Who is in your GOAT tier?

[AEnigma]

Which is why I said 2nd acknowledging his mvp years in cleveland look better(but those(and 2016) look better than every player we have rapm for).

???

You still haven't revealed what source of RAPM you are using.

Moderately sure he is referencing Engelmann’s total season dataset, although this is getting annoyingly in the weeds of a few marginal and highly variable impact differences. Which you have basically provoked by trying to undersell 2016 despite its obviously high impact, and which he has now overblown by trying to offset that unfair claim.

Again, you also have to look to relative to the rest of the league as an indicator of how well. If you can't do these things, then maybe you should stop tossing RAPM around aimlessly.

Can't really comment further much beyond that.

Can you do those things? Do you know how he compares to his league in other seasons? Do you recognise the difference in comparing a league without a 2016 Curry and one with a 2016 Curry? Why are we bothering with this selective era relativism? Could we not just as easily argue that Lebron being at the top of the impact pack (alongside regular season Curry) in 2016/17 is more impressive than being at the top in 2012/13?

If you didn't watch Lebron in 2013 just say so. All you have to do is rewatch some games and see there's a visible decline in athleticism and motor.

Was that true in the postseason, and do you honestly feel that athleticism and motor unequivocally top increased awareness and recognition? Who was the better player, 2008 Lebron or 2020 Lebron?

If this wasn't true I don't know why he'd be playing the lowest minutes of his career that year?

Right? If Lebron's cast was so much worse, why did he play less?

Bruh come on, he literally led the league in minutes per game the following season (and then repeated the feat in 2018). Or are you going to flip that around and talk about how obviously that was only because he coasted even harder and thus was able to endure more minutes.

I mean it does not even need to be 2016 for this, but for the fact he yes visibly was putting forth more defensive effort in 2016, because 2017 is basically identical in its impact while having more threes fall. Of course that postseason saw him run up against the peak Durant Warriors, so I guess we are back to the standard of needing to win a title to have the best peak.

I guess shooting the ball better from everywhere on the floor

Why do you think random shooting variance should majorly swing player assessments — especially when (shockingly) that variant advantage fails to carry over in the postseason.

better overall numbers

Is the question peak or “who showed up more on the box score during the regular season”.

more minutes,

Damn, if only Lebron had meaninglessly stayed in longer.

greater team success, anchoring a better defense and offense

All team dependent…

isn't evidence of anything?

Your whole counter to that is "well his RAPM is a little better".

To which I already told you, you have to account for minutes when comparing RAPM, which you ignored completely. Congrats. If you're going to be this arrogant and condescending, at least know what you are using.

Yeah man we are clearly talking about Manu here, good job, you sure showed him with this very legitimate point.

You know who played even fewer minutes? 2016 Steph Curry and 2020 Giannis. So any regular impact advantage they had just vanishes, right?

E. Another factor you've repeatedly ignored, is that the cavs collapsed without Lebron defensively in 2016. Granted how many examples we have of similar collapses and how good impact stuff looks for lebron defensively, I think this is a pretty effective counter for "production" or the box-score.

I'm not sure what you mean by this considering the 2013 Heat's defense fell more without him than 2016 did.

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

In the postseason the cavs played 65-70 win basketball.

They swept the Pistons and Hawks, both sub 50 win teams. How is this indicative of much?

And topped a 10 SRS team…

The 1991 Bulls went 15-2 against two negative SRS teams, a heavily declined Pistons team with a lower SRS (and SRS rank) than both the 2016 Hawks and Raptors, and a rapidly breaking down Lakers team. All credit in the world to Jordan for that run, though, right?

[LukaTheGOAT]

Their percentages were similar, though Kobe had higher volume.
Jordan - 32.7% on 1.7 attempts / 33.2% on 2.5 attempts in the playoffs.
Kobe - 32.9% on 4.1 attempts / 33.1% on 4.0 attempts in the playoffs.

Neither were good 3 point shooters. And Jordan, despite being a worse 3 point shooter, was still the more efficient scorer. 30.1 ppg on 57% TS on his career compared to 25 ppg on 55% TS for Kobe. 33.4 ppg on 57% for MJ in the playoffs. For 4 straight years in the late 80s/early 90s, Jordan averaged over 31 ppg on 60% TS or better. For example, he averaged 35 ppg on 60% TS in 1988, despite being an anemic 13% from 3 (on only 0.6 attempts). In today’s game he’d have the benefit of increased spacing even if he was still a bad 3 point shooter. So, I don’t think his lack of 3pt shooting would be much of a handicap for him compared to the 2010s stars.

Yeah, to be fair Shai Gilgeous Alexander I think is a pretty good comp for what Jordan might be capable of as a shooter in today's era, not even considering the fact that Jordan perhaps having different mechanics if he grows up in today's environment would help tremendously with deeper shots.

This defeats the purpose of the sub-argument though.

Yeah, but the rest of his point about Jordan's translation is valid.

[No-more-rings]

Moderately sure he is referencing Engelmann’s total season dataset, although this is getting annoyingly in the weeds of a few marginal and highly variable impact differences. Which you have basically provoked by trying to undersell 2016 despite its obviously high impact, and which he has now overblown by trying to offset that unfair claim.

