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

[LukaTheGOAT]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh

[OhayoKD]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh

So many questionable arguments...

Question: you say lebron is more valuable defensively so between defense and playmaking hwo does port give jordan the edge?
Ben: well it's really close, but due to port/fit i think jordan gives you a better offensive cieling in more situations, but either can be the best offensive player(never addresses the defensive part which lebron's consistent value advantage actually draws from, or lebron repeatedly posting jordan+ value without spacing)
Question: could russell be the best peak ever?
Ben: maybe with a high-end eval, but you could also look at russell's teammates and think he's just an all-time peak
(meanwhile, russell's teamamtes after winning a title with "weak mvp" bill):

Yeah it was different in that they replaced their best player and sixth man and dropped by 6 SRS.

Ben: title teams generally win 40-50 games, jordan's bulls won 55 games without him
(russell and lebron winning with teams that won 30 or 40 games without them gets no mention)

Seeing the poster-boy of nba analytics constantly regurgitating casual talking points with basically no evidence is dissapointing ngl. Really need a BlockedbyBam type to go ham on these mfs

[OhayoKD]

Sure, it's a starting point. It's also one which requires context to be set.

Right, but you're throwing appeals to emotion whenever this starting point is established. How are you expecting to get "context to be set" when you're not willing to engage in what is actually being contextualized?

Yes, because some people are highly disingenuous in how they approach this subject.

Yeah, but er..."player x had 2 all-stars" isn't enough to demonstrate someone is being disingenuous here.

[70sFan]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh

So many questionable arguments...

Question: you say lebron is more valuable defensively so between defense and playmaking hwo does port give jordan the edge?
Ben: well it's really close, but due to port/fit i think jordan gives you a better offensive cieling in more situations, but either can be the best offensive player(never addresses the defensive part which lebron's consistent value advantage actually draws from, or lebron repeatedly posting jordan+ value without spacing)
Question: could russell be the best peak ever?
Ben: maybe with a high-end eval, but you could also look at russell's teammates and think he's just an all-time peak
(meanwhile, russell's teamamtes after winning a title with "weak mvp" bill):

Yeah it was different in that they replaced their best player and sixth man and dropped by 6 SRS.

Ben: title teams generally win 40-50 games, jordan's bulls won 55 games without him
(russell and lebron winning with teams that won 30 or 40 games without them gets no mention)

Seeing the poster-boy of nba analytics constantly regurgitating casual talking points with basically no evidence is dissapointing ngl. Really need a BlockedbyBam type to go ham on these mfs

I think you clearly overreact here. Ben said that he values having impact on good teams more than having impact on weaker teams. You may disagree with that (I think I would), but he's being consistent with not taking James over Jordan just because LeBron teams were weaker without him.

I disagree with quite a few takes from this last podcast, but it doesn't mean we have to throw everything Ben said to trash.

[Dutchball97]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh

So many questionable arguments...

Question: you say lebron is more valuable defensively so between defense and playmaking hwo does port give jordan the edge?
Ben: well it's really close, but due to port/fit i think jordan gives you a better offensive cieling in more situations, but either can be the best offensive player(never addresses the defensive part which lebron's consistent value advantage actually draws from, or lebron repeatedly posting jordan+ value without spacing)
Question: could russell be the best peak ever?
Ben: maybe with a high-end eval, but you could also look at russell's teammates and think he's just an all-time peak
(meanwhile, russell's teamamtes after winning a title with "weak mvp" bill):

Yeah it was different in that they replaced their best player and sixth man and dropped by 6 SRS.

Ben: title teams generally win 40-50 games, jordan's bulls won 55 games without him
(russell and lebron winning with teams that won 30 or 40 games without them gets no mention)

Seeing the poster-boy of nba analytics constantly regurgitating casual talking points with basically no evidence is dissapointing ngl. Really need a BlockedbyBam type to go ham on these mfs

I think you clearly overreact here. Ben said that he values having impact on good teams more than having impact on weaker teams. You may disagree with that (I think I would), but he's being consistent with not taking James over Jordan just because LeBron teams were weaker without him.

I disagree with quite a few takes from this last podcast, but it doesn't mean we have to throw everything Ben said to trash.

I don't usually agree with Ben (although I do always respect the effort he puts into his analysis) but I get where he's coming from here. Most all-time greats have statistical outlier years in seasons with little help when they're expected to do it all but Jordan somehow kept up his peak production/impact, while surrounded by a strong team. To me that reads as Jordan being the best ceiling raiser and I guess Ben is coming from a similar angle on this.

