89 Jordan Assist-Tracking: A Peek at Point-MJ

[70sFan]

Why talking about biases and ideologies instead of focusing on the actual tape analysis? If it's ideologically disturbed, it should be easy to expose.

I don't focus on creation tracking like others do, but it's quite sad that people can't provide anything valuable to this discussion simply because they don't like the results.

[Djoker]

The findings in the OP don't contradict my personal stance on Jordan and Magic. Magic is clearly the superior creator in terms of quality of chances created. What surprises me and goes against my stance is the Bird and Hakeem data. I see Bird as an elite creator and closer to Magic than to Jordan whereas this data sees him as the worst of the bunch.

[lessthanjake]

Why talking about biases and ideologies instead of focusing on the actual tape analysis? If it's ideologically disturbed, it should be easy to expose.

I don't focus on creation tracking like others do, but it's quite sad that people can't provide anything valuable to this discussion simply because they don't like the results.

I think a commentary on biases and ideologies actually adds something extremely valuable to the discussion. If the premise of what someone is doing is inherently flawed, then the entire endeavor is flawed, and that’s an extremely important threshold thing to discuss. As I’ve noted several times across this string of threads, this endeavor is tremendously flawed, because it is an extremely-small-sample-size analysis (and not really a random sample either, I’ll note, since the person doing it is picking what games to post about—who knows if there were non-posted analyses done on other games that didn’t confirm the priors) that is extremely subjective. I don’t have to spend a whole bunch of my time redoing the exercise myself to know either of those things. It is self-evidently tiny-sample-size analysis. And it is also self-evidently subjective, since the things being tallied are obviously really vague concepts. I can read the “definition” of the things being tallied and know that there can and will be a very wide potential range of results in tallying them (yes, almost certainly larger than any variance in traditional stats that may have some subjectivity too). The obvious fact that people have strong biases and ideologies just can make us pretty sure that the subjectivity is a really serious issue—a conclusion that is definitely not refuted when the poster’s conclusions entirely match what I know that poster’s priors to be.

And these two issues (sample size and subjectivity) dovetail together to make me feel like it’s not worth spending considerable amounts of my personal time redoing the analysis and posting about it just to further crystallize this point. There’s two possible outcomes of that:

First, I could do the analysis and come to different results. This is almost certainly the most likely outcome when it comes to subjective analysis. People would then argue with me over my extremely micro-level analysis, which I personally would find not all that interesting because whether I was right or wrong, the small-sample size issue would make the stakes of such play-by-play discussions essentially zero. It doesn’t *actually* matter how many “defenders taken out” a player had in one specific possession in their career.

Second, I could theoretically do the analysis and come to the same results. But would that tell us anything interesting? Well, IMO, not really, because even if I agreed with someone on a player’s creation in a single game, the fact that those sample sizes are tiny would mean that that agreement would be on something that I don’t think really tells us anything important anyways. In other words, even if the analysis actually *isn’t* biased, I don’t think it’s worth much of anything.

So yeah, that’s the issue for me. Basically, I’m very comfortable making certain inferences/assumptions about the likely effects of biases and subjectivity at play here, and I don’t think it’s worth spending tons of my time to further prove those inferences/assumptions correct, since the tiny sample size makes me think the analysis isn’t worth much of anything even on the off chance that I’d conclude it isn’t biased. Why would I spend a lot of my personal time on something that I won’t think is worth much of anything either way? Even quickly writing up this post is pushing it tbh. Is this a somewhat nihilistic view of things? I guess. It certainly suggests I put less stock in this sort of film analysis than other people do. And that’s okay. If you like it and aren’t so bothered by the sample-size issue, then fine. And if there’s others who value this kind of film analysis more than me and have very different biases/ideological views than the OP, they may not think that redoing the analysis is a waste of their time, and it might further a discussion on subjectivity/bias for them to spend their time doing it.

[70sFan]

Why talking about biases and ideologies instead of focusing on the actual tape analysis? If it's ideologically disturbed, it should be easy to expose.

I don't focus on creation tracking like others do, but it's quite sad that people can't provide anything valuable to this discussion simply because they don't like the results.

