Lebron vs Jordan RAPM/Impact

[Lou Fan]

I still dont get how bulls building the best possible teams around jordan ks any different than cavs or heat building the best possible teams around lebron

Is not that the whole point?

Again there's a difference between maximizing how good your team is and maximizing the impact of your star. No one could plausibly claim the current Warriors are built maximize Curry's ability to impact the game but they are built to make the team as good as possible. As Stalwart said in the first post "Jordan understands how to be apart of a team rather than be the team itself." LeBron never has even though Spo did try at times. And again there are degrees to which this can and does happen and LeBron's case is an all time extreme. Never has a player been so catered to except possibly Harden.

By definition maximizing your player impact = maximizing your team

You keep mentioning curry when he is another pmayer where the effect you mention "team great with him, ass without him" also happens

You could argue warriors dont play in a way that maximizes curry boxscore stats, but by using him in a way that maxinizes the warriors effectiveness they are also maximizing curry plus-minus,aka the thingh rapm uses

A team by definition wants to use their star player in a way that the team is as good as possible when the player is on court, maxinizing a team = maxinizing a player rapm

The only exception would ve a team that uses its dtar with bench players a ton to keep the bench lineups afloat and

A) i have not seen any evidence bulls did this more with jordan than lebron teams did with lebron

B) if there is sonethingh peak lebron does better than prolly anyone is floor raise weaker lineups to really high heights, so his plus-minus metrics wouldbt be so affected by how he is used

Let me give you an extreme example to make obvious the distinction that I've drawn like 5 times now. Let's say there's a team with Mo Williams-Old Ray Allen-LeBron-Shane Battier-Kevin Love as the starting 5. That starting lineup is probably gonna kick ass. All those players strengths amplify LeBron's and LeBron covers up a lot of their weaknesses. Great synergy. Now let's say LeBron gets tired and the backup SF is Wally Szczerbiak. How is that lineup gonna do? Awful. So instead of Shane Battier let's say they have Andrew Wiggins. He's not gonna space the floor like Battier or defend like Battier and he's gonna take up some possessions shooting horrible long 2s that LeBron would have used much better but now when LeBron goes to the bench the lineup will be better. Same is true of say switching in Draymond for Love. Or Livingston for Chalmers. Or Iggy for Battier. Or Ellis for Allen. I hope at this point you get it. Maximizing the impact of an individual ≠ maximizing your team. This also goes past roster construction to coaching but I'll leave it here for now.

Also it's worth noting that even if the goal was to maximize your star (it's not) few teams have done as much and sacrificed as much to actually do it. It would still be the case for example that LeBron's impact would be inflated compared to for example KG who hopefully we can both agree was horribly maximized.

[falcolombardi]

Again there's a difference between maximizing how good your team is and maximizing the impact of your star. No one could plausibly claim the current Warriors are built maximize Curry's ability to impact the game but they are built to make the team as good as possible. As Stalwart said in the first post "Jordan understands how to be apart of a team rather than be the team itself." LeBron never has even though Spo did try at times. And again there are degrees to which this can and does happen and LeBron's case is an all time extreme. Never has a player been so catered to except possibly Harden.

By definition maximizing your player impact = maximizing your team

You keep mentioning curry when he is another pmayer where the effect you mention "team great with him, ass without him" also happens

You could argue warriors dont play in a way that maximizes curry boxscore stats, but by using him in a way that maxinizes the warriors effectiveness they are also maximizing curry plus-minus,aka the thingh rapm uses

A team by definition wants to use their star player in a way that the team is as good as possible when the player is on court, maxinizing a team = maxinizing a player rapm

The only exception would ve a team that uses its dtar with bench players a ton to keep the bench lineups afloat and

A) i have not seen any evidence bulls did this more with jordan than lebron teams did with lebron

B) if there is sonethingh peak lebron does better than prolly anyone is floor raise weaker lineups to really high heights, so his plus-minus metrics wouldbt be so affected by how he is used

Let me give you an extreme example to make obvious the distinction that I've drawn like 5 times now. Let's say there's a team with Mo Williams-Old Ray Allen-LeBron-Shane Battier-Kevin Love as the starting 5. That starting lineup is probably gonna kick ass. All those players strengths amplify LeBron's and LeBron covers up a lot of their weaknesses. Great synergy. Now let's say LeBron gets tired and the backup SF is Wally Szczerbiak. How is that lineup gonna do? Awful. So instead of Shane Battier let's say they have Andrew Wiggins. He's not gonna space the floor like Battier or defend like Battier and he's gonna take up some possessions shooting horrible long 2s that LeBron would have used much better but now when LeBron goes to the bench the lineup will be better. Same is true of say switching in Draymond for Love. Or Livingston for Chalmers. Or Iggy for Battier. Or Ellis for Allen. I hope at this point you get it. Maximizing the impact of an individual ≠ maximizing your team. This also goes past roster construction to coaching but I'll leave it here for now.

Also it's worth noting that even if the goal was to maximize your star (it's not) few teams have done as much and sacrificed as much to actually do it. It would still be the case for example that LeBron's impact would be inflated compared to for example KG who hopefully we can both agree was horribly maximized.

Explain to me how bulls putting playmakers (pippen, kukok), reboubders (grant, rodman), defenders (pipen rodman grant, harper) and spot up shooters (kerr, kukok,paxson) to build around jordan

All players that can impact the game while letting jordan continue doing its thingh is not maximizing jordan impact ?

