RealGM Top 100 List #7

[RayBan-Sematra]

VOTE : Magic

This was a hard one for me.
Gave some real consideration to Hakeem and Bron.

Bron still falls short of Magic for me when I look at their playoff careers.
Magic was more consistent and was better in elimination/finals series.
He has 12 excellent years in the playoffs while Lebron has 9 years total.
To be fair though I can see the argument for Lebron at this point. I just think it is still too early for him.

Hakeem was not the offensive force Magic was but the defensive gap is pretty huge.
Plus his scoring numbers over his playoff Prime stack up pretty well with the other GOAT offensive C's.
His lack of consistency over his career on the offensive end end hurts him but I have seen reasonable arguments which give some blame to his situation rather then him simply lacking as an individual.
If this thread wasn't going to end in a Magic/Bron runoff then I would have strongly considered voting for him.

[magicmerl]

I think I'm gonna go with Magic here. Probably this time next year LeBron will have passed him. But not yet.

Not enough here to count this as a vote

[Colbinii]

However, I don't think LeBron's effect on contenders is as good. Both Wade and Bosh's numbers went down noticeably during the Miami Big 3 era. Moreover, he didn't help turn any of his other Miami teammates into all-stars.

In contrast, Magic help turn James Worthy into an all-star and Hall-of-Famer. And likewise, Bird's presence contributed to both Parish and McHale becoming HOFers.

James Worthy was the #1 overall pick, did he really turn him into anything?

What teammates of LeBron's was he suppose to turn into all-stars? A 38 year old Ray Allen? He made Birdman look like one of the most effective players in NBA history.

[Notanoob]

I think I'm gonna go with Magic here. Probably this time next year LeBron will have passed him. But not yet.

You're probably going to need more analysis here for your vote to count.

[DQuinn1575]

How Magic was viewed in 1984 - Sports Illustrated:

http://www.si.com/vault/1984/08/20/6222 ... unreliable

At long last we've settled the NBA world championship—like well-trained lab mice, we don't lapse into that inadequate appellation of yore, NBA playoffs—and we're about ready to consign to the archival microfiche the seven-game drama that the Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics acted out for us last spring. But first, take a last look at one thing the series settled: Earvin (Magic) Johnson, L.A.'s superstar guard, simply is not a clutch player.

A cover story in the June 4, 1984 issue of SI didn't exactly make the claim that he was a clutch player, saying only that, compared with the Celtics' Larry Bird, Magic is the better "money" player. But it's important to bear in mind there are two kinds of money players: those who produce over the course of a big game and those who produce in those rare, demanding moments we call the clutch. That distinction is critical.

Give Magic the ball, a few fleet teammates, a little adrenaline, and he's off, running. He's a self-styled hoops hedonist, pro basketball's Cyndi Lauper. He "just wants to have fun." That's all well and good, and for most of the NBA season it's a productive attitude, one that pleases fans. He has his fun and seems to run the break and run up his statistical totals almost effortlessly. He has bushels of "triple doubles"—games in which he reaches double figures in points, rebounds and assists.

Magic refers to what he does as "Showtime." Presumably, the bigger the game, the bigger the production. But you can't have fun in the clutch; Lordy, you can't crack a smile in the clutch. The clutch is a crucible. Calling on Magic then is like asking Busby Berkeley to step in and direct the climactic scene in an Ingmar Bergman movie.

Late in games during the championship series, the CBS announcing team would make the obligatory comments about how players like Magic love such moments. Yet, time and time again, we saw evidence of Magic's distaste for them.

Game Two: Magic becomes catatonic with the ball on the wing, dribbling out the last 10 seconds of regulation while ostensibly looking for Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the low post. L.A. doesn't even get off a final shot in a game it will lose in overtime.

Game Four: The Lakers bollix up a chance to win on their last possession in regulation when Robert Parish intercepts Magic's pass to James Worthy. L.A. loses in OT again—thanks largely to Magic's two missed free throws with :35 left and the score tied at 123.

Game Seven: What has been a Celtic rout suddenly becomes a three-point Celtic lead in the final 1:14, with the Lakers moving upcourt. But Magic is stripped of the ball by Boston's Dennis Johnson. Just seconds later, after L.A. regains possession with another chance to pull within one, Magic throws the ball away. He's playing with some pain from tendinitis in his knees, but even he will admit that weak knees have nothing to do with being weak-kneed.

It has become fashionable to cite as evidence of Magic's ability to rise to big occasions his 42-point, 15-rebound, seven-assist performance in Game Six of the '80 NBA finals, when the Lakers, without Abdul-Jabbar, who was injured and not even at the game, routed the 76ers in Philadelphia to win the title. Magic partisans also point out Michigan State's 75-64 defeat of Bird and Indiana State to win the NCAA crown in 1979. But since neither game was close, there weren't any true clutch moments.

