tone wone wrote:Bigger fluke...LeBron's mid-range shooting in the '09 playoffs or Jordan's passing in the '91 playoffs?
Jordan's AST% in the 91 playoffs was right in line with with the previous two postseasons. Lebron's mid range jumpers were uhhh... not in line with any surrounding years.
Lebron on shots 10 feet to the three point line in the playoffs. 07 - 31.2% 08 - 25.7% 09 - 47.8% 10 - 38.7% 11 - 37.3%
47.8% isn’t technically an outlier for his playoffs’ career and maybe not not if you add a few years after 2011.
That’s absolutely an outlier for his playoff career. And that’s especially the case when we realize LeBron became a decent bit better as a shooter as he got older and this was a season in his younger years. Here’s his playoff two-point FG% from 10+ feet by year:
And this was in a year where his mid-range FG% was lower than his career average in the regular season. It was definitely an outlier. I think he still played really well those playoffs even if we scaled down the outlier mid-range shooting, but that part of his playoff performance does seem like an obvious outlier.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
MrVorp wrote:Jordan's AST% in the 91 playoffs was right in line with with the previous two postseasons. Lebron's mid range jumpers were uhhh... not in line with any surrounding years.
Lebron on shots 10 feet to the three point line in the playoffs. 07 - 31.2% 08 - 25.7% 09 - 47.8% 10 - 38.7% 11 - 37.3%
47.8% isn’t technically an outlier for his playoffs’ career and maybe not not if you add a few years after 2011.
That’s absolutely an outlier for his playoff career. And that’s especially the case when we realize LeBron became a decent bit better as a shooter as he got older and this was a season in his younger years. Here’s his playoff two-point FG% from 10+ feet by year:
And this was in a year where his mid-range FG% was lower than his career average in the regular season. It was definitely an outlier. I think he still played really well those playoffs even if we scaled down the outlier mid-range shooting, but that part of his playoff performance does seem like an obvious outlier.
By definition it’s technically not an outlier for his career. For this data set, an outlier percentage will be about 49.7%. You, or VORP or Djoker can calculate it if you want.
On that note, it’s very interesting that things have to be hand-waved away as “outlier” because LeBron in 2009 reached heights that Michael Jordan never did. And this is just 2009 – other seasons have some nice arguments as well that have been laid out.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
homecourtloss wrote: 47.8% isn’t technically an outlier for his playoffs’ career and maybe not not if you add a few years after 2011.
That’s absolutely an outlier for his playoff career. And that’s especially the case when we realize LeBron became a decent bit better as a shooter as he got older and this was a season in his younger years. Here’s his playoff two-point FG% from 10+ feet by year:
And this was in a year where his mid-range FG% was lower than his career average in the regular season. It was definitely an outlier. I think he still played really well those playoffs even if we scaled down the outlier mid-range shooting, but that part of his playoff performance does seem like an obvious outlier.
By definition it’s technically not an outlier for his career. For this data set, an outlier percentage will be about 49.7%. You, or VORP or Djoker can calculate it if you want.
On that note, it’s very interesting that things have to be hand-waved away as “outlier” because LeBron in 2009 reached heights that Michael Jordan never did. And this is just 2009 – other seasons have some nice arguments as well that have been laid out.
I don’t think there’s a rigid mathematical definition of the term “outlier” so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. And even if there were such a definition, we’re obviously talking colloquially about this.
Anyways, I don’t agree that LeBron in 2009 “reached heights that Michael Jordan never did” and by the way neither did the PC Board in 2022 when it voted Jordan as having the #1 greatest peak in 1990-1991.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote: That’s absolutely an outlier for his playoff career. And that’s especially the case when we realize LeBron became a decent bit better as a shooter as he got older and this was a season in his younger years. Here’s his playoff two-point FG% from 10+ feet by year:
And this was in a year where his mid-range FG% was lower than his career average in the regular season. It was definitely an outlier. I think he still played really well those playoffs even if we scaled down the outlier mid-range shooting, but that part of his playoff performance does seem like an obvious outlier.
By definition it’s technically not an outlier for his career. For this data set, an outlier percentage will be about 49.7%. You, or VORP or Djoker can calculate it if you want.
On that note, it’s very interesting that things have to be hand-waved away as “outlier” because LeBron in 2009 reached heights that Michael Jordan never did. And this is just 2009 – other seasons have some nice arguments as well that have been laid out.
I don’t think there’s a rigid mathematical definition of the term “outlier” so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. And even if there were such a definition, we’re obviously talking colloquially about this.
Anyways, I don’t agree that LeBron in 2009 “reached heights that Michael Jordan never did” and by the way neither did the PC Board in 2022 when it voted Jordan as having the #1 greatest peak in 1990-1991.
Of course there is a mathematical definition — you just don’t know it.
There has been a back-and-forth posting about numbers and now we’re going to say that we are just speaking “colloquially”? It doesn’t work that way — the number that was posted that’s supposedly an outlier by definition and mathematically is not one
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
homecourtloss wrote: By definition it’s technically not an outlier for his career. For this data set, an outlier percentage will be about 49.7%. You, or VORP or Djoker can calculate it if you want.
On that note, it’s very interesting that things have to be hand-waved away as “outlier” because LeBron in 2009 reached heights that Michael Jordan never did. And this is just 2009 – other seasons have some nice arguments as well that have been laid out.
I don’t think there’s a rigid mathematical definition of the term “outlier” so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. And even if there were such a definition, we’re obviously talking colloquially about this.
Anyways, I don’t agree that LeBron in 2009 “reached heights that Michael Jordan never did” and by the way neither did the PC Board in 2022 when it voted Jordan as having the #1 greatest peak in 1990-1991.
Of course there is a mathematical definition — you just don’t know it.
There has been a back-and-forth posting about numbers and now we’re going to say that we are just speaking “colloquially”? It doesn’t work that way the number that was posted that’s supposedly an outlier by definition and mathematically is not one
This is just sophistry. For instance, you can even just peruse the Wikipedia article on the term “outlier” and it find that it says “There is no rigid mathematical definition of what constitutes an outlier; determining whether or not an observation is an outlier is ultimately a subjective exercise.” I’m aware there are people who define it as being a certain number of standard deviations above or below the mean (often 3, sometimes 2.5), but this is not something with a uniform and rigid mathematical definition. And, again, even if it was, I promise you that MrVorp was not intending to invoke a precise mathematical concept, and neither was I—the word “outlier” has a meaning in normal parlance and the fact that people are “posting about numbers” doesn’t mean they’re not using the term “outlier” colloquially.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
homecourtloss wrote: By definition it’s technically not an outlier for his career. For this data set, an outlier percentage will be about 49.7%. You, or VORP or Djoker can calculate it if you want.
On that note, it’s very interesting that things have to be hand-waved away as “outlier” because LeBron in 2009 reached heights that Michael Jordan never did. And this is just 2009 – other seasons have some nice arguments as well that have been laid out.
I don’t think there’s a rigid mathematical definition of the term “outlier” so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. And even if there were such a definition, we’re obviously talking colloquially about this.
Anyways, I don’t agree that LeBron in 2009 “reached heights that Michael Jordan never did” and by the way neither did the PC Board in 2022 when it voted Jordan as having the #1 greatest peak in 1990-1991.
Of course there is a mathematical definition — you just don’t know it.
