Retro Player of the Year 1992-93 UPDATE — Hakeem Olajuwon

[Djoker]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

Being as critical of Lebron as we are of Jordan, Lebron should not win POY in any year. If I was as biased as some cats in these thread, 2009 Lebron would be behind Kobe, Wade and Dwight at least.

[OhayoKD]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

Being as critical of Lebron as we are of Jordan, Lebron should not win POY in any year. If I was as biased as some cats in these thread, 2009 Lebron would be behind Kobe, Wade and Dwight at least.

Why would a player who sees 60-win teams turn into sub-20-win teams be treated the same as someone who sees 25-win teams turn into 50-win ones?

[lessthanjake]

With Lebron? Sure. Without Lebron? Reality disagrees.



He also had an ast:tov percentage of 55:8 and anchored a -5 playoff defense which turned -5 against the Warriors with a cast of defenders which were neutral/negatives that year before being traded to play with Lebron.

Jordan nor Steph has ever created or defended like that in their lives. That's the difference between being crowned the best and actually being the best.

I think this whole discussion is really off-topic, but I just want to note that “ast:tov percentage” is not a real stat and is really misleading. The denominator in assist % and turnover % are not at all the same—assist % is the percent of teammates FGs assisted by the player, while turnover % is an estimate of turnovers per 100 plays. It does not make any sense whatsoever to combine these two stats into some kind of ratio

It correlates better with team offensive rating than raw assist:tov per nylon calc tests. Though for whatever reason I've never seen it tested against "percentage of teammate assists": "percentage of teammates turnovers"

I’d be interested in a link to what you’re referring to. I cannot find it. I suspect you’re probably referring to something about stats measured at a team level, where it might be a little less non-sensical to use, and would be much closer to raw assist:turnover ratio than it would be when measured for an individual. That’s because the denominator for the team’s assist % is the total number of FGs by the team, while for an individual player the denominator for that stat excludes that player’s own FGs—which means that the denominators for assists and turnovers will be materially closer to each other for a team version of the stat. Moreover, if it were the case that there’s a nylon calc test indicating that team assist:turnover ratio is less correlated with offensive rating than this assist % to turnover % ratio, then it’s because the amount by which those two ratios would differ at the team level would basically be mechanically dependent on the factors that make the difference between the two ratios bigger or smaller. After all, the only reason one of those ratios would correlate with team offensive rating better than the other is if the things that cause different teams to have different relative differences between the two ratios correlate with team offensive rating. So, for instance, the more FTs you get, the smaller the team assist % denominator (team FGs) will be compared to the turnover % denominator (100 possessions). In other words, the difference between these two stats at the team level would be mechanically affected by how many FTs a team got—with teams with more FTs having their assist % to turnover % be higher relative to assist:turnover ratio than teams with fewer FTs. I imagine it is probably the case that teams with more FTs have better offensive ratings, so this sort of thing would make us expect for this to correlate better with offensive rating at a team level. The fact that getting more FTs is good doesn’t mean it is actually sensical to use a stat that confusingly compares things with different denominators, and it certainly doesn’t mean it makes sense to use the stat at the individual level rather than the team level.

But it also doesn’t really matter much in terms of my post since my point was basically just that, at a quick read, your post read like it was reporting an assist:turnover ratio, but it actually wasn’t. Indeed, the only reason I figured out what you were actually referring to is that I saw your post, thought to myself “Wow, did LeBron really have 55 assists and only 8 turnovers in the 2015 Finals?” and then looked it up and saw that wasn’t the case and figured out what you were actually referring to. In other words, I thought it was misleading because I legitimately initially misunderstood what you said until I spent a moment looking into it. As I said, that seemed worth clarifying, especially since others won’t all necessarily look it up to check. I don’t think I’d have responded if it was worded in a way where it was entirely clear what you meant.

