ShaqAttac wrote:Owly wrote:ShaqAttac wrote:didnt ben t say that most champ teams make playoffs without the best player
dutchy linked me to poy whatever and since they flipped over 85-87 hakeeem i wanted to see what mjs big hes god season ranked like
No idea I don't know everything Ben Taylor said. It sounds plausible that he might. Even if it's true (seems fair enough, otoh), I don't know how that is meant it interact with your case ... I guess since you only care about playoffs and really only actually care about champs? And thus you only actually care about value to a potential champ (so it doesn't matter if MJ makes you miss playoffs on a lesser team - though arguably that means there's no difference from this season and one where 30 wins doesn't get you into the playoffs and MJ's three game playoff sample doesn't occur, they're both no chance outcomes)?
Though fwiw, I would guess that you wouldn't have MJ as just a typical "champs best player" level guy, so that being true of a majority of teams might not prevent him from adding sufficiently to make such a team a contender? Or are you argruing he's not that good?
Even granting all this - champs would make the playoffs doesn't mean champs would be champs. A champ isn't predestined at any point and tanking your team's RS give up HCA maybe all the way through and give yourself a tougher route through.
There's little doubt that Jordan was a great player. Still I'd reiterate my my post before ... the people you're complaining about aren't here and you haven't brought any new evidence (or even presented old, known evidence in compelling new way). I'm out on this, as I suspect there's little further value here.
the idea is hed have a chance to win on a better team. idk how ya got
"hes not that gud"
also why u actin like i need an essay to bump stuff. dutchy linked me to poy thing and i read and reacted.
So firstly I didn't "get" that. If you mean the more nuanced position it is outlined in the post. But to reiterate ...
You say most title teams would make the playoffs without their best player. Implying, presumably, that it wouldn't matter if his absence meant a lesser, presumably unlikely to win team.
A more heavily pro-Jordan poster could argue, "Isn't Jordan better than the average best player on a champ? Should he not be able to bring more, lower teams up to contention level?"
To which the implicit logic of your line of argument is ... no, because his absence on such teams doesn't matter.
"didnt ben t say that most champ teams make playoffs without the best player" is a line that, in the context given, without further clarification seems to operate on the assumption that Jordan is no better than the average title team's best player. Whilst this will depend on the year, what one values and how one assesses etc, my thinking was you would have Jordan higher than that, but perhaps your argument is fully consistent and you have him lower, hence "Or are you arguing he's not that good?"
Regarding re-upping old threads, etiquette varies, I've seen people upset with what they perceived as "grave digging", it's not something that particularly bothers me. As outlined I'm more confused as where you're going. The people voting are largely gone. So there's no potential to move opinion there. So I would have thought for something to be more valuable here than in a new thread it might cast a new light what happened (this would not require an essay, I don't know where you got that from). It's fine, I just don't know who your intended audience was or how it might generate valuable conversation.
I hope this has clarified things for you.