There has been a back-and-forth posting about numbers and now we’re going to say that we are just speaking “colloquially”? It doesn’t work that way the number that was posted that’s supposedly an outlier by definition and mathematically is not one
"There is no rigid mathematical definition of what constitutes an outlier; determining whether or not an observation is an outlier is ultimately a subjective exercise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
If we were to treat Lebron's mid range shooting as a binomial process (it's really not but close enough) then his performance in the 09 playoffs was roughly 2.5 sd's over an expected performance. You can quibble about whether it reached "outlier" status but it was undeniably a massive heater. And the whole point was whether it was more of a "fluke" than MJ's passing in 91.
lessthanjake wrote: I don’t think there’s a rigid mathematical definition of the term “outlier” so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. And even if there were such a definition, we’re obviously talking colloquially about this.
Anyways, I don’t agree that LeBron in 2009 “reached heights that Michael Jordan never did” and by the way neither did the PC Board in 2022 when it voted Jordan as having the #1 greatest peak in 1990-1991.
Of course there is a mathematical definition — you just don’t know it.
There has been a back-and-forth posting about numbers and now we’re going to say that we are just speaking “colloquially”? It doesn’t work that way the number that was posted that’s supposedly an outlier by definition and mathematically is not one
This is just sophistry. For instance, you can even just peruse the Wikipedia article on the term “outlier” and it find that it says “There is no rigid mathematical definition of what constitutes an outlier; determining whether or not an observation is an outlier is ultimately a subjective exercise.” I’m aware there are people who define it as being a certain number of standard deviations above or below the mean (often 3, sometimes 2.5), but this is not something with a uniform and rigid mathematical definition. And, again, even if it was, I promise you that MrVorp was not intending to invoke a precise mathematical concept, and neither was I—the word “outlier” has a meaning in normal parlance and the fact that people are “posting about numbers” doesn’t mean they’re not using the term “outlier” colloquially.
It's important to emphasize that data sets like this adhere to a well-established mathematical definition of outliers, a concept taught in basic statistics courses, such as Stats 101. Specifically, an outlier is any value that exceeds 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR) added to the upper quartile.
In this context, Mr. VORP presented some numbers and labeled a certain figure as an outlier, a claim you also supported. However, it's crucial to note that, according to the precise definition, this number does not qualify as an outlier. The fact that this definition may not have been widely recognized by some doesn't change its validity; it remains a fundamental statistical concept.
Now, returning to the central discussion, it's genuinely intriguing that we're compelled to designate certain numbers as "outliers" within this argument, rather than simply presenting the numbers from other players. This is significant because these figures represent records untouched throughout a remarkably extended playoff run. In fact, no one has even come close to matching them. This, in my view, epitomizes the essence of an all-time great peak performance.
MrVorp wrote:
homecourtloss wrote:
lessthanjake wrote: I don’t think there’s a rigid mathematical definition of the term “outlier” so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. And even if there were such a definition, we’re obviously talking colloquially about this.
Anyways, I don’t agree that LeBron in 2009 “reached heights that Michael Jordan never did” and by the way neither did the PC Board in 2022 when it voted Jordan as having the #1 greatest peak in 1990-1991.
Of course there is a mathematical definition — you just don’t know it.
There has been a back-and-forth posting about numbers and now we’re going to say that we are just speaking “colloquially”? It doesn’t work that way the number that was posted that’s supposedly an outlier by definition and mathematically is not one
"There is no rigid mathematical definition of what constitutes an outlier; determining whether or not an observation is an outlier is ultimately a subjective exercise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
If we were to treat Lebron's mid range shooting as a binomial process (it's really not but close enough) with then his performance in the 09 playoffs was roughly 2.5 sd's over an expected performance. You can quibble about whether it reached "outlier" status but it was undeniably a massive heater. And the whole point was whether it was more of a "fluke" than MJ's passing in 91.
“Massive heater” seems like what an all-time great peak type of performance does an here we’re just talking about 2009 — we can talk about other things as well.
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
Of course I was using the term "outlier" colloquially as was probably just about everyone else in this thread. Besides there is no universally accepted definition of a statistical outlier. It's simply a data point that doesn't fit well with the rest of the data. 1.5 IQR above upper quartile or 2 or 2.5 or 3 standard deviations above the mean are all widely used. When I wrote scientific papers a p value of <0.05 is used which for a normal distribution is over 2 standard deviations away. According to this definition, 2009 postseason is an outlier. But anyways...
The point is that Lebron's 2009 playoffs is a clear example of an unsustainable performance. He's so much better in that postseason than any of the surrounding years that it's hard to take that at face value.
Plus 2009 being Lebron's peak (much less the GOAT peak) makes no sense for a plethora of other reasons such as: a) he was too young; no other great peaked at age 24 b) a lot of media/fans/fellow players considered Kobe and/or Wade as being better players than Lebron at this time c) he visibly improved in many areas of his game in Miami including better jump shooting from all-ranges, post-play, off-ball movement etc. and most importantly psychologically. Given what happened in the 2010 and especially 2011 playoffs, how can we ever pretend that 2009 was peak Lebron...
The reason 1991 MJ is better than Lebron's peak is that I can take any year surrounding it.. 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993 and I get a very very similar player. In fact for 104 consecutive playoff games from 1986-1993, Jordan averaged 34.9/6.7/6.6 on +4.5 rTS with 3.3 topg. And for 567 consecutive regular season games from 1987-1993, Jordan averaged 33.4/6.2/6.0 on +5.4 rTS with 2.9 topg. By the way in that span he missed just 7 regular season games.
Jordan dominates Lebron in terms of the four offensive dimensions (scoring volume, scoring efficiency, box creation, turnovers) that it's hard not to have him a tier higher on offense. And Ben Taylor does as well with his GOAT offensive tier being MJ, Curry and Magic. Given that both are perimeter players who generally have little impact on defense, Lebron would need to have a humongous defensive edge to bridge the gap.
He has stretches like the 2016 Finals where he was really good on D but if 2016 is Lebron's peak then what about the terrible shooting in 2015 and the bad defense in the 2017 and 2018 Finals? The load management during the regular season too. Again, no consistency to match Jordan. And besides 2016 Lebron is still a lot behind peak Jordan in terms of playoff offense putting up just 26.3/9.5/7.6 on +4.4 rTS with 3.6 topg. It's hard to imagine his defensive impact being so great to overcome Jordan putting up >8 ppg more.
Most of the arguments for Lebron center around these esoteric team impact numbers. As if Lebron's teams crushing the weak Eastern Conference so hard in years like 2016 and 2017 makes him a better offensive anchor than Jordan... On teams that have way more offensive talent and are offensively slanted at the expense of defense. The 2017 Cavs were an extremely impressive +11.5 rORtg in the playoffs but also +3.3 rDRtg which is really bad defense. Even the 2016 Cavs which were +9.1 rORtg in the playoffs were only -0.4 rDRtg which is average defense. The 1991 Bulls were +9.3 rORtg but with a stingy -3.9 rDRtg. The Bulls peaked offensively led by Jordan while not sacrificing their defense and with less offensive talent.
If LeBron had only managed to shoot his 09-18 regular season averages from 3-10, 10-16, and 16-3pt during the 2009 playoffs, his points scored from mid range would've plummeted from 104 to 95.2. His points per game would've gone from a staggering 35.3 to a measly 34.7! Just a complete fluke! Grounds to disqualify the season altogether, really.
Doctor MJ wrote:I like the analogy with Curry as Coca-Cola. And then I'd say Iverson was Lean.
Djoker wrote:Of course I was using the term "outlier" colloquially as was probably just about everyone else in this thread. Besides there is no universally accepted definition of a statistical outlier. It's simply a data point that doesn't fit well with the rest of the data. 1.5 IQR above upper quartile or 2 or 2.5 or 3 standard deviations above the mean are all widely used. When I wrote scientific papers a p value of <0.05 is used which for a normal distribution is over 2 standard deviations away. According to this definition, 2009 postseason is an outlier. But anyways...
