Peak Project: #2

[yoyoboy]

I'm really busy with classes and work today, but I should be able to get my response up around 6 today (ET).

For the heads up, I started working on my piece last night, and it'll probably end up being fairly long, but I think I can bring up some interesting points.

[Quotatious]

As tough as the first four picks are, I feel like it'll get even tougher between #5 and 7. I have Hakeem, Kareem and Duncan at 5, 6 and 7, respectively, but I'm even less confident about that, than I am about the order of LBJ, MJ, Shaq and Wilt.

I can see Hakeem going down a little, possibly slipping to #7, because both Kareem (1977) and Duncan (2003) have a strong case over him. Especially TD - I'll be one of his biggest advocates here (nice to see that Dr Positivity is already considering him right now, for his #4 - that's a bit too high for my liking, but at least I won't be alone with my "worship" of TD, lol.
Drza mentioned Russell - I think Duncan should definitely get in ahead of Russell. Maybe my argument for that will be a little primitive, but I just think that Duncan's offense was better than Russell's offense to a greater degree than Russell's defense was better than Duncan's defense. Especially if I make an adjustment for era, then Russell's impact wouldn't look as otherworldly as it does when you look at it as if there were no major rule changes between the 60s and the 00s. I can see Duncan anchoring a similarly dominant defense in Russell's place (not as good, but at least close), but I totally can't see Russell anchoring the Spurs offense like Duncan did in '03.

I suppose that drza will argue Garnett over Duncan, and Spaceman will argue Robinson (and maybe Garnett, too) over Duncan. It'll be very interesting.

Okay, enough with that, it's too early for Duncan and Russell right now (or Garnett or Robinson), I think. Just wanted to share a few thoughts.

[Owly]

I can understand why you feel this way, but Shaq had several supporting casts that fit better around him (and were also comparable in terms of talent) to any team LeBron had. Let's take a look at the '95 Magic, one of the top two offensive teams Shaq had even been on - they had a great perimeter creator who could score as well as deliver the ball (Penny), two great shooters (Anderson and Scott) to space the floor, which is very important when you have Shaq on your team, and one of them was also capable of creating shots for himself (Anderson), plus he had a pretty good mid-range shooting and passing bigman alongside him - Grant.

That's a supporting cast which was a perfect fit around Shaq.

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get. Lebron's had a perimeter creator, great shooters, and a great shooting and passing bigman TWICE, Jordan once, and Shaq THREE times (Mia, Orl, and LA). Its just not that hard a team prototype to gather.

It's peripheral to the main discussion (and in terms of playoff outcomes I'd say Shaq in Orlando and early in LA was unfortunate in that typically good "supporting casts" played below their normal levels in playoff runs), but no Penny Hardaway, Horace Grant and Nick Anderson (as players 2, 3 and 4 in addition an all time great) is a hard supporing cast to get. It's got a peak that was 28th last time this project came around (and Orlando were unlikely to have gotten the number one pick to switch for number 3, they only missed the playoffs on an arbitrary tie-breaker). It was contingent on Penny and Shaq being on decent value deals (not rookie contracts per se, because the rookies hadn't yet been sacraficed in the CBA, so no rookie scale, but still good deals) at a time with a rapidly expanding cap that allowed them to snare Horace Grant in his prime, a premier free agent and a player at the borderline of the top 100 all time (careers) and an ideal fit next to Shaq (solid J, smart and mobile defender). Throw in peak Anderson as fourth best playeer.

I don't know how many all-time greats have had a team with
25+ PER teammate,
Elite low usage "role-player" type, but in an all-star level player who fits ideally next the star (D, spacing etc at an adjacent position)
then a fourth guy just under all-star level.

But I'm guessing not too many (otoh Nash had 2 and 3, but not 4 and arguably contributed to 2 and 3 being as good as they were; Magic and Jabbar had each other though obviously Kareem was already post peak and was getting worse as Magic got better, and Worthy whilst fitting well wasn't an exceptional defender or floor spacer though he was a good finisher for Magic, then Byron and A.C.; 80s Boston when McHale peaked in '87? LeBron had 2 - though an imperfect fit and declining- and Miami of forced Bosh into spot 3 though less naturally than Grant, but nothing close to 4).

This was a cast good enough to get some crazy "are they better off without Shaq" talk when a Geiger flagrant foul led to Shaq missing time with a broken thumb.

