My new project: top-5 1-year player peaks ever

[JordansBulls]

Teams have basically dared LeBron to shoot jumpers, and it's thrown him totally off for games at a time. People can talk about zone defenses all they want, but zone defenses haven't worked even on LeBron except when he was not being aggressive, and not wanting to shoot. He basically lost against Dallas because of his own play. It happens, plenty of players have had that problem... but Jordan didn't, especially in the finals. The GOAT standard has been set high, you can't slip up as much as LeBron has.

This. Also Lebron's 2013 season is in the discussion for top ever, but can you really consider that when down 3-2 in a series with HCA and nearly lost in game 6 of the finals at home as well for the series? For some one to have the greatest peak ever, no way in hell should they be that close to losing a series and definitely not down 3-2 in a series as already a champion all while having the best record in the league on top of that.

[parapooper]

Teams have basically dared LeBron to shoot jumpers, and it's thrown him totally off for games at a time. People can talk about zone defenses all they want, but zone defenses haven't worked even on LeBron except when he was not being aggressive, and not wanting to shoot. He basically lost against Dallas because of his own play. It happens, plenty of players have had that problem... but Jordan didn't, especially in the finals. The GOAT standard has been set high, you can't slip up as much as LeBron has.

LeBron has the one bad series in his prime against Dallas (unless you want to count his 25/11/7 against the Spurs or his 27/9/7 while demolishing Pierce defensively against Boston as bad.

And he was not even playing that terrible against Dallas, he just gave the ball up because Dallas overloaded on him and left Wade open all the time. Considering the team dynamics and Wade being his friend and at the time not this far below him that was not an unreasonable thing to do. What would have happened to their team and friendship if LeBron had forced up difficult shots while Wade was open the whole series? He put up postseason stats a few standard deviations above what Jordan ever did in 2009 and lost so he tried it with team ball this time. LeBron's 18/7/7 was not even that terrible for 22% usage. I'm not saying that was a good series for him but there were circumstances Jordan never faced and defense that was illegal when Jordan played.


Also, half the planet has Kobe still ahead of LeBron all-time because he played subpar ball (by GOAT standards) for a few years longer than LeBron (1997-2000, 2011-2013). And that despite a giant statistical gap between them in their 10-year primes, with Kobe never even touching what LeBron will average over an entire decade after this season in advanced stats.

Yet if LeBron should put up way more quality years than Jordan (currently his 10th vs. Jordan's 11) while having almost the same stats in his prime and peak (even better ones are still possible, 2009 is already the statistically best PS+RS of all time with a good gap) that will not put him over the top? Sounds like a double standard to me.

[parapooper]

Teams have basically dared LeBron to shoot jumpers, and it's thrown him totally off for games at a time. People can talk about zone defenses all they want, but zone defenses haven't worked even on LeBron except when he was not being aggressive, and not wanting to shoot. He basically lost against Dallas because of his own play. It happens, plenty of players have had that problem... but Jordan didn't, especially in the finals. The GOAT standard has been set high, you can't slip up as much as LeBron has.

This. Also Lebron's 2013 season is in the discussion for top ever, but can you really consider that when down 3-2 in a series with HCA and nearly lost in game 6 of the finals at home as well for the series? For some one to have the greatest peak ever, no way in hell should they be that close to losing a series and definitely not down 3-2 in a series as already a champion all while having the best record in the league on top of that.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

You've posted that HCA argument probably 10,000s of times now and nobody is buying it.
I'm sure you could do better things with your life.
I will not give you explanation #1000 why it makes hardly any sense (see above)

[WillyNYC]

And he was not even playing that terrible against Dallas, he just gave the ball up because Dallas overloaded on him and left Wade open all the time.

This is not true AT ALL. It's like you think you're the only one who watched that series.

I'm not saying that was a good series for him but there were circumstances Jordan never faced and defense that was illegal when Jordan played.

You're not seriously suggesting that the Dallas defense was better than any defense Jordan faced, right? Right? Or that Jordan would have EVER been neutralized and rendered ineffective by that same type of defense the way Lebron was, right?

[parapooper]

I'm not saying that was a good series for him but there were circumstances Jordan never faced and defense that was illegal when Jordan played.

