2019-20 NBA Season Discussion

[Doctor MJ]

I wasn't around for Wilt and I think Russell's presence mitigated much of that because he was frankly the better player, but I was around for Mike and it was nothing like Lebron. The media didn't demand Jordan win or else, they openly rooted for him to win. Obviously social media amplifies things, but even accounting for that Lebron has been held to the highest of standards and it started when he was in high school.

Agreed.

Folks have to understand that before Jordan there was no "Jordan". While in theory people could have been saying "You have to surpass Russell!", they weren't. All the comparisons were with Bird & Magic and there was an expectation during the '80s that it would take time for Jordan to surpass them if he ever did.

As I say that:

1. Yes, because it took Jordan a while to get that chip there were folks who started doubting that he could do it, but they didn't really "hate" on Jordan. There was no expectation that he "should" be able to do more than he did, it was just a question of what he'd eventually be able to do.

By contrast after Jordan, everything's a purity test. You have to do what Jordan did and if you don't, even if you later figure it out, you have a blemish.

2. It's very true that once Jordan became the biggest star in the world he became tabloid fodder. But that wasn't basketball media so much as it was mainstream media. The thing about guys after Jordan is that the basketball voices are looking to tear guys down before they ever take flight, and no one experienced that more than LeBron.

[70sFan]

I wasn't around for Wilt and I think Russell's presence mitigated much of that because he was frankly the better player, but I was around for Mike and it was nothing like Lebron. The media didn't demand Jordan win or else, they openly rooted for him to win. Obviously social media amplifies things, but even accounting for that Lebron has been held to the highest of standards and it started when he was in high school.

I wasn't around for Wilt, but from what I've heard he was held to ridiculous standards. When he won, it was expected because he was seen as someone who should have won every time. When he lost, he was trashed by the media and public opinion. Of course everything is amplified today in social media era, but Wilt was criticized a lot, most of the time unfarily.

[eminence]

It's been wild to me how much Warriors fans have sold themselves on Wiggins.

[Doctor MJ]

I wasn't around for Wilt and I think Russell's presence mitigated much of that because he was frankly the better player, but I was around for Mike and it was nothing like Lebron. The media didn't demand Jordan win or else, they openly rooted for him to win. Obviously social media amplifies things, but even accounting for that Lebron has been held to the highest of standards and it started when he was in high school.

I wasn't around for Wilt, but from what I've heard he was held to ridiculous standards. When he won, it was expected because he was seen as someone who should have won every time. When he lost, he was trashed by the media and public opinion. Of course everything is amplified today in social media era, but Wilt was criticized a lot, most of the time unfarily.

I'm sure that's how it felt to him, and he was right that people like to root against Goliath, but there is also the matter that he desperately needed constructive criticism and was prone to hear such things through a lens of "look at how many points I scored, and they're still criticizing me, they'll never be satisfied!" Everybody gets sick of constant critiquing, but when you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, you really need to learn how to take.

Personal aside: In our everyday life my wife is typically "smarter" than me. She can do more in our shared life, she's better at mult-tasking, more on the ball, etc. I'd love it if I were as good at everything as I am the stuff that is my strong suit, but that's not ever going to be the case, so I have two choices. Understand that my partner is typically a step ahead of me and "play within that role" communicating to her how I prefer to here such things, or just be petulant.

And if I'm honest, sometimes I choose Column A and sometimes I choose Column B.

[therealbig3]

The thing is, I keep hearing how LeBron has "only" 3 titles, and someone on the GB was talking about how "meager" his individual accomplishments are...

This is just insane to me. Even if we assume titles are individual accomplishments (which they're not), how is 3 titles "meager" or unimpressive?

Larry Bird was long considered one of the "immortal 6" and was constantly used as one of the epitomes of team success...he won 3 titles, with less FMVPs than LeBron. Why the double standard? Winning 3 titles as the best player of a team was once upon a time considered extraordinary. Shaq was universally considered one of the best ever after the 3-peat. Hakeem won 2 titles. Wilt won 2 titles.

