Author Topic: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate  (Read 8841 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2018, 02:47:12 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
What a bunch of BS. These writers need nerd stats to make a case for their idol. Lebron has had a easier road since his Miami days, and even then they only won two out of four, and one of those two because Ray Allen saved his butt. But during that time the east got weak, Boston was getting old, and no one was stepping up. Since return to Cleveland he's one for three. While it's impressive to get to the finals that many times on paper, they need to start looking at the full picture.

Jordan had to go through tough Cavs teams,NY teams,Detrioit teams, and Indy teams. An NBA with hand checking and a era that it wasn't unusual for a player to play both ways. And Centers that played in the pant and were walking block parties. How many Mutombos, Ewings,Robinsons are in the league right now? Jordan dunked on all those guys. Even got a finger wag in before it was taken away from the league.

I still take Jordan every day of the week with out even thinking about it.
Have you actually looked at those NY, Cleveland, and Indy teams.  Detroit was good for like the first title season, but then fell off the map.  I mean NY was Ewing (a HOFer, but not an all timer) and then a bunch of role players like Charles Oakley, Mark Jackson, John Starks, Greg Anthony, Anthony Mason, and a well past his prime Kiki Vandeweghe.  In other words, a pretty bad overall team.  Indiana never played Chicago in the playoffs, but the year MJ wasn't playing they made the ECF with this as their playoff rotation: Reggie Miller, Dale Davis, Derrick McKey, Vern Fleming, Rik Smits, Haywoode Workman, Byron Scott, Antonio Davis, and Sam Mitchell.  That team is awful for a Conference Finals team.  It might very well be the worst Conference Finals team ever. 

This notion that the 90's was a great era filled with great teams from top to bottom is just nonsense.  The 90's might very well be the worst decade the sport has ever seen (certainly on par with the 70's which is the only other decade that could be the worst).  The Bulls were a great team, an all time great team, but their competition was pretty weak both in the East and in the Finals after the first season (Seattle is the only other truly elite competition they played in any season).  I mean look at the Jazz.  Malone and Stockton great players, but the 3rd and 4th best players were Bryon Russell and Jeff Hornacek.  Greg Ostertag was their starting center.  Adam Keefe, Howard Eisley, and Shandon Anderson were in the playoff rotation.  That is a good team, but certainly not some great team that many make it out to be.

wow you overplayed your hand on that one. A lot. You have to look all the way back to... last year.. to find a worse conference finals team than that. We had 2 all-stars on our team. However, Thomas was an extreme liability on defense and played one full injury plagued game in the series. I love Horford, but neither of those guys is in Reggie Miller's class. 

Reggie Miller is obviously in the hall of fame and was a great player for many season. Smits was either an all-star or coming off an all-star season that year I am not sure which year you are referencing. Antonio Davis was also a very good player that made an allstar game in his career and was good for close to a double double most of his career. Dale Davis was also a highly rugged post player that had a very lengthy career and would also make an all-star game himself. These were all very solid to good players and I don't think the players starting for us as various points last year including Crowder, Amir Johnson, Gerald Green are in the same class as players like the Davis frontcourt...

Of all the things Lebron worshippers do, the weakest in my opinion is the constant effort to discredit these teams from other eras and pumping up an era were 3 of the top 6 players in one conference joined up on one team through free agency.
IT finished 5th in MVP voting last year.  Reggie Miller received MVP votes 2 seasons, he finished 13th and 16th those 2 seasons.  He had 3 All NBA 3rd Team selections (and that was it).  He made just 5 all star games.  He played for a very long time, with great health, and generally had good seasons, but he never had great seasons.  The back to back ECF teams when Jordan was on hiatus, Indiana won 47 and 52 games.  They weren't juggernauts.  The league was weak and that team was weak.  At least their one team that actually played Chicago in 98 had Mullin (and Jalen Rose), but that team was still incredibly weak historically.

I'd absolutely take last year's C's over the Pacers (even the later years).  Thomas was better than Miller last year.   Obviously Miller will end up with a much better career, but peak Thomas was better than peak Miller and frankly it isn't that close (I mean you can't pretend that Miller was even an average defender, he wasn't, he was a terrible defender).  I think you can reasonably argue that Horford is better than Miller was (obviously Miller has longevity that Horford doesn't have, but that is a different argument).  Bradley was certainly on par with either Davis.  Crowder is basically the wing version of Smits (who averaged 7 boards just 1 time and was only over 17 ppg, 3 times).  Both were role players.

