Lebron vs Jordan RAPM/Impact

[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.

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

Except he was scoring as much, wasn't winning as much, and he did it for fewer years and lost to inferior competition.

From 23 to 29 (when LeBron lead the leauge in these numbers)

LeBron
WS 119.2
PER 30.1
WS48 .283
VORP 65.0
BPM 10.8

Jordan
WS 132.2
PER 30.4
VORP 75.3
WS48 .285
BPM 11.4

[2klegend]

Very flaw to use any one metric to compare player. The stat is just a number game. We need to use multiple stats to compare players. If we go by strictly RAPM, D-Rob looks superior to Hakeem. Manu/Tyson Chandler/Draymond looks like an GOAT candidate.

[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...

Except he was scoring as much, wasn't winning as much, and he did it for fewer years and lost to inferior competition.

From 23 to 29 (when LeBron lead the leauge in these numbers)

LeBron
WS 119.2
PER 30.1
WS48 .283
VORP 65.0
BPM 10.8

Jordan
WS 132.2
PER 30.4
VORP 75.3
WS48 .285
BPM 11.4

\
That's not how you compare peaks, especially when player b has various years in his 30's that compare well to years pl player a's 20'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.

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

except 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.

Seems if we just use box-stat aggregators(per, ws/48) lebron comes out ahead in the postseason and mj comes out ahead in the regular season. Maybe that's due to lebron coasting in the rs after 2010. Maybe it's due to mj being more intense or something.

If we use impact stats like bpm, rapm, wowy, and pipm, lebron seems to come out ahead in regular season and postseason in his best years due to defense.

Also seems like if we combine everything lebron's 2009 comes out as the #1 "peak" in most everything. His regular season is either at or near the top and then his postseason just kills everything. Maybe that's just because of defense since 09 is also the #1 defensive year by impact stuff for both these players.

So i guess it comes down to how you weigh box-stats vs impact-stats and rs/postseason tho i usually prefer impact because a. they predict winning better especially as players change teams and b. they're rooted in winning and c. they're not as biased towards offense/bad defensive indicators like steals and blocks

[Stalwart]

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

Is it possible that Lebron's particular strengths, although formidable, do not provide the best foundation of which to build around when compared to other ATGs? Can you build a more dominant, cohesive team around Lebron than you can build around Steph Curry? Michael Jordan? Tim Duncan, Kobe, Magic, Bird?

You mentioned that Lebron has played with below average talent compared to other ATGs. I would strongly disagree with that. But let's say that's true. It's also true that Lebron has played with more line ups and overall number of players than other ATGs. He's jumped around franchises, his teams FO have been involved a record number of trades, and he's even built his own superteams. After all of these franchises, line ups, and teammates I think its a hard sell to blame all of those teammates and FOs for holding back or suppressing Lebron's success. At what point do we look at Lebron as the possible reason of why his teams havent been as strong as we'd expect them to be? Perhaps he simply doesn't play in a way that utilizes and maximizes the talents of those around him as well as some other ATGs?

[Stalwart]

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.

But why would we expect Lebron & Klay to break the league more than Steph & Klay? Where does that assumption come from? Steph & Klay literally broke the league in 2016. Klay thrives in an offense where the ball moves and players move like in GSW. He wouldn't be thrive in a Lebron ball system. Are we really sure that a Lebron/Klay/Ibaka trio would be more formidable than the Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka trio? Or the Steph/Klay/Dray trio?

[Jaivl]

But why would we expect Lebron & Klay to break the league more than Steph & Klay? Where does that assumption come from? Steph & Klay literally broke the league in 2016. Klay thrives in an offense where the ball moves and players move like in GSW. He wouldn't be thrive in a Lebron ball system. Are we really sure that a Lebron/Klay/Ibaka trio would be more formidable than the Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka trio? Or the Steph/Klay/Dray trio?

You don't see the irony here?

[famoose]

Korver was basically Klay-lite offensively without the ability to occasionally put the ball on the floor and go closer to the paint.

Korver was great next to LeBron, as one would expect. Does he get more space with Steph? Possibly. But the Cavs weren't exactly lacking in opportunities for 3pt attempts with LeBron at the helm. In fact, quite the opposite, they were breaking records as soon as LeBron got surrounded by elite shooting (Love, Kyrie, JR Smith, Korver...) and we're talking Playoff competition too, not running numbers on average and below average RS teams.