[homecourtloss]

No, come on. Everyone accepts the idea that Pippen is one of if not the best perimeter defender of all time yet Bach along with others think Grant had more impact on that end. Then he's also capable of spreading the floor a bit, can rebound quite well and is getting more win shares than Pippen some years. Does this mean I think he was better or more valuable than Pippen? Not exactly but that's partly because Pippen was generally a lot better in the playoffs in comparison. Grant was a big part of those teams though. Also, he goes to Orl and they go from 8th to 3rd in srs(granted Penny is improving as well) but then also knock out the Bulls and then the next year Grant is out and they get swept(put up 18/11 on 67%ts vs the Bulls in 95 and 18/11 the series before them in 96 before getting injured in game 1). With Grant that series likely goes down very differently.
I'm sorry but Grant was a really good player. Not top 15 most years but he peaked at #3 in win shares and #9 in vorp in the entire league in 92. He was like a perfect #3 for that team. He should have been more like a 3-4x all star but guys who avg less than 15ppg hardly ever get into all star games.

It’s very interesting that we have somebody talking about how Tom Chambers still added value, but Horace Grant was just another good NBA starter and nothing more. He didn’t receive “recognition” from people who basically only valued points per game, especially in that era. By the way, if you watch the 1995 series against the bulls, horace Grant gets a lot of credit and recognition for having a value added game in every facet of basketball. I know there’s a lot of people who talk about “didn’t watch the games back then,” but I’m really wondering about people here if they did watch basketball and Horace Grant and Tom Chambers in 1993 if they are making these types of comments. You had one older player who was slowed down and wasn’t efficient on offense anymore and was a negative on defense and was soon to be out of the NBA while on the other hand you had a very good defensive player who could also shoot, who could rebound, who was completely unselfish, had a nonstop motor, was very good in transition, and by every conceivable measure that we have was a plus player and a major part of the bulls’ uptick from a good team to a great one. Yes, he wasn’t recognized as something more or whatever the argument is because these types of players weren’t appreciated as much in that era.

You seem to be suggesting that calling someone a “good NBA starter” is an insult. Someone who is a good NBA starter is basically at least a top 75 player in the NBA (since there’s 150 starters, so the median starter should be about the 75th best player, though some 6th men can complicate that slightly). And if we’re really labeling them a “good starter” then they’re probably a decent bit above that median-starter line. It’s not an insult, nor is it disproven by listing things that Horace Grant was good at. Good starters in the NBA are good at a lot of things!

Meanwhile, I don’t know why you are harping so much about Tom Chambers having “slowed down,” given that the first post in which I mentioned him specifically talked about him having taken a step back by that point, and said I wouldn’t label the 1993 Suns a super team in significant part because of that and that Majerle was better than Chambers at that point. Did you not read that? By 1993, Chambers’s name was bigger than his actual on-court value. But having big names is part of the “super team” equation (though maybe a cosmetic one that we shouldn’t care about very much on its own—but that goes more to the “super team” label mostly being dumb in the first place). In any event, the more important part of my posts on this has been about the SRS that those pre-Barkley Suns put up. It’s something that the Bulls without Jordan really couldn’t touch. Those Suns were a really good team! The bottom line is that those Suns without Barkley averaged 6.53 SRS over a four-year span and made multiple conference finals, and then lost Jeff Hornacek but gained Danny Ainge (along with Barkley). The Bulls without Jordan didn’t crack 4 SRS either year and were below 3 SRS their one full season without Jordan, and that’s despite adding multiple pieces from what they had with Jordan. There’s not much comparison between the quality of those supporting casts IMO, if we’re just indexing on how well the teams did without their star (which is what people almost exclusively index on to try to call the Bulls a “super team”).

You made a comparison of Chambers and Grant in a discussion about possible superteams. You begin by stating the case that the Suns have a better case as one (even if neither qualify as a “superteam”) because they have superior cast and mention Chambers because he had “recognition” even though that doesn’t mean anything since it wasn’t recognition for that season and even it were, we know a great deal now about “recognition” given to players who weren’t positives on court anymore.

