#6 Highest Peak of All Time (Kareem '77 wins)

[Dr Positivity]

Vote 77 Kareem

Don't have time right now but will expand later. Almost the perfect basketball player putting up crazy playoff stats

[Josephpaul]

I'm changing my vote to
Kareem 77 his playoff run was amazing and played less games than lebron did and managed to almost put the same amount stats as lebron did.

35/ 18 when rounding up. Amazing.

[Josephpaul]

I'm voting for Kareem 71 hard believe he's not in the top 5 peak! .

[ushvinder88]

Duncan's competition was pathetic? Yeah beating kobe and shaq by himself is such a pathetic accomplishment, not to mention that dirk was there during the first 3 games of the series and he still dominated. The New Jersey Nets team were very strong defensively, just because they dont stand out on a piece of paper doesnt mean they werent a solid defensive core. But i forgot, accoriding to realgm, that lakers team was so 'washedup', the excuses here are whats pathetic.

I'm not going to say I'd have used the term 'pathetic' to describe the '03 competition, but the picture you paint is extremely misleading.

Re: Beating Kobe & Shaq. He didn't beat them when they were playing well together. Peak Shaq-Kobe Lakers beat the '01 Spurs by over 20 PPG in a sweep, and that '01 Spurs team was better than the '03 Spurs team by any reasonable metric. More obviously, Shaq & Kobe were in the middle of the most-mindblowing self-destruction we've probably ever seen, which was why they got split up. The vibe in '03 was that because the Lakers were vacating the title, an unworthy champion would be crowned.

On the Spurs side, no one was shocked at how good they were playing. No one was saying "They're even better than the Lakers.", they were saying "I can't believe that this team is probably going to win a title, how did Shaq & Kobe let it come to this?".

Re: Beating the Mavs. That's the thing to brag about. Not nearly as good as beating peak Lakers of course, but that Mavs team was good, and Duncan led an inferior supporting cast past them.

Re: Nets had a good defense. I love how that's the best thing you can say about the Eastern champ Duncan had to go through. Quite true, they were good on defense, and utterly mediocre on offense, and overall a team that wouldn't have beaten any of the Western Conference 2nd round teams.

Where's your criticism of magic? Your very open to offer a dismissal of duncan's accomplishments but it hurts you to criticize the people you grew up idolizing as a kid?

Magic in 87 basically played trash comp until the finals, then they met a battleworn celtics team. The celtics had to go through an elite pistons team, a very good bucks team and jordan, magic went through whom exactly? Teams with losing records. (P.S., lets not forget he had 3 all stars and a defensive player of the year helping him carry the load too, we'll ignore magic's flaws because he played in the 'golden era'.)

Duncan beat teams in the western conference that were actually favoured to defeat the spurs. When has magic beat a team in the west that were picked to beat the showtime lakers, hmmm yeah exactly. A big fish in a small pond= 80's western confernce.

[colts18]

against pathetic opposition though. Duncan didn't play one good man defender that postseason. look what happened year later when 40-year old Karl Malone was defending Duncan. this was pretty much the same player and failed miserably for an all timer. Duncan was a great player, but he didn't have enough talent to dominate against strong defenders. I can't imagine Duncan dominating vs Ewing/Robinson/Mourning/Karl Malone. Kareem could definitely do that.

Its amazing how you change your opinion based on the agenda. Look at these posts from just a few months ago:

enyon Martin was CLEARLY the best defensive player on those Nets.

Nets had elite defensive lineups without Kidd.

yeah it's pretty astonishing that someone would think Collins would get an NBA job if it wasn't for his size and defensive presence. why would you hire a guy like without any sort of offense if he wasn't making up for that with his defense ?

I think people have a wrong impression of Collins, he wasn't only a great man defender but he always drew charges, rotated well, played nice pnr D etc. the guy just didn't make a lot of mistakes and had a body in the right place.

it shows that Nets were ALWAYS playing great defense, regardless of Kidd's presence. Martin wasn't their defensive anchor in the traditional sense, the way KG or Ben Wallace were for their teams. but he was Nets best defender and he did make a big impact.

strictly playing defense as in making your man miss and helping on others so that they miss, Collins is your guy. he was doing some major impact on that end.

that's why you wanna use APM or RAPM where both Martin and Collins measure out as elite defensive players, both of whom rank among the best defenders in the league.

So what changed? First you say Martin and Collins are elite defenders and in Collins case an elite man defender, but now you say he didn't play one good man defender clearly contradicting your own words from a few short months ago?

[Doctor MJ]

Duncan's competition was pathetic? Yeah beating kobe and shaq by himself is such a pathetic accomplishment, not to mention that dirk was there during the first 3 games of the series and he still dominated. The New Jersey Nets team were very strong defensively, just because they dont stand out on a piece of paper doesnt mean they werent a solid defensive core. But i forgot, accoriding to realgm, that lakers team was so 'washedup', the excuses here are whats pathetic.

I'm not going to say I'd have used the term 'pathetic' to describe the '03 competition, but the picture you paint is extremely misleading.

Re: Beating Kobe & Shaq. He didn't beat them when they were playing well together. Peak Shaq-Kobe Lakers beat the '01 Spurs by over 20 PPG in a sweep, and that '01 Spurs team was better than the '03 Spurs team by any reasonable metric. More obviously, Shaq & Kobe were in the middle of the most-mindblowing self-destruction we've probably ever seen, which was why they got split up. The vibe in '03 was that because the Lakers were vacating the title, an unworthy champion would be crowned.