[JordansBulls]

Well one guy turned a franchise that never won into a dynasty including two three peats. The other won 1 title in 11 years for the franchise that drafted him and also included joining players that won as the man as well as changing teams 4 times joining new stars in there primes and still hasn’t won as much while a star player and contemporary in his era has as many titles in less seasons in his own era.

[Lou Fan]

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

I stepped away for a day to make sure I wasn't crazy and I'm not. You're first response to me was laughing at my reasoning (or lack thereof according to you) then you implied in the next post that I don't understand what I'm talking about. You then continously misrepresented my arguments in your posts and put words in my mouth saying I had made arguments I never did. I repeatedly tried to clarify my stance and explain my arguments to no avail. Other people have commented on my posts and disagreed without doing that and we've had productive back and forths. In fact a cavs fan who presumably loves LeBron said "of course" my premise was generally true (it is honestly very obvious to me) and that he thinks I'm off base for thinking it's happening to the extent I think it's happening.

I will explain this one last time. If Iggy makes the Cavs worse while LeBron on the court and better when he's off and the team better overall LeBron's RAPM gets worse. RAPM is not about how good your team is. It's about lineup data. You are factually incorrect here. A player's RAPM does not necessarily correlate with team improvement.

Edit: I don't want to have a combative relationship so I'll chalk this up to a miscommunication. Going forward let's have more productive discussions

[G35]

Considering LeBron teams are literally built to be optimized when he's out there and useless when he's not I think if anything this makes Jordan look good but as others have said comparing RAPM across eras/seasons is messy.

Literally every team builds around their best player.....what is this reasoning lol

Is it that hard to give lebron credit?

No, teams are not always built around the best player. Teams use to build a system and would plug in players that fit into that system and jettison players that did not fit.

It's very similar to how the Warriors build their teams compared to how teams build around Harden, Lebron, Luka, Westbrook etc.

The Warriors have Steph and he's the best player, but they put players in roles to help benefit the entirety of the team.

What the Bulls did is put players in a role that maximizes their talent to help the team, but not too much responsibility so they can settle into that role.

Horace Grant - good defensive 4, could hit a mid-range shot, good rebounder
Bill Cartwright - good defensive center, could reliably score in the post, could make FT's
John Paxson - good outside/3pt shooter, could make the smart pass
BJ Armstrong - good outside shooter, could get to the rim at times, could make the pass
Craig Hodges - designated 3pt shooter
Cliff Levingston - defend big men and take hard fouls

Scottie and Jordan were expected to do everything else, create when the offense fell apart, pick the team up when things look bad, that is what you expect from your star players, turn things around when things go wrong. The triangle was there to make it easier for everyone to contribute. The Bulls did the same thing when they rebuilt the team after Jordan came back

Rodman - defensive ace, could make the pass, get rebounds, be generally annoying to the other team
Kukoc - all around player who could create shots, pass/facilitate off the bench
Kerr - designated 3pt/outside shooter to provide space
Harper - part of doberman's Phil unleashed on PG's, could score off the dribble
Longley - big body in the middle on defense, stay out of the way on offense, provided rebounding

The Warriors have done the same thing, bringing in role players that fill a need and are willing to work within the system, the difference is it takes Klay/Draymond/Curry to equal Jordan and Pippen. That's not a negative thing, its just they spread the responsibility more:

Looney - big man defender, rebounder, crash the offensive boards, stay out of the way on offense
Wiggins - defender, rebounder, create off the dribble
Poole - shoot 3's
Payton Jr - defend, run the floor
Porter - defend, hit the occasional 3, get rebounds

We use to believe in building teams with roles and maximizing fit. Now, its find that one player that can do "everything", give him the ball, and be amazed that he gets all the stats. Then wonder why he loses to "superteams" full of role players......

[falcolombardi]

Considering LeBron teams are literally built to be optimized when he's out there and useless when he's not I think if anything this makes Jordan look good but as others have said comparing RAPM across eras/seasons is messy.

Literally every team builds around their best player.....what is this reasoning lol

Is it that hard to give lebron credit?

No, teams are not always built around the best player. Teams use to build a system and would plug in players that fit into that system and jettison players that did not fit.

