RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #1 — 2013 LeBron James

[Djoker]

I have witnessed more default Jordan people (it is the public consensus after all) go back and be underwhelmed by those Bulls games than I have default Lebron people go back and suddenly “see the light”.

And “prime Lebron” has never been a mainstay of NBA TV’s hardwood classics airings the way Jordan has been and continues to be, so it is odd that Jordan backers consistently try to push this narrative that the shift over the last few years is simply because too many people are caught in the moment of… watching a diminished end-of-career Lebron. Did everyone watching him in his prime suddenly discover the internet in the past few years? Big rural Lebron fan population which just now got that fiber hookup? And if nostalgia is indeed the argument, well, guess which player nostalgia benefits even more strongly…

The issue of lack of viewership applies dramatically more to players like Russell, Wilt, Kareem, etc. Few people recall watching their primes live, and prime games and footage are extremely scarce from that era.

As time passes, old legends fade. That's all there is to it. It happened to Russell and Wilt, it happened to Kareem, it's happening to Jordan, and it will happen to Lebron. It's inevitable. Quite simply a smaller % of NBA fans today have seen Michael Jordan play than even 3 years ago. Not only has the fanbase changed but the media has changed. Younger ESPN analysts like Nick Wright and Kendrick Perkins are themselves too young to have seen prime MJ play ball. And those guys influence millions of young fans consuming NBA content. "Done with the 90's" and "Plumbers" are all things young fans hear. Some question it but many accept it. Heck it's nice when your era is the best one. Even the so-called Jordan guys in the media like SAS and Chris Broussard have significantly softened their stances. Why? Because they want to cater to the new demographic. Guys born before 1980 now make up a very small % of the NBA fanbase.

You talk about Hardwood Classics and it's true what you say but most NBA fans don't care about NBA history. I guarantee you that a sizable % of people on the General Board have never watched a full Jordan game start to finish. And that well over 90% have never watched a full Kareem or Russell game. Let alone consumed dozens if not hundreds of games and knowing their play styles inside and out.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Yea this video is pretty well known around here. A decent chunk of Ben's subscribers are Lebron fans (I'm on their Discord so I know) and Ben definitely had to be careful to be very diplomatic in his approach. Backing Jordan or Lebron publicly is like endorsing a political candidate these days. People who support the same guy will love you but the other side will hate you. And polarizing isn't what Ben wants to be. It's not his style as a basketball researcher and he tries to look as objective as positive. Ben had three peak impact metrics which are AuPM, BPM and PIPM and Jordan led in all three of them as well as the basic box score.

Since that video, there's been a lot of numbers released for prime Jordan courtesy of Thinking Basketball, Squared2020 and even my own tracking. The evidence for Jordan has grown stronger if anything. But of course, 3 years have gone by and the basketball watching population has increasingly never seen MJ play and people naturally prefer those they've seen over those that haven't.

It's also worth saying again that he very explicitly said he was evaluating in an era-relative context, which I feel like most voting in this project do not do.

[jalengreen]

“We done with the 90s” was a social media trend that involved watching old footage and being unimpressed, actually.

Which makes sense. The legend of Jordan was built up to be too high, so when people to back and watch with high expectations and see an inferior product to what they watch on a random regular season weekday today, disappointment is not surprising.

Game gets better -> old footage in turn looks relatively less impressive. Has been a constant throughout basketball history (or human history!). The level of awe that Jordan’s 63 point performance against Boston inspired at the time was real and palpable. But somebody who watches that same performance today would be justified in thinking “huh.. that defense.. is oddly awful?”

Just how this goes. Same applies to the others. If young people watched a Russell game, I think it’s optimistic to think that they’d suddenly view him in a much higher light. When all they know of the sport is it being played at the highest level ever, anything short of that will be a stark contrast to them, one that is difficult to get past.

[OhayoKD]

Yea this video is pretty well known around here. A decent chunk of Ben's subscribers are Lebron fans (I'm on their Discord so I know) and Ben definitely had to be careful to be very diplomatic in his approach. Backing Jordan or Lebron publicly is like endorsing a political candidate these days. People who support the same guy will love you but the other side will hate you. And polarizing isn't what Ben wants to be. It's not his style as a basketball researcher and he tries to look as objective as positive. Ben had three peak impact metrics which are AuPM, BPM and PIPM and Jordan led in all three of them as well as the basic box score.

Since that video, there's been a lot of numbers released for prime Jordan courtesy of Thinking Basketball, Squared2020 and even my own tracking. The evidence for Jordan has grown stronger if anything. But of course, 3 years have gone by and the basketball watching population has increasingly never seen MJ play and people naturally prefer those they've seen over those that haven't.

It's also worth saying again that he very explicitly said he was evaluating in an era-relative context, which I feel like most voting in this project do not do.

Uh no. Among this voting bloc Lebron is considered to have peaked higher or much higher than Jordan relative to era. Barely anyone is mentioning modernism or league strength and other than Jalen Green I haven't seen anyone note it as a deciding factor. This is an especially weird interpretation to take when one considers that people who put Lebron higher than Jordan are also disproportionately the ones elevating Bill Russell much higher than he was rated in the last iteration of peaks. Alternatively, other than Doctor MJ, Bill Russell was absent from the ballot of everyone who voted Jordan ahead of Lebron.

If anything it's Jordan voters engaging in selective time-machining. Not lebron ones.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

“We done with the 90s” was a social media trend that involved watching old footage and being unimpressed, actually.

Which makes sense. The legend of Jordan was built up to be too high, so when people to back and watch with high expectations and see an inferior product to what they watch on a random regular season weekday today, disappointment is not surprising.

Game gets better -> old footage in turn looks relatively less impressive. Has been a constant throughout basketball history (or human history!). The level of awe that Jordan’s 63 point performance against Boston inspired at the time was real and palpable. But somebody who watches that same performance today would be justified in thinking “huh.. that defense.. is oddly awful?”

Just how this goes. Same applies to the others. If young people watched a Russell game, I think it’s optimistic to think that they’d suddenly view him in a much higher light. When all they know of the sport is it being played at the highest level ever, anything short of that will be a stark contrast to them, one that is difficult to get past.