I'm not the one "getting annoyingly into the weeds" when he's the one who keeps hammering home the RAPM point.

Can you do those things? Do you know how he compares to his league in other seasons? Do you recognise the difference in comparing a league without a 2016 Curry and one with a 2016 Curry? Why are we bothering with this selective era relativism? Could we not just as easily argue that Lebron being at the top of the impact pack (alongside regular season Curry) in 2016/17 is more impressive than being at the top in 2012/13?

I can't say that without looking at the date sets, though again I don't know why you're putting all the onus on me when RAPM is the crux of his argument not mine.

Why are you asking me to provide context when he refuses, or at least so far hasn't done so?

I'm telling you the RAPM thing between the 2 seasons doesn't tell me much other than both guys were great top of the league caliber.

Was that true in the postseason, and do you honestly feel that athleticism and motor unequivocally top increased awareness and recognition? Who was the better player, 2008 Lebron or 2020 Lebron?

Lebron played off ball more in 2013 than he did in 2016, so his numbers didn't look quite as good in the playoffs.

One other thing to be noted, is Wade's poor health and lack of spacing hurt Lebron in those playoffs along with some bad matchups.

I don't like to say this of course, given how much I like to defend Wade any other time.

The 2016 Cavs had a more natural fit when you start to account for Wade's fit in the team.

So overall, was his playoffs better in 2013? No not really. Probably not. But there's a lot of context in regards to health of supporting casts and other things.

Bruh come on, he literally led the league in minutes per game the following season (and then repeated the feat in 2018). Or are you going to flip that around and talk about how obviously that was only because he coasted even harder and thus was able to endure more minutes.

He played more minutes likely because of a more shaky cast in regards to health. And the Cavs were an atrocious 21st ranked on defense, so he absolutely coasted on that end more than ever before that even showed up in a bad way the following season in his impact stuff.



I can use emojis too, since we're all conversing like teenagers now.

I mean it does not even need to be 2016 for this, but for the fact he yes visibly was putting forth more defensive effort in 2016, because 2017 is basically identical in its impact while having more threes fall. Of course that postseason saw him run up against the peak Durant Warriors, so I guess we are back to the standard of needing to win a title to have the best peak.

I mean I honestly don't get all these straw man arguments. Of course I don't base his best peak or anyone's based on title or not. I don't have any issue with how he performed in the playoffs, but if you think he was putting the same defensive effort that he was circa 2009-2013, then I don't know what to tell you. It even makes logical sense given the kind of load he was carrying on offense. Unless you just think Lebron peaked at offense, defense, athletically and any other way conceivable at age 32 right after leading his team to the worst regular season results in a decade. No I'm not subscribing to that ridiculous notion.

Why do you think random shooting variance should majorly swing player assessments — especially when (shockingly) that variant advantage fails to carry over in the postseason.

Good lord. If we're directing comparing one season to another, why would it not be a big deal?

Is the question peak or “who showed up more on the box score during the regular season”.

Yeah that absolutely matters. Why would it not?

Damn, if only Lebron had meaninglessly stayed in longer.

Yeah if he was capable of it maybe he would've eaked out more wins, seems like something worth mentioning to me.

After all comparing 2 prime seasons of the same player everything should matter.

Yeah man we are clearly talking about Manu here, good job, you sure showed him with this very legitimate point.

I'm not sure what this means, but I think you're just trolling at this point.

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

This thread is the first time I've actually ever seen posters, use terms like "superficial box scores" in regards to 2013 Lebron. I'm not even sure how to respond to a comparison to 2015, other than...you're just trolling at this point and have nothing.

You're bringing up a season where Lebron missed 13 games and was bothered by injuries so much that he had to take a break in the middle of the season and take a "special trip" to Miami to get treatment. Let's not even talk about how he looked like Allen Iverson shooting jumpers in the playoffs.

It just shows who actually followed what went on in some of these seasons, and who just reads off impact stats and calls a player better.

[falcolombardi]

Moderately sure he is referencing Engelmann’s total season dataset, although this is getting annoyingly in the weeds of a few marginal and highly variable impact differences. Which you have basically provoked by trying to undersell 2016 despite its obviously high impact, and which he has now overblown by trying to offset that unfair claim.

I'm not the one "getting annoyingly into the weeds" when he's the one who keeps hammering home the RAPM point.

Can you do those things? Do you know how he compares to his league in other seasons? Do you recognise the difference in comparing a league without a 2016 Curry and one with a 2016 Curry? Why are we bothering with this selective era relativism? Could we not just as easily argue that Lebron being at the top of the impact pack (alongside regular season Curry) in 2016/17 is more impressive than being at the top in 2012/13?

I can't say that without looking at the date sets, though again I don't know why you're putting all the onus on me when RAPM is the crux of his argument not mine.

Why are you asking me to provide context when he refuses, or at least so far hasn't done so?

I'm telling you the RAPM thing between the 2 seasons doesn't tell me much other than both guys were great top of the league caliber.

