#25 - GOAT peaks project (2019)

[ardee]

1. 2017 Westbrook: the kind of floor raising he engaged in was really historic and honestly I needed to just go back a bit and relive that season in my head. The regular season alone, with the supporting cast he had and the results the team still achieved, is comparable to the Kobe/Wade/Dirk/KG tier IMO. The Playoffs pull him back down a bit, but IMO he should be ahead of T-Mac at least.

2. 2015 Chris Paul

He has a really solid case as the best player in the league that year. Blake missed a bunch of games but he still led the Clippers to a 6.8 SRS and the best offense in the league. At least regular season wise it's a feat comparable to 2008 Kobe. 19-5-10 on 49-40-90, 60% TS, 26 PER, numbers are definitely there. The Spurs series was masterful and it truly marked his ascenion to Point God. I can't really put the Rockets loss on him at all, now when we averaged 26-10 efficiently for the last 3 games. The one missed game, well, if 2016 Curry is already in with 7 missed Playoff games, then that is a moot point here.

The way he controlled games this year was unreal, his BBIQ was ludricious.

3. 2008 Chris Paul

Basically just as good in every way as 2015 but less experienced and a slightly worse shooter. Raw numbers are utterly absurd (even better in 2009, which is IMO the 2nd best regular season for a PG after 2016 Curry, but of course he was terrible in the Playoffs). Absurd Playoffs too, 30.7 PER for a PG is just wtf.

After this I think in a rough order I'd have Barkley, Kawhi, Durant, Nash, Harden and Ewing in some order. Separating those is going to be a nightmare.

[euroleague]

1. Karl Malone 98 - dominant regular season, carried a very weak team to the brink of the finals and would’ve won if the pushoff foul was called. Underrated on this board.

2. Isiah Thomas 90 - dominant postseason, led one of the best teams ever to a relatively comfortable victory over some of the best teams of the era. Often criticized for shooting efficiency and his team being defensively focused, but he led the team and was the engine behind it on both ends.

3. Charles Barkley 90 - dominant offensive player, to the extent that rules had to be questioned because he could score so unstoppably in the post. Lacked postseason success, which is a big mark against this year. Very solid RS though

[Samurai]

1. George Mikan 1949. I understand the concerns about the strength of his era and thus I haven't said anything about him not being voted in yet. But to keep him out of the top 25 altogether seems to be going overboard in one direction. The dominant offensive player in the game, leading the league in scoring and 8th in assists/game. But he was also the dominant defender and rebounder as well. He clearly dominated his peers to a greater extent than anyone left on the board; dropping him to #25 due to questions about league strength seems about right to me.

2. Bob McAdoo 1975. League MVP, he was an outstanding scorer, leading the league with 34.5 ppg, he also led the league in OWS, WS and WS/48. 5th in TS% and 2nd in PER. The knock on him has always been his defense, but 75 was arguably his best defensive season as well. Finished 6th in DWS, 18th in Def Rtg, and 6th in blocks/game.

3. Russell Westbrook 2017. Admittedly I am not a Westbrook fan and I think too much hype was given to the triple double aspect, but this was just a tremendous all-around great year. Led the league with 31.6 ppg and 3rd in assists/game. And while he gets criticized for not putting in nearly as much effort on defense, he did finish 8th in DWS and 2nd in Def Box Plus/Minus that year.

[liamliam1234]

Alright, did not seriously think I would need to worry about this considering McAdoo came in at number forty two years ago, but apparently I do.

Why is McAdoo more deserving than Karl Malone, or Anthony Davis, or Charles Barkley? His gaudy numbers are pretty obviously a product of pace; adjusting pretty much removes his advantage.

1975 McAdoo: 35.6/14.5/2.3/1.2/2.2 on 56.9% true shooting, with 0.242 WS/48
1992 Karl Malone: 37.4/15/4/1.8/0.8 on 59.9% true shooting, with 0.237 WS/48
2018 Davis: 36.9/14.6/3/2/3.4 on 61.2% true shooting, with 0.241 WS/48
1990 Barkley: 32.1/14.7/4.9/2.4/0.8 on 66.1% true shooting, with 0.269 WS/48

Now, McAdoo is probably hurt a bit in this comparison by virtue of playing more possessions, but even boosting those numbers marginally does not really give him an advantage.

But everyone always points to his first round series. So alright, what if we adjust for the playoffs?