And this doesn't mean Shaq should have done any better, playoff outcome wise (Anderson and Scott woeful in '95 finals, Grant injured versus the 72 win Bulls in '96). But that isn't a "not very hard to get" cast. A team that can afford and is fortunate enough to get into the circumstances to attract 4 players that good is rare.

[Purch]

I think it's hard to sell Robinson's peak over Kareem's but I'm definitly intressted in seeing the argument Spaceman makes

[E-Balla]

I can understand why you feel this way, but Shaq had several supporting casts that fit better around him (and were also comparable in terms of talent) to any team LeBron had. Let's take a look at the '95 Magic, one of the top two offensive teams Shaq had even been on - they had a great perimeter creator who could score as well as deliver the ball (Penny), two great shooters (Anderson and Scott) to space the floor, which is very important when you have Shaq on your team, and one of them was also capable of creating shots for himself (Anderson), plus he had a pretty good mid-range shooting and passing bigman alongside him - Grant.

That's a supporting cast which was a perfect fit around Shaq.

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get. Lebron's had a perimeter creator, great shooters, and a great shooting and passing bigman TWICE, Jordan once, and Shaq THREE times (Mia, Orl, and LA). Its just not that hard a team prototype to gather.

It's peripheral to the main discussion (and in terms of playoff outcomes I'd say Shaq in Orlando and early in LA was unfortunate in that typically good "supporting casts" played below their normal levels in playoff runs), but no Penny Hardaway, Horace Grant and Nick Anderson (as players 2, 3 and 4 in addition an all time great) is a hard supporing cast to get. It's got a peak that was 28th last time this project came around (and Orlando were unlikely to have gotten the number one pick to switch for number 3, they only missed the playoffs on an arbitrary tie-breaker). It was contingent on Penny and Shaq being on decent value deals (not rookie contracts per se, because the rookies hadn't yet been sacraficed in the CBA, so no rookie scale, but still good deals) at a time with a rapidly expanding cap that allowed them to snare Horace Grant in his prime, a premier free agent and a player at the borderline of the top 100 all time (careers) and an ideal fit next to Shaq (solid J, smart and mobile defender). Throw in peak Anderson as fourth best playeer.

Well that's not peak Shaq or his best offensive team.

I don't know how many all-time greats have had a team with
25+ PER teammate,
Elite low usage "role-player" type, but in an all-star level player who fits ideally next the star (D, spacing etc at an adjacent position)
then a fourth guy just under all-star level.

Basically everyone in consideration for this spot has had the same. What do you call Kyrie, Love, and Mosgov?

But I'm guessing not too many (otoh Nash had 2 and 3, but not 4 and arguably contributed to 2 and 3 being as good as they were; Magic and Jabbar had each other though obviously Kareem was already post peak and was getting worse as Magic got better, and Worthy whilst fitting well wasn't an exceptional defender or floor spacer though he was a good finisher for Magic, then Byron and A.C.; 80s Boston when McHale peaked in '87? LeBron had 2 - though an imperfect fit and declining- and Miami of forced Bosh into spot 3 though less naturally than Grant, but nothing close to 4).

This was a cast good enough to get some crazy "are they better off without Shaq" talk when a Geiger flagrant foul led to Shaq missing time with a broken thumb.

And this doesn't mean Shaq should have done any better, playoff outcome wise (Anderson and Scott woeful in '95 finals, Grant injured versus the 72 win Bulls in '96). But that isn't a "not very hard to get" cast. A team that can afford and is fortunate enough to get into the circumstances to attract 4 players that good is rare.

You missed the point of the argument (that of course Shaq has had great teams that were a better fit since he has a more unique skillset and fills a single role while what makes Lebron so great is how many roles he can fill) here. Again that Orlando team was young Shaq and not even his best offensive team.

[Ballerhogger]

I think it's hard to sell Robinson's peak over Kareem's but I'm definitly intressted in seeing the argument Spaceman makes

What peak of Robinson matches up to Kareem peaks?

[drza]

With that in mind would someone mind making a case for Shaq having as much positive influence on an offense as some of the truly elite ball-handlers (Nash/Magic).

He doesn't. The trick is that Jordan/LeBron don't really either. They're massively dominant on offense due to their scoring, but IMO a step behind Nash/Magic. The difference is that all 3 guys play DPOY-level defense, which obviously leaves Nash/Magic behind, and the offensive gap is far too small to negate that.

