What impact metrics show MJ as a GOAT candidate?

[spree8]

^ Seems to me it is Jordan fans who are frustrated knowing that as assessments become more developed with time, and as their biggest “rival” continues to enshrine himself in the record books, their idol’s case will gradually die out. Hence why rather than acknowledge a bulk of us have been identifying why Lebron was a better player than Jordan a decade ago, so many of you want to pretend it is just an element of playing more.

And there is your page break.

Welp, case in point. I’m not a Jordan fan by any stretch. I despised him growing up because he kept my team from a championship for the better part of a decade. However, I do appreciate greatness when I see it. I’ve watched Lebron’s whole career and have yet to see any evidence that backs up these “metrics” that he is a better player on the court than what I witnessed with Jordan. It’s just not close. Has he had a great career? Absolutely. I’d put him in the top 2-3 all time in terms of “best player”, but he doesn’t have what it takes to convince me that he’s a better basketball player than Michael Jordan. Sorry. There’s also just some aspects of the game/players that aren’t quantifiable, and I don’t think a lot of people here can make peace with that fact.

If you want to use data to try to disprove what I’ve witnessed almost my whole life, please be prepared to explain in great detail what your data is truly calculating and just how reliable it is in capturing the truth.

What evidence would you require? Clearly it's not statistical.

Also, might I add, you're the person saying that Jordan is miles better than Lebron and it's not even close, then saying that anyone who thinks Lebron might even be a tiny bit better than Jordan is obviously a result of some kind of extreme bias lol. You're giving infinitely less benefit of the doubt than the people you're calling unreasonable. I've said before that Jordan, MJ Kareem and Russell are tier 1 for me, I'm open to the possibility of anyone of them being the GOAT.

Do I and several others despise the decades long (and ongoing) Jordan dick sucking campaign that treats him like an infallible being? Yes. Does that mean I think him being the GOAT is ridiculous and I'm on some holy crusade to tear him down in order to prop up "my guy"? No.

What don’t you understand in what you bolded? Lebron hasn’t produced anything on the court that backs up the “data” that shows he’s better than Jordan. So he would have to perform better no?

To your second question, you’re obviously mistaken or trying to spin my words. Never have I said that “Jordan is miles better than Lebron and anyone who feels Lebron is a little better than Jordan is extremely biased”…don’t fabricate. I specifically said time and again, that those who’ve been beating the drum for Lebron as the goat are building this foundation on metrics (that they don’t even fully understand) alone and trivializing the “eye test”… such as yourself.

Even going to lengths to make others believe that what they’ve seen isn’t reliable and equating what they’ve been watching closely for years past and present is no more credible than “eye witness testimony” which obviously has a negative connotation. This is my point about gaslighting.

You’re basically telling me “oh what you’ve watched and studied for years up until this very moment on MJ & LBJ isn’t as reliable as these stats that I don’t even understand how to decipher and knowingly aren’t very accurate since they’re relatively new and don’t cover beyond a certain date. Furthermore what you’ve watched isn’t reliable because these other stats on people thinking they saw something during a possible crime during a blip in time isn’t reliable either” …I mean seriously, if that’s your best argument, go back to the drawing board.

Again, if you want to use metrics as your foundation, then be prepared to break them down to their core and come correct with comprehensive explanation proving you have a clue as to what you’re using as evidence, especially if you’re trying to make your case for why one player should dethrone another.

[eminence]

For me at least MJs '97/'98 rapm results would be reasonably indicative of a GOAT tier prime. Top tier of the league in big minutes for an age 33/34 player is not a particularly common thing in the two+ decades since (would have to go through and figure out some types of cutoffs, but I'm not sure anyone has matched MJs age 33/34 seasons in total impact).

2020/21 Lebron is right on par — and then personally it is tough to imagine similar not being true or said of Russell and Wilt in their last two years.

On a per minute basis I can see an argument for LeBron, but he missed a third of that '21 season. I don't see any case for him in total impact over the two years.

I'm not that high personally on very late career Wilt (though obviously still very strong), I can see Russell, but I wasn't looking at prior guys in that statement, just guys we actually have impact data for (since we're being asked to make an impact metrics case).

Defense first guys like KG and TD are probably closer than many casual fans would expect, but I think still clearly behind MJ. Who else is there at that age? Not Shaq/Dirk/Kobe. CP3 has aged well, but not that well. Nash maybe closer than all those, but I don't see it over 2nd 3peat MJ. Curry if he bounces back strong from injury this season could have a case on a per minute basis as well I think.