You're not seriously suggesting that the Dallas defense was better than any defense Jordan faced, right? Right? Or that Jordan would have EVER been neutralized and rendered ineffective by that same type of defense the way Lebron was, right?

I'm saying it was a different defense. For all we know if LeBron had faced the same old 1-on-1 or 2-on-1 defense his entire career like Jordan he probably would have figured it out by the time he got to the playoffs, just like he figured out all the new defenses eventually. In the end it's all good because this failure made LeBron a much better player. He probably would have no shot at GOAT if that series had never happened. Now he does IMO.
I'm also suggesting that if Jordan had had a player with an almost completely overlapping skill set just a tad below his own on his team he may have passed him the ball if he was better positioned. He probably would have done better than LeBron, because he didn't suck off-ball like LeBron did back then but this was the first year in LeBron's life he wasn't #1 on his team by a mile and what he did before had worked pretty well for him, so let's give him some slack. It's not like Lebron actively lost his team the series. He had 18/7/7 on above average efficiency with low usage.

And he was not even playing that terrible against Dallas, he just gave the ball up because Dallas overloaded on him and left Wade open all the time.

This is not true AT ALL. It's like you think you're the only one who watched that series.

So you think LeBron just gave up the ball for the fun of it?

[Doctor MJ]

Okay, so gun-to-my-head:

1. '91 Jordan
2. '00 Shaq
3. ???? LeBron
4. '67 Wilt
5. '87 Magic

Some comments:

-It might seem odd since I was the one running the prior project that I'm reluctant to make a list, but I struggle for the same reason the project struggled. It's just very difficult.

-It is also very interesting for all of us that we seem better at evaluating career than peak. To me that pretty clearly says that we're more capable when it comes to properly evaluating peak vs longevity than we are to actually measuring player impact. Some of that is in the nature of being analysts - as I always say, we typically have more reasonable opinions of career than do those closer to the NBA. Some of it is in the nature of people in general not really having a grasp on player impact in basketball the way they do in baseball.

-To LeBron, I had him 3rd based on his '09 year, and I find it very difficult to judge that year against his other campaigns. Interestingly though for this very reason, it makes me more impressed with him as a player than I'd be if he just kept banging his head against the wall the same way in Cleveland. The fact that he has adapted is incredibly impressive, and makes it all the more reasonable to consider LeBron currently in the GOAT peak discussion and consider him eventually, likely, in the GOAT overall discussion.

I still can't see it. LeBron has his GOAT like moments, but he still has more moments where he becomes nearly a non factor, or where he gets stifled enough to force much longer series than Jordan did(by a lot). He's an amazing player, albeit different from Jordan, but I do think he is more prone to being contained, and is slower to adjust when defenses take certain things away from him.

I think to be the GOAT, your impact and resume' has to be just about flawless to rank over Jordan and Russell.

I don't think there's any doubt that it's easier to knock LeBron off his game than it was to knock Jordan off his, and that's a negative, but a perspective that assume all of these guys "on game" were equal, we basically skip out on what should be the primary discussion.

One reason it's easier to disrupt LeBron's game is that it's far more deeply embedded in maximizing the talent of those around him than Jordan ever was. It's in the mental side of things that players get hesitant, and while that hesitancy is a bad thing, the presence of the mental side in LeBron's game I can't help but think of as a good thing.

And then let's ask questions:

Do you think Jordan ever added as many wins to a team as LeBron did in the late Cavs years?

Do you think Jordan would have been able to adapt himself around the talent in Miami to make something as effective as we see now?

Consider for a second:
The current Heat have an eFG% of 57%, and independently rank 3rd in the league in FT/FGA (.257).
Jordan's Bulls basically maxed their eFG% at 52%, earning far less free throws than Miami does.

I realize that the Bulls had other things where they had the advantage over the Heat (the big one being offensive rebounding, which is no longer the focus in the NBA it once was), but what we're looking at in Miami right now is a supe'd up, modernized offense that operates with a reliable precision beyond what Jordan's teams did.

While I think Jordan was the GOAT at scoring a ton of points and still having it be non-destructive, it seems clear to me that the trend away from that entirely is a smart thing, and the kind of balance LeBron achieves where he's among the league leaders in scoring volume while flirting with 70% TS and doing a bunch of other things...I have serious questions about whether Jordan could do that.