McAdoo: 36.5/13.1/1.4/0.8/2.6 on 52.8% true shooting, with 0.168 WS/48, in seven games
Karl Malone: 36.1/14/3.3/1.7/1.5 on 61.6% true shooting, with 0.220 WS/48, in sixteen games
Davis: 35.4/15.8/2/2.3/2.7 on 58.4% true shooting, with 0.184 WS/48, in nine games
Barkley: 30.4/19.1/5.3/1.0/0.9 on 58.9% true shooting, with 0.176 WS/48, in ten games

Again, McAdoo has the most possessions per game, so give him a slight boost. And it is true he was facing the best defensive team of the group by a decent margin. But his scoring rate was nothing incredible, his scoring efficiency was bad, his rebounding trailed, and he functioned as a total black hole (weird how when it comes to McAdoo this no longer matters to E-Balla). His first-round competition matters, sure, but I do not see why he receives so much more credit for a first round failure than others with comparable numbers do for having deeper runs.

[Clyde Frazier]

Ballot #1 - 93 Barkley
Ballot #2 - 17 Westbrook
Ballot #3 - 08 Paul

- - - - -

Ballot #1 - 93 Barkley

Totally see a case for 90 being his peak, but I like Barkley’s more refined game in PHX where he was still an excellent athlete (and in amazing shape), but was a little less reckless. Of course he had more talent around him, but I think that slightly toned down version helped them get as far as they did in the postseason. I’m not quite sure 90 barkley gets them there.

93 WCF game 7 against the sonics - 44 PTS / 22 REB / 1 AST / 1 STL / 1 BLK / 74.1% TS / 167 ORTG

Watch on YouTube

Ballot #2 - 17 Westbrook

Definitely struggling to parse between all these guys at this point, but comfortable going with Westbrook here. The first triple double season was very impressive, and he backed it up with great advanced box score and impact metrics. As far as the playoffs, beyond oladipo they really didn't have much supporting talent and lost to the 3rd ranked SRS rockets. I don't fully subscribe to "Westbrook was holding oladipo back" because he wouldn't be the first player to take some time to break out as a star. Was very close to going with 19 Kawhi here, but as a durability guy I can't get past the 60 games played in the regular season yet.

Ballot #3 - 08 Paul

Imprressive combo of regular season and postseason play. More than deserving of winning MVP that season. Tough series that went 7 against the spurs in only his 3rd season putting up 23.7 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 10.7 APG, 2.6 SPG on 55.5% TS and 121 ORTG.

Watch on YouTube

[Odinn21]

1. 1993 Charles Barkley
Natural scorer and rebounder and it wasn’t like he didn’t pay attention on defense in this particular season. That WCF performance was something to behold. The Sonics were 5th in ppg allowed and 2nd drtg (also, despite the W numbers, they led the league in SRS) and that 44/24 game 7 performance is one of the best ever game 7 performances. Also, despite losing in 6, the Suns didn’t get outscored by the Bulls in the NBA Finals. That was the level of Chuck elevating the team. I’m particularly big on this because there are team performances winning the series despite not outscoring the opponent but those series are usually decided in the last game. Not in this case.

2. 2017 Russell Westbrook
Interestingly I think RW had the highest peak among 2012 OKC trio. People usually like to bash him for his chucking many shots but this dude literally did everything. It might look a bit bizarre for voting someone with a 1st round exit in 5 games but imagine a team that bad that can not play for their lives. 240 minutes in the series and the Thunder were +15 when RW was on the court (194:29) and they were -58 when RW was off (45:31).

3. 2008 Chris Paul
I believe CP3 is the only player who's yet to make the list with 6+ RAPM. This alone should make a case for him. I believe a player's peak happens between his 25 and 32. Not 22. But even though he had many great seasons in LAC, I feel like CP3 never topped his 2007-08 season. All-around great season. Huge averages, assist and steal titles. Insane ast/tov ratio. I'm yet to achieve a conclusive result but CP3's 2007-08 regular season is probably the best season ever in terms of ast/tov (since turnovers getting recorded surely), especially we factor in his assist volume.
And even better display in the playoffs. Dominated the Mavs with one of the best playoffs series by a PG. And then gave one hell of a fight battle against the defending champions. Despite losing in 7, the overall scoreboard of the series was a tie. He was the best player in the series against another top 5 player in that year.

