Since MJ shot 37% at 3+ attempts w/out practice, he would shoot 40% today w/ practice

[3ba11]

that's the only likely conclusion given the data.

since there's no record of MJ shooting poorly at 3+ attempts and there's only a massive sample of him shooting well at higher volumes, we can conclude that he would be an elite shooter at today's higher volumes assuming he practiced and improved marginally-above the level that he was already at in previous eras (36-39% with no practice).

Specifically, there's a sample of 539 shot-attempts in the regular season for games where Jordan had 3+ attempts and he shot 36.4% in those games, while shooting 39% in playoff series where he had 3+ attempts (regular line only) and 38% in 1990 regular season (3.1 attempts)..

But carry on believing the mainstream media when they claim that MJ would have issues with threes in today's game.. He never did at higher volumes in previous eras WITHOUT practice, so why would he today WITH practice?

[Axe]

No pip?

[3ba11]

No pip?


Any player in the history of the game that can match an Iggy or Larry Nance-caliber would go 6/6 with MJ and they would do it easier than Pippen did, since they wouldn't be a historic lane-clogger with the worst shooting splits ever on numerous title runs, or the worst clutch stats ever

But carry on

[Axe]

Is that all andrew??

[3ba11]

Is that all andrew??


That's all Muhammed.

I know that I've hit a nerve when you start calling me by my first name.

[SouBeachTalents]

Jordan would be Curry level from 3 if he played today.

[FKAri]

Are you filtering out for games where he had 3+ attempts or are you saying he only averaged 3+ attempts?

[3ba11]

Jordan would be Curry level from 3 if he played today.


No one is Curry-level

But he would be one of the best shooters in the league among non-Curry players.. The data shows that (36-39% with no practice... goat form, feetwork and elevation)

[Axe]

That's all Muhammed.

I know that I've hit a nerve when you start calling me by my first name.
No, you don't. :kobe:

Peja > you

[3ba11]

No, you don't. :kobe:

Peja > you


And I know you're about to cry when you bring up Peja, the resident punching bag, or "pippen" of ISH

[SouBeachTalents]

No one is Curry-level

But he would be one of the best shooters in the league among non-Curry players.. The data shows that (36-39% with no practice... goat form, feetwork and elevation)
Hard disagree, if Jordan had the reps from 3 that today's players do he'd be one of the greatest 3 point shooters ever, if not the best.

[Axe]

And I know you're about to cry when you bring up Peja, the resident punching bag, or "pippen" of ISH
Guy absolutely destroyed you the past months. That's why you've been gone bt for awhile like the sorry ass vermin you are.

[ShawkFactory]

It’s hard to argue that Jordan wouldn’t be a great 3 point shooter today. He was a great shooter in general and I’m sure that would translate with the increased reps.

However, with the emphasis on the 3ball and the overall skills the game presents today, I doubt his footwork and postgame would be as refined.

[3ba11]

Guy absolutely destroyed you the past months. That's why you've been gone bt for awhile like the sorry ass vermin you are.


the opposite of the truth.. i exposed him as a hoops ignoramus and attention-seeker

[StrongLurk]

MJ would be a better 3 point shooter, but a worse midrange shooter.

[3ba11]

Hard disagree, if Jordan had the reps from 3 that today's players do he'd be one of the greatest 3 point shooters ever, if not the best.


put this in today's game:


https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-26-2015/olpEnW.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-03-2019/0L-H6V.gif


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuryGoKXT-Q&t=02m37s


notice he doesn't break form - these aren't heaves

[Axe]

the opposite of the truth.. i exposed him as a hoops ignoramus and attention-seeker
So why the hell did you take a break from this board then when he kept on going against your crusade?

[3ba11]

So why the hell did you take a break from this board then when he kept on going against your crusade?


i didn't take a break.. i posted in other threads and made other threads.. i let him chatter away to himself in the Nuggets thread until he looked around like the last guy in the bar and finally left himself

[3ba11]

https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-18-2023/rNUkaK.gif



Are you filtering out for games where he had 3+ attempts or are you saying he only averaged 3+ attempts?


