“8 More Points On That Without Hand Checking”: Michael Jordan Had BJ Armstrong Claiming He’d Average 45 Ppg In Today’s NBA.

[ 05/03/2024 04:42 ] Read on thesportsrush.com

Report Overview: The article contains several instances of manipulations such as appeal to authority, unsubstantiated claims, and hasty generalization. The reliance on former players' opinions as evidence and the lack of statistical analysis or expert commentary to support the claims made about Michael Jordan's hypothetical performance in today's NBA lowers the objectivity score.

Sides Objectivity Scores

Michael Jordan's Hypothetical Performance (55)

Sides Representation Balance

Favored Side

Michael Jordan's Hypothetical Performance

Caution! Due to inherent human biases, it may seem that reports on articles aligning with our views are crafted by opponents. Conversely, reports about articles that contradict our beliefs might seem to be authored by allies. However, such perceptions are likely to be incorrect. These impressions can be caused by the fact that in both scenarios, articles are subjected to critical evaluation. This report is the product of an AI model that is significantly less biased than human analyses and has been explicitly instructed to strictly maintain 100% neutrality.

Nevertheless, HonestyMeter is in the experimental stage and is continuously improving through user feedback. If the report seems inaccurate, we encourage you to submit feedback , helping us enhance the accuracy and reliability of HonestyMeter and contributing to media transparency.

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to authority

Using the opinions of former players as evidence for a claim without providing substantial data or analysis.

Statements like 'Armstrong isn’t the only player from Jordan’s era to believe that the latter would torch the current NBA' and 'Metta World Peace claimed that the Bulls guard could average 50 points per game' rely on the authority of former players rather than empirical evidence.

Include statistical analysis or expert commentary to support the claims.

Present a balanced view by including opinions of analysts who may disagree or provide context to the claims.

Unsubstantiated claims

Claims are made without providing evidence or data to support them.

Claims such as 'Jordan would’ve simply gotten more open looks to the basket or made several more trips to the charity stripe' and 'there is a possibility that Jordan could’ve achieved the same' are presented without supporting data.

Provide data or historical trends to support the claims about changes in scoring due to rule changes.

Compare Jordan's performance with other players before and after the rule changes to provide context.

Hasty generalization

Drawing a broad conclusion from a small or limited set of examples.

The article quickly concludes that 'there is no denying that MJ would’ve benefitted without the hand-checking rule' based on the opinions of a few players rather than a comprehensive analysis.

Avoid making broad conclusions without sufficient evidence.

Include a larger set of data or a variety of expert opinions before drawing conclusions.

Spread the Truth

Share Report!

- This is an EXPERIMENTAL DEMO version that is not intended to be used for any other purpose than to showcase the technology's potential. We are in the process of developing more sophisticated algorithms to significantly enhance the reliability and consistency of evaluations. Nevertheless, even in its current state, HonestyMeter frequently offers valuable insights that are challenging for humans to detect.