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

It isn't ball-dominators - it's HIGH-SCORING ball-dominators that have low team assists.

It's a very critical distinction - plenty of low-scoring point guards like Magic, Stockton or Nash have high team assists for example, but high-scoring point guards like Luka, Lebron, Harden, aka "ball-dominators" - they hinder ball movement and team assists.. This is the historical record.

I did the numbers in this thread a few years ago - Lebron's teams average 15th in assists for his career, compared to 8th for Jordan and 7th for the average title team since the 3-point line was instituted in 1980..

And every high-scoring ball-dominator like Lebron, Luka, Harden, Westbrook, and SGA have low team assists as well, so this isn't some mystery - the stats are public information.... And btw, Harden and Luka are clearly the MOST ball-dominant, so they're usually dead last or close to it in team assists (the ball moves the least on their teams because they're the most ball-dominant).

Offenses that routinely get locked down aren't great:

2018 Rockets Regular Season............ 112.4 ppg.... 114.7 ortg
2018 Rockets vs Warriors'..................... 98.7 ppg.... 103.9 ortg

The predictable offenses of high-scoring ball-dominators like Harden and Lebron do poorly in "adjustment basketball" (playoffs) as evidenced by them always getting shut down at some point by a ball movement team like the Warriors, Spurs, Nuggets, Mavs, Magic or even the recent Celtics locked down Mavs' ball-dominant offense.

Hahaha don't make me choke on my beverage... It sounds like you don't understand how basketball works and have never been within 10 feet of a spherical object.

First of all, a coach can't just run any offense they want.

For example, a coach would never run a pick-and-roll offense with an in-out big like Shaq, and a coach would never run the ball-movement triangle with a ball-dominator... The skillsets have to fit and that's why guys like MJ/Kobe were goat because their skillsets and goat scoring diversity fit with any offense or teammate - a coach had maximum strategic capacity to run any offense, such as a ball-dominant offense or a ball movement offense because MJ/Kobe were elite on-ball and off-ball.

If a coach can run any offense they want, then why haven't Harden, Luka, Westbrook, Lebron, or SGA ever run a high ball movement and high team assist offense?.. Why are those offenses, chemistry and winning reserved for expert jumpshooters (Curry, Kobe, MJ) or fundamental bigs (Duncan, Kareem)??

Teams do manage a series just like a boxer manages a fight, so unless a series is decided by one possession, a 7-game series doesn't mean that a player "nearly won".

And again, the fact that 2 of Lebron's Finals were decided by one possession and those possessions took the less likely route shows that he's a lucky and therefore overrated.. Most of the time, the defensive rebound is corralled, or the teammates miss the game-winning shots, so Lebron normally wouldn't be in a goat debate and would only have 2 chips - under this more likely scenario, everyone would be scratching their heads why he loses so much, and my information would be considered the gospel... But luck fools everyone, so Allen and Kyrie's unlikely shots inflate Lebron into a fraudulent goat debate.

Harden averaged 11.2, 8.8, 7.5 assists in the years he was top 2 MVP from 16/17 to 18/19.

Kobe's career high was 6.3

FFS prime Harden was massively better offensively than Kobe

Harden averaged 6 turnovers per game.. So do turnovers, team assists, and the teammates that they elevated from zero accolade to perennial All-NBA - high-scoring ball-dominators like Harden and Lebron impose spot-up roles, so they never developed teammates or great chemistry, and had weaker, needier teams as a result.

High individual assists means literally nothing because it usually indicates ball-dominance, low ball movement, hogging the assists and low TEAM assists.. Again, by imposing spot-up roles, high-scoring ball-dominators cannot develop great chemistry or great teams that mostly win for stretches, and instead produce weak chemistry that mostly loses every year, regardless of cast.

Btw, Shaq already mostly lost with Wade, Penny, Lebron, and also the "original Harden" as part of a 4 all-star team in 1998:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/cOvu-F06sxs

YouTube

Nick Van Exel had that BOP 🔥 #nbaedits #nbahighlights #shorts

But somehow frieking HARDEN is the key that solves the losing Shaq puzzle?... Nonsense - we already saw what Shaq needs to win - it's off-guards that can play off big men like Kobe/MJ and guys with assassin mentality, not a PNR ball-dominator and indifferent attitude like Harden (who has similar indifferent attitude that Shaq has, so it would never work).