But this is more a critique of the game of the past and not a player of the past, and it applies to all sports. You can watch a tennis match from the early 80s with some players even still using wooden racquets and feel like it's in slow motion, for example. But this insistence on using modern standards to degrade previous eras is, imo, very offputting. It's like being unimpressed with movies from the 50s/60s/70s because you're used to the filmmaking technology of the present.

Hence why I believe so much in era-relativism.

[Smoothbutta]

I find it interesting that none of the Lebron voters are responding to the content of the fabulous posts from DraymondGold or Djoker in the first page (aside from one silly discussion about outliers).

Maybe I missed something in the later pages but those are some great posts by the boys

[jalengreen]

“We done with the 90s” was a social media trend that involved watching old footage and being unimpressed, actually.

Which makes sense. The legend of Jordan was built up to be too high, so when people to back and watch with high expectations and see an inferior product to what they watch on a random regular season weekday today, disappointment is not surprising.

Game gets better -> old footage in turn looks relatively less impressive. Has been a constant throughout basketball history (or human history!). The level of awe that Jordan’s 63 point performance against Boston inspired at the time was real and palpable. But somebody who watches that same performance today would be justified in thinking “huh.. that defense.. is oddly awful?”

Just how this goes. Same applies to the others. If young people watched a Russell game, I think it’s optimistic to think that they’d suddenly view him in a much higher light. When all they know of the sport is it being played at the highest level ever, anything short of that will be a stark contrast to them, one that is difficult to get past.

But this is more a critique of the game of the past and not a player of the past, and it applies to all sports. You can watch a tennis match from the early 80s with some players even still using wooden racquets and feel like it's in slow motion, for example. But this insistence on using modern standards to degrade previous eras is, imo, very offputting. It's like being unimpressed with movies from the 50s/60s/70s because you're used to the filmmaking technology of the present.

Hence why I believe so much in era-relativism.

That's totally fine and it's your prerogative to believe in that.

The claim I responded to was that the opinion of Jordan is simply declining because nobody has watched Jordan.

This is not true. There are plenty of people who *have* and are simply unimpressed. And as I mentioned with Russell, yes very few people have actually watched a full Russell game. But the idea that this is what's stopping them from being impressed with Russell is just off base.

As for the bolded: the reality is that different people take in different input data and our perspectives are shaped by the input data we take in. If a movie in the 1976 had industry altering, unprecedented visual effects at the time, then people whose input data was anything <1976 would be completely blown away. Show that to a kid whose input data is anything >2000, and how can you expect him to be as impressed? How can you expect him to really understand how it felt in 1976? Call it offputting, fine, but it's reality. We can do our best to understand but we never truly will.

So, complain that people don't subscribe to the criteria that you subscribe to. That's fine. But if you're thinking "well, everybody only has that opinion because they haven't watched the games", then you're not being honest with yourself.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Yea this video is pretty well known around here. A decent chunk of Ben's subscribers are Lebron fans (I'm on their Discord so I know) and Ben definitely had to be careful to be very diplomatic in his approach. Backing Jordan or Lebron publicly is like endorsing a political candidate these days. People who support the same guy will love you but the other side will hate you. And polarizing isn't what Ben wants to be. It's not his style as a basketball researcher and he tries to look as objective as positive. Ben had three peak impact metrics which are AuPM, BPM and PIPM and Jordan led in all three of them as well as the basic box score.

Since that video, there's been a lot of numbers released for prime Jordan courtesy of Thinking Basketball, Squared2020 and even my own tracking. The evidence for Jordan has grown stronger if anything. But of course, 3 years have gone by and the basketball watching population has increasingly never seen MJ play and people naturally prefer those they've seen over those that haven't.

It's also worth saying again that he very explicitly said he was evaluating in an era-relative context, which I feel like most voting in this project do not do.

Uh no. Among this voting bloc Lebron is considered to have peaked higher or much higher than Jordan relative to era. Barely anyone is mentioning modernism or league strength and other than Jalen Green I haven't seen anyone note it as a deciding factor. This is an especially weird interpretation to take when one considers that people who put Lebron higher than Jordan are also disproportionately the ones elevating Bill Russell much higher than he was rated in the last iteration of peaks. Alternatively, other than Doctor MJ, Bill Russell was absent from the ballot of everyone who voted Jordan ahead of Lebron.

If anything it's Jordan voters engaging in selective time-machining. Not lebron ones.

Honestly, I haven't read most of the arguments in this thread in depth, since I'm not voting myself. But I've participated in other projects in the past and it's always felt to me like a lot of people here take a more modernist approach, generally. But if I'm wrong about this specific project, so be it.

Though I'm curious what kind of time-machining you think Jordan voters are doing.

[OhayoKD]

I find it interesting that none of the Lebron voters are responding to the content of the fabulous posts from DraymondGold or Djoker in the first page (aside from one silly discussion about outliers).

Maybe I missed something in the later pages but those are some great posts by the boys

I literally addressed both of them in my voting post:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119295452#p119295452

Doubt I'm the only one.

And that "silly discussion" was Djoker coping with Lebron having played vastly better basketball at 24 than Jordan had at any point in his life. A consistent throughline with Jordan voters.

[OhayoKD]

So over on the GB in the thread that was created to alert said GB to this contest, I came across a post saying that when Thinking Basketball did its peaks series in 2021, MJ was #1. Not that any one person's opinion should matter more than anyone else's, but I know that many of you guys respect Ben a lot. He was looking at multi-year(he says "at least 2 years", but in practice it looks like he's doing 3 years in order to have a bigger sample size) peaks in an era-relative context(he actually used the phrase "no time machines" at the beginning of the video), and gave #1 to Jordan.

He also states that he took a poll of Thinking Basketball subscribers and that (keeping in mind I have no idea how big of a sample this is) 59% of them had Jordan #1.

MJ/LeBron part of the video starts around 19:30.

Watch on YouTube

Yea this video is pretty well known around here. A decent chunk of Ben's subscribers are Lebron fans (I'm on their Discord so I know) and Ben definitely had to be careful to be very diplomatic in his approach. Backing Jordan or Lebron publicly is like endorsing a political candidate these days. People who support the same guy will love you but the other side will hate you. And polarizing isn't what Ben wants to be. It's not his style as a basketball researcher and he tries to look as objective as positive. Ben had three peak impact metrics which are AuPM, BPM and PIPM and Jordan led in all three of them as well as the basic box score.

