Lebron’s weakest competition vs Jordan’s toughest competition

[Mamba4Life]

According to SRS, the weakest team LeBron faced is the 2012 Thunder

How does that compare to the best team Jordan faced? The 2012 Thunder had 3 MVPs entering their primes, and they beat the championship Lakers and championship Mavs on their way to the Finals

https://i.redd.it/g7vmn1o505r01.jpg


How does a team with 3 HOF MVPs and solid role players like Ibaka compare to Jordan’s toughest competition?

Remember this is the weakest competition LeBron faced, we’re not even talking about any of the Warrior teams from 2015-2018

[AlternativeAcc.]

The Blazers led by #60 all time player Clyde Drexler! :oldlol::facepalm


Meanwhile that Thunder squad was led by 3 top 30 all-time players

Insane how weak Jordans comp was, and how impossibly hard LeBrons has been

[LeCroix]

The bomb goes BOOM

[LostCause]

You should probably do some research on what you’re citing

You cite SRS but don’t post it . That image lists net efficiency, which is heavily impacted by whether the team wins or loses. Losing in the postseason has a significant effect on these ratings. Most of those teams are so high because they won, and some of them in record fashion against LeBrons team (14 Spurs set the record for margin of victory)

Of course MJ's opponents would be low. They all lost in less than 7 games

Another fun fact:

2012 Heat: +8.4 (Thunder were at +4.6)
2013 Heat: +7.9 (Spurs at +7.0)
2016 Cavs: +9.0 (Warriors at +6.3)

See how that works?

As a bonus, here's the Net Efficiency for all LeBrons teams over that span:
'17 Cavs - +9.7
'16 Cavs - +9.0
'15 Cavs - +3.6
'14 Heat - +1.8
'13 Heat - +7.9
'12 Heat - +8.4
'11 Heat - +3.6
'07 Cavs - +2.8

Notice that the lowest scores are in losses. The '17 Cavs being so high is a reflection of how much they dominated the East (which we all know was pretty weak) that their efficiency wasn't lowered significantly even after being nearly swept by Golden State.

Though you already knew all this as I've been over it with one of your alts before lol

[luckylucy]

Why are some of the fonts in those statistics in bold and some not? Weird.

[highwhey]

3ball must be spazzing out right now. he'll post an essay though, that is for sure.

anyhow, great point OP. this is often overlooked bc MJ stans can't face the truth: MJ's competition was inferior.

[ImKobe]

Posting made-up "advanced" stats with no actual link to the data. Classic Lebron fans. Tell me how many of Lebron's opponents actually reached that high of a "net-efficiency" due to beating him so badly on the big stage?

[Overdrive]

You should probably do some research on what you’re citing

You cite SRS but don’t post it . That image lists net efficiency, which is heavily impacted by whether the team wins or loses. Losing in the postseason has a significant effect on these ratings. Most of those teams are so high because they won, and some of them in record fashion against LeBrons team (14 Spurs set the record for margin of victory)

Of course MJ's opponents would be low. They all lost in less than 7 games

Another fun fact:

2012 Heat: +8.4 (Thunder were at +4.6)
2013 Heat: +7.9 (Spurs at +7.0)
2016 Cavs: +9.0 (Warriors at +6.3)

See how that works?

As a bonus, here's the Net Efficiency for all LeBrons teams over that span:
'17 Cavs - +9.7
'16 Cavs - +9.0
'15 Cavs - +3.6
'14 Heat - +1.8
'13 Heat - +7.9
'12 Heat - +8.4
'11 Heat - +3.6
'07 Cavs - +2.8

Notice that the lowest scores are in losses. The '17 Cavs being so high is a reflection of how much they dominated the East (which we all know was pretty weak) that their efficiency wasn't lowered significantly even after being nearly swept by Golden State.

Though you already knew all this as I've been over it with one of your alts before lol

You can tell them 100 times, they won't get that net efficiency favours winners. 2017 Cavs won a game by 21 in the finals.

[Mamba4Life]

You should probably do some research on what you’re citing

You cite SRS but don’t post it . That image lists net efficiency, which is heavily impacted by whether the team wins or loses. Losing in the postseason has a significant effect on these ratings. Most of those teams are so high because they won, and some of them in record fashion against LeBrons team (14 Spurs set the record for margin of victory)

Of course MJ's opponents would be low. They all lost in less than 7 games

Another fun fact:

2012 Heat: +8.4 (Thunder were at +4.6)
2013 Heat: +7.9 (Spurs at +7.0)
2016 Cavs: +9.0 (Warriors at +6.3)

See how that works?

As a bonus, here's the Net Efficiency for all LeBrons teams over that span:
'17 Cavs - +9.7
'16 Cavs - +9.0
'15 Cavs - +3.6
'14 Heat - +1.8
'13 Heat - +7.9
'12 Heat - +8.4
'11 Heat - +3.6
'07 Cavs - +2.8

Notice that the lowest scores are in losses. The '17 Cavs being so high is a reflection of how much they dominated the East (which we all know was pretty weak) that their efficiency wasn't lowered significantly even after being nearly swept by Golden State.