[AEnigma]

You’re basically telling me “oh what you’ve watched and studied for years up until this very moment on MJ & LBJ isn’t as reliable as these stats that I don’t even understand how to decipher and knowingly aren’t very accurate since they’re relatively new and don’t cover beyond a certain date. Furthermore what you’ve watched isn’t reliable because these other stats on people thinking they saw something during a possible crime during a blip in time isn’t reliable either” …I mean seriously, if that’s your best argument, go back to the drawing board.

Again, if you want to use metrics as your foundation, then be prepared to break them down to their core and come correct with comprehensive explanation proving you have a clue as to what you’re using as evidence, especially if you’re trying to make your case for why one player should dethrone another.

No one cares about your subjective eyetest; it does not match many of ours. And no one cares about your sealion attempt to force people to justify the use of data over your eye test.

If you want to make a case why your eye test has super special merit, feel free. Otherwise, you are indistinguishable from any lush at a bar shouting at the screen about which guy looks more impressive.

[spree8]

You’re basically telling me “oh what you’ve watched and studied for years up until this very moment on MJ & LBJ isn’t as reliable as these stats that I don’t even understand how to decipher and knowingly aren’t very accurate since they’re relatively new and don’t cover beyond a certain date. Furthermore what you’ve watched isn’t reliable because these other stats on people thinking they saw something during a possible crime during a blip in time isn’t reliable either” …I mean seriously, if that’s your best argument, go back to the drawing board.

Again, if you want to use metrics as your foundation, then be prepared to break them down to their core and come correct with comprehensive explanation proving you have a clue as to what you’re using as evidence, especially if you’re trying to make your case for why one player should dethrone another.

No one cares about your subjective eyetest; it does not match many of ours. And no one cares about your gish gallop attempt to force people to justify the use of data over your eye test.

If you want to make a case why your eye test has super special merit, feel free. Otherwise, you are indistinguishable from any lush at a bar shouting at the screen about which guy looks more impressive.

Translation “I’m not gunna go eye test vs eye test, instead I’ll throw these stats out at you that I don’t understand, and when you ask me to explain them, I’ll say I don’t have to”

And hate to break it to you, but my eye test matches the majority of basketball fans on planet earth. MJ > Lebron. Don’t believe it? The onus is on you to explain yourself with your stats. Don’t be scared.

[AEnigma]

For me at least MJs '97/'98 rapm results would be reasonably indicative of a GOAT tier prime. Top tier of the league in big minutes for an age 33/34 player is not a particularly common thing in the two+ decades since (would have to go through and figure out some types of cutoffs, but I'm not sure anyone has matched MJs age 33/34 seasons in total impact).

2020/21 Lebron is right on par — and then personally it is tough to imagine similar not being true or said of Russell and Wilt in their last two years.

On a per minute basis I can see an argument for LeBron, but he missed a third of that '21 season. I don't see any case for him in total impact over the two years.

I'm not that high personally on very late career Wilt (though obviously still very strong), I can see Russell, but I wasn't looking at prior guys in that statement, just guys we actually have impact data for (since we're being asked to make an impact metrics case).

Defense first guys like KG and TD are probably closer than many casual fans would expect, but I think still clearly behind MJ. Who else is there at that age? Not Shaq/Dirk/Kobe. CP3 has aged well, but not that well. Nash maybe closer than all those, but I don't see it over 2nd 3peat MJ. Curry if he bounces back strong from injury this season could have a case on a per minute basis as well I think.

I guess, but that is more a point about durability, not about backward translated impact. And to his credit that is impressive and uncommon durability, but then that takes us back to the usual refrains about career minutes and what that can necessitate for proper body maintenance late in your career.

[AEnigma]

You’re basically telling me “oh what you’ve watched and studied for years up until this very moment on MJ & LBJ isn’t as reliable as these stats that I don’t even understand how to decipher and knowingly aren’t very accurate since they’re relatively new and don’t cover beyond a certain date. Furthermore what you’ve watched isn’t reliable because these other stats on people thinking they saw something during a possible crime during a blip in time isn’t reliable either” …I mean seriously, if that’s your best argument, go back to the drawing board.

Again, if you want to use metrics as your foundation, then be prepared to break them down to their core and come correct with comprehensive explanation proving you have a clue as to what you’re using as evidence, especially if you’re trying to make your case for why one player should dethrone another.