The Suns had two major superstars (Barkley and Kevin Johnson). The Bulls had that too, so that’s not a distinguishing factor. But Tom Chambers had made All-NBA second team and had multiple top 10 MVP finishes just a few years before. The Bulls didn’t have anyone with that kind of recognition—with Horace Grant being their 3rd best player and he was a one-time all star.

So Chambers made some All-Star teams years before and was top 10 in mvp votes a few years before and therefore even though he might have taken a step back, he was “still a good player.” No he wasn’t. Grant having only one all-star recognition means nothing as his archetype of player was one few paid attention to though we now know are critical and essential to winning,

I agree that Chambers wasn’t his prime self anymore, though I think him being a 12/5/2 sixth man is in significant part a result of being a power forward on a team that now had Charles Barkley. But I agree that he’d taken a step back. [b]He was still a good player though[/], albeit age had started catching up to him by that point…Horace Grant was a good player, but let’s remember that he went to another team in his prime and didn’t get a whole lot of recognition or become a major star there either. This wasn’t about people promoting Jordan or Pippen. Horace Grant was just a good NBA starter and nothing much more than that. I’d put him at about the same level as a guy like Aaron Gordon nowadays (not that they have all the exact same strengths and weaknesses, of course).

Not sure if you even watched him in 1993. Chambers was already a liability on defense DURING his all-star years despite some highlight plays and by 1993 was a major liability on defense. We don’t have the full on-off numbers for 1993, but there’s a 95%+ chance he was a negative player in 1993. So he didn’t just “take a step back” and no he wasn’t “still a good player.” He was already negative player who the very next year couldn’t stay on court and was soon out of the NBA.

Meanwhile, the player on the Bulls that you made the case for the third best player was more than just a good nba starter and by every possible measure we have was a a top 25 impact player during this run (minimum 90th—95th percentile impact player in the league) His archetype, i.e., high motor, unselfish, versatile defender, etc., is almost always a plus player on every impact database.

Chambers was a negative player in 1993 while Grant was a top25-top50 (at minimum) impact player. You comparing the two and not accepting the massive difference between the two is your attempt to downplay Jordan’s cast.

[lessthanjake]

You made a comparison of Chambers and Grant in a discussion about possible superteams. You begin by stating the case that the Suns have a better case as one (even if neither qualify as a “superteam”) because they have superior cast and mention Chambers because he had “recognition” even though that doesn’t mean anything since it wasn’t recognition for that season and even it were, we know a great deal now about “recognition” given to players who weren’t positives on court anymore.

The Suns had two major superstars (Barkley and Kevin Johnson). The Bulls had that too, so that’s not a distinguishing factor. But Tom Chambers had made All-NBA second team and had multiple top 10 MVP finishes just a few years before. The Bulls didn’t have anyone with that kind of recognition—with Horace Grant being their 3rd best player and he was a one-time all star.

So Chambers made some All-Star teams years before and was top 10 in mvp votes a few years before and therefore even though he might have taken a step back, he was “still a good player.” No he wasn’t. Grant having only one all-star recognition means nothing as his archetype of player was one few paid attention to though we now know are critical and essential to winning,

I agree that Chambers wasn’t his prime self anymore, though I think him being a 12/5/2 sixth man is in significant part a result of being a power forward on a team that now had Charles Barkley. But I agree that he’d taken a step back. [b]He was still a good player though[/], albeit age had started catching up to him by that point…Horace Grant was a good player, but let’s remember that he went to another team in his prime and didn’t get a whole lot of recognition or become a major star there either. This wasn’t about people promoting Jordan or Pippen. Horace Grant was just a good NBA starter and nothing much more than that. I’d put him at about the same level as a guy like Aaron Gordon nowadays (not that they have all the exact same strengths and weaknesses, of course).

Not sure if you even watched him in 1993. Chambers was already a liability on defense DURING his all-star years despite some highlight plays and by 1993 was a major liability on defense. We don’t have the full on-off numbers for 1993, but there’s a 95%+ chance he was a negative player in 1993. So he didn’t just “take a step back” and no he wasn’t “still a good player.” He was already negative player who the very next year couldn’t stay on court and was soon out of the NBA.