Was that true in the postseason, and do you honestly feel that athleticism and motor unequivocally top increased awareness and recognition? Who was the better player, 2008 Lebron or 2020 Lebron?

Lebron played off ball more in 2013 than he did in 2016, so his numbers didn't look quite as good in the playoffs.

One other thing to be noted, is Wade's poor health and lack of spacing hurt Lebron in those playoffs along with some bad matchups.

I don't like to say this of course, given how much I like to defend Wade any other time.

The 2016 Cavs had a more natural fit when you start to account for Wade's fit in the team.

So overall, was his playoffs better in 2013? No not really. Probably not. But there's a lot of context in regards to health of supporting casts and other things.

Bruh come on, he literally led the league in minutes per game the following season (and then repeated the feat in 2018). Or are you going to flip that around and talk about how obviously that was only because he coasted even harder and thus was able to endure more minutes.

He played more minutes likely because of a more shaky cast in regards to health. And the Cavs were an atrocious 21st ranked on defense, so he absolutely coasted on that end more than ever before that even showed up in a bad way the following season in his impact stuff.



I can use emojis too, since we're all conversing like teenagers now.

I mean it does not even need to be 2016 for this, but for the fact he yes visibly was putting forth more defensive effort in 2016, because 2017 is basically identical in its impact while having more threes fall. Of course that postseason saw him run up against the peak Durant Warriors, so I guess we are back to the standard of needing to win a title to have the best peak.

I mean I honestly don't get all these straw man arguments. Of course I don't base his best peak or anyone's based on title or not. I don't have any issue with how he performed in the playoffs, but if you think he was putting the same defensive effort that he was circa 2009-2013, then I don't know what to tell you. It even makes logical sense given the kind of load he was carrying on offense. Unless you just think Lebron peaked at offense, defense, athletically and any other way conceivable at age 32 right after leading his team to the worst regular season results in a decade. No I'm not subscribing to that ridiculous notion.

Why do you think random shooting variance should majorly swing player assessments — especially when (shockingly) that variant advantage fails to carry over in the postseason.

Good lord. If we're directing comparing one season to another, why would it not be a big deal?

Is the question peak or “who showed up more on the box score during the regular season”.

Yeah that absolutely matters. Why would it not?

Damn, if only Lebron had meaninglessly stayed in longer.

Yeah if he was capable of it maybe he would've eaked out more wins, seems like something worth mentioning to me.

After all comparing 2 prime seasons of the same player everything should matter.

Yeah man we are clearly talking about Manu here, good job, you sure showed him with this very legitimate point.

I'm not sure what this means, but I think you're just trolling at this point.

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

This thread is the first time I've actually ever seen posters, use terms like "superficial box scores" in regards to 2013 Lebron. I'm not even sure how to respond to a comparison to 2015, other than...you're just trolling at this point and have nothing.

You're bringing up a season where Lebron missed 13 games and was bothered by injuries so much that he had to take a break in the middle of the season and take a "special trip" to Miami to get treatment. Let's not even talk about how he looked like Allen Iverson shooting jumpers in the playoffs.

It just shows who actually followed what went on in some of these seasons, and who just reads off impact stats and calls a player better.

Mmm, not the op but i have to call out some of these points

Lebron played off ball more in 2013 than he did in 2016, so his numbers didn't look quite as good in the playoffs.

This is a point in favor of why you shouldnt compare players only by who has the more impressive boxscore.

You cannot use the boxscore to argue miami lebron over cavs v2 lebron then say that boxscore doesnt tell the whole story

And the Cavs were an atrocious 21st ranked on defense

Was not the comparision here for 2016 lebron? Those cavs had a 10th ranked defense in reg season and a really solid -3.8 defensive rating anchored around lebron in the playoffs. despite a weaker defensive supporting cast than in miami

Unless you just think Lebron peaked at offense, defense, athletically and any other way conceivable at age 32 right after leading his team to the worst regular season results in a decade.

Again, for 2016 (the year in question being compared with 2013) the cavs won 57 games despite kyrie missing 30+ games, so it is not lebron worst regular season record

And no, lebron didnt peak athleticaly in 2016, neither did he in 2013 for that matter but in 2008-2010. Somethingh important to remember and obvious on film is that miami lebron was not even close to his early athletism because all the weight he put on.

He lost some of those extra pounds in16 and actually looks about as fast in cleveland v2 (16-18) as he did in miami despite the age difference and remember, even if miami bron was still more athletic overall athletism is not the only thingh that matters for defense

Experience and intelligence at reading the opposite offense are arguably even more important (and post miami lebron wins there) and lebron is just a player who has got better and better consistently over his career in the Basketball IQ department

And yes, lebron peaked offensively post miami. More resiliency, veraatility and superior passer

Yeah if he was capable of it maybe he would've eaked out more wins, seems like something worth mentioning to me.

They won 57 games with a bit over half a seasom of kyrie despite performing worse with lebron on the bench than the 2013 heat

Yeah that absolutely matters. Why would it not?