3-POINT EFFICIENCY FOR ALL GAMES WHERE MJ HAD 3+ ATTEMPTS:

1985..... 4-18
1986...... 3-6
1987...... 5-22
1988...... 1-3
1989...... 16-49
1990...... 75-187
1991...... 11-30
1992...... 13-39
1993...... 68-185
__________________________
total....... 196-539 (36.4%)


plus

135 attempts from 1985-1998 playoffs for series where he had 3+ attempts - regular line only (39%).. see the stats in image above.. notice the trend of high volume and better efficiency, 90' ECF aside

[Duffy Pratt]

His best seasons shooting the three were when they shortened the distance.

Otherwise, he had only two seasons where he shot more 33%. Most of the time he was woefully below, and he shot very few of them. Why? Because he was smart enough to know that they weren’t an efficient shot for him.

Moreover, he was a very good, but not elite foul shooter. The correlation is not particularly strong, but there is quite a bit of evidence that people who are elite shooters are more likely to be elite at both. (There’s a 50/40/90 club for a reason, and Jordan doesn’t get an invite.)

What evidence do you have that he didn’t practice the shot? He was a thorough gym rat. If he thought the shot would be good for his game, he would have practiced the hell out of it. So, if he did practice the shot, it didn’t help much. And if he didn’t practice the shot, it’s because he knew better. Unless you are saying he was stupid.

Jordan, like Bill Russell, did what he needed to do to have his team win. It’s pointless to speculate on whether either of them could have developed other skills if they had needed them. They probably could have, but so what. One thing we do know about Jordan however, is that he couldn’t hit a major league curve ball.

[3ba11]

His best seasons shooting the three were when they shortened the distance.

Otherwise, he had only two seasons where he shot more 33%. Most of the time he was woefully below, and he shot very few of them. Why? Because he was smart enough to know that they weren’t an efficient shot for him.

Moreover, he was a very good, but not elite foul shooter. The correlation is not particularly strong, but there is quite a bit of evidence that people who are elite shooters are more likely to be elite at both. (There’s a 50/40/90 club for a reason, and Jordan doesn’t get an invite.)

What evidence do you have that he didn’t practice the shot? He was a thorough gym rat. If he thought the shot would be good for his game, he would have practiced the hell out of it. So, if he did practice the shot, it didn’t help much. And if he didn’t practice the shot, it’s because he knew better. Unless you are saying he was stupid.

Jordan, like Bill Russell, did what he needed to do to have his team win. It’s pointless to speculate on whether either of them could have developed other skills if they had needed them. They probably could have, but so what. One thing we do know about Jordan however, is that he couldn’t hit a major league curve ball.


No one cares about anyone's efficiency at the shortened line, since it was essentially a long-two and more contested than a regular 3-pointer from regular line due to crappier spacing/shorter court to defend... so the efficiency from shortened line matters little.. only the efficiency from regular line matters, and as the stats from post #19 show, Jordan always shot well when he had 3+ attempts - this includes 539 attempts from 85-93' in regular season games that he had 3+ attempts (36.4%) and 135 attempts at 39% in series that he had 3+ attempts (regular line only, so excluding 95-97').. Essentially, he shot 36-39% without practice or even wanting to be good at the shot - he thought (mistakenly in theory but correct in reality) that the shot took away from his game (see video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JftxiBwOcoI&t=07s)).

[StrongLurk]

i didn't take a break.. i posted in other threads and made other threads.. i let him chatter away to himself in the Nuggets thread until he looked around like the last guy in the bar and finally left himself

That's literally what every poster on this board does to you.

[Axe]

i didn't take a break.. i posted in other threads and made other threads.. i let him chatter away to himself in the Nuggets thread until he looked around like the last guy in the bar and finally left himself
Liar.

Stop lying to us.

[3ba11]

That's literally what every poster on this board does to you.


you're just biased against me and wouldn't call out a 3ball victory if it was on tape like rodney king

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

i didn't take a break.. i posted in other threads and made other threads.. i let him chatter away to himself in the Nuggets thread until he looked around like the last guy in the bar and finally left himself


Mm, good to see the hundreds of backlogged debunked posts from the original thread (or really any thread I’ve participated in) where you were left speechless, rearing their head in these new ones. Feels like the recycled pick-up lines you doubtless tried on every girl in the asylum.

