Jordan and Pippen Plus/Minus Numbers in the 90s

[MyUniBroDavis]

The only thing I'd add here is that Jordan is not a subpar 3pt shooter. Statistically speaking, you cannot prove he was significantly below league average, especially for 1985 through 1998. I think there's three seasons that are statistically below average. There is one season statistically above. But overall, he's average, not subpar.

Now given the data perspective, from watching several hundred games over that era and gathering nearly 300 games worth of data on Jordan, his realized percentages are lower than his ability because floor spacing didn't exist for him (as -- for example -- in the early 90's BJ was a spacer, playing the Scott/Ainge C&S role at 15-18 feet) and he's definitely got a higher heave rate than most other players in his time.

He shot 29% from behind the unshortened line. This is deeply unserious. The heaves argument is desperate to me. Jordan proved during the shortened season that if he could've shot the 3 well with volume, he would've. But alas, he didn't.

It wouldn’t happen because Jordan wouldn’t settle for 3’s because he doesn’t have to. That’s why he never cost his team a championship because he was so unaggressive and afraid to score while teams went to a zone with aging defenders and Deshawn “next MJ” Stevenson, that it turned him into the 4th best player in the finals series.

You have no evidence that teams could force Jordan to take 3’s and render him a useless scorer. We know teams can and did dare LeBron to shoot, to mostly poor results, but sometimes it cost LeBron series, or even titles. we only know for sure that one of them could be coaxed into being a non factor, and it wasn’t Mike.

I mean it comes down to this lol

If jordan legit can’t shoot the three at all, yeah that would be an issue but it’s nothing like a death sentence you could definately still build an offense around him and gameplan around that. If you don’t do that it’s a legit issue but I also don’t think it matters that much since I don’t like evaluating guys by how they do in dumb situations. Like it is true that teams being able to go under does limit you in some ways with some sets you can run but it’s something you can adjust to as well

Obviously 2011 was a choke job but it obviously wouldn’t apply any years after that if they tried it again, guys learn and all of that, don’t see how it’s relevant here either and esp don’t see how you gonna out titles with an S here

If ur talking about pairing them with another superstar or something then esp if Jordan can’t shoot you prolly gotta pick bron there since the off ball things you do as a non shooter just make more sense with lebron in general.

[AEnigma]

From 1985-93 Jordan attempted 244 postseason threes and made 35% of them. Lebron has several postseason streaks matching or surpassing that percentage over a larger sample of shots, including extended streaks from 2009-14 and 2016-21.

Why push narratives that take half a second to discredit? We want to talk about attacking??? Half of Lebron’s shot attempts are within ten feet of the basket, and most of the time I see Lebron denigrated for not being a good enough shooter to take more shots outside that range, because real basketball is about that sweet spot in no man’s land twelve to twenty feet away from the rim.

Man, framing Lebron as a passive shot-jacker who does not attack often enough compared to Jordan… cannot wait to see what you guys come up with next. Boundless creativity combined with boundless disregard for reality.

[NO-KG-AI]

From 1985-93 Jordan attempted 244 postseason threes and made 35% of them. Lebron has had several postseason streaks matching or surpassing that percentage over a larger sample of shots, including extended streaks from 2009-14 and 2016-21.

Why push narratives that take half a second to discredit? We want to talk about attacking??? Half of Lebron’s shot attempts are within ten feet of the basket, and most of the time I see Lebron denigrated for not being a good enough shooter to take more shots outside that range, because real basketball is about that sweet spot in no man’s land 12 to 20 feet away from the rim.

It’s not a narrative. LeBron shoots a lot lower percentage way more often than he shoots elite percentages, and it shows. I can’t speak for everyone else. I think he should have shot less of them. He could have kept some of the better quality ones, and turned some of the other ones into better shots.

He shot above 35% 7 playoff runs. He’s shot 28% or below in 5 of them. Nearly 1/3 of the time, he’s absolutely putrid from 3. Which is about the same amount (6 times) that he’s better than average or elite. All we have here is a guy that is just way more willing to put up 3’s, even at worst results.

Whether that is a result of him wanting to, believing it’s a benefit, or teams flat out being able to force him to… I don’t think it’s an overall benefit to his game. I think even if Jordan’s percentages held or stayed close to what it was, it wouldn’t benefit him to take much more. I don’t think Jordan would be better if he took and made 3’s at the volume and rate LeBron did. I think both are better off as very low volune 3 guys. Either total bail out heaves, or super high quality looks only.


