5 year plus-minus of various all-time nba peaks(Feat. Shaq, Lebron, Jordan, Robinson and Curry)

[falcolombardi]

When jokic and giannis had similar-ish "ON" but the nuggets were a worse without joker than bucks without giannis, did -anyone- argue giannis is more impressive cause bucks were better without him that nuggest without jokic? Of course they didnt

Some people say that playing with lebron makes players forget how to play basketball without him. Others argue jordan leadership magically makes his teams play better with mike on the bench cause.......honestly i dont know? It somehow never can be he had great teammates, is even jordan credit what they do without him

I'm just going to posit a theory here. The fact that the bulls ran a system that anyone can run should in theory lift the off numbers of their superstar, because everyone can rely on the system and can make plays and knows what to do. Vs a system that relies on their superstar to create everything things will tend to fall apart when that superstar is off. This is why that superstar will always need more help to offset that heavy reliance on their talent. Because even if you have another superstar that superstar has to be able to play like the 1a to have similar results, which should be damn near impossible since 1a is one of the goats.

That is a very convenient theory cause it can not actually be proven or disproven with data so it just comes down to what you already believe before

It even allows to diminish the actual data that says jordan teans did better without him by making even that about him

Jordan teammates just are not allowed any merit om their own are they?

We also dont have Off-Def splits so is possible the reason bulls without jordan did better than lebron teams is defense and not offense in the first place

[Onus]

Essentially i think ben defaults to jordan because in a theorical level he believes off-ball offense > on-ball offense to win rings and he believes jordan is better at the former and that makes him better at meshing with other talent

Which is fine, but at some point i think you have to ask yourself. If all actual impact metrics i use point to lebron slightly ahead of jordan

including the thinghs like higher offensive ratings or higher "ON" ratings that jordan should distance himself with according to the reasoning

Then maybe defaulting to jordan based on theory when the data clearly and sonewhat consistenly tilts (if only by a bit) lebron way is somehow...lazy? For lack of a better word

I dont even say this to say jordan doesnr have a fantastic goat peak case himself, he does. Is just that based on ben data heavy approach maybe is kind of lazy to just go "jordan better cause ceiling raising/offball" and leave it at that?

Do you know what it feels reminiscent of for me? The larry bird vs magic johnson offense comparisions where a lot of people (maybe ben too? I domt remember) argue magic is the better floor raiser but bird the better ceiling raiser who meshes better with better talent thanks to his less ball dominant profile

Sound theory, at least until you remember both played in talented offensive rosters and bird didnt have the best offenses among the two, it was also magic

And the same thinfg happens in offense only comparisions between curry and lebron. Lebron + kyrie reached higher offensive ratings that curry + durant but he is obviously not the ceiling raiser curry is cause he is too ball doninant

so he could never do somethingh like play in a team with other offense stars (like lets say, love and kyrie, totally at random) and elevate it to the goat playoffs offense stretch. Except he actually did that but is still diminished as a weaker ceiling raiser that cannot do stuff he literally has done

It almost feel at times as ignorig results when they dont fit theory

I will continue to remind you that the Cavs had more offensive talent than the warriors did. The Warriors had more defensive talent. So using offensive ratings to compare the two to determine ceilings is foolhardy. Having 2 players you don't have to guard but at the rim vs having everyone being able to shoot 3s, one has a much higher offensive ceiling than the other.

The warriors with -checks notes- kevin durant and klay thompson? Were not even aa good as love and kyrie? I am not talking 2015 rosters here

Also the shooting argument.

Cavs also played a non shooter in tristan thompson in their lineups

Let me check notes, bogut/zaza and green, yup don't shoot outside of 3 ft. Add in Igoudala for death lineup checks notes shoots avg to below avg on wide open 3 attempts. Vs a team full of above avg 3 point shooters except TT. Yea the cavs had better offensive teammates.

