RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #3 (Michael Jordan)

[ShaqAttac]

Please make more of an effort to clearly respond to a specific person when doing nested quotations.

yessir

[f4p]

. Where Jordan played on a team that won 27 games with a -4.5 SRS before he showed up, turns them into a -0.5 SRS as a rookie, and then in year 2 they went 22-42 without him despite adding Charles Oakley, posting a -3.12 SRS overall. Don't want to do the math but safe to say that number without him is lower considering they went 9-9 with him that year and 7-4 when he played 20+ mpg (albeit with - point differentials). That -3 SRS becomes a 1.26 the next year with him healthy. He also goes through three coaches in five years before reaching Jackson and the triangle. These are not struggles Russell had to deal with.

Well, as outlined in the bottom of the post, all that 'improvement" is literally smaller than the drop-off(accounting for srs tresholds) we see with player-coach russell leaving in 1969(both had bad positional replacements). Having done the math(or really looking at statmuse's math), in year two, by net-rating they're a 31-win team without(27-by record) and -0.5 srs with him in games he played >20 minutes(i dont know what the srs is for the without, and no, i am only counting games jordan completely missed for the without).

okay, but even if you want to go that route, and even if we ignore other people points about russell not being the only celtic to leave after 1969, you're comparing young jordan to grizzled veteran russell. young russell was literally a negative WOWY guy his rookie year, even being a year older. in fact, given his tendency to drop in the playoffs early in his career and rise in the playoffs later, it's not impossible that russell was less dominant early and increasing his impact as his career went on, with the uber-dominance of his earlier rosters masking his lower impact, especially in the form of being so dominant that possible series losses just ended as weirdly close 7 game series against weaker teams.

[Doctor MJ]

steph has always been a data ball darling. but sometimes it gets a little ridiculous. a stat like RPM thinks he was the best basically every year, no matter what was going on. like are we really supposed to take seriously him being first in 2019? or why would he be 3rd in 2022 when he had a very down regular season, maybe the worst since he was a rookie or at least since he was an all-star. if a stat becomes performance-independent, then i'm not sure how much we can trust it.

So, I'd suggest coming at this differently.

Your word of "trust" I think speaks to a certain approach where you're trying to determine what metrics you can trust to help you in your assessment, and if you don't trust something enough, then you'd logically take it off your mental spreadsheet. That probably sells short the entirety of your process, but to the degree "statistical trustworthiness" is central to your analysis, I'd argue that that's effectively what you're doing...and I think it's what many if not most people do.

Whereas, I'd advocate for an approach where we ask: What would explain this piece of data? In small sample, noise is obviously an option, but in large sample, it stops being so.

So then, the data has told us quite definitively that Golden State correlates massively based on Curry's presence even when normalized for his teammates. What is causing this? Regardless of how that qualitative answer fits into a GOAT debate, the need for a causal explanation is there, and writing off a metric as distrustworthy not because of its variance but because of its LACK of variance in result in a given situation, is problematic.

i realize we shouldn't throw things away just because it gives results we don't like, but i do think curry finishing first every year, in every situation, even when his own play falters, is at least somewhat problematic. no different than watching david robinson or chris paul look so amazing by various box and impact metrics where it seems they clearly don't live up to it. i bring up 2022 where curry had a down season for a reason. the idea that curry has off-ball value is obvious. but part of his value is also that he makes a lot of shots at extremely high efficiency. it's not as if he ups his "intangibles" and off-ball impact to perfectly offset poor shooting, then decreases his intangibles and off-ball impact when he's shooting well. if the numbers can't even tell me he had a poor year when he clearly did and had people asking "what happened to steph's shot?" all season long, then another 2nd or 3rd place finish isn't going to mean as much after a while. and all those 1st place finishes, when there wouldn't have been a single year that ended with people calling steph the best in the world after the playoffs, brings us back to the resilience argument.

"if the numbers can't even tell me he had a poor year". So, to be clear: This wording implies that the numbers were trying to communicate a particular message about shooting impact and failed in their attempt.

I'm not trying to be pedantic here. I'm pointing this out because even when we strip away the metaphor, it speaks to how you're trying to use +/- to map to box score production, and are discouraged from using them when you can't see the map.

I'll first point out: If we could do a clear linear mapping between +/- data and box score production, then we wouldn't actually need +/- data. The fact that it's not telling us the same story is what I find value in this new type of data to go along with the OG.

Broadly: My perspective would be that the numbers are the numbers, and if we cannot chalk them up to noise, it's up to use to try to infer what actually was happening with the team's play to make this happen.

I think it makes sense to discuss '21-22 in particular so I will briefly in a moment, but I don't want to lose sight of the fact that you're bothered because this is what the data ALWAYS seems to say about Curry. Hence, while noise IS a reasonable thing to bring up for '21-22, it ceases to be something to bring up when evaluating Curry more broadly.

Something about basketball is the answer to why Curry has such huge +/- metrics, so let's talk about that basketball, y'know?

On '21-22:

1. I'll reiterate that in one season, perhaps some noise is in play. I too am reluctant to say that Curry truly had more impact when he shot worse - not impossible, but a definite reason to think of noise and be cautious.

2. I do think '21-22 sent a message that Curry's regular season gravitational threat could have greater magnitude than we realized. I think the key there is what happens when team and teammates learn to take advantage of it. The thing that really stood out offensively about those Warriors compared to the previous years' Warriors is how well the actions of Curry's teammates were working. Gary Payton II looked like a basketball genius, and not to be rude, but if Payton had a skyhigh BBIQ, he'd have been a touted prospect.

3. I'll note that I talked about Curry's regular season gravitational impact. I said during that season, and I still believe, that I don't think Curry would maintain that same gravitational impact in the playoffs without shooting better. At a certain point, if you're losing to the Warriors when it counts while selling out to stop Curry, and he hasn't been burning you, I think teams would change strategy.

Of course, Curry was better in the playoffs, so my theory remains not very well tested.

4. I'd be remiss if I didn't note that it was the Warrior defense that carried the team in '21-22, not the offense. This is where Green is often used as a cudgel against Curry, and understandably so...but the thing about '21-22 is that Curry's apparent impact edge over Green went up not down, so what gives?

I think it's important to step away from the Player Comparison and focus first on the team in question when comparing teammates.

The Warrior defense at its best worked based on recognition and communication. Draymond has always been the king of this...but that also means that those around him have learned to see some of what he sees, to react to it, and to call it out. And this also allows a guy like Payton to go all-out on the aggression to the man ahead of him as long as he listens out to other others away further from the point of attack. Draymond's the best at it, but we're now at a point where others including Curry are quite adept themselves.

Additionally, what I saw from the Warriors from the jump in '21-22 was a tone setting intensity on defense. I saw something similar in '19-20 with the Lakers, and the late-season '21-22 Celtics. I would say these are real events that have real impact on a team's overall defensive play, and that they also take a LOT out of the players, particularly the veterans who are generally leading the charge.