Meanwhile, the player on the Bulls that you made the case for the third best player was more than just a good nba starter and by every possible measure we have was a a top 25 impact player during this run (minimum 90th—95th percentile impact player in the league) His archetype, i.e., high motor, unselfish, versatile defender, etc., is almost always a plus player on every impact database.

Chambers was a negative player in 1993 while Grant was a top25-top50 (at minimum) impact player. You comparing the two and not accepting the massive difference between the two is your attempt to downplay Jordan’s cast.

Your post kind of answers itself. Yes, you are of course correct that I “mention[ed] Chambers because he had ‘recognition.’” That was clear from my post, which explicitly said that (and “recognition” was brought up because the discussion was about the specific term “super team,” which I take to involve some assessment of the name brands of the team’s players, for better or worse). I also said multiple times that he wasn’t as good as before by that point and provided that as an explicit basis for my conclusion that the 1993 Suns weren’t a super team. We could debate the extent of the step down Chamber took, but that seems like a real rabbit hole, and here it’s largely just you speculating about what you think data would say.

As for Grant, I don’t think we quite agree, though I don’t know that my view of him is actually far off from the lower end of what you suggest you think he was. I wouldn’t argue much at all with someone saying he was a “top 50” player, which is something I’d see as pretty similar to me saying he was a “good starter.” I will note, however, that you’re focused very specifically on 1993 when talking about Chambers but then aren’t acknowledging that 1993 was a genuine down year for Grant. It’s definitely not so clear to me that, in 1993 specifically, Grant was as good as you’re suggesting. That said, I do agree of course that Grant was a better player than Chambers in 1993. I do not, however, think he was better than Majerle—which is the player I very explicitly mentioned from the get-go as the 1993 Suns third-best player. Given that, it’s not clear why you keep focusing entirely on a comparison with Chambers, except that you’re wanting to get mad at a straw man. And, I’ll note that, in responding to me, you just ignore the part that I specifically labeled as “the more important part of my posts,” regarding the SRS that those pre-Barkley Suns put up—which is likely because it speaks for itself and demonstrates my point irrespective of any discussion of Tom Chambers.

[OhayoKD]

I think this whole discussion is really off-topic, but I just want to note that “ast:tov percentage” is not a real stat and is really misleading. The denominator in assist % and turnover % are not at all the same—assist % is the percent of teammates FGs assisted by the player, while turnover % is an estimate of turnovers per 100 plays. It does not make any sense whatsoever to combine these two stats into some kind of ratio

It correlates better with team offensive rating than raw assist:tov per nylon calc tests. Though for whatever reason I've never seen it tested against "percentage of teammate assists": "percentage of teammates turnovers"

I’d be interested in a link to what you’re referring to. I cannot find it. I suspect you’re probably referring to something about stats measured at a team level, where it might be a little less non-sensical to use, and would be much closer to raw assist:turnover ratio than it would be when measured for an individual. That’s because the denominator for the team’s assist % is the total number of FGs by the team, while for an individual player the denominator for that stat excludes that player’s own FGs—which means that the denominators for assists and turnovers will be materially closer to each other for a team version of the stat.

Yeah it was a team thing. I'll look. Saw it around the top 40 release but idk where. Assumed Nylon since that's where the box-creation thing was but idk.

use a stat that confusingly compares things with different denominators

Ratios with different denominators aren't uncommon though. That said, given I initially confused the % being the same when I first saw it used, it's probably wise to spell it out rather than just list it that way. "Lebron assisted 55 percent of his team-shots and only turned it over on 8 percent of his possessions" should do it.

[AEnigma]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

Being as critical of Lebron as we are of Jordan, Lebron should not win POY in any year. If I was as biased as some cats in these thread, 2009 Lebron would be behind Kobe, Wade and Dwight at least.

This is legitimately the most Jordan-obsessed statement you have ever made, and by far the most concerning statement anyone has made in this entire project.