Your whole point is that lebron teams put good shooters around him....yes? That is literally makibg a good team 101

[OhayoKD]

I'm not sure. Lebron's 2009 is insane statsitcally. Like in one of ben's video it came out at like +16 in his aupm/pipm whatever. If you use something like per or ws/48 which arguably favors mj because it grades defense with steals and blocks, you could take out 09, which literally destroys every playoff ever(besides hakeem 88), and lebron would still average higher in his best statistical years. I think you have to take out 09 for it to be close statistically.

i also think 2015 and 2016 lebron's defense was comfortbly better than mj's in the playoffs if for nothing else because it's crazy to me their playoff defense was jordan-bulls level next to tristan thompson and matthew delliadova. (tho timo also made a lot of great arguments in the peaks thread) But the heat were also awful in 2014 defensively. But they were good to great between 11-13.

I think lebron might just take a playoff off defensively every now and then I guess it makes sense a player who plays longer has more downs than a player who played shorter.

Again, statistics tend to get boiled down to metrics which then you have to take in a sort of basket approach imo. I don't know that those favor LeBron if you compare 09-18 and 20 to say 86-93, 96-98 MJ but more so the playoffs I referenced for him are more 86-93. Having said that, I've already said before on many occasions that 09 LeBron may have been the peak for all perimeter players we've ever seen.

How do you think he compares to all-time bigs like hakeem, kareem, and shaq?

[Cavsfansince84]

How do you think he compares to all-time bigs like hakeem, kareem, and shaq?

Well he's right there for sure. I mean in the current peaks project as well as the last I think both he and MJ took the top 2 spots. Its just a bit harder to compare perimeter players to bigs so there's more room to debate impact.

[Lou Fan]

By definition maximizing your player impact = maximizing your team

You keep mentioning curry when he is another pmayer where the effect you mention "team great with him, ass without him" also happens

You could argue warriors dont play in a way that maximizes curry boxscore stats, but by using him in a way that maxinizes the warriors effectiveness they are also maximizing curry plus-minus,aka the thingh rapm uses

A team by definition wants to use their star player in a way that the team is as good as possible when the player is on court, maxinizing a team = maxinizing a player rapm

The only exception would ve a team that uses its dtar with bench players a ton to keep the bench lineups afloat and

A) i have not seen any evidence bulls did this more with jordan than lebron teams did with lebron

B) if there is sonethingh peak lebron does better than prolly anyone is floor raise weaker lineups to really high heights, so his plus-minus metrics wouldbt be so affected by how he is used

Let me give you an extreme example to make obvious the distinction that I've drawn like 5 times now. Let's say there's a team with Mo Williams-Old Ray Allen-LeBron-Shane Battier-Kevin Love as the starting 5. That starting lineup is probably gonna kick ass. All those players strengths amplify LeBron's and LeBron covers up a lot of their weaknesses. Great synergy. Now let's say LeBron gets tired and the backup SF is Wally Szczerbiak. How is that lineup gonna do? Awful. So instead of Shane Battier let's say they have Andrew Wiggins. He's not gonna space the floor like Battier or defend like Battier and he's gonna take up some possessions shooting horrible long 2s that LeBron would have used much better but now when LeBron goes to the bench the lineup will be better. Same is true of say switching in Draymond for Love. Or Livingston for Chalmers. Or Iggy for Battier. Or Ellis for Allen. I hope at this point you get it. Maximizing the impact of an individual ≠ maximizing your team. This also goes past roster construction to coaching but I'll leave it here for now.

Also it's worth noting that even if the goal was to maximize your star (it's not) few teams have done as much and sacrificed as much to actually do it. It would still be the case for example that LeBron's impact would be inflated compared to for example KG who hopefully we can both agree was horribly maximized.

Explain to me how bulls putting playmakers (pippen, kukok), reboubders (grant, rodman), defenders (pipen rodman grant, harper) and spot up shooters (kerr, kukok,paxson) to build around jordan

All players that can impact the game while letting jordan continue doing its thingh is not maximizing jordan impact ?

Your whole point is that lebron teams put good shooters around him....yes? That is literally makibg a good team 101

Explain what?

Never claimed the Bulls did a poor job constructing their roster.

No it's not and I apologize that I'm taking a somewhat combative tone to this argument but I don't appreciate you constantly and continuously misrepresenting my words and reducing my arguments to things that I have not at all said. It's hard for me to not think at this point that you are intentionally strawmanning me and are not discussing in good faith but instead trying to "get me" or make me seem foolish and wrong. Just answer this. Do you think the 17 Cavaliers are a better or worse team with 15 Iggy instead of Kyle Korver? And do you think Korver or Iggy does a better job at maximizing LeBron? If the answer to those questions are better and Korver (which imo both of those answers are incredibly obvious) then your contention that maximizing the player = maximizing the team is wrong and my reasoning is applicable at least to some extent. We can disagree on the extent but disagreeing with the whole premise entirely is just incorrect. I don't really want to keep going on like this if I'm just going to keep repeating myself and we will just go on in circles forever.

[dribble1614]

it doesn't really suggest anything other than lebron being far more ball-dominant as rapm skews positively towards those who cannot play without the ball like lebron. that lebron has consistently worse peak stats, bpm, vorp, raptor, fewer dpoy, is nowhere in the same category as a scorer (very few scoring titles), has much less success in the finals, consistently needs superteams and superstar teammates unlike jordan and also is unable to anchor a single all-time great team is all more suggestive of lebron being closer to a top 5 player of all time rather than having a legitimate case for goat. lebron's lack of midrange shooting and ability to play off the ball ultimately was his biggest weakness at preventing him from becoming goat.