[Onus]

When jokic and giannis had similar-ish "ON" but the nuggets were a worse without joker than bucks without giannis, did -anyone- argue giannis is more impressive cause bucks were better without him that nuggest without jokic? Of course they didnt

Some people say that playing with lebron makes players forget how to play basketball without him. Others argue jordan leadership magically makes his teams play better with mike on the bench cause.......honestly i dont know? It somehow never can be he had great teammates, is even jordan credit what they do without him

I'm just going to posit a theory here. The fact that the bulls ran a system that anyone can run should in theory lift the off numbers of their superstar, because everyone can rely on the system and can make plays and knows what to do. Vs a system that relies on their superstar to create everything things will tend to fall apart when that superstar is off. This is why that superstar will always need more help to offset that heavy reliance on their talent. Because even if you have another superstar that superstar has to be able to play like the 1a to have similar results, which should be damn near impossible since 1a is one of the goats.

That is a very convenient theory cause it can not actually be proven or disproven with data so it just comes down to what you already believe before

It even allows to diminish the actual data that says jordan teans did better without him by making even that about him

Jordan teammates just are not allowed any merit om their own are they?

No I agree that Jordan's teammates did better without him. I think playing in a system that generates some points allows them to do it. I also think if Lebron played in a system that wasn't so Lebron dependent that his teammates would've done better as well. I'm really not sure why this is a hard concept to understand. Systems help role players to generate points. Superstars can deviate from systems because they're so good.

And no systems don't win championship, but they help raise the baseline of your team. And yes systems can be shut down and stars will have to take over to reset, but they help the others be involved and be competent so the stars don't have to do everything all the time.

[AEnigma]

^ That theory really should not work for 2011-17 Lebron, when he had teammates who absolutely should be able to function on offence yet still consistently struggled.

As someone said, we do not have offensive versus defensive splits, but it seems a little more logical to conclude that the fall is primarily offensive. If that is the case, then these complaints about offensive reliance and schematic floors are baseless, and then also defensively it even further affirms that Jordan’s reputation relative to Lebron is entirely a matter of media adoration and position-relative performance rather than actual value. Because that is the thing with Lebron: his teams have pretty much always relied on him to carry (or defensively, co-carry) both ends in the postseason, without any real issues of collinearity.

[HeartBreakKid]

I'm just going to posit a theory here. The fact that the bulls ran a system that anyone can run should in theory lift the off numbers of their superstar, because everyone can rely on the system and can make plays and knows what to do. Vs a system that relies on their superstar to create everything things will tend to fall apart when that superstar is off. This is why that superstar will always need more help to offset that heavy reliance on their talent. Because even if you have another superstar that superstar has to be able to play like the 1a to have similar results, which should be damn near impossible since 1a is one of the goats.

That is a very convenient theory cause it can not actually be proven or disproven with data so it just comes down to what you already believe before

It even allows to diminish the actual data that says jordan teans did better without him by making even that about him

Jordan teammates just are not allowed any merit om their own are they?

No I agree that Jordan's teammates did better without him. I think playing in a system that generates some points allows them to do it. I also think if Lebron played in a system that wasn't so Lebron dependent that his teammates would've done better as well. I'm really not sure why this is a hard concept to understand. Systems help role players to generate points. Superstars can deviate from systems because they're so good.

And no systems don't win championship, but they help raise the baseline of your team. And yes systems can be shut down and stars will have to take over to reset, but they help the others be involved and be competent so the stars don't have to do everything all the time.

All the players mentioned all have systems based around them, how else would they produce so highly? What does being "Lebron oriented" mean for a player that is basically a point guard?

Lebron James plays the point...and still plays with other points. It's not like everything is 1000% optimal for Lebron, and his last championship team was not even a good offense.


James has played with a billion different teammates - I can't believe people are still clinging onto the "Lebron can only win under a strict environment" angle.

[Onus]

^ That theory really should not function for 2011-17 Lebron, when he had teammates who absolutely should be able to function on offence yet still consistently struggled.

As someone said, we do not have offensive versus defensive splits, but it seems a little more logical to conclude that the fall is primarily offensive. If that is the case, then these complaints about offensive reliance and schematic floors are baseless, and then also defensively it even further affirms that Jordan’s reputation relative to Lebron is entirely a matter of media adoration and position-relative performance rather than actual value. Because that is the thing with Lebron: his teams have pretty much always relied on him to carry (or defensively, co-carry) both ends in the postseason, without any real issues of collinearity.

