RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3

[kayess]

Bosh's Toronto game would likely be more conducive to positive team results than his Miami game.

You say this despite the fact (1) his new game is much closer to the Garnett, high-impact/portability style, and (2) that his Toronto game is in the same mold of volume scoring/playmaking on O that you are saying does not translate as well?

Not really going to go point-for-point here, because among other things, it'll potentially get dismissed as narrative driven and accusatory, but also because people haven't really addressed some of the more concrete points on deferring, availability bias, offense allowing you to focus on defense (so it being indirectly additive) etc., so I'm convinced that it's just another case of "oh cool, great argument, btw here's mine".

[BasketballFan7]

Not a voter here and I know it has already been decided, but the problems with LBJs offensive system has been something i have been mulling over recently and I see many have been mulling over it for eons.

My own tenative conclusion is that Lebron in general, either deliberately or inadvertently creates team situations which accentuate his own individual production but leaves his team open to severe exploitation. He creates conditions necessitating he rescue his squads, and thereby creates a win win for himself as a result: if his team wins, it's because he carried them, and if the team loses, it aint his fault because he balled out and his team are all bums. In fact LBJs citation of his triple doubles and his strange references to his stats in the past, alongside his itch to remind the world how great he is (im the best player in the world...im a two way player etc) to me raises a suspicion that LBJs poorly constructed teams are not random, but all apart of his attempt to build his legacy. A hero legacy is hard to beat...

Something that got me thinking was the shift in the Cavs approach to basketball from late 08/08 playoffs to the 09 season/playoffs. LBJ in particular had an underwhelming offense performance v the Celtics in 08 (he was excellent defensively) but the series was a seesaw grind out event, with PP having to go wild in game 7 to salvage the series for the Celtics. Ben Wallaces addition turned the Cavs D around, and despite LBJs inability to generate high quality offense, in large part because of the awful spacing, the team competed against the NBAs best (and no the celtics struggles v the hawks do not undermine what happened v the cavs: clearly the cavs matched up amazingly while with the Hawks, the celtics had road jitters).

But then in 09 playoffs, Ben Wallace, the only guy on the cavs who could play effective post d and p and r D saw his playoff minutes cut in half, while the Cavs got demolished by Shaq Howard (he was attracting triples because of how ineffective the cavs bigs were) and on p&r, whilst lebron put up amazing individual numbers next to excellent spacing. Something makes me think the Cavs sacrified great playoff D for better offense, although this didnt necessiarly translate into wins. Lebron got his 38/8/8 and to this date many hail it his peak even though his team was one of the most dominant RS teams in recent times..

Lebron has not yet demonstrated he can anchor a historically great team and IMO it is because his approach to the game of basketball precludes this. No historically great team needs a rescue culture like LBJ creates everywhere he goes and I dont think this predicament is random. And I think this matters when you are comparing players in a team sport like basketball.

Sent from my SM-G935F using RealGM mobile app

Every team is trying to hoard spacing. Every team with a premier PG, Thunder excluded, is trying to surround their star with floor spacers. There is no reason that the offense should flounder so much with LeBron off of the court. Kyrie could have a field day if he knew what to do with the players around him. I can understand the defensive concerns.

Love? Sure. He is a guy who would do better with a big time rim protector next to him and long defenders elsewhere, Love being the offensive focal point. That said, what is the ceiling of that team? It's not sensical to construct the roster that way with LeBron on board, and it definitely doesn't make sense with the Warriors in mind.

[Doctor MJ]

I understand the argument, it just isnt a good one for ranking "all time great". It is a peaks ranking type arguement. There is a lot more luck in KG actually matching what Duncan did than the actual luck Duncan had.

Also, there is luck in not getting injured (oftentimes), yet we can not give credit to that player that unluckily got injured for something he has not done but "probably would have" had he not been so unlucky. Unfortunatley, luck is real and it plays a role how shapes everything and ultimately how we perceive it.

So far as I know, trex can correct me, in the end we use our own definition of "greatness". You're essentially arguing for a more qualitative approach than I am so to me allowing your freedom to do this when it can't be known to align with others is precisely why leeway is needed.

