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

fallguy is not biased though.

LeBron catching Kareem in minutes player yesterday. Almost 3,000 points ahead of him.

#notascorer

Putting the ball in the hole is what "basketball" means, so the GOAT must have a case for goat scorer - Lebron doesn't... No one thinks he's even close to the goat scorer - tons of guys are better scorers like Durant, Curry, Kobe, Wilt, MJ, Bird, Jokic and many more.. These guys score just as much PPG or more, while also being assisted by teammates, as required for 1st options to produce the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions)..

But even low-assisted guys have a far better bag and are better scorers, like Shai or Harden... I suppose Lebron is a better scorer than Westbrook though - i'll give him that... Not Iverson tho... Lebron might be a top 30 scorer, or top 50, or maybe even top 100 - I would have to go through and make a list - tons of guys are better scorers though and have the numbers to prove it.

Porn evolved and so did basketball for a while with the 3-pointer, but now the NBA is devolving... Devolve is a word too, and the NBA has devolved into a 3-point contest of friendly buddies that could care 2 bird shits about competing... It's become a trash league and that's why everyone has come around to my point of view - the league sucks - the format of super-easy scoring is horrible for the game, while the collusions, load management and lack of competitiveness has also killed the game... But enjoy your fraud though - the people in the Kamala campaign enjoyed it for a while too - and it's the same media that has spun the NBA fraud.

He's getting old.

But he already proved that he's better than Lebron by winning with non-franchise guys like Wiggins and Klay, while Lebron required multiple franchise guys like Wade/Bosh, Kyrie/Love and AD - all of these guys are franchise players.

We learned that high-scoring ball-dominators have zero young player development, bad chemistry, coaching carousal (uncoachable), low average rank in team assists, and they cannot produce the best basketball as 1st option (dynasty or dominant champion).

Yikes... All these ball-dominators like Luka, Lebron, Harden, SGA, Westbrook - they're all fugazi's with weak brand perennially-loses and underachieves - they aren't that good compared to the best guys from higher-assisted skillsets
that win easier and with less help (Jokic.... prime Curry... prime Kobe... Duncan... etc) - they aren't nearly as good as these guys and their inability to produce the best basketball proves it (no dynasties or dominant champions for ball-dominators as 1st option).

I wonder what % of people who view this thread don't even read fallguy's posts?

So that would mean 75%

Well I can't brag about it because I just go by the numbers.

Since the advent of possession-tracking in 1997, highly-assisted 1st options that include Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Dirk, Curry, Anthony Davis, Jokic, and Tatum produced all the best basketball, such as 12 of 12 "dominant champions" with 5 losses or less on their title run, and also 4 of 4 "dynasties" that mostly won for a material stretch of 5+ years (i.e. 3 chips in 5 years).. So that's 16 of 16 examples of the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions) that required highly-assisted 1st options - these highly-assisted 1st options had 40% assisted rate or higher and proven capability for 50's and 60's.

Otoh, low-assisted 1st options like Luka, SGA, Harden, Lillard, Wall, Lebron, etc. have never been the 1st option on a dynasty or dominant champion, so they cannot produce the best basketball... This doesn't mean that every low-assisted 1st option is below every highly-assisted 1st option because talent still matters and Lebron's talent probably usurps Tatum's superior skillset.. However, the best off-ball players like Curry, MJ, Jokic and others do much better in a talent comparison to Lebron, so their highly-assisted skillsets take over and produce better winning..

The issue is that low-assisted 1st options have a high volume of unassisted buckets that hinders ball movement, while highly-assisted 1st options produce higher-assist teams and foster the great ball movement that every dynasty has.

No, I'm just going by the numbers.

Since the advent of possession-tracking in 1997, highly-assisted 1st options that include Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Dirk, Curry, Anthony Davis, Jokic, and Tatum produced all the best basketball, such as 12 of 12 "dominant champions" with 5 losses or less on their title run, and also 4 of 4 "dynasties" that mostly won for a material stretch of 5+ years (i.e. 3 chips in 5 years).. So that's 16 of 16 examples of the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions) that required highly-assisted 1st options - these highly-assisted 1st options had 40% assisted rate or higher and proven capability for 50's and 60's.

Otoh, low-assisted 1st options like Luka, SGA, Harden, Lillard, Wall, Lebron, etc. have never been the 1st option on a dynasty or dominant champion, so they cannot produce the best basketball... This doesn't mean that every low-assisted 1st option is below every highly-assisted 1st option because talent still matters and Lebron's talent probably usurps Tatum's superior skillset.. However, the best off-ball players like Curry, MJ, Jokic and others do much better in a talent comparison to Lebron, so their highly-assisted skillsets take over and produce the better winning.. And Tatum is still young, so the final verdict isn't in.

The issue is that low-assisted 1st options have a high volume of unassisted buckets that hinders ball movement, while highly-assisted 1st options produce higher-assist teams and foster the great ball movement that every dynasty has.

No, I've done well in the past and now I'm doing even better.

I just go by the numbers, and a clear-eyed view of the numbers is never biased.

