38 y/o MJ vs 38 y/o LeBron

[Colbinii]

It was used here to compare Steph and LeBron though...which isn't really different from my example.

Steve Smith: 18.3 USG%
Michael Jordan: 36 USG%

Curry and LeBron are much closer.

The usage should make it worse for Jordan. -155 TS Add is historically bad. He shouldn't have had positive impact.

Edit - I should have been more clear in my original comment. I believe there are.oyher metrics out there that are much better.to use than TS Add when assessing a.players' offensive impact. Relying.on a TS Add as the initial or major comparison point doesn't really tell us how they compare overall offensively.

I agree we shouldn't be pointing to TS+ and say "See, look at Player A > Player B". At the end of the day, none of us here have watched enough film of LeBron and Curry this year to accurately gauge their pure impact and level of play to compare them, which is why statistics come in from either side of the debate as points of evidence.

The best arguments are going to be looking at a player and citing statistics in support of an idea or thought about the player rather than the other way around.

[OhayoKD]

Steve Smith: 18.3 USG%
Michael Jordan: 36 USG%

Curry and LeBron are much closer.

The usage should make it worse for Jordan. -155 TS Add is historically bad. He shouldn't have had positive impact.

Edit - I should have been more clear in my original comment. I believe there are.oyher metrics out there that are much better.to use than TS Add when assessing a.players' offensive impact. Relying.on a TS Add as the initial or major comparison point doesn't really tell us how they compare overall offensively.

I agree we shouldn't be pointing to TS+ and say "See, look at Player A > Player B". At the end of the day, none of us here have watched enough film of LeBron and Curry this year to accurately gauge their pure impact and level of play to compare them, which is why statistics come in from either side of the debate as points of evidence.

The best arguments are going to be looking at a player and citing statistics in support of an idea or thought about the player rather than the other way around.

The order really doesn't matter nearly as much as knowing what you're doing/using. The problem with TS add is it doesn't account for efficiency being harder to mantain on higher volume

[Owly]

The usage should make it worse for Jordan. -155 TS Add is historically bad. He shouldn't have had positive impact.

Edit - I should have been more clear in my original comment. I believe there are.oyher metrics out there that are much better.to use than TS Add when assessing a.players' offensive impact. Relying.on a TS Add as the initial or major comparison point doesn't really tell us how they compare overall offensively.

I agree we shouldn't be pointing to TS+ and say "See, look at Player A > Player B". At the end of the day, none of us here have watched enough film of LeBron and Curry this year to accurately gauge their pure impact and level of play to compare them, which is why statistics come in from either side of the debate as points of evidence.

The best arguments are going to be looking at a player and citing statistics in support of an idea or thought about the player rather than the other way around.

The order really doesn't matter nearly as much as knowing what you're doing/using. The problem with TS add is it doesn't account for efficiency being harder to mantain on higher volume

For high end scorers I'd think this is mitigated by rewarding efficient volume. It's functionally rTS% x volume. There's the case that it's mean on floor raising scorers who can get acceptable, middling scoring that's better than others on their team and draws attention but at that point you're getting away from scoring output (in a given context, but isolated from other aspects of the game) and into interplay with team context and more holistic offensive impact through gravity and playmaking. I think TS add is a useful tool just, per many above, you have to know what it is/does and what its limits are.

[tsherkin]

For high end scorers I'd think this is mitigated by rewarding efficient volume. It's functionally rTS% x volume. There's the case that it's mean on floor raising scorers who can get acceptable, middling scoring that's better than others on their team and draws attention but at that point you're getting away from scoring output (in a given context, but isolated from other aspects of the game) and into interplay with team context and more holistic offensive impact through gravity and playmaking. I think TS add is a useful tool just, per many above, you have to know what it is/does and what its limits are.

