#2 Highest Peak of All Time (Shaq '00 wins)

MisterWestside · Post #121 » by **MisterWestside** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:58 pm

It's not a straight-up comparison between Bird (a player drafted to one team and was the main cog that the Celtics built around his whole career) to LeBron (started as the main cog, then "took his talents" to a brand new team where HE had to "fit" in). With Bird, you get a better shooter - but LeBron is a better playmaker and defender imo, and the Heat offense heavily depends on both. LeBron is also better in transition, and with Bird you wouldn't get as many easy baskets off of turnovers.

Post #122 » by **rrravenred** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:40 pm

Nice posts, and sorry I haven't been more active.

One reason is that the seasons we're looking at are generally without reproach, dominant at both ends, resulted in a championshp, etc. So we're really arguing fine details in order to split them. I mean, if the Doc had arbitrarily named Wilt '67 / Shaq '00 and Jordan '91 as the interchangeable 1a, 1b and 1c, no one would really be fazed (except maybe for the fiercer partisans). It's after that that it'll be interesting.

A few thoughts:

* Shaq's never had the lateral speed to be a GOAT defensive prime for mine, although his athleticism and length made him a pretty fierce rim defender, with 2000 being the apex of that. Having said that, it wasn't a banner year for individual defenders, with Eddie Jones coming in third.

* Shaq's offensive excellence can partially be ascribed to the emergence of Bryant and the full-season arrival of Rice. This isn't a ding, however, just noting that the environment in which Shaq operated had improved to an optimum level.

* The Wilt talk seems to have died down a bit since the initial thread, which is interesting. '67 Wilt is focused Wilt, it was offensive nexus Wilt (without the stat-chasing which would mar '68), it was defensive hub Wilt, it was deadly efficient Wilt. It was Wilt in balance, which has novelty value if nothing else

* Lebron's portability (and portability in general) is an interesting idea in this sort of thread, but I think it's of limited analytical value. We're looking at production as it was, not as it might have hypothetically been elsewhere. YES, you need to screen out the team-based factors that may either flatter or depress a player's production (as I said in the Shaq point above), but taking a player out of the team in the year that we're looking at is more of a parlour game.

* The next seven or eight players fall into two distinct camps, in that they're either elite on one side or "just" dominant on both (the former of which is really where the fun begins, for me). You've got Magic, Bird and Russell as your one-sided dominators with Hakeem, Dr J (76, of course) and Kareem as the two-sided players. I'm going to be really interested to see who weighs which side of the ball, although there are of course some early hints...

ardee · Post #123 » by **ardee** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:17 pm

MisterWestside wrote:It's not a straight-up comparison between Bird (a player drafted to one team and was the main cog that the Celtics built around his whole career) to LeBron (started as the main cog, then "took his talents" to a brand new team where HE had to "fit" in). With Bird, you get a better shooter - but LeBron is a better playmaker and defender imo, and the Heat offense heavily depends on both. LeBron is also better in transition, and with Bird you wouldn't get as many easy baskets off of turnovers.

I don't think you could definitively say James is a better playmaker. His assist numbers are higher during his peak, but when you watch the games, a lot of his contributions in the playmaking department were drive and kick out of the paint. Now again, that was obviously very effective, but Bird could just hurt you in more ways. He was one of the best at hitting cutters, his pin-point entry passes took McHale to another level, and he was generally a better half-court playmaker.

drza · Post #124 » by **drza** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:33 pm

ardee wrote:
drza wrote:
ardee wrote:I think Walton and Garnett in particular have gotten massively overrated (I agree Garnett is a top 15 player of all time but the level people take it to is strange), mainly because a lot of people love Russell here and these two are in his mold.

Of course, the logical counter is that in general Walton and Garnett tend to be massively underrated, because (like Russell) their strengths come in areas besides scoring and scoring is massively overrated. Shrugs. Seems like that's the purpose of a project like this, to put your arguments on the table in a medium where a lot of people will be reading for potentially years to come. Spending a lot of time on opinion statements like "overrated" or "don't have an argument" seems not to add much to it. Everyone here has opinions on who should be where...instead of making definitive statements based on your opinion, we'd all be better served if you put your reasoning behind your opinion on the board instead.

People underrate Walton and Garnett? I'd say Russell, Garnett and then Walton/David Lee ( ) are the PC board's favorite players in that order.

