Red Beast wrote: I think you should stop using the analogy, it isn't very good or relevant. Jordan had the 11th best defense in the league without Pippen in 86/87 his 3rd year in the league. The next year, with rookie Pippen playing 20 minutes a game, he had the 3rd ranked defense in the league.
And then the next year they were 11th. And to start 1990 they were bad...before a better defensive teammate gained primacy and they turned elite(-3) by the 1990 playoffs and never looked back, even when Jordan wasn't there. Hmmm......
Of course, we also know that wings guards have far less opportunity to impact defenses that big men do
And of course you know that bigs have less oppurtunity to impact offense than guards do. This is not the pound for pound goat thread. "goodness relative to position" is not a thing. You want to use team results without cast consideration? Then be consistent.
Do you recall how many top 5 offenses Jordan led outside of the triangle?
Spoiler:
0
Now might be a good time to quit while you're behind.
That was his fourth year in the league.
4th year in the league and quite possibly the most valuable he had ever been in the regular-season(top or near top in terms of non-box, box, and rep). His playmaking impact would peak in 1989 when the team regressed. He would get jumper's knee in 90 and his defensive activity was lesser in a system designed to help Jordan avoid extra defensive attention rather than exploit it to create for his teammates.
You are bullshitting. 1988 was MJ's 2004. He won less. Kg won more. In fact KG won as much or more than Mr. Will his team to victory 4 times before he went to Boston. Does help matter or not?
The poor teammate argument just doesn't wash as there are numerous examples of defensive anchors that have led poor teams to far better defenses.
Then why don't you pull them up? Please list all the defenders who have led defenses that were as poor as KG's were without him to top 5 with? I'm not interested in your fan-fics. Which 10 showed better defensive lift on poor defensive teams?
There are offensive anchors who have led top offenses with teams that were actually bad without them. And they happen to not have all their great offenses tied to a specific system, with a specific co-star, with a specific coach.
I think you should stop using the analogy
The analogy stays.
Either -> KG is plausibly a top 10 all-time defensive player -> Jordan is not plausibly a top 10 all-time offensive player
Pick one.
It’s interesting for sure. When looking at some of this, there might be an argument that KG at his best was a better floor raiser.
OhayoKD wrote:I think you should stop using the analogy, it isn't very good or relevant. Jordan had the 11th best defense in the league without Pippen in 86/87 his 3rd year in the league. The next year, with rookie Pippen playing 20 minutes a game, he had the 3rd ranked defense in the league.
And then the next year they were 11th. And to start 1990 they were bad...before a better defensive teammate gained primacy and they turned elite(-3) by the 1990 playoffs and never looked back, even when Jordan wasn't there. Hmmm......
Of course, we also know that wings guards have far less opportunity to impact defenses that big men do
And of course you know that bigs have less oppurtunity to impact offense than guards do. This is not the pound for pound goat thread. "goodness relative to position" is not a thing. You want to use team results without cast consideration? Then be consistent.
Do you recall how many top 5 offenses Jordan led outside of the triangle?
Spoiler:
0
Now might be a good time to quit while you're behind.
That was his fourth year in the league.
4th year in the league and quite possibly the most valuable he had ever been in the regular-season(top or near top in terms of non-box, box, and rep). His playmaking impact would peak in 1989 when the team regressed. He would get jumper's knee in 90 and his defensive activity was lesser in a system designed to help Jordan avoid extra defensive attention rather than exploit it to create for his teammates.
You are bullshitting. 1988 was MJ's 2004. He won less. Kg won more. In fact KG won as much or more than Mr. Will his team to victory 4 times before he went to Boston. Does help matter or not?
The poor teammate argument just doesn't wash as there are numerous examples of defensive anchors that have led poor teams to far better defenses.
Then why don't you pull them up? Please list all the defenders who have led defenses that were as poor as KG's were without him to top 5 with? I'm not interested in your fan-fics. Which 10 showed better defensive lift on poor defensive teams?
There are offensive anchors who have led top offenses with teams that were actually bad without them. And they happen to not have all their great offenses tied to a specific system, with a specific co-star, with a specific coach.
I think you should stop using the analogy
The analogy stays.
Either -> KG is plausibly a top 10 all-time defensive player -> Jordan is not plausibly a top 10 all-time offensive player
Pick one.
It's tough to respond to such a hostile and incoherent post. Why are you so angry? It doesn't make you more right.
I'll be plain, your Jordan analogy comparing him to KG is non-sensical. There is very little to draw on for comparison no matter how hard you try to conflate the two scenarios or how much you froth at the mouth. Jordan was a guard. KG was a big. KG played for 12 years in Minnesota. Jordan played for 5 years before Jackson coached him. You are comparing a sample size that is 240% bigger than the other. I do believe that Jordan became a better offensive player with Jackson as coach. He realised that he had to share the ball more to open up the offense. With Jackson he had the first or second rated offense for the rest of his Bulls career (except the last year). In the two years he was out (still coached by Jackson), the Bulls offense was 14th and 10th in the league. Interestingly, the defense got better.
You thought you had an argument, but you don't. There is no genuine comparison to be made. Don't get so angry about it.
