Djoker wrote:OhayoKD wrote:
A fair bit less insane than his conventional box would suggest(cue arch-angel comparisons). Decision-making and playmaking(the quality of what you're creating also matters) are not at the top-tier, and he doesn't offer the perks of an on-court coach that players like Magic, Nash, and Lebron do(you might note those three have a massively disproportionate proportion of goat-level rs and playoff offenses). So...not too dissimilar from Clippers Kawhi. And, for the sake of this question, his finishing, passing, ball-handling and shooting are all lesser outliers relative to the league now than they were in the 80's/90's.
You bring up Ja Morant, but Ja Morant was not finishing or driving better than a near 40 year old Lebron last year because height and power are at a premium.
And there's the other bit where the amount of foreign talent doubled 6 years out from Jordan's retiremen. Now we are 30 years away.
So no, he's not full-frontal kawhi. Not even on offense.
You do realize that peak MJ has higher Box Creation and
And his regular-season box-creation/passer-rating(wierd how you always leave effiecny out) peaked in 1989 when he went and averaged a 30-point triple double as a psuedo-helio. And
yetjordan archangel, 13-11, +2 net, with a team that won 27 before he got there
Similar slashline to 2010 Lebron who in a similar situation went
lebron archangel, 11-0 +8 net with starters(- mo williams) that won at an 18-win pace(15 by record) without Lebron but with Mo-Williams
Please note this is a
much larger sample than many of the on/off marks you like throwing.
Of course what you left out here is that similar advanced scoring numbers actually has
Lebron's scoring peaking higher by a larger margin:
Even if we were to compare basketball messi with basketball ronaldo using g/a for some reason...Lebron
still looks better.
And of course goals/assists, sorry points/assists is a stupid way to compare a player who does far more outside of box-metrics offensively than Jordan does:
Djoker wrote:Many teams with heliocentric pieces show bigger declines when those players sit because those teams heavily rely on that one player for everything
When Lebron goes arch-angel(taking up even more up his plate), he takes weaker help to much higher heights.
When Jordan goes arch-angel, he takes better help to much lower heights.
Simply put, Jordan is alot worse at the point than Lebron is,
because he's a much worse playmaker.
Box-creation correlates better with offense than assists, but it this is
still tied heavily to assists which...
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=108172390#p108172390("control f for "and that is all")
Can go up
in spite of actual creation going down when playing in systems that produce easier passer-reads.
But hey, don't take my word for it, we can just check the results:
Keep in mind Jordan-less offenses
were better than Lebron-less ones.
Yet, just like Magic and Nash, these players Jordan allegedly created as many shots for(On better cTOV!) led much better offenses with Magic and Lebron doing it in a variety of contexts.
It's almost like a player having lower cTOV when they face less defensive attention and handle the ball way less(thereby doing less to breakdown defenses
before the end of a possession) doesn't actually mean you have better "turnover economy".
IOW:
O_6 wrote:MJ’s offensive game is just insane though.
A fair bit less insane than his conventional box would suggest(cue arch-angel comparisons). Decision-making and playmaking(the quality of what you're creating also matters) are not at the top-tier, and he doesn't offer the perks of an on-court coach that players like Magic, Nash, and Lebron do
Jordan could not and did not "do everything lebron can do", as Mo-Williams, as well as the cold-hard numbers, can attest.
Not even in the 90's. Not even in a much weaker league where nearly all of his strengths were bigger outliers.