Well, my argument that these two should not be in the top 8-9 discussion is not to do with them, but rather to do with the others above them.

Lol at the David Lee shout-out from the other thread. But I think you're looking at "underrating" in a different way. The default in basketball analysis everywhere (not just on the PC board) tends to be that scoring is king. Russell gets more attention than most "non-scorers" because his rings buy his way in the door, but even he doesn't get the kind of universal acclaim that he would have gotten if he had all of the same career accomplishments but made his impact more like Wilt with the video game offensive numbers (e.g. had such an event occurred, there's no way that Jordan would be so universally considered the GOAT).

The reason that the these players get so much run on the PC board is that this board tends to be filled with basketball junkies/nerds of an order that you don't see most places. Which means that there is a willigness/eagerness by most to really look at the complete story, and not just default to the ESPN-level/barbershop-style analysis that is more the default everywhere else.

And in addition, even with the PC board being more willing to examine the whole picture, those players still are not universally rated on here at the level that they actually played. That's the other reason why they're discussed so much on here...so many threads pop up where they aren't given their due that the same evidence/arguments have to presented and re-presented and re-presented on a weekly basis because their value isn't common knowledge. Because they are underrated. Which completes the great circle of life 8-)

ardee wrote:I don't know what you mean by 'scoring is massively overrated'. The best offensive players of all time (except for Nash probably) were all very efficient volume scorers during their best years. Someone like a Shaq or a Jordan, who helps his team's offense by drawing defenders and then getting his team-mates easier shots.

However, if he wasn't a good scorer, he wouldn't be drawing that defensive attention, simple as that.

Scoring is the whole point of playing basketball, and it tends to get taken for granted. It's not a coincidence that Magic reached his zenith and the Lakers offense exploded when he became a capable volume scorer.

As ElGee mentioned, Bird's 1988 regular season was arguably his best, and he scored 30 ppg on 50-40-90 splits. The Cs also had the best offense in history when McHale was healthy.

The best offensive players are of two components: their ability to score, and their ability to help their team-mates get better shots. The second is dependent on the first, and the first just gets taken for granted.

I'd go ahead and say scoring is underrated when people discuss things like this.

The underlineds here tell the story here, and the underlined-bolded part is the huge crux of where we disagree and why I say scoring is overrated. Scoring is NOT, repeat NOT!!! the whole point of playing basketball. OUTSCORING your opponent is the whole point of playing basketball. In that post you just gave to defend scoring, you mentioned offense or scoring more than 10 times...and didn't mention defense as a key aspect of winning a single time.

But the thing is, what you just wrote fits right in with the default attitude of the basketball public in general, and even a large component of this board. So it's not that you're offering some type of minority opinion. Which is, again, the point. Because the ability to prevent your opponent from scoring is just as large of a part of the actual point of winning basketball as the ability to score.

And in addition to purely scoring, or purely preventing your opponent from scoring, there are the other aspects of the game. The ability to use passing to help make your team offense more potent than scoring on your own (even at good efficiencies), the ability to dominate the glass and generate more possessions for your team, the ability to space the floor so that others can score more easily, the ability to help your team prevent opponents from scoring when it's not your man with the ball. These are all definite, tangible basketball abilities that, in the correct proportions, can be more valuable in a player than the ability to efficiently score.

Basketball is much, much more than just high efficiency scoring. And success in that area doesn't remotely mean that a player is definitely better or more impactful than a player that makes their mark in other ways.

C-izMe · Post #125 » by **C-izMe** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:25 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Interesting:

From my calculations, the Cavs in 09 had a 113.5 ORating in the playoffs vs an average DRating of 105.3 (+8.2).

Based on ElGee's write-up here (http://www.backpicks.com/2011/12/19/the ... ince-1980/), that puts them right up there with Bird's Celtics in 84, 86, and 87.

Is there something I'm missing with the Cavs in 09? Because I'm seeing Bird's Celtics being ranked as some historic offensive teams, but what LeBron did in 09 with the Cavs is being brushed aside. Offensively, this is how they stack up:

09 Cavs: +4.1 (+8.2 PS)

84 Celtics: +3.3 (+6.4 PS)

86 Celtics: +4.6 (+8.2 PS)

87 Celtics: +5.2 (+8.5 PS)

So what is it about the Celtics offense that was so dominant, while LeBron's offenses are considered "meh" on the GOAT scale? Looks like comparable offenses to me.