On the Spurs side, no one was shocked at how good they were playing. No one was saying "They're even better than the Lakers.", they were saying "I can't believe that this team is probably going to win a title, how did Shaq & Kobe let it come to this?".

Re: Beating the Mavs. That's the thing to brag about. Not nearly as good as beating peak Lakers of course, but that Mavs team was good, and Duncan led an inferior supporting cast past them.

Re: Nets had a good defense. I love how that's the best thing you can say about the Eastern champ Duncan had to go through. Quite true, they were good on defense, and utterly mediocre on offense, and overall a team that wouldn't have beaten any of the Western Conference 2nd round teams.

Where's your criticism of magic? Your very open to offer a dismissal of duncan's accomplishments but it hurts you to criticize the people you grew up idolizing as a kid?

Magic in 87 basically played trash comp until the finals, then they met a battleworn celtics team. The celtics had to go through an elite pistons team, a very good bucks team and jordan, magic went through whom exactly? Teams with losing records. (P.S., lets not forget he had 3 all stars and a defensive player of the year helping him carry the load too, we'll ignore magic's flaws because he played in the 'golden era'.)

Duncan beat teams in the western conference that were actually favoured to defeat the spurs. When has magic beat a team in the west that were picked to beat the showtime lakers, hmmm yeah exactly. A big fish in a small pond= 80's western confernce.

You need to focus on one thing at a time.

You made the post talking about how impressive the people Duncan beat were. It has to be within bounds for me to simply respond to that.

To make it more clear: I don't knock Duncan because he didn't beat better teams, but because of my sense of how good he was (and it's not like I knock him hard, standards in a GOAT debate are going to be ridiculous high). I would not have brought up Duncan to knock his competition, but when someone else says "Duncan must have been amazing, he beat Kobe & Shaq single-handedly", then it's my duty to put that person's claim in perspective.

Simlarly with Magic, I'm not going to be the one bringing up his competition most times, but if someone says something inaccurate, I will chime in for good or for ill. It just so happens that there's typically not people chiming on Magic saying extremely misleading things, at least in part because the best teams from that didn't self-destruct out of sheer ego.

[Doctor MJ]

vote: 1986 Larry Bird

I've posted a lot about Bird (and Magic) because I'm not sure in these projects if people really have a good grasp on him. (I know someone like fatal does.) I find him to be a fairly misunderstood player, I believe, because he was white and ran with short steps. As such, I find myself advocating for him in these projects, although I'm not sure if the information resonates with people because it's often left without response...

I have no idea whether people (outside Doc MJ) view Bird as a hair behind Magic on the all-time GOAT offensive list and as a basketball genius, super-portable offensive player. I've tried to make the argument for why I think that way. But then I feel people have concerns about the defense, and I realize holistically I've presented only some information. But look at when Magic and Bird were IN the lineup (using total team number for 4g missed or less):

1979 -4.78 2.95
1980 7.37 5.39
1981 6.05 4.79
1982 6.38 4.37
1983 5.34 5.06
1984 6.42 3.98
1985 6.47 6.86
1986 9.06 6.84
1987 6.88 8.32
1988 7.27 5.98
1989 1.26 6.84 (No Bird)
1990 2.94 6.74
1991 7.39 6.73

This is not to make the case to use such broad strokes when evaluating individuals (especially in the case of Bird and Magic), but I feel like people aren't aware the differences in team strength because they have been so conditioned to "Magic 5, Bird 3."

What you say is good for people to hear, however it also must be pointed out that if you went purely by RS SRS, you'd say that Bird's teams were clearly more successful than Magic's, when in fact Magic's teams were significantly more successful than Bird's. Thus, any SRS based measurement presumably needs to give some additional editorial boost to Magic.

Of course, with that said, as others have pointed out, Bird's teams played tougher competition in the Eastern playoffs, and that needs to be factored in how people see fit.

[drza]

I really don't get the whole "winnable" perspective on why LeBron's getting blamed for the upset lost. What exactly was LeBron supposed to do that he didn't do in that series?

I understand the argument of the super-LeBron-focused offense having a low ceiling, and for that you can use the loss to a not-that-impressive Magic team, but that's not the same argument as this one, and it's an argument that's been well discussed in these pages.

I also think it's just bizarre to argue against LeBron, playing with a supporting cast that would dropoff an insane amount without him, for not getting quite to the finals as part of arguing for Kareem when we saw Kareem teams do considerably worse in the middle of his prime. Obviously Kareem had weak supporting casts, but just as obviously Kareem wasn't having anywhere near the lift on those teams as LeBron was having in Cleveland in '09.

I'm jumping in here because I think this gets to the heart of several of the posts I've made about LeBron, and his comparisons to Duncan and Garnett, in this project. It ties into the concepts of "lift" (usually a +/- approach), "dominance" (usually a box scores approach) and now "portability", and "stylistic ceilings", and how each of us believes that a player's impact is affected by team circumstances.

I made the case in a previous post that Garnett ('04) and Duncan ('03) exhibited similar degrees of lift to LeBron ('09) over those seasons, for teams of similar caliber. Whether you agree with that stance or not, for the sake of argument pretend for the next few minutes that you do.