Since that video, there's been a lot of numbers released for prime Jordan courtesy of Thinking Basketball, Squared2020 and even my own tracking. The evidence for Jordan has grown stronger if anything. But of course, 3 years have gone by and the basketball watching population has increasingly never seen MJ play and people naturally prefer those they've seen over those that haven't.

This is really weird to say when all the eyetest stuff is coming from Lebron guys and you guys are just throwing out stat whatevers no one really cares about

You are right of course.

Jordan was middling in all aspects for the first 7 quarters of the conference finals against a negative playoff defense. Then the Pistons fouled him a bunch down 15 with hyper aggressive defense to inflate his series average by 4 points (as well as his true-shooting by who knows how much). He then feasted in game 3 and 4 with Rodman only playing half of those games.

In the finals for basically the whole series he was torched by Magic and largely ineffective both on the perimiter in the paint (where he offered close to nothing). He also created at a clip far below even what 22-year old lebron was creating in a boobie-gibson run offense despite getting more oppurutnity with the ball.


With that in mind the excuses from the losing camp strike me as odd.

Nick Wright barely considers Lebron's peak higher and his arguments always boil down to basic box-stats and award voting. No one you mentioned has softened their view of Jordan's peak which always was derived from basketball-reference-watching or tracking data that doesn't measure much beyond what basketball reference captures.

And even then, when it was revealed that basketball reference was massively overselling Jordan's defensive stats in the year he won DPOY, everyone but Nick Wright pooh pooh'd it. Tim Legler, Nick Wright, Stephen A. Smith all argue from the same playbook as ben taylor and f4p and djoker. Cherrypicking measures that exclude a massive amount of information and then pretending these make your conclusions "objective".

Pro Jordan arguments have always came from a place of ignorance. Now that people are tracking games properly, not ignoring entire seasons worth of data, and attempting actual contextual analysis as opposed to making up gibberish in the hope no one fact-checks, there are really two ways things will go:

Either laziness and/or inertia takes hold and the fake "knowledge" will be enough to keep most doing hagiography.

Or, enough people start doing what we've been doing and this 50 year charade his generation's been running eventually falls apart like it did here.

Time will tell, but let's stop pretending knowledge is some benefit for Jordan. The more people know, the worse he will look. The more people watch, the worse he will look. This thread demonstrates exactly what happens when people are armed with the tools and understanding to distinguish mythology from truth. Whether it's a flash or a stepping stone is yet to be seen.

[Special_Puppy]

I find it interesting that none of the Lebron voters are responding to the content of the fabulous posts from DraymondGold or Djoker in the first page (aside from one silly discussion about outliers).

Maybe I missed something in the later pages but those are some great posts by the boys

I literally addressed both of them in my voting post:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119295452#p119295452

Doubt I'm the only one.

And that "silly discussion" was Djoker coping with Lebron having played vastly better basketball at 24 than Jordan had at any point in his life. A consistent throughline with Jordan voters.

That’s just attacking the validity of all of one metrics in general. It’s true that there are some bad ones out there, but looking at a bunch of them like DraymondGold gets you pretty decent answers

[Djoker]

Yes young viewers are unimpressed but that isn't necessarily a straightforward reflection on 1990's basketball. For one, most young viewers watching do not understand the context of the era. For example, ball handling may look more rudimentary but that may well be because of stricter ball-handling rules. And the further you go back in time, the stricter the dribbling rules were enforced. Oscar had to have his hand over the ball at all times. He looks awkward with the ball but Kyrie would also look awkward in the 60's. That was just the league environment. Few people watch games but even fewer understand what they're watching. Basketball is also a business so rule and tactical changes always try to make the game more interesting rather than less. Thus it is not a surprise that today's game is more exciting to watch than in 1995. The NBA board of directors has been working on that very issue for 30 years.

The idea of evolution (both in biology and basketball as a matter of fact) is in fact misunderstood by most people. Evolution isn't unidirectional nor is it a process that results in something becoming universally better. Evolution is driven by selective pressures from the environment which in the context of basketball comes from rules, coaching philosophies etc. Today's players are obviously well adapted for the modern game. But they are poorly adapted to the old game compared to players who evolved for that game. One better believe that if the NBA suddenly removed the 3pt line (reverting back to pre-1980 style) that the new crop of NBA players in 20 years would look completely different. But one also better believe that these stars playing without a 3pt line wouldn't suddenly be better than Steph if placed 20 years earlier in this era. Evolution makes individuals better adapted to the specific type of selective pressures in that era, not universally better.

Now... there are also some improvements that are universal due to advancements in medicine, training, diet that even if a player well adapted to the modern game (say Pete Maravich) travelled to 2025 in a time machine, he wouldn't be as good as he was back then. So to some extent, modern players are universally better because of technological advancements but it's just hard for me to give someone an advantage because of that. Plus, even in a time machine argument, wouldn't Pistol Pete probably stop smoking, stop eating hamburgers and start cryotherapy and all the modern stuff.

Bottom line is that I'm a 100% era-relativist. The first reason for that is that without era-relativism, rankings are based on hypotheticals. You may think Jordan in 2025 would be worse than Shai or even Kawhi. I may think he would average 45/8/8. Bottom line is we don't know. We are both guessing. I don't like to make lists based on guessing and when you say modern players are better than X from a past era, you think they are but there is absolutely zero evidence for it or against it and there never will be. The second reason is that adopting a modern mindset basically ensures that the GOAT title is transient. You're watching the current GOAT and you are already guaranteeing that someone better will appear since a time will come that the current NBA is not the modern NBA anymore. That defeats the purpose of the title "greatest of all time". It's not all time if someone better is guaranteed to come along. It's just GUN (greatest until now) at that point.

[twyzted]

You are right of course.

Jordan was middling in all aspects for the first 7 quarters of the conference finals against a negative playoff defense. Then the Pistons fouled him a bunch down 15 with hyper aggressive defense to inflate his series average by 4 points (as well as his true-shooting by who knows how much). He then feasted in game 3 and 4 with Rodman only playing half of those games.

In the finals for basically the whole series he was torched by Magic and largely ineffective both on the perimiter in the paint (where he offered close to nothing). He also created at a clip far below even what 22-year old lebron was creating in a boobie-gibson run offense despite getting more oppurutnity with the ball.

