The Conundrum that is LeBron James

[Wannabe MEP]

Pretty interesting article about Spoelstra getting creative.
http://espn.go.com/nba/truehoop/miamiheat/story/_/id/7378111/nba-oregon-ducks-football-muse-erik-spoelstra-miami-heat

Sounds like they're going to go with a lot of small ball. I think that is a seriously good idea. Except, how the hell did LeBron's coaches not figure this out like half a decade ago??

Still, Miami does want to take advantage of his unique size. The Heat ran teams out of the gym when LeBron played the 4. Consider that the five most frequent Heat lineups with LeBron at power forward led to the their outscoring opponents by 39 points in about 100 minutes of action last season, which is the equivalent of winning by about 20 points in regulation. And some of those lineups included Joel Anthony at center, not Bosh.

Spoelstra inevitably came across these astounding numbers while doing his homework. Checking lineup data is something he routinely does during the season, but he decided to put his small-ball lineups under the microscope this offseason.

His takeaway? Small ball worked.

"Sometimes you think that if you're smaller, you don't rebound as well, or you might not defend as well," Spoelstra said. "But those were not true in our case."

[giberish]

This has seemed like an obvious move for a while.

LeBron + stretch 4 pairings always worked well. But LeBron is easily big enough to play PF (he's built like Karl Malone and no one ever claimed Malone at PF was small-ball) and it's a lot easier to find good stretch 3's (basically standard 3's with the 3-point range you'd expect from most wings) than stretch 4's who are good all-around players.

LeBron always preferred playing SF, so teams went with what he wanted, rather than what worked best.

The issue is whether this is just when Bosh is on the bench, or do they play Bosh at C significant minutes? I think they can go with Bosh at center against most teams, but the few with 'full sized' centers that also are low-post scorers will be bad match ups.

[Wannabe MEP]

The issue is whether this is just when Bosh is on the bench, or do they play Bosh at C significant minutes? I think they can go with Bosh at center against most teams, but the few with 'full sized' centers that also are low-post scorers will be bad match ups.

Yet another reason why this team is poorly constructed, despite the ridiculous accumulation of talent. Weaker than the sum of its parts.

LeBron + Dwight + Curry --> now that would be frickin' beautiful.

But I actually think Bosh will do all right at the 5. They just don't make centers like they used to. Name a big, strong center that has actual moves.

[Doormatt]

Andrew Bynum? his biggest problem is his inability to read double teams, and certain defenses, and that he cant (and often just plain doesnt) make the right passes. but he has shown improvement in that department.

this thread is awesome btw, too much good discussion.

[Doctor MJ]

This has seemed like an obvious move for a while.

LeBron + stretch 4 pairings always worked well. But LeBron is easily big enough to play PF (he's built like Karl Malone and no one ever claimed Malone at PF was small-ball) and it's a lot easier to find good stretch 3's (basically standard 3's with the 3-point range you'd expect from most wings) than stretch 4's who are good all-around players.

LeBron always preferred playing SF, so teams went with what he wanted, rather than what worked best.

The issue is whether this is just when Bosh is on the bench, or do they play Bosh at C significant minutes? I think they can go with Bosh at center against most teams, but the few with 'full sized' centers that also are low-post scorers will be bad match ups.

I'm not really sure what all this means though. You're talking about LeBron as if he prefers SF so he doesn't have to bang inside, but the dude's only the outlier talent that he is because he can handle the ball everywhere and drive from the outside in like a runaway semi. So what do you see him doing as a PF? I mean, if he's still doing those things, then calling him a "PF" is meaningless. If he's not doing those things, why would that be a good thing?

[Chicago76]

I don't think it's about dramtically changing the James' offensive game as much as it is a strategy to open up the floor a bit. You can play him at PF, put a shooter on the floor and open up middle. He can still start on the perimeter for the majority of his offensive plays, pulling the opposing PF out of his comfort zone. He'd have to play in the post more (maybe a third of his plays), but I like him as a high post passing presence. Most PF defenders will be at a distinct disadvantage guarding him here, as long as he is comfortable playing with his back to the basket some. He can still face up to drive or to fake, elevate, and pull up for a mid range jumper too. He will have to bang more inside, but he's not going to play the position like a traditional PF. The key will be in coordinating who can crash the offensive boards and when (among James, Wade, and the SF) to prevent transition buckets on the other end.