My follow-up argument then deals with the portability and stylistic ceiling issues. Because by every box score and eye test that we have, LeBron '09 performed in the playoffs to the maximum capacity of what we can expect from his type of player. He produced maximum volume scoring on maximum scoring efficiency, passed as well as a volume scoring wing could be expected to, rebounded as well as a wing could be expected to, produced maximum PER or Win Shares or Game Scores or whatever box score stat is your cup of tea. As you put it in your post, what else could LeBron have possibly done to win that series?

And the answer is, I don't think he COULD have done any more to win that series. But the follow-up question to that is...was there nothing more that LeBron could have done because the Magic were just too good to be defeated with a cast the caliber of the Cavs? Or was it that there was nothing else LeBron could have done, because of stylistic limitations to what a player like LeBron can provide?

See, to me the 2009 Magic weren't this juggernaut that no one could have beaten with a cast the caliber of the Cavs. But I think the LeBron-led '09 Cavs could have played that series against the Magic 10 times, and lost at least 8 times out of 10. Because I think the Magic were built to expose the subtle areas in which LeBron's stylistic weaknesses hurt him when compared to some of these other all-time greats. The '09 Cavs were built to take advantage of LeBron's awesome strengths, but to do so at their talent level (which is admittedly relatively low) they had to be built a certain way. The team concentrated the non-LeBron personnel into big interior players (Varejao, Ilgauskas, Ben Wallace) and shooters (Mo Williams, Delonte West, Wally Szczerbiak, Boobie Gibson, Sasha Pavlovic). They also had a couple of lesser PFs on the squad in Joe Smith and JJ Hickson. The Bigs beat up on opponents inside, helped them win the battle of the boards and maintain a strong defensive focus. The shooters just had to knock down shots that LeBron created for them.

And with this formula, the Cavs could beat up on 90% of the league. But they were essentially a gimmick team, because if an opponent was able to disrupt either of the two main support branches (the shooters or the bigs) the Cavs would immediately go from a 60+ win contender to an outgunned LeBron. The Magic weren't a juggernaut, but Howard's ability to maintain the post alone allowed them to play two big stretch-3/4 type forwards. This absolutely screwed the Cavs, because it meant that they couldn't play their usual 2 centers simultaneously because none of them could guard Lewis or Turkoglu. Joe Smith could sub in, but he wasn't big enough for the Cavs to maintain their usual strong defense and rebounding nor was he a good enough shooter to stretch the Magic. They couldn't stop the Magic defensively, so the strategy became to try to outscore them with another shooter on the court at all times. This maximized LeBron's scoring effectiveness, but in this style the Magic was just the better team. Much like the '07 Warriors were built to expose the weaknesses in the 67-win but somewhat gimmicky Mavs, the '09 Magic were the kryptonite to the Cavs.

But this is where I question LeBron's stylistic ceiling, because many of the other greats under consideration wouldn't have had to rely quite as much on the gimmicks to win with those Cavs. The dominant bigs under discussion would have been able to maintain the Cavs excellent defense and strong rebounding without the need for two centers on the court, which would have allowed the Cavs to deploy a more traditional approach against the Mavs and likely beat them because the talent differential on the two teams really wasn't high. Thus, as I argued a few threads back, I think with a similar caliber cast you'd have seen many of the super-elite bigs under consideration thus far (Hakeem, Garnett, Duncan, etc.) beat those Magic.

And importantly, moving beyond the specifics of the '09 Magic, I don't think you COULD formulate a team of the caliber of the '09 Magic but built however you like, that would just own a team of the caliber of the '09 Cavs but led by Duncan or Garnett. Again, stylistically, the big men's ability to impact the game in SO many ways with and without the ball would make their teams more adaptable even with similar caliber teammates.

Which brings me back to the point where I left off above, and I tell you that you no longer have to pretend that you believe that Duncan '03 and Garnett '04 lifted their teams to a similar degree that LeBron did to the '09 Cavs. If you truly believe that LeBron lifted his squad to a level they couldn't match, then perhaps you still vote for him. But for me, I don't believe that. I believe that both Garnett and Duncan lead a cast like that '09 Cavs to a top-3 seed in the East...as I said before, maybe they don't win 66 games, but they're a contender. And in the postseason, maybe Duncan and KG don't match LeBron '09 in box score dominance...but with the big men in place I think the team is just as strong, and better equipped to make a legitimate run at a title because the squad can be strong in the areas that a title team needs to without it being a gimmick.

LeBron in '09 may have been as good as it is possible for a player of his type to be. But I question whether his type of player can be as good as the best of a dominant big man. I think both Garnett and Duncan are great enough as Bigs to just be more inherently valuable on championship-level teams than LeBron at his best. They have more portability, no ceiling on their impact, and when comparing the best-of-the-best I think this puts both of their peaks higher than LeBron's.

[colts18]

I'm jumping in here because I think this gets to the heart of several of the posts I've made about LeBron, and his comparisons to Duncan and Garnett, in this project. It ties into the concepts of "lift" (usually a +/- approach), "dominance" (usually a box scores approach) and now "portability", and "stylistic ceilings", and how each of us believes that a player's impact is affected by team circumstances.

I made the case in a previous post that Garnett ('04) and Duncan ('03) exhibited similar degrees of lift to LeBron ('09) over those seasons, for teams of similar caliber. Whether you agree with that stance or not, for the sake of argument pretend for the next few minutes that you do.

