People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[penbeast0]

John Havlicek (67-69 Playoffs)
46 GP
26.0 PPG
9.0 RPG
6.0 APG
45.0 FG% (22.0 FGA)
83.3 FT% (8.0 FTA)
51.7 TS% (+3.3 rTS%)

- Elite Shooter/Defender
- 2 Championships
- 1968 Playoff GP, FGM, Points, And Assists Leader


As a rookie, Heinsohn led the Celtics in playoff scoring with 22.9 ppg (in Game 7 of the '57 Finals, he had 37 points and 23 rebounds), becoming the only rookie to ever lead a championship team in scoring in either the regular or postseason.

He also led 4 more Boston championship squads in scoring, during the regular or post-season.

Heinsohn also won the '57 Rookie Of The Year over teammate Bill Russell.

Not only was Heinsohn an underrated defender but he could make some fantastic passes when given the opportunity.

Roy Leenig, his coach at Holy Cross, called Heinsohn the "greatest playmaker for a big man I've ever seen."


Sharman was one of the greatest FT shooters of all-time (career 88%, record 7x leader in FT%, top-tier of FT+, and the ball wasn't even properly "rounded" until the late-50s or made with 8 panels until '70), he was arguably the best mid-range and outside shooter of his time.

His career 43% FG% was very high for a guard at the time (Sharman's career stats), and the only other guard back then with similar FG% and FT% was Larry Costello who entered the league in 1954 (44% FG, 84% FT), but he only played 3 seasons in the 50's before playing the majority of his career in the 60's.

Beyond the great shooting, Sharman was considering one of the absolute best lock-down perimeter defenders of the time, and he was a feisty/fiery guy who got in a ton of fights ("Battling Bill" was one of his nicknames - nearly came to blows with at least one of the Laker players when he was LA's coach during their epic '72 season).

He was also considered a good passer, and was one of the most athletic guys of the 50's (he played pro baseball as well), in part because he was an ahead-of-his-time exerciser, sticking to a daily routine of stretching & exercising, which was highly unusual at the time.

(a)Interesting that you mention Heinsohn as a passer because his rep was a black hole gunner who never met a shot he didn't like. First time I've heard him complemented as a passer. I've always believed he was a poor defender as well based on impressions from contemporary accounts, though there are others here who disagree with this. He was a good offensive rebounder for a 3, not particularly for a 2, and a guy who upped his scoring game in the playoffs (along with Frank Ramsey) which helped cover for Cousy's playoff issues. Generally speaking, I have him as a low percentage gunner who only got that ROY because Russell spent half the season playing for the Olympic teams so only played 48 games.

(b) Sharman and Cousy were the best guard combo of the 50s. Cousy the playmaker, Sharman the shooter. As the game changed rapidly over the first few years of the Russell era, their value dropped because other players entered the league who could perform at a level few played at during the early 50s. Cousy retained his playmaking and Sharman still played good defense and was still a knock down open shooter. Sharman was probably Russell's most valuable teammate until replaced by Sam Jones, again, in my opinion.

[coastalmarker99]

John Havlicek (67-69 Playoffs)
46 GP
26.0 PPG
9.0 RPG
6.0 APG
45.0 FG% (22.0 FGA)
83.3 FT% (8.0 FTA)
51.7 TS% (+3.3 rTS%)

- Elite Shooter/Defender
- 2 Championships
- 1968 Playoff GP, FGM, Points, And Assists Leader


As a rookie, Heinsohn led the Celtics in playoff scoring with 22.9 ppg (in Game 7 of the '57 Finals, he had 37 points and 23 rebounds), becoming the only rookie to ever lead a championship team in scoring in either the regular or postseason.

He also led 4 more Boston championship squads in scoring, during the regular or post-season.

Heinsohn also won the '57 Rookie Of The Year over teammate Bill Russell.

Not only was Heinsohn an underrated defender but he could make some fantastic passes when given the opportunity.

Roy Leenig, his coach at Holy Cross, called Heinsohn the "greatest playmaker for a big man I've ever seen."


Sharman was one of the greatest FT shooters of all-time (career 88%, record 7x leader in FT%, top-tier of FT+, and the ball wasn't even properly "rounded" until the late-50s or made with 8 panels until '70), he was arguably the best mid-range and outside shooter of his time.

His career 43% FG% was very high for a guard at the time (Sharman's career stats), and the only other guard back then with similar FG% and FT% was Larry Costello who entered the league in 1954 (44% FG, 84% FT), but he only played 3 seasons in the 50's before playing the majority of his career in the 60's.

Beyond the great shooting, Sharman was considering one of the absolute best lock-down perimeter defenders of the time, and he was a feisty/fiery guy who got in a ton of fights ("Battling Bill" was one of his nicknames - nearly came to blows with at least one of the Laker players when he was LA's coach during their epic '72 season).

He was also considered a good passer, and was one of the most athletic guys of the 50's (he played pro baseball as well), in part because he was an ahead-of-his-time exerciser, sticking to a daily routine of stretching & exercising, which was highly unusual at the time.

