People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[Texas Chuck]

without randomly bringing up dudes like Julius Randle to try and make the other side look dumb.

That's not why I brought him up. I don't see this as sides, and I'm definitely not trying to make anyone look dumb. And certainly not you. I think you are one of the smartest posters on here and I respect your opinion a great deal. I just disagree with you here is all. Why are you still harping on an example I used? Move past that. You seem much more interested in a confrontation than a discussion. That's needless.

And for about the 5th time now. I never said Love wasn't effective. I simply said Grant is a better option in most team constructions. You waste a lot of time arguing against things nobody is saying. Why?

Again, this doesn't need to be adversarial.

[Ron Swanson]

Criticisms on lebron limiting love are more aesthetical than results based.

Which is exactly the argument being made. Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant with both dubious at best and outright false-at-worst assumptions (i.e. every contender would prefer Grant cuz "fit"), and on the opposite end those calling Horace a "role-player". In reality Love was still an awfully impactful "3rd option" even if it was a much less optimized role for him.

Grant was pretty clearly a super impactful 3rd option based on results and the numbers we have available, but of course, not having substantive lineup data for prime Horace leads for a much more convenient (and IMO lazy) argument to refute that Love was just as "impactful" as a 3rd option. Sounds like a lot of people just refuse to even entertain the idea that an elite stretch-4 in that role with better passing/rebounding skills could be just as or more impactful than a two-way guy like Horace in his role.

Why quote me if you're going to pretend the first line of my post doesn't exist. Accusing people who disagree with you of laziness while you ignore contradictory evidence is quite lazy. no?

Why literally say "Kevin Love doesn't really matter here" after jumping into a chain of posts discussing/debating how impactful Kevin Love was on the Cavs? I'm not sure what you guys are even criticizing about my stance at this point. You can acknowledge that Grant was an impactful 3rd option that perfectly complimented Jordan/Pippen even though we lack substantial lineup data to prove exactly "how" impactful he was, while also recognizing that Love complimented Lebron/Kyrie to the extent of multiple Top-3 RS offenses and one of the best postseason offenses ever, to which we actually do have data to back up. But again, seems like people don't want to even reluctantly concede the latter point because of their insistence on Grant being a (subjectively) better fit for any or most championship teams, which I personally find to be colored by a lot of bias towards what people see as the "ideal" team construction.

[Ron Swanson]

And yeah, when I've got both sides accusing me of straw-manning and misrepresenting, then sorry, that tells me my stance on this really isn't that extreme either way. But I guess this is why I said earlier, I try and avoid the Jordan/Lebron debate cesspool. Just too often devolves into stuff like this.

[Texas Chuck]

And yeah, when I've got both sides accusing me of straw-manning and misrepresenting, then sorry, that tells me my stance on this really isn't that extreme either way. But I guess this is why I said earlier, I try and avoid the Jordan/Lebron debate cesspool. Just too often devolves into stuff like this.

This sucks.

You are playing a part in the tenor of this conversation, but taking zero responsibility for it.

I never said you were extreme. You say I'm gaslighting.

I use Randle of an example of a player who looked great as a 1st option on a non-contending level team, not as a measure of Love's play which I clarified multiple times btw, which you ignored and accused me of trying to make you look dumb. Without explaining why I would want to make a respected poster look dumb.

[Ron Swanson]

And yeah, when I've got both sides accusing me of straw-manning and misrepresenting, then sorry, that tells me my stance on this really isn't that extreme either way. But I guess this is why I said earlier, I try and avoid the Jordan/Lebron debate cesspool. Just too often devolves into stuff like this.

This sucks.

You are playing a part in the tenor of this conversation, but taking zero responsibility for it.

I never said you were extreme. You say I'm gaslighting.

I use Randle of an example of a player who looked great as a 1st option on a non-contending level team, not as a measure of Love's play which I clarified multiple times btw, which you ignored and accused me of trying to make you look dumb. Without explaining why I would want to make a respected poster look dumb.