I think a commentary on biases and ideologies actually adds something extremely valuable to the discussion. If the premise of what someone is doing is inherently flawed, then the entire endeavor is flawed, and that’s an extremely important threshold thing to discuss. As I’ve noted several times across this string of threads, this endeavor is tremendously flawed, because it is an extremely-small-sample-size analysis (and not really a random sample either, I’ll note, since the person doing it is picking what games to post about—who knows if there were non-posted analyses done on other games that didn’t confirm the priors) that is extremely subjective. I don’t have to spend a whole bunch of my time redoing the exercise myself to know either of those things. It is self-evidently tiny-sample-size analysis. And it is also self-evidently subjective, since the things being tallied are obviously really vague concepts. I can read the “definition” of the things being tallied and know that there can and will be a very wide potential range of results in tallying them (yes, larger than any variance in traditional stats that may have some subjectivity too). The obvious fact that people have strong biases and ideologies just can make us pretty sure that the subjectivity is a really serious issue—a conclusion that is definitely not refuted when the poster’s conclusions entirely match what I know that poster’s priors to be.

And these two issues (sample size and subjectivity) dovetail together to make me feel like it’s not worth spending considerable amounts of my personal time redoing the analysis and posting about it just to further crystallize this point. There’s two possible outcomes of that:

First, I could do the analysis and come to different results. This is almost certainly the most likely outcome when it comes to subjective analysis. People would then argue with me over my extremely micro-level analysis, which I personally would find not all that interesting because whether I was right or wrong, the small-sample size issue would make the stakes of such play-by-play discussions essentially zero. It doesn’t *actually* matter how many “defenders taken out” a player had in one specific possession in their career.

Second, I could theoretically do the analysis and come to the same results. But would that tell us anything interesting? Well, IMO, not really, because even if I agreed with someone on a player’s creation in a single game, the fact that those sample sizes are tiny would mean that that agreement would be on something that I don’t think really tells us anything important anyways. In other words, even if the analysis actually *isn’t* biased, I don’t think it’s worth much of anything.

So yeah, that’s the issue for me. Basically, I’m very comfortable making certain inferences/assumptions about the likely effects of biases and subjectivity at play here, and I don’t think it’s worth spending tons of my time to further prove that, since the tiny sample size makes me think the analysis isn’t worth much of anything even on the off chance that it I’d conclude it isn’t biased. Why would I spend a lot of my personal time on something that I won’t think is worth much of anything either way? Is this a somewhat nihilistic view of things? I guess. It certainly suggests I put less stock in this sort of film analysis than other people do. And that’s okay. If you like it and aren’t so bothered by the sample-size issue, then fine.

Tiny sample of size is definitely a strong argument, but nothing stops you or anyone else to go deeper and broaden the sample. I agree that reaching any conclusions from 1 game sample is not very smart, I realized that after tracking games myself (the sample starts to stabilize around 40 games from my observation, though anything above 20 is already very valuable).

Subjectivity is a weak point, because the vast majority of basketball analysis is subjective. A trained eye is definitely closer to evaluate the objective value, but it always ends up with the subjective interpretation. That's why I'm very eager to see someone disputing these situations on tiny level - it's extremely valuable and we can all learn something new.

Biases can be irritating, but as long as you won't bring up your own biases and try to continue an emotionless discussion about this particular analysis (without thinking about the identity of the subject), I think it's not that hard to discuss about the method and the specific actions of the tape. You don't need to discuss with the OP the quality of Jordan's peak, you can only discuss the specifics provided here, or provide something new by yourself.

[therealbig3]

Not talking about anyone specific here, I’m just going to say yes, posters that have biases and agendas do exist, and some may have an anti-Jordan bias, just like there are people with an anti-LeBron bias or pretty much any anti-insert popular player here bias.

But with that said, the 80s and 90s are mythologized to a degree that the later eras are not. Maybe not specifically with this forum, but most of the basketball media are relics from the 80s and 90s and refuse to give the current generation their due. You guys realize that some of the more anti-90s takes or the whole “we done with the 90s” thing was a RESPONSE to the current generation being disrespected and being scrutinized to a level that the 80s and 90s stars just weren’t subjected to.