I've already mentioned defensive anchors that did more with less or equivalent to KG. David Robinson was able to have a number one defense with Rod Strickland, Sean Elliot, Willie Anderson and Terry Cummins. A number three defense with Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, Sean Elliot and Charles Smith. Hakeem had a number four defense with Rod McCray, Sleepy Floyd, Allen Leavell and Jim Petersen. In his rookie season (85/86) Ewing took a defense that was 19th to fifth with a bunch of no name players. In his rookie season Elvin Hayes to an expansion Rockets team from 10th (of 12) to third in defense. People have mentioned Dwight Howard having a top defense with very average defenders.
Those are 5 off the top of my head. There would be many more, but I won't waste my time. I'm talking about 12 years where he could not anchor a top 5 defense and a top 10 defense only twice!! So, he had mediocre to poor defenses 10 out of 12 years. His peak years. Why?? I know he had some bad teammates. But they were not that bad, all of the time. How can you explain that length of consistent mediocrity. To be clear, I think he is a great defensive player, but how can he be a top ten defensive player of all-time? I don't think that he is.
OhayoKD wrote:His playmaking impact would peak in 1989 when the team regressed.
I don’t want to derail things, but that’s a kind of misinformed take
Yes. Jordan playing PG at the end of the season was a mystery to me...
Also, again, passer-rating estimates creative efficiency, not volume. Both are situationally boosted by the shift, but you keep grouping it with volume-stats for some reason...
So, if you want to talk about whether the team “regressed” when his playmaking impact peaked, the real question is whether they “regressed” when he played PG in the last 24 RS games and the playoffs in 1988-1989. And the answer to that is actually an emphatic no. It so happens that I’ve actually done calculations on this before, so I’ll just share what I’ve found: Before Jordan started playing PG that season, the Bulls had a 1.88 SRS. During the 41-game time period Jordan played PG, in RS and playoffs, the Bulls had a 4.11 SRS. They’d had a 3.27 SRS in RS + Playoffs in the prior season (i.e. 1987-1988), and a 1.17 SRS in RS + Playoffs the season before that (i.e. 1986-1987). And even in the 1989-1990 regular season + Playoffs, the Bulls had a 3.41 SRS.
Yeah, there are two problems here
1. This is not an even comparison. The Bulls 88 were 53-win net(with a +4 offense) in 21 games with their final lineup in 88(trading for defensive stopper Sam Vincient). In 90 even their rolling SRS had them significantly higher than the 89 Bulls by the end(inputting previous inferior results) with a +6.3! offense post all-star break.
2. Those playoff-results you're throwing in coincide with a drop in Jordan's playmaking and assists and a jump in his scoring volume(something that would would lower his box-creation and his passer-rating). You bring up the last 24 games but Jordan averaged less assists in the playoffs than he did for the entirety of the regular-season. Perhaps it was partially a matter of defensive slanting and luck(feel free to post the srs), but over that stretch Jordan was averaging 10 assists, the Bulls only posted a +2.9 offensive rating and by record were 13-11. Over the last 10 games they went 2-8.
That experiment was a failure. Consequently, once the playoffs started, Jordan went back to the 2...
Shockingly, the Bulls(and Jordan) performed better
Jordan was a more resilient playoff player in 89(and chicago benefitted), but the KG criticism here is based on crude rs win-totals and defensive rankings. Hence why I didn't bring up the 05 Timberwolves posting a +3 srs rating(50-win pace) in games with Cassell or their .500 marks in 06 and 07 before a trade and a coaching shift respectively.
So the time period where Jordan played PG actually stands out as a peak in the time period in terms of the Bulls’ SRS.
Well no. They were much better in 90 once they figured out the triangle(over a similar sample to what you're using for 89). better to start the 89 regular season, better to end the 88 regular-season, and better in the 89 playoffs when they wisely didn't run the whole offense through Micheal.
Jordan playing PG was the nadir:
Spoiler:
Among other things, MJ wanted to know how close he was to a triple-double at all times.
“The guys at the scorer’s desk let me know what I need,” Jordan said, according to the LA Times.
Jordan playmaking more generally coincided with better playoff results, but there was a pretty clear ceiling with running Jordan as a helio.
Additionally much of that delta came from them edging a more banged up variant of the cleveland team they'd topped in 88(that regular-season srs swinging is mostly a product of health ironically). They were legitimately better vs detroit but that coincided with Jordan's assists dropping further as he was asked to playmake even less:
red beast wrote:I'll be plain, your Jordan analogy comparing him to KG is non-sensical.
Uhuh
Jordan was a guard. KG was a big.
Can't compare guards against bigger players. Got it. I'll remember that for the next top 100.
KG played for 12 years in Minnesota. Jordan played for 5 years before Jackson coached him. You are comparing a sample size that is 240% bigger than the other.
A sample which includes Jordan's biggest rs and playoff carry jobs, yep.
With Jackson he had the first or second rated offense for the rest of his Bulls career (except the last year). In the two years he was out (still coached by Jackson), the Bulls offense was 14th and 10th in the league.
And with a single prime year left under the true zen-master tom Thibedeau, Kevin Garnett. miles removed from his athletic peak led the best defense in the league before repeating the trick in 2012 post-injury without the guy who turned him into a top 10 defender. That's why Tom did sooooo much better given a team full of defensive specialists...
Spoiler:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
Peregrine01 wrote:
Jaivl wrote:The most logical explanation is that KG was a decent defender during his prime and then jumped to GOAT level in 2008, at 31 years old.