Maybe Jordan growing up with the 3 as an emphasis actually detracts from his game, who knows.

[AEnigma]

Quick question, which shot is mathematically worth more: a 30% three-point attempt, or a 44% two-point attempt.

[MyUniBroDavis]

Quick question, what shot is worth more: a 30% three-point attempt, or a 44% two-point attempt.

A lot of people think bron got way worse at shooting when it’s just he mainly does it if they go under or he’s taking a leFU three lol

[Heej]

The only thing I'd add here is that Jordan is not a subpar 3pt shooter. Statistically speaking, you cannot prove he was significantly below league average, especially for 1985 through 1998. I think there's three seasons that are statistically below average. There is one season statistically above. But overall, he's average, not subpar.

Now given the data perspective, from watching several hundred games over that era and gathering nearly 300 games worth of data on Jordan, his realized percentages are lower than his ability because floor spacing didn't exist for him (as -- for example -- in the early 90's BJ was a spacer, playing the Scott/Ainge C&S role at 15-18 feet) and he's definitely got a higher heave rate than most other players in his time.

He shot 29% from behind the unshortened line. This is deeply unserious. The heaves argument is desperate to me. Jordan proved during the shortened season that if he could've shot the 3 well with volume, he would've. But alas, he didn't.

It wouldn’t happen because Jordan wouldn’t settle for 3’s because he doesn’t have to. That’s why he never cost his team a championship because he was so unaggressive and afraid to score while teams went to a zone with aging defenders and Deshawn “next MJ” Stevenson, that it turned him into the 4th best player in the finals series.

You have no evidence that teams could force Jordan to take 3’s and render him a useless scorer. We know teams can and did dare LeBron to shoot, to mostly poor results, but sometimes it cost LeBron series, or even titles. we only know for sure that one of them could be coaxed into being a non factor, and it wasn’t Mike.

Once again, we don't watch the same game if you think it comes down to forcing Jordan to settle for 3s vs the deleterious effects of poor spacing overall allowing teams to clog the paint when you have multiple non-shooters on the floor. This is why I say most people watch basketball to gossip and think it's just one big 1v1 game disguised as a team game like baseball is.

[Djoker]

Quick question, which shot is mathematically worth more: a 30% three-point attempt, or a 44% two-point attempt.

Mathematically a 3pt shot in your example is more efficient with 45 %TS compared to 44 %TS with a two-point attempt. But that's looking at it in a vacuum. The 2pt shot is worth more because the likelihood a player gets fouled is higher. The likelihood of drawing a double team is higher on a 2pt shot as well opening other better shots for teammates and increasing the chance of an offensive rebound if the shot is taken. Taking twos also means you're scoring on more possessions limiting transition opportunities for the other team.

Watching a bunch of Jordan games recently, it's shocking to me how many of his misses from midrange end up as offensive rebounds because he draws that second defender and the free teammate simply attacks the glass. That's why saying midrange shots are inefficient offense is a myopic view. The shots themselves don't have a great ROI but a great midrange scorer opens up a ton of space leading to a lot of easy baskets and offensive rebounds. And also leads to more free throws compared to shooting threes.

Of course today with more fouls called on threes and teams not attacking the offensive glass due to defending transition being a greater priority, that value proposition may shift. But I don't think the midrange game is dead or anywhere close to it...

[AEnigma]

Quick question, which shot is mathematically worth more: a 30% three-point attempt, or a 44% two-point attempt.

Mathematically a 3pt shot in your example is more efficient with 45 %TS compared to 44 %TS with a two-point attempt. But that's looking at it in a vacuum. The 2pt shot is worth more because the likelihood a player gets fouled is higher.

To what degree? At the basket, sure. Twenty feet out, not really, except in the end of game sense where teams are always going to be more willing to foul just to make sure a player does not get three points in that situation.

The likelihood of drawing a double team is higher on a 2pt shot as well

Mm in the sense that it is easier for teams to send a soft double when you have put yourself closer to other bodies, but again, threes get doubled plenty today, and that is more valuable because of the space it creates.

opening other better shots for teammates

You tied this to drawing double teams, so in that sense I would tie it back to modern three-point doubles creating clearer openings. But broadly I would probably agree… in the sense that you are more likely to have opened a 3-point shot for a teammate.

and increasing the chance of an offensive rebound if the shot is taken.

True.

Taking twos also means you're scoring on more possessions limiting transition opportunities for the other team.

