RealGM Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #2 - 2012-13 LeBron James

[cupcakesnake]

1. 2013 Lebron (2012 Lebron)
2. 1977 Kareem
3. 2000 Shaq

- I've been swayed by the Kareem vs. Shaq discourse and bumped Kareem up one spot from last time we voted. So good job Kareem supporters. I still have some suspicion that early Kareem (when he was still a freaky athlete that could cover insane ground) was possibly Kareem's peak, but I don't have the data to back this up at this point. I read enough arguments in this thread about Kareem's offense at least matching Shaq's, and I already had his defense a little better. Sometimes you get to a point when reading over data, where it's hard to measure the bias of: I watched a ton of one guy and liked what I saw and I've seen limited footage of the other guy and the numbers like him more. I have these seasons as super close but today the Kareem fans have won my heart and mind.

- Wow we all do not agree on Lebron's peak. It makes sense. He's a player whose strengths peaked at different times. While he was always a freak athlete with passing and shot-making, his other skills were in flux. When he was at his peak athleticism (2009) he was also at his worst as a shooter and post-up player. By the time he was a master at pick&roll and posting up (2018?), he'd lost a lot of his perimeter quicks, 2-footed jumping ability, and started to see his foul-drawing power start to slip. Late Cavs Lebron was an absolutely ridiculous shot maker in the playoffs. Against weaker opponents, it felt like he could just throw the ball up in the air whenever he felt at and it would go in the net. That game-winner against OG was one of the silliest game winner's I've ever seen: baseline floater going out of bounds after driving left, and it looked like he didn't even try to get a better shot! Anyways. Like I said in my first vote, I'm simply choosing Lebron's Miami peak. He might not have been quite the pick & roll, post-up or shotmaking wizard he became after this but his athleticism was still pretty peak, and I believe his complementary skills were at the highest in Spolestra's offense. Rim protection, C&S, quick rim dives into mini-post ups. It resulted in insane efficiency (64%ts), his last low turnover season (4.2 per 100) until this season where he stopped passing as much), career-high outside shooting (40%), and his last really good rim protection year.

[Colbinii]

1. 2013 Lebron
2. 1977 Kareem
3. 2000 Shaq

Is 2013 LeBron the only version you take over 1977 Kareem?

[cupcakesnake]

1. 2013 Lebron
2. 1977 Kareem
3. 2000 Shaq

Is 2013 LeBron the only version you take over 1977 Kareem?

right now on my list, I have 2012 Lebron (for the same reasons as 2013) above Kareem, but then have 3 Kareem seasons (77', 74', 71') above any other Lebron season (2017 would be the next Lebron one I have).

[Colbinii]

1. 2013 Lebron
2. 1977 Kareem
3. 2000 Shaq

Is 2013 LeBron the only version you take over 1977 Kareem?

right now on my list, I have 2012 Lebron (for the same reasons as 2013) above Kareem, but then have 3 Kareem seasons (77', 74', 71') above any other Lebron season (2017 would be the next Lebron one I have).

You should list 2012 LeBron as a 1b then incase it gets more votes than 2013 [It likely wouldn't]. Same if you have 74 and 71 Kareem above Shaq.

[cupcakesnake]

Is 2013 LeBron the only version you take over 1977 Kareem?

right now on my list, I have 2012 Lebron (for the same reasons as 2013) above Kareem, but then have 3 Kareem seasons (77', 74', 71') above any other Lebron season (2017 would be the next Lebron one I have).

You should list 2012 LeBron as a 1b then incase it gets more votes than 2013 [It likely wouldn't]. Same if you have 74 and 71 Kareem above Shaq.

ok edited. I don't have the other Kareem's above 2000 Shaq.

[Colbinii]

right now on my list, I have 2012 Lebron (for the same reasons as 2013) above Kareem, but then have 3 Kareem seasons (77', 74', 71') above any other Lebron season (2017 would be the next Lebron one I have).

You should list 2012 LeBron as a 1b then incase it gets more votes than 2013 [It likely wouldn't]. Same if you have 74 and 71 Kareem above Shaq.

ok edited. I don't have the other Kareem's above 2000 Shaq.

77 Hakeem vs 2000 Shaq appears to be the most discussed comparison in this thread. It is definitely the most debatable comparison in the top 4/5/6 [However they end up going].

[Lou Fan]

One last plea for people to give Russ some love here. I see the notion that the two way peak guys have to go here and Russ is a full tier below these other peaks. First off, this notion is fundamentally flawed as it doesn't matter what side of the ball your value comes on +7/-1 is the same as +3/+3 and it ignores that Russ is a clear positive on offense. First off, he was a phenomenal offensive rebounder giving him some built in off ball value, but his outlier athleticism also made him an Elite transition attacker which allowed him to be one of the only superstars who was able to successfully raise his volume AND his efficiency in the playoffs. He also was able to function as a high post hub and had a lot of value as a passer.

Of course his big value comes on the defensive side where his impact is an outlier among the outliers. You can see my previous post for more details on that but I just want to note that during Russ's peak (62-65) the Celtics had their worst supporting casts of the whole dynasty. Sharman and Cousy were done and Heinsohn was wearing down. The media narrative was that the celtics dynasty was clearly coming to an end and there would be no champions. This was also before Russ got reinforcements from the next wave of guys, chiefly Hondo who didn't become an all star until 1966. These teams with less help for Russ were the best teams of the entire dynasty. They were lapping the league 15 wins above the second best team on the back of Russ's massive impact. I can see the case for some centers here but he needs to be taken more seriously.

Most people seem to consider Russell having the better career but Wilt having the higher peak so I just can't see serious traction for Russell before Wilt makes it in. What might also hold him back a bit is not having a clear peak season. 1965 has the best combination of regular season and play-offs so it'll probably be my pick but 1964 with his peak defensive impact and 1962 with his best balance between offense and defense could end up being the chosen season for this list just as well.