I honestly think Curry wore himself out with the way he started the year and then gradually ramped himself back up in the playoffs. I too am surprised this didn't seem to hurt his impact stats, but again since we saw a spike there, I'm pretty comfortable saying that noise might explain the spike, but that it's just ignoring data we don't like to try to assert that Curry's impact must have gone down that season.

well, i would say draymond consistently beating curry in playoff on-court +/- and on-off +/- certainly gives him a good chance at accounting for a non-insignificant chunk of steph's value. and vice versa, steph is the other half of draymond's amulet and helps draymond's value. that's the benefit of fitting together. you say fit is an achievement, but does it really seem to apply to steph and draymond? if i knew i had either of them and was going to build another player in a lab to play with them, i would end up building steph for draymond and draymond for steph. steph is the greatest off-ball player ever, whose biggest offensive requirement would be an extremely high IQ player to make all the reads and mind meld with him to get him the ball where he needs it. after all, you can't be off-ball without relying on your teammates to do the on-ball work. well draymond just happens to not only be a point-forward, but an elite point-forward. an elite point-forward who doesn't even want to shoot, which obviously helps with team chemistry. and now that we've got the offense sorted, we go to the other end where draymond is his generation's greatest defender, one who also seems to get even better in the playoffs. it literally could not work out better.

and then just to make it better, the warriors essentially replicate a mini-version of this with klay and iggy. klay plays the exact offensive game you would want next to steph so that you can run the same offense with both and iggy is another very good, high IQ point-forward to run a complicated offense, one who doesn't demand touches, and then goes to the other end and is a generational wing defender. and for the cherry on top, klay also plays good defense, which most shooters like him don't do. and all of this, as the nba was moving toward the exact type of games these guys play.

and then for 3 years, the one tiny thing they might not have in great iso scoring, they filled that need with one of the greatest iso scorers ever, who also could provide length and rim protection. and the big 4 were all between like 27-30 years old during their run, so great fit and perfect prime overlap. this is an abundance of riches the likes of which we may never seen again in talent, age, and fit.

now, if all of that had gone a perfect 5 for 5 in the playoffs, with no 2016 finals collapse, if they didn't arguably luck out with a perfectly-timed (if seemingly inevitable) cp3 injury to win in 2018, or if they had won without KD in 2019, i might have to concede and put steph higher.

even 2022 tries to get written as some underdog story for steph. but he was on the team with the highest payroll in the league with all of the payroll healthy for the playoffs. an owner willing to pay $25M plus huge luxury tax for someone like andrew wiggins. do you want wiggins as your franchise player? of course not. do you want his elite athleticism along with 17 ppg scoring (without caring if he gets the ball) to be your 4th best starter if money is no option? of course yes. on top of poole going crazy in the playoffs. on top of still having the #1 defense in the league courtesy of draymond once again. with klay still around? that seems like a fairly loaded team in a post-superteam world. though i won't deny curry played very well in the finals this time.

Alright, the Draymond conversation:

First thing I'll point out is that Draymond's advantage in playoff +/- over Curry goes away if we ignore the 1st round. It's those early series where Curry missed time that really are giving Dray the advantage.

Now, it's impressive that Dray and the team were able to do that without Curry to be sure, but it's not the same thing as Dray consistently looking more impactful when they are both playing.

As I've said something I've looked at repeatedly because I want to make sure I'm not simply siding with Curry as the more important player as a matter of course. I've looked and I've looked. I'm extremely impressed with Dray and have him way higher than most in the basketball world...but I do think Curry has deserved the nod again and again.

Re: teammate fit. We keep circling around this. I understand if you feel like you should penalize players for good fit, but I don't think we should because fit is something coaches and players are (or should be) trying to improve at all times.

Is it unfair that players get lucky in who they end up with and some end up in better fitting situations? Yes, and it's true for each and all of us in all walks of life. But we do what we can with what we got.

Re: adding KD. This is obviously a bit thing that merits conversations from all parties, but just quickly:

1. It's certainly helped the Warriors become a better team when they acquired KD.

2. It certainly doesn't make sense to just count a ring as a ring, and this made it easier to get rings.

3. But not because we don't fall pray to merely counting rings, we can also recognize that one champion is not the equal of all other champions. The Curry-KD Warriors is one of many superteams we've seen put together in the NBA since Wilt went to the Lakers...and it is singular because it was the best basketball team ever assembled at least in a league season.

I think we should be careful about thinking primarily of those Warriors as a reason to be lower on the players involved. In the days before the NBA, better/richer teams would regularly steal top players from weaker/poorer teams, and people didn't see that as cheating or that the players going to greener pastures weren't actually the best at playing basketball.

I think not just Curry, but KD, Dray, and the rest are in general underrated for having been a part of this extreme peak.

Re: Wiggins, no fair. I'm sorry, this has always just come off to me like fan-posting. When that season began nobody was complaining about this, because no one thought Wiggins was very good and in general people didn't see the Warriors as a serious contender. Only after the Warriors became a thing in '21-22 did people fixate on it.

Simply put, while I'm all for adding nuance to the analysis of how impressive particular players were on a championship team, and what the degree-of-difficulty is, money in and of itself isn't in this conversation for me, let alone money concerns that no one cared about until after it became a thing to hold against the champion few saw coming.

do they really get to have their cake and eat it, too, though? curry already took a year off in his prime just because the team didn't look good so they could try to tank and artificially build up the team. now he gets another year off from responsibility in his prime to build the team for the future? would that other greats were just picking and choosing when to carry a team.

i would have more sympathy if the warriors had an amazing offense and missed the playoffs. but, in fact, they had the #4 ranked defense in 2021. curry is an offensive weapon par excellence, so i would imagine making the playoffs is not a great threshold if we know the defense is very good. but they finished #20 in offense and missed. are there reasons for that? sure, but seemingly no more convincing reasons than their are reasons for why the warriors looked so good for so many years.

2 missed playoffs in your prime hurts kareem's story. it seems like it has to hurt steph's (2020 was looking even more disastrous than 2021 so there's not much reason to think the warriors are doing any better than maybe battling for the 8th seed). and i might have more sympathy to that if he wasn't the leader in the clubhouse for missed playoffs (in this range of players). he missed 5 times by his age 33 season. even a guy in a horrible situation like garnett only missed 4, and he had an age 19 and 20 season while curry started at 21, not making the playoffs until he was 24, which goes back to longevity.

Re: cake/eat it too, picking/choosing. I think you're projecting moral judgment into a situation you weren't directly involved with and that no one associated with the Golden State Warriors - those actually involved - feels toward Curry. I think you should ask yourself why letting something like this be a part of a putatively objective analysis.

To me cake/eat it too would mean acting as if Curry in '19-20 won the MVP simply because he might have if only things were different. But no one would ever do that in their analysis.

Before I leave this I also have to note what an outsized role negative judgement about '19-20 played in perception of Curry from then afterward. People acted like Curry's prime was over, with some even suggesting he'd be "exposed" when he came back. Instead, he roared back to life, and then led a team to another title, completely ruining the narrative that Curry's titles were about super-teams and injury-flukes...and yet the connotations of that narrative clearly remain lingering along the shadows.