If the idea that 1989 Magic and 1993 Hakeem had more impressive seasons than Jordan is such an anathema to you — in years where consensus at the time already had both ahead in the regular season — that you think in turn that “Lebron should not win POY in any year” and 2009 Lebron should be below Kobe, Wade, and Dwight by the same standards (which are literally just being better and more valuable than the competition), then — and I say this as a poster, not as a project-runner — it does not seem like you ever really cared about this exercise or what people have been saying.

By your own numbers, Hakeem was providing 22-win lift. If you want to say that was less impressive than what Jordan provided to a better team, you can do so. Now, what arguments would those three players have for any of it when Lebron’s Cavaliers were the best regular season team in the league despite being a demonstrably much worse cast than the Lakers or Magic? If you want vote purely on success, hey, you can do that too… but then you never would have picked Jordan above Magic in 1988, and then you would still be voting for Lebron at least four times.

You have been a fine poster throughout this project, but your devotion to Jordan specifically is spiralling out of control.

[Djoker]

I don't have a problem with Hakeem over Jordan in '93 but I want people do be consistent when it comes Lebron in the 2010's. He was very clearly outplayed by other players in some of those years.

2009, 2010 and 2012, 2013 are the only years where he was clearly better than everybody. But I'm sure the data will somehow show that he was the best player in years like 2015 or 2017.

Being as critical of Lebron as we are of Jordan, Lebron should not win POY in any year. If I was as biased as some cats in these thread, 2009 Lebron would be behind Kobe, Wade and Dwight at least.

This is legitimately the most Jordan-obsessed statement you have ever made, and by far the most concerning statement anyone has made in this entire project.

If the idea that 1989 Magic and 1993 Hakeem had more impressive seasons than Jordan is so anathema to you — in years where consensus at the time already had both ahead in the regular season — that you think in turn “Lebron should not win POY in any year” by the same standards (which are literally just being better and more valuable than the competition), such that 2009 Lebron should be below Kobe, Wade, and Dwight, then — and I say this as a poster, not as a project-runner — it does not seem like you ever really cared about this exercise or what people have been saying.

By your own numbers, Hakeem was providing 22-win lift. If you want to say that was less impressive than what Jordan provided to a better team, you can do so. Now, what arguments would those three players have for any of it when Lebron’s Cavaliers were the best regular season team in the league despite being a demonstrably much worse cast than the Lakers or Magic? If you want vote purely on success, hey, you can do that too… but then you never would have picked Jordan above Magic in 1988, and then you would still be voting for Lebron at least four times.

You have been a fine poster throughout this project, but your devotion to Jordan specifically is spiralling out of control.

You must have missed the word "if" in my post. No worries.

Also no offense, but you're not exactly someone I would take seriously lecturing me about impartiality anyways.

[AEnigma]

Being as critical of Lebron as we are of Jordan, Lebron should not win POY in any year. If I was as biased as some cats in these thread, 2009 Lebron would be behind Kobe, Wade and Dwight at least.

This is legitimately the most Jordan-obsessed statement you have ever made, and by far the most concerning statement anyone has made in this entire project.

If the idea that 1989 Magic and 1993 Hakeem had more impressive seasons than Jordan is such an anathema to you — in years where consensus at the time already had both ahead in the regular season — that you think in turn that “Lebron should not win POY in any year” and 2009 Lebron should be below Kobe, Wade, and Dwight by the same standards (which are literally just being better and more valuable than the competition), then — and I say this as a poster, not as a project-runner — it does not seem like you ever really cared about this exercise or what people have been saying.

By your own numbers, Hakeem was providing 22-win lift. If you want to say that was less impressive than what Jordan provided to a better team, you can do so. Now, what arguments would those three players have for any of it when Lebron’s Cavaliers were the best regular season team in the league despite being a demonstrably much worse cast than the Lakers or Magic? If you want vote purely on success, hey, you can do that too… but then you never would have picked Jordan above Magic in 1988, and then you would still be voting for Lebron at least four times.

