LeBron > Jordan GOAT Super AIDS Containment, solved #22999 post by Matt R. (addendum #23174)

Can Lebron play a Warriors', Spurs', Nuggets, Mavs, or triangle-style of ball movement and high team assist basketball?

He never has - Lebron's coaches are forced to put the ball in his hands for at least 5 minutes per game (point guard level) and hope the weaker brand of ball has enough "help" to win (talent-based winning).

So GM's and coaches should prefer an expert jumpshooter like Curry, Kobe, MJ or even Dirk, since they can play a better brand of ball and therefore win with less supporting talent - this is intuitive.

Furthermore, expert jumpshooters employ this superior brand of ball at high shot volumes, so they can carry the scoring load and win, while Lebron loses when he dominates the shot distribution and therefore needs teammates to match his scoring for entire playoff runs (11' Wade, 16' Kyrie, 20' AD).. So the inferior brand of ball requires more help and also prevents Lebron from carrying the scoring load, which also requires more help..

Of course, "passers" like Magic and Lebron need all-time scoring help, aka "closers" - a different dimension of help - they could never win with secondary producers and non-franchise players at sidekick like Jason Terry, Klay, Murray, or Pippen - ball-dominators need franchise players at sidekick like Kareem, Wade, AD or Kyrie.

Prime LeBron can drag a trash roster to the NBA finals, and has done so multiple times (2007 and 2018). He can drag replacement level trash to the number 1 seed (2009 and 2010). Greatest floor raiser in NBA history and it's not close. Even prime Kareem or Wilt could not will crap teams to being contenders when they were surrounded by a bunch of no-names. LeBron has, multiple times.

If you want to argue that his style doesn't pair well with other ball-dominant scorers, that's fine, but that's just your arbitrarily biased criteria for evaluating him.

Kobe's "expert jumpshooting" gets him a scoring title and the 8th seed when he has a similarly trash roster. He's not capable of influencing games on the same level as LeBron. You lose.

Your not counting mental toughness, heart, whatever you want to call it

Kobe and Michael stand alone in that, both willing to die on the court.
Don't discredit that

I mean, sure, Allen Iverson had that mentality too.

Doesn't mean he's comparable to LeBron James.

Why do people give Lebron a pass for losing with Mo when Dirk won with Terry and vastly inferior team defense:

09' Mo Williams..... 17/3/4 on 59 TS.... 17.2 PER... 2.3 bpm... 0.165 ws/48... 3.1 vorp... #3 team defense
11' Jason Terry....... 16/2/4 on 55 TS.... 15.8 PER... 0.9 bpm... 0.100 ws/48... 1.9 vorp... #8 team defense

The Magic were missing their all-star point guard Jameer Nelson, so they had the injury excuse and still won - they were one of the 7 biggest underdogs to ever win an NBA playoffs series and this happened because Lebron was butterfingers in the clutch - aka it's impossible for a team to win if their best player turns into a 12-turnover per game player in clutch-time (last 5 within 5), like Lebron was in that series.. This is why the Cavs lost 3 fourth quarter leads in that series.. Lebron was also dominated in the critical OT that swung the series in Game 4.

Lebron lost the 09' ECF with 18 on 38% from Mo, so he never beat a top 5 SRS team with weak scoring & efficiency from a sidekick (zero carry-jobs vs top teams in 21 years).. He can't carry the scoring load because he lacks sufficient brand at high volumes to beat top teams and therefore needs franchise player-sidekicks that can match his scoring for entire playoff runs (11' Wade, 16' Kyrie, 20' AD).

09' Mo Williams....... 17.2 PER... 2.3 BPM... 3.1 VORP... 0.165 WS/48.... #3 team defense
90' Pippen................ 16.3 PER... 1.8 BPM... 3.0 VORP... 0.087 WS/48.. #19 team defense

^^^ So Lebron started with a better team on both sides of the ball, yet MJ still beat him to titles by winning the following year in 91', while Lebron kept losing as the favorite for 2 more years in 10' and 11' despite adding Jamison/Shaq to a 66-win league favorite or forming a super-team.

People forget that Lebron had a Year 6 team in 2009 - any top 10 candidate should have an organic juggernaut by Year 6 and 7, which is similar to Jokic, Giannis or MJ for example.. The only difference is that Lebron gave up on his organic roster despite a 1-star organic chip being on the table in 2011 that Dirk grabbed.. Lebron's Cavs certainly would've had the organic chemistry and reputed team defense needed to beat those Mavs, which is what the Heat lacked.

