#10 Highest Peak of All Time (LeBron '09)

[Doctor MJ]

I feel like this is going to come across as sour grapes, but I feel compelled to mention that Miami's ORtg against Boston in both 2011 & 2012 was right around 109 unless my math is wrong. One can look at this two ways:

1) In 2012, despite missing Bosh for most of the series, LeBron improved so much that the he made up for the difference between Bosh & no Bosh almost by himself.

2) Every time LeBron loses one of Bosh or Wade, his numbers skyrocket and he keeps the team afloat, but there's still not a lot of evidence that if you put all 3 together they can truly make a spectacular offensive teams.

Probably a bit from both columns is appropriate.

This brings up an important point for me: Miami looked damn good against OKC. It won't shock me if Miami comes back this year and they finally do become an ultra-dominant kind of team. If that happens, solid chance I'll look at '13 LeBron as his peak with '12 as his #2 year because in retrospect the inklings he was showing this year were totally legit.

I'm cautious though with stuff like this. It's entirely possible that Miami will remain the B+ level offensive team thev've stagnated at for the course of their run. It's also entirely possible that the Lakers or Thunder surpass the Heat this year and the Heat never become a dynasty. Should stuff like this happen, I'm going to look at LeBron's '12 campaign as a year where things finally broke his way team-wise, rather than a year where he transformed himself.

In short, I know what LeBron '09 was, but I'm still witholding judgment on LeBron '12 to some degree.

[mysticbb]

With Dirk you're talking about a guy who couldn't think fast enough to keep from getting individually clobbered in the wrong situation. He improved, and now he exploits the defense with good decisions before he can get burned.

If Terry+Harris+Stackhouse of 2007 are the once trying to make the entry pass, Nowitzki in 2011 would also look worse. You just have to to see that Avery Johnson altered the plays to have Stackhouse being the guy making the entry pass to Nowitzki, because neither Harris nor Terry were able to throw a lob pass over a smaller defender to a 7ft guy. Well, and Stackhouse just committed turnovers ...

Seriously, Nowitzki was defended by smaller players like Bowen with the double coming from Duncan and he was able to score or make proper decisions. In FIBA games he was basically defended in the same way in ALL years. It is a myth that Nowitzki somehow improved that much in those situations. He just looked incredible dumb in the series against the Warriors for two reasons: The Warriors not just doubled Nowitzki, they basically throw the Jordan rules at him. And the personal problems due to the illness of his father, which cumulated to a sleepness night before game 6, when his father had the surgery.

The Mavs may not have had any other All Stars but they were a LOADED team.

:lol:

Loaded? That is incredible. If the Mavericks were "loaded", half of the teams in each season must be considered "loaded".

Two legitimate starters at practically every position.

What? Your legitimate starting five: Mahinmi-Cardinal-Stojakovic-Stevenson-Barea, those were the 5 players with the most minutes in the finals behind Chandler-Nowitzki-Marion-Terry-Kidd. A team with such a starting five would have had huge trouble beating the Charlotte Bobcats anno 2012.

What about the Finals? Dirk went cold (he made a few key shots but don't act as if he was anywhere near his OKC-LAL level), and Terry, Barea, Kidd, etc. stepped up spectacularly. It was a GREAT supporting cast. Absolutely perfect for him.

You know when people getting desperate in their attempt to downplay Nowitzki when they are bringing up Barea as a guy stepped up "spectacularly". Barea made 8.8 ppg on 38 FG% during the finals! Did Chalmers step up "spectacularly" as well? Or Udonis Haslem? Kidd made 27% of his FGA during the 2011 playoffs when Nowitzki was on the bench. Barea had 24%. If it would have been James' teammates, that would likely be used as the great evidence how his teammates sucked, but for Nowitzki they become a "great supporting cast". What a joke.
During the finals only in one half the "great supporing cast" actually played better without Nowitzki on the court, that was the 1st half of game 6. In all other parts of the finals series the Mavericks played much better with Nowitzki on the court than without. In average the Mavericks were +8 with Nowitzki on the court (per 48min) while being -27 without him during the finals. And don't try to argue that the end of the first and 3rd quarter and start of the 2nd and 4th quarter are now considered garbage time during close playoff games.

