because I know you actually get my point.

At no point in this discussion has there been an unwillingness from any of us to acknowledge that 1997 was something of an outlier in its scoring profile for Jordan. Consistently throughout this discussion I myself have expressed a willingness to take an average of the two years. But of course when you do that, you lose that extraordinary outlier midrange shooting, and as I illustrated, doing so still does not mark old Jordan as any sort of outlier attacker — era relative or otherwise.

What mystic seems to want is to take the best of both years while also boosting everything across the board because “modern era ruleset”, because no amount of rudimentary logic ever needs to apply to Michael Jordan. If I walked in and said 1997 Kevin Johnson would be a 68% efficiency scorer on the back of a 65% free throw rate and 85% at-rim finishing, no one would take me seriously, but if it is Michael Jordan, an equivalent and incoherently articulated “modern era” boost beyond his 1997 (or 1998 when convenient) standing may as well be blindly assumed.

[tsherkin]

This is a little more frustrating coming from you because I know you actually get my point.

I was more specifically discussing mystic's point than responding to you, because you and I have an operative understanding and agreement over this subject. We have both tried to portray charitable descriptions of how Jordan might project with advantageous combinations of his mid-range shooting and FTr, as well as 3pt shooting.

At no point in this discussion has there been an unwillingness from any of us to acknowledge that 1997 was something of an outlier in
What mystic seems to want is to take the best of both years while also boosting everything across the board because “modern era ruleset”, because no amount of rudimentary logic ever needs to apply to Michael Jordan. If I walked in and said 1997 Kevin Johnson would be a 68% efficiency scorer on the back of a 65% free throw rate and 85% at-rim finishing, no one would take me seriously, but if it is Michael Jordan, an equivalent and incoherently articulated “modern era” boost beyond his 1997 (or 1998 when convenient) standing may as well be blindly assumed.

Yes, this is an undercurrent of what I was saying earlier in the thread as well. As I said, you and I mostly agree here.

My response to him was mostly to identify that I acknowledge that there was something different about 97 versus 98 in terms of Jordan finishing in close. And in truth, he was still a bulk-volume 46% shooter from 16-3P in 98, which is Dirk-esque and insane... but it didn't help him reach 54% TS, despite the massive boost to FTr and the higher proportion of shots in close. They were, in effect, different players. There was an obvious change, some trade-offs, etc.