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

Harden's offense is a paper tiger that gets exposed against adjustments, aka playoffs.. Otoh, Kobe's brand of ball is the real deal because it's the same ball movement systems used by the Spurs/Warriors/Nuggets that dominate the playoffs and Finals.. Infact, "harden-ball" or "bron-ball" are exactly the kinds of inferior brands that are commonly defeated by expert jumpshooters (Curry, Dirk, Tatum), or fundamental bigs (Jokic, Duncan).

History shows a clear trend with high-scoring, ball-dominators like Harden, Lebron, Luka, SGA and Westbrook - these guys eventually run into an opponent that shuts down Harden-ball or Lebron-ball by solving it and making it underperform, while also winning the attrition battle and forcing Bron-ball to operate on tired legs for the first time all year - i.e. ball movement wears down defenders, so they have less capacity for offense - when bron-ball applies less pressure than it faces for the first time all year, it can't produce at it's normal rate.

Ultimately, we know that Kobe's offenses were better because he won titles in the playoffs with weak help like 2nd options that were worse than Wade/Bosh
.

That's like saying Lebron averaged more assists because he dribbled and passed more than Mo Williams.. Or he scored more than Mo, Zydrunas or Kyrie because he shot more.

Learn to think qualitatively... Kobe averaged more than Pau because Pau isn't capable of 30-35 ppg like Kobe - Pau probably had a peak capability of 23 ppg, since he appeared to be a tad better in the triangle than Pippen, who peaked at 22 ppg with the green light in 94'...

So you have it backwards - history shows that teammates play to capacity (near career highs) alongside jumpshooters like Kobe, MJ or Curry, while the teammates of ball-dominators like Luka or Lebron play far below capacity because they're reduced to spot-up roles.. See Brunson, Porzingas, Westbrook, Ingram, Love, Bosh, Jamison, and many more - these guys played far below capacity and were cratered alongside massive ball-monopolizers like Luka and Lebron... Otoh, Kobe and Jordan's teammates played near career highs (capacity) alongside them.
.

What brand of ball is better - the ball movement brands of Jokic, Kobe, Curry and Duncan that consistently WIN when they have help, or the ball-domination of Luka, Lebron and Oscar, that mostly LOSE when they have help?

Btw, even if Pau isn't worse than Bosh or Love, and is infact equal to them (even though he never got All-NBA on his own like they did) - it doesn't change the point that Kobe needed a lot less to win - Lebron needed a Kobe-like closer to dominate like Kyrie or Wade - Wade was considered kobe-level player, yet Lebron could barely win half the time with him.

Jokic is better at basketball than Lebron based on stats, winning with less, dominance, and also superior brand of ball, chemistry, teammate elevation and strategic capacity/coaching, so he wins with less and has better teams with less help.

What brand of ball is better - the ball movement brands of Jokic, Kobe, Curry and Duncan that consistently WIN when they have help, or the ball-domination of Luka, Lebron and Oscar, that mostly LOSE when they have help?

Hakeem, KG, Malone, KG and many more are arguably better for the same reasons - Lebron's worst-ever brand of ball would have zero rings if he didn't team up with opponents, specifically because bron-ball imposes spot-up roles that prevents developing the chemistry needed to win with what you have/existing roster.

Edit to previous post

Jokic is better at basketball than Lebron based on stats, dominance, ball movement (not ball-dominance), chemistry, fits, teammate elevation, strategic capacity/coaching, winning with less, and producing better chemistry/brand and therefore better TEAMS

Other fundamental bigs that produce great ball movement and chemistry are also better than lebron, such as Russell, Duncan, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, and maybe even Hakeem.. And obviously expert jumpshooters that produce the best ball movement/chemistry are also better such as MJ, Kobe, Curry and Bird.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of fundamentals and/or elite jumpshooting (capacity for ball movement), Lebron is actually a Giannis-level player - still quite good, but not goat-level and can never win at a goat frequency or dominance level/Finals record.

You have a weird definition of "mostly win".

Joker has one championship in 9 attempts.
Curry has 2 championships in 12 attempts when he doesn't have a Top 15 player of all time playing with him. Curry probably finishes his career 2/15 once everything is said and done.
Kobe has 2 championships in 12 years when he doesn't have a Top 15 player of all time playing with him.
Duncan is amazing and the only one that doesn't fit the hold about. He's also a big guy.

And lol any down talk of Luka. Dude has overachieved in every post season to date. Miles in front of Kobe at the same age.

And lol - Wilt is a winner? Come-on...

Give prime LeBron/Luka/Harden a chance with prime Shaq/Durant and they are "mostly winning" as well.

It's delusional to think that Lebron would have a stretch of mostly winning with just 1 star like Shaq or Durant considering he mostly lost with prime AD, or prime Kyrie/Love, and also prime Bosh/Wade - lebron LOST with prime wade in 2011, so cut the crap... Lebron is a bum that mostly lost with all these guys, and you fell for it, smh.. Don't feel too bad because the media put billions into pulling this off.