It matters so far as you believe the biggest boxscore tells you who impacted a game more, which many of us dont think is that much (while still being correlated)

To borrow your earlier point about rapm

I'm telling you the RAPM thing between the 2 seasons doesn't tell me much other than both guys were great top of the league caliber

2013 and 2016 both had monster boxscores and top of the league caliber. I honestly wouldnt get all that much from them beyond that

I'm not even sure how to respond to a comparison to 2015,

He didnt bring 2015 up to compare directlt to 2013. He brought it up to mention that cavs 2015 defense was even more dependant on lebron that miami years as a counter example to your point

[AEnigma]

Moderately sure he is referencing Engelmann’s total season dataset, although this is getting annoyingly in the weeds of a few marginal and highly variable impact differences. Which you have basically provoked by trying to undersell 2016 despite its obviously high impact, and which he has now overblown by trying to offset that unfair claim.

I'm not the one "getting annoyingly into the weeds" when he's the one who keeps hammering home the RAPM point.

Because you wanted to argue for a different season based on a supposed significant regular season advantage not reflected in any measurement of impact.

Can you do those things? Do you know how he compares to his league in other seasons? Do you recognise the difference in comparing a league without a 2016 Curry and one with a 2016 Curry? Why are we bothering with this selective era relativism? Could we not just as easily argue that Lebron being at the top of the impact pack (alongside regular season Curry) in 2016/17 is more impressive than being at the top in 2012/13?

I can't say that without looking at the date sets, though again I don't know why you're putting all the onus on me when RAPM is the crux of his argument not mine.

Why are you asking me to provide context when he refuses, or at least so far hasn't done so?

I'm telling you the RAPM thing between the 2 seasons doesn't tell me much other than both guys were great top of the league caliber.

You are the one trying to argue one was clearly and significantly better lol.

Was that true in the postseason, and do you honestly feel that athleticism and motor unequivocally top increased awareness and recognition? Who was the better player, 2008 Lebron or 2020 Lebron?

Lebron played off ball more in 2013 than he did in 2016, so his numbers didn't look quite as good in the playoffs.

As opposed to 2012 or 2014? What exactly is the ratio of “percentage of plays off-ball” to “decrease in numbers”.

One other thing to be noted, is Wade's poor health and lack of spacing hurt Lebron in those playoffs along with some bad matchups.

I don't like to say this of course, given how much I like to defend Wade any other time.

The 2016 Cavs had a more natural fit when you start to account for Wade's fit in the team.

So overall, was his playoffs better in 2013? No not really. Probably not. But there's a lot of context in regards to health of supporting casts and other things.

So why not apply that context to Jordan.

Bruh come on, he literally led the league in minutes per game the following season (and then repeated the feat in 2018). Or are you going to flip that around and talk about how obviously that was only because he coasted even harder and thus was able to endure more minutes.

He played more minutes likely because of a more shaky cast in regards to health.

Ah surely you have some numbers on that and are not just wildly speculating to justify a currently unsupported take.

And the Cavs were an atrocious 21st ranked on defense, so he absolutely coasted on that end more than ever before that even showed up in a bad way the following season in his impact stuff.

Weird how Lebron coasting in 2017 is enough to swing their defence from -2 to +1.5. That might say something about his 2016 defence, no?

By the way, by that standard it seems like he was defensively coasting in 2013 too.

:noway:

I can use emojis too, since we're all conversing like teenagers now.

You are talking about the sport like a teenager, so yeah this seems appropriate.

I mean I honestly don't get all these straw man arguments. Of course I don't base his best peak or anyone's based on title or not. I don’t have any issue with how he performed in the playoffs, but if you think he was putting the same defensive effort that he was circa 2009-2013, then I don't know what to tell you.

Does effort inherently equate to ability or performance or impact?

It even makes logical sense given the kind of load he was carrying on offense.

Why do you feel his load was uniquely high? If anything, his load was at its highest back in 2009/10.

Unless you just think Lebron peaked at offense, defense, athletically and any other way conceivable at age 32

One of my favourite running gags is when people say they are being strawmanned and then immediately construct a giant one. The entire question has been whether his athletic drop-off was more significant than his improvements in skill and on-court assessment.

right after leading his team to the worst regular season results in a decade. No I'm not subscribing to that ridiculous notion.

?????? Literally the only years with a better team win percentage were 2009, 2010, 2013, and 2020, and the only years with a better on-court rating were 2009 and 2013. And again, this is solely looking at the regular season.

EDIT: Just realised you meant 2015, which might honestly be even less serious. Yes, in that year Lebron led his worst team since 2008… by virtue of missing 13 games and the team going 3-10 without him. When he was on-court, his team had a better rating than when he was on-court for the 2011, 2012, and 2014 Heat. All despite back issues that were no longer debilitating him the following year. Very genuine!

Why do you think random shooting variance should majorly swing player assessments — especially when (shockingly) that variant advantage fails to carry over in the postseason.

Good lord. If we're directing comparing one season to another, why would it not be a big deal?

Did you think Curry last year was no longer the league’s best shooter? Good lord. No, random variance should not be this significant on your assessments of players.