[pancakes3]

there's an entire profession dedicated to the management and maximization of talent. it's called coaching. if things were so easy as to just fill a bill of needs sorted out in terms of offensive spark, front court defender, etc. then by golly get yourself to your closest NBA front office and go make your millions.

no. the reason we're seeing stretch 4's on championship teams is because of the talent provided - there are more stretch 4's than not and so the probability of a stretch 4 on any given team is sky high. the reason there's such a glut of penetrating guards is because of specific and calculated rule changes. the only commonality you can see in championship teams is that they've got talent - a lot of it.

people are asking why Lebron hasn't won a ring yet? the answer is blindingly simple. Lebron's teams haven't been talented enough - even last year with the "heatles". granted wade, lebron, and to an extent bosh are superstars but let's not pretend that dallas is talentless. dirk is incredibly talented. so is terry. so are kidd, marion, chandler, and a host of other players and a lot of those talented players are a good bit better than their heat counterparts (kidd and chandler specifically).

the NBA is all about exploiting matchups and in that series, in every win, there was a matchup where a mavs player shot an insane percentage at an appreciable volume that tipped the balance of some very close games. Marion shooting 9/14, 7/12? terry shooting 8/12, 11/16? dirk going 45/46 from the FT line? in a series where 3 of the games were down to 1 possession differences, these details make all the difference.

i know this forum is supposed to be a haven of armchair GM-ing but i think sometimes in hopes of making a groundbreaking paradigm-shifting declaration, we lose sight of simple explanations. the cleveland teams were garbage. the heat last year had some large holes at pg and c. that's the end of discussion.

is lebron doomed to never win a ring because he's not an elite offensive spark, a stretch 4, a frontcourt defender, etc? laughable. laughable because he IS an elite offensive spark, and laughable that every championship team has to fit into this bastardized heirchy of needs. note the OP just declared chauncey billups an elite offensive spark on par with dwyane wade.

i was directed here from yet another "make the best nba roster" where someone tried to get supercute and argued for fit over talent. i was supposed to see the error in my judgement and concede that any team with lebron and wade just won't work. absurd.

yuck. and to think i wrote all this and i don't even LIKE lebron.

[giberish]

This has seemed like an obvious move for a while.

LeBron + stretch 4 pairings always worked well. But LeBron is easily big enough to play PF (he's built like Karl Malone and no one ever claimed Malone at PF was small-ball) and it's a lot easier to find good stretch 3's (basically standard 3's with the 3-point range you'd expect from most wings) than stretch 4's who are good all-around players.

LeBron always preferred playing SF, so teams went with what he wanted, rather than what worked best.

The issue is whether this is just when Bosh is on the bench, or do they play Bosh at C significant minutes? I think they can go with Bosh at center against most teams, but the few with 'full sized' centers that also are low-post scorers will be bad match ups.

I'm not really sure what all this means though. You're talking about LeBron as if he prefers SF so he doesn't have to bang inside, but the dude's only the outlier talent that he is because he can handle the ball everywhere and drive from the outside in like a runaway semi. So what do you see him doing as a PF? I mean, if he's still doing those things, then calling him a "PF" is meaningless. If he's not doing those things, why would that be a good thing?

Mostly it's about defensive matchups. A stretch-4 is going to have a similar offensive role as an off-the-ball 3-point threat SF. They're going to take a defender away from the lane making it easier for LeBron to get to the rim. The difference is on defense where LeBron would be guarding PF's rather than SF's generally resulting in more physical play near the basket.

[Wannabe MEP]

pancake, I highly recommend reading more than the first post of a thread if you don't want to make yourself look like a complete idiot.

is lebron doomed to never win a ring

For the umpteenth time, NOBODY SAID THIS. Of course he's not "doomed to never win a ring." Read the damn thread.

note the OP just declared chauncey billups an elite offensive spark on par with dwyane wade.

Chauncey was the main offensive spark on a freakishly good defensive team that won a title. In multi-year APM studies, Chauncey consistently lands among the best NBA players in offensive impact. Wade consistently lands higher.

