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

He can still be top 10 though because there aren't 10 dynasties.

The cut-off mark refers to career average because anyone over 40% for their career is invariably a jumpshooter or big, who produced 12 of 12 dynasties or dominant champions.

Kobe's career assisted rate is 42%, which reflects his goat jumpshooting volume as a jumpshooter - Kobe and MJ are the only guys that made over 700 jumpers in a season.

Kobe led the Lakers in assists for all 5 titles - so you're wrong.

And his feat of winning in the triangle without any playmaking help confirms that pippen's "facilitating" and measly 5 assists wasn't needed - it's just another reason pippen is overrated.

This was after 3-peating, which is the 2nd greatest achievement in 3-pointer history (MJ's 2 three-peats is the greatest)

Otoh, Lebron's goat choke came before he won a single chip and when he was supposed to be in 91' Jordan "hungry" and "never-lose" mode... lol... you fell for a fraud - thanks for continuing to find new ways to clearly demonstrate it... lmao

No you were wrong about everything (see above)....

MJ, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic, Magic, Lebron, Oscar

SGA is just another low-assisted 1st option (ball-dominator), which has never produced the best basketball (dynasty or dominant champion)... The "best basketball" can be defined as dominant champions that averaged 1 loss per round or less (4 losses max), or dynasties that mostly won for a material stretch of 5+ years (i.e. 3 in 5 years).

Accordingly, since possession-tracking began in 1997, 1st options with a career assisted rate above 40% (jumpshooters or bigs) were 1st option for 12 of 12 dynasties or dominant champions (the best basketball).. Otoh, 1st options with a career assisted rate below 40% (ball-dominators) were never 1st option for the best basketball (0 for 12).

Since the best jumpshooters and bigs produce the best basketball, they're superior to the best ball-dominators, so the first ball-dominators appear in the all-time rankings at 11th, 12th, and 13th (Magic, Lebron, Oscar).. 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.

The full rankings are MJ, Kareem, Russell, Wilt, Kobe, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic, Magic, Lebron, Oscar - the 2nd thru 10th spots are more interchangeable and subjective, but it's set in stone that MJ is #1 and ball-dominators are no higher than 11th, based on the previous logic that ball-dominators are never the 1st option for the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions).

Did Kobe have a dominant champion that year?... Nope... This is further proof that 40% assisted rate is required for a dominant champion, as we established previously...

Not all 40% runs produce dominant champions, but dominant champions require 40% or more (jumpshooter or big at 1st option)... Hope that makes sense.

The only players with career assisted rates above 40% are bigs and jumpshooters, who were 1st option for 12 of 12 dynasties or dominant champions (the best basketball).

so it's the SKILLSET of bigs or jumpshooting that is required for the best basketball, and we know that Kobe qualifies as a jumpshooter with a 42% career assisted rate.. The fact that he never achieved a dynasty doesn't disqualify him from the top 10 because there aren't 10 dynasties.. Other guys that didn't produce a dynasty will be in the top 10 too.

You guys love making "non-points" or "non-arguments" - essentially just saying random stuff and pretending it's responding to the original point.

Since possession-tracking began in 1997, there were 96 times that a player averaged 25 ppg with under 40% assisted rate, and these ball-dominators averaged 18th in team assists and produced a top 5 assist team 5 of 96 times (5%).. Otoh, guys that averaged 25 ppg with above 50% assisted rate happened 87 times and they averaged 10th in team assists with top 5 assist teams 41% of the time (36 of 87).

The words make sense as in they are in the English dictionary, but as we have all been trying to explain to you, the logic does not.

In the 2017 playoffs Steph Curry’s assisted rate was 37.7%. 37.7% is less than 40%. The Warriors went 16-1 that year - the highest playoff winning percentage of all time. The most “dominant champion” of all “dominant champions”.

Thus, by the standard rules of logic, a 40% assisted rate is not required to be a “dominant champion”. QED.

But anyway, I am going to ask you to ignore the above and focus on a very rudimentary logic lesson instead. Can you let me know if you understand the point? Let’s look at the follow statement:

It is also true that not all >0% assisted rate runs produce dominant champions, but dominant champions require 0% or more.

It is also true that not all <100% assisted rate runs produce dominant champions, but dominant champions require 100% or less.

It is also true that not all NBA rosters produce dominant champions, but dominant champions require an NBA roster.

It is also true that when the sky is blue the NBA does not always have a dominant champion, but when the NBA has a dominant champion, the sky is always blue.

Can you please think really really hard, and tell me if you understand the problems with these four examples? Do you see any similarities with these four examples and this statement?:

Think in terms of the logical structure of the statement, not the specific numbers, and let me know if a light bulb goes off.