I will say this. For many, it is very challenging to maintain efficiency when you are surrounded by a dearth of talent. Washington sucked on offense, and even Jordan's inefficient offense provided big lift. Kind of like AI in Philly. There's diminishing returns as you want your offensive ceiling to rise, but in that situation, even what he was doing provided significant benefit to the Wizards relative to their performance the year before, for what that's worth. Even at -5%, -3% rTS, he was helpful to them. Wouldn't have been had he played for a better team and done that, but that wasn't what was going on there. I don't know that its really a defense of Jordan to say such, but it does bear mention when we're discussing individual scoring efficiency.

The 36% USG he bore in 01-02 was the highest he'd managed since 1987, just as a conversation piece.

[IdolW0rm]

For high end scorers I'd think this is mitigated by rewarding efficient volume. It's functionally rTS% x volume. There's the case that it's mean on floor raising scorers who can get acceptable, middling scoring that's better than others on their team and draws attention but at that point you're getting away from scoring output (in a given context, but isolated from other aspects of the game) and into interplay with team context and more holistic offensive impact through gravity and playmaking. I think TS add is a useful tool just, per many above, you have to know what it is/does and what its limits are.

I will say this. For many, it is very challenging to maintain efficiency when you are surrounded by a dearth of talent. Washington sucked on offense, and even Jordan's inefficient offense provided big lift. Kind of like AI in Philly. There's diminishing returns as you want your offensive ceiling to rise, but in that situation, even what he was doing provided significant benefit to the Wizards relative to their performance the year before, for what that's worth. Even at -5%, -3% rTS, he was helpful to them. Wouldn't have been had he played for a better team and done that, but that wasn't what was going on there. I don't know that its really a defense of Jordan to say such, but it does bear mention when we're discussing individual scoring efficiency.

The 36% USG he bore in 01-02 was the highest he'd managed since 1987, just as a conversation piece.

Isn't scoring at any efficiency way below league average (-3/-5rTS) always detrimental? Just asking.

[OhayoKD]

For high end scorers I'd think this is mitigated by rewarding efficient volume. It's functionally rTS% x volume. There's the case that it's mean on floor raising scorers who can get acceptable, middling scoring that's better than others on their team and draws attention but at that point you're getting away from scoring output (in a given context, but isolated from other aspects of the game) and into interplay with team context and more holistic offensive impact through gravity and playmaking. I think TS add is a useful tool just, per many above, you have to know what it is/does and what its limits are.

I will say this. For many, it is very challenging to maintain efficiency when you are surrounded by a dearth of talent. Washington sucked on offense, and even Jordan's inefficient offense provided big lift. Kind of like AI in Philly. There's diminishing returns as you want your offensive ceiling to rise, but in that situation, even what he was doing provided significant benefit to the Wizards relative to their performance the year before, for what that's worth. Even at -5%, -3% rTS, he was helpful to them. Wouldn't have been had he played for a better team and done that, but that wasn't what was going on there. I don't know that its really a defense of Jordan to say such, but it does bear mention when we're discussing individual scoring efficiency.

The 36% USG he bore in 01-02 was the highest he'd managed since 1987, just as a conversation piece.

Isn't scoring at any efficiency way below league average (-3/-5rTS) always detrimental? Just asking.

IIRC westbrook/ai had positive score-val on nuetral/margianlly negative effiency. Ofc i think scoreval is tied to BPM so that may not reflect actual value so well

[tsherkin]

Isn't scoring at any efficiency way below league average (-3/-5rTS) always detrimental? Just asking.

Mostly, which is why I suggested it wasn't an argument for Jordan over Lebron.

ANd if you put Lebron on that roster, he'd have done better, IMHO. But the Wizards were actually at +6.6 ORTG with Jordan on the floor in 01-02, because they were just that garbage.

I don't think there's any way to pretend that his overall output was good relative to prime-time stars. I just wanted to point out that if he didn't have a disastrous collection of garbage around him, and hadn't had his ribs busted by Artest over the summer, he might have looked a little better than the raw efficiency he showed. And that he did provide lift. Remember, the Wizards were a 19-win team and they were .500 with Jordan after basically replacing Juwan Howard and letting half a season of Mitch Richmond go. So his overall utility to the team was good, relative to how garbage they were the year before, but that gets back to diminishing returns.

