Owly wrote:rand wrote:Owly wrote:So as I read it you're saying 20-6=14, 14 years leaving "almost [no]" longevity advantage. But I'd argue that (a) Jordan only plays 11 meaningful, healthy seasons and (b) that leaves a not insignificant longevity edge.
As above one may play more aggressively with the counterfactual element and tilt for MJ-Shaq by imagining Jordan doesn't retire in his prime ... but then one could just as well imagine Shaq's significant time missed with injuries falls more unfortunately (i.e. playoffs).
I'm not arguing for one duo or the other but just in terms of quality years - on the surface - there still seems to be a clear advantage.
You have read it correctly but I calculate the number of meaningful seasons from Jordan as 13 rather than 11, which would be every season from 1985-1998 minus 1994. I include his rookie season, his injury shortened 2nd season, and his comeback season. I'm guessing we disagree on the latter two so I'll explain my analysis.
1986: Jordan only played 18 regular season games because of his broken foot but he was healthy for the playoffs so it qualifies as a meaningful season if a team led by 1994 Shaq can get into the playoffs with only 18 games from Jordan. Since Shaq led a weak roster to the playoffs in his real 2nd year, I think the odds are pretty good. In the playoffs 1986 MJ with 1994 Shaq would be a feared matchup for anyone.
1995: Jordan was clearly at his weakest Bulls condition in the 95 regular season while he was trying to work himself up, but in the playoffs he still brought high All-NBA level impact with his +8.0 BPM. Like with Jordan's 2nd season the key here is whether a team led by 2003 Shaq could make the playoffs with only 17 games from a severely weakened MJ. It would be close and would really depend on the quality of the roleplayers around Shaq but it's definitely doable. Once in the playoffs, 2003 Shaq and 1995 MJ are certainly a threat.
1986 and 1995 Jordan certainly bring reduced value (1995 more so than 1986) because of how much regular season production is missing but if they can get into the playoffs then 1986 Jordan brings full value when it really matters and 1995 Jordan still brings comparatively high value when it really matters. Jordan's value in these years will be conditional but still potentially very high.
With Kobe's seasons it's actually valid to use a binary approach because the gap in playoff value between those seasons and his prime seasons is gigantic. 1997 and 1998 Kobe offer the playoff value of a marginal bench player, 1999 is better than that but double-edged with much higher volume production (19.8 PPG and 4.6 APG) coming at a terrible efficiency cost (.502 TS% and 3.9 TOs). 2014-2015 Kobe is actually a substantial net negative player and if LeBron's team is forced to play him then these Kobe seasons actually lower LeBron/Kobe's overall value. Also worth noting that these five Kobe seasons pair with weaker LeBron seasons 2004-2006 and 2021-2022. Kobe's 20th season has no LeBron pairing right yet but regardless of how much of his 2022 form LeBron keeps in 2023 his team won't be a contender with no other star and 2016 Kobe playing a big role.
MJ/Shaq become defunct as a pairing after season 14 when both players really fall off a cliff. One of those 14 seasons is probably lost due to 1994 MJ being entirely out; a team with just 2002 Shaq will make the playoffs and in the right conference season could even make a Finals (like 1999-2003 East) but should lose to any championship caliber Finals opponent.
So as I see it, LeBron/Kobe bring playoff contender value in seasons 4-17, which is 14 seasons total. MJ/Shaq bring playoff contender value in seasons 1-14 except season 10, which totals 13 seasons. LeBron/Kobe gets one more meaningful playoff season over MJ/Shaq, with reservations about the challenges MJ/Shaq will have making the playoffs in seasons 2 and 11. Does one more season as a contender overcome what IMO is a substantial gap in the strength of the pairings as contenders?
As I said mileage can differ depending on how one thinks of it.
Jordan's 18 games is at just 451 minutes (25mpg). And that's with at a level with (a) Jordan chafing at minutes limitations, (b) Jordan seemingly going beyond management minutes limitations, to the extent it gets the coach fired and (c) iirc Jordan retrospectively misremembering/lying about minutes limitations ... all of which is to say low minutes, perception of some injury risk, some not insignificant internal long term cost in terms of relationships damaged (which might be or pay off more significant[ly] in an era where player maximums exist, renegotiation is harder).
fwiw, I wouldn't call Orlando a "weak" otoh, though I suppose it depends very much on what you mean, what the bar is. For a typical team minus their best player I wouldn't think it as that weak. Turner the only unproductive core rotation member, and whilst there is weakness all the way down the 4 rotation (Krystkowiak, Avent), Turner at least fits as a spacer, box-out guy and apparently screen setter (which might explain how a player said to be "low mistake" got so many turnovers). Beyond that core they're weaker. But insofar as the point is that Shaq is likely the main driving force bringing them safely into the playoffs, I'd concur.
I think there's risks whatever you do with Jordan; if you're allocating resources efficiently your backup 2 (and 3rd string wing) will be a lower pay, lower priority player and you are likely looking at a slog through a lower seed route. And if we're guaranteeing Jordan's later years that's one thing but honestly (obviously no medical expertise here) if you can manage it (with Jordan) risk mitigation on his long term value (by sacrificing a more aggressive optimistic swing at the title here) seems like the higher percentage play. Then too if this "feared matchup" (a fair description) does go deeper, Jordan plays more minutes there the risks open up further.
Having Shaq is good insurance to get you to the playoff sure. But both irl and in terms of managing the hypothetical franchise I'm not sure this year is good for longevity. So approaches can differ, mileage can differ, Bryant's longevity of very high quality can be overstated by raw longevity ... I understand "available for the playoffs so ..." as an argument. I'm inclined to disagree with "full value" as a guarantee. Fwiw, I wouldn't be inclined to lock in stuff like single playoff TS% (a highly variable stat, taken versus specific contexts, in a small sample) across to a new hypothetical team. Nor would I assume a team with a good version of LeBron lets late career Bryant play the a manner that allowed him a negative on-off each year and to amass -276.6 TS add etc.
Fwiw, one could wonder about the psychodrama cost of lending Shaq the keys as "the guy" on the team though if one were to get too deep into that the other side wouldn't necessarily be all sunshine either (and will be based on foggy interpretations and outside most's area of expertise).
These are very good points that I agree with. When quoting Kobe's 1999 box stats I wasn't trying to imply we could import those stats to another hypothetical lineup alongside LeBron, just as supporting evidence of how 1999 Kobe was not yet the caliber of player who can form a championship duo. I think that's not a controversial take.
As for late career Kobe, I agree that playing alongside LeBron would raise his offensive effectiveness both because LeBron is a great facilitator and Kobe's usage would be massively curtailed from what it historically was in 2015 + 2016. But I think the point remains that in his post-Achilles condition Kobe is at best a non-factor. Instead of "LeBron/Kobe" at this point it's just "LeBron".
