Peaks project update: #2

[No-more-rings]

1st ballot - '00 Shaquille O'Neal - I remember my perception at the time was that Shaq broke the league (indeed, he forced a rule-change [although should be noted it was a rule-changed prompted by how teams were exploiting his weakness]). I mean, the guy was averaging nearly 30/14/4 with 3 blocks.......which felt REALLY ridiculous in this particular slow, grind-it-out era. There was just no one else producing that kind of volume at the time. Some teams were signing additional lumbering stiffs just to absorb the foul-burden and/or to have bodies to platoon out to try and bang with Shaq. I remember entire defenses collapsing on him when he got the ball down deep (which you knew they were already screwed if he got the ball there).
And he had a really solid defensive year in '00 too (which is not something we can consistently say for Shaq).


2nd ballot - '13 Lebron James - I could see going with '09 (or potentially other years, too). I'll stick with my traditional year, as he was still very sharp and capable defensively at this point, had developed a bit of mid-range shot by this point, sucha savvy play-makers, and extremely efficient scoring with one of the best turnover economies of his career [and also snaring 8 boards/game]. LBJ could do everything at his peak, and anchor a contender-level team on BOTH sides of the ball. Could be convinced to move him up, tbh. Shaq and MJ both have striking cases, too, though.

3rd ballot - '09 Lebron James - As mentioned above, Bron has multiple years which could be perceived as his peak. He feels a pinch less refined at this stage (less midrange, maybe not quite as polished in the post), but his raw athleticism was perhaps never better. And he ends up having one of the best individual playoff runs [statistically; arguably THE best] of all time.


EDIT: My top HM's are probably Wilt and Kareem (with shout-outs to Timmy, Hakeem, maybe KG, too).

Isn’t calling 2000 Shaq q “really solid” defensive player underselling him? It seems to be more or less a consensus here that he was dpoy caliber or at least close to that.

[dontcalltimeout]

E-balla and Timmyyy, we may not ever agree on this. But i wanted to post my thoughts on 2013 LeBron vs other years for any one interested in the discussion. I have consolidated my thoughts based on points from the previous thread and will address his defense in the post to come. Kinda long so no pressure to respond, just wanted to put these thoughts out there.

To preface the discussion. I don’t think it’s true that it’s coming from nowhere for people to think 2013 > 2012. In 2013 people were explicitly discussing it as LeBron’s peak, especially on the first iteration of the LeBron Thread. Posters like SSB, Elgee, and IG2 were discussing it as LeBron’s best season on offense. Folks were also talking about how he had ramped up his defense and he had been DPOY worthy in the playoffs. Zach Lowe was asking if LeBron was having the greatest season in league history.

This is to say: a very high outlook on LeBron’s 2013 season is not about retroactive obsession with TS%.



IMO it's important to think about the actual 2013 team when considering whether they underachieved.

And I'll also say, in terms of philosophy, Looking dominant or perfect or having the best story is not important to me because that is typically dependent on winning bias and luck. No player is perfect and no team is the same. I'm also not going to let 3 games change my opinion of LeBron's capabilities in 2013 just like I won't let 3 games change my opinion of LeBron's offense in 2016. Why do I think the Heat didn't look unbeatable in the finals? For a couple of reasons.

In the previous thread I brought up the 27 straight wins because that was the strongest the team looked and it matters to me because it I care about how the team looked healthy. Spo's creative offense took the league by storm and the whirring defense broke down opponents. At the same time, this was an old team that picked its moments. That streak was characterized by amazing quarters and second halfs, because they played a high intensity/energy style of ball.


First, the team was broken down.

By the time the playoffs rolled around injuries and fatigue had struck the team. Wade famously dealt with a bone bruise that started and late March that made him a different player and was re-aggravated in the playoffs against the Bulls.

Shane Battier was a huge part of Miami’s defense and was depended on to average 40% from three and play 25 MPG in the regular season. but after 87 games of banging with guys like David West and Taj Gibson, he was broken down. Going into Game 6 he had shot 22.3% from three and in the first four games of the Finals he played the following amount of minutes 6, 5, 8, 9.

The rest of their bigman rotation was UD, Birdman, and Mike Miller (who at this point could shoot and nothing else).

Second, tough/smart defense.

Then consider that they played the 5th , 1st, and 3rd best defenses in the league in the playoffs. It’s not surprising that the complex offensive game plan that the team had relied one was less effective, esp when combined with fatigued, injuries, and smart defense.

The Spurs specifically had an amazing game plan, executed by really good defensive personnel that had been together for a long time. They used zone principles, loading of the paint and strong side, and sagging off to prevent LeBron from getting to his spots and make him shoot his jumpers. They basically disrespected Wade and were helping off everyone except Allen and Miller to make LeBron see bodies.

He did shoot the mid-range jumpers and they didn't go in. I'm not penalizing him more for that versus previous seasons because I have no confidence that those versions of him are better at taking and making those shots consistently. AKA I'm weighing the full season sample against three games of admittedly pitiful shooting. This is also why I value 2014, 2017, and 2018 more offensively than other LBJ seasons because his shooting was not susceptible to this kind of defense (look at how the Spurs defended him in the 14 finals versus the previous year).