A more telling test: the final game in the 1981 L.A.-Houston best-of-three miniseries, when the Rockets threatened to oust the defending champion Lakers in L.A. First, with the score tied at 85, :30 left. Magic blew two of three free throws. After the Rockets scored to go up 87-86, the Lakers looked to Magic once more. With :03 left, he didn't just miss; his driving jumper in the lane didn't even draw iron. Exit L.A.

Certainly anyone can be excused for turning the ball over at crunch time—once. Maybe twice. And anyone can miss an occasional shot or blow a couple of free throws (though, increasingly, such failings are tolerated more often than they should be). But when this happens repeatedly, we can't help but wonder: When the very biggest games get to be their very closest, is Magic's unreliability chronic?

Show us it ain't so, Earvin.

[andrewww]

Vote for #7 - Magic
I'm not a huge fan of the term "portability" being thrown around these days (it gives me this negative feeling as it seems to go hand in hand with people who over-emphasize "the right way to play"). That said, I think ronnymac2's post really exemplifies how magic was able to change his game several times throughout his career and still remain a consistent force production-wise as well as leading his team to success.

I think LeBron can turn non-contenders into contenders, perhaps as well as any player, because of his Swiss-Army-knife abilities.

However, I don't think LeBron's effect on contenders is as good. Both Wade and Bosh's numbers went down noticeably during the Miami Big 3 era. Moreover, he didn't help turn any of his other Miami teammates into all-stars.

In contrast, Magic help turn James Worthy into an all-star and Hall-of-Famer. And likewise, Bird's presence contributed to both Parish and McHale becoming HOFers.

The sample size still isn't quite large enough for me to reasonably agree with this view point, but there are signs this isn't entirely off.

The 3 best players of all-star quality (at the time they became LeBron's teammate) were Wade, Bosh, and Larry Hughes thus far (I excluded Ilgauskas, Mo Williams, and Ray Allen) and every single one of them had to adjust their game to accomodate LeBron's strengths.

Bosh admittedly became more of a jump shooter to space the floor for LeBron (and Wade for that matter), Wade played more off the ball to let LeBron create, and Hughes was a disaster when compared to how much more effective he was as a player before he left Washington.

We'll know if this view point is accurate when we see how Kyrie/Wiggins/(insert new star player) contribute around in LeBron's second go-around with the Cavs.

[Doctor MJ]

(Pre-Emptive Runoff) Vote: LeBron James

So, I've been traveling and busy, finally got a time to right my latest Garnett vote...but it's taking too long and I feel like it will be better served to save for the next thread at the start. As such I'm saving the draft and just skipping to what seems clearly to be about to be announced as the runoff between Magic and LeBron.

This particular comparison has been on my mind a lot for quite a while, and with this particular project in mind way in advance. I knew that at this point the longevity difference between the two wouldn't be big any more, so to me it just feels like a moment of truth with nothing to hide behind: Who ya got, prime Magic or prime LeBron?

Now, that might be a little too simple. Magic came into the league considerably more mature than LeBron. Hard for me to really see that being the deciding factor though given that Magic never was seriously talked about as a top tier MVP kind a guy until his 4th year while LeBron was already indisputably there by his 3rd year - not saying I'd pick LeBron based on him "getting there first", just that even in places where you'd expect Magic to still hold some longevity edge, it's not so clear cut.

So, prime Magic, prime LeBron, who you got?

Let's start on offense. As of my last list, Magic was my offensive GOAT. People have asked for elaboration on that type of thinking so I'll start there:

Logically, the better your supporting cast is at scoring/passing/etc, basically at the attack portion of offense, the more the optimal star has to be at making full use of them. In the extreme example where you had 5 equals out there, then 80% of the time someone other than you will be the one in best position to attack, and hence your ability to choose and get the ball to that right part of the 80% becomes more valuable than what you can do on your own. It's a variant of what John Wooden used to say: 90% of the time you will not have the ball in your hands, if you can't give me enough during that 90% of the time, then you won't be out there at all.

So now, proof in the pudding, are the best offenses typically led by a master facilitator? Absolutely. There 3 offensive dynasties in NBA history: Oscar's Royals, Magic's Lakers, and Nash's Suns. So right there, there's really no reason that there's a better type of offensive player than a great facilitator for a top of the line offense. The only real question is whether the presumed superior fit of a more individualistic scorer with worse teams tips the overall comparison in the other direction.

What would it take to do that? Well, first off let's guard ourselves against systems that don't scale. If a guy can have more net lift leading a mediocre offense than someone else can do in leading an elite offense, is that actually more impressive? The answer isn't necessarily an easy one to conclude, but certainly it makes sense if someone says they are focused on systems that actually scale to championship level.

As it happens, I don't think we really have to choose. We have the RAPM data over the past decade plus, and the guy leading the best offenses also gave the biggest lift based on regression analysis (Nash). That's not everlasting proof by any means, but what it does tell you is that there is absolutely a basis for saying not only that these facilitators are the best fit for the best offenses, but that when they do so they are contributing lift at least up there with the more individual scorers.