Wow, that was f*cking deep.

i was directed here from yet another "make the best nba roster" where someone tried to get supercute and argued for fit over talent.

Gee, guess what? I wasn't in that conversation. So take your childish rant elsewhere.

Shocker of shockers: Fit AND talent both matter. You seem to think talent is all that matters: You're absolutely wrong. No one on the planet thought Dallas was more talented than Miami. Or that the '04 Pistons were more talented than the Lakers. Fit matters. But if you think that someone was sitting around here suggesting that talent doesn't matter... You honestly sound like an 8th grader.

no. the reason we're seeing stretch 4's on championship teams is because of the talent provided - there are more stretch 4's than not and so the probability of a stretch 4 on any given team is sky high.

That's absolutely ridiculous. More and more teams are playing stretch-bigs because they are realizing that their offenses are better with stretch-bigs on the court. Analysts, GMs, and your beloved coaches are all saying this. They're teaching big-uglies to knock down shots from farther out, and they're drafting bigs who can stroke. It's absolutely stunning how many of the top offensive units have a stretch big on the court (or are playing small-ball): http://basketballvalue.com/topunits.php ... =2010-2011

This is complicated, because a lot of the better offensive stretch-bigs are trash on defense, and a good defensive frontcourt is absolute law.

[Wannabe MEP]

So what do you see him doing as a PF? I mean, if he's still doing those things, then calling him a "PF" is meaningless. If he's not doing those things, why would that be a good thing?

It's quite meaningful, actually.

Suppose you're 2011 Dallas. You want Marion, Dirk, and Chandler on the court. If LeBron is playing "SF" than he's playing next to a "PF" and a "C." Dirk and Chandler cover those the PF and C, and Marion covers LeBron. Dallas is pretty comfortable with that, and Miami's offensive efficiency plummets.

Now, move LeBron to "PF." He's still playing the same game, but he's standing next to a "SF" who is quicker and a better shooter than the "PF" he used to be standing next to. Now Dirk and Chandler have a problem: one of them is going to be at a severe quickness disadvantage no matter who they cover, and their length is going to get pulled out of the paint. They're going to have a lot of trouble helping, because they'll have to be so quick to get back out to cover the perimeter.

[pancakes3]

i've read the entire thread. i read an OP of outlandish claims and then many subsequent posts backpeddling and trying to explain itself. sure you never explicitly said that lebron would never win a championship but you compared his odds to that of deshawn stevenson winning a ring. can you blame those around you for jumping to the "never win a ring" conclusion?

furthermore talent absolutely trumps fit 7 days out of the NBA week. as far as my feeble reading comprehension skills could tell, your point is that lebron is good but not elite and that the league champions all have had a checklist of roles and elite role players executing those roles. then you start taking square pegs and fitting them into post-hoc-ergo-hoc holes: arguments like citing tony allen as the elite perimeter defensive cog of the '08 celtics (4.8 mp in the playoffs), or that odom/bynum were the elite defensive frontcourt players of '09-'10, or that a combination of the spurs '03, '05, and '07 champion squads can be cherrypicked for parts - who was the stretch big in '07? still horry who put up all of 4 pts in 20 minutes?

i'm really peeved when people start making half-baked assertions regarding teams and success. greater basketball minds than anyone on this board are hard at work implementing strategies for winning and losing. if it was as easy as filling a grocery list of role players then wouldn't teams other than the lakers, celtics, heat, and spurs be winning these championships? any idiot can figure out fit. it doesn't take a brilliant basketball mind to see that lebron and wade are both extremely ball-dominant. the point is that it doesn't matter because those two are insanely GOOD. Allen and Pierce fit together much better than Lebron and Wade but you'd be hard pressed to find many people agreeing with you that the celtics swingmen are better than the heat.

talent wins games. it doesn't make me sound like an 8th grader. it's just demoralizing to realize for statheads because it's something completely out of their control. it's possibly equally demoralizing that this fact is recognizable by an 8th grader. i applaud the efforts of morey and presti and how they're trying to moneyball the situation but the cold hard truth of it is that talent is all that matters and as long as a team has assembled enough talent - they're practically guaranteed a ring.