Well I think most people are wrong haha. Wilt has better longevity so if he also has the better peak how is he worse for career? I also just don't think the case for Wilt is very good considering his very suspect offensive value and given the majority of his value is defensive comparing him to Russ there is a blowout. I agree it is hard to pinpoint a season. I think 62/65 might be my vote next time but I'll vote for any of those 3 over Wilt 67. I'm more open to hearing the cases for KAJ 71/77 and Hakeem 93/94 over Russ but I think Russ is just straight up better than Wilt.

[Dutchball97]

One last plea for people to give Russ some love here. I see the notion that the two way peak guys have to go here and Russ is a full tier below these other peaks. First off, this notion is fundamentally flawed as it doesn't matter what side of the ball your value comes on +7/-1 is the same as +3/+3 and it ignores that Russ is a clear positive on offense. First off, he was a phenomenal offensive rebounder giving him some built in off ball value, but his outlier athleticism also made him an Elite transition attacker which allowed him to be one of the only superstars who was able to successfully raise his volume AND his efficiency in the playoffs. He also was able to function as a high post hub and had a lot of value as a passer.

Of course his big value comes on the defensive side where his impact is an outlier among the outliers. You can see my previous post for more details on that but I just want to note that during Russ's peak (62-65) the Celtics had their worst supporting casts of the whole dynasty. Sharman and Cousy were done and Heinsohn was wearing down. The media narrative was that the celtics dynasty was clearly coming to an end and there would be no champions. This was also before Russ got reinforcements from the next wave of guys, chiefly Hondo who didn't become an all star until 1966. These teams with less help for Russ were the best teams of the entire dynasty. They were lapping the league 15 wins above the second best team on the back of Russ's massive impact. I can see the case for some centers here but he needs to be taken more seriously.

Most people seem to consider Russell having the better career but Wilt having the higher peak so I just can't see serious traction for Russell before Wilt makes it in. What might also hold him back a bit is not having a clear peak season. 1965 has the best combination of regular season and play-offs so it'll probably be my pick but 1964 with his peak defensive impact and 1962 with his best balance between offense and defense could end up being the chosen season for this list just as well.

Well I think most people are wrong haha. Wilt has better longevity so if he also has the better peak how is he worse for career? I also just don't think the case for Wilt is very good considering his very suspect offensive value and given the majority of his value is defensive comparing him to Russ there is a blowout. I agree it is hard to pinpoint a season. I think 62/65 might be my vote next time but I'll vote for any of those 3 over Wilt 67. I'm more open to hearing the cases for KAJ 71/77 and Hakeem 93/94 over Russ but I think Russ is just straight up better than Wilt.

The argument for Russell is that he was more consistent across his career. I think Russell was better for msot of his career than Warriors Wilt and Lakers Wilt but think Wilt peaked the highest of both in his time with the 76ers. So it's possible for Wilt to have the best season and better longevity and still provide less value over all his seasons than Russell.

[Colbinii]

1) LeBron James (2016)
B) LeBron James (2017)
C) LeBron James (2013)
D) LeBron James (2012)
2) Tim Duncan (2003)
3) Wilt Chamberlain (1967)


#1 LeBron James

Spoiler:

I have LeBron James at #1 as I believe he reached a level in the post-season no other player has reached. He was impacting more possessions (Offense and Defense combined) in games no other player in NBA history could have impacted and did so for multiple games per series.

This is my quote from Odinn's Top 12 seasons of Player X and Y thread, which I still standby to this day.

The first tier are the 4 seasons where these players had the combination of physical imprint combined with a clear understanding of the system and could bring their games to levels, when needed, that no other perimeter players in NBA history have achieved. I value Lebron's offensive heliocentrism here and his team defense more in a vacuum than Jordan's scoring and turnover economy with his risk-defined style on the defensive end.

Focusing more on Jordan and LeBron versus the rest of the perimeter players, I am not seriously considering another perimeter player until #10, which shows just how incredible Jordan and LeBron were as two-way players, high volume scorers and offensive savant's in offensive systems they understood inside-and-out.

Jumping into some statistics maybe not covered in the 10-series novel posted earlier in this thread (which I haven't read in-full yet)...

LeBron James vs Detroit: 4 Games, 22.8/9.0/6.8, 1.8 steals, 21.1 3P%, 3.3 TO

Essentially a mediocre to below average prime LeBron series by the box-score, but the most important part of every player at this stage in the Top Peaks (and really all 40 of the top peaks) is how much impact a player has beyond the box-score. Kyrie Irving, for example, had a spectacularly efficient series: 27.5 Points, 6.5 TOV%, 58.5 TS%. The point emphasis and focus though should be this: The Cavaliers played at a net +16.8 Points/100 with James on the court and +3.0 Points/100 with Kyrie on the court. The Cavaliers offense exceeded 120 Ortg with James on the court, a level reserved for the GOAT offensive players.

LeBron James vs Atlanta: 24.3/8.5/7.8, 3.0 steals, 4.25 TO, 57.3 TS%

Box-Score looks a bit better, but let's back up. Atlanta is a 101.4 Defense Rating (2nd in NBA) and 3.49 SRS team. This team is significantly better than either opponent Jordan faced in round 1 or 2 in 1991. The Hawks are coming off a series played in 2016 holding their opponents to a 94.5 Ortg. That's incredible, and the team was Boston who was respectable (2.83 SRS, 8th in NBA, 10th rated Offense and 4th Rated Defense).