From 2001 to 2009, the East was won by 1-star teams five times (the majority of the decade), which includes 01' Iverson, 02' Kidd, 03' Kidd, 07' Lebron, and 09' Dwight - so the 2000's East is the only conference in history that was won by a bunch of 1-star teams.. Iverson, Kidd and Dwight all posted similar garbage stats to Lebron's 25.8 on 43% in the 07' East Playoffs, so this repeated garbage being allowed to win a conference is testament to how weak the conference was.

Ultimately, Kyrie played 12 of 14 games in the 15' East Playoffs, while Love was a former franchise player and rare all-star sidekick in the 18' East, so the only time Lebron took a 1-star team to the Finals was when everyone was doing it (Iverson, Kidd, Lebron, Dwight).

And you'll complain about Love's performance in the 18' Playoffs except Love averaged 21/11 against the only top 5 SRS opponents the Cavs faced in those playoffs (Raptors, Warriors), so Lebron never beat a top 5 SRS team with weak scoring & efficiency from a sidekick (zero carry-jobs in 21 years).. He can't carry the scoring load because he lacks sufficient brand at high volumes to beat top teams and therefore needs franchise player-sidekicks that can match his scoring for entire playoff runs (11' Wade, 16' Kyrie, 20' AD).

If Lebron is a better floor-raiser, then why did he need an all-star teammate to win 40 games in 2005, while MJ needed nothing to win 40 in 1987?

If Lebron is a better floor-raiser, then why did he need an all-star center, HOF coach and 22/5/5 all-defender to win 50 games in 2006, while MJ needed nothing to win 50 in 88'?

If Lebron is a better floor-raisier, then why did he have a garbage, 45- win team in Year 5 (2008), until he received the all-star spacing that his stiff arm needs in 2009?.. Mo didn't join a good team in 2008 - he made the team great by showing everyone that Lebron's game needs spacing and achieving better PPG, efficiency, PER, BPM, WS/48 and VORP than 1990 Pippen

Lebron had a massive advantage by getting 3 years to develop a favored high seed before entering his first playoffs in 2006, instead of being thrown into the playoffs in Year 1 with 8 seeds (like MJ).. I know we're comparing Lebron to Kobe here, but you claim that Lebron had crap teams and I'm showing you that he had 3 years to develop a veteran high seed before entering his first playoffs, so he never had a low seed until 2021 (1st Round exit).. Of course when Lebron faced Kobe's Western competition in 2019, he was lottery despite having future all-stars (Ingram) or "budding stars" (Kuzma).

How good was your "expert jumpshooter" Kobe Bryant" when he didn't have a HoF center?

At least Kobe reached expectation and capacity with the bigs that he had via 3-peat with Shaq - that meets expectation - and then repeat with Pau - that exceeds expectation

Otoh, we know that Lebron is 1/4 with AD, or 1/4 with Love, or 1/4 with Wade/Bosh (except the Allen miracle) - who can't go 1/4 with hand-picked preseason favorite super-teams or hand-picking the opposing franchise player of your choice?

Imagine if Kobe got to hand-pick an opposing franchise player every 4 years and got to refresh his old cast with youngsters every 4 years?.. This is a talent-based approach that Kobe doesn't need to take because he can develop chemistry with a non-super-team cast like getting 1x all-star Pau and turning him into perennial All-NBA.

Otoh, Lebron's ball-dominant approach imposes spot-up roles that can't develop teammates or chemistry, so he needs a talent-based approach where he forms super-team and teams up with opposing franchise players.. Lebron must undertake this talent-based approach because he lacks the brand of ball.. Specifically, he lacks expert jumpshooting skill - this lack of off-ball ability yields a point guard hold-time and assisted rate (abnormal ball-dominance for his size/position), which imposes spot-up roles upon teammates (reduces their assists and increases their assisted rate) - these spot-up roles prevent teammate development, elite chemistry or strategic capacity/coaching, thereby yielding perennial underdogs, weak records and Finals losers regardless of cast..

FYI - zero young players grew from single-digits to meaningful producer on his watch because he imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win (can't win organically)... It's remarkable because he actually had bad fits with a number of "pippen's" like Ingram, Hughes, Westbrook or Wade.

Does Bobby Knight's opinion of the GOAT count

What he says about MJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqp_TEqP...

So Kobe winning with HoFer Pau Gasol is above expectation.

But LeBron beating the 73-win Warriors, well he's just supposed to do that because he's LeBron James.

And the 2013 title doesn't count, because a role player hit a clutch shot, which has never happened to any other player.

This is literally Flat Earther levels of delusion and mental gymnastics. Get help man, this is really unhealthy.