I don't find you an unreasonable poster (my original post was more directed at 70s Fan btw). Yes, I bristled a bit at the Randle mention because I think it was a disingenuous way of using a clearly inferior player to try and illustrate your preference for two-way value in a "3rd option". I'm getting pushback from people saying I'm wrong for not calling Grant a "role-player", and I'm getting pushback from people claiming that I'm solely blaming Lebron for Love not being optimized to his strengths (not true). I simply don't have the energy to engage in those kind of discussions beyond a certain point. I'll leave you guys to debate it.

[Stalwart]

And yeah, when I've got both sides accusing me of straw-manning and misrepresenting, then sorry, that tells me my stance on this really isn't that extreme either way. But I guess this is why I said earlier, I try and avoid the Jordan/Lebron debate cesspool. Just too often devolves into stuff like this.

Im actually the only one on my side and Im not accusing you of anything. I appreciate your posts in this thread. I just think in your effort to be fair, balanced, and to find common ground your starting to fall for the history revisionism these guys like to throw out there.

[AEnigma]

Really funny how after literal decades of evidence to the contrary, we still have people (usually Jordan stans…) assuming individual talent should just stack perfectly.

Yes, Horace Grant likely could never be the best player on a good team. Love could, Bosh could, Kyrie I suppose could (I think Tatum was better in 2018, and the 2019 Nets were nothing special), Klay never has but more foreseeably could do so… Even someone like Iguodala could… However, that is not the question at hand, and basketball is not about stacking a number of theoretical first options. It makes for a convenient narrative to pretend perpetual secondary or tertiary options are easily replaceable, if our goal is to celebrate those who won with the least amount of scoring support rather than actually analyse the sport.

The benefit of low-scoring complementary defensive pieces like Horace Grant is that they work well pretty much anywhere. They do not clash with volume scorers or volume passers. They do not weaken your defence. They are the reason we have normative terms like ceiling raisers versus floor raisers. If we stick peak Carmelo Anthony with peak Russell Westbrook and peak Allen Iverson and peak Elton Brand and peak Walt Bellamy, we have a full lineup of pretty respectable floor-raisers. All top ten talents at their respective peaks. Are they guaranteed a title against balanced teams like the Warriors or Bulls? Why have international teams been able to close so much of the gap against the U.S. even when the U.S.’s b-team efforts are still more talented?

Are we interested in talking basketball, or are we just interested in pretending that the best guy is the one who scores the most and wins.

Fine, then debate the RS/PS numbers that show Love as still an impactful 3rd option (3rd "guy" whatever you want to call it)

1992 Grant: No AuPM available, but will point out that his VORP and BPM as well as his WS and WS/48 in this season (i.e. his likely peak) all grade out higher than any of the following seasons except 2014 Kevin Love, and that his average postseason runs by the same metrics similarly top Bosh’s and Love’s.
1994 Grant (secondary piece): +4.6 AuPM2.0
1995 Grant: +5 AuPM2.0
1996 Grant: +5.2 AuPM2.0

2008 Bosh (primary piece): +4.8 AuPM2.0
2011 Bosh: +4.4 AuPM2.0
2012 Bosh: +3.8 AuPM2.0
2013 Bosh: +2.9 AuPM2.0
2014 Bosh: +4.1 AuPM2.0

2012 Love (primary piece): +3.7 AuPM2.0
2014 Love (primary piece): +6.1 AuPM2.0
2015 Love: +3.9 AuPM2.0
2016 Love: +4 AuPM2.0
2017 Love: +4.2 AuPM2.0
2018 Love (secondary piece): +2 AuPM2.0

[OhayoKD]

Which is exactly the argument being made. Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant with both dubious at best and outright false-at-worst assumptions (i.e. every contender would prefer Grant cuz "fit"), and on the opposite end those calling Horace a "role-player". In reality Love was still an awfully impactful "3rd option" even if it was a much less optimized role for him.