My follow-up argument then deals with the portability and stylistic ceiling issues. Because by every box score and eye test that we have, LeBron '09 performed in the playoffs to the maximum capacity of what we can expect from his type of player. He produced maximum volume scoring on maximum scoring efficiency, passed as well as a volume scoring wing could be expected to, rebounded as well as a wing could be expected to, produced maximum PER or Win Shares or Game Scores or whatever box score stat is your cup of tea. As you put it in your post, what else could LeBron have possibly done to win that series?

And the answer is, I don't think he COULD have done any more to win that series. But the follow-up question to that is...was there nothing more that LeBron could have done because the Magic were just too good to be defeated with a cast the caliber of the Cavs? Or was it that there was nothing else LeBron could have done, because of stylistic limitations to what a player like LeBron can provide?

See, to me the 2009 Magic weren't this juggernaut that no one could have beaten with a cast the caliber of the Cavs. But I think the LeBron-led '09 Cavs could have played that series against the Magic 10 times, and lost at least 8 times out of 10. Because I think the Magic were built to expose the subtle areas in which LeBron's stylistic weaknesses hurt him when compared to some of these other all-time greats. The '09 Cavs were built to take advantage of LeBron's awesome strengths, but to do so at their talent level (which is admittedly relatively low) they had to be built a certain way. The team concentrated the non-LeBron personnel into big interior players (Varejao, Ilgauskas, Ben Wallace) and shooters (Mo Williams, Delonte West, Wally Szczerbiak, Boobie Gibson, Sasha Pavlovic). They also had a couple of lesser PFs on the squad in Joe Smith and JJ Hickson. The Bigs beat up on opponents inside, helped them win the battle of the boards and maintain a strong defensive focus. The shooters just had to knock down shots that LeBron created for them.

And with this formula, the Cavs could beat up on 90% of the league. But they were essentially a gimmick team, because if an opponent was able to disrupt either of the two main support branches (the shooters or the bigs) the Cavs would immediately go from a 60+ win contender to an outgunned LeBron. The Magic weren't a juggernaut, but Howard's ability to maintain the post alone allowed them to play two big stretch-3/4 type forwards. This absolutely screwed the Cavs, because it meant that they couldn't play their usual 2 centers simultaneously because none of them could guard Lewis or Turkoglu. Joe Smith could sub in, but he wasn't big enough for the Cavs to maintain their usual strong defense and rebounding nor was he a good enough shooter to stretch the Magic. They couldn't stop the Magic defensively, so the strategy became to try to outscore them with another shooter on the court at all times. This maximized LeBron's scoring effectiveness, but in this style the Magic was just the better team. Much like the '07 Warriors were built to expose the weaknesses in the 67-win but somewhat gimmicky Mavs, the '09 Magic were the kryptonite to the Cavs.

But this is where I question LeBron's stylistic ceiling, because many of the other greats under consideration wouldn't have had to rely quite as much on the gimmicks to win with those Cavs. The dominant bigs under discussion would have been able to maintain the Cavs excellent defense and strong rebounding without the need for two centers on the court, which would have allowed the Cavs to deploy a more traditional approach against the Mavs and likely beat them because the talent differential on the two teams really wasn't high. Thus, as I argued a few threads back, I think with a similar caliber cast you'd have seen many of the super-elite bigs under consideration thus far (Hakeem, Garnett, Duncan, etc.) beat those Magic.

And importantly, moving beyond the specifics of the '09 Magic, I don't think you COULD formulate a team of the caliber of the '09 Magic but built however you like, that would just own a team of the caliber of the '09 Cavs but led by Duncan or Garnett. Again, stylistically, the big men's ability to impact the game in SO many ways with and without the ball would make their teams more adaptable even with similar caliber teammates.

Which brings me back to the point where I left off above, and I tell you that you no longer have to pretend that you believe that Duncan '03 and Garnett '04 lifted their teams to a similar degree that LeBron did to the '09 Cavs. If you truly believe that LeBron lifted his squad to a level they couldn't match, then perhaps you still vote for him. But for me, I don't believe that. I believe that both Garnett and Duncan lead a cast like that '09 Cavs to a top-3 seed in the East...as I said before, maybe they don't win 66 games, but they're a contender. And in the postseason, maybe Duncan and KG don't match LeBron '09 in box score dominance...but with the big men in place I think the team is just as strong, and better equipped to make a legitimate run at a title because the squad can be strong in the areas that a title team needs to without it being a gimmick.

LeBron in '09 may have been as good as it is possible for a player of his type to be. But I question whether his type of player can be as good as the best of a dominant big man. I think both Garnett and Duncan are great enough as Bigs to just be more inherently valuable on championship-level teams than LeBron at his best. They have more portability, no ceiling on their impact, and when comparing the best-of-the-best I think this puts both of their peaks higher than LeBron's.

I disagree with this because LeBron was on another level from Duncan/KG in offensive production. I doubt KG/Duncan could create enough offense to make the 09 Cavs an elite offense and play amazing defense at the same time. With Duncan/KG, the Cavs still can't guard the bigger Orlando perimeter players. It becomes an even bigger mismatch because the guy who LeBron guarded is now being guarded by Wally or JJ hickson, 2 of the worst defensive players in the league. Duncan/KG can contain Howard, but the Orlando Perimeter offense is too much for Cleveland to handle. Mo, West, Wally, Varejao is very undersized and the only big guy (Varejao) would have trouble guarding Lewis out in the perimeter.