That's the thing though you're asking players who aren't as good as lebron to do lebron things. Wade is probably the closest to Lebron and he was able to do it in 2011. But everyone says he fell off after 2011. Kyrie is a good offensive player, but he's not really able to generate points for others because he can always put up a shot. But he's nowhere close to Lebron especially iq wise and getting others shots. Are we really trying to argue that a Kyrie led offense is supposed to be elite, because we have years of evidence that it isn't.

Bosh and Love changed their games to be more of a spot up shooter than anything else, which is the biggest shame because they were actually really good players that were capable of more, but had to fit in to open the paint so the ball handlers had more space to operate with. Love was able to lead some pretty good offenses in Minnesota but he changed his body and game to play with Lebron. But when lebron was in they had incredible offenses so was it really the wrong thing to do, to optimize Lebron and Wade/Kyrie. Who knows? They obviously reached incredible heights.

[Onus]

That is a very convenient theory cause it can not actually be proven or disproven with data so it just comes down to what you already believe before

It even allows to diminish the actual data that says jordan teans did better without him by making even that about him

Jordan teammates just are not allowed any merit om their own are they?

No I agree that Jordan's teammates did better without him. I think playing in a system that generates some points allows them to do it. I also think if Lebron played in a system that wasn't so Lebron dependent that his teammates would've done better as well. I'm really not sure why this is a hard concept to understand. Systems help role players to generate points. Superstars can deviate from systems because they're so good.

And no systems don't win championship, but they help raise the baseline of your team. And yes systems can be shut down and stars will have to take over to reset, but they help the others be involved and be competent so the stars don't have to do everything all the time.

All the players mentioned all have systems based around them, how else would they produce so highly? What does being "Lebron oriented" mean for a player that is basically a point guard?

Lebron James plays the point...and still plays with other points. It's not like everything is 1000% optimal for Lebron, and his last championship team was not even a good offense.


James has played with a billion different teammates - I can't believe people are still clinging onto the "Lebron can only win under a strict environment" angle.

Billion different teammates yet for the most part they all end up being pretty similar. All star big man who ends up becoming a spot up jump shooter. Defenders that can shoot the 3 around them.

[falcolombardi]

^ That theory really should not function for 2011-17 Lebron, when he had teammates who absolutely should be able to function on offence yet still consistently struggled.

As someone said, we do not have offensive versus defensive splits, but it seems a little more logical to conclude that the fall is primarily offensive. If that is the case, then these complaints about offensive reliance and schematic floors are baseless, and then also defensively it even further affirms that Jordan’s reputation relative to Lebron is entirely a matter of media adoration and position-relative performance rather than actual value. Because that is the thing with Lebron: his teams have pretty much always relied on him to carry (or defensively, co-carry) both ends in the postseason, without any real issues of collinearity.

That's the thing though you're asking players who aren't as good as lebron to do lebron things. Wade is probably the closest to Lebron and he was able to do it in 2011. But everyone says he fell off after 2011. Kyrie is a good offensive player, but he's not really able to generate points for others because he can always put up a shot. But he's nowhere close to Lebron especially iq wise and getting others shots. Are we really trying to argue that a Kyrie led offense is supposed to be elite, because we have years of evidence that it isn't.

Bosh and Love changed their games to be more of a spot up shooter than anything else, which is the biggest shame because they were actually really good players that were capable of more, but had to fit in to open the paint so the ball handlers had more space to operate with. Love was able to lead some pretty good offenses in Minnesota but he changed his body and game to play with Lebron. But when lebron was in they had incredible offenses so was it really the wrong thing to do, to optimize Lebron and Wade/Kyrie. Who knows? They obviously reached incredible heights.

Wade fell off after the 2013 regular season when he played the playoffs while injured and struggled

Before that he and lebron adapted better with each other creating a dominant offensive run in the 2012 playoffs and a monster regular seasom in 2013

[Doctor MJ]

From your perspective, is there any chance to get a decent (at least 25 games) sample from 1960s players like Wilt, Russell or Oscar to get on/off data? I know that NBA have a lot of games in their archives, but I don't know how much.