I may have missed a Conference Finals team here or there that was as weak as the Pacers, but it certainly wasn't the C's last year.   
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2018, 02:48:08 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Anybody who watched basketball in the 90's knows Jordan dominated the league to a far greater degree than LeBron ever has (except for Ohio fans who should know it better than anyone but won't admit it because they're LBJ homers). You knew if Jordan was playing, the Bulls we're winning the title and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Jordan could have very likely won at least 8 straight titles if he didn't retire the first time, and maybe even 9 or 10 straight if he didn't retire the 2nd time.

Jordan also had way tougher competition in the East for most of his career. The 80's Celtics and Pistons, and 90's Knicks, Pacers, Magic, and Heat would probably have beaten either of LeBron's Cavs teams (not the Miami teams).

LeBron is amazing. There's a very good chance he might go down as the 2nd best player of all-time (still not there yet), but he'll never catch Jordan, it's too late for that. LeBron has had to many failures and times where he wilted under pressure to ever be considered better than Jordan. Jordan didn't run off to team up with someone else when he initially couldn't get past the Pistons, he simply worked harder until he could.
This is just nonsense.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2018, 03:09:53 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
What a bunch of BS. These writers need nerd stats to make a case for their idol. Lebron has had a easier road since his Miami days, and even then they only won two out of four, and one of those two because Ray Allen saved his butt. But during that time the east got weak, Boston was getting old, and no one was stepping up. Since return to Cleveland he's one for three. While it's impressive to get to the finals that many times on paper, they need to start looking at the full picture.

Jordan had to go through tough Cavs teams,NY teams,Detrioit teams, and Indy teams. An NBA with hand checking and a era that it wasn't unusual for a player to play both ways. And Centers that played in the pant and were walking block parties. How many Mutombos, Ewings,Robinsons are in the league right now? Jordan dunked on all those guys. Even got a finger wag in before it was taken away from the league.

I still take Jordan every day of the week with out even thinking about it.
Have you actually looked at those NY, Cleveland, and Indy teams.  Detroit was good for like the first title season, but then fell off the map.  I mean NY was Ewing (a HOFer, but not an all timer) and then a bunch of role players like Charles Oakley, Mark Jackson, John Starks, Greg Anthony, Anthony Mason, and a well past his prime Kiki Vandeweghe.  In other words, a pretty bad overall team.  Indiana never played Chicago in the playoffs, but the year MJ wasn't playing they made the ECF with this as their playoff rotation: Reggie Miller, Dale Davis, Derrick McKey, Vern Fleming, Rik Smits, Haywoode Workman, Byron Scott, Antonio Davis, and Sam Mitchell.  That team is awful for a Conference Finals team.  It might very well be the worst Conference Finals team ever. 

This notion that the 90's was a great era filled with great teams from top to bottom is just nonsense.  The 90's might very well be the worst decade the sport has ever seen (certainly on par with the 70's which is the only other decade that could be the worst).  The Bulls were a great team, an all time great team, but their competition was pretty weak both in the East and in the Finals after the first season (Seattle is the only other truly elite competition they played in any season).  I mean look at the Jazz.  Malone and Stockton great players, but the 3rd and 4th best players were Bryon Russell and Jeff Hornacek.  Greg Ostertag was their starting center.  Adam Keefe, Howard Eisley, and Shandon Anderson were in the playoff rotation.  That is a good team, but certainly not some great team that many make it out to be.

wow you overplayed your hand on that one. A lot. You have to look all the way back to... last year.. to find a worse conference finals team than that. We had 2 all-stars on our team. However, Thomas was an extreme liability on defense and played one full injury plagued game in the series. I love Horford, but neither of those guys is in Reggie Miller's class. 

Reggie Miller is obviously in the hall of fame and was a great player for many season. Smits was either an all-star or coming off an all-star season that year I am not sure which year you are referencing. Antonio Davis was also a very good player that made an allstar game in his career and was good for close to a double double most of his career. Dale Davis was also a highly rugged post player that had a very lengthy career and would also make an all-star game himself. These were all very solid to good players and I don't think the players starting for us as various points last year including Crowder, Amir Johnson, Gerald Green are in the same class as players like the Davis frontcourt...

Of all the things Lebron worshippers do, the weakest in my opinion is the constant effort to discredit these teams from other eras and pumping up an era were 3 of the top 6 players in one conference joined up on one team through free agency.
IT finished 5th in MVP voting last year.  Reggie Miller received MVP votes 2 seasons, he finished 13th and 16th those 2 seasons.  He had 3 All NBA 3rd Team selections (and that was it).  He made just 5 all star games.  He played for a very long time, with great health, and generally had good seasons, but he never had great seasons.  The back to back ECF teams when Jordan was on hiatus, Indiana won 47 and 52 games.  They weren't juggernauts.  The league was weak and that team was weak.  At least their one team that actually played Chicago in 98 had Mullin (and Jalen Rose), but that team was still incredibly weak historically.