Grant was pretty clearly a super impactful 3rd option based on results and the numbers we have available, but of course, not having substantive lineup data for prime Horace leads for a much more convenient (and IMO lazy) argument to refute that Love was just as "impactful" as a 3rd option. Sounds like a lot of people just refuse to even entertain the idea that an elite stretch-4 in that role with better passing/rebounding skills could be just as or more impactful than a two-way guy like Horace in his role.

Why quote me if you're going to pretend the first line of my post doesn't exist. Accusing people who disagree with you of laziness while you ignore contradictory evidence is quite lazy. no?

Why literally say "Kevin Love doesn't really matter here" after jumping into a chain of posts discussing/debating how impactful Kevin Love was on the Cavs? I'm not sure what you guys are even criticizing about my stance at this point. You can acknowledge that Grant was an impactful 3rd option that perfectly complimented Jordan/Pippen even though we lack substantial lineup data to prove exactly "how" impactful he was, while also recognizing that Love complimented Lebron/Kyrie to the extent of multiple Top-3 RS offenses and one of the best postseason offenses ever, to which we actually do have data to back up. But again, seems like people don't want to even reluctantly concede the latter point because of their insistence on Grant being a (subjectively) better fit for any or most championship teams, which I personally find to be colored by a lot of bias towards what people see as the "ideal" team construction.

Well now I'm impressed... Half a dozen posts with over a page worth of content and you still haven't adddressed the very first point in the argument you quoted while complaining about our laziness. Why don't I put it in bold this time:

The cavs without lebron and with love and kyrie played sub-30 win basketball. The Bulls were doing that before they even drafted MJ. You want to blame Love not being able to win without him on Lebron bullying him? Fine. It doesn't really help jordan because even without love or kyrie, the 15 cavs, terrible spacing relative to era(so much for "lebron needs shooters") were able to match the 88 89, and 90 bulls, led by apex jordan, with substanitally less help.

A. Love with Kyrie failed to win **** without lebron
B. Even if we just assume that Love's failure to win without Lebron is Lebron's fault, Lebron, without kevin love, still went and pulled off a carry job no version of jordan has ever replicated

There's nothing lazier than complaining about people not "admitting" something you haven't come close to proving

[Ron Swanson]

Discussing how effective Love was as a 3rd option to compliment Lebron/Kyrie and then using lineup data with Lebron off the floor? If that's not the definition of goal-posting moving then I don't know what is. Even using basic on/off data would tell you that Love-lineups were drastically better (we're talking +7-8 on average in both RS/PS) than non-Love lineups and that should be the only thing that really matters here unless we're talking about T-Wolves Love (which we already know impact stats paint very favorably). And we've already brought up the RPM data which shows impact stats still liked Cavs K-Love a lot (specifically in 2016-17 when he upped his 3PT volume). If no one's gonna refute that or explain why the data is noisy, then we'll just agree to disagree.

[Texas Chuck]

Discussing how effective Love was as a 3rd option to compliment Lebron/Kyrie and then using lineup data with Lebron off the floor? If that's not the definition of goal-posting moving then I don't know what is. Even using basic on/off data would tell you that Love-lineups were drastically better (we're talking +7-8 on average in both RS/PS) than non-Love lineups and that should be the only thing that really matters here unless we're talking about T-Wolves Love (which we already know impact stats paint very favorably). And we've already brought up the RPM data which shows impact stats still liked Cavs K-Love a lot (specifically in 2016-17 when he upped his 3PT volume). If no one's gonna refute that or explain why the data is noisy, then we'll just agree to disagree.

I mostly agree with you on this point. No question you have established that particularly offensively, Love was a terrific compliment to Lebron.

However part of complimenting a player, particularly one like Love who as you have pointed out itt, showed he could be the anchor of an offense in Minnesota, is to be able to hold the fort down when the primary star is off the court. Going a bit off Grant onto Pippen for a second, this is part of what made Pippen so valuable. We all know of course what he did when Mike left to play baseball, but I also recall the rotations being Mike going to the bench with the other starters and Pippen being asked to play with the bench units. His ability to do that in addition of course to being a great compliment when Mike was on the court made him extremely valuable.