[NO-KG-AI]

I think if you tone Jordan's shot total down to the point where he's only taking the best of shots, and worrying about his percentages, while using the new rules to exploit how easy it is to get to the line, you'd see ridiculous efficiency like that easily.

Miami has a ton more offensive talent. This declining version of Dwyane Wade is still a more talented scorer than Scottie Pippen, and I don't think either is the perfect fit next to Jordan/LeBron stylistically.

I do think Miami has a little bit of the Phoenix thing going where they sacrifice rebounding and such for offensive efficiency, but once they hit the playoffs they aren't an offensive juggernaut anymore. They've been able to win titles because of LeBron being awesome individually when it mattered.

I think LeBron has great balance, but he could be more aggressive sometimes. I guess the real question is, is the "balance" LeBron more conducive to winning a title than the Jordan or even the 09, monster aggressive LeBron? I don't believe he is, and him trying to find balance and keep the team involved cost him a title against Dallas, and almost did again against SA, IMO.

[Doctor MJ]

Teams have basically dared LeBron to shoot jumpers, and it's thrown him totally off for games at a time. People can talk about zone defenses all they want, but zone defenses haven't worked even on LeBron except when he was not being aggressive, and not wanting to shoot. He basically lost against Dallas because of his own play. It happens, plenty of players have had that problem... but Jordan didn't, especially in the finals. The GOAT standard has been set high, you can't slip up as much as LeBron has.

I think the 2011 Finals was a clear statement that up through that point in Miami, LeBron wasn't playing anywhere near GOAT-worthy. It was an ugly, ugly year where a lot of us lamented that Miami might win the title despite never really figuring out how they should play together. I personally think it's great they didn't, because it really sent them the message that they'd have to embrace change.

To compare LeBron's indecision there to Jordan doesn't make a lot of sense, because Jordan never would have assembled the super-team in the first place. Jordan no matter what jacked shots. Didn't matter in the Olympics that everyone else was hitting on insane efficiency, Jordan jacked, and if he couldn't get to the rim because of a zone, he jacked a bad shot. So what we're looking at with LeBron in 2011 is a failure in attempting something more audacious than Jordan ever could.

It's a failure no question. It will not add to LeBron's GOAT case. If LeBron were reel off 8 championships in a row though playing at unheard of levels of team effectiveness, it would just be absurd to focus on the trial run.

And I think with LeBron, we should be asking just what exactly it will take for us to see him that light. I use 8 as hyperbole. It won't take 8 for me by any means. But it will take more than 2 certainly.

I think this year has the potential to be huge. Not only is Miami clearly playing in a historically noteworthy way, it's now clear that that competitor from last year who was surprisingly tough (Indiana) is a truly awesome team that embodies the matchup advantage many assume would cause Miami to lose in an All-Time Tournament situation.

If Indiana emerges as the new dominant team of the era ahead of Miami, then all the pro-LeBron/Miami arguments about them being optimized for this advanced era will probably seem like they fall flat.

If LeBron & Miami respond to the new threat adroitly, and blaze past Indy and the rest in a resounding manner, I might call LeBron 2014 the GOAT peak.

We're a long way off though, obviously.

[Doctor MJ]

I think if you tone Jordan's shot total down to the point where he's only taking the best of shots, and worrying about his percentages, while using the new rules to exploit how easy it is to get to the line, you'd see ridiculous efficiency like that easily.

Miami has a ton more offensive talent. This declining version of Dwyane Wade is still a more talented scorer than Scottie Pippen, and I don't think either is the perfect fit next to Jordan/LeBron stylistically.

I do think Miami has a little bit of the Phoenix thing going where they sacrifice rebounding and such for offensive efficiency, but once they hit the playoffs they aren't an offensive juggernaut anymore. They've been able to win titles because of LeBron being awesome individually when it mattered.

I think LeBron has great balance, but he could be more aggressive sometimes. I guess the real question is, is the "balance" LeBron more conducive to winning a title than the Jordan or even the 09, monster aggressive LeBron? I don't believe he is, and him trying to find balance and keep the team involved cost him a title against Dallas, and almost did again against SA, IMO.