I guess you misunderstood me, but I’m not asking you to tell me you did it, I’m asking you to link the data (even if it’s just a forum post), the statistical analysis, and this unlimited sample size.

And I’m not asking you to do it for Jordan vs LeBron, you said this statistical relationship holds true for every team in NBA history. I think this analysis would be fascinating, so please show me what you’re referring to.

This did not seem true when I checked bballref. Harden had a couple seasons where Houston was towards the league bottom in team assists, but most were around average, and his year in Brooklyn was towards the top of the league.

Is bballref wrong? Where did you get your data? Excited to see your statistical analysis.

You just gave the stats for one series — 7 games of basketball. A series where Harden and the Rockets almost won. Against a team that is universally regarded as one of the greatest of all time. I am more interested in your analysis of this phenomena across your “unlimited sample size”.

It’s also interesting that ball dominant LeBron won 3 titles in 5 seasons, your criteria for “mostly winning” — isn’t it? I find that interesting, at least.

Whoa, take it easy man. Most of us didn’t average 4 ppg on a crappy college team. Save some of that basketball knowledge for the rest of us.

Uhh, hate to break it to you, but most coaches impose their own offensive philosophy and strategy on the team they are coaching. They rarely create an offense from scratch customized to their ever changing roster. This is true for any sport, ever, not just basketball.

Yeah, no coach like Phil Jackson and Tex Winter would be hired onto a team and convert a ball dominant guard like Michael Jordan into an off-ball force in their triangle offense.

In fact, I’d argue that has never happened in the history of basketball.

This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard in my life and no team would ever “let” an inferior team get to a game 7 where the inferior team could get hot and win. Especially a team known for 3 point volume like those Houston teams. Jesus Christ I can’t believe I even responded to that.

[quote=DefraudedLebronFan]

Lebron never produced a dynasty, he just beat them

[/quote]

Chauncey Billups beat a dynasty too.... Whooptiwhoop..🍰... So did Bird, Magic, Duncan and Shaq - tons of other guys too - too many to name.

Furthermore, the worst team in the NBA still wins about 10-20 games a year, so everyone wins if they get enough chances... This applies to the Finals as well - Lebron's teams are the worst-ever in the Finals with a 22-33 Finals record, so even the worst Finals teams will still win a title every blue moon in the midst of a sea of losses.. Essentially, the worst team in the league right now is the Pistons, so Lebron's teams are the "Pistons" of the Finals... In the 90's it was the Clippers, so Lebron's teams would've been the "Clippers" of the Finals.

For these reasons, beating a dynasty isn't a big deal in the GOAT debate, particularly in Lebron's case, since his rosters were favored - they were the preseason favorite for an unprecedented 6 straight years (11' to 16').. Unfortunately, Lebron's favored rosters either lost or fell to underdog all 6 years, except the Allen miracle, so Lebron's weak brand and chemistry underachieves favored talent as a STANDARD - it's just a bad brand of ball and it took a miracle (the Allen miracle) to stop Lebron's weak brand from underachieving favored talent.

So again, skillsets that produce great teams that mostly win for stretches will provide better long-run title equity than skillsets that can't produce great teams and only produce perennial losers instead... One skillset has proven incapable of producing great teams, and that's high-scoring ball-dominators, due to their imposition of spot-up roles and the resulting weak chemistry..

Since high-scoring ball-dominators cannot produce great teams, they rank behind the best of other skillsets like jumpshooters or bigs in the all-time rankings, which means the best ball-dominator cannot be higher than about 15th all-time.

Harden has low-assist teams as defined as teams that rank middle-of-the-pack or the bottom half in team assists, with rare exception, if any.

Ditto for every high-scoring ball-dominator in history

Asking me to link the data is like asking me to link the definition for the word "corporate" or something.. It would be silly for me to post links for something that is such common knowledge and easily verifiable by anyone within 30 seconds or so.