Re: luck is real. Sure, and I think very carefully about how I deal with the luck factor without ever claiming to argue I have it solved.

I'll put it this way:

One of the core things I ask is "Who would I draft first?" It's not the only thing I ask but it helps keep me from making arguments like "Well X won more championships so I'll rank him ahead of Y" which is both a relief and a necessity.

If forced to draft between KG and Duncan it'd basically be a coin flip for me.

Yes, I agree we should all use our own definition of greatness, which is what this discussion/ranking is all about. I am just challenging others definition and illustrating my own.

I get the thought process behind drafting, who you would pick first. You see very little difference between the two in actual play impact, and I am not nessesarily disagreeing with it. What I am disagreeng with is there at some point have to be differences in order to rank, and these accomplishments cannot be ignored. It is not a small difference (as in perhaps a small lead KG may have in some impact stats) its a big difference in terms of accomplishments.

Also, rather than looking at it in sense of an all time league that has been done here several times, Id leave you with: If San Antonio had a do over would there be any chance they would choose KG over Duncan? The chance of that is as close to zero as possible, because there isnt much more imaginable that could be improved from Duncans tenure. The same cannot be said for Minnesotta, they very well may still draft KG over Duncan, but the choice would not be so crystal clear.

As mentioned, I draw a distinction between team and individual accomplishments, and I seek judge players based on what they accomplished individually. I won't claim to do it perfectly by any means, but Duncan was drafted into a far more favorable context than Garnett and I feel the need to adjust for that.

And I don't care what Minny or SA would do in this context. It's my list, so it's about what I would do.
Similarly being an all-star, or any other accolade-based identity, is irrelevant to my evaluation of a player if I don't think he deserved it.

None of this meant as a knock on Duncan to be clear, just clarifying my methodology.

[drza]

Bosh's Toronto game would likely be more conducive to positive team results than his Miami game.

You say this despite the fact (1) his new game is much closer to the Garnett, high-impact/portability style, and (2) that his Toronto game is in the same mold of volume scoring/playmaking on O that you are saying does not translate as well?

Not really going to go point-for-point here, because among other things, it'll potentially get dismissed as narrative driven and accusatory, but also because people haven't really addressed some of the more concrete points on deferring, availability bias, offense allowing you to focus on defense (so it being indirectly additive) etc., so I'm convinced that it's just another case of "oh cool, great argument, btw here's mine".

I wouldn't say Miami Bosh was very analogous to any version of Garnett outside of a relatively shallow first pass, at least impact-wise. Miami Bosh obviously scored at a much lower rate than his Toronto version, but he also rebounded at a lower rate and distributed the ball at a lower rate with a slightly negative assist/TO ratio. He added more range to his spot-up jumper, giving him more of a spacing impact as an off-the-ball threat. But while he improved aspects of his defense, it didn't translate to that much of an impact change as measured by DRAPM. Garnett, on the other hand, sacrificed some of his offensive impact (giving up on-ball responsibilities and focusing more on spacing) but maxed out his defensive impact in the tradeoff, thus remaining a player that could be MVP-worthy. If Bosh had the type of game in which he could maximize his impact with defense and spacing, then maybe it'd have been maximized while playing next to LeBron.

And that relates to your last sentence, as well. If Wade, Bosh, Love and/or Irving had games that would be maximized by allowing them to focus on defense, then they would have benefitted more from playing next to LeBron. But, once again, the number of NBA players that can maximize their impact on defense is solidly lower than those that can do so on offense. It's inherent, it's not a by-season or even by-era phenomenon. Which comes back to the idea, that you've publicly decried but that at least to me seems to be reasonable sense, that players that can maximize on defense are a scarcer resource than those that can maximize on offense, and thus this scarcity (on a team building level) helps mitigate the difference in raw individual impact that can be made with individual offense.

[andrewww]

I think drza makes a legitimate point. Great defensive players on the same team are less likely to have diminishing returns in comparison to great offensive players on the same team, especially if they cannot play off the ball.

[rebirthoftheM]

A few things.