For those that believe that RAPM splits can help indicate impact level, here are some numbers for the LeBron/Shaq/Nash members of this grouping to use as a bit of a bench mark. Again (as most likely throughout this project), I'm referencing the scaled database that Doc MJ created to try to compare directly across seasons:

Scaled Offensive RAPM, 3 best seasons with complete data between 1999 and 2012 (e.g. not 2001, 2002):
Nash: +10.2, +9.8, +8.8 (Best marks of that time period)
LeBron: +10.0 (2010), +9.2 (2007), +8.8 (2009)
Shaq: +7.9 (2003), +7.7 (2000), +7.5 (1999)

This would argue that LeBron's offensive impact on those Cleveland teams was very close to the best of what we saw from Nash in Phoenix, while Shaq was a step behind both (still good enough for top-5 of the era, joining Wade and Kobe just behind Nash and LeBron among the full-time starters with the highest marks).

However, this touches directly upon the subject that has been getting discussed a bit in these first couple of threads, namely the question of whether LeBron's max impact is scaleable to a GOAT-level unit. And it's important that we clarify this, because the argument is NOT that LeBron can't coexist with other talent on a successful team...and it's also NOT that he isn't good if he's on a successful team. No, the question is whether or not LeBron's offense yields diminishing returns with added talent such that putting him on a unit with great players that can perform some of his functions at a high level doesn't continue to elevate the unit beyond a certain point. Now, that point may be high enough to win a championship (as in 2012, 13) but not enough to do so with a dominant unit/squad the way some of the other offensive GOATs can. And if that case can be made and supported sufficiently, I think that is a potential weakness for LeBron against other players of this caliber.

To put numbers to it, LeBron's scaled ORAPM in those first two seasons in Miami (11 and 12): +5.5, +5.8

Those are still very strong numbers. For perspective, a composite scaled ORAPM of +5.65 would put LeBron in the top-20 among all 3-year peaks in ORAPM in that 1998-2012). So it's still excellent. But it's no longer GOAT-like offensive impact, like what he was having in Cleveland.

And this transitions to the defensive part of the situation. Because the claim has been made multiple times that Shaq, LeBron and Jordan played DPoY level defense. For Shaq and LeBron, at least, their DRAPMs don't support this claim. They measured out as strong defenders at their peaks (Shaq 2000: +3.0 on defense, LeBron 2009: +3.7 on defense)...for perspective, the Mutombo-level defender is around +8, The Wallaces (Ben and Sheed) were in the +6s, Battier peaked in the upper 4s/5s area, Artest in the mid-4s, Bowen in the low 4s/mid 3s, and Jason Kidd in the mid-3s. So Shaq and LeBron both measured as strong, All-defense-team type defenders at their peaks but not truly DPoY worthy (according to RAPM).

However, this is an area where LeBron could demonstrate that he could maintain his max impact in the face of different circumstances. Because if he doesn't have to do as much on offense (due to improved offensive teammates), in theory this would leave him more energy and ability to ramp up his impact in other areas (e.g. defense, rebounding, etc.). But we didn't see that happen. Going from his last years in Cleveland to his first years in Miami, LeBron's defensive RAPM scores didn't improve...there wasn't much change, but if anything his defensive impact in Miami seemed to be smaller:

LeBron scaled DRAPM from 2009 - 2012: +3.7, +3.6, +3.2, +2.5

Summary:
As mentioned previously, according to RAPM, LeBron in 2009 and 2010 produced marks that were beyond anything peak Shaq ever managed. If impact = goodness + fit, in Cleveland LeBron was able to max that equation to a level that was ridiculous. However, while still at his peak, LeBron went to a situation in Miami where the fit wasn't as good. He was still outstanding, still MVP-worthy...but his offensive impact was lower (diminishing returns) without a corresponding bump in his defensive impact (no scale up). Thus, while his measured impact in those years was still the best in the league, it no longer was best of all time. Numerically, his RAPM scores went from GOAT-level down to "only" comparable with peak Nash or peak Kobe, a solid step behind the peaks of Shaq or Duncan.

Because I believe that portability and scalability are both very important, seeing this effect played out numerically for LeBron is something that concerns me as far as ranking him at this level. The question, with respect to Shaq, is whether his game is really is more portable than LeBron's? It's not as versatile, but I think there's something to the idea that he's just a more scarce phenomenon...there's very, very few players that can do what he does that would overlap with his skillset sufficiently to form diminishing returns. As such, I'd think his peak impact would be more robust. And since there are (relatively) a lot of great perimeter players out there, the likelihood is that more good teams would be built to take advantage of Shaq's strengths than to fit with LeBrons.