That's possible. But what's the common denominator here? KG, who never anchored a top 5 defense before being paired with Thibs, or Thibs himself, who did it on practically every team he was a coach of.
1) Thibs...wasn't the head coach.
2) Kevin Garnett anchored elite defenses AFTER Thibs left. The Celtics had a better or equal defense than the Bulls
The Bulls who had a more defensive heavy roster than the Celtics had a worse defense than the Celtics in 2010. In 2011, 2012, 2013 they both had the same drtg roughly.
Kevin Garnett at 35 years old with a bunch of other old players is anchoring the same level defense as a team filled with defensive specialist and according to you, the coach that makes Kevin Garnett good.
Oh
've already mentioned defensive anchors that did more with less or equivalent to KG.
But you didn't. The Timberwolves were ranked 26th when they drafted Garnett. He had them at 23rd, 11th, and 12th on 3 teams that were .500 or better at the same age Jordan's Bulls were a scintillating sub-500 1-year removed from his iconic 88 and 89 floor-raising campaigns.
Yet that doesn't matter while the years immediately following a career-altering injury in 2005 are fair-game(one of which actually included a winning-record). Did Doug Collins make MJ?
It's also quite convenient you chose "top 5" as your threshold, because in 2004, Kg anchored a top 6 defense to pair with a top 5 offense. Aren't guards supposed to be more valuable offensively than bigs?
I do believe that Jordan became a better offensive player
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. What matters is he scaled down with better teammates ad the offense got better. Just like KG did for much better Boston teams. His "lift" was lower. You can keep the fairytale where Jordan learnt the magic of teamwork(and suddenly forgot it in Washington...), but it doesn't really matter to what you and peregrine are trying to push.
You did not attack Garnett on the basis of championships. You did not attack Garnett on his post-season resiliency. Nor did you hit him on his ability to retain value on dynastic teams.
You hit Garnett on his ability to carry teams in the regular-season. Worse. you went after his ability to carry teams defensively.
You are ducking the comparison, because it is a losing one. KG is in the short-list of "greatest regular-season floor-raisers" ever. In Minesotta he was also in the short-list of "most impactful defenders" ever and then at 31 his team was in the short-list of "greatest defenses ever".
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Just like you don't bring up the regular-season or defense when trying to tear down Garnett.
Feel free to keep digging. The analogy stays.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
OhayoKD wrote:His playmaking impact would peak in 1989 when the team regressed.
red beast wrote:I'll be plain, your Jordan analogy comparing him to KG is non-sensical.
Uhuh
Jordan was a guard. KG was a big.
Can't compare guards against bigger players. Got it. I'll remember that for the next top 100.
KG played for 12 years in Minnesota. Jordan played for 5 years before Jackson coached him. You are comparing a sample size that is 240% bigger than the other.
A sample which includes Jordan's biggest rs and playoff carry jobs, yep.
With Jackson he had the first or second rated offense for the rest of his Bulls career (except the last year). In the two years he was out (still coached by Jackson), the Bulls offense was 14th and 10th in the league.
And with a single prime year left under the true zen-master tom Thibedeau, Kevin Garnett. miles removed from his athletic peak led the best defense in the league before repeating the trick in 2012 post-injury without the guy who turned him into a top 10 defender. That's why Tom did sooooo much better given a team full of defensive specialists...
Spoiler:
HeartBreakKid wrote: 1) Thibs...wasn't the head coach.
2) Kevin Garnett anchored elite defenses AFTER Thibs left. The Celtics had a better or equal defense than the Bulls
The Bulls who had a more defensive heavy roster than the Celtics had a worse defense than the Celtics in 2010. In 2011, 2012, 2013 they both had the same drtg roughly.
Kevin Garnett at 35 years old with a bunch of other old players is anchoring the same level defense as a team filled with defensive specialist and according to you, the coach that makes Kevin Garnett good.
Oh
've already mentioned defensive anchors that did more with less or equivalent to KG.
But you didn't. The Timberwolves were ranked 26th when they drafted Garnett. He had them at 23rd, 11th, and 12th on 3 teams that were .500 or better at the same age Jordan's Bulls were a scintillating sub-500 1-year removed from his iconic 88 and 89 floor-raising campaigns.
Yet that doesn't matter while the years immediately following a career-altering injury in 2005 are fair-game(one of which actually included a winning-record). Did Doug Collins make MJ?
It's also quite convenient you chose "top 5" as your threshold, because in 2004, Kg anchored a top 6 defense to pair with a top 5 offense. Aren't guards supposed to be more valuable offensively than bigs?
I do believe that Jordan became a better offensive player
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. What matters is he scaled down with better teammates ad the offense got better. Just like KG did for much better Boston teams. His "lift" was lower. You can keep the fairytale where Jordan learnt the magic of teamwork(and suddenly forgot it in Washington...), but it doesn't really matter to what you and peregrine are trying to push.
You did not attack Garnett on the basis of championships. You did not attack Garnett on his post-season resiliency. Nor did you hit him on his ability to retain value on dynastic teams.
You hit Garnett on his ability to carry teams in the regular-season. Worse. you went after his ability to carry teams defensively.
You are ducking the comparison, because it is a losing one. KG is in the short-list of "greatest regular-season floor-raisers" ever. In Minesotta he was also in the short-list of "most impactful defenders" ever and then at 31 his team was in the short-list of "greatest defenses ever".