[capfan33]

Just a general note and Luka made a great post in this regard, Lebron's teams haven't really been "built" around him for a good portion of his career. Honestly, for all the maligning of his teams in Cleveland, the last 2 years he was there, that team was built well around him. Shooting and (some) defense (except for Shaq lol), it was an ideal floor raising situation that not surprisingly fell apart after he left. And of course, he put up the best impact numbers of his career their.

But in Miami and even the 2nd Cleveland stint I would hardly call those rosters ideally built around Lebron. And of course his impact numbers in Miami reflect this even if he was a better player in Miami. Like Kevin Love and D-wade, even Kyrie are hardly "ideal" pieces around Lebron.

You want to see Lebron's impact maximized in a realistic way; Klay Thompson, Paul George, Brook Lopez, Serge Ibaka. These are the types of pieces that would cause Lebron's impact numbers to artifically explode, not **** Kevin Love lol. So yea, I have to push back against this idea that Lebron's more impressive impact numbers are due to team building, at least outside Cleveland which as I said was close to an ideal floor-raising scenerio where Lebron's numbers went through the roof.

Also to the thread, I don't care unless we get at least 2 seasons worth of data for MJ and even then, impact isn't really what I'm most concerned about even though it is a factor.

Why not just say Steph Curry, Dirk and Kevin Garnett. Obviously I'm not saying they were optimal I'm saying they were optimized. Kevin Love is actually the perfect example of a player who was acquired and coached as a way of making LeBron's numbers as an individual look better. He became a floor spacing Center who can't protect the rim. So with LeBron on the court he provides huge value sucking out big man from the paint hitting open shots LeBron creates and rebounding and throwing outlet passes to get one of the greatest transition players ever going down hill. Also on the other end LeBron can be the rim protector and cover for Kevin's weakness. Now LeBron's out of the game and all those skills become far less useful and the defense will crater with him playing the 5. And because he's been slimmed down and asked to play a wildly different role he is no longer a good creator of efficient offense while out there by himself. The Cavs were built in a way where Love could have a lot of impact while LeBron was out there but he would struggle massively without him. Then RAPM ends up crediting a lot of Loves impact to LeBron as a result.

Also basically every star ever except the most portable ever are gonna have things that don't fit great with LeBron. Limiting this discussion to the stars misses the forest for the trees as the role players are a huge thing here. It's exactly what you are acknowledging with the 09-10 Cavs.

We may be talking past each other a little bit here and I'm not being as clear as I could be with my thoughts, so bear with me. I think one general point I'm making is that most of the stars Lebron has played with haven't been optimal fits next to him, and I think there are quite a few that would be as I just listed. This may cause people to view his portability as being worse than it actually is.

Moreover to this point, he has sacrificed to play next to these less than ideal fitting stars, as demonstrated by his Miami impact numbers going down quite a bit compared to 09-10. He played more off-ball, less PG, less playmaking duties and became a better shooter. Same in the 2nd Cleveland stint and recently in LA, it's not like he's played in the 09-10 I'm going to have the ball 90% of the time type and do everything type mode. So I don't think you can just handwave away his impact numbers being the way that they are just due to his team adapting to him exclusively, it's gone both ways.

To the Love point, I think theres 2 major things here. First, Love changed his game because it was the best way for them to win, and I do think you run into an issue eventually where you find fault with Lebron's portability because he's always going to be the best player on his team, and it makes more sense to adopt to his strengths then vice-versa. 2nd, I don't think Love was a great choice next to Lebron and that there were quite a few other players that would've been better next to him that wouldn't have had to sacrifice nearly as much. Finally, the whole thing where the Cavs struggle when Lebron goes to the bench is true of a lot of teams when their best player by far goes to the bench. You run into an issue where if the team is still pretty good when their star goes to the bench, how much impact is that star player actually having?

Also, the overall talent around Lebron has probably been below average compared to other all-time greats. As such, you shouldn't confuse fit issues with players just not being good enough, I don't think Irving was a great floor raiser and had issues with basic playmaking and even in Minnesota I don't think Love was exactly tearing it up as a floor-raiser. Like KG's teams were godawful without him and KG is one of the most portable players in NBA history, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with his teammates (not saying this is always applicable to Lebron)

Finally, Lebron for all the flack he gets for portability isn't at the top of ball-dominant statstics like a Trae Young or Luka in USG%, time spent dribbling or holding the ball and other statistics of that sort. I think his rep overstates how ball-dominant he is and/or how much he needs teammates to adapt to him, he's adapted and evolved his game a lot since his last 2 Cleveland years and I feel can adapt to other playeres quite well, if he's in a situation next to other top-end talent where that's necessary

[Homer38]

The cavs struggle when LeBron was on the bench was more true on defense that on offense

[OhayoKD]

it doesn't really suggest anything other than lebron being far more ball-dominant as rapm skews positively towards those who cannot play without the ball like lebron.tha t lebron has consistently worse peak stats, bpm, vorp, raptor, fewer dpoy, is nowhere in the same category as a scorer (very few scoring titles), has much less success in the finals, consistently needs superteams and superstar teammates unlike jordan and also is unable to anchor a single all-time great team is all more suggestive of lebron being closer to a top 5 player of all time rather than having a legitimate case for goat. lebron's lack of midrange shooting and ability to play off the ball ultimately was his biggest weakness at preventing him from becoming goat.

