'89 Jordan vs '18 LeBron

[Cavsfansince84]

The 2018 Cavs had better title odds going into the playoffs than the Raptors (and also had better title odds at every earlier time during the season). That flipped after the first round because the Cavs were so unconvincing against the Pacers. But the Cavs had consistently been considered the better team the entire year until then. Meanwhile, the 1989 Cavs had massively better title odds than the 1989 Bulls before the series started. They had massively better odds earlier as well. The Bulls were never considered even close to as good a team at any time. The 1989 Bulls were absolutely bigger underdogs against the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were against the 2018 Raptors. There’s really no comparison.

No, no, no. The Cavs after a hot start were a complete dumpster fire for a month or two and after we traded away half the roster this board was split between whether it was a terrible trade or it might work. It worked mainly because LeBron kicked it into another gear the last two months of the season and made it work. Same way that the only reason that Cavs team was given any sort of title odds is because they had LeBron and he'd been to 7 straight finals and people understood that in the playoffs he was just a monster. There's a huge difference when the best player on one team is a goat level player who can lift his game to goat+ level and the other teams have run of the mill top 10 players who tend to **** the bed. That's the only reason Vegas was giving that team any sort of title odds and even then he barely got them to the finals because that roster was just garbage.

[lessthanjake]

The 2018 Cavs had better title odds going into the playoffs than the Raptors (and also had better title odds at every earlier time during the season). That flipped after the first round because the Cavs were so unconvincing against the Pacers. But the Cavs had consistently been considered the better team the entire year until then. Meanwhile, the 1989 Cavs had massively better title odds than the 1989 Bulls before the series started. They had massively better odds earlier as well. The Bulls were never considered even close to as good a team at any time. The 1989 Bulls were absolutely bigger underdogs against the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were against the 2018 Raptors. There’s really no comparison.

No, no, no. The Cavs after a hot start were a complete dumpster fire for a month or two and after we traded away half the roster this board was split between whether it was a terrible trade or it might work. It worked mainly because LeBron kicked it into another gear the last two months of the season and made it work. Same way that the only reason that Cavs team was given any sort of title odds is because they had LeBron and he'd been to 7 straight finals and people understood that in the playoffs he was just a monster. There's a huge difference when the best player on one team is a goat level player who can lift his game to goat+ level and the other teams have run of the mill top 10 players who tend to **** the bed. That's the only reason Vegas was giving that team any sort of title odds and even then he barely got them to the finals because that roster was just garbage.

We have historical betting odds throughout that season. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on November 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on December 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on January 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on February 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors during the All-Star Break. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on March 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on April 1. And the Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors right before the playoffs started. Based on this, I think we can clearly say the Cavs were consistently considered the better team the entire season. If you want to say that that was only the case because LeBron was so good, then I wouldn’t disagree with that! But LeBron was part of the team, and the team as a whole was consistently considered better than the Raptors throughout the season, and that only very briefly flipped after the Cavs struggled so much in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, the 1989 Bulls were nowhere near the 1989 Cavs in title odds, even despite having Jordan. Jordan being on the Bulls obviously improved the Bulls’ title odds quite a lot, just as LeBron being on the Cavs did for the Cavs in 2018, but they were still nowhere near. There was simply a massive difference in the contemporaneous perception of the 2018 Cavs & 2018 Raptors compared to the 1989 Bulls & 1989 Cavs. I don’t think this is really arguable at all. The 1989 Bulls were obviously way bigger underdogs.

[Cavsfansince84]

We have historical betting odds throughout that season. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on November 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on December 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on January 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on February 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors during the All-Star Break. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on March 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on April 1. And the Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors right before the playoffs started. Based on this, I think we can clearly say the Cavs were consistently considered the better team the entire season. If you want to say that that was only the case because LeBron was so good, then I wouldn’t disagree with that! But LeBron was part of the team, and the team as a whole was consistently considered better throughout the season, and that only very briefly flipped after the Cavs struggled so much in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, the 1989 Bulls were nowhere near the 1989 Cavs in title odds, even despite having Jordan. Jordan being on the Bulls obviously improved the Bulls’ title odds quite a lot, just as LeBron being on the Cavs did in 2018, but there was still a massive difference in the contemporaneous perception of the 2018 Cavs & 2018 Raptors compared to the 1989 Bulls & 1989 Cavs. I don’t think this is really arguable at all.

It's like you are trying to turn reality into betting odds and not looking at reality. I don't need Vegas to explain to me a season that happened just 6 years ago as an nba/Cavs fan. That team was in complete disarray and the only reason it worked out was because LeBron decided it was going to. So it isn't about the Raptors as a team vs the Cavs as a team. It's about the fact that the only reason things went the way they did is because of LeBron playing at an insanely high level. Having said that, some of you are making the whole Cavs/Raptor comparison way more important to this thread than it needs to be.

