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

That's why we have sample sizes - a big enough sample size overcomes noise to produce a clear trend.. And that's what we see here - ball-dominators cannot be 1st option for dominant champions or dynasties (0 for 12), aka the best basketball.

And I'm not sure what was so great about a run that wins a diluted conference - Lebron teamed up with the best 1st options in the conference, so his Eastern tenure saw him face guys like DeRozan and Oladipo instead of Wade, Kyrie and Bosh...

Furthermore, no one would need 7 games with the unprecedented help of a sidekick outplaying the league MVP and a team with 3 franchise players (1 for Warriors), and preseason favorite status.

The only reason Lebron needed 7 games in 13' and 16' is because he wet the bed for the first 4 games - you guys give credit to closeout games and ignore choking for the first 4.

Nash was always a traditional point guard/ball-dominator since his days at Santa Clara and then 20-30% assisted rate for Dallas and Suns.

But now you're conflating low-scoring ball-dominators like Nash, Magic or Haliburton with the actual problem that we've been talking about of high-scoring ball-dominators - it's the high-scoring ball-dominators that have high volume of unassisted buckets, which lowers everyone's assists and causes low team assists over big samples... Specifically, top 5 assist teams were produced only 5 of the 96 times that a player averaged 25+ with under 40% assisted rate in a season (since 1997).. Otoh, top 5 assist teams were produced 36 of the 87 times (41%) that a player averaged 25+ with above 50% assisted rate....

And now back to your point - D'Antoni needed a ball-dominator to run his offense and he had a good one.

They're synonyms and I've always used them that way itt.

The rankings only have 2 rules, which are that MJ is #1 and the best jumpshooters and bigs are ahead of the best ball-dominators... The rest is subjective, so feel free to shift around the 2 through 10 spots any way you choose.. The only thing that matters is that the first ball-dominator appears at #11 (behind all the bigs and jumpshooters), since the ball-dominator skillset can't be the 1st option for dynasties or dominant champions (the best basketball).. This puts ball-dominators out of the top 10 for anyone that doesn't want Lebron or any other ball-dominator there.

First of all, when Shaq was 1st option, he was Stockton's b*tch (swept), and Hakeem's b*tch (swept), and MJ's b*tch (swept), and Duncan's b*tch (swept).

Otoh, when Kobe was 1st option, he was no one's bitch and took Nash's powerhouse to 7 games with Smush m*t&R$*#ing Parker... Meanwhile, Kobe made Duncan his b*tch at 22 years old when he CARRIED the Lakers over the Spurs in the 2001 WCF.. Then he b*tch-slapped Duncan again in 2008 after the Spurs held Lebron to 22 on 35% and 6 TO's (the worst any 1st option ever played, literally).

Ultimately, Kobe could win with less help than Shaq, due to his goat drive and also goat scoring diversity that produced among the best fits and teammate elevation ever.

Kerr's system, Pop's system and Phil's system all required literally the biggest carry-jobs of all-time, such as Duncan's 03' run, or Curry's 15' and 22' run, or Kobe's 09' and 10' run, or Jordan's 6 titles - all of them carried non-franchise players and low-producers at sidekick to titles, while carrying the scoring load more than anyone ever has, and in Duncan and Jordan's case, playing goat defense as well..

Carrying the scoring load means less help is needed to win because scoring is the "star" category, so carrying the scoring load means less star help required - role players are sufficient.. Btw, Kobe is probably the only guy to win multiple titles without another "top 75" player.. Duncan too I guess.. Systems have superior brand of ball and chemistry, so they need less talent (less stars, less dominant teammates, less elite-producing teammates).

When Curry averages 28/6/5 it's a carry job. When LeBron averages 50/25/23 it's just business as usual.

Good to see you produced a word salad that didn't even talk about the comment.

Anyway, explain to me how Boston's run last year was more "dominate" than the 16 Cavs.

Heat without Butler
Cavs without Mitchell for games & Allen for the series
Indy without Haliburton & Nesmith
50 win Dallas team missing Lively

The 16 Cavs don't lose more than 3 either.

Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Steph Curry would not average 50+% assisted fg% if they were asked to play point guard in a Mike D’Antoni offense. That was the point. Not that some offenses utilize high scoring ball dominators and others do not. We already knew that and it’s common sense.

The take home is that assisted fg% is a function of offense and role within that offense. It’s not a measure of skill the way say shooting % is. This is why players (like Nash) have averaged as high as about 60% assisted fg% in a different role. Players that can shoot and score with the ball in their hands after dribbling a bit, can generally shoot and score after catching a pass, or at least figure out how to if they are professional basketball players that have been given 8 and 9 figure contracts.

