GOAT NBA Discussion: Biggest fraud poster: fallguy. Super AIDS Containment thread
All the dynasties like the Spurs, Warriors, and Bulls are known for great ball movement, not ball-dominant PNR.. The point guard or PNR skillset is simply overrated.. It's a necessary part of the game but should never be the focus.
Infact, history shows that the best basketball (dynasties or dominant title runs) require bigs or jumpshooters as the 1st option/leading scorer - never a primary ballhandler.
Specifically, in the play-by-play era, there have been 4 dynasties (3 chips in 5 years) and 8 dominant title runs (1 loss average per round, 4 losses max)... All these teams were led by bigs or jumpshooters - never a primary ballhandler..
Since the primary ballhandler skillset can't produce the best basketball as 1st option, they aren't in my top 10.. Meanwhile, since bigs and jumpshooters ARE capable of producing the best basketball, my top 10 consists of the best bigs and jumpshooters ever, aka Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Curry, Duncan, Shaq, Jokic...
Thread Cliffs
I'll change my mind on this stuff if someone can show a time during the modern era (play-by-play era) where a primary ballhandler was the 1st option/leading scorer for "the best basketball".
Specifically, "the best basketball" would be a dynasty (3 chips in 5 years) or dominant title run (1 loss average per round, 4 losses max).
If no one can provide an example, I'm forced to conclude that primary ballhandlers can't be the 1st option for the best basketball, and therefore shouldn't be in anyone's top 10..
Instead, the skillsets that CAN produce the best basketball should fill the top 10, aka the best bigs and jumpshooters ever.. Accordingly, the top 10 is a subjective mix of the greatest bigs and jumpshooters ever, such as Jordan, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Curry, Duncan, Shaq, Jokic.
Btw, we can statistically deduce WHY primary ballhandlers can't produce the best basketball as the high scorer... It's bball 101 that primary ballhandlers score on their own a lot, especially high-scoring primary ballhandlers... Accordingly, they have a high volume of unassisted buckets that leave teammates standing in spot-up roles (more assisted buckets) - these spot-up roles crater teammates' assists, thereby producing low assist teams over time that lack the ball movement, chemistry and offensive sophistication of the best basketball (dynasties and dominant title runs).
Spurs had one championship team known for good ball movement. The other ones they won through bludgeoning the opposing team and having Duncan score 25 out of 86 total points.
As a 90s kid, I cannot remember anyone saying the Bulls were a great ball movement team. They had Jordan and gave to ball to him so they win was the narrative.
Yeah, you're going to have to make your mind up if MJ carried his terrible teams to Championships or they won because of ball movement.
LeBron now has over 10k more points than Jordan. 5k+ more assists. 5k+ more rebounds.
Why are we even talking.
The difference is a Hall of Fame career.
Spurs had one championship team known for good ball movement. The other ones they won through bludgeoning the opposing team and having Duncan score 25 out of 86 total points.
As a 90s kid, I cannot remember anyone saying the Bulls were a great ball movement team. They had Jordan and gave to ball to him so they win was the narrative.
You can't remember anyone saying the Bulls were a great ball movement team??... You sure bout' that???
It's common knowledge and historical record that the 90's Bulls had all-time ball movement - it was the first time that a team won using the pure triangle as their offense.
Same thing with the Spurs - everyone said they played "the right way".
But we can just look at the numbers - Lebron produces low assist teams, due to his reduction of everyone's assists (imposing spot-up roles).. 2 + 2 = 4... Lebron's teams average 17th in assists for his career, while the typical title team is 7th .. Otoh, Jordan was a great assist target off-ball, so he increased everyone's assists and produced teams that averaged 8th in assists for his career.
The criteria isn't random.
Dynasties can't mostly lose for every stretch of time.. There must be a stretch where they mostly win titles... So what's the appropriate stretch of time??... Clearly, 3 chips in 5 years is the only logical time frame that shows a team "mostly won" over a material stretch of time.
And it's the same thing with a dominant title run because beating everyone by an average margin of gentleman sweep (or better) makes the most sense.. There isn't a more logical or simpler approach.