[lessthanjake]

We have historical betting odds throughout that season. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on November 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on December 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on January 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on February 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors during the All-Star Break. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on March 1. The Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors on April 1. And the Cavs had better title odds than the Raptors right before the playoffs started. Based on this, I think we can clearly say the Cavs were consistently considered the better team the entire season. If you want to say that that was only the case because LeBron was so good, then I wouldn’t disagree with that! But LeBron was part of the team, and the team as a whole was consistently considered better throughout the season, and that only very briefly flipped after the Cavs struggled so much in the first round of the playoffs. Meanwhile, the 1989 Bulls were nowhere near the 1989 Cavs in title odds, even despite having Jordan. Jordan being on the Bulls obviously improved the Bulls’ title odds quite a lot, just as LeBron being on the Cavs did in 2018, but there was still a massive difference in the contemporaneous perception of the 2018 Cavs & 2018 Raptors compared to the 1989 Bulls & 1989 Cavs. I don’t think this is really arguable at all.

It's like you are trying to turn reality into betting odds and not looking at reality. I don't need Vegas to explain to me a season that happened just 6 years ago as an nba/Cavs fan. That team was in complete disarray and the only reason it worked out was because LeBron decided it was going to. So it isn't about the Raptors as a team vs the Cavs as a team. It's about the fact that the only reason things went the way they did is because of LeBron playing at an insanely high level.

Yes, I agree, but the post of mine you responded to was specifically about the 1989 Bulls being significantly bigger underdogs compared to the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were compared to the 2018 Raptors. Which was a point I made in response to someone basically arguing that 2018 LeBron was better than 1989 Jordan because the 1989 Bulls had more trouble with the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did with the 2018 Raptors. That argument makes no sense if the 1989 Bulls were way bigger underdogs against the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were against the 2018 Raptors—hence why I’ve pointed out that that is precisely the case. And, given the title odds I mentioned, my point is clearly correct even when accounting for the fact that the 2018 Cavs were in “complete disarray.” And this is in large part because of some combination of the fact that the 1989 Bulls were an even worse team than the 2018 Cavs (even despite the Cavs’ disarray), and the 1989 Cavs were better than the 2018 Raptors. In other words, I basically agree with what you’re saying, but don’t think it is at all mutually exclusive with what I’m saying.

[Cavsfansince84]

Yes, I agree, but the post of mine you responded to was specifically about the 1989 Bulls being significantly bigger underdogs compared to the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were compared to the 2018 Raptors. Which was a point I made in response to someone basically arguing that 2018 LeBron was better than 1989 Jordan because the 1989 Bulls had more trouble with the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did with the 2018 Raptors. That argument makes no sense if the 1989 Bulls were way bigger underdogs against the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were against the 2018 Raptors—hence why I’ve pointed out that that is precisely the case. And, given the title odds I mentioned, my point is clearly correct even when accounting for the fact that the 2018 Cavs were in “complete disarray.” And this is because of some combination of the fact that the 1989 Bulls were an even worse team than the 2018 Cavs (even despite the Cavs’ disarray), and the 1989 Cavs were better than the 2018 Raptors. In other words, I basically agree with what you’re saying, but don’t think it is at all mutually exclusive with what I’m saying.

Again, I think you guys just went way off the deep end in this thread with the 89 Cavs v 18 Raptors stuff and it ruined your guys' ability to see the thread for what it is. Betting odds have almost everything to do with perception, that's what you don't seem to be fully getting here. Vegas is in the business of making money more than deciding which team is better which is why betting odds fluctuate based on which team gets more bets. So using who Vegas favored is not some infallible tool to bring up in a bb forum. I would think you are old enough to understand this stuff. LeBron's aura of invincibility vs the east in 2018 was on a completely different level than MJ's was back in 1989 when he hadn't even made it out of the 2nd rd yet. Re 89 Bulls roster vs 18 Cavs, it's not really clear which roster was better. If the Cavs was better its simply because of having some guys who could hit the 3 around that version of LeBron. The Bulls otoh were built on defense and letting MJ be the offense. At the very least the Bulls team had way more experience having played together which counts for something.

[lessthanjake]

Yes, I agree, but the post of mine you responded to was specifically about the 1989 Bulls being significantly bigger underdogs compared to the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were compared to the 2018 Raptors. Which was a point I made in response to someone basically arguing that 2018 LeBron was better than 1989 Jordan because the 1989 Bulls had more trouble with the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did with the 2018 Raptors. That argument makes no sense if the 1989 Bulls were way bigger underdogs against the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs were against the 2018 Raptors—hence why I’ve pointed out that that is precisely the case. And, given the title odds I mentioned, my point is clearly correct even when accounting for the fact that the 2018 Cavs were in “complete disarray.” And this is because of some combination of the fact that the 1989 Bulls were an even worse team than the 2018 Cavs (even despite the Cavs’ disarray), and the 1989 Cavs were better than the 2018 Raptors. In other words, I basically agree with what you’re saying, but don’t think it is at all mutually exclusive with what I’m saying.