How many team assist numbers would you need to look up to know that what I'm saying is true??... There aren't many high-scoring point guards, aka "ball-dominators" in history... Here's the list in chronological order - Oscar, Tiny, Lebron, Westbrook, Harden, Luka, and SGA - they all have low assist teams and they all impose spot-up roles/weak chemistry upon teammates.. We know they impose spot-up roles because they decrease their teammates' assists and increase their assisted rate, aka "imposing spot-up roles" (the imposition of play-finishing/assisted roles).. This is merely the statistical backup to the obvious eye test that Luka, Lebron and all high-scoring ball-dominators impose spot-up roles upon teammates.

So the "unlimited" sample size is the entirety of history - the entire history of high-scoring ball-dominators shows that they impose spot-up roles that lower teammate assists, thereby yielding low TEAM assists... Btw, notice how someone like Haliburton only averages 20 ppg, so he isn't a high-scoring point guard and therefore has high-assist teams.

That's all it takes.

Teams that win the title never get "shut down" and always outgun their opponent, so one series is all it takes to prove that you aren't the best team in the league and had a paper tiger offense.

When a normally high-flying offense gets COMPLETELY LOCKED DOWN for 4 to 7 games against the same opponent - this is easily enough evidence to confirm that it was a paper tiger offense that was easily locked down with just a few adjustments, as allowed by playoff basketball.

Otoh, offenses with real diversity and sophistication can handle adjustments and become "unbeatable" by mostly winning over a 5-year stretch for example... These offenses are generally ball movement offenses with high team assists, such as MJ, Curry, or Duncan's offenses.

You misunderstood the criteria.

Being capable of producing a great team was the criteria, and proving the team's "greatness" or dominance was defined as the team mostly winning over a material period of time, such as 5 years.

Unfortunately, high-scoring ball-dominators like Lebron impose spot-up roles and bad chemistry, so they can't produce great teams that mostly win for a material period of time and produce perennial losers instead, regardless of cast.

Most people on this forum are over 10 years old and therefore understand the concept of producing a great team or dynasty that mostly wins over a 5-year period, versus never producing a great team and producing perennial losers instead.

The Warriors won 3 chips in 4 years and the Spurs won 3 in 5, so history shows that expert jumpshooters and fundamental bigs produce great teams, while high-scoring ball-dominators produce perennial losers that win 1 chip in 4 years like the Cavs, Lakers or Heat (except the Allen miracle).. Other high-scoring ball-dominators like SGA, Harden, Luka and Westbrook produce perennial losers as well - Luka gets housed by ball movement teams like the Warriors or Celtics despite having franchise players like Brunson and Kyrie.

This is just how the game of basketball PLAYS - great jumpshooters and centers produce great teams that can mostly win for periods of time, while high-scoring point guards, aka "ball-dominators" produce perennial losers and the neediest teams in history.. It's because their high-scoring ball-dominance imposes spot-up roles (decreases everyone's assists and increases their assisted rate/play-finishing) and therefore weak chemistry with every roster, regardless of how stacked the roster is or preseason favorite status..

You're misguided because coach isn't SELECTED unless the offense that they plan to run is locked down and understood by the front office and GM.. It's literally one of the most important things... That's why Krause wanted Phil over Collins - Phil was a triangle guy and Krause felt that MJ's skillset could make the triangle work - this is well-documented - Phil and Krause were gung-ho about running the triangle with MJ and that's literally why Phil was hired - again, it's VERY well-documented this came out of their own mouths.

Otoh, they would never think to run the triangle with a Luka or Lebron skillset (high-scoring ball-dominator) - they would opt for a different offense and a different coach altogether... So your statement wasn't wrong but misguided and ultimately wrong in refuting my point - the point that a team's offense is based around the 1st option's skillset is correct and stands - a 1st option's skillset is a primary factor in determining the type of coach to choose..

Ultimately, a coach cannot run the triangle or ANY ball movement or high-assist offense with a high-scoring ball-dominant skillset like Harden, Lebron, Luka, Westbrook, Oscar, Tiny, Caitlin, or SGA, which is why it's never happened in the history of basketball.... But it's a free country, so carry on in your unenlightened state if you wish - that's what happens when you couple never playing with a dismissal of the historical record.