That is an interesting thought, and because I set the margin of difference at 45% efficiency versus 44% efficiency, for this hypothetical it is probably enough to make up for that 0.02 point difference. Larger margins of difference, probably not.

Watching a bunch of Jordan games recently, it's shocking to me how many of his misses from midrange end up as offensive rebounds because he draws that second defender and the free teammate simply attacks the glass. That's why saying midrange shots are inefficient offense is a myopic view. The shots themselves don't have a great ROI but a great midrange scorer opens up a ton of space leading to a lot of easy baskets and offensive rebounds.

This particular description is very much tied to era and team construction. I agree that it was a high value shot in the 1990s, and specifically on a roster with Pippen and Rodman/Grant.

And also leads to more free throws compared to shooting threes.

This one is excessively influenced by the whistle. A Jordan mid-range is disproportionally valuable for reasons that would not apply to most other players taking the same types of shots. A prime James Harden three-point shot leads to more free throws than… any other three-point shot.

Of course today with more fouls called on threes and teams not attacking the offensive glass due to defending transition being a greater priority, that value proposition may shift. But I don't think the midrange game is dead or anywhere close to it...

Definitely not dead, but it is a lot more limited.

For the broader concept, I think Anthony Edwards will be an interesting test case here. Take out his improvement in three-point percentage and free throw percentage, because both of those should be normalised for the sake of this conversation. If you do that, I do not think he is any more effective a scorer this year despite taking a much higher volume of mid-range shots. But there is something to the idea that shifting his shot distribution has not really worsened his individual efficiency when normalising his conversion rates.

For the sake of a Jordan hypothetical, the question then is whether that would be true if you reduced the perimetre shot volume even further, and whether Edwards’ current league average efficiency is the mark we really want for a superstar scorer.

[Squared2020]

.

[AEnigma]

None of that happened. In the interest of honest communication, I strongly encourage you to get in the habit of quoting people properly rather than inventing your own read on what they said.

Jordan shot 46.2% on corner threes after 1997. That was something you could easily have checked yourself. In tandem with his percentages with a shortened line, I am very confident in his ability to shoot from 21 feet out, but today that is only worth 3 points when at the corners.

[Squared2020]

.

[AEnigma]

None of that happened. Please get in the habit of quoting people properly rather than inventing your own read on what they said.

Alright, this is the last time. Heej said he was a subpar shooter. That's a person. He played a career. He said nothing else until I pointed out data. Then it changed to specific years.

… The data that identified him as an objectively subpar shooter, yes.

He was doing you a favour by focusing on the shortened line. Excising the shortened line years is not necessary to correctly say he was below average for his career, although it is necessary when we want to talk about him as a shooter today, and it is weird that you keep insisting otherwise while also accusing others of “moving goalposts”.

You said that I was lying. That's calling me a liar.

What do you want to call it when you claim people said words they did not actually say.

In a post a year ago, you stated that I should never have released data and that it would be better if I was never around.

This was the comment (seeing as you continue to disregard correct representation):

I respect Squared’s work in trying to put that together, but I wish he had held back on sharing any data that was far short of usual sample standards, because this scattering of games has so far pretty much only worsened discourse.

Again, would be nice if you could show some interest in honest characterisation.

I asked you what I did to you to deserve to be told that I should not exist. You sent me a long PM apologizing when you realized the magnitude of your words.

Since you're keeping this up and continuing this charade, you're done for good.

I am not the one maintaining a charade.

Here is the verbatim PM I sent:

Sorry for not being clear
Sent: Tue Dec 6, 2022 3:40 am
From: AEnigma
Recipient: Squared2020

Hey, just wanted to privately reiterate that I did not intend for those comments to be a slight at you. They were a specifically targeted slight to someone I felt was basically using your work to make bad faith arguments, and because that had been happening quite a bit recently, I really went hard at that misuse. Apologies again for causing offence; I never meant for any of that to ricochet back to you.

I will never understand why people act like none of what we write here is recorded. We can read what is said and what is not said. This is not a matter of memory.

You no longer exist to me.

This “you” in your mind never existed to begin with. You are trying to character assassinate a fiction.

[Squared2020]

.

[magicman1978]

90 up until 93, playoffs includes, in games (139 total) where he took 3 or more 3PAs, MJ shot 38%. 4 or more 39%. 5 or more 40%. I don't think you can say prime MJ was a subpar 3pt shooter. And I think this shows he had the capability to be, at the very least, an average 3pt shooter had he practiced them more.