-All of this assumes that Jordan had the awareness to really recognize what was inefficient, and then to pass to the other guys with an effectiveness similar to LeBron. Jordan didn't do that when he should have in the Olympics, and he didn't do it when he should have in Washington. Are we to insist on looking at Jordan through a "what if" lens where he would have known to do these things in this era because other people would have told him more effectively what good basketball is? I don't think so.

-The Phoenix things, less of an offensive juggernaut in playoffs. Dude, they were MORE of an offensive juggernaut in the playoffs. The entire idea their plan didn't work in the playoffs is based on people simply assuming as such because they didn't win a title. There is no data to back that up.

-Almost lost against IND/SA. Well right but don't erase from the story where the #2 man on the Heat looked terrible through the playoffs due to injury, and possibly aging. The Heat of the past two playoffs are by no means the ideal of talent that we imagined when we first saw this thing come together. To use that against LeBron when they still ended up winning back to back chips is a bit harsh I think.

As you see in my other post though, I too, expect to see a more dominant performance from the Heat if I'm going to anoint LeBron. If I come away from it all feeling like the Heat are simply too vulnerable to a team with a superstar big, then all this optimization they've achieved will feel like a gimmick.

EDIT - Of course as I say this, people have pointed out that the Bulls didn't have a superstar big and there is definite evidence that they were vulnerable to such teams, and were quite fortunate in who their playoff opponents were.

When we imagine a peak Shaq going against this Heat team, it's not like I feel confident in Jordan's Bulls knowing what to do against that Shaq either. (Which is why Shaq is almost my peak GOAT and would be if I had more faith in the reliability of his brain).

[Quotatious]

very good list... how about 6-10 places?

My complete list:

1. Jordan 91
2. Wilt 67
3. Shaq 00
4. LeBron 13
5. Hakeem 94
6. Kareem 77
7. Russell 65
8. Duncan 03
9. Magic 87
10. Bird 86

*I feel like I have to explain Duncan/Magic/Bird in that order, because they're extremely close to me. Duncan is at the top of that small group because of his two-way impact (he led a pretty weak supporting cast to championship that year, too). I generally regard Magic as a better player than Bird, even though their peaks are neck and neck.
I rank Kareem and Russell above them because they were IMO better/more impactful players. I only wonder if having Hakeem at #5 and Duncan at #8 is a right thing to do, because they seem to be very similar. Both even improved in the postseason a little bit, that's very impressive. Both also led some pretty unimpressive teams on their backs all season long.
I've finally chosen Kareem 76-77 because after pondering over that issue for a while, the Lakers getting swept by the Blazers that year isn't as bad as it looks at first glance. Blazers won game one by 11 but the other 3 games were decided by 5 points at most, so Kareem definitely kept the Lakers in game. He improved significantly from his regular season production, putting up an absurd 32.4 PER 33.2 WS/48 and 65% TS.
He also led a team with old Cazzie Russell as his sidekick to 53 wins in the regular season. That's basically the same as what LeBron did in 09 and 10. His team, like Kareem's just wasn't good enough to compete.
That's why Kareem is the only guy on that list without a championship in the year that I've chosen. He was just dominant.

I don't know whether we're considering ABA in this thread or not, but if so, then I'd possibly take 76 Dr. J over Magic and Bird. At first glance, what he did that year is comparable to 94 Hakeem and 03 Duncan. Just a one man team.

[NO-KG-AI]

Quick response, I didn't mean Phoenix wasn't an offensive monster in the playoffs, the only comparison I was making between the two teams was the sacrifice of size and rebounding for offensive efficacy. Without diving into the numbers, I really don't think Miami has played up to their own standard offensively come playoff time, some of that is due to health, but I think they get by a lot on pure talent in the regular season, and their execution and fit isn't so great that it leads to dominant post season offense.

[Gregoire]

I think if you tone Jordan's shot total down to the point where he's only taking the best of shots, and worrying about his percentages, while using the new rules to exploit how easy it is to get to the line, you'd see ridiculous efficiency like that easily.

Miami has a ton more offensive talent. This declining version of Dwyane Wade is still a more talented scorer than Scottie Pippen, and I don't think either is the perfect fit next to Jordan/LeBron stylistically.

I do think Miami has a little bit of the Phoenix thing going where they sacrifice rebounding and such for offensive efficiency, but once they hit the playoffs they aren't an offensive juggernaut anymore. They've been able to win titles because of LeBron being awesome individually when it mattered.