But LeBron recovered in the NBA Finals. He got more aggressive on the boards. Drew more fouls. Took more three-pointers off the dribble. Mastered when to drive and when to shoot. And the shooting regressed a little bit.

[I'll add that when I see 2012 LeBron looking like a world-beater in the finals, I'm taking into account that the Thunder had the 9th ranked defense. Most importantly, they were not at all equipped to handle LeBron in terms of game plan or personnell (lol Kendrick Perkins). ]

[penbeast0]

'62 Russell
'65 Russell
The defensive impact just dwarfs the overall impact of any other player in NBA history

13 LeBron -- because the modern basketball pool is both appreciably deeper and wider than ever in NBA history

A few questions if you can spare the time.

1. What makes you say Russell's defensive impact dwarfs the overall impact of any other player? For instance, if you are using on/off as evidence, what makes you think the on/off estimate is reliable (both mathematically and qualitatively)?

2. There are impact estimates (i.e. WOWYR on backpicks) that go back to the 60s for which Russell does not have the highest estimated impact. What would be your rebuttal?

3. Are you considering in era impact or impact under some common conditions (i.e. assume all players played in the 2000s)? If you consider impact under common conditions, what are those conditions, and why do you think Russell's impact would remain the highest?

I don't find on/off that accurate. I look at the team defensive performance (points allowed per possession basically) and found that Russell's Celtics comprise most of the best teams in NBA history. Then I looked at the people around him and saw that, at least early on, he actually had weak defenders surrounding him (Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey . . . Sharman was probably average due to his size issues) and yet turned a weak defensive squad into the all time juggernaut. Later on, he did get a good defensive squad around him KC, Havlicek, Sanders but, when he retired, Havlicek and Sanders were unable to keep that squad from being a poor defensive team so it seems that, to an extent that I haven't seen with any individual offensive player, he is responsible for that defensive differentiation from the norm.

I don't consider anything but in era impact relative to his peers; anything else seems too speculative to me. I do discount for era, but consider expansion and foreign recruitment to be the two main drivers of the player pool, especially for bigs where guys over 6-6 were identified as potential basketball players very easily as early as 1950. Thus I have the pre-expansion 60s as actually a strong era, stronger than the 70s or 80s, possibly than the 90s, but weaker than the current era.

This combination and the results it produced in terms of winning basketball, make Russell my GOAT. I'm not as big on single year impact but figured that unless I had some reason to thing that a single year impact form any other players was such as outlier (Wilt 67 for example was one I considered strongly), therefore I would assume that the peak Russell year would still be the peak PEAK year.

Not terribly scientific, I know.

[euroleague]

I think we can see in this thread who was watching basketball in 2000 and who wasn’t. Shaq didn’t “break the league” to the extent of wilt, but it really made people question how fouls are called.

I think players like Larry Bird, Moses Malone are underappreciated as well. I’m a bit surprised recency bias didn’t put lbj to the top

[Colbinii]

I think we can see in this thread who was watching basketball in 2000 and who wasn’t. Shaq didn’t “break the league” to the extent of wilt, but it really made people question how fouls are called.

I think players like Larry Bird, Moses Malone are underappreciated as well. I’m a bit surprised recency bias didn’t put lbj to the top

There isn't recency bias with LeBron James. The arguments for him are well thought out and some of the most in-depth posts in this thread. In fact, from my observations, people who are discrediting him or holding him to lower standards have more flaws in their reasoning of doing so than the people who hold LeBron in the highest regards.

[Owly]

'62 Russell
'65 Russell
The defensive impact just dwarfs the overall impact of any other player in NBA history

13 LeBron -- because the modern basketball pool is both appreciably deeper and wider than ever in NBA history

A few questions if you can spare the time.

1. What makes you say Russell's defensive impact dwarfs the overall impact of any other player? For instance, if you are using on/off as evidence, what makes you think the on/off estimate is reliable (both mathematically and qualitatively)?

2. There are impact estimates (i.e. WOWYR on backpicks) that go back to the 60s for which Russell does not have the highest estimated impact. What would be your rebuttal?

3. Are you considering in era impact or impact under some common conditions (i.e. assume all players played in the 2000s)? If you consider impact under common conditions, what are those conditions, and why do you think Russell's impact would remain the highest?

I don't find on/off that accurate. I look at the team defensive performance (points allowed per possession basically) and found that Russell's Celtics comprise most of the best teams in NBA history. Then I looked at the people around him and saw that, at least early on, he actually had weak defenders surrounding him (Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey . . . Sharman was probably average due to his size issues) and yet turned a weak defensive squad into the all time juggernaut. Later on, he did get a good defensive squad around him KC, Havlicek, Sanders but, when he retired, Havlicek and Sanders were unable to keep that squad from being a poor defensive team so it seems that, to an extent that I haven't seen with any individual offensive player, he is responsible for that defensive differentiation from the norm.

I don't consider anything but in era impact relative to his peers; anything else seems too speculative to me. I do discount for era, but consider expansion and foreign recruitment to be the two main drivers of the player pool, especially for bigs where guys over 6-6 were identified as potential basketball players very easily as early as 1950. Thus I have the pre-expansion 60s as actually a strong era, stronger than the 70s or 80s, possibly than the 90s, but weaker than the current era.