Again, I think you guys just went way off the deep end in this thread with the 89 Cavs v 18 Raptors stuff and it ruined your guys' ability to see the thread for what it is. Betting odds have almost everything to do with perception, that's what you don't seem to be fully getting here. Vegas is in the business of making money more than deciding which team is better which is why betting odds fluctuate based on which team gets more bets. So using who Vegas favored is not some infallible tool to bring up in a bb forum. I would think you are old enough to understand this stuff. LeBron's aura of invincibility vs the east in 2018 was on a completely different level than MJ's was back in 1989 when he hadn't even made it out of the 2nd rd yet. Re 89 Bulls roster vs 18 Cavs, it's not really clear which roster was better. If the Cavs was better it’s simply because of having some guys who could hit the 3 around that version of LeBron. The Bulls otoh were built on defense and letting MJ be the offense. At the very least the Bulls team had way more experience having played together which counts for something.

Yes, the fact that betting odds fluctuate based on which team gets more bets is actually precisely the reason they’re informative, because it means the betting odds end up substantially reflecting contemporaneous consensus views of the public regarding the teams (especially in a highly-bet-on betting market such as NBA title odds). It’s akin to a publicly-traded company’s stock market value (i.e. market cap) reflecting the public’s consensus view regarding a company’s value. Of course, the public’s consensus view can be wrong, but it is still a relevant data point here. Notably, though, my argument didn’t just rely on that anyways. For instance, I also presented data showing that the 1989 Bulls got completely destroyed by the Cavs when Jordan was off the court, while the 2018 Cavs outscored the 2018 Raptors with LeBron off the court. And I also presented data regarding the historical playoff SRS of the Daugherty-era Cavs against non-Bulls teams compared to the historical playoff SRS of the pre-Kawhi Raptors against non-Cavs teams. I and others presented data about random variance with regards to three-point shooting and FT shooting in those series. I presented a lot of information on this that all pretty clearly points to the fact that it is silly to draw a conclusion that 2018 LeBron > 1989 Jordan simply because the 1989 Bulls had a tougher time beating the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did in beating the 2018 Raptors. A comparison of title odds is just one of those data points. I think the overall picture is pretty inarguable.

As for going “way off the deep end in this thread with the 89 Cavs v 18 Raptors stuff,” I completely agree with you. It was a silly point that someone else led with as a major argument, and my point from the beginning was that the comparison between the two series was being wildly overblown in its importance. Others have simply continued trying to assert that that’s not the case. I’d be happy to stop discussing it, since I think it’s manifestly silly and unimportant, but others seem to think it is a crucially important point in favor of 2018 LeBron, so I’ve continued to address it (albeit somewhat reluctantly and nearing the end of my patience with it).

[CzBoobie]

Yes, the fact that betting odds fluctuate based on which team gets more bets is actually precisely the reason they’re informative, because it means the betting odds end up substantially reflecting contemporaneous consensus views of the public regarding the teams (especially in a highly-bet-on betting market such as NBA title odds). It’s akin to a company’s stock market value (i.e. market cap) reflecting the public’s consensus view regarding a company’s value. Of course, the public’s consensus view can be wrong, but it is still a relevant data point here. Notably, though, my argument didn’t just rely on that anyways. For instance, I also presented data showing that the 1989 Bulls got completely destroyed by the Cavs when Jordan was off the court, while the 2018 Cavs outscored the 2018 Raptors with LeBron off the court. And I also presented data regarding the historical playoff SRS of the Daugherty-era Cavs against non-Bulls teams compared to the historical playoff SRS of the pre-Kawhi Raptors against non-Cavs teams. I and others presented data about random variance with regards to three-point shooting and FT shooting in those series. I presented a lot of information on this that all pretty clearly points to the fact that it is silly to draw a conclusion that 2018 LeBron > 1989 Jordan simply because the 1989 Bulls had a tougher time beating the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did in beating the 2018 Raptors. A comparison of title odds is just one of those data points. I think the overall picture is pretty inarguable.

As for going “way off the deep end in this thread with the 89 Cavs v 18 Raptors stuff,” I completely agree with you. It was a silly point that someone else led with as a major argument, and my point from the beginning was that the comparison between the two series was being wildly overblown in its importance. Others have simply continued trying to assert that that’s not the case. I’d be happy to stop discussing it, since I think it’s manifestly silly and unimportant, but others seem to think it is a crucially important point in favor of 2018 LeBron, so I’ve continued to address it (albeit somewhat reluctantly and nearing the end of my patience with it).

Cavs were -4, -2 and 0 in the first 3 games without LeBron (all 20 minutes of it)...what they did was outscore the bench in the 4th quarter of 35pt blowout in Game 4.

I also wonder why your overall picture ignores 89 Cavs best player missing Game 1 and being complete non-factor in Game 3.

[VanWest82]

Why, you do it daily.

I've been watching NBA for four decades. I actually know what happened.

I've seen you parade these kinds of posts in multiple threads now lately, where you'll play this, "I actually watch the games idk what y'all and certain analysts are seeing" card, as if it's supposed to give you some credence or clout and is supposed to lead us to submitting to your infallible, revolutionary basketball IQ and understanding.