Though you already knew all this as I've been over it with one of your alts before lol

So what’s your point? Better teams beat worse teams in the playoffs? :oldlol:

[Roundball_Rock]

It is a weird point that is always hotly disputed. You can simply compare LeBron's comp and MJ's comp within their eras by any metric and it is obvious LeBron's were better. MJ's comp were flawed teams that met MJ during their best season; LeBron was playing consistent dynasties or would be dynasties (OKC if LeBron or GS didn't exist).

[LostCause]

So what’s your point? Better teams beat worse teams in the playoffs? :oldlol:

The data is there. You’re free to interpret it how you want, just make sure you understand how it works (And to understand Net Efficiency isn’t SRS)

[Roundball_Rock]

Let's use the Knicks and Warriors as case studies since both were the top rivals to the Jordan or LeBron team in their eras. I am only going to use the period where both sides were championship contenders.

Knicks (92'-97')

Wins: 51, 60, 57, 55, 47, 57
SRS ranks: 7th, 5th, 2nd, 10th, 10th, 10th
Offense ranks: 12th, 22nd, 16th, 16th, 21st, 25th
Defense ranks: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 4th, 2nd

Warriors 15'-18'

Wins: 67, 73, 67, 58
SRS ranks: 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd
Offense ranks: 2nd, 1st, 1st, 3rd
Defense ranks: 1st, 5th, 2nd, 11th

LeBron played against dynasties; MJ was on THE dynasty of his era. Why all the smoke and mirrors we see daily to pretend that MJ was the underdog and LeBron the guy with super teams?

[KD7]

You should probably do some research on what you’re citing

You cite SRS but don’t post it . That image lists net efficiency, which is heavily impacted by whether the team wins or loses. Losing in the postseason has a significant effect on these ratings. Most of those teams are so high because they won, and some of them in record fashion against LeBrons team (14 Spurs set the record for margin of victory)

Of course MJ's opponents would be low. They all lost in less than 7 games

Another fun fact:

2012 Heat: +8.4 (Thunder were at +4.6)
2013 Heat: +7.9 (Spurs at +7.0)
2016 Cavs: +9.0 (Warriors at +6.3)

See how that works?

As a bonus, here's the Net Efficiency for all LeBrons teams over that span:
'17 Cavs - +9.7
'16 Cavs - +9.0
'15 Cavs - +3.6
'14 Heat - +1.8
'13 Heat - +7.9
'12 Heat - +8.4
'11 Heat - +3.6
'07 Cavs - +2.8

Notice that the lowest scores are in losses. The '17 Cavs being so high is a reflection of how much they dominated the East (which we all know was pretty weak) that their efficiency wasn't lowered significantly even after being nearly swept by Golden State.

Though you already knew all this as I've been over it with one of your alts before lol
The 17 Cavs were the best team Lebron has ever played on

Sounds about right :applause:

And you literally just contradicted yourself, you say the lower scores are all losses yet the team with the highest score lost in the finals :facepalm

[LostCause]

And you literally just contradicted yourself, you say the lower scores are all losses yet the team with the highest score lost in the finals :facepalm
You’re not actually reading or understanding what net efficiency is if you believe that’s a contradiction

[Lebron23]

Water is Wet

[KD7]

You’re not actually reading or understanding what net efficiency is if you believe that’s a contradiction
The higher the net efficiency, the stronger the team.

Simple as that

[Mamba4Life]

The higher the net efficiency, the stronger the team.

Simple as that

This, LostCause is living up to his username IIT

[LostCause]

The higher the net efficiency, the stronger the team.

Simple as that

So the 15 Warriors were better than the 16 Warriors? Makes sense

Keep it coming

[Mamba4Life]

So the 15 Warriors were better than the 16 Warriors? Makes sense

Keep it coming

Tell me a Finals team Jordan played better than the 2012 Thunder

[Roundball_Rock]

This, LostCause is living up to his username IIT

One of his multiple usernames. :lol

[SATAN]

https://mrbasketballblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2276907_o.gif

[Manny98]

So the 15 Warriors were better than the 16 Warriors? Makes sense

Keep it coming

They arguably were tho, they won 67 games and they were able to be more dominant in the playoffs than in 2016 because teams were yet to figure them out yet.

[knicksman]

Thats what alpha dogs does. They instill fear. Once bulls beat the pistons while in their primes, the league knows its over and dont bother showing up. With lebron, his opponent knows they have a fighting chance no matter how good lebrons teams are coz he doesnt have the alpha genes. I mean why would you create superteams if youre alpha.

[SATAN]

You're an idiot...

[Roundball_Rock]

The "alpha" and "beta" stuff is funny since they call LeBron a "beta" and Wade an "alpha" but LeBron showed up and took over Wade's team (something Durant failed to do with Curry).

[LostCause]

They arguably were tho, they won 67 games and they were able to be more dominant in the playoffs than in 2016 because teams were yet to figure them out yet.

Interesting take. So how exactly were the Cavs underdogs in 2016 if the 2016 Warriors weren't anywhere near as good as the 2015 Warriors (2016 Cavs have an equal net rating to 2015 Warriors)?