Ease it with the chirps and let sleeping dogs lie little man, I might come back to embarrass you some more LOL.

[StrongLurk]

you're just biased against me and wouldn't call out a 3ball victory if it was on tape like rodney king

You're too dumb to realize what's going on. No one is "biased" against you. You just say ridiculous shit all the time. And you keep posting ridiculous stuff non-stop and people lose interest in responding to you because of your insanity.

[Axe]

You're too dumb to realize what's going on. No one is "biased" against you. You just say ridiculous shit all the time. And you keep posting ridiculous stuff non-stop and people lose interest in responding to you because of your insanity.
Exactly just like his braindead disciple. :yaohappy:

[ShawkFactory]

That's literally what every poster on this board does to you.

I was gonna say :lol

He takes that as a W.

So ipso facto..Peja won.

[AussieSteve]

This thread shows how little you care about reality, and how much you'll cherry pick any data point possible to fir your agenda.

If you cherry pick games with 3+ attempts, for a guy who averaged 1.4 attempts per game (outside of the shortened 3pt line seasons) of course his numbers look better. If a player makes his first, he's more likely to take a 2nd. If he makes his first 2, he's more likely to take a third. These games are biased to ones where he more likely made his first and/or 2nd attempt. Artificially raising the percentage in the selected games.

For example. LeBron shot 29% on 2.7 attempts in his rookie year. But if we narrow the sample to the games he took 4+ attempts, he shot 34%.

Stop being an idiot.

[RRR3]

I was gonna say :lol

He takes that as a W.

So ipso facto..Peja won.
Out3balling 3ball is truly an astonishing accomplishment.

[ShawkFactory]

Out3balling 3ball is truly an astonishing accomplishment.

Yes.

But given the nature of the idea (as I’ve already said) I think it’s fair to say Jordan would be a better 3pt shooter in this era. I think that’s a given.

Getting the person making that claim to be fair on the other end is the problem. There’s no emphasis for guards in particular in this era to work on any sort of post game or be technically sound with footwork, triple-threat play, etc.

Would he still have 3 years under Dean Smith’s tutelage in college now? Saying he’d be a better shooter but keeping all the other shit he learned in the early 80s is where you lose me.

[Lebron23]

put this in today's game:


https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-26-2015/olpEnW.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-03-2019/0L-H6V.gif


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuryGoKXT-Q&t=02m37s


notice he doesn't break form - these aren't heaves

Those were under sized shooting guards.

[iamgine]

The problem with "Kareem could be a great 3pt shooter in this era" type of assumption is you forget while that's very possible, it's very likely he wouldn't have his skyhook. Then you create a player that isn't the original player anymore.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Yes.

But given the nature of the idea (as I’ve already said) I think it’s fair to say Jordan would be a better 3pt shooter in this era. I think that’s a given.

Getting the person making that claim to be fair on the other end is the problem. There’s no emphasis for guards in particular in this era to work on any sort of post game or be technically sound with footwork, triple-threat play, etc.

Would he still have 3 years under Dean Smith’s tutelage in college now? Saying he’d be a better shooter but keeping all the other shit he learned in the early 80s is where you lose me.


Yeah, 3ball is assuming the role of broken clock here because Jordan probably would be a pretty good 3pt shooter. Made that case in a private chat on another forum, might as well c + p:



And the three-ball? Yes, it was a weak point. But here's where it gets interesting: unlike many others that had weaknesses from certain parts of the court, Jordan actually shot better the more attempts he hoisted up: his five most accurate three-point shooting campaigns double as his five highest attempt seasons. If you exclude the three years the line was shorter, you still get a healthy 36.5% over two years, on 3 attempts a game.