[HeartBreakKid]

The thing is, I keep hearing how LeBron has "only" 3 titles, and someone on the GB was talking about how "meager" his individual accomplishments are...

This is just insane to me. Even if we assume titles are individual accomplishments (which they're not), how is 3 titles "meager" or unimpressive?

Larry Bird was long considered one of the "immortal 6" and was constantly used as one of the epitomes of team success...he won 3 titles, with less FMVPs than LeBron. Why the double standard? Winning 3 titles as the best player of a team was once upon a time considered extraordinary. Shaq was universally considered one of the best ever after the 3-peat. Hakeem won 2 titles. Wilt won 2 titles.

Larry Bird played against REAL men, he was hard, he said "**** u imma score right now!" and he would do it! He played against Jordan!


^

Basically the argument in these guys heads (and sometimes they'll even post that).


I think about the same thing though. Some posters here use such weird terminology like "if LBJ was a winner" - or "statpadder" - or "play winning basketball" - or "not a real alpha".....and it's like...he already won? Multiple times?

It's almost like these guys have no idea what an NBA title means despite titles being the crux of their argument.

[Blackmill]

After seeing Elgee tease a "best peaks" project I looked back at his rankings from his top-40 list. I was pretty surprised to see LeBron's 2016 campaign ranked below six MJ seasons by a significant margin. He does explain why though:

[LeBron] seems to relegate post players to the perimeter in order to open the lane, casting doubt on whether he could thrive next to a traditional low-post stud. <snip>

In total, Jordan is the only comparable perimeter peak in history, although James’s defense was slightly more impressive at its apex. <snip> Like the other great megastars who excel in non-scoring phases of the game, I do wonder if I’m undervaluing LeBron, given the unique shape of his offense.

<snip> If I had fewer reservations about his ball-dominance scaling (and his lack of spot-up shooting), he’d be a spot higher already, and I do think he has an outside argument as the highest-peak player in NBA history.

I think this season may have turned some of Ben's doubts.

LeBron is looking like a surprisingly natural fit next to a dominant big. Granted Davis can play from the perimeter, and that clearly helps the fit, but the Lakers play so many minutes with Dwight or McGee on the floor that LeBron's still working with the disadvantages (and advantages) of playing next to a "true" low post center. A team might have the size to throw at Davis but they need a second player with the size to put on LeBron. And maybe a third to keep Dwight off the boards when he's in. Most teams just aren't able to be effective with that much size in their lineup. On the other hand, the Lakers get by because LeBron is big while still providing all-time great perimeter skills, and of course it helps that Davis can guard 1-5 and shoot.

I disagree with Ben's doubts about LeBron's scalability (also disagree about LeBron's defense being just "slightly" better), but setting that aside, I imagine this season may influence his concerns here too. We had a stretch where the Spurs and then Warriors looked like the best teams in the NBA. They would have likely won every title from 2013-2018 if not for LeBron. And given they both had so much success with ball and player movement it was easy to think that had become the new secret sauce for success. Now that the Lakers have taken the league by storm with a bruising front court and collection of defensive minded role players it's clear that a team can dominant in more traditional fashion. While none of this changes LeBron's spot up shooting, I think it changes the the perception of what teams can be ultra successful today, and to that extent what skills are and aren't scalable.

[TheGOATRises007]

After seeing Elgee tease a "best peaks" project I looked back at his rankings from his top-40 list. I was pretty surprised to see LeBron's 2016 campaign ranked below six MJ seasons by a significant margin. He does explain why though:

[LeBron] seems to relegate post players to the perimeter in order to open the lane, casting doubt on whether he could thrive next to a traditional low-post stud. <snip>

In total, Jordan is the only comparable perimeter peak in history, although James’s defense was slightly more impressive at its apex. <snip> Like the other great megastars who excel in non-scoring phases of the game, I do wonder if I’m undervaluing LeBron, given the unique shape of his offense.