That "great" supporting cast, which supposely had several legit starting caliber players got outscored by about 6 points per 100 possession without Nowitzki.

How they fit/play with the star is more important.

So, no player ever made his teammates look better? It is just a question of fit/play? In that way James in 2009 had a great supporting cast as well, or Duncan in 2003 or Olajuwon in 1994/95, etc. pp.

[mysticbb]

I feel like this is going to come across as sour grapes, but I feel compelled to mention that Miami's ORtg against Boston in both 2011 & 2012 was right around 109 unless my math is wrong. One can look at this three ways:

1) In 2012, despite missing Bosh for most of the series, LeBron improved so much that the he made up for the difference between Bosh & no Bosh almost by himself.

2) Every time LeBron loses one of Bosh or Wade, his numbers skyrocket and he keeps the team afloat, but there's still not a lot of evidence that if you put all 3 together they can truly make a spectacular offensive teams.

3) The 2012 Celtics were worse than the 2011 Celtics.

Fixed it for you. ;)

[mysticbb]

But it was still a ginormous upset dude, even when you factor that in. They still got exposed something fierce.

The Warriors for the last 20 games had a 8.3 SRS. The team was MUCH stronger when healthy than their record or SRS for the whole season indicates.

[MisterWestside]

So, no player ever made his teammates look better?

I think the key word from rapcity11's post is using on-off as the sole basis for analysis.

Yes, Dirk is the hub of his Dallas offenses; and yes, he makes the game easier for his teammates. But someone still has to make shots when Dirk isn't shooting the ball, drive into the paint to get Dirk easier looks off the ball, set the screens for Dirk to use and move around on the floor, help out Dirk on defense, grab the rebound when Dirk isn't neat the glass, etc. And his teammates did a great job at those things, even if they miss their captain when he's not on the floor.

[mysticbb]

So, no player ever made his teammates look better?

I think the key word from rapcity11's post is using on-off as the sole basis for analysis.

True, but who is doing that?

And his teammates did a great job at those things, even if they miss their captain when he's not on the floor.

But that is true for ALL great players in the history of the game. So, shouldn't we at least give credit to those who made it easier for their teammates? And why didn't I read how Battier stepped it up in the finals by those who are constantly bringing up "Barea stepping up"? Why is that not brought up how Cassell and Horry stepped up during the 94 run of the Rockets? Without their performance in game 7 against the Suns, the run would have ended in the 2nd round.

I just think people are bringing up the teammates and how strong those teammates supposed to be when it fits their agenda. I think it is pretty hard for some people to accept that someone playing like Dirk Nowitzki can have the same or an even higher impact on the game than other great players. They try to find an explanation for the Mavericks title run outside of Nowitzki. Take David Robinson and Tyson Chandler for example. I have Robinson with +2.2 SPM and Engelmann has him with +3.8 RAPM in 2003, I have Chandler with +1.4 SPM and Engelmann has him with +3.1 RAPM in 2011. So, per possession David Robinson was likely the better player. Obviously, Chandler played more minutes per game, but he actually had to play about 30% more in order to make the same type of impact in a game over an average player. We can now evaluate the backup situation in more detail, but my point actually is that it is widely accepted that David Robinson was old and washed up while Tyson Chandler was the DPOY. Even if David Robinson was worse than his former versions, he is still a far better player than an average player. And the truth is Tyson Chandler is one of the worst selections for the DPOY ever.

To make one thing clear, I don't think that Nowitzki's 2011 season belongs into the discussion about the #10 peak; I see James anno 2009, Garnett 2004, Erving 1976, etc pp. ahead of him. It just irks me to see the hyperbole in such discussions.

[Tim_Hardawayy]

Question for those taking LeBron 09 over 12, if you also took 91 Jordan over 88, 89 or 90, what is the difference maker for you? Is it LeBron's 09 playoffs?

I ask because one thing to consider is that LeBron did not have to face the team that has given him the most problems in the playoffs in 09, while Jordan had to face Detroit in the postseason all 3 of those years. And I'm curious if say instead of Orlando in 09, LeBron had to face a healthy KG Celtics instead, and put up more pedestrian numbers, would we instead look at 12 LeBron like we do 91 Jordan?