I think LeBron has great balance, but he could be more aggressive sometimes. I guess the real question is, is the "balance" LeBron more conducive to winning a title than the Jordan or even the 09, monster aggressive LeBron? I don't believe he is, and him trying to find balance and keep the team involved cost him a title against Dallas, and almost did again against SA, IMO.

-All of this assumes that Jordan had the awareness to really recognize what was inefficient, and then to pass to the other guys with an effectiveness similar to LeBron. Jordan didn't do that when he should have in the Olympics, and he didn't do it when he should have in Washington. Are we to insist on looking at Jordan through a "what if" lens where he would have known to do these things in this era because other people would have told him more effectively what good basketball is? I don't think so.

-The Phoenix things, less of an offensive juggernaut in playoffs. Dude, they were MORE of an offensive juggernaut in the playoffs. The entire idea their plan didn't work in the playoffs is based on people simply assuming as such because they didn't win a title. There is no data to back that up.

-Almost lost against IND/SA. Well right but don't erase from the story where the #2 man on the Heat looked terrible through the playoffs due to injury, and possibly aging. The Heat of the past two playoffs are by no means the ideal of talent that we imagined when we first saw this thing come together. To use that against LeBron when they still ended up winning back to back chips is a bit harsh I think.

As you see in my other post though, I too, expect to see a more dominant performance from the Heat if I'm going to anoint LeBron. If I come away from it all feeling like the Heat are simply too vulnerable to a team with a superstar big, then all this optimization they've achieved will feel like a gimmick.

EDIT - Of course as I say this, people have pointed out that the Bulls didn't have a superstar big and there is definite evidence that they were vulnerable to such teams, and were quite fortunate in who their playoff opponents were.

When we imagine a peak Shaq going against this Heat team, it's not like I feel confident in Jordan's Bulls knowing what to do against that Shaq either. (Which is why Shaq is almost my peak GOAT and would be if I had more faith in the reliability of his brain).

So, for you difference between peak Jordan and peak Shaq impact was only about brain issues? But in 2000 season Shaq hadnt brain issues. Or you assume natural Jordan talent to raise game on command and his unprecedented will to win? If so, he had this advantage over anybody and its not blame for Shaq to being "less talented" in it.

[Doctor MJ]

So, for you difference between peak Jordan and peak Shaq impact was only about brain issues? But in 2000 season Shaq hadnt brain issues. Or you assume natural Jordan talent to raise game on command and his unprecedented will to win? If so, he had this advantage over anybody and its not blame for Shaq to being "less talented" in it.

Well in 2000, Shaq's Lakers were incredibly lucky to get past the Blazers. It took 7 games, and in Game 7 it took a miracle comeback to win. It's difficult to imagine a Game 7 scenario where Jordan would ever be as erratic as Shaq was in that game.

[Gregoire]

So, for you difference between peak Jordan and peak Shaq impact was only about brain issues? But in 2000 season Shaq hadnt brain issues. Or you assume natural Jordan talent to raise game on command and his unprecedented will to win? If so, he had this advantage over anybody and its not blame for Shaq to being "less talented" in it.

Well in 2000, Shaq's Lakers were incredibly lucky to get past the Blazers. It took 7 games, and in Game 7 it took a miracle comeback to win. It's difficult to imagine a Game 7 scenario where Jordan would ever be as erratic as Shaq was in that game.

Yes, you are right and thats why I have Jordan at my 1 peak and Shaq below, but I think its not about Shaqs mentality, but just about Jordans and Shaqs level of play and impact. Jordan was little more impactful and had the advantages: offense impact, clutch, FT ect, but why you argue the mentality here? Shaq did all he could I think...

[Doctor MJ]

So, for you difference between peak Jordan and peak Shaq impact was only about brain issues? But in 2000 season Shaq hadnt brain issues. Or you assume natural Jordan talent to raise game on command and his unprecedented will to win? If so, he had this advantage over anybody and its not blame for Shaq to being "less talented" in it.

Well in 2000, Shaq's Lakers were incredibly lucky to get past the Blazers. It took 7 games, and in Game 7 it took a miracle comeback to win. It's difficult to imagine a Game 7 scenario where Jordan would ever be as erratic as Shaq was in that game.