The point is that Lebron's 2009 playoffs is a clear example of an unsustainable performance. He's so much better in that postseason than any of the surrounding years that it's hard to take that at face value.
Plus 2009 being Lebron's peak (much less the GOAT peak) makes no sense for a plethora of other reasons such as: a) he was too young; no other great peaked at age 24 b) a lot of media/fans/fellow players considered Kobe and/or Wade as being better players than Lebron at this time c) he visibly improved in many areas of his game in Miami including better jump shooting from all-ranges, post-play, off-ball movement etc. and most importantly psychologically. Given what happened in the 2010 and especially 2011 playoffs, how can we ever pretend that 2009 was peak Lebron...
The reason 1991 MJ is better than Lebron's peak is that I can take any year surrounding it.. 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993 and I get a very very similar player. In fact for 104 consecutive playoff games from 1986-1993, Jordan averaged 34.9/6.7/6.6 on +4.5 rTS with 3.3 topg. And for 567 consecutive regular season games from 1987-1993, Jordan averaged 33.4/6.2/6.0 on +5.4 rTS with 2.9 topg. By the way in that span he missed just 7 regular season games.
Jordan dominates Lebron in terms of the four offensive dimensions (scoring volume, scoring efficiency, box creation, turnovers) that it's hard not to have him a tier higher on offense. And Ben Taylor does as well with his GOAT offensive tier being MJ, Curry and Magic. Given that both are perimeter players who generally have little impact on defense, Lebron would need to have a humongous defensive edge to bridge the gap.
He has stretches like the 2016 Finals where he was really good on D but if 2016 is Lebron's peak then what about the terrible shooting in 2015 and the bad defense in the 2017 and 2018 Finals? The load management during the regular season too. Again, no consistency to match Jordan. And besides 2016 Lebron is still a lot behind peak Jordan in terms of playoff offense putting up just 26.3/9.5/7.6 on +4.4 rTS with 3.6 topg. It's hard to imagine his defensive impact being so great to overcome Jordan putting up >8 ppg more.
Most of the arguments for Lebron center around these esoteric team impact numbers. As if Lebron's teams crushing the weak Eastern Conference so hard in years like 2016 and 2017 makes him a better offensive anchor than Jordan... On teams that have way more offensive talent and are offensively slanted at the expense of defense. The 2017 Cavs were an extremely impressive +11.5 rORtg in the playoffs but also +3.3 rDRtg which is really bad defense. Even the 2016 Cavs which were +9.1 rORtg in the playoffs were only -0.4 rDRtg which is average defense. The 1991 Bulls were +9.3 rORtg but with a stingy -3.9 rDRtg. The Bulls peaked offensively led by Jordan while not sacrificing their defense and with less offensive talent.
A) Lebron peaking at 24 is not a consensus opinion due to the strenght of many of his other later seasons, but even if he did that is not inpossible or unlikely.
People often arbitrary define that players -must- peak somewhere in their late 20's and not any older or younger as if it was some hard rule. And here you seem to be going backwards with assuming it has to be the case for everyone.
B) ok? Lots of players and media also think kobe is the 3rd best player ever and i would disagree with them on that and a bunch of other stuff too.
C) Are we going to ignore the defensive dominance, athletism edge, motor 2009 lebron had over later seasons?. May as well use the same reasoning to put second cavs stint lebron unarguably over miami lebron (again against the age thingh of your first point) Most skilled version of players is not automatically better than their mote physically dominant version. If that was the case jordan peak would be the late 90's and lebron peak would be unarguably on the lakers
You call team results esoteric but see box creation as a benchmark of offensive impact? What about another ben taylor creation like passer rating, is that "not esoteric" enough? Why not use assists here instead if you are looking at boxscore?
If you see boxscore totals and particularly ppg as equivalent to offense do you commit to that for other players or just for lebron vs jordan? I ask this cause then i would have to wonder what your thoughts are on somethingh like magic vs harden
Lebron is not a guard like jordan is, he literally has played the 4 for a lot of his career. And by ben taylor own opinion you cite he is a more impactful defender than jordan with a all time defensive peak for wings
I am also unsure where you got yout 16/17 cavs playoffs D rating numbers? Dont seem right at a glance
Are you sure you didnt use numbers unadjusted for rival offensive rating?
Djoker wrote:Of course I was using the term "outlier" colloquially as was probably just about everyone else in this thread. Besides there is no universally accepted definition of a statistical outlier. It's simply a data point that doesn't fit well with the rest of the data. 1.5 IQR above upper quartile or 2 or 2.5 or 3 standard deviations above the mean are all widely used. When I wrote scientific papers a p value of <0.05 is used which for a normal distribution is over 2 standard deviations away. According to this definition, 2009 postseason is an outlier. But anyways...
The point is that Lebron's 2009 playoffs is a clear example of an unsustainable performance. He's so much better in that postseason than any of the surrounding years that it's hard to take that at face value.
Plus 2009 being Lebron's peak (much less the GOAT peak) makes no sense for a plethora of other reasons such as: a) he was too young; no other great peaked at age 24 b) a lot of media/fans/fellow players considered Kobe and/or Wade as being better players than Lebron at this time c) he visibly improved in many areas of his game in Miami including better jump shooting from all-ranges, post-play, off-ball movement etc. and most importantly psychologically. Given what happened in the 2010 and especially 2011 playoffs, how can we ever pretend that 2009 was peak Lebron...
The reason 1991 MJ is better than Lebron's peak is that I can take any year surrounding it.. 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993 and I get a very very similar player. In fact for 104 consecutive playoff games from 1986-1993, Jordan averaged 34.9/6.7/6.6 on +4.5 rTS with 3.3 topg. And for 567 consecutive regular season games from 1987-1993, Jordan averaged 33.4/6.2/6.0 on +5.4 rTS with 2.9 topg. By the way in that span he missed just 7 regular season games.
Spoiler:
Jordan dominates Lebron in terms of the four offensive dimensions (scoring volume, scoring efficiency, box creation, turnovers) that it's hard not to have him a tier higher on offense. And Ben Taylor does as well with his GOAT offensive tier being MJ, Curry and Magic. Given that both are perimeter players who generally have little impact on defense, Lebron would need to have a humongous defensive edge to bridge the gap.
He has stretches like the 2016 Finals where he was really good on D but if 2016 is Lebron's peak then what about the terrible shooting in 2015 and the bad defense in the 2017 and 2018 Finals? The load management during the regular season too. Again, no consistency to match Jordan. And besides 2016 Lebron is still a lot behind peak Jordan in terms of playoff offense putting up just 26.3/9.5/7.6 on +4.4 rTS with 3.6 topg. It's hard to imagine his defensive impact being so great to overcome Jordan putting up >8 ppg more.
Most of the arguments for Lebron center around these esoteric team impact numbers. As if Lebron's teams crushing the weak Eastern Conference so hard in years like 2016 and 2017 makes him a better offensive anchor than Jordan... On teams that have way more offensive talent and are offensively slanted at the expense of defense. The 2017 Cavs were an extremely impressive +11.5 rORtg in the playoffs but also +3.3 rDRtg which is really bad defense. Even the 2016 Cavs which were +9.1 rORtg in the playoffs were only -0.4 rDRtg which is average defense. The 1991 Bulls were +9.3 rORtg but with a stingy -3.9 rDRtg. The Bulls peaked offensively led by Jordan while not sacrificing their defense and with less offensive talent.
Do you appreciate how inconsistent the Cavs teams were towards end of LeBrons first time there? Not to mention he changed teams soon after.
That whole period was inconsistent externally to LeBron and that's going to show up in box score stats.