And among other players that have been mentioned like Duncan, in particular, he demonstrated over his career that both his offense and defense could scale to some extent with the strengths of his teammates, giving him (IMO) a portability and scalability argument over LeBron (and maybe even over Shaq) that helps make up for his overall impact being a tick lower.

[Owly]

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get. Lebron's had a perimeter creator, great shooters, and a great shooting and passing bigman TWICE, Jordan once, and Shaq THREE times (Mia, Orl, and LA). Its just not that hard a team prototype to gather.

It's peripheral to the main discussion (and in terms of playoff outcomes I'd say Shaq in Orlando and early in LA was unfortunate in that typically good "supporting casts" played below their normal levels in playoff runs), but no Penny Hardaway, Horace Grant and Nick Anderson (as players 2, 3 and 4 in addition an all time great) is a hard supporing cast to get. It's got a peak that was 28th last time this project came around (and Orlando were unlikely to have gotten the number one pick to switch for number 3, they only missed the playoffs on an arbitrary tie-breaker). It was contingent on Penny and Shaq being on decent value deals (not rookie contracts per se, because the rookies hadn't yet been sacraficed in the CBA, so no rookie scale, but still good deals) at a time with a rapidly expanding cap that allowed them to snare Horace Grant in his prime, a premier free agent and a player at the borderline of the top 100 all time (careers) and an ideal fit next to Shaq (solid J, smart and mobile defender). Throw in peak Anderson as fourth best playeer.

Well that's not peak Shaq or his best offensive team.

I don't know how many all-time greats have had a team with
25+ PER teammate,
Elite low usage "role-player" type, but in an all-star level player who fits ideally next the star (D, spacing etc at an adjacent position)
then a fourth guy just under all-star level.

Basically everyone in consideration for this spot has had the same. What do you call Kyrie, Love, and Mosgov?

But I'm guessing not too many (otoh Nash had 2 and 3, but not 4 and arguably contributed to 2 and 3 being as good as they were; Magic and Jabbar had each other though obviously Kareem was already post peak and was getting worse as Magic got better, and Worthy whilst fitting well wasn't an exceptional defender or floor spacer though he was a good finisher for Magic, then Byron and A.C.; 80s Boston when McHale peaked in '87? LeBron had 2 - though an imperfect fit and declining- and Miami of forced Bosh into spot 3 though less naturally than Grant, but nothing close to 4).

This was a cast good enough to get some crazy "are they better off without Shaq" talk when a Geiger flagrant foul led to Shaq missing time with a broken thumb.

And this doesn't mean Shaq should have done any better, playoff outcome wise (Anderson and Scott woeful in '95 finals, Grant injured versus the 72 win Bulls in '96). But that isn't a "not very hard to get" cast. A team that can afford and is fortunate enough to get into the circumstances to attract 4 players that good is rare.

You missed the point of the argument (that of course Shaq has had great teams that were a better fit since he has a more unique skillset and fills a single role while what makes Lebron so great is how many roles he can fill) here. Again that Orlando team was young Shaq and not even his best offensive team.

No, you misread a post that said whilst it is peripheral to the general focus of the thread, you are wrong specifically to say

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get.

It is.

All repetition of "that's not peak Shaq" "not even his best team" is missing the point. You said it was an easily replicable team. And it isn't.

And wow, you think Mozgov is just under-all star calibre? I like him, but that just isn't true. And for what it's worth neither Love nor Irving have posted a 25 PER with LeBron (Kyrie closest at 21.5, missing by a substantial margin; I dare say, unlike Hardaway, he will not recieve a mention as a candidate in this project), nor is either an all-star level talent who brings complementary role-player skills. So that team (thus far) meets none of the three criteria.

[eminence]

Hmm, the idea that Shaq is somehow more portable than Lebron because of there being more great wing players seems like kind of a load of baloney. For his particular era it may be true, but across the history of basketball it just isn't the case. Easy anecdotal evidence is players mentioned so far in these threads.

