Prime LeBron James is the most resilient scorer in NBA History

[lessthanjake]

One thing I find rather curious is the bizarre way that certain people here feel the need to narrow down LeBron’s prime for purely rhetorical purposes. In this thread, I’m being told that apparently 2006-2008 is clearly pre-prime for LeBron. Meanwhile, a few months ago, when I pointed out lots of data showing Steph outdoing LeBron in impact numbers from 2013-2014 onwards, I was told by one of these same people that that data included “barely any” of LeBron’s prime. Furthermore, I’ve seen these same people caution others against indexing on the 2011 season, since that was a weak season for LeBron. Taken together, it’s almost like the position is that LeBron’s “prime” is only really his MVP seasons—2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 (unless of course including more than that would be helpful for them in a particular discussion they’re having, in which case of course they’ll include). Beyond that obviously being silly, I find this such an odd rhetorical position. LeBron’s biggest strength in terms of his greatness is precisely that he had a really long and consistently good prime. So it’s basically self-defeating for people making pro-LeBron arguments to constantly try to artificially narrow down his prime simply in order to try to argue against every point that might suggest someone outdid LeBron at something.

[lessthanjake]

And if you're saying the middling teams LeBron beat in the Eastern Conference doesn't matter then the same can be said for middling teams Jordan beat in the East.

First of all, I didn’t say that what happened against those teams “doesn’t matter.” I included all of those series in the data I provided. I simply noted that I think those teams not being very good is part of the context of that data, but that regardless of that context LeBron did become a resilient playoff scorer.

Second of all, for purposes of this thread we are specifically talking about what happened against teams with a -3.0 or better rDRTG. For LeBron, that actually includes a handful of middling teams. For Jordan, it doesn’t. The only middling team that Jordan played that gets included for purposes of this data is the 1997 Hawks, but that was one of Jordan’s most inefficient and lowest-scoring series against the teams being considered here anyways, so it is in no way driving the data for Jordan.

Is your reasoning for those not being middling teams primarily hinging on SRS because I don't take that too seriously for expansion-era teams.

It’s more about a general understanding of how good the teams were than about SRS specifically, though SRS is certainly a relevant consideration (as are other things like success in surrounding seasons and playoffs, having major star players, etc.). Crucially, I’m actually old enough to have watched these teams contemporaneously and to understand/remember what the hierarchy of the league was in these years, so it’s pretty easy to make a comparison here. I have gathered that you are not old enough to do that, at least for the Jordan years. That’s fine, but if you combine that with saying you don’t trust SRS, then I think you’ll just have to trust me on this (though you can of course look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think).

[Djoker]

Lessthanjake included their entire playoffs careers in his sample. How is that cherrypicking? That's literally the opposite. People can question his sample and argue that certain years be removed but that isn't cherrypicking by any definition of that word.

And if we are excluding Lebron's 2006-2008 postseasons because they were pre-prime, then shouldn't we exclude Jordan's 1996-1998 postseasons which were post prime? It's only fair.

[Heej]

First of all, I didn’t say that what happened against those teams “doesn’t matter.” I included all of those series in the data I provided. I simply noted that I think those teams not being very good is part of the context of that data, but that regardless of that context LeBron did become a resilient playoff scorer.

Second of all, for purposes of this thread we are specifically talking about what happened against teams with a -3.0 or better rDRTG. For LeBron, that actually includes a handful of middling teams. For Jordan, it doesn’t. The only middling team that Jordan played that gets included for purposes of this data is the 1997 Hawks, but that was one of Jordan’s most inefficient and lowest-scoring series against the teams being considered here anyways, so it is in no way driving the data for Jordan.

Is your reasoning for those not being middling teams primarily hinging on SRS because I don't take that too seriously for expansion-era teams.

It’s more about a general understanding of how good the teams were than about SRS specifically, though SRS is certainly a relevant consideration (as are other things like success in surrounding seasons and playoffs, having major star players, etc.). Crucially, I’m actually old enough to have watched these teams contemporaneously and to understand/remember what the hierarchy of the league was in these years, so it’s pretty easy to make a comparison here. I have gathered that you are not old enough to do that, at least for the Jordan years. That’s fine, but if you combine that with saying you don’t trust SRS, then I think you’ll just have to trust me on this (though you can of course look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think).

Ok so "trust me bro". I figured. Being higher ranked in a watered down league doesn't mean you're not a middling team lmao but the joke's on me for expecting better.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

I hesitate to get involved in any MJ/LBJ debate, and I won't make any grand statements here, rather I'll only say that I take issue with some of the methodology here.

One, the cherrypicking via the omitted series(plural) that LTJ pointed out.

Two, I dislike the use of eFG here. It gives weight to something that advantages LeBron(3P shooting, especially volume) while omitting altogether something that Jordan has a BIG advantage in(FT shooting - for their careers, Jordan is 83.5% on 11 attempts PER 100 in the RS and 82.8% on 12.8 attempts PER 100 in the PO, where LeBron is 73.6% on 10.3 attempts PER 100 in the RS and 74.1% on 11.3 attempts PER 100 in the PO). It's a stat that by its nature should advantage LeBron over Jordan, and it does.

Three, looking specifically at HCL's charts, I feel like there's a sample size issue when we get to the strongest opposing defenses. Like, Jordan vs -7+ rDRtg teams is compared to LeBron vs -7+ rDRtg teams, but that's one series for Jordan, whereas it's three for LeBron. Just not entirely comfortable with cutting it up like that when it's 16 game sample vs a 6 game sample, because things can change as the sample grows. Look at those three series LeBron played against -7+ rDRtg teams and look at how much the last series vs Indiana boosted the whole sample:

2011 vs Boston (-7.0 rDRTG): PPG-29.4/TS%- 55.7/rTS- +3.7

2011 vs Chicago (-7.0 rDRTG): PPG-27.5/TS%- 56.9/rTS- +5.0

2014 vs Indiana (-7.4 rDRTG): PPG-31.1/TS%- 63.7/rTS- +13.6

But fair enough, resilient, Jordan had Jordan Rules put against him the Pistons were being more physical with him than any team had ever been to any player and they did beat his team two years in a row. He still was good but he had no teammate averaging 15 ppg that season, however he came back and beat them 4-0. That's resilient.

That's irrelevant narrative that escapes the usage of the word "resilient" in this thread... and in playoff matchups with Detroit from 88-90, Jordan averaged 27.4 ppg on 54.9% TS, 29.7 ppg on 56.1% TS and 32.1 ppg on 56.6%.

In those respective regular seasons, he averaged 35.0 ppg on 60.3% TS, 32.5 ppg on 61.4% TS and 33.6 ppg on 60.6% TS.

He was considerably diminished against them. Not the pro-resilience argument you seem to think it is...

