RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James)

[eminence]

Voting time.

1. LeBron James - Top tier peak, top tier prime, top tier longevity. Very minor consistency blips earlier in his career kept him from ascending earlier. Alltime most valuable offensive player with his combination of greatness/longevity. Great great defender, approaching low end DPOY at his best who has been a positive forever. Great pairing with AD has washed away some small doubts about fit with great big talent.

2. Tim Duncan - My #1 pick last time around. Still super impressed by Duncan. Think his peak/prime measure up to anyone. '03 is a strong contender for my GOAT peak. Stacked longevity once he lost his fastball. More impressed with his defense focused longevity than KAJ's offensive focused longevity. Falls short of LeBron on MVP type seasons and also a few minor injury issues through his prime. The rock of a dynasty unmatched in his time.

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Like Duncan I think he has a ~10 year prime comparable to anyone and then stacked other big impact seasons like almost nobody else. Behind Duncan for me due to a preference for defense from my bigs (prime KAJ was great, but I think Duncan aged notably better on that end).

Notables, who I expect I'll be adding one of to my ballot next round:
MJ/Russell - have the primes/accomplishment, but lacking in longevity for me. Relatively low on MJ's defense and Russell's offense. Hold the longevity less against Russell than against MJ.
KG - if I were ranking purely who I would draft to try to build a dynasty around he'd be my #2 to LeBron, but in the real world he didn't get the best shake of things.

[drza]

Some thoughts on LeBron and Michael.

I've already written some thoughts about Russell, and I've got some things I'm hoping to work through about some of the other players I consider worthy of the top tier. But realistically, this thread is going to come down to LeBron vs MJ. And after this thread ends tomorrow, there'll be no point in such a comparison moving forward. So, I'll focus my last pre-vote discussion, as well as my vote itself, around LeBron and Jordan to bookend my Russell posts. Some quick thoughts.

I tend to think of Jordan and LeBron as either two extremes of the same archetype(the dominant perimeter offense creator/two-way wing) or leaders of two different archetypes, with LeBron perhaps belonging more to the scoring extreme of the playmakers group. In some ways I find the latter more satisfying, because LeBron really is more of a floor general by nature than guys like Jordan, Kobe, Wade or the others I envision in that category. But because LeBron is such a strong scorer as well, he also doesn't entirely fit in with the Magic Johnson's of the world...though he could be a generational Oscar Robertson on offense, so perhaps.

Either way, my point in starting with that aside is that it influences what I believe to be each player's best measures of success. With LeBron belonging to the databall era we have a host of impact data that allows us to more granularly quantify the value that he has brought to his teams through the years, but the tail end of Jordan's career only barely overlaps with the very beginning of the era so we just don't have the same level of data for him. As such, I have to rely even more heavily on my eye test and -yes- archetypal success trends to buttress some of the other common tools like box scores, team success, peer opinions and accolades.

Jordan, to me, was the most oppressive perimeter-in scorer of all-time. It is of course very different to how 3-point bombers like James Harden or Steph Curry do it these days, but Mike scored from the deep midrange-in at an efficiency that battles most volume 3-point savants. When he was on, it just felt like he was going to score every possession, no matter what the defenses did. And his mechanisms changed through the years...from the artistic explosiveness of his aerial attacks as a younger player to the footwork and angles mastery of his older years, Jordan could score in a way that I've never really seen anyone be able to match.

LeBron, on the other hand, is like the apex point in the intersection between Jordan's scoring brilliance and Magic's floor generalship. LeBron's physical tools allow him to go downhill to the rim like another former Cleveland legend, Jim Brown, and provides (another cross-sport analogy) an omnipresent scoring knockout punch akin to prime Foreman. I used to debate with a friend of mine about the difference between LeBron and Kobe in the clutch. He'd contend that Kobe was more skilled and thus better, because he could set up and knock down shots in so many different ways from all over the court. But I'd argue that, in the end, the level of artistry didn't matter because while Kobe could set up and knock down extraordinarily difficult shots at a clip that no one else in the world could, they were still relatively low percentage looks. Meanwhile, LeBron might just fly to the rim and get a high-percentage look that wasn't nearly as acrobatic but that had a much higher chance of yielding his team the necessary points. But, of course, it's more than that. LeBron wasn't "just" a brute on offense. His scoring ability has gotten more nuanced as his career has progressed, and at various times (including this season) he's hit some of his biggest shots from (at times FAR) behind the 3-point line. And, importantly in this comparison, LeBron's offense is never just (or even, necessarily primarily, about scoring).

Because while Jordan was actually a gifted team-offense creator in his own right when he wanted to be...his 30/8/8 season comes to mind, and of course the Triangle and Scottie Pippen both lowered Jordan's abilities to generate volume assists numbers in the 90s...LeBron could have actually been one of the most gifted point guards in the league almost independent of his scoring ability. Before LeBron's rookie season, I remember he made a commercial where he was singing in a choir about "Court vision" and making no-look passes from the choir stand. While it was a silly commercial, he was making his claim from jump that his ability to pass was one of the aspects of his game he was most proud of. And that has translated faithfully throughout his career, reaching a pinnacle this season when he did the most facilitating of his career and averaged career-highs in assist-based categories.

Thus, the attempts I've seen in this thread to compare Jordan and LeBron on the basis of purely scoring metrics miss the mark, IMO. While those metrics are very key for Jordan's archetype, they just don't cover enough to be explanatory or representative of LeBron's.