So of course they look better, because they’re not being contextualized the same. I think overall, a lot of what might seem like “hating” on players like MJ or Bird or Magic is just using the same criteria for them that people use with LeBron or Kobe.

[lessthanjake]

Why talking about biases and ideologies instead of focusing on the actual tape analysis? If it's ideologically disturbed, it should be easy to expose.

I don't focus on creation tracking like others do, but it's quite sad that people can't provide anything valuable to this discussion simply because they don't like the results.

I think a commentary on biases and ideologies actually adds something extremely valuable to the discussion. If the premise of what someone is doing is inherently flawed, then the entire endeavor is flawed, and that’s an extremely important threshold thing to discuss. As I’ve noted several times across this string of threads, this endeavor is tremendously flawed, because it is an extremely-small-sample-size analysis (and not really a random sample either, I’ll note, since the person doing it is picking what games to post about—who knows if there were non-posted analyses done on other games that didn’t confirm the priors) that is extremely subjective. I don’t have to spend a whole bunch of my time redoing the exercise myself to know either of those things. It is self-evidently tiny-sample-size analysis. And it is also self-evidently subjective, since the things being tallied are obviously really vague concepts. I can read the “definition” of the things being tallied and know that there can and will be a very wide potential range of results in tallying them (yes, larger than any variance in traditional stats that may have some subjectivity too). The obvious fact that people have strong biases and ideologies just can make us pretty sure that the subjectivity is a really serious issue—a conclusion that is definitely not refuted when the poster’s conclusions entirely match what I know that poster’s priors to be.

And these two issues (sample size and subjectivity) dovetail together to make me feel like it’s not worth spending considerable amounts of my personal time redoing the analysis and posting about it just to further crystallize this point. There’s two possible outcomes of that:

First, I could do the analysis and come to different results. This is almost certainly the most likely outcome when it comes to subjective analysis. People would then argue with me over my extremely micro-level analysis, which I personally would find not all that interesting because whether I was right or wrong, the small-sample size issue would make the stakes of such play-by-play discussions essentially zero. It doesn’t *actually* matter how many “defenders taken out” a player had in one specific possession in their career.

Second, I could theoretically do the analysis and come to the same results. But would that tell us anything interesting? Well, IMO, not really, because even if I agreed with someone on a player’s creation in a single game, the fact that those sample sizes are tiny would mean that that agreement would be on something that I don’t think really tells us anything important anyways. In other words, even if the analysis actually *isn’t* biased, I don’t think it’s worth much of anything.

So yeah, that’s the issue for me. Basically, I’m very comfortable making certain inferences/assumptions about the likely effects of biases and subjectivity at play here, and I don’t think it’s worth spending tons of my time to further prove that, since the tiny sample size makes me think the analysis isn’t worth much of anything even on the off chance that it I’d conclude it isn’t biased. Why would I spend a lot of my personal time on something that I won’t think is worth much of anything either way? Is this a somewhat nihilistic view of things? I guess. It certainly suggests I put less stock in this sort of film analysis than other people do. And that’s okay. If you like it and aren’t so bothered by the sample-size issue, then fine.

Tiny sample of size is definitely a strong argument, but nothing stops you or anyone else to go deeper and broaden the sample. I agree that reaching any conclusions from 1 game sample is not very smart, I realized that after tracking games myself (the sample starts to stabilize around 40 games from my observation, though anything above 20 is already very valuable).

There is something that stops me from broadening the sample to something that would start to be meaningful, and it is that I have limited time in my life and am not able or willing to spend the massive amount of time that would take. The fact that virtually no one has done that sort of thing (with you being a potential exception?) is definitely indicative of this being the predominant stance on that, even amongst people interested enough in basketball to frequent the PC board. In a perfect world with endless time, we could have large-sample-size film analysis at our fingertips (and have that analysis cross-validated by a wide swath of people, to deal with potential bias), but we don’t live in that world, and the theoretical possibility of it doesn’t require me to put credence on tiny-sample-size analysis.

Subjectivity is a weak point, because the vast majority of basketball analysis is subjective. A trained eye is definitely closer to evaluate the objective value, but it always ends up with the subjective interpretation. That's why I'm very eager to see someone disputing these situations on tiny level - it's extremely valuable and we can all learn something new.