They aren’t synonyms. The player with the highest usage and most field goal attempts is the first option. This is because the first option… gets the most shots. But a player that is second option, but with a higher TS% can have more points than the first option due to math and how percentages work.

I mean, yeah. That’s what I’ve been saying. You’ve defined MJ as being #1, LeBron as being bad and outside the top 10, and you’ve spent the vast majority of your life the past 12 years coming up with random spurious criteria that fits that narrative. That’s why none of your arguments make sense.

Pretty crazy how when Shaq went from Orlando to LA, got a better supporting roster, and Phil Jackson joined the team and implemented the appropriate scheme to have a balanced, efficient offense the results got substantially better eh?

Kind of like how MJ had zero titles before Phil Jackson, but then went 6 for 8 when the right coach joined and implemented the proper scheme.

There is a pattern here but I can’t quite seem to put my finger on it hmmmm.

The best teams of all time tend to have at least one all time great. Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Curry. Further back, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Russell, Dr. J, Moses. That’s all you’re saying here. Shocking conclusion fallguy.

The rest of the players on the roster tend to be not quite as good because it’s hard to get multiple all time greats in their prime on the same roster. It’s expensive and there are only so many all-time-greats to go around.

That you use the words carry job, side kick, role player, etc. does not change the reality that this is simply how teams are constructed. Everything you write is word salad.

Curry's ability to carry the scoring load allows him to win with less help, such as low-producers and non-franchise players like Klay, instead of elite producers and franchise players like AD or Wade.

scoring is the "star" category, so carrying the scoring load means less star help required - role players are sufficient.. that's why guys that can carry the scoring load like Curry or MJ can win with less.

Lebron always had equal-scoring partners to attract equal defensive attention, so he never defeated max defensive attention (never carried scoring load on the championship level).

Lebron won a diluted conference - he teamed up with the best 1st options in the conference, so his Eastern tenure saw him face guys like DeRozan and Oladipo instead of Wade, Kyrie and Bosh...

By winning a manufactured and diluted conference, Lebron had the weakest conferences in history - the only way that previous eras could match the weakness would be to similarly-dilute it by putting the top 3 guys in the conference on 1 team.

Furthermore, no one would need 7 games with the unprecedented help of a sidekick outplaying the league MVP and a team with 3 franchise players (1 for Warriors), and preseason favorite status... The only reason Lebron needed 7 games in 13' and 16' is because he wet the bed for the first 4 games - you guys give credit to closeout games and ignore choking for the first 4.

Ball-domination is the easiest way to play, so of course Jordan and Curry could be ball-dominant if they wanted, but the difference is that they're capable of playing off-ball with 50% assisted rates too, while Nash, Lebron, Haliburton, and all ball-dominators cannot.

This is why high-scoring ball-domination is a perennially-losing skillset that cannot be 1st option for the best basketball (dynasty or dominant champion).

Shaq had better roster in with the 96' Magic than he had with the 97' Lakers - this is common knowledge fact... Penny was already a 1st Team All-NBA superstar and Finals veteran, while Kobe wouldn't even make 2nd team until 2000.

Nothing random about it - ball-dominators cannot be the 1st option for the best basketball, so they're inferior to the best of other skillsets that can (bigs and jumpshooters).

It's quite simple, despite your efforts to dismiss if or muddy the waters.. You failed because look how simply the issue is articulated.
.

Ball-domination is the easiest way to play, so of course Jordan and Curry could be ball-dominant if they wanted, but the difference is that they're capable of playing off-ball with 50% assisted rates too, while Nash, Lebron, Haliburton, and all ball-dominators cannot.

This is why high-scoring ball-domination is a perennially-losing skillset that cannot be 1st option for the best basketball (dynasty or dominant champion).

Nope, you're wrong... If it was a function of offense, there would be many seasons of Lebron, Luka, SGA, Harden, Westbrook, Lillard, Trae, Wall and others with 50% assisted rates or even 60%, but there are zero - this is over hundreds of seasons.... Otoh, guys with off-ball skill like Curry, Duncan or Jordan have 50% assisted rate all the time.

This proves you wrong.. Skillsets are real and not dictated by coaching.. The coach is not the player - the player is the player and each player has certain skills.

Assisted rate is inherent to the player's skills (aka ball-domination = unassisted scoring)

the only way that a conference could match the weakness of Lebron's Eastern Conferences would be to similarly-dilute it by putting the top 3 guys in the conference on 1 team.

so Tatum's title run was better than any of Lebron's because all of lebron's runs required teaming up with 2 other franchise players, or playing in such a weak conference that a 22 on 35% player could win it (and 6 TO's).

