RealGM

I pick MJ/Shaq. But to be honest both duos have a great chance of breaking up prematurely.

Jordan & Shaq are arguably the 2 most dominant players ever at their peaks, Kobe is simply not on that level. I'd honestly rather pair Hakeem or Curry with LeBron than Kobe.

Stan wrote:Jordan & Shaq are arguably the 2 most dominant players ever at their peaks, Kobe is simply not on that level. I'd honestly rather pair Hakeem or Curry with LeBron than Kobe.

LeBron and Kobe have a huge longevity edge though.

LeBron and Kobe would be title favorites from their 5th through 17th season and weaker title contenders in their 4th season.

MJ and Shaq would be title favorites from years 3 through 9, Maybe 11 and then 12-14 [14 be a weaker title contender].

Thats 13 seasons for LeBron/Kobe and 9 seasons for MJ/Shaq as pretty clear favorites [Shaq/MJ with 2 other seasons as clear contenders and LeBron/Kobe with 1].

Kobe/Lebron would fit together seemlessly. Lebron is like Odom 5.0

MJ/Shaq would be great, but Lebron/Kobe is the better combo and has far more longevity to win Russell like titles

Well, the coach and players 3-9~ would play a role too

In a vacuum shaq is a better player than kobe, while lebron longevity/healtg edge over shaq/jordan counters that

Kinda of a wierd matchup, would rather pair Lebron with a big. That would make this a more even comparison. Also Kobe isn't quite on the level of the other 3 players.

Depends a lot on unstated stuff.

Are they dropped into the same league or replacements for one another? If the former are there other teams with multiple all time greats?

Are they the same age? Or age of irl drafting, but now drafted in same year?

Should we consider being weaker initially is a good thing long term in allowing for a year or two of higher picks on our superstars' timeline? Or is it more about how good the players are?

Should we assume the ability to retain them for their full careers?

Are we effectively implanting their full careers together onto the same team or imagining how their development, contracts (and motivation, injuries, playoff performances etc) would have varied by chance and/or the effect of being together? Or something in between?

Into which era are we dropping them (playstyle, CBA etc)?

I don't think MJ and Shaq could have lasted 10 years together.

AMW27 wrote:I don't think MJ and Shaq could have lasted 10 years together.

True. They'd blow the team up after first 3-peat

LeBron's career edge over Jordan is bigger than Shaq's over Kobe.

Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Longevity also seems like a problematic argument for LeBron/Kobe because in 6 of Kobe's 20 seasons he was not an adequate #2 for a championship contender. Kobe's first three seasons he hadn't developed enough and his last three he was practically crippled. That takes almost all of LeBron/Kobe's longevity advantage away.

In terms of primes, there's no contest. MJ/Shaq would be the frontunner in every season including if prime LeBron/Kobe was out there.

rand wrote:Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Longevity also seems like a problematic argument for LeBron/Kobe because in 6 of Kobe's 20 seasons he was not an adequate #2 for a championship contender. Kobe's first three seasons he hadn't developed enough and his last three he was practically crippled. That takes almost all of LeBron/Kobe's longevity advantage away.

In terms of primes, there's no contest. MJ/Shaq would be the frontunner in every season including if prime LeBron/Kobe was out there.

So as I read it you're saying 20-6=14, 14 years leaving "almost [no]" longevity advantage. But I'd argue that (a) Jordan only plays 11 meaningful, healthy seasons and (b) that leaves a not insignificant longevity edge.

As above one may play more aggressively with the counterfactual element and tilt for MJ-Shaq by imagining Jordan doesn't retire in his prime ... but then one could just as well imagine Shaq's significant time missed with injuries falls more unfortunately (i.e. playoffs).

I'm not arguing for one duo or the other but just in terms of quality years - on the surface - there still seems to be a clear advantage.

rand wrote:Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Longevity also seems like a problematic argument for LeBron/Kobe because in 6 of Kobe's 20 seasons he was not an adequate #2 for a championship contender. Kobe's first three seasons he hadn't developed enough and his last three he was practically crippled. That takes almost all of LeBron/Kobe's longevity advantage away.

In terms of primes, there's no contest. MJ/Shaq would be the frontunner in every season including if prime LeBron/Kobe was out there.

Kobe preferred to play off ball. We saw how effective he played next to Odom who isn't close to Lebron. Their styles of play are a near perfect match for a 2 and 3.