Full games? Probably not. NBA did not own the rights to the reels back in the 1960's. Frequently, the broadcast companies would re-use the reels after broadcasts. So we have to rely on archival footage saved by the networks. This is why we predominantly only have a few playoff games floating around. The rest tends to be archival footage saved by the likes of the Associated Press; or the Calvin Murphy early 70's clips I sent you a year ago as reels saved from destruction.

I have some audio of recorded broadcasts, such as Petit's 50 point game from the 1958 playoffs or the entire fourth quarter of Chamberlain's 100 point game. That may be the way to go for piecing together such data from that era.

Yeah, I have been working with the AP for over two years, but their reels are incomplete unfortunately.

There is another source of 1960s material - silent B&W Knicks coaching tapes. Among those I have seen, they are mostly complete (missing only a few possessions) and I know that this source is just immenese. I have seen clips from a lot of random RS games from 1959-73 period. Do you have the access to them?

Also, I have seen your work on RAPM study from 1969/70 season. Would you mind sharing the list of games you tracked? 15 isn't a lot, but it's much more than even I could collect throughout the years

Love what you guys are doing! Thank you for your work!

[Owly]

^ That theory really should not function for 2011-17 Lebron, when he had teammates who absolutely should be able to function on offence yet still consistently struggled.

As someone said, we do not have offensive versus defensive splits, but it seems a little more logical to conclude that the fall is primarily offensive. If that is the case, then these complaints about offensive reliance and schematic floors are baseless, and then also defensively it even further affirms that Jordan’s reputation relative to Lebron is entirely a matter of media adoration and position-relative performance rather than actual value. Because that is the thing with Lebron: his teams have pretty much always relied on him to carry (or defensively, co-carry) both ends in the postseason, without any real issues of collinearity.

That's the thing though you're asking players who aren't as good as lebron to do lebron things. Wade is probably the closest to Lebron and he was able to do it in 2011. But everyone says he fell off after 2011. Kyrie is a good offensive player, but he's not really able to generate points for others because he can always put up a shot. But he's nowhere close to Lebron especially iq wise and getting others shots. Are we really trying to argue that a Kyrie led offense is supposed to be elite, because we have years of evidence that it isn't.

Bosh and Love changed their games to be more of a spot up shooter than anything else, which is the biggest shame because they were actually really good players that were capable of more, but had to fit in to open the paint so the ball handlers had more space to operate with. Love was able to lead some pretty good offenses in Minnesota but he changed his body and game to play with Lebron. But when lebron was in they had incredible offenses so was it really the wrong thing to do, to optimize Lebron and Wade/Kyrie. Who knows? They obviously reached incredible heights.

I don't think anyone's asking other people to "do LeBron things". They're asking for teams to stagger their stars, continue to run some practice of non-LeBron-centric offenses (to the extent that was what was run), actually coach a team etc. And then either they did and his casts just weren't that good (my suspicion in general, without looking closely) or they didn't in which case I'd still be inclined to put that primarily on the organization, though some might theorize that LeBron actively prevents teams doing some of that stuff which ... beyond further playmaking not being a primary focus of resources, I'd need persuading on.

[Doctor MJ]

Billion different teammates yet for the most part they all end up being pretty similar. All star big man who ends up becoming a spot up jump shooter. Defenders that can shoot the 3 around them.

Yeah, I think what we've seen is that the LeBron approach is to do as much of the things himself, and then everyone else needs to find a niche to add on top of him. One man can't be in two places at once, so 3 & D is basically what you'd like from every one of his teammates.

This is in stark contrast to what we could call the Auerbach, or Russell if you want a player name, approach where you're looking for different types of specialists and learn to play together in a more egalitarian capacity.

I think it's unclear which approach has a higher ceiling in today's game, but I think it's important to recognize as player analysts that players within a Auerbach approach aren't going to be doing as much - from a box score monopolization perspective - as a LeBron, and that if the Auerbach approach can lead to a higher ceiling, then an analyst is in danger of specifically favoring players whose extreme primacy is actually lowering the team's ceiling.

Again, what the actual ceilings are here is uncertain, and I'm not claiming otherwise. This is just a general danger to be aware of in any collaborative effort.

[falcolombardi]

^ That theory really should not function for 2011-17 Lebron, when he had teammates who absolutely should be able to function on offence yet still consistently struggled.