I still couldn't figure a way to utilize ortg and drtg numbers in NBA.com website. I tried to focus on relative ratings to come up with something but it's no use without addressing the type of 5 on the court. It can be small-ball 5, rebounding 5, etc. The need of more filters (which are not available of course) is just too much.

[No-more-rings]

Inexperienced 22 year old? He was more successful that season than literally any other season in his career. If anything you painted a very bleak picture of his career.

Was he though? Without going through the years i’d imagine some of his Clipper teams had a better record/srs/ortg some combination or all.

Maybe you should go through the years. Outside of the year Blake was 3rd in MVP voting and the team played better without him his results aren't much better than in Charlotte. Same wins, slightly higher SRS, worse postseason performances from the team.

The Hornets under Paul peaked at 56 wins, a +5.5 SRS with a +4 offense in 08 and a 2nd round loss where they played at a +9 level in the postseason.

In LA the best he did (as the best player, so I'm not giving him credit for them playing better without him in 2014) was 56 wins, a +6.8 SRS with a +6.8 offense, and a 2nd round loss while they played at a +7 level in the postseason.

I don't see any real meaningful distance in these teams.

And again, there’s lots of proof he just wasn’t good on defense like he’d become. I thought for a long time that was his peak, but i’m not so sure he was more impactful than some other years. That’s possibly his best “put it all together” year but if you’re someone who puts a lot of weight into impact stuff there’s 0 chance that’s his peak or even top 3 season.

And what about his clear drop offensively as he aged and became less of a dangerous scorer? What about him being a generally bad teammate and that bleeding into their performance on the floor?

Do you have 08 as Paul’s peak, yes or no? Because if it’s a Clipper year i’m not really sure why we’re arguing.

[E-Balla]

1. Karl Malone 98 - dominant regular season, carried a very weak team to the brink of the finals and would’ve won if the pushoff foul was called. Underrated on this board.

2. Isiah Thomas 90 - dominant postseason, led one of the best teams ever to a relatively comfortable victory over some of the best teams of the era. Often criticized for shooting efficiency and his team being defensively focused, but he led the team and was the engine behind it on both ends.

3. Charles Barkley 90 - dominant offensive player, to the extent that rules had to be questioned because he could score so unstoppably in the post. Lacked postseason success, which is a big mark against this year. Very solid RS though

What's the argument for 1990 being Isiah's best season? 85 is clearly his best regular and postseason. He averaged 21/5/14 on the regular season and 24/5/11 in the playoffs through 2 rounds including 26/6/11 against the Celtics in 6 games.

[E-Balla]

Was he though? Without going through the years i’d imagine some of his Clipper teams had a better record/srs/ortg some combination or all.

Maybe you should go through the years. Outside of the year Blake was 3rd in MVP voting and the team played better without him his results aren't much better than in Charlotte. Same wins, slightly higher SRS, worse postseason performances from the team.

The Hornets under Paul peaked at 56 wins, a +5.5 SRS with a +4 offense in 08 and a 2nd round loss where they played at a +9 level in the postseason.

In LA the best he did (as the best player, so I'm not giving him credit for them playing better without him in 2014) was 56 wins, a +6.8 SRS with a +6.8 offense, and a 2nd round loss while they played at a +7 level in the postseason.

I don't see any real meaningful distance in these teams.

And again, there’s lots of proof he just wasn’t good on defense like he’d become. I thought for a long time that was his peak, but i’m not so sure he was more impactful than some other years. That’s possibly his best “put it all together” year but if you’re someone who puts a lot of weight into impact stuff there’s 0 chance that’s his peak or even top 3 season.

And what about his clear drop offensively as he aged and became less of a dangerous scorer? What about him being a generally bad teammate and that bleeding into their performance on the floor?

Do you have 08 as Paul’s peak, yes or no? Because if it’s a Clipper year i’m not really sure why we’re arguing.

I think I've made it well beyond obvious I think Hornets CP3 is better than Clippers CP3, I've said so plenty of times. 08 is one of the best teams he's been on while simultaneously being one of the worst supporting casts he's had and 09 is better minus his postseason performance. In 2012 he was the 2nd best player in the league and it was downhill from there.

[euroleague]

1. Karl Malone 98 - dominant regular season, carried a very weak team to the brink of the finals and would’ve won if the pushoff foul was called. Underrated on this board.

