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.
"balanced offensive attack" and “balanced scoring attack” does not mean equal distribution of shots and points.
that's exactly what it means... Don't try to "Kamala Harris" this thing... balanced scoring attack means a balanced attack, while unbalanced would be one guy at 34 ppg and everyone else under 16.
the 04' Pistons or the 13' Heat had a balanced scoring attack in the Finals, while the 90's Bulls, 03' Spurs, 15' Warriors, and 00' Lakers didn't and had 1 guy carry the scoring load (they were all highly-assisted 1st options that could drop 40 while the ball moves and therefore had sufficient brand at high scoring levels to carry the scoring load against the top teams)...
Again, lebron's inability to carry the scoring load is one of the many reasons that I rate him lower.
lol @ FG using JJ as the number 1 option in Memphis.
It's Morant.
I don't care that he's not leading them in ppg. He's coming back from an injury. And if you look at it as a per minute thing. They are basically level.
You don't think come playoff time Ja is going to be the first option?
So dumb.
But I guess I threw you a bone by introducing "primary ballhandler" into the conversation, since apparently you feel more comfortable lying that the Warriors system uses a "primary ballhandler" (it doesn't), or that Curry is a "primary ballhandler" (he isn't)... Accordingly, I'll go back to low-assisted 1st option, since it's hard to call someone a "low-assisted 1st option" when they have a 48% career assisted rate and 4.79 hold-time.
I'm curious how you know this if you don't watch games?
Are you saying you have been lying to us?
BTW. Admitting you watch games actually helps any of your arguments rather than hurting. But I know you will say you don't because you think it's a good thing.
lol @ FG using JJ as the number 1 option in Memphis.
It's Morant.
I don't care that he's not leading them in ppg. He's coming back from an injury. And if you look at it as a per minute thing. They are basically level.
You don't think come playoff time Ja is going to be the first option?
So dumb.
I stated that Morant was likely to take over in the playoffs, which woulnn't necessarily make them a better team because his current assisted rate appears to be a fluke and he'll go into his normal ball-dominance in the playoffs..
I stated that right there in the post among the sentences you're referencing.. Maybe you have a memory issue or something because you seem to miss things that I directly stated in my post and are right next to the sentences you're referencing..
I'm curious how you know this if you don't watch games?
Are you saying you have been lying to us?
It's common knowledge that the Warriors' and the 90's Bulls offenses don't use a point guard role.
Curry is like the rich man's Paxson or Derek Fisher - well actually, he's like an Elon Musk version of them.
Again, I don't watch the games and virtually all my prognostications come from the stats that I've been mentioning.. I use the assisted rate of the leading scorer to determine how ball-dominant the team is and the team's baseline capacity to move the ball... Then I look at team assists and the hold times of the top scorers (and their assisted rates).. All of this lets me know how a team plays and their potential for chemistry (does the cast have enough time with the ball).
The occasional youtube highlight or watching a video from "Uncut Hoops" or "Skap Attack" or "sports n fitness rants", or "angry ol hoops" gives me the little eye test that I need to confirm everything.. You should understand that I can determine how a guy plays just by seeing how they walk and move - I can envision how they play and I'm accurate every time once I actually see them in action.. Maybe I'm a savant or something.
I stated that Morant was likely to take over in the playoffs, which woulnn't necessarily make them a better team because his current assisted rate appears to be a fluke and he'll go into his normal ball-dominance in the playoffs..
I stated that right there in the post among the sentences you're referencing.. Maybe you have a memory issue or something because you seem to miss things that I directly stated in my post and are right next to the sentences you're referencing..
Yeah,
I don't read all your posts.
No you most definitely do as anyone can see over the past however many pages.. hundreds I guess.
