You have to be trolling at this point.

Your entire argument is that BPM is sooooo accurate that if two players have the same BMP they must be (approximately) equally good.

I then point out that the ONE stat you're using has John Stockton as the 8th best player of all-time, at which point you agree with me that Stockton isn't quite that good. That is trying to have it both ways. BPM is as accurate as you want it to be based on the argument you're trying to make. That is not logically consistent.

You accuse me of not using stats which actually isn't true. I don't get hung up on one stat like you.

Since you still seem to not get my point (I think you get it but are intentionally ignoring it because it invalidates your argument) I'll repeat it one more time:

If you think that 2000 Shaquille O'Neal and 2019 Nikola Jokic are roughly equally productive due to BPM, then you also have to think that John Stockton is roughly the 8th best player of all-time.

sabr, help me out here homie. Imma ask you a question or two and you can answer:

"Matt R. said that BPM over an entire career is a really accurate estimate of how good a player was."

[TRUE/FALSE]

And,

Are these two statements equivalent?:

"BPM is a good estimate of player productivity per possession in a given year."
"BPM averaged over a career is a perfect indicator of how good a player was."

[TRUE/FALSE]

Hint: I said one, and not the other.

Eh, but if you think those two statement are the same, then all hope is lost. So fingers crossed.

Are you a lawyer? Because you seem to be really good at arguing semantics while missing or ignoring the actual point.

Claiming that BPM is highly accurate for individual seasons but not for entire careers is a cop-out, because if anything, rate stats should be MORE accurate at judging whole careers than single seasons (which are more prone to small sample size issues or just flukes).

This is the crux. I 100% agree with the bolded. I just absolutely don't think their value added per possession (lets call it VAPP) was remotely similar. I think BPM is very, very wrong in this instance. I think this for the exact same reasons you think the "2019 Jokic > 2000 Shaq" conclusion is ridiculous. But, if it isn't, if their VAPP is similar, then yes, 2019 Jokic > 2000 Shaq. And every argument you have that says "claiming 2019 Jokic > 2000 Shaq is ridiculous" (Accolades, titles, consensus, etc.) can just as easily say "claiming 2019 Jokic VAPP ~ 2000 Shaq VAPP is ridiculous". In fact they apply moreso to the latter, because at least the former has a potential explanation that could override those reasons (league improving).

It's a shame Jordan needs shameless propaganda to gain favor with people

I know, right?

Lebron would never create a TV show just to shamelessly proclaim himself the GOAT.

Oh my god this jokic> shaq **** is making my eyes bleed. Are you all really trying to say youd start a team with jokic before shaq? That any team that isnt already basically a super team wouldnt be better with shaq? Hes maybe the most dominant player of all time in his prime. The dude was basically unstoppable.

If your measurements say otherwise then that says something about RPM or BPM or whatever the **** you are using.

no he wouldn't. he never did that in a high school game , real college game or nba game.he by his own admission did it once in a college scrimmage and in practice.
It like many athletic myths is something with a tiny tiny grain of salt that snowballs into something ridiculous.

He was a phenomenal athlete no doubt and rules were changed because of him but he wasn't running 4.4 in dress shoes (why would he run in dress shoes?) and he didn't work as a bellhop where there was some epidemic of people pulling in to his hotel with flat tires and no car jacks so he could lift there cars up for them.

Most people have really bad memories. They get worse as they get older. Stories of great athletic prowess or even amusing andectotes about athletes tend to suffer from the telephone effect of people passing on stories,adding and changing small things until they just get absurd.There is also a tendancy for people to want to remember their era as the best/having the best players so their stories will reflect that.


I've seen interviews of old athletes (some in interviews filmed 30-40 years ago about games from almost 100 years ago) who tell stories about what happened in a game. And then you look up the game they're referring to and they're way off. And that's wish sanctioned league games there is a record for. So imagine the crap they spew for stuff with no records.I've read about Babe Ruth hitting a 600 foot home run in spring training when he was a young pitcher when they were still using a dead baseball and I'm supposed to believe that even though it never happens today with guys much stronger, facing guys throwing way harder using a ****ing rabbit baseball. It's comical. What actually happened is he destroyed the ball, probably 400-450 feet off of some heyseed throwing 78 miles an hour and as time went on the guys telling the story said it went farther and farther than it really did since none of them were used to seeing something like that.

In stuff like olympic track or swimming where everything is timed we don't get these mythical stories because a gold metal time from the 1940s loses to good high school kids today.But when stuff isn't measured precisely and there are no records we do.What an amazing coincidence.

i think mj is better but what do you think a documentary about jordan where jordan has final say in everything is? that's not propaganda?

