Let's check the tape:

Let's loosely re-write this sentence:

I gave you a sample size of 11 good defenses that game planned against LeBron's play style and lost.

You made one monumental stupid argument and got busted wide open.

Candybar,
Just so I’m clear on this: you’re saying Jordan averaging 41 ppg over the course of a finals series on two time all defensive player Dan Majerle, leading to three peat number one (of two) is a trash accomplishment, but LeBron James beating the Jeff Teague led 2015 Hawks is further evidence of his GOATness?

Could you quote that post for me that you made saying Jordan fans were biased and always interpreting his accomplishments in an irrational way? I’m p0sting from my phone and don’t feel like digging it up, but I think it would be hilarious right now to see that juxtaposed with your candyposting.

TienTien,
Are you saying that you actually don’t understand I meant on average there? And that I’m not saying LeBron James always loses to teams with highly ranked defenses?

Weren’t you the one condescendingly asking people if English was their first language earlier? Do I need to write my arguments in binary code so your autism can interpret? Here you go:

111011100000111001001000

No Tien the top ranked defense doesn’t win every time. They have to play offense too lololol wtf I can’t believe I had to explain that to you.

English please.

1001110000111010

That’s autism speak for “you won’t understand the argument anyway so you’re going to interpret it out of context because you’re triggered I made you look like an idiot for the 463rd time in this thread”.

No that sequence of zeroes and ones doesn’t actually translate to that before you go to your computer dictionary to check just so you can pretend you came out ahead in one of these exchanges.

This is a bizarre statement - Lebron's offenses have been extremely resilient in the playoffs. So now that we've established Lebron's offenses have been far better than MJ's offenses at scoring efficiency relative to the league in the regular season, let's look at the difference between the regular season and the playoffs TS%.

Change in Team TS% in the playoffs, MJ / Lebron
Age 24: -.037, -.004
Age 25: -.005, -.002
Age 26: -.021, -.031
Age 27: +.009, +.003
Age 28: -.009, -.029
Age 29: +.012, +.004
Age 30: +.012, -.033 (MJ did not play)
Age 31: -.005, +.015 (MJ played 17/82 RS games)
Age 32: -.026, +.034
Age 33: -.035, -.034
Age 34: +.007, DNP
Age 35: DNP, +.022

Average: -.012, -.008

So Lebron's offenses are better in the regular season and see a smaller drop in efficiency in the playoffs. Also, the Bulls with Phil Jackson led by Scottie Pippen saw an increase in scoring efficiency in the playoffs in the lone season, which matched the best mark MJ's offenses put up. Meanwhile, the following year, the Bulls had a decreased scoring efficiency in the playoffs relative to the regular season, despite not having MJ for most of the regular season, but having him for the playoff run.

11 good defensive teams game planned against LeBron and lost. But Matt R. promised them that if they were just good defensively they would beat LeBron.


Someone in this thread explained what I am doing to you the best"


"You’re triggered I made you look like an idiot for the 463rd time in this thread."

Anymore astute observations?

You are upset because you believe yourself to be knowledgeable about this subject and that isn't the case.


Peak Matt R. reasoning ability:

Imagine walking into a NBA coaching meeting and saying something like this. Even the biggest LeBron hating coach would throw you out for being as you call it: buffoon!

I read this post a couple times because I thought i must be misunderstanding it. It was actually MJ who was the more ball dominant scorer than LeBron. LeBron is more of a facilitator and a significantly better passer than MJ. He has a 35% career playoff AST% to MJ’s 28% and even has a lower USG with a career 32.1% to MJ’s 35.6%.

Speaking more broadly, I don’t know what you mean in second paragraph. LeBron is obviously a huge issue for opposing defenses, just as MJ was. In fact, since he’s bigger and more of a transition threat, and a significantly better passer, his presence causes a more complex issue than Jordan. The issue with Jordan is you couldn’t really guard him as his skill set was perfect for that era and the athletes were way worse. Of course then we get into the discussion of hand checking, illegal defenses, etc and it becomes a more nuanced thing. One thing that isn’t nuanced is LeBron’s offensive prowess - he instantly turns any group of scrubs/role players into an efficient offense. He does this in a different way than MJ but if you look at the numbers it’s true.