Of course, Lebron could never win with proven losers like Poole and Wiggins - Lebron knew this and traded Wiggins for peak Love, and still mostly lost with him.... So when did Lebron win with secondary producers and non-franchise guys like Wiggins, Ginobili, Parker, Poole, or Klay??... Hasn't Lebron always needed franchise guys like Wade, Bosh, Kyrie, Love and AD?.. Isn't that a big gap and show that Curry and Duncan are far superior to Lebron by virtue of winning with normal rosters and not needing to "fix the league" by teaming up with opposing franchise players?

Curry won 3 chips in 4 years, and Duncan won 3 in 5, while MJ and Kobe three-peated on 3 different occasions, so history shows that expert jumpshooters or fundamental bigs can produce "unbeatable" teams that mostly win for stretches, while high-scoring ball-dominators mostly lose regardless of cast because they impose spot-up roles and weak chemistry.. This isn't my opinion - it's the historical and statistical record.

Accordingly, history shows that Lebron never had a 5-year period where he mostly won like Curry, Duncan, Kobe, MJ, or Kareem, so he never had an "era" like the aforementioned expert jumpshooters and fundamental bigs...Accordingly, since the high-scoring point guard skillset isn't capable of having an "era", they have a ceiling of 15th in the all-time rankings.. Yes, I have 14 guys ahead of Lebron so far (more coming) and other high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka, Harden, SGA and Westbrook can never go higher than 15th either..

If they prove me wrong and one of these high-scoring point guards produces an unbeatable team that mostly wins over a 5-year period, then I will change my mind....... But 75 years of basketball has shown this isn't possible - high-scoring ball-dominance is the lowest skillset by virtue of being the most-losing skillset that cannot produce unbeatable teams...

Btw, Wilt played in an 8-team league where all the good players were put on 1 team just to beat him - there were 10 HOF's on the Celtics, so the "we done with the 60's" thing was opposite for Wilt and worked in reverse - Wilt would have it easier today in a league where the good players are more spread out instead of stacked on 1 team in a tiny league just to beat him,

Jordan 6 championships in 13 attempts with no Top 15 player ... GOAT

Lebron never had a 5-year period where he mostly won like Curry, Duncan, Kobe, MJ, or Kareem, so he never produced "unbeatable" teams or had an "era" like the aforementioned expert jumpshooters and fundamental bigs... Accordingly, since the high-scoring point guard skillset isn't capable of having an "era" or unbeatable teams, they have a ceiling of 15th in the all-time rankings.. Yes, I have 14 guys ahead of Lebron so far (more coming) and other high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka, Harden, SGA and Westbrook can never go higher than 15th either..

If they prove me wrong and one of these high-scoring point guards produces an unbeatable team that mostly wins over a 5-year period, then I will change my mind....... But 75 years of basketball has shown this isn't possible - high-scoring ball-dominance is the lowest skillset by virtue of being the most-losing skillset that cannot produce unbeatable teams...

.
Recent Thread Cliffs

Before anyone says that it's "insane" or "absurd" to say that all high-scoring point guard skillsets, aka "down-hill" skillsets are outside the top 15 all-time, show me where a high-scoring ball-dominator like Luka, Lebron, SGA, Caitlin, Westbrook, Harden, Oscar, Tiny, etc produced an "unbeatable" team that mostly won over a 5-year period??

There's never been a high-scoring ball-dominator that mostly won over a 5-year stretch, whereas expert jumpshooters and fundamental bigs produced unbeatable teams all the time, such as Curry winning 3 chips in 4 years, or Duncan winning 3 in 5, or MJ and Kobe three-peating 3 times..

Since high-scoring ball-domination loses the most of any skillset, it's the weakest skillset, which means the best ball-dominators can never be ahead of any of the best of other skillsets (bigs or jumpshooters).. This puts a ceiling on the skillset of about 15th all-time.. It's a predictable, high-pnr spamming skillset that underperforms favored rosters - the watered-down, "aau" skillset is a product of today's hands-off, spaced out beginner format.

LeBron James, like your Tim Duncan example, has won 3 championships in 5 years. 2012, 2013, and 2016. So there is your counter example.

Good players are good even if they score a lot a points at high efficiency and get a lot of assists too (ball dominance). /propfeetupondesk

The guy hates Lebron so much he puts him in lists with Westbrook and Caitlin Clark. And SGA and Harden and Luka who have all never won anything. If we stop responding to him in this thread I worry about what he might go and do with his time.

It's an entirely hate driven narrative with arguments made up to back up his hate.

It's all about being capable of producing great teams, which is defined as a team that mostly won over a 5-year stretch... The massive sample of NBA history shows that expert jumpshooters or fundamental were capable of producing these great teams and chemistry, while high-scoring ball-dominators never did in 75 years - they imposed spot-up roles, low-assist teams and underwhelming chemistry instead, and then asked for more help.