So I do think its fair to point out how effective Cavs units with Love/no Lebron are, right?

[70sFan]

And yeah, when I've got both sides accusing me of straw-manning and misrepresenting, then sorry, that tells me my stance on this really isn't that extreme either way. But I guess this is why I said earlier, I try and avoid the Jordan/Lebron debate cesspool. Just too often devolves into stuff like this.

I hope you're not talking about me here. If you felt that I accused you of anything, then I want to make it clear that it wasn't my intention.

As I said, I'd probably take Grant in most teams as a third option but that's clearly because of my preferences and criteria - I am significantly higher on players like him than most people. I think Love has a lot of value as a floor spacer, but he had more weaknesses than Horace that could be exploitable and I don't think his other advantages suit that well for top tier teams (in third option role). That doesn't mean that Love sucks or anything like that, it's just the way I look at basketball. I could be wrong of course, but I don't think we can say for sure that Cavs Love was a more impactful player than peak Grant. I am also certain that Grant wouldn't be successful in Love place in Minny.

I just think calling Grant a roleplayer who can't be compared to players like Love or Klay as the third best player in the league is just wrong. This is repeated for the thousand time - people can't and don't appreciate defense enough. On top of that, you really can't imagine a better third option on offense than Grant next to Jordan and Pippen. He gives them everything they needed at the highest level - offensive rebounding, inside finishing, screening actions. Jordan didn't need another scorer for his team, he needed a smart finisher who can play the role Grant did perfectly.

[AEnigma]

Discussing how effective Love was as a 3rd option to compliment Lebron/Kyrie and then using lineup data with Lebron off the floor? If that's not the definition of goal-posting moving then I don't know what is. Even using basic on/off data would tell you that Love-lineups were drastically better (we're talking +7-8 on average in both RS/PS) than non-Love lineups and that should be the only thing that really matters here unless we're talking about T-Wolves Love (which we already know impact stats paint very favorably). And we've already brought up the RPM data which shows impact stats still liked Cavs K-Love a lot (specifically in 2016-17 when he upped his 3PT volume). If no one's gonna refute that or explain why the data is noisy, then we'll just agree to disagree.

Again it does not seem like you are bothering to engage with the points being made. No one is saying Love is outright bad as a third option. But when people start arguing that he was a massive talent underutilised by Lebron, then it seems relevant to point out that even as a more direct costar with Kyrie alone he never contributed to winning play. In that frame, 2014 and that +5.6 on-court rating looks increasingly more like a spontaneous outlier than like any real reflection of his ability to consistently drive team success on his own or as a costar.

Contrast that with Horace Grant, who was a secondary on a good team in 1994 and was still a pretty competent secondary piece a decade after his peak on the 2002 Orlando Magic. Again, no real ability to lead a team as the best player, but certainly showcasing a consistent trend of elite secondary+ support…

[Cavsfansince84]

We know this because we actually have numbers and data to back it up, not just some arbitrary regular season win threshold (2013-14 Wolves had a 48-34 expected W/L by point differential btw). This isn't really that complicated. I mean, just look at those garbage rosters Love played with from 2009-2014. They're basically pre-2008 Cavs level bad, yet Love still was a highly efficient and impactful player despite it. Ranked 21st, 6th, 24th, and 8th in overall RPM his last 4 years there. I wouldn't even say Love was an incredibly poor defender either (-0.3 on/off guy), but people have this idea that because he was a poor matchup against GSW and got played off the floor in the Finals at times, that he was always a defensive "sieve" rather than the numbers showing he was at worst a neutral defender (see: Jokic) who simply was more exploitable against arguably the greatest offensive team ever assembled.