And you know that, given how willing you are to dismiss 2009 Lebron as an extended hot streak.

Is the question peak or “who showed up more on the box score during the regular season”.

Yeah that absolutely matters. Why would it not?

Because that does not capture what the player is doing to drive their team to a title?

Damn, if only Lebron had meaninglessly stayed in longer.

Yeah if he was capable of it maybe he would've eaked out more wins, seems like something worth mentioning to me.

… So you think in 2016 specifically, Lebron was not physically capable of playing more minutes than he did en route to a comfortable conference first seed on a team that never had a prayer of catching the win totals of the top two western teams.

Way to pick your hills to die on.

After all comparing 2 prime seasons of the same player everything should matter.

Would be nice if you considered everything, but you seem stuck on regular season win totals and box scores

Yeah man we are clearly talking about Manu here, good job, you sure showed him with this very legitimate point.

I'm not sure what this means, but I think you're just trolling at this point.

It is a marginal difference in time played. Clinging to it is sheer desperation, not a serious commentary on the player.

If you want to go that route, 2015 Lebron was even more tied to his team’s defence. 2013 Lebron’s DRAPM was also pretty pedestrian, and in the postseason there is really no conversation between the two, whether by impact of even just going by superficial box score production.

This thread is the first time I've actually ever seen posters, use terms like "superficial box scores" in regards to 2013 Lebron. I'm not even sure how to respond to a comparison to 2015, other than...you're just trolling at this point and have nothing.

You think it is trolling because you are incapable of looking past a box score.

You're bringing up a season where Lebron missed 13 games and was bothered by injuries so much that he had to take a break in the middle of the season and take a "special trip" to Miami to get treatment. Let's not even talk about how he looked like Allen Iverson shooting jumpers in the playoffs.

Yep! And despite all that, he was again at the top of the league in impact and was more essential to that team’s defence than he was to the 2013 Heat. Because pure athletic force is not the sole means by which he can exert his will on the court.

It just shows who actually followed what went on in some of these seasons, and who just reads off impact stats and calls a player better.

Wow that would be a sick burn if your entire argument were not based on you gesticulating wildly at the 2013 Miami Heat (and tbh 1991 Bulls) Basketball-Reference page and going, “SEEEEEEEEE?????”

If anything, seems like you were pretty uninterested in following those Cleveland seasons. Too bad, you missed some peak Lebron performance.

[falcolombardi]

If anythingh, by boxscore, effort, minutes, load, athletism, reg season and team dependency on 2009 lebron would be his peak, not 2013

By those kind of measures 2009 lebron would also be the goat peak in general most likely

If we are evaluating years in a vacuum then even more so

[AEnigma]

Yeah but he was smarter and more resilient in 2012 and 2013 even though he was not quite as athletically dominant, so why would we choose 2009.

[OhayoKD]

As you've taken a large portion of your post to argue I'm a stan based on a variety of accusations here, I think the first thing to do is address these...

Sure, and that's part of why he has a good argument for GOAT. I think most people don't dispute that, but when you go around with the "Lebron is indisputably better than everyone" sort of attitude

At no point in my history on this site have I argued Lebron is indisputably better than everyone. This is what we call a strawman.

There's evidence there, you just choose to ignore it or deem it "unworthy".

[/quote]
I did not ignore your evidence. I directly addressed your evidence and reconciled it with mine...

2016 Lebron, compared to 2013 lebron, consistently posts higher defensive impact whether you go by PIPM, RAPM, or if you looked at how the defenses were affected by Lebron's depature. How precisely does the box-score or box-score aggregates contradict metrics that like defense more preferring 2016 lebron's regular season?

held up better defensively, and were healthier(kyrie misses half the seasons). Moreover winning-based data/analysis(as opposed to box-score centered) favors 2016. Notable considering that that type of analysis specifically does a better job accounting for defense.

Do you expect everything you say to be immediately accepted without scrutiny? I don't think "immediately accept my argument as fact or you're a stan" is good practice. And it's certainly not a standard you live up to since you largely haven't even acknowledged the other side.

That might actually save some time since alot of your "evidence" is baked into mine. For example...

I guess shooting the ball better from everywhere on the floor, better overall numbers, more minutes, greater team success, anchoring a better defense and offense isn't evidence of anything?

Record measures the performance of a team, not a player. To isolate an individual you also need to consider supporting cast yet you completely disregard the "without". When we account for both parts of the equation 2016 looks better than 2013. I'm also baffled how you can be so dismissive of "57 wins without second best player" when you have no issue making the case for 50 win seasons where the teams in question don't perform worse than Lebron's without their star.

On that note, you still haven't mentioned a specific non-lebron regular season you think clears 2016. Which shaq, mj, duncan, or hakeem regular season do you have in mind when arguing 2016 isn't on the same level? This is now multiple posts and you're conveniently avoiding the part that actually matters for a goat case.

Your whole counter to that is "well his RAPM is a little better".

I highlighted rapm, PIPM, and two stint-wide and season-wide WOWY, and then, on-top of that, I reconciled the evidence you provided(box-stuff).