2. Isiah Thomas 90 - dominant postseason, led one of the best teams ever to a relatively comfortable victory over some of the best teams of the era. Often criticized for shooting efficiency and his team being defensively focused, but he led the team and was the engine behind it on both ends.

3. Charles Barkley 90 - dominant offensive player, to the extent that rules had to be questioned because he could score so unstoppably in the post. Lacked postseason success, which is a big mark against this year. Very solid RS though

What's the argument for 1990 being Isiah's best season? 85 is clearly his best regular and postseason. He averaged 21/5/14 on the regular season and 24/5/11 in the playoffs through 2 rounds including 26/6/11 against the Celtics in 6 games.

His 90 post season was best in a per possession basis, and the amount he carried his team increased exponentially. His defensive strategy of ‘Jordan rules’ set the standard, and he led his team on both ends to a ring

[No-more-rings]

Maybe you should go through the years. Outside of the year Blake was 3rd in MVP voting and the team played better without him his results aren't much better than in Charlotte. Same wins, slightly higher SRS, worse postseason performances from the team.

The Hornets under Paul peaked at 56 wins, a +5.5 SRS with a +4 offense in 08 and a 2nd round loss where they played at a +9 level in the postseason.

In LA the best he did (as the best player, so I'm not giving him credit for them playing better without him in 2014) was 56 wins, a +6.8 SRS with a +6.8 offense, and a 2nd round loss while they played at a +7 level in the postseason.

I don't see any real meaningful distance in these teams.


And what about his clear drop offensively as he aged and became less of a dangerous scorer? What about him being a generally bad teammate and that bleeding into their performance on the floor?

Do you have 08 as Paul’s peak, yes or no? Because if it’s a Clipper year i’m not really sure why we’re arguing.

I think I've made it well beyond obvious I think Hornets CP3 is better than Clippers CP3, I've said so plenty of times. 08 is one of the best teams he's been on while simultaneously being one of the worst supporting casts he's had and 09 is better minus his postseason performance. In 2012 he was the 2nd best player in the league and it was downhill from there.

Paul had a horrible playoff performance in 2012. How do you reconcile that?

[E-Balla]

Alright, did not seriously think I would need to worry about this considering McAdoo came in at number forty two years ago, but apparently I do.

Why is McAdoo more deserving than Karl Malone, or Anthony Davis, or Charles Barkley? His gaudy numbers are pretty obviously a product of pace; adjusting pretty much removes his advantage.

1975 McAdoo: 35.6/14.5/2.3/1.2/2.2 on 56.9% true shooting, with 0.242 WS/48
1992 Karl Malone: 37.4/15/4/1.8/0.8 on 59.9% true shooting, with 0.237 WS/48
2018 Davis: 36.9/14.6/3/2/3.4 on 61.2% true shooting, with 0.241 WS/48
1990 Barkley: 32.1/14.7/4.9/2.4/0.8 on 66.1% true shooting, with 0.269 WS/48

A few points here:

1. Per 100 comparisons only make sense if their playing time is similar. McAdoo played 43 mpg. Davis played 36 mpg, it's not the same producing in 36 mpg as compared to 43. Same for Barkley a 39 mpg and Karl's 38.

2. Per 100 stats without adjusting for scoring efficiency is bunk. McAdoo averaged 35.6 pp100 but league wide average pp100 was 97.7. Malone averaged 37.4 pp100 vs a league average of 108.2, Barkley averaged 32.1 pp100 vs a league average of 108.1, and Davis averaged 36.9 pp100 vs a league average of 108.6. Adjust McAdoo's pp100 to a league average of 108 and he had 39.3 pp100. Slightly better than those other guys and equal to 92 MJ.

3. They also played in leagues with different TS% due to league rules and how the game was played. His rTS% was over Davis and about equal to Malone.

4. League average PPG in 75 was 102.6. In 90 it was 107.0. in 92 it was 105.3. in 18 it was 106.3. If anything your adjustment for McAdoo should bring his scoring average up in comparison to these guys. It's the 2nd highest ppg total of the 20 year period from the start of the ABA era (68) to the Jordan era (87) next to 72 Kareem (who got votes for this list in the top 5). These "adjustments" always fail to account for the fact that the game is different and load management back then was totally different.

5. Correct me if I'm wrong but McAdoo in 74 is the only player along with 16 Steph to lead the league in PPG and TS%. That's the level of scorer you're comparing to those guys, someone nearly Curry level that didn't drop off in the playoffs.