Analytics tend to indicate that players of Jordan's archetype, at their best, can lead the NBA in given seasons in Offensive RAPM (thinking Wade's best seasons, or '06 Kobe). And Jordan operated consistently at levels matching/surpassing even the best of what we saw out of them. So I definitely believe that, if we had that data from the late 80s and 90s, Jordan would have been among the league leaders on a perennial basis. However, whereas the apex perimeter scorer archetype can lead the league in offensive impact, it's the apex floor generals that seem to post the historically highest offensive impact stats and also (as Doc MJ pointed out upthread) lead the historic team offense dynasties. Steve Nash has been the king of offensive RAPM in the databall era, and led those Suns attacks. Oscar Robertson is a WOWY king from his era, and led offensive powerhouses teams. We don't have the granular +/- data for Magic Johnson, but I personally believe his best ORAPM years would've been higher than Jordan's as well. And of course, if Nash was the ORAPM king of the databall era, we also have the data that indicates that on offense LeBron is the one that was nipping at Nash's heels.

All that to say (and I've got freedom here to be as wordy as I like, which I'm kind of digging), I believe that LeBron's offensive impact across his prime was at least as strong as, and if either side had an advantage likely even slightly higher than Jordan's.

I could work through a similar exercise on defense, but despite having the freedom to be wordy, I also have the time constraints of deadlines I'm working towards, so I won't take the time to do that here to the same depth. Jordan was an excellent, aggressive defender on the perimeter with the base strength (especially later in his career) to be a menace in post-defense as well. His hands were quick and strong, he had the aggressive mindset of "Pitbull Kobe" (was that the right dog reference? Doberman Kobe?) in living to thrash certain 1-on-1 matchups at both ends of the court, and he wasn't as averse to fighting through off-ball screens nor as likely to take risky freelance chances as Kobe was. I still don't personally see Jordan as the best defender in the entire NBA when he won his DPoY award, but I agree he could be a very strong defender. But I believe LeBron to have been better defensively, as well, because his incredibly unique size/speed/explosiveness ratio allowed him to at times play roles more commonly suited to a big man. He never had the defensive impact of a truly dominant big man defensive anchor, but he has often been the next best thing.

So, if I believe (and I do) that LeBron was comparable-maybe-even-slightly-better on offense, and similarly comparable-maybe-even-slightly-better on defense, then I must believe that, prime-to-prime, LeBron was typically comparable-even-slightly-better-overall than Jordan. Factor in the playoffs, crunchtime, intangibles, team success, etc. and I think the prime-for-prime debate can be very interesting and close, but when longevity is factored in I think this comp becomes much less interesting. By this point, for the sake of projects like this, I'd tend to have LeBron over Jordan comfortably in terms of overall career value.

Vote (and again, I'm really only considering players currently under discussion in this particular vote)
1. Bill Russell
2. LeBron James
3. Michael Jordan

[Doctor MJ]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

I don't see his supporting cast that way.

I think you're largely seeing a bunch of guys who are pretty good get extra shine because:

1. They won. Winning bias is a thing. Yes I understand that it's important to inspect our assessment of Bill Russell as well and I'm not going to say it isn't worth talking about, but in general guys who are on multiple championship teams have a cachet forever.

2. They put up points. Unlike most role players, they weren't asked to focus on defense and off ball skills, which gave them a way to be noticed.

3. They played at a fast pace, which further inflated their numbers and seems likely to have made many back then not realize that the offenses were not good. Everyone knew that the defense was the key, but they quite likely underestimated the extent to which this was true. I for one was quite skeptical until I saw data.

4. It was a small league. Think about the fact that the all-star game was happening back when there were only a handful of teams in each conference. If the Celtics were (somehow, just pretend for a sec) just as dominant today, they would not get as much accolade love as they did back then, and those accolades are a big deal in influencing perception of history going forward.

5. Russell played for a long time. He kept winning and kept having new scorers on his team leading weak offenses. And those guys kept being all-stars because, of course they would be in a small league.

6. At a certain point nostalgia drove HOF voters a little crazy and they started letting in basically any Celtic of any significance to the great Celtics run. I'm not even against this necessarily, but it's one of those things where that doesn't mean that if there are X guys in the Hall it must be the X best players who ever played the game.

There's also another factor that's more debatable though, and that is the fact that there was a star on his team who had great success on the team afterward (Havlicek) and there were two stars that had great success on his team before him (Cousy & Sharman).

That's certainly not nothing. Plus there's the matter that he played for a good coach who was able to find guys who really fit in with what the team was doing around Russell.

But I think it needs to be remembered how good the 76ers were after Wilt left and how good the Lakers were before Wilt got there. Wilt played with some fantastic players, and in '68-69 specifically played with a group that with his talent really should have wiped the floor with the entire league. And Oscar played with Kareem, and West played with Baylor and Wilt.

What I see in the Celtics is a team that basically figured out a cheat code based on Russell's defensive capabilities that could not exist to the same level of effectiveness today, and I think Russell & Red could have made things work with a good fraction of the players that were in the Association back in the day. Would they have won 11 titles? I mean, that was a bit lucky in our universe, so no, often they wouldn't be quite that dominant, but they'd be quite good.

[Odinn21]

I'm in a spell that I'm not liking writing long posts. That's why I chose to keep my explanation short. But I'm definitely loving the on-going conversations and thoughts even though mine not out there so much.

It looks like James is finally going to come ahead of Jordan. There are awesome cases for both. It looks still close. Loving the attention that Russell and Abdul-Jabbar have gotten. There are some shouts for Duncan, Olajuwon and Garnett which I didn't expect but definitely welcomed surprises.
I guess Chamberlain got named only once though which is surprising for me because I'd think his lack of titles (compared to the obvious 4 surely) is more understood now and his individual level is nothing short. Also, up until Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain was the king of longevity. Even with James, Abdul-Jabbar, Duncan and Malone, I'd say Chamberlain's longevity and quality combo is definitely top 5 still.