<snip> If I had fewer reservations about his ball-dominance scaling (and his lack of spot-up shooting), he’d be a spot higher already, and I do think he has an outside argument as the highest-peak player in NBA history.

I think this season may have turned some of Ben's doubts.

LeBron is looking like a surprisingly natural fit next to a dominant big. Granted Davis can play from the perimeter, and that clearly helps the fit, but the Lakers play so many minutes with Dwight or McGee on the floor that LeBron's still working with the disadvantages (and advantages) of playing next to a "true" low post center. A team might have the size to throw at Davis but they need a second player with the size to put on LeBron. And maybe a third to keep Dwight off the boards when he's in. Most teams just aren't able to be effective with that much size in their lineup. On the other hand, the Lakers get by because LeBron is big while still providing all-time great perimeter skills, and of course it helps that Davis can guard 1-5 and shoot.

I disagree with Ben's doubts about LeBron's scalability (also disagree about LeBron's defense being just "slightly" better), but setting that aside, I imagine this season may influence his concerns here too. We had a stretch where the Spurs and then Warriors looked like the best teams in the NBA. They would have likely won every title from 2013-2018 if not for LeBron. And given they both had so much success with ball and player movement it was easy to think that had become the new secret sauce for success. Now that the Lakers have taken the league by storm with a bruising front court and collection of defensive minded role players it's clear that a team can dominant in more traditional fashion. While none of this changes LeBron's spot up shooting, I think it changes the the perception of what teams can be ultra successful today, and to that extent what skills are and aren't scalable.

Can you link his rankings? Curious to see them.

Also did he tease a GOAT peaks project on Twitter?

[yoyoboy]

It's been wild to me how much Warriors fans have sold themselves on Wiggins.

If he works on that three this offseason, there's no reason he shouldn't be able to fill a Barnes-like role. But I still wouldn't bet on him to do that and totally buy in to the playstyle.

[Blackmill]

Spoiler:

After seeing Elgee tease a "best peaks" project I looked back at his rankings from his top-40 list. I was pretty surprised to see LeBron's 2016 campaign ranked below six MJ seasons by a significant margin. He does explain why though:

[LeBron] seems to relegate post players to the perimeter in order to open the lane, casting doubt on whether he could thrive next to a traditional low-post stud. <snip>

In total, Jordan is the only comparable perimeter peak in history, although James’s defense was slightly more impressive at its apex. <snip> Like the other great megastars who excel in non-scoring phases of the game, I do wonder if I’m undervaluing LeBron, given the unique shape of his offense.

<snip> If I had fewer reservations about his ball-dominance scaling (and his lack of spot-up shooting), he’d be a spot higher already, and I do think he has an outside argument as the highest-peak player in NBA history.

I think this season may have turned some of Ben's doubts.

LeBron is looking like a surprisingly natural fit next to a dominant big. Granted Davis can play from the perimeter, and that clearly helps the fit, but the Lakers play so many minutes with Dwight or McGee on the floor that LeBron's still working with the disadvantages (and advantages) of playing next to a "true" low post center. A team might have the size to throw at Davis but they need a second player with the size to put on LeBron. And maybe a third to keep Dwight off the boards when he's in. Most teams just aren't able to be effective with that much size in their lineup. On the other hand, the Lakers get by because LeBron is big while still providing all-time great perimeter skills, and of course it helps that Davis can guard 1-5 and shoot.

I disagree with Ben's doubts about LeBron's scalability (also disagree about LeBron's defense being just "slightly" better), but setting that aside, I imagine this season may influence his concerns here too. We had a stretch where the Spurs and then Warriors looked like the best teams in the NBA. They would have likely won every title from 2013-2018 if not for LeBron. And given they both had so much success with ball and player movement it was easy to think that had become the new secret sauce for success. Now that the Lakers have taken the league by storm with a bruising front court and collection of defensive minded role players it's clear that a team can dominant in more traditional fashion. While none of this changes LeBron's spot up shooting, I think it changes the the perception of what teams can be ultra successful today, and to that extent what skills are and aren't scalable.