You have been a fine poster throughout this project, but your devotion to Jordan specifically is spiralling out of control.

You must have missed the word "if" in my post. No worries.

I saw it. You must have missed that my entire post was on how it was a nonsensical statement with nothing behind it aside from blind outrage toward a result you dislike.

Also no offense, but you're not exactly someone I would take seriously lecturing me about impartiality anyways.

How exactly would one have an “impartial” ballot. Even those who may follow a specific ballot recipe still needed to subjectively decide that recipe was the best approach.

The problem is when you become so entrenched in your bias that you lose all capacity to engage with any voices that disagree with your own, and that is exactly what “I think if people were consistent then Lebron would never win” conveys. It is something I would expect from a random general board troll poking their head into the project, rather than from someone who has ostensibly been reading through every thread.

If you have specific criticisms of consistency for any poster, you are encouraged to offer those criticisms when applicable. But this generalised suggestion that there must be zero fair standard by which Jordan could lose Player of the Year is infantile, irrational, and completely at odds with the project’s spirit. If you feel no one who votes against Jordan this year has anything valid or principled to say, then that is an issue with you, not with everyone else.

[LukaTheGOAT]

i like how everyone that is coming from the same Discord to vote all misspell Michael Jordan the same way

"new voters" or VPN alts, i wonder

I take it counting is not your strong suit

So you don't dispute that you and the Discord developed multiple accounts just to vote?

[OhayoKD]

i like how everyone that is coming from the same Discord to vote all misspell Michael Jordan the same way

"new voters" or VPN alts, i wonder

I take it counting is not your strong suit

So you don't dispute that you and the Discord developed multiple accounts just to vote?

If by "develop multiple accounts" you mean "people register of their own volition", and if by "just to vote", you mean "people register and post months before casting any ballot", then yes, I don't dispute that.

I also imagine more accounts will be "developed", much to the benefit of this community. If you don't like that, maybe you (and Kemba Walker) should leave.

It's not like anyone will miss you.

Also uh

Do better.

[KembaWalker]

I take it counting is not your strong suit

So you don't dispute that you and the Discord developed multiple accounts just to vote?

If by "develop multiple accounts" you mean "people register of their own volition", and if by "just to vote", you mean "people register and post months before casting any ballot", then yes, I don't dispute that.

I also imagine more accounts will be "developed", much to the benefit of this community. If you don't like that, maybe you (and Kemba Walker) should leave.

It's not like anyone will miss you.

Also uh

Do better.

I literally only come here to laugh specifically at you and your alts.

[OhayoKD]

So you don't dispute that you and the Discord developed multiple accounts just to vote?

If by "develop multiple accounts" you mean "people register of their own volition", and if by "just to vote", you mean "people register and post months before casting any ballot", then yes, I don't dispute that.

I also imagine more accounts will be "developed", much to the benefit of this community. If you don't like that, maybe you (and Kemba Walker) should leave.

It's not like anyone will miss you.

Also uh

Do better.

I literally only come here to laugh specifically at you and your alts.

Looks more like a tantrum to me

[KembaWalker]

If by "develop multiple accounts" you mean "people register of their own volition", and if by "just to vote", you mean "people register and post months before casting any ballot", then yes, I don't dispute that.

I also imagine more accounts will be "developed", much to the benefit of this community. If you don't like that, maybe you (and Kemba Walker) should leave.

It's not like anyone will miss you.

Also uh



Do better.

I literally only come here to laugh specifically at you and your alts.

Looks more like a tantrum to me

If believing that brings you satisfaction, even better. That’s a win/win

[lessthanjake]

So you don't dispute that you and the Discord developed multiple accounts just to vote?

If by "develop multiple accounts" you mean "people register of their own volition", and if by "just to vote", you mean "people register and post months before casting any ballot", then yes, I don't dispute that.

I also imagine more accounts will be "developed", much to the benefit of this community. If you don't like that, maybe you (and Kemba Walker) should leave.

It's not like anyone will miss you.