(a)Interesting that you mention Heinsohn as a passer because his rep was a black hole gunner who never met a shot he didn't like. First time I've heard him complemented as a passer. I've always believed he was a poor defender as well based on impressions from contemporary accounts, though there are others here who disagree with this. He was a good offensive rebounder for a 3, not particularly for a 2, and a guy who upped his scoring game in the playoffs (along with Frank Ramsey) which helped cover for Cousy's playoff issues. Generally speaking, I have him as a low percentage gunner who only got that ROY because Russell spent half the season playing for the Olympic teams so only played 48 games.

(b) Sharman and Cousy were the best guard combo of the 50s. Cousy the playmaker, Sharman the shooter. As the game changed rapidly over the first few years of the Russell era, their value dropped because other players entered the league who could perform at a level few played at during the early 50s. Cousy retained his playmaking and Sharman still played good defense and was still a knock down open shooter. Sharman was probably Russell's most valuable teammate until replaced by Sam Jones, again, in my opinion.

LA keeping Sam Jones was the biggest underrated what-if of that entire era.

As Imagine a backcourt of West and Jones spacing the floor for Baylor


La probably wins 5 to 6 rings in the 1960s.

As the Celtics without Jones are not as big as of a threat and probably miss the finals in 63 65 66 68 62

[penbeast0]

John Havlicek (67-69 Playoffs)
46 GP
26.0 PPG
9.0 RPG
6.0 APG
45.0 FG% (22.0 FGA)
83.3 FT% (8.0 FTA)
51.7 TS% (+3.3 rTS%)

- Elite Shooter/Defender
- 2 Championships
- 1968 Playoff GP, FGM, Points, And Assists Leader


As a rookie, Heinsohn led the Celtics in playoff scoring with 22.9 ppg (in Game 7 of the '57 Finals, he had 37 points and 23 rebounds), becoming the only rookie to ever lead a championship team in scoring in either the regular or postseason.

He also led 4 more Boston championship squads in scoring, during the regular or post-season.

Heinsohn also won the '57 Rookie Of The Year over teammate Bill Russell.

Not only was Heinsohn an underrated defender but he could make some fantastic passes when given the opportunity.

Roy Leenig, his coach at Holy Cross, called Heinsohn the "greatest playmaker for a big man I've ever seen."


Sharman was one of the greatest FT shooters of all-time (career 88%, record 7x leader in FT%, top-tier of FT+, and the ball wasn't even properly "rounded" until the late-50s or made with 8 panels until '70), he was arguably the best mid-range and outside shooter of his time.

His career 43% FG% was very high for a guard at the time (Sharman's career stats), and the only other guard back then with similar FG% and FT% was Larry Costello who entered the league in 1954 (44% FG, 84% FT), but he only played 3 seasons in the 50's before playing the majority of his career in the 60's.

Beyond the great shooting, Sharman was considering one of the absolute best lock-down perimeter defenders of the time, and he was a feisty/fiery guy who got in a ton of fights ("Battling Bill" was one of his nicknames - nearly came to blows with at least one of the Laker players when he was LA's coach during their epic '72 season).

He was also considered a good passer, and was one of the most athletic guys of the 50's (he played pro baseball as well), in part because he was an ahead-of-his-time exerciser, sticking to a daily routine of stretching & exercising, which was highly unusual at the time.

(a)Interesting that you mention Heinsohn as a passer because his rep was a black hole gunner who never met a shot he didn't like. First time I've heard him complemented as a passer. I've always believed he was a poor defender as well based on impressions from contemporary accounts, though there are others here who disagree with this. He was a good offensive rebounder for a 3, not particularly for a 2, and a guy who upped his scoring game in the playoffs (along with Frank Ramsey) which helped cover for Cousy's playoff issues. Generally speaking, I have him as a low percentage gunner who only got that ROY because Russell spent half the season playing for the Olympic teams so only played 48 games.

(b) Sharman and Cousy were the best guard combo of the 50s. Cousy the playmaker, Sharman the shooter. As the game changed rapidly over the first few years of the Russell era, their value dropped because other players entered the league who could perform at a level few played at during the early 50s. Cousy retained his playmaking and Sharman still played good defense and was still a knock down open shooter. Sharman was probably Russell's most valuable teammate until replaced by Sam Jones, again, in my opinion.

LA keeping Sam Jones was the biggest underrated what-if of that entire era.

As Imagine a backcourt of West and Jones spacing the floor for Baylor


La probably wins 5 to 6 rings in the 1960s.

As the Celtics without Jones are not as big as of a threat and probably miss the finals in 63 65 66 68 62

Or the Hawks keeping Russell to play next to Pettit instead of dealing him to Boston for Macauley and the draft rights to Cliff Hagan.

[Stalwart]

At very least, I can say that I watched a lot of games both from Grant and Love. You, on the other hand, probably don't know the difference between Bill Sharman and Frank Ramsey...

Ok, so what was the big gap between Pippen and Tommy Heinsohn and Bailey Howell? I agree that Pippen was the better player btw. But what makes Pippen so next level that names like Howell and Heinsohn can't even be mentioned with his?

