LeBron > Jordan GOAT Super AIDS Containment, solved #22999 post by Matt R. (addendum #23174)
Very impressed with the minute sequence where LeBron clearly lost the ball headed to the rim, heat got the ball anyway and scored, then he elbows his defender in the chin, drawing a defensive foul and stern talking to from the official and hitting a 3.
It's these ref assisted 5 point swings in close games that truly bring out the best in great players.
Link to post of why Elon Musk is the true GOAT: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
The thread that will go on for years..........
vs.
If you have 5 starters, and 3 of them are healthy all year, and 2 of them play 65% of the games at full load, I'd say healthwise thats not bad at all.
If that was a Lebron team we'd never hear the end from Fallguy about how Lebron ruined Howard and Nash.
I really don’t think that team was all that good, let alone one of the most talented teams of the last 25 years. Even if Howard played all those games I’m pretty sure his back was f’d, and Pau dealt with injuries all year. And Nash was literally out of the league two years later.
out of curiosity Matt, how do you feel about an all time list that has Kobe at 2 and Lebron at 11?
I’d say it’s about as nonsensical as the people in this thread who put Jordan as fringe top 5 and claim he couldn’t dribble with his left hand, so about par for the course for 2+2 basketball analytics. Just in the opposite direction.
Kobe BY FAR
by virtue of his scoring ability allowing coaching, sophisticated offense, and high-assist teams, whereas high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka and Harden have literally the last-placed assist teams in the league and a coach with handcufs on... The lowest team assists of all-time.. Let that sink in.
So Kobe's offense was dimensions superior because when he dropped 40 or 50 points, teammates were assisting him and they had the ball in their hands.. They had every opportunity to find a nice flow point on their own - if it doesn't materialize or they can't improve and find a play, then they have the great Kobester to bail them out.. Isn't that better than Harden's skillset making you stand in the corner and wait to bail HIS ass out?.. Isn't it better to be the bailout guy (Kobe), then a skillset that relies on teammates to bail you out (Harden, Luka, Lebron)?..
Isn't it better to have a skillset that scores 40 in a sophisticated ball movement offense that gets everyone off instead of making everyone stand around and wait for you to do your Harlem Globetrotter crap (not skill)?
Kobe had more legendary moments in pick-up ball than Harden ever had:
holy **** that ***** existed once
Kobe BY FAR
by virtue of his scoring ability allowing coaching, sophisticated offense, and high-assist teams, whereas high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka and Harden have literally the last-placed assist teams in the league and a coach with handcufs on... The lowest team assists of all-time.. Let that sink in.
So Kobe's offense was dimensions superior because when he dropped 40 or 50 points, teammates were assisting him and they had the ball in their hands.. They had every opportunity to find a
This argument (a player that performs well in a sophisticated offense that is more efficient and harder to defend is better than a player that performs equally in a crappy offense) would make sense if Kobe had similar efficiency to Harden but he doesn’t. There is a pretty significant gap.
Saying Kobe “by far” doesn’t make any sense to me unless you’re just sorting by jump shooter.
I’d say it’s about as nonsensical as the people in this thread who put Jordan as fringe top 5 and claim he couldn’t dribble with his left hand, so about par for the course for 2+2 basketball analytics. Just in the opposite direction.
I don't know of anyone who does that. Jordan seems pretty consensus either 1 or 2.
The only record Kobe holds is for all time most missed shots. Lebron will take that achievement from his in his next game most likely, taking 147 more games and scoring 7000 more points in the process.
This argument (a player that performs well in a sophisticated offense that is more efficient and harder to defend is better than a player that performs equally in a crappy offense) would make sense if Kobe had similar efficiency to Harden but he doesn’t. There is a pretty significant gap.
Saying Kobe “by far” doesn’t make any sense to me unless you’re just sorting by jump shooter.
Kobe's skillset allows a great brand of ball movement and chemistry, while harden's skillset prevents chemistry and puts the coach in handcuffs.