You should become aware of how much you lower the bar for Lebron, aka 12-2 in the East after forming the only super-team in the conference with 3 franchise players, while everyone else had "normal" rosters of 0 or 1 franchise player.. He shouldn't have lost even 2 games with this deck-stackage, especially in the weakest East ever, according to his GM.
The only reason that the 16' Cavs were down 1-3 is because Lebron choked for the first 4 games with 24 and 6 TO's... Otherwise, the Warriors were a "normal" roster of 1 franchise player, while the Cavs were the only "super-team" in the league with 3 franchise players - that's why they were the preseason favorite... Jordan or Kobe easily sweep with such a huge talent advantage...
Ultimately, Lebron choked for 4 games and caused near-certain loss, thereby needing miracle bailouts from the league and teammates - historic luckboxing....
In addition to the unlikely bailouts, the reason Lebron got away with choking for 4 games is because his sidekick was dominating the league MVP (unprecedented help and unlosable situation) - this includes 30 on 53% for Kyrie in the last 3 games.. Lebron had an equal-scoring partner to attract equal defensive attention, so he never had to defeat max defensive attention like MJ did on all 6 Finals.
Btw, we know that the 16' Cavs weren't a great team because in addition to needing league and teammate bailout (luck), they were blown away by record amount in 2017.. So they got lucky in 16' and rightfully exposed in 17'.
Yeah, you're going to have to make your mind up if MJ carried his terrible teams to Championships or they won because of ball movement.
Both can be true, and are
The Bulls' superior brand allowed them to overcome talent deficits against nearly every contender they faced - the Bulls were massively outmatched at the 3 thru 12 spots against nearly anyone they faced.. This is common knowledge, and it's why Jordan won with the lowest-scoring casts ever
Unfortunately for fraud victims like yourself, it all adds up
LeBron now has over 10k more points than Jordan. 5k+ more assists. 5k+ more rebounds.
Why are we even talking.
The difference is a Hall of Fame career.
^^^ that's offset by the most turnovers ever and the most missed shots ever, while the following is a HOF career:
* 2 more rings
* 1 more MVP
* 1 more DPOY
* 9 more scoring titles
* 4: more All-defense
* 6 more rings with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player
* 5 less upset losses
* 6 less Finals losses
* 1 less goat choke
* 1 less epic meltdown and "decision" to abandon team
* 3 less "decisions" to team up with opponents and form super-teams
* 3 less record losses
* 2 more lotteries
* 4 more game-tying or go-ahead shots in the Finals on last possession
* Much more
I hope this thread never ends
Not that anyone is going to care, but since I did it I might as well tell someone. I came up with an "objective" way (as in it's pure formula, no opinion) to work out the GOAT (since 1980 anyway). The whole thing relies on BPM/VORP being roughly a correct rating of how good a player is, so if you don't rate that can just ignore the following. Exact same methodology could be used for any other stat that has both a total and a per minute/possession part of the metric.
Basically I decided there were two important aspects to GOAT ranking. Rings (and your contribution to them) and general Career Stats (both longevity and peak/avg per year). So I came up with a metric for each. Then to combine them I just took whatever % of the #1 guy for that metric someone got.
For Rings Metric , I worked out the % of the teams total Playoff VORP the played produced in each of their championships, and their score is the sum of the squares of those percentages (the squaring part I kinda pulled from my ass but pure sum was too proportional to just rings. Robert Horry was 8th.
Couple fun facts:
- Larry Bird has the highest avg share of his team's playoff VORP in championship yerars
For Career Stats metric I just took Career VORP * Career BPM.
Probably unsurprisingly (and a good sign for the validity of the method), MJ and Lebron were top 2 in both, MJ wins the rings one and Lebron wins the Career Stats one. MJ got 80% of Lebron's Career Stats score and Lebron only got 69% of Lebron's ring score, so MJ is my official formula GOAT with a 90% avg!