This combination and the results it produced in terms of winning basketball, make Russell my GOAT. I'm not as big on single year impact but figured that unless I had some reason to thing that a single year impact form any other players was such as outlier (Wilt 67 for example was one I considered strongly), therefore I would assume that the peak Russell year would still be the peak PEAK year.

Not terribly scientific, I know.

I have to ask where you are getting your scouting reports on the Celtics. Not saying they're wrong, but curious as to sources and some are more unknown to me and in one case contrary.


My inclinations and possible counterpoints.
Sharman, in albeit limited information (as with most non-centers of the era) tends to be regarded as a good, tough, well-conditioned and I think perhaps scouting informed (would like to be citing a source here on this last point, believe I have read it but accept that can't be taken as gospel) player and defender. I haven't heard (well, don't recall having heard) Ramsey as bad defensively and little to nothing about Heinsohn either. Cousy has some reputation from the Celtics themselves (the most prominent being after the fact, and teasing, i.e. "Hey, Russ") and was on some bad defensive teams (he and Sharman the main big name continuity). But even then he won a, however undeserved, MVP among other accolades- so it wasn't considered, at the time, for what that is worth, to mitigate (or nearly mitigate) his early to mid-career offensive value (obviously in the Russell era where his offense slips in the playoffs, for the playoffs a lesser drop would be required), whether or not this was accurate (and doesn't necessarily preclude bad defender if high-very high value offensive player).

[euroleague]

I think we can see in this thread who was watching basketball in 2000 and who wasn’t. Shaq didn’t “break the league” to the extent of wilt, but it really made people question how fouls are called.

I think players like Larry Bird, Moses Malone are underappreciated as well. I’m a bit surprised recency bias didn’t put lbj to the top

There isn't recency bias with LeBron James. The arguments for him are well thought out and some of the most in-depth posts in this thread. In fact, from my observations, people who are discrediting him or holding him to lower standards have more flaws in their reasoning of doing so than the people who hold LeBron in the highest regards.

It’s easy to make a statistical case for any modern player, based both off of how much data we have available and based off of how league expansion has created a larger room for sigma variations in PER, which will lead top players to have higher scores. Ditto RAPM, and although stats like Wowy actually have Bird/Magic at the top, I really think the data isn’t close to enough compared to RAPM to make those rankings very useful.

PS. I think you mean higher standards, not lower

[ardee]

Can anyone who's voting LeBron but not '17 give their reasoning? Is it the RS? I don't see that RS being very different from the '01 Lakers. For me, the ability he demonstrated in that PS and the level he took that team to surpasses anything he did in Miami (I think the '17 Cavs were the best team he played on, just happened to run into the GOAT team). 120.3 ORtg, 33-9-8 on 65% TS in the Playoffs.

IMO that team had '01 Lakers potential narrative wise if Durant doesn't go to Golden State. They swat away any other team in the West in 4-5 games including the Spurs.

[penbeast0]

A few questions if you can spare the time.

1. What makes you say Russell's defensive impact dwarfs the overall impact of any other player? For instance, if you are using on/off as evidence, what makes you think the on/off estimate is reliable (both mathematically and qualitatively)?

2. There are impact estimates (i.e. WOWYR on backpicks) that go back to the 60s for which Russell does not have the highest estimated impact. What would be your rebuttal?

3. Are you considering in era impact or impact under some common conditions (i.e. assume all players played in the 2000s)? If you consider impact under common conditions, what are those conditions, and why do you think Russell's impact would remain the highest?

I don't find on/off that accurate. I look at the team defensive performance (points allowed per possession basically) and found that Russell's Celtics comprise most of the best teams in NBA history. Then I looked at the people around him and saw that, at least early on, he actually had weak defenders surrounding him (Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey . . . Sharman was probably average due to his size issues) and yet turned a weak defensive squad into the all time juggernaut. Later on, he did get a good defensive squad around him KC, Havlicek, Sanders but, when he retired, Havlicek and Sanders were unable to keep that squad from being a poor defensive team so it seems that, to an extent that I haven't seen with any individual offensive player, he is responsible for that defensive differentiation from the norm.

I don't consider anything but in era impact relative to his peers; anything else seems too speculative to me. I do discount for era, but consider expansion and foreign recruitment to be the two main drivers of the player pool, especially for bigs where guys over 6-6 were identified as potential basketball players very easily as early as 1950. Thus I have the pre-expansion 60s as actually a strong era, stronger than the 70s or 80s, possibly than the 90s, but weaker than the current era.

This combination and the results it produced in terms of winning basketball, make Russell my GOAT. I'm not as big on single year impact but figured that unless I had some reason to thing that a single year impact form any other players was such as outlier (Wilt 67 for example was one I considered strongly), therefore I would assume that the peak Russell year would still be the peak PEAK year.

Not terribly scientific, I know.

I have to ask where you are getting your scouting reports on the Celtics. Not saying they're wrong, but curious as to sources and some are more unknown to me and in one case contrary.