When exactly has KG shown he could lift a mediocre cast to that kind of heights? He never did it in Minnesota so why would you expect him to do it with a 09 Cavs-like cast?

[drza]

LeBron in '09 may have been as good as it is possible for a player of his type to be. But I question whether his type of player can be as good as the best of a dominant big man. I think both Garnett and Duncan are great enough as Bigs to just be more inherently valuable on championship-level teams than LeBron at his best. They have more portability, no ceiling on their impact, and when comparing the best-of-the-best I think this puts both of their peaks higher than LeBron's.

I disagree with this because LeBron was on another level from Duncan/KG in offensive production. I doubt KG/Duncan could create enough offense to make the 09 Cavs an elite offense and play amazing defense at the same time. With Duncan/KG, the Cavs still can't guard the bigger Orlando perimeter players. It becomes an even bigger mismatch because the guy who LeBron guarded is now being guarded by Wally or JJ hickson, 2 of the worst defensive players in the league. Duncan/KG can contain Howard, but the Orlando Perimeter offense is too much for Cleveland to handle. Mo, West, Wally, Varejao is very undersized and the only big guy (Varejao) would have trouble guarding Lewis out in the perimeter.

When exactly has KG shown he could lift a mediocre cast to that kind of heights? He never did it in Minnesota so why would you expect him to do it with a 09 Cavs-like cast?

From the #3 thread...

Let's play the thought experiment through.

The '09 Cavs started Mo Williams, Delonte West, LeBron, Ilgauskas, and another defensive big (Varejao/old Wallace).

The '03 Spurs started young Parker, Stephen Jackson, Bowen, Duncan, and another defensive big (old Robinson)

Offensively, are the potentials for those units really that different? In fact, couldn't you argue that the backcourt of Mo/West was just as offensively talented in '09 as Parker/Jackson was in '03? If you swapped out LeBron and Ilgauskas for Duncan and Bowen, wouldn't you expect the offense of Mo/West/Bowen/Duncan/Varejao to produce on a similar level to the 2003 Spurs' offense? And wouldn't the new Cavs' defense also look a lot like the '03 Spurs' defense? Duncan would be drawing defensive attention in '09 just like he did in '03, opening up space with his post-up game for Mo and West to operate. The '03 Spurs won "only" 60 games instead of 66, but I don't see any way the Duncan-Cavs win only 48 - 50 games...I'd be interested in hearing your logic for that.

Similarly, if you swapped out LeBron/Ilgauskas for KG and 27 minutes of 2005 Wally...wouldn't the new Cavs' offense look a lot like the '03/'05 Wolves? Again, Mo Williams/Delonte is an offensive upgrade from Hudson/Peeler in '03 or Hudson/Spree in '05, and peak KG led those offenses to top-5 in the NBA caliber. KG would run the heck out of the pick-and-roll/pop with Mo, just as he did with Hudson, and from his office in the high-post/elbow he could set up easy shots for Wally/Delonte or dive-downs for Varejao just as he always did with Wally/Peeler or (later) Perkins. Then, on defense, a frontline of KG/Varejao with Delonte as the best perimeter defender compares favorably with the '08 frontline of KG/Perkins with young Rondo as the best perimeter defender. The '03 Wolves with a similar offense but no defensive support finished with 51 wins, and of course the '08 Celtics with a similar defense but better offensive pieces finished with 66 wins. I don't see how the KG Cavs aren't at least in the upper 50s, battling for an upper seed.

You could play out the same scenario with Hakeem (who proved he could win a title at his peak with solid role players like the Cavs had) or Kareem (whose scoring/passing ability should have allowed him to be an offensive hub to lead those players as well) or Wilt or whoever. I just don't see any way those bigs at their peaks are leading that Cavs team to only 48 - 50 wins. LeBron was doing huge heavy lifting with that team, but there were solid role players on that team that could have been useful to other super-duper-stars just like they were for LeBron.

[ElGee]

Doc, I agree 100%. And I do that for LeBron as well (and the 09 Cavs). If they won 57 games, would people still view that season the same way?

BTW, after watching the Olympics, I've gone from about 55% sure 2012 LeBron was better than 09 to about 75% sure, mostly because of the points about LeBron playing more like Magic. There's so much talk about the half-step he's lost on offense off the dribble, but that seems to be cancelled out with his increased strength and post game. His decision-making is similar, if not better now. I feel like if LeBron's jumper left him in the past his play could fall off a good amount, but this year he didn't seem to have it in the PS and it didn't matter because of the increased versatility in his game.

And on top of that, I think he's become a better defender.

[colts18]

LeBron in '09 may have been as good as it is possible for a player of his type to be. But I question whether his type of player can be as good as the best of a dominant big man. I think both Garnett and Duncan are great enough as Bigs to just be more inherently valuable on championship-level teams than LeBron at his best. They have more portability, no ceiling on their impact, and when comparing the best-of-the-best I think this puts both of their peaks higher than LeBron's.