This is your second strawman in this post...

Which is why I said 2nd acknowledging his mvp years in cleveland look better(but those(and 2016) look better than every

What "isn't up for discussion" is that his box-stats dipped, and even then, slashlines are pretty much always subjective. The "motor" is as debatable as 2016 lebron being "smarter".

Well sure there's going to be a level of subjectivity here, we're debating who had better seasons, not whether or not tree leaves are green.

If you didn't watch Lebron in 2013 just say so. All you have to do is rewatch some games and see there's a visible decline in athleticism and motor. If this wasn't true I don't know why he'd be playing the lowest minutes of his career that year?

And I could turn that around and say, all you have to do is watch 2016 and see there's a visible increase in intelligence/skill. That manifests itself on the court as much as "motor/athleticism does". And by this logic 2009 is irrefutably above 2013...

Right? If Lebron's cast was so much worse, why did he play less?

How does minuites played matter more than the actual performance of the supporting cast???? Minutes played is a factor in supporting cast performance and the final record. Lebron played less and the raw gap was still collosal. Even if we inflate the "without" with surrounding years(1-5 to 30 wins)

"Smarter" isn't something as easily caught on camera, so sure if you want to remove that then fine but it's not something helping 2016's case, as you'd sort of expect that with age.

But gee, telling you that Lebron was less athletic and physically inferior at 31 to himself at 28 shouldn't come as a surprise it should be common sense.

This is also obviously true for early cleveland lebron, and yet, i'm sure you wouldn't call people who argue against 2009 lebron as "stans"...

Being "smart" manifests itself on the court like motor does. And it certainly isn't something you should just dismiss when in the final accounting, it was 2016 lebron, not 2013 Lebron, who saw a bigger differential in how his team fared with and without him... If Lebron is achieving better impact outcomes in spite of having a lesser motor, seems like a safe-bet he's compensating somewhere.
Like, you do realize "box-production", "motor" and "minuites played" all influence a players overall "impact"? You're basically disregarding the forest in favor of specific trees.

I should also point out, since i see you've made "fit" a point, is that the 2015 cavs had horrible relative to era spacing when kyrie and love went out and still were pretty successful thanks to their defense. Consider again, that the cavs, without lebron that regular season, were one of the worst defenses in the league

Sure, and that's part of why he has a good argument for GOAT. I think most people don't dispute that, but when you go around with the "Lebron is indisputably better than everyone" sort of attitude, it's going to rub some people the wrong way. But again, it's sort of a moving target, because people have different sources and different metrics that they all cling, but sure I wouldn't doubt Lebron looks better than anyone there.

Can you please stick with what I've actually said? You specifically argued 2016 is indisputably not on par with other regular seasons. That is what I argued against. "Indisputable" is your introduction to this conversation, not mine.

E. Another factor you've repeatedly ignored, is that the cavs collapsed without Lebron defensively in 2016. Granted how many examples we have of similar collapses and how good impact stuff looks for lebron defensively, I think this is a pretty effective counter for "production" or the box-score.

I'm not sure what you mean by this considering the 2013 Heat's defense fell more without him than 2016 did.

Cavs were a very good defense in 2015 and 2016 with lebron and were one of the worst defenses in the league when Lebron didn't play. What are you talking about?

In the postseason the cavs played 65-70 win basketball.

They swept the Pistons and Hawks, both sub 50 win teams. How is this indicative of much?

That holds up if you adjust for opponents. Are we forgetting the part where they played the golden state warriors even? A team that beat OKC(65 win pace at full strength, beats a 70 win srs team in the second round)?

Additionally, the cavs, without kyrie or kevin love played like a 60 win team in 2015 sweeping the 60 win(55 srs) hawks, and taking the warriors to 6. In 2017 they also played like one of the best teams ever when you account for opponent quality in the playoffs. What exactly do you think counts as "indicative" if that isn't? Again, in games where Lebron did not play, the cavs were a sub 30-win team. Can you show me what non-russell precedent you are referring to when you say it's stan-y for me to claim that that sort of impact is nigh unprecedented?

How does any of this "prove" 2013 was a "clearly" better regular season? The record doesn't tell us anything without an understanding of how much help each had. The heat won more games without lebron in 2013,

4/5 of those wins came against Bobcats(21 wins), Orlando 920 wins) Washington(29 wins), and Cavs(24 wins)

How is this supposed to tell me anything?

How does Lebron's team winning less games in those other years "prove" Lebron was better?

Count all 4 wins as losses then. Going from 1-5(we can up that to 27 if we extend the sample with other seasons) to 51 without your second best player is an outlier-level outcome, which is corraobated with Lebron also posting outlier-level APM and Lebron posting outlier level PIPM. The only non-outlier here is the slashline which we know doesn't account for defense well...

The actual argument was not "they won less games", the argument was the gap in wins is larger in 2016. Again, strawman.

Ok what are you even talking about now? What "winning-based data/analysis", it this just you trying to sound smart when you can't understand the limitations to your own arguments?