As someone said, we do not have offensive versus defensive splits, but it seems a little more logical to conclude that the fall is primarily offensive. If that is the case, then these complaints about offensive reliance and schematic floors are baseless, and then also defensively it even further affirms that Jordan’s reputation relative to Lebron is entirely a matter of media adoration and position-relative performance rather than actual value. Because that is the thing with Lebron: his teams have pretty much always relied on him to carry (or defensively, co-carry) both ends in the postseason, without any real issues of collinearity.

That's the thing though you're asking players who aren't as good as lebron to do lebron things. Wade is probably the closest to Lebron and he was able to do it in 2011. But everyone says he fell off after 2011. Kyrie is a good offensive player, but he's not really able to generate points for others because he can always put up a shot. But he's nowhere close to Lebron especially iq wise and getting others shots. Are we really trying to argue that a Kyrie led offense is supposed to be elite, because we have years of evidence that it isn't.

Bosh and Love changed their games to be more of a spot up shooter than anything else, which is the biggest shame because they were actually really good players that were capable of more, but had to fit in to open the paint so the ball handlers had more space to operate with. Love was able to lead some pretty good offenses in Minnesota but he changed his body and game to play with Lebron. But when lebron was in they had incredible offenses so was it really the wrong thing to do, to optimize Lebron and Wade/Kyrie. Who knows? They obviously reached incredible heights.

I don't think anyone's asking other people to "do LeBron things". They're asking for teams to stagger their stars, continue to run some practice of non-LeBron-centric offenses (to the extent that was what was run), actually coach a team etc. And then either they did and his casts just weren't that good (my suspicion in general, without looking closely) or they didn't in which case I'd still be inclined to put that primarily on the organization, though some might theorize that LeBron actively prevents teams doing some of that stuff which ... beyond further playmaking not being a primary focus of resources, I'd need persuading on.

The best teams lebron was on -without- him on court were heat and 2020 lakers

The former had a high quality (understatement of the century) creator and offensive engine in wade, at least before the injuries

The latter had a excellent defense and a solid game director in rondo (diminished as he was he still could be a solid game manager)

The teams who struggled without lebron were the cavs two stints.

The former had only moderste offensive talent (mo, old ilgauskas, varejao) and lebron was also their defense anchor

The latter also was a weaker defensive team that needed lebron to lead the defense and had a bad primary decision maker in kyrie. A player who is better off as a scoring secomd option where he is not responsible for running the offense

If those cavs had someone like wall in kyrie place i suspect the "OFF" without bron would be a lot better than with kyrie

[Onus]

That's the thing though you're asking players who aren't as good as lebron to do lebron things. Wade is probably the closest to Lebron and he was able to do it in 2011. But everyone says he fell off after 2011. Kyrie is a good offensive player, but he's not really able to generate points for others because he can always put up a shot. But he's nowhere close to Lebron especially iq wise and getting others shots. Are we really trying to argue that a Kyrie led offense is supposed to be elite, because we have years of evidence that it isn't.

Bosh and Love changed their games to be more of a spot up shooter than anything else, which is the biggest shame because they were actually really good players that were capable of more, but had to fit in to open the paint so the ball handlers had more space to operate with. Love was able to lead some pretty good offenses in Minnesota but he changed his body and game to play with Lebron. But when lebron was in they had incredible offenses so was it really the wrong thing to do, to optimize Lebron and Wade/Kyrie. Who knows? They obviously reached incredible heights.

I don't think anyone's asking other people to "do LeBron things". They're asking for teams to stagger their stars, continue to run some practice of non-LeBron-centric offenses (to the extent that was what was run), actually coach a team etc. And then either they did and his casts just weren't that good (my suspicion in general, without looking closely) or they didn't in which case I'd still be inclined to put that primarily on the organization, though some might theorize that LeBron actively prevents teams doing some of that stuff which ... beyond further playmaking not being a primary focus of resources, I'd need persuading on.

The best teams lebron was on -without- him on court were heat and 2020 lakers

The former had a high quality (understatement of the century) creator and offensive engine in wade, at least before the injuries

The latter had a excellent defense and a solid game director in rondo

The teams who struggled without lebron were the cavs two stints.