Congratulations on one of this board's most pointless tangents:
letskissbro wrote:If LeBron had only managed to shoot his 09-18 regular season averages from 3-10, 10-16, and 16-3pt during the 2009 playoffs, his points scored from mid range would've plummeted from 104 to 95.2. His points per game would've gone from a staggering 35.3 to a measly 34.7! Just a complete fluke! Grounds to disqualify the season altogether, really.
While I am sure Djoker was definitely acting in good-faith dismissing a playoff-run that crushes Jordan by all the box-aggregates that they otherwise take very seriously due to outlier shooting, said shooting changes basically nothing when we look at the attempts.
And of course without that big-spike we have Lebron leading a 66-win +8 srs team with a cast that consistently looked horrible when he wasn't in the game. "Esoteric"
Obviously "2009 is fluke cause shooting" is bull. Perhaps not so obvious, but Lebron literally replicated this the very next season before an elbow injury:
Spoiler:
rk wrote:
sideshowbob wrote:I know I haven't really participated in any discussion prior to this, but I want to chime in here. Why indeed, is 2010 Lebron not being included? If this is a comparison of peaks and its been clear that we're trying to go beyond something as simple as just a "most successful season" list, then why exclude what might just be Lebron at his absolute best (IMO his strongest regular season), even if the playoffs were underwhelming. Allow me to present the case.
The Cavaliers finish with a 61-21 record and a 6.19 SRS, both down from the previous year, though it should be noted that the roster was riddled with absences and injuries throughout the season. Williams plays 69 games as opposed to 81, West misses 20 games in the early season, Shaq misses 29 games and posed further issues by never fitting into Cleveland's offensive system very well (of the 10 best offensive lineups Cleveland ran that year with >40MP, Shaq was in one of them), Gibson played 19 fewer games than the year before, Ilgauskas/Jamison trade caused chemistry issues with Jamison struggling particularly to fit in on the defensive end (and randomly dropping off to a 50% FT shooter after shooting 70% in WAS an shooting 73% for his career), Kuester leaving as the head offensive coach, etc.
Despite all this, they managed to go 60-16 in the 76 games that James played (he missed 4 games at the end, which Brown at the time attributed to lingering issues but later claimed was due to his elbow, both of which, could be given as an explanation for his relatively inconsistent performance in the last month or so of the regular season), and using ElGee's In/Out method, were roughly a 6.89 SRS team in the 76 games James played in, putting up an ORTG of 111.8 (#3 in the league, +4.2). On the other hand, they went 1-5 in the 6 games they played without him (close win against the Spurs at home, 1 close loss against ORL at the dead end of the season, the other 4 were very winnable games, and its not unreasonable to suggest that they would have won 65-66 again had Lebron played, which would be a slight overperformance based on their +7 SRS w/Lebron), put up a -2.95 SRS in those 6 games and an ORTG of 103.6 (-4.0).
Taking a further look at just the offense, with James ON Court:
2009: 116.4 (+8.1, #1) 2010: 116.6 (+9.0, #1)
So despite the drop overall, Cleveland's offense with James on the floor is even more impressive than the previous year, which his ORAPM seems to support (+7.1). Let's take it further and compare the performance against top 5 defensive teams (Orlando, Boston, Houston, San Antonio in 2009 and Charlotte, Milwaukee, Orlando, Los Angeles, and Boston in 2010) excluding any games James didn't play in (and one game against Boston in which Garnett did not play).
2009: 106.5 (-1.8 LA, #24) against an expected DRTG of 102.9 (+3.6) 2010: 108.8 (+1.2 LA, #11) against an expected DRTG of 103.3 (+5.5)
So what I see here is a Lebron who's running an offense even better than the year before, despite having less/weaker talent to work with. The roster was frequently changing around him, he was asked to play far more roles in various lineups and he managed to adjust and perform better than he had before.
The most evident example of this, of course, was the extended stretch at the end of January 2010 and through February 2010 where Williams missed significant time and Lebron was thrust into the De-Facto PG position. Looking purely from a box-score perspective, over this 11 game stretch James put up 31.0/6.6/10.5 on 61.8% TS with 3.8 TO. Taking it further, Cleveland posted a 115.5 ORTG (+7.9 LA) over this period, which would be tied with Nash's Suns for the best offense in the league. So not only is he able to take on the larger scoring load and creation load due to the loss of the team's secondary ball handler and playmaker, he's able to do so while effectively IMPROVING the offense and while IMPROVING his own efficiency.
Getting into the box-score, James' individual numbers look better: 30/7/9 on 60% TS (+7.1 ORAPM, +2.6 DRAPM, +9.8 overall) in 2010 vs 28/8/7 on 59% TS (+6.6 ORAPM, +2.8 DRAPM, +9.3 overall) in 2009. Prior to the mid-late March injury (whatever caused him to miss the 4 games at the end of the season), even his PER was higher than the 31.1 he finished with, somewhere above 32.0 which would be ahead of his 31.7 from 2009. I don't like putting much stock into "clutch" numbers, but I know colts has been stressing those in his posts for 2009, so again 66/16/8 on 63% TS (+37 overall) in 2010 vs 56/14/13 on 69% TS (+45 overall) in 2009.
So with all that in mind, I just don't see how Lebron's 2009 regular season at least could be considered superior to his 2010 regular season. While the 09 Cavs certainly maintained a consistently higher level of play, it seems that the 2010 Cavs were dropping off to a much lower level when James was off the floor, and thus even a greater level of lift from him would not propel their numbers to match 2009 overall (thought they were arguably even better with him on the court).
Now, the playoffs is where it gets a bit tricky. As far as I can tell, his first-round Chicago series was superior to what we saw against Detroit and Atlanta the year before (all average to above-average defensive teams) and this is DESPITE him playing far more inconsistently than usual (the elbow issue had already popped up in games 1 and 4, before the left handed free throw fiasco in game 5). Evidence, 22/8/7 on 53% TS in Games 1 and 5, 39/10/9 on 74% TS in Games 2-4. Watching that series again, in Game 5 I saw a Lebron who lacked full game aggression and exhibited a certain passivity that we saw again later in the Boston series. Again, evidence, after maintaining a 32% USG in the first four games, he puts up a USG of only 23.9%, taking only 12 shots, in a close game Game 5 no less. What would be the reasoning for that? Certainly after putting up 35/9/8 in the first 4 games it's not that he's not skilled enough to take on the defense. Nor is this Chicago team posing enough of a threat for him to give up, or lock himself out of the game due to not being mentally strong enough to handle the adversity. Is it really that far-fetched to believe that he could have been injured, and that this injury was one that could show up and affect his play one day and then not cause much of a problem another day?
There's documented evidence that his outside shooting showed somewhat of a correlation to how many rest days he had, specifically in the last month or so of the season and the playoffs. The elbow issue that he claimed to have would be something that effected exactly that, long distance shooting, so why is it so much more likely that he choked or seized up mentally or just wasn't skilled enough to cope with the tough playoff defenses, defenses that he was able to tear apart that very year?
So let's move on the to Celtics series. He plays great in Games 1 and 3, putting up 37/8/7 on 67% TS. Both games are in line with how he performed vs. Boston in the regular season (37/7/8 on 57% TS). Also, notably, BOTH games came after 3 days of rest and both were the result of strong outside shooting performances from him (barometer - 16/20 FT 80%). On the other hand, in the 4 losses, he put up 22/10/7 on 49% TS. All four were far worse outside shooting performances (barometer - 36/50 FT 72%) and un-coincidentally, all four came after only a SINGLE day of rest, as opposed to the 3 days he had before the good games. Looks like a pattern to me, one that could be easily explained by an injury that would very clearly hamper a jumpshot.