Magic went from 22,9 ppg, 8,1 apg, 12,7 apg 1,2 spg on 44,3fg% 29,8 3pt% 86,1 ft% to 18.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 12.4 apg, 1,2 spg on 43,1 fg% 28,6 3pt% 95.1ft% is torching Jordan? Remind me again how Lebron played in his first 2 final series?

With that in mind the excuses from the losing camp strike me as odd.

Nick Wright barely considers Lebron's peak higher and his arguments always boil down to basic box-stats and award voting. No one you mentioned has softened their view of Jordan's peak which always was derived from basketball-reference-watching or tracking data that doesn't measure much beyond what basketball reference captures.

And even then, when it was revealed that basketball reference was massively overselling Jordan's defensive stats in the year he won DPOY, everyone but Nick Wright pooh pooh'd it. Tim Legler, Nick Wright, Stephen A. Smith all argue from the same playbook as ben taylor and f4p and djoker. Cherrypicking measures that exclude a massive amount of information and then pretending these make your conclusions "objective".

Pro Jordan arguments have always came from a place of ignorance. Now that people are tracking games properly, not ignoring entire seasons worth of data, and attempting actual contextual analysis as opposed to making up gibberish in the hope no one fact-checks, there are really two ways things will go:

Either laziness and/or inertia takes hold and the fake "knowledge" will be enough to keep most doing hagiography.

Or, enough people start doing what we've been doing and this 50 year charade his generation's been running eventually falls apart like it did here.

Time will tell, but let's stop pretending knowledge is some benefit for Jordan. The more people know, the worse he will look. The more people watch, the worse he will look. This thread demonstrates exactly what happens when people are armed with the tools and understanding to distinguish mythology from truth. Whether it's a flash or a stepping stone is yet to be seen.

You have the stats to prove that basketball reference oversold Jordans numbers?

[One_and_Done]

I find it interesting that none of the Lebron voters are responding to the content of the fabulous posts from DraymondGold or Djoker in the first page (aside from one silly discussion about outliers).

Maybe I missed something in the later pages but those are some great posts by the boys

I literally addressed both of them in my voting post:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119295452#p119295452

Doubt I'm the only one.

And that "silly discussion" was Djoker coping with Lebron having played vastly better basketball at 24 than Jordan had at any point in his life. A consistent throughline with Jordan voters.

That’s just attacking the validity of all of one metrics in general. It’s true that there are some bad ones out there, but looking at a bunch of them like DraymondGold gets you pretty decent answers

I will attack the validity of all in one metrics. They're not a good way to rank players.

[OhayoKD]

I find it interesting that none of the Lebron voters are responding to the content of the fabulous posts from DraymondGold or Djoker in the first page (aside from one silly discussion about outliers).

Maybe I missed something in the later pages but those are some great posts by the boys

I literally addressed both of them in my voting post:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=119295452#p119295452

Doubt I'm the only one.

And that "silly discussion" was Djoker coping with Lebron having played vastly better basketball at 24 than Jordan had at any point in his life. A consistent throughline with Jordan voters.

That’s just attacking the validity of all of one metrics in general. It’s true that there are some bad ones out there, but looking at a bunch of them like DraymondGold gets you pretty decent answers

Actually, it very specifically attacks "looking at a bunch of them"

Spoiler:

Very simple exercise. Decided to use 538's RAPTOR Metric since its the best historical metric available for players since the merger. Decided to look at each players RAPTOR WAR where a player's best season is weighted 100%, a player's 2nd best season is weighted 90%, a player's 3rd best season is weighted 80%, etc. Also weighted playoffs twice as much. Jordan ended up 1st with 172 peak WAR. LeBron ended up 2nd with 157 peak WAR. 3rd place is Stockton with 134 career WAR. 10th place is Harden with 115 career WAR. So pretty sizable gap between Jordan+LeBron and everyone else with Jordan probably being a step ahead of LeBron peak wise

Oh that's crazy, I did a very simple exercise too. But instead of WAR I used a cutting edge metric:

You know I was going to respond to what you were saying but I really really need to share this new advanced stat I've found. It's called "F4Ps/40". Let me take you through the formula. First we use a couple numbers which usually the best players have more of:

PPs/40 poss (primary protections) and PPG/40 poss (points per game). Then we multiply the first by 72 points and the second by 0.3 points (early rapm tests suggests this is a positively correlative combination!).

Here's an example of how it works.

Jordan so far is averaging 2.4 PPs/40 Possessions and itmakesnodifferenceforthisthoughtexercise # of points

Oakley is averaging 13.5 PPs/40 possessions and itmakesnodifferenceforthisthoughtexercise # of points

therefore Jordan scores 173 F4Ps/40 while Oakley scores 965 F4Ps/40.

That's a whole lot of margin to account for any "made up-ness" in those numbers. I think only through the most rose-colored glasses we could assume Jordan is a better player than Oakley. (Seriously, why are you guys making me stick up for a Knick!)

Pretty sizable gap between Oakley and Michael Jordan. Hmmmm

Speaking of simple exercises, what would happen if we make a WOWY adjustment where we "adjust" by looking at how a teammate who leaves does on the team they join next the season after they join. And of course "how they do" is measured by how that new team does when they join?

If i filter it to >50 games and restrict my adjustment to "the year after a player leaves" instead of a scattershot prime-length amalgamation combining dozens of >5 game samples several years apart....

It "systematically" takes dozens of players from completely different rosters at completely different points of their careers based on the average deltas from what ever smattering of games they missed and throws them together completely excluding the largest possible samples (arrivals/depatures).

Your defense hinges on the Bulls getting worse, and they will have had to have gotten worse losing

(in order of minutes averaged)

-> Orlando Woodridge, whose next team gets 4 points worse
-> David Greenwood, whose next team got 3 points worse
-> Quintin Dailey, whose next team got 5 points worse
-> Ennis Whatley, whose next team stayed the same
-> Mitchell Wiggins, whose next team got 5 points better
-> Rod Higgins, whose next team got 5 points better
-> Reggie Theus, whose next team gets 2 points worse
-> Steve Johnson, whose next team got 2 points worse
-> Ronnie Lester, whsoe next team got 3 points better
-> Syndney Green, whose next team got 2 points better
-> Jawhan Oldham, whose next team got 1 point worse
-> Wallace Bryant whose next team got 1 point better

...well shockingly the evidence suddenly calls into question if Jordan is even top tier, never mind being in his own.

