kcktiny wrote: Over those two seasons, 2008-09 and 2009-10, Cleveland won the most games (127), had the highest average per game point differential (+7.7 pts/g), was the 3rd best team in offensive efficiency (110.6 pts/100poss scored), and the 3rd best team in defensive efficiency (102.4 pts/100poss allowed). On defense they allowed the second lowest 2pt FG% (46.5%), grabbed the second most defensive rebounds (35.1 defreb/100poss), allowed the fewest points per game (93.5 pts/g).
James played just 1/7 to 1/6 of their total minutes over those two seasons. So obviously someone else - several someone else's - were also very good on both offense and defense those two years.
Perhaps you should reconsider your characterization of that Cleveland team rather than obfuscate the facts to make your point.
Your math is way off. He played 76% of total minutes over those 2 seasons with +21 and +17 on/off and was by far their best player on offense AND defense. Not to mention they lost 6 out of 7 game he didn't play.
The Cavs in 2009 and then in 2010 did nothing without James and then fell epically apart in 2011 after James left.
If you’re looking at just 2009:
without Ben Wallace, 1,802 minutes, +12.03 without Gibson, 2,003 minutes, +13.43 without Mo Williams, 836 minutes, +13.46 without West, 1,025 minutes, +14.21 without Illgauskas, 1,547 minutes, +14.45 without Szczerbiak, 2,151 minutes, +15.39 without Andy V., 1,195 minutes, +17.13
This is just absolutely wild. You can do this with 3 man, 4 man, 5 man lineups as well and anything that has decent minutes (e.g., 200+ or even 100+), the lineups fall apart without James.
Then the Cavs fell apart without James:
Before the “injuries in 2011” claims, look at the bottom right of that chart with 21 games of health. Or the following:
2010-2011 Cavs
21 game sample with mostly same players: 19 win pace
Andy V: -9.0 ON, +.5 ON/OFF, 8-23 in games played, 19 win pace Mo Williams: -13.9 ON, -4.4 ON/OFF, 9-28, 20 win pace
Mo Williams + Andy V.: 27 games played, -9.5, 6-21, 18 win pace
The individual records for mo and varejao don’t show a pattern either
Varejao 8-23
Mo 8-28
With both 6-21
On offs can’t be used like that because rotations and stuff, and can’t be compared to whole team lineups.
Delonte west in 2010 had his worst 3 point shooting year with the cavs, ilgauskas retired a year later, and this was Shaqs second last year. It’s hard to see any of them as difference makers by this point, and the cavs record was identical in the time each of them missed
(with west they won at a 70 win pace without him, without ilgauskas they won at a 64 win pace, without shaq they were at a 59 win pace, a caveat for shaq specifically that 6 of the games lebron missed were games shaq missed too, take those out and they win at a 68 win pace without shaq)
Samples are 22, 18, and 29 (23 if we take out bron games) respectively
I think we have a fairly decent sample of the team without lebron with a similar spine, and in the 30 or so games Parker/varejao/hickson/Jamison/Williams played together, we have a 23 game sample, where they went 4-19
Varejao is the only person where they have a higher than 20 win pace (21), and even then it should be noted they won on average by 5.6 points (and all of them were less than 10 point wins) whereas their losses were on average by 13.7 points (so they lost by 8.7ppg) which does fit a sub 20 win pace
I don’t really see how they can be seen as anything more than a 20 win team based off of that, the players they lost outside of lebron weren’t really contributors, and while healthy we have more than a 20 game sample of them playing like a 20 win team (and in itself that sample should be compared to the cavs team when they were healthy, and when lebron played they won at a 65 win pace).
If you don't mind me asking what made Lebron so good in 2009? Or if you have another thread you could point me to that'd be great. I watched as it was happening but i didn't know nearly as much about the game back then.
KTM_2813 wrote:If I had to make an argument for Peak LeBron > Peak Jordan, I would probably narrow the comparison down to a single playoff series, in which case LeBron's 2016 Finals against the Warriors is hard to beat. With that being said, I think that's way too small a sample size, which is why I would never actually do that. But in my mind, that's the best bet for Peak LeBron > Peak MJ.
Yep definitely, the best way to make an argument for a bigger, smarter, and more versatile player who generates all-time results running teams on both ends of the floor, seems to generate higher impact in a variety of contexts and obliterates all contemporaries in pretty much anything tied to winning is.........
fixating on a single playoff series.
I mean... Yea. LeBron's 2016 Finals versus the Warriors is often regarded as the single greatest playoff series ever, and possibly even the best three-game stretch ever (Games 5-7). It's not unheard of for people to zoom in on those small samples, such as with 2000 Shaq, where people reference his insane Finals as justification for a top-three peak. Seems like a half-decent argument to me, especially when the acceptable sample for the term "peak" is so widely debated. Some people interpret it as three years... Some as one year... Some as one playoffs... Some as one series... Some as one game. LeBron might have the best series ever, so... It's not a perfect argument but it's also an efficient one. Honestly, probably more efficient and effective than trying to paint LeBron as having more impact than Jordan in terms of winning over larger samples. That's going to be a real uphill battle.
sansterre wrote:The success of a star's season is:
Individual performance + Teammate performance - Opposition +/- Luck
KTM_2813 wrote: I mean... Yea. LeBron's 2016 Finals versus the Warriors is often regarded as the single greatest playoff series ever, and possibly even the best three-game stretch ever (Games 5-7). It's not unheard of for people to zoom in on those small samples, such as with 2000 Shaq, where people reference his insane Finals as justification for a top-three peak. Seems like a half-decent argument to me, especially when the acceptable sample for the term "peak" is so widely debated. Some people interpret it as three years... Some as one year... Some as one playoffs... Some as one series... Some as one game. LeBron might have the best series ever, so... It's not a perfect argument but it's also an efficient one. Honestly, probably more efficient and effective than trying to paint LeBron as having more impact than Jordan in terms of winning over larger samples. That's going to be a real uphill battle.
I don't think it's that much of an uphill battle. Not that I'm solidly pro LeBron in this type of debate because I'm not. The one argument in LeBron's favor is that he can add more things to a team and proved that he can win under a way wider variety of variables/rosters than MJ did. The primary thing in MJ's favor imo is volume scoring/ability to scale scoring as necessary and perhaps mental toughness/intensity. Plus maybe defensive effort over his entire prime but that's not that as relevant to comparing peaks.
RCM88x wrote: Which years are you thinking of here, outside of 2011?