I'm not a fan in general at looking at on/off type stuff because of this. Sure you've got 09 LeBron or 04 KG breaking all records but how much of their impact would still be there with competent backups? With Jordan you don't have to ask that question really as it seemingly doesn't matter for his production whether his team is the best or worst in the league.

[AEnigma]

So many questionable arguments...

Question: you say lebron is more valuable defensively so between defense and playmaking hwo does port give jordan the edge?
Ben: well it's really close, but due to port/fit i think jordan gives you a better offensive cieling in more situations, but either can be the best offensive player(never addresses the defensive part which lebron's consistent value advantage actually draws from, or lebron repeatedly posting jordan+ value without spacing)
Question: could russell be the best peak ever?
Ben: maybe with a high-end eval, but you could also look at russell's teammates and think he's just an all-time peak
(meanwhile, russell's teamamtes after winning a title with "weak mvp" bill):

Ben: title teams generally win 40-50 games, jordan's bulls won 55 games without him
(russell and lebron winning with teams that won 30 or 40 games without them gets no mention)

Seeing the poster-boy of nba analytics constantly regurgitating casual talking points with basically no evidence is dissapointing ngl. Really need a BlockedbyBam type to go ham on these mfs

I think you clearly overreact here. Ben said that he values having impact on good teams more than having impact on weaker teams. You may disagree with that (I think I would), but he's being consistent with not taking James over Jordan just because LeBron teams were weaker without him.

I disagree with quite a few takes from this last podcast, but it doesn't mean we have to throw everything Ben said to trash.

I don't usually agree with Ben (although I do always respect the effort he puts into his analysis) but I get where he's coming from here. Most all-time greats have statistical outlier years in seasons with little help when they're expected to do it all but Jordan somehow kept up his peak production/impact, while surrounded by a strong team. To me that reads as Jordan being the best ceiling raiser and I guess Ben is coming from a similar angle on this.

I'm not a fan in general at looking at on/off type stuff because of this. Sure you've got 09 LeBron or 04 KG breaking all records but how much of their impact would still be there with competent backups? With Jordan you don't have to ask that question really as it seemingly doesn't matter for his production whether his team is the best or worst in the league.

Except we have dozens of pages explaining how Jordan’s team situated itself to pretty much perfectly maintain his production in a way that would never be true if Pippen and Rodman/Grant were replaced with Wade and Bosh or Kyrie and Love… or even really just a high-volume scoring, limited passing Davis. If that is legitimately Ben’s reasoning at this point — and based on his offhand Bosh shooting comment, it sounds like it may be — that is a profoundly embarrassing blindspot he refuses to move past. And then of course Cody running off the scoring numbers next to notorious chuckers Pippen and Grant was the perfect little bow on that “argument”.

The idea that Jordan, by virtue of being a substantially weaker lead initiator, pairs better with lead initiators (or at least players who have most of their value tied to lead initiation) is moderately fair; to continue with the Magic/Lebron comparison, you would see more diminishing returns putting Magic next to Pippen or Hill or KJ or Isiah or Payton or Price or Stockton or Strickland or Tim Hardaway or Kenny Anderson or Sleepy Floyd or Fat Lever or Micheal Adams or Terrell Brandon or so on than you would with Jordan. Is that itself worth a higher evaluation? For me, I really see no way that alone, as an “average” expected portability conflict outweighing any portability conflict potentially favouring Lebron (e.g. what if the pairing is Kobe, Iverson, Carter, Reggie, Ray Allen, Richmond, Mullin, Kyrie, Booker, etc.), gives Jordan an expected offensive value greater than Lebron’s by enough to offset the defensive gap.

However, rather than get into any of that, no, instead we insightfully point to Bosh “needing” to learn to shoot, as if he should not have learned to do that anyway, or as if Wade were not the stronger impetus for that evolution, or as if Michael Jordan (particularly at his peak) would not like some extra frontcourt spacing in 2012-14 against 2012–14 defences. Same old tired story, same old tired narrative.

[70sFan]

In this case I agree - Jordan played with perfectly optimized rosters throughout his career and I'm 100% sure he'd fit worse with Wade/Bosh or even Kyrie/Love than LeBron actually did.

I'm almost shocked how easily Jordan's portability is taken for granted to be honest. Jordan never played with other high level creators. He never had to change his game because of roster construction. I very much doubt anything would change the way he played.

You may argue that in most situations, Jordan wouldn't need to change his style to make it work. I can see that, although it's far from given. At the same time though, I don't think Jordan shooting 25 times per game next to another high volume perimeter scorer would be a good thing. I doubt Jordan would bring that much value (relative to other GOAT candidates) next to someone like Wade or Kobe. I don't even love his fit with someone like Curry.