LeBron really doesn’t lose any more than one would expect. Again, the only playoff series he’s really lost where you could pin it as “his fault” is the 2011 Finals...he’s lost other series yes, but those were mostly to insane superteams or early in his career where he mostly played really well, similar to MJ losing to the Pistons or the Magic in ‘95.

The reason MJ 3 peat twice was due to a number of factors all being a perfect storm:

-MJ being the best player in the NBA by a lot
-Expansion era diluting talent
-GOAT head coach
-very good supporting cast catered to his skill set
-taking off 2 years between (pretty helpful for a guy with that much mileage)

And honestly, he still had positive variance to win, just like anyone else that wins that many without losing. This isn’t saying he wasn’t insanely elite or not clutch but odds are you lose one of those. That’s just not how I measure players. For instance, if he somehow lost to the Sonics in 7 games in 1996, I really wouldn’t think much less of MJ as a player. Ultimately his resume is still really similar so it doesn’t matter than much to me. That’s subjective so maybe some people feel differently like with LeBron in the 2011 Finals but I suspect they are really just inventing that one (one loss/choke invalidating everything) because of their hatred for him.

Tien,
Remember when I was trying to explain division and averages to you? You keep thinking in terms of absolute numbers (like 11. That’s more than the number of fingers you’ve got Tien, nice work!), but you can also divide numbers to get rates.

Yes LeBron played against good defenses 11 times and won. You can now divide by the total number of times he played good defenses to get a win%. Compare that to Jordan’s win % in the playoffs. The guy with the superior play style will likely be higher.

This is the point I was making, of course. Do you actually need me to explain division to you or are you just nitpicking over wording to troll?

Sorry, but I really can’t believe you watched peak Jordan when they were playing in the triangle offense and 3 peated twice. That was literally the point of the entire offense - Jordan was playing off the ball way more, yet somehow still led the league in scoring every year. Of course he could still score with the ball too which is why he’s the GOAT scorer (coupled with his all time elite defense makes him the GOAT overall).

Yes LeBron gets more assists but that’s not what ball dominance means. The offense has to flow through him and it slows things down bc he holds on to the ball longer than optimal and that is exploitable by elite defenses. It’s why the other players on his team have low assist totals.

Of course LeBron causes huge issues for the defense too. So did Wilt Chamberlain. That does not imply his huge numbers or dominant offensive skills are the optimal play style to generate wins.

You mean the guy MJ called out as not being a good defender? He's like the Patrick Beverley of the 90's unathletic white wings. He's a random high-effort dude with decent size (relative to the era), not a good defender. He wouldn't even be as good as Joe Ingles defensively in today's game, let alone actual high-end defenders. Dan Majerle being an all-defensive wing in the 90's hilariously exposes the level of competition MJ was up against. I mean, can you imagine if a clone of Dan Majerle was guarding Lebron in the Finals? I honestly do not understand how MJ put up such horribly inefficient numbers against that defense.

Again, this is like saying beating the Warriors in 16 was not a big deal because the Warriors were led by Draymond Green, triple single whatever, based some impact numbers that had Draymond Green > Curry. Jeff Teague was one of 4 players who had a legitimate claim as the best player on that team and you're cherry-picking him as the leader because his career has fallen off. That's an incredibly dishonest argument and you know it.

Except I'm not doing any of that. I can see how you would mix things up, given your muddled thinking. I've been extremely consistent in pointing out that:

MJ's competition was extremely weak (both in terms of specific players, but also in terms of team composition) due to a much smaller talent pool and continued expansion during his career.
MJ's teammates are extremely underrated and the Bulls were consistently one of the best teams top to bottom, in a way that's extremely difficult to replicate in today's game.
MJ's had substantially better coaching throughout his career.
Lebron's competition over the years has been extraordinarily tough, due to the increase in talent pool.
Lebron's role player teammate have been highly overrated because Lebron's able to make them look better than they really are
The effectiveness of Lebron's star teammates has been overrated because people didn't realize how quickly their game was obsoleted by a combination of the physical decline and the change in the game.
The effectiveness of Lebron's star teammates has been overrated because people don't realize that volume scoring and shot creation don't stack as well as adding defense and rebounding.