I disagree with this because LeBron was on another level from Duncan/KG in offensive production. I doubt KG/Duncan could create enough offense to make the 09 Cavs an elite offense and play amazing defense at the same time. With Duncan/KG, the Cavs still can't guard the bigger Orlando perimeter players. It becomes an even bigger mismatch because the guy who LeBron guarded is now being guarded by Wally or JJ hickson, 2 of the worst defensive players in the league. Duncan/KG can contain Howard, but the Orlando Perimeter offense is too much for Cleveland to handle. Mo, West, Wally, Varejao is very undersized and the only big guy (Varejao) would have trouble guarding Lewis out in the perimeter.

When exactly has KG shown he could lift a mediocre cast to that kind of heights? He never did it in Minnesota so why would you expect him to do it with a 09 Cavs-like cast?

From the #3 thread...

Let's play the thought experiment through.

The '09 Cavs started Mo Williams, Delonte West, LeBron, Ilgauskas, and another defensive big (Varejao/old Wallace).

The '03 Spurs started young Parker, Stephen Jackson, Bowen, Duncan, and another defensive big (old Robinson)

Offensively, are the potentials for those units really that different? In fact, couldn't you argue that the backcourt of Mo/West was just as offensively talented in '09 as Parker/Jackson was in '03? If you swapped out LeBron and Ilgauskas for Duncan and Bowen, wouldn't you expect the offense of Mo/West/Bowen/Duncan/Varejao to produce on a similar level to the 2003 Spurs' offense? And wouldn't the new Cavs' defense also look a lot like the '03 Spurs' defense? Duncan would be drawing defensive attention in '09 just like he did in '03, opening up space with his post-up game for Mo and West to operate. The '03 Spurs won "only" 60 games instead of 66, but I don't see any way the Duncan-Cavs win only 48 - 50 games...I'd be interested in hearing your logic for that.

Similarly, if you swapped out LeBron/Ilgauskas for KG and 27 minutes of 2005 Wally...wouldn't the new Cavs' offense look a lot like the '03/'05 Wolves? Again, Mo Williams/Delonte is an offensive upgrade from Hudson/Peeler in '03 or Hudson/Spree in '05, and peak KG led those offenses to top-5 in the NBA caliber. KG would run the heck out of the pick-and-roll/pop with Mo, just as he did with Hudson, and from his office in the high-post/elbow he could set up easy shots for Wally/Delonte or dive-downs for Varejao just as he always did with Wally/Peeler or (later) Perkins. Then, on defense, a frontline of KG/Varejao with Delonte as the best perimeter defender compares favorably with the '08 frontline of KG/Perkins with young Rondo as the best perimeter defender. The '03 Wolves with a similar offense but no defensive support finished with 51 wins, and of course the '08 Celtics with a similar defense but better offensive pieces finished with 66 wins. I don't see how the KG Cavs aren't at least in the upper 50s, battling for an upper seed.

You could play out the same scenario with Hakeem (who proved he could win a title at his peak with solid role players like the Cavs had) or Kareem (whose scoring/passing ability should have allowed him to be an offensive hub to lead those players as well) or Wilt or whoever. I just don't see any way those bigs at their peaks are leading that Cavs team to only 48 - 50 wins. LeBron was doing huge heavy lifting with that team, but there were solid role players on that team that could have been useful to other super-duper-stars just like they were for LeBron.

In 2002, KG had a similar cast yet was swept out the playoffs.

02 Wally and Joe Smith are significantly better than the 09 versions that played minutes for the 09 Cavs. 02 Rasho was on the same level of 09 Ilgauskas. 02 Billups played much better in the playoffs than 09 Mo Williams. Peeler and West are both defensive guys and their per 36 numbers are pretty close. I don't see how the 09 Cavs are that much better than the 02 Wolves cast.

[ElGee]

To elaborate on drza's really good posts, aren't people putting too much emphasis on the 66-win total? Really, ask yourself if they won 57 and lost in the CF if you would be as enamored with the season.

Because which team is better, the 8 SRS RS team that doesn't match up well with contenders?
Or the 4 SRS RS team that matches up well with all the contenders bc they can't impact their strengths as much?

I'm deliberately not saying "Hakeem's team won" and "LeBron's only made it 2 rounds" because it's flawed thinking to ignore variance in a 7-game series. Obviously, LeBron's Cavs COULD have won back-to-back titles. I guess what I'm saying is, if we evaluate the overall strength of a team in term's of championship odds, which is better?

Team A RS 4 SRS. Title Odds of 25%
Team B RS 8 SRS. Title Odds of 20%

Isn't the answer obviously the second, despite the fact that it's possible for Team A to have something like 48-50 wins and Team B to post 66 wins?

EDIT: To really drive this home, look at two theoretical teams having to face two championship-level teams (CF and FInals) to win a title. This is fairly typical in a given year. Let's also assume that one of the teams is amazing against everyone else and one of the teams is marginal against everyone else.

Team A: +10 1st Rnd, +10 2nd Rnd, +1 3rd Rnd, -4 4th Rnd
Team B: +5 1st Rnd, +5 2nd Rnd, +3 3rd Rnd, +2 4th Rnd

If those were the "true" MOV differences between the teams when they met, do you know which team would have a higher likelihood of winning a title (both w HCA)?

Team A 12.5%
Team B 42.7%

Yes, the difference is that large. If we strip HCA for the final 2 rounds from our weaker team (more realistic), the odds change to

Team A 12.5%
Team B 37.8%

In other words, having the VERSATILITY to matchup with your opponents is way way better than bottom-feeding. It should be noted MANY good teams do not have notable MOV's against other really good teams, BUT if there is a team or two our there that CAN match up incredibly well with you, seeing them will significantly decrease your odds of winning the title.