I'd absolutely take last year's C's over the Pacers (even the later years).  Thomas was better than Miller last year.   Obviously Miller will end up with a much better career, but peak Thomas was better than peak Miller and frankly it isn't that close (I mean you can't pretend that Miller was even an average defender, he wasn't, he was a terrible defender).  I think you can reasonably argue that Horford is better than Miller was (obviously Miller has longevity that Horford doesn't have, but that is a different argument).  Bradley was certainly on par with either Davis.  Crowder is basically the wing version of Smits (who averaged 7 boards just 1 time and was only over 17 ppg, 3 times).  Both were role players.

I may have missed a Conference Finals team here or there that was as weak as the Pacers, but it certainly wasn't the C's last year.   

Oh man... you keeping digging your own grave on this. Rick Smits made an all-star team. He had his limitations on minutes played because he battled chronic foot problems and they managed his minutes, but he was extremely effective when on the court. Before the injuries ended his career at 33 he had been a starter his entire career. Jae Crowder is already coming off the bench at age 27 and it highly doubtful he is starting anywhere the rest of his career. It shows the absolute peak of your agenda here that you can try and say with a straight face that a player like Crowder is on bar with the Dunking Dutchman.

You think there will be article written about Crowder 20 years after he retired?

https://8points9seconds.com/2018/01/26/center-fridays-rik-smits/
"As touched on, Smits was an impactful defender and excellent rim protector while also being an excellent dunker and finisher around the rim. He was really good in the 90s when those skills were used differently, but in the modern NBA, he might be the perfect center.

In fact, 1993-94 Rik Smits would possibly be the most sought-after big man in the league, if he played today. By most metrics, that was his most impactful season.

Per basketball reference, Smits had a true shooting percentage of 58 percent that year. That would be above average this year, nonetheless in the 90s before it was cool to be efficient. That season was also tied for his second best defensive season with a defensive rating of 103. An efficient guy who can protect the rim? Sign me up.

Only four centers with 1000+ minutes have those stats in the current NBA season. Their names? Clint Capela, DeMarcus Cousins, Al Horford, and Joel Embiid. Three All-Stars and the starting center for the NBA’s second-best team. Smits would be in that group, and given how the NBA has gravitated toward efficient centers who can protect the rim, the Dunking Dutchman would fit right in.


I'll repeat, the worst thing of people that like Lebron is his fans trying to tear down Jordan's accomplishments with inaccurate statements. Some of these arguments you are throwing out here are honestly among the worst I have seen on any forum on this topic (and it is a topic that is beat to death). This Smits is comparable to Crowder take is about as bad as your covington is similar to Gobert take from a few weeks ago. Just tough to take seriously.



Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2018, 03:36:50 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Smits couldn't stay on the court.  In 94 he played just 27 mpg.  He had 1.1 blocks.  He shot well from the field and line for his entire career (though Crowder's TS% last year was 61.3 which is far better than any season in Smit's career).  He was a very poor rebounder, especially for someone his size, finishing with just a 13.3 TRB% (he was 13.2 in 94).  He turned the ball over a lot, he had a very high usage, and even his shot blocking (especially for someone his height) wasn't as good as should have been (finished with just a 3.3%) and during those mid-90's runs he was under 3 and worse than Horford was last year.

This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2018, 03:40:48 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12749
  • Tommy Points: 1544
Anybody who watched basketball in the 90's knows Jordan dominated the league to a far greater degree than LeBron ever has (except for Ohio fans who should know it better than anyone but won't admit it because they're LBJ homers). You knew if Jordan was playing, the Bulls we're winning the title and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Jordan could have very likely won at least 8 straight titles if he didn't retire the first time, and maybe even 9 or 10 straight if he didn't retire the 2nd time.

Jordan also had way tougher competition in the East for most of his career. The 80's Celtics and Pistons, and 90's Knicks, Pacers, Magic, and Heat would probably have beaten either of LeBron's Cavs teams (not the Miami teams).

LeBron is amazing. There's a very good chance he might go down as the 2nd best player of all-time (still not there yet), but he'll never catch Jordan, it's too late for that. LeBron has had to many failures and times where he wilted under pressure to ever be considered better than Jordan. Jordan didn't run off to team up with someone else when he initially couldn't get past the Pistons, he simply worked harder until he could.
This is just nonsense.