Can you link his rankings? Curious to see them.

Also did he tease a GOAT peaks project on Twitter?

Sure.

LeBron
Jordan

And here's the teaser.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

[TheGOATRises007]

Spoiler:

After seeing Elgee tease a "best peaks" project I looked back at his rankings from his top-40 list. I was pretty surprised to see LeBron's 2016 campaign ranked below six MJ seasons by a significant margin. He does explain why though:



I think this season may have turned some of Ben's doubts.

LeBron is looking like a surprisingly natural fit next to a dominant big. Granted Davis can play from the perimeter, and that clearly helps the fit, but the Lakers play so many minutes with Dwight or McGee on the floor that LeBron's still working with the disadvantages (and advantages) of playing next to a "true" low post center. A team might have the size to throw at Davis but they need a second player with the size to put on LeBron. And maybe a third to keep Dwight off the boards when he's in. Most teams just aren't able to be effective with that much size in their lineup. On the other hand, the Lakers get by because LeBron is big while still providing all-time great perimeter skills, and of course it helps that Davis can guard 1-5 and shoot.

I disagree with Ben's doubts about LeBron's scalability (also disagree about LeBron's defense being just "slightly" better), but setting that aside, I imagine this season may influence his concerns here too. We had a stretch where the Spurs and then Warriors looked like the best teams in the NBA. They would have likely won every title from 2013-2018 if not for LeBron. And given they both had so much success with ball and player movement it was easy to think that had become the new secret sauce for success. Now that the Lakers have taken the league by storm with a bruising front court and collection of defensive minded role players it's clear that a team can dominant in more traditional fashion. While none of this changes LeBron's spot up shooting, I think it changes the the perception of what teams can be ultra successful today, and to that extent what skills are and aren't scalable.

Can you link his rankings? Curious to see them.

Also did he tease a GOAT peaks project on Twitter?

Sure.

LeBron
Jordan

And here's the teaser.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Ah I've seen those rankings. Pretty good reads.

It'll be interesting to see what season he has as Lebron's peak.

[SideshowBob]

Spoiler:

Can you link his rankings? Curious to see them.

Also did he tease a GOAT peaks project on Twitter?

Sure.

LeBron
Jordan

And here's the teaser.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Ah I've seen those rankings. Pretty good reads.

It'll be interesting to see what season he has as Lebron's peak.

He has ratings on his site if you're subscribed to his Patreon. He has 2012 rated as the highest SRS year of all time at +7.5 (other James/Jordan top years are at +7-7.25 range). But he has 2013's title odds ahead of 2012 due to slightly better portability rating despite 0.25 lower SRS rating.

In terms of overall title odds, he has 89-92 Jordan and 00 Shaq ahead of Lebron for best peak due to better portability than 09/10/12/13 James (his top 4 Lebron years).

Obviously this series will be a lot more discussion driven, but ranking wise that's where he stands unless he's tweaked his ratings further.

[Blackmill]

He has ratings on his site if you're subscribed to his Patreon. He has 2012 rated as the highest SRS year of all time at +7.5 (other James/Jordan top years are at +7-7.25 range). But he has 2013's title odds ahead of 2012 due to slightly better portability rating despite 0.25 lower SRS rating.

In terms of overall title odds, he has 89-92 Jordan and 00 Shaq ahead of Lebron for best peak due to better portability than 09/10/12/13 James (his top 4 Lebron years).

Obviously this series will be a lot more discussion driven, but ranking wise that's where he stands unless he's tweaked his ratings further.

