Author Topic: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate  (Read 8840 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 #60 on: May 11, 2018, 07:38:15 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
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.
TP, excellent post, DWC  I would state it more strongly:  This discussion is entirely about the definition of greatness. Thatv said, I agree that James is now in the top-5.  Before his last chip, I had him no higher than 7, and 7-8 years ago no higher than 10.  Going forward he can add to his legacy in many ways, not just by winning more chips. If he can hang in there (and nothing suggests any health issues) he just might catch Kareem in points.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #61 on: May 11, 2018, 09:14:58 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
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?
Mullin hadn't been an all star in 5 seasons. It had been basically a decade since Mark Jackson made his only all star game.  Neither Davis had made the all star game at that point and Dale' s all star season was 10 ppg and 9.9 rpg while years later Antonio would make it at 13.7 ppg and 10.1 rpg (Antonio was an injury replacement). Those were their best seasons. They were role players (obviously Mullin had a mich higher peak but by then he was a role player). Good role players but role players none the less. Thay was Slots only all star game and he averaged 16.7 ppg and 6.9 rpg. Those 1.2 bpg and 1.4 apg clearly overshadowed his 1.8 tpg and 3.3 fpg.  Which brings us to Reggie Miller, the most overrated player in NBA history.  He couldn't oass, couldn't rebound, and couldn't defend.  He was a great shooter and that was it.  He was basically a no defense version of Klay Thompson.  Those Pacers teams are a mid tier, at best, playoff team today.
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 #62 on: May 11, 2018, 09:18:20 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?
Mullin hadn't been an all star in 5 seasons. It had been basically a decade since Mark Jackson made his only all star game.  Neither Davis had made the all star game at that point and Dale' s all star season was 10 ppg and 9.9 rpg while years later Antonio would make it at 13.7 ppg and 10.1 rpg (Antonio was an injury replacement). Those were their best seasons. They were role players (obviously Mullin had a mich higher peak but by then he was a role player). Good role players but role players none the less. Thay was Slots only all star game and he averaged 16.7 ppg and 6.9 rpg. Those 1.2 bpg and 1.4 apg clearly overshadowed his 1.8 tpg and 3.3 fpg.  Which brings us to Reggie Miller, the most overrated player in NBA history.  He couldn't oass, couldn't rebound, and couldn't defend.  He was a great shooter and that was it.  He was basically a no defense version of Klay Thompson.  Those Pacers teams are a mid tier, at best, playoff team today.

You got to learn when to take the l man.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #63 on: May 11, 2018, 09:27:35 PM »

Offline gouki88

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31552
  • Tommy Points: 3141
  • 2019 & 2021 CS Historical Draft Champion
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?
Mullin hadn't been an all star in 5 seasons. It had been basically a decade since Mark Jackson made his only all star game.  Neither Davis had made the all star game at that point and Dale' s all star season was 10 ppg and 9.9 rpg while years later Antonio would make it at 13.7 ppg and 10.1 rpg (Antonio was an injury replacement). Those were their best seasons. They were role players (obviously Mullin had a mich higher peak but by then he was a role player). Good role players but role players none the less. Thay was Slots only all star game and he averaged 16.7 ppg and 6.9 rpg. Those 1.2 bpg and 1.4 apg clearly overshadowed his 1.8 tpg and 3.3 fpg.  Which brings us to Reggie Miller, the most overrated player in NBA history.  He couldn't oass, couldn't rebound, and couldn't defend.  He was a great shooter and that was it.  He was basically a no defense version of Klay Thompson.  Those Pacers teams are a mid tier, at best, playoff team today.
Just stop dude
'23 Historical Draft: Orlando Magic.

PG: Terry Porter (90-91) / Steve Francis (00-01)
SG: Joe Dumars (92-93) / Jeff Hornacek (91-92) / Jerry Stackhouse (00-01)
SF: Brandon Roy (08-09) / Walter Davis (78-79)
PF: Terry Cummings (84-85) / Paul Millsap (15-16)
C: Chris Webber (00-01) / Ralph Sampson (83-84) / Andrew Bogut (09-10)