Now, look at what LeBron and the Cavaliers did to dismantle this defense--the 2nd best in the league and one looking like an all-time great defense through the regular season and 1st round of the playoffs...The Cavaliers played at a net +19,1 Points/100 with James on the court and +18.4 Points/100 with Kyrie on the court and +23.3 with Kevin Love. If anyone think LeBron is difficult to play with or diminishing his teammates efficiency...
LeBron James On-Court Ortg: 122.2
Kevin Love On-Court Ortg: 123.7
Kyrie Irving On-Court Ortg: 124.6

These numbers are against a 101.4 Rated Defense, that's producing an offense over +20 points per 100 better than what this defense gave up in the regular season and nearly +30 points per 100 better than what they gave up against the 10th best offense in round 1 over 6 games.

Next-up, LeBronto--the team that wins the championship in its first year after LeBron leaves the conference.

LeBron James vs Toronto: 26.0/8.5/6.7, 2.0 steals, 66.5 TS%

There is the ultra-efficient LeBron scoring series but perhaps not even the best part of the series from LeBron. While he posted an all-time great scoring series, and led the Cavaliers to a 121.3 Ortg when on the court resulting in a +19.2 Net Rating per 100 when on the court, it was his defense against the 5th best offense which leaves me the most impressed. The Cavaliers best defenders by on-court rating were point-of-attack defenders (We saw this in 2020 with Caruso as well where LeBron and a POA defender were all-time great levels defensively) and this is something when combined with LeBron James makes his defense unfair. LeBron is so cerebral and intelligent defensively, having someone be able to disrupt and force the offense into making a decision on your clock is playing right into the hands of a defense and IQ Savant like James. This skill is also something which made Jordan so amazing at getting steals and being disruptive when his Point-of-attack point guards like Armstrong and Harper where running around hounding the ball.

NBA Finals--It has been talked about extensively. Best Finals ever and best 3-game stretch in NBA History and not just because LeBron was hot shooting.

#2 Tim Duncan
I voted him #1 in the last peaks project. Simply able to appreciate Jordan and LeBron as defenders a bit more as well as their volume/resiliency as scorers carrying more weight for me than it has in the past. I like Duncan the best as a two-way guy out of all the big-men which makes him #3 overall [and #2 for my remaining peaks].

Most of this is copy-paste from the previous peaks project and this first part is simply me explaining how 2002 and 2003 were similar and the differences between the two seasons.

This season starts as a follow-up to what many believe as Tim Duncan’s “real peak”, circa 2002. Duncan came off a productive regular season in 2002 and a great playoff run which resulted in an unfortunate [for non-Laker fans] end in only the Western Conference Semi-Finals where Duncan showed why he was worthy of the MVP trophy by outplaying the dynamic duo of Shaq and Kobe. While Duncan and the Spurs lost in 5 games to the eventual NBA-Champions, the ever-silent Tim Duncan put on a showcase while missing his career-long running mate David Robinson to injuries while his second option Tony Parker experienced major growing pains as a 19-year old Rookie. Duncan showcased an ability in 2002 to carry an offensive load many doubted while still being the best defender in the league.

2003 Featured a new strategy for Popovich, Duncan and the rest of the San Antonio Spurs. After David Robinson’s body ended 2002 on the pavement the Spurs decided to rest Robinson during the season [78 GP in 2002, 64 in 2003] while actively grooming Tony Parker and featuring him more offensively as he buds into an NBA-level Point Guard. Knowing the aforementioned changes, the Spurs decided to “run it back” with a similar roster while bolstering the bench with the addition of Steve Kerr to add much needed spacing and a veteran presence; an aspect Antonio Daniels failed to deliver on in 2002. Ultimately this deal doesn’t show up in the box-score as Kerr was a DNP for a majority of the playoffs [averaging a mere 4.6 MPG in 10 games] while young players like Tony Parker (20), Manu Ginobili (25) and Stephen Jackson (24) took on larger roles on both ends of the court.

Spoiler:

Statistical Comparison

RS Per Game: 23.3 Points, 12.9 TRB, 3.2 ORB, 3.9 AST, 0.7 STL, 2.9 BLK, 3.1 TOV
PS Per Game: 24.7 Points, 15.4 TRB, 4.0 ORB, 5.3 AST, 0.6 STL, 3.3 BLK, 3.2 TOV
RS Per 100: 31.6 Points, 17.5 TRB, 4.3 ORB, 5.3 AST, 1.4 STL, 4.0 BLK, 4.2 TOV
PS Per 100: 30.6 Points, 19.1 TRB, 5.0 ORB, 6.6 AST, 0.8 STL, 4.1 BLK, 3.9 TOV
RS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 112/94; +18
PS Individual Ortg/Drtg: 116/92; +24
RS Advanced: 26.9 PER, 56.4 TS% [+4.5 Rel League Avg], 45.5% FTR, 19.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 28.0 USG%, 16.5 WS [.248 WS/48], 7.4 BPM, 7.6 VORP
PS Advanced: 28.4 PER, 57.7 TS% [+5.8 Rel League Avg], 56.3% FTR, 25.5 AST%, 12.9 TOV%, 26.4 USG%, 5.9 WS [.279 WS/48], 11.6 BPM, 3.5 VORP
RS On/Off (Offense then Defense): 107.9/97.5 +9.7; 98.1/103.2 -5.1; Net: +9.1 On Court, +14.8 On/Off
PS On/Off (Sample too Small): 105.3/90.0 +15.3; 96.2/104.0 -7.8; Net: +9.1 On Court, +23.1 On/Off

When doing a side-by-side comparison it is quite evident [and clear] that Duncan performed even greater in the post-season than he did during his MVP-level Regular Season. This alone should be a tell-tale sign that Duncan performed at his highest level against the highest level of competition. Duncan’s ability to be an elite playmaker from the post in combination with his elite rim protection has never been duplicated since the merger. Only 4 other times has a player averaged 5+ Assists and 3+ Blocks in a series: 1977 Walton and 2002 Tim Duncan and then two other times in 3 game series from Chris Webber and Bob Lanier. Duncan’s gigantic scoring advantage over Walton [24.7 PPG on +5.8 TS% vs 18.2 PPG on +1.6 TS%] makes Duncan’s run one of the most statistically unique Playoff Runs in NBA History.