6. He's also one of the few players with 3 straight scoring titles along with MJ, Wilt, Mikan, Johnston, and KD.

Now, McAdoo is probably hurt a bit in this comparison by virtue of playing more possessions, but even boosting those numbers marginally does not really give him an advantage.

But everyone always points to his first round series. So alright, what if we adjust for the playoffs?

McAdoo: 36.5/13.1/1.4/0.8/2.6 on 52.8% true shooting, with 0.168 WS/48, in seven games
Karl Malone: 36.1/14/3.3/1.7/1.5 on 61.6% true shooting, with 0.220 WS/48, in sixteen games
Davis: 35.4/15.8/2/2.3/2.7 on 58.4% true shooting, with 0.184 WS/48, in nine games
Barkley: 30.4/19.1/5.3/1.0/0.9 on 58.9% true shooting, with 0.176 WS/48, in ten games

Again, McAdoo has the most possessions per game, so give him a slight boost. And it is true he was facing the best defensive team of the group by a decent margin.

Understatement of the **** century. Here's the defenses they played and McAdoo's adjusted number compared to the defenses the others played (not adjusting TS% because we should all know at this point you failed to adjust for that and it makes a large difference here):

The Bullets gave up 91.3 pp100.

Karl's opponents (adjusted for games played vs each team) gave up 105.8 pp100 on average which would've meant over 42 pp100 for McAdoo (+6 to Karl).

Davis' opponents gave up 107.1 pp100 on average which would've meant almost 43 pp100 for McAdoo (+7.5ish to Davis).

Barkley's opponents gave up 108.1 pp100 on average which would've meant over 43 pp100 for McAdoo (+13 to Barkley).

But his scoring rate was nothing incredible,

Nah your method of adjusting numbers is just extremely flawed and doesn't account for anything but pace differentials, which is way less important than the differences in the rules and defensive play in general over the years. Past the 60s there's really no need for pace adjustment between stars outside of the late 90s to the mid 10s when the scoring average dropped from that 100-110 ppg range.

McAdoo in that series averaged more ppg in that series than anyone else in any series from 71 to 86 and if you exclude postseason runs from 60 to 70 that year is 3rd in PPG to 86 MJ and 88 Hakeem with 17 Westbrook and 90 MJ rounding out the top 10.

his scoring efficiency was bad,

He was playing a team with a 91.3 DRTG that held opponents to 48.3 TS% on average and had a 52.8 TS%. How in the hell is that bad?

his rebounding trailed, and he functioned as a total black hole (weird how when it comes to McAdoo this no longer matters to E-Balla).

Because it's not really a valid criticism of he's leading to a good team offense is it? He had no talent around him and that offense went from a +2 offense to a -2 offense once they shipped him to NY.

You know for a damn fact that his situation isn't similar to Kawhi's IDK why you would mention this like Kawhi's offense performed as well as the Buffalo offense despite having way more talent.

His first-round competition matters, sure, but I do not see why he receives so much more credit for a first round failure than others with comparable numbers do for having deeper runs.

It was in the 2nd round not the first. And no one left has comparable numbers. You don't get to say "well adjusting one and only one factor makes his numbers look way worse" while not adjusting all other factors and use that to say he's nothing special. It's the same as me going "James Harden's 2019 season isn't special if he scored 10 less ppg" with no explanation of why that's relevant.

[E-Balla]

1. Karl Malone 98 - dominant regular season, carried a very weak team to the brink of the finals and would’ve won if the pushoff foul was called. Underrated on this board.

2. Isiah Thomas 90 - dominant postseason, led one of the best teams ever to a relatively comfortable victory over some of the best teams of the era. Often criticized for shooting efficiency and his team being defensively focused, but he led the team and was the engine behind it on both ends.

3. Charles Barkley 90 - dominant offensive player, to the extent that rules had to be questioned because he could score so unstoppably in the post. Lacked postseason success, which is a big mark against this year. Very solid RS though

What's the argument for 1990 being Isiah's best season? 85 is clearly his best regular and postseason. He averaged 21/5/14 on the regular season and 24/5/11 in the playoffs through 2 rounds including 26/6/11 against the Celtics in 6 games.