In the end, it's the same thing again. Ben mentioned that he has Bird at number 8 (if I remember correctly) for 8 years primes and he has Magic outside of top 10. I find it hard to back up without giving Bird additional points for his style. Magic wasn't even some kind of heliocentric, ball-dominant player for over half of his career.

I also don't agree that Jordan and James are "in the league of their own" for 8 years primes. Jordan never even had consistent 8 years prime because of 1986 and 1994. It seems like it's a better thing for Jordan that he missed these seasons than for someone like Kareem in 1975, who missed only a part of the season...

[OhayoKD]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3ZSWOL6Fvd7G9XQCgeywEh

So many questionable arguments...

Question: you say lebron is more valuable defensively so between defense and playmaking hwo does port give jordan the edge?
Ben: well it's really close, but due to port/fit i think jordan gives you a better offensive cieling in more situations, but either can be the best offensive player(never addresses the defensive part which lebron's consistent value advantage actually draws from, or lebron repeatedly posting jordan+ value without spacing)
Question: could russell be the best peak ever?
Ben: maybe with a high-end eval, but you could also look at russell's teammates and think he's just an all-time peak
(meanwhile, russell's teamamtes after winning a title with "weak mvp" bill):

Yeah it was different in that they replaced their best player and sixth man and dropped by 6 SRS.

Ben: title teams generally win 40-50 games, jordan's bulls won 55 games without him
(russell and lebron winning with teams that won 30 or 40 games without them gets no mention)

Seeing the poster-boy of nba analytics constantly regurgitating casual talking points with basically no evidence is dissapointing ngl. Really need a BlockedbyBam type to go ham on these mfs

I think you clearly overreact here. Ben said that he values having impact on good teams more than having impact on weaker teams. You may disagree with that (I think I would), but he's being consistent with not taking James over Jordan just because LeBron teams were weaker without him.

I disagree with quite a few takes from this last podcast, but it doesn't mean we have to throw everything Ben said to trash.

He doesn't offer evidence for Jordan having higher impact on better teams tho. He makes a claim based on "needs jump-shooters", doesn't actually look or note lebron's impact with weak era-relative spacing, and then never gets to the "defense" part of the question. Whether you agree or disagree with his philosophy, he
a. doesn't actually support the claim in a meaningful way
b. doesn't address what was asked("overall, not who would you take on offense")

[Dutchball97]

I think you clearly overreact here. Ben said that he values having impact on good teams more than having impact on weaker teams. You may disagree with that (I think I would), but he's being consistent with not taking James over Jordan just because LeBron teams were weaker without him.

I disagree with quite a few takes from this last podcast, but it doesn't mean we have to throw everything Ben said to trash.

I don't usually agree with Ben (although I do always respect the effort he puts into his analysis) but I get where he's coming from here. Most all-time greats have statistical outlier years in seasons with little help when they're expected to do it all but Jordan somehow kept up his peak production/impact, while surrounded by a strong team. To me that reads as Jordan being the best ceiling raiser and I guess Ben is coming from a similar angle on this.

I'm not a fan in general at looking at on/off type stuff because of this. Sure you've got 09 LeBron or 04 KG breaking all records but how much of their impact would still be there with competent backups? With Jordan you don't have to ask that question really as it seemingly doesn't matter for his production whether his team is the best or worst in the league.

Except we have dozens of pages explaining how Jordan’s team situated itself to pretty much perfectly maintain his production in a way that would never be true if Pippen and Rodman/Grant were replaced with Wade and Bosh or Kyrie and Love… or even really just a high-volume scoring, limited passing Davis. If that is legitimately Ben’s reasoning at this point — and based on his offhand Bosh shooting comment, it sounds like it may be — that is a profoundly embarrassing blindspot he refuses to move past. And then of course Cody running off the scoring numbers next to notorious chuckers Pippen and Grant was the perfect little bow on that “argument”.

The idea that Jordan, by virtue of being a substantially weaker lead initiator, pairs better with lead initiators (or at least players who have most of their value tied to lead initiation) is moderately fair; to continue with the Magic/Lebron comparison, you would see more diminishing returns putting Magic next to Pippen or Hill or KJ or Isiah or Payton or Price or Stockton or Strickland or Tim Hardaway or Kenny Anderson or Sleepy Floyd or Fat Lever or Micheal Adams or Terrell Brandon or so on than you would with Jordan. Is that itself worth a higher evaluation? For me, I really see no way that alone, as an “average” expected portability conflict outweighing any portability conflict potentially favouring Lebron (e.g. what if the pairing is Kobe, Iverson, Carter, Reggie, Ray Allen, Richmond, Mullin, Kyrie, Booker, etc.), gives Jordan an expected offensive value greater than Lebron’s by enough to offset the defensive gap.