No one cares about your subjective eyetest; it does not match many of ours. And no one cares about your sealion attempt to force people to justify the use of data over your eye test.

If you want to make a case why your eye test has super special merit, feel free. Otherwise, you are indistinguishable from any lush at a bar shouting at the screen about which guy looks more impressive.

Translation “I’m not gunna go eye test vs eye test, instead I’ll throw these stats out at you that I don’t understand, and when you ask me to explain them, I’ll say I don’t have to”

And hate to break it to you, but my eye test matches the majority of basketball fans on planet earth. MJ > Lebron. Don’t believe it? The onus is on you to explain yourself with your stats.

We can go eye test versus eye test but that accomplishes nothing because from the start we do not fundamentally agree on what we are seeing.

Past that, consensus is not quality. No one has ever disputed where the consensus lies, but the consensus is superficial. Trumpeting it may as well tell that you refuse or are otherwise unable to go beyond that.

I just challenged you to prove how your eyes are better, more accurate, and more comprehensive than data. Feel free to take me up on that whenever.

[spree8]

No one cares about your subjective eyetest; it does not match many of ours. And no one cares about your gish gallop attempt to force people to justify the use of data over your eye test.

If you want to make a case why your eye test has super special merit, feel free. Otherwise, you are indistinguishable from any lush at a bar shouting at the screen about which guy looks more impressive.

Translation “I’m not gunna go eye test vs eye test, instead I’ll throw these stats out at you that I don’t understand, and when you ask me to explain them, I’ll say I don’t have to”

And hate to break it to you, but my eye test matches the majority of basketball fans on planet earth. MJ > Lebron. Don’t believe it? The onus is on you to explain yourself with your stats.

We can go eye test versus eye test but that accomplishes nothing because from the start we do not fundamentally agree on what we are seeing.

Past that, consensus is not quality. No one has ever disputed where the consensus lies, but the consensus is superficial. Trumpeting it may as well tell that you refuse or are otherwise unable to go beyond that.

I just challenged you to prove how your eyes are better, more accurate, and more comprehensive than data. Feel free to take me up on that whenever.

My man, I’ve been doing nothing but challenging the likes of you to explain these metrics you’ve been using to support your claim. My eye test is the same as the majority of fans who believe MJ is the goat. You want to trivialize that, yet not explain yourself in any way shape or form, that’s on you. You don’t know or understand the data you’re using and that’s all that matters to me. That’s why at the very start of this debate from the other day, I said I take your data with a grain of salt. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Plain and simple.

[OhayoKD]

2020/21 Lebron is right on par — and then personally it is tough to imagine similar not being true or said of Russell and Wilt in their last two years.

On a per minute basis I can see an argument for LeBron, but he missed a third of that '21 season. I don't see any case for him in total impact over the two years.

I'm not that high personally on very late career Wilt (though obviously still very strong), I can see Russell, but I wasn't looking at prior guys in that statement, just guys we actually have impact data for (since we're being asked to make an impact metrics case).

Defense first guys like KG and TD are probably closer than many casual fans would expect, but I think still clearly behind MJ. Who else is there at that age? Not Shaq/Dirk/Kobe. CP3 has aged well, but not that well. Nash maybe closer than all those, but I don't see it over 2nd 3peat MJ. Curry if he bounces back strong from injury this season could have a case on a per minute basis as well I think.

I guess, but that is more a point about durability, not about backward translated impact. And to his credit that is impressive and uncommon durability, but then that takes us back to the usual refrains about career minutes and what that can necessitate for proper body maintenance late in your career.

How does Jordan's post-prime RAPM stack up if we went by # of seasons or # of minuties played?

[eminence]

On a per minute basis I can see an argument for LeBron, but he missed a third of that '21 season. I don't see any case for him in total impact over the two years.

I'm not that high personally on very late career Wilt (though obviously still very strong), I can see Russell, but I wasn't looking at prior guys in that statement, just guys we actually have impact data for (since we're being asked to make an impact metrics case).

Defense first guys like KG and TD are probably closer than many casual fans would expect, but I think still clearly behind MJ. Who else is there at that age? Not Shaq/Dirk/Kobe. CP3 has aged well, but not that well. Nash maybe closer than all those, but I don't see it over 2nd 3peat MJ. Curry if he bounces back strong from injury this season could have a case on a per minute basis as well I think.

I guess, but that is more a point about durability, not about backward translated impact. And to his credit that is impressive and uncommon durability, but then that takes us back to the usual refrains about career minutes and what that can necessitate for proper body maintenance late in your career.