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Just like you don't bring up the regular-season or defense when trying to tear down Garnett.
Feel free to keep digging. The analogy stays.
You've really said nothing here and you are desperately reaching. Do you think Boston stopped using Thibodeau's defense or forgot how to use it after he left? That's a ridiculous argument. It is a defensive system. The same one he took to the Bulls and made them a great defense.
Jordan forgot teamwork in Washington? When he was 38 and retired for three years? Do you even know how ridiculous that is? The Jordan comparison is ridiculous. Comparing 12 years to 5 years is ridiculous. I could go much further and compare the difference between a truly dominant player like Jordan and what I would call an elite complementary player in Garnett but I will not waste my time. The argument is not worthy of the effort. If it isn't obvious to you, then there is no combination of words that will persuade you to concede the point.
I don't need to raise Garnett's post season resiliency because that is not in dispute. I think any logical person would agree that he is a very good, but not great offensive player. My point is simple, he is a great, but not top ten defensive player of all time. For this reason, he is not near a top ten player overall all time.
I've provided you examples of other great defensive players who have elevated mediocre supporting casts to top 5 defenses. Why couldn't KG do it? You still haven't answered the question directly. He had 12 years, but only had a top ten defense twice. Three times he was part of defenses in the 20s. Five times between 15 and 20. These were not good defenses. Please explain why?
I'll give you, my theory. He wasn't an elite rim protector or post defender. He was a brilliant help defender. Unless he had the right system with great defensive teammates, he could not elevate a defense to Boston levels.
Peregrine01 wrote:Peak KG missed the playoffs 3 years in a row - I can't recall another superstar in consideration for ATG status who has missed the playoffs that many times in a row during their prime. I just find it interesting how this board is so quick to put a microscope on Jokic's flaws yet turn a blind eye to KG's failings during the prime of his career.
I do not recall another all-time great superstar who spent three years on rosters as bereft of talent as those Wolves. In 2006/07 they had a historically dreadful bench and starters. -13 with Garnett off the court. 2-10 when he missed time. In 2005 he missed the postseason with 44 wins, and I can think of several all-time great superstars who made the postseason winning less. They went 29-19 when Cassell played at least 21 minutes; how many more all-time great superstars would have missed a postseason if their best teammate played a half season, in a conference requiring at least 45 wins to qualify? The next two years, 44 wins would have qualified. They would have been a 6-seed in 2007!
There are players who could have made the 2005 postseason in Garnett’s place, but the list is a lot smaller than you think. And I am not sure any player could have taken the 2006/07 Timberwolves to a winning record.
Yeah I think might be a good time to bring this back to the Jordan analogy from the "kg can't lead good d without thibs" thread
MJ, in his 20's, prior to Phil Jackson's arrival...
-> joined a 27-win team(likely better support that Garnett had) -> failed to hit .500 in his first 3 seasons -> tapped out at 50(A mark KG exceeded not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times) -> saw his team regress to 47-wins(kg hit that 6 times) the next year after losing his best teammate(and gaining significantly more in return) -> Fortunes change when Phil Jackson implements the triangle, a system that is far more tied to Mike's success than Thibs is tied to KG's(Boston continued to post all-time defense after thibs left)
I'm going to guess none of this actually plays much of a factor in how peregrine evaluates Mike. Because "kg missed the playoffs" is more just a way to get where they want to go, rather than an honest attempt at analyzing what he offered as a basketball player
Well isn't the consensus increasingly that KG peaked hire than MJ?
Now that's the difference between first and last place.
OhayoKD wrote:His playmaking impact would peak in 1989 when the team regressed.
I don’t want to derail things, but that’s a kind of misinformed take
Yes. Jordan playing PG at the end of the season was a mystery to me...
Also, again, passer-rating estimates creative efficiency, not volume. Both are situationally boosted by the shift, but you keep grouping it with volume-stats for some reason...
I genuinely don’t understand how you don’t realize that Jordan’s “passer rating” would go up when he played at PG. Like, I think you just take the basic concept of what these stats are supposed to measure and just don’t think critically in the slightest about what the inputs are. A massive input of “passer rating” is assist-to-load ratio. So if Jordan is at PG and his scoring doesn’t go up (or maybe even goes slightly down, which is what happened) and his assists go significantly up, then his “passer rating” will absolutely go up, because his assist-to-load ratio will go up significantly. You can say it’s an estimate of “efficiency not volume” but you’re just ignoring the actual inputs to that estimate if you’re trying to suggest that the shift to PG didn’t increase his passer rating.
So, if you want to talk about whether the team “regressed” when his playmaking impact peaked, the real question is whether they “regressed” when he played PG in the last 24 RS games and the playoffs in 1988-1989. And the answer to that is actually an emphatic no. It so happens that I’ve actually done calculations on this before, so I’ll just share what I’ve found: Before Jordan started playing PG that season, the Bulls had a 1.88 SRS. During the 41-game time period Jordan played PG, in RS and playoffs, the Bulls had a 4.11 SRS. They’d had a 3.27 SRS in RS + Playoffs in the prior season (i.e. 1987-1988), and a 1.17 SRS in RS + Playoffs the season before that (i.e. 1986-1987). And even in the 1989-1990 regular season + Playoffs, the Bulls had a 3.41 SRS.