That's the great thing about this argument - even if SGA wins titles with less than 40% assisted rate, it's irrelevant unless it's THE BEST BASKETBALL (dynasties or dominant champions)

Welp, I tried.

Curry wasn't the 1st option for the 16-1 run, which is all we're talking about..., Durant was the 1st option.

12 of 12 dynasties or dominant champions required 1st options with assisted rate of 40% or more on the dominant playoff run (or career average for dynasties).

Specifically, 8 of 8 dominant champions required 1st options with assisted rate of 40% or more for the playoff run, while 4 of 4 dynasties required 1st options with over 40% career average - all dominant champions and dynasties required over 40% career average (bigs or jumpshooters - never ball-dominators).

Nope, they require 40% or more - anything less (like 0 to 40) is insufficient to produce the best basketball

.
There are actually numerous ways to outline the requirements for 1st options of dynasties and dominant champions:

1) 40% or more assisted rate for the dominant playoff run (or career for dynasties)

2) 40-60% assisted rate during prime

3) bigs or jumpshooters only (over 40% career assisted rate) - never ball-dominators (under 40% career assisted rate)

Nope. Steph Curry led the 2017 Warriors in field goal attempts and usage in both the regular season and playoffs. He was the first option, by definition.

Durant had a 0.4 (lol) higher points per game average in the playoffs, but that’s because his ts% was higher. That has nothing to do with being the “first option”. Curry also outscored him by 49 points in the playoffs.

You can be crazy all you want on your own time but I’m not going to let you lie about facts and data.

Fallguy, bro. That’s not the point. They require 0% or more too. You can’t have a negative assisted rate.

See this is why you can’t have a conversation with anyone. There is no thought behind… well, anything that you say.

16-1 is the criteria for "dominant champion", and Durant led the Warriors in PPG for that run, so he's the 1st option - we go by points, not shot attempts otherwise low-efficiency guys that average less will be considered 1st option.

So Durant was 1st option and you're wrong on that, but it's actually irrelevant because career assisted rate was the criteria for the 1st option of all 12 of 12 dominant champions or dynasties.. See the latest thread cliffs involving SGA just a few posts up (the salient part reposted below):

"1st options with a career assisted rate above 40% (jumpshooters or bigs) were 1st option for 12 of 12 dynasties or dominant champions (the best basketball).. Otoh, 1st options with a career assisted rate below 40% (ball-dominators) were never 1st option for the best basketball (0 for 12)."

It's still nice that Durant did infact lead the Warriors in scoring on that 16-1 run though, so everything works out perfectly.

Obviously FG is right. Durant led the Warriors in points by 0.4ppg. If he had of scored 6 points less in the entire playoffs so Steph was the highest scorer, then the Warriors obviously go 16-5 instead of 16-1.

I mean most people would think the guy that takes the most shots is the first option being that he's the option that they go to the most, but that's just crazy talk.

Indeed, Durant was the 1st option but it's irrelevant because career assisted rate was the criteria for the 1st option of 12 of 12 dominant champions or dynasties (from thread cliffs in post #23185):

"1st options with a career assisted rate above 40% (jumpshooters or bigs) were 1st option for 12 of 12 dynasties or dominant champions (the best basketball).. Otoh, 1st options with a career assisted rate below 40% (ball-dominators) were never 1st option for the best basketball (0 for 12)."

It's still nice that Durant did infact lead the Warriors in scoring on that 16-1 run though, so everything works out perfectly... But it's really the career assisted rate of 40% (the cutoff point) that separates ball-dominators from the "bigs" and "jumpshooter" skillsets that produce the best basketball.
.

Yes, definitely. And if Zaza Pachulia scored 29 points in game one of round 1 then got injured and didn’t play in the rest of the playoffs, he would be the Warriors first option. Because, you know, ppg is what matters and not total points, field goal attempts, and usage (what defines the first option for everyone else; people who actually know basketball I mean).

So we all agree that Durant was 1st option for the dominant run based on common knowledge and also ppg, but it's actually irrelevant because career assisted rate was the criteria for the 1st option of 12 of 12 dominant champions or dynasties (from the thread cliffs in post #23185).

It's still nice that Durant did infact lead the Warriors in scoring on that 16-1 run though, so everything works out perfectly... But it's really the career assisted rate of 40% (the cutoff point) that separates ball-dominators from the "bigs" and "jumpshooter" skillsets that produce the best basketball.
.

Sounds dumb to say "career assisted rate" for a dominate champion being that a dominate champion is a snap shot in time. A 16-20 game stretch that makes you dominate. Not something you did 10 years before that.

But that's just me.