The former had only moderste offensive talent (mo, old ilgauskas varejao) and lebron was also their defense anchor

The latter also was a weaker defensive team that needed lebron to lead the defense and had a bad primary decision maker in kyrie. A player who is better off as a scoring secomd option where he is not responsible for running the offense

If those cavs had someone like wall in kyrie place i suspect the "OFF" without bron would be a lot better than with kyrie

I can get behind this. I do think if they had prioritized Love that the 2nd stint cavs could've survived offensively without Lebron better than letting Kyrie do whatever he wanted. But that would've required a very different offense.

[falcolombardi]

I don't think anyone's asking other people to "do LeBron things". They're asking for teams to stagger their stars, continue to run some practice of non-LeBron-centric offenses (to the extent that was what was run), actually coach a team etc. And then either they did and his casts just weren't that good (my suspicion in general, without looking closely) or they didn't in which case I'd still be inclined to put that primarily on the organization, though some might theorize that LeBron actively prevents teams doing some of that stuff which ... beyond further playmaking not being a primary focus of resources, I'd need persuading on.

The best teams lebron was on -without- him on court were heat and 2020 lakers

The former had a high quality (understatement of the century) creator and offensive engine in wade, at least before the injuries

The latter had a excellent defense and a solid game director in rondo

The teams who struggled without lebron were the cavs two stints.

The former had only moderste offensive talent (mo, old ilgauskas varejao) and lebron was also their defense anchor

The latter also was a weaker defensive team that needed lebron to lead the defense and had a bad primary decision maker in kyrie. A player who is better off as a scoring secomd option where he is not responsible for running the offense

If those cavs had someone like wall in kyrie place i suspect the "OFF" without bron would be a lot better than with kyrie

I can get behind this. I do think if they had prioritized Love that the 2nd stint cavs could've survived offensively without Lebron better than letting Kyrie do whatever he wanted. But that would've required a very different offense.

Love lost a lot of weight after leaving the wolves and his post up efficiency (already the less efficient shots in the game) was awful whenever the cavs ran isolations for him (which they did a bunch of times a game at first, he actually had a high percentile amount of post ups)

Running a offense through cavs love post scoring was a fool errand. Running it around his high post passing/spacing with guys like kyrie and jr smitg being mpre off ball shooters ? That may be a better idea

I dont know if kyrie would have been fine with that but it would have made more sense that letting kyrie be the heliocentric decision maker when bron sat

Kyrie actually took the most shots on that team specially halfcourt wise when playing with lebron and took a ton of isolation possesions, i think he should have been played almost exclusively alongside lebron as staggering them didnt do much for non lebron lineups regardless

[Onus]

The best teams lebron was on -without- him on court were heat and 2020 lakers

The former had a high quality (understatement of the century) creator and offensive engine in wade, at least before the injuries

The latter had a excellent defense and a solid game director in rondo

The teams who struggled without lebron were the cavs two stints.

The former had only moderste offensive talent (mo, old ilgauskas varejao) and lebron was also their defense anchor

The latter also was a weaker defensive team that needed lebron to lead the defense and had a bad primary decision maker in kyrie. A player who is better off as a scoring secomd option where he is not responsible for running the offense

If those cavs had someone like wall in kyrie place i suspect the "OFF" without bron would be a lot better than with kyrie

I can get behind this. I do think if they had prioritized Love that the 2nd stint cavs could've survived offensively without Lebron better than letting Kyrie do whatever he wanted. But that would've required a very different offense.

Love lost a lot of weight after leaving the wolves and his post up efficiency (already the less efficient shots in the game) was awful whenever the cavs ran isolations for him (which they did a bunch of times a game at first, he actually had a high percentile amount of post ups)

Running a offense through cavs love post scoring was a fool errand. Running it around his high post passing/spacing with guys like kyrie and jr smitg being mpre off ball shooters ? That may be a better idea

I dont know if kyrie would have been fine with that but it would have made more sense that letting kyrie be the heliocentric decision maker when bron sat

Kyrie actually took the most shots on that team specially halfcourt wise when playing with lebron and took a ton of isolation possesions, i think he should have been played almost exclusively alongside lebron as staggering them didnt do much for non lebron lineups regardless

Yea I know Love changed his body and he couldn't post up as effectively as he once did, but he's still a good/great passer and decision maker and think they could've taken advantage of him at the high post as you suggested. Kyrie probably wouldn't have been happy about that, but if Lebron was like hey we're going to run offense where everyone touches the ball and either himself or love as hubs at the high post, is kyrie really telling lebron no at his young age? I think once Kyrie won winning a certain way there was no way to change him but before that if Lebron was like we're playing this way maybe, but they chose not to play that way and you heard about the fit in or fit out comments.