How does Jordan's post-prime RAPM stack up if we went by # of seasons or # of minuties played?

Not sure what you're asking here, could you clarify a bit?

[AEnigma]

We can go eye test versus eye test but that accomplishes nothing because from the start we do not fundamentally agree on what we are seeing.

Past that, consensus is not quality. No one has ever disputed where the consensus lies, but the consensus is superficial. Trumpeting it may as well tell that you refuse or are otherwise unable to go beyond that.

I just challenged you to prove how your eyes are better, more accurate, and more comprehensive than data. Feel free to take me up on that whenever.

My man, I’ve been doing nothing but challenging the likes of you to explain these metrics you’ve been using to support your claim. My eye test is the same as the majority of fans who believe MJ is the goat.

Which means nothing. Basketball is not about who looks most impressive visually to the most people. Incredible that I actually need to say that to someone.

You want to trivialize that, yet not explain yourself in any way shape or form, that’s on you. You don’t know or understand the data you’re using and that’s all that matters to me. That’s why at the very start of this debate from the other day, I said I take your data with a grain of salt. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Plain and simple.

Nah, no one with base level common sense thinks eye tests are more valuable than data. No team in the league is run that way, it is a facially stupid idea. Again, you want to be a sea lion. Too bad. Prove your eye test is better, or go slink back to the general board where you can all resume watching Jordan highlights with a beer in both hands.

[OhayoKD]

I guess, but that is more a point about durability, not about backward translated impact. And to his credit that is impressive and uncommon durability, but then that takes us back to the usual refrains about career minutes and what that can necessitate for proper body maintenance late in your career.

How does Jordan's post-prime RAPM stack up if we went by # of seasons or # of minuties played?

Not sure what you're asking here, could you clarify a bit?

Instead of looking at "rapm at x-age" we looked at "rapm with x minuties/seasons played". Does that change how he ranks?

For me at least MJs '97/'98 rapm results would be reasonably indicative of a GOAT tier prime. Top tier of the league in big minutes for an age 33/34 player is not a particularly common thing in the two+ decades since (would have to go through and figure out some types of cutoffs, but I'm not sure anyone has matched MJs age 33/34 seasons in total impact).

I'm not that high personally on very late career Wilt (though obviously still very strong), I can see Russell, but I wasn't looking at prior guys in that statement, just guys we actually have impact data for (since we're being asked to make an impact metrics case).

Well there is WOWY(okay technially its indirect evidence) which paints Russell as a god among ants, but I guess you're using a stricter definition of metric then

[spree8]

We can go eye test versus eye test but that accomplishes nothing because from the start we do not fundamentally agree on what we are seeing.

Past that, consensus is not quality. No one has ever disputed where the consensus lies, but the consensus is superficial. Trumpeting it may as well tell that you refuse or are otherwise unable to go beyond that.

I just challenged you to prove how your eyes are better, more accurate, and more comprehensive than data. Feel free to take me up on that whenever.

My man, I’ve been doing nothing but challenging the likes of you to explain these metrics you’ve been using to support your claim. My eye test is the same as the majority of fans who believe MJ is the goat.

Which means nothing. Basketball is not about who looks most impressive visually to the most people. Incredible that I actually need to say that to someone.

You want to trivialize that, yet not explain yourself in any way shape or form, that’s on you. You don’t know or understand the data you’re using and that’s all that matters to me. That’s why at the very start of this debate from the other day, I said I take your data with a grain of salt. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Plain and simple.

Nah, no one with base level common sense thinks eye tests are more valuable than data. No team in the league is run that way, it is a facially stupid idea. Again, you want a gish gallop. Too bad. Prove your eye test is better, or go slink back to the general board where you can all resume watching Jordan highlights with a beer in both hands.

so what I get outta that is there’s no need to watch games, “it’s not about that”, just read the stat sheet? Now that’s incredible.

Dude, I’m just asking you to explain your data. The data analytics departments of sports teams know what they’re doing and what the numbers mean (and responsible gm’s do NOT think it’s the end all be all, that’s why they watch the games correct? And have actual basketball people on staff, not just number crunchers), so why can’t you simply explain what metrics you’re using, and create a story if you will of what they’re telling you? It’s what any common sensed person would require in such a discussion. You just don’t know how to present the data responsibly. It’s ok to admit that you’ve just seen others list stats that fit your narrative and you ran with them, but you don’t truly know wth they even mean or if they’d even hold up under scrutiny, and that’s ok, just admit it lol.