However, rather than get into any of that, no, instead we insightfully point to Bosh “needing” to learn to shoot, as if he should not have learned to do that anyway, or as if Wade were not the stronger impetus for that evolution, or as if Michael Jordan (particularly at his peak) would not like some extra frontcourt spacing in 2012-14 against 2012–14 defences. Same old tired story, same old tired narrative.

Nobody exists in a vacuum so of course it helps Jordan had players like Pippen and Grant next to him who were perfect fits but it's not like LeBron didn't personally choose to play with Wade/Bosh and later AD. I'm not sure how you could make it into a "poor LeBron" narrative when he hops teams every few years and puts himself into these situations and still doesn't manage to keep up the same level of production MJ could in 91.

It's not about lead initiators either. Both MJ and LeBron are extremely effective on- or off-ball, this isn't just some stylistic difference. It's about MJ's impact on bad teams translating better to good teams than anyone else.

[AEnigma]

In this case I agree - Jordan played with perfectly optimized rosters throughout his career and I'm 100% sure he'd fit worse with Wade/Bosh or even Kyrie/Love than LeBron actually did.

I'm almost shocked how easily Jordan's portability is taken for granted to be honest. Jordan never played with other high level creators. He never had to change his game because of roster construction. I very much doubt anything would change the way he played.

You may argue that in most situations, Jordan wouldn't need to change his style to make it work. I can see that, although it's far from given. At the same time though, I don't think Jordan shooting 25 times per game next to another high volume perimeter scorer would be a good thing. I doubt Jordan would bring that much value (relative to other GOAT candidates) next to someone like Wade or Kobe. I don't even love his fit with someone like Curry.

In the end, it's the same thing again. Ben mentioned that he has Bird at number 8 (if I remember correctly) for 8 years primes and he has Magic outside of top 10. I find it hard to back up without giving Bird additional points for his style. Magic wasn't even some kind of heliocentric, ball-dominant player for over half of his career.

I also don't agree that Jordan and James are "in the league of their own" for 8 years primes. Jordan never even had consistent 8 years prime because of 1986 and 1994. It seems like it's a better thing for Jordan that he missed these seasons than for someone like Kareem in 1975, who missed only a part of the season...

Yeah the specifically 8-year prime floored me, and highlighting down years from other players further emphasised the absurdity of using an 8-year frame to celebrate Jordan.

[AEnigma]

I don't usually agree with Ben (although I do always respect the effort he puts into his analysis) but I get where he's coming from here. Most all-time greats have statistical outlier years in seasons with little help when they're expected to do it all but Jordan somehow kept up his peak production/impact, while surrounded by a strong team. To me that reads as Jordan being the best ceiling raiser and I guess Ben is coming from a similar angle on this.

I'm not a fan in general at looking at on/off type stuff because of this. Sure you've got 09 LeBron or 04 KG breaking all records but how much of their impact would still be there with competent backups? With Jordan you don't have to ask that question really as it seemingly doesn't matter for his production whether his team is the best or worst in the league.

Except we have dozens of pages explaining how Jordan’s team situated itself to pretty much perfectly maintain his production in a way that would never be true if Pippen and Rodman/Grant were replaced with Wade and Bosh or Kyrie and Love… or even really just a high-volume scoring, limited passing Davis. If that is legitimately Ben’s reasoning at this point — and based on his offhand Bosh shooting comment, it sounds like it may be — that is a profoundly embarrassing blindspot he refuses to move past. And then of course Cody running off the scoring numbers next to notorious chuckers Pippen and Grant was the perfect little bow on that “argument”.

The idea that Jordan, by virtue of being a substantially weaker lead initiator, pairs better with lead initiators (or at least players who have most of their value tied to lead initiation) is moderately fair; to continue with the Magic/Lebron comparison, you would see more diminishing returns putting Magic next to Pippen or Hill or KJ or Isiah or Payton or Price or Stockton or Strickland or Tim Hardaway or Kenny Anderson or Sleepy Floyd or Fat Lever or Micheal Adams or Terrell Brandon or so on than you would with Jordan. Is that itself worth a higher evaluation? For me, I really see no way that alone, as an “average” expected portability conflict outweighing any portability conflict potentially favouring Lebron (e.g. what if the pairing is Kobe, Iverson, Carter, Reggie, Ray Allen, Richmond, Mullin, Kyrie, Booker, etc.), gives Jordan an expected offensive value greater than Lebron’s by enough to offset the defensive gap.