Because otherwise, I don't see a lot of difference between the two situations. Both younger Jordan and younger LeBron put up the better volume numbers on almost the same efficiency, making them arguably the superior players, but did not have the team support and refined skillset to overcome all challenges. And so it seems odd to me that almost all Jordan voters went with 91, but with LeBron most are favoring 09.

Keep in mind I'm not really sure which version of LeBron or Jordan was the best, I just think we're seeing a discrepancy here, in part because LeBron got Orlando instead of a healthy KG and Boston in 09, and in part because winning bias has had a long time to shade our view of Jordan, while 09 LeBron is still very fresh in most of our minds.

[Rapcity_11]

So, no player ever made his teammates look better?

Which would be part of fit

A supporting cast that is a good fit, can be made to look better by the star.

It is just a question of fit/play? In that way James in 2009 had a great supporting cast as well, or Duncan in 2003 or Olajuwon in 1994/95, etc. pp.

Those casts were a good fit in terms of letting the star put up numbers in a run everything through them sense. However a good fit can also include a capable second option. Or better players.

I think far too much emphasis is placed on how the supporting cast does with the star off the court. Is it really any surprise that a team that is built entirely around 1 elite player will fall apart without them.

For example, it's insane to look at the 05-07 Suns as a bad supporting cast because of how they struggle without Nash. It's a good supporting cast because of how they do play with Nash.

[mysticbb]

Both younger Jordan and younger LeBron put up the better volume numbers on almost the same efficiency, making them arguably the superior players, but did not have the team support and refined skillset to overcome all challenges. And so it seems odd to me that almost all Jordan voters went with 91, but with LeBron most are favoring 09.

That's where you are wrong. Jordan in 1991 had the best combined individual stats in his career. Your whole post is based on the false impression that Jordan's numbers would have been worse in 1991 than before.

Which would be part of fit ;)

A supporting cast that is a good fit, can be made to look better by the star.

I agree, but who is supposed to get credit for that? The star player who enables them to play better or those players?

Those casts were a good fit in terms of letting the star put up numbers in a run everything through them sense. However a good fit can also include a capable second option. Or better players.

For sure. But what does it tell us about the individual player?

I think far too much emphasis is placed on how the supporting cast does with the star off the court. Is it really any surprise that a team that is built entirely around 1 elite player will fall apart without them.

For example, it's insane to look at the 05-07 Suns as a bad supporting cast because of how they struggle without Nash. It's a good supporting cast because of how they do play with Nash.

No team ever won a championship with a support looking bad with the best player. They all won, because they played good with the player. But, it is interesting to see what kind of difference a player can make, how much better the team can perform with the player in comparison to without him. Why? Because the bigger the difference, the more likely it also becomes to get those "worse looking without the star player"-players. Good players are actually pretty rare, to make average player look good is a pretty important advantage in terms of team building. So, when Nash makes his teammates look much better than they really are, it must be considered an advantage. And it was for sure an advantage for the Suns, if we look at the performance level of Nash's teammates without him. Knowing how much a teammate can influence another player becomes really important for decision makers. Obviously, the Knicks didn't pay enough attention to that, otherwise they wouldn't have signed Stoudemire to that max contract without having a similar player like Nash on their roster. Nash's abilities maximized Stoudemire.
The in/out data or on/off data can give us some sort of quantification of that "with-a-star-player"-effect. And I think that should have influence on the decision which player is better. In that sense, your argument doesn't help in terms of evaluating players. If we ignore, how the support played without the player, we are missing a part of the individual value a player brings to a team.

[Rapcity_11]

I agree, but who is supposed to get credit for that? The star player who enables them to play better or those players?

They all get credit. Including management for putting them together. How it's split up depends on the context.