This caught my eye and, while I don't dispute the numbers, I would suggest that this is not really a case about playoff resilience as much as it's a case of a team just doing a better job against Jordan than most others. You posted MJ's RS averages for those three seasons, but look at his RS averages vs the Pistons in those three seasons:

1988/6 games
38.2ppg, 58%

1989/6 games
27.7ppg, 55.8% TS

1990/5 games
26ppg, 50.7% TS

In two of three cases, his playoff numbers vs Detroit are in fact better than his regular season numbers vs Detroit.

[lessthanjake]

Lessthanjake included their entire playoffs careers in his sample. How is that cherrypicking? That's literally the opposite. People can question his sample and argue that certain years be removed but that isn't cherrypicking by any definition of that word.

And if we are excluding Lebron's 2006-2008 postseasons because they were pre-prime, then shouldn't we exclude Jordan's 1996-1998 postseasons which were post prime? It's only fair.

Yeah, the only “cherrypicking” I arguably did was to exclude the one series LeBron had against a 3.0+ rDRTG team when he was older than Jordan was in Jordan’s last playoff series. Specifically, I excluded LeBron’s 2023 series against Memphis. And, unsurprisingly given his age, that series would’ve made LeBron’s data worse (he had 22 PPG on a negative rTS%).

Is your reasoning for those not being middling teams primarily hinging on SRS because I don't take that too seriously for expansion-era teams.

It’s more about a general understanding of how good the teams were than about SRS specifically, though SRS is certainly a relevant consideration (as are other things like success in surrounding seasons and playoffs, having major star players, etc.). Crucially, I’m actually old enough to have watched these teams contemporaneously and to understand/remember what the hierarchy of the league was in these years, so it’s pretty easy to make a comparison here. I have gathered that you are not old enough to do that, at least for the Jordan years. That’s fine, but if you combine that with saying you don’t trust SRS, then I think you’ll just have to trust me on this (though you can of course look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think).

Ok so "trust me bro". I figured. Being higher ranked in a watered down league doesn't mean you're not a middling team lmao but the joke's on me for expecting better.

No, I didn’t just say “trust me bro.” I told you that SRS is a factor and then listed some other considerations as well (including how well the teams did in surrounding years and whether they had a major star). But if you discount SRS and don’t have any first-hand recollection of the era, and I know from past discussions that you don’t credit contemporaneous title odds, then there’s only so much that can be said to prove the point to you. If you do not have personal knowledge about something, are not willing to accept essentially any readily available evidence of it, and also won’t take others’ word for it who do have knowledge, then practically speaking you are basically just rendering yourself artificially unable to be convinced of the premise. That’s not on me. Again, though, you can of course also look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think (though I doubt you have enough context regarding players of that era to actually have that end up as anything more than you conveniently concluding that such analysis has confirmed your priors).

[AEnigma]

One thing I find rather curious is the bizarre way that certain people here feel the need to narrow down LeBron’s prime for purely rhetorical purposes. In this thread, I’m being told that apparently 2006-2008 is clearly pre-prime for LeBron. Meanwhile, a few months ago, when I pointed out lots of data showing Steph outdoing LeBron in impact numbers from 2013-2014 onwards, I was told by one of these same people that that data included “barely any” of LeBron’s prime. Furthermore, I’ve seen these same people caution others against indexing on the 2011 season, since that was a weak season for LeBron. Taken together, it’s almost like the position is that LeBron’s “prime” is only really his MVP seasons—2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 (unless of course including more than that would be helpful for them in a particular discussion they’re having, in which case of course they’ll include). Beyond that obviously being silly, I find this such an odd rhetorical position. LeBron’s biggest strength in terms of his greatness is precisely that he had a really long and consistently good prime. So it’s basically self-defeating for people making pro-LeBron arguments to constantly try to artificially narrow down his prime simply in order to try to argue against every point that might suggest someone outdid LeBron at something.

This is the most effort I have ever seen someone here expend to play dumb about an otherwise obvious concept.

Yes, like most players, Lebron’s “prime” is of a variable length. You could reasonably say it is anywhere from five years to at this point twenty, but that does not mean every year is identical and that 2005 and 2024 are just as much a “prime” year as 2013. What is specifically hilarious in this thread is you coming in, seeing the extremely normal “2009-18” designation kindly specified (so one would hope we would not be wasting pages upon pages defining “well what is the prime of the NBA’s metronome”)… and then blatantly rushing to debate its application to scoring because you disliked the results. And unless you have some mission to see how badly you can torpedo what little remaining credibility you still have, I cannot fathom how you think it would reflect well to build an army of strawmen — guess there was a point to your constant straw-grasping after all! — where ackshaully everyone else is inconsistent for being able to identify consistent trends.

Try arguing based on what you actually believe for a while; this twister act ran its course long ago.

[AEnigma]

Lessthanjake included their entire playoffs careers in his sample. How is that cherrypicking? That's literally the opposite. People can question his sample and argue that certain years be removed but that isn't cherrypicking by any definition of that word.

And if we are excluding Lebron's 2006-2008 postseasons because they were pre-prime, then shouldn't we exclude Jordan's 1996-1998 postseasons which were post prime? It's only fair.

Do you think 1996-98 Jordan was a less effective playoff scorer than 1985-87 Jordan, and if so, do you think that is a widely agreed upon opinion?

At what point does this become a peaks analysis? If you want to do strict five years, 1989-93 for Jordan and probably 2012-17 for Lebron (or is it 2009-13), go ahead, you have the power to make a thread of your own, but “ten years starting from both players’ first MVP season” is not bewildering.

[Heej]

Lessthanjake included their entire playoffs careers in his sample. How is that cherrypicking? That's literally the opposite. People can question his sample and argue that certain years be removed but that isn't cherrypicking by any definition of that word.

And if we are excluding Lebron's 2006-2008 postseasons because they were pre-prime, then shouldn't we exclude Jordan's 1996-1998 postseasons which were post prime? It's only fair.

Yeah, the only “cherrypicking” I arguably did was to exclude the one series LeBron had against a 3.0+ rDRTG team when he was older than Jordan was in Jordan’s last playoff series. Specifically, I excluded LeBron’s 2023 series against Memphis. And, unsurprisingly given his age, that series would’ve made LeBron’s data worse (he had 22 PPG on a negative rTS%).

It’s more about a general understanding of how good the teams were than about SRS specifically, though SRS is certainly a relevant consideration (as are other things like success in surrounding seasons and playoffs, having major star players, etc.). Crucially, I’m actually old enough to have watched these teams contemporaneously and to understand/remember what the hierarchy of the league was in these years, so it’s pretty easy to make a comparison here. I have gathered that you are not old enough to do that, at least for the Jordan years. That’s fine, but if you combine that with saying you don’t trust SRS, then I think you’ll just have to trust me on this (though you can of course look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think).

Ok so "trust me bro". I figured. Being higher ranked in a watered down league doesn't mean you're not a middling team lmao but the joke's on me for expecting better.