Since this is where you quote Duncan-Ginobili I'll just note:

It is Ginobili, rather than Green, who shows the strong signs of outperforming his superstar teammates' +/- against deep playoff competition, and in terms of how I'd rank the 4 guys for the purpose of this project:

1. Duncan
2. Curry
3. Ginobili
4. Green

What Ginobili did is extremely impressive, but it's not enough to top Duncan (or Curry) for me.

true, it's not easy to win a title. but i think my biggest argument is in how the credit is distributed. even look at klay, the weakest of the big 4. he misses 2 years and the warriors don't even make the playoffs. he comes back and they win it all. steph has never made the playoffs without klay. same with KD. the warriors go from 9 playoff losses to the most dominant playoff run ever, but we've spent the last 6 years bombarded with "but look at the warriors plus/minus with only steph on the court" type stats trying to pretend KD was irrelevant. sorry, but "we got way better after adding a new guy, but it wasn't really the new guy, it was everyone else" is the type of thing that makes me doubt all the impact stuff, at least in its ability to go from the line-up specific world where that data lives to the overall big picture results.

This is a common complaint and understandably so, but I'd note that it's generally not a complain made because credit is specifically being allocated to each player and someone objects to them, rather it comes when one part of a whole is talked about on its own. Thing is, conversation can't happen any other way. When we talk about Player X, we're going to start by talking about the stuff that's most directly related to Player X. We then have to specifically broaden the analysis to add back in the more oblique aspects of the context he was in.

So I'm all for you praising Dray, KD, etc...but in general I'm not sure what I could do that would leave you feeling like I'd addressed the whole.

People have often talked as if I've neglected Dray, but I'm consistently higher on Dray than most.

KD is a little more complicated, but I'm on record explaining that I believe I underrated both Curry & KD when we did POY voting back when they were playing together.

There's also the matter that I've always been higher on Kerr than most, so it's not like I'm taking any credit away from him.

To me a more accurate statement would be that I rate the Warriors' accomplishment as more impressive than most, and I'd point out again how strange it is that we can see the Warriors be the clear-cut dominant franchise of this era that would kick the butt of prior eras...and yet not feel like they accomplished that much.

Re: Klay. I should note that I'm not sure I'm higher on Klay than most. I think it's fine he's an all-star who is HOF-bound, but don't believe I'll vote for him in this project. Sticking with the Spurs comparison, I'd certainly rank Tony Parker ahead of Klay in this project.

I do think his arrival back in '21-22 helped the Warriors, but he helped them as a role player, not a secret superstar.

i was actually really just referring to that thread on here about players and how they did versus various levels of playoff defenses - all-time (-7), elite (-4 to -7), good (-2 to -4), average (+2 to -2), bad (+2 or worse). when i did it for steph, before the boston series, i had him with no all-time defenses faced and only one elite defense. except that elite defense was the 2017 spurs. who not only stopped being elite after kawhi got hurt, but it literally resulted in a series where both steph and KD simultaneous had their best ever TS% series. looking at it again, i see i did it for 2015-2019 and technically the 2013 spurs creep above elite at -4.2, but steph's numbers weren't good in that series so i think i was trying to be nice to him at the time. now if someone wants to say the 2019 raptors count, i won't disagree, but of the 22 players from that thread and that i added to my spreadsheet (basically all top 20 or 30 guys), steph had the 3rd easiest average defense faced at -0.9 (this was before 2022 so maybe it changed a little). he has had a knack for not playing great defenses.

Well, that is an understandable definition, but we should be clear that he has a knack for being on the team that takes on the teams that can beat everyone else while playing in the strongest era of basketball history, so the idea that he's "had it easy" isn't something that I really think makes a lot of sense.

well, i am probably more of a resiliency guy than most of this project and steph is certainly not great in terms of individual numbers falling off in the playoffs, in ways that would probably be viewed more problematically if his team hadn't survived several of those drops due to other things like defense.

So your wording here makes clear that you see Curry as a major beneficiary of winning-bias. This is an understandable conclusion, and an important concern all should consider.

I think I've written statements how I see this already, so to just put it all in a nutshell:

Productivity is not impact, and lowlights just like highlights are dangerous things to use as the foundation of one's assessment.

[Doctor MJ]

I don't have enough time to write a post with convincing arguments (I am abroad for the full week), but it's shocking to me that after all these years people came back to the idea of Russell's Celtics being uterrly stacked and counting HoF teammates in Boston squads. Overall, the level of discussion is high as always, but this particular thing is a big downgrade from what we achieved as a community in this regard.

This is obviously referring to me, but I think you’re missing that I freely acknowledged that some of those hall of famers are basically just in the hall of fame for being along for the ride. My point is that they were really talented teams even when we take a totally sober view of some of those hall of famers. A team with Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Bailey Howell, Tom Sanders, Don Nelson, etc. is an objectively very talented team, and one doesn’t need to blindly rate players on hall of fame induction in order to come to that conclusion. And that’s probably the least talented team of the bunch! I understand bristling at the shorthand of talking about hall-of-famers since there’s some hall of famers amongst those Celtics teams that might be very overrated by that shorthand, but I don’t think that contextualizing that should lead us to a conclusion that Russell’s teams weren’t really talented and certainly not that they were “depleted,” which was the specific claim I was contesting. Russell always had a very talented team, and I think it’d be genuinely odd for someone to suggest otherwise. I think one could make the argument that they occasionally faced similarly talented teams. Perhaps the 1969 Lakers or 1967 Sixers were even more talented! But those Celtics were always quite strong.

Understandable clarification in general but I'd disagree that the team with Hondo/Sam/Bailey was one of the least talented Celtics teams.

Those 3 years I think have a case for being Russell's best supporting cast...thing is: I think Wilt had a more talented supporting cast in all 3 years, and when people push back against the idea of Russell having an amazing supporting cast, that's what they mean.

Certainly it's true that Russell in general played with a good supporting cast, and certainly in the early years that meant having a better supporting cast than Wilt...it's just that while during their career the argument for "Wilt's better but weaker teammates" made sense for most of it, it kinda got killed by the time Russell retired.

[OhayoKD]

. Where Jordan played on a team that won 27 games with a -4.5 SRS before he showed up, turns them into a -0.5 SRS as a rookie, and then in year 2 they went 22-42 without him despite adding Charles Oakley, posting a -3.12 SRS overall. Don't want to do the math but safe to say that number without him is lower considering they went 9-9 with him that year and 7-4 when he played 20+ mpg (albeit with - point differentials). That -3 SRS becomes a 1.26 the next year with him healthy. He also goes through three coaches in five years before reaching Jackson and the triangle. These are not struggles Russell had to deal with.