1) In 09, the Cavs did have an amazing defense. The only problem is that they faced the only team which was a huge matchup problem. The Cavs big were good defensive bigs but Howard was the only one strong and athletic enough to exploit them. Varejao/Wallace/Z could effectively guard 90% of the bigs in the league. Howard wasn't one of them. Not to mention that the Magic perimeter players were bigger than the Cavs guys and were great shooters. They were basically a 2017 team transported to 2009.

2) LeBron has anchored has great teams. The 2016 and 2017 Cavs were amazing in the playoffs. 12+ SRS in the playoffs both years. He beat a 73 win team that no one else has beat in the last 3 years.

Yeah, they looked amazing in the RS and even in the first 2 rounds v the 39 win Pistons and 47 win Hawks. But reviewing the tape v the Magic, they looked like a team in total disrepair on that end. For starters, their doubles and triples as well as their defense P & R was horrendous, no doubt accentuated by the size issues, but also just poor poor defensive IQ. Ilgauskas was a criminal on the latter- his D in general was horrendous. You'd see him often out of position chasing around players who were already being covered by someone like MJ. The Cavs guards also sucked, and Lebron himself was also guilty of being lazy at times.

Howard didn't look all too special the next series v the big-men on the lakers, who frankly were never known for their individual man to man D. Ilgauskas and AV simply conceded too much space because let's face it any serious bigman would have taken them to the task. AV's 'ill put my hands up and hope you miss" post D was embarrassing. And when they weren't doing this, the Cavs were doubling and trippling him, but then giving Dwight a 2-3 second breathing room period to calmly hit his perimeter players. No serious pressure at all for a dude (Dwight) who whilst capable of passing, was not the best of the best.

Ben Wallace was undoubtedly a far better option than those two in this respect, and sadly even then, the Cavs decided to double Dwight Howard for who knows what reason. BW got better positioning them, and at least could draw some offensive fouls on Howard. He was also far better in terms of help D. In fact Mike Brown knew this, hence he'd sub in Wallace whenever he needed a stop down the stretch.

The problem with Wallace is that because of his challenged offense, he would clog the paint for Lebron and in general hurt their offensive efficiency. Lebron demonstrated in the 08 playoffs he could not produce high quality offense with Wallace on the court and this continued v the Magic in 09. IIRC Lebron was shooting something like 30% with Wallace on the court v the Magic, and this is no coincidence (and on a side note, I don't think it is coincidence that LBJ generally shot pretty badly in the playoffs prior to the 09 playoffs- the cavs spacing was pretty awful prior to the 09, but their D carried them) . Lebron needed his spacing, and he needed bigs who could relieve him on those P & Rs by forcing the defense to respect their jump-shot. This is the price the Cavs had to pay to keep Lebron's offensive production up. I still believe the 08 Cavs were a better playoff squad than the 09 Squad for this very reason, and I have no doubt the 09 Cavs would have been demolished by the Lakers even if they got to the finals. I mean they turned Dwight Howard into Shaq out there

And re historically great teams... Generally speaking you'd need a dominant/elite of elite RS+ PS to qualify. Neither the 2016 nor 2017 Cavs qualify. 2017 Cavs in particular were horrendous on D in the RS, kind of like the 01 Lakers, except the Lakers went 15-1 in the playoffs and destroyed far better competition than the 2017 Cavs. The horrible state of the Eastern conference in recent years has given Lebron something breathing room for 3 straight rounds, allowing him to mentally and physically go all out in one round v the western contender. I can't help but ignore this situation. At least we can confidently suggest that Magic's 80s squads would have done very well in the Eastern conference because of the way they beat the Celtics in the finals. I'm not so sure how the Cavs, with all their defectiveness, would do in 3 consecutive rounds in the Western conference. Lebron's historics might not cut it for 3 straight rounds in the west.