You just have bad reading comp I believe, or you skim-game isn't that great.. No biggie - mine ain't that great either.. I'm getting old and my eyes are bad
quick question... is it true that by the time Lebron had the same number of FGA's as Jordan's career, that he had more than1500 more turnovers and 1000 more FTA's???
is that true?
ultimately, the entire idea that anyone could just shoot more to score like jordan is absurd.. that's like saying Shaq could've hit as many threes as Curry if he just shot more, or MJ could've averaged more APG than Magic if he just passed more... Or Curry could've averaged more rebounds than Oakley if he just pursued more rebounds.
jordan was forced to score the most because he had the least scoring help... guys like pippen, horace, paxson and BJ played near career highs/capacity alongside Jordan, so all his scoring was needed... there were no bad fits like Bosh, Love, Westbrook, Hughes, or Jamison where these guys could've been scoring way more.. Everyone played to capacity, but the scoring help was just that bad - Pippen averaged 17.6 for the entire 2nd three-peat on the worst efficiency ever (literally), so he couldn't handle additional shots... He shot 46% true shooting in the 93' Finals (0% on threes and 59% from the line), so he couldn't handle additional load in that series either... And the 91/92 Finals is the best that Pippen ever played - the peak performances of his career (21 ppg on sub-par efficiency)
Donovan Mitchell is at 39% assisted rate - this isn't spectacular but not horrible for the lowest-assisted player on the team... Garland is at a respectable 45%, and the kicker is that both guys are below 5 minutes hold-time.. That signals outstanding chemistry... Now when we look at team assists, we see a top 5 assist team, so the team looks strong based on these 3 factors.
Can you explain to me why you think both guys being under 5 minutes signals "outstanding chemistry".
Rather than you saying something that will come back and bite you, I'll get the the point.
Garland - 4.9mins over 30.2mins
Mitchell - 4.7mins over 31.4mins
Their minutes are way down as they are killing teams. As a percentage of time on the court they are right up there with others that you would argue "terrible chemistry".
And then there is the whole you can't have two balls on a court thing.
Going with the favourite. Amazing.
Assisted rate is a great determinant of ball-domination, which in turn is a primary hindering factor for chemistry and brand of ball, and therefore team ceiling.
Ball-domination is a function of offensive scheme run. Offensive skill set of a player is only a small part of this. Assisted rate is more of a measure of a player's role in an offense, not offensive skill set. For example, in the two years Steve Nash won MVP he had an assisted rate of about 20 to 23%. But he was an excellent, excellent shooter and had an assisted rate as high as 59.3%. He very clearly could catch passes and score effectively. You'd have to be a complete drooling idiot to believe otherwise. But he was used more effectively in that specific scheme as a ball-dominant play-making point guard. Which was a good thing, because he led some of the greatest offenses in NBA history.
^^^ that isn't the requirement.
The player must be capable of having really high assisted rates, which allows their career average to be above 40%... Anyone with a career average of over 40% will have numerous years in their prime of over 45% and even 50% or higher.
This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. It would not just depend on the mean. It would heavily depend on the shape of the data distribution as well. Again, this can be counted -- LeBron James' exceeded a 40% assisted fg% nine times in his career. You're literally saying "the mean isn't actually what matters, it's the number of times a player gets over a threshold, therefore we only look at the mean." It's the dumbest thing ever.
Otoh, Lebron barely scraped 40% twice in his prime and ranged between 29-41 (36% average) from 2006 to 2021... This is nowhere near the capability required of 1st options on dynasties or dominant champions, which is why his career average falls below 40%... Everyone 1st option that is below 40% career average is a primary ballhandler.
Btw, basically every year that Lebron was over 40% was his lottery years or fossil years (04', 05', 21', 22', 23', 24', 25') - that's pretty telling...... And his horrific records during these seasons shows how bad he is at over 40% assisted rates and playing a little more off-ball... He's simply a horrible off-ball player that literally stands around when he doesn't have the ball - he lacks the hoops instinct, fundamentals, and jumpshooting touch to effectively play off teammates.
This is completely false and you're lying through your weasel rat teeth. LeBron James exceeded a 40% assisted fg% in 2013, 2014, and 2016. All years he won championships and he was in his prime.
The definition of "dominant champion" is a dominant playoff run, so the playoff assisted rate is the relevant stat, and Tatum's was 47%.... Meanwhile, Durant was the leading scorer for the 2017 playoffs, and his assisted rate was 56%.