Well, as outlined in the bottom of the post, all that 'improvement" is literally smaller than the drop-off(accounting for srs tresholds) we see with player-coach russell leaving in 1969(both had bad positional replacements). Having done the math(or really looking at statmuse's math), in year two, by net-rating they're a 31-win team without(27-by record) and -0.5 srs with him in games he played >20 minutes(i dont know what the srs is for the without, and no, i am only counting games jordan completely missed for the without).

okay, but even if you want to go that route, and even if we ignore other people points about russell not being the only celtic to leave after 1969, you're comparing young jordan to grizzled veteran russell. young russell was literally a negative WOWY guy his rookie year, even being a year older. in fact, given his tendency to drop in the playoffs early in his career and rise in the playoffs later, it's not impossible that russell was less dominant early and increasing his impact as his career went on, with the uber-dominance of his earlier rosters masking his lower impact, especially in the form of being so dominant that possible series losses just ended as weirdly close 7 game series against weaker teams.

The comparison was always 1988(and it was full-season not playoff-specific so grizzled veterant shouldn't matter too much from a "value" perspective), I just figured I'd bring up the 86 stuff because he talked about 1986 and said "he hadn't done the math". Granted I think we were talking past each other and I should have paid more attention to what he was specifically saying.

I am aware of the rookie stuff(and they were very good the season before him) which is why I have never disputed that he joined a loaded cast, simply the idea that it was always so(which all the "off" stuff, or if you're worried about bad positional replacements, the "what happens when teammate leaves' stuff supports."). You can also look at the defensive/offensive distribution

And to be fair, I am also ignoring the bulls non-jordan improvements here(oakley was more significant than 6th man Jones by my guess, doug collins was(or at least was considered) an upgrade, ect.).

Though it is curious his rookie-year is so relatively weak("from impact, I am not saying it --cant-- be noise") when it follows up goat-lvl pre-nba floor-raising(b2b ncaa titles with a team that didn't make the tournament). Kareem he was not

[AEnigma]

. Where Jordan played on a team that won 27 games with a -4.5 SRS before he showed up, turns them into a -0.5 SRS as a rookie, and then in year 2 they went 22-42 without him despite adding Charles Oakley, posting a -3.12 SRS overall. Don't want to do the math but safe to say that number without him is lower considering they went 9-9 with him that year and 7-4 when he played 20+ mpg (albeit with - point differentials). That -3 SRS becomes a 1.26 the next year with him healthy. He also goes through three coaches in five years before reaching Jackson and the triangle. These are not struggles Russell had to deal with.

Well, as outlined in the bottom of the post, all that 'improvement" is literally smaller than the drop-off(accounting for srs tresholds) we see with player-coach russell leaving in 1969(both had bad positional replacements). Having done the math(or really looking at statmuse's math), in year two, by net-rating they're a 31-win team without(27-by record) and -0.5 srs with him in games he played >20 minutes(i dont know what the srs is for the without, and no, i am only counting games jordan completely missed for the without).

okay, but even if you want to go that route, and even if we ignore other people points about russell not being the only celtic to leave after 1969, you're comparing young jordan to grizzled veteran russell. young russell was literally a negative WOWY guy his rookie year, even being a year older. in fact, given his tendency to drop in the playoffs early in his career and rise in the playoffs later, it's not impossible that russell was less dominant early and increasing his impact as his career went on, with the uber-dominance of his earlier rosters masking his lower impact, especially in the form of being so dominant that possible series losses just ended as weirdly close 7 game series against weaker teams.

This is an interesting point and under-explored possibility.

Many of us have commented on how 2016-20 Lebron may well be a better playoff performer than 2012-14 Lebron despite the shift in athleticism. By age, that lines up with 1965-69 Russell and 1994-98 Jordan. 1994 pretty irrelevant here, so how about we say we want to look at 2017-20 Lebron, 1966-69 Russell, and 1995-98 Jordan. I have repeatedly said I think Jordan did an incredible job of maintaining his impact to the extent I am pretty confident it outpaced the raw drop in box production — and that is without him having quite the same mental advantage as Lebron or Russell. And it is more than those three: Hakeem, Nash, Malone, Paul, Stockton… So maybe there is some truth to that idea that late career Russell and Jordan could be a lot closer to their postseason “impact” peak than often credited.

[lessthanjake]

I don't have enough time to write a post with convincing arguments (I am abroad for the full week), but it's shocking to me that after all these years people came back to the idea of Russell's Celtics being uterrly stacked and counting HoF teammates in Boston squads. Overall, the level of discussion is high as always, but this particular thing is a big downgrade from what we achieved as a community in this regard.

This is obviously referring to me, but I think you’re missing that I freely acknowledged that some of those hall of famers are basically just in the hall of fame for being along for the ride. My point is that they were really talented teams even when we take a totally sober view of some of those hall of famers. A team with Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Bailey Howell, Tom Sanders, Don Nelson, etc. is an objectively very talented team, and one doesn’t need to blindly rate players on hall of fame induction in order to come to that conclusion. And that’s probably the least talented team of the bunch! I understand bristling at the shorthand of talking about hall-of-famers since there’s some hall of famers amongst those Celtics teams that might be very overrated by that shorthand, but I don’t think that contextualizing that should lead us to a conclusion that Russell’s teams weren’t really talented and certainly not that they were “depleted,” which was the specific claim I was contesting. Russell always had a very talented team, and I think it’d be genuinely odd for someone to suggest otherwise. I think one could make the argument that they occasionally faced similarly talented teams. Perhaps the 1969 Lakers or 1967 Sixers were even more talented! But those Celtics were always quite strong.

Understandable clarification in general but I'd disagree that the team with Hondo/Sam/Bailey was one of the least talented Celtics teams.

Those 3 years I think have a case for being Russell's best supporting cast...thing is: I think Wilt had a more talented supporting cast in all 3 years, and when people push back against the idea of Russell having an amazing supporting cast, that's what they mean.

Certainly it's true that Russell in general played with a good supporting cast, and certainly in the early years that meant having a better supporting cast than Wilt...it's just that while during their career the argument for "Wilt's better but weaker teammates" made sense for most of it, it kinda got killed by the time Russell retired.

Yeah, I think I agree with this. And it’s part of why I put Russell ahead of Wilt. When Wilt had as or more talented teams (though that Lakers team was a bit top-heavy), he still got one title to Russell’s two. My one question with Wilt is whether we think he was still in his prime in the late 1960s. He’d fallen off a lot statistically, but a huge portion of that is surely the effect of being on better teams that he didn’t need to carry the load of nearly as much. And when I watch tape of Wilt from the late 1960s and early 1970s, he does still look extremely athletic. So I’m not inclined to give him much of a pass as being out of his prime. But I guess I can see a possible argument that Wilt basically was on bad teams in his best years, and then when he finally got to good teams he wasn’t quite at his best anymore and therefore was still edged out (though obviously his team did beat the Celtics once). It’s not a story that is particularly persuasive as to Russell vs. Wilt, though, because of course Russell is a couple years *older.* The only other argument Wilt has IMO is that he never played for an organization as competent as those Celtics. I do think that that’s probably true. The NBA was a pretty disorganized league back then, and the Celtics definitely had their stuff together more than other teams—which was a significant factor. But, to me, I don’t think it’s quite enough to put him over Wilt. Wilt’s a really hard one for me to judge though—I go back and forth a lot on how high up he should go, and I think these days I lean lower for him than I used to (probably around the bottom of the top 10).