As for the 2016 73-9 team. I would hope we stop referring to this. The Warriors were not a 73-9 win qualify team in the playoffs. After dropping 9 games over 82 games, they proceeded to drop 5 games in 17 games even before seeing the Cavs. This was not the historic team we saw in the RS, and in particular Curry was not in prime form and had a shocking finals series for reasons we still do not know. Lebron should get his props nevertheless, but let's not pretend he stopped a juggernaut. This Warriors looked severely vunerable, and if not for Westbrook/Durant's implosion, they wouldn't have even made the finals.

[andrewww]

A few things.

1) In 09, the Cavs did have an amazing defense. The only problem is that they faced the only team which was a huge matchup problem. The Cavs big were good defensive bigs but Howard was the only one strong and athletic enough to exploit them. Varejao/Wallace/Z could effectively guard 90% of the bigs in the league. Howard wasn't one of them. Not to mention that the Magic perimeter players were bigger than the Cavs guys and were great shooters. They were basically a 2017 team transported to 2009.

2) LeBron has anchored has great teams. The 2016 and 2017 Cavs were amazing in the playoffs. 12+ SRS in the playoffs both years. He beat a 73 win team that no one else has beat in the last 3 years.

Yeah, they looked amazing in the RS and even in the first 2 rounds v the 39 win Pistons and 47 win Hawks. But reviewing the tape v the Magic, they looked like a team in total disrepair on that end. For starters, their doubles and triples as well as their defense P & R was horrendous, no doubt accentuated by the size issues, but also just poor poor defensive IQ. Ilgauskas was a criminal on the latter- his D in general was horrendous. You'd see him often out of position chasing around players who were already being covered by someone like MJ. The Cavs guards also sucked, and Lebron himself was also guilty of being lazy at times.

Howard didn't look all too special the next series v the big-men on the lakers, who frankly were never known for their individual man to man D. Ilgauskas and AV simply conceded too much space because let's face it any serious bigman would have taken them to the task. AV's 'ill put my hands up and hope you miss" post D was embarrassing. And when they weren't doing this, the Cavs were doubling and trippling him, but then giving Dwight a 2-3 second breathing room period to calmly hit his perimeter players. No serious pressure at all for a dude (Dwight) who whilst capable of passing, was not the best of the best.

Ben Wallace was undoubtedly a far better option than those two in this respect, and sadly even then, the Cavs decided to double Dwight Howard for who knows what reason. BW got better positioning them, and at least could draw some offensive fouls on Howard. He was also far better in terms of help D. In fact Mike Brown knew this, hence he'd sub in Wallace whenever he needed a stop down the stretch.

The problem with Wallace is that because of his challenged offense, he would clog the paint for Lebron and in general hurt their offensive efficiency. Lebron demonstrated in the 08 playoffs he could not produce high quality offense with Wallace on the court and this continued v the Magic in 09. IIRC Lebron was shooting something like 30% with Wallace on the court v the Magic, and this is no coincidence (and on a side note, I don't think it is coincidence that LBJ generally shot pretty badly in the playoffs prior to the 09 playoffs- the cavs spacing was pretty awful prior to the 09, but their D carried them) . Lebron needed his spacing, and he needed bigs who could relieve him on those P & Rs by forcing the defense to respect their jump-shot. This is the price the Cavs had to pay to keep Lebron's offensive production up. I still believe the 08 Cavs were a better playoff squad than the 09 Squad for this very reason, and I have no doubt the 09 Cavs would have been demolished by the Lakers even if they got to the finals. I mean they turned Dwight Howard into Shaq out there

And re historically great teams... Generally speaking you'd need a dominant/elite of elite RS+ PS to qualify. Neither the 2016 nor 2017 Cavs qualify. 2017 Cavs in particular were horrendous on D in the RS, kind of like the 01 Lakers, except the Lakers went 15-1 in the playoffs and destroyed far better competition than the 2017 Cavs. The horrible state of the Eastern conference in recent years has given Lebron something breathing room for 3 straight rounds, allowing him to mentally and physically go all out in one round v the western contender. I can't help but ignore this situation. At least we can confidently suggest that Magic's 80s squads would have done very well in the Eastern conference because of the way they beat the Celtics in the finals. I'm not so sure how the Cavs, with all their defectiveness, would do in 3 consecutive rounds in the Western conference. Lebron's historics might not cut it for 3 straight rounds in the west.