IDK. Possibly because the more the three point line has been used the easier it is to have historic offensive numbers. Try ranking the Celtics among 80s offenses and the Cavs among post 2000 offenses and see what you get.

MisterWestside · Post #126 » by **MisterWestside** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:01 pm

ardee wrote:I don't think you could definitively say James is a better playmaker. His assist numbers are higher during his peak, but when you watch the games, a lot of his contributions in the playmaking department were drive and kick out of the paint. Now again, that was obviously very effective, but Bird could just hurt you in more ways. He was one of the best at hitting cutters, his pin-point entry passes took McHale to another level, and he was generally a better half-court playmaker.

Sure, and I'm not looking to knock Bird here. He was a great passer - I'm not merely going by the assist numbers.

I've seen LeBron pass well in the halfcourt however. Not just from drive-and-dish, but out of the post and also moving the ball to the weak side towards open shooters.

Narigo · Post #127 » by **Narigo** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:24 pm

Great discussion

ElGee · Post #128 » by **ElGee** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 6:46 pm

@realbig3 -- I suppose I value the 86 Celtics offense more because of the distribution of the teams across the league (top heavy versus more parity) and because of the surrounding years, which gives me more confidence in what I'm seeing from the Celtics in terms of being "elite" (instead of just a "good" offense). This is a subtle distinction, though, as your numbers illustrated.

Really quickly, because C-Ize brought it up...there have been 80 teams 4.5 points or better than league average in the 3-pt era (since 1980). The distribution of those offenses is

80-94: 35
95-97: 10
98-12: 35

If you want more outlying offenses, of the 28 6+ teams since 1986, the distribution is

80-94: 9
95-97: 7
98-12: 14

I'll buy that the 3-point shot can widen the variance in "offense relative to league average." I'll also buy that the distribution of teams matters too. But both of these are subtle factors.

rrravenred wrote:Nice posts, and sorry I haven't been more active.

* Shaq's never had the lateral speed to be a GOAT defensive prime for mine, although his athleticism and length made him a pretty fierce rim defender, with 2000 being the apex of that. Having said that, it wasn't a banner year for individual defenders, with Eddie Jones coming in third.

* Shaq's offensive excellence can partially be ascribed to the emergence of Bryant and the full-season arrival of Rice. This isn't a ding, however, just noting that the environment in which Shaq operated had improved to an optimum level.

Shaq was incredibly nimble and athletic in 2000 -- the best shape he was in since 95, quite easily. Someone else brought up the previous years to knock Shaq without pointing out that his physical health and fitness weren't even in the same ballpark.

* Lebron's portability (and portability in general) is an interesting idea in this sort of thread, but I think it's of limited analytical value. We're looking at production as it was, not as it might have hypothetically been elsewhere. YES, you need to screen out the team-based factors that may either flatter or depress a player's production (as I said in the Shaq point above), but taking a player out of the team in the year that we're looking at is more of a parlour game.

What we want to do is use all the different lineup combinations within a season and see how someone performed. Then draw parallels. I don't like being hampered by the single-season sample, so for players who don't have dramatically higher single-season peaks (see: almost everyone near the top of this project) I look at surrounding seasons for an indication of how their strengths play out in different scenarios. For some it's more clear, for others it's just the same context every time.

But to be clear, it's not a parlor game to swap the names on the back of the jersey if the team strengths/dynamics are the same. The results may be slightly different because of role-player quality or just their variance in performance, but the general trend will still be there.

therealbig3 · Post #129 » by **therealbig3** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:30 pm

BTW, going by the vote panel, it looks like Shaq has a big lead:

1. ardee - 67 Wilt
2. Doctor MJ - no vote
3. C-izeMe - 00 Shaq
4. colts18 - no official vote that I've seen, but probably 00 Shaq
5. DavidStern - 00 Shaq
6. DrMufasa - 67 Wilt
7. drza - no official vote that I've seen, but probably 65 Russell
8. ElGee - 00 Shaq
9. JordansBulls - no official vote that I've seen
10. Rapcity_11 - no official vote that I've seen
11. Vinsanity420 - 00 Shaq
12. therealbig3 - 00 Shaq
13. Josephpaul - 71 Kareem
14. ThaRegul8r - 67 Wilt
15. PTB Fan - 00 Shaq

Shaq has 6 official votes right now, the next closest is Wilt at 3. 5 people haven't voted yet.