Shaq played with Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash. And had beef with all 4 when he left those teams. Doe anyone think MJ would be cool with Shaq dogging it on defense? Or yelling at him to slow it down in transition, or upset if he doesn't get the ball every time down?

shaq and MJ would probably be championship favorites as rookies with a reasonable supporting cast. shaq might have the best age 20 and 21 seasons in nba history (don't quote me on that) and jordan nearly averaged 30 ppg. even an older 2006 shaq paired with MJ is almost certainly better than 1998 pippen so it would still take quite a strong team to prevent them from winning at least as far out as year 14. obviously lebron and kobe would be not fun starting in year 4 (and probably year 3) but without the inside presence i can see more rosters where you are still missing something with lebron/kobe than with shaq/MJ.

If Shaq were to "heal on company time", imagine how MJ would react.

Owly wrote:

rand wrote:Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Longevity also seems like a problematic argument for LeBron/Kobe because in 6 of Kobe's 20 seasons he was not an adequate #2 for a championship contender. Kobe's first three seasons he hadn't developed enough and his last three he was practically crippled. That takes almost all of LeBron/Kobe's longevity advantage away.

In terms of primes, there's no contest. MJ/Shaq would be the frontunner in every season including if prime LeBron/Kobe was out there.

So as I read it you're saying 20-6=14, 14 years leaving "almost [no]" longevity advantage. But I'd argue that (a) Jordan only plays 11 meaningful, healthy seasons and (b) that leaves a not insignificant longevity edge.

As above one may play more aggressively with the counterfactual element and tilt for MJ-Shaq by imagining Jordan doesn't retire in his prime ... but then one could just as well imagine Shaq's significant time missed with injuries falls more unfortunately (i.e. playoffs).

I'm not arguing for one duo or the other but just in terms of quality years - on the surface - there still seems to be a clear advantage.

You have read it correctly but I calculate the number of meaningful seasons from Jordan as 13 rather than 11, which would be every season from 1985-1998 minus 1994. I include his rookie season, his injury shortened 2nd season, and his comeback season. I'm guessing we disagree on the latter two so I'll explain my analysis.

1986: Jordan only played 18 regular season games because of his broken foot but he was healthy for the playoffs so it qualifies as a meaningful season if a team led by 1994 Shaq can get into the playoffs with only 18 games from 1986 Jordan. Since Shaq led a weak roster to the playoffs in his real 2nd year, I think the odds are pretty good. In the playoffs 1986 MJ with 1994 Shaq would be a feared matchup for anyone.

1995: Jordan was clearly at his weakest Bulls condition in the 95 regular season while he was trying to work himself up, but in the playoffs he still brought high All-NBA level impact with his +8.0 BPM. Like with Jordan's 2nd season the key here is whether a team led by 2003 Shaq could make the playoffs with only 17 games from a severely weakened MJ. It would be close and would really depend on the quality of the roleplayers around Shaq but it's definitely doable. Once in the playoffs, 2003 Shaq and 1995 MJ are certainly a threat.

1986 and 1995 Jordan certainly bring reduced value (1995 more so than 1986) because of how much regular season production is missing but if they can get into the playoffs then 1986 Jordan brings full value when it really matters and 1995 Jordan still brings comparatively high value when it really matters. Jordan's value in these years will be conditional but still potentially very high.

With Kobe's seasons it's actually valid to use a binary approach because the gap in playoff value between those seasons and his prime seasons is gigantic. 1997 and 1998 Kobe offer the playoff value of a marginal bench player, 1999 is better than that but double-edged with much higher volume production (19.8 PPG and 4.6 APG) coming at a terrible efficiency cost (.502 TS% and 3.9 TOs). 2014-2015 Kobe is actually a substantial net negative player and if LeBron's team is forced to play him then these Kobe seasons actually lower LeBron/Kobe's overall value. Also worth noting that these five Kobe seasons pair with weaker LeBron seasons 2004-2006 and 2021-2022. Kobe's 20th season has no LeBron pairing right yet but regardless of how much of his 2022 form LeBron keeps in 2023 his team won't be a contender with no other star and 2016 Kobe playing a big role.