I'm not saying you have to view the Cavs in this exact way, but when you evaluate the strength of teams and are considering matchup vulnerability, you should understand what's at stake probabilistically.

[colts18]

To elaborate on drza's really good posts, aren't people putting too much emphasis on the 66-win total? Really, ask yourself if they won 57 and lost in the CF if you would be as enamored with the season.

Because which team is better, the 8 SRS RS team that doesn't match up well with contenders?
Or the 4 SRS RS team that matches up well with all the contenders bc they can't impact their strengths as much?

I'm deliberately not saying "Hakeem's team won" and "LeBron's only made it 2 rounds" because it's flawed thinking to ignore variance in a 7-game series. Obviously, LeBron's Cavs COULD have won back-to-back titles. I guess what I'm saying is, if we evaluate the overall strength of a team in term's of championship odds, which is better?

Team A RS 4 SRS. Title Odds of 25%
Team B RS 8 SRS. Title Odds of 20%

Isn't the answer obviously the second, despite the fact that it's possible for Team A to have something like 48-50 wins and Team B to post 66 wins?

So why don't you just say the regular season is meaningless in determining the best peaks? Whats the difference between a player who averages 20 PPG and 30 PPG in the regular season if all other things are equal?

It's a huge difference. 66 wins gets HCA throughout the playoffs. 57 wins doesn't and in some years gets you the #3 or #4 seed. Thats pretty big difference and putting your team behind the 8 ball.

[toodles23]

Doc, I agree 100%. And I do that for LeBron as well (and the 09 Cavs). If they won 57 games, would people still view that season the same way?

BTW, after watching the Olympics, I've gone from about 55% sure 2012 LeBron was better than 09 to about 75% sure, mostly because of the points about LeBron playing more like Magic. There's so much talk about the half-step he's lost on offense off the dribble, but that seems to be cancelled out with his increased strength and post game. His decision-making is similar, if not better now. I feel like if LeBron's jumper left him in the past his play could fall off a good amount, but this year he didn't seem to have it in the PS and it didn't matter because of the increased versatility in his game.

And on top of that, I think he's become a better defender.

Lebron has looked a lot different in the Olympics than he did during the '12 season though. I don't know what it is, but he's CLEARLY been more athletic in these Olympics than he's been the past 2 years - he's been doing things athletically that I haven't seen him do since Cleveland, like taking off for a dunk with his foot outside the paint (never did this on the Heat, did it early in the Olympics), or that filthy and-1 dunk in the second half today. The increased acceleration and explosiveness has been extremely noticeable, I haven't seen him look this bouncy and take his man off the dribble this consistently since his Cleveland days. I'm not the only person to have noticed this, other posters have independently noted the same thing.

If you made a list of his 10 most athletic plays since the Decision, at least 5 of them are from the Olympics.

[colts18]

To elaborate on drza's really good posts, aren't people putting too much emphasis on the 66-win total? Really, ask yourself if they won 57 and lost in the CF if you would be as enamored with the season.

Because which team is better, the 8 SRS RS team that doesn't match up well with contenders?
Or the 4 SRS RS team that matches up well with all the contenders bc they can't impact their strengths as much?

I'm deliberately not saying "Hakeem's team won" and "LeBron's only made it 2 rounds" because it's flawed thinking to ignore variance in a 7-game series. Obviously, LeBron's Cavs COULD have won back-to-back titles. I guess what I'm saying is, if we evaluate the overall strength of a team in term's of championship odds, which is better?

Team A RS 4 SRS. Title Odds of 25%
Team B RS 8 SRS. Title Odds of 20%

Isn't the answer obviously the second, despite the fact that it's possible for Team A to have something like 48-50 wins and Team B to post 66 wins?

You realize how big the gap between 66 and 57 wins is? 8 out of the 14 teams with a SRS between 8 and 9 won a title and 2 of those losers faced 8+ SRS teams in the playoffs.

The only teams with 65 or more wins to not win a title were the 09 Cavs and 07 Mavs, the other teams all won a title. 13 out of 15. 13 out 62 teams between 56-58 wins won a title. Thats a huge gap.

[GrangerDanger]

To elaborate on drza's really good posts, aren't people putting too much emphasis on the 66-win total? Really, ask yourself if they won 57 and lost in the CF if you would be as enamored with the season.

Because which team is better, the 8 SRS RS team that doesn't match up well with contenders?
Or the 4 SRS RS team that matches up well with all the contenders bc they can't impact their strengths as much?

I'm deliberately not saying "Hakeem's team won" and "LeBron's only made it 2 rounds" because it's flawed thinking to ignore variance in a 7-game series. Obviously, LeBron's Cavs COULD have won back-to-back titles. I guess what I'm saying is, if we evaluate the overall strength of a team in term's of championship odds, which is better?

Team A RS 4 SRS. Title Odds of 25%
Team B RS 8 SRS. Title Odds of 20%

Isn't the answer obviously the second, despite the fact that it's possible for Team A to have something like 48-50 wins and Team B to post 66 wins?

You realize how big the gap between 66 and 57 wins is? 8 out of the 14 teams with a SRS between 8 and 9 won a title and 2 of those losers faced 8+ SRS teams in the playoffs.