Jordan was never ball-dominant and was always an off-guard.. The ball still found it's way to Jordan most of the time, but he didn't bring the ball up court and he didn't dominate the ball once he got it.. His moves, fakes and footwork were literally GOAT, so ball-dominance wasn't needed..

It's this goat scoring diversity and skillset that let Krause know that Phil's triangle might work - that's why Phil was hired - it was to run the triangle with Michael..

It's funny because they thought that MJ wouldn't lead the league in scoring anymore, so even Phil and Krause underestimated how great MJ was - he was still carrying the triangle and scoring all the points even though it was supposed to be an equal-opportunity offense.. All those points were required due to the worst scoring-help in the league.. For example, in the 93' Finals, the Bulls and Suns both averaged 106.7 ppg and 113.0 ortg, so every ounce of Jordan's 41 ppg was needed..

Pippen was also at 47% true shooting, so he couldn't handle additional load.. Pippen's peak was only 22 ppg anyway, as we saw in 94' when he was given the keys to the most well-oiled machine ever against sleeping opponents.. Once they woke up, the "real" bulls were embarrassed in the 94' Playoffs and 95' regular season before MJ returned.
.

Itt we learn that a primary factor that influences coaching hires is what offense the prospective coach will run.. A coach with a "triangle" and ball movement philosophy would never be hired to coach a ball-dominator like Luka, Lebron or Harden, and no coach has ever run a ball movement and high team assist offense with a ball-dominator (Lebron, Luka, Westbrook, SGA, Harden).

Fallguy,
Are you saying that when Phil Jackson was hired as president of the Knicks, they hired Derek Fisher to coach, and they installed the triangle offense, it was because they deeply understood the offense that was to be run and that it was the best offensive scheme for the team and player personnel at the time? And not because it was the scheme they knew best and wanted to implement? “Literally the most important thing”, as you put it.

A yes or no answer is fine. If you want to blast a nonsensical word salad all over the screen since you won’t be able to relay a logical, concise answer, I’m sure that will happen but I’m not sure that I will read it.

Also, earlier in the thread, you argued pretty vehemently in true fallguy fashion that Michael Jordan was or was possibly the GOAT point guard in 1989, the season before Phil Jackson and Tex Winter arrived in Chicago and installed the triangle offense.

Now you are saying he never played point, was always off guard, and was not ball dominant at all despite scoring a massive number of points (your definition of ball dominance you keep giving).

Which is it? Were you lying back then to win an argument? Or are you lying now to win an argument?

Also, as a reminder, ITT we learned that 3 out of 5 does not equal 3 out of 5. It’s more like 1 out of 4 depending on the player because we can’t seem to tell the truth and need to keep shifting the goalposts.

I can’t remember what team you said you played for, but you must not have seen the floor much given your complete misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of the game of basketball.

The Knicks had Carmelo Anthony, who was a mid-range king, so they thought the triangle could work.

However, it turns out that only the GOAT or his clone could make the triangle work.

Ultimately, you're right when you say that coaches have their own philosophy, but that philosophy won't get hired by teams with players that don't fit the philosophy - Krause specifically hired Phil because they felt strongly that Jordan's game could make the triangle work - they would never have hired Phil and his ball movement philosophy if MJ was a ball-dominator like Luka, Lebron or Harden.

And all you need to do is look at all the high-scoring ball-dominators - none of them run a ball movement and high team assist offense because that type of coach wasn't hired and would never be hired to coach a ball-dominator.

Finally, scoring a lot of points is not the requirement to be a ball-dominator.. Reggie Miller, Klay and MJ can take 30 shots and barely dribble at all... The requirement to be a "ball-dominator" is to employ a point guard style, aka live-dribbling, and do it excessively by scoring high amounts this way..

Again, the lower-scoring PG's like Haliburton, Nash and Magic can have high-assist teams because they aren't scoring a lot via live-dribble (ball-domination) - they're only getting about 20 ppg via live dribbles.. Otoh, high-scoring point guards like Luka, Lebron and Harden get 30-35 via live-dribbling, which is excessive ball-dominance that imposes spot-up roles (reduces everyone's assists and increase their assisted rate).... The spot-up roles yield weak chemistry and teams that mostly lose every year - they aren't capable of a dynasty that mostly wins for a material period of time, like a 5 year period, due to their imposition of spot-up roles & weak chemistry.