No, actually I think what we agreed on was that you are the only person in the world that thinks points per game defines first option, but everyone else who knows basketball realizes its field goal attempts and/or usage that defines first option.

Because if ppg defined first option then a mediocre or crappy player who gets hot and shoots well for a couple games could be the “first option” because he had a higher ts% and that makes absolutely no sense to anyone (exception for you, probably).

Like if someone said Pippen was the first option over Jordan because he got hot and outscored him once you’d probably have a meltdown.

I was just saying good point to fidstar because he quickly realized you were being an idiot again.

Every ball-dominator has career assisted rates below 40%, so career assisted rate is the right stat to use because it defines the skillset - it shows that no ball-dominators were 1st option for the best basketball (0 for 12), and every 1st option was a big or jumpshooter (over 40% career assisted rate).. This helps us classify all ball-dominators below the best jumpshooters and bigs, since the latter can produce the best basketball and the former can't... It's a skillset thing and the historical record shows that high proportions of unassisted buckets from the biggest bucket-getter is inherently suboptimal.

It's still nice that Durant did infact lead the Warriors in scoring on that 16-1 run though, so everything works out perfectly... But it's really the career assisted rate of 40% (the cutoff point) that separates ball-dominators from the "bigs" and "jumpshooter" skillsets that produce the best basketball.

A reminder that LeBron James has 9 seasons with >40% assisted fg%, and since you have defined 40% threshold as highly assisted then LeBron James has been highly assisted for 9 years of his career. Which means he, by definition, has the skill set to be highly assisted, and whether he is above or below that line depends on his role in the offense and other random effects.

An “average” is simply a summary statistic of a data distribution. It does not tell you the shape of the underlying distribution. If a player is sometimes above a threshold and sometimes below, then he is “capable” and “has the skill set” to be above, by definition, using standard definitions of English words.

Now how you went about defining that threshold as 40% is an entirely different matter and you aren’t capable of understanding why it’s a problem, so I’m not even going to bother on that one again.

Sorry I was just getting back from my victory walk.

A player's entire career tells the story of who they are, which is why career assisted rate effectively defines the type of player they are... In this case, the only skillsets that have career assisted rates above 40% are bigs and jumpshooters - never ball-dominators like Luka, LaMelo, Lebron, Trae etc.

It's common knowledge that Lebron is a ball-dominator and his 38% career assisted rate confirms it... This number is inflated by lottery seasons and old-man seasons, but otherwise he reached 40% twice and ranged between 29 and 41 during his prime of 2006-2021 (36% average).

Ultimately, I can't help that 8 of 8 dominant champions had 1st options with 40% assisted rates or higher for that playoff run and for their career, while 4 of 4 dynasties had 1st options with over 40% career assisted rates... That's 12 of 12 instances of the best basketball that required highly-assisted 1st options - this makes them better than low-assisted ones.. It's pretty obvious.

Btw, it's important to complete the circle of why all this matters, because there's a reason WHY the best bigs and jumpshooters produced all the best basketball (dynasties and dominant champions).

It's because Curry, Jordan and Duncan's assisted buckets and zippy ball movement wears down the defense, so they have less capacity for offense, while Lebron's ball-dominance lets a defense rest, so they have more capacity to "get hot" on offense... Ball-dominance loses the attrition battle, which is why ball movement teams like the Spurs, Nuggets, Warriors, Magic and Mavs "get hot" against bron-ball... They're fresh as a daisy by resting against ball-dominance... This is the historical record and trend of his series vs these "ball movement" opponents... Of course they all out-assist his teams as well, smh, further evidence.. Mental and physical stamina matters, and the attrition battle is part of any competition, i.e. "the best defense is a good offense" is a tenet of any competition, and ball movement achieves this better than ball-dominance.

So, just so we are 100% clear on this: you are saying that it is Michael Jordan’s career average 3 point percentage that defines how good of a 3 point shooter he is? And it is not some subset of some of his seasons where he shoots over a certain number of shots? It’s the career average, like you state above, yes?

I just want to confirm that so we are on the same page. I don’t want to put you in a bind here, or make you come across as a liar. Nothing like that.

Ruh roh. Somebody got trapped. Witness as fallguy gnaws off his leg to escape rather than admit he was wrong. Shortest victory lap in history. Didn’t even get out of his chair lmfao.

Just so we are clear, when Curry has a 38% assist rate in a season the offense is awesome, but when LeBron does the same it's not.

I got a feeling the Warriors offense was awesome that year because, you know, having Curry, Durant and Klay on the same team made them unguardable. Just me though.

Or maybe it's the system. You know how Kobe went from a highly assisted player because, you know, Shaq. To a lowly assisted player when he became a ball hog.