I think all of the major candidates got their due but Chamberlain.

---

Edit; I'd like to state a fact about the '60s.
Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain played 143 games against each other. Regular season and postseason combined. Yeah, you read that right. 143.
106 games against Jerry West, 94 games against Oscar Robertson.

For comparison; Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki played 90 games against each other. They spent their entire career in the same division and they faced each other many times in the playoffs. And it's still less then two third of 143.

90 is the 2nd highest number for Tim Duncan in terms of most games played against a certain player BTW.
90 would be 25th on Bill Russell's list.

Great players were facing each other on a more constant basis back then. Pro-modern arguments usually focus on average player quality going forward but ignores the density part.

[eminence]

4. It was a small league. Think about the fact that the all-star game was happening back when there were only a handful of teams in each conference. If the Celtics were (somehow, just pretend for a sec) just as dominant today, they would not get as much accolade love as they did back then, and those accolades are a big deal in influencing perception of history going forward.

I only half buy this one. Look at the recognition Klay's got. Probably lesser, but guys on winning teams still get a huge benefit of the doubt.

[Doctor MJ]

4. It was a small league. Think about the fact that the all-star game was happening back when there were only a handful of teams in each conference. If the Celtics were (somehow, just pretend for a sec) just as dominant today, they would not get as much accolade love as they did back then, and those accolades are a big deal in influencing perception of history going forward.

I only half buy this one. Look at the recognition Klay's got. Probably lesser, but guys on winning teams still get a huge benefit of the doubt.

Half-point taken. It is still a thing today to a noticeable degree.

[homecourtloss]

So, I'm not a voter. But I was intrigued by some of the discussion & numbers posted on scoring by MJ and LeBron against elite playoff defenses.

Thought these might be worth sharing:

The first two charts compare the player's playoff TS% relative to their regular season average by the strength of defenses face.

Spoiler:

The next two compare the player's TS% relative to the TS% allowed by that defense in the regular season.

Spoiler:

Good data that points to what I mentioned earlier.

Also, LeBron’s relative eFG% against stout defenses has been incredibly resilient.

2018 Celtics, -4.7 rDRtg, LeBron +8.4% relative eFG% compared to what the Celtics gave up
2017 Warriors, -4.8 rDRtg, LeBron +12.9% relative eFG% compared to what the Warriors gave up
2015 Hawks, -5.0 rDRtg, LeBron +8.0% relative eFG% compared to what the Hawks gave up
2015 Warriors, -4.2 rDRtg, LeBron -3.9% relative eFG% compared to what the Warriors gave up
2014 Spurs, -4.3 rDRtg, LeBron +16.6% relative eFG% compared to what the Spurs gave up
2014 Pacers, -7.4 rDRtg, LeBron +13.1% relative eFG% compared to what the Pacers gave up
2013 Spurs,, -4.3 rDRtg, LeBron +.7% relative eFG% compared to what the Spurs gave up
2013 Pacers, -6.1 rDRtg, LeBron +11% relative eFG% compared to what the Pacers gave up
2012 Celtics, -6.4 rDRtg, LeBron +10.3% relative eFG% compared to what the Celtics gave up
2009 Magic, -6.4 rDRtg, LeBron +5.8% relative eFG% compared to what the Magic gave up
2008 Celtics, -8.6 rDRtg, LeBron -7.3% relative eFG% compared to what the Celtics gave up
2007 Spurs, -6.6 rDRtg, LeBron -9.3% relative eFG% compared to what the Celtics gave up

[70sFan]

By the way, in GOAT scoring debate Kareem has been always underrated and I don't know why. After 1973, Jabbar literally didn't have a bad scoring series until he became old. He dominated some of the best defenses and defenders of all-time. He has stats, prime, longevity and peak. I know that he's not a sexy choice, but why not even consider him.

Idk, his old pals Jack Sikma and Billy Paultz gave him a few scares there.

What scares? Kareem dominated Sikma individually in 1979. Paultz defended him only in 1981 for limited amount of time and Kareem didn't struggle in that series either.

[70sFan]

But then again I also see a 6-10, 235 center, very athletic but not like a giannis or ben simmons (I don't care too much about the high jump, most of these guys could match those numbers), who could slide his feet and move with the best of em (as far as bigs) but also didn't have a jumper and didn't really have an offensive skillset.

Well, I think you underestimate his athleticism if you think that Ben Simmons is more athletic than him. Russell jumped quicker off the floor than any other center I've seen and he was very fast.

Take an adebayo. He's slightly less long (1 inch in height and 2 in wingspan) and can't move vertically like that, also slides his feet a bit worse, but he's a lot stronger (more muscular, 255), more explosive, has a short mid range shot etc.

He's more muscular (which is related to weight training, not natural capabilities), but I'm not sure if he's stronger. Russell boxed out Wilt freaking Chamberlain, he had very underrated core strength. I don't see Adebayo as more explosive at all.

I still have russell about 4th or 5th, and I'm not saying I don't see what you see, but I also see what I see. You don't think that nowadays there are a lot of 6-9/6-10 guys who have a track athlete type of body and athleticism? I think there's plenty of them in high school and in college, they just never sniff the league because they don't have an nba game.

Back then there were a lot of 6-9/6-10 guys who have a track athlete type of body and athleticism who were much worse than Russell and some of them dkdn'tmake the league. Ray Felix and Walter Dukes were known for their athleticms and they were bigger than Russell, yet none of them was even a star. There were even more glarring examples - Gene Wiley, Reggie Harding, LeRoy Ellis... It's not that Russell dominated because he was athletic. Do you think it was rare to be athletic bigman back then? No, it wasn't.

