MJ's 1988 DPOY is now being "Questioned". HOME vs ROAD Steals has twice as much Gap

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14923258][IMG]https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/gJ_83GbfleeivDk4m5gO4A--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTI0MDA7aD0yMDM2O2NmPXdlYnA-/https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2024-06/524e73d0-2807-11ef-9fff-4b08316deaf4[/IMG]

Yikes[/QUOTE]

MJ stans holding onto a fraudulent DPOY award.

[QUOTE=gengiskhan;14923721]da faak 90s has to do with this you sick fakk it.

We talkin' 1988 here![/QUOTE]

Most Jordan stans didn't even watch basketball in the 80s. It's like Jordan only existed in the 90s unless they want to try boost their guy by mentioning things such as this DPOY award, even though it's clearly fraudulent anyway and they seen no games that were played. :lol

They did this with stocktons assists too. It is only a 6 game sample size but you can do statistical analysis on how likely it is to just be random error and not have something else be going on. It takes less coin flips than you think for example to determine a coin is 95% rigged

If you stans on either side of the isle are serious about this discussion, then what you'll do is compare the total differential by percentage relative to their peers for that specific year.

It doesn't make sense to cross compare years as that doesn't tell you if the player was worthy of DPOY that year based on box scores.

MJ's total was 176% for 1988. The next highest in the top vote getters I believe was Alvin Robertson, and his was 162%.

I decided to look at Robertson's DPOY in 1986. There were only 3 vote getters:

Robertson: 170%
Bol: 99.5%
Moncrief: 77.9%

Intuition tells me if more players were in the voting, then this discrepancy wouldn't be as large. But this is quite alarming and the disparity is a heck of a lot greater than 1988. I believe Eaton was somewhere around 133%, Robertson 162%, and Hakeem at 118% that year.

I saw Jaren Jackson's name mentioned, so I decided to check his from a year ago.

Jackson: 162%
Lopez: 93.2%
Mobley: 80.8%
Green: 123%

I think what we can gather from this is that stars or players in the running for a particular can and do have their stats padded by the scorers at their home crowd. MJ is of no exception. Having said that, I don't think it matters as much when his fellow SG and previous DPOY was getting the same treatment and seemingly by a larger disparity.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the top 4-5 vote getters by each year to see if more disparities exist.

[QUOTE=theman93;14923712]I did read it. If it wasn’t a hit piece then the author would have selected any other DPOY to make the topic of the article about. Out of everyone he just so happened to choose MJ? Why? Because it’s a hit piece to try and take MJ down a peg and Lebron up a peg. The article had absolutely nothing to do with Lebron, yet the title of the article mentions him? Obvious hit piece is obvious.[/QUOTE]

I'd venture to say that he used that one because of all the corroborating snips surrounding it. The stat guy from Vancouvers anecdote on his training and how things were in that specific era, the Bulls stat guy "making a guy famous" by padding his stats, who still was there until just recently. Pippens quote in his book on the stat guy "taking care" of Mike. And the fact that some fans had already questioned if Mjs dpoy was deserved over 2 centers in 88. If you've ever done research Info found leads you to conclusions you might not have started out with. For the guys who want to write it off as error? Possibly but I'd imagine if padding was the way of life then and everyone got away with it, it's less likely an accident and more likely a practice. I'm sure of more games were available he'd have gone even deeper, this might have something to do with the league keeping such a tight grip on its game archives, releasing them might cause a ton of historical trouble

Imagine using Pippen’s book as a source

lol

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14923779]If you stans on either side of the isle are serious about this discussion, then what you'll do is compare the total differential by percentage relative to their peers for that specific year.

It doesn't make sense to cross compare years as that doesn't tell you if the player was worthy of DPOY that year based on box scores.

MJ's total was 176% for 1988. The next highest in the top vote getters I believe was Alvin Robertson, and his was 162%.

I decided to look at Robertson's DPOY in 1986. There were only 3 vote getters:

Robertson: 170%
Bol: 99.5%
Moncrief: 77.9%

Intuition tells me if more players were in the voting, then this discrepancy wouldn't be as large. But this is quite alarming and the disparity is a heck of a lot greater than 1988. I believe Eaton was somewhere around 133%, Robertson 162%, and Hakeem at 118% that year.

I saw Jaren Jackson's name mentioned, so I decided to check his from a year ago.