However, rather than get into any of that, no, instead we insightfully point to Bosh “needing” to learn to shoot, as if he should not have learned to do that anyway, or as if Wade were not the stronger impetus for that evolution, or as if Michael Jordan (particularly at his peak) would not like some extra frontcourt spacing in 2012-14 against 2012–14 defences. Same old tired story, same old tired narrative.

Nobody exists in a vacuum so of course it helps Jordan had players like Pippen and Grant next to him who were perfect fits but it's not like LeBron didn't personally choose to play with Wade/Bosh and later AD. I'm not sure how you could make it into a "poor LeBron" narrative when he hops teams every few years and puts himself into these situations and still doesn't manage to keep up the same level of production MJ could in 91.

Jordan was willing to hop to the Knicks as soon as he saw the Bulls at a talent disadvantage. The Bulls offered him an impossibly giant contract and replaced Horace Grant — who probably would have stayed if Jordan had not retired! — with Rodman, so it all worked out, but we do not need to pretend Jordan showed any blind devotion to the franchise, nor should that be the expectation.

Yeah, Lebron might have done well to learn from the example of the Bulls and arrange for a less offensively skewed team, but nothing in Jordan’s history suggests he fares well as a team builder either. He just never really had cause to try anything of the sort.

It's not about lead initiators either. Both MJ and LeBron are extremely effective on- or off-ball, this isn't just some stylistic difference. It's about MJ's impact on bad teams translating better to good teams than anyone else.

Based on what? His impact is primarily his scoring. His impact translates onto teams that better accommodate that historic volume. Anything else, never tested.

[70sFan]

So many questionable arguments...

Question: you say lebron is more valuable defensively so between defense and playmaking hwo does port give jordan the edge?
Ben: well it's really close, but due to port/fit i think jordan gives you a better offensive cieling in more situations, but either can be the best offensive player(never addresses the defensive part which lebron's consistent value advantage actually draws from, or lebron repeatedly posting jordan+ value without spacing)
Question: could russell be the best peak ever?
Ben: maybe with a high-end eval, but you could also look at russell's teammates and think he's just an all-time peak
(meanwhile, russell's teamamtes after winning a title with "weak mvp" bill):

Ben: title teams generally win 40-50 games, jordan's bulls won 55 games without him
(russell and lebron winning with teams that won 30 or 40 games without them gets no mention)

Seeing the poster-boy of nba analytics constantly regurgitating casual talking points with basically no evidence is dissapointing ngl. Really need a BlockedbyBam type to go ham on these mfs

I think you clearly overreact here. Ben said that he values having impact on good teams more than having impact on weaker teams. You may disagree with that (I think I would), but he's being consistent with not taking James over Jordan just because LeBron teams were weaker without him.

I disagree with quite a few takes from this last podcast, but it doesn't mean we have to throw everything Ben said to trash.

He doesn't offer evidence for Jordan having higher impact on better teams tho. He makes a claim based on "needs jump-shooters", doesn't actually look or note lebron's impact with weak era-relative spacing, and then never gets to the "defense" part of the question. Whether you agree or disagree with his philosophy, he
a. doesn't actually support the claim in a meaningful way
b. doesn't address what was asked("overall, not who would you take on offense")

Well, he'd probably argue that Jordan's teams reached heights that James never did and conclude that James wouldn't be able to do that with similar level teams. I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning, but it's not inconsistent.

[70sFan]

I don't usually agree with Ben (although I do always respect the effort he puts into his analysis) but I get where he's coming from here. Most all-time greats have statistical outlier years in seasons with little help when they're expected to do it all but Jordan somehow kept up his peak production/impact, while surrounded by a strong team. To me that reads as Jordan being the best ceiling raiser and I guess Ben is coming from a similar angle on this.

I'm not a fan in general at looking at on/off type stuff because of this. Sure you've got 09 LeBron or 04 KG breaking all records but how much of their impact would still be there with competent backups? With Jordan you don't have to ask that question really as it seemingly doesn't matter for his production whether his team is the best or worst in the league.

Except we have dozens of pages explaining how Jordan’s team situated itself to pretty much perfectly maintain his production in a way that would never be true if Pippen and Rodman/Grant were replaced with Wade and Bosh or Kyrie and Love… or even really just a high-volume scoring, limited passing Davis. If that is legitimately Ben’s reasoning at this point — and based on his offhand Bosh shooting comment, it sounds like it may be — that is a profoundly embarrassing blindspot he refuses to move past. And then of course Cody running off the scoring numbers next to notorious chuckers Pippen and Grant was the perfect little bow on that “argument”.