Looking back at the 2003 season as a whole the league was in a slow, grindy and defensive era. With League Average Offensive Rating at 103.6, True Shooting Percentage at 51.9% and Pace at 91 Possessions/Game the game was at it’s apex for defense [Post-Merger] while yet to adapt to the space provided by the 3-point line. This resulted in the post being cluttered offensively and big men to have a great impact on the defensive end.

The Spurs figured out how to capitalize on the Slow and defensive minded era; Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan was utilized in a way to generate 3 point shots and specifically the corner 3. The Spurs led the league in Percentage of Corner 3’s taken with 40% of their 3 point shots being corner 3’s. This was in large part due to the driving ability of a young Tony Parker [still 20 years old] and the gravity which Duncan encompassed offensively. The second most important part of the Spurs offense was the ability to generate lay-ups; again generated by the ability of Duncan’s passing from the high-post, low-block and free-throw area.

The Spurs offense in the post-season, with the catalyst Tim Duncan, was able to play the type of game [Spurs Ball] in all of the series they played in. The Pace in their 4 series were 90.8, 90.4, 92.6 and 87.8 [FWIW the Spurs Pace for the season was exactly 90.0, the average of the 4 series being 90.4]. This was in large part because of Tim Duncan’s ability to control the game as a PF/C; a rarity in the history of the NBA.

When the Spurs were unable to play at the exact pace they wanted they were able to adapt and outplay their opponents at what they did best; specifically the Nets and Mavericks. As you may know, the 2003 Mavericks and 2003 Nets were each the best in the league at one aspect of the game. The Mavericks were the best offense in the NBA while the Nets were the best Defense in the NBA. Ultimately both teams were dismantled by the Spurs by their own game.

Mavericks: 110.7 Ortg played at their pace [92.5 RS, 92.4 PS] and outscored by 30 points over the 6 game series. The Mavericks were held to a 104.0 Offense [-6.7] while the Spurs nearly matched Dallas’ season Offensive Rating in 109.4.

Nets: 98.1 Drtg played at the Spurs pace [91.6 RS, 87.8 PS] which took away the ability to run with Jason Kidd, one of the most dynamic playmakers in the open-court in NBA History. The Nets were unable to stop the Spurs as the Spurs eclipsed the 98.1 Drtg the Nets had in the regular season [Spurs put up 100.0 Ortg] but the slower pace affected the Nets greatly, posting a mere 93.3 Ortg in the lopsided; 6 game series.

NBA Finals Deep-Dive:

While the Spurs and Nets faced off in the 2003 Finals the biggest match-ups were Parker/Kidd and Collins/Duncan. The Nets were going to win if Collins could help keep Duncan in check [Collins is an all-time great post-defender] or if Kidd could run up-and-down the floor. While I highlighted earlier in my post about the Spurs [and Duncan’s] ability to slow down the Nets by eliminating transition opportunities, one often major aspect to the series was Collins inability to stay out of foul trouble while guarding Tim Duncan [and Kenyon Martin].

Kenyon Martin fell into Foul Trouble in Games 1, 2, 4, 5 while Collins fouled out in Game 3 and was routinely in foul trouble throughout the series. This was, in large part, due to Duncan’s post-presence [averaging 9 FTA/G and a 49.5% FTR].

FWIW, Jason Collins was absolutely dominant in the post-season as a defender. In his 529 minutes on the court the Nets posted a 92.2 Defensive Rating [Absurd] but in his 446 minutes on the bench the Nets were a measly 106.1 [A difference of 13.1 Points per 100]. I understand it is a small sample size, but the fact remains that Jason Collins was a key part for a Nets victory in 2003 and Duncan single handedly took him out of the game [as well as Kenyon Martin].

Individual Offensive/Defensive Ratings: I know many people love these, I have been more interested in these statistics lately [in part because of E-Balla calling me out on not understanding them fully] and re-analyzing them with-in the statistical landscape and scope. They often line-up with my personal eye-test [though I do wear glasses] and they happen to capture a good part of the game.

Duncans in the 2003 NBA Finals: 109 Ortg/83 Drtg [Net + 26]
Jordan 1991: 125/102 [Net +23]
James 2012: 117/109 [Net +8]
Shaq 01: 115/101 [Net +14]

Scoring: Duncan was able to score 27.5% of his teams points in the post-season.
Jordan 1991: 30.8%
LeBron 2012: 28.0%
Shaq 01: 32.8%

#3 Wilt Chamberlain
I will go into this further in the next thread(s) but I think this is the year he put it all together, dialed back some of the volume scoring and had his largest impact on the game of basketball. Interesting to think he could have had the highest peak from 1967-1991.

[DraymondGold]

1. 2013 LeBron James
(1b. 2016 LeBron James, 2012 LeBron James)
2. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain
3. 2017 Steph Curry
(3b. 2016 Steph Curry. HM: 1977 Kareem, 2000 Shaq).