Jackson: 162%
Lopez: 93.2%
Mobley: 80.8%
Green: 123%

I think what we can gather from this is that stars or players in the running for a particular can and do have their stats padded by the scorers at their home crowd. MJ is of no exception. Having said that, I don't think it matters as much when his fellow SG and previous DPOY was getting the same treatment and seemingly by a larger disparity.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of the top 4-5 vote getters by each year to see if more disparities exist.[/QUOTE]
Sure. But if we're really taking any of these debates "seriously" then the 1st reaction to anything negative about Mjs career wouldn't be: find a way to give him a pass. It's only done for him, meanwhile every other player in the same discussions has to be taken down a notch to ensure his status. As much as Lebron superstans try to do this for him, even they admit his short comings from time to time. I'm still waiting for the 1st MJ stan to concede anything negative about him. That would be taking these debates "seriously "

[video=youtube;V7Gd1sFO2bY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7Gd1sFO2bY[/video]

"Get the pulitzer prize ready" :oldlol:

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14923783]I'd venture to say that he used that one because of all the corroborating snips surrounding it. The stat guy from Vancouvers anecdote on his training and how things were in that specific era, the Bulls stat guy "making a guy famous" by padding his stats, who still was there until just recently. Pippens quote in his book on the stat guy "taking care" of Mike. And the fact that some fans had already questioned if Mjs dpoy was deserved over 2 centers in 88. If you've ever done research Info found leads you to conclusions you might not have started out with. For the guys who want to write it off as error? Possibly but I'd imagine if padding was the way of life then and everyone got away with it, it's less likely an accident and more likely a practice. I'm sure of more games were available he'd have gone even deeper, this might have something to do with the league keeping such a tight grip on its game archives, releasing them might cause a ton of historical trouble[/QUOTE]

My guy, if it wasn’t a hit piece then Lebron wouldn’t have been included in the title of the article. There’s no getting around that lol.

All I take from this is that it's amazing the lengths Klutch are willing to go to prop up their guy. Putting analysts, reporters, anyone they can get their hands on, on the payroll. I was shocked when Broussard admitted the other day that Klutch "represent him". They are like a virus taking over.

[QUOTE=theman93;14923792]My guy, if it wasn’t a hit piece then Lebron wouldn’t have been included in the title of the article. There’s no getting around that lol.[/QUOTE]

Tell us you never read it without telling us you never read it. The Lebron vs Mj angle is a great way to make someone click on an article, but you should actually read it before you talk. [B]Including the titles tag line the word Lebron appears in the article 9 times. In a 6,000 word article. [/B] Some hit piece, he really capitalized on the Lebron angle didn't he? If it was about Lebron's stats you'd argue it was the truth being revealed for a manufactured star. It's just showing us what was behind the magicians curtain from our youth.

[QUOTE=theman93;14923792]My guy, if it wasn’t a hit piece then Lebron wouldn’t have been included in the title of the article. There’s no getting around that lol.[/QUOTE]

I didn't read the entire thing because it's long, but Lebron really wasn't a part of it. And there isn't any bias inflected in the verbiage.

It reads more like a case-study than a hit piece.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14923795]Tell us you never read it without telling us you never read it. The Lebron vs Mj angle is a great way to make someone click on an article, but you should actually read it before you talk. [B]Including the titles tag line the word Lebron appears in the article 9 times. In a 6,000 word article. [/B] Some hit piece, he really capitalized on the Lebron angle didn't he? If it was about Lebron's stats you'd argue it was the truth being revealed for a manufactured star. It's just showing us what was behind the magicians curtain from our youth.[/QUOTE]

Buddy, Lebron wouldn’t have been mentioned at all if this wasn’t a hit piece. In an article that had nothing to do with Lebron he somehow still made the headline? A headline about chasing MJ in the GOAT discussion? LOL cmon man we all know what this is really about. Take those blinders off sweety.

[QUOTE=ShawkFactory;14923802]I didn't read the entire thing because it's long, but Lebron really wasn't a part of it. And there isn't any bias inflected in the verbiage.

It reads more like a case-study than a hit piece.[/QUOTE]

So then you’ll have to explain what, “Has Lebron James been chasing a ghost” has to do with the article.

[QUOTE=theman93;14923808]Buddy, Lebron wouldn’t have been mentioned at all if this wasn’t a hit piece. In an article that had nothing to do with Lebron he somehow still made the headline? A headline about chasing MJ in the GOAT discussion? LOL cmon man we all know what this is really about. Take those blinders off sweety.[/QUOTE]

It's an obvious hit piece.