OldSchoolNoBull wrote:Heej wrote:OldSchoolNoBull wrote:
The thing is, even if what you say is accurate, you are still comparing one era to another here. That is not era-relativity. In order to know the things you're talking about - what schemes were more modern vs what weren't, etc - you'd have to know what happened in the league after player x(in this case Jordan) played.
In era-relativity, you are comparing the player only to the league he played in. That's it. I know people have strong feelings for and against that, but for those of us that support such a worldview, there are important reasons for it that go far beyond the scope of a Jordan/LeBron debate. If you don't ascribe to era-relativity, then eventually, whether it's in 20 or 50 years, there will come a time when people make Top 100 lists that don't have a single pre-merger player on them. Even now, there are plenty of people that don't think Russell belongs in the Top 10, and flat out role their eyes at 50s players like Mikan/Cousy/Schayes/Arizin/Sharman making a Top 100.
Now, having said all that, there is truth in the point that Ohayo makes, that if you're evaluating based on era-relative dominance, then Russell is #1. I can live with that.
Just to zoom into this passage - the triangle obviously was very important, and you can see that reflected in the team offenses skyrocketing once Phil took over and implemented it, but its success is not independent of Jordan. I would point out that Jordan was producing elite scoring numbers before playing in the triangle, and that that same triangle produced worse offenses in 94 and 95 when he wasn't playing. Here are the rORtgs:
85: +0.8
86: +1.4
87: +0.3
88: +1.0
89: +1.3
90: +4.2
91: +6.7
92: +7.3
93: +4.9
94: -0.2
95: +1.2
96: +7.6
97: +7.6
98: +2.7
I would argue that the triangle did more to improve the offensive performance of his teammates than it did him. He would've been an all-world offensive player anywhere.
I'm telling you that looking at the specific coaching and roster advantages Jordan had relative to his opponents and comparing that to what LeBron had is the actual way to do era-relativity correctly. Because basketball has been iterated on and more "solved" to an extent now so we can look back and using modern knowledge identif which teams were structurally advantaged or disadvantaged
But can you see that in that approach, you're still comparing one era to another? That's not era-relativity, not in the way I see most people approach it.
The very idea that basketball has been "solved" inherently sympathizes with more recent players and teams. It celebrates the game of the last of 15-20 years and compares everything else, mostly unfavorably, to it.In regards to the triangle improving his teammates more than him, sure you can say that if you only reduce basketball to isolated matchups (the common fallacy for 95% of basketball fans I find nowadays) and not on the reflexive feedback loops inherent to the nature of the game itself.
And I'm not sure it didn't help Jordan seeing as how it helped reduce his turnovers via simplifying reads and keeping defenses more honest while also allowing him more catch and shoot created jumpers that preserved his body for deeper runs and extended series'. Also his TS% in the playoffs during his first stint was slightly better overall than pre.
I'm not just looking at isolated matchups, I'm looking at several of his key teammates' scoring efficiency before and after triangle and I see, maybe not huge, but noticeable upticks. With MJ, two of his four highest RS rTSs(including #1) came pre-triangle, in 88 and 89. And contrary to what you said, his playoff TS peaked in 88 and 89 at 59.8 and 60.2%. It was very marginally lower in 90 and 91 and then fell more as the years went on.
I'm just saying, based on rel ORtg, the Bulls with the triangle and no MJ(94 and 95) look about on par with the Bulls with MJ and no triangle(84-89). Both were needed to get to the next level. I don't for a minute deny the triangle's importance in the Bulls' success, I'm just saying don't give it outsized importance relative to MJ being MJ.
Believe me, I sympathize with your position. But just because a truth can be uncomfortable doesn't make it less true. We simply know thanks to hindsight which teams were ahead of their time and enjoyed era-relative advantages due to it. I know and respect that you don't like that answer but I really don't see anything wrong with it. That's life. We know more as time goes by.
Einstein's theory of relativity was the bees knees when it came out (to everyone but the GOAT Nikola Tesla who was truly ahead of his time LOL) but now we have the benefit of hindsight to know that his equations break down at both the quantum level and universal level (hence dark matter). One could say that this take is biased to modern science but that doesn't change the fact that Tesla was more correct about things than Einstein ya know?
In regards to his playoff TS% you're right that his peaks were better by like .01% lol but his lows were lower compared to the first stint and on average marginally higher while also reducing his TOV% (granted this outside the scope of the discussion but still somewhat relevant).
And as I stated before it appears to me a lot of what was buoying Jordan's TS% pre-triangle was his rim attacking and foul drawing. If the TS% difference is marginal despite that and allows Jordan to save unnecessary wear and tear by supplying created C&S jumpers in lieu of dangerous rim forays that dry up near the end of games I'm not sure how this detracts from Jordan being schematically advantaged and structurally advantaged compared to LeBron from a roster-standpoint relative to era.
Especially when despite all that it's still LeBron coming out on top in this argument when looking at how he arguably produced better vs tougher defenses. I agree with your point that I shouldn't ascribe too much to the triangle. But that's not the Crux of my argument. My argument is based on the fact that Jordan had a host of contextual advantages (competition, defensive quality faced, era-relative roster strength, and era-relative coaching strength) and still doesn't create any meaningful separation from LeBron in the aspect of his game that is his strongest claim to claim.