[capfan33]

Edit: If you're around Ben, did you do any of the other main Bulls guys? At least Scottie?

So, some bad news.

This project of Ben's was focused on Jordan with a thought to doing other players later but...the NBA has since had the games taken down from the internet, which will likely prevent going further (to other players) with it at this time.

Working on it...

Ben's literally done videos for the official NBA channel, I would hope he of all people could get access to the archives. Would be awesome to get advanced metrics for guys like MJ, Hakeem even though that would likely take years of work.

[capfan33]

Great points, both of y'all!

One thing to note about the scalability ( / off-ball / ceiling raising stuff) is that although the argument may not work as well against LeBron, that doesn't necessarily undermine the entire argument for other players. LeBron is pretty far from the standard... and is basically the GOAT floor-raiser even among scalability proponents like Thinking Basketball.

That said, it does raise an interesting philosophical argument for LeBron vs Jordan (hopefully this is a thoughtful enough thread that this doesn't devolve into the usual meaningless LBJ/MJ debate shenanigans ). I think you could actually use the data to argue the traditional argument... that LeBron's the better floor raiser while Jordan's the better ceiling raiser. While LeBron's teams do reach similar heights to Jordan's teams (though never quite as good, either in single-year seasons or longer 5 year samples)' while both are on, they completely collapse when LeBron is off in a way Jordan's teams never did.

This worse "off" sample is primarily what puts LeBron's on/off over Jordan's. But could this actually be used as an argument against LeBron?

With specific well-fitted team constructions (e.g. many 3-and-d spacers, a stretch big, complementary perimeter talent), LeBron's on-minutes can give Jordan's a run for their money (though not clearly beat them). But these team constructions over-rely on LeBron, and continuously fall apart without him. (so let's give credit: LeBron's the GOAT floor raiser).

But... when LeBron is on teams with enough talent that they shouldn't fall apart without him, even when on paper they seem like they should compare to at least the worse Bulls-Dynasty years, they struggle to stack up. Jordan, on the other hand, has as successful (or more successful) on-minutes, while playing for teams that have the pieces to not fall apart as much without Jordan. This gives him a lower unadjusted on-off, but... ironically the worse on/off means better overall team performance (since the only change is less bad off-minutes)

So, credit to LeBron for his floor raising, when he takes teams that would otherwise fall apart to near similar heights (provided perfect fit). But... can we not also credit Jordan for his ceiling raising, being able to raise teams to GOAT heights, all while not needing the team to be so built around him that they fall apart in his off minutes?

I'm not dead-set on this argument at all. I just think it's fascinating that you can actually make the classical argument -- LeBron's the better floor raiser while Jordan's the better ceiling raiser -- just using this new on/off data.

Feel like there's a couple holes here:

1. The 16-17 cavs were comparable in the playoffs to jordan's bull teams

2. Much of Ben's theory here is based on the idea that lebron's value is dependent on spacing. The problem is that we've seen lebron be more or as valuable than mj with worse era relative spacing(2015, 2020, 2012). Considering that ben "doesn't think we should only compare players at their best", it's pretty wierd how he just completely disregards the 2015 playoffs, where Lebron's jumper was off, he had back problems, and he was the second best shooter on his team....and the cavs swept a 60 win team and then forced the warriors to pull out the death lineup.

Peak jordan had more help and only matched that from 88-90. If Lebron is more valuable at his best, and he's more valuable when he's not at his best, and he's more valuable with spacing, and he's more valuable without spacing...what situation would you rather have jordan than lebron in?