[Wannabe MEP]

Child, you are completely incapable of subtlety. Did you realize the thread title was, "The Conundrum that is LeBron James," as opposed to, "LEBRON JAMES WILL NEVER WIN A TITLE!!!" I easily could have done that, you know, if that was the conversation I was going for. Shocker of shockers: it wasn't. I know this is really difficult for you: I was trying to start a conversation about something a bit more subtle, a bit more complex. I'm terribly sorry that this thread made your brain hurt.

sure you never explicitly said that lebron would never win a championship but you compared his odds to that of deshawn stevenson winning a ring. can you blame those around you for jumping to the "never win a ring" conclusion?

You're right: I really shouldn't blame the belligerently dense children of the world for being belligerently dense. Again, sorry that this was beyond an 8th grader's power of comprehension.

(ps. I never compared his championship odds to Stevenson's; my statement was much more subtle than that. Go back and look at it. But if I had...Stevenson has already won a f*cking championship. So either way, you're belligerently dense.)

arguments like citing tony allen as the elite perimeter defensive cog of the '08 celtics (4.8 mp in the playoffs), or that odom/bynum were the elite defensive frontcourt players of '09-'10, or that a combination of the spurs '03, '05, and '07 champion squads can be cherrypicked for parts - who was the stretch big in '07? still horry who put up all of 4 pts in 20 minutes?

This was all in small print in the original post because it's not the core of the discussion: it was meant to provide a simple breakdown of lineups so we could think about elite teams from a different angle. I think it's interesting to think about the different pieces that come together for great teams; I assumed that some people on the statistical analysis board would agree that this would be interesting and then engage. Again, I'm sorry that this was too complex for you, but I really wasn't writing this thread with 8th graders in mind. It's perfectly valid to disagree about the specifics, and we could have a very interesting conversation about stretch-bigs, for example. You could have said something like, "Gee, I think that's an interesting breakdown. I think you're overrating the importance of stretch-bigs, though, and here's why..."

Since this is hardly the heart of the discussion, it's hardly worth addressing, but here goes:
1) You're absolutely right about Tony Allen; I thought he played more than that. My mistake. Go pat yourself on the back. Changes absolutely nothing else in this thread. Take his name out, and we all agree that the Celtics still won the championship, that they had a great defense, and that they had great defensive players to make that great defense happen (KG and the frontcourt first, but also on the perimeter). WTF are we arguing about here??
2) 2010 Odom + Bynum + Gasol is an incredibly solid defensive frontcourt rotation. Depending on matchups, Odom + Bynum was often their best defensive frontcourt, and probably one of the 3-4 best defensive frontcourts in the league. But I would say frontcourt depth was their greatest strength. I'm really not sure what you're questioning...
3) '07 Spurs: Horry was the four on their 2nd most-used unit and Finley was the four on their 5th most-used unit in the playoffs, and both players scored the majority of their points at the 3-point line. The idea is that a stretch-big opens up the paint for others to operate, so they don't necessarily score a ton: they space the floor to enable guys like Timmy, Parker, and Manu to attack the rim. The Spurs key unit for beating the Suns was with Finley at the four, and the key unit for beating the Cavs was with Horry at the four. Also, Timmy's efficient mid-range game helps with spacing when neither Horry or Finley are in at the four.

greater basketball minds than anyone on this board are hard at work implementing strategies for winning and losing. [...] any idiot can figure out fit.

Do you realize how stupid you sound? "Greater basketball minds" are figuring this sh*t out, while "any idiot" can figure this sh*t out. Just. Stop. Leave while you're behind.

If you're not interested in discussing this stuff, then what the hell are you doing on here?? Leave it to the greater basketball minds than you. Ya know, like my sister who hates basketball.

Let me ask you: who do you think had more "talent" in the 2011 playoffs--Heat or Mavericks?

[pancakes3]

for the sake of clarity, i'll bullet point.

- your original assertion was that championship teams have a laundry list of requirements and that lebron does not fit any of those requirements. small font or not, it was the essence of your original contention.

- that logic is revisionist - which is what i had called "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

-

I absolutely think he's [James] capable of winning a championship. (But sh*t, so is DeShawn Stevenson, so take that for what it's worth.)