Believe me, and I'm sure I speak for many others when I say this: making this statement, let alone repeating it constantly, makes you look less credible, not more.

How about this. Stop posting total nonsense that anyone who watched would know is total nonsense almost immediately, and then you won’t have to read me say things like go watch some games.

I suppose I could go fish out the Windhorst article from 2018 talking about how Lebron was taking entire defensive possessions off to conserve energy for offense, or go hunt for the tweets. You have people itt claiming there was no drop off, and how it doesn’t make sense that there’d be a drop off and then suddenly his energy level is back to normal in 2020. One poster received 6 And1s for saying that. I’m sorry, but these are people who clearly didn’t watch or don't remember what happened. You claim to be this big Lebron fan. Correct the misinformation instead of wasting your time trying to call me out for correctly calling others out who clearly don't know.

Edit: and I'll say this again because I'm certain some PC board poster will try take it out of context if I don't. Lebron needed to take off a bunch of those defensive possessions because he was 33 and was being asked to carry basically the entire play making responsibility after the trades. (Before the trades is a different story and there was no shortage of hot take articles in the first half of that season taking Bron to task e.g. https://medium.com/@jakepaynting/lebron-james-the-most-unreliable-defender-in-the-nba-ef8bf4c819dd.)

But post trade deadline, Lebron needed to do it. As a result, he was brilliant offensively. Just don't tell me he was giving the same effort or having the same impact on defense.

[lessthanjake]

Yes, the fact that betting odds fluctuate based on which team gets more bets is actually precisely the reason they’re informative, because it means the betting odds end up substantially reflecting contemporaneous consensus views of the public regarding the teams (especially in a highly-bet-on betting market such as NBA title odds). It’s akin to a company’s stock market value (i.e. market cap) reflecting the public’s consensus view regarding a company’s value. Of course, the public’s consensus view can be wrong, but it is still a relevant data point here. Notably, though, my argument didn’t just rely on that anyways. For instance, I also presented data showing that the 1989 Bulls got completely destroyed by the Cavs when Jordan was off the court, while the 2018 Cavs outscored the 2018 Raptors with LeBron off the court. And I also presented data regarding the historical playoff SRS of the Daugherty-era Cavs against non-Bulls teams compared to the historical playoff SRS of the pre-Kawhi Raptors against non-Cavs teams. I and others presented data about random variance with regards to three-point shooting and FT shooting in those series. I presented a lot of information on this that all pretty clearly points to the fact that it is silly to draw a conclusion that 2018 LeBron > 1989 Jordan simply because the 1989 Bulls had a tougher time beating the 1989 Cavs than the 2018 Cavs did in beating the 2018 Raptors. A comparison of title odds is just one of those data points. I think the overall picture is pretty inarguable.

As for going “way off the deep end in this thread with the 89 Cavs v 18 Raptors stuff,” I completely agree with you. It was a silly point that someone else led with as a major argument, and my point from the beginning was that the comparison between the two series was being wildly overblown in its importance. Others have simply continued trying to assert that that’s not the case. I’d be happy to stop discussing it, since I think it’s manifestly silly and unimportant, but others seem to think it is a crucially important point in favor of 2018 LeBron, so I’ve continued to address it (albeit somewhat reluctantly and nearing the end of my patience with it).

Cavs were -4, -2 and 0 in the first 3 games without LeBron (all 20 minutes of it)...what they did was outscore the bench in the 4th quarter of 35pt blowout in Game 4.

I also wonder why your overall picture ignores 89 Cavs best player missing Game 1 and being complete non-factor in Game 3.

Yep, agreed, and that’s substantially superior to what the Bulls did without Jordan against the 1989 Cavs. There’s a good chance the Cavs lose Game 3 (and perhaps Game 1) if in LeBron’s off minutes the Cavs were collapsing like the 1989 Bulls did without Jordan. Of course, it’s all tiny sample size that therefore doesn’t really tell us much in general about how strong the teams were, but it does tell us how things happened in reality, and what happened in reality (i.e. the 2018 Cavs having an easier time with the Raptors than the 1989 Bulls had with the 1989 Cavs) is the thing that a pro-LeBron argument is being based upon.

By the way, if you want higher “off” sample sizes in order to get a better general picture of things, I should note that we know that in those playoffs as a whole, the 1989 Bulls did *a lot* worse without Jordan on the court than the 2018 Cavs did in the playoffs without LeBron on the court. Those are still very small sample sizes, though, so doesn’t have much of any meaning on its own. But we also know those Cavs did perfectly fine without LeBron on the court during the entire regular season. We don’t have on-off data for the 1989 Bulls’ regular season, so we can’t directly compare that, but we do have a decent bit of on-off data from other years in that pre-title era, and the “Jordan off” value was consistently very bad (-18.85 per 48 minutes Jordan was off the court, over 122 games Jordan played). So I think it’s probably a pretty reasonable assumption that it was significantly worse than the 2018 Cavs’ “LeBron off” value (though, of course, that is just an inference).