No, I didn’t just say “trust me bro.” I told you that SRS is a factor and then listed some other considerations as well (including how well the teams did in surrounding years and whether they had a major star). But if you discount SRS and don’t have any first-hand recollection of the era, and I know from past discussions that you don’t credit contemporaneous title odds, then there’s only so much that can be said to prove the point to you. If you do not have personal knowledge about something, are not willing to accept essentially any readily available evidence of it, and also won’t take others’ word for it who do have knowledge, then practically speaking you are basically just rendering yourself artificially unable to be convinced of the premise. That’s not on me. Again, though, you can of course also look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think (though I doubt you have enough context regarding players of that era to actually have that end up as anything more than you conveniently concluding that such analysis has confirmed your priors).

Funny how you assume I don't have knowledge on any of these teams when by far and away the best knowledge is what's shown on the game film. But seeing as how in past conversations you've shown yourself rather inept at processing film I can see why you think the only context necessary to apply to numbers can only be more numbers or nostalgia-addled analysis

As I've said before, being a higher echelon team during a watered down era with overall worse coaching and worse player talent doesn't insulate it from being middling just because the teams you're in favor of won a mid-off . Using flawed tools like SRS, Vegas Odds, and nostalgia surely can't be your top choice to help your case when game film exists

[lessthanjake]

Lessthanjake included their entire playoffs careers in his sample. How is that cherrypicking? That's literally the opposite. People can question his sample and argue that certain years be removed but that isn't cherrypicking by any definition of that word.

And if we are excluding Lebron's 2006-2008 postseasons because they were pre-prime, then shouldn't we exclude Jordan's 1996-1998 postseasons which were post prime? It's only fair.

Yeah, the only “cherrypicking” I arguably did was to exclude the one series LeBron had against a 3.0+ rDRTG team when he was older than Jordan was in Jordan’s last playoff series. Specifically, I excluded LeBron’s 2023 series against Memphis. And, unsurprisingly given his age, that series would’ve made LeBron’s data worse (he had 22 PPG on a negative rTS%).

Ok so "trust me bro". I figured. Being higher ranked in a watered down league doesn't mean you're not a middling team lmao but the joke's on me for expecting better.

No, I didn’t just say “trust me bro.” I told you that SRS is a factor and then listed some other considerations as well (including how well the teams did in surrounding years and whether they had a major star). But if you discount SRS and don’t have any first-hand recollection of the era, and I know from past discussions that you don’t credit contemporaneous title odds, then there’s only so much that can be said to prove the point to you. If you do not have personal knowledge about something, are not willing to accept essentially any readily available evidence of it, and also won’t take others’ word for it who do have knowledge, then practically speaking you are basically just rendering yourself artificially unable to be convinced of the premise. That’s not on me. Again, though, you can of course also look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think (though I doubt you have enough context regarding players of that era to actually have that end up as anything more than you conveniently concluding that such analysis has confirmed your priors).

Funny how you assume I don't have knowledge on any of these teams when by far and away the best knowledge is what's shown on the game film. But seeing as how in past conversations you've shown yourself rather inept at processing film I can see why you think the only context necessary to apply to numbers can only be more numbers or nostalgia-addled analysis

As I've said before, being a higher echelon team during a watered down era with overall worse coaching and worse player talent doesn't insulate it from being middling just because the teams you're in favor of won a mid-off . Using flawed tools like SRS, Vegas Odds, and nostalgia surely can't be your top choice to help your case when game film exists

You’re welcome to do extensive film analysis of each of the 15 teams that Jordan faced in the playoffs that this thread applies to, along with the several teams LeBron faced that I called middling, and then provide in-depth analysis of your findings. That would be a gargantuan task that I certainly am not willing to do for such a minor (and, I think, obvious) point. But if that’s the only thing that could possibly convince you (as you seem to be suggesting it is), then you’re welcome to embark on that odyssey. Since film analysis is inherently super subjective (especially across eras) and you obviously have a large era-related bias, I’m pretty sure your analysis would inevitably just end up confirming your priors. But feel free to do it and let me know what you find!

In the meantime, I just want to point out that at no time have I “shown [my]self rather inept at processing film.” You have never actually engaged in any film analysis in a discussion with me. Not even one single time. You have simply made posts bizarrely declaring that, based on posts I’ve made that were *not* analyzing film, you can somehow “tell” that I would be bad at it. It’s a criticism you’ve invented from whole cloth with no basis. To the extent that you stated any basis, it was that you think I’m a “stats guy,” but being someone with an understanding of stats is not in any way mutually exclusive with being able to analyze film. It’s not something I choose to do virtually at all in posts on these forums, since actually doing proper film analysis is an immensely time-consuming task (particularly if one is wanting to prove one’s points in a convincing way using film, since you’d need to watch and analyze a large sample of film to do that). And that’s perhaps why, in the many posts of yours I’ve seen, I cannot recall you ever *actually* analyzing film—all I’ve seen is you repeatedly declaring to others that you are superior to them in film analysis.

[Heej]

Yeah, the only “cherrypicking” I arguably did was to exclude the one series LeBron had against a 3.0+ rDRTG team when he was older than Jordan was in Jordan’s last playoff series. Specifically, I excluded LeBron’s 2023 series against Memphis. And, unsurprisingly given his age, that series would’ve made LeBron’s data worse (he had 22 PPG on a negative rTS%).



No, I didn’t just say “trust me bro.” I told you that SRS is a factor and then listed some other considerations as well (including how well the teams did in surrounding years and whether they had a major star). But if you discount SRS and don’t have any first-hand recollection of the era, and I know from past discussions that you don’t credit contemporaneous title odds, then there’s only so much that can be said to prove the point to you. If you do not have personal knowledge about something, are not willing to accept essentially any readily available evidence of it, and also won’t take others’ word for it who do have knowledge, then practically speaking you are basically just rendering yourself artificially unable to be convinced of the premise. That’s not on me. Again, though, you can of course also look at the relevant teams and see for yourself what you think (though I doubt you have enough context regarding players of that era to actually have that end up as anything more than you conveniently concluding that such analysis has confirmed your priors).

Funny how you assume I don't have knowledge on any of these teams when by far and away the best knowledge is what's shown on the game film. But seeing as how in past conversations you've shown yourself rather inept at processing film I can see why you think the only context necessary to apply to numbers can only be more numbers or nostalgia-addled analysis

As I've said before, being a higher echelon team during a watered down era with overall worse coaching and worse player talent doesn't insulate it from being middling just because the teams you're in favor of won a mid-off . Using flawed tools like SRS, Vegas Odds, and nostalgia surely can't be your top choice to help your case when game film exists

You’re welcome to do extensive film analysis of each of the 15 teams that Jordan faced in the playoffs that this thread applies to, along with the several teams LeBron faced that I called middling, and then provide in-depth analysis of your findings. That would be a gargantuan task that I certainly am not willing to do for such a minor (and, I think, obvious) point. But if that’s the only thing that could possibly convince you (as you seem to be suggesting it is), then you’re welcome to embark on that odyssey. Since film analysis is inherently super subjective (especially across eras) and you obviously have a large era-related bias, I’m pretty sure your analysis would inevitably just end up confirming your priors. But feel free to do it and let me know what you find!