The idea that Jordan, by virtue of being a substantially weaker lead initiator, pairs better with lead initiators (or at least players who have most of their value tied to lead initiation) is moderately fair; to continue with the Magic/Lebron comparison, you would see more diminishing returns putting Magic next to Pippen or Hill or KJ or Isiah or Payton or Price or Stockton or Strickland or Tim Hardaway or Kenny Anderson or Sleepy Floyd or Fat Lever or Micheal Adams or Terrell Brandon or so on than you would with Jordan. Is that itself worth a higher evaluation? For me, I really see no way that alone, as an “average” expected portability conflict outweighing any portability conflict potentially favouring Lebron (e.g. what if the pairing is Kobe, Iverson, Carter, Reggie, Ray Allen, Richmond, Mullin, Kyrie, Booker, etc.), gives Jordan an expected offensive value greater than Lebron’s by enough to offset the defensive gap.

However, rather than get into any of that, no, instead we insightfully point to Bosh “needing” to learn to shoot, as if he should not have learned to do that anyway, or as if Wade were not the stronger impetus for that evolution, or as if Michael Jordan (particularly at his peak) would not like some extra frontcourt spacing in 2012-14 against 2012–14 defences. Same old tired story, same old tired narrative.

Nobody exists in a vacuum so of course it helps Jordan had players like Pippen and Grant next to him who were perfect fits but it's not like LeBron didn't personally choose to play with Wade/Bosh and later AD. I'm not sure how you could make it into a "poor LeBron" narrative when he hops teams every few years and puts himself into these situations and still doesn't manage to keep up the same level of production MJ could in 91.

It's not about lead initiators either. Both MJ and LeBron are extremely effective on- or off-ball, this isn't just some stylistic difference. It's about MJ's impact on bad teams translating better to good teams than anyone else.

LeBron picked his teammates and he deserved blame for that, but it doesn't mean anything about him as a player. You can criticize him for his off-court choices, but he didn't play in similarily optimized teams as Jordan.

I don't think there are many strong evidences suggesting that Jordan maintaining his production and impact better than other GOAT level players in the top teams. What makes him better at that than Russell for example? I can't see Russell losing value in any roster structure to be honest. What makes him more scalable than Kareem or Duncan? Is there any reason to question Shaq impact next to elite teammates, when he almost played with them?

[falcolombardi]

I think you clearly overreact here. Ben said that he values having impact on good teams more than having impact on weaker teams. You may disagree with that (I think I would), but he's being consistent with not taking James over Jordan just because LeBron teams were weaker without him.

I disagree with quite a few takes from this last podcast, but it doesn't mean we have to throw everything Ben said to trash.

He doesn't offer evidence for Jordan having higher impact on better teams tho. He makes a claim based on "needs jump-shooters", doesn't actually look or note lebron's impact with weak era-relative spacing, and then never gets to the "defense" part of the question. Whether you agree or disagree with his philosophy, he
a. doesn't actually support the claim in a meaningful way
b. doesn't address what was asked("overall, not who would you take on offense")

Well, he'd probably argue that Jordan's teams reached heights that James never did and conclude that James wouldn't be able to do that with similar level teams. I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning, but it's not inconsistent.

Ehh, by that reasoning curry can also be better than jordan and i think most jordan fans would hate to see that become a common place opinion too lol

In general we know that a lot of the reason jordan teams reached higher heights than lebron teams was that they were better without jordan that lebron teams without lebron. (Thanks to squared pm +/- work) And that lebron teams reached higher offensive heights (the thingh jordan famous portability advantage as a less ball dominant player is supposed to help with)

So it seems like jordan case either relies on 3 notions:

he played with less offensive talent but got close results (arguable, i think jordan offensive help is underated and lebron offensive help a bit overated cause people overvalue isolation scoring and underate jordan teams passing, off rebounding and spacing)

he was a better defensive player (arguable but i disagree from watching both)

he made his teams better when he was on the bench compared to lebron on the bench (lol, i really disagree here)

I dont have a issue with people prefering jordan over lebron, but some of the reasoning is fairly inconsistent imo

[Dutchball97]

Except we have dozens of pages explaining how Jordan’s team situated itself to pretty much perfectly maintain his production in a way that would never be true if Pippen and Rodman/Grant were replaced with Wade and Bosh or Kyrie and Love… or even really just a high-volume scoring, limited passing Davis. If that is legitimately Ben’s reasoning at this point — and based on his offhand Bosh shooting comment, it sounds like it may be — that is a profoundly embarrassing blindspot he refuses to move past. And then of course Cody running off the scoring numbers next to notorious chuckers Pippen and Grant was the perfect little bow on that “argument”.