[eminence]

How does Jordan's post-prime RAPM stack up if we went by # of seasons or # of minuties played?

Not sure what you're asking here, could you clarify a bit?

Instead of looking at "rapm at x-age" we looked at "rapm with x minuties/seasons played". Does that change how he ranks?

Well there is WOWY(okay technially its indirect evidence) which paints Russell as a god among ants, but I guess you're using a stricter definition of metric then

Ahh, interesting thought, from that perspective (ignoring college minutes, which I'm not sure is completely legit) we'd be looking (roughly) at '97/'98 MJ vs '09/'10 Kobe or '14/'15 LeBron. I don't believe many other players would emerge as contenders, probably KG. Duncans minute load built pretty slowly.

I imagine LeBron would have the edge in a minutes based aging model.

To put it bluntly, WOWY is a pretty poor metric compared to play-by-play data of today. It's certainly not a bad thing that Russell has a great WOWY score, but if anyone is using MJs WOWY to claim he has no GOAT case they've never calculated the stat (we're talking huge margins of error here). I haven't seen a version that paints Russell as a god among ants (I believe Oscar topped Bens first calculation of it). But you'll see massive swings in who is atop the leaderboard based off quite small parameter changes, not near as robust as play by play.

[spree8]

This is the Ben you guys reference? The one that has MJ at #1? I mean, his data seems to support it no?

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[AEnigma]

My man, I’ve been doing nothing but challenging the likes of you to explain these metrics you’ve been using to support your claim. My eye test is the same as the majority of fans who believe MJ is the goat.

Which means nothing. Basketball is not about who looks most impressive visually to the most people. Incredible that I actually need to say that to someone.

You want to trivialize that, yet not explain yourself in any way shape or form, that’s on you. You don’t know or understand the data you’re using and that’s all that matters to me. That’s why at the very start of this debate from the other day, I said I take your data with a grain of salt. You just don’t know what you’re talking about. Plain and simple.

Nah, no one with base level common sense thinks eye tests are more valuable than data. No team in the league is run that way, it is a facially stupid idea. Again, you want to be a sea lion. Too bad. Prove your eye test is better, or go slink back to the general board where you can all resume watching Jordan highlights with a beer in both hands.

so what I get outta that is there’s no need to watch games, “it’s not about that”, just read the stat sheet? Now that’s incredible.

Nope. Another half-assed strawman from someone incapable of interacting with the sport in any meaningful way.

There are good eye tests which can potentially be more insightful than raw data. I would trust Popovich breaking down the film. I would trust Lebron or Draymond or Chris Paul. I would even trust some people here.

But all of them also know the data. They supplement their eye tests because they are not inane enough to believe that their eyes capture everything. And most importantly, you are not them. I assume your eyetest is garbage because you have done nothing to suggest otherwise, and in fact have repeatedly equated your own eyetest with the garbage eyetests of the average casual fan. You have no credibility, and your approach has been akin to me sitting a five year old down and asking them which player looks like the best.

Dude, I’m just asking you to explain your data. The data analytics departments of sports teams know what they’re doing and what the numbers mean (and responsible gm’s do NOT think it’s the end all be all, that’s why they watch the games correct? And have actual basketball people on staff, not just number crunchers)

I never said that. You were the one arguing against data entirely. Eye tests can be good. Relying wholly on them is almost always foolish. And should go without saying, but apparently does not, that all their eye tests are magnitudes better informed than the average fan’s.

so why can’t you simply explain what metrics you’re using, and create a story if you will of what they’re telling you? It’s what any common sensed person would require in such a discussion.

What?

Why can you not just explain why your eyetest performs better at measuring how a player is advancing their team’s chance at winning. You have the extreme stance here, so you need to justify it.

Which, by the way, is what people who go against Jordan recognise. The common view is one way, so more effort is involved to explain why it is wrong. Problem is that you see that effort and laugh and pretend Norm from Cheers has more insight than anything quantified by those apparently unnecessary analytics departments, which often hire the people who provide accessible analytics to the public.

You just don’t know how to present the data responsibly. It’s ok to admit that you’ve just seen others list stats that fit your narrative and you ran with them, but you don’t truly know wth they even mean or if they’d even hold up under scrutiny, and that’s ok, just admit it lol.

Nope, that seems to be your issue. No understanding so you throw it out rather than making the effort, and then go troll those who do.