Now going from Nash to Magic: It's pretty easy to imagine Magic as a more well rounded Nash. While he lacks Nash's shooting - and that's not a small matter - the way he scaled up to volume score as needed can be seen as something that may even that out, or might even surpass that. Meanwhile if we're talking raw passing ability, Magic seems even less bound by traditional avenues than Nash is. Add in that outstanding overall team success and general acclaim for Magic's game, it's pretty easy to make the case that among this top tier Magic gets the nod over Nash.

What about Oscar? I'll probably praise Oscar soon in another post, I don't mean to knock him. He was clear cut the Offensive Player of the '60s, and I think the best we saw until Bird & Magic. However he was playing in a more primitive era with less successful offense, and - here's the kicker - he wasn't able to separate his team's from the fray the way either the top defenses of the time or the top offenses of later eras did. Any kind of tiebreak here for me goes against him at that point in comparison to Magic.

Now getting back to LeBron, the question becomes just how big of an edge does Magic have here on offense - acknowledging up front that not everyone would even accept he has one?

I think the answer is really: Not that big of one. And that's the problem, because LeBron has a sizable advantage on defense. Let me break it down again with Nash and our more recent databall.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... _web#gid=4

So to start out, here's the top 5 offensive guys based on their 5 top years:

1. Nash 9.08
2. LeBron 8.14
3. Wade 7.93
4. Shaq 7.63
5. Kobe 7.79

Now, first glance at that list puts Nash way ahead of the rest. In one respect though that's unfair to LeBron & Wade because RAPM doesn't treat them that kindly when they join together. Not saying the redundancy can't be held against them, but if we accept that LeBron & Wade could have kept up their monster lift if they stayed in their unipolar teams, they end up considerably closer to Nash. So from one viewpoint you can look at this data telling you that there were 3 top offensive players a tier above the rest in this era.

But what about the scalability? As mentioned, if a player can have huge lift with mediocre offense, that doesn't mean he can do the same with great resources. Turns out, Wade seems to be a bit of a poster boy for this issue. He actually has the single highest 1-year peak in offensive RAPM in 2010 while leading a below average team, and even in his Finals MVP year, Miami wasn't running an unstoppable offense by any means. Hence a bit of irony: That first title put Wade in a category in the eyes of many as a made man who you simply knew you could build a champion around, but there's actually quite a lot of reason to believe it's not that easy to build around him as an offensive fulcrum.

Put it another way: I really don't see any reason at all to have a debate between Nash and Wade over who the more impressive offensive player is because of Wade's scalability issues...but LeBron's another animal. LeBron's Cavs were actually elite on offense despite their clear limitations, and when it made sense for LeBron to make big changes in Miami, he did it. Miami didn't record GOAT ORTG ratings, but their eFG% was absolutely stellar, and the choice to go small ball was clearly done based on the talent they had rather than based on some limitation of LeBron's.

There's also the matter that we've seen both in Cleveland and in Miami that when LeBron-based offenses really click into gear, the crunch time success can get crazy. If I saw this a bit more reliably each year that would probably tip the scales for me on LeBron over Nash on offense, as is the inconsistency makes me cautious. It is something that makes it debatable in my eyes though.

And that's before you start thinking about the iron man aspect of LeBron that Nash didn't have - and neither did Magic. Even if you grant them the per minute edge on offense, it may not to stem the overall tide.

I look at all this, and to me LeBron is on that top tier of offensive players all-time. I'm not ready to champion him as a peak offensive GOAT, but no, I don't consider him a tier down from Magic, Bird, or Nash. And then we keep coming back to the defense: Does anyone even doubt that LeBron has a tier-plus edge on that front?

One other thing to put into context here:

Even as I tend to put Magic over Nash without much concern, I don't take it as any kind of given that Magic had as much offensive impact when he played as Nash did. As I've said before, with modern strategy, now is a better time to be a facilitator than back then. As such I'm already playing the game of putting a guy in the context of a different era to justify him continuing to have his stature - something I've warned others about. There may come a time that I rank Nash over Magic, which I know makes me sound all the more crazy. It's not some promise on my part, I'm just saying: Objectively those Nash Suns separated their ORtg from the fray more so than Magic's, and played in an era where it makes sense that such offensive genius could be even more successful, so for Magic's offensive GOAT candidacy to eventually come down to me thinking he'd do absolute wonders in the modern era shouldn't come as that great of a shock.