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #64 on: May 11, 2018, 10:15:01 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
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?
Mullin hadn't been an all star in 5 seasons. It had been basically a decade since Mark Jackson made his only all star game.  Neither Davis had made the all star game at that point and Dale' s all star season was 10 ppg and 9.9 rpg while years later Antonio would make it at 13.7 ppg and 10.1 rpg (Antonio was an injury replacement). Those were their best seasons. They were role players (obviously Mullin had a mich higher peak but by then he was a role player). Good role players but role players none the less. Thay was Slots only all star game and he averaged 16.7 ppg and 6.9 rpg. Those 1.2 bpg and 1.4 apg clearly overshadowed his 1.8 tpg and 3.3 fpg.  Which brings us to Reggie Miller, the most overrated player in NBA history.  He couldn't oass, couldn't rebound, and couldn't defend.  He was a great shooter and that was it.  He was basically a no defense version of Klay Thompson.  Those Pacers teams are a mid tier, at best, playoff team today.

You got to learn when to take the l man.
do you honestly believe that team is better than the Wizards of the last couple of seasons? Bird is a better coach than Brooks no question but the actual roster is what I'm getting at. 

Edit BTW, I simmed the 98 Pacers vs. the 17 Wizards at whatifsports 3 times with each team at home, the Wizards were 5-1 in the 6 games.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 10:24:28 PM by Moranis »
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 #65 on: May 11, 2018, 10:19:51 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.

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?
Mullin hadn't been an all star in 5 seasons. It had been basically a decade since Mark Jackson made his only all star game.  Neither Davis had made the all star game at that point and Dale' s all star season was 10 ppg and 9.9 rpg while years later Antonio would make it at 13.7 ppg and 10.1 rpg (Antonio was an injury replacement). Those were their best seasons. They were role players (obviously Mullin had a mich higher peak but by then he was a role player). Good role players but role players none the less. Thay was Slots only all star game and he averaged 16.7 ppg and 6.9 rpg. Those 1.2 bpg and 1.4 apg clearly overshadowed his 1.8 tpg and 3.3 fpg.  Which brings us to Reggie Miller, the most overrated player in NBA history.  He couldn't oass, couldn't rebound, and couldn't defend.  He was a great shooter and that was it.  He was basically a no defense version of Klay Thompson.  Those Pacers teams are a mid tier, at best, playoff team today.

You got to learn when to take the l man.
do you honestly believe that team is better than the Wizards of the last couple of seasons? Bird is a better coach than Brooks no question but the actual roster is what I'm getting at.

You think the #2 seed that took Jordan to 7 games is worse than this year’s #8 seed?


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 #66 on: May 11, 2018, 10:27:16 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
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?
Mullin hadn't been an all star in 5 seasons. It had been basically a decade since Mark Jackson made his only all star game.  Neither Davis had made the all star game at that point and Dale' s all star season was 10 ppg and 9.9 rpg while years later Antonio would make it at 13.7 ppg and 10.1 rpg (Antonio was an injury replacement). Those were their best seasons. They were role players (obviously Mullin had a mich higher peak but by then he was a role player). Good role players but role players none the less. Thay was Slots only all star game and he averaged 16.7 ppg and 6.9 rpg. Those 1.2 bpg and 1.4 apg clearly overshadowed his 1.8 tpg and 3.3 fpg.  Which brings us to Reggie Miller, the most overrated player in NBA history.  He couldn't oass, couldn't rebound, and couldn't defend.  He was a great shooter and that was it.  He was basically a no defense version of Klay Thompson.  Those Pacers teams are a mid tier, at best, playoff team today.

You got to learn when to take the l man.
do you honestly believe that team is better than the Wizards of the last couple of seasons? Bird is a better coach than Brooks no question but the actual roster is what I'm getting at.

You think the #2 seed that took Jordan to 7 games is worse than this year’s #8 seed?
Wall missed 41 games. I think 17 is a better representation of the Wizards when they were a 49 win team and 1 win from the ECF.

As I said in my edited post, I simmed the 17 Wizards vs. The 98 Pacers and the Wizards were 5-1.  I'm sure you would get similar results if you did it.
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 #67 on: May 11, 2018, 10:31:25 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
For good measure I simmed it 10 more times with the Pacers at home and the Wizards took 6.  I then did it 10 more times with the Wizards at home and the Wizards again took 6.
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 #68 on: May 11, 2018, 10:39:31 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58554
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
For good measure I simmed it 10 more times with the Pacers at home and the Wizards took 6.  I then did it 10 more times with the Wizards at home and the Wizards again took 6.

I think that says more about the validity of the simulators than it does about the teams.  You can’t simulate chemistry and fit.