Yes, you are right and thats why I have Jordan at my 1 peak and Shaq below, but I think its not about Shaqs mentality, but just about Jordans and Shaqs level of play and impact. Jordan was little more impactful and had the advantages: offense impact, clutch, FT ect, but why you argue the mentality here? Shaq did all he could I think...

In that game Kobe had more points, rebounds, assists, and blocks with less turnovers than Shaq, and this was pre-prime Kobe. I have a hard time chalking that up simply to Portland having a good game plan.

I'll also add that whenever I see a big man brick free throws regularly, I lose respect for their brain. Any of these guys could be making more free throws by shooting granny style. They don't because they put their own pride ahead of the team.

So that all adds into to the moment in question in addition to all the issues that existed clearly in other moments.

[Gregoire]

Well in 2000, Shaq's Lakers were incredibly lucky to get past the Blazers. It took 7 games, and in Game 7 it took a miracle comeback to win. It's difficult to imagine a Game 7 scenario where Jordan would ever be as erratic as Shaq was in that game.

Yes, you are right and thats why I have Jordan at my 1 peak and Shaq below, but I think its not about Shaqs mentality, but just about Jordans and Shaqs level of play and impact. Jordan was little more impactful and had the advantages: offense impact, clutch, FT ect, but why you argue the mentality here? Shaq did all he could I think...

In that game Kobe had more points, rebounds, assists, and blocks with less turnovers than Shaq, and this was pre-prime Kobe. I have a hard time chalking that up simply to Portland having a good game plan.

I'll also add that whenever I see a big man brick free throws regularly, I lose respect for their brain. Any of these guys could be making more free throws by shooting granny style. They don't because they put their own pride ahead of the team.

So that all adds into to the moment in question in addition to all the issues that existed clearly in other moments.

Some good points... But Portland generally contained Shaq, so maybe its more about their D and gameplan? When other superstars had bad games and series, people just said that they were contained, but Shaq always punished with mentality (Lebron too).
I think here maybe Shaqs bad mentality in other seasons give a lot of people the cause to think he had bad one in 2000.
About FT I think its more about big hands and generally bigmen lack of shooting talent and touch. Shaq was awful shooter not only from FT, right? And about to change the style... Yourre right, but all players had some issues: Jordans and Kobe ego, Lebrons passivenesss... But I regularly heard only Shaq was such punished with mentality. Maybe its right about other seasons, but 2000 and 2001 maybe - not so much IMO.
Overall, I think we talk about same things, but you say its about brain and I name it natural talent or abilities (of brain too).

[nolunch]

Well in 2000, Shaq's Lakers were incredibly lucky to get past the Blazers. It took 7 games, and in Game 7 it took a miracle comeback to win. It's difficult to imagine a Game 7 scenario where Jordan would ever be as erratic as Shaq was in that game.

Yes, you are right and thats why I have Jordan at my 1 peak and Shaq below, but I think its not about Shaqs mentality, but just about Jordans and Shaqs level of play and impact. Jordan was little more impactful and had the advantages: offense impact, clutch, FT ect, but why you argue the mentality here? Shaq did all he could I think...

In that game Kobe had more points, rebounds, assists, and blocks with less turnovers than Shaq, and this was pre-prime Kobe. I have a hard time chalking that up simply to Portland having a good game plan.

I'll also add that whenever I see a big man brick free throws regularly, I lose respect for their brain. Any of these guys could be making more free throws by shooting granny style. They don't because they put their own pride ahead of the team.

So that all adds into to the moment in question in addition to all the issues that existed clearly in other moments.

Better watch the actual game before commenting. Shaq was surrounding by 2-3 Blazer players when he got the ball around the paint. That's why he only took 9 shots in entire 47 mins playing time. In MJ's case, he already took 9 shots in 1st quarter.

In the 4th quarter comeback, Shaq scored half of his total points and led Lakers into the NBA Finals. This is the best stat in the game among all players. In FT shooting, Shaq was 8-12. Not bad for him. You must be very enjoy R.Miller hitting MJ in face and making nearly 100% FT shooting.

In 95 NBA Finals, Shaq had higher FG%, more rebounds, assists, steals and blocks than Olajuwon. So ? Many people only care about scoring. That's why MJ is the best...only because he takes most shots.