My inclinations and possible counterpoints.
Sharman, in albeit limited information (as with most non-centers of the era) tends to be regarded as a good, tough, well-conditioned and I think perhaps scouting informed (would like to be citing a source here on this last point, believe I have read it but accept that can't be taken as gospel) player and defender. I haven't heard (well, don't recall having heard) Ramsey as bad defensively and little to nothing about Heinsohn either. Cousy has some reputation from the Celtics themselves (the most prominent being after the fact, and teasing, i.e. "Hey, Russ") and was on some bad defensive teams (he and Sharman the main big name continuity). But even then he won a, however undeserved, MVP among other accolades- so it wasn't considered, at the time, for what that is worth, to mitigate (or nearly mitigate) his early to mid-career offensive value (obviously in the Russell era where his offense slips in the playoffs, for the playoffs a lesser drop would be required), whether or not this was accurate (and doesn't necessarily preclude bad defender if high-very high value offensive player).

Sharman in the 50s was considered a good defensive SG. By the 60s, he was aging and the league was moving to 6-5 wings; I projected him as average. The most famous negative about Cousy's defense is when he was available in the expansion draft and Auerbach actually said he didn't want him because of his defense (but ended up with him anyway). Ramsey I am again extrapolating from his role as instant offense off the bench and because his very decent offensive skills didn't get him big minutes. Heinsohn himself often made fun of his own defense in interviews and there are some throw ins about it in Terry Pluto's book of contemporary quotes, "Tall Tales" if I remember rightly.

Not talking about their offense here except as mentioned above; just their defensive rep. I think 50s era Cousy and Sharman are clear HOF players and Ramsey's playoff exploits make up for some of Cousy's Russell era shooting woes.

[Blackmill]

'62 Russell
'65 Russell
The defensive impact just dwarfs the overall impact of any other player in NBA history

13 LeBron -- because the modern basketball pool is both appreciably deeper and wider than ever in NBA history

A few questions if you can spare the time.

1. What makes you say Russell's defensive impact dwarfs the overall impact of any other player? For instance, if you are using on/off as evidence, what makes you think the on/off estimate is reliable (both mathematically and qualitatively)?

2. There are impact estimates (i.e. WOWYR on backpicks) that go back to the 60s for which Russell does not have the highest estimated impact. What would be your rebuttal?

3. Are you considering in era impact or impact under some common conditions (i.e. assume all players played in the 2000s)? If you consider impact under common conditions, what are those conditions, and why do you think Russell's impact would remain the highest?

I don't find on/off that accurate. I look at the team defensive performance (points allowed per possession basically) and found that Russell's Celtics comprise most of the best teams in NBA history. Then I looked at the people around him and saw that, at least early on, he actually had weak defenders surrounding him (Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey . . . Sharman was probably average due to his size issues) and yet turned a weak defensive squad into the all time juggernaut. Later on, he did get a good defensive squad around him KC, Havlicek, Sanders but, when he retired, Havlicek and Sanders were unable to keep that squad from being a poor defensive team so it seems that, to an extent that I haven't seen with any individual offensive player, he is responsible for that defensive differentiation from the norm.

I don't consider anything but in era impact relative to his peers; anything else seems too speculative to me. I do discount for era, but consider expansion and foreign recruitment to be the two main drivers of the player pool, especially for bigs where guys over 6-6 were identified as potential basketball players very easily as early as 1950. Thus I have the pre-expansion 60s as actually a strong era, stronger than the 70s or 80s, possibly than the 90s, but weaker than the current era.

This combination and the results it produced in terms of winning basketball, make Russell my GOAT. I'm not as big on single year impact but figured that unless I had some reason to thing that a single year impact form any other players was such as outlier (Wilt 67 for example was one I considered strongly), therefore I would assume that the peak Russell year would still be the peak PEAK year.

Not terribly scientific, I know.

Thank you for the detailed reply!

[euroleague]

I don't find on/off that accurate. I look at the team defensive performance (points allowed per possession basically) and found that Russell's Celtics comprise most of the best teams in NBA history. Then I looked at the people around him and saw that, at least early on, he actually had weak defenders surrounding him (Cousy, Heinsohn, Ramsey . . . Sharman was probably average due to his size issues) and yet turned a weak defensive squad into the all time juggernaut. Later on, he did get a good defensive squad around him KC, Havlicek, Sanders but, when he retired, Havlicek and Sanders were unable to keep that squad from being a poor defensive team so it seems that, to an extent that I haven't seen with any individual offensive player, he is responsible for that defensive differentiation from the norm.

I don't consider anything but in era impact relative to his peers; anything else seems too speculative to me. I do discount for era, but consider expansion and foreign recruitment to be the two main drivers of the player pool, especially for bigs where guys over 6-6 were identified as potential basketball players very easily as early as 1950. Thus I have the pre-expansion 60s as actually a strong era, stronger than the 70s or 80s, possibly than the 90s, but weaker than the current era.

This combination and the results it produced in terms of winning basketball, make Russell my GOAT. I'm not as big on single year impact but figured that unless I had some reason to thing that a single year impact form any other players was such as outlier (Wilt 67 for example was one I considered strongly), therefore I would assume that the peak Russell year would still be the peak PEAK year.