EDIT: As for the part you edited in about Mark Price, I’ve addressed that earlier in this thread. He missed one game. Of course, it helped the Bulls, since they won that game. But the argument here is about the Bulls losing games to the Cavs (since the 2018 Cavs swept the Raptors, and the argument is that this means 2018 LeBron was better than 1989 Jordan), and that happened with Price playing (and indeed probably being the Cavs’ best player in one of those two wins). And the 1989 Cavs were so much better than the 2018 Raptors that it’s not like Price missing a game would act as some kind of tiebreaker. That era’s Raptors literally had a negative playoff SRS, even in series they weren’t playing LeBron!

Anyways, the reality is that this is a dumb argument. Trying to say one player was better than another because one player’s team more easily won one playoff series than the other player’s team won a series against a completely different team is a manifestly dumb argument. I’ve partially entertained it because people clinging to such a bad argument just reveals the weakness of their overall case. But CavsFan is right that it’s too much discussion at this point (especially for such a stupid point), so I’m going to just rest on it at this point, except perhaps to briefly correct blatant misinformation. I don’t think more needs to be said for it to be clear how silly the argument is.

[AEnigma]

I've been watching NBA for four decades. I actually know what happened.

I've seen you parade these kinds of posts in multiple threads now lately, where you'll play this, "I actually watch the games idk what y'all and certain analysts are seeing" card, as if it's supposed to give you some credence or clout and is supposed to lead us to submitting to your infallible, revolutionary basketball IQ and understanding.

Believe me, and I'm sure I speak for many others when I say this: making this statement, let alone repeating it constantly, makes you look less credible, not more.

How about this. Stop posting total nonsense that anyone who watched would know is total nonsense almost immediately, and then you won’t have to read me say things like go watch some games.

I suppose I could go fish out the Windhorst article from 2018 talking about how Lebron was taking entire defensive possessions off to conserve energy for offense, or go hunt for the tweets. You have people itt claiming there was no drop off, and how it doesn’t make sense that there’d be a drop off and then suddenly his energy level is back to normal in 2020. I’m sorry, but these are people who clearly didn’t watch. You claim to be this big Lebron fan. Correct the misinformation instead of wasting your time trying to call me out for correctly calling others out who clearly didn’t watch.

Please quote where it was claimed that Lebron took zero possessions off (I suppose the accompanying implication would be Jordan never did).

None of what you have actually argued has any basis, but you seem to think no one will notice if you misrepresent what people say and then cite contemporary sources that do more to discredit your own characterisations. I already posted a 2018 article talking about Lebron’s defence, and you ignored it because it did not fit with the hypothetical reality you wanted to portray where insufficient “effort” turned Lebron into a team drain.

It has always been unfortunate how even on this board there are still so many who are more invested in mythmaking than in the actual game being played. That is how I can read page upon page of posts heavily implying that an offseason of defensive decline was what cratered Lebron’s “impact”, that actually it was the bench carrying Lebron, and that a more injured version of the exact team that lost to a less experienced Jordan the prior year was actually a secret juggernaut… while also being told in the same breath that anyone who disagrees must be trying to “rewrite history.”

If nothing else I appreciate your audacious commitment to this pretence, but posters stop being taken seriously when their obvious personal biases have completely destroyed their capacity to watch or remember a player neutrally. In this case, those of us who have spent decades watching without blinding hatred toward one and fanatic devotion toward the other know how little your eye-test and memory is worth. There are people who prefer Jordan without that degree of personal investment; however, you have spent years proving you are incapable of being one of them.

[capfan33]

One small anecdote on Lebron's defense.

I think it was Zach Lowe who around playoff time starting I want to say in 2016 would go to NBA front offices and ask them, using their proprietary tracking data as well as scouting, if Lebron was still a good defender. And every year the answer was yes. I believe he was usually pegged as around top-30 overall.

Even allowing for 2018 being one of Lebron's worst defensive years in his prime, he wasn't anywhere close to being a sieve at that end, albeit he was definitely taking possessions off at times.

[VanWest82]

Here's the Windhorst article from early playoffs: https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23384071/lebron-james-plays-rests-keep-cleveland-cavaliers-hopes-alive

It has been hard to fathom how LeBron James can be playing more games than ever, more minutes than ever, and yet in some ways be more dominant than ever.

The answer might be simple: James has perfected the art of resting while playing.

Here's the data that illustrates it. No one would ever call James slow, but he is when he wants to be. During the regular season, James' average speed during games was 3.85 mph, according to Second Spectrum tracking data.

Of all players who averaged at least 20 minutes a game, that ranked in the bottom 10 in speed. That's correct: James moved slower than just about any rotation player in the league.

Here's why: James walks a lot. During the regular season, about 74.4 percent of James' time on the court was spent walking. Again, this was in the top 10 in the league. Almost no one walked up and down the floor more than James. And in the playoffs, he's walking even more -- 78.7 percent of the time.

