Bronny James?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So when does the moment come that you realize the completely inane and juvenile hill you chose to die on is really a deep, deep valley. 

Clearly the topic is no longer about Bronny and instead about Lebron. Was there this much debate over whether or not Michael was the GOAT when the Bulls were in their second title run? I know plenty of people disliked Michael, but I don't feel like his greatness itself was polarizing. I think I'll always be Team MJ over Team Lebron, but comparing the flavor of the day to Lebron (and I'm also a big Giannis fan, but come on), questioning if the guy is still a great player (terrible GM, but clearly still one of the best in the world), or debating his place in history (I'd say #2 at worst) seems like really stretching to discredit someone for...I'm not sure what.

So for the older hats who might've seen Michael's legacy in the moment more clearly than teenage me did, was he scrutinized as much and as polarizing as Lebron? Were the Magic defenders (or whomever) as staunchly anti-Michael as the anti-Lebron crowd is now?

As a sports fan, if it isn't my team winning, my favorite thing to celebrate is greatness. That's why I'll pull for the Messi World Cup, for Gonzaga to complete the undefeated season, or for someone like Lebron to be Lebron. If I can't have the title myself, give me the history that makes for the best story in 20 or 30 years.

Jordan was pretty much universally beloved. First, I don't think there was much debate that he was the best of all time once the championships started coming. Second, you really didn't have "sports debate" type shows where people would like absurdist positions for the sake of driving the conversation and ratings. Most sports talk shows of that era would be considered quaint if you listened to them now - I mean, I used to like Homer's show back in the day!  And finally you didn't have social media undermining every good story with the negative, dark sides. Of course those always existed and you heard SOME things about them, but MJ's image was very well crafted.  Gatorade, Nike, Haines...the guy came across as pretty likeable even though in retrospect he really wasn't.

[panda]

The real life circumstances were also wildly different. The next year's team had far less Anthony Davis and added empty calories Andre Drummond. It also had far too much Dennis Schroder. As others have mentioned, the Lakers were the 1-seed and because of that, the loss of home court advantage was a disadvantage for them more than any other team.

Who gives a s**t if it's different? The Los Angeles Lakers are universally recognized as the 2020 NBA Champions and Lebron James is universally recognized as that Finals MVP. Did Baylor's title not count? Did the Golden Eagles TBT title not count? Did the 2021 Olympics not count? The answer to all of those is obviously no and it is beyond ridiculous to make a case otherwise.

Well we all saw firsthand how well lebron has handled the rigors of a real playoff series as a Laker….

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e38I-W6AkcE

[tower912]

LBJ is in the GOAT discussion.  That is honor enough.   Can you imagine social media's reaction to the Jordan gambling rumors back in the day?   But I digress.   LBJ has earned a lot of leeway.    If he chooses to use it to play along side his son, it impacts none of us in the slightest.  I think it is heartwarming.   He can see the end of his career and is feeling sentimental. 


Recently, we had two deputy chiefs retire.   Both had sons on the department.    Both decided to dust off their gear and come out on the machines for a day to ride along with their sons.    Both called it their most gratifying day on the department.     

[Jockey]

Jordan was vilified big-time for his first 5-6 years in the league. A selfish loser who didn’t do enough to help his team win titles. He was no Larry Bird.

I think it was mostly a racial thing but all those critics were soon shut down.

[Pakuni]

You were talking about the players in their prime. Giannis is currently very much in the same neighborhood that LeBron was in his prime. The question is can Giannis get another couple rings and still be one of, if not the, best player for another decade? That’s why LBJ is in the GOAT conversation. If Giannis does do that, he’ll be in that conversation too.

This just isn't true. There's just nothing to support the idea that Giannis at his peak is at the same level as LeBron's peak.

Win Shares
LeBron's three best seasons: 20.3, 19.3, 18.5
Giannis' three best seasons: 14.4, 12.9, 12.4
LeBron has had 8 seasons with a win share better than Giannis' career best.