Since the advent of possession-tracking in 1997, highly-assisted 1st options that include Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Dirk, Curry, Anthony Davis, Jokic, and Tatum produced all the best basketball, such as 12 of 12 "dominant champions" with 5 losses or less on their title run, and also 4 of 4 "dynasties" that mostly won for a material stretch of 5+ years (i.e. 3 chips in 5 years).. So that's 16 of 16 examples of the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions) that required highly-assisted 1st options - these highly-assisted 1st options had 40% assisted rate or higher and proven capability for 50's and 60's.

Otoh, low-assisted 1st options like Luka, SGA, Harden, Lillard, Wall, Lebron, etc. have never been the 1st option on a dynasty or dominant champion, so they cannot produce the best basketball... This doesn't mean that every low-assisted 1st option is below every highly-assisted 1st option because talent still matters and Lebron's talent probably usurps Tatum's superior skillset.. However, the best off-ball players like Curry, MJ, Jokic and others do much better in a talent comparison to Lebron, so their highly-assisted skillsets take over and produce better winning.

The issue is that high-scorers that are low-assisted have a high volume of unassisted buckets that hinders ball movement, while highly-assisted 1st options produce higher-assist teams and foster the great ball movement that every dynasty has.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is reading his posts anymore. They seem to just repeat the same thing.

A quick search of "16 of 16" shows up 9 results just on this page.

"4 of 4" has 11 hits.

"highly-assisted" has 64 hits.

Do you think that FG thinks it's important being "highly assisted"?

No, the discussion is done - we know why Lebron is worse and it's because his entire player-type is worse and cannot produce the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions)..

I've been saying this for years and now we have the "16 for 16" to prove it, which demotes an entire player-type - we know they can't produce the best basketball, which is pretty cool insight.... But again, the 1st guy in my rankings that can't produce the best basketball is still Lebron at 12th, so in a way, he's the goat of "losing"-style players...

Of course the actual results prove the losing style with his most-ever losses with Finals teams and preseason favorites, or multiple record losses with all-star teammates, goat chokes, and bevies of losses with all-stars, homecourt or top seeds.. He's just a loser that needed to team-up with opponents, and still mostly lost.

Nonsense - I bring up many topics but the only thing that gets responded to is this "assisted rate" thing that I have in the bag and solved the whole debate with.

So I'm fine moving on - the numbers aren't going anywhere, aka 16 for 16.

Accordingly, I was hoping to get a response regarding other misperceptions - i.e. when Lebron had zero or 1 all-star teammate and lost in the 06-10' Playoffs, no one questioned or scrutinized him - they just said that he needed more help.... Otoh, when MJ carried a worse cast and nothing to the 89' ECF, today's fans and media say that he "needed Phil to get him over the hump", instead of simply needing a little more help like when Lebron loses.

Can you explain this difference in the way people perceive Jordan and Lebron losing with weak casts?

Again, it makes no sense - Jordan just needed a tad more help in 89', and he would've won in 89'... Phil just happened to be there at the right time after MJ had done the heavy lifting, such as developing teammates and getting a team to the cusp of the Finals/nearly championship-caliber before Phil got there (going all the way with the Pistons without Phil in 89' - Pippen missed Game 6, otherwise it would've gone 7)..... Phil had no clue about MJ and thought MJ wouldn't be scoring champ anymore in the triangle, so he just lucked-out that MJ was a highly-assisted 1st option like all dynasties or dominant champions require, smh

Since possession data began in 1997:

4 of 4 "dynasties" that mostly won for a material stretch of 5+ years (i.e. 3 in 5) had highly-assisted players at 1st option:

JORDAN....... highly-assisted player
SHAQ............ highly-assisted player
DUNCAN...... highly-assisted player
CURRY.......... highly-assisted player

12 of 12 "dominant champions" (5 losses or less on playoff run) had highly-assisted players at 1st option:

17' DURANT....... highly-assisted player
01' SHAQ............ highly-assisted player
99' DUNCAN...... highly-assisted player
24' TATUM.......... highly-assisted player
23' JOKIC............ highly-assisted player
02' SHAQ............ highly-assisted player
07' DUNCAN...... highly-assisted player
97' JORDAN........ highly-assisted player
18' DURANT....... highly-assisted player
15' CURRY.......... highly-assisted player
11 DIRK.............. highly-assisted player
20' AD'................ highly-assisted player

16 of 16 instances of the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions) required highly-assisted 1st options with 40% assisted rate or higher and proven capability for 50's or 60's.

Otoh, low-assisted 1st options like Luka, SGA, Harden, Lillard, Wall, Lebron, etc. have never been the 1st option on a dynasty or dominant champion, so they cannot produce the best basketball... Low-assisted 1st options have a high volume of unassisted buckets that hinders ball movement, while highly-assisted 1st options produce higher-assist teams and foster the great ball movement that every dynasty has.

This is a really good and important point: you can't fabricate data that does not exist. That is bad statistical practice.

I don't know if it's been discussed, because as you noted in a later post it seems like the same things keep getting repeated over and over again, but I looked up the data on LeBron's 2015-16 season; the year he beat the 73 win Warriors (GOAT regular season wins team).