- i think it's fascinating to see how pieces come together but not when you so rigidly define it into 5 easy pieces like that.

- coaches take the pieces they have and coach. they take pieces that ostensibly shouldn't fit and try their hardest to make it work. should memphis abandon all hopes of playoff advancement since it's plainly obvious that zach randolph is not a stretch-anything? which championship role did Reilly pencil in Antoine Walker as when he was looking over that '06 roster? for that matter, what role is Stevenson? i hope you're not suggesting he's an "elite defensive perimeter player".

i'm interested in discussing basketball, i really am. i just don't like it when some people can't handle a bit of criticism and blow up. i really don't like it when people make sweeping generalizations about a sport. you're chiding me for being belligerent, dense, and immature. you say that i don't understand nuance and degrees of variance and yet you're standing adamantly by your original statements of how lebron being a jack of all trades and master of none is detrimental to his chances of winning a championship - that he would somehow be a better player for a contender if he was one of your aforementioned "pieces of a championship team". well that's silly.

for the record, i would have said that the mavs had more talent than the heat last season. i also would have said that a healthy lakers squad and a healthy celtics squad are both more talented. i also would have argued that if developed properly the thunder and the bulls are equally as talented, or close to it. this season since the celtics are older and the lakers lost odom AND with the heat upgraded with norris cole and battier that the heat are now the most talented squad in the league.

finally, i really don't understand the part where you called me a belligerently dense 8th grader. how can you not see that your post is being interpreted as: Lebron with his playing style probably will not win a championship? that's how it reads to me, and yet when you call me childish, angry, and stupid for construing it as such, it makes me think that it's not what you meant to say. to me that seems like backpeddling but again, my feeble mind just can't grasp at the nut of what your point is. this is ironic because you're asking me the same.

i'm arguing that you're wrong. you're wrong that lebron being a jack of all trades hurts his chances at winning a championship. i'm saying you don't need those 5 key pieces to win a championship. you need talent. flat out. lebron is talent and thus you can win a championship with lebron. that's what i, and i'm assuming most everyone else who's disagreeing with you, is "arguing about". ::shrug::

[Wannabe MEP]

Let's get back to the core argument.

- your original assertion was that championship teams have a laundry list of requirements and that lebron does not fit any of those requirements.

Actually, part of my original argument was the exact opposite: that LeBron fits all of those requirements. He is so incredibly valuable to his teams (according to numerous stats, as well as the obvious success of the Cavs, for example) because of his amazing versatility. However, my ultimate assertion is that those stats in fact overrate him in the end because a well-built team can give you everything he gives you in multiple players. I'm suggesting that he gets statistical credit for unnecessary production; that he is extremely helpful for poorer teams, but on better teams, you may end up with diminishing returns on what he brings because of fit. He is a great player to build a team around, but if I was building a team around him, I wouldn't take the BPA for each of the other positions: I would take uniquely complementary players that many would consider lesser talents.

Let me see if I can explain this from a different angle. Let's pretend we're trying to construct a dream unit: the best five-man unit possible. Most people would simply select whoever they perceive to be the "best player" at each position. I wouldn't. I believe fit matters. Because I don't believe LeBron is particularly good off-ball, and because I believe there are better facilitators than him, LeBron would not be on my dream unit. I would first make sure to get the best facilitator possible, and that would either be a true PG or a quick "shooting guard" who functions like a point guard like Wade. At small forward I can find a player who is a better combination of defense and off-ball scoring than LeBron, and that way I keep the ball primarily in the hands of my elite facilitator.

I believe this is true in a situation where I have no limits on the players I can select, but I believe it's more true for teams with finite resources. If I already have an elite ball-dominant player like Wade, I don't want LeBron next to him because he's so expensive for what he brings. Another option at small forward who is great at defense and off-ball scoring is actually a slight upgrade at a much cheaper price. If I'm going to pour money into players who complement Wade, I'm looking at frontcourt defense and shooting: secondary facilitators are way down the list. (It works the other way as well: if I already have LeBron, Wade is not my first choice at shooting guard.)