Also, you can attribute any success to “variance” and explain it away. Two 3 peats in 8 years is absolutely insane, and combined with Jordan’s statistical production means it was highly unlikely to be a fluke. 4 rings in 17 years, especially with some of the teams LeBron has had is just not as impressive. Variance exists but you still have to look at the objective facts that are available.

If you’re going to just use straight TS% to rank offenses like this, you need to adjust for quality of opponent (like the 80’s Celtics, Pistons. Prime Shaq Magic. 90’s Knicks, etc. vs teams like the Jeff Teague led Hawks). There’s just a massive difference in quality of playoff opponents in the east here.

Then you have to account for secondary scoring options. Of course LeBron is going to have some resilient offenses when he’s passing to Wade, Kyrie, and AD. Doesn’t mean his offensive play style is better than a guy that won 6 rings and averaged an efficient 33+ ppg playing in the triangle.

Yeah, I mean I can’t really debate this with you any further. This is mostly guesswork and opinion you’re offering (watch the games) - Jordan had a higher usage rate and therefore was involved as a shooter in a higher percentage of his team’s shot attempts. LeBron is a significantly better passer than MJ’s so him handling the ball more as a distributor also makes sense. LeBron historically leads very good offenses, often with average to poor supporting casts and coaches. We have limited data on MJ and it was earlier in his career but the data we do have suggests he could not do that.

Adding LeBron to your team (for his career and still counting) adds the highest win expectancy of any player in history. To say his style of play isn’t “optimal” for generating wins seems absurd. Even if you’re an MJ guy he’s #2 by a country mile in that department. He’s brought 4 different teams and 5 coaches to the Finals...none of the coaches have had any modicum of success without him except Spoelstra who has one finals appearance since. Add in his insane longevity, durability, and versatility and you simply cannot say he is anything other than GOAT tier (top 2 oat) offensive leader.

I don’t think you belong in this thread. This post is too logical and well constructed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m by no means saying it was a fluke but it was on the pretty high end of outcomes for a career. LeBron is actually about what I’d expect given his career and Finals opponents - maybe he should have won 5 so far but either way, it’s pretty close. He wins 2011 most of the time but would also lose 2016 a lot of time. So those kind of cancel out.

The 17 years aren’t really created equally. No one is expected to lead championship winners after being drafted to the worst team in the NBA at age 18-21 so counting those seasons against him can’t really be done. Basically, it’s really really hard to win titles and lots of it is situational. That’s why sorting by rings is pretty stupid. Sure they count for something but do people really think Isiah Thomas > Chris Paul because Thomas has rings? There’s lots that do, but to me that’s pure insanity.

I would dispute even this - this is one of the best examples of three big mistakes people make when rating teams, players and performances

1) Failing to account for the entire roster when you compare teams - the Heat had the better top 2, but the Mavericks were arguably the better team when you compare the entire roster. The Heat were one of the worst constructed rosters that season and did not have any legitimate talent outside of the big 3. Even having the right replacement-level role players would've been a huge help.

2) Failing to account for the defensive scheme in evaluating stats from a single series (this is how you get Kyrie > Curry in the 2016 Finals) - Lebron was being guarded by the entire Mavs team and Dwyane Wade was left to do his thing. So it's not surprising that Dwyane Wade, still an elite player back then, put up stupid numbers, while Lebron was shut down. This isn't a bad outcome for the Heat - their offense performed roughly as well as you'd expect given how good the Heat were, in large part due to Lebron recognizing the coverage and not forcing the issue. MJ in the same situation would've taken the bait and straight up shot his team out of the series.

3) Confusing usage with effectiveness - Lebron had a higher TS% in the 2011 Finals than MJ in any of his last 3 Finals appearances. Yet I suspect that if Lebron put up something like 30PPG at MJ-during-second-three-peat-efficiency, thus outscoring Wade by depriving him of possessions and making the offense much worse, no one would've thought this was such a huge black mark against him.