Guards/wings- MJ/Lebron/Magic(kind of)

Bigs- Shaq/Wilt/Kareem/Russell/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan/KG(kind of)

[E-Balla]

It's peripheral to the main discussion (and in terms of playoff outcomes I'd say Shaq in Orlando and early in LA was unfortunate in that typically good "supporting casts" played below their normal levels in playoff runs), but no Penny Hardaway, Horace Grant and Nick Anderson (as players 2, 3 and 4 in addition an all time great) is a hard supporing cast to get. It's got a peak that was 28th last time this project came around (and Orlando were unlikely to have gotten the number one pick to switch for number 3, they only missed the playoffs on an arbitrary tie-breaker). It was contingent on Penny and Shaq being on decent value deals (not rookie contracts per se, because the rookies hadn't yet been sacraficed in the CBA, so no rookie scale, but still good deals) at a time with a rapidly expanding cap that allowed them to snare Horace Grant in his prime, a premier free agent and a player at the borderline of the top 100 all time (careers) and an ideal fit next to Shaq (solid J, smart and mobile defender). Throw in peak Anderson as fourth best playeer.

Well that's not peak Shaq or his best offensive team.

I don't know how many all-time greats have had a team with
25+ PER teammate,
Elite low usage "role-player" type, but in an all-star level player who fits ideally next the star (D, spacing etc at an adjacent position)
then a fourth guy just under all-star level.

Basically everyone in consideration for this spot has had the same. What do you call Kyrie, Love, and Mosgov?

But I'm guessing not too many (otoh Nash had 2 and 3, but not 4 and arguably contributed to 2 and 3 being as good as they were; Magic and Jabbar had each other though obviously Kareem was already post peak and was getting worse as Magic got better, and Worthy whilst fitting well wasn't an exceptional defender or floor spacer though he was a good finisher for Magic, then Byron and A.C.; 80s Boston when McHale peaked in '87? LeBron had 2 - though an imperfect fit and declining- and Miami of forced Bosh into spot 3 though less naturally than Grant, but nothing close to 4).

This was a cast good enough to get some crazy "are they better off without Shaq" talk when a Geiger flagrant foul led to Shaq missing time with a broken thumb.

And this doesn't mean Shaq should have done any better, playoff outcome wise (Anderson and Scott woeful in '95 finals, Grant injured versus the 72 win Bulls in '96). But that isn't a "not very hard to get" cast. A team that can afford and is fortunate enough to get into the circumstances to attract 4 players that good is rare.

You missed the point of the argument (that of course Shaq has had great teams that were a better fit since he has a more unique skillset and fills a single role while what makes Lebron so great is how many roles he can fill) here. Again that Orlando team was young Shaq and not even his best offensive team.

No, you misread a post that said whilst it is peripheral to the general focus of the thread, you are wrong specifically to say

But that's not a very hard supporting cast to get.

It is.

All repetition of "that's not peak Shaq" "not even his best team" is missing the point. You said it was an easily replicable team. And it isn't.

But that single Orlando team wasn't the only team mentioned in either post. The basic build mentioned by Q of a perimeter star, great passing stretch 4, and shooters (one of which can create most likely) isn't hard to come by when you have a star that talented. Period. Anything else you are putting into that post is coming from you.

And wow, you think Mozgov is just under-all star calibre? I like him, but that just isn't true. And for what it's worth neither Love nor Irving have posted a 25 PER with LeBron (Kyrie closest at 21.5, missing by a substantial margin; I dare say, unlike Hardaway, he will not recieve a mention as a candidate in this project), nor is either an all-star level talent who brings complementary role-player skills. So that team (thus far) meets none of the three criteria.

He's just as under All Star caliber as Nick Anderson is. Both have about 17 PERs and Anderson wasn't the defender Mozgov is - but Mozgov does play limited minutes but its more in the Robin Lopez sense (RoLo prior to Portland was stuck on the bench under some other bigs or on teams that didn't like trotting out traditional lineups). I mean if your standard for just under All Star is Nick Anderson a lot of guys (for example Wes Matthews) are just under All Star level.

And none of them hit the criteria of a 25 PER because Love is stuck with Lebron on his team turning him into a shooter like he did to Bosh. Oops. I mean its easy to say he doesn't have a 25+ PER but when the argument is that Lebron stops them from producing like they could and he was a 25 PER guy for 4 years prior to stepping on the court with Lebron it strengthens my point if anything.

Actually Kyrie without Lebron on the floor was a 25+ PER player last year. Per 36 (and this isn't a small sample over a third of his 2700+ minutes came without Lebron) he averaged 28/4/6 on 57 TS (115 ORTG). By all measures Lebron is pushing the team ahead by being there but lowering the numbers and impact of the other two stars on the floor with him.