Top 10:
Jordan 90%
Lebron 84%
Magic 54%
Bird 46%
Jokic 45%
Duncan 40%
Kobe 35%
Curry 35%
Shaq 30%
Durant 29%
(Jokic is so high because he's currently 3rd in my "Career Stat" metric. Might mean my formula doesn't weight longevity enough, but Jokic is the actual GOAT by a pretty big margin by pure BPM so it might just be that).
Came out pretty well I think. Now only hard part is finding where KAJ, Bill and Wilt slot in
Couple of points of note:
- Larry Bird has the highest avg share of teams Playoff VORP in playoff years of all players with more than one ring (though MJ had higher after 3, and he only beat Lebron at like the 4th decimal)
- Despite winning three as "sidekick", Kobe averaged a higher share of VORP per ring than Tim D. Duncan only higher overall cos way better regular season stats
- John Stockton comes in at #12, despite getting a 0 for the rings portion
One thing about Jokic is that he's never had the years at the end of his career that drag the rate stats down. LeBron has 4 or 5 of these years. Jordan has 2. Magic has none. Shaq has a lot of journeyman years at the end and it pulls his averages away from his dominant peak.
I love how Kevin Love and Chris Bosh are franchise players but Pippen isn't.
Pippen is better than Kyrie also. It's really not even close. Kyrie has never received a single MVP vote of any kind in his career. Pippen routinely was in the top 10 and when he had one opportunity in his career to lead a team, he finished 3rd. And yet Pippen somehow is 'not a franchise player'
Hubie was a member of the media and probably had a vote for MVP and All-NBA.
Again, media opinion means zero.
No active coach or player was saying Pippen was a top 5 playerr
Brown may not have been an active coach when he said that, but he was a head coach in 87 when Pippen started his career, and won Coach of the Year in 2004 when Pippen was still in the league. He also won Coach of the year in 1978. He's in the hall of fame. He's not just some random commentator, clearly he knew far more about basketball than you.
Also, Barkley, Rodman, and IT all saying Pippen was not just a top 5 player in the league, but in fact even better than that. Whether they're right or not isn't even the point. They said it. And you said nobody was saying it. So you're wrong.
[QUOTE=Karl Malone]"I would have to start my team with Scottie Pippen," he said. "This is why I would take Scottie: Do you remember the time that Michael retired? I watched Scottie Pippen when the Chicago Bulls weren't really good and Scottie led that team in every statistical category, and I just remembered that. Plus, he's a guy who could care less about scoring. He wants to stop the best player on the other team. That would have been pretty cool, to see Scottie guarding Michael."[/QUOTE]
IT WAS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT PIPPEN SUCKED
"A guy who has grown into superstardom" – David Robinson explains how Scottie Pippen grew into a true leader without Michael Jordan
Robinson calls Pippen the best player in the league during those seasons MJ was not present due to baseball.
NO ONE CARED OR TRIED AGAINST THOSE BULLS TEAMS
[QUOTE=Larry Bird]“I believe he (Michael Jordan) had the second best player in the league right next to him in Scottie Pippen. You take Michael off that team, and Scottie moves down to fifth. But when Michael was out there with him, they were the best two in the league," Celtics legend wrote in his book "Bird Watching."[/QUOTE]
5TH BEST PLAYER ITL ISN'T A FRANCHISE PLAYER BECAUSE IT'S NOT A ONE STAR TEAM GROWN ORGANICALLY AROUND HIM
This is all going to be rage-bait for FG to say all these guys suck; no recognition of how it completely contradicts his narratives about what everyone knew, what was common knowledge, and what NO ONE WAS SAYING.
In short:
Spoiler
You need to stop giving MJ so much credit for winning rings with a loaded team in a water-downed league, with a commissioner who knew it was good business for MJ to win.
No one thought the Bulls were loaded.. Show how me where someone in the 90's said the Bulls were "stacked", or "loaded", or something to that effect.
It never happened because the Bulls had among the worst talent in the league from the 3 thru 12 spots .. They were the only team with no 3rd scorer because they were all robotic, replaceable role players from the 3 thru 12..