.
A perspective of the game that has been completely vetted by Matt R. & fallguy:

"Low-scoring" PG's like Stockton, Nash, Magic or Haliburton can have high-assist teams, but not high-scoring point guards like Luka, Harden, Lebron, SGA, or Westbrook, who consistently have low-assist teams and low ball movement.

Having high-assist teams vs low-assist teams is a stark contrast between 15-20 ppg point guards and 25-35 ppg point guards (high-scoring point guards).

Apparently, the excessive ball-dominance/live-dribbling of high-scoring point guards imposes spot-up roles that lowers everyone's assists.. Lower assists from teammate causes low TEAM assists, weaker chemistry, weaker strategic capacity/coaching and high coaching turnover - the confluence of these factors yields weaker, needy teams and a lottery record on the championship level.

Secondly, coaches are not hired without a thorough understanding of their coaching philosophy as outlined in "The Last Dance" documentary, where Krause stated that Collins shrugged off the triangle, so Krause spoke endlessly with the assistant coach (Phil) about putting MJ in the triangle - this was THE key factor why Phil was hired - he was hired to meld MJ and the triangle after Collins refused... However, if MJ was a high-scoring ball-dominator that prevented high-assist teams and ball movement (described above), then a different coach with a different philosophy would've been hired.. We can confirm that coaches don't run ball movement and high-assist offenses with ball-dominators because it's never happened - every high-scoring ball-dominator runs a low ball movement and low team assist offense, so Phil's ball movement would never be the right coach if MJ was a ball-dominator.
.

.
Here's Doug Collins saying that 1987 Jordan did not dominate the ball on the way to 37 ppg in 1987:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4OGPNQ01do&t=17m47s

YouTube

The TRUTH About Michael Jordan's Career

Most people don't realize that the 87' Bulls traded away the top 2 scorers from 85-86', so the 87' Bulls had less help than the rookie Jordan's Bulls in 85'.. They started all over in 87', and that's why MJ had to average 37

.
It's easy to forget that Lebron rejected Blatt's ball movement and Spurs-like Princeton offense and Blatt was fired over it:

ESPN:

"Within days of the start of the past season, James began expressing doubt that Blatt would work out as the Cavs' long-term answer. That was crystallized during a road trip to the West Coast in the second week of the season, when James and Irving began a bit of a tug-of-war over control of the offense. Blatt seemed powerless to control them, and if he tried, it didn't work.

Shortly thereafter, James changed his role in the Cavs' offense and began playing point guard while moving Irving off the ball. In conjunction with the move, the Cavs, naturally, started moving away from the Princeton sets Blatt had installed during the preseason. James nonchalantly told the media he didn't consult Blatt on the changes."

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/14629892/nba-final-unraveling-david-blatt

ESPN.com

David Blatt and the unwinding of his Cleveland tenure

Chicago Tribune:

Windhorst reported long ago that it was James who assembled the Cavs for a players-only meeting right before Blatt’s first training camp and then scrapped Blatt’s Princeton offense.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/01/22/lebron-james-was-not-consulted-on-the-david-blatt-firing-that-is-unreal/

Chicago Tribune

LeBron James was not consulted on the David Blatt firing? That is unreal

BBallbreakdown:

"Blatt's beautiful offense that he brought with him from Europe - a ball movement offense with Spurs and Warriors plays - was rejected immediately by Lebron"

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IbO_505V3Uo&t=10m24s

YouTube

Why David Blatt Was Fired By The Cavaliers

So the idea that Lebron could simply use the triangle to win 6 chips is absurd - Phil would've been fired just like Blatt was for trying to run a high team assist and ball movement offense with a ball-dominator.. No high-scoring ball-dominator has EVER run a ball movement and high team assist offense mostly because coaches with ball movement philosophies aren't hired to coach ball-dominators, or are quickly shown the door if they try, as Blatt was.

Compare the whole season not just 1 series that fits your narrative

At 22 years old, both Kobe and Lebron were 2nd Team All-NBA, except Kobe was 2nd-team All-Defense and #11 for DPOY, versus no defense for Lebron.. Then Kobe outplayed Lebron against the Spurs by massive margin, as the post above shows.