Also the whole complementary role player skills thing is the issue. Next to Lebron everyone becomes a role player with complementary skills because if they don't Lebron's play falls off. Look at Lebron's production when Wade wasn't sacrificing his game in 2011. How difficult it is to get Lebron a good complementary piece is why he doesn't have these types of teams around him. I mean before playing with Lebron both Bosh and Love were seen as top 5 bigmen in the league (and many saw Love as a top 5 player).

[PaulieWal]

And none of them hit the criteria of a 25 PER because Love is stuck with Lebron on his team turning him into a shooter like he did to Bosh. Oops. I mean its easy to say he doesn't have a 25+ PER but when the argument is that Lebron stops them from producing like they could and he was a 25 PER guy for 4 years prior to stepping on the court with Lebron it strengthens my point if anything.

Actually Kyrie without Lebron on the floor was a 25+ PER player last year. Per 36 (and this isn't a small sample over a third of his 2700+ minutes came without Lebron) he averaged 28/4/6 on 57 TS (115 ORTG). By all measures Lebron is pushing the team ahead by being there but lowering the numbers and impact of the other two stars on the floor with him.

Also the whole complementary role player skills thing is the issue. Next to Lebron everyone becomes a role player with complementary skills because if they don't Lebron's play falls off. Look at Lebron's production when Wade wasn't sacrificing his game in 2011. How difficult it is to get Lebron a good complementary piece is why he doesn't have these types of teams around him. I mean before playing with Lebron both Bosh and Love were seen as top 5 bigmen in the league (and many saw Love as a top 5 player).

LeBron isn't really stopping Love. Really Love should be the 2nd option, not Irving. Love was arguably a top 5-10 player in 2014. I am not sure why Irving has been made the 2nd guy there, it should be Love IMO and Irving should be the 3rd wheel at least for now until LeBron gets older.

[The-Power]

The third ballot here gives me some trouble. I see some potential candidates but neither guy strikes me as solidly ahead of the other options. I explained in detail why I choose LeBron ahead of Shaq last thread - and I would have loved to debate with Dr Spacemen about his input, unfortunately I'm still deprived of constant internet and notebook access - and I'll stick with my votes for the first two ballots (LeBron '13 #2 and Shaq '00 #3).

Options I seriously consider for this third ballot: Kareem '77, Wilt '67, Robinson '95, KG '04, Hakeem '94, Duncan '03. Bird and Magic at their peaks are options but I'm inclined to rate them a little lower (same is true for Wade for what it's worth). For example I don't believe they necessarily peaked higher than Paul '08 or Curry '15 during the regular season. Their main argument would be the incredible playoff-runs they had in '86 (Bird) and '87 (Magic), but I'm not even sure how much more impressive they actually were in comparison. I do think, however, that the all-time great big men I listed above were elite to really good on the defensive end and really good to good on the offensive end. Bird and Magic (and even Curry and Paul, or Nash and Dirk for that matter) are superior offensive players (other than maybe Wilt, he's a guy who's extremely difficult to evaluate in my opinion) in my book but as of now I don't think it makes up for the huge difference in terms of defensive impact. I can imagine circumstances under which the superior offensive players are more valuable but I prefer to look at a player's actual impact during his peak and not at what-if, let-us-assume or but-in-a-vacuum scenarios. And I do think the guys I listed above have some benefits even though I can see (and even make myself) a good case for why the difference on offense in some cases actually does make up for the individually even larger gap on defense, I'm just not a firm believer myself (yet) and will stick with my initial reasoning for now.

So a lot of options for my 4th spot left, a lot of players to be scrutinized. And regardless of how I eventually decide, especially because I can't do the comprehensive analysis I'd love to do due to the natural lack of time in the course of a project, I'm sure I'll have second thoughts at one point or the other. Bill Russell, being absolutely honest with you, is my kryptonite: I have absolutely no idea how to rank him. I decided to not let him drop below a certain threshold (which I won't unfold just yet) but I hope my fellow participants have a better idea about how to rate him properly and rank him where he belongs.

[E-Balla]

Hmm, the idea that Shaq is somehow more portable than Lebron because of there being more great wing players seems like kind of a load of baloney. For his particular era it may be true, but across the history of basketball it just isn't the case. Easy anecdotal evidence is players mentioned so far in these threads.

Guards/wings- MJ/Lebron/Magic(kind of)

Bigs- Shaq/Wilt/Kareem/Russell/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan/KG(kind of)

But we aren't just talking about grouping top 10 ATG players together so this is asinine and we are speaking strictly offensively here. According to BBR there have been 89 22+ PPG seasons from bigmen that took under 50 3PA and 221 22+ PPG seasons for Gs (I used 22 as the standard because IMO 22+ is what I would call a great scoring year since plenty of meh scorers have 20-21 ppg seasons) since the 1980 season. Anecdotal evidence is just that and not helpful in this case.