In the meantime, I just want to point out that at no time have I “shown [my]self rather inept at processing film.” You have never actually engaged in any film analysis in a discussion with me. Not even one single time. You have simply made posts bizarrely declaring that, based on posts I’ve made that were *not* analyzing film, you can somehow “tell” that I would be bad at it. It’s a criticism you’ve invented from whole cloth with no basis. To the extent that you stated any basis, it was that you think I’m a “stats guy,” but being someone with an understanding of stats is not in any way mutually exclusive with being able to analyze film. It’s not something I choose to do virtually at all in posts on these forums, since actually doing proper film analysis is an immensely time-consuming task (particularly if one is wanting to prove one’s points in a convincing way using film, since you’d need to watch and analyze a large sample of film to do that). And that’s perhaps why, in the many posts of yours I’ve seen, I cannot recall you ever *actually* analyzing film—all I’ve seen is you repeatedly declaring to others that you are superior to them in film analysis.

Seeing as how I've gone thru entire Jordan playoff runs on my own to confirm some of these myths (Jordan got BEAT UP by the Pistons!! LMFAO), and have had to deal with many a debate from my years on Twitter (where it's a far easier medium to share specific clips and screenshots for me). Showing why defensive rotations were slower and less effective in the 90s vs now by using film clips and pointing out exactly where 90s players fell short of plugging in gaps or aggressively pre-rotating one position over and navigating backline rotations; it's really not all that difficult for me to point out specifically why these teams were less impressive.

And my opinion on you regarding this is from what I can see in previous discussions where it's clear you have a distinct lack of understanding regarding what coaches actually do (plus a distinct lack of vocabulary regarding fundamental basketball coaching parlance!) along with not demonstrating much knowledge on the differences between the types of schemes teams run now vs then I can only assume that you're a casual when it comes to processing film. And trying to post any clips or analysis on RealGM is annoying precisely because this place very much operates like a 2000s message board when modern social media apps make it infinitely easier to share screenshots and screen recordings.

You assume that I need to have this bias the way you need to with your cherry picking of specific seasons outside the scope of the topic as a response to perceived cherry picking. We call that projection. The 90s were largely perceived as a watered down era in its time both from a coaching and talent standpoint, and the reputation was only rewritten later by Jordan hagiographers in order to prop up their guy. The fact that offenses look stagnant on film and defenses nearly never had a guy stationed on the nail when offensive superstars had the ball on the wing (unthinkable for a set defense by today's standards) is a feature not a bug. Much like how the top defenders were demonstrably less athletic than their modern counterparts (wings similar agility but less size, bigs similar size but less agility).

The reason my analysis would confirm my priors is because I've already put in the work with years of analysis under my belt and actually have spent summers doing deep dives on 90s film specifically so that I can be informed. It's not that weird when it's simply the truth about the stark difference there is between eras when you watch full games and not highlights or low quality stats.

[lessthanjake]

Funny how you assume I don't have knowledge on any of these teams when by far and away the best knowledge is what's shown on the game film. But seeing as how in past conversations you've shown yourself rather inept at processing film I can see why you think the only context necessary to apply to numbers can only be more numbers or nostalgia-addled analysis

As I've said before, being a higher echelon team during a watered down era with overall worse coaching and worse player talent doesn't insulate it from being middling just because the teams you're in favor of won a mid-off . Using flawed tools like SRS, Vegas Odds, and nostalgia surely can't be your top choice to help your case when game film exists

You’re welcome to do extensive film analysis of each of the 15 teams that Jordan faced in the playoffs that this thread applies to, along with the several teams LeBron faced that I called middling, and then provide in-depth analysis of your findings. That would be a gargantuan task that I certainly am not willing to do for such a minor (and, I think, obvious) point. But if that’s the only thing that could possibly convince you (as you seem to be suggesting it is), then you’re welcome to embark on that odyssey. Since film analysis is inherently super subjective (especially across eras) and you obviously have a large era-related bias, I’m pretty sure your analysis would inevitably just end up confirming your priors. But feel free to do it and let me know what you find!

In the meantime, I just want to point out that at no time have I “shown [my]self rather inept at processing film.” You have never actually engaged in any film analysis in a discussion with me. Not even one single time. You have simply made posts bizarrely declaring that, based on posts I’ve made that were *not* analyzing film, you can somehow “tell” that I would be bad at it. It’s a criticism you’ve invented from whole cloth with no basis. To the extent that you stated any basis, it was that you think I’m a “stats guy,” but being someone with an understanding of stats is not in any way mutually exclusive with being able to analyze film. It’s not something I choose to do virtually at all in posts on these forums, since actually doing proper film analysis is an immensely time-consuming task (particularly if one is wanting to prove one’s points in a convincing way using film, since you’d need to watch and analyze a large sample of film to do that). And that’s perhaps why, in the many posts of yours I’ve seen, I cannot recall you ever *actually* analyzing film—all I’ve seen is you repeatedly declaring to others that you are superior to them in film analysis.

Seeing as how I've gone thru entire Jordan playoff runs on my own to confirm some of these myths (Jordan got BEAT UP by the Pistons!! LMFAO), and have had to deal with many a debate from my years on Twitter (where it's a far easier medium to share specific clips and screenshots for me). Showing why defensive rotations were slower and less effective in the 90s vs now by using film clips and pointing out exactly where 90s players fell short of plugging in gaps or aggressively pre-rotating one position over and navigating backline rotations; it's really not all that difficult for me to point out specifically why these teams were less impressive.

And my opinion on you regarding this is from what I can see in previous discussions where it's clear you have a distinct lack of understanding regarding what coaches actually do (plus a distinct lack of vocabulary regarding fundamental basketball coaching parlance!) along with not demonstrating much knowledge on the differences between the types of schemes teams run now vs then I can only assume that you're a casual when it comes to processing film. And trying to post any clips or analysis on RealGM is annoying precisely because this place very much operates like a 2000s message board when modern social media apps make it infinitely easier to share screenshots and screen recordings.

You assume that I need to have this bias the way you need to with your cherry picking of specific seasons outside the scope of the topic as a response to perceived cherry picking. We call that projection. The 90s were largely perceived as a watered down era in its time both from a coaching and talent standpoint, and the reputation was only rewritten later by Jordan hagiographers in order to prop up their guy. The fact that offenses look stagnant on film and defenses nearly never had a guy stationed on the nail when offensive superstars had the ball on the wing (unthinkable for a set defense by today's standards) is a feature not a bug. Much like how the top defenders were demonstrably less athletic than their modern counterparts (wings similar agility but less size, bigs similar size but less agility).