JordansBulls · Post #130 » by **JordansBulls** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:48 pm

therealbig3 wrote:BTW, going by the vote panel, it looks like Shaq has a big lead:

1. ardee - 67 Wilt
2. Doctor MJ - no vote
3. C-izeMe - 00 Shaq
4. colts18 - no official vote that I've seen, but probably 00 Shaq
5. DavidStern - 00 Shaq
6. DrMufasa - 67 Wilt
7. drza - no official vote that I've seen, but probably 65 Russell
8. ElGee - 00 Shaq
9. JordansBulls - no official vote that I've seen
10. Rapcity_11 - no official vote that I've seen
11. Vinsanity420 - 00 Shaq
12. therealbig3 - 00 Shaq
13. Josephpaul - 71 Kareem
14. ThaRegul8r - 67 Wilt
15. PTB Fan - 00 Shaq

Shaq has 6 official votes right now, the next closest is Wilt at 3. 5 people haven't voted yet.

Thanks, was just looking thru the entire thread myself. I updated my vote on page 1. I just think what Kareem did with the Bucks in his 2nd season carrying that franchise especially at age 23 gives him the nod. I think Shaq had better stats once you account for pace, but Shaq won essentially because another team choked in the end.

Thus far from what I have seen.

1. ardee - Wilt 1967
2. Doctor MJ -
3. C-izeMe - Shaq 2000
4. colts18 - (Voted Shaq 2000 last time, haven't seen official vote in this one)
5. DavidStern - Shaq 2000
6. DrMufasa now Dr Positivity - Wilt 1967
7. drza - (Voted Russell 1965 last time, haven't seen official vote in this one)
8. ElGee - Shaq 2000
9. JordansBulls - Kareem 1971
10. Rapcity_11 -
11. Vinsanity420 - Shaq 2000
12. therealbig3 - Shaq 2000
13. Josephpaul - Kareem 1971
14. ThaRegul8r - Wilt 1967
15. PTB Fan - Shaq 2000

drza · Post #131 » by **drza** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:55 pm

therealbig3 wrote:Guys whose peaks we have a lot of data for: Duncan, Kobe, Garnett, Dirk, Wade, etc; guys who peaked around or after 03/04ish. And I think we're all in agreement that LeBron's peak was superior to any of their peaks.

therealbig3 wrote:@ElGee

I'm a little surprised that as of now you have LeBron at 12 or 13 on your list of "GOAT" peaks. Why is he behind Magic, Bird, Duncan, KG, and Hakeem, for example?

I see peak LeBron as a guy with absolutely massive impact, with "best in the league" offense that is a little less than what Magic and Bird give you, but with defense to compensate for it. How much of a gap do you see between Magic/Bird and LeBron offensively?

therealbig3 wrote:
ElGee wrote:But I suppose what I'm asking is, if LeBron goes to an above average offensive team, what does the makeup have to look like for him to maintain his huge impact? I don't think they can be a high-level PG driven team or else he's just improving on one of the guys making them above average.

eg a Kevin Johnson offense is +3. Replace with LeBron they might go to +4 or +5.

To a lesser extent than LeBron, I don't think MJ could go to high-level SG driven teams (Miami in 09 or LA in 06, for example) and maintain his huge impact, unless he basically replaces Kobe or Wade. So I think it's a similar case with LeBron if we assume he goes to a high-level PG driven team. It's a criticism you could make of any player that goes anywhere that has a similarly talented player with a similar skillset...someone (most likely both) is going to see a decline in their production/impact. KG is actually the only guy I can think of who this wouldn't affect, and other players like him (Russell, Walton), superstars who mainly contribute defensively.

I chose these posts to reply to because the excellent Bird/LeBron convo between ElGee and therealbig3 has pulled me in, and these two exchanges encompass the most interesting part to me. Both therealbig3 and ElGee have made reference to KG in their conversation, with therealbig3 believing we would all agree that LeBron's peak was higher but that Garnett was more versatile in terms of the ways his teams could dominate...but with ElGee having KG's peak higher on his initial list in addition to KG also having more versatility. While none of Bird, LeBron nor KG are likely to be voted in with the next thread or two, I will say that this LeBron/Bird convo seems as though it should have Garnett in it as well. They're all, in their ways, different nodes in the same triangle.