Chase-down blocks are a signature of James' career, but they soak up energy. Sometimes, it makes better long-term sense to allow an opponent to have an easy basket.

Here's a ringer article alluding to the defense, again mostly playoffs but it didn't just manifest out of nowhere. It was happening second half of regular season too: https://www.theringer.com/nba/2018/5/21/17375252/lebron-james-defense-trust-ecf

Defense is where Father Time has caught up to LeBron. While he is averaging near career-high numbers in the playoffs (32.9 points, 8.9 rebounds, and 9.4 assists a game on 54.5 percent shooting), the price for his brilliance has come on the other end of the floor, where Cleveland head coach Tyronn Lue rests his superstar as much as possible. LeBron’s primary defensive assignments in all three series have been secondary options: Thaddeus Young, Bojan Bogdanovic, and Darren Collison against Indiana; OG Anunoby, Pascal Siakam, and Serge Ibaka against Toronto; and Marcus Morris and Jaylen Brown against Boston.

LeBron picks and chooses his spots these days. He knows he has only so much gas in the tank. It’s no coincidence that his three worst games of the playoffs (games 1 and 6 against Indiana, Game 1 against Boston) came in blowouts. LeBron can read the game as well as any player in the league. He saw that his team didn’t have enough on those nights, so he shut himself down. While he might have led a comeback if he’d fully exerted himself, he couldn’t risk depleting himself for an outside shot to win. As ESPN’s Brian Windhorst wrote earlier in the playoffs, LeBron has become a master of conserving energy, even in the middle of the game.

Some quotes from the hot take article from medium earlier in the season: https://medium.com/@jakepaynting/lebron-james-the-most-unreliable-defender-in-the-nba-ef8bf4c819dd

According to NBA stats, James leads the entire league in total opponents points in the paint, coming in head of Devin Booker and James Harden by a sizable margin. He is also second worst in opponents second chance points, ranking just behind Pacers forward Thaddeus Young.

In transition, he has been a shadow of his former self.

Known for his elite transition defense, and backboard-shattering blocks *insert game winning block in the 2016 Finals here* James has been a shell of that this season.

He may not be the actual worst in the league as he is with other defensive benchmarks, but King James still ranks 423rd out of 443 players, giving up 138 points on fast breaks in 16 games this season.

It has been clear, for whatever reason — age or his rumored Cavs departure — that he has not been putting the same effort in on the defensive end that we are used to seeing. Last season, a motivated James on a semi-good Cleveland defense averaged 1.1 loose balls recovered per game, but this season he is averaging just 0.4 so far. Registering just two deflections per game is also a massive slide from his 3.5 per outing last season.

[PistolPeteJR]

I've been watching NBA for four decades. I actually know what happened.

I've seen you parade these kinds of posts in multiple threads now lately, where you'll play this, "I actually watch the games idk what y'all and certain analysts are seeing" card, as if it's supposed to give you some credence or clout and is supposed to lead us to submitting to your infallible, revolutionary basketball IQ and understanding.

Believe me, and I'm sure I speak for many others when I say this: making this statement, let alone repeating it constantly, makes you look less credible, not more.

How about this. Stop posting total nonsense that anyone who watched would know is total nonsense almost immediately, and then you won’t have to read me say things like go watch some games.

I suppose I could go fish out the Windhorst article from 2018 talking about how Lebron was taking entire defensive possessions off to conserve energy for offense, or go hunt for the tweets. You have people itt claiming there was no drop off, and how it doesn’t make sense that there’d be a drop off and then suddenly his energy level is back to normal in 2020. One poster received 6 And1s for saying that. I’m sorry, but these are people who clearly didn’t watch or don't remember what happened. You claim to be this big Lebron fan. Correct the misinformation instead of wasting your time trying to call me out for correctly calling others out who clearly don't know.

Edit: and I'll say this again because I'm certain some PC board poster will try take it out of context if I don't. Lebron needed to take off a bunch of those defensive possessions because he was 33 and was being asked to carry basically the entire play making responsibility after the trades. (Before the trades is a different story and there was no shortage of hot take articles in the first half of that season taking Bron to task e.g. https://medium.com/@jakepaynting/lebron-james-the-most-unreliable-defender-in-the-nba-ef8bf4c819dd.)

But post trade deadline, Lebron needed to do it. As a result, he was brilliant offensively. Just don't tell me he was giving the same effort or having the same impact on defense.

1) Show me where I post nonsense. You, on the other hand, have had multiple posters over the course of a sizeable period call out your nonsense.

2) Watching games doesn’t make one knowledgeable or accurate in their assessments. Hot fact of the day, right?

3) Once again, as others here have told you, no one in this thread is heralding him as some DPOY-type defender in 2018. What we are saying (some are going beyond this, but that isn’t the point) is that his deficiencies on that end that year are overblown by casuals and others, such as yourself. Plain and simple.


Tl;dr: Your continual chorus of “watch the games” does way more harm than good. Your eyetest is not the barometer or standard nor will it ever be. Re-examine that within yourself, independently of the specific debated item in this thread.