It's very similar to how the Warriors build their teams compared to how teams build around Harden, Lebron, Luka, Westbrook etc.

The Warriors have Steph and he's the best player, but they put players in roles to help benefit the entirety of the team.

What the Bulls did is put players in a role that maximizes their talent to help the team, but not too much responsibility so they can settle into that role.

Horace Grant - good defensive 4, could hit a mid-range shot, good rebounder
Bill Cartwright - good defensive center, could reliably score in the post, could make FT's
John Paxson - good outside/3pt shooter, could make the smart pass
BJ Armstrong - good outside shooter, could get to the rim at times, could make the pass
Craig Hodges - designated 3pt shooter
Cliff Levingston - defend big men and take hard fouls

Scottie and Jordan were expected to do everything else, create when the offense fell apart, pick the team up when things look bad, that is what you expect from your star players, turn things around when things go wrong. The triangle was there to make it easier for everyone to contribute. The Bulls did the same thing when they rebuilt the team after Jordan came back

Rodman - defensive ace, could make the pass, get rebounds, be generally annoying to the other team
Kukoc - all around player who could create shots, pass/facilitate off the bench
Kerr - designated 3pt/outside shooter to provide space
Harper - part of doberman's Phil unleashed on PG's, could score off the dribble
Longley - big body in the middle on defense, stay out of the way on offense, provided rebounding

The Warriors have done the same thing, bringing in role players that fill a need and are willing to work within the system, the difference is it takes Klay/Draymond/Curry to equal Jordan and Pippen. That's not a negative thing, its just they spread the responsibility more:

Looney - big man defender, rebounder, crash the offensive boards, stay out of the way on offense
Wiggins - defender, rebounder, create off the dribble
Poole - shoot 3's
Payton Jr - defend, run the floor
Porter - defend, hit the occasional 3, get rebounds

We use to believe in building teams with roles and maximizing fit. Now, its find that one player that can do "everything", give him the ball, and be amazed that he gets all the stats. Then wonder why he loses to "superteams" full of role players......

I never talked about boxscore stats but about their best player skillsets

Warriors play a systen built around curry shooting and off ball movement while bulls built around jordan scoring and most lebron teams built around his on ball driving game

[falcolombardi]

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

I stepped away for a day to make sure I wasn't crazy and I'm not. You're first response to me was laughing at my reasoning (or lack thereof according to you) then you implied in the next post that I don't understand what I'm talking about. You then continously misrepresented my arguments in your posts and put words in my mouth saying I had made arguments I never did. I repeatedly tried to clarify my stance and explain my arguments to no avail. Other people have commented on my posts and disagreed without doing that and we've had productive back and forths. In fact a cavs fan who presumably loves LeBron said "of course" my premise was generally true (it is honestly very obvious to me) and that he thinks I'm off base for thinking it's happening to the extent I think it's happening.

I will explain this one last time. If Iggy makes the Cavs worse while LeBron on the court and better when he's off and the team better overall LeBron's RAPM gets worse. RAPM is not about how good your team is. It's about lineup data. You are factually incorrect here. A player's RAPM does not necessarily correlate with team improvement.

Edit: I don't want to have a combative relationship so I'll chalk this up to a miscommunication. Going forward let's have more productive discussions

I am fine with cooling off thinghs, if i said somethingh that came across the wrong way then you got my apology. At the same time the whole convo felt like you telling me i must be trolling for disagreeing with you but whatever, lets forget about it

I will drop this rapm combo with you since is clear we are not gonna see eye to eye on it

[G35]

Literally every team builds around their best player.....what is this reasoning lol

Is it that hard to give lebron credit?

No, teams are not always built around the best player. Teams use to build a system and would plug in players that fit into that system and jettison players that did not fit.

It's very similar to how the Warriors build their teams compared to how teams build around Harden, Lebron, Luka, Westbrook etc.

The Warriors have Steph and he's the best player, but they put players in roles to help benefit the entirety of the team.

What the Bulls did is put players in a role that maximizes their talent to help the team, but not too much responsibility so they can settle into that role.