BPM of Lebron's 3 best playoffs averaged:

13.56

BPM of MJ's 3 best playoffs averaged

12.3

BPM of Lebron's 3 best regular seasons averaged

12.67

BPM of MJ's 3 best regular seasons averaged:

12.3

Lebron's 09 is the highest regular season bpm and the highest playoff bpm

Idk about the other stats, but bpm has lebron peaking higher than mj

[OhayoKD]

Just a general note and Luka made a great post in this regard, Lebron's teams haven't really been "built" around him for a good portion of his career. Honestly, for all the maligning of his teams in Cleveland, the last 2 years he was there, that team was built well around him. Shooting and (some) defense (except for Shaq lol), it was an ideal floor raising situation that not surprisingly fell apart after he left. And of course, he put up the best impact numbers of his career their.

But in Miami and even the 2nd Cleveland stint I would hardly call those rosters ideally built around Lebron. And of course his impact numbers in Miami reflect this even if he was a better player in Miami. Like Kevin Love and D-wade, even Kyrie are hardly "ideal" pieces around Lebron.

You want to see Lebron's impact maximized in a realistic way; Klay Thompson, Paul George, Brook Lopez, Serge Ibaka. These are the types of pieces that would cause Lebron's impact numbers to artifically explode, not **** Kevin Love lol. So yea, I have to push back against this idea that Lebron's more impressive impact numbers are due to team building, at least outside Cleveland which as I said was close to an ideal floor-raising scenerio where Lebron's numbers went through the roof.

Also to the thread, I don't care unless we get at least 2 seasons worth of data for MJ and even then, impact isn't really what I'm most concerned about even though it is a factor.

Why not just say Steph Curry, Dirk and Kevin Garnett. Obviously I'm not saying they were optimal I'm saying they were optimized. Kevin Love is actually the perfect example of a player who was acquired and coached as a way of making LeBron's numbers as an individual look better. He became a floor spacing Center who can't protect the rim. So with LeBron on the court he provides huge value sucking out big man from the paint hitting open shots LeBron creates and rebounding and throwing outlet passes to get one of the greatest transition players ever going down hill. Also on the other end LeBron can be the rim protector and cover for Kevin's weakness. Now LeBron's out of the game and all those skills become far less useful and the defense will crater with him playing the 5. And because he's been slimmed down and asked to play a wildly different role he is no longer a good creator of efficient offense while out there by himself. The Cavs were built in a way where Love could have a lot of impact while LeBron was out there but he would struggle massively without him. Then RAPM ends up crediting a lot of Loves impact to LeBron as a result.

Also basically every star ever except the most portable ever are gonna have things that don't fit great with LeBron. Limiting this discussion to the stars misses the forest for the trees as the role players are a huge thing here. It's exactly what you are acknowledging with the 09-10 Cavs.

We may be talking past each other a little bit here and I'm not being as clear as I could be with my thoughts, so bear with me. I think one general point I'm making is that most of the stars Lebron has played with haven't been optimal fits next to him, and I think there are quite a few that would be as I just listed. This may cause people to view his portability as being worse than it actually is.

Moreover to this point, he has sacrificed to play next to these less than ideal fitting stars, as demonstrated by his Miami impact numbers going down quite a bit compared to 09-10. He played more off-ball, less PG, less playmaking duties and became a better shooter. Same in the 2nd Cleveland stint and recently in LA, it's not like he's played in the 09-10 I'm going to have the ball 90% of the time type and do everything type mode. So I don't think you can just handwave away his impact numbers being the way that they are just due to his team adapting to him exclusively, it's gone both ways.

To the Love point, I think theres 2 major things here. First, Love changed his game because it was the best way for them to win, and I do think you run into an issue eventually where you find fault with Lebron's portability because he's always going to be the best player on his team, and it makes more sense to adopt to his strengths then vice-versa. 2nd, I don't think Love was a great choice next to Lebron and that there were quite a few other players that would've been better next to him that wouldn't have had to sacrifice nearly as much. Finally, the whole thing where the Cavs struggle when Lebron goes to the bench is true of a lot of teams when their best player by far goes to the bench. You run into an issue where if the team is still pretty good when their star goes to the bench, how much impact is that star player actually having?

Also, the overall talent around Lebron has probably been below average compared to other all-time greats. As such, you shouldn't confuse fit issues with players just not being good enough, I don't think Irving was a great floor raiser and had issues with basic playmaking and even in Minnesota I don't think Love was exactly tearing it up as a floor-raiser. Like KG's teams were godawful without him and KG is one of the most portable players in NBA history, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with his teammates (not saying this is always applicable to Lebron)

Finally, Lebron for all the flack he gets for portability isn't at the top of ball-dominant statstics like a Trae Young or Luka in USG%, time spent dribbling or holding the ball and other statistics of that sort. I think his rep overstates how ball-dominant he is and/or how much he needs teammates to adapt to him, he's adapted and evolved his game a lot since his last 2 Cleveland years and I feel can adapt to other playeres quite well, if he's in a situation next to other top-end talent where that's necessary

Lebron also had worse spacing relatiev to era than most of mj's title teams for two of his 4 titles(2012, 2020) and 4 of his 10 final apperances(2015, 2011, 2012, 2020).