[Quotatious]

LeBron isn't really stopping Love. Really Love should be the 2nd option, not Irving. Love was arguably a top 5-10 player in 2014. I am not sure why Irving has been made the 2nd guy there, it should be Love IMO and Irving should be the 3rd wheel at least for now until LeBron gets older.

The thing is, Kyrie's game really isn't well-suited for a third option. He's a ball dominant guard, and even though he can be very good as a spot up shooter, he'll be severely underutilized as #3. Ideally, Love and Irving should both be #2 options, but the problem is that you obviously can't have two second options...

It's like making Iverson the third option - you'll see a guy who plays like a much worse player than he could be in his natural role.

In a vacuum, I think Love is definitely better than Irving (or at least was last year, before Love joined the Cavs), but it's hard to find a way to have LeBron still average 25+, and both Love/Irving average 20+.

Last year, I remember thinking that Cleveland would be better if they could trade Irving for a defensive center. Marc Gasol would be a great fit. That would allow Love to become #2 on offense, but obviously it was never going to happen, as Kyrie is supposed to be their second franchise player (and if he keeps improving, he very well may be - he's already a top 15 player, probably).

[PaulieWal]

LeBron isn't really stopping Love. Really Love should be the 2nd option, not Irving. Love was arguably a top 5-10 player in 2014. I am not sure why Irving has been made the 2nd guy there, it should be Love IMO and Irving should be the 3rd wheel at least for now until LeBron gets older.

The thing is, Kyrie's game really isn't well-suited for a third option. He's a ball dominant guard, and even though he can be very good as a spot up shooter, he'll be severely underutilized as #3. Ideally, Love and Irving should both be #2 options, but the problem is that you obviously can't have two second options...

It's like making Iverson the third option - you'll see a guy who plays like a much worse player than he could be in his natural role.

In a vacuum, I think Love is definitely better than Irving (or at least was last year, before Love joined the Cavs), but it's hard to find a way to have LeBron still average 25+, and both Love/Irving average 20+.

Last year, I remember thinking that Cleveland would be better if they could trade Irving for a defensive center. Marc Gasol would be a great fit. That would allow Love to become #2 on offense, but obviously it was never going to happen, as Kyrie is supposed to be their second franchise player (and if he keeps improving, he very well may be - he's already a top 15 player, probably).

All good points but anyone making a point about LeBron "marginalizing" Love/Bosh is not being honest. Both went from a 1st option to 3rd options. I'd like to see what a 3rd option on a good team is supposed to average.

[Quotatious]

All good points but anyone making a point about LeBron "marginalizing" Love/Bosh is not being honest. Both went from a 1st option to 3rd options. I'd like to see what a 3rd option on a good team is supposed to average.

You're making the exact same point I'm always making when someone says that LeBron marginalizes bigmen. I'm proud that others are now using the exact same argument I made.

[E-Balla]

And none of them hit the criteria of a 25 PER because Love is stuck with Lebron on his team turning him into a shooter like he did to Bosh. Oops. I mean its easy to say he doesn't have a 25+ PER but when the argument is that Lebron stops them from producing like they could and he was a 25 PER guy for 4 years prior to stepping on the court with Lebron it strengthens my point if anything.

Actually Kyrie without Lebron on the floor was a 25+ PER player last year. Per 36 (and this isn't a small sample over a third of his 2700+ minutes came without Lebron) he averaged 28/4/6 on 57 TS (115 ORTG). By all measures Lebron is pushing the team ahead by being there but lowering the numbers and impact of the other two stars on the floor with him.

Also the whole complementary role player skills thing is the issue. Next to Lebron everyone becomes a role player with complementary skills because if they don't Lebron's play falls off. Look at Lebron's production when Wade wasn't sacrificing his game in 2011. How difficult it is to get Lebron a good complementary piece is why he doesn't have these types of teams around him. I mean before playing with Lebron both Bosh and Love were seen as top 5 bigmen in the league (and many saw Love as a top 5 player).

LeBron isn't really stopping Love. Really Love should be the 2nd option, not Irving. Love was arguably a top 5-10 player in 2014. I am not sure why Irving has been made the 2nd guy there, it should be Love IMO and Irving should be the 3rd wheel at least for now until LeBron gets older.