A shorter, 235 pounds center with basically no jumper or defined offensive game? Does he make the nba just because he's an elite track and field type of athlete (for his size)?

I think that "no defined offensive game" undersells Russell's skills. Besides, a lot of players make the league only because of athleticism and potential. Also - Russell wasn't undersized. 6'10 without the shoes would be above average in today's league.

Honestly no, if I watch a 1966 game I don't think oh, this guy could play in the nba right now. I think oh well, with modern day training etc this guy would be bigger and would develop a jumper, which would make him a pretty decent offensive player (not great, he would still be undersized and he lacked that type of talent/touch) with his athleticism, bbiq, passing etc, and he would eventually be an anthony davis type of defender

Fair enough, but I disagree. We have so many untalented bigs in the league today that Russell would make it straight. What makes someone like Javale McGee a better player than Russell? He's worse on both sides of the floor and he's not more athletic either

[70sFan]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

Russell's teams in 1965-69 were not outlier in terms of supporting cast at all. In some years, they were not even the best in the league talent-wise.

I hope that you use the same argument against Jordan.

[Blackmill]

1. LeBron James
2. to do
3. to do

Note: I had a long work day and couldn't get around to writing until late. I'm not done with this post and will update it sometime tomorrow.

LeBron vs Jordan

Defense

On defense is where I think LeBron pulls furthest ahead in this comparison. I will get to offense later, which I think is close and depends on the rest of the team. On the other hand I would almost always prefer LeBron's defense over Jordan's. There's a few reasons for this.

Most important to me is LeBron's size. He's able to function as an additional rim protector, especially against smaller guards who he can often envelop at the rim. Jordan accrued many blocks for a guard but these were often him swooping in from a post player's blind spot to swat short range jumpers. LeBron defends the paint more like a traditional big, using verticality and size to be a wall between the basket and the ball. But when LeBron's engages his high gear on defense, he blends this vertical presence with lateral coverage that allows him to stay home with shooters before flying towards the paint to bother would-be layups. While LeBron doesn't come close to matching the very best rim protectors, he still provides tremendous value, as his rim protection allows smaller lineups to remain defensively viable and provides a safety net for when the team's primary rim protector is caught above the action.

LeBron's size also allows him to defend larger, stronger players than Jordan could. This could happen by design -- a recent example would be the minutes LeBron spotted on Giannis before the season was postponed -- or on a switch. Jordan, when faced switched onto a strong 4 in the post, was often forced to attempt a steal rather than fight over position. I think Jordan is more suited to defending quick players, especially off screens, but LeBron has a history of successfully defending point guards and I don't see Jordan making up much of the difference here. LeBron's versatility at defending larger and smaller players matters a lot to me. It greatly helps his team matchup and allows him to switch most screens. In the playoffs, where matchups are targeted, I value this even more.

Finally, LeBron's defensive communication has been praised by many. Vogel has called LeBron the "quarterback" of LA's defense this season. Shumpert spoke about how impressed he was with LeBron's ability to get every player on the same page. If you watch his games closely, you'll see him instruct players on where to position for helping the helper and getting ready to scramble. I don't have the same impression of Michael's defensive communication. I don't see it as much in game and I haven't heard the same praise given to him. Overall I see LeBron's communication as another small but noteworthy advantage for LeBron.

For completeness, I will mention what I think Jordan does better on defense. As mentioned I think he navigates screens and guards quicker players a little better. I also think he has better for pressuring the ball handler and poking away the dribble of any driver who comes too close. These advantages would mean a tiny bit more to me if I didn't think Jordan was more likely to gamble or ball watch. Regardless I have LeBron a tier above Jordan on defense.

Offense

On offense I think the comparison is close. LeBron is the better passer and the larger, stronger player. Jordan is the much better shooter. I said in the previous that who is better depends on the rest of the team.

The more shooting that is on the court, the more I would rather have LeBron in the roster. LeBron's speed and accuracy on his passes is among the best ever. Players whose shot would be semi-contested find themselves open when LeBron is the passer. With three good shooters next to LeBron it's almost impossible to simultaneously keep him from the rim and not leave a shooter open for three. While the same could be said of Jordan, LeBron is better at these two things, and in this situation where mid-range jumpers are less of the offense I see LeBron as slightly better offensively.

I think the conversation is more interesting when the team has less shooters. Players who are good defenders and shooters are a luxury. Usually role players excel at one but not the other. Good teams will usually strike a balance and may only have 1 or 2 very good shooters. As such, being one of the best ever from the mid-range remains a real advantage for Jordan on many teams. That said, there's only so much value to be gained here. Even a packed in paint can't stop LeBron from getting to the rim on every possession, especially with the league tending towards a small physical profile, and he's developed a good enough shot to keep a struggling offense afloat from outside. Simply headhunting smaller players will open up three point shots without needing to get to the rim. With a lack of good shooting, I do think Jordan becomes the better offensive player, but LeBron's skillset has improved over the seasons to where I feel he can have his usual, enormous offense impact even on a lineup absent of multiple good shooters.

So where does this leave me? Well I already spoiled what I think. I think LeBron and Jordan are very close offensively. With three good shooters I lean towards LeBron. With two good shooters I think it's mostly a wash. With one or fewer good shooters I slightly prefer Jordan. Since I do have LeBron as the better defensive in general, I will vote for him before Jordan.

LeBron vs The Centers

To be continued (see note at the top).

[2klegend]

Running your formula doesn't have James #1 yet?