The only teams with 65 or more wins to not win a title were the 09 Cavs and 07 Mavs, the other teams all won a title. 13 out of 15. 13 out 62 teams between 56-58 wins won a title. Thats a huge gap.

Don't forget the 73 Celtics, who also fall into that category.

[colts18]

To elaborate on drza's really good posts, aren't people putting too much emphasis on the 66-win total? Really, ask yourself if they won 57 and lost in the CF if you would be as enamored with the season.

Because which team is better, the 8 SRS RS team that doesn't match up well with contenders?
Or the 4 SRS RS team that matches up well with all the contenders bc they can't impact their strengths as much?

I'm deliberately not saying "Hakeem's team won" and "LeBron's only made it 2 rounds" because it's flawed thinking to ignore variance in a 7-game series. Obviously, LeBron's Cavs COULD have won back-to-back titles. I guess what I'm saying is, if we evaluate the overall strength of a team in term's of championship odds, which is better?

Team A RS 4 SRS. Title Odds of 25%
Team B RS 8 SRS. Title Odds of 20%

Isn't the answer obviously the second, despite the fact that it's possible for Team A to have something like 48-50 wins and Team B to post 66 wins?

You realize how big the gap between 66 and 57 wins is? 8 out of the 14 teams with a SRS between 8 and 9 won a title and 2 of those losers faced 8+ SRS teams in the playoffs.

The only teams with 65 or more wins to not win a title were the 09 Cavs and 07 Mavs, the other teams all won a title. 13 out of 15. 13 out 62 teams between 56-58 wins won a title. Thats a huge gap.

Don't forget the 73 Celtics, who also fall into that category.

yeah you're right. I forgot they lost to the Knicks. SO thats 12 out of 15.

[ElGee]

To elaborate on drza's really good posts, aren't people putting too much emphasis on the 66-win total? Really, ask yourself if they won 57 and lost in the CF if you would be as enamored with the season.

Because which team is better, the 8 SRS RS team that doesn't match up well with contenders?
Or the 4 SRS RS team that matches up well with all the contenders bc they can't impact their strengths as much?

I'm deliberately not saying "Hakeem's team won" and "LeBron's only made it 2 rounds" because it's flawed thinking to ignore variance in a 7-game series. Obviously, LeBron's Cavs COULD have won back-to-back titles. I guess what I'm saying is, if we evaluate the overall strength of a team in term's of championship odds, which is better?

Team A RS 4 SRS. Title Odds of 25%
Team B RS 8 SRS. Title Odds of 20%

Isn't the answer obviously the second, despite the fact that it's possible for Team A to have something like 48-50 wins and Team B to post 66 wins?

So why don't you just say the regular season is meaningless in determining the best peaks? Whats the difference between a player who averages 20 PPG and 30 PPG in the regular season if all other things are equal?

It's a huge difference. 66 wins gets HCA throughout the playoffs. 57 wins doesn't and in some years gets you the #3 or #4 seed. Thats pretty big difference and putting your team behind the 8 ball.

You need to view the edit in the post above because you aren't understanding the difference between HCA and no HCA. You aren't even really understanding maybe ANYTHING I've ever posted if you're concluding we should throw away the RS. (Unless you are just deliberately being contrarian.)

When we go to predict the PS, SRS is a great indicator of team strength. I've also been an advocate of lineup data for specific causal reasons, and because lineup data + other information seems to get you pretty darn good accuracy. But the purpose there is to figure out how different teams will matchup against each other (we can look at RS matchup history as well).

When we say an "8 SRS team" has a 43% chance of winning a title, we are making the assumption that they play like an 8 SRS team all the time. While this helps us understand title odds and SRS-shifts in theory, this isn't how a PS plays out of course because there are steady teams and there are high-variance teams and matchups matter.

An 8 SRS team might play a 0 SRS team. They are +8 relative to their opponent and if they play +8, are expected to win 97% of the time.

But what if they don't play +8 relative to this opponent? What if the opponent gives them fits and matches up well and they are only +2? Suddenly, they are only expected to beat such a team 67% of the time. This is exactly what happened with Golden State and Dallas in 2007, for example.

Part of understanding a team's strength is using all the data to determine their strength...and their versatility in matchups is part of that. You don't "throw out" anything, but in the path to a title, teams vulnerable to matchups versus those who aren't will have very different results.

[therealbig3]

The overall teams Duncan faced in the 03 playoffs weren't very good, but the overall defense was. The Nets defense especially had excellent defensive players to throw at Duncan (I consider both Martin and Collins elite, A. Williams was above average, and Mutombo was Mutombo), and they had excellent perimeter defenders who could double down and help (most notably Kidd, but Jefferson and Kittles were quite good too). Overall, they were an excellent defense, and Duncan still destroyed them.

It's just flat out lying to say that Duncan never went up against a good post defender that year, or that Duncan has never raised his level of play against good post defenders. Shaq guarded him for part of the 03 series (Shaq was an excellent post defender), and Duncan still scored. Duncan destroyed the Nets front line. He also destroyed the Lakers front line in 02.

Bringing up Duncan's poor play in 04 against K. Malone and calling it "just a year later" is disingenuous, because Duncan was injured and he was never physically the same after his 03 peak. I don't think all those "great" man defenders would have had nearly the same success against 02 or 03 Duncan.