The reason my analysis would confirm my priors is because I've already put in the work with years of analysis under my belt and actually have spent summers doing deep dives on 90s film specifically so that I can be informed. It's not that weird when it's simply the truth about the stark difference there is between eras when you watch full games and not highlights or low quality stats.

If your argument is that NBA teams are better now in absolute terms than they were in the 1990s, then I don’t disagree. As with any competitive endeavor, people are always getting better. But, as with most discussions here, this is an era-relative discussion. Indeed, on its face, the OP’s analysis was era-relative, since, for instance, the OP reported out values that were “inflation adjusted” and talked about rTS% and rDRTG. So I’m not sure what value you think there is here in saying teams in general were not as good in the past. You’re just taking a non-era-relative lens into an era-relative discussion. Drilling down into the specific point you were objecting to, I said that some of the 3.0+ rDRTG teams counted for LeBron were middling teams that I think we’d generally expect to underperform in the playoffs against good teams. That’s inherently an era-relative assessment (after all, I’m saying they were middling compared to their era and that they’d be expected to underperform in the playoffs against good teams in their era). The point is that I see those as the types of teams whose playoff capability is overrated if you look at RS data, such that achieving any particular rTS% (which is a player’s TS% in the series, relative to what their opponent gave up in the regular season) against them is perhaps not as difficult as it would be against the types of teams we’d expect to fare better in the playoffs. I don’t see how an argument about comparing eras is relevant to this, and I suspect you’re trying to take the conversation there simply because it’s comfortable ground that you like arguing about.

And by the way, for the record, I’ll note that I actually do think that in non-era-relative terms, LeBron is a better basketball player than Jordan was. And that’s because I agree that basketball has improved a lot and the standard of play in the 1980s and 1990s was not as high. I find that to be a rather unremarkable and uninteresting observation, though, since it basically just leads to the conclusion that the best player from whatever the present era is is the best player ever. In an absolute sense, that’s actually generally true of any sport or competition, but I think it’s uninteresting. To me, taking a mostly era-relative lens is much more interesting and allows for actual genuine discussion, rather than having a near-deterministic, obvious, and inherently ever-changing conclusion. I think most people agree with me, since most people discuss things in an era-relative way. Of course, there are limits to that, and I personally don’t take a totally era-relative lens when it comes to an era of basketball that I think was quite nascent and the league was pretty tenuous. For instance, I don’t take an era-relative lens on George Mikan. And even with more recent eras, I do put a small finger on the scale against past eras (particularly as we go further back—so, to take one example, this is more of a factor for me for Russell than for Kareem). I get that you are a good deal younger than me, and perhaps you take a similar approach but you define the nascent era that you discount as extending much later than I do. That’s your prerogative. I don’t think it has much of a place in this particular thread and at a certain point it becomes no different than just being totally non-era-relative, but you’re of course free to think about things that way and it will obviously lead you to different conclusions than my approach would.

[Heej]

You’re welcome to do extensive film analysis of each of the 15 teams that Jordan faced in the playoffs that this thread applies to, along with the several teams LeBron faced that I called middling, and then provide in-depth analysis of your findings. That would be a gargantuan task that I certainly am not willing to do for such a minor (and, I think, obvious) point. But if that’s the only thing that could possibly convince you (as you seem to be suggesting it is), then you’re welcome to embark on that odyssey. Since film analysis is inherently super subjective (especially across eras) and you obviously have a large era-related bias, I’m pretty sure your analysis would inevitably just end up confirming your priors. But feel free to do it and let me know what you find!

In the meantime, I just want to point out that at no time have I “shown [my]self rather inept at processing film.” You have never actually engaged in any film analysis in a discussion with me. Not even one single time. You have simply made posts bizarrely declaring that, based on posts I’ve made that were *not* analyzing film, you can somehow “tell” that I would be bad at it. It’s a criticism you’ve invented from whole cloth with no basis. To the extent that you stated any basis, it was that you think I’m a “stats guy,” but being someone with an understanding of stats is not in any way mutually exclusive with being able to analyze film. It’s not something I choose to do virtually at all in posts on these forums, since actually doing proper film analysis is an immensely time-consuming task (particularly if one is wanting to prove one’s points in a convincing way using film, since you’d need to watch and analyze a large sample of film to do that). And that’s perhaps why, in the many posts of yours I’ve seen, I cannot recall you ever *actually* analyzing film—all I’ve seen is you repeatedly declaring to others that you are superior to them in film analysis.

Seeing as how I've gone thru entire Jordan playoff runs on my own to confirm some of these myths (Jordan got BEAT UP by the Pistons!! LMFAO), and have had to deal with many a debate from my years on Twitter (where it's a far easier medium to share specific clips and screenshots for me). Showing why defensive rotations were slower and less effective in the 90s vs now by using film clips and pointing out exactly where 90s players fell short of plugging in gaps or aggressively pre-rotating one position over and navigating backline rotations; it's really not all that difficult for me to point out specifically why these teams were less impressive.

And my opinion on you regarding this is from what I can see in previous discussions where it's clear you have a distinct lack of understanding regarding what coaches actually do (plus a distinct lack of vocabulary regarding fundamental basketball coaching parlance!) along with not demonstrating much knowledge on the differences between the types of schemes teams run now vs then I can only assume that you're a casual when it comes to processing film. And trying to post any clips or analysis on RealGM is annoying precisely because this place very much operates like a 2000s message board when modern social media apps make it infinitely easier to share screenshots and screen recordings.

You assume that I need to have this bias the way you need to with your cherry picking of specific seasons outside the scope of the topic as a response to perceived cherry picking. We call that projection. The 90s were largely perceived as a watered down era in its time both from a coaching and talent standpoint, and the reputation was only rewritten later by Jordan hagiographers in order to prop up their guy. The fact that offenses look stagnant on film and defenses nearly never had a guy stationed on the nail when offensive superstars had the ball on the wing (unthinkable for a set defense by today's standards) is a feature not a bug. Much like how the top defenders were demonstrably less athletic than their modern counterparts (wings similar agility but less size, bigs similar size but less agility).

The reason my analysis would confirm my priors is because I've already put in the work with years of analysis under my belt and actually have spent summers doing deep dives on 90s film specifically so that I can be informed. It's not that weird when it's simply the truth about the stark difference there is between eras when you watch full games and not highlights or low quality stats.