Not terribly scientific, I know.

I have to ask where you are getting your scouting reports on the Celtics. Not saying they're wrong, but curious as to sources and some are more unknown to me and in one case contrary.


My inclinations and possible counterpoints.
Sharman, in albeit limited information (as with most non-centers of the era) tends to be regarded as a good, tough, well-conditioned and I think perhaps scouting informed (would like to be citing a source here on this last point, believe I have read it but accept that can't be taken as gospel) player and defender. I haven't heard (well, don't recall having heard) Ramsey as bad defensively and little to nothing about Heinsohn either. Cousy has some reputation from the Celtics themselves (the most prominent being after the fact, and teasing, i.e. "Hey, Russ") and was on some bad defensive teams (he and Sharman the main big name continuity). But even then he won a, however undeserved, MVP among other accolades- so it wasn't considered, at the time, for what that is worth, to mitigate (or nearly mitigate) his early to mid-career offensive value (obviously in the Russell era where his offense slips in the playoffs, for the playoffs a lesser drop would be required), whether or not this was accurate (and doesn't necessarily preclude bad defender if high-very high value offensive player).

Sharman in the 50s was considered a good defensive SG. By the 60s, he was aging and the league was moving to 6-5 wings; I projected him as average. The most famous negative about Cousy's defense is when he was available in the expansion draft and Auerbach actually said he didn't want him because of his defense (but ended up with him anyway). Ramsey I am again extrapolating from his role as instant offense off the bench and because his very decent offensive skills didn't get him big minutes. Heinsohn himself often made fun of his own defense in interviews and there are some throw ins about it in Terry Pluto's book of contemporary quotes, "Tall Tales" if I remember rightly.

Not talking about their offense here except as mentioned above; just their defensive rep. I think 50s era Cousy and Sharman are clear HOF players and Ramsey's playoff exploits make up for some of Cousy's Russell era shooting woes.

Sanders only played 57 games in 70, so not sure he should be included in this. Often, if you’re team is very weak in even one position, the DRTG will suffer - especially at Center. Defense is a team effort, and comparing

Larry Siegfried, Don Nelson, Hondo, Bailey Howell, Hank Finkel

Vs

Larry Siegfried, Tom Sanders, Hondo, Bailey Howell, Bill Russell

I can see the second one is a much more complete unit with elite wing defense in Hondo/Sanders and Russell in the middle.

In that era, having a good defensive rebounder seems to have a large correlation with DRTG

[Ballerhogger]

Kareem 1970-1971
Shaq 1999-2000
Kobe 2005-2006

[E-Balla]

Appreciate the 2013 LeBron post but I'm not even going to get into it because we're so far apart it doesn't really make sense to. I'd be lying if I said I agreed with even a single point you made there. Like I hear the words, then I remember the actual games, I don't see any of that on the court. I look at the numbers, those don't show anything you're saying in any capacity. I don't know it just doesn't add up at all.

Like you mention the team being broken down, completely ignoring they were way healthier than the 2012 Heat (the team that didn't have Chris Bosh in their 2 toughest series). You say 2013 wasn't seen as #1 over an obsession with TS% citing people with clear obsessions with TS% (I mean they're cool but it is what it is). You mention LeBron's DPOY level defense in the playoffs when Miami only played at a -2.8 level on that end even with all that defensive talent and LeBron had the worst on court DRTG on the team and by far the worst defensive on/off (they played at a -1.1 level with LeBron on the court and a -9.6 level without him). You say LeBron shot midrange jumpers and they just didn't go in when he was 43% from 16-23 feet in the playoffs and 38% from 3. Prior to game 6 (we can all agree he shot starting in game 6 which is why he killed that cupcake defense they played on him) he was 39% (46.3 eFG%) from 15+ feet in the Finals which is over his career average outside of 15 feet. The narrative his shot wasn't falling isn't true, he just wasn't shooting them. In game 1 LeBron took 1 midrange jumpers. Games 2 and 3 he took 5. Game 5 he took 2. That wasn't great defensive strategy that was him being weak.

Plus none of those defenses he played were better than the 2012 Celtics. His shot wasn't anywhere near as cold as it was in 2012 vs the Celtics (LeBron was 33% from 15+, 65% from the FT line, and 29% from deep). What he do against them? Score 30 in all but one game (where he had 29). Averaged 34/11/4 on 59 TS%.

Let's be real the only thing stopping LeBron was and is LeBron. That defensive "scheme" (because Pop telling them "let him shoot I bet he won't" isn't some world beating strategy) was nothing he didn't see against OKC. He didn't care and stayed aggressive anyway.

Like really I'll drop it, but nothing you said even remotely lines up with reality IMO. I can definitely say they don't match with my memory, feelings, or the numbers. When that happens you get people wondering if it's the TS%. Just saying that's how it works.

2012 was just vastly superior when it mattered. Would anyone here rank 2013 LeBron's postseason with the likes of anyone else being mentioned this early? Like does his postseason come close to lining up to Shaq in 00, Duncan on 03, Hakeem in 94, Kareem in 77, Bird in 86, Wilt in 67, Russell in 62, Magic in 87... Like it's easily the odd one out of the bunch...