So Kobe was better at 22, and also 23 because Lebron averaged 26 on 35% and 6 TO's against the 08' Celtics... So that's 2 years in a row of Lebron shooting 35% with 6 TO's against championship comp, while Kobe played great against the Spurs both years.. Btw, Kobe and Lebron were both 1st Team All-NBA at 23 years old, but Kobe was 1st team defense and #3 DPOY, versus no defense for Lebron.

So again, since Kobe was better at 22-23 years old and other guys like Magic won FMVP at 20, why do people say "Lebron was the best young player??... He clearly wasn't the best young player... And who cares about young or old Lebron when prime Lebron was better than both - prime Lebron is Lebron's best basketball and that's what we're measuring - who played the best basketball so prime is all that matters.

[quote=ConfusedFraudVictim]

b-b-but Lebron memorizes opponents' plays!!"

[/quote]

Unlike Magic, Curry, Duncan and many others, Lebron doesn't know how to not crater his 3rd option, which equals low IQ.

It's also low IQ to impose spot-up roles so young players never develop, thereby requiring ready-made stars

It's also low IQ to cause lower teammate assists via spot-up roles, so the team has low assists and can't compete against high-assist teams like the Nuggets, Spurs, Mavs, Warriors and Magic - Lebron's ball-dominance has a lottery record against these ball movement teams despite being in his prime with #1 seeds, big 3 super-teams, or AD leading both sides of the ball.

Lebron is simply a low-IQ player with a simpleton "down-hill" skillset that gets demolished by good, 5-man basketball - his weak brand of ball and chemistry is forced to hand-pick favored talent, such as preseason favorites for 6 straight years (11-16' and 20-21') - yet mostly lost each year... This is all very low IQ, but unfortunately, fans have been lied to - the lie is that a player who cannot produce great teams and produces weak chemistry/perennial losers with every cast is actually a goat candidate.... It's one of the biggest frauds ever... (a player that catastrophically-loses every year is treated as if he wins every year, while unprecedented losses such as 4 straight 4th quarter chokes in the WCF are treated like titles or accomplishments).

[Quote=FraudVictim#253143201]

Switch Luka and Tatum. Which team wins the Finals?

[/QUOTE]

It isn't about switching players suddenly, since one skillset can develop great chemistry and dominant teams over time, while the other can't - you act like Tatum just woke up with this Celtics team - it took years for him to develop that team, so it's a good thing that his skillset of expert jumpshooting and assisted buckets (off-ball) allows great ball movement, fits and chemistry development..

Otoh, high-scoring ball-dominators like Lebron and Luka impose spot-up roles, so they never develop great chemistry like the Nuggets, Warriors, Spurs, Dirk's Mavs, 09' Magic or these Celtics - these ball movement teams destroy the ball-dominance of Luka and Lebron over a large sample.

I am getting the impression that you believe good off-ball jump shooters are responsible for the development of the entire team over time. Not the coach, not the GM, not really any of the other players, but the off-ball jump shooter. Is that fair to say?

Do you think it’s possible for a ball dominant player to develop better off-ball skills over time, under the right coaching and circumstances? Or are great off-ball jump shooters born and not made?

I haven’t gotten around to reading your other replies yet; this stood out to me in your last post though.

As soon as the Finals began and everyone saw the Celtics' zippy ball movement, it was clear that the Mavericks ' ball-domination had no chance:

2024 FINALS - Team Assists Per Game

Boston....... 24.2
Mavs ......... 16.8

Similarly, Lebron has massive deficits in team assists for all his playoff losses in the last 10 years.. Deficits in team assists is a hallmark of the high-scoring point guard, aka ball-dominator.

I'm sure it's possible for ball-dominators like Luka, Lebron, Westbrook or Harden to become great off-ball players, but we simply haven't seen it happen yet... Apparently, ball-dominators think they're doing it the right way and hate the idea of not having the ball - they essentially hate the idea of ball movement, so they never learn how to do it (off-ball play).

And certainly a coach and GM contribute to building a dynasty, but they can't build a great team without a skillset from the 1st option that allows great chemistry and ball movement.. Accordingly, the only times they achieved building a dynasty was with expert jumpshooters or fundamental bigs, since these skillsets allow great chemistry, fits, ball movement and team assists.