So at the end, it comes down to that postseason performance. The regular season, to me, clearly suggests that he was at a level above his previous 09 level, and the playoffs looked like they would have been the same story had it not been for the slip ups. I suppose at that point, it comes down to what you're willing to attribute the struggles to. If the faltering is attributed to the idea that he was a fundamentally flawed player who got exposed by an elite defense OR that he just had a mental breakdown in the face of adversity, then yeah, I can't really pick this season as his best one. But if you're willing to consider that he was actually hampered by injury, I think its perfectly reasonable to believe that he was better and more impactful in 2010 and 2009, and in that case I'm willing to pick 2010 as his peak year with confidence.
In the off-season he grains 20 pounds to accommodate a shift to power-forward and a post-game that crystallizes by 2012. He is physically a different less explosive player because he is now playing with an extremely similar teammate. He proceeds to post Jordan level rs-signals paired with better team-wide playoff lift as Miami beat not one, but two final opponents with a fair case as "better than anyone MJ beat"(psrs, success in surrounding years, ect) despite Wade starting to breakdown by 2012. Notably, the Spurs post a better srs and psrs than the 90 Pistons(ditto for 14 vs 89) and would be close to unarguably better if they didn't lose to Lebron's heat(in-spite of his co-star's knees).
In 2014 they make the final inspite of both wade and bosh being shells of their former selves and in 2015, now plagued with back problems and cold-shooting, Lebron leads empirically similar or worse help to better rs and playoff outcomes than any pre-91 Jordan team.
In 2016 using opponent-adjusted numbers, like they did in 2012, the Cavs post bulls-esque psrs en route to beating an inarguably better team than anyone Jordan has after a regular-season where the cavs play 60+ ball with Lebron in the game and are outright bad(as they were over a pretty large 2015 sample) with Lebron out. 2017, they are nearly as good statistically in the playoffs, and also really good in the regular-season when Lebron plays. 2018, with minimal help and Lebron at a point in his career which maps to Wizards MJ leads a 50ish win playoff team and a >.500 regular season team playing nearly minute for all 82 games in a league where all the other, younger, superstars, played less. When Lebron leaves, the Cavs are a 19-win team(25-win if you only look at games with kevin love on the floor). Again, about on par with apex Jordan.
On top of that we have Lebron being vastly better at ages 18-21, vastly better nearing 40, and through it all Lebron has consistently been the one with more minutes and games of milage in the tank(in a league where the competition played less).
He is of course also the RAPM king posting most of the highest marks in all the sets(and looking like a massive outlier when one accounts for possession totals or weights for minutes).
All considered, calling Lebron the fluke here is outright laughable. He has beaten or matched Jordan's trajectory at nearly every age, has proven himself alongside a variety of coaches and co-stars, and was so clearly better by 24 that the three serious jordan-backers on this thread have resorted to taking a <1-point ppg differential as justification to dismiss the year where Lebron broke all stats box or otherwise as a fluke.
If you need to reach this far, there is nothing to grab
Some other, extremely good faith claims over the last couple of pages
Jordan does everything Lebron does and scores better
Djoker wrote:
adagiopace wrote:Yes. He would be able to. Based on his profile that I touched on above Jordan does everything Lebron does except scores on higher volume and turns the ball over less.
Also Djoker:
Many teams with heliocentric pieces show bigger declines when those players sit because those teams heavily rely on that one player for everything
IOW, Jordan does not do everything Lebron does...
Jordan creates as much as Lebron
- similar playmaking volume; note that even though Lebron is undoubtedly a more gifted passer, Jordan's scoring attracts so much defensive attention that he generates a lot more open shots for his teammates to close the gap in this category
This is false even taking assist and assist related metrics at face-value. And of course, you shouldn't be taking those numbers at face-value because MJ did not attract more defensive attention than Lebron post 89. In face he attracted less as the triangle(and Pippen becoming the primary) allowed Jordan to avoid extra defensive attention. Jordan was creating less.
Jordan led better offenses and Lebron's teams sacrificed defense
The 2017 Cavs were an extremely impressive +11.5 rORtg in the playoffs but also +3.3 rDRtg which is really bad defense. Even the 2016 Cavs which were +9.1 rORtg in the playoffs were only -0.4 rDRtg which is average defense. The 1991 Bulls were +9.3 rORtg but with a stingy -3.9 rDRtg.
Sounds good. Alas...
Falcolombardi wrote:I am also unsure where you got yout 16/17 cavs playoffs D rating numbers? Dont seem right at a glance
Are you sure you didnt use numbers unadjusted for rival offensive rating?
Or rival defensive rating...
Spoiler:
OhayoKD wrote:
Djoker wrote:2016 Cavs had a +9.1 rORtg and a -0.4 rDRtg in the postseason. That's hardly an elite playoff defense. That's average defense!
I have no idea how you got those marks.
If I use "flat" defensive-rating, the cavs went
+4 over 4 games +4 over 4 games -9 over 6 games -6 over 7 games 8x4 =32 9x6 = -54 -6x7 = -42 -54-42 = -96 -96+32 = -64
-64/21 ~ -3.
If I use "flat" offensive-rating the cavs go
+14 over 4 games +21 over 4 games +13 over 6 games +5 over 7 games
jordan peak offenses 1991 +11.7 (PS) 1992 +6.5 (PS) 1993 +9.8 (PS) 1996 +8.6 (PS) 1997 +6.5(PS) average +8.6(PS)
If we go by rolling marks from sansterre for both:
Playoff Offensive Rating: +11.43 (4th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -3.82 (68th) Playoff SRS: +14.55 (8th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +5.84 (5th) Shooting Advantage: +3.1%, Possession Advantage: +2.7 shooting possessions per game Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +3.42 (16th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -2.33 (43rd)
Playoff Offensive Rating: +6.48 (36th), Playoff Defensive Rating: -7.92 (18th) Playoff SRS: +15.73 (6th), Total SRS Increase through Playoffs: +6.38 (3rd) Shooting Advantage: +6.2%, Possession Advantage: -1.7 shooting possessions per game Average Playoff Opponent Offense: +2.92 (28th), Average Playoff Opponent Defense: -1.18 (69th)
Any way you slice it, the 2016 cavs offense top the 1991 bulls and the cavs are a very good playoff defense with Lebron instead of Pippen.
you can claim(baselessly) that was a product of talent but the Bulls without Jordan were a better offense in 94 and 95 than the lebron-less cavs(especialy if we compare games with the two co-stars) and their offense and defense skyrocketed starting in the second half of 1990 despite minimal change in Jordan's own "production" to speak. There's really no reason to assume Jordan had worse or even similar support, so Lebron simply doing more and therefore being more valuable is probably the better explanation...
We can maybe chalk up what came before to ignorance, but this is just indefensible. Djoker has been provided opponent-adjusted numbers from several sources with both flat and rolling approaches but opted to repeat the unadjusted ones anyway. You don't get to cry about Lebron running through weak competition, and then ignore competition when assessing performance.
Of course, the goal here wasn't to provide accurate insight, but to tear down Lebron. Take Lebron as he is, and MJ, at least by criterion most posters are comfortable broadcasting, doesn't have much of an argument. Downplay everything he offers or does with bad-faith nonsense and then it starts to look reasonable.
Of course you can alternatively try to frame disadvantages as advantages:
Moving past the batsh-t stupid stuff
Lebron>Lebron -> Jordan>Lebron?
Plus 2009 being Lebron's peak (much less the GOAT peak)
c) he visibly improved in many areas of his game in Miami including better jump shooting from all-ranges, post-play, off-ball movement etc
If a year that you cannot mount a case for Jordan against is not Lebron's peak, the logical extrapolation is that Lebron has multiple Jordan+ peaks.