The idea that Jordan, by virtue of being a substantially weaker lead initiator, pairs better with lead initiators (or at least players who have most of their value tied to lead initiation) is moderately fair; to continue with the Magic/Lebron comparison, you would see more diminishing returns putting Magic next to Pippen or Hill or KJ or Isiah or Payton or Price or Stockton or Strickland or Tim Hardaway or Kenny Anderson or Sleepy Floyd or Fat Lever or Micheal Adams or Terrell Brandon or so on than you would with Jordan. Is that itself worth a higher evaluation? For me, I really see no way that alone, as an “average” expected portability conflict outweighing any portability conflict potentially favouring Lebron (e.g. what if the pairing is Kobe, Iverson, Carter, Reggie, Ray Allen, Richmond, Mullin, Kyrie, Booker, etc.), gives Jordan an expected offensive value greater than Lebron’s by enough to offset the defensive gap.

However, rather than get into any of that, no, instead we insightfully point to Bosh “needing” to learn to shoot, as if he should not have learned to do that anyway, or as if Wade were not the stronger impetus for that evolution, or as if Michael Jordan (particularly at his peak) would not like some extra frontcourt spacing in 2012-14 against 2012–14 defences. Same old tired story, same old tired narrative.

Nobody exists in a vacuum so of course it helps Jordan had players like Pippen and Grant next to him who were perfect fits but it's not like LeBron didn't personally choose to play with Wade/Bosh and later AD. I'm not sure how you could make it into a "poor LeBron" narrative when he hops teams every few years and puts himself into these situations and still doesn't manage to keep up the same level of production MJ could in 91.

It's not about lead initiators either. Both MJ and LeBron are extremely effective on- or off-ball, this isn't just some stylistic difference. It's about MJ's impact on bad teams translating better to good teams than anyone else.

LeBron picked his teammates and he deserved blame for that, but it doesn't mean anything about him as a player. You can criticize him for his off-court choices, but he didn't play in similarily optimized teams as Jordan.

I don't think there are many strong evidences suggesting that Jordan maintaining his production and impact better than other GOAT level players in the top teams. What makes him better at that than Russell for example? I can't see Russell losing value in any roster structure to be honest. What makes him more scalable than Kareem or Duncan? Is there any reason to question Shaq impact next to elite teammates, when he almost played with them?

Jordan played alongside teammates that were a good fit for him but it's starting to sound like this was a roster on a level we've never seen before. Of course LeBron didn't have teams as optimal for him because he chose to join other stars, which left less room to fill the team with high level roleplayers. Now sure it isn't an out there suggestion to say LeBron would be able to keep up his 09 impact on a stronger team that fit his skillset better but we've never actually seen it happen. It's still just projection at this point, while we have seen Jordan posting all-time individual seasons regardless of good or bad teammates. I value proving something a lot, even if that sometimes leans into things like winning bias. LeBron equals MJ as a floor raiser but I value MJ more on strong teams. It's somewhat of a similar story with Kareem and Duncan for me. They were at their best individually on bad teams and then took a step back on offense when surrounded with better talent. Russell is the opposite as he is probably the GOAT at elevating strong teams to almost unbeatable status but I do think it's fair to question whether he'd be able to take a mid 80s Bulls or mid-late 00s Cavs team as far as MJ and LeBron were able to do.

[70sFan]

Jordan played alongside teammates that were a good fit for him but it's starting to sound like this was a roster on a level we've never seen before.

Not at all, people just underrate the value of good fit.

Of course LeBron didn't have teams as optimal for him because he chose to join other stars, which left less room to fill the team with high level roleplayers. Now sure it isn't an out there suggestion to say LeBron would be able to keep up his 09 impact on a stronger team that fit his skillset better but we've never actually seen it happen. It's still just projection at this point, while we have seen Jordan posting all-time individual seasons regardless of good or bad teammates.

Wait, but we have seen LeBron doing that. How can you call 2013 any differently?

I value proving something a lot, even if that sometimes leans into things like winning bias. LeBron equals MJ as a floor raiser but I value MJ more on strong teams.

LeBron doesn't equal Jordan as a floor raiser, he surpass him quite clearly.

It's somewhat of a similar story with Kareem and Duncan for me. They were at their best individually on bad teams and then took a step back on offense when surrounded with better talent.

Duncan had arguably his best season in 2007. He took a step back on offense, so what? His impact remained top tier level.

Kareem had some of his best seasons next to elite rosters - 1971, 1972, 1980... Kareem also didn't take step back on offense at all - he had his highest usage in Milwaukee next to Oscar/Dandridge.