Horace Grant - good defensive 4, could hit a mid-range shot, good rebounder
Bill Cartwright - good defensive center, could reliably score in the post, could make FT's
John Paxson - good outside/3pt shooter, could make the smart pass
BJ Armstrong - good outside shooter, could get to the rim at times, could make the pass
Craig Hodges - designated 3pt shooter
Cliff Levingston - defend big men and take hard fouls

Scottie and Jordan were expected to do everything else, create when the offense fell apart, pick the team up when things look bad, that is what you expect from your star players, turn things around when things go wrong. The triangle was there to make it easier for everyone to contribute. The Bulls did the same thing when they rebuilt the team after Jordan came back

Rodman - defensive ace, could make the pass, get rebounds, be generally annoying to the other team
Kukoc - all around player who could create shots, pass/facilitate off the bench
Kerr - designated 3pt/outside shooter to provide space
Harper - part of doberman's Phil unleashed on PG's, could score off the dribble
Longley - big body in the middle on defense, stay out of the way on offense, provided rebounding

The Warriors have done the same thing, bringing in role players that fill a need and are willing to work within the system, the difference is it takes Klay/Draymond/Curry to equal Jordan and Pippen. That's not a negative thing, its just they spread the responsibility more:

Looney - big man defender, rebounder, crash the offensive boards, stay out of the way on offense
Wiggins - defender, rebounder, create off the dribble
Poole - shoot 3's
Payton Jr - defend, run the floor
Porter - defend, hit the occasional 3, get rebounds

We use to believe in building teams with roles and maximizing fit. Now, its find that one player that can do "everything", give him the ball, and be amazed that he gets all the stats. Then wonder why he loses to "superteams" full of role players......

I never talked about boxscore stats but about their best player skillsets

Warriors play a systen built around curry shooting and off ball movement while bulls built around jordan scoring and most lebron teams built around his on ball driving game

We use their boxscore stats to get to their RAPM and thus what their "impact" is.

There is more to impact than stats. I don't think Jordan would ever look at any stat and say, "There's my impact." The only thing Jordan would look at is wins and losses.

You are deflecting and trying to equate what Curry and Jordan have done with their teams to Lebron. They are nowhere near the same.

Jordan gave up facilitating to Pippen. Curry gave up facilitating to Draymond.

Also, Curry's shooting and off-ball movement is not the only crucial element, Klay's shooting and off-ball movement is just as important. They complement each other...not compliment...but complement and that cohesiveness makes GS that much harder to defend.

If you look at how the Warriors attacked the Celtics defense vs how the Celtics attacked the Warriors defense and you can see why it was so much harder for the Celtics to score. The Celtics were going one on one with either Brown/Tatum/Smart and then hoping to find the open man with dribble penetration. So the Warriors just packed the paint and waited in the passing lanes.

Whereas the Warriors ran their same offense, Draymond setting a pick for Klay or Steph at the top, then rolling to the top of the key. This will then create multiple options for the Steph or Klay (or Poole):
- they can take the 3pt shot if the defender lays back
- they can penetrate if they feel they can get past the defender
- they can pass the ball back to Draymond and then run off ball down the lane for an easy pass for a layup
- they can pass the ball back to Draymond and run through more down screens on the baseline for corner 3's

The Warriors offense creates options, they actually run an offense. Most other teams don't, they just go one on one and hope they can out-talent or out-shoot the other team. That is what Lebron runs. He assumes his talent is greater and he can individually create open shots for his teammates. He can do that against lesser teams, but in the playoffs, against disciplined teams, or teams that have equal talent, that strategy doesn't work.

But Lebron will accumulating "impact stats" and the assumption is that its his teammates fault for letting him down, when the real problem is he is not maximizing what his teammates can do......

[falcolombardi]

No, teams are not always built around the best player. Teams use to build a system and would plug in players that fit into that system and jettison players that did not fit.

It's very similar to how the Warriors build their teams compared to how teams build around Harden, Lebron, Luka, Westbrook etc.

The Warriors have Steph and he's the best player, but they put players in roles to help benefit the entirety of the team.

What the Bulls did is put players in a role that maximizes their talent to help the team, but not too much responsibility so they can settle into that role.