I don’t think it’s a “weak point” at all. The definitions of the things being tallied here are self-evidently imprecise—IMO definitely even moreso than common stats like assists that do have some element of subjectivity baked in. When there’s subjective analysis using inherently imprecise criteria regarding issues that people have strong ideological viewpoints about, I think our baseline assumption should be that subjectivity/bias is a very serious issue. That goes for any analysis done about anything—not just basketball. It’s akin to a think tank doing policy analysis that unsurprisingly comes to the conclusion that their preferred policy would lead to the best outcomes. Any of us should be able to look at that sort of context and have a baseline stance of skepticism towards the analysis, without needing to first engage in competing analysis ourselves. In any event, if a bunch of other people across a wide ideological spectrum re-did the analysis and came to very similar results as the OP, then that might dispute that baseline assumption (though, as I’ve noted, it wouldn’t do anything about the sample-size issue). And for people who aren’t as bothered as me by the tiny-sample-size issue, then that might actually be very valuable.

[therealbig3]

Also, asking why whenever there’s a thread about Jordan it’s usually negative, is a little disingenuous.

He’s widely considered the GOAT by almost everyone, and the basketball media and casuals and even a lot of actual NBA fans consider him the personification of Basketball Jesus.

Making threads extolling his virtues is basically just repeating what everyone has already said about him for almost 40 years now. So a guy who has been touted as perfect…actual discussion will naturally be about “actually, these are the reasons he wasn’t perfect”.

[tsherkin]

Also, asking why whenever there’s a thread about Jordan it’s usually negative, is a little disingenuous.

He’s widely considered the GOAT by almost everyone, and the basketball media and casuals and even a lot of actual NBA fans consider him the personification of Basketball Jesus.

Making threads extolling his virtues is basically just repeating what everyone has already said about him for almost 40 years now. So a guy who has been touted as perfect…actual discussion will naturally be about “actually, these are the reasons he wasn’t perfect”.

And there's never enough equivocation to placate those remarking on how negative it is.

It's like "hey, here are all the great things he did and his achievements and all that. ANd here's a myth which isn't accurate, and here's why, same as we'd do for any other player." "But but but, BLACK JEEEEZUS!!!! REEEEE!" Which is super annoying.

Jordan, more than any other player, enjoys a beautiful miasma of pre-significant Internet nostalgia coupled to an EXTREMELY appealing narrative arc, a style of play extremely appealing to the masses and some major achievements, along with perfect timing. And a lot of that sort of conjunction of things goes into any great career and reputation, right? If he did half of the stuff he did in his own time today, he'd be crucified with today's media. But he was legitimately incredible, head and shoulders ahead of his peers at his peak. And exciting to watch at the same time. But the narrative is critical in the minds of many, and the nostalgia; so much so that many people refuse to acknowledge what went into enabling what he achieved. And that's frustrating. Nothing in team sport happens in a vacuum.

[KembaWalker]

the explanation for the anti-Jordan bias here is rather obvious. if youre amongst a group of "analyticals" who devote a bunch of your free time and effort into the pursuit of "superior" basketball knowledge, arriving at the exact same conclusion that 99% of any random person on the street would tell you is pretty much the worst case scenario. your time is wasted and people won't recognize and differentiate your elevated level of knowledge based simply on your opinion. like, imagine telling somebody at the sports bar that you spent 100 hours on a basketball project and concluded that MJ was the GOAT. they'd be like "uhh, cool. sounds like time well spent there "

so i understand but either way, its usually interesting to observe some of the convo once the weird MJ and Bron stuff is through. if its like others are saying and its infecting even the convo not involving MJ and Bron then thats disappointing

[jjgp111292]

At this point I'm just waiting for the inevitable "Adrian Dantley with a sneaker deal" take.

[Heej]

This is a strange thread. The year he played point for a chunk of the season, Jordan was a superb playmaker.
If he had more practice at the point, I have no doubt that he would have become an elite passer.
One simply needs to watch the 1991 finals, where he took the reins to understand this.
Where he excelled was being able to find bigs inside, which is considerably difficult with a clogged lane.

A (likely biased) analysis of one game can't change this.
From what I've seen from this forum, there's a cult-like attempt to prop up LeBron James and tear down Michael Jordan.
It's bizarre.