First, of all, LeBron's Cavs that year had a really dominant playoff run. They went 4-0, 4-0, 4-2, and 4-3 throughout the playoffs. A 16-5 record with only 5 losses. A dominant champion. So dominant, in fact, they defeated the team with the most regular season wins of all time in the finals as part of their playoff run.

I assume this was noted already by others in the thread, in particular if anyone in the thread is arguing about assisted first options and "dominant champions". It must have been discussed in great detail, because LeBron James' 2015-16 Cleveland Cavaliers meets this criteria, and the person discussing "dominant champions" is not a lying little bitch. And since he is not a lying little bitch, he must have included it in the data.

Anyway, since he's not a lying little bitch, I hope he can grow some balls and be honest and stop repeating the same things thousands of times over and over again that have been proven wrong thousands of times over and over again. Also wondering if his balls dropped and he wants to follow through on that math bet with me and Tien. Probably not, but I thought I would give him the opportunity to show the world he's not a lying little bitch.

Anyway, assisted fg%. What were we saying about that?

There are two potential routes to go from here:

1) Admission that one was wrong. A team does not need a “highly assisted first option” to be a “dominant champion”, as proven by historical results and data. As has been discussed ad nauseam, this is, in reality, a function of scheme and coaching. This is the honest route. A route that someone with balls and integrity would take. The route that someone who wants to prove his manhood would take.

2) Moving the goalposts. This is a logical fallacy and changes the parameters of the argument. This could take the form of changing the definitions of “highly assisted” (apparently a very fluid concept indeed, by certain lying little bitches), “dominant champion” (watch for if the required loss number changes), claiming clear counter examples were “one-offs” while ignoring the fact it’s the specific example that refutes the entire core premise, or completely changing the premises altogether. This is, as has been noted, the route of lying little bitches that don’t have the intelligence to argue honestly. Lack of balls, lack of integrity, lack of manhood. A lying little bitch, by definition.

I wonder which route will be taken? Based on historical trends, and our knowledge of lying little bitches, I think we can perhaps muster a guess.

It sounds like you're saying that you did well in the past (i.e. 15 years ago) and you're doing well now (perhaps with some chemical intervention), but somewhere in the middle, you did quite poorly. Otherwise, you'd have more to say about that period.

lol thread finally solved

Or is it?... I got you to admit that you read my posts and understand them thoroughly.. Everyone was saying that no one reads my posts.

So what you claim is "bad practice", is actually a tool of many shunned truth-tellers of the past to get their point across.

Again, I posted a fugazi to make sure you understood the point being made and couldn't pretend you didn't, or play avoidance - I trapped you - we're now facing it head-on, and the logic-based definition of "dominant champion" is to average no more than 1 loss per round, or 4 losses maximum.

This is intuitive, similar to the 5-year period that defines dynasties (i.e. mostly winning over a material stretch of 5+ years, aka 3 in 5 years or better).

And since I know you thoroughly understood all my previous posts, I don't need to explain anything further... So will there be anything else?... (the real data will be posted in the next post below).

Answered (above).

Indeed.

.
.
Since possession data began in 1997:

4 of 4 "dynasties" that mostly won for a material stretch of 5+ years (i.e. 3 in 5) had highly-assisted players at 1st option:

JORDAN....... highly-assisted player
SHAQ............ highly-assisted player
DUNCAN...... highly-assisted player
CURRY.......... highly-assisted player

8 of 8 "dominant champions" (4 losses or less on playoff run) had highly-assisted players at 1st option:

17' DURANT....... highly-assisted player
01' SHAQ............ highly-assisted player
99' DUNCAN...... highly-assisted player
24' TATUM.......... highly-assisted player
23' JOKIC............ highly-assisted player
02' SHAQ............ highly-assisted player
07' DUNCAN...... highly-assisted player
97' JORDAN........ highly-assisted player

12 of 12 instances of the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions) required highly-assisted 1st options with 40% assisted rate or higher and proven capability for 50's or 60's.

Otoh, low-assisted 1st options like Luka, SGA, Harden, Lillard, Wall, Lebron, etc. have never been the 1st option on a dynasty or dominant champion, so they cannot produce the best basketball... Low-assisted 1st options have a high volume of unassisted buckets that hinders ball movement, while highly-assisted 1st options produce higher-assist teams and foster the great ball movement that every dynasty has.

And I know everyone understands this and was reading it, per the tool/Matt R going for the okey-doke

fallguy,
I fully understand based on the parts of your posts that I chose to skim recently that you have been desperate for my attention and a reply from me. Why do you crave my validation so much? I’m sure you are a smart, successful guy outside of this thread. Why don’t you go do something else? This thread is over. It’s been solved. You are no longer needed. You never were, but now you definitely aren’t.

This a good point candybar. I wonder what, specifically, is wrong with fallguy that he can’t let this go? Do you think there are medications that exist that can help him?

By engaging me on the argument, you lost... You should not have posted.

Ball-dominators don't produce the best basketball - 12 of 12 demotes the entire player-type