Russell is the opposite as he is probably the GOAT at elevating strong teams to almost unbeatable status but I do think it's fair to question whether he'd be able to take a mid 80s Bulls or mid-late 00s Cavs team as far as MJ and LeBron were able to do.

Well, we know that past prime Russell was capable of winning the title with ~35 wins level team without him. 1986 Bulls were only slightly worse than that and Jordan didn't elevate them to even close level.

[capfan33]

My general thing with the whole portability argument as it pertains to Jordan and Lebron is that while I can fully buy the idea that Jordan was a better ceiling raiser, I don't think it's that large a difference. As others have said, Jordan played on well-constructed rosters for most of his career, and also didn't have to meaningfully change his playstyle, really ever.

If you're giving points to Curry, Bird, etc for portability I would agree with that, but for Lebron vs Jordan specifically, even if Jordan is better, I'm not convinced it's enough to actually move the needle one way or the other.

[falcolombardi]

My general thing with the whole portability argument as it pertains to Jordan and Lebron is that while I can fully buy the idea that Jordan was a better ceiling raiser, I don't think it's that large a difference. As others have said, Jordan played on well-constructed rosters for most of his career, and also didn't have to meaningfully change his playstyle, really ever.

If you're giving points to Curry, Bird, etc for portability I would agree with that, but for Lebron vs Jordan specifically, even if Jordan is better, I'm not convinced it's enough to actually move the needle one way or the other.

I would buy that argument if jordan showed better defensive impact signals than lebron did or raised his teams offense results to higher heights than lebron but instead is the opposite

Criticizing lebron offensive portability alongside other offensive talent when his teams peaked so high (higher than jordan teams) and were all time great over a long strecht of time makes no sense. And we saw in his mvp years and 2016 playoffs how much he could simultaneously lift a defense

Whatever offensive portability advantage jordan is supposed to have it doesnt seem to translate to better (or equally good) offense results

[OhayoKD]

he was a better defensive player (arguable but i disagree from watching both)

Is it tho?

[Dutchball97]

Jordan played alongside teammates that were a good fit for him but it's starting to sound like this was a roster on a level we've never seen before.

Not at all, people just underrate the value of good fit.

Of course LeBron didn't have teams as optimal for him because he chose to join other stars, which left less room to fill the team with high level roleplayers. Now sure it isn't an out there suggestion to say LeBron would be able to keep up his 09 impact on a stronger team that fit his skillset better but we've never actually seen it happen. It's still just projection at this point, while we have seen Jordan posting all-time individual seasons regardless of good or bad teammates.

Wait, but we have seen LeBron doing that. How can you call 2013 any differently?

I value proving something a lot, even if that sometimes leans into things like winning bias. LeBron equals MJ as a floor raiser but I value MJ more on strong teams.

LeBron doesn't equal Jordan as a floor raiser, he surpass him quite clearly.

It's somewhat of a similar story with Kareem and Duncan for me. They were at their best individually on bad teams and then took a step back on offense when surrounded with better talent.

Duncan had arguably his best season in 2007. He took a step back on offense, so what? His impact remained top tier level.

Kareem had some of his best seasons next to elite rosters - 1971, 1972, 1980... Kareem also didn't take step back on offense at all - he had his highest usage in Milwaukee next to Oscar/Dandridge.

Russell is the opposite as he is probably the GOAT at elevating strong teams to almost unbeatable status but I do think it's fair to question whether he'd be able to take a mid 80s Bulls or mid-late 00s Cavs team as far as MJ and LeBron were able to do.

Well, we know that past prime Russell was capable of winning the title with ~35 wins level team without him. 1986 Bulls were only slightly worse than that and Jordan didn't elevate them to even close level.

I guess we just disagree on a lot of things here. I'd agree LeBron was a better player in 2013 than in 2009 but he didn't keep up the same level of individual impact due to having to share the ball more with the likes of Wade and Bosh. Jordan also did have to adapt his playstyle when Phil Jackson introduced the triangle and he did just fine. Duncan taking a step back on offense meant he didn't do as much as he did in 02 and 03, while my entire point is Jordan did maintain that individual dominance once he got better teammates around him.

In any case I was under the wrong assumption that this was the peak thread and I believe 91 MJ is the best peak ever due to his level of individual production alongside team success but that's not what this thread is about. I personally am not really a fan of using portability as an important factor for career comparisons as it is mostly speculative. Someone who stayed with the same team for his career could be very portable but we can't say for sure and moves to other teams going well or not might be due to circumstances outside of a player's personal portability.