By the way, can someone explain why new members must wait four days to post on the general forum but can post
here immediately?

The '91 Finals numbers are a gigantic fluke. He never replicated that again and it's easily explained by 2 massive reasons.

1) The Lakers were depleted, especially defensively with Scott and Worthy being injured

2) This is the only Finals in NBA history where it's been famously reported that one team found the other's full gameplan when Johnny Bach found the Lakers' plan in the trash after Game 2

To be fair Jordan was dicing them up at home to start so some may handwave away the 2nd point, but the first point still remains along with the fact that he never had another facilitating series like this again

Do I agree that he could've gotten better with more reps? Sure. But some guys have a natural ceiling to their court mapping and Jordan showed questionable shot selection even in an era with less complex defenses. No amount of reps would've turned him into a tier 1 passer

[Heej]

the explanation for the anti-Jordan bias here is rather obvious. if youre amongst a group of "analyticals" who devote a bunch of your free time and effort into the pursuit of "superior" basketball knowledge, arriving at the exact same conclusion that 99% of any random person on the street would tell you is pretty much the worst case scenario. your time is wasted and people won't recognize and differentiate your elevated level of knowledge based simply on your opinion. like, imagine telling somebody at the sports bar that you spent 100 hours on a basketball project and concluded that MJ was the GOAT. they'd be like "uhh, cool. sounds like time well spent there "

so i understand but either way, its usually interesting to observe some of the convo once the weird MJ and Bron stuff is through. if its like others are saying and its infecting even the convo not involving MJ and Bron then thats disappointing

No, the explanation is the same as what caused the massive swing in voter sentiment during the elections this year. People are tired of being gaslit in regards to the flaws of the exalted party (in this case Jordan or the DNC), and using illogical talking points and tactics to slander a current candidate in LeBron/Trump.

The backlash wouldn't be as high if the original movement was grounded in logic, transparency, truth, and overall decency as human beings. This is what happens when you tell people for 2 decades straight that a guy with 6 rings playing for a superteam during a watered down era is Black Jesus and it's impossible we'll ever see someone better

[KembaWalker]

the explanation for the anti-Jordan bias here is rather obvious. if youre amongst a group of "analyticals" who devote a bunch of your free time and effort into the pursuit of "superior" basketball knowledge, arriving at the exact same conclusion that 99% of any random person on the street would tell you is pretty much the worst case scenario. your time is wasted and people won't recognize and differentiate your elevated level of knowledge based simply on your opinion. like, imagine telling somebody at the sports bar that you spent 100 hours on a basketball project and concluded that MJ was the GOAT. they'd be like "uhh, cool. sounds like time well spent there "

so i understand but either way, its usually interesting to observe some of the convo once the weird MJ and Bron stuff is through. if its like others are saying and its infecting even the convo not involving MJ and Bron then thats disappointing

No, the explanation is the same as what caused the massive swing in voter sentiment during the elections this year. People are tired of being gaslit in regards to the flaws of the exalted party (in this case Jordan or the DNC), and using illogical talking points and tactics to slander a current candidate in LeBron/Trump.

The backlash wouldn't be as high if the original movement was grounded in logic, transparency, truth, and overall decency as human beings. This is what happens when you tell people for 2 decades straight that a guy with 6 rings playing for a superteam during a watered down era is Black Jesus and it's impossible we'll ever see someone better

oh wow, this post was quite illuminating. i'll uh..let it stand on its own without further comment

[Heej]

the explanation for the anti-Jordan bias here is rather obvious. if youre amongst a group of "analyticals" who devote a bunch of your free time and effort into the pursuit of "superior" basketball knowledge, arriving at the exact same conclusion that 99% of any random person on the street would tell you is pretty much the worst case scenario. your time is wasted and people won't recognize and differentiate your elevated level of knowledge based simply on your opinion. like, imagine telling somebody at the sports bar that you spent 100 hours on a basketball project and concluded that MJ was the GOAT. they'd be like "uhh, cool. sounds like time well spent there "

so i understand but either way, its usually interesting to observe some of the convo once the weird MJ and Bron stuff is through. if its like others are saying and its infecting even the convo not involving MJ and Bron then thats disappointing

No, the explanation is the same as what caused the massive swing in voter sentiment during the elections this year. People are tired of being gaslit in regards to the flaws of the exalted party (in this case Jordan or the DNC), and using illogical talking points and tactics to slander a current candidate in LeBron/Trump.

