lessthanjake wrote:AEnigma wrote:.
I am definitely not going to go through and respond to like 12 different comments, the vast majority of which say nothing that I haven’t already addressed in prior responses. Others can read my prior posts and see what the refutation of virtually all of this would be.
Anyways, what I will say is: The bottom line is that, as much as it obviously would pain you to admit it, Stephen Curry in his prime was demonstrably the impact king over a still-prime LeBron. I have demonstrated this quite rigorously in many posts in the past. In his mid-30’s he is unsurprisingly no longer the impact king. No one in their right mind would expect him to be. Your seeming attempt to suggest him no longer being the impact king in his mid-30’s shows he was never *really* the impact king in his earlier years is just plainly silly. He was the impact king of that era, and it wasn’t even particularly close. He is in many ways a very similar player now, but lots of little things go with age—quickness, burst, stamina, reaction times, vision, etc., not to mention just the accumulation of knocks and injuries over the years taking their toll. Those sorts of things together end up being significant for everyone, and Steph is clearly no different—with his impact and box numbers having notably declined from his younger years, as we would expect. This idea that we wouldn’t expect this scale of decline due to subtle things is just silly. Players routinely have significant jumps (both increases and decreases) in impact when they are near the start and end of their prime. Just to take an analogous player, Ray Allen’s LEBRON went down 42% from age 34 to age 35, despite his box numbers looking extremely similar and the team itself being similar (and even doing better). The metric was in significant part detecting Allen’s age-related decline—with lots of subtle factors surely getting worse and reducing impact. Your entire argument seems premised on the idea that something perfectly normal is actually abnormal, followed by you drawing the most negative possible inference from this silly idea, in order to get to a convenient conclusion. Finally, I’ll note that your seeming assumption that Steph’s decline is not a significant cause of his team as a whole not doing as well is bizarre. Steph not being as good is a major factor in his team not doing as well, and yet you’re somehow essentially taking his team not doing as well as evidence that he hasn’t really declined much!
There are a couple of things.
1)Yes, Steph had the most impressive RS plus-minus portfolio from 15-onward, which would classify as "prime Lebron years." However, levels of play vary throughout a prime. By the typical metrics, the heart of Lebron's prime was from 09-13. Though, let's just say we assume Curry was better than the best stretches that Lebron ever authored in the RS, the next point is the biggest selling point for why Curry isn't seen as serious threat to Lebron in general impact.
2) You said you demonstrated Steph was the impact king of the era, but as people have alluded to in the past, we are not just looking at his RS production for this. Whether you think it is fair or not, people have a large PS focus on this board, and it is clear the true impact king during the heart of Curry's prime in the playoffs was Lebron. That is why Lebron during that span gets designated as a better player, by most on this board. If you look at numbers from that 15-22 period for Lebron "He was the impact king of that era, and it wasn’t even particularly close.
From 15-22 in the PS (6 PS), Lebron's impact metrics look like the following:
Backpicks BPM-8.3
Average PS AuPM/G-5.8
BPM-10.4
Minutes Weighted RAPTOR-9.2
For reference,
Steph in half-time that time (3-year time span) during this span, has 3-year peaks of the following:
Backpicks BPM-6.9
Average PS AuPM/G-5.2
BPM-8.5
Minutes Weighted RAPTOR-8.75
Lebron over that sample, outperformed Curry's best 3-year stretches on a per-possession basis. I think that is notable, and shows how Lebron was able to sustain a higher level of play over a longer period.
It's hard to get numbers for the exact time period in play (15-22), but I think that gives you a decent starting point for where the belief of Lebron>Steph would come from.
Some other additional numbers:
2015-2020 PS PIPM
Lebron-7.37 (#1 over this span)
Steph-3.95 (#8 over this span)
14-18 RAPM
Lebron-5.18 (#2 over this span)
Steph-3.62 (#5 over this span)
15-19 RAPM
Lebron-4.96 (#2 over this span)
Steph-3.84 (#7 over this span)
Overall, Lebron lead offenses peaked higher as well during this period, and with his defense being generally being elite, I will side with him.
If you look at shorter peak PS stretches such as single year or 3-year PS stretches, I think once again, Lebron comes out looking stronger. According Backpicks, the 2015-17 Cavs have the 3rd best unique offensive PS stretch for relative offensive rating, and keep in mind Lebron did not have a healthy Kyrie or KLove for much of the 2015 PS. This once surpasses the Warriors offensive performance.
If you don't like using relative offensive rating to judge playoff offense, there is another method called common offensive rating.
Common offensive rating is comparing a team’s postseason play to other teams against that same given opponent (for that particular PS). The rORTG is also listed on the side too for those who, where a team’s playoff offensive rating is compared to it’s opponent’s regular season defensive ratings. The Cavs have the best common offensive rating of the time period.
The best 3-year offenses and defense (minimum of 20 games played across three postseason trips), we see the following unique team peaks in playoff offense per common offensive rating (cORTG) via Backpicks since 1984 (but only other potential contenders would be if you go back to Mikan days).
Team Year cORTG rORTG
CLE 2015-17 13.0 9.5
MIA 2012-14 9.7 8.7
LAL 1987-89 9.4 9
CHI 1991-93 8.8 8.4
CHI 1994-96 8.3 6.9
Lebron's offenses come out looking better under this approach as well. The 2016 Cavs (+15.3 cORTG) and 2017 Cavs (+14.6) have the two highest single-season offensive marks using this approach. Under the 3-year guise, the Cavs would be at least #1 going back to 1984.
There is just clear evidence Lebron ups his game to another level on average during this point, which is why the argument for Lebron is so enticing.
?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E984343411850297344%7Ctwgr%5E470244aa2306bb254a29f4cd99be133c2de898e7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.realgm.com%2Fboards%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D2290454start%3D80
If Lebron is arguably a better PS offensive player by the data, then I don't see how Curry could make up the difference once defense is factored in as well. Shifting gears to a holistic view, the post don't factor in what many would consider Lebron's peak years, such as 09, 12, 13, the idea that Steph was ever truly as impactful as Lebron in terms of driving championship equity is a hard sell. And this is what people stress when focusing on impact. It is why Hakeem still gets thrusted above David Robinson.