Pippen was significantly better help and man defender, playmaker, ball-handler and passer than Heinsohn. He was also a better rebounder, despite the raw numbers because the pace and different positions have to be taken into account. He drew fouls better as well. What makes Heinsohn even comparable? His scoring? Heinoshn wasn't even better scorer than Pippen:

1991-95 Pippen: 20.4 pp75 on +1.2 rTS%
1959-63 Heinsohn: 19.7 pp75 on -0.4 rTS%

There are levels to that, Heinsohn has only shooting over Pippen and the gap isn't really big. Sure, you may argue that Heinsohn was a better tough shot maker, I will agree with that. Again though, Heinoshn supposedly played with 4 Pippen-level players and he couldn't even score at above league average efficiency at not very high volume. Tom was a good player and had his value, but Pippen is at worst top 40 player ever.

Do you even know how Heinsohn played? Or all you know about him is his basketball-reference page?

You did a good job explaining why Pippen was the better player. But you haven't explained why he was this vastly superior player that Heinsohn cant be compared to. Even if you don't want to compare Heinsohn and Howell to Pippen that still leaves Cousy, Sharman, Jones, and Havlicek. That's still 4 Pippens.

[coastalmarker99]

(a)Interesting that you mention Heinsohn as a passer because his rep was a black hole gunner who never met a shot he didn't like. First time I've heard him complemented as a passer. I've always believed he was a poor defender as well based on impressions from contemporary accounts, though there are others here who disagree with this. He was a good offensive rebounder for a 3, not particularly for a 2, and a guy who upped his scoring game in the playoffs (along with Frank Ramsey) which helped cover for Cousy's playoff issues. Generally speaking, I have him as a low percentage gunner who only got that ROY because Russell spent half the season playing for the Olympic teams so only played 48 games.

(b) Sharman and Cousy were the best guard combo of the 50s. Cousy the playmaker, Sharman the shooter. As the game changed rapidly over the first few years of the Russell era, their value dropped because other players entered the league who could perform at a level few played at during the early 50s. Cousy retained his playmaking and Sharman still played good defense and was still a knock down open shooter. Sharman was probably Russell's most valuable teammate until replaced by Sam Jones, again, in my opinion.

LA keeping Sam Jones was the biggest underrated what-if of that entire era.

As Imagine a backcourt of West and Jones spacing the floor for Baylor


La probably wins 5 to 6 rings in the 1960s.

As the Celtics without Jones are not as big as of a threat and probably miss the finals in 63 65 66 68 62

Or the Hawks keeping Russell to play next to Pettit instead of dealing him to Boston for Macauley and the draft rights to Cliff Hagan.

The Hawks keeping Russell's probably hurts the NBA in a massive way money wise as who would want to watch a team just stomp everybody.


I don't see any teams taking the Hawks with Russell to seven games from 1957 to 1964

Pettit and Russell would stomp LA inside and on the boards.

And the Warriors wouldn't have the firepower to keep up.


Wilt in this timeline very well might have lost in the finals 7 to 9 times.

As with no Russell in the east, he probably makes the finals in.

60 61 62 65 66 67 68 69.


I don't see him coming to LA after 1968 if he still wins one ring and keeps making it to the finals with the 76ers.

[70sFan]

Ok, so what was the big gap between Pippen and Tommy Heinsohn and Bailey Howell? I agree that Pippen was the better player btw. But what makes Pippen so next level that names like Howell and Heinsohn can't even be mentioned with his?

Pippen was significantly better help and man defender, playmaker, ball-handler and passer than Heinsohn. He was also a better rebounder, despite the raw numbers because the pace and different positions have to be taken into account. He drew fouls better as well. What makes Heinsohn even comparable? His scoring? Heinoshn wasn't even better scorer than Pippen:

1991-95 Pippen: 20.4 pp75 on +1.2 rTS%
1959-63 Heinsohn: 19.7 pp75 on -0.4 rTS%

There are levels to that, Heinsohn has only shooting over Pippen and the gap isn't really big. Sure, you may argue that Heinsohn was a better tough shot maker, I will agree with that. Again though, Heinoshn supposedly played with 4 Pippen-level players and he couldn't even score at above league average efficiency at not very high volume. Tom was a good player and had his value, but Pippen is at worst top 40 player ever.

Do you even know how Heinsohn played? Or all you know about him is his basketball-reference page?

You did a good job explaining why Pippen was the better player. But you haven't explained why he was this vastly superior player that Heinsohn cant be compared to. Even if you don't want to compare Heinsohn and Howell to Pippen that still leaves Cousy, Sharman, Jones, and Havlicek. That's still 4 Pippens.

I did exactly that. Heinsohn has no substantial advantage over Pippen, while Scottie was massively better defender, passer and creator. You just can't make any case for Tom here.

Sharman never played with Havlicek. Jones wasn't an all-star before Sharman retired. That gives us either Cousy/Sharman, Cousy/Jones or Jones/Havlicek. I wouldn't say it's more than Pippen/Rodman and that's not even factoring different league environment (less teams means more condensed talent).

[OhayoKD]

Lebron lost with HCA to Dwight Howard a career loser. He also only won 1 title in 11 years for the franchise that drafted him. Jordan turned a franchise that never won into a dynasty. Lebron winning 1 title in 11 years for the franchise that drafted him is like Dirk winning for Dallas.

Jordan never won anything before Scottie Pippen. Never came close to a title without Phil Jackson or without a roster handpicked by Jerry Krause. Only ever won with one franchise (embarrassing).