The backlash wouldn't be as high if the original movement was grounded in logic, transparency, truth, and overall decency as human beings. This is what happens when you tell people for 2 decades straight that a guy with 6 rings playing for a superteam during a watered down era is Black Jesus and it's impossible we'll ever see someone better

oh wow, this post was quite illuminating. i'll uh..let it stand on its own without further comment

Haters gonna hate. Earth gonna rotate.

[jjgp111292]

No, the explanation is the same as what caused the massive swing in voter sentiment during the elections this year. People are tired of being gaslit in regards to the flaws of the exalted party (in this case Jordan or the DNC), and using illogical talking points and tactics to slander a current candidate in LeBron/Trump.

???????????????????????????????????

[penbeast0]

Please keep politics out of these threads. There are few things more derailing. If you have an opinion on the political comments previously, send it to the poster by PM if you like but please don't post it on the PC Board.

Thank you.

[Jaqua92]

Why are there no threads like this about Lebron.

Why the vendetta against Jordan and 90's stars on this board.

I saw various tracking for Bird, Magic, LeBron, Jordan, Hakeem, so either you missed them or just don't like results and how it really was with Jordan. Also probably it's about him currently due to:
a) RPOTY project being in 1988-1991 phase
b) Years of hearing about how he was greatest defender in the league or how could he be the greatest playmaker (if he only wanted) due to his triple double series and so many assists in 1991 finals

It's always good to check what was the reality and what just a narrative

I think this is a bit naive, because it is obvious that some of the tracking was done to prop up certain players (LeBron, Hakeem, and Magic), while some of it was done to tear down other players (Jordan and Bird). If you told me what poster was doing the tracking and what players they did, I could’ve absolutely told you what the general results of the tracking would be for each player before ever seeing it. It’s a subjective exercise being done by someone with a very strong ideological agenda.

Of course, one could argue that, even if the tracking is agenda-driven, the fact that it was done for several players means that Lost92Bricks is wrong that things are focused on Jordan. That’s perhaps a fair point, but even that is a bit naive. Ultimately, the views here are largely downstream of Jordan/LeBron. Let’s take Magic and Bird. Why is propping up Magic and tearing down Bird downstream of a Jordan/LeBron argument? Well, you’ll see these same people arguing that Magic was a heliocentric offensive player like LeBron while Bird was a more off-ball-focused player like Jordan, and that Magic being better offensively than Bird is basically proof of concept that LeBron’s playstyle is more effective and proven than Jordan’s. So these people feel like Magic being superior offensively to Bird fits their narrative about LeBron and Jordan. With Hakeem, it’s just in large part about portraying a contemporary of Jordan as being very close to him (or even better). And this isn’t really me speculating. If you pay attention to what people say across threads, you can see that these arguments about these other players do, in fact, carry through to their Jordan/LeBron arguments, and also that Jordan/LeBron arguments are, by far, the primary focus of these posters. While this post will probably elicit a snarling response or two from certain posters, I really don’t think it’s rocket science to clearly infer what’s going on.

All that said, I don’t think you need to have an agenda to come to the conclusion that Magic Johnson was a better playmaker than Bird or Jordan. So I don’t think it’s all completely off-base, though obviously an inherently subjective exercise being done by an ideologue will basically always just confirm that person’s priors, and indeed that’s typically the point of the exercise.

Because that same guy shows up in every single MJ thread that has potential to say something positive lol

[OhayoKD]

I saw various tracking for Bird, Magic, LeBron, Jordan, Hakeem, so either you missed them or just don't like results and how it really was with Jordan. Also probably it's about him currently due to:
a) RPOTY project being in 1988-1991 phase
b) Years of hearing about how he was greatest defender in the league or how could he be the greatest playmaker (if he only wanted) due to his triple double series and so many assists in 1991 finals

It's always good to check what was the reality and what just a narrative

I think this is a bit naive, because it is obvious that some of the tracking was done to prop up certain players (LeBron, Hakeem, and Magic), while some of it was done to tear down other players (Jordan and Bird). If you told me what poster was doing the tracking and what players they did, I could’ve absolutely told you what the general results of the tracking would be for each player before ever seeing it. It’s a subjective exercise being done by someone with a very strong ideological agenda.