Value Over Replacement Player (VORP)
LeBron's three best: 11.8, 10.3, 9.9
Giannis' three best: 7.4, 7.4. 6.7
LeBron has had 12 seasons with a VORP higher than Giannis' career best.

Box Plus Minus
LeBron's three best: 13.2, 11.8, 11.7
Giannis' three best: 11.5, 11.2, 10.4

[tower912]

He had to learn how to use his teammates.  It was a normal progression.   I was/am a Piston's fan and back then I loathed Jordan.   But I never thought he sucked.  I always felt it was just a matter of time.  And, once the Pistons got a little past their prime and Jordan got a supporting cast he trusted, it became his time. 

[forgetful]

This just isn't true. There's just nothing to support the idea that Giannis at his peak is at the same level as LeBron's peak.

Win Shares
LeBron's three best seasons: 20.3, 19.3, 18.5
Giannis' three best seasons: 14.4, 12.9, 12.4
LeBron has had 8 seasons with a win share better than Giannis' career best.

Value Over Replacement Player (VORP)
LeBron's three best: 11.8, 10.3, 9.9
Giannis' three best: 7.4, 7.4. 6.7
LeBron has had 12 seasons with a VORP higher than Giannis' career best.

Box Plus Minus
LeBron's three best: 13.2, 11.8, 11.7
Giannis' three best: 11.5, 11.2, 10.4

These are three of my least favorite stats. Win shares is garbage, and VORP is directly calculated from BPM, which is deeply flawed in terms of assessing defense.

Not to mention, BPM was adjusted based on bias. Russell Westbrook's 2017 season where he averaged a triple double with 31.6 ppg was calculated as the best season ever by BPM. So they redesigned the algorithm to make sure that Lebron and Jordan still dominated the top.

Russell Westbrooks 2017 season, was arguably the best season all time. If stats people adjust their calculations to undo a result that they aren't happy with because Lebron and Jordan aren't on top anymore, it becomes a fairly useless stat.

A lot of these types of stats are examples of confirmational bias, where they have already deemed what are the "best seasons" or players ever, and adjust statistical weights to make sure that is true.

Simultaneously, they do not identify biases that favor players they had already deemed as the best. A lot of these metrics were designed during the Lebron era, and largely are designed to confirm that Lebron was the best current player.

[Uncle Rico]

How good are those guys at writing letters?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Simultaneously, they do not identify biases that favor players they had already deemed as the best. A lot of these metrics were designed during the Lebron era, and largely are designed to confirm that Lebron was the best current player.

That's just horsesh*t.

[Jockey]

That's just horsesh*t.

Yes.

[Pakuni]

These are three of my least favorite stats. Win shares is garbage, and VORP is directly calculated from BPM, which is deeply flawed in terms of assessing defense.

How about RAPM? Even though it only goes back to 2009-10, missing some of LeBron's best seasons:
LeBron: 6.29, 5.39, 4.68
Giannis: 4.72, 3.22. 2.42

What are three of your favorites, and how do they show peak Giannis = peak LeBron?

[forgetful]

How about RAPM? Even though it only goes back to 2009-10, missing some of LeBron's best seasons:
LeBron: 6.29, 5.39, 4.68
Giannis: 4.72, 3.22. 2.42

What are three of your favorites, and how do they show peak Giannis = peak LeBron?

To be fair, I think there is a design flaw in most sports statistics. They have to be benchmarked somehow, and they are usually benchmarked by preconceived notions on what the results in terms of player performances should look like.

Also, I don't believe I ever said peak Giannis = peak Lebron, or anything of that sort. I simply said that much of Lebron's stance as one of the best ever is in part due to longevity. Which is true.

[forgetful]

That's just horsesh*t.

Since we have had accurate enough box scores to track things like VORP, a PG has only led the league in that category 3 times. Russell Westbrook (2016-17: Where they redesigned how BPM was calculated because him having the best season ever had to be an outlier that meant the system was wrong). Curry in 2015-15 (which was arguably one of the top 5 seasons by an individual player all time, but barely makes the top 20). Magic in 81-82.