Thanks for the info. He definitely has a bit of an outsider opinion on LeBron. I don't see many people with 2009 and 2010 higher than all of LeBron's second Cavs stint. I can't say I see the argument so hopefully he discusses that in his upcoming series.

[toodles23]

Sure.

LeBron
Jordan

And here's the teaser.

Watch on YouTube

;ab_channel=ThinkingBasketball

Ah I've seen those rankings. Pretty good reads.

It'll be interesting to see what season he has as Lebron's peak.

He has ratings on his site if you're subscribed to his Patreon. He has 2012 rated as the highest SRS year of all time at +7.5 (other James/Jordan top years are at +7-7.25 range). But he has 2013's title odds ahead of 2012 due to slightly better portability rating despite 0.25 lower SRS rating.

In terms of overall title odds, he has 89-92 Jordan and 00 Shaq ahead of Lebron for best peak due to better portability than 09/10/12/13 James (his top 4 Lebron years).

Obviously this series will be a lot more discussion driven, but ranking wise that's where he stands unless he's tweaked his ratings further.

At the very least you would think this season will make him bump Lebron's 2018 season up a bit, it feels like he kind of penalized Lebron's defense that year for his lack of activity, but that was due to him having to exert so much energy on offense - yet he didn't give any corresponding bump to Lebron's offense which was the same +5.5 as it was in 2016 and 2017.

To put it another way, there's no reason Lebron of 2 years ago couldn't be doing the same thing he's doing this year, he just happened to be in a situation on the Cavs where he was tasked with being the creator on every single offensive possession while being surrounded by a historically inept defensive cast.

[70sFan]

Not so long ago, people say that big lineups are gone. Now we have the best team in RS (Bucks) and the best team in the playoffs (Lakers) playing huge lineups with two traditional bigs. I wonder how it will change the perspective in future.

[limbo]

Not so long ago, people say that big lineups are gone. Now we have the best team in RS (Bucks) and the best team in the playoffs (Lakers) playing huge lineups with two traditional bigs. I wonder how it will change the perspective in future.

No one said that... The claim was smallball pace&space lineups render traditional/one-dimensional Bigs that can't shoot and/or pass useless. Which has been proven right time and time again, including this year, where the Lakers decided against playing Howard/McGee against the Rockets.

The reason why the Lakers can get away with playing Howard/McGee better than most teams is because AD and LeBron are two of the most versatile players in NBA history at their position. When you have those two you can literally put any lineup out there and it will have success, because LeBron/AD can fill so many positions/roles.

As far as the Bucks go, Brook Lopez is one of the best shooting Centers in the league, and Giannis is not a typical Big, because he operates from the perimeter mostly, and abuses the drive&kick game. He has more in common with LeBron than he has with Duncan or Hakeem. And still the Bucks offensive was hardly special during this season. It was their all-time great defense that carried them, which collapsed against Miami's smaller move or shoot style of basketball...

[Homer38]

Not so long ago, people say that big lineups are gone. Now we have the best team in RS (Bucks) and the best team in the playoffs (Lakers) playing huge lineups with two traditional bigs. I wonder how it will change the perspective in future.

I 100% agree

Size matters and shooting over 40-50 three points attempts in every game is a horrible idea unless you have 2 of the best shooter ever in Klay and Curry.No one can't guard Davis with all the small lineup.

[70sFan]

No one said that... The claim was smallball pace&space lineups render traditional/one-dimensional Bigs that can't shoot and/or pass useless.

Show me an era when two bigs who can't shoot or pass were useful. The idea that basketball used to be simple and one dimensional before 2010 is just wrong. When you read some post here, you can be forced to believe that before 2010 teams were filled with big guys who couldn't play basketball.

[limbo]

No one said that... The claim was smallball pace&space lineups render traditional/one-dimensional Bigs that can't shoot and/or pass useless.