1. Lebron did not "hold up better defensively" in 2016. His team had a bigger drop with him off the court in 2013..

I don't understand what you mean by "held up better". Cavs went from a good defense to one of the worst defenses in the league in 15 and 16 when Lebron missed games. There is literally no track record of the cavs being even competent on defense without Lebron post 2008. And when Lebron's defensive metrics declined, the team also feel off.

You keep telling me my argument isn't "proof" then keep pointing to "57 wins without Kyrie for half a season".

[/quote]
I'm pointing to how many games the cavs won, how many the games they won without lebron during that stint, how many games they won during that season in paticular, Lebron posting higher PIPM, Lebron posting higher RAPM, and how Lebron scores in surrounding years with some basic context consideration (no kyrie or love for a 60 win sweep in the 2015 playoffs).



This is now the 4th time you've strawmanned me. Maybe accuse me of being a stan, after you've managed to get a gist of what I'm saying?

You're out here unironically accusing someone whose given unusually detailed accounts of what happened in the 60's and 70's of "not watching the game" in 2016 because they had the audacity to disagree with you, while simultaneously claiming everyone offering dissent is biased.

If you're going to be this sure of yourself, having a basic understanding of what other people are actually saying is the absolute minimum here.

[Jaivl]

Hey guys. I know I'm cute but come on.

Interesting question. It would obviously depend on your ranking criteria and what you weigh most, lead with the most in your rankings, etc...

At the present time, I would say:

Jordan (best combination of peak/prime, winning, and individual dominance)
Lebron (probably the most accumulated career value as a function of longevity x baseline performance)
Russell (greatest pure winner in NBA history).

Jordan's argument is pretty straightforward. Lebron and Russell can get in there with rankings that emphasize the value of longevity/accumulation and team success/winning more than most other schemes/rankings.

Aren't LeBron's and Russell's arguments the straight-forward ones, Jordan getting there with rankings that emphasize XYZ over ABC?

Describing Jordan's combination of individual dominance and team success as having to emphasize complicated criteria honestly sounds a bit agenda-driven. I'll assume it's because you're replying to someone who also is making a clearly agenda-driven statement?

It's not neccesarily complicated, it's not even neccesarily harder to make, it's a perfectly fine case but hell no, it's not as straightforward.

"Most winning ever" and "biggest/best numbers ever" are straightforward. Jordan does not have a simple, to the point, case like that.

[Dutchball97]

Hey guys. I know I'm cute but come on.

Aren't LeBron's and Russell's arguments the straight-forward ones, Jordan getting there with rankings that emphasize XYZ over ABC?

Describing Jordan's combination of individual dominance and team success as having to emphasize complicated criteria honestly sounds a bit agenda-driven. I'll assume it's because you're replying to someone who also is making a clearly agenda-driven statement?

It's not neccesarily complicated, it's not even neccesarily harder to make, it's a perfectly fine case but hell no, it's not as straightforward.

"Most winning ever" and "biggest/best numbers ever" are straightforward. Jordan does not have a simple, to the point, case like that.

To me this talk about how straightforward their cases are is pretty needless semantics. Kareem and LeBron only have more "clear" and "straightforward" cases than Jordan if you treat cumulative value like an objective truth, which it clearly isn't. How much value you see in someone's career is as subjective as you can get even if you're using stats you think are perfect. The only one with a real "straightforward" case is Russell because rangz but are we really going to let the discussion devolve to that level?

[ShaqAttac]

Hey guys. I know I'm cute but come on.

Describing Jordan's combination of individual dominance and team success as having to emphasize complicated criteria honestly sounds a bit agenda-driven. I'll assume it's because you're replying to someone who also is making a clearly agenda-driven statement?

It's not neccesarily complicated, it's not even neccesarily harder to make, it's a perfectly fine case but hell no, it's not as straightforward.

"Most winning ever" and "biggest/best numbers ever" are straightforward. Jordan does not have a simple, to the point, case like that.

To me this talk about how straightforward their cases are is pretty needless semantics. Kareem and LeBron only have more "clear" and "straightforward" cases than Jordan if you treat cumulative value like an objective truth, which it clearly isn't. How much value you see in someone's career is as subjective as you can get even if you're using stats you think are perfect. The only one with a real "straightforward" case is Russell because rangz but are we really going to let the discussion devolve to that level?

what is culminative value?

[ShaqAttac]

I'm not saying that Kareem has a clear advantage over James (though I prefer his prime), but I don't see Jordan having any advantage over Kareem or James either. You say that it's about "combination of "team and individual dominance" but I'm not convinced his individual dominance is any better than these two and his team dominance was replicated by Kareem and James - just less often (due to team circumstances, not lack of ability). I mean, did James or Kareem ever played in their primes in a team that would have won 55 games without them? I doubt it to be honest, given how Lakers/Bucks or Cavs/Heat did without them.

Similar to what I just told Aenigma, it's fine if you don't like my arguments for Jordan as my GOAT but not a lot I can do about that. I asked you about where you saw a clear prime advantage for Kareem over LeBron, not whether you prefer both Kareem and LeBron over MJ because I already know you do.