[Owly]

For high end scorers I'd think this is mitigated by rewarding efficient volume. It's functionally rTS% x volume. There's the case that it's mean on floor raising scorers who can get acceptable, middling scoring that's better than others on their team and draws attention but at that point you're getting away from scoring output (in a given context, but isolated from other aspects of the game) and into interplay with team context and more holistic offensive impact through gravity and playmaking. I think TS add is a useful tool just, per many above, you have to know what it is/does and what its limits are.

I will say this. For many, it is very challenging to maintain efficiency when you are surrounded by a dearth of talent. Washington sucked on offense, and even Jordan's inefficient offense provided big lift. Kind of like AI in Philly. There's diminishing returns as you want your offensive ceiling to rise, but in that situation, even what he was doing provided significant benefit to the Wizards relative to their performance the year before, for what that's worth. Even at -5%, -3% rTS, he was helpful to them. Wouldn't have been had he played for a better team and done that, but that wasn't what was going on there. I don't know that its really a defense of Jordan to say such, but it does bear mention when we're discussing individual scoring efficiency.

The 36% USG he bore in 01-02 was the highest he'd managed since 1987, just as a conversation piece.

Isn't scoring at any efficiency way below league average (-3/-5rTS) always detrimental? Just asking.

Not if the team without you would do worse (i.e. the weighted average drop of teammates without you would be worse although per above it isn't just shooting as other aspects of offense such as turnovers). But this is of course context specific.

[tsherkin]

Not if the team without you would do worse (i.e. the weighted average drop of teammates without you would be worse although per above it isn't just shooting as other aspects of offense such as turnovers). But this is of course context specific.

Yes, possession economy matters for sure. Jordan was still only a 9.9% TOV guy against 36.0% USG.

[Colbinii]

For high end scorers I'd think this is mitigated by rewarding efficient volume. It's functionally rTS% x volume. There's the case that it's mean on floor raising scorers who can get acceptable, middling scoring that's better than others on their team and draws attention but at that point you're getting away from scoring output (in a given context, but isolated from other aspects of the game) and into interplay with team context and more holistic offensive impact through gravity and playmaking. I think TS add is a useful tool just, per many above, you have to know what it is/does and what its limits are.

I will say this. For many, it is very challenging to maintain efficiency when you are surrounded by a dearth of talent. Washington sucked on offense, and even Jordan's inefficient offense provided big lift. Kind of like AI in Philly. There's diminishing returns as you want your offensive ceiling to rise, but in that situation, even what he was doing provided significant benefit to the Wizards relative to their performance the year before, for what that's worth. Even at -5%, -3% rTS, he was helpful to them. Wouldn't have been had he played for a better team and done that, but that wasn't what was going on there. I don't know that its really a defense of Jordan to say such, but it does bear mention when we're discussing individual scoring efficiency.

The 36% USG he bore in 01-02 was the highest he'd managed since 1987, just as a conversation piece.

Isn't scoring at any efficiency way below league average (-3/-5rTS) always detrimental? Just asking.

No.

Imagine a scenario where you have no volume scorers except Player A. Player A is a capable volume scorer, but more importantly, he can operate in spaces on the floor which open the rest of the floor for his team--think of him operating in the high post and mid-range. His teammates can freely cut near the basket as he isn't pounding the rock in the paint. His teammates can spot up from 3 at 3-4 different locations throughout the 3 point line, providing ample spacing for any of them to catch and attack the rim freely. Any time the offense bogs down, with 3-4 seconds on the shot clock, this player is capable of producing a shot slightly below league average as a whole [but significantly more efficient than the average shot with < 3-4 seconds on the shot clock].

This example may sound extreme, but bits and parts of it can apply and do apply to all sorts of players throughout league history.

[Owly]

For high end scorers I'd think this is mitigated by rewarding efficient volume. It's functionally rTS% x volume. There's the case that it's mean on floor raising scorers who can get acceptable, middling scoring that's better than others on their team and draws attention but at that point you're getting away from scoring output (in a given context, but isolated from other aspects of the game) and into interplay with team context and more holistic offensive impact through gravity and playmaking. I think TS add is a useful tool just, per many above, you have to know what it is/does and what its limits are.