[Doctor MJ]

Yes, you are right and thats why I have Jordan at my 1 peak and Shaq below, but I think its not about Shaqs mentality, but just about Jordans and Shaqs level of play and impact. Jordan was little more impactful and had the advantages: offense impact, clutch, FT ect, but why you argue the mentality here? Shaq did all he could I think...

In that game Kobe had more points, rebounds, assists, and blocks with less turnovers than Shaq, and this was pre-prime Kobe. I have a hard time chalking that up simply to Portland having a good game plan.

I'll also add that whenever I see a big man brick free throws regularly, I lose respect for their brain. Any of these guys could be making more free throws by shooting granny style. They don't because they put their own pride ahead of the team.

So that all adds into to the moment in question in addition to all the issues that existed clearly in other moments.

Better watch the actual game before commenting. Shaq was surrounding by 2-3 Blazer players when he got the ball around the paint. That's why he only took 9 shots in entire 47 mins playing time. In MJ's case, he already took 9 shots in 1st quarter.

In the 4th quarter comeback, Shaq scored half of his total points and led Lakers into the NBA Finals. This is the best stat in the game among all players. In FT shooting, Shaq was 8-12. Not bad for him. You must be very enjoy R.Miller hitting MJ in face and making nearly 100% FT shooting.

In 95 NBA Finals, Shaq had higher FG%, more rebounds, assists, steals and blocks than Olajuwon. So ? Many people only care about scoring. That's why MJ is the best...only because he takes most shots.

I'm And-1'ing you for this because you make some great points, but you probably want to edit it a bit because your MJ references are hard to follow.

[Gregoire]

I don't think there's any doubt that it's easier to knock LeBron off his game than it was to knock Jordan off his, and that's a negative, but a perspective that assume all of these guys "on game" were equal, we basically skip out on what should be the primary discussion.

One reason it's easier to disrupt LeBron's game is that it's far more deeply embedded in maximizing the talent of those around him than Jordan ever was. It's in the mental side of things that players get hesitant, and while that hesitancy is a bad thing, the presence of the mental side in LeBron's game I can't help but think of as a good thing.

And then let's ask questions:

Do you think Jordan ever added as many wins to a team as LeBron did in the late Cavs years?

Do you think Jordan would have been able to adapt himself around the talent in Miami to make something as effective as we see now?



When we imagine a peak Shaq going against this Heat team, it's not like I feel confident in Jordan's Bulls knowing what to do against that Shaq either. (Which is why Shaq is almost my peak GOAT and would be if I had more faith in the reliability of his brain).

So, what is your opinion if we took only actual basketball on-court impact at their peaks, how do you rank them: MJ, Shaq and Lebron?

[MisterWestside]

Teams have basically dared LeBron to shoot jumpers, and it's thrown him totally off for games at a time. People can talk about zone defenses all they want, but zone defenses haven't worked even on LeBron except when he was not being aggressive, and not wanting to shoot. He basically lost against Dallas because of his own play. It happens, plenty of players have had that problem... but Jordan didn't, especially in the finals. The GOAT standard has been set high, you can't slip up as much as LeBron has.

Then again, he didn't have that issue because his Finals teams were much more balanced than the 2011 Heat.

parapooper is correct. The Mavs had a field day simply because they didn't have to regard any other player on the floor besides James and Wade (Bosh is certainly a capable player, but Dallas was content with looking at him as a role player in the series). They went with the tried-and-true strategy that defenses in football use against teams that are top-heavy instead of balanced on offense: double (or even triple) the top dog, and force everyone else to beat you. Wade and Chalmers was able to make Dallas pay for that strategy vs. James, but no one else did. That team would still have issues on offense even with 2013 James posting up. If others can't make the opponent think twice about sending extra defenders at the star, the offense bogs down.

I will say this though: once again, it all goes back to why some players jack shots and why other players defer. When the team around you isn't as talented, you tend to shoot more. When you're on a stacked team, you shoot less (even MJ didn't shoot as much on the '92 Dream Team; 15 true shooting attempts per game is meager compared to his Bulls standards). I think that if this was the Cleveland Cavaliers in the 2011 Finals, James would look to shoot more to compensate for his team's lack of talent, but on the Heat he deferred to players whom he trusted more than the Mo Williamses of the world.