Well, obviously, the other years in question where he had Wade or Kyrie are 2014, 2015, and 2017. 2015 gets a pass because of injuries in the Finals. I think the response one might have is that Wade was broken down by 2014 and the Warriors were unbeatable in 2017. Which are fair points. But then again, Pippen was broken down in 1998 and Jordan still got it done. And I don’t give LeBron nearly the pass that others do with regards to the Durant Warriors, since I don’t actually think the Durant Warriors were substantially more talented than the Cavaliers were (particularly in 2017; the 2018 Cavaliers were a different story)—I think the biggest factors were that their two main stars scaled up with other elite talent a lot better (and LeBron not doing that so well is my point!). There’s a bit of retroactive excuse-making there IMO. In fact, betting odds before that series still gave the Cavaliers a 30-35% chance to win the series. And that’s after it was *already* clear that Curry and Durant scaled up better together! I’m not sure I’d necessarily *expect* LeBron to actually win that series (though I don’t think it should’ve been at all out of the realm of possibility, and indeed it wasn’t considered to be at the time), but it wasn’t even remotely close and I’d say that that was a failure for a GOAT-level player on a very talented team. But yeah, obviously 2011 is the worst and most obviously disqualifying example for LeBron.
Do you think general betting odds are an accurate projection for team quality within a playoff series matchup? Before the season (before anything was clear) GS was listed as the greatest preseason favorite in the history of the sport, for whatever that's worth. Cavs were still +385 which for most years is 2nd or at worst 3rd best odds.
With regards to Curry and Durant, I think it's pretty obvious they would scale up better because both of those players were/are significantly better than Kyrie. Not sure how it's a nock on Lebron that he couldn't push Kyrie to be on par with those two guys when at no point in his career was he in that tier of player.
I think betting odds are a pretty good reflection of how people perceived the talent level between the two teams. Golden State was perceived as the superior team, but not to the extent that people thought it’d be an easy series for the Warriors or that the Cavaliers had no chance. The fact that it was an easy series and that the Cavaliers did essentially have no chance is in large part a reflection of the fact that the Cavaliers’ talent didn’t mesh together as well as the Warriors’ talent did. So then to take the fact that the Cavaliers had no chance and use that to absolve LeBron of any issues with meshing together with really good teammates feels very odd to me. If he meshed better with really good teammates, his team might’ve had a chance!
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote: Well, obviously, the other years in question where he had Wade or Kyrie are 2014, 2015, and 2017. 2015 gets a pass because of injuries in the Finals. I think the response one might have is that Wade was broken down by 2014 and the Warriors were unbeatable in 2017. Which are fair points. But then again, Pippen was broken down in 1998 and Jordan still got it done. And I don’t give LeBron nearly the pass that others do with regards to the Durant Warriors, since I don’t actually think the Durant Warriors were substantially more talented than the Cavaliers were (particularly in 2017; the 2018 Cavaliers were a different story)—I think the biggest factors were that their two main stars scaled up with other elite talent a lot better (and LeBron not doing that so well is my point!). There’s a bit of retroactive excuse-making there IMO. In fact, betting odds before that series still gave the Cavaliers a 30-35% chance to win the series. And that’s after it was *already* clear that Curry and Durant scaled up better together! I’m not sure I’d necessarily *expect* LeBron to actually win that series (though I don’t think it should’ve been at all out of the realm of possibility, and indeed it wasn’t considered to be at the time), but it wasn’t even remotely close and I’d say that that was a failure for a GOAT-level player on a very talented team. But yeah, obviously 2011 is the worst and most obviously disqualifying example for LeBron.
Do you think general betting odds are an accurate projection for team quality within a playoff series matchup? Before the season (before anything was clear) GS was listed as the greatest preseason favorite in the history of the sport, for whatever that's worth. Cavs were still +385 which for most years is 2nd or at worst 3rd best odds.
With regards to Curry and Durant, I think it's pretty obvious they would scale up better because both of those players were/are significantly better than Kyrie. Not sure how it's a nock on Lebron that he couldn't push Kyrie to be on par with those two guys when at no point in his career was he in that tier of player.
I think betting odds are a pretty good reflection of how people perceived the talent level between the two teams. Golden State was perceived as the superior team, but not to the extent that people thought it’d be an easy series for the Warriors or that the Cavaliers had no chance. The fact that it was an easy series and that the Cavaliers did essentially have no chance is in large part a reflection of the fact that the Cavaliers’ talent didn’t mesh together as well as the Warriors’ talent did. So then to take the fact that the Cavaliers had no chance and use that to absolve LeBron of any issues with meshing together with really good teammates feels very odd to me. If he meshed better with really good teammates, his team might’ve had a chance!
Didn't sans say they did about as expected by point-differential?
Either way, even if vegas odds were a perfect proxy for talent level, they would be measuring the talent level of the team, not the team - lebron.
Cavs meshed well enough to post one of the best rolling playoff-ratings ever(+13!) despite running into a three-superstar goliath that added an MVP who specifically is less valuable when they're asked to dominate the ball. In fact, they meshed well enough to generate a better offense than KD+Curry with Lebron averaging a hyper-effecient 30-point triple-double(and you know all those other things you don't like giving players credit for) against arguably the best playoff defense of the decade.
I'm not seeing what there's to absolve. Draymond being a better defensive anchor than 32 year old Lebron?
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
RCM88x wrote: Do you think general betting odds are an accurate projection for team quality within a playoff series matchup? Before the season (before anything was clear) GS was listed as the greatest preseason favorite in the history of the sport, for whatever that's worth. Cavs were still +385 which for most years is 2nd or at worst 3rd best odds.
With regards to Curry and Durant, I think it's pretty obvious they would scale up better because both of those players were/are significantly better than Kyrie. Not sure how it's a nock on Lebron that he couldn't push Kyrie to be on par with those two guys when at no point in his career was he in that tier of player.
I think betting odds are a pretty good reflection of how people perceived the talent level between the two teams. Golden State was perceived as the superior team, but not to the extent that people thought it’d be an easy series for the Warriors or that the Cavaliers had no chance. The fact that it was an easy series and that the Cavaliers did essentially have no chance is in large part a reflection of the fact that the Cavaliers’ talent didn’t mesh together as well as the Warriors’ talent did. So then to take the fact that the Cavaliers had no chance and use that to absolve LeBron of any issues with meshing together with really good teammates feels very odd to me. If he meshed better with really good teammates, his team might’ve had a chance!
Didn't sans say they did about as expected by point-differential?
Either way, even if vegas odds were a perfect proxy for talent level, they would be measuring the talent level of the team, not the team - lebron.
Cavs meshed well enough to post one of the best rolling playoff-ratings ever(+13!) despite running into a three-superstar goliath that added an MVP who specifically is less valuable when they're asked to dominate the ball. In fact, they meshed well enough to generate a better offense than KD+Curry with Lebron averaging a hyper-effecient 30-point triple-double(and you know all those other things you don't like giving players credit for) against arguably the best playoff defense of the decade.
I'm not seeing what there's to absolve. Draymond being a better defensive anchor than 32 year old Lebron?