No team ever won a championship with a support looking bad with the best player. They all won, because they played good with the player. But, it is interesting to see what kind of difference a player can make, how much better the team can perform with the player in comparison to without him. Why? Because the bigger the difference, the more likely it also becomes to get those "worse looking without the star player"-players. Good players are actually pretty rare, to make average player look good is a pretty important advantage in terms of team building. So, when Nash makes his teammates look much better than they really are, it must be considered an advantage. And it was for sure an advantage for the Suns, if we look at the performance level of Nash's teammates without him. Knowing how much a teammate can influence another player becomes really important for decision makers. Obviously, the Knicks didn't pay enough attention to that, otherwise they wouldn't have signed Stoudemire to that max contract without having a similar player like Nash on their roster. Nash's abilities maximized Stoudemire.
The in/out data or on/off data can give us some sort of quantification of that "with-a-star-player"-effect. And I think that should have influence on the decision which player is better. In that sense, your argument doesn't help in terms of evaluating players. If we ignore, how the support played without the player, we are missing a part of the individual value a player brings to a team.

I'm not saying to ignore how the cast plays without the star. Just that too much emphasis is placed on it, when you consider that the team is designed around the star and most of the minutes are with the star.

I think it's also important not to give players an extra boost because their circumstance allows them to be more irreplaceable.

Anyway, we're clearly on the same page here. In/out and on/off is certainly valuable information that I use. My original post wasn't directed at you.

[SDChargers#1]

Vote: '12 Lebron

The arguments for both '09 Lebron and '12 Lebron are great. Originally I was going with '09 Lebron because he really was amazing that year. But the more I think about '12 Lebron, the more I am leaning his way. He became more complete as a player. Fully incorporating his strength advantage into his game was a huge move for Lebron in my opinion. He finally became that player that can truly play all 5 positions. Also the dominating Finals performance solidifies it in my opinion.

[ardee]

Both younger Jordan and younger LeBron put up the better volume numbers on almost the same efficiency, making them arguably the superior players, but did not have the team support and refined skillset to overcome all challenges. And so it seems odd to me that almost all Jordan voters went with 91, but with LeBron most are favoring 09.

That's where you are wrong. Jordan in 1991 had the best combined individual stats in his career. Your whole post is based on the false impression that Jordan's numbers would have been worse in 1991 than before.

Disagree.

'88: 35 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 5.9 apg, 3.2 spg, 1.6 bpg on 60% TS.
'89: 32.5 ppg, 8 rpg, 8 apg, 2.9 spg on 61% TS.
'90: 33.6 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 6.3 apg, 2.8 spg on 61% TS.
'91: 31.5 ppg, 6 rpg, 5.5 apg, 2.7 spg on 61% TS.

No. of games with Game Score of 40 or more:

'88: 7
'89: 10
'90: 7
'91: 2

No. of games with Game Score of 30 or more:

'88: 36
'89: 31
'90: 32
'91: 27

Unless you insist on using PER, purely statistically 1991 was not MJ's best season by any stretch of the imagination.

[Doctor MJ]

But it was still a ginormous upset dude, even when you factor that in. They still got exposed something fierce.

The Warriors for the last 20 games had a 8.3 SRS. The team was MUCH stronger when healthy than their record or SRS for the whole season indicates.

Okay, if we're to the point that we are measuring SRS over 20 games for the Warriors then I'm going raise eyebrows.

This is a .500 ballclub that upsetting the one vastly superior team that they had actually swept during the season, got beat 4-1 by Utah. Utah was a 3.1 SRS team who had barely escaped from the 1st round and then went on to get beaten easily by the Spurs. Doesn't sound like an 8 SRS team. Sounds like a team who won with a matchup advantage, who then immediately looked like first round fodder in the next round against a team that had no business getting to the Conference Finals.

On Golden States' side of things, they went on the next year to basically have the kind of improvement that most would have expected. They got up to almost 50 wins, had an SRS in the 2-3 range. Bottom line, if you were expecting them to look anything like an 8 SRS team going forward you were vastly disappointed, and everyone was laughing at you because no one thought that was going to keep up.

[Doctor MJ]

Question for those taking LeBron 09 over 12, if you also took 91 Jordan over 88, 89 or 90, what is the difference maker for you? Is it LeBron's 09 playoffs?

I ask because one thing to consider is that LeBron did not have to face the team that has given him the most problems in the playoffs in 09, while Jordan had to face Detroit in the postseason all 3 of those years. And I'm curious if say instead of Orlando in 09, LeBron had to face a healthy KG Celtics instead, and put up more pedestrian numbers, would we instead look at 12 LeBron like we do 91 Jordan?