The Case for 2016 Lebron James. Here's what I wrote comparing LBJ to MJ:

Let's consider impact stats. I'm using the closest years I can find for Jordan, and showing their rank among the top ~20 peaks of all time in parentheses (only 1 year per player).
Ai. Regular Season Augmented Plus Minus per game: +6.6 2013 LeBron (4th all time) > +6.5 1991-1993/1996 Jordan (5th all time). [+7.8 2009 LeBron (would be 1st all time), +5.7 2016 LeBron (would be 7th all time)]
Aii. Postseason Augmented Plus Minus per game: +6.1 1997 Jordan (4th all time) > +5.8 2013 LeBron (6th all time)
[+6.9 2012 LeBron (would be 3rd all time), +8.7 2009 LeBron (would be 1st all time), +7.3 2016 Lebron (would be 3rd all time)].
Bi. Regular Season Backpicks Box Plus Minus: +9 1991 Jordan (1st all time) > +8.8 2013 LeBron (3rd all time) [+8.5 2009 LeBron (would be 5th all time), +6 2016 LeBron (not top 20)]
Bii. Postseason Season Backpicks Box Plus Minus: +12.1 1991 Jordan (1st all time) > +8.3 2013 LeBron (8th all time) [+12 2009 LeBron (would be 2nd all time), +9.5 2016 LeBron (would be 2nd all time)]
C. Goldstein RAPM / Historical RAPM: +6.82 1991 Jordan (12th al time) > +6.4 2013 LeBron (13th all time) [+7.47 1988 Jordan (would be 7th all time), +9.5 2012 LeBron (would be 2nd all time), +8.84 2009 LeBron (would be 3rd all time), +8.62 2016 LeBron (would be 3rd all time)]
D. Backpicks Championship Over Replacement Player percentage: 31.1% 1991 Jordan (1st all time) > 28.7% 2013 LeBron (3rd all time) [31.2% 1989 Jordan (would be 1st all time), 31.1% 1990 Jordan (would be 1st all time), 27.1% 2009 LeBron (would be 3rd all time), 26.5% 2016 LeBron (4th all time)]
...
Of course, you could take another year for LeBron. 2016 LeBron performs worse in regular season AuPM, better in postseason AuPM, much worse in regular season BPM, better in postseason BPM, better in RAPM (though worse vs 2012's RAPM), and worse in CORP%. If we were to combine the better qualities of LeBron's various peaks (e.g. 2013's regular season motor and defense with 2016's postseason performance), it would absolutely beat 1991 Jordan. But... that's not what happened.

Choosing the year is hard for LeBron. I've been going back and forth between 2013 (/2012) and 2016. As I've said before, I don't like the lack of resilience/versatility/portability of 2009, and I dislike the lack of defensive motor for 2017 and 2018.

Does this data support Lebron as the next best peak in one of his years? I think so. I think the full set of LeBron's performances in these metrics, in either year, tops the rest of the competition over Wilt, Curry, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem (who I think are the major competition).

But which year do we go for LeBron? Last time I said 2013. Going more in depth in my expanded set of metrics [The main plus minus ones are: Ai. Regular Season AuPM, Aii. Postseason AuPM, Bi. Goldstein RAPM, Bii. Goldstein 3 year postseason PIPM. Additional plus minus ones are C. on/off, D. WOWY, E. ESPN's RPM, F. Backpicks' CORP evaluations. The main box-score ones are Gi. Backpicks BPM, Gii. Backpicks Postseason BPM. Additional box score ones are Hi. BR's BPM, Hii. BR's Postseason BPM, Ii. WS/48, Iii. Postseason WS/48], 2013 LBJ beats 2016 LBJ in 7 metrics to 6 (with one tie). 2016 LBJ comes out in 3/4 of the postseason. If we add 2012 LeBron, the younger rLBJ comes out in 8 to 5 (2012's ahead in Goldstein RAPM, though 2012 and 2016 RAPM are tied in Engelmen's RAPM). Combining 2012/2013 LeBron also closes the gap in some of the postseason metrics. However, none of the postseason metrics change, and 2017 LeBron helps extend the older LeBron's lead in other metrics.

I still think 2016 LeBron is more resilient and performed better in the playoffs, and the data supports this, though the gap is smaller with 2012. Specifically, I think his general game control and playmaking improved, while his defensive performance in 2016 is also up there with the younger one.

A few things have changed since thread one:
First, my impression of the scalability gap has narrowed after reviewing Thinking Basketball's analysis.
Second, while I still hold that 2016 LeBron was worse in the regular season (this is supported by the wholistic metrics, though not universally), and while I think this is due to declining athleticism (specifically motor), the posts by MyUniBroDavis and homecourtloss have convinced me that 2016 LeBron was actually coasting more on offense than defense. His defensive performance in the 2016 regular season was surprisingly effective -- it was his offense that declined statistically. This pattern flipped in the 2017 and 2018 regular season, which I think clouded my initial review of 2016 LeBron. If I were critical of 2016's regular season offense, I would say he was coasting; if I were more positive, I would say his streaky shooting happened to get cold compared to 2013.

Going by my contextual factors: 1. Scalability (close), 2. Resilience (2016), 3. Health (close), 4. Defensive weighting (close), 5. Team Fit (2013 benefited less), 6. Time machine (close).

Honestly, I could go either way on this. Reviewing the other posts has made me reconsider 2016 as closer to 2013 than I originally thought. The 8-5 metric advantage points to 2013 , though the 3-4 postseason metric points to 2016. Ultimately, I think overall metric metric advantage of 2013, and the fact that 2012 really helps close the playoff gap, makes me side with younger LeBron. But who knows, I might have ended up going the other way with a few more days to consider it.


***

For my second choice, I'm going Wilt. Per my post in thread 1:

Wilt vs Curry: This is much harder comparison, given our lack of data. Backpicks Box Plus Minus is mixed: 1967 Wilt beats 2017 Curry in the regular season, though he loses in the playoffs (and loses to 2016 healthy Curry). There's a similar pattern with CORP: 1967 Wilt beats 2017 Curry, though he loses to healthy 2016 Curry. For what it's worth, WS/48 and and WOWY favor Wilt. We now get to the same questions Curry faced with Shaq:
1. Health risks (which favor Wilt > Curry)
2. measuring defense with limited data (the data is certainly sparser and noisier in the 60s, but there's no doubt Wilt > Curry on defense)
3. resilience (both were seen by media as playoff strugglers. Wilt suffered from GOAT-level defensive opponents, while Curry suffered from health. With favorable context, I see them equally resilient)
4. Fit (both had favorable fit in their peak year)
5. Time machine argument (the 60s certainly favor Wilt over Curry. In future eras, Wilt gains value with data / coaching / strategy / medicine, while losing value with the 3 point line and increased perimeter focus).
Certainly, 1967 Wilt has greater uncertainty vs 2017 Curry. But it seems to me like he's slightly favored in the data, and remains favored when we consider the 5 contextual factors. Phew, I was worried everyone would see me as a biased Curry fan! [u]1967 Wilt > 2017 Curry.

