re: Phil Jackson: "LeBron needs to takeover like Michael did"

quote:

---

But you had to live through it...because how they were better is through their drive.

---

quote:

---

whatever can't be quantified is irrelevant to the quality of a player.

---

incorrect.

You need to stop worshipping numbers and try to get in touch with a human side

quote:

---

You learned something about pulling the cape of Superman

---

Man someone should tell LeBron that and maybe he'll quit talking shite to the Warriors and Steph specifically.

LeBron vs Steph isn't a rivalry anymore than Malone vs Jordan was-- to be a rivalry you have to win.

quote:

---

Celtics were overmatched in 1984. And Bird called out his entire team and called them sissies and said they didn't have the heart to win....

Boston crawled back and won the series.

---

See above, LeBron isn't the HoF leading the charge in this series, he's the guy trying hard but getting beat.

quote:

---

All things like motivation, chemistry or whatever manifest themselves in the results. Therefore, why bother with those things, just look at the results.

---

Not necessarily. Wilt was horribly unmotivated and has GOAT tier numbers

quote:

---

You need to stop worshipping numbers and try to get in touch with a human side

---

I have a PhD in psychology. I deal with numbers and humans. If there is anything I've learned, it's the subjective "human side" is often wrong, especially when it contradicts the objective data.

What possible variable can a human--full of biases, preferences, imperfect cognitive functioning, variable attention, etc.--that can add value above the quantified and objective data based on 100s of plays across 1000s of games? I'll concede in a small sample (a game or two) that MAYBE you can derive something, but that is just noise in the aggregate.

I get it. It's human nature to feel like you possess some ability to observe something special. But it's largely an illusion, especially considering the biases that come with subjectivity. Although, I'm sure you are better than most, nobody is immune from these biases.

quote:

---

I get it. It's human nature to feel like you possess some ability to observe something special.

---

You don't get it. That's not it at all. It's not special or unique to think that assessments of athletic performance can be completely quantified and don't require actual witness. On the contrary it's obtuse and narrow-minded, and autistic to suppose that it is.

quote:

---

I have a PhD in psychology.

---

I don't believe you.

quote:

---

You don't get it

---

Ok what can you observe that can't be objectively measured that provides any value?

quote:

---

I don't believe you

---

You don't have to believe me. It's true, but it was probably unnecessary for me to add. I just wanted to highlight that I deal with "human nature" and that nature often points away from the truth.

quote:

---

The problem with your logic is the hardest working guys are the guys who win the most, I d

---

In addition to this, the problem is that we think we can "observe" somebody working harder. Why do so many observers then think that the white players are the "hard workers?"

OR with the Olympics coming, I bet if we just watched each individual sprinter in the 100 meters, most if not all will look like he's working "harder" than a certain Usain Bolt. Not only do we know Bolt is running just as hard as everybody else, even if is true that they are working harder, it's irrelevant to the fact that Bolt is greatest sprinters off all time. That is evidenced in the results, not some subjective observation.

quote:

---

You told me Hakeem's post skill set, Maravich's no look passes could be quantified.

---

I said you could quantify his skill set, by providing an operational definition of a post move, and having multiple raters measure and quantify the moves. Then they compare the ratings if there is evidence of strong inter-rater reliability then we have confidence that it has been accurately quantified as operationally defined. Whether you believe I have my degree or not, this is done in psychology research all the time. There are even psychometric analyses to better quantify (generalizability theory, kappa coefficient).

My point is that, whether a player has a 1000 post moves or just 1, their performance is what matters. Obviously having more SHOULD allow one to succeed, but that is again captured in the data.

quote:

---

You said Larry's clutch factor could be quantified too, but somehow Jordan's couldn't

---

What? If Larry's could be quantified so could Jordan's. You would just need to have a consistent operational definition (so much time left in the game, a score must be within so many points). I never meant to imply Jordan's couldn't be measured nor that he wasn't clutch whatsoever.

quote:

---

You're a LeBron fanboy who wants to dismiss comparison between Jordan's drive and LeBron's is invalid.

---

I said that this is an internal trait that is very individual specific. You MAY be able to observe drive in one person, because it manifests itself in an easily observable way, but you can't compare it to a person who as an internal manifestation of the same trait.

Just like you can't say someone crying at a funeral is more sad than a person who isn't crying. Mood is internal and manifests itself differently in different people. It's nonsense to think that one can make a valid comparison based on an observation of an internal trait.