It's not a troll - I think I have MJ around #4 after MJ, Russell and Kareem and it's more of a range, you could have him I think as high as #3 after Lebron and Kareem or as low as #8 after Hakeem/Shaq/KG/Duncan. Lebron, you can go as low as #3 after Kareem & Russell.

It's really more that 1-on-1 skill and offensive stats are overrated to a fairly ridiculous extent when people evaluate players, while Kareem and Russell are also penalized in terms of public perception for being advocates for civil rights at a time when that made you quite unpopular with the media. And obviously Russell is just difficult to evaluate in part due to how different the game was back then.

At their peak, Lebron, Kareem and Russell were defensive anchors for their respective teams. MJ was an overeager ball hawk who was good defensively, but mainly as a role player, rather than an anchor. That makes a huge difference. MJ's overall impact offensively is also a bit overrated - he was great but did not quite have Nash, Curry, Lebron & Magic type of team-level impact and his teams weren't great on that end until Phil Jackson came onboard.

Kareem won his first title with Oscar Robertson, and was easily the best player in the world in the early 70's, but in the middle of his prime he kept getting bounced in the early rounds or even missing the playoffs entirely, and that kind of eliminates him as a GOAT for me. That was a weak era in the NBA too, as the ABA merger hasn't happened yet.

Then a young Magic shows up and Kareem starts winning again. For me Kareem is #3 but no higher.

It's also pretty hilarious that someone would go on and on about MJ and Kobe's accomplishments and even talk about ball movement and so on and ignore the most obvious elephant in the room - Phil Jackson.

The year Lebron won his first title, the Kobe-Pau duo was still going strong and the Lakers were only slightly less favored than the Heat (+450 vs +250) to win the title. And they were coached by the same coach that won the EC and two #1 seeds with Lebron + trash rosters: Mike Brown. Yet the Lakers weren't even close to winning the title that season. I wonder why.

Is this really all that different from pre Phil Jackson MJ though, other than that Kareem just played for a longer period of time under those circumstances? What changed the fate for MJ for the most part wasn't that he got better, it's just that he got better teammates, the GOAT coach and the other dynasty-level teams fell apart.

With Jordan you could tell he was getting a little closer and further each year, and obviously statistically he was a dominant force in the late 80's.

Kareem I just think should have had more team success in the mid 70's given NBA's parity in those years if he was truly the GOAT. And once Magic came along he kind of took a backseat to Magic offensively, although he was still the defensive anchor of those Lakers teams and was a highly effective scorer on lower volume.

Overall I think he's below the Jordan/LeBron tier for those reasons.

Lighten up bro

I pick Lebron. He can defend MJ, but not the other way around. Elite big in round two. You can have Steph in round three while I pick Metta World Peace and Dennis Rodman. Defense wins championships.

Not sure if trolling but great offense with adequate defense will always beat amazing defense with zero offense.

Being an offensive liability is much worse than being amazing offensively but leaking a bit on defense, especially if you're not a center.

Modern NBA punishes offensive liabilities far too easily, see Ben Simmons.

At least compare similar stuff ?
Great offense with 0 defense will always beat amazing defense with 0 offense ?
I’m not sure it’s true .

But to a previous point u said about LeBron success in 2007
(disregarding the weak opposition to reach the finals),
They were 19th in offense and 5th in defense vs spurs 14th in offense but 1st in defense .

So Spurs were better on both offense and defense, what is your point exactly?

My point is obv spurs being 1st in defense with mid offense were champion and LeBron reach the final with a great D squad but sucky offense .
Btw Look at whom the spurs faced to reach the final , great offense with poor D got destroy by the spurs .
Nuggets lost 4-1 despite being 3rd in offense and 26 in defense .
Phoenix lost 4-2 while being 1st in offense and 23 in defense
Utah lost 4-1 being 8 in offense and 15 in defense .

Seem defense matters a lot in playofffs while LeBron and Duncan offense was far from being great finishing like below median for LeBron and on median for Duncan in offense .

That still doesn't contradict anything I said.

Didn’t u said great offense with adequate/poor D
would do better
then great D with poor attack ?

That was not poor attack you listed.

I said a team with great defense and ZERO offense would be bad, which should be common sense to anyone who watches basketball.

If your team is full of defensive specialists with zero shooting or shot creation you're going to lose.

Well fwiw I don’t think full offensive specialist with ZERO defense would do better either .

All I was saying is you wernt comparing similar thing to begin with .
A/B will always beat A/C

All offense no defense means you can have guys like Trae Young and Amare Stoudemire.

That easily beats a team full of Tony Allen and Ben Wallace who can't score.