OldSchoolNoBull wrote:I guess it depends on how one defines what an "adverse situation" is. I assume that if you're looking at adverse situations in which Jordan failed, you might be looking at the Pistons series in 88/89/90 or in his early defeats when he had no team around him pre-1987. But even during the championship years when they were nearly always favored, there were situations which I would describe as adverse. The 1992 and 1993 Knicks series, especially the latter in which the Knicks had HCA and went up 2-0. The 98 Pacers series. The 97 and 98 Jazz series, the former of which included a flu game and the latter of which Utah had HCA for.
I mean yeah, Jordan was great. I have him as a top three peak for a reason. It is possible that he could have beaten more advantaged teams in a different situation — although that might also mean less success overall. But in the same sense that Jordan is one of the most proven players ever when he has the advantage, by virtue of basically never disappointing any meaningful expectations (closest you can stretch is 1990, where the Bulls entered the conference finals playing as well as the Pistons specifically since the all-star break), he is also not particularly proven without an advantage (a strong 5-7 on the road overall, but “only” 2-7 on the road as an SRS underdog), so it would be aggressive to place him at the absolute top in those situations.
Anyway, I expect you're in a minority putting Hakeem quite this high, at #2. I'm not sure anyone in this thread even had him in the top 3(though I don't know for sure).
One vote had him #1, another vote had him #2, and another had him #3. But yes, as I said, not a position I expect to ever be common.
Jordan and LeBron aside, I could think of at least 5 or 6 guys who I'd definitely put above Hakeem and another 3 or 4 that I'd consider maybes.
Yeah it is definitely arguable depending on where his baseline is assessed, or alternatively how critically his opponents are assessed. You could be more impressed by Duncan’s win over the 2003 Lakers, or more impressed by Magic’s Finals wins, or more impressed by the degree of Kareem’s success in 1971, or more impressed by Shaq’s “dominance” in 2000/01, etc. And modernist voters could penalise him more for his era.
It has been said before, but how much offensive value does Jordan retain if he is placed next to someone significantly eating into his shot volume? Why was Charles Barkley the standout on the 1992 Dream Team? Why could Jordan not fit well with Rip Hamilton on the Wizards? Why would we expect better results from adding him to two top ten scorers than we saw with Lebron? Why would we ever be more confident in Jordan’s value independent of his situation, when he changed his playstyle and general roster construction so much less? I saw discussion about Jordan needing to “buy in” to the triangle, but his buy-in let him stay the most prolific shot-taker in league history!
I would push back on some of the bolded here.
I'm not sure I agree that LeBron did change his playstyle dramatically. I would argue that what happened in Miami was more that the roster, and the players around LeBron, changed to fit him. Bosh became a stretch 5. Wade gave up primacy(and also just became increasingly diminished due to injury). Guys like Battier and Ray Allen - tall shooters - were brought in. I do think LeBron was a better player in Miami - mostly offensively speaking - but I don't think his style really changed all that much.
I am not speaking specifically to Miami alone, but regardless, Miami Lebron absolutely did not play the way he did in 2009/10. There were plenty of similarities — it was the same player after all — and when Wade was on the bench the old style was more apparent, but I do not really think you can look at the two eras and feel they are directly interchangeable.
I also wouldn't use the Dream Team to make this point. I'm sure he wanted to win gold, but aside from that I don't think he cared about his own shots in that context like he did in the NBA. I think his goal there was for the team to win with him putting in only as much effort as was absolutely necessary. I recall one of his conditions, along with Isiah not being on the team, was that he have plenty of time for golf. The stories of him playing cards all night, golf all day, and then a basketball game are legendary. Basically - I don't think scoring a lot mattered to him in the Olympics.
All the same, he remained the highest volume shot taker on the team, and whereas (nearly?) every other player became more efficient, Jordan did not.