Tim Duncan led title teams for one franchise and one coach but on distinct rosters. Bill Russell led title teams for one franchise but on distinct rosters and while acting as his own coach for two of the titles (Jordan could never). Wilt led title teams for two distinct franchises, rosters, and coaches. Shaq led title teams for one franchise and then costarred on another title team with a distinct franchise, roster, and coach, and also led a third distinct franchise, roster, and coach to a Finals. Kareem led title teams for two distinct franchises and rosters, across three distinct coaches. And Lebron James, the true GOAT, led title teams with three distinct franchises, coaches, and essentially rosters (shoutout J.R. and James Jones), plus two extra Final appearances with a fourth and fifth distinct coach.

Imagine only being able to win with a single costar and coach and franchise. Pretty sad if you ask me. Real winners prove themselves in different situations. Lebron knows this. Tom Brady knows this. But Jordan? Preferred to take the easy and familiar route the entire time.

So turning a franchise that hasn't won into a dynasty is bad but jumping from superteam to superteam to superteam and winning championships is good?

It was a clumsy attempt to imitate jordanbulls's sthick, not a serious argument.

Of course your post seems to be intended as a serious argument, but it comes off as a bit.

Lebron won more with less before his first "superteam" approximated the bulls in 12 with wade and bosh despire a lack of spacing, allegedly bad fit, and the cast not being as good(40 win without lebron vs 50 win without jordan), and then returned to doing more with less in his second stint in cleveland before emulating jordan's bulls in year 18 with the lakers(despite again having bad spacing).

The "superteam" doesn't really matter. Lebron has repeatedly been as or more valuable than jordan in a variety of contexts, even in situations where he supposedly shouldn't be(without spacing in 15, 12, 20 for example), and even in spots where he isn't at his best(15),

Add all that to an advantage or parity in virtually every emperical metric(gap varies from large to a split depending on what you use) and it's very hard to make a winnig-based argument for mj vs lebron beyond simply "erneh rings" in which case jordan loses to russell, badly.

[Ron Swanson]

The point is I brought up how T-Wolves K-Love legitimately was an All-NBA, team-lifting impact guy and not just an empty stat-stuffer on a bad team, and that ability/value didn't just magically "go away" because his usage got neutered playing next to Kyrie and Lebron. Hell, he was still a great impact guy even as a non-ideal "3rd option" when he was on the Cavs (+7.8, +5.8, +9.3 on/off, #1 among PF's in RPM for '16-17). It's fine if you disagree with the numbers, but don't sit there and gaslight everyone by bringing up Julius **** Randle as some sort of rational example about how "offense-first guys aren't impactful as tertiary/secondary options". C'mon man.

I'm not sure how we know this for certain. Because really what it comes down to imo is can a guy lead a team to roughly 52+ wins as the best player on that team and until a guy does that we don't really know that he can. It's also typically more true(being an empty box score type) of players who are bad defensively which Love definitely was. Am I convinced that Kevin Love could lead a team to 52+ wins had he stayed in Minnesota and they got another all star to pair with him with a couple other good role players? No, not really.

We know this because we actually have numbers and data to back it up, not just some arbitrary regular season win threshold (2013-14 Wolves had a 48-34 expected W/L by point differential btw). This isn't really that complicated. I mean, just look at those garbage rosters Love played with from 2009-2014. They're basically pre-2008 Cavs level bad, yet Love still was a highly efficient and impactful player despite it. Ranked 21st, 6th, 24th, and 8th in overall RPM his last 4 years there. I wouldn't even say Love was an incredibly poor defender either (-0.3 on/off guy), but people have this idea that because he was a poor matchup against GSW and got played off the floor in the Finals at times, that he was always a defensive "sieve" rather than the numbers showing he was at worst a neutral defender (see: Jokic) who simply was more exploitable against arguably the greatest offensive team ever assembled.

[Stalwart]

Pippen was significantly better help and man defender, playmaker, ball-handler and passer than Heinsohn. He was also a better rebounder, despite the raw numbers because the pace and different positions have to be taken into account. He drew fouls better as well. What makes Heinsohn even comparable? His scoring? Heinoshn wasn't even better scorer than Pippen:

1991-95 Pippen: 20.4 pp75 on +1.2 rTS%
1959-63 Heinsohn: 19.7 pp75 on -0.4 rTS%

There are levels to that, Heinsohn has only shooting over Pippen and the gap isn't really big. Sure, you may argue that Heinsohn was a better tough shot maker, I will agree with that. Again though, Heinoshn supposedly played with 4 Pippen-level players and he couldn't even score at above league average efficiency at not very high volume. Tom was a good player and had his value, but Pippen is at worst top 40 player ever.

Do you even know how Heinsohn played? Or all you know about him is his basketball-reference page?

You did a good job explaining why Pippen was the better player. But you haven't explained why he was this vastly superior player that Heinsohn cant be compared to. Even if you don't want to compare Heinsohn and Howell to Pippen that still leaves Cousy, Sharman, Jones, and Havlicek. That's still 4 Pippens.

I did exactly that. Heinsohn has no substantial advantage over Pippen, while Scottie was massively better defender, passer and creator. You just can't make any case for Tom here.

Sharman never played with Havlicek. Jones wasn't an all-star before Sharman retired. That gives us either Cousy/Sharman, Cousy/Jones or Jones/Havlicek. I wouldn't say it's more than Pippen/Rodman and that's not even factoring different league environment (less teams means more condensed talent).