To summarize, the history of NBA basketball shows that high-scoring ball-dominators like Oscar, Lebron, Luka, Caitlin, SGA, Harden, Tiny, and Westbrook cannot produce great teams that mostly win for stretches, and instead produce inferior teams that mostly lose every year - this "mostly losing" includes Lebron winning 1 chip in 4 years with Love, AD, or Wade (except the Allen miracle) - so Lebron is a 1/4 guy, regardless of cast, and therefore produces weak teams that mostly lose, while expert jumpshooters or fundamental bigs produce great teams that mostly win over 5-year stretches (Duncan, Kareem, Curry, MJ, Kobe).

Huh? 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 are 5 years. LeBron teams won championships in 2012, 2013, and 2016. This equals 3 out of 5 years.

This is the exact same ratio as your “mostly winning” example of Tim Duncan. It’s not 1 in 4. It’s a mathematical fact 2012 to 2016 is 5 years and LeBron won a championship in 3 of those.

Did Caitlin, Westbrook or Harden get to team-up in their prime with 2 opposing franchise players?

Lebron would be a career-loser just like they are if he hadn't done that - people forget that he teamed up because he couldn't win with homecourt in 09' and 10', despite a 7th-year organic juggernaut.

Unlike Curry, MJ or Jokic, Lebron never learned the chemistry needed to win with "normal" casts of 1 franchise player, so he obtained better casts of 3 franchise players (super-team).. He simply never learned how to win (organic) and only learned to team-hop (talent-based winning, all-star team strategy)..

High-scoring ball-dominators have no choice but to pursue a talent-based approach since they cannot produce great chemistry by virtue of imposing spot-up roles.

The Spurs were a great team by winning 3 chips in 5 years, while Lebron's teams were weak by mostly losing every year, such as winning 1 chip in 4 years with the Cavs, Lakers or Heat (except the Allen miracle) - so Lebron is a 1/4 guy regardless of cast and cannot develop great teams that mostly win.

Don't feel bad because this is true of ALL high-scoring ball-dominators - they impose spot-up roles and weak chemistry, so they can't produce great teams like other skillsets, such as expert jumpshooters (Curry, MJ, Kobe) or fundamental bigs (Duncan, Kareem, Jokic)... edit: scratch Jokic for now
.

Fallguy,
How many numbers are in this list?:

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

Can you please put a mark by the years that LeBron won an NBA championship? I’m trying to figure out where this disagreement could possibly be coming from.

The Cavs, Heat and Lakers mostly lost every year - none of them won 3 chips in 5 years and they all went 1 for 4 (except the Allen miracle).

Accordingly, high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka, SGA and Lebron cannot produce great teams that mostly win over a 5-year stretch, such as Duncan's Spurs winning 3 in 5 years, or Curry's Warriors winning 3 in 4, or MJ and Kobe three-peating 3 times.

Don't feel bad because this is true of ALL high-scoring ball-dominators - they impose spot-up roles and weak chemistry, so they can't produce great teams like other skillsets, such as expert jumpshooters (Curry, MJ, Kobe) or fundamental bigs (Duncan, Kareem, Jokic)... edit: scratch Jokic for now

Fallguy,
What’s the biggest number you can count to?

2012 = 1
2013 = 2
2014 = 3
2015 = 4
2016 = 5

How many years are in the above list? There is exactly one correct answer.

Fallguy’s assertion that Kobe’s 55% TS% is better than Harden 61% TS% is starting to make a lot more sense, actually.

61 - 55 is 6 and we’re having issues just getting to 5.

The Cavs, Heat and Lakers each won 1 chip in 4 years, except the Allen miracle, so none of them were great teams that mostly won over a 5-year stretch like the teams of expert jumpshooters (Curry, MJ, Kobe), or fundamental bigs (Duncan, Kareem).

This is true of ALL high-scoring ball-dominators - they impose spot-up roles and weak chemistry, so they can't produce great teams like other skillsets

Unfortunately, unlike Curry, MJ or Jokic, Lebron never learned the chemistry needed to win with "normal" casts of 1 franchise player, so he obtained better casts of 3 franchise players (super-team).. He simply never learned how to win (organic) and only learned to team-hop (talent-based winning, all-star team strategy)..

High-scoring ball-dominators have no choice but to pursue a talent-based approach since they cannot produce great chemistry by virtue of imposing spot-up roles.

Fallguy,
I personally think that there are 5 years in this list:

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

And since LeBron James’ teams won championships in 2012, 2013, and 2016, this means he won 3 championships in 5 years, which you said was impossible, and matches Tim Duncan’s ratio of 3 championships in 5 years.

Why, exactly, are you listing Jokic in your “mostly winning” list when he has one championship in 9 years?

I’m having trouble following your logic. Plz help fallguy.