As for the 2016 73-9 team. I would hope we stop referring to this. The Warriors were not a 73-9 win qualify team in the playoffs. After dropping 9 games over 82 games, they proceeded to drop 5 games in 17 games even before seeing the Cavs. This was not the historic team we saw in the RS, and in particular Curry was not in prime form and had a shocking finals series for reasons we still do not know. Lebron should get his props nevertheless, but let's not pretend he stopped a juggernaut. This Warriors looked severely vunerable, and if not for Westbrook/Durant's implosion, they wouldn't have even made the finals.

Agree, which is why in spite of the weaker west in the 80s compared to the east, at least you still had Houston among others to give the Lakers a challenge, which is reflected in the 5-3 record in the Finals during the 80s for the Lakers. Bron's teams are realistically closer to being 1-7 than they are of being 4-4.

[rebirthoftheM]

Every team is trying to hoard spacing. Every team with a premier PG, Thunder excluded, is trying to surround their star with floor spacers. There is no reason that the offense should flounder so much with LeBron off of the court. Kyrie could have a field day if he knew what to do with the players around him. I can understand the defensive concerns.

Love? Sure. He is a guy who would do better with a big time rim protector next to him and long defenders elsewhere, Love being the offensive focal point. That said, what is the ceiling of that team? It's not sensical to construct the roster that way with LeBron on board, and it definitely doesn't make sense with the Warriors in mind.

Will get to the present day Cavs shortly, but my points relate to what we've seen from Lebron during his playoff career.

Consider for example, that the 07 Cavs were able to v the 07 Pistons, although they were undermanned in terms of talent, take 4 games of the Pistons, 3 in which (on average), Lebron gave you 25 PPG on 56% TS, including a convincing victory in game 6 where Lebron went 3-11. I figure the fact that Cavs were able to keep the Pistons to sub-100 ORTG in 2 of those games, and in another an 102 ORTG might explain why the undermatched Cavs were able to win despite Lebron's pedestrian scoring performances.

Or consider the fact that the 07 Cavs, again despite being severely outmatched by the Spurs, were in it to win it games 3 and 4, Despite Lebron giving the Cavs a 24 PPG, 42% TS, 1.3 AST/TO ratio in these games. Again, I would figure holding the Spurs to 93 and 98 ORTG performances respect might explain their ability to compete against a team far better than them.

Or consider the 08 Cavs after they acquired Ben Wallace, who were able to take 3 games off the Celtics and in general remain very competitive, despite LBJ's underwhelming scoring performances and turnover problems. Again, I would figure the Cavs defense (which Lebron was a major part of, but extended beyond him) explains why they were able to compete against a team much better than them.

Pre 09, LBJ's playoff squads had awful spacing, which led to Lebron's scoring efficiency plummeting and his turnovers sky rocketing, but were able to compete with better teams because of their elite elite defense. Hell, the 08 Cavs would have toppled the Celtics if not for Pierce having his best playoff game ever and salvaging the series for the Celtics.

In 08-09, the Cavs stocked up on shooters (and in general their existing shooters got better) and they were able to keep up their elite defense in the RS, but then were thoroughly exposed in the playoffs on that end. The 09 Cavs were absolutely an inferior version on defense than Lebron's previous squads and no, RS D is not a trump card on this matter.

Post 08 Lebron though now had the spacing to produce at an elite level on offense, and it was said "he did all he could... his teammates were awful" which is partially true but misses the point. The very situation that allowed him to consistently produce at such an elite level on offense (better shooter+ spacing+ high high reliance on his creation, but less intensity on defense as seen in the playoffs) in the playoffs also created conditions where his historics were needed to clean up his teams deficiencies. While the pre 09 Cavs were able to compete even inspite of LBJ's horrific offensive production at times, the 09 Cavs were incapable of doing so. They had no back-up clause in effect. The same situation was again seen in v the 10 Celtics, who unsurprisingly exposed the Cavs 7th ranked RS defense again.