I may be re-examining Wilt vs Kareem / Curry / Shaq in the next thread though.

For my third choice, I'm going Curry. Per my post earlier in this thread:

With that said, here's The Statistical Case for 2017 Curry over 2000 Shaq:
Plus minus data
Ai. AuPM: 2017 Curry > 2000 Shaq (and healthy 2016 Curry (2nd all time) >> 2000 Shaq )
Aii. Postseason AuPM: 2017 Curry (2nd all time) >> 2000 Shaq (4th all time)
Bi. Goldstein RAPM: 2000 Shaq (5th all time) > 2017 Curry
Bii. Goldstein Playoff PIPM (3 years for sample size): 2017 Curry (8th all time) > 2000 Shaq
Additional plus minus stats: C. on/off: 2017 Curry > 2000 Shaq
Additional plus minus stats: D. WOWY: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry
Additional plus minus stats: E. ESPN’s RPM: 2017 Curry (7th all time) > 2000 Shaq (and healthy 2016 Curry is 2nd all time)
Additional plus minus stats: F. Backpicks’ CORP evaluation: 2000 Shaq (2nd all time) > 2017 Curry (though healthy 2016 Steph Curry is 4th all time)


Box score-based data
Gi. Backpicks BPM: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry (2nd all time) > 2000 Shaq)
Gii. Postseason Backpicks BPM: 2017 Curry (4th all time) >> 2000 Shaq
Hi. BR’s BPM: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry (4th all time) > 2000 Shaq)
Hii. BR’s Postseason BPM: 2017 Curve > 2000 Shaq
Additional box score stats: Ii. WS/48: 2000 Shaq > 2017 Curry (but healthy 2016 Curry (5th all time) > 2000 Shaq)
Additional box score stats: Iii. Postseason WS/48: 2017 Curry > Shaq

In short, 2017 Curry beats 2000 Shaq in 8/14 of these total stats and in 5/5 of the playoff-specific stats. If we add healthy 2016 Curry to the mix, Curry beats Shaq in 11/14 stats. Adding 2001 Shaq to the mix does not help Shaq. The only 3 stats where Shaq beats Curry are Goldstein's regular season RAPM (but not PIPM), WOWY (which is a particularly noisy stat in smaller samples), CORP (which is Ben Taylor's personal evaluation).

Put simply, I’m not sure the data supports having peak Shaq clearly over peak Curry. However, there are possible contextual factors worth considering:
1. Scalability. If you value ceiling raising over floor raising, this supports 2017 Curry > 2000 Shaq.
2. Resilience. Shaq may have the advantage here over the course of his prime, but the data universally shows 2017 Curry as the better playoff performer over 2000 Shaq. Further studies have shown Curry does not play statistically worse in the playoffs when he’s healthy (which he is in 2017). Again, according to the data: Playoff 2017 Curry > Playoff 2000 Shaq. (though for overall primes, Shaq > Curry in resilience largely due to health). Speaking of health...
3. Health. Both Shaq and Curry are injury risks. Although Shaq is healthier in his prime, injuries are not a factor in their peak years.
4. Defense. Shaq is the better defender in a vacuum, but I’m not sure he’s that much better relative to position, and the data suggests the defensive advantage is not enough to put peak Shaq over peak Curry.
5. Fit. Both had favorable team circumstances, though in my estimation 2017 Curry had a more favorable fit than 2000 Shaq. Here's a point for Shaq!
6. Time machine. Hard to know for sure. People say Curry would suffer if forced to shoot less 3s in the past; on the other hand, if he found a coach that did let him shoot 3s in volume, his relative offensive advantage would be even greater. People say Shaq would be more valuable offensively playing bully-ball against smaller lineups today; on the other hand, higher pace (with Shaq’s poorer conditioning), stricter big man offensive fouling calls, and a massive increase in the importance of perimeter and pick and roll defense would decrease Shaq’s value.

I would certainly still consider arguments for Shaq. Perhaps there are statistics that I'm missing, or perhaps there's a 7th contextual factor that I'm missing, or perhaps one of the 6 contextual factors I discussed is compelling enough to help Shaq overcome the statistical advantage.... But I'm not sure that's true. Ultimately, I won't have 2017 Curry first on my ballot for the 2nd greatest peak of all time, but I think he has a serious case for top 5 over some of the other GOAT big men (hopefully I'll have the time to statistically compare Curry vs other big men later ). I'd love to hear people's thoughts!

I also did a statistical comparison on Curry vs Magic (who I have lower than Shaq) and Nash, and Curry clearly came out on top in those.

For my honorable mentions, I'm starting to teeter between Shaq and Kareem. I might go Kareem next (pending more discussion/review). In an ideal world, it would be nice to do a longer statistical comparison between Curry and Kareem, but I haven't had time yet. Hopefully next round!

[70sFan]

LeBron likely will win this round, but it's nice to see so many players already getting votes. After LeBron gets in, I can't wait to engage in more debates about bigs here.

[Dr Positivity]

1. 2012 Lebron (b. 2013 c. 2016)
2. 2000 Shaq (b. 2001 c. 2002)
3. 1977 Kareem (b. 1974 c. 1980)

Lebron is the best on offense of these three based on his all time great perimeter player role, while still being good on defense. Kareem is probably the best on defense of the three. After last thread I will switch to 12 Lebron due to having a great playoffs, and I still like Miami version more than Cleveland, when his physical tools and skills best overlapped.