His 90 post season was best in a per possession basis,

No it ain't. Compared to 85 he averaged less points per possession, less assists, and was less efficient.

and the amount he carried his team increased exponentially. His defensive strategy of ‘Jordan rules’ set the standard, and he led his team on both ends to a ring

Isiah didn't guard Jordan. I'm kind of lost on how to respond to this without just saying it's absurd...

[E-Balla]

Do you have 08 as Paul’s peak, yes or no? Because if it’s a Clipper year i’m not really sure why we’re arguing.

I think I've made it well beyond obvious I think Hornets CP3 is better than Clippers CP3, I've said so plenty of times. 08 is one of the best teams he's been on while simultaneously being one of the worst supporting casts he's had and 09 is better minus his postseason performance. In 2012 he was the 2nd best player in the league and it was downhill from there.

Paul had a horrible playoff performance in 2012. How do you reconcile that?

I'm not talking about how good his season was I'm talking about how good he was. Chris Paul without his athleticism just never compared to athletic Chris Paul. The only thing he improved in his game was his man defense and the vast gap in the ability for young CP3 to score, stay healthy, play high minutes, and take over games means he's way more valuable a player.

And you going to continue arguing for Clippers CP3 or you going to keep questioning whether I believe 08 Paul is better despite me saying that constantly?

[euroleague]

What's the argument for 1990 being Isiah's best season? 85 is clearly his best regular and postseason. He averaged 21/5/14 on the regular season and 24/5/11 in the playoffs through 2 rounds including 26/6/11 against the Celtics in 6 games.

His 90 post season was best in a per possession basis,

No it ain't. Compared to 85 he averaged less points per possession, less assists, and was less efficient.

and the amount he carried his team increased exponentially. His defensive strategy of ‘Jordan rules’ set the standard, and he led his team on both ends to a ring

Isiah didn't guard Jordan. I'm kind of lost on how to respond to this without just saying it's absurd...

I don’t know why I bother responding to such ignorant posts, but I guess I’ll answer

In 85 he had worse +- per possession
In 85 per 100 possessions he had .6 points more, 3 assists more, and less steals/rebounds.
In 85 he had 0.7% higher TS
In 90 he shot far better and far more from 3
In 90 he won the championship and was FMVP, in 85 he lost in the second round

In my post, my points are coherent. Your posts are blatantly cherry picking and choosing stats which support your argument, framing them in ways which distort their accuracy.

‘More points on better efficiency’ = .6 pp100 on .7 % TS better, losing in the first round with worse shooting.

Your lack of knowledge about the importance of Isiah relating to MJ demonstrates your ignorance... Feel free to continue being lost, as you’re not close to being knowledgeable and the idea that other posters should educate you is sadly lacking in sense.

[E-Balla]

His 90 post season was best in a per possession basis,

No it ain't. Compared to 85 he averaged less points per possession, less assists, and was less efficient.

and the amount he carried his team increased exponentially. His defensive strategy of ‘Jordan rules’ set the standard, and he led his team on both ends to a ring

Isiah didn't guard Jordan. I'm kind of lost on how to respond to this without just saying it's absurd...

I don’t know why I bother responding to such ignorant posts, but I guess I’ll answer

In 85 he had worse +- per possession

No one even knows his +/- per possession. Those numbers literally don't exist.

In 85 per 100 possessions he had .6 points more, 3 assists more, and less steals/rebounds.
In 85 he had 0.7% higher TS
In 90 he shot far better and far more from 3
In 90 he won the championship and was FMVP, in 85 he lost in the second round

In my post, my points are coherent.

No that's why you shifted your goalposts. So Zeke in 85 had better per 100 stats, you agree? Like seriously they're higher across the board.

Your posts are blatantly cherry picking and choosing stats which support your argument, framing them in ways which distort their accuracy.

I'm literally going off your criteria you gave when I said to argue for 90 as his best season.

‘More points on better efficiency’ = .6 pp100 on .7 % TS better, losing in the first round with worse shooting.

1. They didn't lose in the first round.
2. You said his numbers in 85 were better. I corrected that. Don't shoot the messenger.

Your lack of knowledge about the importance of Isiah relating to MJ just demonstrates your own lack of knowledge. Feel free to continue being lost, as its not like you’re close to being knowledgeable and the idea that I should educate you is, frankly, absurd...