Well first before I respond let me say I'm not here to prop up Grant or anything else people associate with the whole MJ/LeBron side of it. I don't particularly care where people fall on that and it's not what I'm really here for. So having said that, I agree that Love had moved beyond an empty stats label but idk if rapm by itself convinces me how good he actually was. I didn't say he was terrible defensively either. I said he definitely wasn't good or great. Honestly, this whole thread has taken a semi toxic sort of turn so not sure I want to continue debating in it. Just not sold on how well Minny Love would have been able to mesh with another star player while still being a 1a or 1b type player.

[OhayoKD]

Discussing how effective Love was as a 3rd option to compliment Lebron/Kyrie and then using lineup data with Lebron off the floor? If that's not the definition of goal-posting moving then I don't know what is.

I am specifically using the cavs record with kyrie and love in games where lebron didn't play. Your claim is that playing with Lebron limited love, so I am taking him out of the equation as much as possible.

Even using basic on/off data would tell you that Love-lineups were drastically better (we're talking +7-8 on average in both RS/PS) than non-Love lineups and that should be the only thing that really matters here unless we're talking about T-Wolves Love (which we already know impact stats paint very favorably). And we've already brought up the RPM data which shows impact stats still liked Cavs K-Love a lot (specifically in 2016-17 when he upped his 3PT volume). If no one's gonna refute that or explain why the data is noisy, then we'll just agree to disagree.

It might help if you actually read what people are saying:

On top of that, if we avoid m-regularization and go from raw signals, jordan looks signifcantly worse, something that seems to hold for MJ whenever he's compared to better or much better paint protectors(hakeem, duncan, and Kareem all compare favorably and KG compares favorably in the regular season).
m-regularization can lead to a misdistribution of value. You might have noticed that in plus-minus stats, everything plateus's around 25 wins? That's artifical.

Stretches of outlier impact tend to get misdistributed to role players(especially when they're putting up nice box-scores). Additionally, the process of box-regression can lead to non-box impact being lost(very relevant when dealing with primary paint protectors). This is why it's important to keep track of raw signals.

If kevin love was such an impactful player, why couldn't he and kyrie keep the lineup above a 30 win pace when lebron wasn't there?

If kevin love was such an impactful player, why were the cavs basically unaffected by his injury in the 15 playoffs? APM would tell you it's because tristan thompson and delladova were really good defensively, and yet...

the cavs defense collapses to one of the worst in the league in games where Lebron didn't play

How were the cavs so bad if love and kyrie were really good attackers and md+tt was a good defense?


APM is cool, but it needs to be checked against what actually happens. And what actually happened flatly contradicts your assessment of Love.

[magicman1978]

Discussing how effective Love was as a 3rd option to compliment Lebron/Kyrie and then using lineup data with Lebron off the floor? If that's not the definition of goal-posting moving then I don't know what is. Even using basic on/off data would tell you that Love-lineups were drastically better (we're talking +7-8 on average in both RS/PS) than non-Love lineups and that should be the only thing that really matters here unless we're talking about T-Wolves Love (which we already know impact stats paint very favorably). And we've already brought up the RPM data which shows impact stats still liked Cavs K-Love a lot (specifically in 2016-17 when he upped his 3PT volume). If no one's gonna refute that or explain why the data is noisy, then we'll just agree to disagree.

I mostly agree with you on this point. No question you have established that particularly offensively, Love was a terrific compliment to Lebron.

However part of complimenting a player, particularly one like Love who as you have pointed out itt, showed he could be the anchor of an offense in Minnesota, is to be able to hold the fort down when the primary star is off the court. Going a bit off Grant onto Pippen for a second, this is part of what made Pippen so valuable. We all know of course what he did when Mike left to play baseball, but I also recall the rotations being Mike going to the bench with the other starters and Pippen being asked to play with the bench units. His ability to do that in addition of course to being a great compliment when Mike was on the court made him extremely valuable.

So I do think its fair to point out how effective Cavs units with Love/no Lebron are, right?