I tinkered around actually and can report there are now 30 Prime WOWYs by which peak Jordan looks worse than Rookie Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

What a consensus!!!!!

And that is setting aside that "looking at a bunch of all-in-ones" leads us to the conclusion that 2009 Lebron played vastly better than any MJ in the playoffs. Yet no one using these is listing him 1st. Funny how that works.

You are right of course.

Jordan was middling in all aspects for the first 7 quarters of the conference finals against a negative playoff defense. Then the Pistons fouled him a bunch down 15 with hyper aggressive defense to inflate his series average by 4 points (as well as his true-shooting by who knows how much). He then feasted in game 3 and 4 with Rodman only playing half of those games.

In the finals for basically the whole series he was torched by Magic and largely ineffective both on the perimiter in the paint (where he offered close to nothing). He also created at a clip far below even what 22-year old lebron was creating in a boobie-gibson run offense despite getting more oppurutnity with the ball.

Magic went from 22,9 ppg, 8,1 apg, 12,7 apg 1,2 spg on 44,3fg% 29,8 3pt% 86,1 ft% to 18.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 12.4 apg, 1,2 spg on 43,1 fg% 28,6 3pt% 95.1ft% is torching Jordan? Remind me again how Lebron played in his first 2 final series?

I said Jordan, not Chicago. And that part is rather clear cut:

Spoiler:

Shot Defense

Courtesy of Djoker (with correction from Lebronny and top10alltime):

dFG%: 13/23 (56.5%)
dTS%: 48 points on 72.5 %TS (13/23 FG, 20/23 FT)
14 turnovers forced (12 steals, 1 charge, 1 shot clock violation)
4 deflections
12 shooting fouls committed
10 blow by's
7 blocks

vs. Magic Johnson
dTS%: 34 points on 87.3 %TS (8/12, 16/17)
4 turnovers forced (2 steals, 1 charge, 1 shot clock violation)

It looks even worse if we do actual watching instead of the glorified box-watching Jordan fans have long clung to:

Spoiler:

Usage and Efficacy

Top10Alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 possessions of game 5)

PPD - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPPD - effective PPD
IPPD - ineffective PPD

Game 1

Final tally
16 PPD, .228 per poss
4 EPPD, .06 per poss
8 IPPD, .12 per poss

Game 2

9 PPD, .143 per poss
1 EPPD, .02 per poss
6 IPPD, .1 per poss

Game 5

19 PPD, .475 per poss
5 EPPD, .08 per poss
5 IPPD, .08 per poss

Paint Defense

Usage and Efficacy

Top10alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 poss of game 5)

PP - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPP - effective PP
IPP - ineffective PP

Game 1

11 PPs, .16 per poss
2 EPPs, .03 per poss
8 IPPs, .11

Game 2

7 PPs, .11 per poss
2 EPPs, .03 per poss
5 IPPs, .08 per poss

Game 5
[spoiler]0 PPs, 0 per poss
0 EPPs, 0 per poss
0 IPPs, 0 per poss

Misc.

Help Defense

Top10alltime (game 1)
HPD - When a player is the primary or coprimary help defender
EHPD - Effective HPD
IHPD - Ineffective HPD

(I am assuming, think Elpollo_14 came up with this one)

5 HPD, .07 per poss
2 EHPD, .035 per poss
2 IHPD, .035 per poss

Turns out the absolute worst thing for Jordan's legacy is people actually watching him play.

With that in mind the excuses from the losing camp strike me as odd.

Nick Wright barely considers Lebron's peak higher and his arguments always boil down to basic box-stats and award voting. No one you mentioned has softened their view of Jordan's peak which always was derived from basketball-reference-watching or tracking data that doesn't measure much beyond what basketball reference captures.

And even then, when it was revealed that basketball reference was massively overselling Jordan's defensive stats in the year he won DPOY, everyone but Nick Wright pooh pooh'd it. Tim Legler, Nick Wright, Stephen A. Smith all argue from the same playbook as ben taylor and f4p and djoker. Cherrypicking measures that exclude a massive amount of information and then pretending these make your conclusions "objective".

Pro Jordan arguments have always came from a place of ignorance. Now that people are tracking games properly, not ignoring entire seasons worth of data, and attempting actual contextual analysis as opposed to making up gibberish in the hope no one fact-checks, there are really two ways things will go:

Either laziness and/or inertia takes hold and the fake "knowledge" will be enough to keep most doing hagiography.

Or, enough people start doing what we've been doing and this 50 year charade his generation's been running eventually falls apart like it did here.

Time will tell, but let's stop pretending knowledge is some benefit for Jordan. The more people know, the worse he will look. The more people watch, the worse he will look. This thread demonstrates exactly what happens when people are armed with the tools and understanding to distinguish mythology from truth. Whether it's a flash or a stepping stone is yet to be seen.

You have the stats to prove that basketball reference oversold Jordans numbers?

Yep:
https://sports.yahoo.com/a-closer-look-at-michael-jordans-1988-dpoy-award-raises-questions-about-its-validity-has-lebron-james-been-chasing-a-ghost-140452567.html
The biggest home and away disparity on record, home-inflation by a factor of two over 10 games tracked by multiple sources, and confirmation from his own teammates and scorekeeper Jordan asked to have his stats inflated:

Spoiler:

The Rosenberg and Jordan dynamic was written about in the press, and reportedly at one point drew scrutiny from the league office. According to a 1989 report from the San Francisco Examiner, Rosenberg would flash hand signals to inform Jordan how close he was to a triple-double. The league reportedly stepped in and told Rosenberg to cut it out.

Rosenberg admitted to signaling to help Jordan chase stats during Chicago’s 1988 All-Star Game, a game in which Jordan scored a game-high 40 points, just shy of matching Chamberlain’s then-record of 42. As the site’s official scorekeeper, Rosenberg worked the game and remembered a postgame exchange he had with Jordan. In 2013, Rosenberg shared the following anecdote with the Chicago Tribune:

“Why didn’t you tell me I was two points short of Chamberlain?” Rosenberg recalled Jordan asking him.