So you're basically crying because everything fits perfectly and you're argument is basically "b-but it almost doesn't work perfectly".... Well too bad - almost ain't good enough - all the numbers check out despite how close a couple of them are.
Wrong. Nothing you have said has been correct. It's not "almost doesn't work perfectly". Nothing works, at all, except the data you have deliberately cherry picked that happens to just so slightly fit in with your shitty argument.
We've never cared about someone that shot 29% on 0.8 attempts.
We've never cared about that and never will... "bailout volume" isn't relevant data (forced shots at the end of shot-clock from a player that otherwise doesn't want to shoot threes).
OK, this is even more stupid. Those "0.8 attempts" are part of the data. We are not specifically focusing on that, we are including that. When you only include that data that is "good" and supports your argument that is called "cherry picking" and that is "bad logic" and "stupid".
Today's shooting requires volume, and Jordan always shot well at today's volumes - if you could find multiple seasons or series where he shot poorly at today's volumes, then you could disprove my statements... But there are none... He shot 36.4% in regular season games of 3+ attempts, and 39% in playoff series of 3+ attempts... The only time he shot poorly in a playoff series of 3+ attempts was the 90' ECF - this fits the definition of a "one-off" or "fluke"...
Jesus Christ. Are you cherry picking every other player's data to only include their "non-bailout" shots? Of course you're not because you're an idiot and a lying weasel rat.
Of course, since Jordan shot 36-39% at today's volumes with NO practice, so he would be over 40% WITH practice - this is intuitive.. His perfect jumpshooting stroke and his accomplishment of becoming the goat 2-point jumpshooter gives him further credibility that other guys don't have when considering how they would shoot in today's game.
I mean, it might be better in today's game because he may have focused on it more. But you can't just say he would do it, because he never did. That would be like saying Shaq would be an elite 3 point shooter or Curry would be an elite post player if they just tried. (Remember that argument? lmfao.)
Durant was the leading scorer for the "dominant title run" in the 2017 Playoffs, so your counter-argument that "0.2 is so close" still fails.
You said first option before. Now you changed it to leading scorer. These are not the same thing. Durant had an ever so slightly higher ppg in the 2017 playoffs because he had a higher TS%. Technically, he wasn't even the leading scorer because he only played 15 games. Curry had more total points. Curry was the first option, always. You're changing the words in your argument because you're a lying weasel rat.
And lets be clear - if I was still using the terms "low-assisted 1st option" or "ball-dominator", you wouldn't be refuting me on the "dynasty" issue and whether Curry was a ball-dominator or not.... He obviously isn't.
I mean yeah if you completely move the goalposts every single time by changing the words you use, your argument can never be wrong. But if you didn't do that you also wouldn't be a lying weasel rat, so here we are.
But I guess I threw you a bone by introducing "primary ballhandler" into the conversation, since apparently you feel more comfortable lying that the Warriors system uses a "primary ballhandler" (it doesn't), or that Curry is a "primary ballhandler" (he isn't)... Accordingly, I'll go back to low-assisted 1st option, since it's hard to call someone a "low-assisted 1st option" when they have a 48% career assisted rate and 4.79 hold-time.
Curry was the primary ball handler in the Warriors system. Just because he was less ball-dominant than the primary ball handler in some other systems does not change the fact that he held the ball the most in their offense. This is factually true based on the data. This also proves that the system matters -- in other systems the primary ball handler holds the ball more. Is it starting to make sense? Lmfao of course it isn't.
Can you explain to me why you think both guys being under 5 minutes signals "outstanding chemistry".
Kyrie and Lebron were at 6.5 minutes and 34% assisted rate in 2015, so 4.9 minutes and 40-45% for Garland and Donovan is better for a couple of point-guard-style players... These numbers show that teammates have more time with the ball and opportunity to assist than they would get on other teams with 2 ball-handlers, or obviously the Kyrie/Lebron duo... Since teammates have more time with the ball, they produce more than Kyrie/Lebron's teammates, so the team is much better and currently on pace for around 70 wins... Furthermore, Lebron's monopolistic style gives teammates' no time with the ball compared to what they get alongside normal forwards, so teammates are cratered.