[ijspeelman]

Vote: Michael Jordan



As a person who wasn't born before Michael Jordan's retirement (the second one, not to be confused with the third one), his name and story were more mythic than real. So naturally, as I got into basketball after LeBron's decision and became a teenager I shunned "his Airness". Only a few years ago when I was in the middle of my college career did I actually get into basketball. Learning about what stats "matter" and what creates value on the basketball court (and how that changes by which era you are in). Learning the different nuances, strategies, rules, and history. As for history, YouTube was a great classroom for actually visualizing these figures and actually watching them play. Who best to start with than Michael Jordan.

What I've learned in the time since watching and analyzing his games is that while it feels everything has been said about Jordan, there is always more to dissect.

I'd like to start off talking with Michael Jordan by saying that I do not treat team achievement as a major factor in determining if a player is great. Its an incredibly helpful indicator, especially when we are talking about the league's/team's best players. Once Bill Russell entered the league, someone from each championship team basically cements themselves as part of the exclusive group that is the NBA's top 100 players. This may partially be winning bias, but it also makes sense that those that provide top 100 value on the court would have a higher degree of team success. With that being said, Jordan's 6 rings are not a determining factor in this ranking (and neither will Russell's 11). However, we can start off by talking about Jordan's playoff series and how he ramped up.

While his points/75 possessions drops compared to his regular season stats for his 6 playoff runs where he won a championship (a 1.28pts/75 difference), his TS% is on average 1.2% higher. MJ, an already incredibly efficient volume scorer, who was on average a +5% relative TS% in these years, increased his efficiency with a marginal decrease in scoring.

Its often said that Michael Jordan was a "tough shot maker". This Jordan, was not. He instead was someone who made hard shots easy ones.

Watch on YouTube

Jordan used his incredible vertical athleticism on his jumpshots to create separation. Much like Kareem with the skyhook, it was almost impossible to get Jordan out of his spot on these shots. Its possible that Kareem's efficiency with the skyhook was only marginally greater to that of Jordan's jumper. However since shot tracking data wasn't available until 1996-97, we didn't have data for a majority of Jordan's or Kareem's career. Dipper15, fellow RealGM user, asked the same question (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1467808). He tracked data from 75 games and put together that Jordan had shot 51.0% from midrange during that period. Now we do not have the same data for Kareem's skyhook, but if I had to guess it is probably near the 55-60% mark. Doing an apples and oranges comparison, Jokic shot 65.5% on post-ups this year. Jokic benefits from a lot better spacing than Kareem ever did so I am knocking Kareem down a little bit (not that Jokic has a move as dominant as the skyhook, but Jokic's post-ups he can use any move).

Michael Jordan also used his scoring to his teammate's advantages. Although Jordan was not the primary ballhandler for a majority of his career, due to Jordan's volume on the ball, he was due to have chances to allow his teammates to score and bend the defense. Jordan did just that. Jordan led his team's offenses to 6 top 5 offensive finishes during his 12 full seasons with the Bulls (most of these happening during the second half of his career).

Watch on YouTube

Jordan did walk away with a DPOY during the early parts of his career. If this was or wasn't earned is questionable. I do think Jordan's defense often is overrated, but there is no question he was an impactful defender at the wing position. Compared to the centers he is up against in the top 100, his defense gets overshadowed just due to his position. He isn't able to be a constant rim protector or perfect weak-side help (though he could do both, especially against smaller players). His best came from his hounding on-ball defense and athletic shot contests.

Watch on YouTube

I think the biggest knock on his defense was his inkling to gamble on defense. Jordan loved to play passing lanes and could be caught over-helping and leaving his man open for a three or a cut. This is less impactful than it would be today, just due to the lack of three point proficiency from the league's base, but it still reads as a negative. The plays where these work look great and result in easy buckets, but the easy ones given up don't make up for it.

Watch on YouTube

With that, I have Jordan at #3 due to what he brought on the offensive side of the ball, especially when the playoffs rolled around. He also didn't give back much on the defensive end and ultimately was still an extremely positive player defensively at the wing position.

Nomination: Kevin Garnett



A lot of these lower spots are dominated by big men and rightfully so. During most of NBA history, if you were an exceptional big man defender and brought anything on the offensive side you were a consistent all-star to all-NBA talent. Garnett brings modern-like switchability, help-side defense, and constant disruption at the big man spot. He also brought what most people credit Duncan with, spacing from the big man in an era with typically poor shooting. Where Duncan trumps him is in the post, both offensively and defensively. However, with Garnett's skillset I think he deserves a spot in our 5 contenders for the #4 spot.

[OhayoKD]

Well, as outlined in the bottom of the post, all that 'improvement" is literally smaller than the drop-off(accounting for srs tresholds) we see with player-coach russell leaving in 1969(both had bad positional replacements). Having done the math(or really looking at statmuse's math), in year two, by net-rating they're a 31-win team without(27-by record) and -0.5 srs with him in games he played >20 minutes(i dont know what the srs is for the without, and no, i am only counting games jordan completely missed for the without).

okay, but even if you want to go that route, and even if we ignore other people points about russell not being the only celtic to leave after 1969, you're comparing young jordan to grizzled veteran russell. young russell was literally a negative WOWY guy his rookie year, even being a year older. in fact, given his tendency to drop in the playoffs early in his career and rise in the playoffs later, it's not impossible that russell was less dominant early and increasing his impact as his career went on, with the uber-dominance of his earlier rosters masking his lower impact, especially in the form of being so dominant that possible series losses just ended as weirdly close 7 game series against weaker teams.

This is an interesting point and under-explored possibility.

Many of us have commented on how 2016-20 Lebron may well be a better playoff performer than 2012-14 Lebron despite the shift in athleticism. By age, that lines up with 1965-69 Russell and 1994-98 Jordan. 1994 pretty irrelevant here, so how about we say we want to look at 2017-20 Lebron, 1966-69 Russell, and 1995-98 Jordan. I have repeatedly said I think Jordan did an incredible job of maintaining his impact to the extent I am pretty confident it outpaced the raw drop in box production — and that is without him having quite the same mental advantage as Lebron or Russell. And it is more than those three: Hakeem, Nash, Malone, Paul, Stockton… So maybe there is some truth to that idea that late career Russell and Jordan could be a lot closer to their postseason “impact” peak than often credited.

Youth -> better regular season impact(higher cieling?), Old -> (more reselient playoff impact(higher floor?)

Interestingly by raw "lift", Kareem Lebron and Jordan all probably peaked at 24.

Some of this might be a product of league-context(aba/nba split, expansion, ect)

[eminence]

Haven't followed closely enough to tell - but this variance discussion, seems to have been started off a claim that z-scores are more favorable to the top Russell Celtics squads and top Duncans Spurs squads relative to MJs best Bulls. Or am I off there somehow?