I think I said that. The post you quoted was probably from a year or two ago?

I mean, you're right, but I don't think anyone's claiming he would beat Usain Bolt in a race or anything like that. I wasn't the one that posted he ran a 4.4 in dress shoes. It's obvious he was an incredible, multi-faceted athlete. The broadest, most credible claims are about his tremendous strength, which is important when comparing him to Shaq. It's equally absurd that people think Shaq would push him around or something... yeah, no.

Obv its got a MJ spin on it. You still cant fake the interviews with every great on there knowing he was on another level then them and saying it. I had just forgotten how good he was compared to everyone else since I'm not watching him play day to day. Not to mention a good % of the younger generation is very pro Lebron which is what you see on discussion forums.

If Lebron can win two more titles I think hes got a stake in the GOAT talk though. Hes obv right near there. When you're talking about the GOAT though you need to finish.

rings arguments at best are dumb and lazy. Besides if you wanna use rings as the GOAT barometer the Bill Russel is by far the GOAT. Of course Russel isn't and no Jordan fanboy thinks he is.

You can't fake interviews but you can be selective in which ones are shown.

Like I said I think Jordan is better than Lebron but not because of some slanted albeit entertaining documentary.

I didnt say rings are the only barometer. As I said if LBJ won two he would have a case to be the GOAT. Two more rings would be 5 not 6. Winning only 3 and not finishing isnt as impressive as MJ going 6 for 6. If he won 5 with all the visits I think hes #1.

I originally thought MJ GOAT up until LBJ beat the warrs which made me think LBJ was the GOAT. I let that win and LBJ fans change my mind. The doc just reminded me of why MJ is the GOAT.

You didn't say only but you said he had an argument for the Goat if he wins 2 more. So why isn't Russel the Goat? he has 5 more than mj.

The entire 3-6 thing is silly also. People count not making the playoffs/getting knocked out early as a more successful season than losing in the finals. And 3 of those 6 losses were with a trash team that has no shot with jordan either. If you swap jordan and lebron I don't think Lebron wins 6, but he wins more than 3. Jordan isn't winning 6 either with Lebron's teams, but probably 4 or 5.

Lebron's winning with the Cavs is his absolute shining moment.That was a great series with a great game 7 and nobody gave them a chance in hell to win.Him and Irving played out of their minds the last 3 games of that series. I think it's more impressive than any of the championships MJ won individually, although Jordans body of work is better. And of course on the opposite end of the spectrum is losing to Dallas. There is no excuse for that at all as great as Dirk played and Jordan isn't losing that series unless him or Pippen get hurt.

Of course if the NBA ever resumes this season and Lebron wins people will say it should have an asterisk it's not a real championship and if he loses they'll **** on him for it.

Lol at blaming LeBron for not winning rings when they are canceling seasons

lol

Disagree

Jordan just finds a way to win some, if not all of those loses, with the same personel

Both these claims seem defensible.

In fact Wilt was taller than Shaq. There are photos of the two together and it's obvious. Kareem was a good bit taller than either. Both Wilt and Kareem would still be dominant players. Imagine Wilt with modern training.

lmao no shot
when jordan had garbage teammates his teams couldn't get out of the first round

Lebrons first and last finals appearences were with Cavs teams that won less than 20 games the next season without him

His 6th finals (first in his return to cleveland) Irving got hurt in game 1 , an overtime loss vs GSW. He didn't play the rest of the series.
Love was already hurt and didn't play the entire finals.

Here's what he had to work with that series:

Tomofey Mozgov 28 minutes per game
Jr Smith 34 MPG
Tristan Thompson 41 mpg
Mathew Dellavedova 32 mpg
Iman Shumpert 36 mpg


But Jordan who couldn't win one playoff series without Pippen magically beats the Warriors with that trash heap. Good one. Like I said give Lebron all the **** you want for losing to Dallas but don't pretend Jordan wins these series.

Borg doing solid work itt

Based on the stories about wilt if he had any real ball skills and footwork hed undoubtedly be the most dominant.

I dont include these centers in the GOAT basketball player conversation though. Dominance doesnt equal skilled. Just my viewpoint

he's the only non-guard to lead NBA in assists and he played for the Harlem Globetrotters

LeBron is a forward.

He plays with two guards, he's always had the ball in his hands. He was the same this year as always but suddenly he's a point guard bc he led the league in assists.

re: Russell winning over and over. There were 8 teams, big whoop.