[Chicago76]

It is true that that greater basketball minds are working on issues such as this one, but that doesn't necessarily undermine the type of analysis done here on issues like this for a couple of reasons. First, those superior basketball minds are hardly infallible. They make mistakes. They compete against other basketball minds for talent. Sometimes they come out ahead. Sometimes they don't. Most importantly, those greater basketball minds are subject to competing interests when running a team, compiling talent on a roster, and getting the roster to work as a cohesive team. The GM/FO can even have interests that run counter to the immediate or long term success of the franchise. In this case:

-ownership worries about the bottom line. LBJ is costing the team $20 million per year, but he's also bringing in roughly $30 million (net of revenue sharing) in the form of advertising, increased ticket sales at higher prices, concessions due to higher attendance, etc. Regardless of fit, signing James was a good financial deal for the franchise. Drastic moves like this also give owernship credibility with the fans, so even if this doesn't work out and the Heat fall short of a title and stumble into mediocrity 5 years from now, those fans will hold fast to the belief that ownership is willing to roll the dice based upon history. At any point in time, the Heat may be one big personnel change away from being back in business. Fans won't fall off the bandwagon as quickly.

-coaching staff. They're the ones on the hook for "fit" here, and the fact that the team is being coached by a young, relatively unproven coach should tell you all you need to know. This isn't an accident. A more veteran coach with a bigger resume would hesitate in walking into a situation like this, because there it's a lose-lose proposition. Win and it's what you were supposed to do. Lose and you're out and a dominant FO type in Riley steps in.

-players, both those you are attempting to retain and those you are trying to attract. Wade was an unhappy camper prior to re-signing. Would he have been excited about Bosh + a better "fit" guy at SF? Enough to re-sign anwyway? Would Bosh have been enticed enough to join up? Keep in mind that a lot of these guys are close friends too, so that weighs into player decisions...especially for a guy with a lot of options on the table like Wade. I think players tend to underestimate "fit" issues as well because they tend to overestimate their own (and their teammates' ) abilities to alter how they play. One piece of evidence on this: USA basketball and players' bold predictions. We saw how that worked out prior to 2008. Even in 2008, they were beating Spain by a whopping 4 pts with a bit over 3 minutes left. Just something to think about. Fit is an issue. Players' time horizons also may not coincide with what is good for the franchise, balancing short term and long term interests. 5 years from now, Wade will be 34 years old with 40,000 minutes of pro basketball on his legs. Is Wade concerned about the Heat 5 years from now, or is he concerned with what he can achieve in the first 3 years of the "big 3" before his game really trails off?

-FO/GM: Riley is a dominant personality. He is also 66 years old. His age will temper what he does for the franchise. He wants to win now, even if that means sacrificing the long term future of the team. He can pass the buck to the coaching staff for problems of getting these guys to play together. If things go south midway through this season, Riley will be coaching. And again, if Riley needed to pitch these guys collectively on the idea of the Big 3 to retain Wade in the first place, it was a no brainer from his standpoint. If he's stuck in rebuilding mode with no Wade or James, he would likely walk away. Rolling the dice on this isn't a big gamble for him.

This FA cycle was good for ownership, the fans, and Riley. The players are also excited about it. About the only group who is gettin the shaft is the coaching staff, but again, these guys don't have a lot of options. They're also the ones that need to figure out how to reduce roster redundancies. This thing still may work out great. Or it may blow up. Regardless, there were probably better roster moves that could have been made for LBJs $20 million of salary (assuming Bosh and Wade are there), but these interests have a way of creeping into the equation as well.

[litex]

Op badly underrates Lebron as a scorer. Plenty of teams have won championships without "elite offensive sparks" who could score as well as Lebron. By what arbitrary metric are "Dirk, Ginobili, Wade, Kobe" somehow better scorers than Lebron--of those, only Kobe's peak years approach what Lebron is capable of at his best. This year, kevin Durant is playing incredible ball, and everyone agrees he's a great scorer, and yet Lebron is outscoring him on higher efficiency.

[SideshowBob]

Op badly underrates Lebron as a scorer. Plenty of teams have won championships without "elite offensive sparks" who could score as well as Lebron. By what arbitrary metric are "Dirk, Ginobili, Wade, Kobe" somehow better scorers than Lebron--of those, only Kobe's peak years approach what Lebron is capable of at his best. This year, kevin Durant is playing incredible ball, and everyone agrees he's a great scorer, and yet Lebron is outscoring him on higher efficiency.