Of course, one could argue that, even if the tracking is agenda-driven, the fact that it was done for several players means that Lost92Bricks is wrong that things are focused on Jordan. That’s perhaps a fair point, but even that is a bit naive. Ultimately, the views here are largely downstream of Jordan/LeBron. Let’s take Magic and Bird. Why is propping up Magic and tearing down Bird downstream of a Jordan/LeBron argument? Well, you’ll see these same people arguing that Magic was a heliocentric offensive player like LeBron while Bird was a more off-ball-focused player like Jordan, and that Magic being better offensively than Bird is basically proof of concept that LeBron’s playstyle is more effective and proven than Jordan’s. So these people feel like Magic being superior offensively to Bird fits their narrative about LeBron and Jordan. With Hakeem, it’s just in large part about portraying a contemporary of Jordan as being very close to him (or even better). And this isn’t really me speculating. If you pay attention to what people say across threads, you can see that these arguments about these other players do, in fact, carry through to their Jordan/LeBron arguments, and also that Jordan/LeBron arguments are, by far, the primary focus of these posters. While this post will probably elicit a snarling response or two from certain posters, I really don’t think it’s rocket science to clearly infer what’s going on.

All that said, I don’t think you need to have an agenda to come to the conclusion that Magic Johnson was a better playmaker than Bird or Jordan. So I don’t think it’s all completely off-base, though obviously an inherently subjective exercise being done by an ideologue will basically always just confirm that person’s priors, and indeed that’s typically the point of the exercise.

Because that same guy shows up in every single MJ thread that has potential to say something positive lol

And by "potential to say something positive" you mean "post fake data to make Jordan look good"
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2365004&p=111986927&hilit=jordan+isolation#p111986927
This was jaqua's response by the way:

Spoiler:

That dude shows up in every single MJ thread with some biased statistical effort to discredit MJ. Every single thread.

Ignore him.

Even when being fed or feeding complete and total bullshi-t, they will insist you are the problem when you dare posit that the earth might be round.

To be clear, the "they" here is plural:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2387572
On the basis of
-> the largest home-away differential of the era
-> a near negligible differential in the thing steals are supposed to force (turnovers)
-> 10 tracked games(which have now been publicly peer-reviewed and reaffirmed by a party insisting the original author is biased) showing an overcounting by a factor of 2

Tom Haberstroh asserted that there was home-cooking for Micheal Jordan's steals and blocks (duh>

Kemba walker responded by...

I mean, if everyone relevant was getting juiced the same way I don’t see how it matters that much. Pulled up Alvin who was referenced frequently in the article and his splits were basically the same

Logic would dictate these same away scorekeepers would be just as motivated to deflate road guys stats if they have someone they are trying to juice, although this may be less common since a lot of teams probably didn’t have a guy in the race. Box scores are pretty junk all around

Insisting the earth was flat.

Now faced with the possibility that the gravitational center of their basketball fandom was not in fact a perfect sphere, the same folks too lazy to read the articles they criticize, or watch the time-stamps of the games they argue are being maliciously misinterpreted, have opted for projection

Why are there no threads like this about Lebron.

Why the vendetta against Jordan and 90's stars on this board.

I saw various tracking for Bird, Magic, LeBron, Jordan, Hakeem, so either you missed them or just don't like results and how it really was with Jordan. Also probably it's about him currently due to:
a) RPOTY project being in 1988-1991 phase
b) Years of hearing about how he was greatest defender in the league or how could he be the greatest playmaker (if he only wanted) due to his triple double series and so many assists in 1991 finals

It's always good to check what was the reality and what just a narrative

I think this is a bit naive, because it is obvious that some of the tracking was done to prop up certain players (LeBron, Hakeem, and Magic), while some of it was done to tear down other players (Jordan and Bird). If you told me what poster was doing the tracking and what players they did, I could’ve absolutely told you what the general results of the tracking would be for each player before ever seeing it. It’s a subjective exercise being done by someone with a very strong ideological agenda.