Prove your eyetest is more valuable than all data. Do it. You think analytics are a waste of time and investment? Make a case, rather than continuing to deliberately waste everyone’s time.

[AEnigma]

This is the Ben you guys reference? The one that has MJ at #1? I mean, his data seems to support it no?

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

He has Lebron at number 1 for career. He has Jordan number 3.

Always hilarious when you geniuses do this.

[spree8]

This is the Ben you guys reference? The one that has MJ at #1? I mean, his data seems to support it no?

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

He has Lebron at number 1 for career. He has Jordan number 3.

Always hilarious when you geniuses do this.

Where? And you need to chill out with the personal insults chief.

[spree8]

Which means nothing. Basketball is not about who looks most impressive visually to the most people. Incredible that I actually need to say that to someone.


Nah, no one with base level common sense thinks eye tests are more valuable than data. No team in the league is run that way, it is a facially stupid idea. Again, you want a gish gallop. Too bad. Prove your eye test is better, or go slink back to the general board where you can all resume watching Jordan highlights with a beer in both hands.

so what I get outta that is there’s no need to watch games, “it’s not about that”, just read the stat sheet? Now that’s incredible.

Nope. Another half-assed strawman from someone incapable of interacting with the sport in any meaningful way.

There are good eye tests which can potentially be more insightful than raw data. I would trust Popovich breaking down the film. I would trust Lebron or Draymond or Chris Paul. I would even trust some people here.

But all of them also know the data. They supplement their eye tests because they are not inane enough to believe that their eyes capture everything. And most importantly, you are not them. I assume your eyetest is garbage because you have done nothing to suggest otherwise, and in fact have repeatedly equated your own eyetest with the garbage eyetests of the average casual fan. You have no credibility, and your approach has been akin to me sitting a five year old down and asking them which player looks like the best.

Dude, I’m just asking you to explain your data. The data analytics departments of sports teams know what they’re doing and what the numbers mean (and responsible gm’s do NOT think it’s the end all be all, that’s why they watch the games correct? And have actual basketball people on staff, not just number crunchers)

I never said that. You were the one arguing against data entirely. Eye tests can be good. Relying wholly on them is almost always foolish. And should go without saying, but apparently does not, that all their eye tests are magnitudes better informed than the average fan’s.

so why can’t you simply explain what metrics you’re using, and create a story if you will of what they’re telling you? It’s what any common sensed person would require in such a discussion.

What?

Why can you not just explain why your eyetest performs better at measuring how a player is advancing their team’s chance at winning. You have the extreme stance here, so you need to justify it.

Which, by the way, is what people who go against Jordan recognise. The common view is one way, so more effort is involved to explain why it is wrong. Problem is that you see that effort and laugh and pretend Norm from Cheers has more insight than anything quantified by those apparently unnecessary analytics departments, which often hire the people who provide accessible analytics to the public.

You just don’t know how to present the data responsibly. It’s ok to admit that you’ve just seen others list stats that fit your narrative and you ran with them, but you don’t truly know wth they even mean or if they’d even hold up under scrutiny, and that’s ok, just admit it lol.

Nope, that seems to be your issue. No understanding so you throw it out rather than making the effort, and then go troll those who do.

Prove your eyetest is more valuable than all data. Do it. You think analytics are a waste of time and investment? Make a case, rather than continuing to deliberately waste everyone’s time.

Deflection at its finest lol. I’m not here to prove “my” eye test is better than “the data”….I’m asking to see and hear an explanation as to why the general consensus (based on almost everyone’s eye test with the exception of a small handful here) is being disregarded when compared to this definitive data that says Lebron is better. Yet you can’t produce the numbers or explanations of them.

Dude, you’re scared and frustrated, I get it, I’ll leave it at that lol.

[AEnigma]

This is the Ben you guys reference? The one that has MJ at #1? I mean, his data seems to support it no?

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

He has Lebron at number 1 for career. He has Jordan number 3.

Always hilarious when you geniuses do this.

Where? And you need to chill out with the personal insults chief.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh?si=WdOW0p7KTJqzzTAgDddO-Q

You need to chill out with taking a thread explicitly about impact and asking why no one is paying attention to “the average fan’s eye test”.

[TheGOATRises007]

This is the Ben you guys reference? The one that has MJ at #1? I mean, his data seems to support it no?

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

He has Lebron at number 1 for career. He has Jordan number 3.

Always hilarious when you geniuses do this.

He was talking about the peaks video.

Not his career rankings.

You don't have to be condescending.