If Lebron "visibly improved" from the year you cannot mount a case for Jordan against, the logical extrapolation is that Lebron increased the gap.
You do not get to sidestep the year where even conventional box favors Lebron by referencing other Lebrons
Lebron was only 24!
he was too young; no other great peaked at age 24
Says who? Kareem arguably had his most impactful regular-season(and postseason) at 24 after seeing his most dominant championship win at 23. Jordan arguably had his impact peak at 24 and had his numbers translated like Lebron's in the playoffs you'd be hard-pressed to argue Jordan was significantly better in another year.
Regardless, the end result of "lebron was not yet at his best when he played better than jordan" is "lebron is better than jordan".
zimpy27 wrote: Do you appreciate how inconsistent the Cavs teams were towards end of LeBrons first time there? Not to mention he changed teams soon after.
That whole period was inconsistent externally to LeBron and that's going to show up in box score stats.
Considering they're struggling to appreciate that Lebron actually played more minutes than MJ did...
letskissbro wrote:If LeBron had only managed to shoot his 09-18 regular season averages from 3-10, 10-16, and 16-3pt during the 2009 playoffs, his points scored from mid range would've plummeted from 104 to 95.2. His points per game would've gone from a staggering 35.3 to a measly 34.7! Just a complete fluke! Grounds to disqualify the season altogether, really.
Instead of pointing to some other otherworldly numbers for another player, the argument has to be “outlier” since those other numbers do not exist. The problem here is that when talking about the very best players ever, you expect these types of things to happen and sure enough, they did, but not by the player they want so the numbers don’t really count.
falcolombardi wrote:I am also unsure where you got yout 16/17 cavs playoffs D rating numbers? Dont seem right at a glance Are you sure you didnt use numbers unadjusted for rival offensive rating?
Yes, he didn’t adjust for team even though it was brought up before.
With LeBron on court vs. the Raps and Warriors, Cavs had a -8.3 rDRtg. For the entire playoffs, it was a -5.7 rDRtg
2016 Cavs’ playoffs defense
vs. Pistons (105.3 ORtg): 109.2 DRtg, +3.9 rDRtg LeBron vs Pistons: 103.7 DRtg, -1.6 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron: 130.9 DRtg, +25.6 rDRtg
vs. Hawks (104.6 ORtg): 106.4 DRtg, +1.8 rDRtg LeBron vs. Hawks: 103.2 DRtg, -1.4 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron: 112.9 DRtg, +8.3 rDRtg
vs. Raptors (109.3 ORtg): 98.9 DRtg, -10.4 rDRtg LeBron vs. Raptors: 102.2 DRtg, -7.1 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron*: 83.9 DRtg, -25.4 rDRtg
vs. Warriors (113.5 ORtg): 107.5 DRtg, -6.0 rDRtg LeBron vs. Warriors: 104.1 DRtg, -9.4 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron: 122.0 DRtg, +8.5 rDRtg
*Note that the Cavs’ defense without LeBron on court vs. the Raptors happened primarily in garbage time.
Game 1, LeBron sat out the 4th quarter up 28:
Game 5, LeBron sat out the 4th up 42
Game 6, LeBron sat out the last 3 minutes up 23 and the Raptors, both teams subbed and the Raps scored 2 points in 3 minutes,
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
letskissbro wrote:If LeBron had only managed to shoot his 09-18 regular season averages from 3-10, 10-16, and 16-3pt during the 2009 playoffs, his points scored from mid range would've plummeted from 104 to 95.2. His points per game would've gone from a staggering 35.3 to a measly 34.7! Just a complete fluke! Grounds to disqualify the season altogether, really.
I'm not the one who mentioned his midrange shooting when saying that the 2009 postseason is an outlier but why include 3-10 feet? No one considers 3-10 feet as midrange.
And including later years when he shot better from midrange is not good analysis.
In the 2009 playoffs:
Lebron took 18 shots from 10-16 feet and shot 44.4% scoring 16 points. Lebron took 74 shots from 16-23 feet and shot 48.9% scoring 72 points.
In the 2009 regular season he shot 28.6% from 10-16 feet and 38.8% from 16-23 feet. If he shot at those % in the playoffs he would have scored about 10 points from 10-16 feet and 57 points from 16-23 feet. All in all he would have scored 21 fewer points which brings him from 35.3 ppg down to 33.8 ppg. It also brings down his efficiency from 61.8 %TS to 59.2 %TS. That's a noticeable drop.
Djoker wrote:Of course I was using the term "outlier" colloquially as was probably just about everyone else in this thread. Besides there is no universally accepted definition of a statistical outlier. It's simply a data point that doesn't fit well with the rest of the data. 1.5 IQR above upper quartile or 2 or 2.5 or 3 standard deviations above the mean are all widely used. When I wrote scientific papers a p value of <0.05 is used which for a normal distribution is over 2 standard deviations away. According to this definition, 2009 postseason is an outlier. But anyways...
The point is that Lebron's 2009 playoffs is a clear example of an unsustainable performance. He's so much better in that postseason than any of the surrounding years that it's hard to take that at face value.
Plus 2009 being Lebron's peak (much less the GOAT peak) makes no sense for a plethora of other reasons such as: a) he was too young; no other great peaked at age 24 b) a lot of media/fans/fellow players considered Kobe and/or Wade as being better players than Lebron at this time c) he visibly improved in many areas of his game in Miami including better jump shooting from all-ranges, post-play, off-ball movement etc. and most importantly psychologically. Given what happened in the 2010 and especially 2011 playoffs, how can we ever pretend that 2009 was peak Lebron...
The reason 1991 MJ is better than Lebron's peak is that I can take any year surrounding it.. 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993 and I get a very very similar player. In fact for 104 consecutive playoff games from 1986-1993, Jordan averaged 34.9/6.7/6.6 on +4.5 rTS with 3.3 topg. And for 567 consecutive regular season games from 1987-1993, Jordan averaged 33.4/6.2/6.0 on +5.4 rTS with 2.9 topg. By the way in that span he missed just 7 regular season games.
Jordan dominates Lebron in terms of the four offensive dimensions (scoring volume, scoring efficiency, box creation, turnovers) that it's hard not to have him a tier higher on offense. And Ben Taylor does as well with his GOAT offensive tier being MJ, Curry and Magic. Given that both are perimeter players who generally have little impact on defense, Lebron would need to have a humongous defensive edge to bridge the gap.
He has stretches like the 2016 Finals where he was really good on D but if 2016 is Lebron's peak then what about the terrible shooting in 2015 and the bad defense in the 2017 and 2018 Finals? The load management during the regular season too. Again, no consistency to match Jordan. And besides 2016 Lebron is still a lot behind peak Jordan in terms of playoff offense putting up just 26.3/9.5/7.6 on +4.4 rTS with 3.6 topg. It's hard to imagine his defensive impact being so great to overcome Jordan putting up >8 ppg more.
Most of the arguments for Lebron center around these esoteric team impact numbers. As if Lebron's teams crushing the weak Eastern Conference so hard in years like 2016 and 2017 makes him a better offensive anchor than Jordan... On teams that have way more offensive talent and are offensively slanted at the expense of defense. The 2017 Cavs were an extremely impressive +11.5 rORtg in the playoffs but also +3.3 rDRtg which is really bad defense. Even the 2016 Cavs which were +9.1 rORtg in the playoffs were only -0.4 rDRtg which is average defense. The 1991 Bulls were +9.3 rORtg but with a stingy -3.9 rDRtg. The Bulls peaked offensively led by Jordan while not sacrificing their defense and with less offensive talent.