Show me an era when two bigs who can't shoot or pass were useful. The idea that basketball used to be simple and one dimensional before 2010 is just wrong. When you read some post here, you can be forced to believe that before 2010 teams were filled with big guys who couldn't play basketball.

Moses Malone couldn't shoot, pass or dribble. Not only was he useful, he was able to be one of the best offensive players in the league as the primary offensive option on a Houston team that was ranked #1 on offense in the league at the time. Just purely on bully ball and hustle... That's not happening anymore today...

And who said anything about two bigs? One big that can't shoot or pass can already be a huge detriment against elite teams in today's league... Especially if he can only protect the rim well and not actually play the switch style defense on the perimeter.

I think this is the point you're missing severely. It's not the smallball is some super broken strategy that every team can run to completely render the opposing team Big unplayable... You need to have the proper personnel and talent to pull it off and it also depends on how good the opposing team is. If the opposing team has Durant/Klay/Curry or AD/LeBron... Than the Center could be Javale McGee and they still win easily, because those players are just too good...

The point here is that smallball (which is essentially just playing versatile F's at the C that can use their wide range of skills and general mobility to counter most Centers but, at the same time, can hang with them defensively) is a VIABLE strategy for a team to implement, that can prevent the 7-foot Centers from camping in the paint and getting the most value out defensively...

That's really the gist of it... And this strategy wasn't nearly as fleshed out in the past as it is now (nor was it as effective, because there was no 3pt line for most of the NBA history) because 1. players were simply less skilled and 2. coaching wasn't yet at the level where it is now... Analytics didn't even exist... It took for Analytics to come to the scene for some teams to realize how horribly outdated certain Bigs have become in conjuction to how most of teams decide to run their offense today.

In 2005, it was okay to have Nazr Mohamed or Fabricio Oberto starting at C, because most teams didn't really play this space and pace game outside of Phoenix... And Phoenix was able to have by far the best offense in the league doing this and would've won multiple titles if their defense wasn't as garbage as it was. Sadly that's what was ultimately their demise. The fact that no one on that team could defend above average outside of Marion...

Not to mention that Phoenix team still didn't have the foresight of how totally broken the 3pt line is as a weapon... I mean Steve Nash, one of the best shooters of all-time, took 9 three point shot in that 2005 series vs. the Spurs... Stoudamire and Marion weren't three point shooters either. It was like very early rendition proto-version of smallball

Teams nowadays would know how exploit a Nazr Mohammed way more than they did 15 years ago... To the point where he could potentially become unplayable. Now. You could still put Mohammed next to AD, LeBron, Danny Green and Rondo, and his rim protection could still be worth it, depending on what type of team you play, how heavy their prioritize inside vs outside scoring...

[70sFan]

Moses Malone couldn't shoot, pass or dribble. Not only was he useful, he was able to be one of the best offensive players in the league as the primary offensive option on a Houston team that was ranked #1 on offense in the league at the time. Just purely on bully ball and hustle... That's not happening anymore today...

That's not true because Moses could shoot fairly well. He didn't shoot threes, but he wasn't a bad shooter relative to the rest of the league, quite the contrary in fact. He could also create his midrange shots fairly well.

Besides, Moses played usually with stretch 4s in Houston - Rudy Tomjanovic could shoot as well as any guard.

And who said anything about two bigs? One big that can't shoot or pass can already be a huge detriment against elite teams in today's league... Especially if he can only protect the rim well and not actually play the switch style defense on the perimeter.

That's not true - Gobert is top 15 player in the league and he doesn't do any of these things particulary well.

I think this is the point you're missing severely. It's not the smallball is some super broken strategy that every team can run to completely render the opposing team Big unplayable... You need to have the proper personnel and talent to pull it off and it also depends on how good the opposing team is. If the opposing team has Durant/Klay/Curry or AD/LeBron... Than the Center could be Javale McGee and they still win easily, because those players are just too good...

So you're saying that you should play up to your strengths and more talented teams usually win? Who would have thought about it before...