Is that because PGs just aren't as good? Or is it a flaw in the statistics?

If I were to design a statistic that said Lebron was not the best player in the NBA during most of the 2000s, would it have value? No...why?...because it is a preconceived belief that Lebron was the best, and any statistic that shows otherwise would be devalued.

The fact is, many of these statistics overvalue contributions by ball dominant 2's, 3's, and 4's, because Jordan and Lebron, and Kareem were the dominant players over the eras they have reliable data.

You are free to have a difference in opinion, but your opinion is largely rooted in "it confirms what I believe to be true, so it is true," whereas, I acknowledge that the statistics do confirm what is objectively true, because they are benchmarked to do so, but that process introduces inherant flaws/biases, which bears out in cases like Curry and Westbrook.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Since we have had accurate enough box scores to track things like VORP, a PG has only led the league in that category 3 times. Russell Westbrook (2016-17: Where they redesigned how BPM was calculated because him having the best season ever had to be an outlier that meant the system was wrong). Curry in 2015-15 (which was arguably one of the top 5 seasons by an individual player all time, but barely makes the top 20). Magic in 81-82.

Is that because PGs just aren't as good? Or is it a flaw in the statistics?

If I were to design a statistic that said Lebron was not the best player in the NBA during most of the 2000s, would it have value? No...why?...because it is a preconceived belief that Lebron was the best, and any statistic that shows otherwise would be devalued.

The fact is, many of these statistics overvalue contributions by ball dominant 2's, 3's, and 4's, because Jordan and Lebron, and Kareem were the dominant players over the eras they have reliable data.

You are free to have a difference in opinion, but your opinion is largely rooted in "it confirms what I believe to be true, so it is true," whereas, I acknowledge that the statistics do confirm what is objectively true, because they are benchmarked to do so, but that process introduces inherant flaws/biases, which bears out in cases like Curry and Westbrook.

More horsesh*t.

[Jockey]

To be fair, I think there is a design flaw in most sports statistics. They have to be benchmarked somehow, and they are usually benchmarked by preconceived notions on what the results in terms of player performances should look like.

I agree. The stats always make it look like the great players are better than the average players.

[Pakuni]

Since we have had accurate enough box scores to track things like VORP, a PG has only led the league in that category 3 times. Russell Westbrook (2016-17: Where they redesigned how BPM was calculated because him having the best season ever had to be an outlier that meant the system was wrong). Curry in 2015-15 (which was arguably one of the top 5 seasons by an individual player all time, but barely makes the top 20). Magic in 81-82.

Is that because PGs just aren't as good? Or is it a flaw in the statistics?

If I were to design a statistic that said Lebron was not the best player in the NBA during most of the 2000s, would it have value? No...why?...because it is a preconceived belief that Lebron was the best, and any statistic that shows otherwise would be devalued.

The fact is, many of these statistics overvalue contributions by ball dominant 2's, 3's, and 4's, because Jordan and Lebron, and Kareem were the dominant players over the eras they have reliable data.

You are free to have a difference in opinion, but your opinion is largely rooted in "it confirms what I believe to be true, so it is true," whereas, I acknowledge that the statistics do confirm what is objectively true, because they are benchmarked to do so, but that process introduces inherant flaws/biases, which bears out in cases like Curry and Westbrook.