Because otherwise, I don't see a lot of difference between the two situations. Both younger Jordan and younger LeBron put up the better volume numbers on almost the same efficiency, making them arguably the superior players, but did not have the team support and refined skillset to overcome all challenges. And so it seems odd to me that almost all Jordan voters went with 91, but with LeBron most are favoring 09.

Keep in mind I'm not really sure which version of LeBron or Jordan was the best, I just think we're seeing a discrepancy here, in part because LeBron got Orlando instead of a healthy KG and Boston in 09, and in part because winning bias has had a long time to shade our view of Jordan, while 09 LeBron is still very fresh in most of our minds.

My first thought is that I think it's really dangerous to focus too much on the playoffs some times. Yes, from one perspective, the Bulls were almost to the promised land before '91, and they just broke through that year as Detroit faded. However, if you look at actual measurements for how good the Bulls were in those years, the '91 Bulls were WAY ahead of the previous Bulls teams.

SRS:
'88 3.76
'89 2.13
'90 2.74
'91 8.57

Huge leap there man. What we've seen from Miami is not even worth mentioning in comparison.

Now, I can't just 'submit' this without address the obvious rebuttal someone will make, "So you're going just based on how good the team was? That isn't right."

No, I'm not going simply based on how good the team was. I am however in agree with others who see in these cases superstars who made adjustments necessary to raise the ceiling of their team along with other factors. The "God in Disguise" Jordan offenses from the '80s were actually completely mediocre, and worse, stagnant. The Bulls made some shrewd moves in order to go from mediocre to GOAT-level offense, but yes, I do think Jordan's agreement to fall in line with Jackson's designs was an important part of that, and I think the result is a big enough deal that I side with that Jordan over younger Jordan.

It's also important to understand that from my perspective, Jordan's individualist was not a small issue to overcome, as he still showed signs of disfunctionality along these lines later i his career and his vaunted "bad cop" leadership I don't buy much at all.

By contrast, by any scale, the Heat's improvement is far more minor, and I'm coming down on the side of "Would you really be voting for this season if Bosh hadn't returned and the Heat had lost to the Celtics?".

[ardee]

Some more thoughts on the '12 vs. '09 debate (everyone seems to be voting for one or the other):

He's a savvier player now, but the game seems to flow to him.

In 2009, the game flowed from him. 2009 LeBron's impact was just ridiculous. Everyone saw the drop off after he left the Cavs: he was probably worth 35-40 wins in that regular season. The entire Cavs offense was predicated on his ability to get to the hoop with absurd ease, and then either finish or pass out to open three point shooters. And it worked. 66-16 and an SRS of over 8 based on one man's ability.

The Playoffs, I really don't know how anyone can pick nits. A 37 PER speaks for itself. I understand people don't like to just quote advanced stats but when something is so off the charts it's worth using as an argument. The next best player was Big Z with a 14.5: so LeBron's PER was nearly THRICE that of the second on his team. Just unbelievable.

Couple that with the fact he nearly became the third player to win both MVP and DPoY in the same year, and you have your answer.

If 2009 LeBron played on the 2012 Heat, they probably win at least 53 games in the 66 game season and are probably looking at 70+ wins in a non-condensed season.

2012 LeBron on the 2009 Cavs, 54ish wins optimistically. He just can't get to the basket like he could, which will result in less of those three-point attempts for his team-mates.

[mysticbb]

Disagree.

You can. Everyone can be wrong as much as he likes. And given your remarks about a "spectaculary Barea" during the finals of 2011, it would fit perfectly.

Unless you insist on using PER, purely statistically 1991 was not MJ's best season by any stretch of the imagination.

PER? Why should I use PER when I have a boxscore stat being much better than PER in terms of explaining and predicting?

Anyway, we can use WS/48 here, because we need to take minutes and pace into account. Simple per game numbers aren't doing it, neither would per 36 min numbers. Jordan had the highest WS/48 of his career in regular season and playoffs in 1991. That is a simple fact.

Okay, if we're to the point that we are measuring SRS over 20 games for the Warriors then I'm going raise eyebrows.

Well, it were actually 21 games, starting with a blowout win over the Detroit Pistons. We include the playoff games and we end up with a 32 game sample and in average 8 SRS. You can raise eyebrows as much as you like, but if you ignore the FACT that the Warriors when healthy were MUCH better than before, everyone should raise eyebrows about your posts.