[AEnigma]

Lebron is a 41% shooter when he takes at least 7 or 8 threes in a game. 39% when taking at least 6 threes in a game.

Obviously Lebron’s problem is he does not shoot enough!

[magicman1978]

Any reason you always feel like being antagonistic in your posts?

Why does this always have to be a Jordan vs LeBron thing?

[Djoker]

Back to our regularly scheduled program. Some Scottie Pippen plus-minus numbers from the box score era: https://squared2020.com/2023/12/07/some-scottie-pippen-historical-plus-minus-numbers/

You read my mind. I was going to ask you to post Pippen's numbers.

Regarding the MJ logs you posted the other night...

We have 63 Jordan games for 92-93 which is ~80% of his season of 78 games.

His 1993 numbers look very good. The team is +489 with him and -75 without him.

1992-93 Net Rating:

ON: +9.5
OFF: -9.9
ON-OFF: +19.4

We also have 78 Jordan games for 95-96 which is ~95% of his season of 82 games.

His 1996 numbers are obviously great. The team is +943 with him and +29 without him.

1995-96 Net Rating:

ON: +16.2
OFF: +2.2
ON-OFF: +14.0

[AEnigma]

Any reason you always feel like being antagonistic in your posts?

Why does this always have to be a Jordan vs LeBron thing?

Would you like me to use another player to illustrate how players have a tendency to attempt more shots when their shots go in?

Dwyane Wade, noted shooter, shot 43% when attempting at least seven or eight. 41% when attempting at least six, 39% when attempting at least five…

[magicman1978]

Any reason you always feel like being antagonistic in your posts?

Why does this always have to be a Jordan vs LeBron thing?

Would you like me to use another player to make the point that players have a tendency to attempt more shots when their shots go in?

Use the same numbers I did then. The initial argument was Jordan's poor 3pt shooting could be used against him so how LeBron or anyone else does shooting 7 or 8 a game is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether or not Jordan could hit 3's if that's what teams were somehow able to force him to do. I don't have data on shot type, but know a lot of the times when he's attempting just 1, maybe 2 a game - a large chunk could be bail out shots. 3+ seemed like a good number to start with. Obviously not to your liking...

[OhayoKD]

.

Well, I gave you a year after you took a personal attack at me

You were not attacked personally. "You are a dishonest person" or "you are a liar" is a claim about you and therefore a personal attack. "You are lying" is a claim regarding something you said. If you want that to be sacred, then I'm not sure realgm is, or ever has been, the right place to post.


You were also not attacked personally a year ago. You jumped in a conversation where another poster was accused of using data recklessly(also not a personal attack) before a line expressing a wish that the data(not you) didn't exist. If you want me to break that down further feel free to ask.

I did not see anything that I would consider "name-calling" but feel free to specify as that is a more ambiguous term that can be defined myriad ways.

Not sure if you are misrepresenting Heej(there's some context-interpretation involved in deciphering that) but you do seem to be misrepresenting your own numbers:

At least by efficiency it seems Jordan's 3-point average was lower than the league average. It is also not shifting goal-posts to argue that the unshortened line is more relevant to assessing Jordan as a 3-point shooter.

Finally, regardless of all of the above, unless the contents of Enigma's pm were doctored(feel free to post a receipt if they were) and you unarguably misrepresented them:

In a post a year ago, you stated that I should never have released data and that it would be better if I was never around. I asked you what I did to you to deserve to be told that I should not exist. You sent me a long PM apologizing when you realized the magnitude of your words.

Sorry for not being clear
Sent: Tue Dec 6, 2022 3:40 am
From: AEnigma
Recipient: Squared2020

Hey, just wanted to privately reiterate that I did not intend for those comments to be a slight at you. They were a specifically targeted slight to someone I felt was basically using your work to make bad faith arguments, and because that had been happening quite a bit recently, I really went hard at that misuse. Apologies again for causing offence; I never meant for any of that to ricochet back to you.

You badly misinterpreted what they said and they more than generously humored you. While I wouldn't use "lie" as it is a term with is generally perceived more aggressively, it can be applied accurately to your comments on this thread.

If you do not want to be told you are lying, then do not lie. Lying about what someone says right after taking offense at being told you are lying is the kind of thing that may lead to someone getting the impression you're a liar.

I do not think you are a liar, but your comments about enigma are lies and anyone reading this conversation neutrally should come to the conclusion you are in the wrong, not Enigma.