[lessthanjake]

Haven't followed closely enough to tell - but this variance discussion, seems to have been started off a claim that z-scores are more favorable to the top Russell Celtics squads and top Duncans Spurs squads relative to MJs best Bulls. Or am I off there somehow?

Yes, I think that’s right. Though what I was objecting to specifically is the idea that that method would better identify likelihood of winning a championship than simply looking at SRS (as opposed to standard deviations above the mean in SRS) would. I assumed that the baseline factual claim—i.e. that Duncan’s Spurs were as many or more standard deviations above the mean as Jordan’s Bulls—was correct, without checking if that was actually true, so the discussion was not about the validity of the underlying factual claim.

[ijspeelman]

I don't think we should era adjust TS%. Some guys would have different TS% in their era obviously, but a flat adjustment based on how good everyone else was at the time is misleading because you're punishing guys for being born into a league where people were better at shooting. Reddick would be a GOAT TS% king if we teleported him into 1957. It doesn't mean he was one of the best scorers of all time though. You just have to use common sense and context.

I'd just like to make a quick case for adjusting TS% for era.

We cannot teleport players back, but to rebut lets put JJ Redick in the 1957 as suggested. In this world, JJ Redick does not benefit from the years of advancements we've made strategically with outside shooting or even a three point line. However, lets say he shoots exactly the same % from his best TS% year, 2019-20, where he had 64.4%. He scored 917 points that season, but I need to deduct a point for each three pointer made which was 180 so he made 737 points. This puts his TS% at 51.7%.

In 1956-57, there are still three players who have higher TS% in Neil Johnston, Chuck Share, and Kenny Sears. Also very close behind are a few players that most likely eventually get into our top 100 conversation, Paul Arizin, Dolph Schayes, Bill Sharmin, and Bob Pettit. All these players do not have the benefit of years of strategy building with shooting at long range and can do more than JJ Redick offensively just taking stats at face value.

The only thing each player can do is play in their era with their eras disadvantages and advantages. You cannot punish the players before 1979–80 for not having a three point line and you cannot punish the players between then and 2003-04 for playing in the illegal defense era. Its what they had and all they could do was play with those rules and their strategies at the time.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Vote: Michael Jordan



As a person who wasn't born before Michael Jordan's retirement (the second one, not to be confused with the third one), his name and story were more mythic than real. So naturally, as I got into basketball after LeBron's decision and became a teenager I shunned "his Airness". Only a few years ago when I was in the middle of my college career did I actually get into basketball. Learning about what stats "matter" and what creates value on the basketball court (and how that changes by which era you are in). Learning the different nuances, strategies, rules, and history. As for history, YouTube was a great classroom for actually visualizing these figures and actually watching them play. Who best to start with than Michael Jordan.

What I've learned in the time since watching and analyzing his games is that while it feels everything has been said about Jordan, there is always more to dissect.

I'd like to start off talking with Michael Jordan by saying that I do not treat team achievement as a major factor in determining if a player is great. Its an incredibly helpful indicator, especially when we are talking about the league's/team's best players. Once Bill Russell entered the league, someone from each championship team basically cements themselves as part of the exclusive group that is the NBA's top 100 players. This may partially be winning bias, but it also makes sense that those that provide top 100 value on the court would have a higher degree of team success. With that being said, Jordan's 6 rings are not a determining factor in this ranking (and neither will Russell's 11). However, we can start off by talking about Jordan's playoff series and how he ramped up.

While his points/75 possessions drops compared to his regular season stats for his 6 playoff runs where he won a championship (a 1.28pts/75 difference), his TS% is on average 1.2% higher. MJ, an already incredibly efficient volume scorer, who was on average a +5% relative TS% in these years, increased his efficiency with a marginal decrease in scoring.

Its often said that Michael Jordan was a "tough shot maker". This Jordan, was not. He instead was someone who made hard shots easy ones.

Watch on YouTube

Jordan used his incredible vertical athleticism on his jumpshots to create separation. Much like Kareem with the skyhook, it was almost impossible to get Jordan out of his spot on these shots. Its possible that Kareem's efficiency with the skyhook was only marginally greater to that of Jordan's jumper. However since shot tracking data wasn't available until 1996-97, we didn't have data for a majority of Jordan's or Kareem's career. Dipper15, fellow RealGM user, asked the same question (https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1467808). He tracked data from 75 games and put together that Jordan had shot 51.0% from midrange during that period. Now we do not have the same data for Kareem's skyhook, but if I had to guess it is probably near the 55-60% mark. Doing an apples and oranges comparison, Jokic shot 65.5% on post-ups this year. Jokic benefits from a lot better spacing than Kareem ever did so I am knocking Kareem down a little bit (not that Jokic has a move as dominant as the skyhook, but Jokic's post-ups he can use any move).

Michael Jordan also used his scoring to his teammate's advantages. Although Jordan was not the primary ballhandler for a majority of his career, due to Jordan's volume on the ball, he was due to have chances to allow his teammates to score and bend the defense. Jordan did just that. Jordan led his team's offenses to 6 top 5 offensive finishes during his 12 full seasons with the Bulls (most of these happening during the second half of his career).

Watch on YouTube

Jordan did walk away with a DPOY during the early parts of his career. If this was or wasn't earned is questionable. I do think Jordan's defense often is overrated, but there is no question he was an impactful defender at the wing position. Compared to the centers he is up against in the top 100, his defense gets overshadowed just due to his position. He isn't able to be a constant rim protector or perfect weak-side help (though he could do both, especially against smaller players). His best came from his hounding on-ball defense and athletic shot contests.

Watch on YouTube

I think the biggest knock on his defense was his inkling to gamble on defense. Jordan loved to play passing lanes and could be caught over-helping and leaving his man open for a three or a cut. This is less impactful than it would be today, just due to the lack of three point proficiency from the league's base, but it still reads as a negative. The plays where these work look great and result in easy buckets, but the easy ones given up don't make up for it.

Watch on YouTube

With that, I have Jordan at #3 due to what he brought on the offensive side of the ball, especially when the playoffs rolled around. He also didn't give back much on the defensive end and ultimately was still an extremely positive player defensively at the wing position.

Nomination: Kevin Garnett



A lot of these lower spots are dominated by big men and rightfully so. During most of NBA history, if you were an exceptional big man defender and brought anything on the offensive side you were a consistent all-star to all-NBA talent. Garnett brings modern-like switchability, help-side defense, and constant disruption at the big man spot. He also brought what most people credit Duncan with, spacing from the big man in an era with typically poor shooting. Where Duncan trumps him is in the post, both offensively and defensively. However, with Garnett's skillset I think he deserves a spot in our 5 contenders for the #4 spot.

What he did to your Cavs was also pretty foul...sorry, had too

Great post!

[DraymondGold]

Haven't followed closely enough to tell - but this variance discussion, seems to have been started off a claim that z-scores are more favorable to the top Russell Celtics squads and top Duncans Spurs squads relative to MJs best Bulls. Or am I off there somehow?