Yeah, there are two problems here
1. This is not an even comparison. The Bulls 88 were 53-win net(with a +4 offense) in 21 games with their final lineup in 88(trading for defensive stopper Sam Vincient). In 90 even their rolling SRS had them significantly higher than the 89 Bulls by the end(inputting previous inferior results) with a +6.3! offense post all-star break.
You’re really reaching here. Your claim was that the Bulls “regressed” when Jordan took on a bigger playmaking role. The fact that he played at PG and the team’s SRS in the part of the year he was at PG was substantially higher than it was in the other part of that year where he wasn’t at PG pretty obviously invalidates your point.
As for the stuff in other years that you mention, it’s basically just completely silly:
- You mention the last 21 games of the season 1987-1988 season with Sam Vincent as being particularly meaningful. Of course, that doesn’t make much sense on its face when we realize that we also have the 1988-1989 pre-Jordan-as-PG sample that we know was worse than with Jordan at PG. So that makes your point an obvious reach where you’re just trying to locate the best small sample you can find in order to say the Bulls weren’t as good as that when Jordan played PG. But it’s also made even more ridiculous when we realize that you are not adding the 1988-1989 playoff games either—where they of course did have Sam Vincent. If you put together the RS games once Sam Vincent got there (which was 29 games, not 21, but those extra games make the Bulls look better, so I’m including to help you out) and the playoff games with Vincent, you get to a 3.32 SRS. Which is comfortably below what the Bulls did in RS + Playoffs when they shifted Jordan to PG! So yeah, you’ve obviously got no argument. And that’s even ignoring that that team regressed to a 1.88 SRS for the first 58 games of the 1988-1989 season before putting Jordan at PG.
- You mention the second half of the 1989-1990 season, but your claim was that the Bulls “regressed” with Jordan having higher playmaking duties. Since the 1989-1990 season was after the 1988-1989 season, nothing that happened in that season can support the notion that the Bulls “regressed.” You were simply wrong. And even if we talk about the 1989-1990 season, you’re of course ignoring that they did substantially *worse* for the first half or so of that season than they had done with Jordan at PG. As I specifically noted in my post, obviously *eventually* the Bulls did better than they did in the Jordan-as-PG timeframe, but we’d expect that since they were a young team that was obviously improving as a team. The fact that the Jordan-as-PG time period was a localized peak in SRS for the Bulls (with them not being as good earlier in that same regular season, not as good in prior regular seasons, and not even as good the next season until towards the end) just completely refutes your claim that the Bulls “regressed” when Jordan’s playmaking duties were increased. It’s just objectively false, and I’d hope that you’ll retire this claim and stop making it now that you know it’s untrue (whether you’re willing to admit it here or not).
2. Those playoff-results you're throwing in coincide with a drop in Jordan's playmaking and assists and a jump in his scoring volume(something that would would lower his box-creation and his passer-rating). You bring up the last 24 games but Jordan averaged less assists in the playoffs than he did for the entirety of the regular-season. Perhaps it was partially a matter of defensive slanting and luck(feel free to post the srs), but over that stretch Jordan was averaging 10 assists, the Bulls only posted a +2.9 offensive rating and by record were 13-11. Over the last 10 games they went 2-8.
That experiment was a failure. Consequently, once the playoffs started, Jordan went back to the 2...
Shockingly, the Bulls(and Jordan) performed better
Yeah, obviously this is a bad point. Jordan’s scoring did go up in those playoffs, but that was virtually always true for him in the playoffs and so that’s not a meaningful data point regarding his role changing between RS and playoffs. Notably, he had fewer playoff points per game than he had had since his rookie season and a noticeably higher number of assists per game than in any surrounding playoffs. So the playoff stats bear out the shift in role to PG too. More importantly, you can also just watch the full match that you linked to (and which I linked to myself in my post) and see that Jordan very clearly played the PG position. Like, did you actually even watch the entire video you linked to before suggesting that “Jordan went back to the 2” in the playoffs? I can only conclude that you didn’t, because that game clearly demonstrates Jordan playing as a heliocentric PG.
So the time period where Jordan played PG actually stands out as a peak in the time period in terms of the Bulls’ SRS.
Well no. They were much better in 90 once they figured out the triangle(over a similar sample to what you're using for 89). better to start the 89 regular season, better to end the 88 regular-season, and better in the 89 playoffs when they wisely didn't run the whole offense through Micheal.
Again, that’s basically all false or materially misleading. They were not better to start the 1988-1989 season. As I said, they had a 1.88 SRS before moving Jordan to PG and then had over a 4 SRS once he moved to PG. As I showed above, they were not better to end the 1987-1988 season unless you conspicuously decide to not include the playoffs—where they had the player that is your justification for limiting consideration just to the end of the 1987-1988 season. And the notion that they didn’t run the offense through Jordan in the 1989 playoffs seems to be based on you not actually watching the video you provided and just assuming it would show one thing when it really shows the opposite. The only thing above you said that was true at all was that they were “much better in 90 once they figured out the triangle,” but of course your claim was that they “regressed” and you cannot “regress” by being worse than *future* results, and in any event, it took the Bulls the majority of the 1989-1990 season to get better than they were with Jordan at PG, despite them being a young and improving team. The fact is that the Jordan-as-PG time period was objectively a localized peak for the Bulls in terms of SRS, and your claim that the Bulls “regressed” when Jordan’s playmaking duties increased in 1988-1989 is just plainly false propaganda. If you’re actually interested in saying things that are true, you should retire that talking point.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote: I don’t want to derail things, but that’s a kind of misinformed take
Yes. Jordan playing PG at the end of the season was a mystery to me...