I know you don't want to convince me and I don't want to convince you either. I think having Jordan at the number one is more than defensible, so it wasn't any attempt to destroy your arguments or anything.

I just wanted to show you that just like you think Jordan was more dominant than Kareem or LeBron, I can also see such case for Kareem over LeBron. Remember, when we talk about GOATs, it's basically all about personal preferences and I have my (I think informed) opinion about two-way centers being more impactful than high level playmaker like James. I think Kareem was more portable and scalable player across different teams due to his defensive impact and offensive game.

As you know, when we talk about GOATs, there is no clear statistical argument that puts one of candidates clearly ahead of anyone else. The same thing applies to Jordan, but you do have him clearly ahead. Why do you find it hard to understand that some people may think similar about Kareem?

idk about kareem but it seems like jordans stat are worse. lots of numbers from lebron side. from mj side i only see box and excuses

[Dutchball97]

Hey guys. I know I'm cute but come on.


It's not neccesarily complicated, it's not even neccesarily harder to make, it's a perfectly fine case but hell no, it's not as straightforward.

"Most winning ever" and "biggest/best numbers ever" are straightforward. Jordan does not have a simple, to the point, case like that.

To me this talk about how straightforward their cases are is pretty needless semantics. Kareem and LeBron only have more "clear" and "straightforward" cases than Jordan if you treat cumulative value like an objective truth, which it clearly isn't. How much value you see in someone's career is as subjective as you can get even if you're using stats you think are perfect. The only one with a real "straightforward" case is Russell because rangz but are we really going to let the discussion devolve to that level?

what is culminative value?

The amount of value a player generated over their careers. It's pretty much just their stats counted up and is used by quite a few people here as the basis of their analysis.

[ShaqAttac]

To me this talk about how straightforward their cases are is pretty needless semantics. Kareem and LeBron only have more "clear" and "straightforward" cases than Jordan if you treat cumulative value like an objective truth, which it clearly isn't. How much value you see in someone's career is as subjective as you can get even if you're using stats you think are perfect. The only one with a real "straightforward" case is Russell because rangz but are we really going to let the discussion devolve to that level?

what is culminative value?

The amount of value a player generated over their careers. It's pretty much just their stats counted up and is used by quite a few people here as the basis of their analysis.

so like longetvity

also wat stats are added up.

[Dutchball97]

what is culminative value?

The amount of value a player generated over their careers. It's pretty much just their stats counted up and is used by quite a few people here as the basis of their analysis.

so like longetvity

also wat stats are added up.

There is no one stat specifically used for cumulative value, it's whatever stats the person using it finds convincing. Like I said, it's just an estimate and not an objective truth.

[Jaivl]

Hey guys. I know I'm cute but come on.

Describing Jordan's combination of individual dominance and team success as having to emphasize complicated criteria honestly sounds a bit agenda-driven. I'll assume it's because you're replying to someone who also is making a clearly agenda-driven statement?

It's not neccesarily complicated, it's not even neccesarily harder to make, it's a perfectly fine case but hell no, it's not as straightforward.

"Most winning ever" and "biggest/best numbers ever" are straightforward. Jordan does not have a simple, to the point, case like that.

To me this talk about how straightforward their cases are is pretty needless semantics.

Indeed it is.

[70sFan]

Hey guys. I know I'm cute but come on.

Describing Jordan's combination of individual dominance and team success as having to emphasize complicated criteria honestly sounds a bit agenda-driven. I'll assume it's because you're replying to someone who also is making a clearly agenda-driven statement?

It's not neccesarily complicated, it's not even neccesarily harder to make, it's a perfectly fine case but hell no, it's not as straightforward.

"Most winning ever" and "biggest/best numbers ever" are straightforward. Jordan does not have a simple, to the point, case like that.

To me this talk about how straightforward their cases are is pretty needless semantics. Kareem and LeBron only have more "clear" and "straightforward" cases than Jordan if you treat cumulative value like an objective truth, which it clearly isn't. How much value you see in someone's career is as subjective as you can get even if you're using stats you think are perfect. The only one with a real "straightforward" case is Russell because rangz but are we really going to let the discussion devolve to that level?

So I think we can all agree that there is no clear GOAT with "straightforward case" in the NBA history and we can move on

[ShaqAttac]

from thread it seems like 2 cases are lebron and bill. no one really defended jordan good. i see people say kareem but i dont know enough for that

[falcolombardi]

from thread it seems like 2 cases are lebron and bill. no one really defended jordan good. i see people say kareem but i dont know enough for that

Kareem case is fairly similar to lebron case all thinghs considered

Goat level player in his really long prime with incredible longevity. Probably more impressive longevity than lebron when considering health and how careers were shorter in his era

[ShaqAttac]

from thread it seems like 2 cases are lebron and bill. no one really defended jordan good. i see people say kareem but i dont know enough for that

Kareem case is fairly similar to lebron case all thinghs considered

Goat level player in his really long prime with incredible longevity. Probably more impressive longevity than lebron when considering health and how careers were shorter in his era

wait. does that mean kareem also peaked higher than mj. how does kareem and lebron peak compare