You’re citing numbers from the entire playoffs. I think we can all agree that the 2017 Cavaliers were able to stomp the mediocre teams they faced before the finals. Stomping teams like that is not really all that indicative of how a player scales up with great talent, because it’s basically just a cakewalk. That team could’ve gotten zero marginal value from Kyrie when LeBron was on the court and still easily have won those series. If anything, though, those prior series were suggestive of the idea that they should’ve been able to put up more of a fight when they faced the Warriors. In fact, that’s surely part of why the betting odds were actually pretty decent for the Cavaliers. But when faced with a scenario where they weren’t going to win unless their talent scaled up well together, they completely failed. And this is, in large part (though of course not entirely), on LeBron—who is a player who cannot get nearly the same value when he doesn’t have the ball.
And yes, of course those betting odds were taking into account the Cavs having LeBron. He was a huge part of the team and why it was so talented! But your position is that LeBron is the greatest player of all time, so I don't see your point. Is your point that the betting odds were overestimating how good LeBron is? Surely not. If they were properly factoring in how good LeBron is, then the fact is that they suggested the Cavs overall were talented enough to give the Warriors a good series, and that didn't happen. The fact that that didn't happen is often used as evidence that there was nothing LeBron could've done and therefore it shouldn't be a strike against him at all, but that ignores the obvious fact that the Cavaliers not giving much of a fight despite being expected to given their talent level is in part reflective of LeBron's inability to be GOAT-like at scaling up with other great talent.
Of course, this is all ignoring the most obvious evidence of this, which is the 2011 Finals—where LeBron basically malfunctioned while trying to figure out how to scale up with other elite talent, and thereby basically threw away a Finals where his team was substantially more talented.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
lessthanjake wrote: I think betting odds are a pretty good reflection of how people perceived the talent level between the two teams. Golden State was perceived as the superior team, but not to the extent that people thought it’d be an easy series for the Warriors or that the Cavaliers had no chance. The fact that it was an easy series and that the Cavaliers did essentially have no chance is in large part a reflection of the fact that the Cavaliers’ talent didn’t mesh together as well as the Warriors’ talent did. So then to take the fact that the Cavaliers had no chance and use that to absolve LeBron of any issues with meshing together with really good teammates feels very odd to me. If he meshed better with really good teammates, his team might’ve had a chance!
Didn't sans say they did about as expected by point-differential?
Either way, even if vegas odds were a perfect proxy for talent level, they would be measuring the talent level of the team, not the team - lebron.
Cavs meshed well enough to post one of the best rolling playoff-ratings ever(+13!) despite running into a three-superstar goliath that added an MVP who specifically is less valuable when they're asked to dominate the ball. In fact, they meshed well enough to generate a better offense than KD+Curry with Lebron averaging a hyper-effecient 30-point triple-double(and you know all those other things you don't like giving players credit for) against arguably the best playoff defense of the decade.
I'm not seeing what there's to absolve. Draymond being a better defensive anchor than 32 year old Lebron?
You’re citing numbers from the entire playoffs. I think we can all agree that the 2017 Cavaliers were able to stomp the mediocre teams they faced before the finals. Stomping teams like that is not really all that indicative of how a player scales up with great talent, because it’s basically just a cakewalk.
If only the cavs had beaten a team better than anyone Jordan beat the year before...
Also being able to blowout mediocre teams is indicative of championship prospects, that is why we use point-differential and srs in the first place.
That team could get zero marginal value from Kyrie when LeBron’s on the court and still easily win those series. If anything, though, those prior series were suggestive of the idea that they should’ve been able to put up more of a fight when they faced the Warriors.
Taking the only game off the team you have dubbed "the greatest ever" and posting a much higher opponent-adjusted srs-eq(+9.3) than Jordan managed without a historically stacked squad seems like enough of a "fight" to me tbh. If you need to reach this hard to turn obvious positives into negatives, then you should probably compare Jordan to someone else.
And yes, of course those betting odds were taking into account the Cavs having LeBron. He was a huge part of the team and why it was so talented! But your position is that LeBron is the greatest player of all time, so I don't see your point.
I suspect you see it fine, but to clarify, a proxy of "lebron+support" cannot also be used as a proxy of "support" which sadly is very much central to what you're trying to argue here.
In other words, you are grasping at straws. Which I guess isn't new.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
Never fail to laugh at how good scaling is apparently when you maintain the league’s highest shot volume for an entire decade because you never play next to other scorers.
MyUniBroDavis wrote:Some people are clearly far too overreliant on data without context and look at good all in one or impact numbers and get wowed by that rather than looking at how a roster is actually built around a player
OhayoKD wrote:Didn't sans say they did about as expected by point-differential?
Either way, even if vegas odds were a perfect proxy for talent level, they would be measuring the talent level of the team, not the team - lebron.
Cavs meshed well enough to post one of the best rolling playoff-ratings ever(+13!) despite running into a three-superstar goliath that added an MVP who specifically is less valuable when they're asked to dominate the ball. In fact, they meshed well enough to generate a better offense than KD+Curry with Lebron averaging a hyper-effecient 30-point triple-double(and you know all those other things you don't like giving players credit for) against arguably the best playoff defense of the decade.
I'm not seeing what there's to absolve. Draymond being a better defensive anchor than 32 year old Lebron?
You’re citing numbers from the entire playoffs. I think we can all agree that the 2017 Cavaliers were able to stomp the mediocre teams they faced before the finals. Stomping teams like that is not really all that indicative of how a player scales up with great talent, because it’s basically just a cakewalk.
If only the cavs had beaten a team better than anyone Jordan beat the year before...
You can’t be the GOAT on the back of one playoff series. Nor can someone show that they scale up with elite talent at a GOAT-like level just on the basis of one series. It requires a review of the player’s entire history, and in this case LeBron clearly falls short overall, though of course the 2016 Finals is a very good data point for him.
Taking the only game off the team you have dubbed "the greatest ever" and posting a much higher opponent-adjusted srs-eq(+9.3) than Jordan managed without a historically stacked squad seems like enough of a "fight" to me tbh. If you need to reach this hard to turn obvious positives into negatives, then you should probably compare Jordan to someone else.
Lol, at you saying I am “reach[ing] this hard to turn obvious positives into negatives” immediately after making a claim that you have to caveat by trying to eliminate from consideration a large portion of Jordan’s years as a player. A little ironic and very self-defeating IMO. You might perhaps want to take your own advice from your last sentence there.
OhayoKD wrote:Lebron contributes more to all the phases of play than Messi does. And he is of course a defensive anchor unlike messi.
CzBoobie wrote:Your math is way off. He played 76% of total minutes over those 2 seasons with +21 and +17 on/off and was by far their best player on offense AND defense. Not to mention they lost 6 out of 7 game he didn't play.