Horace Grant - good defensive 4, could hit a mid-range shot, good rebounder
Bill Cartwright - good defensive center, could reliably score in the post, could make FT's
John Paxson - good outside/3pt shooter, could make the smart pass
BJ Armstrong - good outside shooter, could get to the rim at times, could make the pass
Craig Hodges - designated 3pt shooter
Cliff Levingston - defend big men and take hard fouls

Scottie and Jordan were expected to do everything else, create when the offense fell apart, pick the team up when things look bad, that is what you expect from your star players, turn things around when things go wrong. The triangle was there to make it easier for everyone to contribute. The Bulls did the same thing when they rebuilt the team after Jordan came back

Rodman - defensive ace, could make the pass, get rebounds, be generally annoying to the other team
Kukoc - all around player who could create shots, pass/facilitate off the bench
Kerr - designated 3pt/outside shooter to provide space
Harper - part of doberman's Phil unleashed on PG's, could score off the dribble
Longley - big body in the middle on defense, stay out of the way on offense, provided rebounding

The Warriors have done the same thing, bringing in role players that fill a need and are willing to work within the system, the difference is it takes Klay/Draymond/Curry to equal Jordan and Pippen. That's not a negative thing, its just they spread the responsibility more:

Looney - big man defender, rebounder, crash the offensive boards, stay out of the way on offense
Wiggins - defender, rebounder, create off the dribble
Poole - shoot 3's
Payton Jr - defend, run the floor
Porter - defend, hit the occasional 3, get rebounds

We use to believe in building teams with roles and maximizing fit. Now, its find that one player that can do "everything", give him the ball, and be amazed that he gets all the stats. Then wonder why he loses to "superteams" full of role players......

I never talked about boxscore stats but about their best player skillsets

Warriors play a systen built around curry shooting and off ball movement while bulls built around jordan scoring and most lebron teams built around his on ball driving game

We use their boxscore stats to get to their RAPM and thus what their "impact" is.

There is more to impact than stats. I don't think Jordan would ever look at any stat and say, "There's my impact." The only thing Jordan would look at is wins and losses.

You are deflecting and trying to equate what Curry and Jordan have done with their teams to Lebron. They are nowhere near the same.

Jordan gave up facilitating to Pippen. Curry gave up facilitating to Draymond.

Also, Curry's shooting and off-ball movement is not the only crucial element, Klay's shooting and off-ball movement is just as important. They complement each other...not compliment...but complement and that cohesiveness makes GS that much harder to defend.

If you look at how the Warriors attacked the Celtics defense vs how the Celtics attacked the Warriors defense and you can see why it was so much harder for the Celtics to score. The Celtics were going one on one with either Brown/Tatum/Smart and then hoping to find the open man with dribble penetration. So the Warriors just packed the paint and waited in the passing lanes.

Whereas the Warriors ran their same offense, Draymond setting a pick for Klay or Steph at the top, then rolling to the top of the key. This will then create multiple options for the Steph or Klay (or Poole):
- they can take the 3pt shot if the defender lays back
- they can penetrate if they feel they can get past the defender
- they can pass the ball back to Draymond and then run off ball down the lane for an easy pass for a layup
- they can pass the ball back to Draymond and run through more down screens on the baseline for corner 3's

The Warriors offense creates options, they actually run an offense. Most other teams don't, they just go one on one and hope they can out-talent or out-shoot the other team. That is what Lebron runs. He assumes his talent is greater and he can individually create open shots for his teammates. He can do that against lesser teams, but in the playoffs, against disciplined teams, or teams that have equal talent, that strategy doesn't work.

But Lebron will accumulating "impact stats" and the assumption is that its his teammates fault for letting him down, when the real problem is he is not maximizing what his teammates can do......

No, i explicitly mean rapm sources that dont use boxscore as prior

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

You cannot acumulate impact stats, that is like talking about accumilating low defensove rating, regular season wins or net rating

You cannot "statpad" impact metrics (plus-minus ones at least) cause plus-minus literally means how well your team performs with you

[G35]

No, i explicitly mean rapm sources that dont use boxscore as prior

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

You cannot acumulate impact stats, that is like talking about accumilating low defensove rating, regular season wins or net rating

You cannot "statpad" impact metrics (plus-minus ones at least) cause plus-minus literally means how well your team performs with you

An excerpt from your article.

A traditional way to represent player impact without box score stats is to just use base plus-minus. For example, Steph Curry had a +4.0 plus-minus per 100 possessions in the 2021 season. This number means that with Curry on the court, the Warriors outscored their opponents by four points per every 100 possessions.