Thing is though, when I imagine Magic in this era, and imagine the absolute ideal of this era, I'm not sure if Magic fits that bill more than LeBron. As I said, it's Larry Bird with genius IQ and GOAT level shooting that really pops my eyes open. Sure I'll give Magic the IQ nod and marvel at his Globetrotter-esque passes, but let's not overblow things here. How often nowadays are we really seeing LeBron let a possession stagnate based on overly rigid thinking? He didn't get to this level of basketball wisdom as quickly as Bird & Magic did, but his continued growth is not anything to take lightly, and in that sense I'd suggest we see him a bit like Jordan with Phil:

The better the basketball brains on the sideline, and the more you take what they say and really develop it, the more you can close the gap on the savants. With Jordan closing that gap in the offensive attack combined with everything else he gave you was enough virtually all of us give him the nod here over Magic & co. With LeBron I'd argue that the growth we've seen in him is at least there with Jordan's.

[Jim Naismith]

James Worthy was the #1 overall pick, did he really turn him into anything?

Without Magic, Worthy could've been another Mark Aguirre, the #1 overall pick from the year before.

[Narigo]

Of all the players available so far, LeBron has the best prime and peak of any player. In fact, he has the best prime out of any player not named Kareem and Jordan. He is great on both sides of the court.

On offense, He is basically a point forward who can run the offense. He has a really good drive and kick game to get his teammates wide open. He uses his strength and athleticism to drive to basket. You have to foul him really hard because he can take the contact and still make the shot. He is pretty much unstoppable in transition and has a great post game. His jumper wasn’t very good when he came into the league but he has developed into great shooter from mid-range and the three-point line. The only knock on him is that he not particularly a great free-throw shooter. He never shot more than 78% from the free throw line. But it is still a respectable percentage.

On defense, he can guard positions 1-4. He is quick enough to guard players like Derrick Rose and strong enough to guard players like David West for stretches.

The only thing that is holding him back is longevity but he has played more minutes than Magic and Bird. All he needs is a couple of years comparable to 2009-2014 and some good season past his prime to be top 3 all time.

Vote: LeBron James

[therealbig3]

fatal9 had a great post breaking down Hakeem's pre-93 impact, and I believe now that even if he wasn't the player he would be later, he was still a damn good player that was in an unfortunate team situation. I don't really have much bad to say about 93 and onwards Hakeem, which I feel is in line with how most people view his peak stretch.

Better longevity than LeBron, Bird, and Magic, with a comparable peak. I feel pretty comfortable taking Hakeem. At his peak, no real weaknesses, and he's kind of the perfect player to have if you want to address as many needs as possible. Need a dominant post scorer that demands doubles and triples? A guy who can also create from the perimeter if he needs to? A guy who can make the proper passes for open shots by teammates? A guy who's strong across the board defensively and is a solid rebounder? A guy with a money midrange jumper? Peak Hakeem gives you all of that. Yes, pre-peak Hakeem wasn't quite as good at some of those aspects, but he was still a fantastic all-around player that brought a lot to the table, even on some dysfunctional teams.

I don't think it's a coincidence that in any of these "build a team" or "all-time draft" scenarios, I (and others) immediately think of Hakeem. Because he does pretty much everything you'd want out of a center.

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

[andrewww]

(Pre-Emptive Runoff) Vote: LeBron James

So, I've been traveling and busy, finally got a time to right my latest Garnett vote...but it's taking too long and I feel like it will be better served to save for the next thread at the start. As such I'm saving the draft and just skipping to what seems clearly to be about to be announced as the runoff between Magic and LeBron.

This particular comparison has been on my mind a lot for quite a while, and with this particular project in mind way in advance. I knew that at this point the longevity difference between the two wouldn't be big any more, so to me it just feels like a moment of truth with nothing to hide behind: Who ya got, prime Magic or prime LeBron?

Now, that might be a little too simple. Magic came into the league considerably more mature than LeBron. Hard for me to really see that being the deciding factor though given that Magic never was seriously talked about as a top tier MVP kind a guy until his 4th year while LeBron was already indisputably there by his 3rd year - not saying I'd pick LeBron based on him "getting there first", just that even in places where you'd expect Magic to still hold some longevity edge, it's not so clear cut.

So, prime Magic, prime LeBron, who you got?

Let's start on offense. As of my last list, Magic was my offensive GOAT. People have asked for elaboration on that type of thinking so I'll start there:

Logically, the better your supporting cast is at scoring/passing/etc, basically at the attack portion of offense, the more the optimal star has to be at making full use of them. In the extreme example where you had 5 equals out there, then 80% of the time someone other than you will be the one in best position to attack, and hence your ability to choose and get the ball to that right part of the 80% becomes more valuable than what you can do on your own. It's a variant of what John Wooden used to say: 90% of the time you will not have the ball in your hands, if you can't give me enough during that 90% of the time, then you won't be out there at all.

So now, proof in the pudding, are the best offenses typically led by a master facilitator? Absolutely. There 3 offensive dynasties in NBA history: Oscar's Royals, Magic's Lakers, and Nash's Suns. So right there, there's really no reason that there's a better type of offensive player than a great facilitator for a top of the line offense. The only real question is whether the presumed superior fit of a more individualistic scorer with worse teams tips the overall comparison in the other direction.