[ardee]

1. Like you mention the team being broken down, completely ignoring they were way healthier than the 2012 Heat (the team that didn't have Chris Bosh in their 2 toughest series).

2. 2012 was just vastly superior when it mattered. Would anyone here rank 2013 LeBron's postseason with the likes of anyone else being mentioned this early? Like does his postseason come close to lining up to Shaq in 00, Duncan on 03, Hakeem in 94, Kareem in 77, Bird in 86, Wilt in 67, Russell in 62, Magic in 87... Like it's easily the odd one out of the bunch...

1. Wade was drastically healthier and better in the 2012 Playoffs than in 2013. Sure Bosh missed some games but 2012 Wade still played close to a top 5 level. 2013 he was a literal scrub at times. Both years he had a low point in the second round (2-13 game against Indy in 2012, 3-10 game in 2013 against the Bulls). After that in 2012 he flipped the switch and went 24/6/5 on 54% TS the rest of the Playoffs. In 2013 he only did 18/5/5 on 50% TS after that game. Defense significantly better in 2012 too.

2. If we're talking postseasons then why not just go with any of '09 or '16-'18 LeBron? Easily his best postseason performances. I voted '17 myself, statistically '12 doesn't compare, he still had an effective Wade at least then. '17 Irving actually struggled a good bit in those Playoffs.

I would rank his Playoffs as:

17
18
09/16
13
12
14
15
11

IMO, 12-14 were the years people became comfortable mentioning his play in Jordan comparisons, but 16-18 were the years he forced the door wide open and forced Jordan off the throne.

[E-Balla]

1. Like you mention the team being broken down, completely ignoring they were way healthier than the 2012 Heat (the team that didn't have Chris Bosh in their 2 toughest series).

2. 2012 was just vastly superior when it mattered. Would anyone here rank 2013 LeBron's postseason with the likes of anyone else being mentioned this early? Like does his postseason come close to lining up to Shaq in 00, Duncan on 03, Hakeem in 94, Kareem in 77, Bird in 86, Wilt in 67, Russell in 62, Magic in 87... Like it's easily the odd one out of the bunch...

1. Wade was drastically healthier and better in the 2012 Playoffs than in 2013. Sure Bosh missed some games but 2012 Wade still played close to a top 5 level. 2013 he was a literal scrub at times. Both years he had a low point in the second round (2-13 game against Indy in 2012, 3-10 game in 2013 against the Bulls). After that in 2012 he flipped the switch and went 24/6/5 on 54% TS the rest of the Playoffs. In 2013 he only did 18/5/5 on 50% TS after that game. Defense significantly better in 2012 too.

2. If we're talking postseasons then why not just go with any of '09 or '16-'18 LeBron? Easily his best postseason performances. I voted '17 myself, statistically '12 doesn't compare, he still had an effective Wade at least then. '17 Irving actually struggled a good bit in those Playoffs.

I would rank his Playoffs as:

17
18
09/16
13
12
14
15
11

IMO, 12-14 were the years people became comfortable mentioning his play in Jordan comparisons, but 16-18 were the years he forced the door wide open and forced Jordan off the throne.

1. Bosh didn't just miss some games, he was hurt for almost half the postseason. That's a way bigger deal IMO. Plus as hurt as Wade was they added Ray Allen. Allen + Bosh makes up for Wade's injury if you ask me.

2. Well I am personally going with 09 (not only his best postseason but by far his best regular season and I think that's something everyone should agree on as it's a season he won his most games in with his worst supporting cast) and his 12 postseason is the same level as, if not better than, his 16-18 postseasons. There's some extreme amount of recency bias in you mentioning the 16-18 postseasons as if LeBron wasn't as good, if not better, in 2012.

If you rank 17 and 18 as his top 2 I'm just flat out assuming you care zero 0% about the quality of the defenses he was playing, how many of his games were competitive, or the quality of defense he personally played. I think 09, 16, or 12 are easily his 3 best postseasons when you take those things into account.

For one he played elite DPOY caliber defense in the 2009, 2012, and 2016 postseason, meanwhile he didn't play defense in 17 and 18 much at all. His team's relative defensive rating each of those years was

09: -5.6
12: -2.9
16: -2.9
17: -0.4
18: +0.9

So there's actually numbers that go along with my eye test and his defense most likely fell off those years like I assumed. Maybe you rank those years at the top but I'm not one to just look at numbers and take the 2 years he made the Finals with the highest scoring averages. Ranking his postseasons adjusting for consistency, quality of opponent, level of defense he played, and the teammates he had gives me:

09
12/16
18
15
17
14
13
10
11

And I can understand people ranking 17 and 18 so high. What I can't understand is why anyone would rank 2013 over 2014 or 2015 when he was clearly worse on both sides of the ball.

As far as the 2013 postseason goes it's not anywhere near GOAT level, it's probably under each of Kobe's 08-10 postseasons.

[ardee]

1. Like you mention the team being broken down, completely ignoring they were way healthier than the 2012 Heat (the team that didn't have Chris Bosh in their 2 toughest series).