A) Lebron peaking at 24 is not a consensus opinion due to the strenght of many of his other later seasons, but even if he did that is not inpossible or unlikely.
People often arbitrary define that players -must- peak somewhere in their late 20's and not any older or younger as if it was some hard rule. And here you seem to be going backwards with assuming it has to be the case for everyone.
B) ok? Lots of players and media also think kobe is the 3rd best player ever and i would disagree with them on that and a bunch of other stuff too.
C) Are we going to ignore the defensive dominance, athletism edge, motor 2009 lebron had over later seasons?. May as well use the same reasoning to put second cavs stint lebron unarguably over miami lebron (again against the age thingh of your first point) Most skilled version of players is not automatically better than their mote physically dominant version. If that was the case jordan peak would be the late 90's and lebron peak would be unarguably on the lakers
You call team results esoteric but see box creation as a benchmark of offensive impact? What about another ben taylor creation like passer rating, is that "not esoteric" enough? Why not use assists here instead if you are looking at boxscore?
If you see boxscore totals and particularly ppg as equivalent to offense do you commit to that for other players or just for lebron vs jordan? I ask this cause then i would have to wonder what your thoughts are on somethingh like magic vs harden
Lebron is not a guard like jordan is, he literally has played the 4 for a lot of his career. And by ben taylor own opinion you cite he is a more impactful defender than jordan with a all time defensive peak for wings
I am also unsure where you got yout 16/17 cavs playoffs D rating numbers? Dont seem right at a glance
Are you sure you didnt use numbers unadjusted for rival offensive rating?
You do realize that Jordan from 1989-1991 averages more assists in the playoffs than Lebron from 2012-2014? And even other versions of prime Lebron had only very slightly higher assist numbers than MJ.
I'm using Box Creation which is one of the four offensive dimensions which represents playmaking. Passing is a subcategory of playmaking. Jordan holds his own with Lebron in terms of Box Creation. And does so with a lower turnover rate.
homecourtloss wrote: With LeBron on court vs. the Raps and Warriors, Cavs had a -8.3 rDRtg. For the entire playoffs, it was a -5.7 rDRtg
How are these numbers adjusted? Relative to what?
The Cavs had a +11.5 Net Rating with Lebron on the court in the 2016 playoffs.
The 1991 Bulls had a +13.2 Net Rating overall and probably considerably higher with Jordan on the court.
homecourtloss wrote: With LeBron on court vs. the Raps and Warriors, Cavs had a -8.3 rDRtg. For the entire playoffs, it was a -5.7 rDRtg
How are these numbers adjusted? Relative to what?
The Cavs had a +11.5 Net Rating with Lebron on the court in the 2016 playoffs.
Relative to the offenses he faced. As was pointed out, when talking about individuals and relative TS or DRtg or ORTg in playoffs, etc., we adjust to what these teams’s ORtg/DRtg/TS allowed, etc. You’re literally replying to a post that spells it out.
2016 Cavs’ playoffs defense
vs. Pistons (105.3 ORtg): 109.2 DRtg, +3.9 rDRtg LeBron vs Pistons: 103.7 DRtg, -1.6 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron: 130.9 DRtg, +25.6 rDRtg
vs. Hawks (104.6 ORtg): 106.4 DRtg, +1.8 rDRtg LeBron vs. Hawks: 103.2 DRtg, -1.4 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron: 112.9 DRtg, +8.3 rDRtg
vs. Raptors (109.3 ORtg): 98.9 DRtg, -10.4 rDRtg LeBron vs. Raptors: 102.2 DRtg, -7.1 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron*: 83.9 DRtg, -25.4 rDRtg
vs. Warriors (113.5 ORtg): 107.5 DRtg, -6.0 rDRtg LeBron vs. Warriors: 104.1 DRtg, -9.4 rDRtg Cavs’ defense without LeBron: 122.0 DRtg, +8.5 rDRtg
*Note that the Cavs’ defense without LeBron on court vs. the Raptors happened primarily in garbage time.
Game 1, LeBron sat out the 4th quarter up 28:
Game 5, LeBron sat out the 4th up 42
Game 6, LeBron sat out the last 3 minutes up 23 and the Raptors, both teams subbed and the Raps scored 2 points in 3 minutes,
lessthanjake wrote:Kyrie was extremely impactful without LeBron, and basically had zero impact whatsoever if LeBron was on the court.
lessthanjake wrote: By playing in a way that prevents Kyrie from getting much impact, LeBron ensures that controlling for Kyrie has limited effect…
homecourtloss wrote: Relative to the offenses he faced. As was pointed out, when talking about individuals and relative TS or DRtg or ORTg in playoffs, etc., we adjust to what these teams’s ORtg/DRtg/TS allowed, etc. You’re literally replying to a post that spells it out.
Ok. I'll play along...
Let's compare the adjusted numbers.
Offense first.
1991 Bulls:
Round 1 vs. Knicks: +8.8 rORtg ECSF vs. Sixers: +10.8 rORtg ECF vs. Pistons: +17.0 rORtg Finals vs. Lakers: +10.7 rORtg
Average: +11.9 rORtg
2016 Cavs:
Round 1 vs. Pistons: +14.9 rORtg ECSF vs. Hawks: +21.5 rORtg ECF vs. Raptors: +13.3 rORtg Finals vs. Warriors: +5.3 rORtg
Average: +12.5 rORtg
The 1991 Bulls clearly had better offenses relative to opposition in the last two rounds against the tougher teams.
Defense second.
1991 Bulls:
Round 1 vs. Knicks: -12.9 rDRtg ECSF vs. Sixers: +0.8 rDRtg ECF vs. Pistons: +0.3 rDRtg Finals vs. Lakers: -7.6 rDRtg
Average: -4.2 rDRtg
2016 Cavs:
Round 1 vs. Pistons: +4.4 rDRtg ECSF vs. Hawks: +4.0 rDRtg ECF vs. Raptors: -8.8 rDRtg Finals vs. Warriors: -6.0 rDRtg
Average: -2.9 rDRtg
Eh I don't see how these numbers help Lebron's argument much. It's also worth noting that the Warriors offense was even worse in the OKC series which casts doubts on the theory that the Cavs (and Lebron's) defense had extraordinary impact on the Warriors.
And the boxscore is not kind to Lebron.
Per 75 - Postseason: 1991 Jordan: 31.4 pts, 6.4 reb, 8.4 ast, 2.4 stl, 1.4 blk on +6.6 rTS with 2.6 tov 2016 Lebron: 26.7 pts, 9.7 reb, 7.7 ast, 2.4 stl, 1.3 blk on +4.4 rTS with 3.6 tov
Jordan literally wins in all four categories - scoring volume, efficiency, box creation and turnovers. ALL OF THEM!
He is one if not two tiers ahead as an offensive player. Exactly how good do we think Lebron's defense was to not just bridge the gap but leapfrog past Jordan. I don't see it.
homecourtloss wrote: Relative to the offenses he faced. As was pointed out, when talking about individuals and relative TS or DRtg or ORTg in playoffs, etc., we adjust to what these teams’s ORtg/DRtg/TS allowed, etc. You’re literally replying to a post that spells it out.
Ok. I'll play along...
Let's compare the adjusted numbers.
Offense first.
1991 Bulls:
Round 1 vs. Knicks: +8.8 rORtg ECSF vs. Sixers: +10.8 rORtg ECF vs. Pistons: +17.0 rORtg Finals vs. Lakers: +10.7 rORtg
Average: +11.9 rORtg
2016 Cavs:
Round 1 vs. Pistons: +14.9 rORtg ECSF vs. Hawks: +21.5 rORtg ECF vs. Raptors: +13.3 rORtg Finals vs. Warriors: +5.3 rORtg
Average: +12.5 rORtg
The 1991 Bulls clearly had better offenses relative to opposition in the last two rounds against the tougher teams.