Individual efficiency only matters when it's really low like Iverson or Westbrook.... Kobe's efficiency was enough to win 5 titles, so you're misperceiving what a disqualifying efficiency is, and also overvaluing individual efficiency altogether... Again, efficiency only matters if it's really low like Westbrook or Iverson.... Otoh, skillset is what matters, since that's what dictates brand of ball, teammate elevation/fits, and winning... History shows that Harden-ball is a loser that lost with KD/Westbrook, CP3, and Kawhi/PG, while Kobe went back-to-back and destroyed the Spurs or Celtics with just Pau.
The only record Kobe holds is for all time most missed shots. Lebron will take that achievement from his in his next game most likely, taking 147 more games and scoring 7000 more points in the process.
Wow, so Lebron is #1 in all these negative things, such as turnovers, missed shots, Finals losses, record losses, flops, collusions, media shills, goat chokes, fake awards, losing frequency (17 of 21), game-winner futility in the championship (0-7). cringeworthy childish actions like shoulder shrug or crowning, goat meltdowns (2010), worst-caliber ever played (35% and 6 TO per game - 07' Finals & 08 ECSF), teammate craterings, and much more I'm sure... years without a #1 offense....
Kobe's skillset allows a great brand of ball movement and chemistry, while harden's skillset prevents chemistry and puts the coach in handcuffs.
Individual efficiency only matters when it's really low like Iverson or Westbrook.... Kobe's efficiency was enough to win 5 titles, so you're misperceiving what a disqualifying efficiency is, and also overvaluing individual efficiency altogether... Again, efficiency only matters if it's really low like Westbrook or Iverson.... Otoh, skillset is what matt
Efficiency always matters. The higher the better.
In Kobe’s highest scoring season he averaged 35.4 on 49% eFG. Harden 36.1 on 54%. That trend of higher efficiency on higher point volume is not insignificant and is consistent throughout their careers. Allen Iverson whom you said didn’t make this arbitrary cutoff of “too low efficiency” was 47% in his best scoring season. So the difference bw Harden and Kobe is bigger than the difference bw Kobe and Iverson.
Kobe is the better overall player and I think his efficiency numbers do underrate him somewhat but not by 5%. Harden was a really good offensive player and with the right players around him (or no Golden State in 2018) he absolutely would have a couple rings.
Kobe BY FAR
by virtue of his scoring ability allowing coaching, sophisticated offense, and high-assist teams, whereas high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka and Harden have literally the last-placed assist teams in the league and a coach with handcufs on... The lowest team assists of all-time.. Let that sink in.
So Kobe's offense was dimensions superior because when he dropped 40 or 50 points, teammates were assisting him and they had the ball in their hands.. They had every opportunity to find a
Well Houston's offense during Harden's heyday...
Lakers offense during Kobe's heyday (no Shaq).
Green numbers on the end are the offense compared to league average.
Obviously if I just had offensive rating for the teams, Harden would kill Kobe. So, I have to at least give Kobe led offenses a chance.
lol Gasol led the Lakers in winshares in their two Championships. Kobe might not have even been their best player!
Well Houston's offense during Harden's heyday...
Lakers offense during Kobe's heyday (no Shaq).
Green numbers on the end are the offense compared to league average.
Obviously if I just had offensive rating for the teams, Harden would kill Kobe. So, I have to at least give Kobe led offenses a chance.
You can't compare the stacked Rockets to the trash that Kobe had to win with.. Pau is a slow, plodding player and nowhere near an MVP-like player in CP3.
And there is such thing as a "fugazi" offense because it's clear that when teams can adjust (aka playoffs) to the "down-hill" skillsets of Harden, Luka or Lebron, they win easily - Harden-ball or Bron-ball gets blown away and out-gunned routinely in the playoffs, despite favorite status, homecourt, or multiple all-star teammates.