The Pacers were slightly worse than the Bulls in ‘98.  The Wizards went 23-18 with Wall and didn’t make any noise in the playoffs.


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 #69 on: May 11, 2018, 11:32:13 PM »

Offline byennie

  • Webmaster
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2572
  • Tommy Points: 3033
For good measure I simmed it 10 more times with the Pacers at home and the Wizards took 6.  I then did it 10 more times with the Wizards at home and the Wizards again took 6.

You can't be serious using whatifsports as evidence.

The Pacers were a top 5 offense AND a top 5 defense. Miller and Mullin were future Hall of Famers. Smits, Davis, Davis, Jackson were all past and future All-Stars. Jalen Rose became a 20/5/5 guy as soon as he took over for Jackson. They won 58 games and took Jordan to 7 games. They outscored opponents by 6+ points all year.

Washington won 49 games in the worst division in the worst conference in basketball, won one playoff series, and gave up 107ppg while scoring 109.

The only way Washington stands up to Indiana is if you simply think the entire league is vastly better now.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2018, 01:32:45 AM »

Offline GreenEnvy

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4551
  • Tommy Points: 1031
I didn’t click the link because, well, it’s espn.

But to get into this... LeBron is going to have the better stats over MJ, perhaps over anyone when all is said and done. The guy has NEVER had a major injury and came into the league straight out of high school. By comparison, Jordan spent 3 years in college and missed nearly the entire season his second year in the league seasons “retired” in his prime, Jordan has already playednearly 6 seasons less in the league compared to LeBron.

So running stats are never going to be close, including another 3 retired seasons coming up at LeBrons age.

But when it comes to playing the game and winning, it’s Jordan. I oftentimes marvel LeBron James and the things he does. He’s that good. When he’s on, he’s unstoppable. But, he’s not ALWAYS on. Jordan had this fire, this edge that he didn’t bring every game, but nearly every play.

His scoring was obviously second to nobody. But his defense? All-time greatness. Yeah LeBron may get more assists and rebounds, but Jordan... that guy was a winner. He did whatever it took to win. I basically know him from the ‘90’s only, whereas he was a more prolific stat-accumulator in the ‘80’s. I saw all of LeBron’s career and have always been impressed, and at times flabbergasted.

But, he couldn’t beat our Celtics in 2008-2010, forcing him to abandon ship and create a super team with friends. Yet, still, he lost to teams like the Mavs and Magic. Jordan took on the best there was (from Showtime to Barkley and KJ To Clyde the Glide to Payton and Kemp to Stockton and Malone), and often prevented a lot of these guys from winning rings.

Saying LeBron is not the GOAT (although his story isn’t over) is not hating on him or living in the past, but a testament to how great Jordan was. The guy changed the game and will be an icon for as long as basketball is a sport.
CELTICS 2024

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #71 on: May 12, 2018, 02:20:49 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Neither is the "G.O.A.T.", imo, so, next ;D. If anything, Jordan is the luckiest player of all time, but again, that's just me.

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2018, 05:03:46 AM »

Offline JSD

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12562
  • Tommy Points: 2155
I have MJ....

But to those who say, “Bron played in the East his whole career”, remember, Jordan had 6 expansion teams come into the league right before his prime. Plus the Celtics have 2 star players tragically die. We saw guys starting on NBA teams, including our Celtics, that wouldn’t get a tryout today or in the 80s
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 05:14:47 AM by JSD »
The only color that matters is GREEN

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2018, 07:43:13 AM »

Offline Chief

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21216
  • Tommy Points: 2450
Imho, 6 time Finals MVP + 6-for-6 champion trumps all other statistics.

100% correct!
Once you are labeled 'the best' you want to stay up there, and you can't do it by loafing around.
 
Larry Bird

Re: Interesting Statistical look at the Jordan vs. James G.O.A.T. debate
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2018, 07:51:39 AM »

Offline Green-18

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1253
  • Tommy Points: 130
Here's a question for everyone.  Who would you draft #1 if you were building a team from scratch for a 10 year run?  This isn't a Jordan or LeBron question.  You can pick any player you want.  Conditions are below.

- We are playing under modern rules with knowledge of advanced analytics.  All players are given a full off-season to prepare physically and mentally to the current game
- The league will be filled with your top 10 players of all-time.  The remaining talent will be a combination of 2nd tier all-stars and role players
- Your coach is Brad Stevens

I know this is a random question but let's have some fun with it.