Like usual you ignore almost everything and just pick the 2 things that support your viewpoint.

Lebron had across the board better stats those 2 comparison years, including on defense but the voters overrated Kobe's defense and underrated Lebron's so you just use Defense team voting. And you only look at a single series in each year to pretend that the other 90 games didn't happen

Again, I have not read your other replies yet, so maybe you addressed this, but:

Say, hypothetically, you had an elite ball dominant player. Let’s say they average something like ~27ppg, 7 assists, 8 rebounds, on elite efficiency (say, top 3 TS% in the league, or thereabouts).

This elite ball dominant player managed to win 3 titles in 5 years. The same ratio as you qualified as “mostly winning” with Tim Duncan.

They could also, possibly, with the right coaching and team structure, become an elite off-ball player. But for whatever reason it hasn’t happened. Could be because they never had a coach that tried to implement that style of offense. Or had anyone push him to be off ball because he was so good on ball, and they managed to get enough spot up shooters to win titles.

You’re saying that, even though they check all the boxes on individual contributions AND great team success, because they are not primarily an off ball player, they cannot possibly be top 15 all time and must be below Kobe because Kobe showed he was better off ball? (In a completely different offense with completely different coaching strategy)

Because, to me, it seems like when a player has all time elite stats like that AND wins 3 titles in 5 years, that pretty much proves (because it actually happened), that a ball dominant player can be pretty successful.

Note that nowhere above did I ever say ball dominance was better than being an elite off ball jump shooter.

Saying a ball-dominator can turn into a great off-ball and ball movement player is almost like saying Shaq can turn into a jumpshooter - obviously Luka and Lebron are better jumpshooters than Shaq, but dynasties require GOAT ball movement and jumpshooting ability like Curry, MJ or Kobe - Luka and Lebron can never reach this caliber just like Curry or Kobe might not reach Luka or Lebron's level of ball-domination if they tried..

But why would they want to try in the first place, since it's a losing brand of ball that imposes spot-up roles and weak chemistry with every cast.. The weaker ability to develop chemistry and great teams is why the best ball-dominators of all-time are behind more winning skillsets lin the all-time rankings - i.e. the best ball-dominators ever are behind the best jumpshooters and bigs, and therefore cannot rank higher than 15th all-time.. History shows that it's an inferior skillset.

And regarding your other point, Lebron never produced a great team like the Spurs that mostly won over a material period, like 5 years - he only produced weak teams that perennially-lost, like the going 1 for 4 with the Cavs, Lakers and Heat (except the Allen miracle)..

Lebron's losing record is the entire reason we're having this discussion - I'm explaining why his skillset loses so frequently, while you're defending his losing and saying it was special circumstances.. The problem is that the entire history of losing ball-domination can't be attributed to special circumstances.. Luka, Harden, Westbrook and SGA are perennial losers too, and Lebron's rare wins can be directly tied to his team-uos with opponents and hand-picking preseason favorites - his record given this extra help is downright pathetic compared to Jordan - i.e. when Lebron got "help", he mostly lost, while MJ mostly won (and with 1 less star teammate)..

History is clear - MJ is a "winner", while Lebron is a "loser", choker, colluder, flopper, crier, roider, and faker.. It's quite a contrast and I guarantee you that there are millions waiting for him to retire.. He"s actually ruined the league and made it soft and uncompetitive.. This bum was just complaining about having to take a private jet to Milwaukee for a road game - smh, when will this cancer retire?

I wasn’t comparing LeBron to Jordan. I agree that Jordan was better peak v peak; although it’s much closer than you think. I’m comparing LeBron to Kobe.

That you keep calling LeBron a perennial loser even though he has 4 rings and has usually taken his teams deep into the playoffs makes literally no sense. I promise you if he played with prime Shaq and Phil Jackson as his coach he would have 3 peated as well. You literally just said two posts ago that players can learn to play off ball. And even if LeBron didn’t or couldn’t a prime LeBron and prime Shaq would absolutely decimate people. As you can see by LeBron’s 4 rings you can actually win titles by not only jump shooting.