I think it's a bit easier when the team has an offensive system that isn't built around the skillset of a singular unique talent. The Bulls ran the the same offense whether MJ was on or off the court. Pippen would initiative the offense even with MJ on the court. So he, and the rest of the team, had practices and real gam time situations running that offense (for years). That's not the same with the Cavs offense which ran through LeBron (which it should) and so that offense became reliant on his skillsets, which no one else in the league or history of the game has. There wasn't much practice or game time situations for them to be able to run a really effective offense, minus LeBron.

That being said, a LeBron centric offense is a recipe for an ATG offense (in the playoffs especially) - so you wouldn't want to put LeBron in a triangle just to maximize his role players effectiveness while he's off the court. MJ in LeBron's role would not produce the same level of offense as he doesn't have the vision or understanding/control LeBron has. However, I don't think it's fair to compare how inept LeBron's teammates are offensively when he's off the court vs how effective MJ's teammates were when's he off - because MJ's teams were put into a position and had more practice to be successful in their role with MJ off than LeBron's teammates were with him off.

[falcolombardi]

Discussing how effective Love was as a 3rd option to compliment Lebron/Kyrie and then using lineup data with Lebron off the floor? If that's not the definition of goal-posting moving then I don't know what is. Even using basic on/off data would tell you that Love-lineups were drastically better (we're talking +7-8 on average in both RS/PS) than non-Love lineups and that should be the only thing that really matters here unless we're talking about T-Wolves Love (which we already know impact stats paint very favorably). And we've already brought up the RPM data which shows impact stats still liked Cavs K-Love a lot (specifically in 2016-17 when he upped his 3PT volume). If no one's gonna refute that or explain why the data is noisy, then we'll just agree to disagree.

I mostly agree with you on this point. No question you have established that particularly offensively, Love was a terrific compliment to Lebron.

However part of complimenting a player, particularly one like Love who as you have pointed out itt, showed he could be the anchor of an offense in Minnesota, is to be able to hold the fort down when the primary star is off the court. Going a bit off Grant onto Pippen for a second, this is part of what made Pippen so valuable. We all know of course what he did when Mike left to play baseball, but I also recall the rotations being Mike going to the bench with the other starters and Pippen being asked to play with the bench units. His ability to do that in addition of course to being a great compliment when Mike was on the court made him extremely valuable.

So I do think its fair to point out how effective Cavs units with Love/no Lebron are, right?

I think it's a bit easier when the team has an offensive system that isn't built around the skillset of a singular unique talent. The Bulls ran the the same offense whether MJ was on or off the court. Pippen would initiative the offense even with MJ on the court. So he, and the rest of the team, had practices and real gam time situations running that offense (for years). That's not the same with the Cavs offense which ran through LeBron (which it should) and so that offense became reliant on his skillsets, which no one else in the league or history of the game has. There wasn't much practice or game time situations for them to be able to run a really effective offense, minus LeBron.

That being said, a LeBron centric offense is a recipe for an ATG offense (in the playoffs especially) - so you wouldn't want to put LeBron in a triangle just to maximize his role players effectiveness while he's off the court. MJ in LeBron's role would not produce the same level of offense as he doesn't have the vision or understanding/control LeBron has. However, I don't think it's fair to compare how inept LeBron's teammates are offensively when he's off the court vs how effective MJ's teammates were when's he off - because MJ's teams were put into a position and had more practice to be successful in their role with MJ off than LeBron's teammates were with him off.

I dunno. We dont see the same drop offs with every lead initiator stars, nor do we see every "system offense" work well with their star on the bench

When other stars teams struggle to score a single point with him on bench it always is proof of their impact and how much they carry their teams

It seemingly is only When lebron teams struggle without him that the alternative explanations come

I dont think is a coincidence that lebron teams who had a quality floor general as wade held up better than those with skilled scorers but weaker floor generals as kyrie or mo williams

Someone like kyrie is supremely talented but if left to his own devices he will start chucking isolations and freeze out teammates. He is a offense only guy and like many gunners that offense impact will be questionable if he starts to gun too much

Pair him with love who doesnt have the best defensive or off ball value aside from spacing and i am not surprised that pairing struggled to lift cavs floor despite raising its "ceiling" as co stars

In bulls case like you say there was a floor general in pippen who could lead the offense smartly and reasonably effectively when jordan sat while provinding all his other thinghs.