Yeah, this was my biggest issue with the OP. I'd argue that Lebron is the best "elite offensive spark" in the league, and has been since around 08, mostly off the strength of his efficient volume scoring

[MrSashimiLover]

Let's get back to the core argument.

- your original assertion was that championship teams have a laundry list of requirements and that lebron does not fit any of those requirements.

Actually, part of my original argument was the exact opposite: that LeBron fits all of those requirements. He is so incredibly valuable to his teams (according to numerous stats, as well as the obvious success of the Cavs, for example) because of his amazing versatility. However, my ultimate assertion is that those stats in fact overrate him in the end because a well-built team can give you everything he gives you in multiple players. I'm suggesting that he gets statistical credit for unnecessary production; that he is extremely helpful for poorer teams, but on better teams, you may end up with diminishing returns on what he brings because of fit. He is a great player to build a team around, but if I was building a team around him, I wouldn't take the BPA for each of the other positions: I would take uniquely complementary players that many would consider lesser talents.

Let me see if I can explain this from a different angle. Let's pretend we're trying to construct a dream unit: the best five-man unit possible. Most people would simply select whoever they perceive to be the "best player" at each position. I wouldn't. I believe fit matters. Because I don't believe LeBron is particularly good off-ball, and because I believe there are better facilitators than him, LeBron would not be on my dream unit. I would first make sure to get the best facilitator possible, and that would either be a true PG or a quick "shooting guard" who functions like a point guard like Wade. At small forward I can find a player who is a better combination of defense and off-ball scoring than LeBron, and that way I keep the ball primarily in the hands of my elite facilitator.

I believe this is true in a situation where I have no limits on the players I can select, but I believe it's more true for teams with finite resources. If I already have an elite ball-dominant player like Wade, I don't want LeBron next to him because he's so expensive for what he brings. Another option at small forward who is great at defense and off-ball scoring is actually a slight upgrade at a much cheaper price. If I'm going to pour money into players who complement Wade, I'm looking at frontcourt defense and shooting: secondary facilitators are way down the list. (It works the other way as well: if I already have LeBron, Wade is not my first choice at shooting guard.)

I agree with most of what you've said. Los Soles. I would argue that is entirely possible to build a Champion contender with sufficient talents and great team chemistry without a top 3-5 players in the league. Just look at how it has been for the last 5 years.

Dwight Howard - o ring (the most dominant big in the league since Shaq has passed his peak)
Lebron James - o ring
Dwade Wade - o ring
Chris Paul - o ring
Kobe Bryant - 2 rings (team up with two bigs that have been seldom considered top 10 players in the league on a consistent basis after having passing his own peak around 2006)

Spurs won in 2007. Celtics won in 2008. Lakers won in 2009 and 2010 with two borderline all-stars (Pau and and an injury-prone Bynum) while Kobe was already on a decline. Mavericks won last season with an aging lineup and Dirk nearing his mid-30s. Enough said. You don't to have to have a DOMINANT PLAYER at HIS PEAK as your core piece to have a shot at the ring even though it is of course more desirable if a team is fortunate to have that. Great team chemistry with sufficient talents MATTER MORE.

But I think pancakes3 is also right that Mavericks weren't that underdog talent-wise in last year's final. I actually thought it could go either way before the final series began after being stunned by how insanely deadly the Mavericks' offense was in the previous three rounds. Wade and Lebron were the top 3 players and Bosh was a top 10 player, but Dirk (quite streaky throughout the years but turns out to be ridiculously consistent in the 2011 playoffs), Terry, Marion, Chandler, Kidd were way more talented players than the rest of Heat. More importantly, their strengths mesh significantly better and did not overlap/cancel each other out...