Obviously Lebron wasn't great or anything but it's unclear how he choked or did anything but have a relatively pedestrian series where he, as he's always done, made consistently made good decisions against a defense that was entirely designed around stopping him. I think the fact that a lot of people thought Lebron was amazing in 2015 but terrible in 2011 says a lot about how people don't really adjust for context. Lebron was obviously a better player in 2015 than in 2011, but aside from that, I think the difference in production was mostly about what the team needed from him, rather than anything else. Lebron can impact the game in so many ways - he's anchored a whole bunch of great defenses as the best defender, including the 20-21 Lakers, something you could not say about MJ - that it's ludicrous to judge him by PPG.

You could do this work if you want, no one is stopping you. It's weird to me that you're unironically quoting PPG as the main stat while setting aside the TS% difference between the regular season and the playoffs, which rebuts your entire theory because it's not adjusted for opponent quality.

My understanding is that people have looked at this and concluded that Lebron's faced tougher defenses on average in the playoffs as well. The 2014-15 Hawks btw were a very good defensive team that ranked 6th in the league. The Magic team that played the Bulls twice were 13th and 12th respectively. So right off the bat, I doubt your feelings map very well to reality. And that's just relative to the league - the 90's were a weak era historically (even ignoring the steady improvement over time) and in terms of actual talent level, it's not even remotely close. Most of the 90's NBA teams would rank among the very worst teams defensively in today's game.

MJ's had far better teammates and his teammates literally had a more resilient playoffs offense without him than they did with him. That was included in the post you responded to, not sure if you caught it though.

I agree with a lot of this, particularly points 2 and 3, but the Heat did lose as a decent size betting favorite with LeBron as the top player. I don’t think he was horrendous or anything like some do but he did underperform and his team lost. I’ve made a similar comparison to MJ’s 1996 Finals - that was by a good amount his worst finals performance and he underperformed similarly to LeBron in 2011 - but his team won so it’s handwaved away. To act like it’s some insurmountable black stain is obviously silly though. To LeBron’s credit he became a much better player and evolved his game after that Finals.

Candybar,
Honest question: do you think your statistical analyses MIGHT be poor if they’re telling you the Bulls had a more resilient offense without Michael ****ing Jordan?

Like maybe, just maybe, there are things that you aren’t accounting for when you sort by TS%? Are alarm bells not going off in your head before you click “post”?

I know you’re not being serious but I said an efficient 33+ppg. Ppg is the volume stat. It’s harder to be efficient when you’re a high volume wing scorer. When I say efficient I obviously mean high ppg at a high %. Again I’m sure you read that and you’re just trolling or being deliberately dishonest.

You’re also conflating arguments. I didn’t say the 2015 Hawks had a bad defense. I said they’re probably a teensy bit worse than the Stockton and Malone Jazz so LeBron beating Jeff Teague isn’t the nail in the coffin you think it is (lol, yeah).

Again if you’re going to do whatever it is you’re doing and sort by TS% (which doesn’t make a lick of sense as that doesn’t even include shot volume), you need to account for the average quality of opponent and second and third scoring options. Yes the Bulls were good but Jordan literally never had a second option as good as Wade or AD or even Kyrie. Jordan WAS that offense. Everyone else was a role player to some degree.

Had a reply to this but my phone ****ed it up so I’ll simplify:

Are you honestly disputing (or think it’s just an opinion), that Jordan gave up his ball dominance when Phil Jackson installed the triangle? Like I thought that was super common knowledge for people that are familiar with those teams. Being serious on that.

Maybe you’re confusing early career Jordan (who was ball dominant and had the ridiculous stats to show for it) with 90’s Jordan who gave up shot volume for win equity? Like it was a pretty big deal at the time.

What’s crazy is that despite Jordan giving up his on the ball game he still was scoring ~33 ppg while leading his team to two 3 peats. That’s literally the evidence for how insanely good he was and why most people think he’s the GOAT. If you don’t take this play style shift (and associated drop in scoring volume) and the increase in win equity into account then I agree, I don’t see how we can debate any further because that’s quite literally the entire argument.

I mean we can look this up - MJ was a pretty efficient scorer for his time, but wasn't uber efficient or anything. He scored a lot mostly because he took a lot of shots. In terms of TS Add (points added above average efficiency) MJ's two best seasons are +330.4 and +315.5. Lebron's two best seasons are +347.0 and +336.6. Even among his contemporaries, Charles Barkley and Reggie Miller had better seasons by this measure.