This is a .500 ballclub that upsetting the one vastly superior team that they had actually swept during the season, got beat 4-1 by Utah.

Wow, how ignorant is that? You completely ignore that they had a midseason trade, which brought in Al Harrington (-1.2 RAPM) and Stephen Jackson (+1.7) for Troy Murphy (-4.2) and Mike Dunleavy (0.1), a HUGE upgrade. You ignore that Davis had injury problems, missing 18 of the first 61 games, a 6.1 RAPM guy that season. We have Jason Richardson missing 31 games of the first 61 games, a 2.3 RAPM player that season. And we are replacing those minutes with inferior players like Monta Ellis (-0.5) and some guy named Kelenna Azubuike (-4.4), and you want to imply that this had no effect on the performance level?
We are talking about a completely different team for their last 21 regular season games and the playoffs than before.

Utah was a 3.1 SRS team who had barely escaped from the 1st round

Against a 5 SRS Rockets team without HCA, but that obviously doesn't matter.

and then went on to get beaten easily by the Spurs.

What is that even supposed to mean? Were the Spurs some sort of joke or what? We are talking about a team with the highest SRS of the season. Yeah, with a bit variance included that could very well end up with an easy-looking defeat.

Doesn't sound like an 8 SRS team. Sounds like a team who won with a matchup advantage, who then immediately looked like first round fodder in the next round against a team that had no business getting to the Conference Finals.

It doesn't matter how it sounds, it matters what happened. You can close your eyes here, but that doesn't change the facts. The Warriors were much better at that time than some "0.500 ballclub". If you ignore that, you will fail in your attempt to properly analysis the situation. Let the 2007 Warriors start the season with the same group of players they ended the season and let all be healthy, that team can be a 60 wins team. They went 16-5 against teams with an average SRS of 1.3, with an +7.1 MOV. And if you think that this MOV is just based on beating up on bad teams, you would be wrong. They had +5.6 in 11 games against teams with an SRS higher than 0, teams which had in average a +5 SRS.

On Golden States' side of things, they went on the next year to basically have the kind of improvement that most would have expected. They got up to almost 50 wins, had an SRS in the 2-3 range. Bottom line, if you were expecting them to look anything like an 8 SRS team going forward you were vastly disappointed, and everyone was laughing at you because no one thought that was going to keep up.

They traded Richardson before the season for a rookie, replacing a +2 guy with a -4 guy (Azubuike). I would have most likely not expecting them to be a 8 SRS team. That trade alone made them worse by about 3 to 4 points in terms of SRS. So, even if we want to base that on the 2008 season, which also saw Jackson missing some games (they were 4 points worse without him per 100 possessions), we could still see the Warriors at 6 SRS level with Richardson playing 36 min instead of giving the minutes to Azubuike and Ellis at SG. That is still much better than assuming a "0.500 ballclub".

[ElGee]

To be clear, I think Boston provides the matchup vulnerability. 2009 was the year they didn't play Boston, and thus the year the offense (and LeBron) looked the best.

I think at a certain point it becomes a bit funny to say that a defense as dominant as Boston exposed a "matchup vulnerability".

"I'm a great poker player, I only have one weakness."

"What's that?"

"Poker players better than me."

Haha - ouch.

I agree with this point -- I don't think I've ever said Boston "exposed" James. My analysis of the strength (and weakness) of that team was far more comprehensive. Your statement sums up why James is a Sacred better than any single sentence in the last 8 threads...if "GOAT level defense" is what exposes you, then you are really freaking good.

That said, the simple point still stands -- LeBron played ORLANDO and not Boston and thus looks better to those ignoring that fact. In 2010, still in the same mode from the year before (look at the continuity in stats and performance, especially the team w/out Shaq) and then rolling through the first round like a god, he fell off in the last 3 games against Boston. Why?