[MrSashimiLover]

To put it in another way. Based on the same logic I just said, hypothetically speaking I would rather have

a healthy Andrew Bynum + Lebron James + a healthy Stephen Curry > the Heat's current big three

or

a healthy Andrew Bynum + Dirk Nowitzki (2009-2011)+ D Wade > the Heat's current big three

or, if you happen to keep BOTH Lebron and Wade

Andrew Bargnani + Lebron James + Dwayne Wade > the Heat's current big three

[Wannabe MEP]

Let me reiterate: I believe LeBron James can win a title with the right pieces surrounding him. I think he can win a title as The Man on a very good team, where he gets the ball all the time, where he does by far the most scoring, and where he's the go-to guy in crunch time. But I believe that this will be more complicated and/or difficult than people realize, not because of the quality of LeBron as a player, but BECAUSE OF FIT; BECAUSE OF PLAYER ROLES ON A TEAM. It's not as simple as surrounding LeBron with the best PG, SG, PF, and C that a team can find.

Op badly underrates Lebron as a scorer.

Yeah, this was my biggest issue with the OP. I'd argue that Lebron is the best "elite offensive spark" in the league, and has been since around 08, mostly off the strength of his efficient volume scoring

If you compare different variations of offensive APM/RAPM ratings, LeBron rates high, but it's pretty hard to argue that he's the best from those numbers. He's one of the elite.

But it's important to recognize that his teams in Cleveland were entirely structured to enable him to do his thing. When he sat down, of course the offense collapsed: it wasn't built to play without him. That certainly affects his plus-minus. While that's at least somewhat true for lots of elite players, stay tuned:

LeBron's simple on-court offensive rating (points per 100 possessions while he was on the court):

115.06 (2008-2009)
115.53 (2009-2010)
112.72 (2010-2011)

I think that's absolutely stunning. Replace the ragtag crew in Cleveland with arguably the best shooting guard in the NBA and one of the best offensive bigs, and the offense gets worse??? Also, look at the same thing for the playoffs:

114.77 (2009 playoffs)
109.83 (2010 playoffs)
107.03 (2011 playoffs)

So 1) LeBron's units always get worse in the playoffs, and 2) The 2011 offense was the worst playoff offense he's been a part of for the last 3 years. While theoretically defenses get tougher during the playoffs, plenty of offenses actually improve in the postseason, because chemistry, timing, etc. have all been improving all year, and because the best units get more minutes. The Heat's offense dropped significantly.

I believe the Heat, and especially LeBron, prey on poor teams. I don't have the numbers (Synergy?) for this, but LeBron gets a huge chunk of his offense in transition. He also beats up on slow/weak/lazy defenders with sheer athleticism. The half-court against a focused, elite defense, however, is a different story. If a team can shut down transition and keep a Marion-type defender on him and a Chandler-type 5 in the paint, LeBron can't get to the rim anywhere near as effectively, and that is really what makes him special. Yeah, he can knock down some shots from further out, but that's not where's he's comfortable. It's basically just a counter-move to set up more rim attacks. If you can find a way to limit his ability his ability to get to the rim, he is no longer able to do the things that make him the best player in basketball. This is the reason behind his famed "disappearing act" in 4th quarters and tight playoff games.

Comparing LeBron and Durant over the past two years:
LeBron: 28.2 PPG; 59.9 TS%
Durant: 28.9 PPG; 59.8 TS%

Almost exactly the same.

But it's absolutely essential to realize this: Durant scored 20.4 of his 28.9 from 10 ft and beyond including free throws, while LeBron scored 17.1 from 10 ft and beyond. That difference is very, very significant, especially because Durant shoots at a better percentage from outside. This is adjusted for defenses: because Durant is such a good shooter, teams stay tight on him but slack off LeBron, and Durant still scores more often at higher efficiencies from outside than LeBron.

OK, so they score almost exactly the same amount with almost exactly the same efficiency, so what's the big deal? DURANT'S SUPERIOR SHOOTING OPENS UP THE PAINT FOR OTHER PLAYERS TO SCORE MORE EFFECTIVELY INSIDE.

If I'm guarding LeBron, and he's chillin' on the perimeter while Wade and Bosh work a pick-and-roll, then I'm standing 10-15 feet away from him to take paint space away from Wade and Bosh. I know that if Wade kicks to LeBron, the ball is likely to stick; he doesn't have a quick-release 3 that scares me, so I know that I can close down under control and the percentages are on my side. I can't give Durant anywhere near that much space.

Do you see why this matters?