All three of Bird, LeBron and Garnett were essentially combo forwards with completely unique skill sets. All of them are extremely versatile, and each are strong on both offense and defense. Bird is at one end of the continuum, the strongest on offense but weakest on defense (even accounting for his three 2nd team All-D selections). Garnett is at the other extreme, "merely" great on offense but historic on defense. LeBron, then, is more in the middle of this continuum (though still more towards the offensive end of the curve) with more offensive ability than Garnett and more defensive ability than Bird. In theory, this should make him in some ways the most versatile of the versatile all-world combo forwards.

It's interesting, then, that based on reading this conversation the argument seems to be the exact opposite: that out of this group, LeBron is the one whose "portability" might be the most in question. Once one gets beyond the intuitive-level points of the previous paragraph, I can actually see how this could come to be. With the (obvious) caveat that all 3 could have outstanding results because they are so great, LeBron IS the one whose game might be most difficult to build dominant units around.

I believe this is what ElGee has been pointing out here...that LeBron has demonstrated the ability to bring units with varying degrees of talent up to the point of a very good, perhaps even great offense. But that he hasn't demonstrated the ability, like the Magic's and Nash's of the world, to take an offense to a history level. Therealbig3 has argued ably that LeBron makes up for this lack by being better on defense, but...I wonder if the same ceiling isn't true on defense as well. A team with LeBron as the best defensive player can be very good, perhaps even great...but can they be the best? On a history level? I don't think they can.

Bird played on teams through the years that were consistently top-5 on either/both sides of the ball, including a #1 offense in one season and a #1 defense in another. The difference is that while Bird was the best offensive player on the #1 offense, he wasn't close to the best defensive player on the best defense.

Garnett, on the other hand, has been the best player on consistent top-5 offenses at his peak and was also the anchor of one of the better defensive dynasties in recent years once past his peak. None of his teams have ever maxed out on offense, though.

So the question is, if you believe the logic in the previous paragraphs...which of them COULD be the centerpiece of the best overall teams with ideal (yet reasonable) support? Of the three, LeBron is the one that I'm currently having the hardest time seeing how you could build a team around him that led the league in both offense and defense (with one unit, either of them, at an all-history level). If you put a great, well-balanced offensive cast around him like the Amare/Marion/Johnson Suns or even the 80s Lakers or Celtics, I don't see him being able to subsume his on-ball offense/scoring enough for everyone else to reach their max. And realistically, maybe you (as coach) wouldn't even want him to because his scoring ability is ridiculous. But I don't think dominant-score LeBron can be the focal point of an all-history offense, as his style doesn't allow others to maximize the way the all-history offensive anchors do. Now, I DO think if you put LeBron on those mid-80s Celtics in Bird's place he could give you a top-ranked defense...but I don't think he could replicate the offense with Bird in his place, on that team, nor that the improved defense would make that unit historically great.

With Bird, he actually was on teams that realistically could have gone 1st on both sides of the ball (the 86 Celtics were 1st on D, 3rd on offense while the 88 Celtics were 1st on offense). And while Bird may not have been the defensive captain, there was nothing about his game that inherently prevented other defenders from maximizing their full potential while Bird's game also let them maximize on offense even with him out front.

Unfortunately Garnett was never on teams at his peak that provided that level of support. However, if you look at the teams he has played on through the years, I think we could easily build a team around peak KG that's top of the league quality on both sides of the ball. Put '03 Cassell, '12 Bradley, '11 Pierce, and '09 Perkins around peak Garnett and you're looking at a team with equivalent/better defensive ability than the '08 Celtics that could also lead the league in offensive efficiency. On offense this team is a super-sized version of the '04 Wolves that were a top-5 offense already, with Pierce's ultra-consistent shooting replacing Spree's erratic and Bradley's cutting ability/corner treys as an upgrade on Hassell. That squad could absolutely be the best offense in the league, with Garnett doing the heavy lifting next two two 30-somethings (one of which that had never, to date, been an All Star) and two role players.

:Shrugs: Just food for thought. I'm not even positive just how much this portability concept will end up weighing on the idea of "best peak", because as others have pointed out this kind of extrapolation is an inexact art to say the least. Nevertheless, I do think it's spun out a pretty interesting conversation.

drza · Post #132 » by **drza** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 9:55 pm

Oh yeah, and for my vote:

Vote: 1965 Bill Russell

Post #133 » by **rrravenred** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:36 pm

ElGee wrote:
rrravenred wrote:Nice posts, and sorry I haven't been more active.