I have decided that Shaq and Kareem is close enough that playing 23 years later is enough to make the difference. I really value the difference between generational players and everyone else, but Shaq is unique in that he could have possibly been a Lebron/Jordan/Kareem if he was in great shape his whole career. Likewise I consider the game to have developed quite a bit in between 00 and 12 although it's not the only reason I've voting for Lebron ahead of him who is essentially a perfect basketball player. Lebron's leadership is also better than Shaq to me.

[Doctor MJ]

Somethingh i wanna start asking is how gap do we think the gap between bill russel defense and hakeem or wilt or duncan defense is?

Like we have limited data of russel era, very limited, but on a pure "team results" level he is a outlier among outliers in his end of the court

Nobody led a defensive dinasty that was comparable for its era nobody led a offensive dinasty that was comparable either

Based on that i tempatively think he is the highest "one way" (players great in one end, neutral ish in tge other) although i am not too knowledgeable on his supporting casts defensive talent

Do you guys think there is an aegument that the defensive gap between russel and wilt/hakeem/duncan is biggee than the offensive gap?

I think that when it comes to being the defensive anchor, rather than just being your interior shotblocker, Russell basically defines the optimal frame for a defender. By this I mean, you need someone with not just the reach to impact as much space as possible, but the agility to get out and get back (along with the wisdom to decide how to take risks).

I don't believe Wilt or Duncan have the bodies to seriously match this level of defense.

I think Hakeem was basically the first guy to come along after Russell who could be said to be like this. I also think that Hakeem was a sponge learning a ton over the course of his career, but Russell was a defensive scientist who first came into his own as a teenager playing defense in his head against every player he witnessed, so, I don't think Hakeem was as strong a defender as Russell was peak vs peak, prime vs prime, or career vs career.

Where Hakeem has the serious debate on Russell here of course is offense, where his fine motor coordination was well ahead of Russell's.

Re: Wilt, my inclination is to give '67 Wilt the edge, and then give Russell most years beyond that. I think the gap between them defensively is significant, but not so big it can't be matched with Wilt's offense really working seamlessly with the rest of his team. '64 & '72 have a case there, but in '67 was the golden year.

Re: Duncan. I'm not sure if I have Duncan's peak ahead of Russell's. A lot of people are very impressed by Duncan's '03 run, and I'm not saying it wasn't exceptional, but this is a place where I'm more skeptical about how impressive we should see his offense, knowing in retrospect that the only reason a team wins a chip with an offense like that is if teams aren't using smarter tactics.

A similar thing can be argued about many historical players, and trust me when I say I have similar concerns about them. It's up to each voter though to decide a) whether they believe this, and b) how much it should matter.

[Doctor MJ]

Somethingh i wanna start asking is how gap do we think the gap between bill russel defense and hakeem or wilt or duncan defense is?

Not only Russell, I think Thurmond is easily clear of them too. Probably the same with fully engaged Wilt.

ftr, while I think Thurmond is probably the GOAT big-man man defender in history, but that's never what's made big men the most valuable defenders in the game, and this is all the more true when you're not actually facing a team that's trying to run its offense through an interior scorer...which is what's been the case for most of the great offenses in history.

None of this is to say that Thurmond isn't also a help defender, but it wasn't his signature the way it was for Russell, who as player-coach would literally assign another man to guard Wilt so that he could focus on help defense.

[Colbinii]

1. 2012 Lebron
2. 2000 Shaq
3. 1977 Kareem

Lebron is the best on offense of these three based on his all time great perimeter player role, while still being good on defense. Kareem is probably the best on defense of the three. After last thread I will switch to 12 Lebron due to having a great playoffs, and I still like Miami version more than Cleveland, when his physical tools and skills best overlapped.

I have decided that Shaq and Kareem is close enough that playing 23 years later is enough to make the difference. I really value the difference between generational players and everyone else, but Shaq is unique in that he could have possibly been a Lebron/Jordan/Kareem if he was in great shape his whole career. Likewise I consider the game to have developed quite a bit in between 00 and 12 although it's not the only reason I've voting for Lebron ahead of him who is essentially a perfect basketball player. Lebron's leadership is also better than Shaq to me.

Do you have other versions of LeBron at the top? If so you should list them.

[Dr Positivity]

1. 2012 Lebron
2. 2000 Shaq
3. 1977 Kareem

Lebron is the best on offense of these three based on his all time great perimeter player role, while still being good on defense. Kareem is probably the best on defense of the three. After last thread I will switch to 12 Lebron due to having a great playoffs, and I still like Miami version more than Cleveland, when his physical tools and skills best overlapped.

I have decided that Shaq and Kareem is close enough that playing 23 years later is enough to make the difference. I really value the difference between generational players and everyone else, but Shaq is unique in that he could have possibly been a Lebron/Jordan/Kareem if he was in great shape his whole career. Likewise I consider the game to have developed quite a bit in between 00 and 12 although it's not the only reason I've voting for Lebron ahead of him who is essentially a perfect basketball player. Lebron's leadership is also better than Shaq to me.

Do you have other versions of LeBron at the top? If so you should list them.

Thanks, I fixed it

[Doctor MJ]

Some questions to ponder at this stage

Magic vs curry for "one way" offensive peaks: neither 87 magic nor 17 curry (temptative choices for both peaks) are particularly good on defense, both led a all time offense but magic arguably did it with less overall talent

For people bringing curry in their top 3 or top 5? What makes him better than magic?

And perhaps more hot take.....is he necesarilly better than peak nash? Or at least better enough by such a gap that would justify a big gap vetween both? Nash actually had the better offensive results by a small but clear margin

Is the defebsive gap between peak nash and 17 curry that big?

More great questions.