Thats Cousy/Sharman or Cousy/Jones plus Heinsohn and Ramsey. And thats Jones/Havlicek plus Howell. I also think its a stretch to compare Rodman to these guys as he only played one side of the ball.

Speaking of one side of the ball Bill Russell is himself a one way player. He has explained how he was able to leave the offense to Cousy, Sharmn, Havlicek, Jones, Heinsohn, ect which allowed him to focus 100% on defense and rebounding. Were Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman so great that it allowed to Jordan to ignore one entire side of the floor? Theres no comparison here 70s. Just admit it.

[Mazter]

Lol. "His path was built for him" because they brought in Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong? Some of these comments are going from bad takes to straight up lies.

Was Tim Duncan's path laid out for him? What about Magic? Bird? Steph? Russell? Kareem? All of these guys had teams, coaches, and systems built around them. All of these guys had teammates better than Scottie Pippen. You guys will scoff at Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love as superstar teammates but will bring up Ron Harper.

Steph certainly did, and Duncan maybe also, although he has proven to do it with different sets of teammates. But I don't really want to go to much into this as it is not the most relevant argument.

I really never get why people feel the need to compare teammates from era X to teammates from era Y. I don't feel the need to compare the 90's Bulls with the 10's Cavs, they should be compared to their adversaries at the time. And I would take Kerr/Klay/Dray as coach/2nd/3rd option above Lue/Irving/Love any season from 2015-2018. And Durant/Iguodala/Bogut over Tristan/Reid/Shumpert for that matter. But I don't think there are any coach/2nd/3rd/4th options during the first 3-peat that I would take over Phil/Pippen/Grant/Armstrong. Or any coach/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th/7th options during the second 3-peat I would take over Phil/Pippen/Rodman/Harper/Longley/Kukoc/Kerr.

But what baffles me the most is how much Jordan opposed almost every decision that actually helped him in his title quests. He didn't want Oakley traded away, he didn't want Collins fired, he didn't want the triangle, he didn't want Rodman. Not to mention the "warm welcome" he gave all of his new teammates. It's like, he didn't know anything at all about team basketball. I mean really, thumbs up for Krause for never actually listening to him.

[70sFan]

You did a good job explaining why Pippen was the better player. But you haven't explained why he was this vastly superior player that Heinsohn cant be compared to. Even if you don't want to compare Heinsohn and Howell to Pippen that still leaves Cousy, Sharman, Jones, and Havlicek. That's still 4 Pippens.

I did exactly that. Heinsohn has no substantial advantage over Pippen, while Scottie was massively better defender, passer and creator. You just can't make any case for Tom here.

Sharman never played with Havlicek. Jones wasn't an all-star before Sharman retired. That gives us either Cousy/Sharman, Cousy/Jones or Jones/Havlicek. I wouldn't say it's more than Pippen/Rodman and that's not even factoring different league environment (less teams means more condensed talent).

Thats Cousy/Sharman or Cousy/Jones plus Heinsohn and Ramsey. And thats Jones/Havlicek plus Howell. I also think its a stretch to compare Rodman to these guys as he only played one side of the ball.

Speaking of one side of the ball Bill Russell is himself a one way player. He has explained how he was able to leave the offense to Cousy, Sharmn, Havlicek, Jones, Heinsohn, ect which allowed him to focus 100% on defense and rebounding. Were Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman so great that it allowed to Jordan to ignore one entire side of the floor? Theres no comparison here 70s. Just admit it.

Howell, Heinsohn and Cousy also played on one side of the court. Again, underrating defense as usual...

We don't have to speculate how well the Bulls would have done without Jordan, they were title contenders without him in 1994. Celtics with Cousy and Sharman weren't title contenders in 1956 (with another all-star in Russell's place). Celtics with Havlicek and Howell didn't make the playoffs without Russell.

[OhayoKD]

Horace Grant was a legitimate All-Defense caliber PF while providing efficient 3rd-4th option offense, but Kevin Love was a legitimate All-NBA PF and put-up a Top-10 PF peak season of the 2010's literally right before he got traded to Cleveland. Both of you guys are being hyperbolic to prop-up agendas here IMO.

Ridiculous. Randle just had an all NBA season as a 1st option. Contenders don't want him as a key sidekick. Love had more offensive talent than Grant. Duh. But volume scoring isn't as additive.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

Not even in the same stratosphere. You know better than this:

Randle: 24/10/6 on 56.7% TS, 19.7 PER, .140 WS/48, +0.3 on/off (on some complete outlier shooting splits of 41% 3PT and 81% FT)
Love: 26/12/4 on 59% TS, 26.9 PER, .245 WS/48, +10.9 on/off

We're getting lost in the weeds here. The strength of a supporting cast involved many factors besides how well the 2nd or 3rd best players compare. For one you have all the other players. For another you have the coach/system they use. For another you have stylistic fit, and finally you have how strong other teams you face(having all-stars vs the warriors is kind of meaningless for example). If you want to seriously evaluate how much help a player has, you need to start with what actually matters here, winning

The cavs without lebron and with love and kyrie played sub-30 win basketball. The Bulls were doing that before they even drafted MJ. You want to blame Love not being able to win without him on Lebron bullying him? Fine. It doesn't really help jordan because even without love or kyrie, the 15 cavs, terrible spacing relative to era(so much for "lebron needs shooters") were able to match the 88 89, and 90 bulls, led by apex jordan, with substanitally less help.

