RealGM

Which version of Lebron for the start of 2014 season could be considered his best? And why?

regular season:2013
Playoffs:2012


His 2009 season was unbelievable too

Homer38 wrote:regular season:2013
Playoffs:2012


His 2009 season was unbelievable too

And overall?

Homer38 wrote:regular season:2013
Playoffs:2012


His 2009 season was unbelievable too

Yeah, exactly.

Overall though, I'd take 2013. He didn't really drop that much in the postseason and his RS was incredible, shooting almost 57% from the field and 31.6 PER.

Gregoire wrote:

Homer38 wrote:regular season:2013
Playoffs:2012


His 2009 season was unbelievable too

And overall?

I voted 2013

I would say 2012, but the shortened season doesn't help because playing 62 games is a bit different from playing 76 to 82 games. At least in 2013 the team had the advantage no matter what.

Gregoire wrote:Which version of Lebron for the start of 2014 season could be considered his best? And why?

I find it tough to really say mid-career for him. Consider:

Right now the debate is between 2009 & 2013. You could go either way on it, however:

Next year the debate will probably be between 2009 & 2014. Basically, whatever LeBron's peak in Miami is, his two most noteworthy years will be that year, and 2009.

In an entirely quantified, rational perspective this doesn't make sense, but I think realistically it's how most of us think.

Now, what am I looking for in order to say that a year for LeBron in Miami surpasses '09?

A year where he's playing this new, very different, post-modern role, and he does it to perfection, leading his team to a championship run where they never look like they are in serious trouble.

It's possible he won't quite pull that off and I'll still give Miami LeBron the nod, but that's what I'm looking for. If I see that, I think we will pretty much inarguably be seeing in the form where he is most likely to lead a championship-level team, and so the fact that '09 LeBron provided more raw lift will seem next to irrelevant.

I just find this highly irrational. Competition plays a big role in whether a team will never be in trouble. Miami is only going to play at most two good teams this year in the playoffs. It isn't their fault but it is the truth.

Why not just focus on how he plays and realize this is a team game. If he plays great and Miami loses to Indy because their shooters miss a bunch of open shots why should I evaluate Lebron differently.

I also think this post-modern stuff is nonsense. I really don't find his role dramatically different than say someone like Bird.

sp6r=underrated wrote:Why not just focus on how he plays and realize this is a team game.

Because the debates wouldn't be nearly as entertaining

13
10
09
12

Have 13 and 10 as his two top offensive seasons, and 12 and 13 as his two top defensive seasons. 13 is therefore the best combination of both.

sp6r=underrated wrote:I just find this highly irrational. Competition plays a big role in whether a team will never be in trouble. Miami is only going to play at most two good teams this year in the playoffs. It isn't their fault but it is the truth.

Why not just focus on how he plays and realize this is a team game. If he plays great and Miami loses to Indy because their shooters miss a bunch of open shots why should I evaluate Lebron differently.

I also think this post-modern stuff is nonsense. I really don't find his role dramatically different than say someone like Bird.

First let me clarify: I should have included the clause "against strong competition". If Miami happens to get a bunch of teams it matches up with well this year, that won't be enough to settle the debate in my mind.

Re: why not focus on how he plays. The big question in my mind is much bigger than LeBron, it's whether the model the heat have embraced is really bleeding edge basketball strategy showing us what's to come going forward, or whether it's a gimmick that can falls apart when playing against a team that's truly got something resembling the classic ideal for a front court. The truth probably lies somewhere in between of course, but knowing exactly where is important.

Re: same role as Bird. Because Bird was known for shooting more than half of his shots less than 8 feet from the basket?

Forget about Bird for a second, has LeBron not significantly changed how he plays offense now compared to a few years back? Obviously he's still an all around star, but his shot distribution used to look way different, the flow of the Heat offense is very different than it used to be, and the kind of shooting effiiciency we're now seeing from the team just didn't exist back in the days of Bird/Magic - and I say this being suitably in awe of Bird/Magic. It wasn't an individual weakness on their part. we're talking about a change to basketball and LeBron being probably the first superstar who could be a superstar playing any number of ways to purposefully adapt to the change.