The Cavs in 2009 and then in 2010 did nothing without James and then fell epically apart in 2011 after James left.
If you’re looking at just 2009:
without Ben Wallace, 1,802 minutes, +12.03 without Gibson, 2,003 minutes, +13.43 without Mo Williams, 836 minutes, +13.46 without West, 1,025 minutes, +14.21 without Illgauskas, 1,547 minutes, +14.45 without Szczerbiak, 2,151 minutes, +15.39 without Andy V., 1,195 minutes, +17.13
This is just absolutely wild. You can do this with 3 man, 4 man, 5 man lineups as well and anything that has decent minutes (e.g., 200+ or even 100+), the lineups fall apart without James.
Then the Cavs fell apart without James:
Before the “injuries in 2011” claims, look at the bottom right of that chart with 21 games of health. Or the following:
2010-2011 Cavs
21 game sample with mostly same players: 19 win pace
Andy V: -9.0 ON, +.5 ON/OFF, 8-23 in games played, 19 win pace Mo Williams: -13.9 ON, -4.4 ON/OFF, 9-28, 20 win pace
Mo Williams + Andy V.: 27 games played, -9.5, 6-21, 18 win pace
The individual records for mo and varejao don’t show a pattern either
Varejao 8-23
Mo 8-28
With both 6-21
On offs can’t be used like that because rotations and stuff, and can’t be compared to whole team lineups.
Delonte west in 2010 had his worst 3 point shooting year with the cavs, ilgauskas retired a year later, and this was Shaqs second last year. It’s hard to see any of them as difference makers by this point, and the cavs record was identical in the time each of them missed
(with west they won at a 70 win pace without him, without ilgauskas they won at a 64 win pace, without shaq they were at a 59 win pace, a caveat for shaq specifically that 6 of the games lebron missed were games shaq missed too, take those out and they win at a 68 win pace without shaq)
Samples are 22, 18, and 29 (23 if we take out bron games) respectively
I think we have a fairly decent sample of the team without lebron with a similar spine, and in the 30 or so games Parker/varejao/hickson/Jamison/Williams played together, we have a 23 game sample, where they went 4-19
Varejao is the only person where they have a higher than 20 win pace (21), and even then it should be noted they won on average by 5.6 points (and all of them were less than 10 point wins) whereas their losses were on average by 13.7 points (so they lost by 8.7ppg) which does fit a sub 20 win pace
I don’t really see how they can be seen as anything more than a 20 win team based off of that, the players they lost outside of lebron weren’t really contributors, and while healthy we have more than a 20 game sample of them playing like a 20 win team (and in itself that sample should be compared to the cavs team when they were healthy, and when lebron played they won at a 65 win pace).
If you don't mind me asking what made Lebron so good in 2009? Or if you have another thread you could point me to that'd be great. I watched as it was happening but i didn't know nearly as much about the game back then.
Lots to break-down but defense is a pretty good start.
Let's start with something that has basically been true of Lebron for the entirety of his prime(and even now to a degree):
Spoiler:
uberhikari wrote:The most valuable defensive possession is not a contest, it's when the opponent can't even shoot the ball or has to shoot the ball under awful conditions. A considerable portion of someone like Hakeem's defensive value is when opposing teams won't even attempt a shot because they know he'll be there.
LeBron is the best wing defender in NBA history at this type of defensive jiujitsu. And if he was a better man-to-man perimeter defender with better footwork and a lower offensive load he'd be the best wing defender of all time.
When LeBron studies and remembers your playbook, has the IQ and awarenesses to properly react to an offensive threat, and is either in a position to blow up the action or communicate with his teammate so they can do it that provides incredible defensive value.
The posts about LeBron not having enough traditional defensive counting stats pointing to a lack of activity is exactly what's wrong with basketball discourse when discussing defense. Unless you've played organized ball or have taken the time to watch professional level coaching videos on defense, you're not going to appreciate the fact that the most important thing a help defender can be on defense is a "yellow light". Someone who's able to plug up the gaps or is far enough over on the weakside to "help the helper" and allow the closer weakside defender to fill the gap, or something as simple as tagging a roll man to fly out to a shooter and cause a record scratch is faaaaar more valuable over time than a flashy chest to chest lockdown guy.
If you were watching the lakers last playoffs, this showed up at the end of game 4 against the Warriors with Lebron noticing the spacing was a bit off on a hammer-action and directing him to blow it up.
He also offers excellent paint-protection for a non-big. This means you can play not good defensive big-men and still get high-level results.
Incidentally, when we look to nba history, these qualities tend to correlate with the most valuable looking defenders ever, the best defenses ever, and the defenders(And players in general) who are able to remain valuable across a variety of contexts even when they're super old or super young.
Altogether, even with lesser defensive activity(physically) you get a guy where defenders who are negatives before playing with him see improvement within a season, and who is able to lead decent regular season defenses while "coasting" and then anchor elite(-5.5 and -3.5 per sans psrs) defenses in the postseason.
But what happens when that "lesser defensive activity" turns into extremely high defensive activity...for the entirety of a season?
Spoiler:
10.4 opponent counterpart PER according to 82games (equivalent to this year Alonzo Gee and Francisco Garcia) 82games also has opponent SF scoring 12.8 pts/36 and .525 TS% vs LeBron while opposing PF scored 13.3 pts/36 and .484 TS% when LeBron played PF.
Top 5 in on court defensive rating in 2009 (min. 2000 MP): 1. West: 99.2 2. LeBron 100.6 3. Odom 101.4 4. Turkoglu 101.4 5. Howard 101.8
LeBron is also 3rd in FG%, 4th in 3P%, and 3rd in eFG%.
Here is what some of the top SF of 2009 did vs LeBron offensively (their regular season per 36 in parenthesis)
What’s amazing is that when faced Cleveland and LeBron was off the court, they dominated:
The 6 SF’s stats when (Per 36): LeBron on court: 15.1 PPG, .461 TS%, 3.3 Reb, 3.6 AST-3.4 TOV, -9.4 +/- LeBron off court: 24.6 PPG, .596 TS%, 5.9 Reb, 2.3 AST-1.8 TOV, +0.9 +/-
That is a 9.5 points per 36 and 13.5 TS% difference. In the playoffs, LeBron continued playing elite man defense. Here are how some of his guys did when LeBron was on the court (per 36 minutes):
Tayshaun Prince: 3.9 PPG, .260 TS% Joe Johnson: 15.3 PPG, .480 TS% Marvin Williams: 5.8 PPG, .337 TS% Dropoff from regular season averages: -7.6 PPG, -18.1 TS%
Defensive stats from Hoopsstats.com for his position: 17.3 pts/game allowed (1st in league) (13.2 points per 36 minutes) 41.2 FG% allowed (1st) 15.1 FGA allowed (2nd fewest) 16.6 Efficiency allowed (1st) 1.3 Offensive rebounds allowed (3rd)
+2.8 Defensive RAPM [2nd among qualifying perimeter players (Artest)]
In 2011 Lebron gained weight at the cost of athleticism to set himself up to become a post-hub alongside wade and bosh while moving to power forward. A byproduct of this is this was a loss of quickness. This hurt his effectiveness vs shooters and opposing wings and contributed to Lebron being somewhat spotty with closeouts. Perhaps more pertinently, deprived of sturdy(if not explosive)big-men to work off, Lebron was not afforded the freedom to do what he did on the perimeter(this is an example of how value can fluctuate from situation to situation!).