Which brings me to my point, which is aided by Lebron's strange obsession over his individual stats and his bizarre sensitivity over how the public perceive his legacy. I think Lebron realized somewhere along the line, that the defensive-grind out pre-09 Cavs situations, in which his teams were able to 'punch above their weight' despite his own pedestrian individual offensive stats and poor efficiency, would not be good for his individual legacy. A major part of LBJ's legacy together is his historic box score numbers, and in particular his high efficiency scoring. Playing on squads that inhibited this, but still gave him a strong shot in succeeding just was not going to cut it. So he had to create situations which accentuated his own ability to fill up his offensive box score on high efficiency, but which left his teams open to exploitation, thereby creating situations where he could 'rescue' them. He created a win-win for himself: If he wins, he is the GOAT who carried a bunch of no-named bums. But if he lost, it would be said "oh look at his stats". In fact LBJ engaged in this type of logic in the finals- he reminded the world in the finals that he was dropping triple doubles (aka I'm doing everything I can) despite his teams awful defensive display (a team he constructed), which he was apart of. And we all remember his 'check my stats' t-shirt, and his reminds to the world about how great he is? Which other GOAT candidate behaves like this?

Are these far-fetched conclusions? IMO I do not think so. LBJ has given us an insight on how his mind operates, and his approach to basketball. I think far more than any other ATG/GOAT candidates, he is obsessed with his numbers and how the public perceive his legacy, and I definitely think this has fed into how his teams have been constructed.

And then we get to the Miami Heat, where again, LBJ shockingly (or should say, not so shockingly) generates the best offense as Wade falls off the cliff, and Bosh is further relegated in his offensive duties but they were able to get a range of shooters on their squad. And same ish seen in Cleveland in his second go-around. Lebron + his shooters- a culture of offensive dependency. Win-Win for Lebron.

[Outside]

To play in a "system" like the Warriors you need multiple playmakers. Cavs don't have that. They have Kyrie, who's had more usage than he deserves frankly. Whenever LeBron's had capable playmakers and decision makers, he's been more than willing to play off ball. Heck, he was an incredible pick and roll partner with freaking Delly. I saw the Cavs try to pigeon hole Shump into a playmaking role this year, it was terrible. I don't buy this 'my way or the highway' attitude you're trying to ascribe to LeBron. He's more than proven himself as an off ball player.

I agree that you need multiple players capable of making good decisions, but I don't think you need multiple playmakers in the classic sense, as in Chris Paul or Jason Kidd types.

Think of the 2014 Spurs as a better example than the Warriors (oh how I wish I hadn't mentioned them). They used brilliant ball movement and player movement, but you don't have to be a great playmaker in that system. Boris Diaw was probably the most effective playmaker, and he averaged only 5.8 assists in the finals. Parker averaged 4.6, Ginobli averaged 4.4, and no one else averaged more than 2.0. Parker and Ginobli are obviously good playmakers, and Diaw was too, but it was more about the hot-potato passing and player movement that broke the defense down to get easy shots.

That's different from making someone a playmaker in PnR situations, which requires a different skill set.

I'm also not saying that LeBron doesn't play off the ball and requires the ball in his hands all the time, because that's obviously not the case. But he does initiate the offense the majority of the time. Don't you agree that's true?

I don't see how it's all that controversial to say that the Cavs offense is built around LeBron.

If you think the playmakers on the current Cavs and the 2014 Spurs are comparable, then we'll just agree to disagree. Diaw was a legitimately great decision maker. There isn't one guy outside of LeBron and Love that has BBIQ comparable to Diaw on the Cavs.

I don't know how you could watch the Cavs and say these other guys should have the ball more. They simply don't know what to do with it. RJ is a finisher at this point, he can't create anything. Shumpert can dribble but he makes stupid decisions 7/10 times he tries anything. JR can't dribble. They didn't have Deron for majority of the season. Who else can they trust to make plays? The team is filled with finishers, which was a deliberate choice but it says nothing about LeBron's abilities, or rather incapabilities. It just says that his teams are best when he's the primary decision maker, which makes sense because he's arguably the GOAT decision maker. It says nothing about his capabilities as a secondary playmaker off the ball, which is really where the doubt lies because no one questions his finishing ability off the ball. We saw that question answered in Miami, and his basic skill set says there shouldn't even have been a question in the first place. As for willingness, that question too has been answered. He's had some of his greatest seasons in Miami, and when he came back to Cleveland he was eager to let Kyrie be the general, which was a colossal failure.