With Lebron on the floor Irving and Love share that second option spot. Kyrie only averages 18/3/5 per 36 with Lebron on the floor (very Mo Williams-ish) and Love averages 17/10/3 per 36 while only taking 0.5 less TSA per 36 than Kyrie. Kyrie gets all of his points when he's out there by himself. Love with Irving off the floor and Lebron on the floor averages 18.6 pp36 but his attempts don't rise his efficiency does.

[PaulieWal]

And none of them hit the criteria of a 25 PER because Love is stuck with Lebron on his team turning him into a shooter like he did to Bosh. Oops. I mean its easy to say he doesn't have a 25+ PER but when the argument is that Lebron stops them from producing like they could and he was a 25 PER guy for 4 years prior to stepping on the court with Lebron it strengthens my point if anything.

Actually Kyrie without Lebron on the floor was a 25+ PER player last year. Per 36 (and this isn't a small sample over a third of his 2700+ minutes came without Lebron) he averaged 28/4/6 on 57 TS (115 ORTG). By all measures Lebron is pushing the team ahead by being there but lowering the numbers and impact of the other two stars on the floor with him.

Also the whole complementary role player skills thing is the issue. Next to Lebron everyone becomes a role player with complementary skills because if they don't Lebron's play falls off. Look at Lebron's production when Wade wasn't sacrificing his game in 2011. How difficult it is to get Lebron a good complementary piece is why he doesn't have these types of teams around him. I mean before playing with Lebron both Bosh and Love were seen as top 5 bigmen in the league (and many saw Love as a top 5 player).

LeBron isn't really stopping Love. Really Love should be the 2nd option, not Irving. Love was arguably a top 5-10 player in 2014. I am not sure why Irving has been made the 2nd guy there, it should be Love IMO and Irving should be the 3rd wheel at least for now until LeBron gets older.

With Lebron on the floor Irving and Love share that second option spot. Kyrie only averages 18/3/5 per 36 with Lebron on the floor (very Mo Williams-ish) and Love averages 17/10/3 per 36 while only taking 0.5 less TSA per 36 than Kyrie. Kyrie gets all of his points when he's out there by himself. Love with Irving off the floor and Lebron on the floor averages 18.6 pp36 but his attempts don't rise his efficiency does.

But eballa, teams don't work like that.

LeBron averaged 18.5 shots last year, Kyrie 16.5, and Love 12.7 which to me is insane given how much better I think Love is better than Irving. Sure you can bring up their per 36 numbers together but teams usually play with a defined hierarchy offensively, especially when you have a load of talent like that. The bottom line is both Bosh and Love went from 1st options to 3rd options. That's a huge difference. Now Bosh was should never have been the 2nd option (maybe in 2014) but Love obviously should be.

LeBron has less to do with their numbers, it's just the nature of the beast.

That's why Bosh as a 3rd option works, at least he can play good defense. I am not sure what value Love has a 3rd offensive option.

[Jim Naismith]

All good points but anyone making a point about LeBron "marginalizing" Love/Bosh is not being honest. Both went from a 1st option to 3rd options. I'd like to see what a 3rd option on a good team is supposed to average.

Tim Hardaway, 1991 Warriors, 22.9 ppg

[eminence]

Hmm, the idea that Shaq is somehow more portable than Lebron because of there being more great wing players seems like kind of a load of baloney. For his particular era it may be true, but across the history of basketball it just isn't the case. Easy anecdotal evidence is players mentioned so far in these threads.

Guards/wings- MJ/Lebron/Magic(kind of)

Bigs- Shaq/Wilt/Kareem/Russell/Hakeem/Robinson/Duncan/KG(kind of)

But we aren't just talking about grouping top 10 ATG players together so this is asinine and we are speaking strictly offensively here. According to BBR there have been 89 22+ PPG seasons from bigmen that took under 50 3PA and 221 22+ PPG seasons for Gs (I used 22 as the standard because IMO 22+ is what I would call a great scoring year since plenty of meh scorers have 20-21 ppg seasons) since the 1980 season. Anecdotal evidence is just that and not helpful in this case.

I was never speaking strictly offensively and it wasn't implied either. Obviously the great big men we are hypothetically pairing Lebron with should be adding more defensive and less offensive value when compared to pairing him with Wade.

This might be the first era in history where dominant wingmen are more common than dominant bigs, and somehow that makes Shaq more portable than Lebron. I don't believe it for a second, in any era but the one we're living in Lebron is the more portable player.