“I said, ‘Look, every time you went by, I kept putting up two fingers. You didn’t understand that?’”

Jordan's seems to have a knack for stat chasing, actually

Spoiler:

In general, I tried to give Michael room to figure out how to integrate his personal ambitions with those of the team. “Phil knew that winning the scoring title was important to me,”

According to one official, Hughes was explicitly told by Jordan to get him the ball if he wanted to play. When Hughes began passing it to Stackhouse as much as to Jordan, he was soon benched. Point guard Tyronn Lue, the official said, obliged and began finding Jordan every time he played. ''He was scared to death of what would happen to him in his career if he didn't,'' the player said of Lue. ''He was always looking at the bench at Michael.''

Late last fall, Richard Hamilton and Jordan got into an ugly shouting match. The two officials said it began when Hamilton told Jordan he was tired of being a ''Jordannaire,'' the term used for Jordan's role players in Chicago. ''Rip was a young, brash guy who threatened the idea of Michael being the guy here,'' the official said.

And things were still being run through Michael Jordan. And I think Doug Collins – I love Doug. But I think that was an opportunity for him to make up for some ill moments that they may have had back in Chicago. So, pretty much everything that Michael wanted to do. We got off to a pretty good start, and then I think he didn’t like the way the offense was running, because it was running a little bit more through me. He wanted to get a little more isolations on the post, of course, so we had more isolations for him on the post.

During breaks in games, Jordan has been wandering over to the scorer's table to get updates on how many rebounds, assists and points he needs to fill his three double-figure quotas. "The guys at the scorer's desk let me know what I need," he said. "They tell me, 'You need three assists; you need two rebounds."'

Jordan also has been double-checking the figures with Chicago assistants. "They keep me in tune," he said. "They keep reminding me when I come back to the huddle, how much I need."

Last Sunday, at home against New Jersey, the 10th assist was Jordan's final goal."I knew I had nine assists," he said, "and I looked at (forward) Brad (Sellers), and said, 'Brad, can I count on you for my 10th?' And he said, 'yeah' and hit a jumper from the baseline."The push for the elusive triple-double is part of Jordan's push for greater respect."If the way I'm playing now doesn't convince them I'm a complete player," he said, "then nothing will."

That being said, RAPM data did confirm MJ was a great defender even in his later years.
Just the whole argument from who has more DPOYs/all-def teams is pretty idiotic since it's mostly based on reputation and opinions of media people with no brains or integrity

Yet over whole games and seasons the bulls barely improved with him.

As it so happens for the 91 finals, top10 found that in one of the games 2 of Jordan's "steals" came from when a teammate forced a turnover. We should probably check the whole series for that at some point.

[jalengreen]

Yes young viewers are unimpressed but that isn't necessarily a straightforward reflection on 1990's basketball. For one, most young viewers watching do not understand the context of the era. For example, ball handling may look more rudimentary but that may well be because of stricter ball-handling rules. And the further you go back in time, the stricter the dribbling rules were enforced. Oscar had to have his hand over the ball at all times. He looks awkward with the ball but Kyrie would also look awkward in the 60's. That was just the league environment. Few people watch games but even fewer understand what they're watching. Basketball is also a business so rule and tactical changes always try to make the game more interesting rather than less. Thus it is not a surprise that today's game is more exciting to watch than in 1995. The NBA board of directors has been working on that very issue for 30 years.

The idea of evolution (both in biology and basketball as a matter of fact) is in fact misunderstood by most people. Evolution isn't unidirectional nor is it a process that results in something becoming universally better. Evolution is driven by selective pressures from the environment which in the context of basketball comes from rules, coaching philosophies etc. Today's players are obviously well adapted for the modern game. But they are poorly adapted to the old game compared to players who evolved for that game. One better believe that if the NBA suddenly removed the 3pt line (reverting back to pre-1980 style) that the new crop of NBA players in 20 years would look completely different. But one also better believe that these stars playing without a 3pt line wouldn't suddenly be better than Steph if placed 20 years earlier in this era. Evolution makes individuals better adapted to the specific type of selective pressures in that era, not universally better.

Now... there are also some improvements that are universal due to advancements in medicine, training, diet that even if a player well adapted to the modern game (say Pete Maravich) travelled to 2025 in a time machine, he wouldn't be as good as he was back then. So to some extent, modern players are universally better because of technological advancements but it's just hard for me to give someone an advantage because of that. Plus, even in a time machine argument, wouldn't Pistol Pete probably stop smoking, stop eating hamburgers and start cryotherapy and all the modern stuff.

Bottom line is that I'm a 100% era-relativist. The first reason for that is that without era-relativism, rankings are based on hypotheticals. You may think Jordan in 2025 would be worse than Shai or even Kawhi. I may think he would average 45/8/8. Bottom line is we don't know. We are both guessing. I don't like to make lists based on guessing and when you say modern players are better than X from a past era, you think they are but there is absolutely zero evidence for it or against it and there never will be. The second reason is that adopting a modern mindset basically ensures that the GOAT title is transient. You're watching the current GOAT and you are already guaranteeing that someone better will appear since a time will come that the current NBA is not the modern NBA anymore. That defeats the purpose of the title "greatest of all time". It's not all time if someone better is guaranteed to come along. It's just GUN (greatest until now) at that point.

It's not just about how exciting it is. If you go back and watch the 1986 Celtics defense on Jordan, anybody with an eye for the sport would conclude that the quality of play on the defensive end is below what we see today. It was bad. It has nothing to do with ball handling rules (actually, it kinda does, but not in the direction that would help your argument).

But yes, I do think "younger fans don't subscribe to era relativism" is the better case for you to make compared to "younger fans don't watch the games." Watching the games isn't the problem, the problem is not subscribing to the same criteria as you.

I'm a little skeptical of how many people are actually 100% era relativists tbh. Discounting Mikan due to era is the norm, is it not? I would argue that a true 100% era relativist approach would defeat the purpose of the title "greatest of all time" because the best player in the older, weaker eras would in many cases be impossible to top.