In Cleveland(the return), Lebron now moving back to SF shed the excess weight and became quicker. but sadly, now in his 30's he just didn't have the same motor he did at 24 and 25. So, instead of leading a -5.5 regular season defense, he was holding otherwise bad defenses above water through 82 games before turning it up in the playoffs(somewhat bolstered by the league suddenly jumping to small-ball). With the top offenses, not being centered around great bigs, Lebron's defenses went rampant in the playoffs, but he's probably not doing that in 2009 facing dwight instead of draymond.
Offensively, early 20's Lebron had the rare combination of being a physical freak and wicked smart(at basketball).
Per Gilbert arenas, in his first ever playoff series, Lebron called for a substitution to bait the other team's coach into putting on a favorable matchup for a winning-score. According to multiple opposing coaches(Van Gundy, Doc Rivers) Lebron was able to read and anticipate their playbook. The end result is someone who can coordinate team-wide offense and defense on the floor simultaneously. Doing either is a rarity(bird, magic, kg). Guys who do both are few and far between(Draymond, Cp3, Bill Russell). Incidentally pretty much everyone who can do it generates impact that outpaces their on-court production. Speaking of which...
Creation
Thanks to a combination of height(enabling him to better see and pass over trees), power(allowing him to hit reads with great velocity), iq, vision, and all-time scoring gravity, Lebron, even at 24 was one of the best creators ever both in terms of volume and effeciency. In 2009 he posted an adjusted box-creation of 14.7 to go with a passer-rating of 7.8. In 2010, he notched box-creation of 16.1 to go with a PR of 9.0.
For comparison, Jordan, merely one of the best creators of his era, has exactly one-year where he was upward of 13 in box-creation(1989) to pair with a passer-rating of 7.
Those metrics only really track the end of a possession. Great helios can breakdown defenses before they make a pass and in 2009 Lebron was one of the best examples keeping low turnovers despite Cleveland's offense being run through him to an extent we have rarely seen in nba history.
Scoring
Thanks to a combination of -> all-time finishing touch, strength, speed, and power -> incredible fluidity and quickness for someone that size -> good shot selection -> a functional if streaky jumpshot -> very capable cutting/rim running -> An okay free-throw shooter who wins tons of fouls
Lebron James was one of the best scorers ever, notching a scoring title at 21(as he led what was at full strength a +6.5! offense), and posting goatish 1-year and 2-year playoff scoring marks(you can extend that to three if you skip 11 and add 12 fwiw) despite facing immense defensive attention.
The end result is arguably the most productive offensive player ever managing peak Jordan level conventional box in the regular-season before breaking all stats in the playoffs.
What you are actually getting on the court is a player who barely turns the ball despite having everything run through him, scores at high volume on high efficiency, creates at an all-time volume on excellent or all-time efficiency(quality of looks, quality of what is not created ect).
On top of that you get a guy who can runs his team's offense and defense.
And on top of that you are getting goatish non-big defense.
And on top of that he gets red hot during the playoffs.
The end result is a team that otherwise plays sub-20 win ball without(14 gams from 08-10, 21 games with the same starters - lebron in 2011, ect) plays 60+ ball with to go with outlierish rapm, a historically unrivalled track-record of replication across contexts as Lebron repeatedly posts signals that look the best of anyone over the last 40 years.
If that wasn't enough he is also a similar outlier across recorded history in the clutch:
Highest 4th quarter on court plus/minus from 1997 to 2013: 1. 09 James +265 2. 13 James +242 Pro-rated (Currently at +207) 3. 03 Marbury +220 4. 11 Korver +219 5. 09 Williams +212 6. 02 George +211 7. 04 Garnett +208 8. 11 Bosh +199
The Cavs were +265 (+24.5 per 100 possessions) in the 4th with LeBron on court and -97 (-13.17 per 100) without LeBron in the 4th quarter which gives LeBron a +37.7 plus/minus in the 4th quarter.
Pair that with a track-record of playoff elevation only matched in the last 40 years by Hakeem(srs upsets, team-wide elevation, internal box scaling, ect ect) and yeah
Put Lebron at his most physically dominant and highest motor with maxed out "got that dawg in him" and you get a crazy good player.
KTM_2813 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:
KTM_2813 wrote:If I had to make an argument for Peak LeBron > Peak Jordan, I would probably narrow the comparison down to a single playoff series, in which case LeBron's 2016 Finals against the Warriors is hard to beat. With that being said, I think that's way too small a sample size, which is why I would never actually do that. But in my mind, that's the best bet for Peak LeBron > Peak MJ.
Yep definitely, the best way to make an argument for a bigger, smarter, and more versatile player who generates all-time results running teams on both ends of the floor, seems to generate higher impact in a variety of contexts and obliterates all contemporaries in pretty much anything tied to winning is.........
fixating on a single playoff series.
I mean... Yea. LeBron's 2016 Finals versus the Warriors is often regarded as the single greatest playoff series ever, and possibly even the best three-game stretch ever (Games 5-7). It's not unheard of for people to zoom in on those small samples, such as with 2000 Shaq, where people reference his insane Finals as justification for a top-three peak. Seems like a half-decent argument to me, especially when the acceptable sample for the term "peak" is so widely debated. Some people interpret it as three years... Some as one year... Some as one playoffs... Some as one series... Some as one game. LeBron might have the best series ever, so... It's not a perfect argument but it's also an efficient one. Honestly, probably more efficient and effective than trying to paint LeBron as having more impact than Jordan in terms of winning over larger samples. That's going to be a real uphill battle.
Then why don't we do the downhill battle? What's Jordan's case for being comparably impactful in terms of larger samples. Or for a season. Or for a playoff run. Or whatever you like.
Perhaps more productive to start from there
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
homecourtloss wrote: The Cavs in 2009 and then in 2010 did nothing without James and then fell epically apart in 2011 after James left.
If you’re looking at just 2009:
without Ben Wallace, 1,802 minutes, +12.03 without Gibson, 2,003 minutes, +13.43 without Mo Williams, 836 minutes, +13.46 without West, 1,025 minutes, +14.21 without Illgauskas, 1,547 minutes, +14.45 without Szczerbiak, 2,151 minutes, +15.39 without Andy V., 1,195 minutes, +17.13
This is just absolutely wild. You can do this with 3 man, 4 man, 5 man lineups as well and anything that has decent minutes (e.g., 200+ or even 100+), the lineups fall apart without James.