MJ/Shaq become defunct as a pairing after season 14 when both players really fall off a cliff. One of those 14 seasons is probably lost due to 1994 MJ being entirely out; a team with just 2002 Shaq will make the playoffs and in the right conference season could even make a Finals (like 1999-2003 East) but should lose to a championship caliber Finals opponent.

So as I see it, LeBron/Kobe bring playoff contender value in seasons 4-17, which is 14 seasons total. MJ/Shaq bring playoff contender value in seasons 1-14 except season 10, which totals 13 seasons. LeBron/Kobe gets one more meaningful playoff season over MJ/Shaq, with reservations about the challenges MJ/Shaq will have making the playoffs in seasons 2 and 11. Does one more season as a contender overcome what IMO is a substantial gap in the strength of the pairings as contenders?

An Unbiased Fan wrote:

rand wrote:Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Longevity also seems like a problematic argument for LeBron/Kobe because in 6 of Kobe's 20 seasons he was not an adequate #2 for a championship contender. Kobe's first three seasons he hadn't developed enough and his last three he was practically crippled. That takes almost all of LeBron/Kobe's longevity advantage away.

In terms of primes, there's no contest. MJ/Shaq would be the frontunner in every season including if prime LeBron/Kobe was out there.

Kobe preferred to play off ball. We saw how effective he played next to Odom who isn't close to Lebron. Their styles of play are a near perfect match for a 2 and 3.

Shaq played with Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash. And had beef with all 4 when he left those teams. Doe anyone think MJ would be cool with Shaq dogging it on defense? Or yelling at him to slow it down in transition, or upset if he doesn't get the ball every time down?

Kobe often liked Fisher (or whoever) to get him the ball in whatever spot he fancied and then Kobe would operate. Sometimes that would be an immediate shot and someone would get an assist but more often it would be Kobe creating with the ball. If Kobe really preferred to play off ball then the percentage of his assisted FGs in the playoffs would be higher than the 36% it was and he probably wouldn't have led the Lakers in APG every playoffs between 2000-2012. Prime Kobe isn't in the super elite of all-time ball dominance but he's still historically quite high.

Odom isn't a valid comparison to playing alongside LeBron. In his years with Kobe, Odom averaged 16.9 AST% and 18.5% usage. Put that next to LeBron's career 36.4 AST% and 31.6% usage. These levels of ball dominance are not comparable. Odom hardly registers and LeBron is one of the most ball dominant players ever. Playing alongside LeBron would mean a non-negligible reduction in Kobe's usage and he will not like that. Nor will he like the public perception that he is LeBron's Robin. Either one of these alone could push Kobe away, both together almost assuredly will.

Even if we consider MJ/Shaq fated for an early divorce they will certainly have at least a few seasons of being the huge title frontrunner before that happens. LeBron/Kobe don't even become a marginal contender until season 4 (2007 LeBron and 2000 Kobe would need a strong supporting cast to have a real title shot), not a strong contender until season 5.

Let's say MJ/Shaq last only 5 seasons together and LeBron/Kobe last 8. These then are the cores we're looking at:

1985 MJ + 1993 Shaq (darkhorse title contender, need a weaker than NBA avg playoffs field)
1986 MJ + 1994 Shaq (contender if Shaq can carry them to the playoffs)
1987 MJ + 1995 Shaq (frontunner)
1988 MJ + 1996 Shaq (probably the best duo of all-time)
1989 MJ + 1997 Shaq (ditto)

2004 LeBron + 1997 Kobe (lottery)
2005 LeBron + 1998 Kobe (might sneak in the playoffs but not getting out of round 1)
2006 LeBron + 1999 Kobe (probable 2nd round exit)
2007 LeBron + 2000 Kobe (darkhorse title contender, need a weaker than NBA avg playoffs field)
2008 LeBron + 2001 Kobe (contender but nowhere near prime MJ/Shaq)
2009 LeBron + 2002 Kobe (title frontrunners but still clearly below the level of MJ/Shaq)
2010 LeBron + 2003 Kobe (ditto)
2011 LeBron + 2004 Kobe (ditto)

I'd set an over/under of championships for those 5 MJ/Shaq teams at 3.0 and the o/u for those 8 LeBron/Kobe teams at 2.5. So it's close, but in this scenario where neither pairing lasts the long haul, I think MJ/Shaq is the better bet.

rand wrote:Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Kyrie took 20.1 FGA during the 2016 Playoffs, 19.7 during the 2017 RS and 20.6 during the 2017 Playoffs... The last of which during the Cavs put up the best Playoff offense ever.