Kareem was a ball dominant 4?
Anyhow, you're treading into Alex Jones territory here.
The reason Westbrook and Curry haven't led the league in VORP more often is not because of some bias, it's because they haven't been the best players in the league.
But again, if all these well-established metrics are bad, how do you objectively judge a player's value relative to other players? It feels like you've waded into the debate to take potshots, but haven't actually staked out what you think and why,

[forgetful]

Kareem was a ball dominant 4?
Anyhow, you're treading into Alex Jones territory here.
The reason Westbrook and Curry haven't led the league in VORP more often is not because of some bias, it's because they haven't been the best players in the league.
But again, if all these well-established metrics are bad, how do you objectively judge a player's value relative to other players? It feels like you've waded into the debate to take potshots, but haven't actually staked out what you think and why,

The bolded is garbage. Not sure what you possibly believe is a conspiracy theory (the development of BPM 2.0 was a result on Westbrooks year...that is well known; and the methodology in terms of benchmarking these stats is also well known).

On the italics, I actually did. I said that most of these sports based statistics have flaws, and are pointless in debates of "best player ever" or "best season ever".

Their value is in being able to compare players of similar positions, and combined with recognizing the inherent flaws in each of these statistics can allow moderate predictive power in regards to performance.

My criticism of the statistics was in people using them as a be all end all aspect of a debate on player qualities. Frankly, such a stance is naive at best.

I agree. The stats always make it look like the great players are better than the average players.

This is true, and that is their value. They have limited value at all in separating great players from other great players. Or in comparing one great season to another great season. That is what was being discussed here, and where people have been misusing them.

[MU82]

How good are those guys at writing letters?

They excel using both cursive and block letters, so they're really good. But still, there are several Marquette sophomores playing pick-up games at Helfaer who are way better, both at basketball and letter-writing.

[Pakuni]

The bolded is garbage. Not sure what you possibly believe is a conspiracy theory (the development of BPM 2.0 was a result on Westbrooks year...that is well known; and the methodology in terms of benchmarking these stats is also well known).

Here's your conspiracy:

If I were to design a statistic that said Lebron was not the best player in the NBA during most of the 2000s, would it have value? No...why?...because it is a preconceived belief that Lebron was the best, and any statistic that shows otherwise would be devalued.
The fact is, many of these statistics overvalue contributions by ball dominant 2's, 3's, and 4's, because Jordan and Lebron, and Kareem were the dominant players over the eras they have reliable data.

And yes, I agree, that these stats aren't the be all, end all in discussing player value. But they're certainly better than the eye test, and lend some aspect of objectivity to an otherwise entirely subjective discussion.
I'll ask a third time ...how do you value players relative to their peers. 

[Jockey]

This is true, and that is their value. They have limited value at all in separating great players from other great players. Or in comparing one great season to another great season. That is what was being discussed here, and where people have been misusing them.

My post was obvious sarcasm. Your arguments have been way off base.

You pretend there are no coaches in the league and that players are ball dominant because they are ball hogs. That is just silly. Durant gets the ball because he is the best player on the team. MJ got the ball because he was the best. LeBron and Giannis get the ball because they are the best. That is as plain as day to even novice basketball fans.

Their play is what makes them great. It determines how often they get the ball. The stats don't make the player great - but they do reflect and prove that greatness.

And as Pakuni said, Kareem was not a 4. Never played a day of it in his life. He was not ball dominant either. He had to depend on others to get him the ball in shooting position.

[forgetful]

My post was obvious sarcasm. Your arguments have been way off base.

You pretend there are no coaches in the league and that players are ball dominant because they are ball hogs. That is just silly. Durant gets the ball because he is the best player on the team. MJ got the ball because he was the best. LeBron and Giannis get the ball because they are the best. That is as plain as day to even novice basketball fans.

Their play is what makes them great. It determines how often they get the ball. The stats don't make the player great - but they do reflect and prove that greatness.

And as Pakuni said, Kareem was not a 4. Never played a day of it in his life. He was not ball dominant either. He had to depend on others to get him the ball in shooting position.

I've said absolutely zero of the bolded.

We agree on most of the italics. Where we may disagree is on using them as definitives to prove which player/season was best. Comparing different eras/even seasons, is a pointless argument.

And I was wrong to include Kareem. I was largely listing the best from each era since sufficient box score stats were available. Faux pas on my end.