Then the Cavs fell apart without James:
Before the “injuries in 2011” claims, look at the bottom right of that chart with 21 games of health. Or the following:
2010-2011 Cavs
21 game sample with mostly same players: 19 win pace
Andy V: -9.0 ON, +.5 ON/OFF, 8-23 in games played, 19 win pace Mo Williams: -13.9 ON, -4.4 ON/OFF, 9-28, 20 win pace
Mo Williams + Andy V.: 27 games played, -9.5, 6-21, 18 win pace
If you don't mind me asking what made Lebron so good in 2009? Or if you have another thread you could point me to that'd be great. I watched as it was happening but i didn't know nearly as much about the game back then.
Lots to break-down but defense is a pretty good start.
Let's start with something that has basically been true of Lebron for the entirety of his prime(and even now to a degree):
Spoiler:
uberhikari wrote:The most valuable defensive possession is not a contest, it's when the opponent can't even shoot the ball or has to shoot the ball under awful conditions. A considerable portion of someone like Hakeem's defensive value is when opposing teams won't even attempt a shot because they know he'll be there.
LeBron is the best wing defender in NBA history at this type of defensive jiujitsu. And if he was a better man-to-man perimeter defender with better footwork and a lower offensive load he'd be the best wing defender of all time.
When LeBron studies and remembers your playbook, has the IQ and awarenesses to properly react to an offensive threat, and is either in a position to blow up the action or communicate with his teammate so they can do it that provides incredible defensive value.
The posts about LeBron not having enough traditional defensive counting stats pointing to a lack of activity is exactly what's wrong with basketball discourse when discussing defense. Unless you've played organized ball or have taken the time to watch professional level coaching videos on defense, you're not going to appreciate the fact that the most important thing a help defender can be on defense is a "yellow light". Someone who's able to plug up the gaps or is far enough over on the weakside to "help the helper" and allow the closer weakside defender to fill the gap, or something as simple as tagging a roll man to fly out to a shooter and cause a record scratch is faaaaar more valuable over time than a flashy chest to chest lockdown guy.
If you were watching the lakers last playoffs, this showed up at the end of game 4 against the Warriors with Lebron noticing the spacing was a bit off on a hammer-action and directing him to blow it up.
He also offers excellent paint-protection for a non-big. This means you can play not good defensive big-men and still get high-level results.
Incidentally, when we look to nba history, these qualities tend to correlate with the most valuable looking defenders ever, the best defenses ever, and the defenders(And players in general) who are able to remain valuable across a variety of contexts even when they're super old or super young.
Altogether, even with lesser defensive activity(physically) you get a guy where defenders who are negatives before playing with him see improvement within a season, and who is able to lead decent regular season defenses while "coasting" and then anchor elite(-5.5 and -3.5 per sans psrs) defenses in the postseason.
But what happens when that "lesser defensive activity" turns into extremely high defensive activity...for the entirety of a season?
Spoiler:
10.4 opponent counterpart PER according to 82games (equivalent to this year Alonzo Gee and Francisco Garcia) 82games also has opponent SF scoring 12.8 pts/36 and .525 TS% vs LeBron while opposing PF scored 13.3 pts/36 and .484 TS% when LeBron played PF.
Top 5 in on court defensive rating in 2009 (min. 2000 MP): 1. West: 99.2 2. LeBron 100.6 3. Odom 101.4 4. Turkoglu 101.4 5. Howard 101.8
LeBron is also 3rd in FG%, 4th in 3P%, and 3rd in eFG%.
Here is what some of the top SF of 2009 did vs LeBron offensively (their regular season per 36 in parenthesis)
What’s amazing is that when faced Cleveland and LeBron was off the court, they dominated:
The 6 SF’s stats when (Per 36): LeBron on court: 15.1 PPG, .461 TS%, 3.3 Reb, 3.6 AST-3.4 TOV, -9.4 +/- LeBron off court: 24.6 PPG, .596 TS%, 5.9 Reb, 2.3 AST-1.8 TOV, +0.9 +/-
That is a 9.5 points per 36 and 13.5 TS% difference. In the playoffs, LeBron continued playing elite man defense. Here are how some of his guys did when LeBron was on the court (per 36 minutes):
Tayshaun Prince: 3.9 PPG, .260 TS% Joe Johnson: 15.3 PPG, .480 TS% Marvin Williams: 5.8 PPG, .337 TS% Dropoff from regular season averages: -7.6 PPG, -18.1 TS%
Defensive stats from Hoopsstats.com for his position: 17.3 pts/game allowed (1st in league) (13.2 points per 36 minutes) 41.2 FG% allowed (1st) 15.1 FGA allowed (2nd fewest) 16.6 Efficiency allowed (1st) 1.3 Offensive rebounds allowed (3rd)
+2.8 Defensive RAPM [2nd among qualifying perimeter players (Artest)]
In 2011 Lebron gained weight at the cost of athleticism to set himself up to become a post-hub alongside wade and bosh while moving to power forward. A byproduct of this is this was a loss of quickness. This hurt his effectiveness vs shooters and opposing wings and contributed to Lebron being somewhat spotty with closeouts. Perhaps more pertinently, deprived of sturdy(if not explosive)big-men to work off, Lebron was not afforded the freedom to do what he did on the perimeter(this is an example of how value can fluctuate from situation to situation!).
In Cleveland(the return), Lebron now moving back to SF shed the excess weight and became quicker. but sadly, now in his 30's he just didn't have the same motor he did at 24 and 25. So, instead of leading a -5.5 regular season defense, he was holding otherwise bad defenses above water through 82 games before turning it up in the playoffs(somewhat bolstered by the league suddenly jumping to small-ball). With the top offenses, not being centered around great bigs, Lebron's defenses went rampant in the playoffs, but he's probably not doing that in 2009 facing dwight instead of draymond.
Offensively, early 20's Lebron had the rare combination of being a physical freak and wicked smart(at basketball).
Per Gilbert arenas, in his first ever playoff series, Lebron called for a substitution to bait the other team's coach into putting on a favorable matchup for a winning-score. According to multiple opposing coaches(Van Gundy, Doc Rivers) Lebron was able to read and anticipate their playbook. The end result is someone who can coordinate team-wide offense and defense on the floor simultaneously. Doing either is a rarity(bird, magic, kg). Guys who do both are few and far between(Draymond, Cp3, Bill Russell). Incidentally pretty much everyone who can do it generates impact that outpaces their on-court production. Speaking of which...