Yes, I think that’s right. Though what I was objecting to specifically is the idea that that method would better identify likelihood of winning a championship than simply looking at SRS (as opposed to standard deviations above the mean in SRS) would. I assumed that the baseline factual claim—i.e. that Duncan’s Spurs were as many or more standard deviations above the mean as Jordan’s Bulls—was correct, without checking if that was actually true, so the discussion was not about the validity of the underlying factual claim.

Hi jake and eminence -- since you mentioned that you weren't sure if Duncan's/Russell's teams actually looked better than Jordan's Bulls by standard deviation, I thought I might paste the values in.

Here are Russell's/Jordan's/Duncan's teams by overall (regular season + playoff) SRS:
1. 1996 Chicago Bulls: +16.15
2. 1991 Chicago Bulls: +12.90
3. 2014 San Antonio Spurs: 12.32
4. 2016 San Antonio Spurs: 12.22
5. 1997 Chicago Bulls: 11.34
6. 1992 Chicago Bulls: 11.16
7. 1998 Chicago Bulls: 10.93
8. 2013 San Antonio Spurs: 10.78
9. 1999 San Antonio Spurs: 10.37
10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs: 9.30
11. 1961 Boston Celtics: 9.17
12. 2012 San Antonio Spurs: 9.09
13. 2007 San Antonio Spurs: 9.01
14. 2003 San Antonio Spurs: 9.01
15. 1964 Boston Celtics: 8.76
16. 1993 Chicago Bulls: 8.60
17. 1960 Boston Celtics: 8.53
18. 1962 Boston Celtics: 8.40
19. 1959 Boston Celtics: 8.16
20. 1965 Boston Celtics: 8.14
21. 1969 Boston Celtics: 7.64
22. 1966 Boston Celtics: 6.89
23. 1957 Boston Celtics: 6.70

Best 1 year: Jordan (16.15) > Duncan (12.32) > Russell (9.17)
Best 3 years: Jordan (13.46) > Duncan (11.77) > Russell (8.82)
Best 5 years: Jordan (12.50) > Duncan (11.0) > Russell (8.60)

And Here are Russell's/Jordan's/Duncan's teams by overall SRS Standard Deviation:
1. 1996 Chicago Bulls: 2.63
2. 1991 Chicago Bulls: 2.47
3. 2014 San Antonio Spurs: 2.47
4. 2007 San Antonio Spurs: 2.27
5. 1999 San Antonio Spurs: 2.22
6. 2013 San Antonio Spurs: 2.20
7. 1992 Chicago Bulls: 2.17
8. 1957 Boston Celtics: +2.16
9. 2016 San Antonio Spurs: 2.12
10. 2005 San Antonio Spurs: 2.10
11. 1961 Boston Celtics: 2.08
12. 1965 Boston Celtics: 2.08
13. 1997 Chicago Bulls: 2.04
14. 2003 San Antonio Spurs: 2.03
15. 1998 Chicago Bulls: 1.98
16. 1993 Chicago Bulls: 1.77
17. 1962 Boston Celtics: 1.73
18. 1960 Boston Celtics: 1.73
19. 2012 San Antonio Spurs: 1.70
20. 1964 Boston Celtics: 1.70
21. 1966 Boston Celtics: 1.84
22. 1959 Boston Celtics: 1.63
23. 1969 Boston Celtics: 1.57

Best 1 year: Jordan (2.63) > Duncan (2.47) > Russell (2.16)
Best 3 years: Jordan (2.42) > Duncan (2.32) > Russell (2.11)
Best 5 years: Jordan (2.26) = Duncan (2.26) > Russell (1.86)

Not listed: non-Champion Bulls, other non-Champion Spurs, 1958/63/67/68 Celtics [since these teams are worse and thus aren't listed by Sansterre in the Top 100 ever].

So Jordan's clearly better than Duncan who's clearly better than Russell by overall SRS, out to their best 5 years. By standard deviation, Jordan's better than Duncan and Russell up until 5 years, when Duncan ties (Russell's still clearly behind). Overall, Jordan's teams peaked higher in both metrics, out to Jordan's ~5th best team. However Russell and Duncan had more teams in the Top 100 ever (e.g. their 6th/7th best team is better than Jordan's Jordan's 6th/7th, etc.).

[eminence]

.

.

Thanks Dray. That was kind of my memory, though I couldn't remember well enough to say for sure.

On the overall discussion, I expect standard deviations are probably a marginal upgrade on 'raw' SRS, which is itself a marginal upgrade on MOV, which is at least a somewhat meaningful predictive upgrade on Win% - though debatable if being more predictive is really what we're going for in this project.

So my basic position - two levels deeper than practical and really a waste of time.

[OhayoKD]

Hmmm

I don’t really feel the need to go through all this, because there’s a lot of obviously motivated reasoning going on here

I’ve tried to impart some of that knowledge on you, which you obviously do not independently have. So I’ve come at this from a lot of different angles. You refuse to accept any of it. You will only accept your own arguments that, as far as I can tell, you very obviously came to by simply coming to your preferred conclusion first and then figuring out some sort of lame-brained argument to get you there.

Alright then. Let's see what knowledge you will--

The argument that Duncan’s Spurs were as dominant a team as Jordan’s Bulls despite having worse records and lesser SRS, because of some argument about standard deviations is pretty obviously just motivated reasoning.

“More variance” is otherwise known as a higher parity environment where the best teams win a smaller percent of their games.

No, variance here is essentially referring to how low scores and deeper rosters present easier opportunities for an upset. Three NHL teams have won more than sixty times across an eighty-two season; none of them won the cup nor even made the Finals. NHL and MLB teams could win the same percentage and be innately far more prone to upsets than NBA teams. And it is weird you would try to drag in a baseball analogy without understanding that on a base level.

oh.

Yeah that ain't it chief. Low-scoring games like soccer are "high-variance". High-scoring games like Basketball are "low-variance". When scoring is less frequent, "luck" that might effect said scoring become a bigger factor towards the outcome. Baseball is a much lower-scoring game than basketball. The analogy does not hold.

Nor does this

Haven't followed closely enough to tell - but this variance discussion, seems to have been started off a claim that z-scores are more favorable to the top Russell Celtics squads and top Duncans Spurs squads relative to MJs best Bulls. Or am I off there somehow?

Yes, I think that’s right. Though what I was objecting to specifically is the idea that that method would better identify likelihood of winning a championship than simply looking at SRS (as opposed to standard deviations above the mean in SRS) would. I assumed that the baseline factual claim—i.e. that Duncan’s Spurs were as many or more standard deviations above the mean as Jordan’s Bulls—was correct, without checking if that was actually true, so the discussion was not about the validity of the underlying factual claim.

Yeah, why don't we check that:

The "chance" Duncan was given in season 2 was probably smaller than what Jordan was given for most or all of his championships. And with that "chance", the Spurs went 16-4 and obliterated the competition(by san's std they were actually a bigger outlier than all but 2 Chicago sides).