First thing I feel compelled to keep bringing up:

This notion of Curry being "one way" should be put out to pasture. Fundamentally, when you're in a league that hunts the weakest individual defender on the floor, and playoff teams aren't able to get anywhere efficient when they do so, that's you playing quality man defense.

When you add to that leading the team in steals without there being evidence of major gambling damage, and active communication on a team that has taken defensive culture and improvisational communication toward the younger players further than probably any other team in history, this is a significantly valuable defensive player we're talking about.

People have this tendency to want to treat defense as if there's a meaningful pecking order analogous to offense where the #5 offensive guy in the lineup is by definition someone who is relegated away from the action, but it just doesn't work that way. Offenses dictate which defenders get involved, and so if you're someone the offense forces to be "high defensive primacy", and the defense works, you're contributing critical winning defense.

Re: why better than Magic? Highly debatable certainly, but let me start off with something I think is pretty definitive:

Magic's best teams would have no prayer at beating any of the healthy Kerr Warrior teams if only because they weren't taking as many 3's. For Magic to lead teams that were conceivably better than these Warriors, he'd need to have teammates hitting rainmakers like crazy.

While it's perfectly reasonable to say "Sure, and I think you could build a team like that no problem with today's talent", when you do that, you're having to begin your analysis by asking how a Magic team could be adapted to try to match and surpass the state of the art...which is a team built around Curry.

Hopefully it makes sense that if Curry's the modern standard, it gives him something of an inside edge in comparisons that do this.

I want to be clear though: While I "take a stand" whenever I participate in these projects, I find any kind of cross-era comparison to be fraught with uncertainty, and I'm never really sure who should take the cake.

Re: Nash. Love to see him brought up. In some ways Nash is part of a larger conversation that includes Magic:

Are we really sure that the best offensive anchor isn't a great floor general? And no, I'm not sure, but do I think Curry was able to prove more than Nash in his playoff runs? Yes I do. With Nash, there are still questions - questions that should have gotten answers, but they didn't because NBA ownership/management ignorance of which, ironically, Steve Kerr was a part.

Re: Nash had better offensive results. This is a plausible conclusion, but keep in mind when you say this in a peak conversation, you're talking about relative results in a league that has been rapidly improving in the time in between the two players. While Nash would be a better decision maker than pretty much any player in any era - Curry most definitely included - defenses would be smarter today, and that would eat in to the advantage we'd expect Nash to have.

[Doctor MJ]

Some questions to ponder at this stage

Magic vs curry for "one way" offensive peaks: neither 87 magic nor 17 curry (temptative choices for both peaks) are particularly good on defense, both led a all time offense but magic arguably did it with less overall talent

For people bringing curry in their top 3 or top 5? What makes him better than magic?

And perhaps more hot take.....is he necesarilly better than peak nash? Nash also led a historical offense (multiple times) with no more offensive talent (arguably less) although his defense may be worse than curry?

I used to be pretty low on Curry's 2017 regular season but it's actually his best season by quite a margin by PI RAPM so combined with a very strong play-off run it's definitely a competitive peak. I think 87 Magic has slight edges in both the regular season and the play-offs but I'll probably have them really close.

One thing I'll note: Curry's '16-17 PI RAPM is going to benefit from having '15-16 as its prior.

I'm still using '16-17 as the year I'm choosing because I think he was simply playing better in the playoffs while otherwise being above reproach, but that '15-16 regular season was something else.

[Doctor MJ]

.

I want some of the people saying they think Curry was injured as an explanation for his bad performance to explain how it took him 39 days to recover from a grade 1 knee sprain and to find me an example of literally any other player that needed over a month to recover from a 2 week injury.

I missed this before so I'll do my best here:

I don't like saying "well he was just injured" to brush away Curry's '15-16 performance. I also don't like people trying to define a player's "true exposed nature" from his first moment, and I think people have been doing this with Curry ever since that 2016 finals, but none of this changes the fact that Curry didn't play great in that series.

If you're asking me to explain what was actually going on, here's what I'll say:

I think Curry is someone who needs to get into a groove in order to be at his best. He's not alone in this - I think LeBron clearly has analogous issues and was NOT in his groove until Game 5 of that series - but it's a particularly big thing with Curry.

Why?

1. Because shooters are like this more than most players.
2. Because Curry's having to decide what a "reasonable shot" is in a way that no one else has before...because what is an unreasonable shot for most may still be reasonable for him.
3. Additionally, because Curry plays in a motion offense where him getting the ball doesn't mean "Alright, iso time!", it's all the more potentially problematic if he just decides to chuck, because it can easily ruin the groove the rest of his team has.

You add all of that to a team with injuries going up against a very smart defensive gameplan from Ty Lue, and you get a situation where where Curry's team only wins 3 out of 7 games that one time.

All of that is a solid reason to have '15-16 LeBron ahead of '15-16 Curry - as I do - as well as to name LeBron ahead of Curry in a project like this - as I also do, but I think it's a bit much for anyone to put Curry way lower on the basis that if LeBron's team can win 4 of 7 once, others will be able to do it on the regular.

[Doctor MJ]

Curry: how does he rank in comparision to magic and russel, other "1-way" peaks that arguably had more inpressive results in that end that curry warriors

Great questions in general, I'll respond to this one since Curry is the one I put on my first ballot leaving aside Magic and the 1-way thing, which I've addressed elsewhere, which means focusing on Curry vs Russell:

I have legit angst about how I rank Russell at this point due to the fact that while I think he was still the best defender we ever saw, he couldn't have the same value today precisely because of the change that Curry is the avatar of.

So then, if I feel a compulsion to ask how each of these players would do in the era of the man they are being compared with, where does that leave Russell?

It's frankly an open question. I'll be making these calls as I go, and I'm not sure where Russell will land...this despite the fact that I think I have more respect for Russell as an athlete than possibly any athlete in history.

But would I draft Russell ahead of Curry today? No, can't claim I would.