No, it's not at all. The best seasons of any of those teams easily would have beaten the early Cavs teams, and while the most recent Cavs teams would have fared better%

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2018, 04:07:05 PM »

Offline DefenseWinsChamps

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6043
  • Tommy Points: 766
This really depends on how one defines "greatest."

Almost anyone would have said that Kareem put together a similarly dominant career over a longer duration than Jordan, but no one would say Kareem is the greatest over Jordan.

Why? Because when we say "greatest," we generally mean MOST dominant over a consistent period of time (normally more than 2-3 years to prove it wasn't an anomaly).

For people to say that Jordan was more dominant than James ever was, or had higher highs than James ever had, is the same thing as what most people mean by saying that Jordan was the greatest.

James' dominance has firmly entrenched him in the top 5 already and now he has extended that greatness over a longer period of time than anyone in the top 20 (Kareem notwithstanding).

That said, since most people define "greatest" as "most dominant," and not as "longest dominant," James is not and cannot be the GOAT.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2018, 04:08:10 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Smits couldn't stay on the court.  In 94 he played just 27 mpg.  He had 1.1 blocks.  He shot well from the field and line for his entire career (though Crowder's TS% last year was 61.3 which is far better than any season in Smit's career).  He was a very poor rebounder, especially for someone his size, finishing with just a 13.3 TRB% (he was 13.2 in 94).  He turned the ball over a lot, he had a very high usage, and even his shot blocking (especially for someone his height) wasn't as good as should have been (finished with just a 3.3%) and during those mid-90's runs he was under 3 and worse than Horford was last year.

This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench.

Your use of Random seasons and stats is fairly amusing. I, and probably 98% of NBA fans would prefer prime smits to crowder, but you do you man.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2018, 04:10:14 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
This really depends on how one defines "greatest."

Almost anyone would have said that Kareem put together a similarly dominant career over a longer duration than Jordan, but no one would say Kareem is the greatest over Jordan.

Why? Because when we say "greatest," we generally mean MOST dominant over a consistent period of time (normally more than 2-3 years to prove it wasn't an anomaly).

For people to say that Jordan was more dominant than James ever was, or had higher highs than James ever had, is the same thing as what most people mean by saying that Jordan was the greatest.

James' dominance has firmly entrenched him in the top 5 already and now he has extended that greatness over a longer period of time than anyone in the top 20 (Kareem notwithstanding).

That said, since most people define "greatest" as "most dominant," and not as "longest dominant," James is not and cannot be the GOAT.

I also agree with this. I also don't think anyone doubts Jordan wouldn't have 8-9 titles if he never quit to play baseball and didn't retire at the end of a three peat

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2018, 04:12:38 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Smits couldn't stay on the court.  In 94 he played just 27 mpg.  He had 1.1 blocks.  He shot well from the field and line for his entire career (though Crowder's TS% last year was 61.3 which is far better than any season in Smit's career).  He was a very poor rebounder, especially for someone his size, finishing with just a 13.3 TRB% (he was 13.2 in 94).  He turned the ball over a lot, he had a very high usage, and even his shot blocking (especially for someone his height) wasn't as good as should have been (finished with just a 3.3%) and during those mid-90's runs he was under 3 and worse than Horford was last year.

This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench.

Your use of Random seasons and stats is fairly amusing. I, and probably 98% of NBA fans would prefer prime smits to crowder, but you do you man.
Wait, are we really comparing Jae Crowder to Rik Smits, the guy who averaged 17 and 7 over the prime of his career? Heck, I'll probably take 32-year-old Rik Smits over Crowder.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2018, 04:24:55 PM »

Offline smokeablount

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3103
  • Tommy Points: 628
  • Mark Blount often got smoked
Imho, 6 time Finals MVP + 6-for-6 champion trumps all other statistics.



 Thank you Tarheels. I see it like this. James will end up with the best Westbrook like career of all time. And he jumped around for 3 rings chasing rings. Lost 5 more.

 Give me a break. Jordan never lost.