[PistolPeteJR]

I swear I’ve only heard Skip and Rob Parker toot this horn continuously for years now.

[VanWest82]

I'm going to reply to this and then stop posting itt as it's clearly been derailed.

1) Show me where I post nonsense. You, on the other hand, have had multiple posters over the course of a sizeable period call out your nonsense.

I didn't mean you specifically re this thread. Yes, a bunch of Lebron fans have tried to call me out for correcting a bunch misinformation spouted over a bunch threads.

2) Watching games doesn’t make one knowledgeable or accurate in their assessments. Hot fact of the day, right?

Correct, but watching games does come in handy for spotting obviously incorrect narratives.

3) Once again, as others here have told you, no one in this thread is heralding him as some DPOY-type defender in 2018. What we are saying (some are going beyond this, but that isn’t the point) is that his deficiencies on that end that year are overblown by casuals and others, such as yourself. Plain and simple.

I never claimed anyone was suggesting he was a DPOY-type defender in 2018. Strawman.

I said Lebron wasn't moving on defense in 2018 (hyperbole, but goes to making the point) and there were a bunch of internet memes about it at the time. I also said Cavs were actually better on defense, statistically, with Lebron on the bench to the point where they actually had their best DRTG with him on the bench. The usual suspects chimed in to suggest it was only because Lebron played all the games, look at their DRTG the year after (when Cavs were tanking), his drop in defense was a "lie", it had nothing to do with effort, it was just a "psy-op campaign by Warriors fans" who used rapm to discredit, it was just "scattered lowlights" and "thoughtless glances at plus/minus" and "opportunists like myself extrapolating that...", "textbook revisionism," etc., etc. This doesn't sound like acknowledgement of anything.

Tl;dr: Your continual chorus of “watch the games” does way more harm than good. Your eyetest is not the barometer or standard nor will it ever be. Re-examine that within yourself, independently of the specific debated item in this thread.

In terms of tone, you're probably right. I'm having an increasingly difficult time dealing blatant misinformation and disinformation campaigns on here. I'm going to take a long break from this place.

[AEnigma]

I'm having an increasingly difficult time dealing blatant misinformation and disinformation campaigns on here.

Probably the best Freudian slip I have ever seen on these forums, and perfectly in line with the trumpeting of a blog post that argues:

LeBron James is not only the worst defender in a Cavalier uniform, but one of the worst in the entire NBA. Take a breath. Now read it again: Lebron James is one of the worst defenders in the NBA. To put it simply, James has been appalling.

James currently sits with 0.0 total defensive win shares, meaning that he has literally not made any difference to improve Cleveland’s porous defense. That mark ranks him in the bottom 50 of the entire league, behind notable defensive turnstiles like Enes Kanter and 37-year-old Jamal Crawford.

What would we do without these essential historical records by people clearly attuned to the sport.

[lessthanjake]

I've seen you parade these kinds of posts in multiple threads now lately, where you'll play this, "I actually watch the games idk what y'all and certain analysts are seeing" card, as if it's supposed to give you some credence or clout and is supposed to lead us to submitting to your infallible, revolutionary basketball IQ and understanding.

Believe me, and I'm sure I speak for many others when I say this: making this statement, let alone repeating it constantly, makes you look less credible, not more.

How about this. Stop posting total nonsense that anyone who watched would know is total nonsense almost immediately, and then you won’t have to read me say things like go watch some games.

I suppose I could go fish out the Windhorst article from 2018 talking about how Lebron was taking entire defensive possessions off to conserve energy for offense, or go hunt for the tweets. You have people itt claiming there was no drop off, and how it doesn’t make sense that there’d be a drop off and then suddenly his energy level is back to normal in 2020. I’m sorry, but these are people who clearly didn’t watch. You claim to be this big Lebron fan. Correct the misinformation instead of wasting your time trying to call me out for correctly calling others out who clearly didn’t watch.

Please quote where it was claimed that Lebron took zero possessions off (I suppose the accompanying implication would be Jordan never did).

None of what you have actually argued has any basis, but you seem to think no one will notice if you misrepresent what people say and then cite contemporary sources that do more to discredit your own characterisations. I already posted a 2018 article talking about Lebron’s defence, and you ignored it because it did not fit with the hypothetical reality you wanted to portray where insufficient “effort” turned Lebron into a team drain.

It has always been unfortunate how even on this board there are still so many who are more invested in mythmaking than in the actual game being played. That is how I can read page upon page of posts heavily implying that an offseason of defensive decline was what cratered Lebron’s “impact”, that actually it was the bench carrying Lebron, and that a more injured version of the exact team that lost to a less experienced Jordan the prior year was actually a secret juggernaut… while also being told in the same breath that anyone who disagrees must be trying to “rewrite history.”

LOL, yes, the one who is “invested in mythmaking” couldn’t possibly actually be the person who attacks others for that while simultaneously suggesting that a young team didn’t get any better when they went from 1.28 SRS and +10000 pre-playoffs title odds one year to 7.95 SRS and +400 pre-playoff title odds the next year.