I will say this. For many, it is very challenging to maintain efficiency when you are surrounded by a dearth of talent. Washington sucked on offense, and even Jordan's inefficient offense provided big lift. Kind of like AI in Philly. There's diminishing returns as you want your offensive ceiling to rise, but in that situation, even what he was doing provided significant benefit to the Wizards relative to their performance the year before, for what that's worth. Even at -5%, -3% rTS, he was helpful to them. Wouldn't have been had he played for a better team and done that, but that wasn't what was going on there. I don't know that its really a defense of Jordan to say such, but it does bear mention when we're discussing individual scoring efficiency.

The 36% USG he bore in 01-02 was the highest he'd managed since 1987, just as a conversation piece.

And this is getting into the impact, interplay with team context stuff and non-high end scorers (where you need to have gravity and/or playmaking value to have offensive value, because the "face value" of your scoring isn't there).

If he's firing up midrangers then you can have White and Jones in there and you don't need shot generation (or spacing) and you can have more possessions than opponents by rebounding and he mitigates others' weaknesses (similarly Davis and Whitney don't need to generate shots, just space the floor).

I do think the paucity of creation with those specialist type role players, whilst "making" him fire up more, might artificially boost his situational impact versus his holistic, in-a-vacuum value.

[tsherkin]

And this is getting into the impact, interplay with team context stuff and non-high end scorers (where you need to have gravity and/or playmaking value to have offensive value, because the "face value" of your scoring isn't there).

If he's firing up midrangers then you can have White and Jones in there and you don't need shot generation (or spacing) and you can have more possessions than opponents by rebounding and he mitigates others' weaknesses (similarly Davis and Whitney don't need to generate shots, just space the floor).

I do think the paucity of creation with those specialist type role players, whilst "making" him fire up more, might artificially boost his situational impact versus his holistic, in-a-vacuum value.

If you're trying to say the situation allowed him to exert an impact greater than his performance, there's something to that, sure... but that team sucked. Certainly, he had some guys who could hit the O-boards, but he was also essentially personally the reason they did so well with turnover economy. Richard Hamilton was like a crappier, less-efficient version of Reggie or early Ray, running the baseline and curling around screens for middies. Doug Collins' coaching didn't help. Whitney's shooting was very valuable, as was Popeye's offensive rebounding. They should have played Haywood more earlier, but he was a rookie, so Collins wasn't going to do that.

Jordan was able to impact them because basically anyone would have been able to help them. Surely, lots of players could have done more, yeah. But between his ball protection, his passing and his ability to move within Collin's offense and draw defensive attention, he was able to drive them more effectively than without him. They were a dogcrap -7.2 net team the year before, posting 100.6 team ORTG in 00-01 and were the worst defense in the league. They were a 104.8 offense with him. 22nd in eFG%, 4th in TOV%, 8th in ORB%, 18th in FT/FGA. 27th in pace, 19th in FTr.

The year before, they were 9th in ORB, 7th in pace, 5th in FTr, 22nd in eFG%, but dead last in TOV%. And similarly unhealthy. I think Jordan did a large amount of what they actually needed, to be honest. He certainly wasn't going to do a better job than a star a decade younger than him who actually still had elite athleticism and all that, and could pressure the defense with efficient scoring, though.

[magicman1978]

They should have played Haywood more earlier, but he was a rookie, so Collins wasn't going to do that.

Yeah, Jahidi White definitely should not have been getting that many minutes. Do we know of any line-ups stats that would show how the Jordan/Haywood pairing worked out? I remember the Wizards going on a bit of a run (something like 24-14 if I recall) when Haywood started playing and before Jordan started sitting out because of his knee.

[tsherkin]

They should have played Haywood more earlier, but he was a rookie, so Collins wasn't going to do that.