the explanation for the anti-Jordan bias here is rather obvious. if youre amongst a group of "analyticals" who devote a bunch of your free time and effort into the pursuit of "superior" basketball knowledge, arriving at the exact same conclusion that 99% of any random person on the street would tell you is pretty much the worst case scenario. your time is wasted and people won't recognize and differentiate your elevated level of knowledge based simply on your opinion. like, imagine telling somebody at the sports bar that you spent 100 hours on a basketball project and concluded that MJ was the GOAT. they'd be like "uhh, cool. sounds like time well spent there "

so i understand but either way, its usually interesting to observe some of the convo once the weird MJ and Bron stuff is through. if its like others are saying and its infecting even the convo not involving MJ and Bron then thats disappointing

This is a strange thread. The year he played point for a chunk of the season, Jordan was a superb playmaker.
If he had more practice at the point, I have no doubt that he would have become an elite passer.
One simply needs to watch the 1991 finals, where he took the reins to understand this.
Where he excelled was being able to find bigs inside, which is considerably difficult with a clogged lane.

A (likely biased) analysis of one game can't change this.
From what I've seen from this forum, there's a cult-like attempt to prop up LeBron James and tear down Michael Jordan.
It's bizarre.

By the way, can someone explain why new members must wait four days to post on the general forum but can post
here immediately?

Maybe because we are running a Retro Player of the Year project that happens to have been covering 1989 and 1990 this week. Or is that not conspiratorial enough for you.

It's been going on longer than this project and you know it.

Y'all are picking at his career in every way. There are rarely any positive threads on here about MJ.

You can make these assist tracking, discrediting type threads about every player. But you focus on him.

Let's compare this to what happens when Pro-Jordan guys post tracking they believe is favorable for MJ:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=172947
Considering the rampant "anti-jordan bias" supposedly poisoning all discourse, surely this tracking, small-sampled and without time-stamps or play-by-play descriptions, met backlash...

There's no way no one pointed out this is "essentially meaningless" and "we could have predicted the data beforehand" and "how the heck do we peer review this".

There's no chance Djoker wasn't accused of "propping up" Jordan due to an obvious pro MJ agenda.

There's no way their effort was met with, from the Jordan-haters, gratitude and and1's, and even some ballot consideration considering the scarcity of data available for the time period.

But it was. Whatever disagreements and mythological questions we had, we gave Djoker the benefit of the doubt, even though they hadn't really given us a way to check their work.

Yet you dweebs, given not only descriptions of each possession, but time-stamps of every single play tracked, unanimously jumped to conspiratorial accusations because, shocker, it is possible that Jordan, not an all-time passer, is oversold by his assist averages relative to actual all-time passers.

There's a term for this. Oh yeah

No, the explanation is the same as what caused the massive swing in voter sentiment during the elections this year. People are tired of being gaslit

???????????????????????????????????

Hopefully this answers your (implied) question

As this is a board which encourages and enforces civility, I will refrain from calling all of you what I think you are.

Instead I'll posit what I think might prove a productive exercise.

You think I'm cooking the numbers for an agenda? Cool. Show your work:

I have posted the video and I have posted the time-stamps. Currently the singular example of someone going through the assists and disagreeing with a specific judgment came in the Bird thread, where the poster argued I was too generous with an assist i graded for someone I am apparently screwing over.

My agenda or bias really does not matter unless it actually adversely affects the interpretation of the film, and I have provided all that one needs to vet my tracking for such adverse effects. Those who are too lazy to engage in such a process, are admitting they are also too lazy to have a valuable opinion on the bias or lackthereof present here

If you can't. Then maybe. Just maybe. It's time to shut the **** up.

Either way I'll start tracking for 93 now. Maybe y'all can go 3 for 3 on threads/collective tantrums

[KembaWalker]

edit: nevermind this is not even worth engaging with here actually, good lord. Send me a link to the discord server in PM

[lessthanjake]

edit: nevermind this is not even worth engaging with here actually, good lord. Send me a link to the discord server in PM

The best part is that that post signs off by suggesting *others* are having “tantrums.”