2. 2012 was just vastly superior when it mattered. Would anyone here rank 2013 LeBron's postseason with the likes of anyone else being mentioned this early? Like does his postseason come close to lining up to Shaq in 00, Duncan on 03, Hakeem in 94, Kareem in 77, Bird in 86, Wilt in 67, Russell in 62, Magic in 87... Like it's easily the odd one out of the bunch...

1. Wade was drastically healthier and better in the 2012 Playoffs than in 2013. Sure Bosh missed some games but 2012 Wade still played close to a top 5 level. 2013 he was a literal scrub at times. Both years he had a low point in the second round (2-13 game against Indy in 2012, 3-10 game in 2013 against the Bulls). After that in 2012 he flipped the switch and went 24/6/5 on 54% TS the rest of the Playoffs. In 2013 he only did 18/5/5 on 50% TS after that game. Defense significantly better in 2012 too.

2. If we're talking postseasons then why not just go with any of '09 or '16-'18 LeBron? Easily his best postseason performances. I voted '17 myself, statistically '12 doesn't compare, he still had an effective Wade at least then. '17 Irving actually struggled a good bit in those Playoffs.

I would rank his Playoffs as:

17
18
09/16
13
12
14
15
11

IMO, 12-14 were the years people became comfortable mentioning his play in Jordan comparisons, but 16-18 were the years he forced the door wide open and forced Jordan off the throne.

1. Bosh didn't just miss some games, he was hurt for almost half the postseason. That's a way bigger deal IMO. Plus as hurt as Wade was they added Ray Allen. Allen + Bosh makes up for Wade's injury if you ask me.

2. Well I am personally going with 09 (not only his best postseason but by far his best regular season and I think that's something everyone should agree on as it's a season he won his most games in with his worst supporting cast) and his 12 postseason is the same level as, if not better than, his 16-18 postseasons. There's some extreme amount of recency bias in you mentioning the 16-18 postseasons as if LeBron wasn't as good, if not better, in 2012.

If you rank 17 and 18 as his top 2 I'm just flat out assuming you care zero 0% about the quality of the defenses he was playing, how many of his games were competitive, or the quality of defense he personally played. I think 09, 16, or 12 are easily his 3 best postseasons when you take those things into account.

For one he played elite DPOY caliber defense in the 2009, 2012, and 2016 postseason, meanwhile he didn't play defense in 17 and 18 much at all. His team's relative defensive rating each of those years was

09: -5.6
12: -2.9
16: -2.9
17: -0.4
18: +0.9

So there's actually numbers that go along with my eye test and his defense most likely fell off those years like I assumed. Maybe you rank those years at the top but I'm not one to just look at numbers and take the 2 years he made the Finals with the highest scoring averages. Ranking his postseasons adjusting for consistency, quality of opponent, level of defense he played, and the teammates he had gives me:

09
12/16
18
15
17
14
13
10
11

And I can understand people ranking 17 and 18 so high. What I can't understand is why anyone would rank 2013 over 2014 or 2015 when he was clearly worse on both sides of the ball.

As far as the 2013 postseason goes it's not anywhere near GOAT level, it's probably under each of Kobe's 08-10 postseasons.

1. Have to agree to disagree there. Having another competent perimeter creator opened up so much for Bron in '12, that's why his production was better in '12. In '13 Wade's knee was busted and he couldn't do the cutting/driving he was capable of the previous year, allowing defenses to zero in on LeBron more. I respect the hell out of Bosh and he's a great overall player but the dude averaged 12/7 on 52% TS in the '13 Playoffs, he wasn't opening up too much for Bron and probably suffered from Wade's injury too. LeBron's jumper was dead in the water in '12 (especially later on) and he was more consistent with it in '13. He got better at everything in '13, wouldn't it make sense that an external factor (Wade's injury) caused the production drop in the Playoffs, and then when Wade was able to move better towards the end of the Finals, LeBron's own production skyrocketed in the last 4 games?

2. It's not that the '17 and '18 defenses he faced don't matter, it's more that I don't think it would've mattered what defenses he faced anyway. By this point he had basically broken basketball on a level never seen before.

Here's a post by Dr Spaceman about him:

0. I feel very comfortable saying LeBron last year was better than any player has ever been.

There is nothing wrong with that statement, but I still can't understand how anyone can feel very comfortable saying one player was better than any player EVER. I mean, yeah James did something legendary last postseason but we have so many legendary moments in NBA history. Bill Russell was possibly the most impactful player ever in 1964 season even though he didn't score at all. Kareem won tough series against very good team with guards that struggled to bring the ball to the halfcourt. Wilt basically averaged TD during whole playoffs, dominated the best dynasty in sports history and leading one of the best teams of all-time. Hakeem and Duncan led their teams on both ends of the floor without any great teammates to the championship beating better teams. Shaq doing his things in early 2000s...