There's a difference between low producers that need titles and "winning spotlight" to make All-NBA like Klay, Pippen, Parker, Ginobili, and Dumars, versus elite producers that made All-NBA without winning titles like KAT, Bosh, Love, Wade, AD, and Kyrie... Due to this dynamic of "winning spotlight" and not getting All-NBA until they're carried to titles, many winning sidekicks like Pippen and Klay are among the most overrated players ever.. Pippen never played above a Larry Nance or Iguodala level, but the winning spotlight inflated him to all-time status and media accolade.

^^^ they all required highly-assisted 1st options (bigs or jumpshooters)

Every dynasty or dominant champion does... The best basketball simply doesn't use ball-domination.

Don't forget 'bedwetting'.

Shaq has 1 MVP and Nash has 2, so Nash > Shaq???... It's actually amazing because Amare was the statistical juggernaut and Lebron-like physical force that carried the Suns, yet the low-producing "setup guy' got the MVP... That would be like Stockton getting MVP over Malone..

And stockton completely DESTROYS nash across the board in advanced stats - it's stunning, yet no MVP for Stockton because history shows that the statistical juggernaut and physical force gets the MVP's (Amare, Lebron, MJ, etc), not the lower-producing setup guy.. The Suns' turnaround in 05' can be directly traced to getting rid of "cancer" Marbury (similar to getting rid of Westbrook) and also Amare's coming out party as the "next big thing".

MVP's are the group-think of a few journalism majors and mean literally nothing in the all-time rankings.

We can rate players objectively just by seeing how much help they needed to win, how frequently they won, their production rates/dominance coupled with their chemistry/teammate development/fits, and how much they could carry the scoring load (since that's the "star" category and most closely correlated with how much help is needed).

Why can't we just evaluate these things that are objective and we can see this stuff clearly in the historical record, rather than rely on the judgement of a journalism majors with group think that decide the MVP at the beginning of the season half the time?...

Franchise players make All-NBA without needing to win titles first (without winning spotlight) and they're also asked to build teams from scratch, so guys like Pippen and Klay aren't franchise players, but Bosh, Love, AD, and Wade are.

You called this a "balanced attack":

Playoffs

Jordan........... 33.4 ppg.... 5.7 apg... 56.8 TS... 28.6 PER
Pippen.......... 17.5 ppg.... 5.0 apg... 52.8 TS... 18.4 PER

There's never been a bigger statistical gap between 1st and 2nd option

And you turned to word salad to counter real points that were being made.

If a player's skillset and style was a function of offensive scheme, then there would be many seasons of Lebron, Luka, Trae and other high-scoring ballhandlers having 50% assisted rates or even 60%, but there are zero - this is over hundreds of seasons - not a single season of 50% assisted rate and they all have career assisted rates below 40%.... Otoh, guys with off-ball skill like Curry, Jokic or Jordan have 50% assisted rate all the time and career assisted rate of around 50% or higher.

Skillsets are real and not dictated by coaching.. The coach is not the player - the player is the player and each player has certain skills... Assisted rate is inherent to the player's skills (i.e. ball-domination = unassisted scoring/low assisted rates)

1st options that can carry the scoring load need less help, so Curry and Jordan's ability to carry the scoring load allowed them to win with less statistical production from teammates and less star teammates than Lebron required... This is all statistical and historical record.

It's statistical fact that Lebron never carried weak help over top teams, since he never won a playoff series against a top 5 SRS team or Finals team with weak scoring and efficiency from a sidekick.. He also never defeated max defensive attention (never carried scoring load on championship level).. This inability of Lebron to carry the scoring load requires more help.

The reason that Lebron cannot carry the scoring load is because he's too ball-dominant at carry-job volume to beat to teams, so he needs all-time scoring help like Wade and star 3rd options as well... Otoh, jumpshooters like MJ or Curry can drop 40 while the ball moves, so they can beat top teams while carrying the scoring load and therefore win with less scoring help like Klay or Pippen and no 3rd scorer.

Yes. Sorry u lost lol

A prior post calculating the total team assists contributed by player, which incorporates assisted fg%. LeBron James adds far more to total team assists than both Kobe and MJ. A player cannot simultaneously add more total team assists than other players and reduce team assists — that would be a contradiction. Thus, this proves that the assisted fg% threshold is arbitrary and found by data dredging. It is a spurious correlation and is irrelevant.

Proof with all data here:

.
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