If your argument is that NBA teams are better now in absolute terms than they were in the 1990s, then I don’t disagree. As with any competitive endeavor, people are always getting better. But, as with most discussions here, this is an era-relative discussion. Indeed, on its face, the OP’s analysis was era-relative, since, for instance, the OP reported out values that were “inflation adjusted” and talked about rTS% and rDRTG. So I’m not sure what value you think there is here in saying teams in general were not as good in the past. You’re just taking a non-era-relative lens into an era-relative discussion. Drilling down into the specific point you were objecting to, I said that some of the 3.0+ rDRTG teams counted for LeBron were middling teams that I think we’d generally expect to underperform in the playoffs against good teams. That’s inherently an era-relative assessment (after all, I’m saying they were middling compared to their era and that they’d be expected to underperform in the playoffs against good teams in their era). The point is that I see those as the types of teams whose playoff capability is overrated if you look at RS data, such that achieving any particular rTS% (which is a player’s TS% in the series, relative to what their opponent gave up in the regular season) against them is perhaps not as difficult as it would be against the types of teams we’d expect to fare better in the playoffs. I don’t see how an argument about comparing eras is relevant to this, and I suspect you’re trying to take the conversation there simply because it’s comfortable ground that you like arguing about.

And by the way, for the record, I’ll note that I actually do think that in non-era-relative terms, LeBron is a better basketball player than Jordan was. And that’s because I agree that basketball has improved a lot and the standard of play in the 1980s and 1990s was not as high. I find that to be a rather unremarkable and uninteresting observation, though, since it basically just leads to the conclusion that the best player from whatever the present era is is the best player ever. In an absolute sense, that’s actually generally true of any sport or competition, but I think it’s uninteresting. To me, taking a mostly era-relative lens is much more interesting and allows for actual genuine discussion, rather than having a near-deterministic, obvious, and inherently ever-changing conclusion. I think most people agree with me, since most people discuss things in an era-relative way. Of course, there are limits to that, and I personally don’t take a totally era-relative lens when it comes to an era of basketball that I think was quite nascent and the league was pretty tenuous. For instance, I don’t take an era-relative lens on George Mikan. And even with more recent eras, I do put a small finger on the scale against past eras (particularly as we go further back—so, to take one example, this is more of a factor for me for Russell than for Kareem). I get that you are a good deal younger than me, and perhaps you take a similar approach but you define the nascent era that you discount as extending much later than I do. That’s your prerogative. I don’t think it has much of a place in this particular thread and at a certain point it becomes no different than just being totally non-era-relative, but you’re of course free to think about things that way and it will obviously lead you to different conclusions than my approach would.

The problem with what you're presenting here is that you seem to imply that it is fair to compare these stats (team and individual) on a 1:1 basis by invoking the holy creed of era-relativity when really it makes more sense to see which person or team was relatively advantaged or disadvantaged according to their era.

The relative advantage Jordan enjoyed in the Triangle (which I had to painstakingly explain to you in other threads was more akin to a proto-modern offense due to PJ sprinkling in plenty of high PnR and mid-post iso actions off base triangle sets) along with the roster strength skews a lot more favorably towards him than the advantage LeBron was able to enjoy in regards to coaching and roster.

The more realistic approach here is to comprehend that Jordan was playing against caveman defenses in a decidedly non-caveman offense, while LeBron faced modern defenses (multiple elite ones at that) playing in a modern offense. Meaning that Jordan more than LeBron is the one enjoying era-relative advantages here, within the broader context of a metagame relative to that era which also favored offenses!

Meanwhile not only did much of LeBron's prime occur in an era where defenses in general were one step ahead of offenses, he also didn't get to enjoy a era-relative advantage vs his own opponents by playing in an offense that's ahead of its time. Hell, the one time I can remember a LeBron team truly being one generation ahead of their opponent it was during the 2012 Finals when Scott Brooks decided to play Caveman offense with Ibaka-Perkins at the 4-5 while the Heat ran Battier-Bosh.

And what happened that series? The Heat not only beat the odds and won, they dismantled that team in a backdoor sweep, and unlike the Bulls I'm not even sure LeBron's supporting cast was more talented than KDs given the Bosh injury that postseason.

This is the type of era-relative advantage Jordan was able to enjoy for nearly the entirety of his prime (hell, probably the only other other comparable proto-modern schemes of the era were Sloan's flex offense and Adelman's corner offense which have also seen concepts survive to this day like the triangle) and I don't see any of the meaningful separation one would expect from a guy who's ostensibly similarly talented but had more era-relative advantages.

And my argument regarding the middling teams is that the Bulls relative advantages (roster and coaching) given that the Bulls were essentially a proto-modern team (particularly in the 2nd threepeat running 3 ballhandler lineups with Kukoc-Rodman closing at the 4-5) are on par with the relative roster and coaching advantages LeBron had. Because when you're playing in an era with watered down roster talent and coaching acumen, playing in a proto-modern offense alone places you at such an advantage that it makes no sense to handwave away one guys' opponents as middling when the other teams looked just as mid relative to the Bulls' construction in totality.

[trex_8063]

Might be time for some posters to disengage from each other [and perhaps from the thread/topic itself], before things get to heated or nasty.
If you find yourself composing a post that is more about attacking an opponent's integrity and/or intelligence, than about presenting any worthwhile information, that probably means it would be a good idea to simply highlight-and-delete, write "Whatever.....agree to disagree" [or write nothing at all], and walk away.

[Djoker]

A massive problem with the short-sighted "Modern era is better." argument is that newer players get the nod over Lebron just how he gets the nod over Jordan. Any comparisons apart from era-relative ones are just pointless. If more recent players are automatically better, then why even bother debating anything... The GOAT title is transient, doomed to change hands in a couple of years.

[tsherkin]

A massive problem with the short-sighted "Modern era is better." argument is that newer players get the nod over Lebron just how he gets the nod over Jordan. Any comparisons apart from era-relative ones are just pointless. If more recent players are automatically better, then why even bother debating anything... The GOAT title is transient, doomed to change hands in a couple of years.

"A couple of years" is probably a little aggressive. It took like a decade and a half before Jordan got there over Kareem in a lot of the more classical arguments, and because Lebron doesn't have the same sort of near-perfect career arc or narrative, there will always be pushback against him vs. Jordan. And right at the moment, there's no one really threatening for the title of GOAT beyond the classical candidates and Lebron. It'll be some time before a new name gains any real traction, I think.

[Heej]

A massive problem with the short-sighted "Modern era is better." argument is that newer players get the nod over Lebron just how he gets the nod over Jordan. Any comparisons apart from era-relative ones are just pointless. If more recent players are automatically better, then why even bother debating anything... The GOAT title is transient, doomed to change hands in a couple of years.

Boy, you're gonna be greatly disappointed when you find out how real life works then.

Personally as a LeBron fan I've always looked forward to seeing the next guy who pushes the game forward and welcome Wemby as our future overlord.

There is only one side in this eternal debate that uses illogical emotional arguments (not talking about Jake btw, I mean the social media NPCs) to dogmatically defend a counter-intuitive talking point.

It's going to be harder for the next GOAT candidate to stand out from their peers as the game evolves. And the ones that do are likely better. That's life, time to accept it, not devolve your entire worldview to the point of absurdity where you unironically make statements like the GOAT title changing hands every few years.

Seeing as how that could really only occur if basketball experiences a situation like Tennis where 2-3 GOAT level talents are all in their primes around the same era which is far less likely because basketball has a greater talent pool which means there's more chances for one singular giga outlier.