Lebron also very obviously won more with less in his first cleveland stint and the one year everyone was around their best in miami, lebron-wade-bosh lineups played like the bulls in the playoffs despite less era relative shooting and the lebron-less heat being a 40 win team while the jordan-less bulls were a 50 win team.

Lebron also has several years that score higher than anything we have for mj in RAPM, has a big advantage in terms of individual seasons in AUPM/PIPM, and an advantage in on/off while leading comparably strong lineups.

On top of that, if we avoid m-regularization and go from raw signals, jordan looks signifcantly worse, something that seems to hold for MJ whenever he's compared to better or much better paint protectors(hakeem, duncan, and Kareem all compare favorably and KG compares favorably in the regular season).


There are plausible explanation for all these things on their own, but as more and more evidence is added to the pile, the likelihood that they're all just noise gets less and less likely. Especially when the most popular explnation(lebron needs shooters) falls under basic scrunity(lebron has repeatedly managed jordan" value in he absence of spacing).

I don't know why so much of this thread has been dedicated to kevin-love, but he's really besides the point. Jordan loses in any serious impact analysis versus Lebron. Loses badly in both impact analysis and accomplishment/success vs Russell, and doesn't even have a clean comparison against his own contemporary in Hakeem. Kevin Love doesn't really matter here.

[falcolombardi]

Ridiculous. Randle just had an all NBA season as a 1st option. Contenders don't want him as a key sidekick. Love had more offensive talent than Grant. Duh. But volume scoring isn't as additive.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

Not even in the same stratosphere. You know better than this:

Randle: 24/10/6 on 56.7% TS, 19.7 PER, .140 WS/48, +0.3 on/off (on some complete outlier shooting splits of 41% 3PT and 81% FT)
Love: 26/12/4 on 59% TS, 26.9 PER, .245 WS/48, +10.9 on/off

We're getting lost in the weeds here. The strength of a supporting cast involved many factors besides how well the 2nd or 3rd best players compare. For one you have all the other players. For another you have the coach/system they use. For another you have stylistic fit, and finally you have how strong other teams you face(having all-stars vs the warriors is kind of meaningless for example). If you want to seriously evaluate how much help a player has, you need to start with what actually matters here, winning

The cavs without lebron and with love and kyrie played sub-30 win basketball. The Bulls were doing that before they even drafted MJ. You want to blame Love not being able to win without him on Lebron bullying him? Fine. It doesn't really help jordan because even without love or kyrie, the 15 cavs, terrible spacing relative to era(so much for "lebron needs shooters") were able to match the 88 89, and 90 bulls, led by apex jordan, with substanitally less help.

Lebron also very obviously won more with less in his first cleveland stint and the one year everyone was around their best in miami, lebron-wade-bosh lineups played like the bulls in the playoffs despite less era relative shooting and the lebron-less heat being a 40 win team while the jordan-less bulls were a 50 win team.

Lebron also has several years that score higher than anything we have for mj in RAPM, has a big advantage in terms of individual seasons in AUPM/PIPM, and an advantage in on/off while leading comparably strong lineups.

On top of that, if we avoid m-regularization and go from raw signals, jordan looks signifcantly worse, something that seems to hold for MJ whenever he's compared to better or much better paint protectors(hakeem, duncan, and Kareem all compare favorably and KG compares favorably in the regular season).


There are plausible explanation for all these things on their own, but as more and more evidence is added to the pile, the likelihood that they're all just noise gets less and less likely. Especially when the most popular explnation(lebron needs shooters) falls under basic scrunity(lebron has repeatedly managed jordan" value in he absence of spacing).

I don't know why so much has been dedicated to kevin-love, but he's really besides the point.

Lebron and love also led one of the best playoffs offenses ever....arguably the best one ever

Criticisms on lebron limiting love are more aesthetical than results based.

The cavs in 16 and 17 literally had better playoffs offense than the warriors in 17 and 18

[Colbinii]

Ridiculous. Randle just had an all NBA season as a 1st option. Contenders don't want him as a key sidekick. Love had more offensive talent than Grant. Duh. But volume scoring isn't as additive.

Sent from my SM-A125U using RealGM mobile app

Not even in the same stratosphere. You know better than this:

Randle: 24/10/6 on 56.7% TS, 19.7 PER, .140 WS/48, +0.3 on/off (on some complete outlier shooting splits of 41% 3PT and 81% FT)
Love: 26/12/4 on 59% TS, 26.9 PER, .245 WS/48, +10.9 on/off

We're getting lost in the weeds here. The strength of a supporting cast involved many factors besides how well the 2nd or 3rd best players compare. For one you have all the other players. For another you have the coach/system they use. For another you have stylistic fit, and finally you have how strong other teams you face(having all-stars vs the warriors is kind of meaningless for example). If you want to seriously evaluate how much help a player has, you need to start with what actually matters here, winning

The cavs without lebron and with love and kyrie played sub-30 win basketball. The Bulls were doing that before they even drafted MJ. You want to blame Love not being able to win without him on Lebron bullying him? Fine. It doesn't really help jordan because even without love or kyrie, the 15 cavs, terrible spacing relative to era(so much for "lebron needs shooters") were able to match the 88 89, and 90 bulls, led by apex jordan, with substanitally less help.