2015 might be the most impressive playoff carry job between the two(swept 60 win hawks and took 67 win warriors to 6 withotu love or kyrie) and lebron was his team's second best 3 point shooter(and best shooter in the final)

I think defense explains the impact gap alot better than "shooters"/"portabiity"

[falcolombardi]

Let me give you an extreme example to make obvious the distinction that I've drawn like 5 times now. Let's say there's a team with Mo Williams-Old Ray Allen-LeBron-Shane Battier-Kevin Love as the starting 5. That starting lineup is probably gonna kick ass. All those players strengths amplify LeBron's and LeBron covers up a lot of their weaknesses. Great synergy. Now let's say LeBron gets tired and the backup SF is Wally Szczerbiak. How is that lineup gonna do? Awful. So instead of Shane Battier let's say they have Andrew Wiggins. He's not gonna space the floor like Battier or defend like Battier and he's gonna take up some possessions shooting horrible long 2s that LeBron would have used much better but now when LeBron goes to the bench the lineup will be better. Same is true of say switching in Draymond for Love. Or Livingston for Chalmers. Or Iggy for Battier. Or Ellis for Allen. I hope at this point you get it. Maximizing the impact of an individual ≠ maximizing your team. This also goes past roster construction to coaching but I'll leave it here for now.

Also it's worth noting that even if the goal was to maximize your star (it's not) few teams have done as much and sacrificed as much to actually do it. It would still be the case for example that LeBron's impact would be inflated compared to for example KG who hopefully we can both agree was horribly maximized.

Explain to me how bulls putting playmakers (pippen, kukok), reboubders (grant, rodman), defenders (pipen rodman grant, harper) and spot up shooters (kerr, kukok,paxson) to build around jordan

All players that can impact the game while letting jordan continue doing its thingh is not maximizing jordan impact ?

Your whole point is that lebron teams put good shooters around him....yes? That is literally makibg a good team 101

Explain what?

Never claimed the Bulls did a poor job constructing their roster.

No it's not and I apologize that I'm taking a somewhat combative tone to this argument but I don't appreciate you constantly and continuously misrepresenting my words and reducing my arguments to things that I have not at all said. It's hard for me to not think at this point that you are intentionally strawmanning me and are not discussing in good faith but instead trying to "get me" or make me seem foolish and wrong. Just answer this. Do you think the 17 Cavaliers are a better or worse team with 15 Iggy instead of Kyle Korver? And do you think Korver or Iggy does a better job at maximizing LeBron? If the answer to those questions are better and Korver (which imo both of those answers are incredibly obvious) then your contention that maximizing the player = maximizing the team is wrong and my reasoning is applicable at least to some extent. We can disagree on the extent but disagreeing with the whole premise entirely is just incorrect. I don't really want to keep going on like this if I'm just going to keep repeating myself and we will just go on in circles forever.

Dont take this the wrong way but i have done npthingh but discuss your arguments and you keep accusing me of strawmanning you or being a troll for not agreeing with you/getting your point

Dude, seriously, stop with that

Your point about korver vs iggy is the thingh i have been trying to explain, if iggy makes them a better team than korver -then-he would make lebron rapm look better because the cavs wouls be better

That is how rapm works

I am not talking which players make lebron or curry or jordan boxscore more impressive, rhat is not what rapm measures

If lebron started to score less with iggy over korver but cavs inproved enough on defense to be a bettwr team then that would actuallt make lebron rapm better, not worse

[falcolombardi]

it doesn't really suggest anything other than lebron being far more ball-dominant as rapm skews positively towards those who cannot play without the ball like lebron. that lebron has consistently worse peak stats, bpm, vorp, raptor, fewer dpoy, is nowhere in the same category as a scorer (very few scoring titles), has much less success in the finals, consistently needs superteams and superstar teammates unlike jordan and also is unable to anchor a single all-time great team is all more suggestive of lebron being closer to a top 5 player of all time rather than having a legitimate case for goat. lebron's lack of midrange shooting and ability to play off the ball ultimately was his biggest weakness at preventing him from becoming goat.

Rapm doesnt skew towards ball dominance, it doesnt skew towards literally anythingh but literally how well a team plays

[Lou Fan]

Just a general note and Luka made a great post in this regard, Lebron's teams haven't really been "built" around him for a good portion of his career. Honestly, for all the maligning of his teams in Cleveland, the last 2 years he was there, that team was built well around him. Shooting and (some) defense (except for Shaq lol), it was an ideal floor raising situation that not surprisingly fell apart after he left. And of course, he put up the best impact numbers of his career their.

But in Miami and even the 2nd Cleveland stint I would hardly call those rosters ideally built around Lebron. And of course his impact numbers in Miami reflect this even if he was a better player in Miami. Like Kevin Love and D-wade, even Kyrie are hardly "ideal" pieces around Lebron.

You want to see Lebron's impact maximized in a realistic way; Klay Thompson, Paul George, Brook Lopez, Serge Ibaka. These are the types of pieces that would cause Lebron's impact numbers to artifically explode, not **** Kevin Love lol. So yea, I have to push back against this idea that Lebron's more impressive impact numbers are due to team building, at least outside Cleveland which as I said was close to an ideal floor-raising scenerio where Lebron's numbers went through the roof.

Also to the thread, I don't care unless we get at least 2 seasons worth of data for MJ and even then, impact isn't really what I'm most concerned about even though it is a factor.