What would it take to do that? Well, first off let's guard ourselves against systems that don't scale. If a guy can have more net lift leading a mediocre offense than someone else can do in leading an elite offense, is that actually more impressive? The answer isn't necessarily an easy one to conclude, but certainly it makes sense if someone says they are focused on systems that actually scale to championship level.

As it happens, I don't think we really have to choose. We have the RAPM data over the past decade plus, and the guy leading the best offenses also gave the biggest lift based on regression analysis (Nash). That's not everlasting proof by any means, but what it does tell you is that there is absolutely a basis for saying not only that these facilitators are the best fit for the best offenses, but that when they do so they are contributing lift at least up there with the more individual scorers.

Now going from Nash to Magic: It's pretty easy to imagine Magic as a more well rounded Nash. While he lacks Nash's shooting - and that's not a small matter - the way he scaled up to volume score as needed can be seen as something that may even that out, or might even surpass that. Meanwhile if we're talking raw passing ability, Magic seems even less bound by traditional avenues than Nash is. Add in that outstanding overall team success and general acclaim for Magic's game, it's pretty easy to make the case that among this top tier Magic gets the nod over Nash.

What about Oscar? I'll probably praise Oscar soon in another post, I don't mean to knock him. He was clear cut the Offensive Player of the '60s, and I think the best we saw until Bird & Magic. However he was playing in a more primitive era with less successful offense, and - here's the kicker - he wasn't able to separate his team's from the fray the way either the top defenses of the time or the top offenses of later eras did. Any kind of tiebreak here for me goes against him at that point in comparison to Magic.

Now getting back to LeBron, the question becomes just how big of an edge does Magic have here on offense - acknowledging up front that not everyone would even accept he has one?

I think the answer is really: Not that big of one. And that's the problem, because LeBron has a sizable advantage on defense. Let me break it down again with Nash and our more recent databall.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... _web#gid=4

So to start out, here's the top 5 offensive guys based on their 5 top years:

1. Nash 9.08
2. LeBron 8.14
3. Wade 7.93
4. Shaq 7.63
5. Kobe 7.79

Now, first glance at that list puts Nash way ahead of the rest. In one respect though that's unfair to LeBron & Wade because RAPM doesn't treat them that kindly when they join together. Not saying the redundancy can't be held against them, but if we accept that LeBron & Wade could have kept up their monster lift if they stayed in their unipolar teams, they end up considerably closer to Nash. So from one viewpoint you can look at this data telling you that there were 3 top offensive players a tier above the rest in this era.

But what about the scalability? As mentioned, if a player can have huge lift with mediocre offense, that doesn't mean he can do the same with great resources. Turns out, Wade seems to be a bit of a poster boy for this issue. He actually has the single highest 1-year peak in offensive RAPM in 2010 while leading a below average team, and even in his Finals MVP year, Miami wasn't running an unstoppable offense by any means. Hence a bit of irony: That first title put Wade in a category in the eyes of many as a made man who you simply knew you could build a champion around, but there's actually quite a lot of reason to believe it's not that easy to build around him as an offensive fulcrum.

Put it another way: I really don't see any reason at all to have a debate between Nash and Wade over who the more impressive offensive player is because of Wade's scalability issues...but LeBron's another animal. LeBron's Cavs were actually elite on offense despite their clear limitations, and when it made sense for LeBron to make big changes in Miami, he did it. Miami didn't record GOAT ORTG ratings, but their eFG% was absolutely stellar, and the choice to go small ball was clearly done based on the talent they had rather than based on some limitation of LeBron's.

There's also the matter that we've seen both in Cleveland and in Miami that when LeBron-based offenses really click into gear, the crunch time success can get crazy. If I saw this a bit more reliably each year that would probably tip the scales for me on LeBron over Nash on offense, as is the inconsistency makes me cautious. It is something that makes it debatable in my eyes though.

And that's before you start thinking about the iron man aspect of LeBron that Nash didn't have - and neither did Magic. Even if you grant them the per minute edge on offense, it may not to stem the overall tide.

I look at all this, and to me LeBron is on that top tier of offensive players all-time. I'm not ready to champion him as a peak offensive GOAT, but no, I don't consider him a tier down from Magic, Bird, or Nash. And then we keep coming back to the defense: Does anyone even doubt that LeBron has a tier-plus edge on that front?

One other thing to put into context here:

Even as I tend to put Magic over Nash without much concern, I don't take it as any kind of given that Magic had as much offensive impact when he played as Nash did. As I've said before, with modern strategy, now is a better time to be a facilitator than back then. As such I'm already playing the game of putting a guy in the context of a different era to justify him continuing to have his stature - something I've warned others about. There may come a time that I rank Nash over Magic, which I know makes me sound all the more crazy. It's not some promise on my part, I'm just saying: Objectively those Nash Suns separated their ORtg from the fray more so than Magic's, and played in an era where it makes sense that such offensive genius could be even more successful, so for Magic's offensive GOAT candidacy to eventually come down to me thinking he'd do absolute wonders in the modern era shouldn't come as that great of a shock.