I saw the results in 2016. The longevity gap has gona wider, LBJ put 1 more FMVP, and probably the prime calculation can add at least 17 and 18 seasons with it.

I see you put 12 LBJ as the peak... 09 was giving trouble?

I have to make an adjustment to Lebron's peak year which I believe is 2012, and not the anomaly 2009. Other than that with the new accolades stack up, he had surpassed Kareem but still fell short of Jordan total. Though, 1 more MVP and 1 more Title will put Lebron edge and edge with Jordan from my projection.

So if you ignore the year because it was better than all others... you're already wrong. Peak is 1 year. We're not going to ignore T-Mac 03 are we? Shouldn't we consider the best year of MJ and anomally?

You lost me man. You formula is good, bu this is not being objective.

Yes '09 is an anomaly, just like '88 Hakeem is an anomaly.

It is also worth noting that the formula for Playoff peak is how much I attribute the number of the rounds each player plays and their assigned value. For instance, let assume two players with equal statistical dominant, the most outstanding one.

Player A putting up amazing stat all the way to the Final Round vs
Player B putting up equal amazing stat only the 1st round.

As you can see, the Player B's PS peak score shouldn't be as impressive as Player A.

Now let say I value.
Final Round = 1
Conference Round = 1.3
2nd Round Round = 1.6
1st Round = 1.9

Then MJ
PS = ((32*PERLgAvg)+(0.6*TSLgAvg)+(0.333*WS48LgAvg )+(10.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
= 160.465
REG =((31.6*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.321*WS48LgAvg )+(8.9*OBPMLgAvg)+(1.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=144.569

Lebron
PS = ((37.4*PERLgAvg)+(0.618*TSLgAvg)+(0.399*WS48LgAvg )+(14.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.4*DBPMLgAvg))/(1.3)
=148.319

REG = ((31.7*PERLgAvg)+(0.591*TSLgAvg)+(0.318*WS48LgAvg )+(9.4*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.6*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=155.723

MJ '91 Peak = 152.517
Lebron '09 Peak = 152.021

[2klegend]

Let me compare the 3 players I list as GOAT.

PEAK
'91 Jordan
'12 Lebron
-72 Kareem

Code: Select all

                           OBPM    DBPM    PER      TS%       WS48
LG Avg                     7.415   5.379   28.365   0.618    0.269
Standard Deviation         4.046   5.577   1.058    48.510   111.384
PT Value                   30      30      30       30       30

LG Avg = All-Time leader's league average for reach respective statistical category.
Standard Deviation = Avg player standard
PT Value = Each statistical category assigns a 30PTS as maximum.

RoundPlay Coef
1st Round = 1.6 Conf Final = 1.2
2nd Round = 1.4 Final = 1


my formula ...
REG play score = ((Player PER x PERLgAvg)+(PLayer TS x TSLgAvg)+(Player WS48 x WS48LgAvg )+(Player OBPM x OBPMLgAvg)+(Player DBPM x DBPMLgAvg))/((GamePlay Coef))

POS play score = ((Player PER x PERLgAvg)+(PLayer TS x TSLgAvg)+(Player WS48 x WS48LgAvg )+(Player OBPM x OBPMLgAvg)+(Player DBPM x DBPMLgAvg))/((RoundPlay Coef))

PEAK value = AVG (REG + POS)

'91 Jordan Peak
REG = ((31.6*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.321*WS48LgAvg )+(8.9*OBPMLgAvg)+(1.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
= 144.569
POS = ((32*PERLgAvg)+(0.6*TSLgAvg)+(0.333*WS48LgAvg )+(10.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=160.465

Jordan Peak: 152.517

Lebron '12
REG = ((30.7*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.298*WS48LgAvg )+(8.2*OBPMLgAvg)+(2.7*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=143.243
POS =((30.3*PERLgAvg)+(0.576*TSLgAvg)+(0.284*WS48LgAvg )+(8.1*OBPMLgAvg)+(2.5*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=138.334

Lebron Peak: 140.788

Kareem '77
REG = ((27.8*PERLgAvg)+(0.608*TSLgAvg)+(0.283*WS48LgAvg )+(7.7*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=138.301
POS=((32.4*PERLgAvg)+(0.646*TSLgAvg)+(0.332*WS48LgAvg )+(11*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1.4)
=120.200

Kareem Peak: 129.250

------------------------------------------------------

7-years PRIME

Lebron James 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
REG = (AVERAGE(29.1,31.7,31.1,27.3,30.7,31.6,29.3)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.568,0.591,0.604,0.594,0.605,0.64,0.649)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.242,0.318,0.299,0.244,0.298,0.322,0.264)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(9,9.4,9.7,6.5,8.3,9.2,8)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(2.6,3.6,2.8,2.1,2.7,2.4,0.9)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=141.285

Lebron's PRIME SCORE: =141.285

Michael Jordan 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96
REG = (AVERAGE(31.7,31.1,31.2,31.6,27.7,29.7,29.4)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.603,0.614,0.606,0.605,0.579,0.564,0.582)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.308,0.292,0.285,0.321,0.274,0.27,0.317)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(9.8,9.8,9.7,8.9,6.9,8.3,7.2)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(2.3,2.7,0.8,1.8,1.7,1.2,1.4)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=138.267

Jordan PRIME SCORE: 138.267


Kareem Abdul Jabbar 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80
REG=(AVERAGE(29.9,28.5,24.4,27.2,27.8,25.5,25.3)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.603,0.58,0.564,0.567,0.608,0.612,0.639)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.34,0.322,0.25,0.242,0.283,0.219,0.227)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(OBPMLgAvg,OBPMLgAvg,4.9,6.2,7.7,3.9,4)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(DBPMLgAvg,DBPMLgAvg,3.6,4,3,3.9,2.7)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=130.075

Kareem PRIME SCORE: 130.075

Jordan's Peak + Jordan's Prime
= 152.517 + 138.267
=290.784

Lebron's Peak + Lebron's Prime
=140.788 + 141.285
=282.073

Kareem's Peak + Kareem's Prime
=129.250 + 130.075
=259.325

Why are LeBron 2015-2018 not considered his prime? Why would you favor a 7-year prime over 10-year prime?