Why not just say Steph Curry, Dirk and Kevin Garnett. Obviously I'm not saying they were optimal I'm saying they were optimized. Kevin Love is actually the perfect example of a player who was acquired and coached as a way of making LeBron's numbers as an individual look better. He became a floor spacing Center who can't protect the rim. So with LeBron on the court he provides huge value sucking out big man from the paint hitting open shots LeBron creates and rebounding and throwing outlet passes to get one of the greatest transition players ever going down hill. Also on the other end LeBron can be the rim protector and cover for Kevin's weakness. Now LeBron's out of the game and all those skills become far less useful and the defense will crater with him playing the 5. And because he's been slimmed down and asked to play a wildly different role he is no longer a good creator of efficient offense while out there by himself. The Cavs were built in a way where Love could have a lot of impact while LeBron was out there but he would struggle massively without him. Then RAPM ends up crediting a lot of Loves impact to LeBron as a result.

Also basically every star ever except the most portable ever are gonna have things that don't fit great with LeBron. Limiting this discussion to the stars misses the forest for the trees as the role players are a huge thing here. It's exactly what you are acknowledging with the 09-10 Cavs.

We may be talking past each other a little bit here and I'm not being as clear as I could be with my thoughts, so bear with me. I think one general point I'm making is that most of the stars Lebron has played with haven't been optimal fits next to him, and I think there are quite a few that would be as I just listed. This may cause people to view his portability as being worse than it actually is.

Moreover to this point, he has sacrificed to play next to these less than ideal fitting stars, as demonstrated by his Miami impact numbers going down quite a bit compared to 09-10. He played more off-ball, less PG, less playmaking duties and became a better shooter. Same in the 2nd Cleveland stint and recently in LA, it's not like he's played in the 09-10 I'm going to have the ball 90% of the time type and do everything type mode. So I don't think you can just handwave away his impact numbers being the way that they are just due to his team adapting to him exclusively, it's gone both ways.

To the Love point, I think theres 2 major things here. First, Love changed his game because it was the best way for them to win, and I do think you run into an issue eventually where you find fault with Lebron's portability because he's always going to be the best player on his team, and it makes more sense to adopt to his strengths then vice-versa. 2nd, I don't think Love was a great choice next to Lebron and that there were quite a few other players that would've been better next to him that wouldn't have had to sacrifice nearly as much. Finally, the whole thing where the Cavs struggle when Lebron goes to the bench is true of a lot of teams when their best player by far goes to the bench. You run into an issue where if the team is still pretty good when their star goes to the bench, how much impact is that star player actually having?

Also, the overall talent around Lebron has probably been below average compared to other all-time greats. As such, you shouldn't confuse fit issues with players just not being good enough, I don't think Irving was a great floor raiser and had issues with basic playmaking and even in Minnesota I don't think Love was exactly tearing it up as a floor-raiser. Like KG's teams were godawful without him and KG is one of the most portable players in NBA history, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with his teammates (not saying this is always applicable to Lebron)

Finally, Lebron for all the flack he gets for portability isn't at the top of ball-dominant statstics like a Trae Young or Luka in USG%, time spent dribbling or holding the ball and other statistics of that sort. I think his rep overstates how ball-dominant he is and/or how much he needs teammates to adapt to him, he's adapted and evolved his game a lot since his last 2 Cleveland years and I feel can adapt to other playeres quite well, if he's in a situation next to other top-end talent where that's necessary

I appreciate the detailed response. I think it's telling that the players you listed are players that it's hard to imagine a player that they don't fit with. Who doesn't fit with Klay, Paul George, Serge Ibaka, and Brook Lopez?

Of course you are right that it's best that players adapt to LeBron because whatever my reservations about LeBron ball minimizing his teammates you absolutely cannot argue with the results. I just think that we disagree on just how much players have to adapt and how much that minimizes their impact footprint. I agree it's tough to know a guys a star if the team isn't getting worse while he's off the court but again I think we're talking about a matter of degrees and I think a lot of LeBron's teams are extremes.

I don't think the LeBron KG comparison is appropriate. Had LeBron stayed in Cleveland his whole career maybe but I would hardly call his teams below average and KG's teams were unprecedentedly awful for a top tier superstar. Even though KG is highly portable and a great ceiling raiser he was floor raising on those teams.

Yeah I think this only true because of the way recent basketball has become. I have a lot of the same concerns about Luka that I do LeBron and I think LeBron would play the same as Trae if he were on the Hawks because the Hawks suck.

[OhayoKD]

it doesn't really suggest anything other than lebron being far more ball-dominant as rapm skews positively towards those who cannot play without the ball like lebron. that lebron has consistently worse peak stats, bpm, vorp, raptor, fewer dpoy, is nowhere in the same category as a scorer (very few scoring titles), has much less success in the finals, consistently needs superteams and superstar teammates unlike jordan and also is unable to anchor a single all-time great team is all more suggestive of lebron being closer to a top 5 player of all time rather than having a legitimate case for goat. lebron's lack of midrange shooting and ability to play off the ball ultimately was his biggest weakness at preventing him from becoming goat.

Rapm doesnt skew towards ball dominance, it doesnt skew towards literally anythingh but literally how well a team plays

rapm doesn't have box regression?

[falcolombardi]

it doesn't really suggest anything other than lebron being far more ball-dominant as rapm skews positively towards those who cannot play without the ball like lebron. that lebron has consistently worse peak stats, bpm, vorp, raptor, fewer dpoy, is nowhere in the same category as a scorer (very few scoring titles), has much less success in the finals, consistently needs superteams and superstar teammates unlike jordan and also is unable to anchor a single all-time great team is all more suggestive of lebron being closer to a top 5 player of all time rather than having a legitimate case for goat. lebron's lack of midrange shooting and ability to play off the ball ultimately was his biggest weakness at preventing him from becoming goat.