The most important thing to aim for is to not over-ascribe era-relative Success to one player without properly considering era-relative context.

[OhayoKD]

One thing I find rather curious is the bizarre way that certain people here feel the need to narrow down LeBron’s prime for purely rhetorical purposes.

Certain people indeed:

Just to drill down on this a bit: LeBron’s teams consistently collapsed defensively in the business end of the playoffs from 2009-2014,but those are pretty generally considered the years of LeBron’s defensive peak (it’s his best span from a DPOY voting standpoint, but also just athletically and by consensus in general).

...
In those later years, LeBron’s teams certainly didn't do badly defensively in late playoff series, but it actually wasn’t quite as consistent as it was in LeBron’s defensive peak. So how does that make sense? People want to give the credit for those defensive performances to LeBron. But if LeBron at his defensive peak and with high-ranked defenses consistently resulted in bad late-stage playoff defenses, then why should we assume that LeBron outside of his defensive peak was somehow the reason his teams actually had some good late-stage playoff performances defensively?

LeBron is clearly better in old age than MJ was. The question is how much that matters.

The arguments that it matters a lot would mostly have to center around one of two things: (1) the extra career value added by being better in old-age seasons; or (2) an implication about what it means about how good they were in their primes.

...

On the question about what it implies about how good they were in their primes (i.e. “Old LeBron is better than old Michael, so prime LeBron must’ve been better than prime Michael”), I don’t really think that there’s any valid point because the context is so different.

And of course, in the same comment I'm replying too...

when I pointed out lots of data showing Steph outdoing LeBron in impact numbers from 2013-2014 onwards

TLDR: You are projecting. The OP has given you plenty to pick part, yet you've decided to fixate on them...using a common timeframe to compare the two?

Hmm. I wonder what could possibly influence thi-

And by the way, for the record, I’ll note that I actually do think that in non-era-relative terms, LeBron is a better basketball player than Jordan was. And that’s because I agree that basketball has improved a lot and the standard of play in the 1980s and 1990s was not as high.

...

Of course, there are limits to that, and I personally don’t take a totally era-relative lens when it comes to an era of basketball that I think was quite nascent and the league was pretty tenuous. For instance, I don’t take an era-relative lens on George Mikan. And even with more recent eras, I do put a small finger on the scale against past eras (particularly as we go further back—so, to take one example, this is more of a factor for me for Russell than for Kareem).

TLDR: Era-strength matters alot for Mikan and then drops in importance incrementally as the league progresses...and then becomes virtually irrelevant in regard to the player you grew up with 30 years ago when, by your own admission, the league was much worse.

And you think your age bolsters your credibility?

Personally, I'm a big believer in show don't tell, and what you've shown...

Spoiler:

You might believe/want that to be the case, but it’s a *way* less straightforward argument to make than the one for the 2016 Warriors.

The 2012 Thunder had gone 47-19 (a 58-win pace) with a 6.44 SRS. The 2013 Spurs had won 58 games with a 6.67 SRS. And both were only the 3rd favorite team to win the title in betting odds going into the playoffs.

Nah, it's still a really straight forward one. Throwing out perception instead of performance(betting odds) is also just desperate.

The *least straightforward case is for the Thunder who
-> posted higher playoff ratings than any team jordan beat(highest being the 97 jazz) without the aid of expansion
-> beat the 2012 spurs who:
a. posted a higher playoff rating than anyone jordan had beat (without expansion)
b. posted a higher playoff rating than anyone jordan beat the following two years(without expansion)
c. sported a dynastic core
-> posted a +9 regular season srs without james harden(without expansion) the following year
-> had taken the eventual champions to 6 the two previous years after 50-win seasons

Then there are the spurs who
-> posted higher playoff ratings than any team jordan beat 3 years in a row(without expansion) including that year
-> posted higher regular-season and playoff ratings in 13 and 14 than the bad boy pistons managed in 90 and 89 respectively(without expansion)
-> dynastic core(duh)

Not that it's necessary here, but both teams were at full-strength. Same can't be said for the discount Lebronto cavaliers or the 91 magic.

But there are definitely good arguments against that (whereas I think it’d be much harder to make a good argument when it comes to any of those teams being better than the 2016 Warriors). And I personally think the better conclusion that most aligns with the information we have is probably that the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs were about as good as the best several teams Jordan’s Bulls beat.

Yeah, somehow, I'm pretty doubtful you genuinely believe Jordan has beaten "several" opponents on par with the 90's knicks 2.0 and the bad boy pistons 2.0. Or maybe you do in which case I'm quite happy letting posterity decide.

So I think it’s inherently not a very straightforward argument when you need to lean heavily into things like (1) the accomplishments of a different team, in other years, that the team in question beat in the playoffs; (2) analogies to the SRS of random unrelated teams; and (3) descriptions of what the teams in question did in other years. These are not straightforward arguments to make, since they’re inherently argument by analogy (and one could of course come up with similar analogies going the other way). I don’t think they’re useless points, but they’re obviously not very straightforward.

The only actually straightforward thing you bring up is playoff SRS. That’s useful info, and the 2013 Spurs in particular did put up high SRS in the playoffs. But playoff SRS is inherently low sample-size, and depends a lot on the precise margins in blowouts (i.e. it’s dependent a lot on how things happen to go during minutes where the teams aren’t going all out—in larger sample sizes this tends to even out, but in smaller ones it often won’t) as well as the random day-to-day form of the opponents. It’s useful info, but I wouldn’t lead with it in an overall argument about a team’s strength. If a team did better in the regular season and was considered a higher-tier contender going into the playoffs and made the finals (or at least won until they faced the title winner), I think it’s not all that convincing to say another team was better simply because their playoff SRS was a little higher. And that’s especially the case where several of the Bulls’ Finals opponents didn’t actually really have a lot of trouble in the playoffs anyways—three of their finals opponents didn’t face an elimination game in the first three rounds. In addition, talking about playoff SRS is even messier when one team in question (the 2013 Spurs) beat substantially weaker playoff opposition than most of the teams we’re comparing them to did (and probably all of them if we just looked at Jordan’s Finals opponents). Playoff SRS accounts for that to a significant degree, of course, but I don’t think it adequately accounts for the relative playoff weakness of, say, the 2013 Grizzlies compared to the 1996 Jazz. (Not to mention that a rolling-SRS method like Sansterre’s obviously overrates the 2013 Grizzlies as opponents by virtue of them beating the Westbrook-less Thunder).

