OldSchoolNoBull wrote:OhayoKD wrote:oldschoolnobulls wrote:Different posters have different approaches and therefore opinions. Well spotted.
I was just expressing my (pleasant) surprise at his nomination.
Gotcha.
Longetvity has always mattered to an extent. Walton was never considered a goat-candidate. And if criteria shifting is modernist, than we can apply to this to every standard established at any point in history. Was "leading the league in scoring while winning titles" considered the standard for GOAT in the 60's and 70"s[*]? No.
Perspectives changing does not make the new perspectives lesser than older perspectives. Indeed, if a long-held opinion sees pushback from a bunch of sources, there might be a good reasons for it.
Longevity may have always mattered, but the definition of good longevity has evolved. When Jerry West retired after 14 seasons, I doubt anyone thought he had a longevity problem, but now so many players with a similar number of seasons get dinged for it in comparison to players who have 19 or 20+ seasons.
Sure. I'm not sure why it being different is problematic though. Why should standards be decided based on what they used to be?
I didn't says you "said" anything(and it would be the 2nd time), I commented on how you "didn't" talk about playmaking after you said "jordan's scoring impact probably makes up for the defensive gap"(also baseless but whatever) while ignoring Jordan's at a big disadvantage as a creator relative to all these other all-time offensive players who you were comparing to him merely via scoring(and consequently does not seem to generate the same level of offensive influence as a fair few of them).
I think I still think Jordan’s scoring impact was that big, but that’s probably an “agree to disagree” thing because we’re miles apart on him.
But I was never intentionally trying to ignore playmaking.
Passer rating is from Ben Taylor, right? It’s worth remembering that a lot of his stuff is behind a paywall(I don’t know if that specific stat is).
I mean, there are different ways to get to that conclusion, but yeah that's probably the best granular "box" version of it. I don't have access to his updated whatever, but someone shared his adjusted player scores as of 2018:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NcqcHXyV28OPJpXHz2eSiHZ98x-_WUrtBlb_Z2dcF2A/edit
You can think of adjusted box oc as "volume" and passer-rating as "efficiency".
Just keep in mind that despite the name, it's tracking creation quality, not how skilled a player is at passing(so the types of shots created, era-relative 3-point proficiency, load ect. play a factor)
If you're curious, here's how Jordan stacks up:
Spoiler:
Fwiw, there's also film-tracking on this if you're interested. I can't compile it all now though.
Perhaps. But at least "crazytown" is generally not cherrypicking when things matter and when they don't. (cough Shaq's RAPM cough)
I believe I was using his RAPM to make a specific point about him relating to Kobe. I didn’t cherry-pick anything and I don’t deny KG’s RAPM looks better; I just don’t think it tells the whole story w/regard to KG and Shaq. We can see value in a metric without agreeing with every single thing it says.
KG, Steph, Duncan, and Lebron(even nash and wade depending onw hat you're looking at). And it is somewhat jarring when you have a sustained bout of frustration with Hakeem based on RAPM and then don't comment or acknowledge what it says suggests about Shaq.