Many people have Lebron's peak as 2016 or 2017, ignoring those years in a GOAT comparison is extremely flawed.

Why would you not include 10 years for Jordan? Jordan has 10 fantastic years, the best 10 year prime ever. Shortening your analysis to 7-years is doing a disservice to assessing these brilliant careers.

Our goal here is to evaluate the impact and their dominance within a set time frame. 5-years prime is too short, 10-years prime is too long as it will eliminate many players due to shortening careers because of injury. So a 7-yrs prime is the breakpoint of my evaluation for their impact on the game.

Typically I value 7-years Prime x Peak x Accolades x Longevity. Lebron's prime is already passing, although his decline is very slow. Right now he is playing to collect accolades and longevity value score, as opposed to proving his level of dominance.

[Joao Saraiva]

I have to make an adjustment to Lebron's peak year which I believe is 2012, and not the anomaly 2009. Other than that with the new accolades stack up, he had surpassed Kareem but still fell short of Jordan total. Though, 1 more MVP and 1 more Title will put Lebron edge and edge with Jordan from my projection.

So if you ignore the year because it was better than all others... you're already wrong. Peak is 1 year. We're not going to ignore T-Mac 03 are we? Shouldn't we consider the best year of MJ and anomally?

You lost me man. You formula is good, bu this is not being objective.

Yes '09 is an anomaly, just like '88 Hakeem is an anomaly.

It is also worth noting that the formula for Playoff peak is how much I attribute the number of the rounds each player plays and their assigned value. For instance, let assume two players with equal statistical dominant, the most outstanding one.

Player A putting up amazing stat all the way to the Final Round vs
Player B putting up equal amazing stat only the 1st round.

As you can see, the Player B's PS peak score shouldn't be as impressive as Player A.

Now let say I value.
Final Round = 1
Conference Round = 1.3
2nd Round Round = 1.6
1st Round = 1.9

Then MJ
PS = ((32*PERLgAvg)+(0.6*TSLgAvg)+(0.333*WS48LgAvg )+(10.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
= 160.465
REG =((31.6*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.321*WS48LgAvg )+(8.9*OBPMLgAvg)+(1.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=144.569

Lebron
PS = ((37.4*PERLgAvg)+(0.618*TSLgAvg)+(0.399*WS48LgAvg )+(14.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.4*DBPMLgAvg))/(1.3)
=148.319

REG = ((31.7*PERLgAvg)+(0.591*TSLgAvg)+(0.318*WS48LgAvg )+(9.4*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.6*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=155.723

MJ '91 Peak = 152.517
Lebron '09 Peak = 152.021

Still that is better than what value you have on LeBron 12.

I also have a formula and yes LBJ 09 comes out as his peak. And yes I value players playing more rounds in the formula.

And by my formula tha anomally of Hakeem doesn't produce the peak year. James 09 is not an anomally, James 09 is a one man show producing brutal and efficient games because not only was he the best finisher at the rim in the league and the guy with the quickest 1st step, but in that post season his outside shot was falling at crazy rates.

Should I say 2006 Dirk is an anomally? Is Wilt putting up 50 PPG an anomally? Should I take away Kobe's 01 run because in the other two playoffs he won with Shaq he didn't play at the same level? Or are we just eliminating LeBron's anomally?

[2klegend]

So if you ignore the year because it was better than all others... you're already wrong. Peak is 1 year. We're not going to ignore T-Mac 03 are we? Shouldn't we consider the best year of MJ and anomally?

You lost me man. You formula is good, bu this is not being objective.

Yes '09 is an anomaly, just like '88 Hakeem is an anomaly.

It is also worth noting that the formula for Playoff peak is how much I attribute the number of the rounds each player plays and their assigned value. For instance, let assume two players with equal statistical dominant, the most outstanding one.

Player A putting up amazing stat all the way to the Final Round vs
Player B putting up equal amazing stat only the 1st round.

As you can see, the Player B's PS peak score shouldn't be as impressive as Player A.

Now let say I value.
Final Round = 1
Conference Round = 1.3
2nd Round Round = 1.6
1st Round = 1.9

Then MJ
PS = ((32*PERLgAvg)+(0.6*TSLgAvg)+(0.333*WS48LgAvg )+(10.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
= 160.465
REG =((31.6*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.321*WS48LgAvg )+(8.9*OBPMLgAvg)+(1.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=144.569

Lebron
PS = ((37.4*PERLgAvg)+(0.618*TSLgAvg)+(0.399*WS48LgAvg )+(14.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.4*DBPMLgAvg))/(1.3)
=148.319

REG = ((31.7*PERLgAvg)+(0.591*TSLgAvg)+(0.318*WS48LgAvg )+(9.4*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.6*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=155.723

MJ '91 Peak = 152.517
Lebron '09 Peak = 152.021

Still that is better than what value you have on LeBron 12.

I also have a formula and yes LBJ 09 comes out as his peak. And yes I value players playing more rounds in the formula.

And by my formula tha anomally of Hakeem doesn't produce the peak year. James 09 is not an anomally, James 09 is a one man show producing brutal and efficient games because not only was he the best finisher at the rim in the league and the guy with the quickest 1st step, but in that post season his outside shot was falling at crazy rates.