Creation
Thanks to a combination of height(enabling him to better see and pass over trees), power(allowing him to hit reads with great velocity), iq, vision, and all-time scoring gravity, Lebron, even at 24 was one of the best creators ever both in terms of volume and effeciency. In 2009 he posted an adjusted box-creation of 14.7 to go with a passer-rating of 7.8. In 2010, he notched box-creation of 16.1 to go with a PR of 9.0.
For comparison, Jordan, merely one of the best creators of his era, has exactly one-year where he was upward of 13 in box-creation(1989) to pair with a passer-rating of 7.
Those metrics only really track the end of a possession. Great helios can breakdown defenses before they make a pass and in 2009 Lebron was one of the best examples keeping low turnovers despite Cleveland's offense being run through him to an extent we have rarely seen in nba history.
Scoring
Thanks to a combination of -> all-time finishing touch, strength, speed, and power -> incredible fluidity and quickness for someone that size -> good shot selection -> a functional if streaky jumpshot -> very capable cutting/rim running -> An okay free-throw shooter who wins tons of fouls
Lebron James was one of the best scorers ever, notching a scoring title at 21(as he led what was at full strength a +6.5! offense), and posting goatish 1-year and 2-year playoff scoring marks(you can extend that to three if you skip 11 and add 12 fwiw) despite facing immense defensive attention.
The end result is arguably the most productive offensive player ever managing peak Jordan level conventional box in the regular-season before breaking all stats in the playoffs.
What you are actually getting on the court is a player who barely turns the ball despite having everything run through him, scores at high volume on high efficiency, creates at an all-time volume on excellent or all-time efficiency(quality of looks, quality of what is not created ect).
On top of that you get a guy who can runs his team's offense and defense.
And on top of that you are getting goatish non-big defense.
And on top of that he gets red hot during the playoffs.
The end result is a team that otherwise plays sub-20 win ball without(14 gams from 08-10, 21 games with the same starters - lebron in 2011, ect) plays 60+ ball with to go with outlierish rapm, a historically unrivalled track-record of replication across contexts as Lebron repeatedly posts signals that look the best of anyone over the last 40 years.
If that wasn't enough he is also a similar outlier across recorded history in the clutch:
Highest 4th quarter on court plus/minus from 1997 to 2013: 1. 09 James +265 2. 13 James +242 Pro-rated (Currently at +207) 3. 03 Marbury +220 4. 11 Korver +219 5. 09 Williams +212 6. 02 George +211 7. 04 Garnett +208 8. 11 Bosh +199
The Cavs were +265 (+24.5 per 100 possessions) in the 4th with LeBron on court and -97 (-13.17 per 100) without LeBron in the 4th quarter which gives LeBron a +37.7 plus/minus in the 4th quarter.
Pair that with a track-record of playoff elevation only matched in the last 40 years by Hakeem(srs upsets, team-wide elevation, internal box scaling, ect ect) and yeah
Put Lebron at his most physically dominant and highest motor with maxed out "got that dawg in him" and you get a crazy good player.
KTM_2813 wrote:
OhayoKD wrote:Yep definitely, the best way to make an argument for a bigger, smarter, and more versatile player who generates all-time results running teams on both ends of the floor, seems to generate higher impact in a variety of contexts and obliterates all contemporaries in pretty much anything tied to winning is.........
fixating on a single playoff series.
I mean... Yea. LeBron's 2016 Finals versus the Warriors is often regarded as the single greatest playoff series ever, and possibly even the best three-game stretch ever (Games 5-7). It's not unheard of for people to zoom in on those small samples, such as with 2000 Shaq, where people reference his insane Finals as justification for a top-three peak. Seems like a half-decent argument to me, especially when the acceptable sample for the term "peak" is so widely debated. Some people interpret it as three years... Some as one year... Some as one playoffs... Some as one series... Some as one game. LeBron might have the best series ever, so... It's not a perfect argument but it's also an efficient one. Honestly, probably more efficient and effective than trying to paint LeBron as having more impact than Jordan in terms of winning over larger samples. That's going to be a real uphill battle.
Then why don't we do the downhill battle? What's Jordan's case for being comparably impactful in terms of larger samples. Or for a season. Or for a playoff run. Or whatever you like.
Perhaps more productive to start from there
Thanks for taking to time to explain it, i appreciate it. This just made me want to see this version of Bron in this era with all the space.
Gregoire wrote:No real argument here. Career - you could argue, but not peak.
2009
1988-1992
Heej wrote: These no calls on LeBron are crazy. A lot of stars got foul calls to protect them. falcolombardi wrote: Come playoffs 18 lebron beats any version of jordan AEnigma wrote: Jordan is not as smart a help defender as Kidd
lessthanjake wrote: You’re citing numbers from the entire playoffs. I think we can all agree that the 2017 Cavaliers were able to stomp the mediocre teams they faced before the finals. Stomping teams like that is not really all that indicative of how a player scales up with great talent, because it’s basically just a cakewalk.
If only the cavs had beaten a team better than anyone Jordan beat the year before...
You can’t be the GOAT on the back of one playoff series.
He would be the GOAT on the back of being more as or more valuable all season. The Finals simply solidified what was already likely. Across all of history it is not so clear, but the comparison here is Jordan, not Bill. The bar isn't nearly as high as you make it.
Nor can someone show that they scale up with elite talent at a GOAT-like level just on the basis of one series.
And you have been provided plenty beyond said series, like the lineup ratings when Lebron was paired with an extremely similar players like Wade and Westbrook.
Also lucky for Lebron he is competing with Jordan, who has no real evidence for "goat like" scalability or really being particularly scalable at all. As early as 1987 the Bulls were avoiding high volume scorers like the plague. And of course Lebron has generated better results and impact on teams slanted towards defense and rebounding.
Jordan did not play with star teammates who generated the bulk of their value on offense, never mind another player whose impact was centered around their scoring(kyrie). You can prefer players who experience greater team success. That does not make them more scalable.
It requires a review of the player’s entire history
But that would require knowing a player/team's history. The Bulls traded a 20 ppg scorer to pair him with better defenders. Then they traded for a defensive stopper at PG. It was when they finally paired MJ with a player who was elite at all the non-scoring aspects, and merely very good at scoring, that the Bulls took off.
The formula for Jordan was a team that could contend for a title without him and phenomenal fit. In 2016 Lebron had neither. In 2015 he had neither. In 2017 he had neither. And he was still more valuable, on 3 teams that ranged from title-calibre to bulls-esque with Lebron on the floor.
This "entire history" line is also odd given what you've argued before:
Spoiler:
On the question about what it implies about how good they were in their primes (i.e. “Old LeBron is better than old Michael, so prime LeBron must’ve been better than prime Michael”), I don’t really think that there’s any valid point because the context is so different. Jordan retired from basketball for years and came back, and played in an era where there was a bit less knowledge about training and diet and whatnot. So, under the circumstances, I think we’d fully expect him to have had his game deteriorate substantially more. Of course, for the most part, that’s on Jordan since he didn’t have to retire, but we’re just talking about what it implies about their quality in their earlier years—and I think the answer to that is nothing.