A telltale sign of a fugazi offense are those by ball-dominators like Harden or Luka that are LAST in team assists - this gets adjusted to in the playoffs and gradually squeezed to death.
That's exactly false - it's better to shoot 45% while playing in a way that allows teammates to play great and with great strategy/coaching so the team can be great, than to shoot 55% in a way that shuts down teammates and creates a weaker strategy, chemistry and team... Again, Kobe repeated with Pau, while Harden was destroyed with KD, CP3, Westbrook, and Kawhi.. There's no comparison, so who cares about Harden's high-efficiency driving and ball-dominant game that kills teammates and cannot win or be a great team.. literally who cares..
You need to re-evaluate how you think about individual efficiency and playing styles in general.. Specifically, it's better to have slightly-lower efficiency from jumpshooters that promote great chemistry and brand of ball, than higher efficiency from drive-heavy ball-dominators that impose spot-up roles and kill ball movement, chemistry and chances vs top teams.
Lebron is bad at making the Finals because he has 11 losses before the Finals, which is more than Kareem, Russell, MJ, Magic, Curry, Bird, and the most among any so-called "goat" candidate.
And if we just look at the West, he's 1 for 5 in making the Finals so far, and everyone avoids the elephant in the room of "Is Lebron capable of developing a Western Finals team without being gifted a ready-made MVP-level player that was better on both sides of the ball?".
Since AD's bubble, Lebron has lost catastrophically every single year, which includes missing play-in's or losing 4 straight 4th quarters leads to get swept 4-0 and become Jokic's yearly ragdoll.
Lebron was lottery with the East all-star center in 2005 and lost as a -700 favorite with an all-star in 09'.. Then he was lottery during his prime in 2019 with Ingram/Kuzma/Rondo and more.. He lost before the Finals in every way imaginable and by every margin.. The first time that he had a low seed in the playoffs, he promptly lost in the 1st Round twice (21', 24').
"Stacked Rockets" lol
I'm assuming some of that "stacked" is Howard. The same guy you won't say made LA "stacked".
This is good news for FG. We can now be in agreement that Kobe is the GOAT number 2. Most people had Pippen, but now it's obviously Kobe.
Even a Klutch minion like Cowherd says that Pippen isn't anywhere near the best #2 ever:
Pippen was only a #2 alongside the goat scorer to carry his own weak scoring and need for flow points, thus yielding non-availability in many half court sets.... Otherwise, he was a third through sixth option and the stats show that pretty clearly... Among notable 90's sidekicks, Pippen had the worst APG, spacing, clutch, and peak scoring capability (not on scouting report according to shaq)
That's exactly false - it's better to shoot 45% while playing in a way that allows teammates to play great and with great strategy/coaching so the team can be great, than to shoot 55% in a way that shuts down teammates and creates a weaker strategy, chemistry and team... Again, Kobe repeated with Pau, while Harden was destroyed with KD, CP3, Westbrook, and Kawhi.. There's no comparison, so who cares about Harden's high-efficiency driving and ball-dominant game that kills teammates and cannot win
It’s better to shoot 55% than 45%, fallguy. I’m not talking about comparing a post player to a wing, a ball dominator to an off ball player, or a 5 ppg player to a 30 ppg player.
When you can consistently (consistently being the key word) get a significantly higher efficiency on equal or higher volume, then that is better. It’s nonsense to argue otherwise because that’s literally the goal when you’re playing offense in basketball. Score points efficiently.
Yes if you’re doing it in a way that torpedoes other teammates’ efficiencies or general team efficiency that is bad, but there is no evidence Harden does that in context of the offense he played in. And 55% is always higher than 45%. Better efficiency is better, all else being equal.
If you have actual data that Harden’s teammates’ efficiency was better with him off the floor and Kobe’s vice versa, and that offsets Harden’s 5% better eFG on higher ppg, then I am all ears.