Replace pippen with kyrie and i am sure the jordan-less bulls with that kyrie would struggle too.

Just compare kyrie few stints as a lead option with pippen few ones and one was a much better "floor raiser"

[Stalwart]

I dunno. We dont see the same drop offs with every lead initiator stars, nor do we see every "system offense" work well with their star on the bench

When other stars teams struggle to score a single point with him on bench it always is proof of their impact and how much they carry their teams

It seemingly is only When lebron teams struggle without him that the alternative explanations come

Ive been saying this for years. Lebron teams don't run real systems. The roles players do not have real roles outside of waiting for a kickout from Lebron. So when Lebron sits everyone has to start playing differently. And of course everyone struggles.

The reason the Bulls role players and co-star held up so well without Jordan is because they run a real system. The role players have well defined roles that actually empower them as decision makers and creators. They don't just sit around waiting for Jordan to kick the ball out to them.

I dont think is a coincidence that lebron teams who had a quality floor general as wade held up better than those with skilled scorers but weaker floor generals as kyrie or mo williams

Someone like kyrie is supremely talented but if left to his own devices he will start chucking isolations and freeze out teammates. He is a offense only guy and like many gunners that offense impact will be questionable if he starts to gun too much

Pair him with love who doesnt have the best defensive or off ball value aside from spacing and i am not surprised that pairing struggled to lift cavs floor despite raising its "ceiling" as co stars

Well to be fair Love was never allowed to actually play to his strengths so of course his effectiveness and impact, in general, had dropped. Pair Love with a Michael Jordan, or Kobe Bryant, and he becomes much more effective and consistent as he's allowed to work in the post. Those guys have the mid range and off ball skills thay Love in the post won't hinder them the way it does Lebron.

In bulls case like you say there was a floor general in pippen who could lead the offense smartly and reasonably effectively when jordan sat while provinding all his other thinghs.[/quote

Replace pippen with kyrie and i am sure the jordan-less bulls with that kyrie would struggle too.

Kyrie may not be the floor general Pippen was. However, Kyrie is the guy that will put up 28ppg in the finals. Kyrie is the guy who will outplay Steph and hit all the big shots. Imagine if Jordan had a co-star that outplayed Charles Barkley or Karl Malone in the NBA Finals while hitting most of the big shots. And then imagine Jordan fans pretending that didn't happen.

Just compare kyrie few stints as a lead option with pippen few ones and one was a much better "floor raiser"

I think characterizing Pippen as a floor raiser and Kyrie as a ceiling raiser is pretty accurate. Both are borderline superstars who provided a ton of value to their teams. And I think its important to remember that in 2018 as the lead option Kyrie's team was almost a shue in for the NBA Finals had he not gotten injured.

[magicman1978]

I mostly agree with you on this point. No question you have established that particularly offensively, Love was a terrific compliment to Lebron.

However part of complimenting a player, particularly one like Love who as you have pointed out itt, showed he could be the anchor of an offense in Minnesota, is to be able to hold the fort down when the primary star is off the court. Going a bit off Grant onto Pippen for a second, this is part of what made Pippen so valuable. We all know of course what he did when Mike left to play baseball, but I also recall the rotations being Mike going to the bench with the other starters and Pippen being asked to play with the bench units. His ability to do that in addition of course to being a great compliment when Mike was on the court made him extremely valuable.

So I do think its fair to point out how effective Cavs units with Love/no Lebron are, right?

I think it's a bit easier when the team has an offensive system that isn't built around the skillset of a singular unique talent. The Bulls ran the the same offense whether MJ was on or off the court. Pippen would initiative the offense even with MJ on the court. So he, and the rest of the team, had practices and real gam time situations running that offense (for years). That's not the same with the Cavs offense which ran through LeBron (which it should) and so that offense became reliant on his skillsets, which no one else in the league or history of the game has. There wasn't much practice or game time situations for them to be able to run a really effective offense, minus LeBron.