So we see that chemistry allows a team with inferior talent (the current Cavs) to produce a far superior team to the preseason favorites and massively-underachieiving 53-win teams that Lebron had from 15-18'.
that's exactly what it means... Don't try to "Kamala Harris" this thing... balanced scoring attack means a balanced attack, while unbalanced would be one guy at 34 ppg and everyone else under 16.
the 04' Pistons or the 13' Heat had a balanced scoring attack in the Finals, while the 90's Bulls, 03' Spurs, 15' Warriors, and 00' Lakers didn't and had 1 guy carry the scoring load (they were all highly-assisted 1st options that could drop 40 while the ball moves and therefore had sufficient brand at h
I have no idea what Kamala Harris has to do with this, but:
https://www.si.com/nba/bulls/old-school/...
“Under Winter’s ideal, perfected over four decades of coaching at various levels, the Bulls’ attack would be a more balanced, more nuanced system based largely upon spacing and open spots,” Jeff Pearlman wrote in his book “Three-Ring Circus.”
Notice that "balanced offense" does not mean Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright, and John Paxson would all average 17 points per game. It means the system will put all players on the court in the best positions to make plays and score efficiently according to their abilities. Do you understanding that "balanced scoring options" and "everyone has an equal numbers of points", are not the same words? It's just your dumbass, incorrect interpretation of the words. Jesus Christ "options" is right there in the original phrase. It's not "equal points". Try to think.
^^^ which is a function of the 1st option's skillset (the biggest bucket-getter on the team)...
Luka, SGA, Lebron and every high-scoring ball-dominator in history have never run a ball movement system... That's the proof that they cannot do it even without looking at the assisted rate stats that prove they have large volume of unassisted buckets that prevents great ball movement and causes low average ranking in team assists..
Lebron James' exceeded a 40% assisted fg% nine times in his career. You're literally saying "the mean isn't actually what matters, it's the number of times a player gets over a threshold, therefore we only look at the mean." It's the dumbest thing ever.
This is completely false and you're lying through your weasel rat teeth. LeBron James exceeded a 40% assisted fg% in 2013, 2014, and 2016. All years he won championships and he was in his prime.
Prime Lebron was in the 30's and peaked at 40% three times, while the requirement is to trough at 40% and otherwise have much higher assisted rates that produce a career average above 40%.
This is the historical record... High-scoring, low-assisted 1st options like Luka, Lebron, and company are the "ball-dominator" skillset, which can't be the 1st option for the best basketball (0 for 12).
You should be happy that there's a clear-cut criteria for the best basketball that can be expressed qualitatively (no ball-dominators) or quantitatively (over 40% career assisted rate)...
Everything you wrote is wrong, as usual.
^^^ which is a function of the 1st option's skillset (the biggest bucket-getter on the team)...
No, it’s a function of the player’s role within the offense. This isn’t a “skill” like shooting. It’s measuring how often the player catches a pass and scores versus creating the shot on their own. It’s almost always harder to create a shot on your own. That’s why it’s called an “assist”. Virtually any NBA level played that can create efficient shots on their own can also make a field goal after catching a pass. Assisted fg% is a measure of how a player is used, not his skill. This is ****ing obvious.
Luka, SGA, Lebron and every high-scoring ball-dominator in history have never run a ball movement system...
This again? There are different “systems”. Just because their coaches have never implemented a ball movement system does not mean they couldn’t play in one. All of these players can pass and score. This is really obvious and really really basic logic. I understand this is your central point and you’ve put a lot of time into this, but I promise you it’s really ****ing stupid.
That's the proof that they cannot do it even without looking at the assisted rate stats that prove they have large volume of unassisted buckets that prevents great ball movement or high average ranking in team assists..
Wrong. Refuted above. And in dozens of prior posts with data.
Prime Lebron was in the 30's and peaked at 40% three times, while the requirement is to trough at 40% and otherwise have much higher assisted rates that produce a career average above 40%.