Jordan, Duncan and Kobe all had lower shooting efficiency than Harden, so unless a player's shooting efficiency is extremely low, other factors are more important than shooting efficiency and affect winning more.. Certainly the superior skillsets of Duncan, MJ or Kobe allow great ball movement, high assist teams and great-performing casts, aka great teams, which is more important than Harden getting a few ticks higher of TS by reducing everyone to spot-up shooter and having weak or needy teams.
So there are superior factors than shooting efficiency such as superior skills and skillset that allows the best teams.. The best teams would be Curry winning 3 chips in 4 years, while Duncan won 3 in 5 or Jordan won 6 in 7, so history shows that expert jumpshooters or fundamental bigs produce "unbeatable" teams that mostly wins for stretches, while high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka, Lebron or Harden never produced unbeatable teams and mostly lost regardless of cast, for a combined 40 years of playing..
If we add Westbrook, SGA and other losing ball-dominators, we see that high-scoring ball-domination is easily the worst skillset by virtue of imposing spot-up roles and the worst chemistry, thereby needing the most talent/help.. Their need for the most help is why the best ball-dominators are behind the best centers and expert jumpshooters in the top 10 all-time rankings..
When you can consistently (consistently being the key word) get a significantly higher efficiency on equal or higher volume,
then that is better.
Not if it crushes teammates and turns them into spot-up shooter and an entirely lower level player altogether.
Obviously, when teammates are reduced to spot-up roles and therefore playing below capacity, it prevents the TEAM from playing to capacity and competing effectively on the championship level..
So who gives a crap if these lower-producing, spot-up roles produce a few ticks higher in teammate efficiency when the teammate has been reduced from MVP candidate to rubble and spot-up shooter..
Yes if you’re doing it in a way that torpedoes other teammates’ efficiencies or general team efficiency that is bad, but there is no evidence Harden does that in context of the offense he played in. And 55% is always higher than 45%. Better efficiency is better, all else being equal.
If you have actual data that Harden’s teammates’ efficiency was better with him off the floor and Kobe’s vice versa, and that offsets Harden’s 5% better eFG on higher ppg, then I a
Ball-dominators often increase their teammates' efficiencies slightly by virtue of reducing them to spot-up role and lower production levels overall.. So who cares about teammate efficiencies increasing when they were reduced from an MVP candidates to rubble and laughing stocks.
This is bball 101.
Otoh, expert jumpshooters or bigs like Jordan, Curry or Duncan can sometimes slightly decrease the efficiency of their more prominent teammates because their skillset allows teammates to have bigger roles and production levels - teammates playing entirely superior roles and production levels to produce a juggernaut team is far more important than them getting a couple ticks higher of efficiency but far lower role/production... Of course, the coaches of expert jumpshooters and fundamental bigs are the "goat" coaches (Pop, Phil, Kerr, Auerbach).
Even a Klutch minion like Cowherd says that Pippen isn't anywhere near the best #2 ever:
Pippen was only a #2 alongside the goat scorer to carry his own weak scoring and need for flow points, thus yielding non-availability in many half court sets.... Otherwise, he was a third through sixth option and the stats show that pretty clearly... Among notable 90's sidekicks, Pippen had the worst APG, spacing, clutch, and peak scoring capability (not on scouting
I think we all agree that Kobe is GOAT No 2.
Chris Paul couldn't be in the same gym as Bob Cousy!
Jordan, Duncan and Kobe all had lower shooting efficiency than Harden, so unless a player's shooting efficiency is extremely low, other factors are more important than shooting efficiency and affect winning more.. Certainly the superior skillsets of Duncan, MJ or Kobe allow great ball movement, high assist teams and great-performing casts, aka great teams, which is more important than Harden getting a few ticks higher of TS by reducing everyone to spot-up shooter and having weak or needy teams.
I’m not going to check in detail right now, but at a glance Jordan’s eFG% at his peak and relative to the league average (i.e. adjusted for rule differences, era, other factors) is quite a bit better than Harden and I’m pretty sure his relative volume was higher too.