Lebron also very obviously won more with less in his first cleveland stint and the one year everyone was around their best in miami, lebron-wade-bosh lineups played like the bulls in the playoffs despite less era relative shooting and the lebron-less heat being a 40 win team while the jordan-less bulls were a 50 win team.

Lebron also has several years that score higher than anything we have for mj in RAPM, has a big advantage in terms of individual seasons in AUPM/PIPM, and an advantage in on/off while leading comparably strong lineups.

On top of that, if we avoid m-regularization and go from raw signals, jordan looks signifcantly worse, something that seems to hold for MJ whenever he's compared to better or much better paint protectors(hakeem, duncan, and Kareem all compare favorably and KG compares favorably in the regular season).


There are plausible explanation for all these things on their own, but as more and more evidence is added to the pile, the likelihood that they're all just noise gets less and less likely. Especially when the most popular explnation(lebron needs shooters) falls under basic scrunity(lebron has repeatedly managed jordan" value in he absence of spacing).

I don't know why so much of this thread has been dedicated to kevin-love, but he's really besides the point. Jordan loses in any serious impact analysis versus Lebron. Loses badly in both impact analysis and accomplishment/success vs Russell, and doesn't even have a clean comparison against his own contemporary in Hakeem. Kevin Love doesn't really matter here.

We have line-up data in 2015-2017 with Kyire/Love In and LeBron Out. Like any statistic, there is noise, there is context but the numbers typically speak for themselves.

2015: 564 Minutes, 1091 Possessions, 106 Ortg, 107.5 Drtg
2016: 218 Minutes, 410 Possessions, 112.4 Ortg, 144.4 Drtg
2017: 280 Minutes, 587 Possessions, 106.6 Ortg, 107.3 Drtg

[Ron Swanson]

Criticisms on lebron limiting love are more aesthetical than results based.

Which is exactly the argument being made. Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant with both dubious at best and outright false-at-worst assumptions (i.e. every contender would prefer Grant cuz "fit"), and on the opposite end those calling Horace a "role-player". In reality Love was still an awfully impactful "3rd option" even if it was a much less optimized role for him.

Grant was pretty clearly a super impactful 3rd option based on results and the numbers we have available, but of course, not having substantive lineup data for prime Horace leads for a much more convenient (and IMO lazy) argument to refute that Love was just as "impactful" as a 3rd option. Sounds like a lot of people just refuse to even entertain the idea that an elite stretch-4 in that role with better passing/rebounding skills could be just as or more impactful than a two-way guy like Horace in his role.

[Texas Chuck]

Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant w.

Yeah, you accuse people of gaslighting(lol at that on a topic as inconsequential as this btw) and then say something like this....

We didn't denigrate him. We said Grant was a better 3rd guy on a team with players the level of Lebron/Kyrie or Mike/Pip or whomever the great duo is. Which I stand by.

Also worth pointing out Lebron is not supposed to be trying to make Love as good as possible, but rather the team. And its pretty much impossible to argue with how successful he was in that. I hate when people take Love and Bosh's decreased counting stats once they joined Lebron as evidence that Lebron hurts stars. No. Lebron helps teams. That's all that matters.

[Stalwart]

Criticisms on lebron limiting love are more aesthetical than results based.

Which is exactly the argument being made. Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant with both dubious at best and outright false-at-worst assumptions (i.e. every contender would prefer Grant cuz "fit"), and on the opposite end those calling Horace a "role-player". In reality Love was still an awfully impactful "3rd option" even if it was a much less optimized role for him.

Grant was pretty clearly a super impactful 3rd option based on results and the numbers we have available, but of course, not having substantive lineup data for prime Horace leads for a much more convenient (and IMO lazy) argument to refute that Love was just as "impactful" as a 3rd option. Sounds like a lot of people just refuse to even entertain the idea that an elite stretch-4 in that role with better passing/rebounding skills could be just as or more impactful than a two-way guy like Horace in his role.

Horace Grant was indeed an impactful role player, even super impactful perhaps. But...he's still a role player. He's not the guy you bring on your team that takes you from middling to contender. He can be an important piece that'll take you from contender to champion but that's true for most impactful role players.

Also, calling Grant a "3rd option" is a bit disingenuous. He was never an "option" in the sense that you can give him the ball and have him go get a bucket. He scored mostly of putbacks, drop offs, or kick outs to open jumpers.

[Ron Swanson]

Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant w.

Yeah, you accuse people of gaslighting(lol at that on a topic as inconsequential as this btw) and then say something like this....

We didn't denigrate him. We said Grant was a better 3rd guy on a team with players the level of Lebron/Kyrie or Mike/Pip or whomever the great duo is. Which I stand by.

Fine, then debate the RS/PS numbers that show Love as still an impactful 3rd option (3rd "guy" whatever you want to call it) without randomly bringing up dudes like Julius Randle to try and make the other side look dumb. If we had lineup data showing that Grant was like a less optimized version of Paul Millsap without the floor spacing, would that change people's perceptions on him? I think very highly of Grant but I wouldn't rule out that he's become massively overrated based on confirmation bias evidence.