I also think you’re far too eager to throw out betting odds as useless. Playoff results do not somehow reveal the ultimate inviolable truth about teams’ strength. They’re not a high sample size and if you ran the same playoffs a bunch of times, you’d get lots of different results. Some teams happen to do better than they usually would have and some teams do worse than they usually would have, while others do about as well. This is dependent on lots of random factors (including many that aren’t in the team’s control—such as opponents’ random performance level). We can’t know exactly what the bell curve of possible outcomes for a team really was. But contemporaneous betting odds (as well as regular season data) help give us a good idea. Yes, they’re only perception, but the contemporaneous consensus perception of a team’s strength by people paying attention to the details of the season and the quality of the players is a good way to assess where the team’s bell curve likely was, and where they generally were in the league’s pecking order. It’s clearly relevant and helpful information, unless you think that the playoffs simply reveal the one possible outcome (which is just like obviously wrong).

In any event, the bottom line is that when we get to teams like these, evidence could be marshaled on both sides of things (including both straightforward data and less straightforward extrapolation by analogy). There’s reasonable arguments to be made either way when comparing teams like these and there’s no direct evidence either way (since they didn’t play at the same time), and that’s why I said I think the best conclusion is that several of Jordan’s opponents were at a similar level. There’s several teams Jordan faced where reasonable arguments could definitely be made either way compared to teams like the 2012 Thunder and 2013 Spurs. Once you get to the 2016 Warriors, I think there starts to not actually be reasonable arguments that Jordan’s opponents were as good. I think you sometimes are so dug into an ideologically-driven view that you convince yourself that whatever evidence you think supports your opinion is unimpeachable and all evidence to the contrary must be ignored for one reason or another. It is not a good way to approach questions for which there’s inherently a high amount of uncertainty and/or subjectivity and no truly direct evidence. In general, across many topics, you should try to acknowledge uncertainty and subjectivity more, in order to have a more reasonable and realistic assessment of things. I suspect as you grow up and become more mature, you probably will do that, but it’s something you should try to work towards even now IMO.

doesn't live up to your (self-afforded) billing.

Injuries, performance in surrounding years, roster construction, post season performance, surrounding post season performance, championship proximity?.. No. If it's not inflated regular season SRS(and yes, that holds even with an era-relative approach), your analysis of these teams is pretty much boils down to vibes. No literally, championship offs, a measure of how people feel took precedent over how close teams got to winning championships, what they did before and after, the health of their players, and what they did in the playoffs.

You are older than some of us(and likely younger than the party you've feuded with the most this thread), but you are not more knowledgeable, and there really is no greater evidence of this, than weighing what you tell us, against what you show us.

For the same reason era-strength stops mattering when it mattering would hurt MJ, so does context. You want the person you grew up with to stay #1. That's the only meaningful way your age has contributed towards your "knowledge".

[lessthanjake]

The problem with what you're presenting here is that you seem to imply that it is fair to compare these stats (team and individual) on a 1:1 basis by invoking the holy creed of era-relativity when really it makes more sense to see which person or team was relatively advantaged or disadvantaged according to their era.

The relative advantage Jordan enjoyed in the Triangle (which I had to painstakingly explain to you in other threads was more akin to a proto-modern offense due to PJ sprinkling in plenty of high PnR and mid-post iso actions off base triangle sets) along with the roster strength skews a lot more favorably towards him than the advantage LeBron was able to enjoy in regards to coaching and roster.

The more realistic approach here is to comprehend that Jordan was playing against caveman defenses in a decidedly non-caveman offense, while LeBron faced modern defenses (multiple elite ones at that) playing in a modern offense. Meaning that Jordan more than LeBron is the one enjoying era-relative advantages here, within the broader context of a metagame relative to that era which also favored offenses!

Meanwhile not only did much of LeBron's prime occur in an era where defenses in general were one step ahead of offenses, he also didn't get to enjoy a era-relative advantage vs his own opponents by playing in an offense that's ahead of its time. Hell, the one time I can remember a LeBron team truly being one generation ahead of their opponent it was during the 2012 Finals when Scott Brooks decided to play Caveman offense with Ibaka-Perkins at the 4-5 while the Heat ran Battier-Bosh.

And what happened that series? The Heat not only beat the odds and won, they dismantled that team in a backdoor sweep, and unlike the Bulls I'm not even sure LeBron's supporting cast was more talented than KDs given the Bosh injury that postseason.

This is the type of era-relative advantage Jordan was able to enjoy for nearly the entirety of his prime (hell, probably the only other other comparable proto-modern schemes of the era were Sloan's flex offense and Adelman's corner offense which have also seen concepts survive to this day like the triangle) and I don't see any of the meaningful separation one would expect from a guy who's ostensibly similarly talented but had more era-relative advantages.

And my argument regarding the middling teams is that the Bulls relative advantages (roster and coaching) given that the Bulls were essentially a proto-modern team (particularly in the 2nd threepeat running 3 ballhandler lineups with Kukoc-Rodman closing at the 4-5) are on par with the relative roster and coaching advantages LeBron had. Because when you're playing in an era with watered down roster talent and coaching acumen, playing in a proto-modern offense alone places you at such an advantage that it makes no sense to handwave away one guys' opponents as middling when the other teams looked just as mid relative to the Bulls' construction in totality.

Okay, so I think this is a rabbit hole, where you’re just wanting to fit a talking point you like to talk about into this discussion. The basic thesis you’re stating here is that Jordan’s numbers should be discounted because you think he had a huge coaching advantage due to the triangle. It’s a topic we’ve discussed in other contexts before, so I won’t bother rehashing. I don’t think your thesis makes a whole lot of sense in this particular topic, since Jordan’s playoff “resilience” in this data set was higher pre-triangle than with the triangle (and that’s true even if we take the second-three-peat years out of the equation for the triangle). More importantly, I don’t think that actually really bears on the question of which teams we would or wouldn’t expect to underperform their regular season numbers in the playoffs. If a team had a “caveman defense” then they had that “caveman defense” in both the regular season and the playoffs, so that doesn’t tell us anything about whether they’re the type of team we’d expect to underperform their RS numbers in the playoffs. Of course, you’d argue that the “caveman defense” makes them easier to score on in general, but that assertion really doesn’t go to the question of whether they’re the type of team for which relying on their RS numbers would typically overstate their playoff quality. In essence, you are taking issue with something I said by raising a completely separate issue.

[Djoker]

A massive problem with the short-sighted "Modern era is better." argument is that newer players get the nod over Lebron just how he gets the nod over Jordan. Any comparisons apart from era-relative ones are just pointless. If more recent players are automatically better, then why even bother debating anything... The GOAT title is transient, doomed to change hands in a couple of years.

"A couple of years" is probably a little aggressive. It took like a decade and a half before Jordan got there over Kareem in a lot of the more classical arguments, and because Lebron doesn't have the same sort of near-perfect career arc or narrative, there will always be pushback against him vs. Jordan. And right at the moment, there's no one really threatening for the title of GOAT beyond the classical candidates and Lebron. It'll be some time before a new name gains any real traction, I think.

Ok you're right. I should have clarified that I meant GOAT peaks/primes. GOAT careers are a different story because it requires a certain level of consistency and luck to accumulate accolades so there won't be a new GOAT candidate every few years.