[One_and_Done]

Yes young viewers are unimpressed but that isn't necessarily a straightforward reflection on 1990's basketball. For one, most young viewers watching do not understand the context of the era. For example, ball handling may look more rudimentary but that may well be because of stricter ball-handling rules. And the further you go back in time, the stricter the dribbling rules were enforced. Oscar had to have his hand over the ball at all times. He looks awkward with the ball but Kyrie would also look awkward in the 60's. That was just the league environment. Few people watch games but even fewer understand what they're watching. Basketball is also a business so rule and tactical changes always try to make the game more interesting rather than less. Thus it is not a surprise that today's game is more exciting to watch than in 1995. The NBA board of directors has been working on that very issue for 30 years.

The idea of evolution (both in biology and basketball as a matter of fact) is in fact misunderstood by most people. Evolution isn't unidirectional nor is it a process that results in something becoming universally better. Evolution is driven by selective pressures from the environment which in the context of basketball comes from rules, coaching philosophies etc. Today's players are obviously well adapted for the modern game. But they are poorly adapted to the old game compared to players who evolved for that game. One better believe that if the NBA suddenly removed the 3pt line (reverting back to pre-1980 style) that the new crop of NBA players in 20 years would look completely different. But one also better believe that these stars playing without a 3pt line wouldn't suddenly be better than Steph if placed 20 years earlier in this era. Evolution makes individuals better adapted to the specific type of selective pressures in that era, not universally better.

Now... there are also some improvements that are universal due to advancements in medicine, training, diet that even if a player well adapted to the modern game (say Pete Maravich) travelled to 2025 in a time machine, he wouldn't be as good as he was back then. So to some extent, modern players are universally better because of technological advancements but it's just hard for me to give someone an advantage because of that. Plus, even in a time machine argument, wouldn't Pistol Pete probably stop smoking, stop eating hamburgers and start cryotherapy and all the modern stuff.

Bottom line is that I'm a 100% era-relativist. The first reason for that is that without era-relativism, rankings are based on hypotheticals. You may think Jordan in 2025 would be worse than Shai or even Kawhi. I may think he would average 45/8/8. Bottom line is we don't know. We are both guessing. I don't like to make lists based on guessing and when you say modern players are better than X from a past era, you think they are but there is absolutely zero evidence for it or against it and there never will be. The second reason is that adopting a modern mindset basically ensures that the GOAT title is transient. You're watching the current GOAT and you are already guaranteeing that someone better will appear since a time will come that the current NBA is not the modern NBA anymore. That defeats the purpose of the title "greatest of all time". It's not all time if someone better is guaranteed to come along. It's just GUN (greatest until now) at that point.

It's not just about how exciting it is. If you go back and watch the 1986 Celtics defense on Jordan, anybody with an eye for the sport would conclude that the quality of play on the defensive end is below what we see today. It was bad. It has nothing to do with ball handling rules (actually, it kinda does, but not in the direction that would help your argument).

But yes, I do think "younger fans don't subscribe to era relativism" is the better case for you to make compared to "younger fans don't watch the games." Watching the games isn't the problem, the problem is not subscribing to the same criteria as you.

I'm a little skeptical of how many people are actually 100% era relativists tbh. Discounting Mikan due to era is the norm, is it not? I would argue that a true 100% era relativist approach would defeat the purpose of the title "greatest of all time" because the best player in the older, weaker eras would in many cases be impossible to top.

If people really believed in era relativism, Mikan wouldn't have zero votes right now.

[twyzted]

Magic went from 22,9 ppg, 8,1 apg, 12,7 apg 1,2 spg on 44,3fg% 29,8 3pt% 86,1 ft% to 18.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 12.4 apg, 1,2 spg on 43,1 fg% 28,6 3pt% 95.1ft% is torching Jordan? Remind me again how Lebron played in his first 2 final series?

I said Jordan, not Chicago. And that part is rather clear cut:

Spoiler:

Shot Defense

Courtesy of Djoker (with correction from Lebronny and top10alltime):

dFG%: 13/23 (56.5%)
dTS%: 48 points on 72.5 %TS (13/23 FG, 20/23 FT)
14 turnovers forced (12 steals, 1 charge, 1 shot clock violation)
4 deflections
12 shooting fouls committed
10 blow by's
7 blocks

vs. Magic Johnson
dTS%: 34 points on 87.3 %TS (8/12, 16/17)
4 turnovers forced (2 steals, 1 charge, 1 shot clock violation)

It looks even worse if we do actual watching instead of the glorified box-watching Jordan fans have long clung to:

Spoiler:

Usage and Efficacy

Top10Alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 possessions of game 5)

PPD - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPPD - effective PPD
IPPD - ineffective PPD

Game 1

Final tally
16 PPD, .228 per poss
4 EPPD, .06 per poss
8 IPPD, .12 per poss

Game 2

9 PPD, .143 per poss
1 EPPD, .02 per poss
6 IPPD, .1 per poss

Game 5

19 PPD, .475 per poss
5 EPPD, .08 per poss
5 IPPD, .08 per poss

Paint Defense

Usage and Efficacy

Top10alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 poss of game 5)

PP - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPP - effective PP
IPP - ineffective PP

Game 1

11 PPs, .16 per poss
2 EPPs, .03 per poss
8 IPPs, .11

Game 2


Game 5
[spoiler]0 PPs, 0 per poss
0 EPPs, 0 per poss
0 IPPs, 0 per poss

Misc.

Help Defense

Top10alltime (game 1)
HPD - When a player is the primary or coprimary help defender
EHPD - Effective HPD
IHPD - Ineffective HPD

(I am assuming, think Elpollo_14 came up with this one)

5 HPD, .07 per poss
2 EHPD, .035 per poss
2 IHPD, .035 per poss

Turns out the absolute worst thing for Jordan's legacy is people actually watching him play.

Ohh so you tracked stats for 2 and a bit of games and that is proof for Magic torching Jordan?

im not putting trust into validity into that someone tracked. Especially from someone who is as biased as you.

You have the stats to prove that basketball reference oversold Jordans numbers?

Yep:
https://sports.yahoo.com/a-closer-look-at-michael-jordans-1988-dpoy-award-raises-questions-about-its-validity-has-lebron-james-been-chasing-a-ghost-140452567.html
The biggest home and away disparity on record, home-inflation by a factor of two over 10 games tracked by multiple sources, and confirmation from his own teammates and scorekeeper Jordan asked to have his stats inflated:

That isnt proof that basketball reference oversold Jordans numbers... these are the same numbers that are on the official nba site.