Criticisms on lebron limiting love are more aesthetical than results based.

Which is exactly the argument being made. Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant with both dubious at best and outright false-at-worst assumptions (i.e. every contender would prefer Grant cuz "fit"), and on the opposite end those calling Horace a "role-player". In reality Love was still an awfully impactful "3rd option" even if it was a much less optimized role for him.

Grant was pretty clearly a super impactful 3rd option based on results and the numbers we have available, but of course, not having substantive lineup data for prime Horace leads for a much more convenient (and IMO lazy) argument to refute that Love was just as "impactful" as a 3rd option. Sounds like a lot of people just refuse to even entertain the idea that an elite stretch-4 in that role with better passing/rebounding skills could be just as or more impactful than a two-way guy like Horace in his role.

Horace Grant was indeed an impactful role player, even super impactful perhaps. But...he's still a role player. He's not the guy you bring on your team that takes you from middling to contender. He can be an important piece that'll take you from contender to champion but that's true for most impactful role players.

Also, calling Grant a "3rd option" is a bit disingenuous. He was never an "option" in the sense that you can give him the ball and have him go get a bucket. He scored mostly of putbacks, drop offs, or kick outs to open jumpers.

Again, the "role-player" designation is just a derogatory term used against guys who don't score a lot. Call him the "3rd guy" or 3rd best player instead, better? Part of the reason the Bulls never needed a great rim-protecting Center was because Grant was so good defensively guarding bigger front-court players. He was as much a role player as Klay Thompson is.

[OhayoKD]

Criticisms on lebron limiting love are more aesthetical than results based.

Which is exactly the argument being made. Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant with both dubious at best and outright false-at-worst assumptions (i.e. every contender would prefer Grant cuz "fit"), and on the opposite end those calling Horace a "role-player". In reality Love was still an awfully impactful "3rd option" even if it was a much less optimized role for him.

Grant was pretty clearly a super impactful 3rd option based on results and the numbers we have available, but of course, not having substantive lineup data for prime Horace leads for a much more convenient (and IMO lazy) argument to refute that Love was just as "impactful" as a 3rd option. Sounds like a lot of people just refuse to even entertain the idea that an elite stretch-4 in that role with better passing/rebounding skills could be just as or more impactful than a two-way guy like Horace in his role.

Why quote me if you're going to pretend the first line of my post doesn't exist. Accusing people who disagree with you of laziness while you ignore contradictory evidence is quite lazy. no?

[Stalwart]

Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant w.

Yeah, you accuse people of gaslighting(lol at that on a topic as inconsequential as this btw) and then say something like this....

We didn't denigrate him. We said Grant was a better 3rd guy on a team with players the level of Lebron/Kyrie or Mike/Pip or whomever the great duo is. Which I stand by.

Fine, then debate the RS/PS numbers that show Love as still an impactful 3rd option (3rd "guy" whatever you want to call it) without randomly bringing up dudes like Julius Randle to try and make the other side look dumb. If we had lineup data showing that Grant was like a less optimized version of Paul Millsap without the floor spacing, would that change people's perceptions on him? I think very highly of Grant but I wouldn't rule out that he's become massively overrated based on confirmation bias evidence.

Which is exactly the argument being made. Instead, we have a bunch of people denigrating prime K-Love to prop up Horace Grant with both dubious at best and outright false-at-worst assumptions (i.e. every contender would prefer Grant cuz "fit"), and on the opposite end those calling Horace a "role-player". In reality Love was still an awfully impactful "3rd option" even if it was a much less optimized role for him.

Grant was pretty clearly a super impactful 3rd option based on results and the numbers we have available, but of course, not having substantive lineup data for prime Horace leads for a much more convenient (and IMO lazy) argument to refute that Love was just as "impactful" as a 3rd option. Sounds like a lot of people just refuse to even entertain the idea that an elite stretch-4 in that role with better passing/rebounding skills could be just as or more impactful than a two-way guy like Horace in his role.

Horace Grant was indeed an impactful role player, even super impactful perhaps. But...he's still a role player. He's not the guy you bring on your team that takes you from middling to contender. He can be an important piece that'll take you from contender to champion but that's true for most impactful role players.

Also, calling Grant a "3rd option" is a bit disingenuous. He was never an "option" in the sense that you can give him the ball and have him go get a bucket. He scored mostly of putbacks, drop offs, or kick outs to open jumpers.

Again, the "role-player" designation is just a derogatory term used against guys who don't score a lot. Call him the "3rd guy" or 3rd best player instead, better? Part of the reason the Bulls never needed a great rim-protecting Center was because Grant was so good defensively guarding bigger front-court players.

That's just your own negative view of role players. Im not using it as a derogatory term. Im using it because people keep trying to compare him to legitimate all stars and superstars. And you're falling for it. See below:

He was as much a role player as Klay Thompson is.

Klay Thompson is a legitimate all star and top 5 shooter in NBA history not to mention a great defender. When the top 75 came out it was Klay Thompson who people said got snubbed. Nobody, and I mean nobody, brought up Horace Grants name.

Klay Thompson is a franchise player who could have demanded a max contract at his peak.