James was spectacular last season. He was so good in playoffs, I truly believed that Cavs wouldn't have beaten Celtics and he proved me wrong. I thought that Cavs wouldn't have been competitive in any game in the finals and he (almost by himself) basically won game 1 (I've not seen such a terrible officiating in a long time). Last season should be the point since nobody should even question James legacy among the greatest of the greatest. I really admire what he did, sometimes I may look like James hater (I hope I don’t) because he's not among my favorite players but believe that I really admire what he did. To say that someone is clearly the best I've seen is impossible to me. To say that he's the best ever is even tougher, as we can't see whole NBA history (unfortunately).

I understand your point here and your reservation but to be honest it’s not about dominance for me. Lebron has proved several times over in his career how dominant he is, as have other guys.

No for me what’s unprecedented about LeBron is how amazing he’s gotten late in his career at reading the game and how many tools he’s developed to counter whatever is being thrown at him. There’s just no one who comes close. He has the experience of someone who’s seen it all and yet has still maintained his body to the point where he can attack like a much younger man. His ceiling right now is limitless and I don’t use that term lightly. He a\has essentially solved basketball, and these crushing dominant performances aren’t an accident.

I put it this way earlier: there has been no player in NBA history who has so quickly gone from diagnosing an action to blowing it up on both ends of the floor. The closest I’ve seen is Garnett, who lacked the scoring tools to do what LeBron does in 4th quarters. Lebron has always seen the game at a super advanced level but earlier it held him back because he saw the best way to attack a defense but wasn’t great at those skills yet. But now he’s great at everything, and it’s jsut a **** for the rest of the league trying to slow him down.

I just don’t know how many times we need to go through this where the playoff rolls around and LeBron is so clearly head and shoulders above everyone before we accept he’s the GOAT. Wilt was awesome but he’s not a ball handler. Russell was dominant but his offense is nowhere near Bron’s. Shaq couldn’t handle the ball or defend like Bron either and Kareem wasn’t an elite passer. Jordan was a monstrous scorer but couldn’t playmake or handle the ball like LeBron, and certainly couldn’t defend like him.

It’s over for me. Lebron just owns basketball in a way I didn’t understand and couldn’t really envision until the last two seasons. 2013 or 2009 LeBron I’d say we’re about as good as the best of Shaq, MJ, Wilt but it’s different now.

Remember this: he averaged 34/12/10 on 63% TS against the 2nd ranked defense in the league, the GOAT team GSW in '17. He was more than capable of tearing up elite defenses to historic numbers.

Honestly, I'm going to change my vote. I love and have championed Wilt as the GOAT peak for a long time, but rereading that Spaceman post makes me think that '17 and '18 LeBron is pretty much the best basketball player to ever exist.

Edit:

3. Also, '13 vs '14 and '15... You're saying '13 was worse than both on both ends? Wut? If we're talking Playoffs only he was better defensively in '13 than in '14 without a doubt, and better offensively than in '15. His jumper was dead, finished, non-existent in '15. He shot 38% from 3 in the '13 Playoffs despite dealing with Wade on one leg. I also think the only year he matched or exceeded his '13 defense after that was in '16, definitely better than '15. There's a reason his defense was described as resurgent in '16, it wasn't great in '15.

I will admit '14 offense was better than '13 though and arguably the best of his career till '17.

Why are you so high on '15? To me it measures out as the worst year of his prime, close only to '11.

[Gregoire]

'03 Duncan
'13 LeBron
'09 LeBron

My votes won't be counted, but that's who I'd vote if they were. (I also had '91 Jordan first. These are exactly my next three.)

So, you have Jordan 91 as better than 13 and 09 Lebron, but 90 Jordan and 92 Jordan as worse? Interesting, could you explain, its basically the same player...

[ardee]

Just changed my vote from '67 Wilt-'17 LeBron-'00 Shaq to '17 LeBron-'18 LeBron-'67 Wilt.

[Homer38]

The difference between Wade in 2012 and Wade in 2013 as playoffs time was huge

I mean, Wade had 15 PPG in 2013 vs 22 PPG in 2012 in the playoffs ... Also Bosh could not contain Hibbert in 2013, it was embarrassing ...And Battier had a great regular season in the 3 points, but before the game 7 against the spurs, he was unable to make a wide open 3 points to save his life.

[LA Bird]

2017 LeBron shouldn't be grouped with 2018 as a zero defense season. He was just below +2 DRAPM/DRPM and put up elite man defense numbers in the playoffs before he got destroyed by Golden State in the Finals. OTOH, 2018 LeBron was a negative on defense for the entire season. I would say LeBron's 2017 defense was much closer to his 2013 level despite 13 being often touted as one of LeBron's best defensive seasons. LeBron not picking up All D selections in 16/17 coupled with his trash defense in 18 has unfortunately distorted many people's memories of his defense during the 2nd Cavs run. It is blatantly false but "LeBron left his defense in Miami" is actually a common opinion held by the majority outside of this board.

BTW, I found this post from just before the 2017 Finals to show LeBron's defense was thought of pretty highly at the time:

His defense vs. the Eastern Confrence has been better than last season. Sustained off ball activity level in some of these games given his offensive load. I kept losing count of how many times he blew up movement towards the lane.

I think he's slipped a bit in 1on1 since 09/10/11 but his help game might be peaking - motor is better these days than like 2013 and IQ/awareness/experience are at an all time high.