LeBron 2010
1st Rnd: 32-9-8 67% TS (132 ORtg!)
1st 3 Bos G: 32-7-6 64% TS (128 ORtg)
Next 3 Bos G: 21-11-8 47% TS 87 ORtg

LeBron 2011
1st Rnd: 24-11-6 59% TS 131 ORtg
v Bos: 28-8-4 55% TS 109 ORtg

His G3 2010 against Boston was probably the best game between his 09-10 playoff runs. Then what happened? Well, the Celtics were a better team is what happened. And Rondo was a fierce matchup problem for Cleveland (what would have happened in 11 if Rondo didn't injure his elbow??). But did James have 3 bad games or was it symptomatic of something else? Looks to me like there were a few rough games and nothing more (elbow-gate, leaving cleveland, whatever else you want to mentally speculate). But that's what happens when you play an all-time good defense -- they make you have some bad games. (see: Jordan, Michael, 1993.) Orlando was not such a defense.

PS I've just realized that this is possibly the biggest waste of time in any of these last 3 projects. 09 v 12 LeBron is a great debate, but the end result is quite close in performance. We've got 50 players to enshrine and we've spent the most time debating a guy against himself. I'm LeBron gag-ordering myself

[mysticbb]

PS I've just realized that this is possibly the biggest waste of time in any of these last 3 projects. 09 v 12 LeBron is a great debate, but the end result is quite close in performance.

Why is the 2010 version not included in this discussion?

[Doctor MJ]

They traded Richardson before the season for a rookie, replacing a +2 guy with a -4 guy (Azubuike). I would have most likely not expecting them to be a 8 SRS team. That trade alone made them worse by about 3 to 4 points in terms of SRS. So, even if we want to base that on the 2008 season, which also saw Jackson missing some games (they were 4 points worse without him per 100 possessions), we could still see the Warriors at 6 SRS level with Richardson playing 36 min instead of giving the minutes to Azubuike and Ellis at SG. That is still much better than assuming a "0.500 ballclub".

I'm just going to skip to here.

Is it your belief that out of nowhere, the Warriors made moves to go from being a neutral SRS team to an 8 SRS team mid-season, and then undid the vast majority of that in the off-season? Basically, two counter balancing 6 or more SRS swings in a fraction of a season without acquiring any stars to speak of?

If so, how common do you think this is? Is it your belief that if you were put in charge of a team you could make such mega-improvements with spare parts with this level of ease?

Obviously, that's not where I'm coming from. When I see rapid huge moves in one direction, followed rapid huge moves in another direction, my first thought is variance.

[mysticbb]

Is it your belief that out of nowhere, the Warriors made moves to go from being a neutral SRS team to an 8 SRS team mid-season, and then undid the vast majority of that in the off-season? Basically, two counter balancing 6 or more SRS swings in a fraction of a season without acquiring any stars to speak of?

Well, wasting that is not that common, but look at the Pistons anno 2004 after the trade for Wallace or the Lakers in 2008 after the trade for Gasol. Also, we saw multiple times teams playing far worse with injuries to their two most important players. So, how uncommon do you think is that really? 8 SRS is probably caused by variance, given the shots they made during those games, but we still see them going 16-5 over the last 21 games while playing a pretty strong schedule. I see a 60 win team right there, with a huge matchup advantage in the backcourt over the 2007 Mavericks.

Is it your belief that if you were put in charge of a team you could make such mega-improvements with spare parts with this level of ease?

Most certainly not with ease. It obviously needs a trade partner who is willing to give up fitting pieces who are better than the own players. The upgrade from Murphy+Dunleavy to Harrington+Jackson was a big step.

Obviously, that's not where I'm coming from. When I see rapid huge moves in one direction, followed rapid huge moves in another direction, my first thought is variance.

So, the Pistons 2004, the Lakers 2008 were just based on variance? What about the Celtics going from 2009 to 2010? Just variance?
And to be honest, I doubt that you even knew the things I posted about the Warriors. It just seems as if you weren't aware of the midseason trade, weren't aware of the Richardson trade, etc. pp. Matter of fact is the Warriors were playing much better. And you can even pin-point the start of that when looking at that without going by the results: http://www.basketball-reference.com/tea ... start.html
In game 62 they had Davis-Richardsoin-Jackson-Harrington starting together for the first time that season, and all of the sudden they are playing better. You can call that variance or coincendence or whatever, an objective view on this will rather tell you that this combination of players was likely clearly better than their previous attempted mix (due to circumstances).