That being said, a LeBron centric offense is a recipe for an ATG offense (in the playoffs especially) - so you wouldn't want to put LeBron in a triangle just to maximize his role players effectiveness while he's off the court. MJ in LeBron's role would not produce the same level of offense as he doesn't have the vision or understanding/control LeBron has. However, I don't think it's fair to compare how inept LeBron's teammates are offensively when he's off the court vs how effective MJ's teammates were when's he off - because MJ's teams were put into a position and had more practice to be successful in their role with MJ off than LeBron's teammates were with him off.

I dunno. We dont see the same drop offs with every lead initiator stars, nor do we see every "system offense" work well with their star on the bench

When other stars teams struggle to score a single point with him on bench it always is proof of their impact and how much they carry their teams

It seemingly is only When lebron teams struggle without him that the alternative explanations come

Doesn't my post already indicate why we wouldn't see the same type of drop off with every lead initiator star?

"That's not the same with the Cavs offense which ran through LeBron (which it should) and so that offense became reliant on his skillsets, which no one else in the league or history of the game has"

And I'm sorry, after reading your next two sentences I'm not sure if you're replying to my post or some other arguments - If you're implying my post has some sort of alternate explanations of why LeBron's teams struggle with him off, then I think you completely misunderstood my point. They struggle with him off because he is a supremely talented player who can't be replaced in his role, by anyone else in the league or even history of the game. And because the team doesn't run nor practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence (primarily in the comparison to how well they do vs Jordan's teams who had years of experience running and practicing that system). Are either of those statements incorrect?

Also, with a past prime Jordan in 97 and 98, he was a +7.4 and +10.1 on offense. So while his teammates played reasonably well offensively when he was off - he still had significant impact. You see it more in 98 with Pippen out because they were missing their primary initiator (which is what LeBron is for his teams in addition to being the #1 offensive/scoring option). So instead of just taking away the #1 offensive/scoring option in the league, you are also taking away the #1 offensive initiator in the league, with no offensive system in place to adequately replace him. It's a double/triple whammy.

[Texas Chuck]

. And because the team doesn't run nor practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence .

I think this is utter rubbish honestly. Sorry. I don't want to be rude, but nobody can seriously think that Spo or Lue or Brown or Vogel or any other Lebron coach just wrote off the non-Lebron minutes and didn't have systems in place.

[Colbinii]

This is extremely bizarre reasoning for why teams without [Insert Star Here] do poorly without him compared to [Insert Star Here].

Players like Dirk, Nash, LeBron, Curry and CP3 have historic drop-offs when they are not on the court offensively. This whole notion that the team suffers more without one of these guys compared to other players is conjecture and built upon thoughtless beliefs to prop up certain players and justify why a team with a certain player [Say LeBron for Example] does better in the post-season than [Say Jordan led offenses].

Instead of contextualizing the actual rosters, how they are constructed and the overall talent level of the rosters, people are resorting to basic rhetoric without thinking objectively.

Let's look at LeBron--closer and objectively. We can all agree the 2013 season was one where the offense was the least "LeBron Ball" [Whatever the **** this means] yet his Offensive On/Off was at +11.9. Yet in 2014, LeBrons offensive On/Off was only +9.0 even with Wade playing less in 2014 than 2013.

Somehow, some way, A First Ballot HoF coach in Spoelstra couldn't figure out how to use line-ups with Wade/Bosh without LeBron?

Really?

What about "The Point Guard" whisperer MDA? He somehow couldn't get Dragic line-ups or Barbosa-led line-ups to produce anything close to NBA level offenses with Nash off the court? Well, clearly any argument around MDA propping up Point Guards must be dead then, right?

Don Nelson couldn't figure out how to run offenses without Dirk on the court?

Save me the time of day and think.