LeBron’s career average was 38.4% and he was in the 40’s for three of his rings. But why are you even stating this like it matters? Literally no one agrees with you that assisted fg% matters at all, except as a measure of a player’s role in an offense.
This is the historical record... Low-assisted 1st options like Luka, Lebron, SGA, and company are the "ball-dominator" skillset, which can also be called "down-hill" or "high-scoring primary ballhandler" skillset - it can't be the 1st option for the best basketball (0 for 12).
No, it’s called “playing point guard” lmfao. Just because you have some stupid phrase that you slapped on an arbitrary threshold of an arbitrary stat does not mean it has anything to do with winning basketball. (Hint, it doesn’t: we’ve already shown that assisted fg% is often negatively correlated with wins and championships, once you control for team effects)
You should be happy that there's a clear-cut criteria for the best basketball that can be articulated qualitatively (no ball-dominators) or statistically (over 40% career assisted rate).
I am happy that we have data-driven proof that you’re wrong, and thus can just laugh at your posts in amusement from here on out.
Thread Cliffs
By virtue of being incapable of producing the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions), the best ball-dominators are inferior to the best bigs or jumpshooters, who produced 12 of 12 instances of the best basketball... Full rankings - MJ, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic, Magic, Lebron, Oscar
Here is a prior post, with all data, that proves that LeBron James contributes far more than Kobe Bryant and MJ to total team assists after incorporating the “assisted field goal %” statistic. Obviously contributing more to team assists does not prevent team assists — this is a contradiction. Thus we have data driven proof that fallguy’s assisted fg% argument is factually wrong.
I have some evidence.
A while back, I explicitly showed that whenever LeBron James leaves a team, their total team assists are reduced. And every time LeBron James joins a team, their total team assists are increased. This is strong evidence that LeBron James improves his teams overall assist totals, not reduces them, because the data factually shows the assist totals improved, and that the "career" 40% assisted fg% threshold is arbitrary and irrelevant.
But you can actually calculate this more di
Thread Cliffs
Data, statistics, and facts are important. Narratives based on cherry picked data often lead to false arguments and incorrect conclusions. And in crazy enough individuals, tens of thousands of stupid posts in random basketball forums across the internet with a lot of banned accounts.
^^^ irrelevant because none of Lebron's rings or teams were "the best basketball" (dominant champions or dynasties)
And for the record, prime Lebron peaked at 40% three times and was otherwise in his 30's every year (36% average) - this is nowhere near the requirement for the best basketball, which is actually 48% career assisted rate or higher (described below).
^^^ insufficient because all the 1st options for dynasties and dominant champions had career assisted rates much higher than that.
I previously used 40% to make it simple, but I could've said 48% (and will from now on), since that's Curry's career assisted rate and he has the lowest rate among the 1st options of dynasties or dominant champions.
Since 1997, there were 96 times that a player averaged 25+ with below 40% assisted rate, and they averaged 18th in team assists over this sample size and produced a top 5 assist team 5 of 96 times (5%).. Otoh, players that averaged 25+ with above 50% assisted rate averaged 10th in assists and produced a top 5 assist team 36 of 87 times (41%).
So you're just lying... Low-assisted 1st options produce low average ranking in team assists.. Full stop.
I am happy that we have data-driven proof that you’re wrong, and thus can just laugh at your posts in amusement from here on out.
Thread Cliffs
By virtue of being incapable of producing the best basketball (dynasties or dominant champions), the best ball-dominators are inferior to the best bigs or jumpshooters, who produced 12 of 12 instances of the best basketball... Full rankings - MJ, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic, Magic, Lebron, Oscar
A reminder that no matter how many times fallguy repeats the same thing over and over again, we have data driven proof that his assisted fg% argument is wrong. See below for the full post with all data.
I have some evidence.
A while back, I explicitly showed that whenever LeBron James leaves a team, their total team assists are reduced. And every time LeBron James joins a team, their total team assists are increased. This is strong evidence that LeBron James improves his teams overall assist totals, not reduces them, because the data factually shows the assist totals improved, and that the "career" 40% assisted fg% threshold is arbitrary and irrelevant.