At a glance it seems like Duncan’s is slightly higher too, but closer. Kobe a decent amount less.
Maybe Harden was actually pretty good at his peak, and this is reflected in actual numbers which measure the thing in question. Maybe the offensive strategy employed by the coach impacts ball movement, and it’s not actually better to have a lower shooting % as a player.
So there are superior factors than shooting efficiency such as superior skills and skillset that allows the best teams.. The best teams would be Curry winning 3 chips in 4 years, while Duncan won 3 in 5 or Jordan won 6 in 7, so history shows that expert jumpshooters or fundamental bigs produce "unbeatable" teams that mostly wins for stretches, while high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka, Lebron or Harden never produced unbeatable teams and mostly lost regardless of cast, for a combined 40 years of playing.
If we add Westbrook, SGA and other losing ball-dominators, we see that high-scoring ball-domination is easily the worst skillset by virtue of imposing spot-up roles and the worst chemistry, thereby needing the most talent/help.. Their need for the most help is why the best ball-dominators are behind the best centers and expert jumpshooters in the top 10 all-time rankings..
So if we, say, have a pure jump shooter coming off the bench averaging 8ppg and shooting 35%, are you saying they are a better scorer and offensive player than Harden, LeBron, Luka because they have a better brand of ball that doesn’t reduce teammates to spot up jump shooters?
Obviously, when teammates are reduced to spot-up roles and therefore playing below capacity, it prevents the TEAM from playing to capacity and competing effectively on the championship level..
This depends entirely on the team. Some players are really really good spot up jump shooters. Hypothetically, if you have a good enough “ball dominator” that is an excellent playmaker, combined with good enough spot up shooters, this offense could be really good.
Harden was a pretty good offensive player…. (???) it’s hard to average 36ppg on above average league efficiency regardless of offensive sets being used.
So who gives a crap if these lower-producing, spot-up roles produce a few ticks higher in teammate efficiency when the teammate has been reduced from MVP candidate to rubble and spot-up shooter..
Well yeah if you have a second all-nba offensive talent you would typically want to give him the ball too. That doesn’t make a 36ppg scorer on above average efficiency bad. Maybe they just need to adjust the offense to accommodate more than one player (???)
Ball-dominators often increase their teammates' efficiencies slightly by virtue of reducing them to spot-up role and lower production levels overall.. So who cares about teammate efficiencies increasing when they were reduced from an MVP candidates to rubble and laughing stocks.
This is bball 101.
Otoh, expert jumpshooters or bigs like Jordan, Curry or Duncan can sometimes slightly decrease the efficiency of their more prominent teammates because their skillset allows teammates to have bigger roles and production levels - teammates playing entirely superior roles and production levels to produce a juggernaut team is far more important than them getting a couple ticks higher of efficiency but far lower role/production... Of course, the coaches of expert jumpshooters and fundamental bigs are the "goat" coaches (Pop, Phil, Kerr, Auerbach).
It doesn’t matter WHO gets the production. If the overall offense is more efficient, this is a good thing. Like this is basic math. It’s never good to miss a higher % of shots because the ball is supposed to go in the basket to make points. (???)
One can argue a ball dominant skill set makes the overall offense worse in some schemes or with some personnel, but that doesn’t make a guy that has averaged 35 ppg on 49% eFG a better scorer “BY FAR” (your words) than a guy that has averaged 36 ppg on 54% eFG.
Isn't Reggie Miller the best expert off ball "jumpshooter" of the 90's? How does he rank offensively?
Isn't Reggie Miller the best expert off ball "jumpshooter" of the 90's? How does he rank offensively?
Perfect example. One of the best off ball jump shooters of all time, no question.
But even in his own era, when he was at his best, he was never even close to being in MVP contention. 3rd team all nba a handful of times I think. Really good but never close to “best in the league” consideration.
There is more to being a good offensive player than “expert jump shooter good, everyone else bad”.