Rapm doesnt skew towards ball dominance, it doesnt skew towards literally anythingh but literally how well a team plays

rapm doesn't have box regression?

Depends on the prior used as i understand, but is primarly about plus-minus, not about boxscore

This one for example (made by poster jalen green here) doesnt use boxscore at all

https://www.thespax.com/nba/quantifying-the-nbas-greatest-five-year-peaks-since-1997/

[capfan33]

Why not just say Steph Curry, Dirk and Kevin Garnett. Obviously I'm not saying they were optimal I'm saying they were optimized. Kevin Love is actually the perfect example of a player who was acquired and coached as a way of making LeBron's numbers as an individual look better. He became a floor spacing Center who can't protect the rim. So with LeBron on the court he provides huge value sucking out big man from the paint hitting open shots LeBron creates and rebounding and throwing outlet passes to get one of the greatest transition players ever going down hill. Also on the other end LeBron can be the rim protector and cover for Kevin's weakness. Now LeBron's out of the game and all those skills become far less useful and the defense will crater with him playing the 5. And because he's been slimmed down and asked to play a wildly different role he is no longer a good creator of efficient offense while out there by himself. The Cavs were built in a way where Love could have a lot of impact while LeBron was out there but he would struggle massively without him. Then RAPM ends up crediting a lot of Loves impact to LeBron as a result.

Also basically every star ever except the most portable ever are gonna have things that don't fit great with LeBron. Limiting this discussion to the stars misses the forest for the trees as the role players are a huge thing here. It's exactly what you are acknowledging with the 09-10 Cavs.

We may be talking past each other a little bit here and I'm not being as clear as I could be with my thoughts, so bear with me. I think one general point I'm making is that most of the stars Lebron has played with haven't been optimal fits next to him, and I think there are quite a few that would be as I just listed. This may cause people to view his portability as being worse than it actually is.

Moreover to this point, he has sacrificed to play next to these less than ideal fitting stars, as demonstrated by his Miami impact numbers going down quite a bit compared to 09-10. He played more off-ball, less PG, less playmaking duties and became a better shooter. Same in the 2nd Cleveland stint and recently in LA, it's not like he's played in the 09-10 I'm going to have the ball 90% of the time type and do everything type mode. So I don't think you can just handwave away his impact numbers being the way that they are just due to his team adapting to him exclusively, it's gone both ways.

To the Love point, I think theres 2 major things here. First, Love changed his game because it was the best way for them to win, and I do think you run into an issue eventually where you find fault with Lebron's portability because he's always going to be the best player on his team, and it makes more sense to adopt to his strengths then vice-versa. 2nd, I don't think Love was a great choice next to Lebron and that there were quite a few other players that would've been better next to him that wouldn't have had to sacrifice nearly as much. Finally, the whole thing where the Cavs struggle when Lebron goes to the bench is true of a lot of teams when their best player by far goes to the bench. You run into an issue where if the team is still pretty good when their star goes to the bench, how much impact is that star player actually having?

Also, the overall talent around Lebron has probably been below average compared to other all-time greats. As such, you shouldn't confuse fit issues with players just not being good enough, I don't think Irving was a great floor raiser and had issues with basic playmaking and even in Minnesota I don't think Love was exactly tearing it up as a floor-raiser. Like KG's teams were godawful without him and KG is one of the most portable players in NBA history, had nothing to do with him and everything to do with his teammates (not saying this is always applicable to Lebron)

Finally, Lebron for all the flack he gets for portability isn't at the top of ball-dominant statstics like a Trae Young or Luka in USG%, time spent dribbling or holding the ball and other statistics of that sort. I think his rep overstates how ball-dominant he is and/or how much he needs teammates to adapt to him, he's adapted and evolved his game a lot since his last 2 Cleveland years and I feel can adapt to other playeres quite well, if he's in a situation next to other top-end talent where that's necessary

I appreciate the detailed response. I think it's telling that the players you listed are players that it's hard to imagine a player that they don't fit with. Who doesn't fit with Klay, Paul George, Serge Ibaka, and Brook Lopez?

Of course you are right that it's best that players adapt to LeBron because whatever my reservations about LeBron ball minimizing his teammates you absolutely cannot argue with the results. I just think that we disagree on just how much players have to adapt and how much that minimizes their impact footprint. I agree it's tough to know a guys a star if the team isn't getting worse while he's off the court but again I think we're talking about a matter of degrees and I think a lot of LeBron's teams are extremes.

I don't think the LeBron KG comparison is appropriate. Had LeBron stayed in Cleveland his whole career maybe but I would hardly call his teams below average and KG's teams were unprecedentedly awful for a top tier superstar. Even though KG is highly portable and a great ceiling raiser he was floor raising on those teams.

Yeah I think this only true because of the way recent basketball has become. I have a lot of the same concerns about Luka that I do LeBron and I think LeBron would play the same as Trae if he were on the Hawks because the Hawks suck.

You're right, but I think Lebron amplifies the impact of this archtype (hyper 3&D) in a way that no other player could. I mean honestly a team of LBJ, Klay and Ibaka would break the game, and that's not an unrealistic big 3 at all.