* Shaq's never had the lateral speed to be a GOAT defensive prime for mine, although his athleticism and length made him a pretty fierce rim defender, with 2000 being the apex of that. Having said that, it wasn't a banner year for individual defenders, with Eddie Jones coming in third.

* Shaq's offensive excellence can partially be ascribed to the emergence of Bryant and the full-season arrival of Rice. This isn't a ding, however, just noting that the environment in which Shaq operated had improved to an optimum level.

Shaq was incredibly nimble and athletic in 2000 -- the best shape he was in since 95, quite easily. Someone else brought up the previous years to knock Shaq without pointing out that his physical health and fitness weren't even in the same ballpark.

Absolutely. He was fit and focused, which makes a huge distance when you have talented players who don't have a huge mental/emotional motor (like Shaq) in comparison to some of the company we're talking about here.

ElGee wrote:
* Lebron's portability (and portability in general) is an interesting idea in this sort of thread, but I think it's of limited analytical value. We're looking at production as it was, not as it might have hypothetically been elsewhere. YES, you need to screen out the team-based factors that may either flatter or depress a player's production (as I said in the Shaq point above), but taking a player out of the team in the year that we're looking at is more of a parlour game.

What we want to do is use all the different lineup combinations within a season and see how someone performed. Then draw parallels. I don't like being hampered by the single-season sample, so for players who don't have dramatically higher single-season peaks (see: almost everyone near the top of this project) I look at surrounding seasons for an indication of how their strengths play out in different scenarios. For some it's more clear, for others it's just the same context every time.

But to be clear, it's not a parlor game to swap the names on the back of the jersey if the team strengths/dynamics are the same. The results may be slightly different because of role-player quality or just their variance in performance, but the general trend will still be there.

Fair enough. The thing I noted was people were bringing in wider issues of player quality rather than peak (or prime) performance, not in an attempt to isolate or quantify the player performance in question, but to comment on the player AS A BRAND (to use the horrid marketing term).

therealbig3 · Post #134 » by **therealbig3** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:46 pm

Good post drza.

My feeling of LeBron is this: give him a supporting cast that fits him well like other great ball-dominant players have had (Magic/Nash/Oscar), and he will lead an all-time great offense, since he led a top 5 offense and an offense that appeared to be on the same level as some of Bird's best Celtics teams (even after accounting for the 3pt line) with pretty subpar offensive support. I understand the criticism that arises due to the fact that after LeBron teamed up with Wade and Bosh that he still didn't lead a better offense than one in the +4-5 range, but again, I think fit is incredibly important, and those teammates didn't fit him as well. And 4-12 on the Cavs were better than 4-12 on the Heat imo. And that's not saying much about the Cavs, I just think the Heat are seriously thin after their big 3.

I disagree that LeBron wouldn't lead all-time great offenses if you gave him Nash's Phoenix support, Bird's Boston support, or Magic's LA support...maybe not quite on the same level, but in terms of "all-time" stuff, I think they would still be up there. All-time level offenses are generally in the +7 or higher range, and LeBron led a team with much worse offensive support than any of those teams to +4. Put him on Phoenix with Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson, and Q-Rich, and maybe that 05 Suns offense isn't +8.4 like they were under Nash, but I don't think it's unreasonable at all to think they're +7, while improving defensively and on the glass. LeBron could (and would imo) make them a better overall team, with still elite offense.

And you're right, I don't think you can build an all-time great defense around LeBron with him as the best defensive player...but as Cleveland (they also had Varejao and 53 games of Ben Wallace in 09) and Miami have shown, they can build top 5 defenses around him. Think about this: replace Wade with a similarly talented player who fits LeBron better, say like Kevin Durant. Is it unreasonable to think LeBron would lead a +7 offense? Think about what the 2013 Heat would look like: Chalmers/Allen/Durant/LeBron/Bosh (small lineup). I see a ridiculous offensive team with LeBron as clearly the best offensive player. Not only that, they would be good defensively due to LeBron's versatility.