Should I say 2006 Dirk is an anomally? Is Wilt putting up 50 PPG an anomally? Should I take away Kobe's 01 run because in the other two playoffs he won with Shaq he didn't play at the same level? Or are we just eliminating LeBron's anomally?

Ok, then I agree with you on '09 Lebron peak because I do believe Jordan/Lebron peak and prime are neck to neck and they aren't hardly any different in their dominance. Right now Lebron is collecting accolades to chase down on Jordan and I do think he has a great chance to do it through all the awards that he will potentially get through continue playing a long career.

[DQuinn1575]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

Russell's teams in 1965-69 were not outlier in terms of supporting cast at all. In some years, they were not even the best in the league talent-wise.

I hope that you use the same argument against Jordan.

Agreed - Wilt's teams on the 76er and Lakers were at least equally talented as the Celtics. Russell gets the teammate edge when Wilt was on the Warriors, but the rosters of the Sixers match up, and you can't call West/Baylor/Wilt less talented than the Celtics.

[DQuinn1575]

Let me compare the 3 players I list as GOAT.

PEAK
'91 Jordan
'12 Lebron
-72 Kareem

Code: Select all

                           OBPM    DBPM    PER      TS%       WS48
LG Avg                     7.415   5.379   28.365   0.618    0.269
Standard Deviation         4.046   5.577   1.058    48.510   111.384
PT Value                   30      30      30       30       30

LG Avg = All-Time leader's league average for reach respective statistical category.
Standard Deviation = Avg player standard
PT Value = Each statistical category assigns a 30PTS as maximum.

RoundPlay Coef
1st Round = 1.6 Conf Final = 1.2
2nd Round = 1.4 Final = 1


my formula ...
REG play score = ((Player PER x PERLgAvg)+(PLayer TS x TSLgAvg)+(Player WS48 x WS48LgAvg )+(Player OBPM x OBPMLgAvg)+(Player DBPM x DBPMLgAvg))/((GamePlay Coef))

POS play score = ((Player PER x PERLgAvg)+(PLayer TS x TSLgAvg)+(Player WS48 x WS48LgAvg )+(Player OBPM x OBPMLgAvg)+(Player DBPM x DBPMLgAvg))/((RoundPlay Coef))

PEAK value = AVG (REG + POS)

'91 Jordan Peak
REG = ((31.6*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.321*WS48LgAvg )+(8.9*OBPMLgAvg)+(1.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
= 144.569
POS = ((32*PERLgAvg)+(0.6*TSLgAvg)+(0.333*WS48LgAvg )+(10.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=160.465

Jordan Peak: 152.517

Lebron '12
REG = ((30.7*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.298*WS48LgAvg )+(8.2*OBPMLgAvg)+(2.7*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=143.243
POS =((30.3*PERLgAvg)+(0.576*TSLgAvg)+(0.284*WS48LgAvg )+(8.1*OBPMLgAvg)+(2.5*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=138.334

Lebron Peak: 140.788

Kareem '77
REG = ((27.8*PERLgAvg)+(0.608*TSLgAvg)+(0.283*WS48LgAvg )+(7.7*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=138.301
POS=((32.4*PERLgAvg)+(0.646*TSLgAvg)+(0.332*WS48LgAvg )+(11*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1.4)
=120.200

Kareem Peak: 129.250

------------------------------------------------------

7-years PRIME

Lebron James 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
REG = (AVERAGE(29.1,31.7,31.1,27.3,30.7,31.6,29.3)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.568,0.591,0.604,0.594,0.605,0.64,0.649)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.242,0.318,0.299,0.244,0.298,0.322,0.264)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(9,9.4,9.7,6.5,8.3,9.2,8)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(2.6,3.6,2.8,2.1,2.7,2.4,0.9)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=141.285

Lebron's PRIME SCORE: =141.285

Michael Jordan 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96
REG = (AVERAGE(31.7,31.1,31.2,31.6,27.7,29.7,29.4)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.603,0.614,0.606,0.605,0.579,0.564,0.582)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.308,0.292,0.285,0.321,0.274,0.27,0.317)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(9.8,9.8,9.7,8.9,6.9,8.3,7.2)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(2.3,2.7,0.8,1.8,1.7,1.2,1.4)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=138.267

Jordan PRIME SCORE: 138.267


Kareem Abdul Jabbar 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80
REG=(AVERAGE(29.9,28.5,24.4,27.2,27.8,25.5,25.3)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.603,0.58,0.564,0.567,0.608,0.612,0.639)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.34,0.322,0.25,0.242,0.283,0.219,0.227)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(OBPMLgAvg,OBPMLgAvg,4.9,6.2,7.7,3.9,4)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(DBPMLgAvg,DBPMLgAvg,3.6,4,3,3.9,2.7)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=130.075

Kareem PRIME SCORE: 130.075

Jordan's Peak + Jordan's Prime
= 152.517 + 138.267
=290.784

Lebron's Peak + Lebron's Prime
=140.788 + 141.285
=282.073

Kareem's Peak + Kareem's Prime
=129.250 + 130.075
=259.325

Why are LeBron 2015-2018 not considered his prime? Why would you favor a 7-year prime over 10-year prime?

Many people have Lebron's peak as 2016 or 2017, ignoring those years in a GOAT comparison is extremely flawed.

Why would you not include 10 years for Jordan? Jordan has 10 fantastic years, the best 10 year prime ever. Shortening your analysis to 7-years is doing a disservice to assessing these brilliant careers.