But you can actually calculate this more di
Thread Cliffs
High-scoring, low-assisted 1st options like Lebron or Westbrook crater all teammates' assists, which causes low average ranking in team assists.. This trash brand of ball is why low-assisted 1st options never produced the best brand of ball (dynasties or dominant champions)... Since they're incapable of being 1st option for the best basketball, the best low-assisted players (ball-dominators) are inferior to the best bigs or jumpshooters (highly-assisted players), who were 1st option for 12 of 12 instances of the best basketball... Full rankings - MJ, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Kobe, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, Curry, Jokic, Magic, Lebron, Oscar.
.
Here is a prior post, with all data, that proves that lebron contributes far more than Kobe Bryant and MJ to total team assists after incorporating the “assisted field goal %” statistic.
Lebron, Westbrook and all ball-dominators lower their teammates' assists and produce very low-assist teams on average compared to off-ball guys like Curry or Jordan (see comprehensive stats below).
Btw, Westbrook and Lebron's free throws were achieved with ball-dominance, in addition to their field goals and also possessions where they dribbled but didn't attempt a shot - so their presence forces an inferior brand of ball (ball-dominance), while the assisted styles of Curry or Jordan allows a superior way of playing (ball movement) that produces better chemistry, strategy and teams.
The best basketball requires highly-assisted 1st options like Curry and Jordan, while low-assisted ball-dominators never produced the best basketball (0 for 12).
.
.
.
LEBRON LOWERED ALL HIS TEAMMATES' ASSISTS, WHICH PRODUCED LOW-ASSIST TEAMS ON AVERAGE
ASSISTS PER GAME AS A STARTER WITH AND WITHOUT LEBRON:
12-14' Kyrie............... 5.8 (no Lebron)
15-17' Kyrie............... 5.3
18-24' Kyrie............... 5.8 (no Lebron)
04-10' Bosh............... 2.2 (no Lebron)
11-14' Bosh............... 1.6
15-16' Bosh............... 2.3 (no Lebron)
11-14' Love................ 3.0 (no Lebron)
15-18' Love................ 2.1
19-21' Love................ 2.8 (no Lebron)
05-08' Mo................... 5.7 (no Lebron)
09-10' Mo................... 4.6
11-13' Mo................... 5.3 (no Lebron)
09-10' Chalmers........ 4.2 (no Lebron)
11-14' Chalmers........ 3.6
99-04' Snow................ 6.9 (no Lebron)
06-07' Snow................ 4.1
01-05' Hughes........... 3.8 (no Lebron)
06-08' Hughes........... 3.3
2018 Ingram.............. 3.9 (no Lebron)
2019 Ingram.............. 3.0
20-25' Ingram............ 5.2 (no Lebron
2019 Kuzma............... 2.5
22-25' Kuzma............. 3.8 (no Lebron)
2018 Ball..................... 7.2 (no Lebron)
2019 Ball..................... 5.4
20-22' Ball................... 6.1 (no Lebron)
00-09' Jamison........... 1.8 (no Lebron)
2010 Jamison............. 1.3
11-12' Jamison........... 1.9 (no Lebron)
04-10' Wade............... 6.6 (no Lebron)
11-14' Wade............... 4.7
19-22' D-Lo................. 6.7 (no Lebron)
23-25' D-Lo................. 6.2
09-21' Westbrook....... 8.5 (no Lebron)
2022 Westbrook..........7.1
15-18'' KCP.................. 2.0 (no Lebron)
19-21' KCP................... 1.6
22-25' KCP................... 2.2 (no Lebron)
Lebron lowered all his teammates' assists because all high-scoring, low-assisted 1st options like SGA, Lebron and Luka (ball-dominators) have high volume of unassisted buckets that reduce assist opportunities for teammates, which produces low average ranking in team assists.