[AEnigma]

They were better, and then their best player missed a close loss before rushing a visibly hampered return — something you laughably tried to brush away, because agendas trump sincere assessment.

[lessthanjake]

They were better, and then their best player missed a close loss before rushing a visibly hampered return — something you laughably tried to brush away, because agendas trump sincere assessment.

Mark Price was genuinely probably the Cavs’ best player in one of the games the Cavs won. He missed one game, played in four games, and was good in two of them (which the Cavs split) and pretty bad in one of them (which the Cavs still won) and very bad in another (which the Cavs lost). That very bad game was not his first game back from injury—it was largely just a poor game from him. And the Bulls closed out the series with Price playing well. Obviously, Price’s injury helped the Bulls in the series, but it’s laughable to suggest a 7.95 SRS, +400 title odds team becomes like a 1.28 SRS, +10000 title odds team because one of their top few players misses one game and merely has an inconsistent series after coming back. And to aggressively suggest that while simultaneously accusing others of having “agendas” and being “invested in mythmaking” is the height of irony.

Anyways, look, there’s always something available to cling to if you feel a personal need to come to a certain conclusion. Convincing yourself on this one is Olympic level mental gymnastics, but one can always find something. But it’s also not really worth discussing any further, because it all just goes back to an argument that is just manifestly dumb in its conception—saying that a player was better than another player because that player’s team won a playoff series more easily than the other player’s team won a playoff series against a completely different team. On its face that’s just an absurdly reductionist argument that no reasonable person would find convincing. If you’re convinced by it, then you just desperately want to be convinced of any conclusion that you like, and there’s therefore obviously no point in discussing with you. And if you’re not convinced by it, then there’s no point in discussing nitty-gritty things that merely relate to an argument neither of us think is valid. Either way, it’s not worth discussing and I’ve already spent far too long doing so. Shouldn’t even have bothered sort of bringing it up again by calling out your absurdity, but I just couldn’t resist since it was so blatant.

[AEnigma]

They were better, and then their best player missed a close loss before rushing a visibly hampered return — something you laughably tried to brush away, because agendas trump sincere assessment.

Mark Price was genuinely probably the Cavs’ best player in one of the games the Cavs won. He missed one game, played in four games, and was good in two of them (which the Cavs split) and pretty bad in one of them (which the Cavs still won) and very bad in another (which the Cavs lost). That very bad game was not his first game back from injury—it was largely just a poor game from him.

… So players get one game of recovery and then are officially at their normal level?

Not sure which is funnier: the idea that you think people will buy that, or that you are even willing to try to sell it.

And the Bulls closed out the series with Price playing well. Obviously, Price’s injury helped the Bulls in the series, but it’s laughable to suggest a 7.95 SRS, +400 title odds team becomes like a 1.28 SRS, +10000 title odds team because one of their top few players misses one game and has an inconsistent series after coming back.

Thank you for emphasising how much you are willing to abandon basic analysis to push a dishonest narrative.

You do not believe the 1988 Cavaliers were a 1.3 SRS team that postseason. You do not believe one offseason of mild improvement across their key players produced a 6.6 SRS elevation. You do not believe that Price played anywhere near as well in the 1989 postseason as he did in the 1988 postseason. Given your commitment to pushing the 1990-93 Cavaliers, you are clearly not a Ron Harper true believer (the only guy who did elevate his performance from the prior year). Yet here you are, pretending all that may actually be true, because in this thread that happens to be the thing that would reflect best on Jordan.

And in the alternative where this is a matter of sincere belief, then I suppose we all really have been wasting our time trying to communicate with beliefs that disconnected from the realities of the sport.

And to suggest that while simultaneously accusing others of having “agendas” and being “invested in mythmaking” is the height of irony. Anyways, look, there’s always something available to cling to if you feel a need to come to a certain conclusion. Convincing yourself on this one is Olympic level mental gymnastics, but one can always find something. But it’s also not really worth discussing any further, because it all just goes back to an argument that is just manifestly dumb in its conception

Now this is the height of irony.

saying that a player was better than another player because that player’s team won a playoff series more easily than the other player’s team won a playoff series against a completely different team.

No one said this. What was said is that one was the more impressive accomplishment, and the only reason that even needed to be said was because of people exalting Jordan for a worse performance against a worse performing version of the team he had already beaten. No one would have anything positive to say about the 2018 Raptors sweep if Lowry had been injured that year instead of in 2017, but I suppose that is the downside of having real standards.

On its face that’s just an absurdly reductionist argument that no reasonable person would find convincing. If you’re convinced by it, then you just desperately want to be convinced of any conclusion that you like, and there’s therefore obviously no point in discussing with you. And if you’re not convinced by it, then there’s no point in discussing nitty-gritty things that merely relate to an argument neither of us think is valid. Either way, it’s not worth discussing.

Yet you have spent pages desperately pushing it, and not for the first time either.

As always, the immediate vindication is appreciated.