Thing is though, when I imagine Magic in this era, and imagine the absolute ideal of this era, I'm not sure if Magic fits that bill more than LeBron. As I said, it's Larry Bird with genius IQ and GOAT level shooting that really pops my eyes open. Sure I'll give Magic the IQ nod and marvel at his Globetrotter-esque passes, but let's not overblow things here. How often nowadays are we really seeing LeBron let a possession stagnate based on overly rigid thinking? He didn't get to this level of basketball wisdom as quickly as Bird & Magic did, but his continued growth is not anything to take lightly, and in that sense I'd suggest we see him a bit like Jordan with Phil:

The better the basketball brains on the sideline, and the more you take what they say and really develop it, the more you can close the gap on the savants. With Jordan closing that gap in the offensive attack combined with everything else he gave you was enough virtually all of us give him the nod here over Magic & co. With LeBron I'd argue that the growth we've seen in him is at least there with Jordan's.

Solid points, although there are certain areas I feel we would all be best served with more analysis.

Like you've said, small ball was a product of the personnel around him. Agreed. The question now begs, could LeBron be equally as effective if he was in a traditional lineup? Remember, a lot of what makes him great is his freight train drives to the basket, and with a traditional PF and C in the mix, the lanes become more clogged(barring a stretch 4) and there is 1 less shooter on the floor with LeBron.

Considering Bosh's mid range game covering up the one weakness of the Heat's small ball philosophy, one can reasonably conclude that the Heat offensive potential given their personnel was maximized.

That then brings me to question why we have yet to see any LeBron-led team to come close to staking a claim as one of the great teams of all time? (Eg. 96 Bulls, 14 Spurs, 01 Lakers, 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, etc). Is it because to maximize LeBron on the offensive end, that a sacrifice must be made defensively, hence there is a ceiling on how great his teams truly are? I mean, no one can say that the Heat were lacking in talent, even if Wade beginning in 2013 wasn't nearly the same player consistently.

[PaulieWal]

That then brings me to question why we have yet to see any LeBron-led team to come close to staking a claim as one of the great teams of all time? (Eg. 96 Bulls, 14 Spurs, 01 Lakers, 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, etc). Is it because to maximize LeBron on the offensive end, that a sacrifice must be made defensively, hence there is a ceiling on how great his teams truly are? I mean, no one can say that the Heat were lacking in talent, even if Wade beginning in 2013 wasn't nearly the same player consistently.

No, it's because outside of 2011 Miami had key players in the playoffs hampered by injuries. In 2012 Bosh missed 9 games and Wade was inconsistent due to a knee issue. In 2013 Wade struggled immensely in the playoffs playing on a bum knee and Bosh wasn't as good. The 2013 Heat team could have cemented their place as an all-time team had they not went to 7 with both, Indiana and the Spurs.

[magicmerl]

I think I'm gonna go with Magic here. Probably this time next year LeBron will have passed him. But not yet.

You're probably going to need more analysis here for your vote to count.

Maybe you should read the thread

[andrewww]

That then brings me to question why we have yet to see any LeBron-led team to come close to staking a claim as one of the great teams of all time? (Eg. 96 Bulls, 14 Spurs, 01 Lakers, 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, etc). Is it because to maximize LeBron on the offensive end, that a sacrifice must be made defensively, hence there is a ceiling on how great his teams truly are? I mean, no one can say that the Heat were lacking in talent, even if Wade beginning in 2013 wasn't nearly the same player consistently.

No, it's because outside of 2011 Miami had key players in the playoffs hampered by injuries. In 2012 Bosh missed 9 games and Wade was inconsistent due to a knee issue. In 2013 Wade struggled immensely in the playoffs playing on a bum knee and Bosh wasn't as good. The 2013 Heat team could have cemented their place as an all-time team had they not went to 7 with both, Indiana and the Spurs.

The reality is though, that they were pushed to 7 games in consecutive series and that victory against the Spurs was so incredibly close (perhaps closer than any 7 game series in NBA Finals history) that you couldn't reasonably include that team among the greatest teams of all time.

Even when fully healthy, the overlapping skillsets of LeBron and Wade are what fundamentally prevent them from forming an all time great team.

I've heard excuses made for every year of their run except 2014 where they just destroyed. Didn't Dallas have an injured Caron Butler as well in 2011? I don't remember any key injuries to LeBron/Wade/Bosh in that series.

Either way, if Cleveland goes to a more traditional lineup then this question of whether or not LeBron is capable of being the focal point of an all time great team will be answered fully (should the Cavs reach that level of course).

