MJ vs Russell vs Kareem

[Smart]

Translation: The numbers don't add up for my guy, so I'm going to cherry pick stats from a time frame that was less than 1/2 of eithers career and hope no one notices!!

So you think that Tony Romo is a top ten QB in history?

If you think that comparing individuals when they were both in their primes and playing the same competition is a poor metric for comparing people, you make Titus Young look intelligent. It's the SINGLE MOST ACCURATE statistical comparison possible.

 

[rmilia1]

Because I allegedly don't care about credibilty or facts,while your're using FT% and FG% to say that Johnson was the better shooter.
So who would you rather have when asking to make / take the last shot between the two?

Well..... Yeah. LOL. I mean what the fuck else are we supposed to use??? If we are just stating opinion as opposed to facts then you can say whatever you want. Your OPINION is that MJ was the better shooter. My FACTS say that Magic was. So take that for what you will.

 

[Jims_Doors]

Well..... Yeah. LOL. I mean what the fuck else are we supposed to use??? If we are just stating opinion as opposed to facts then you can say whatever you want. Your OPINION is that MJ was the better shooter. My FACTS say that Magic was. So take that for what you will.

I'll put it like this.

If you yourself never saw Johnson play in the 80's or MJ in the 80's and 90's then I don't blame you for using the numbers. That's all you can go by. I personally don't debate players I never watched play

I WATCHED both play in the time frames I posted above and don't need to see numbers to tell me who the better shooter was. Who was more relied upon to score. Who was asked to take the majority of the shots. Where on the floor they're likely to take shots. Who the opposing coach was more worried about stopping.

The majority of Johnson's game was his back to the basket down low and get as close as possible to it. He was able to do so because he is 6-9, going against smaller PG's (which I have no problem with,take advantage of your match-up) And the main reason he did so was because his jumpshot was almost non-existant.

I'm done with this thread.

 

[shitsho]

Out of the 2 Jordan was the better scorer. Its silly to say otherwise. Facts say Magic was the better or more efficient shooter regardless of the reasons. Magic was a better leader and team player. Jordan was an unstoppable anomaly that had no weaknesses on offense or defense. Jordan was the best there is and we probably wont see anyone like him for 20 more years.

 

[rmilia1]

Out of the 2 Jordan was the better scorer. Its silly to say otherwise. Facts say Magic was the better or more efficient shooter regardless of the reasons. Magic was a better leader and team player. Jordan was an unstoppable anomaly that had no weaknesses on offense or defense. Jordan was the best there is and we probably wont see anyone like him for 20 more years.

Absolutely. No one has argued otherwise but scoring isnt shooting. I have seen both guys play more than I can ever count. Jordan was AMAZING and the clutch of all clutch but there are legit reasons to say Magic was the better basketball player. I have never even personally said that, only that you could make a strong case for it ( stronger than almost anyone else that I have ever seen anyway)

 

[trojanfan12]

So you think that Tony Romo is a top ten QB in history?

If you think that comparing individuals when they were both in their primes and playing the same competition is a poor metric for comparing people, you make Titus Young look intelligent. It's the SINGLE MOST ACCURATE statistical comparison possible.

What the hell does Tony Romo have to do with anything?

The best way to compare players is over the course of their careers. The entire body of work.

You used what? 3 years worth of numbers for a career that was 14 years and a career that was 12 years. So, you basically cut it down to 1/4 or less of their careers and then tried to apply it to their entire careers. If I make Titus Young look intelligent, you make him look like a Rhodes Scholar!!

As has been pointed out. The numbers show 2 things: MJ was the better scorer and Magic was the better shooter.

 

[BOTSLAYER]

interesting thought, would you rather have 2 MJs or 2 Magics on your team?

Or obv 2 Kareems or Wilts

 

[trojanfan12]

interesting thought, would you rather have 2 MJs or 2 Magics on your team?

Or obv 2 Kareems or Wilts

Can't I have 1 of each?

 

[shitsho]

interesting thought, would you rather have 2 MJs or 2 Magics on your team?

Or obv 2 Kareems or Wilts

Without a doubt I would want 2 Magics.

 

[rmilia1]

interesting thought, would you rather have 2 MJs or 2 Magics on your team?

Or obv 2 Kareems or Wilts

Impossible to have 2 MJ's, they could never coexist. The ego and need for the ball would make it impossible. Now 2 Magics??? Thats a freaking dream

 

[lakersrule]

Give me two Wilts. Good luck getting any rebounds against my team. Plus one of the Wilts would certainly have a major mismatch on the offensive end.

 

[Smart]

What the hell does Tony Romo have to do with anything?

If you really can't figure out why a guy with notoriously good stats put up in a pass first era is relevant to this debate, I don't know what to tell you.

If two guys are both indisputably in their prime and playing against the same competition for a rather large sample, this is as accurate of a sample as you can possibly get. You want to dismiss a statistically significant sample size (3+ years) with few outside variables in order to add an relevant number of shots (because once you go well over a thousand shots each, the sample size is going to be roughly equivalent either way in terms of accuracy) in order to add a HUGE VARIABLE, in fact, arguably the biggest possible variable, back into the equation.