I guess my main contention here is that I don't see this clear separation between LeBron and the Nash/Magic/Paul/Oscars of the world (ie, the ball-dominant playmakers)...they're probably a bit better, but I would put LeBron in the same league. RAPM over the years supports this. These guys are not necessarily the most portable players ever either, but because they're so brilliant as ball-dominant playmakers, their portability is overlooked. Why can't the same consideration be extended to LeBron, who is right there with them? I don't think any of the ball-dominant playmakers (and among the top 10, Magic) are going to have high portability unless they go to teams that will let them dominate the ball.

Then after considering LeBron's offensive ability, then consider his ability to impact a game defensively, which imo is greater than any non-big among the top 10 peaks. Put it all together, I'm having a hard time ranking him lower than top 7 at most. He's a guy that I think can anchor an all-time great offense, and a top 5 defense (or at least co-anchor the defense) at the same time.

Also, if we're talking about portability, how many players ever could step into LeBron's role in Cleveland and take them to the same results? How many players ever could carry a mediocre team to the same heights LeBron did?

MisterWestside · Post #135 » by **MisterWestside** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:00 am

I disagree that LeBron wouldn't lead all-time great offenses if you gave him Nash's Phoenix support, Bird's Boston support, or Magic's LA support...maybe not quite on the same level, but in terms of "all-time" stuff, I think they would still be up there.

Well, again - all of those guys stayed with their original franchises and had pieces fit around them. LeBron can't be part of a GOAT-level offense? You couldn't put awesome shooters and an awesome low-post player and put together an awesome offense?

Magic wasn't a 3-pt shooter. LeBron can give you that. Nash can't give you the low-post/production at the rim like LeBron can. And even though Bird can pass the ball well, I'd still take LeBron's ability to create a shot.

Not saying that LeBron is better than Magic or Bird, and Nash is great. But let's stop acting as if LeBron is some one-trick pony. And with him getting comfortable in the Heat offense, he's scratching the surface of moving without the ball (which he's become more adept at).

C-izMe · Post #136 » by **C-izMe** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:05 am

Man those last few posts have been heavy.

Magic wasn't a 3-pt shooter. LeBron can give you that. Nash can't give you the low-post/production at the rim like LeBron can. And even though Bird can pass the ball well, I'd still take LeBron's ability to create a shot.

Magic wasn't a three point shooter back when almost nobody was. By 1990 (when the three pointer really took off) Magic was a 38% shooter. His outside shot was good enough for me to conclude that he could shoot threes. In 88 the shot 0.8 a game (a career high) at 19.6%. In 89 he shot 31.4% on 2.4 shots per game and from 89-91 he shot 34.3% on 3 attempts per game. It's like people saying Larry couldn't shoot because he was sub 30% and not shooting threes for many years. He only took them in despiration so he didn't make much until he used them as a weapon (and he shot above league average from 89-91).

Nash can't post up but he doesn't need to. He's led amazing offenses with almost no backup and has played in many different roles over the years. His versatility shouldn't be in question at all.

And I guess the Lebron/Bird thing is a preference. I just think Bird is better as a passer and playmaker.

MisterWestside · Post #137 » by **MisterWestside** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:17 am

Magic wasn't a three point shooter back when almost nobody was.

Okay, but what Magic was doing from 89-91, LeBron has been doing for alot longer. I'll go with the larger sample size to work with.

Nash can't post up but he doesn't need to.

Sure. His teams have that covered for him. I mean in this sense that LeBron can be used in an extra capacity that Nash doesn't provide, which can allow for more flexibility in constructing offenses and assigning roles.

C-izMe · Post #138 » by **C-izMe** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:37 am

What post option did Nash have in Phoenix? Don't say Amar'e.

And Magic was a above average shooter from 89-91. Lebron has only been above average once.

therealbig3 · Post #139 » by **therealbig3** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:44 am

Amare actually was a pretty decent post scorer, and he's one of the best ever in the PnR. Offensively speaking, the only player on his level or higher that LeBron's played with has been Wade, and he doesn't fit. LeBron and Amare would be pretty awesome together offensively.

ronnymac2 · Post #140 » by **ronnymac2** » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:55 am

therealbig3 wrote:Amare actually was a pretty decent post scorer, and he's one of the best ever in the PnR. Offensively speaking, the only player on his level or higher that LeBron's played with has been Wade, and he doesn't fit. LeBron and Amare would be pretty awesome together offensively.

Nah man, Amar'e doesn't post really. Great, great scorer though.