And remember, all of this stems from me simply saying that Giannis has a lot of years left to prove where he will rank all time, and then Sultan and Pakuni trotting out stats that have nothing to do with what Giannis will do the rest of his career.

Not disagreeing with anything you said, but it is important to remember that LBJ is in that conversation because of his longevity.

Giannis has a lot of years left, his story is yet to be written.

[forgetful]

Here's your conspiracy:

If I were to design a statistic that said Lebron was not the best player in the NBA during most of the 2000s, would it have value? No...why?...because it is a preconceived belief that Lebron was the best, and any statistic that shows otherwise would be devalued.
The fact is, many of these statistics overvalue contributions by ball dominant 2's, 3's, and 4's, because Jordan and Lebron, and Kareem were the dominant players over the eras they have reliable data.

And yes, I agree, that these stats aren't the be all, end all in discussing player value. But they're certainly better than the eye test, and lend some aspect of objectivity to an otherwise entirely subjective discussion.
I'll ask a third time ...how do you value players relative to their peers.

I don't see any conspiracy theory there at all. BPM and VORP and win shares that derive from it do indeed overvalue contributions by ball dominant 2's, 3's, and 4's. It is in it's very design where:

A PG gets 0.58 per assist, a SF gets 0.807, and a C gets 1.034; and for DRBs a PG gets 0.116, a SF gets 0.149, and a C gets 0.181. Since the bulk of stats come from these metrics it benefits ball dominant 2's, 3's and 4's.

On top of that, there are overall positional adjustments where being a 1 gets you a -0.818 deduction (no other positions get a deduction, and also an offensive adjustment offset of -2.774 (3's, 4's and 5's get no adjustment).

This is all because of some belief that PGs do not provide any value that isn't directly captured in a box score, whereas bigs do. Note that is the official justification.

So simply being a 3, can gain you 4 points easily in BPM, due to nothing other than position. (I'm overly simplifying this a bit, as the calculations on position are more nuanced), but the inherent positional bias holds through in the actual data.

None of that takes into consideration the bias on the defensive side, where elite defenders like Jrue Holiday have a career average DBPM of 0.1 (VORP and BPM are horrible at capturing defense). This is because of how they discount assists, 3 point shots, and rebounds for guards, but not bigs which amplifies defensive contributions for bigs.

I apologize if my cavalier statements prior to this did not go into details and created confusion. Loose language is my fault, but the sentiment is justified in how BPM and its derivatives (VORP) are designed.

-------

Now, how do I evaluate players relative to their peers. It is a combination of statistics (but knowing their inherent flaws in terms of design and bias), and watching games. Then there are also the intangibles, like how does a player elevate their teammates and make the entire team better (e.g. players like Stockton, Paul, and others that control the game).

Most importantly I prefer not too worry too much about comparing players between eras and seasons, it is an exercise in opinions.

[MU82]

You have lots of good takes on lots of subjects, forgetful, but your admitted hatred for all things LeBron colors your thoughts when it comes to this topic.

[Jockey]

I don't see any conspiracy theory there at all. BPM and VORP and win shares that derive from it do indeed overvalue contributions by ball dominant 2's, 3's, and 4's. It is in it's very design where:

........

I'll definitely agree that Stats aren't everything. But they do very well at telling us what has happened, and, yes, even comparing players across eras.

My main issue with stats is that they are given too much credit for being predictive. They give a good overall picture, but they are not definitive about what is going to happen. MJ was pretty much the best player on the floor every game he played in the NBA - even before he started winning championships. He knew it, the other players knew it, and the fans knew it. If anyone needed any stat - standard or advanced - to figure that out, they were clueless.

[Pakuni]

Back to Bronny ...

@On3Recruits: According to a report from ESPN's @PaulBiancardi, Bronny James is being recruited by Michigan, Ohio State, Oregon, UCLA, and USC🏀
https://www.on3.com/news/bronny-james-ucla-michigan-ohio-state-usc-oregon-reportedly-recruiting-lebrons-son/