Bro what the **** are you even talking about? I asked you to explain why 90 Zeke over 85. You gave pretty basic and easy to look up criteria and another point that quite frankly made absolutely no sense. I mentioned by the criteria you gave that was tangible 85 Zeke was better, and that I don't get what you mean by the second thing. Now you're mad I pointed out your argument didn't make sense according to your own given criteria?

[euroleague]

No it ain't. Compared to 85 he averaged less points per possession, less assists, and was less efficient.

Season wide TS % went down. The team’s pace went down, and they became a grind it out defense as opposed to a high speed transition offense. And your argument is that he had less than 1pp100, less than 1TS%, higher...

The Per100 stats are obviously better in 90. Notably the fact he played 11 more games in which the per100 stats are based on.

You said his stats were better in 85. In 85, His shooting was much worse, his TS% and volume were roughly the same, thus worse scoring for a guard. Worse ORTG-DRTG. Worse rebounding. .5 steals less. 3assists more.

Defensively, the difference was night and day. Offensively, very similar outside of a few assists. The DBPM metric measures the difference as 85- 1.1 vs 90 - 4.1....

[E-Balla]

Season wide TS % went down. The team’s pace went down, and they became a grind it out defense as opposed to a high speed transition offense. And your argument is that he had less than 1pp100, less than 1TS%, higher...

The Per100 stats are obviously better in 90. Notably the fact he played 11 more games in which the per100 stats are based on.

You said his stats were better in 85. In 85, His shooting was much worse, his TS% and volume were roughly the same, thus worse scoring for a guard. Worse ORTG-DRTG. Worse rebounding. .5 steals less. 3assists more.

Defensively, the difference was night and day. Offensively, very similar outside of a few assists. The DBPM metric measures the difference as 85- 1.1 vs 90 - 4.1....

There's been talk up and down this exact thread about how useless DRTG and defensive box stats are. But I'm dropping it here you're consistently contradicting yourself here and I'm not even sure at what argument you're trying to make beyond "he won a ring in 90".

[euroleague]

Season wide TS % went down. The team’s pace went down, and they became a grind it out defense as opposed to a high speed transition offense. And your argument is that he had less than 1pp100, less than 1TS%, higher...

The Per100 stats are obviously better in 90. Notably the fact he played 11 more games in which the per100 stats are based on.

You said his stats were better in 85. In 85, His shooting was much worse, his TS% and volume were roughly the same, thus worse scoring for a guard. Worse ORTG-DRTG. Worse rebounding. .5 steals less. 3assists more.

Defensively, the difference was night and day. Offensively, very similar outside of a few assists. The DBPM metric measures the difference as 85- 1.1 vs 90 - 4.1....

There's been talk up and down this exact thread about how useless DRTG and defensive box stats are. But I'm dropping it here you're consistently contradicting yourself here and I'm not even sure at what argument you're trying to make beyond "he won a ring in 90".

You realize the difference compared to the league average makes his TS% and scoring numbers better in 90...

I don’t know how you quantify TS%, but I’m guessing you cherry pick and don’t use context, just like everything else you argue, so your argument isn’t surprising ...

[E-Balla]

Season wide TS % went down. The team’s pace went down, and they became a grind it out defense as opposed to a high speed transition offense. And your argument is that he had less than 1pp100, less than 1TS%, higher...

The Per100 stats are obviously better in 90. Notably the fact he played 11 more games in which the per100 stats are based on.

You said his stats were better in 85. In 85, His shooting was much worse, his TS% and volume were roughly the same, thus worse scoring for a guard. Worse ORTG-DRTG. Worse rebounding. .5 steals less. 3assists more.

Defensively, the difference was night and day. Offensively, very similar outside of a few assists. The DBPM metric measures the difference as 85- 1.1 vs 90 - 4.1....

There's been talk up and down this exact thread about how useless DRTG and defensive box stats are. But I'm dropping it here you're consistently contradicting yourself here and I'm not even sure at what argument you're trying to make beyond "he won a ring in 90".

You realize the difference compared to the league average makes his TS% and scoring numbers better in 90...

I don’t know how you quantify TS%, but I’m guessing you cherry pick and don’t use context, just like everything else you argue, so your argument isn’t surprising ...

The average TS% given up by the Pistons opponents in 90 (who were ranked 24th out of 27th, 13th, 19th, and 4th) was 54.0 and the average TS% given up by the Pistons opponents in 85 (who were ranked 12th and 5th) was 53.2. But yeah totally, my point lacks context and yours doesn't...