Also, again, passer-rating estimates creative efficiency, not volume. Both are situationally boosted by the shift, but you keep grouping it with volume-stats for some reason...
I genuinely don’t understand how you don’t realize that Jordan’s “passer rating” would go up when he played at PG.
I understood that fine which is why I acknowledged "both going up is situational" which...doesn't really matter for what I was arguing because I specifically said "impact".
If you had thought about the "inputs" a teensy bit longer you would have realized that as Jordan's scoring went up and his assists went down, his passer-rating would have gone down over the stretch of games you are claiming the Bulls "peaked".
If we're done throwing straw...
Like, did you actually even watch the entire video you linked to before suggesting that “Jordan went back to the 2” in the playoffs? I can only conclude that you didn’t, because that game clearly demonstrates Jordan playing as a heliocentric PG.
Did you watch the first 5 minutes? Because what the game "demonstrates" is the Bulls letting Jordan helio after Pippen went down which coincided with him
"looking more aggressive"(read: handling the ball way more)
and
racking up 13 assists
In the first 5 games, Jordan averaged 5.5.
This is not the first time I've watched this game. Nor is it the first time I've watched this series.
If you'd actually watched the video, I imagine you would have noticed Pippen was in. If you had even listened to it while doing something else, you might have picked up on the commentators talking about Pippen's injury over and over again. If you had happened to look when the first quarter ended, you may have noticed three images including one of Pippen on the bench.
I meant to link this game first, but now I'm glad I didn't. Look before you jump.
To refute the "point" i made, you would need to argue that the Bulls offense peaked pre-triangle. When i am responding to "kg missed the playoffs" and didn't anchor top 5 "regular season defenses" while specifically emphasizing his "regular-season floor-raising", me not talking about the postseason is not "being misinformed", it is me staying on point.
Should we say that Jordan cannot be a top x player because they "slumped" while he was "doing everything"? Should we pretend that Jordan was only a top 10 offensive player under Jackson because he didn't lead top 5 offenses before?
No?
Similarly we should not say KG cannot have been a top 10 defender ever in Minnesota because he was only led a top 6 defense while "doing everything" and pretend he was only a top 10 defender ever under Doc Rivers.
That was the point.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
AEnigma wrote:I do not recall another all-time great superstar who spent three years on rosters as bereft of talent as those Wolves. In 2006/07 they had a historically dreadful bench and starters. -13 with Garnett off the court. 2-10 when he missed time. In 2005 he missed the postseason with 44 wins, and I can think of several all-time great superstars who made the postseason winning less. They went 29-19 when Cassell played at least 21 minutes; how many more all-time great superstars would have missed a postseason if their best teammate played a half season, in a conference requiring at least 45 wins to qualify? The next two years, 44 wins would have qualified. They would have been a 6-seed in 2007!
There are players who could have made the 2005 postseason in Garnett’s place, but the list is a lot smaller than you think. And I am not sure any player could have taken the 2006/07 Timberwolves to a winning record.
Yeah I think might be a good time to bring this back to the Jordan analogy from the "kg can't lead good d without thibs" thread
MJ, in his 20's, prior to Phil Jackson's arrival...
-> joined a 27-win team(likely better support that Garnett had) -> failed to hit .500 in his first 3 seasons -> tapped out at 50(A mark KG exceeded not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times) -> saw his team regress to 47-wins(kg hit that 6 times) the next year after losing his best teammate(and gaining significantly more in return) -> Fortunes change when Phil Jackson implements the triangle, a system that is far more tied to Mike's success than Thibs is tied to KG's(Boston continued to post all-time defense after thibs left)
I'm going to guess none of this actually plays much of a factor in how peregrine evaluates Mike. Because "kg missed the playoffs" is more just a way to get where they want to go, rather than an honest attempt at analyzing what he offered as a basketball player
Well isn't the consensus increasingly that KG peaked hire than MJ?
It wouldn’t surprise me if there are people whom see it like that (the argument has been laid out to). From an impact standpoint (looking at standardized approaches), KG has the best season recorded in the eyes of some APM metrics. I’m still concerned as to how he scales up - where his playoff offensive and “on” ratings are more questionable and he doesn’t look quite the same statistical outlier. Big-men (era relative value and goodness sense) whom I see as a goat level peak with case over Jordan:
Not laying out a definitive ranking, but I’m cool with explaining why these seasons are campaigns I regard at the upper-most level of player value. Perhaps this optimally falls under a different thread..
Mogspan wrote:I think they see the super rare combo of high IQ with freakish athleticism and overrate the former a bit, kind of like a hot girl who is rather articulate being thought of as “super smart.” I don’t know kind of a weird analogy, but you catch my drift.
Should we say that Jordan cannot be a top x player because they "slumped" while he was "doing everything"? Should we pretend that Jordan was only a top 10 offensive player under Jackson because he didn't lead top 5 offenses before?