I have to wonder if you possibly passed middle school science if you think that adding variables makes a sample size more accurate. I mean, the opposite is the single biggest lesson you should have ever learned in science class.

 

[trojanfan12]

If you really can't figure out why a guy with notoriously good stats put up in a pass first era is relevant to this debate, I don't know what to tell you.

If two guys are both indisputably in their prime and playing against the same competition for a rather large sample, this is as accurate of a sample as you can possibly get. You want to dismiss a statistically significant sample size (3+ years) with few outside variables in order to add an relevant number of shots (because once you go well over a thousand shots each, the sample size is going to be roughly equivalent either way in terms of accuracy) in order to add a HUGE VARIABLE, in fact, arguably the biggest possible variable, back into the equation.

I have to wonder if you possibly passed middle school science if you think that adding variables makes a sample size more accurate. I mean, the opposite is the single biggest lesson you should have ever learned in science class.

Statistically speaking, it doesn't make the sample more accurate to the overall debate. That's the thing with statistics, you can make them say virtually anything that you want. By shrinking the sample size to 3 seasons (a very small sample size), the stats show that MJ was the better shooter. By expanding it to their entire careers (a much larger sample size), the stats show that Magic was the better shooter.

As for my passing middle school. How about a rational discussion without insults?

 

[Smart]

What the hell does Tony Romo have to do with anything?

Or to be more explicit,

QB A: 64.7% Completion, 7.8 YPA, 270 YPG as starter, 5.5 TD%, 2.8 INT%
QB B: 63.2% Completion, 7.5 YPA, 232 YPG as starter, 5.1 TD%, 2.7 INT%

One of these two is considered one of the three greatest QBs ever. One of these two is often considered a prime candidate for benching.

I think you see the point. This is why comparing players in different eras by statistics alone is stupid. Now, take out this massive variable and you have something.

 

[trojanfan12]

If you really can't figure out why a guy with notoriously good stats put up in a pass first era is relevant to this debate, I don't know what to tell you.

If two guys are both indisputably in their prime and playing against the same competition for a rather large sample, this is as accurate of a sample as you can possibly get. You want to dismiss a statistically significant sample size (3+ years) with few outside variables in order to add an relevant number of shots (because once you go well over a thousand shots each, the sample size is going to be roughly equivalent either way in terms of accuracy) in order to add a HUGE VARIABLE, in fact, arguably the biggest possible variable, back into the equation.

I have to wonder if you possibly passed middle school science if you think that adding variables makes a sample size more accurate. I mean, the opposite is the single biggest lesson you should have ever learned in science class.

And by the way, you just threw Tony Romo out there in the middle of a basketball discussion asking if I think he is a top 10 quarterback all time and gave no reason for why you asked that.

Forgive me for not knowing what an NFL qb has to do with a discussion about basketball!!

 

[Smart]

Statistically speaking, it doesn't make the sample more accurate to the overall debate. That's the thing with statistics, you can make them say virtually anything that you want. By shrinking the sample size to 3 seasons (a very small sample size), the stats show that MJ was the better shooter. By expanding it to their entire careers (a much larger sample size), the stats show that Magic was the better shooter.

LOL. Three seasons is NOT a small sample size. It is a GIGANTIC sample size. It's over 4,000 shots for Magic and over 10,000 shots for Jordan.

14,000 sample size taking out a massive variable is more accurate than 36,000 examples with a huge variable left in.

If you don't believe me look at how any important study is done. They would never let the biggest variable remain unchanged. They often allow sample sizes of less than 14,000.

 

[trojanfan12]

Or to be more explicit,

QB A: 64.7% Completion, 7.8 YPA, 270 YPG as starter, 5.5 TD%, 2.8 INT%
QB B: 63.2% Completion, 7.5 YPA, 232 YPG as starter, 5.1 TD%, 2.7 INT%

One of these two is considered one of the three greatest QBs ever. One of these two is often considered a prime candidate for benching.

I think you see the point. This is why comparing players in different eras by statistics alone is stupid. Now, take out this massive variable and you have something.

See, that's more understandable as to why you asked that question. As for Romo being top 10 all-time? No. Not because of the regular season stats that he puts up, but because he doesn't win and seems to have a habit of failing when his team needs him the most.

As for Magic and MJ, it's kind of hard to make that distinction because they are arguably the 2 best to ever play the game and 2 of the best ever in clutch situations.

You make think that using their entire careers is too large a sample size, while I think using 3 years is too small. I get your point about the overlap with the smaller sample size, but the larger sample size shows their development from their rookie seasons to their final seasons.

As often happens with statistics, both can be perfectly legit or not, depending on the point that is being made.

 

[trojanfan12]

LOL. Three seasons is NOT a small sample size. It is a GIGANTIC sample size. It's over 4,000 shots for Magic and over 10,000 shots for Jordan.

14,000 sample size taking out a massive variable is more accurate than 36,000 examples with a huge variable left in.

If you don't believe me look at how any important study is done. They would never let the biggest variable remain unchanged. They often allow sample sizes of less than 14,000.

Again, it depends on the research being done. Some require very large sample sizes some require much smaller sample sizes. It still comes down to what the researcher is trying to prove.

And 3 seasons out of 12 and 14 year careers, is a very small sample size.