Specifically, there were 96 times that a player averaged 25+ with below 40% assisted rate, and they averaged 18th in team assists over this sample size and produced a top 5 assist team 5 of 96 times (5%).. Otoh, players that averaged 25+ with above 50% assisted rate averaged 10th in assists and produced a top 5 assist team 36 of 87 times (41%).
In addition to reducing teammates' assists, high-scoring primary ballhandlers increase teammates' assisted rate (play-finishing, aka "spot-up roles), as shown below.
.
.
All high-scoring, primary ball-handlers like Lebron lower their teammates' APG (playmaking) and increase their assisted rate (play-finishing, aka "turning teammates into spot-up shooter"):
................................................................APG.................. ASSISTED RATE
wade BEFORE lebron (04'-10'):........... 6.6............................29.2%
wade WITH.... lebron (11'-14'):'.......... 4.7............................40.3%
irving BEFORE lebron (12'-14'):........... 5.8............................31.9%
irving WITH.... lebron.. (15-17'):.......... 5.3............................32.7%
bosh BEFORE lebron (04'-10'):............. 2.2............................55.8%
bosh WITH.... lebron (11'-14'):'............ 1.6............................71.6%
love BEFORE lebron (09'-14'):.............. 2.5.............................62.7%
love WITH.... lebron (15'-18'):.............. 2.1.............................78.3%
mo BEFORE lebron (05'-08'):................ 5.7.............................39.2%
mo WITH.... lebron (09'-10'):................ 4.6.............................47.6%
FYI...
pippen WITH... jordan 91'-93':............. 6.5
pippen W/OUT jordan 94'-95':............. 5.4
pippen WITH... jordan 96'-98':............. 5.8
.
"DOMINANT CHAMPIONS" THAT AVERAGED 1 LOSS PER ROUND OR LESS (4 LOSSES MAX) AND THE 1ST OPTION FOR THAT RUN:
1. 2017 Warriors (16-1)......... DURANT
2. 2001 Lakers (15-1)............. SHAQ
3. 1999 Spurs (15-2)............... DUNCAN
4. 2024 Celtics (16-3)............. TATUM
5. 2023 Nuggets (16-4).......... JOKIC
6. 2007 Spurs (16-4)............... DUNCAN
7. 2002 Lakers (15-4).............. SHAQ
8. 1997 Bulls (15-4).................. JORDAN
"DYNASTIES" THAT MOSTLY WON FOR A MATERIAL STRETCH OF 5+ YEARS (I.E. 3 IN 5) AND THEIR 1ST OPTION:
1. Chicago Bulls....................... JORDAN
2. San Antonio Spurs.............. DUNCAN
3. Los Angeles Lakers............. SHAQ
4. Golden State Warriors........ CURRY
Since possession-tracking began in 1997, bigs or jumpshooters were required at 1st option for 8 of 8 "dominant champions" that averaged 1 loss or less per round for their title run (4 losses max), and 4 of 4 "dynasties" that mostly won for a material stretch of 5 years (i.e. 3 in 5)..
So that's 12 of 12 instances of dynasties or dominant champions (the best basketball) where ball-dominators were NOT the 1st option in favor of bigs or jumpshooters.. Since the best bigs and jumpshooters produce the best basketball, they're superior to the best ball-dominators, which easily puts guys like Lebron and Oscar out of the top 10 for anyone that doesn't want them to be there - i.e. since primary ball-handlers cannot be 1st option for the best basketball, they're inferior to the best of other skillsets that can.
The issue is that high-scoring ball-dominators like Luka, Lebron or Harden score large amounts without being assisted by teammates (low assisted rates), so they have a large volume of unassisted buckets that hinders ball movement.. Otoh, highly-assisted 1st options like bigs and jumpshooters produce high-assist teams and foster the great ball movement that every dynasty has.. Since 1997, players that averaged 25 ppg and above 50% assisted rate had top 5 assist teams 36 of 87 times (41%) and averaged 10th in team assists, while players that averaged 25 ppg and below 40% assisted rate (primary ballhandlers) produced top 5 assist teams 5 of 96 times (5%) and averaged 18th in team assists.