Maybe check who they were playing in those games. It was an abnormally high strength of schedule portion of the season, so their SRS during that timeframe was actually 2.74, which was, again, higher than the 1.88 SRS they had in the regular season before they made the change. That by itself makes clear that your “regression” claim was incorrect. And then of course there’s the playoffs where they further increased that with Jordan playing PG.
And, specifically as to the playoffs, you refer to Pippen getting injured early in that particular game where there’s clear video evidence that Jordan played PG. But at that point Pippen was not the playmaker he later became. He was 5th on the team in assists per 36 minutes that year, in both RS and playoffs. Pippen getting injured didn’t somehow magically foist playmaking duties onto Michael that game, because Pippen didn’t really have those duties back then.
I think you just watched the video, saw Pippen bring the ball up once before he got injured and erroneously thought that 1989 Pippen was a major playmaker (like he later became) when he really wasn’t. You can get a good sense below how Pippen was playing in that series, and it was not as a playmaker. Jordan played as a PG in that game because he was playing that role in the playoffs.
OhayoKD wrote:under Jackson because he didn't lead top 5 offenses before?
Maybe check who they were playing in those games. It was an abnormally high strength of schedule portion of the season, so their SRS during that timeframe was actually 2.74, which was, again, higher than the 1.88 SRS they had in the regular season before they made the change. That by itself makes clear that your “regression” claim was incorrect. And then of course there’s the playoffs where they further increased that with Jordan playing PG.
And lower than the srs of 3.76 they had in 1988...
Pippen was not the playmaker he later became.
Yes "jordan did not have the same playmaking load as he did when he averaged 10 assists right before the playoffs" = "pippen was as good as a playmaker as he was in 1990"
I think we're done here
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
OhayoKD wrote:under Jackson because he didn't lead top 5 offenses before?
Maybe check who they were playing in those games. It was an abnormally high strength of schedule portion of the season, so their SRS during that timeframe was actually 2.74, which was, again, higher than the 1.88 SRS they had in the regular season before they made the change. That by itself makes clear that your “regression” claim was incorrect. And then of course there’s the playoffs where they further increased that with Jordan playing PG.
And lower than the srs of 3.76 they had in 1988...
Yes, until they regressed for more than half a season after that, only to do better once they put Jordan at PG, to the point where, when we look to the full sample with playoff games, their Jordan-at-PG SRS in 1988-1989 was higher than the Bulls SRS had been in 1987-1988, despite the fact that the team had otherwise clearly regressed in 1988-1989. Your claim is just not supported without twisting things in a very particular and misleading way to try to get to a very particular conclusion.
Pippen was not the playmaker he later became.
Yes "jordan did not have the same playmaking load as he did when he averaged 10 assists right before the playoffs" = "pippen was as good as a playmaker as he was in 1990"
I think we're done here
No, your claim was that we shouldn’t believe the clear video evidence showing Jordan played as a PG in the playoffs, because Pippen went down early in that game. Your claim appeared to be that Jordan happened to just play like a PG that game because of Pippen’s injury. But that doesn’t make virtually any sense when we recognize that Pippen was not really played as a playmaker back then, and therefore that Pippen getting injured would not have foisted significant playmaking duties on Jordan that Pippen would normally have. At which point we’re just left with clear full-match video evidence that you are wrong and that Jordan did play as a PG in those playoffs (which also means that Jordan-as-PG produced a localized *peak* in the Bulls’ SRS in that era—very far from the “regression” you erroneously claimed, though that was plainly false even without the playoffs).
As for the assist stats, again, Jordan averaged more assists per game in those playoffs than he averaged in any surrounding year, and more than he averaged in any regular season in his career except for that one. The idea that Jordan getting almost 8 assists a game in the playoffs somehow proves he wasn’t playing as a PG is just silly. The assist numbers in those playoffs are, in fact, actually indicative of the difference in role! They may be lower than they were in the RS with him at PG, but that’s talking about comparing assist numbers in two low sample sizes of games (i.e. statistical randomness renders the point you’re making about differences in assist numbers essentially meaningless). You’re basically saying that Jordan must not have been playing PG in a 17-game sample because his assist totals were a bit lower than they were in a 24-game sample where he played PG, even though his assist numbers in the 17-game sample were higher than virtually any other non-PG time in his career. It doesn’t make sense, and is contrary to all actual evidence. This is all just simply an argument you want to be true because it’s convenient to some broad-strokes arguments you try to make, but that is not actually consistent with the factual reality of what happened.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
I think it's interesting that KG's bad Wolves teammates are used as a crutch for him (which I agree with) but by the same token, his on/off and impact stats, which would benefit from him playing on a dysfunctional team, is also used to propel him.
Peregrine01 wrote:I think it's interesting that KG's bad Wolves teammates are used as a crutch for him (which I agree with) but by the same token, his on/off and impact stats, which would benefit from him playing on a dysfunctional team, is also used to propel him.
Pretty sure this board props up KG because his stats look good on basketball-reference, which they've been pushing for decades. There's an agenda here, no doubt. Nobody who watched KG's entire career would dare rank him 9th all-time.
Peregrine01 wrote:I think it's interesting that KG's bad Wolves teammates are used as a crutch for him (which I agree with) but by the same token, his on/off and impact stats, which would benefit from him playing on a dysfunctional team, is also used to propel him.