How do you know how much the Warriors outscored an opponent per every 100 possessions. What do you use?

[capfan33]

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.

But why would we expect Lebron & Klay to break the league more than Steph & Klay? Where does that assumption come from? Steph & Klay literally broke the league in 2016. Klay thrives in an offense where the ball moves and players move like in GSW. He wouldn't be thrive in a Lebron ball system. Are we really sure that a Lebron/Klay/Ibaka trio would be more formidable than the Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka trio? Or the Steph/Klay/Dray trio?

It's a hypothetical but I think at a minimum think it would be a toss-up, albeit in a different manner. Moreover, the key to the Warriors success is Draymond and Curry, that's what really broke the league even though Klay was still a big part of that. As I previously mentioned, Lebron is fully capable and has played in non "Lebron-ball" systems, I'm sure he and Klay could figure it out lol. And to the last point, yes I'm sure that combo would be better than OKC's big 3, not as sure about the GSW big 3.

[MyUniBroDavis]

I feel as if people think lebron ball is harden or luka ball when it just isn’t lol

[Stalwart]

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.

But why would we expect Lebron & Klay to break the league more than Steph & Klay? Where does that assumption come from? Steph & Klay literally broke the league in 2016. Klay thrives in an offense where the ball moves and players move like in GSW. He wouldn't be thrive in a Lebron ball system. Are we really sure that a Lebron/Klay/Ibaka trio would be more formidable than the Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka trio? Or the Steph/Klay/Dray trio?

It's a hypothetical but I think at a minimum think it would be a toss-up, albeit in a different manner. Moreover, the key to the Warriors success is Draymond and Curry, that's what really broke the league even though Klay was still a big part of that. As I previously mentioned, Lebron is fully capable and has played in non "Lebron-ball" systems, I'm sure he and Klay could figure it out lol. And to the last point, yes I'm sure that combo would be better than OKC's big 3, not as sure about the GSW big 3.

But that would require one or both of them to adopt a playstyle we've never seen them ay in before. I've never seen Lebron in an offense where the ball constantly moves and everyone, including him, is constantly cutting and setting back screens. I've never seen Klay in a heliocentric offense where he stands in one place waiting for a kick out. But their going to break the league like the 73-9 team did?

As far as being better than the OKC trio I think that's a tall order. That OKC trio was very strong.

You notice the pattern here? You just assume Lebron can do anything and be better than everyone in these fantasy scenarios without actually walking through how these things would play out in real life. You just assume Lebron would "figure it out" because Lebron is so great. Yet in real life he teamed up with other superstars and all stars and never broke the league.

[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

Is it possible that Lebron's particular strengths, although formidable, do not provide the best foundation of which to build around when compared to other ATGs? Can you build a more dominant, cohesive team around Lebron than you can build around Steph Curry? Michael Jordan? Tim Duncan, Kobe, Magic, Bird?

I don't think Lebron is significantly better or worse than other ATGs in this regard. I don't think Lebron is the best ceiling-raiser ever to be clear but it's not a mystery as to how to build around him nor do I think he holds his teams ceiling back signficantly compared to other all-time greats. Throwing Magic in there is kind of wierd considering how similar him and Lebron are in playstyle offensively.

You mentioned that Lebron has played with below average talent compared to other ATGs. I would strongly disagree with that. But let's say that's true. It's also true that Lebron has played with more line ups and overall number of players than other ATGs. He's jumped around franchises, his teams FO have been involved a record number of trades, and he's even built his own superteams. After all of these franchises, line ups, and teammates I think its a hard sell to blame all of those teammates and FOs for holding back or suppressing Lebron's success. At what point do we look at Lebron as the possible reason of why his teams havent been as strong as we'd expect them to be? Perhaps he simply doesn't play in a way that utilizes and maximizes the talents of those around him as well as some other ATGs?

The bolded kind of proves my point, Lebron's won titles with 3 vastly different team compositions over a span of 8 seasons, and gone to the finals with what, 4-5 very different team compositions? And the rest of this I think is kind of strange, 10 finals appearances and 4 titles is plenty of success even compared to other all-time greats. I mean yea it pales in comparison to Russell, but literally everyone's resume does.