I take it you agree with KDs statement that the 2016 Cavs were the most talented team in the league


One of his multiple usernames. :lol

You're trolling considering you're a 3ball alt, but how confident would you be testing that theory? :oldlol:

[LeCroix]

Interesting take. So how exactly were the Cavs underdogs in 2016 if the 2016 Warriors weren't anywhere near as good as the 2015 Warriors (2016 Cavs have an equal net rating to 2015 Warriors)?

I take it you agree with KDs statement that the 2016 Cavs were the most talented team in the league



You're trolling considering you're a 3ball alt, but how confident would you be testing that theory? :oldlol:

i keep it simple for your simple brain

all the lebron opponents were better then all the michael opponents (finals)

mike has weak rings
lebron has king rings

[Roundball_Rock]

i keep it simple for your simple brain


He accused me being of 3ball too. :oldlol: Now who echoes 90% of 3balls' views? You, me, or "LostCause"?

[knicksman]

The "alpha" and "beta" stuff is funny since they call LeBron a "beta" and Wade an "alpha" but LeBron showed up and took over Wade's team (something Durant failed to do with Curry).

LOL wade is only desperate coz hes a ticking timebomb and lebron would quit when he tried to betray him(2011). Meanwhile KD won FMVP on a team with the unanimous mvp and have won a championship before. We saw how a young alpha had no respect for lebron. Thats why its kyrie who takes over and takes the last shot. Pair lebron with kobe and hes 2nd option. Pair lebron with durant/kawhi and hes kawhi's or durant's bitch.

[LAmbruh]

https://mrbasketballblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/2276907_o.gif

[PP34Deuce]

The skill if the SF position has risen compared to SGs. It's always been a top level talent position and athletic.

Jordan was an athletic anomaly until 95. He was still elite but he struggled keeping up with shiftier guards coming in 97 after.

[3ball]

Net ratings were higher in recent years because the Finals standard of having 3 perennial all-stars ("Big 3's") was only met by 2 teams (Heat/Spurs and Cavs/Warriors), who crushed everyone else to achieve high net ratings.

top-heavy league = higher net ratings... Otoh, the 90's standard to make the Finals was a Big 2, so more teams met this standard and net ratings were therefore lower (better parity)

Ultimately, the Heat/Spurs and Cavs/Warriors were the "Big 3" teams and therefore the only golden tickets to the Finals, so it's pretty weak for one of the golden tickets to complain about comp.. Lebron had his own big 3's and rarely faced a talent deficit - his teams were simply underdogs because he was only winning 51 games with prime Kyrie, while his peers were flirting with 70 (Kawhi, curry)

[Manny98]

Interesting take. So how exactly were the Cavs underdogs in 2016 if the 2016 Warriors weren't anywhere near as good as the 2015 Warriors (2016 Cavs have an equal net rating to 2015 Warriors)?

I take it you agree with KDs statement that the 2016 Cavs were the most talented team in the league



You're trolling considering you're a 3ball alt, but how confident would you be testing that theory? :oldlol:
I said the 15 Warriors were "arguably" better not clearly better

They're essentially the same team

[LostCause]

I said the 15 Warriors were "arguably" better not clearly better

They're essentially the same team

Your argument is that higher Net Efficiency = Better team. The difference between the 15 and 16 Warriors is enough to warrant saying one is clearly better than the other. That difference is actually less than the difference between the 07 Spurs and the 96 Sonics. So are the 07 Spurs "essentially the same" as the 96 Sonics? What's that mean for the Thunder, where the difference is even lower then? Also you ignored the point about Cleveland, who had a +9.0 Net Efficiency during 2016. You agree with KD that they were the most talented team in the league that year?

Keep in mind this is all based on your reasoning, not mine

EDIT: To be clear, LeBrons Finals comp overall was tougher than MJ's, not much to debate there. Before my position gets twisted. However net efficiency isn't good for this comparison due to reasons stated earlier in the thread

[Lebron23]

Just posted this on facebook. And just shut down a bunch of lebron haters.

[3ball]

Just posted this on facebook. And just shut down a bunch of lebron haters.

It shuts down nothing because of the historical facts - the recent Finals standard of having 3 perennial all-stars (Big 3's) was only met by 2 teams (Heat/Spurs and Cavs/Warriors), who crushed everyone else to achieve high net ratings.

top-heavy league = higher net ratings... Otoh, the 90's standard to make the Finals was 2 stars, so more teams met this standard and net ratings were therefore lower (better parity)

Ultimately, the Heat/Spurs and Cavs/Warriors were the "Big 3" teams and therefore the only golden tickets to the Finals, so it's pretty weak for one of the golden tickets to complain about comp.. Lebron had his own big 3's and rarely faced a talent deficit - his teams were simply underdogs because he was only winning 51 games with prime Kyrie, while his peers were flirting with 70 (Kawhi, curry)

[Duderonomy]

Remember the time Jordan formed a superteam in 1990 with Stockton and Hakeem. Damn they were good until Jordan bolted four years later to form another big three.