During the 93' Finals, Isiah and Magic said the Bulls' cast was weak and they were a 1-man team... Isiah said that if you take Isiah and MJ off the teams, the Pistons would easily beat the Bulls.. This was the consensus because the Bulls were considered to be a 1-man team during the 1st three-peat.. This is objective fact and historical record.. Obviously, after they won 3 titles and then won 72 games, people started saying the Bulls had solid players, but not before this.
I forgot the bit about Magic having Aids and Bird being dead before MJ could win anything.
The instant Jordan got a low-producing all-star, he was unbeatable with 2 three-peats, while Lebron is a perennial loser and the most beatable player in history despite teaming up with multiple opposing franchise players (big 3).
23 years confirms that Lebron can't reach the goat level of three-peats, 70 wins or dynasty regardless of who we put around him, aka objectively inferior to MJ...
Lebron's low IQ thinks "Bron-ball" is a winner and makes excuses when his team becomes everyone's b*tch and ragdoll.. Specifically, even AFTER lebron teamed up with opposing franchise players, he still had a lottery record against the Warriors (7-15), Spurs (5-7), and Nuggets (1-8), while getting upset by 1-star teams like the Dirk, Booker, Ant and Dwight.. He gets upset by 1-star teams, while the good teams destroy him by record.
Btw, Magic was runner-up for MVP in 91', while his cast destroyed the Bulls' cast in the 91' Finals - they had 4 guys achieve "pippen-caliber" production and had SO MANY better players at the 3 thru 12 spots.. Anyone with a brain that can peruse the respective rosters will see this.
It's because of scoring.
Aside from all-time floor generals like Kidd or Magic, franchise players must be elite scorers, which allows other good scorers to be put beneath them.
But if your top guy is a secondary producer that can barely scrape 20 system points, then you can't add other good scorers beneath him.. Accordingly, the team's capacity to add talent isn't there with a weak scorer as the franchise guy.. That's why secondary producers like Klay, Middleton and Pippen aren't considered franchise players..
Otoh, Love and Bosh were premium "go-to" players with wildly sophisticated offensive games and the ability to dominate or take over... Elite go-to players like this can be franchise players.
Nonsense... It would've been absurd to even CONSIDER pippen destroying the league MVP like Barkley or Malone - he simply isn't capable, while Kyrie's elite production capability destroyed the best MVP in history (the only unanimous MVP) and also Anthony Edwards....
This is an objective demonstration that Kyrie is on another level from Pippen, who was never expected to hang with the best players like Shaq or Robinson.. Kyrie destroyed Ant to make the Finals, while Pippen was destroyed on a stacked Portland team with a 17-point lead in the 4th quarter of Game 7... It's arguably the goat 4th quarter choke
It's really not even close. Kyrie has never received a single MVP vote of any kind in his career. Pippen routinely was in the top 10 and when he had one opportunity in his career to lead a team, he finished 3rd. And yet Pippen somehow is 'not a franchise player'
The media voted for MJ and Pippen like a joint ticket even though Pippen was statistically carried in this duo more than any duo in history.. There's never been a bigger statistical gap between a 1st and 2nd option than MJ and Pippen... Pippen should literally NEVER have gotten a single vote alongside MJ because the stats show that no one was ever carried more.
And Pippen was gifted a fully-developed organization and dynasty in 94', which he quickly cratered to nothing before MJ returned in 95'.. Anyone would've done that with a 3-peat system... Furthermore, the fact that Kyrie never got MVP votes shows how much BS and a nonsense argument that MVP voting is.. The group-think of Rachel Nichols and Skip Bayless has no business in any basketball debate.
It's such a flawed 90s outlook: A team's leading scorer equals max contract FRANCHISE PLAYER. (Regardless whether that leading scorer ever actually contributed to a winning record.)
Then when those guys go to a new team (and are now lower in the pecking order) the new team's leading scorer CRATERED them.
Lol they were a 1 man team yet somehow without that 1 man Pippen was gifted a fully-developed organizational dynasty. (And then done CRATERED it.)
No contradiction there.