Interesting you don't know how impact stats work.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Peregrine01 wrote:I think it's interesting that KG's bad Wolves teammates are used as a crutch for him (which I agree with) but by the same token, his on/off and impact stats, which would benefit from him playing on a dysfunctional team, is also used to propel him.
Pretty sure this board props up KG because his stats look good on basketball-reference, which they've been pushing for decades. There's an agenda here, no doubt. Nobody who watched KG's entire career would dare rank him 9th all-time.
Seriously? Do you think posters didn't watch Garnett's career? He retired 7 years ago...
Peregrine01 wrote:I think it's interesting that KG's bad Wolves teammates are used as a crutch for him (which I agree with) but by the same token, his on/off and impact stats, which would benefit from him playing on a dysfunctional team, is also used to propel him.
Where is the contradiction, exactly? His impact stats don't benefit from dysfunctional teams, in fact they are at or near their worst in the "dysfunctional" 05-07 period. And it's not like he didn't replicate them in perfectly functional teams later in his career.
We that have been discussing this **** for decades now have to be constantly, tirelessly, reeeeally carefully explaining how BAD some of his teams were, and contextualizing absolutely everything regarding his environment in Minnesota, cause some of you guys just don't know how to assess quality outside the all-star realm and RINGZ, lol. It's you guys who just can't mount a coherent, cogent argument without drawing from old, outdated clichés.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
OhayoKD wrote:Your claim is just not supported without twisting things in a very particular and misleading way to try to get to a very particular conclusion.
No, that is you:
Spoiler:
I don’t want to derail things, but that’s a kind of misinformed take and I’ve seen you throwing it around all over the place. The primary reason Jordan’s numbers in things like box creation and passer rating and also just assists per game were highest in the 1988-1989 season is because he played point guard for the last 24 games of the RS (and the playoffs as well), during which time he of course [b]averaged way more assists than normal (he averaged 30/11/9 in the RS games as PG).
You replied to me mentioning his passer-rating and box-creation during the regular season, argued it was only the result of a 24 game stretch, and then tried to group a bunch of games where he averaged 34/7.6/5 with that aforementioned 24 games of 30/11/9 before bringing up a single game where he notched 13 assists from a series he averaged 6.5.
After losing almost all their games to end the season, the Bulls redistributed "point" responsibilities. That is why I linked a Cleveland playoff game alongside a Hornets one during the crest of "archangel". Pippen does not need to be a "major playmaker" to enable Jordan to not be a helio PG.
To refute the KG analogy, you would need to demonstrate the Bulls were better pre-triangle. Instead you are aiming for pedantry(and missing).
Or perhaps you were intending to derail the discussion in which case you are doing just fine.
LessthanJake wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:Yes "jordan did not have the same playmaking load as he did when he averaged 10 assists right before the playoffs" = "pippen was as good as a playmaker as he was in 1990"
I think we're done here
No
Yes.
I did not claim Pippen was "a major playmaker", nor is that logically required for anything I've asserted.
I waste enough of my time dealing with you bastardizing statistics. If you're going to bastardize english too, waste someone else's.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Woodsanity wrote:My problem with KG was that ultimately he was a 52 TS% guy in the playoffs. He was a great passer but was an overrated scorer.
Elite offense has always been valued over elite defense.
I will take Jokic whose defense has improved enough to not be a liability in the playoffs.
players who can anchor defense and offense have always been more valuable and more likely to win titles than offensive anchors. Jokic does not win an archetype fight.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Woodsanity wrote:My problem with KG was that ultimately he was a 52 TS% guy in the playoffs. He was a great passer but was an overrated scorer.
Funnily enough I think he may have been an overrated passer but an underrated scorer.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
AEnigma wrote:I do not recall another all-time great superstar who spent three years on rosters as bereft of talent as those Wolves. In 2006/07 they had a historically dreadful bench and starters. -13 with Garnett off the court. 2-10 when he missed time. In 2005 he missed the postseason with 44 wins, and I can think of several all-time great superstars who made the postseason winning less. They went 29-19 when Cassell played at least 21 minutes; how many more all-time great superstars would have missed a postseason if their best teammate played a half season, in a conference requiring at least 45 wins to qualify? The next two years, 44 wins would have qualified. They would have been a 6-seed in 2007!
There are players who could have made the 2005 postseason in Garnett’s place, but the list is a lot smaller than you think. And I am not sure any player could have taken the 2006/07 Timberwolves to a winning record.
Yeah I think might be a good time to bring this back to the Jordan analogy from the "kg can't lead good d without thibs" thread
MJ, in his 20's, prior to Phil Jackson's arrival...
-> joined a 27-win team(likely better support that Garnett had) -> failed to hit .500 in his first 3 seasons -> tapped out at 50(A mark KG exceeded not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times) -> saw his team regress to 47-wins(kg hit that 6 times) the next year after losing his best teammate(and gaining significantly more in return) -> Fortunes change when Phil Jackson implements the triangle, a system that is far more tied to Mike's success than Thibs is tied to KG's(Boston continued to post all-time defense after thibs left)
I'm going to guess none of this actually plays much of a factor in how peregrine evaluates Mike. Because "kg missed the playoffs" is more just a way to get where they want to go, rather than an honest attempt at analyzing what he offered as a basketball player
Well isn't the consensus increasingly that KG peaked hire than MJ?
):