Can someone explain to me why young Lebron getting to the finals against the Spurs with no support whatsoever, and losing, is somehow worse than Jordan losing in the second round at a similar experience level?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 04:38:36 PM by smokeablount »
2023 Non-Active / Non-NBA75 Fantasy Draft, ChiBulls:

PG: Deron Williams 07-08 / M.R. Richardson 80-81 / J. Wall 16-17
SG: David Thompson 77-78 / Hersey Hawkins 96-97
SF: Tracy McGrady 02-03 / Tayshaun Prince 06-07
PF: Larry Nance Sr 91-92 / Blake Griffin 13-14
C: Bob Lanier 76-77 / Brad Daugherty 92-93 / M. Camby 06-07

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #55 on: May 11, 2018, 05:08:52 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Smits couldn't stay on the court.  In 94 he played just 27 mpg.  He had 1.1 blocks.  He shot well from the field and line for his entire career (though Crowder's TS% last year was 61.3 which is far better than any season in Smit's career).  He was a very poor rebounder, especially for someone his size, finishing with just a 13.3 TRB% (he was 13.2 in 94).  He turned the ball over a lot, he had a very high usage, and even his shot blocking (especially for someone his height) wasn't as good as should have been (finished with just a 3.3%) and during those mid-90's runs he was under 3 and worse than Horford was last year.

This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench.

Your use of Random seasons and stats is fairly amusing. I, and probably 98% of NBA fans would prefer prime smits to crowder, but you do you man.
Wait, are we really comparing Jae Crowder to Rik Smits, the guy who averaged 17 and 7 over the prime of his career? Heck, I'll probably take 32-year-old Rik Smits over Crowder.

Thanks Koz. I would also and I think just about everyone would. People make bizarre arguments if they are passionate about someone in the James Jordan comparison.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #56 on: May 11, 2018, 05:30:39 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58554
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench.

What year are you talking about? I think the only year they met Jordan in the Conference Finals was 1998.  That was a pretty good team, winning 58 games.

They were top-5 on both sides of the ball. 108.4 ORtg (4th), 101.6 DRtg (5th).  Their point differential was quite a bit better than both this year’s and last year’s Celtics.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2018, 05:39:24 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
Quote
This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench.

What year are you talking about? I think the only year they met Jordan in the Conference Finals was 1998.  That was a pretty good team, winning 58 games.

They were top-5 on both sides of the ball. 108.4 ORtg (4th), 101.6 DRtg (5th).  Their point differential was quite a bit better than both this year’s and last year’s Celtics.
Between 1994 and 2000, the Pacers made 4 ECF and 1 NBA Finals appearance. They only missed the playoffs once during that stretch. So yeah, they were pretty good.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #58 on: May 11, 2018, 05:41:25 PM »

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30939
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
Quote
This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench.

What year are you talking about? I think the only year they met Jordan in the Conference Finals was 1998.  That was a pretty good team, winning 58 games.

They were top-5 on both sides of the ball. 108.4 ORtg (4th), 101.6 DRtg (5th).  Their point differential was quite a bit better than both this year’s and last year’s Celtics.

That '98 Indy team was absolutely better than last year's Celtics.  It was a really well constructed roster of players (mostly veterans) who each had a skill set or two that meshed well with others when taken as whole.  Miller, Mullin, Smits, Mark Jackson, the Davis boys, etc... 

With Bird coaching, that was a fun team and took Jordan to the limit in '98.



2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #59 on: May 11, 2018, 06:27:15 PM »

Offline celticsclay

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15742
  • Tommy Points: 1386
Quote
This notion that those Indiana teams were any good is just crazy nonsense.  Last year's Celtics were a much better team than those Pacers.  I don't think it was close.  Boston had better top end talent and better deeper bench.

What year are you talking about? I think the only year they met Jordan in the Conference Finals was 1998.  That was a pretty good team, winning 58 games.

They were top-5 on both sides of the ball. 108.4 ORtg (4th), 101.6 DRtg (5th).  Their point differential was quite a bit better than both this year’s and last year’s Celtics.

That '98 Indy team was absolutely better than last year's Celtics.  It was a really well constructed roster of players (mostly veterans) who each had a skill set or two that meshed well with others when taken as whole.  Miller, Mullin, Smits, Mark Jackson, the Davis boys, etc... 

With Bird coaching, that was a fun team and took Jordan to the limit in '98.

Thanks guys. Interesting fact about that 98 pacers team. They had players that made the hall of fame (though Mullin was only a role player at that point) and a total of 6 players that would play in an all-star game. They had two players in the all-star game that year (Smits, Miller). Dale Davis, Antonio Davis and Mark Jackson also made the all-star game at some point in their career (while Mullin made it repeatedly of course). Mark Jackson is still 4th all time in assists today.

To be honest, I am glad this comparison of our Celtics team from last year that started Gerald Green, Amir Johnson and others at various points in the series is staying on this forum cause we would be laughed off an NBA forum with the comparison. I mean crowder is as good as Smits? What?