Looking at "entire history" pretty significantly weakens Jordan's goat case because his "history" would include when he wasn't nearly as good aged 18-24 and also not nearly as good later on in his 30's. And of course on top of that there is Lebron potentially being more valuable in down years(2015), arguably generating more value in the playoffs(while matching in the regular season even with your wow extrap) during a situational nadir(miami), and seeing prime-jordanish drop-offs(2018-2019 cavs) at points which map past Jordan's Bulls career.
And there's also the matter of Lebron playing much better basketball than Jordan ever did at 24.
Last playoffs Lebron in year 20 with 65k of milage went extremely off-ball for a superstar and was still by far the best offensive player(and the 2nd best defensive player) on a conference finalist that has a case for having played the champs closest. Pre-injury in the regular season by impact he has a reasonable case for top 5 despite playing minutes with another helio and a bunch of minutes at center(or next to a undersized one).
Lebron is extremely portable for people who actually consider the concept seriously and bother checking to see if the evdience lines up with what they believe.
He is not scalable if you contort everything to support a preference for guys whose game you find more aesthetically pleasing or philosophically comforting.
Taking the only game off the team you have dubbed "the greatest ever" and posting a much higher opponent-adjusted srs-eq(+9.3) than Jordan managed without a historically stacked squad seems like enough of a "fight" to me tbh. If you need to reach this hard to turn obvious positives into negatives, then you should probably compare Jordan to someone else.
Lol, at you saying I am “reach[ing] this hard to turn obvious positives in negatives” immediately after making a claim that you have to caveat by trying to eliminate from consideration a large portion of Jordan’s years as a player.
I am not eliminating the sample. The sample just doesn't much for you because, unless your argument is "player who win > player who dont win", there's not much of anything to suggest Jordan was ever as good or better during that sample than Lebron at his best.
If you want to default to team-success, there is a much stronger candidate who has won twice as much while also boasting a much better portfolio when it comes to impacting winning.
its my last message in this thread, but I just admit, that all the people, casual and analytical minds, more or less have consencus who has the weight of a rubberized duck. And its not JaivLLLL
I mean, taking the data avaliable at face value, 2009 LeBron has to be *the* GOAT season, no real argument otherwise I feel. 66 wins with a pretty underwhelming cast, coupled with crazy on/off, impact signals, box production and optics, really stands alone at the top.
Is there an skillset argument against that? Yeah, sure. I don't have 2009 LeBron as his peak version myself. Is is possible that having a compendium of limited but specialiced players produced a better cast than the sum of their parts? Maaaybe. But the cold data argument is pretty unassailable.
This place is a cesspool of mindless ineptitude, mental decrepitude, and intellectual lassitude. I refuse to be sucked any deeper into this whirlpool of groupthink sewage. My opinions have been expressed. I'm going to go take a shower.
Heej wrote: These no calls on LeBron are crazy. A lot of stars got foul calls to protect them. falcolombardi wrote: Come playoffs 18 lebron beats any version of jordan AEnigma wrote: Jordan is not as smart a help defender as Kidd
Jaivl wrote:I mean, taking the data avaliable at face value, 2009 LeBron has to be *the* GOAT season, no real argument otherwise I feel. 66 wins with a pretty underwhelming cast, coupled with crazy on/off, impact signals, box production and optics, really stands alone at the top.
Is there an skillset argument against that? Yeah, sure. I don't have 2009 LeBron as his peak version myself. Is is possible that having a compendium of limited but specialiced players produced a better cast than the sum of their parts? Maaaybe. But the cold data argument is pretty unassailable.
if bron has better seasons than the goat szn why this still a debate
MacGill wrote:but could also be your teams best defender as well.
If Jordan is your team's best defender, your defense isn't very good. At his peak Jordan was a great guard defender, but he was never the best defender on his own team when they had good ones.
Sometimes those defense stories about Jordan get way overblown.
A couple of weeks ago this highlight came forward. The Bulls were trailing 1-0 in the series and trailing by 3 in the the game. The Knicks had 3 guards on the floor, as did the Bulls. Starks was Knicks 2nd leading scorer in the RS and had 10 points at that moment and was handling the ball, he was guarded by Armstrong. Rivers had 21 points that game, he was guarded by Paxson. Blackman had 0 points, he was guarded by Jordan.
There are more examples. He regularly skipped on difficult defensive tasks. The Bulls were packed with defensive players, just so Jordan could focus more on offense.
I'll start off by saying I'm an MJ > LeBron guy when it comes to Peak play. To keep it as simple as possible, LeBron's shooting is hot/cold enough for me to consider MJ the safer #1 option and the safest #1 offensive hub ever. I know this site ranks GOATs on kind of a "Career Accumulated Value / WAR" type of methodology like they do in baseball, so by that measure I totally get why LeBron ranks ahead of MJ on the current GOAT list. But if you were to ask me my GOAT, I'd still say MJ quite honestly.
But I do get "moments" where I feel like I'm wrong about the MJ/LeBron debate, because LeBron is just such a rare kind of talent. One of those moments was when I got an incredibly weird feeling watching the 2nd half of Game 4 of the WCF.
- Oldest actual player in the league - 2nd most career minutes played ever (500 mins away from most ever) - Played every minute of the 1st half and game - Dropped 31/4/4 on 11/13 shooting in the 1st half - Was switching between guarding the Legendary MVP Center and the stud PG
And yet, JVG and co. were basically questioning "What else can LeBron do? He needs to do more" when it was clear he was running out of gas in the 2nd half.
JVG talking about the oldest player in the league in that manner just really made an impact on me. It literally doesn't even make sense that an NBA athlete can be held to such absurd standards.
The oldest player in the league and guy 500 mins from being the all-time leader in career mins played? Oh yea that guy led the league in transition scoring per game this past season ahead of even the in-his-prime freak from Milwaukee. EXCUSE ME? ARE WE SUPPOSED TO ACT LIKE THIS ISN'T RIDICULOUS?
Longevity is more prevalent in today's era across all sports, the financial potential is simply too much to not try and lengthen your career. We've seen guys like Brady in the NFL and Djokovic in tennis who were/are still legendary performers at "geezer" ages for their sport. But even with all that context, what LeBron has done and who he is is still absurd.
Maybe I'm just still caught up in MJ's aura. I still believe him to be the better basketball player than LeBron at their best. But it really is a very hard question for me and one that I'm not dead set on. I also believe that the "feeling" I get with stuff like the above about LeBron might eventually flip my thoughts on this discussion once I start "reminiscing" about his play post-retirement instead of watching it in real time.