LeBron/Kobe would be a fantastic fit and Kobe would score oodles of points. He's basically Kyrie 5.0, to use AUF's comparison.

rand wrote:

Owly wrote:

rand wrote:Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Longevity also seems like a problematic argument for LeBron/Kobe because in 6 of Kobe's 20 seasons he was not an adequate #2 for a championship contender. Kobe's first three seasons he hadn't developed enough and his last three he was practically crippled. That takes almost all of LeBron/Kobe's longevity advantage away.

In terms of primes, there's no contest. MJ/Shaq would be the frontunner in every season including if prime LeBron/Kobe was out there.

So as I read it you're saying 20-6=14, 14 years leaving "almost [no]" longevity advantage. But I'd argue that (a) Jordan only plays 11 meaningful, healthy seasons and (b) that leaves a not insignificant longevity edge.

As above one may play more aggressively with the counterfactual element and tilt for MJ-Shaq by imagining Jordan doesn't retire in his prime ... but then one could just as well imagine Shaq's significant time missed with injuries falls more unfortunately (i.e. playoffs).

I'm not arguing for one duo or the other but just in terms of quality years - on the surface - there still seems to be a clear advantage.

You have read it correctly but I calculate the number of meaningful seasons from Jordan as 13 rather than 11, which would be every season from 1985-1998 minus 1994. I include his rookie season, his injury shortened 2nd season, and his comeback season. I'm guessing we disagree on the latter two so I'll explain my analysis.

1986: Jordan only played 18 regular season games because of his broken foot but he was healthy for the playoffs so it qualifies as a meaningful season if a team led by 1994 Shaq can get into the playoffs with only 18 games from Jordan. Since Shaq led a weak roster to the playoffs in his real 2nd year, I think the odds are pretty good. In the playoffs 1986 MJ with 1994 Shaq would be a feared matchup for anyone.

1995: Jordan was clearly at his weakest Bulls condition in the 95 regular season while he was trying to work himself up, but in the playoffs he still brought high All-NBA level impact with his +8.0 BPM. Like with Jordan's 2nd season the key here is whether a team led by 2003 Shaq could make the playoffs with only 17 games from a severely weakened MJ. It would be close and would really depend on the quality of the roleplayers around Shaq but it's definitely doable. Once in the playoffs, 2003 Shaq and 1995 MJ are certainly a threat.

1986 and 1995 Jordan certainly bring reduced value (1995 more so than 1986) because of how much regular season production is missing but if they can get into the playoffs then 1986 Jordan brings full value when it really matters and 1995 Jordan still brings comparatively high value when it really matters. Jordan's value in these years will be conditional but still potentially very high.

With Kobe's seasons it's actually valid to use a binary approach because the gap in playoff value between those seasons and his prime seasons is gigantic. 1997 and 1998 Kobe offer the playoff value of a marginal bench player, 1999 is better than that but double-edged with much higher volume production (19.8 PPG and 4.6 APG) coming at a terrible efficiency cost (.502 TS% and 3.9 TOs). 2014-2015 Kobe is actually a substantial net negative player and if LeBron's team is forced to play him then these Kobe seasons actually lower LeBron/Kobe's overall value. Also worth noting that these five Kobe seasons pair with weaker LeBron seasons 2004-2006 and 2021-2022. Kobe's 20th season has no LeBron pairing right yet but regardless of how much of his 2022 form LeBron keeps in 2023 his team won't be a contender with no other star and 2016 Kobe playing a big role.

MJ/Shaq become defunct as a pairing after season 14 when both players really fall off a cliff. One of those 14 seasons is probably lost due to 1994 MJ being entirely out; a team with just 2002 Shaq will make the playoffs and in the right conference season could even make a Finals (like 1999-2003 East) but should lose to any championship caliber Finals opponent.

So as I see it, LeBron/Kobe bring playoff contender value in seasons 4-17, which is 14 seasons total. MJ/Shaq bring playoff contender value in seasons 1-14 except season 10, which totals 13 seasons. LeBron/Kobe gets one more meaningful playoff season over MJ/Shaq, with reservations about the challenges MJ/Shaq will have making the playoffs in seasons 2 and 11. Does one more season as a contender overcome what IMO is a substantial gap in the strength of the pairings as contenders?