[OhayoKD]

Magic went from 22,9 ppg, 8,1 apg, 12,7 apg 1,2 spg on 44,3fg% 29,8 3pt% 86,1 ft% to 18.6 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 12.4 apg, 1,2 spg on 43,1 fg% 28,6 3pt% 95.1ft% is torching Jordan? Remind me again how Lebron played in his first 2 final series?

I said Jordan, not Chicago. And that part is rather clear cut:

Spoiler:

Shot Defense

Courtesy of Djoker (with correction from Lebronny and top10alltime):

dFG%: 13/23 (56.5%)
dTS%: 48 points on 72.5 %TS (13/23 FG, 20/23 FT)
14 turnovers forced (12 steals, 1 charge, 1 shot clock violation)
4 deflections
12 shooting fouls committed
10 blow by's
7 blocks

vs. Magic Johnson
dTS%: 34 points on 87.3 %TS (8/12, 16/17)
4 turnovers forced (2 steals, 1 charge, 1 shot clock violation)

It looks even worse if we do actual watching instead of the glorified box-watching Jordan fans have long clung to:

Spoiler:

Usage and Efficacy

Top10Alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 possessions of game 5)

PPD - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPPD - effective PPD
IPPD - ineffective PPD

Game 1

Final tally
16 PPD, .228 per poss
4 EPPD, .06 per poss
8 IPPD, .12 per poss

Game 2

9 PPD, .143 per poss
1 EPPD, .02 per poss
6 IPPD, .1 per poss

Game 5

19 PPD, .475 per poss
5 EPPD, .08 per poss
5 IPPD, .08 per poss

Paint Defense

Usage and Efficacy

Top10alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 poss of game 5)

PP - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPP - effective PP
IPP - ineffective PP

Game 1

11 PPs, .16 per poss
2 EPPs, .03 per poss
8 IPPs, .11

Game 2


Game 5
[spoiler]0 PPs, 0 per poss
0 EPPs, 0 per poss
0 IPPs, 0 per poss

Misc.

Help Defense

Top10alltime (game 1)
HPD - When a player is the primary or coprimary help defender
EHPD - Effective HPD
IHPD - Ineffective HPD

(I am assuming, think Elpollo_14 came up with this one)

5 HPD, .07 per poss
2 EHPD, .035 per poss
2 IHPD, .035 per poss

Turns out the absolute worst thing for Jordan's legacy is people actually watching him play.

Ohh so you tracked stats for 2 and a bit of games and that is proof for Magic torching Jordan?

im not putting trust into validity into that someone tracked. Especially from someone who is as biased as you.

Huh? The first spoiler shows both Magic and the Lakers shooting way way better against Jordan than they did the rest of his teammates and comes from the whole series. (might be worse, I don't remember if Djoker corrected for multiple three-pointers they missed in his original tracking).

Most of the second tracking is sourced from someone who had Jordan as their #1...before they started watching him play. (The game I tracked is actually the one Jordan performs best in).

Face it Twister. Jordan got cooked. Turns out your eyetest is worthless. Who'da thought?

You have the stats to prove that basketball reference oversold Jordans numbers?

Yep:
https://sports.yahoo.com/a-closer-look-at-michael-jordans-1988-dpoy-award-raises-questions-about-its-validity-has-lebron-james-been-chasing-a-ghost-140452567.html
The biggest home and away disparity on record, home-inflation by a factor of two over 10 games tracked by multiple sources, and confirmation from his own teammates and scorekeeper Jordan asked to have his stats inflated:

That isnt proof that basketball reference oversold Jordans numbers... these are the same numbers that are on the official nba site.

Okay? His stats are still fake. Cope as you see fit.

[twyzted]

I said Jordan, not Chicago. And that part is rather clear cut:

Spoiler:

Shot Defense

Courtesy of Djoker (with correction from Lebronny and top10alltime):

It looks even worse if we do actual watching instead of the glorified box-watching Jordan fans have long clung to:

Spoiler:

Usage and Efficacy

Top10Alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 possessions of game 5)

PPD - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPPD - effective PPD
IPPD - ineffective PPD

Game 1


Game 2


Game 5


Paint Defense

Usage and Efficacy

Top10alltime/OhayoKD (Games 1, 2, and the first 40 poss of game 5)

PP - makes when you’re the primary or co-primary perimeter defender in a possession
EPP - effective PP
IPP - ineffective PP

Game 1


Misc.

Help Defense

Top10alltime (game 1)
HPD - When a player is the primary or coprimary help defender
EHPD - Effective HPD
IHPD - Ineffective HPD

(I am assuming, think Elpollo_14 came up with this one)

Turns out the absolute worst thing for Jordan's legacy is people actually watching him play.

Ohh so you tracked stats for 2 and a bit of games and that is proof for Magic torching Jordan?

im not putting trust into validity into that someone tracked. Especially from someone who is as biased as you.

Huh? The first spoiler shows both Magic and the Lakers shooting way way better against Jordan than they did the rest of his teammates and comes from the whole series. (might be worse, I don't remember if Djoker corrected for multiple three-pointers they missed in his original tracking).

Most of the second tracking is sourced from someone who had Jordan as their #1...before they started watching him play. (The game I tracked is actually the one Jordan performs best in).

Face it Twister. Jordan got cooked. Turns out your eyetest is worthless. Who'da thought?

No it doesnt unless somehow Jordan only guarded 23 shots for the whole series which i doubt and blocked 7 shots.

Yep:
https://sports.yahoo.com/a-closer-look-at-michael-jordans-1988-dpoy-award-raises-questions-about-its-validity-has-lebron-james-been-chasing-a-ghost-140452567.html
The biggest home and away disparity on record, home-inflation by a factor of two over 10 games tracked by multiple sources, and confirmation from his own teammates and scorekeeper Jordan asked to have his stats inflated:

That isnt proof that basketball reference oversold Jordans numbers... these are the same numbers that are on the official nba site.

Okay? His stats are still fake. Cope as you see fit.

The only thing that article said was that homecooking stats were a thing up until 2018-19 season. So i guess all stats are a lie.