lessthanjake wrote:OhayoKD wrote:lessthanjake wrote:
I think it’s very safe to say that the vast majority of people who have watched both series (and many people did, since these weren’t finals that were all that far apart) concluded that Jordan had been superior (a notion that a glance at the box score would also support for most people FWIW), since the reputation of the two series’s are really just not remotely the same, nor was the reaction from people at the time they were happening..
Cool. Now if you and the vast majority of people can explain what your impression explains regarding outcomes, you might have a point.
Otherwise it's quite silly to care that player a scored 45 and player b scored 20 when the statistical CORP-king barely averaged 10 and the best signal from anyone in the 70s or the 80s or the 90s comes from the guy who averaged 18.6. The failure of imagination you and this vast majority share is not evidence.
I think you’ll find that contemporaneous perception of both the individuals you refer to was extremely high,
They were not regarded as highly as direct results suggested they should. Now that those results, beyond simply the championships, have taken precedence, both have enjoyed more favorable runs in this project than the last one or relative to general consensus.
If these initial intuitions were justified, they should hold up. Even if they were somewhat dubious, incumbency is a massive advantage, paticularly in a sport whose narrative-crafters, statisticans, and participants are as defensive against change as basketball. If, despite this, these intuitions come into question, then it's quite pathetic to try and use the original intepretation being different as reason to mantain the status quo. But that's really all you are here to do. It's why you, a repeatedly documented data-cooker. is now making a point of trying to discredit the posters making arguments you have no rebuttal for.
Ideally the work of creating and testing distinct interpretations(including box-scores) would have started decades ago, but it seems you want that process to be delayed further(or never take off at all), lest those interpretations prove to offer advantages in certain comparisons to players you'd prefer not to be advantaged.
The nice things about "extraps" is you can directly see the reasoning and challenge it. You offer nothing to challenge, because you have nothing to offer. And it is high irony to spoof from someone who has repeatedly posted black box metrics that do dozens of these extraps several seasons apart over much tinier samples than what I and others (including the Jordan voters here) use (while ignoring alternative methods of that same type of thing have output Jordan as 4th among his own contemporaries).
Lol, ironically, you’re actually the one who has “offer[ed] nothing to challenge” since you simply said Magic’s 1988 Finals performance was better than Jordan’s 1993 Finals performance, with no explanation at all.
When a player showcasing greater impact than 1993 Micheal Jordan improved the production proxies you put high-importance on vs an elite defense and his team's offense translated much better against said offense than the other stars that offense played (including one Micheal Jordan)?
I didn't mention it because it seemed unnecessary with a voting bloc that regarded Magic as superior to an iteration of Jordan they likely regard as superior to this one.
In any event, I’d also note that including “dozens of these extraps” is actually quite a lot better than cherry-picking stuff to get to a certain preferred outcome like you do.
Makes sense. Extraps are bull. So if we pack more of the things that you consider bull they become genuine.
I am moved.
If you care about evidence and you care about winning, you start with how the arrivals and depatures and minutes of players correlate with winning. If you care about confirming your priors you say "jordan averaged 45" and say "obviously obviously obviously" because....**** all lol
Except actually you selectively *don’t* care about how the minutes of players correlate with winning when RAPM doesn’t favor your position. In that case, you explicitly argue *against* the use of RAPM and instead hyper-focus on WOWY (even when the WOWY samples are small).
I argue against RAPM being used to the exclusion of WOWY, and I argue against weighing samples where a single player dominates the sample since it produces an inflationary effect. If Jordan looks significantly better than everyone in RAPM after everyone's sampled properly, I'll be more confident in him as his era's best player than Hakeem or Magic. In a POY sense that would suffice to flip my 89 and 91 vote. (would flip 91 now in hindsight)
And if that doesn’t work, you cook up some creative “extraps”
Cook up, huh? You mean like when you were upset WOWY and RAPM doesn't potray Jokic as a comparable peak to Lebron, created your own filter for WOWY, compared uneven time frames(4 years to five), and then...ignored the best 5-year signal for Lebron because it still put him above Jokic?
I am specific, you are vague. You seem to take that specificity as fair cause to nitpick and then take those nitpicks as reason to divert focus onto me as opposed to what is argued, even when I acknowledge you as correct and adjust my opinion accordingly
Extraps are bad unless they are stitched together en masse in a way that produces outputs you find favorable. Analyzing production is bad unless they are analyzed in a way that fits your priors. Consensus is bad unless it's a consensus that suits you. Most people who watched the 2017 finals intuited Durant was better than Curry. Was KD your POY?
You are projecting, as you are wont to do. Behind all those paragraphs communicating what could be conveyed easily in a few sentences, is a lawyer using crayons on a wall.
Amusing for a time, but eventually it grows tiresome.