'
All in all, I think then,it can be reasonably argued prime Duncan
...
-> Led two dominant teams(statistically better than most of the Bulls if you go by standard deviation(more relevant to winning championships than "srs")), one was probably with less
-> Led a third team not too far behind in 2005(not sure what "help" is there but there's still no Pippen equivalent) with less

Yeah, I don't know about you, but that does not read to me like a blanket comparison between Jordan's Bulls and Duncan's Spurs. Rather one between specific teams from that run.

Probably could have worded that less definitively, (San's playoff-heavy method is hardly the only approach) but I do think these claims count as "reasonably arguable"...

[Colbinii]

1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell

Arguably the two most winning-est superstars this sport has ever seen. Jordan was pure bliss during the 1990s, captivating an audience desiring more and more basketball as they fell in love with the game through Bird/Magic. Jordan put his own stamp on the Modern GOAT for this audience as he was widely regarded as the GOAT during his time.

Russell is the ultimate winner and champion. He lacked the total-impact and offensive game of Jordan/Kareem/LeBron [My top 3] to truly separate himself from my next two players [KG and Duncan] but his domination of his own era--even with a more talented arch-rival in Wilt Chamberlain--shows just how clutch and important Russell was to the Celtics 11 Championships.

[Moonbeam]

Great list of candidates. Often, it's easy to eliminate most of them for a choice, but that's not really the case here. Working backwards, the only one that is pretty easy for me to eliminate is the one most recently nominated: Hakeem Olajuwon. I think Hakeem is an incredible player, mind you. But in my view, Tim Duncan is a hard ceiling for Hakeem. Both players were franchise cornerstones for nearly 2 decades and combined jawdropping defense with formidable offense. And I'll note that Hakeem is the ONLY player in history to lead a team seeded below 4th to a title. In fact, there's only one other team seeded below 3rd in history that's ever won a title, the #4 seed Celtics of 1969.

That said, Hakeem's long stretch of elite play didn't yield as many ultra-elite seasons of statistical impact. When I've looked at correlations in change in teammate WS/48 against a change in minutes played with that player as a teammate, guys like Russell and Duncan appeared to be quite undervalued with their impact on defense. Hakeem appears undervalued, too, but not to the same degree (Russell and Duncan had ridiculous correlations of over 0.7 while Hakeem's was between 0.4 and 0.5 IIRC. On offense, there was nearly no change. So through this lens, it doesn't appear that there is evidence that Hakeem is undercredited by Win Shares relative to Tim Duncan, another elite defender who was also a formidable force on offense and the face of a team for 15+ years.

I had previously reported some metrics based on adjusting Win Shares. I'm revising the adjustments at the moment, but I have versions of those metrics without adjusting Win Shares as a sort of baseline. Here's how Hakeem stacks up to Duncan without adjusting Win Shares.

Estimated number of #1 seeds:

Duncan: 2.588
Hakeem: 1.109

Estimated number of Top 3 seeds:

Duncan: 6.893
Hakeem: 3.782

Estimated number of series wins:

Duncan: 16.771
Hakeem: 10.765

Estimated number of championships:

Duncan: 1.331
Hakeem: 0.737

That the ratio narrows for postseason play reflects Hakeem's playoff lifting in comparison to Duncan, but regular season performance matters as well. Without evidence that Hakeem is undercredited by Win Shares more than Duncan is, Duncan will be higher on my list than Hakeem.

Will vote later.

[lessthanjake]

Hmmm

I don’t really feel the need to go through all this, because there’s a lot of obviously motivated reasoning going on here

I’ve tried to impart some of that knowledge on you, which you obviously do not independently have. So I’ve come at this from a lot of different angles. You refuse to accept any of it. You will only accept your own arguments that, as far as I can tell, you very obviously came to by simply coming to your preferred conclusion first and then figuring out some sort of lame-brained argument to get you there.

Alright then. Let's see what knowledge you will--

The argument that Duncan’s Spurs were as dominant a team as Jordan’s Bulls despite having worse records and lesser SRS, because of some argument about standard deviations is pretty obviously just motivated reasoning.

“More variance” is otherwise known as a higher parity environment where the best teams win a smaller percent of their games.

No, variance here is essentially referring to how low scores and deeper rosters present easier opportunities for an upset. Three NHL teams have won more than sixty times across an eighty-two season; none of them won the cup nor even made the Finals. NHL and MLB teams could win the same percentage and be innately far more prone to upsets than NBA teams. And it is weird you would try to drag in a baseball analogy without understanding that on a base level.

oh.

Yeah that ain't it chief. Low-scoring games like soccer are "high-variance". High-scoring games like Basketball are "low-variance". When scoring is less frequent, "luck" that might effect said scoring become a bigger factor towards the outcome. Baseball is a much lower-scoring game than basketball. The analogy does not hold.

You’re completely missing the point, and I feel like you *must* realize it and just want to argue. Yes, basketball games are less random because there’s more scoring, and that’s a huge reason why better teams win a higher percent of the time than in a sport like baseball. But if a basketball league has such parity between teams that, despite that, the best teams still aren’t winning a very high percent of the games (which is what an environment with a low-sized standard deviation would look like), then the playoff results are going to be more random than they normally are in basketball. This is manifestly obvious, because if the best teams typically win a lower percent of their games, they’re almost certainly going to be less likely to win the majority of games in a 7-game series than when if they typically win a higher percent of their games. I genuinely am perplexed how this is a difficult concept for you. You’re just arguing about irrelevant stuff. It doesn’t matter *why* baseball is generally more random than basketball. The only reason I mentioned baseball was as an example of a sport where the best teams don’t win as often, and where that is a huge factor in making playoff outcomes much more random.

Your assertion was that measuring standard deviations above the mean was a better way of measuring a team’s likelihood to win a title than looking at SRS. I disputed that, because that claim basically amounts to saying that a team that wins a lower percent of its games (or outscores opponents by less) in a high-parity league is as likely, if the standard deviations above the mean are the same, to win the title as a team that wins a higher percent of its games (or outscores opponents by more) in a lower-parity league. I don’t think that’s right. The fact that the reason baseball and soccer games are more random is because they’re lower-scoring does absolutely nothing to suggest that I’m wrong about that. It’s just an irrelevant didactic colloquy that you’re going on to try to imply I don’t know or understand some tangentially related thing (and, trust me, the idea that I’d need the concept of variance explained to me—which is very basic concept and you’re talking to someone with a math-related graduate degree—or the idea that you’d need to explain how soccer, which is a sport I know better than basketball, works to me is just quaint).

[Lou Fan]

Vote: Bill Russell
Backup Vote: Michael Jordan

Same reasons as the last two threads. I will say I think the comparisons with series and success between these two is not as ridiculous as some people are making it seem. Even with the same series wins and differing dominance within those series winning a league with 27-29 teams is theoretically about 3-4 times as unlikely. I don't think this should be a very important factor but since people keep harping on it I thought I'd throw it out there that I don't think it's a particularly fair anti Jordan argument.

Nomination: Kevin Garnett

I've been super busy the last few days I'll try to participate more in upcoming threads.