Our goal here is to evaluate the impact and their dominance within a set time frame. 5-years prime is too short, 10-years prime is too long as it will eliminate many players due to shortening careers because of injury. So a 7-yrs prime is the breakpoint of my evaluation for their impact on the game.

Typically I value 7-years Prime x Peak x Accolades x Longevity. Lebron's prime is already passing, although his decline is very slow. Right now he is playing to collect accolades and longevity value score, as opposed to proving his level of dominance.

I really like this methodology; I've been following basketball a long time, and Bill James stuff since his first few Abstracts. I think this is a real good formula for sorting things out - making overall RS = PS, and putting degree of difficulty on playoffs. Only thing I might add to what you have is a bonus for winning the championship, and a lesser one for making the finals.

Looking at the numbers, you have both LeBron and Kareem's prime higher than peak - which looks like it means by formula you have the wrong peak year - you should probably run the years, and use that to select the peak. I'm also surprised that 71, where Jabbar is mvp on dominant team isn't 1 of his 7 best years, I would have thought it would grade better than 77 or 79.

Again, real good stuff.

[PistolPeteJR]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

In 50s and early 60s yes but I would argue Wilt had better teammates from 66-69. But Celtics probably overperformed winning 3 titles in that range as well considering they were by thinnest of margins.

You could also convince me that even in late 50s and early 60s there were seasons where Baylor/West (whoever you think is better) and Pettit had as good supporting casts. Beating a team with 2 superstars in Baylor and West in 62 is not easy and after the HOF project I have gained respect for Rudy LaRusso as legit 3rd all star guy. Pettit's teammates when they had their rivalry with the Celtics looks pretty good to me. He has the 2nd star in Hagan, other HOF guys in Slater Martin and Ed Macauley wrapping it up but still being effective, and later Clyde Lovelette, also HOF. Not sure playing with Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn, etc. is much of a leg up there.

I absolutely don't want to belittle those guys, so thanks for that.
In addition, however, I would argue that Russell and those Celtics benefited from top-tier coaching in comparison to the competition (again, not belittling the competition's coaching). And yes, Russell does deserve credit for a being an incredible leader both on and off the court, including as a player-coach.

[PistolPeteJR]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

I don't see his supporting cast that way.

I think you're largely seeing a bunch of guys who are pretty good get extra shine because:

1. They won. Winning bias is a thing. Yes I understand that it's important to inspect our assessment of Bill Russell as well and I'm not going to say it isn't worth talking about, but in general guys who are on multiple championship teams have a cachet forever.

2. They put up points. Unlike most role players, they weren't asked to focus on defense and off ball skills, which gave them a way to be noticed.

3. They played at a fast pace, which further inflated their numbers and seems likely to have made many back then not realize that the offenses were not good. Everyone knew that the defense was the key, but they quite likely underestimated the extent to which this was true. I for one was quite skeptical until I saw data.

4. It was a small league. Think about the fact that the all-star game was happening back when there were only a handful of teams in each conference. If the Celtics were (somehow, just pretend for a sec) just as dominant today, they would not get as much accolade love as they did back then, and those accolades are a big deal in influencing perception of history going forward.

5. Russell played for a long time. He kept winning and kept having new scorers on his team leading weak offenses. And those guys kept being all-stars because, of course they would be in a small league.

6. At a certain point nostalgia drove HOF voters a little crazy and they started letting in basically any Celtic of any significance to the great Celtics run. I'm not even against this necessarily, but it's one of those things where that doesn't mean that if there are X guys in the Hall it must be the X best players who ever played the game.

There's also another factor that's more debatable though, and that is the fact that there was a star on his team who had great success on the team afterward (Havlicek) and there were two stars that had great success on his team before him (Cousy & Sharman).

That's certainly not nothing. Plus there's the matter that he played for a good coach who was able to find guys who really fit in with what the team was doing around Russell.

But I think it needs to be remembered how good the 76ers were after Wilt left and how good the Lakers were before Wilt got there. Wilt played with some fantastic players, and in '68-69 specifically played with a group that with his talent really should have wiped the floor with the entire league. And Oscar played with Kareem, and West played with Baylor and Wilt.

What I see in the Celtics is a team that basically figured out a cheat code based on Russell's defensive capabilities that could not exist to the same level of effectiveness today, and I think Russell & Red could have made things work with a good fraction of the players that were in the Association back in the day. Would they have won 11 titles? I mean, that was a bit lucky in our universe, so no, often they wouldn't be quite that dominant, but they'd be quite good.

I definitely appreciate the points you bring out and agree with the gist of them.
You bring out points that influence me the exact way I initially voiced, which is to rank Russell as a top-5 player, but not #1.

Winning definitely bolsters how we view players and teams from a historical standpoint, but there's also the other side of the equation, as you eloquently put it, where we cannot ignore how Russell and the Celtics benefited from excellent role players, front-office/coaching, fan nostalgia, league size, etc.

As it pertains to your point about Wilt, rest assured that it is not forgotten despite Wilt's gaudy numbers in comparison to Russell's. Oscar played with Kareem, yes, but it only lasted four seasons and Oscar was on the decline.

[PistolPeteJR]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

Russell's teams in 1965-69 were not outlier in terms of supporting cast at all. In some years, they were not even the best in the league talent-wise.

I hope that you use the same argument against Jordan.

I think it would be beneficial to compare the contenders in those years (ie. Wilt-led, Russell-led, etc...) because that will come in handy down the road in this project as well.

As for MJ, you'd best believe I do. While most concede MJ had great help, especially during the second three-peat, I still feel like the mythologizing and nostalgic feel of the 90s that people had for him has endured so long as to significantly but not completely belittle the tremendous supporting cast he had, particularly for the second three-peat.