[MisterHibachi]

Like you've said, small ball was a product of the personnel around him. Agreed. The question now begs, could LeBron be equally as effective if he was in a traditional lineup? Remember, a lot of what makes him great is his freight train drives to the basket, and with a traditional PF and C in the mix, the lanes become more clogged(barring a stretch 4) and there is 1 less shooter on the floor with LeBron.

The 09 Cavs started Varejao and Big Z, neither of whom you can call stretch bigs, and LeBron put forth a top 10 season of all time.

[Baller2014]

Spoiler:

Yeh, but look at when Lebron became Lebron, and when Magic became Magic.

Lebron 2nd season:
27.2 ppg (3rd in league)/7.4 rpg/7.2 apg (6th in league)/2.2 spg (3rd in league) on .554 TS% and 3.3 topg
Per100: 34.3 pts, 9.3 reb, 9.1 ast, 2.8 stl, 0.8 blk, 4.1 tov
PER 25.7 (6th in league), .203 WS/48 (9th in league) on huge 42.4 mpg (1st in league); 14.3 total WS (4th in league).
114 ORtg, 103 DRtg
All-NBA 2nd Team
6th in MVP voting (was 9th in MVP voting as a rookie, fwiw)

Magic 3rd season (we'll omit mention of his 2nd, as he missed 45 games with injury--->more games than Lebron has missed in his entire career, btw):
18.6 ppg/9.6 rpg/9.5 apg/2.7 spg on .590 TS% and 3.7 topg
Per100: 22.5 pts, 11.7 reb, 11.6 ast, 3.2 stl, 0.5 blk, 4.5 tov
22.9 PER (7th in league), .207 WS/48 (5th in league) on 38.3 mpg; 12.9 total WS (4th in league).
118 ORtg, 102 DRtg
All-NBA 2nd Team
8th in MVP voting


And Lebron would be SIGNIFICANTLY better by his 3rd year (PER 28+, All-NBA 1st Team, 2nd in MVP voting, etc); meanwhile Magic would be only negligibly better his in his 4th year. Lebron would hit a peak(-ish) season/period of his career by his 6th year in the league; Magic wouldn't hit his peak until his 8th season. So.....


Bron's peak also lasted longer and was higher (as you acknowledged). Given all of this, frankly prime vs. prime Magic just doesn't compare well, imo.

I've been having a think about posts like this, and I'm coming to the conclusion I overrated Magic's longevity advantage v.s Lebron and (more importantly) Bird, especially with Magic's 2nd year write off. I said all along that Lebron and Bird had better peaks than Magic, so even a little longevity loss is fatal to Magic. It's true that Lebron was basically NBA MVP by 2008 (and carried a team to the finals the year before that), even if his true prime didn't begin until 2009. Lebron's overall peak impact is just better, giving the Cavs in 09 and 10 easily 30+ wins. Without him those teams would have been lucky to even win 30 games IMO. Bird is similarly placed peak wise- as I covered in detail earlier, he turned a 29 win team into a 61 win contender in his rookie year (and he got better after his rookie year). I will edit my earlier post as well.

Vote changed to- Lebron

[Clyde Frazier]

Give Magic the ball, a few fleet teammates, a little adrenaline, and he's off, running. He's a self-styled hoops hedonist, pro basketball's Cyndi Lauper. He "just wants to have fun." That's all well and good, and for most of the NBA season it's a productive attitude, one that pleases fans. He has his fun and seems to run the break and run up his statistical totals almost effortlessly. He has bushels of "triple doubles"—games in which he reaches double figures in points, rebounds and assists.

regarding the bolded portion

Funny how lebron received similar criticism about not having a "jordan / kobe" game face all the time, and here we are likely ending up in a run off between him and magic.

[PaulieWal]

That then brings me to question why we have yet to see any LeBron-led team to come close to staking a claim as one of the great teams of all time? (Eg. 96 Bulls, 14 Spurs, 01 Lakers, 86 Celtics, 87 Lakers, etc). Is it because to maximize LeBron on the offensive end, that a sacrifice must be made defensively, hence there is a ceiling on how great his teams truly are? I mean, no one can say that the Heat were lacking in talent, even if Wade beginning in 2013 wasn't nearly the same player consistently.

No, it's because outside of 2011 Miami had key players in the playoffs hampered by injuries. In 2012 Bosh missed 9 games and Wade was inconsistent due to a knee issue. In 2013 Wade struggled immensely in the playoffs playing on a bum knee and Bosh wasn't as good. The 2013 Heat team could have cemented their place as an all-time team had they not went to 7 with both, Indiana and the Spurs.

The reality is though, that they were pushed to 7 games in consecutive series and that victory against the Spurs was so incredibly close (perhaps closer than any 7 game series in NBA Finals history) that you couldn't reasonably include that team among the greatest teams of all time.

Even when fully healthy, the overlapping skillsets of LeBron and Wade are what fundamentally prevent them from forming an all time great team.