Yeah, Jahidi White definitely should not have been getting that many minutes. Do we know of any line-ups stats that would show how the Jordan/Haywood pairing worked out? I remember the Wizards going on a bit of a run (something like 24-14 if I recall) when Haywood started playing and before Jordan started sitting out because of his knee.

I can tell you that they were 32-30 when he DID play. And they ripped off a 9-game winning streak at one point in December.

[jalengreen]

I would say most notably we should not rely purely on bballreference for age. LeBron is 37 turning 38 on 12/30. Jordan's first season with the Wizards he was 38 and turned 39 on 2/17. Better apples to apples for age would be LeBron NEXT season vs MJs first Wizards season.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

Better timing for an age comparison I suppose.

'24 LeBron: 23.7 PER, 6.5 BPM, 0.164 WS/48 [109 TS+]

'02 Jordan: 20.7 PER, 3.1 BPM, 0.075 WS/48 [90 TS+]

'86 Kareem: 22.7 PER, 5.4 BPM, 0.197 WS/48 [112 TS+]

[Colbinii]

I would say most notably we should not rely purely on bballreference for age. LeBron is 37 turning 38 on 12/30. Jordan's first season with the Wizards he was 38 and turned 39 on 2/17. Better apples to apples for age would be LeBron NEXT season vs MJs first Wizards season.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

Better timing for an age comparison I suppose.

'24 LeBron: 23.7 PER, 6.5 BPM, 0.164 WS/48 [109 TS+]

'02 Jordan: 20.7 PER, 3.1 BPM, 0.075 WS/48 [90 TS+]

'86 Kareem: 22.7 PER, 5.4 BPM, 0.197 WS/48 [112 TS+]

LeBron: 2504 Minutes [5.4 VORP]
Jordan: 2093 Minutes [2.7 VORP]
Kareem: 2629 Minutes [4.9 VORP]

[penbeast0]

They should have played Haywood more earlier, but he was a rookie, so Collins wasn't going to do that.

Yeah, Jahidi White definitely should not have been getting that many minutes. Do we know of any line-ups stats that would show how the Jordan/Haywood pairing worked out? I remember the Wizards going on a bit of a run (something like 24-14 if I recall) when Haywood started playing and before Jordan started sitting out because of his knee.

Didn't you know Jahidi White was the next Wes Unseld? The reason they dealt off Ben Wallace because they believed White would be a better player? Or that Ike Austin was going to take them to contention?

Ah, Bullets/Wizards history, such a hot mess.

[tsherkin]

They should have played Haywood more earlier, but he was a rookie, so Collins wasn't going to do that.

Yeah, Jahidi White definitely should not have been getting that many minutes. Do we know of any line-ups stats that would show how the Jordan/Haywood pairing worked out? I remember the Wizards going on a bit of a run (something like 24-14 if I recall) when Haywood started playing and before Jordan started sitting out because of his knee.

Didn't you know Jahidi White was the next Wes Unseld? The reason they dealt off Ben Wallace because they believed White would be a better player? Or that Ike Austin was going to take them to contention?

Ah, Bullets/Wizards history, such a hot mess.

Ooof, yeah.

[web123888]

38 yo LeBron is probably better but doesn’t really mean much and he’s still clearly behind Jordan all time as the GOAT as his peaks was notably inferior and he accomplished less with more, and also underachieved more often.

34-35 yo Karl Malone was a lot better than both 34-35 yo Tim Duncan and Shaq but no one really cares. The latter two were far better at their best.

Post prime stuff is nice for longevity and accolades padding but means very little in the context of all time status.

[Colbinii]

Post prime stuff is nice for longevity and accolades padding but means very little in the context of all time status.

Sure, but that is what this thread is about. So if you want to ignore the point of this thread and go back to Peak vs Peak or Prime vs Prime or Career vs Career, maybe you should do that in a thread regarding those topics.

Ya'll are so insecure that someone was better that you bring up all this other stuff. This thread is for 38 y/o MJ vs 38 y/o LeBron, and LeBron laps him. And guess what? LeBron lapping him may have no impact to you on their Peaks or Careers, but it doesn't mean you need to bring up Peaks or Careers because you are insecure.