Oh no, I'm not suggesting that the Cavs should've played that way. Of course they're not built to play that way -- they're built to space the floor for LeBron, and they're built for LeBron to be their primary playmaker. (Kyrie is primarily a shooting guard and also serves as backup point guard.)

All I'm pointing out is that the Cavs are NOT built to play that way, and that a roster built to play that way, even with a player as great as LeBron, has a lower ceiling than a quality team that moves the ball like the 2014 Spurs.

[kayess]

Bosh's Toronto game would likely be more conducive to positive team results than his Miami game.

You say this despite the fact (1) his new game is much closer to the Garnett, high-impact/portability style, and (2) that his Toronto game is in the same mold of volume scoring/playmaking on O that you are saying does not translate as well?

Not really going to go point-for-point here, because among other things, it'll potentially get dismissed as narrative driven and accusatory, but also because people haven't really addressed some of the more concrete points on deferring, availability bias, offense allowing you to focus on defense (so it being indirectly additive) etc., so I'm convinced that it's just another case of "oh cool, great argument, btw here's mine".

I wouldn't say Miami Bosh was very analogous to any version of Garnett outside of a relatively shallow first pass, at least impact-wise. Miami Bosh obviously scored at a much lower rate than his Toronto version, but he also rebounded at a lower rate and distributed the ball at a lower rate with a slightly negative assist/TO ratio. He added more range to his spot-up jumper, giving him more of a spacing impact as an off-the-ball threat. But while he improved aspects of his defense, it didn't translate to that much of an impact change as measured by DRAPM. Garnett, on the other hand, sacrificed some of his offensive impact (giving up on-ball responsibilities and focusing more on spacing) but maxed out his defensive impact in the tradeoff, thus remaining a player that could be MVP-worthy. If Bosh had the type of game in which he could maximize his impact with defense and spacing, then maybe it'd have been maximized while playing next to LeBron.

And that relates to your last sentence, as well. If Wade, Bosh, Love and/or Irving had games that would be maximized by allowing them to focus on defense, then they would have benefitted more from playing next to LeBron. But, once again, the number of NBA players that can maximize their impact on defense is solidly lower than those that can do so on offense. It's inherent, it's not a by-season or even by-era phenomenon. Which comes back to the idea, that you've publicly decried but that at least to me seems to be reasonable sense, that players that can maximize on defense are a scarcer resource than those that can maximize on offense, and thus this scarcity (on a team building level) helps mitigate the difference in raw individual impact that can be made with individual offense.

Forgive this clarification, but I feel it's necessary to make this distinction: I didn't say it was analogous, I said it was closer, i.e., in the spectrum from Kobe to KG, his new game to suit the situation is much closer to the other end than it was before (relatively). But AST/TO ratio isn't going to be as representative in a team that moves the ball well and makes the extra pass, right? Of course he was never the defender Garnett was (or the rebounder, definitely), but he was an essential part of those switching/blitzing defenses because of his ability to defend reasonably well inside, but especially on the perimeter. IIRC, isn't DRAPM less consistent than ORAPM YoY (otherwise we'd have to designate Kobe with co-anchor status on those late 00s Lakers teams, and well, you know...)? So when sense-checking the DRAPM value with his goodness/skill-set, role, and team context, it seems safe to say to me that he had a ton of impact on that end.

I didn't disagree with the idea that defensive players are scarcer - I disagreed with giving them extra value for being scarcer. These players have no control over the supply of players in the league, so I think it's reasonable to assume that their decision making is based on maximizing the tools that they have to try and make it to the NBA, so why should they be given additional credit for something they have no control over? If a market good's price increases due to scarcity, that doesn't make it inherently have more utility, more value than another good that doesn't - the price is just higher.