Also uh

Do better.

I literally only come here to laugh specifically at you and your alts.

By the way, I think the question of whether there’s alts at play here was pretty obviously answered recently in amusing fashion with this slip up: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116166211#p116166211

[KembaWalker]

If by "develop multiple accounts" you mean "people register of their own volition", and if by "just to vote", you mean "people register and post months before casting any ballot", then yes, I don't dispute that.

I also imagine more accounts will be "developed", much to the benefit of this community. If you don't like that, maybe you (and Kemba Walker) should leave.

It's not like anyone will miss you.

Also uh



Do better.

I literally only come here to laugh specifically at you and your alts.

By the way, I think the question of whether there’s alts at play here was pretty obviously answered recently in amusing fashion with this slip up: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116166211#p116166211

That’s actually hilarious, I never even saw that one. Crazy what’s been allowed to happen to this board

[OhayoKD]

If by "develop multiple accounts" you mean "people register of their own volition", and if by "just to vote", you mean "people register and post months before casting any ballot", then yes, I don't dispute that.

I also imagine more accounts will be "developed", much to the benefit of this community. If you don't like that, maybe you (and Kemba Walker) should leave.

It's not like anyone will miss you.

Also uh



Do better.

I literally only come here to laugh specifically at you and your alts.

By the way, I think the question of whether there’s alts at play here was pretty obviously answered recently in amusing fashion with this slip up: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116166211#p116166211

Yes lessthanajake, because I've never before referred to myself in third person in response to people strawmanning me...in third person.

I think what we've established here is that Jordan fans think the best defense of Jordan is to attack the people who criticize Jordan. A standard approach, though I don't think it's an effective one.

[KembaWalker]

I literally only come here to laugh specifically at you and your alts.

By the way, I think the question of whether there’s alts at play here was pretty obviously answered recently in amusing fashion with this slip up: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116166211#p116166211

Yes lessthanajake, because I've never before referred to myself in third person in response to people strawmanning me...in third person.

I think what we've established here is that Jordan fans think the best defense of Jordan is to attack the people who criticize Jordan. A standard approach, though I don't think it's an effective one.

KembaWalker is getting a healthy chortle from this flailing attempt at defense. We’ve reached critical meltdown

[OhayoKD]

By the way, I think the question of whether there’s alts at play here was pretty obviously answered recently in amusing fashion with this slip up: https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=116166211#p116166211

Yes lessthanajake, because I've never before referred to myself in third person in response to people strawmanning me...in third person.

I think what we've established here is that Jordan fans think the best defense of Jordan is to attack the people who criticize Jordan. A standard approach, though I don't think it's an effective one.

KembaWalker is getting a healthy chortle from this flailing attempt at defense. We’ve reached critical meltdown

Projection per usual:

everyone that is coming from the same Discord to vote all misspell Michael Jordan the same way

I get a healthy chortle from you forgetting how to count.

And I get a healthier one from a Havard lawyer flipping out over a basic rhetorical technique.

Jordan's perception on this board is likely to sink lower and lower as time progresses. And it's not going to be because of imagined alts, but the histrionics of his worshippers in response to us saying no to their kool-aid.

[KembaWalker]

Yes lessthanajake, because I've never before referred to myself in third person in response to people strawmanning me...in third person.

I think what we've established here is that Jordan fans think the best defense of Jordan is to attack the people who criticize Jordan. A standard approach, though I don't think it's an effective one.

KembaWalker is getting a healthy chortle from this flailing attempt at defense. We’ve reached critical meltdown

Projection per usual:

everyone that is coming from the same Discord to vote all misspell Michael Jordan the same way

I get a healthy chortle from you forgetting how to count.

And I get a healthier one from a Havard lawyer flipping out over a basic rhetorical technique.

Jordan's perception on this board is likely to sink lower and lower as time progresses. And it's not going to be because of imagined alts, but the histrionics of his worshippers in response to us saying no to their kool-aid.

Can you explain what that sentence has to do with the ability to count, I’m actually lost