This^ the comments on the video, here on youtibe or on reddit all are leaning into "jordan is a celing raiser, lebron is a floor raiser" arguments when we just saw that is literally not the case

Lebron and jordan teams peaked at the same level with them, jordan ones just happened to be better without him on court

And somehow that is more impressive

Imagine someone in this year mvp race saying

"Bucks with giannis and nuggets with jokic are equally good, but bucks are better when giannis sits than denver when jokic sits"

"Therefore that makes giannis a better ceiling raiser and jokic a better floor raiser"

It wouldnt be taken too seriously

100% agree with this, I think if you switched Lebron and MJ's numbers many people would start talking about how MJ is carrying his team while Lebron is playing with a stacked deck. I'm not sure myself how much truth there is to the whole idea that Lebron is depressing his team because of his playstyle but I think it may ultimately come down to what you think is more likely: Lebron's playstyle mitigates his teammates impact, or that he simply played with worse teammates throughout his career compared to MJ.

Also, considering that Shaq played in the triangle with a very good, at times elite 2nd option in Kobe and had the best metrics in the study, I would definitely call into question the idea that the triangle significantly affects individual impact numbers.

More than anything, I definitely think it would be great if someone did an in-depth study whether certain playstyles or offensive systems have an appreciable effect on player impact.

[capfan33]

I can get behind this. I do think if they had prioritized Love that the 2nd stint cavs could've survived offensively without Lebron better than letting Kyrie do whatever he wanted. But that would've required a very different offense.

Love lost a lot of weight after leaving the wolves and his post up efficiency (already the less efficient shots in the game) was awful whenever the cavs ran isolations for him (which they did a bunch of times a game at first, he actually had a high percentile amount of post ups)

Running a offense through cavs love post scoring was a fool errand. Running it around his high post passing/spacing with guys like kyrie and jr smitg being mpre off ball shooters ? That may be a better idea

I dont know if kyrie would have been fine with that but it would have made more sense that letting kyrie be the heliocentric decision maker when bron sat

Kyrie actually took the most shots on that team specially halfcourt wise when playing with lebron and took a ton of isolation possesions, i think he should have been played almost exclusively alongside lebron as staggering them didnt do much for non lebron lineups regardless

Yea I know Love changed his body and he couldn't post up as effectively as he once did, but he's still a good/great passer and decision maker and think they could've taken advantage of him at the high post as you suggested. Kyrie probably wouldn't have been happy about that, but if Lebron was like hey we're going to run offense where everyone touches the ball and either himself or love as hubs at the high post, is kyrie really telling lebron no at his young age? I think once Kyrie won winning a certain way there was no way to change him but before that if Lebron was like we're playing this way maybe, but they chose not to play that way and you heard about the fit in or fit out comments.

They could've integrated Love better but he wasn't a great fit on that specific roster. They would've been much better off with a defense-first big. I always thought Ibaka would have been fantastic next to Lebron but even a non-shooting big that was elite defensively and could roll would've been a significantly better fit next to Lebron and Kyrie than Love.

Simple general rule, don't have your 3 best players be best on the same side of the ball, especially in this case where Kyrie and Love are both at best neutral defenders.

[LukaTheGOAT]

So, some bad news.

This project of Ben's was focused on Jordan with a thought to doing other players later but...the NBA has since had the games taken down from the internet, which will likely prevent going further (to other players) with it at this time.

Working on it...

Ben's literally done videos for the official NBA channel, I would hope he of all people could get access to the archives. Would be awesome to get advanced metrics for guys like MJ, Hakeem even though that would likely take years of work.

He could even enlist some of us to help. I would do it for free but imagine there might be fear of the distortion of the numbers.

[Doctor MJ]

So, some bad news.

This project of Ben's was focused on Jordan with a thought to doing other players later but...the NBA has since had the games taken down from the internet, which will likely prevent going further (to other players) with it at this time.

Working on it...

Ben's literally done videos for the official NBA channel, I would hope he of all people could get access to the archives. Would be awesome to get advanced metrics for guys like MJ, Hakeem even though that would likely take years of work.

Oh, to be clear, Squared2020 & 70sFan have a ton of cred in this domain and have interacted with Ben on the subject.
If they say they are working on something, they're serious.