Moreover, while it's kind of an excuse, I don't take a lot of stock in just 1 career. Like one career sample size really isn't that meaningful especially when haven't seen that much from Lebron's on-court playstyle to suggest that he's actively holding his team back save for his passive-aggressiveness at times (which I don't like). And to the last bolded point, I don't think any of Lebron's teams have underperformed relative to the talent they've had save for coasting and the 2011 finals.

[capfan33]

But why would we expect Lebron & Klay to break the league more than Steph & Klay? Where does that assumption come from? Steph & Klay literally broke the league in 2016. Klay thrives in an offense where the ball moves and players move like in GSW. He wouldn't be thrive in a Lebron ball system. Are we really sure that a Lebron/Klay/Ibaka trio would be more formidable than the Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka trio? Or the Steph/Klay/Dray trio?

It's a hypothetical but I think at a minimum think it would be a toss-up, albeit in a different manner. Moreover, the key to the Warriors success is Draymond and Curry, that's what really broke the league even though Klay was still a big part of that. As I previously mentioned, Lebron is fully capable and has played in non "Lebron-ball" systems, I'm sure he and Klay could figure it out lol. And to the last point, yes I'm sure that combo would be better than OKC's big 3, not as sure about the GSW big 3.

But that would require one or both of them to adopt a playstyle we've never seen them ay in before. I've never seen Lebron in an offense where the ball constantly moves and everyone, including him, is constantly cutting and setting back screens. I've never seen Klay in a heliocentric offense where he stands in one place waiting for a kick out. But their going to break the league like the 73-9 team did?

As far as being better than the OKC trio I think that's a tall order. That OKC trio was very strong.

You notice the pattern here? You just assume Lebron can do anything and be better than everyone in these fantasy scenarios without actually walking through how these things would play out in real life. You just assume Lebron would "figure it out" because Lebron is so great. Yet in real life he teamed up with other superstars and all stars and never broke the league.

He's never played with a Spur's style offensive because he never had that luxury. Systems like that are rare, and moreover are a product of things that are largely out of players control like coaching, the front office, team construction and luck. the onus isn't on a superstar whose already doing everything on the court to just implement some dynamic, complex offense. MJ had Tex Winter and Jackson to do it for him, Duncan had Pop, Wilt had Hannum, Kareem had Costello and Riley. Hell the Warriors and Steph didn't take off until Kerr came in and had the genius idea of starting Draymond and overhauling the offense in an off-season. I mean seriously, where would Steph be right now without Kerr, I'm not sure the Warriors approach being a dynasty without the instrumental changes Kerr made.

Lebron's played for 1 great coach (not coincidentally probably the most team-oriented offensive system he ever played in) who was still young and figuring things out when Lebron came in, and then Lue who literally took over half-way through the year when the Warriors dynasty was in full bloom. The logical time for Lebron to play or develop in such a system would've been in his 1st Cleveland stint (LOL) which obviously wasn't happening.

Moreover, don't you think Lebron dealing with the **** that is the Cavaliers franchise for the 1st 7 years heavily colored his perception/decision-making over the years. At a certain point he probably got fed up and decided "**** it, I'm relying on my own basketball acumen and knowledge to give myself the best possible chance to win". He wasted 7 years on those Cavs teams and quite logically concluded from that experience that it's not that easy to implement a Spurs-like system, and moreover that it was largely out of his control. And that playing around his strengths, which are undeniably incredible, gave his team the best chance to win. And it worked pretty damn well.

As a basketball purist, I would love to see Lebron in such a system, and do at times wish Lebron made more of an effort to play in that type of system. But then I'm quickly reminded of the reality that those systems are a combination of factors largely outside the players control and are **** hard to create, theres a reason the Spurs, Warriors and 80s Celtics are celebrated so much. They don't just happen, and to expect Lebron to do that, on top of everything else he's already expected to do, is quite frankly absurd.

As a quic aside, the 2013 Heat are an ATG team that would've been even better if Wade didnt' get injured, and "Lebron-ball" broke postseason ORTG records that Magic had held for 30 years (also not coincidentally in another system that I would hardly describe as Spursian in nature). As I said earlier, a lot of the criticisms of Lebron on offense could just as easily apply to Magic.