Re: "post-modernist". Incidentally, I have to admit, it makes me smile whenever I type this, so yeah, I'm going to try to make the phrase catch on. Sorry about that.

Doctor MJ wrote:
Re: why not focus on how he plays. The big question in my mind is much bigger than LeBron, it's whether the model the heat have embraced is really bleeding edge basketball strategy showing us what's to come going forward, or whether it's a gimmick that can falls apart when playing against a team that's truly got something resembling the classic ideal for a front court. The truth probably lies somewhere in between of course, but knowing exactly where is important.

Re: same role as Bird. Because Bird was known for shooting more than half of his shots less than 8 feet from the basket?

Forget about Bird for a second, has LeBron not significantly changed how he plays offense now compared to a few years back? Obviously he's still an all around star, but his shot distribution used to look way different, the flow of the Heat offense is very different than it used to be, and the kind of shooting effiiciency we're now seeing from the team just didn't exist back in the days of Bird/Magic - and I say this being suitably in awe of Bird/Magic. It wasn't an individual weakness on their part. we're talking about a change to basketball and LeBron being probably the first superstar who could be a superstar playing any number of ways to purposefully adapt to the change.

Re: "post-modernist". Incidentally, I have to admit, it makes me smile whenever I type this, so yeah, I'm going to try to make the phrase catch on. Sorry about that.

Innovation is nice but it actually has to lead to dramatically better performance than the opposition for me to see that it is revolutionary rather than simply incremental improvements. So far Miami's offense looks like best in league caliber rather than some new model that makes everyone else look like they are listening to walkphones and dialing 1-800-Collect.

Peak Offense-2010
Peak Defense-2013

Overall i take 2013 but its close w/ those 2 and 09 IMO
12 is a distant 4th

Because these are two distinct questions:

Peak James impact? 2009.

Best basketball player version of James? 2013.

Either 2009 or 2012 for me.
2013 was a great year but he disappointed in the Finals. I was much more impressed with his 2012 playoff run.

Very surprised to see so many people putting Lebron's 2013 over his 2012. Yes, he was better in the regular season (and Miami was collectively far better), but he was much worse in the postseason. This is clear when you compare postseason statistics -- 28.1 PER vs 30.3, .260 WS/48 vs .284 -- but it's deeper than that. 2012 Lebron just got it done. When forces outside his control (Bosh injury) made his team the underdogs against the Celtics, he pulled miracles out of his ass.

2013 Lebron emphatically did not get it done. If Ray Allen misses that shot then Lebron is The Guy Who Plays Like Garbage In the Finals, Except 2012.

To me that's a far bigger gap than 9 regular season wins. (Not to say that 9 regular season wins is a small gap.)

sp6r=underrated wrote:Innovation is nice but it actually has to lead to dramatically better performance than the opposition for me to see that it is revolutionary rather than simply incremental improvements. So far Miami's offense looks like best in league caliber rather than some new model that makes everyone else look like they are listening to walkphones and dialing 1-800-Collect.

Well you've seen my recent thread over on the Stats board. From a first pass (simple) analysis, the current Miami teams are neck & neck with the Nash Suns for GOAT. As mentioned over there, I don't take that to be anything like a foolproof metric, but I think it's easy to underrate what the Heat are doing based on their rebounding which they've willfully chosen not to pursue harder.

Doctor MJ wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:Innovation is nice but it actually has to lead to dramatically better performance than the opposition for me to see that it is revolutionary rather than simply incremental improvements. So far Miami's offense looks like best in league caliber rather than some new model that makes everyone else look like they are listening to walkphones and dialing 1-800-Collect.