I've heard excuses made for every year of their run except 2014 where they just destroyed. Didn't Dallas have an injured Caron Butler as well in 2011? I don't remember any key injuries to LeBron/Wade/Bosh in that series.

Either way, if Cleveland goes to a more traditional lineup then this question of whether or not LeBron is capable of being the focal point of an all time great team will be answered fully (should the Cavs reach that level of course).

Legitimate injuries to the 2nd and 3rd best player on a title team are not an excuse, if you consider them to be then that's your prerogative. You are comparing an injury to Caron Butler to Bosh (3rd best player) or Wade (2nd best player)? Okay....

I already said out of 2011 in my response to you which was their first year together and they had an incredibly rudimentary offense.

The 2013 Heat team did what they had to in the RS to at least be considered as an all-time team with 66 wins/27 game win streak but couldn't hold that up in the playoffs. Hypothetically if they beat the Pacers in 5 and the Spurs in 5-6, their perception would be much better. Wade was okay in the Finals but he struggled heavily against the Pacers. So your assertion about him not being a part of all-time teams doesn't really hold up upon closer inspection. He never had the talent in Cleveland and in Miami outside of 2011 injuries hampered the 2nd best player on the team.

[andrewww]

Like you've said, small ball was a product of the personnel around him. Agreed. The question now begs, could LeBron be equally as effective if he was in a traditional lineup? Remember, a lot of what makes him great is his freight train drives to the basket, and with a traditional PF and C in the mix, the lanes become more clogged(barring a stretch 4) and there is 1 less shooter on the floor with LeBron.

The 09 Cavs started Varejao and Big Z, neither of whom you can call stretch bigs, and LeBron put forth a top 10 season of all time.

A top 10 season that included a championship (which was my premise if you didnt realize that), not just the best record in the regular season.

[ceiling raiser]

Sorry I haven't participated much in this thread, been pretty busy the last couple of days. My vote would be for Hakeem here, but I don't want to repost the same reasoning. Next thread, assuming I have more time, I'll try and put together some nice quotes and data (no guarantee I'll have it done in time, though ).

As a preemptive runoff vote, my pick is LeBron James over Magic Johnson (note that I'm not sure about how I feel about either being in the conversation at the moment, when KG and Hakeem are still on the board). There are a couple of reasons for this (I'll try and give both sides, IMO):

1) Longevity isn't an advantage for Magic. He game into the league as a great player, but from ElGee's breakdown a few pages ago, it becomes clear that he wasn't a superior player to Bird (possibly not in his class as a player, though I don't feel comfortable going that far without watching a lot more tape first) their first few years in the league.

Now, LeBron didn't come into the league a finished product either, let me make that clear. I do think that LeBron turned in 5 seasons (possibly 6, not sure how I feel about 11 still, go back in forth), better than Magic's best season. As such, it's tough for me to make much of Magic's pre-prime seasons.

2) Defense. It's really, really tough to ignore this, especially when I'm not convinced Magic was on another level offensively when compared to James. Even though LeBron has "coasted" on that ended more or less the past couple of regular seasons, he's amped his defense up in the playoffs (and still during the last two years, likely superior to Magic at his best).

I do think Magic's defensive shortcomings are somewhat overstated though (that is to say, I don't think he was a sieve). He was actually utilized pretty well under Dunleavy in his last year from what I've seen. They played a good deal of zone from what I've seen, and this actually fit Magic well (since, from what I've seen, he liked to sag off his man, and play the passing lanes or collapse into the paint). I don't think it's fundamentally sound, and it presents a matchup problem as he ages, and loses his lateral quickness. You basically need to have a smaller or quicker guy in the lineup to cover PGs (especially a triple threat type guy) with Magic playing the lanes and guarding a bigger guy (which, from the tape, wasn't a problem for him...Magic seemed strong enough to guard big forwards who weren't extremely quick from what I've seen), which hurts his portability.

---

Speaking of portability in general, both guys are pretty ball-dominant, but both produced extremely efficient offenses (I believe with Magic's teams setting ORtg records, and LeBron's teams setting EFG% records). Both guys also demonstrated the ability to play off-ball (Magic early in his career, by accounts in this thread and from watching the paint, was a playmaker in the post, or slashed, or grabbed offensive rebounds; LeBron this season in particular was among the leaders in posting up and spotting up scoring efficiencies, and played off-ball a ton throughout the season with the guards feeding him in the post...though Miami went away from that at times in the playoffs, in particular against the Spurs, which was a monstrous jumpshooting series from LeBron).

I'm not going to use RAPM against Magic since it doesn't exist pre-96-97, though there is no guarantee he'd place as highly as LeBron did in J.E.'s 14-year study (LeBron and KG were in a class of their own, though it didn't include some of Shaq's peak years and a few of Duncan's earlier seasons, so it's possible either or both join the two of them). It's entirely possible though, Magic posted very good WOWY numbers in his prime according to ElGee's research in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1333570