Defense second.
1991 Bulls:
Round 1 vs. Knicks: -12.9 rDRtg ECSF vs. Sixers: +0.8 rDRtg ECF vs. Pistons: +0.3 rDRtg Finals vs. Lakers: -7.6 rDRtg
Average: -4.2 rDRtg
2016 Cavs:
Round 1 vs. Pistons: +4.4 rDRtg ECSF vs. Hawks: +4.0 rDRtg ECF vs. Raptors: -8.8 rDRtg Finals vs. Warriors: -6.0 rDRtg
Average: -2.9 rDRtg
Eh I don't see how these numbers help Lebron's argument much. It's also worth noting that the Warriors offense was even worse in the OKC series which casts doubts on the theory that the Cavs (and Lebron's) defense had extraordinary impact on the Warriors.
And the boxscore is not kind to Lebron.
Per 75 - Postseason: 1991 Jordan: 31.4 pts, 6.4 reb, 8.4 ast, 2.4 stl, 1.4 blk on +6.6 rTS with 2.6 tov 2016 Lebron: 26.7 pts, 9.7 reb, 7.7 ast, 2.4 stl, 1.3 blk on +4.4 rTS with 3.6 tov
Jordan literally wins in all four categories - scoring volume, efficiency, box creation and turnovers. ALL OF THEM!
He is one if not two tiers ahead as an offensive player. Exactly how good do we think Lebron's defense was to not just bridge the gap but leapfrog past Jordan. I don't see it.
Good post. I would just note that I wouldn't argue MJ's creation was touching Lebron's in terms of value added as a playmaker on a consistent basis.
By Ben's metric PlayVal (PlayVal: Playmaking value, an estimate of a player’s points per 100 impact from playmaking only.), Jordan's PlayVal of 2.5 in 1991 is slightly higher than Lebron's PS PlayVal peak of 2.49. However, as you have been stressing with 2009 being an outlier, 1991 MJ's playmaking is also an outlier.
MJ's best runs in PlayVal are the following:
+2.5 +1.8 +1.6 +1.6 +1.2 +1.2 +1.1
These are all the PS runs, where MJ was above a +1 in per-possession impact in PlayVal. Compare that to Lebron, who has consistently shown up as a different tier of playmaker from MJ.
Lebron has much more of a history of being a better playmaker than MJ.
I think it is important to distinguish this, because while Jordan might be creating similar to a Lebron or Magic per estimated creation rates, his actual play-making value isn't as good on a typical basis (which seems to be your point around 09 Lebron being a flimsy argument for his peak; the reality is MJ often wasn't as good of a playmaker as Lebron, just as Lebron wasn't as good of a scorer as often as MJ).
1991 certainly seems like an outlier for MJ on the playmaking front. If 1991 MJ isn't consider an outlier on the playmaking front, than neither should Lebron's 09 run as a scorer.
I'm also not certain how Play-Val is calculated over multi-year stretches, but the gap becomes really apparent when you look at 3-year stretches.
Lebron, Magic, and Nash are tied for #1 at +2.5 over 3-year PS PlayVal Peaks. They are the best of the best.
Jordan best 3-year PlaVal stretch is +1.9.
Per ScoreVal (Scoring value, an estimate of a player’s points per 100 impact from scoring only.), Lebron's best scoring run is in 14, where he is a +3.7. 09 Lebron is a +3.5. Both of these runs are better than any Jordan run by ScoreVal. I don't think you would argue Lebron is a better scorer than MJ, so I think you see where I am going with this.
The gap between them as scorers is actually smaller than the gap between them as playmakers, if we go by the ScoreVal/PlayVal Metrics.
Lebron has a a +.8 lead in Single-Year PS ScoreVal peaks.
Jordan only has a +.01 lead in Single-Year PS PlayVal peaks.
Lebron has a +.6 lead in 3-year PS PlayVal peaks.
Jordan has a +.4 lead in 3-year PS ScoreVal peaks.
Tl/Dr. But, as someone that watched both careers and was a fanboy for neither my opinion is that Jordan was a cut above Lebron.
"Thibs called back and wanted more picks," said Jorge Sedano. "And Pat Riley, literally, I was told, called him a mother-bleeper and hung up the phone."
homecourtloss wrote: Relative to the offenses he faced. As was pointed out, when talking about individuals and relative TS or DRtg or ORTg in playoffs, etc., we adjust to what these teams’s ORtg/DRtg/TS allowed, etc. You’re literally replying to a post that spells it out.
Ok. I'll play along...
Let's compare the adjusted numbers.
Offense first.
1991 Bulls:
Round 1 vs. Knicks: +8.8 rORtg ECSF vs. Sixers: +10.8 rORtg ECF vs. Pistons: +17.0 rORtg Finals vs. Lakers: +10.7 rORtg
Average: +11.9 rORtg
2016 Cavs:
Round 1 vs. Pistons: +14.9 rORtg ECSF vs. Hawks: +21.5 rORtg ECF vs. Raptors: +13.3 rORtg Finals vs. Warriors: +5.3 rORtg
Average: +12.5 rORtg
The 1991 Bulls clearly had better offenses relative to opposition in the last two rounds against the tougher teams.
Defense second.
1991 Bulls:
Round 1 vs. Knicks: -12.9 rDRtg ECSF vs. Sixers: +0.8 rDRtg ECF vs. Pistons: +0.3 rDRtg Finals vs. Lakers: -7.6 rDRtg
Average: -4.2 rDRtg
2016 Cavs:
Round 1 vs. Pistons: +4.4 rDRtg ECSF vs. Hawks: +4.0 rDRtg ECF vs. Raptors: -8.8 rDRtg Finals vs. Warriors: -6.0 rDRtg
Average: -2.9 rDRtg
Eh I don't see how these numbers help Lebron's argument much. It's also worth noting that the Warriors offense was even worse in the OKC series which casts doubts on the theory that the Cavs (and Lebron's) defense had extraordinary impact on the Warriors.
And the boxscore is not kind to Lebron.
Per 75 - Postseason: 1991 Jordan: 31.4 pts, 6.4 reb, 8.4 ast, 2.4 stl, 1.4 blk on +6.6 rTS with 2.6 tov 2016 Lebron: 26.7 pts, 9.7 reb, 7.7 ast, 2.4 stl, 1.3 blk on +4.4 rTS with 3.6 tov
Jordan literally wins in all four categories - scoring volume, efficiency, box creation and turnovers. ALL OF THEM!
He is one if not two tiers ahead as an offensive player. Exactly how good do we think Lebron's defense was to not just bridge the gap but leapfrog past Jordan. I don't see it.
Good post. I would just note that I wouldn't argue MJ's creation was touching Lebron's in terms of value added as a playmaker on a consistent basis.
By Ben's metric PlayVal (PlayVal: Playmaking value, an estimate of a player’s points per 100 impact from playmaking only.), Jordan's PlayVal of 2.5 in 1991 is slightly higher than Lebron's PS PlayVal peak of 2.49. However, as you have been stressing with 2009 being an outlier, 1991 MJ's playmaking is also an outlier.
MJ's best runs in PlayVal are the following:
+2.5 +1.8 +1.6 +1.6 +1.2 +1.2 +1.1
These are all the PS runs, where MJ was above a +1 in per-possession impact in PlayVal. Compare that to Lebron, who has consistently shown up as a different tier of playmaker from MJ.