As I said mileage can differ depending on how one thinks of it.

Jordan's 18 games is at just 451 minutes (25mpg). And that's with at a level with (a) Jordan chafing at minutes limitations, (b) Jordan seemingly going beyond management minutes limitations, to the extent it gets the coach fired and (c) iirc Jordan retrospectively misremembering/lying about minutes limitations ... all of which is to say low minutes, perception of some injury risk, some not insignificant internal long term cost in terms of relationships damaged (which might be or pay off more significant[ly] in an era where player maximums exist, renegotiation is harder).

fwiw, I wouldn't call Orlando a "weak" otoh, though I suppose it depends very much on what you mean, what the bar is. For a typical team minus their best player I wouldn't think it as that weak. Turner the only unproductive core rotation member, and whilst there is weakness all the way down the 4 rotation (Krystkowiak, Avent), Turner at least fits as a spacer, box-out guy and apparently screen setter (which might explain how a player said to be "low mistake" got so many turnovers). Beyond that core they're weaker. But insofar as the point is that Shaq is likely the main driving force bringing them safely into the playoffs, I'd concur.

I think there's risks whatever you do with Jordan; if you're allocating resources efficiently your backup 2 (and 3rd string wing) will be a lower pay, lower priority player and you are likely looking at a slog through a lower seed route. And if we're guaranteeing Jordan's later years that's one thing but honestly (obviously no medical expertise here) if you can manage it (with Jordan) risk mitigation on his long term value (by sacrificing a more aggressive optimistic swing at the title here) seems like the higher percentage play. Then too if this "feared matchup" (a fair description) does go deeper, Jordan plays more minutes there the risks open up further.

Having Shaq is good insurance to get you to the playoff sure. But both irl and in terms of managing the hypothetical franchise I'm not sure this year is good for longevity. So approaches can differ, mileage can differ, Bryant's longevity of very high quality can be overstated by raw longevity ... I understand "available for the playoffs so ..." as an argument. I'm inclined to disagree with "full value" as a guarantee. Fwiw, I wouldn't be inclined to lock in stuff like single playoff TS% (a highly variable stat, taken versus specific contexts, in a small sample) across to a new hypothetical team. Nor would I assume a team with a good version of LeBron lets late career Bryant play the a manner that allowed him a negative on-off each year and to amass -276.6 TS add etc.

Fwiw, one could wonder about the psychodrama cost of lending Shaq the keys as "the guy" on the team though if one were to get too deep into that the other side wouldn't necessarily be all sunshine either (and will be based on foggy interpretations and outside most's area of expertise).

ardee wrote:

rand wrote:Some are saying MJ/Shaq wouldn't stay together but neither would LeBron/Kobe. Kobe is not Wade, he will not volunteer to take a backseat for the good of the team. LeBronball would drive him out, as would the perception that he's the Pippen to LeBron's Jordan.

Kyrie took 20.1 FGA during the 2016 Playoffs, 19.7 during the 2017 RS and 20.6 during the 2017 Playoffs... The last of which during the Cavs put up the best Playoff offense ever.

LeBron/Kobe would be a fantastic fit and Kobe would score oodles of points. He's basically Kyrie 5.0, to use AUF's comparison.

Kyrie's average playoff usage in 2016 + 2017 was 30.7%, Kobe's average playoff usage from 2001-2012 was 32.0%, climbing to 33.1% in the post-Shaq years. 1.3% and 2.4% are marginal usage gaps (corresponding to about 2.0 - 3.0 extra scoring attempts per 100 possessions) but they represent the mild constraint that comes with not being the #1 offensive option. An egomaniac (I mean that in the least pejorative way, most pro athlete megastars are probably egomaniacs) like Kobe who thinks he's the GOAT will not like playing next to such a ball dominant player. This is far more constraining than playing alongside Shaq, since at least then Kobe was the one operating the offense and took most of the clutchtime shots.

I am not saying the LeBron/Kobe pairing is bad from a basketball sense, it's bad because Kobe will not like being the clear #2 on his own team. The marginally lower usage ceiling he would have alongside LeBron would not be the cause of Kobe's discontent, it would just reinforce the point. Kobe didn't like being Shaq's Robin and he wouldn't like being LeBron's. Kobe didn't want to be Robin, he would never be content in the long run with that.