And yea, I think we just disagree the degree to which Lebron is gaining impact at the expense of others. Is it happening? Of course, but I'm not convinced that it's all that much more than most other all-time greats. And for this comparison specifically, you could argue that MJ limited Scottie's impact a ton as demonstrated by how well Scottie played in 94 without MJ. But of course, we all know this doesn't mean MJ should have taken a backseat to Scottie or adapted his game more to Scottie becuase they were better off with MJ doing his thing regardless of how it affected Scottie game. Scottie was definitely limited by MJ in a way he wouldn't next to an ultra-portable player (Curry, Bird).

Which leads me to my next point. I think it gets overlooked that a lot of MJ's teams were built very well around him. Scottie was literally the perfect sidekick for him and Rodman's offensive rebounding and defense also perfectly complemented MJ's skillset. You could argue this amplified synergy bolsters MJ's RAPM numbers, but Lebron hasn't had the luxury of playing next to such well-fitting pieces as much.

Just to wrap up, Lebron is not close to the most "portable" player ever. But he also has rarely been in a situation where his portability was a necessity/the optimal way for his team to play. Specifically since his last 2 Cleveland years, he's developed into an excellent post-player, cutter, roll-man, and spot-up shooter. And of course can pass with the best of them and is one of the most versatile defenders ever. All these are portable skills that fit well next to virtually anyone else, and he has shown this in Miami and especially in LA with Davis and Westbrook.

[oaktownwarriors87]

In his 11 full seasons with the Bulls, Jordan lead the NBA in:

VORP in 9 of 11 seasons
BPM in 9 of 11 seasons
WS in 9 of 11 seasons
PER in 7 of 11 seasons
PPG in 10 of 11 seasons

They won it all 6 times in those 11 seasons, and the lowest rated team he lost to in the was the 89-90' Pistons (5.41 SRS). They lost in 7 in the ECF, and the Pistons went on to win in 5 vs Portland.

LeBron hasn't sniffed this level of success or impact.

[OhayoKD]

In his 11 full seasons with the Bulls, Jordan lead the NBA in:

VORP in 9 of 11 seasons
BPM in 9 of 11 seasons
WS in 9 of 11 seasons
PER in 7 of 11 seasons
PPG in 10 of 11 seasons

They won it all 6 times in those 11 seasons, and the lowest rated team he lost to in the was the 89-90' Pistons (5.41 SRS). They lost in 7 in the ECF, and the Pistons went on to win in 5 vs Portland.

LeBron hasn't sniffed this level of success or impact.

Literally all the stats you cited rate lebron's best years over mj's...

[ice9]

In his 11 full seasons with the Bulls, Jordan lead the NBA in:

VORP in 9 of 11 seasons
BPM in 9 of 11 seasons
WS in 9 of 11 seasons
PER in 7 of 11 seasons
PPG in 10 of 11 seasons

They won it all 6 times in those 11 seasons, and the lowest rated team he lost to in the was the 89-90' Pistons (5.41 SRS). They lost in 7 in the ECF, and the Pistons went on to win in 5 vs Portland.

LeBron hasn't sniffed this level of success or impact.

Literally all the stats you cited rate lebron's best years over mj's...

Per basketball-reference.com top 3 career highs are:
VORP career high MJ: 12.5, 11.4, 10.8 vs James: 11.8, 10.3, 9.9
BPM: 13.0, 12.0, 11.9 vs 13.2, 11.8, 11.7
WS: 21.2, 20.4, 20.3 vs 20.3, 19.3, 18.5
PER: 31.71, 31.63, 31.18 vs 31.67, 31.59, 31.10
Ppg: 37.1, 35.0, 33.6 vs 31.4, 30.3, 30.0

Considering different eras, teams, etc, most of these (less ppg) are close enough to be more or less even, but technically Jordan is ahead almost across the board. Gap widens if we open it to 5 seasons.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

[OhayoKD]

In his 11 full seasons with the Bulls, Jordan lead the NBA in:

VORP in 9 of 11 seasons
BPM in 9 of 11 seasons
WS in 9 of 11 seasons
PER in 7 of 11 seasons
PPG in 10 of 11 seasons

They won it all 6 times in those 11 seasons, and the lowest rated team he lost to in the was the 89-90' Pistons (5.41 SRS). They lost in 7 in the ECF, and the Pistons went on to win in 5 vs Portland.

LeBron hasn't sniffed this level of success or impact.

Literally all the stats you cited rate lebron's best years over mj's...

Per basketball-reference.com top 3 career highs are:
VORP career high MJ: 12.5, 11.4, 10.8 vs James: 11.8, 10.3, 9.9
BPM: 13.0, 12.0, 11.9 vs 13.2, 11.8, 11.7
WS: 21.2, 20.4, 20.3 vs 20.3, 19.3, 18.5
PER: 31.71, 31.63, 31.18 vs 31.67, 31.59, 31.10
Ppg: 37.1, 35.0, 33.6 vs 31.4, 30.3, 30.0

Considering different eras, teams, etc, most of these (less ppg) are close enough to be more or less even, but technically Jordan is ahead almost across the board. Gap widens if we open it to 5 seasons.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

Ohh, I was looking at the playoff stuff.

BPM: LBJ, 17.7, 12.7, 11.5 MJ,14.6, 13.7, 12.1
ws/48: LBJ, .399, .294, .269 MJ, .333, .3, .284
PER: LBJ, 37.4, 32.2, 31.0 MJ, 32, 31.7, 30.1
VORP: LBJ, 3.4, 3.1, 3.0 MJ, 2.9, 2.8, 2.7

excect for ppg lebron's best 3 years average higher and the gap increases the more years you do. I think with per you can even throw out lebron's best year and he comes out ahead.