Well you've seen my recent thread over on the Stats board. From a first pass (simple) analysis, the current Miami teams are neck & neck with the Nash Suns for GOAT. As mentioned over there, I don't take that to be anything like a foolproof metric, but I think it's easy to underrate what the Heat are doing based on their rebounding which they've willfully chosen not to pursue harder.

It hits me as very strange the method your supporting on the stats board. When you're trying to evaluate how effective an offense is, you want to know how effectively they use their possessions. By excluding offensive rebounding you're excluding part of what makes other teams offenses effective and Miami's weaker.

It doesn't make sense to me so perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong. So far your theory seems like if you exclude what Miami does wrong they are the best of all time.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:Innovation is nice but it actually has to lead to dramatically better performance than the opposition for me to see that it is revolutionary rather than simply incremental improvements. So far Miami's offense looks like best in league caliber rather than some new model that makes everyone else look like they are listening to walkphones and dialing 1-800-Collect.

Well you've seen my recent thread over on the Stats board. From a first pass (simple) analysis, the current Miami teams are neck & neck with the Nash Suns for GOAT. As mentioned over there, I don't take that to be anything like a foolproof metric, but I think it's easy to underrate what the Heat are doing based on their rebounding which they've willfully chosen not to pursue harder.

It hits me as very strange the method your supporting on the stats board. When you're trying to evaluate how effective an offense is, you want to know how effectively they use their possessions. By excluding offensive rebounding you're excluding part of what makes other teams offenses effective and Miami's weaker.

It doesn't make sense to me so perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong. So far your theory seems like if you exclude what Miami does wrong they are the best of all time.

No, you're missing the point. When people talk about offense, they normally don't think about rebounding -- they think of how well a team shoots, how they get to the line, etc. Also, because certain teams have a strategy of getting back on defense early to snuff out transition plays, their offensive rebounding will drag down their ORtg. But that doesn't mean they have a bad offense; they just concede offensive rebounds to stop fast breaks (think the Doc Rivers-era Celtics.)

acrossthecourt wrote:

sp6r=underrated wrote:

Doctor MJ wrote:
Well you've seen my recent thread over on the Stats board. From a first pass (simple) analysis, the current Miami teams are neck & neck with the Nash Suns for GOAT. As mentioned over there, I don't take that to be anything like a foolproof metric, but I think it's easy to underrate what the Heat are doing based on their rebounding which they've willfully chosen not to pursue harder.

It hits me as very strange the method your supporting on the stats board. When you're trying to evaluate how effective an offense is, you want to know how effectively they use their possessions. By excluding offensive rebounding you're excluding part of what makes other teams offenses effective and Miami's weaker.

It doesn't make sense to me so perhaps you can explain why I'm wrong. So far your theory seems like if you exclude what Miami does wrong they are the best of all time.

No, you're missing the point. When people talk about offense, they normally don't think about rebounding -- they think of how well a team shoots, how they get to the line, etc. Also, because certain teams have a strategy of getting back on defense early to snuff out transition plays, their offensive rebounding will drag down their ORtg. But that doesn't mean they have a bad offense; they just concede offensive rebounds to stop fast breaks (think the Doc Rivers-era Celtics.)

Right. Typically we look at basketball as offense, rebounding, and defense, but the ORtg/DRtg model tries to split rebounding between offense and defense. What's clearly happening is that teams are moving their defensive efforts into the section which we'd label as "defense", but the ORtg metric doesn't recognize this.

To be clear: The Miami Heat are playing with a strategy which can be criticize, and which influences the strategy. How to the extent that offensive rebounding efforts are simply redistributed toward defense, this should not be seen as any kind of failure, and that's really the point. Offensive rebounding is way down because of decided it's simply bad strategy, but that doesn't mean that teams are less effective in their initial attack of the opposing defense, and adaptations along these lines don't mean the team is fundamentally weaker in some way. I'd like to have a metric that measure how effective teams are with how effective teams are with what they are actually venturing in what we classically identify as "offense".