I agree it does not matter much in the sense that the team blitzed their opponents regardless, but this suggestion that Jordan fits better with most other offensive stars is simply not substantiated by anything. He probably fits better with lower volume ballhandling slashers like Pippen, Grant Hill, Gary Payton, etc., but after that it feels like an open question (setting aside the obvious archetypes outright favouring Lebron, like offball shooters).
As for the fit with Rip - I don't know how much we should be taking from a situation involving a 38/39 year old MJ coming off three years of not playing. Also, I don't know that I agree that they WERE a bad fit. I think they fit fine - it's not as if Rip was a ball-dominant guy, his whole game was coming off screens a la Reggie or Ray. I think Jordan himself might've thought they were a bad fit - hence the bad trade for Stackhouse - but I also think Jordan was wrong about that.
Oh they were absolutely a bad fit on the court. Should they have been on paper? No. Would they have been with a different version of Jordan? Maybe not. But that is the rare instance where we see two offensive stars sharing the court and making each other unequivocally worse. Say what you will about Lebron’s effect on Wade, but Wade at least saw some efficiency increase playing next to Lebron; both Jordan and Rip were less efficient next to each other, in addition to the more expected decrease in raw scoring.
I'll just say that some of this comes off as rewarding certain players for playing in an era with much more data and penalizing certain other players for playing in an era with much less data. Which I don't love, as I feel it gives an advantage to more recent players. And I'll leave that at that.
That was not really my angle. If someone wants to say that they feel both Jordan and Lebron were the most impactful players of their respective eras but that they prefer Jordan because of stronger team success / more consistent box production / a less marred “peak”, hey, understandable enough position. But there were plenty of specific claims made based on the data which is available for Jordan that I feel go well beyond what is merited considering the more significant holes in that data.
Anyway, settling on a specific year for Lebron does feel a bit arbitrary or otherwise predicated on giving disproportionate weight to different accomplishments or blemishes, but because it needs to be done:
I have strong confidence in 2009-10 as the all-time greatest regular season performance. I agree there are questions about hypothetically different matchups in the postseason, and for as superhuman as Lebron was in Games 1-5 of the Magic series, Game 6 was a costly blemish which I do not think later Lebrons would have given that he averaged 35/10.6/7.9 on 61% efficiency in 20 elimination games from 2012-24 (looks awfully 2009-esque to me).
2012 versus 2013 feels like a functional tie, with any disparity in postseason production and plus/minus more a product of opponents (2013 Spurs the best team, 2013 Pacers the best defence) and team injury or variance (better bench in 2013, injured Wade a bigger drain than injured Bosh). 2013 had the better regular season and closeout game, 2012 was not a single shot away from losing a title. I also think there is a strong possibility 2014 is the better postseason performer than both, but that veers a little too deeply into pure hypotheticals to be worth anything here aside from providing the faintest of temporal edges to 2013.
And then 2016 has imo the greatest three-game stretch of play in NBA history, on a team far more dependent on Lebron than the Heat ever were (both on the court and in the locker-room). That said, up until those final three games, no one would consider 2016 as his secret peak. If I needed a single game or series win, I think I would pick this version of Lebron… but for the past forty years, a team has needed four series and 15-16 games, and that is enough for me to edge toward 2013.
I agree with all of this. I know that lot of people are pretty hellbent on saying that 2009/10 is peak LeBron, and I understand why, because the raw impact(as a result of playing on a team that, to put it bluntly, wasn't very good - at least offensively, as there was some defensive talent) was the highest it ever was, probably, and it was also probably his athletic peak. But I know what my eyes saw, and 2012/13 LeBron was simply a more skilled basketball player, particularly on the offensive end - better shooter, more versatile, had developed a post-game, etc.
I am not even sure I feel that strongly on the idea of skill definitely outweighing athleticism — after all, the most “skilled” Lebron may well be Lakers Lebron — but the mental advantage is a massive part of his success in 2012-20 which I struggle to discount relative to his younger and less experienced self.