MJ largely viewed the 3 as a bail-out shot and barely took them for most of his prime. Those were the years his %'s were lowest. When he integrated them into his game, he excelled at that too. And let's not get started on his 3-ball in the highest-stakes games (disregarding the shortened-line seasons: 41% over 4 finals, that famous jaw-dropping display in G1 of the '92 finals) + a very good 35.2% on 2.2 attempts a game in the playoffs before his first retirement...for that era, that's solid long-range shooting.



And this is all despite suboptimal long-range shooting form: flat arc, released the ball at the peak of his jump…both things better-suited to the mid-range and both things he’d have likely shored up today.

When I see guys like Lopez, Bosh and Aldridge become reliable 3pt shooters a New York Minute after averaging 25% on .3 attempts a game, I don’t see why Jordan wouldn’t have been at least a serviceable 3pt shooter had he grown up today. The fact that his percentages scaled up the more he took is a revealing statistical clue.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Yeah, 3ball is assuming the role of broken clock here because Jordan probably would be a pretty good 3pt shooter. Made that case in a private chat on another forum, might as well c + p:




And this is all despite suboptimal long-range shooting form: flat arc, released the ball at the peak of his jump…both things better-suited to the mid-range.

When I see guys like Lopez, Bosh and Aldridge become reliable 3pt shooters a New York Minute after averaging 25% on .3 attempts a game, I don’t see why Jordan wouldn’t have been at least a serviceable 3pt shooter had he grown up today. The fact that his percentages scaled up the more he took is a revealing statistical clue.


@3ball: that’s how you make a case for Jordan. You’re welcome.

[Duffy Pratt]

No one cares about anyone's efficiency at the shortened line, since it was essentially a long-two and more contested than a regular 3-pointer from regular line due to crappier spacing/shorter court to defend... so the efficiency from shortened line matters little.. only the efficiency from regular line matters, and as the stats from post #19 show, Jordan always shot well when he had 3+ attempts - this includes 539 attempts from 85-93' in regular season games that he had 3+ attempts (36.4%) and 135 attempts at 39% in series that he had 3+ attempts (regular line only, so excluding 95-97').. Essentially, he shot 36-39% without practice or even wanting to be good at the shot - he thought (mistakenly in theory but correct in reality) that the shot took away from his game (see video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JftxiBwOcoI&t=07s)).

You answered my first sentence and completely ignored everything else I said. Instead you just repeated yourself, which is your modus operandi. Somehow, you seem to think if you keep saying the same thing over and over, and someone else gives up talking to you, you have somehow ‘won.’ Ho-hum.

[3ba11]

Those were under sized shooting guards.


Drexler, Theus, Miller, Majerle, Ellis, Augmon and many more were oversized.. your point?

[3ba11]

Yes.

But given the nature of the idea (as I’ve already said) I think it’s fair to say Jordan would be a better 3pt shooter in this era. I think that’s a given.





So that means he would shoot better than 36.4% in the regular season and better than 39% in the playoffs, since those were his percentages when he had 3+ attempts in his own era.. So he would be one of the better 3-point shooters in the league - and we're assuming prime Jordan is just thrown into today's game and he started working really hard at threes (so he would still have his goat drop-step power off 2 feet, footwork, and everything else that he already had - basically, if we just added today's spaced-out beginner format to Jordan's existing game, he would average 50 like everyone says he would)

[3ba11]

.
mid-range form at 3-point distance


https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-30-2023/MTftwE.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-30-2023/0ckXZC.gif






And this is all despite suboptimal long-range shooting form: flat arc, released the ball at the peak of his jump…both things better-suited to the mid-range and both things he’d have likely shored up today.






that type of form is better suited for mid-range only because players cannot pull off their mid-range form at 3-point distance - so they don't elevate as much from 3-point distance, while their lower strength at that distance forces a more loft-type set shot and higher arc - it's more of a woman's shot that you see in the wnba game..

Otoh, Jordan is one of the only guys along with say Ray Allen, that could maintain their mid-range form at 3-point distance (high elevation and option for line-drive arc if desired).. Very few shooters have this strength & athletic ability and Allen was one of the more athletic great shooters ever, just like Jordan.. As Jordan showed many times, it was completely standard for his talent level to extend his mid-range form to 3-point range (shown above in 2 gifs - and btw, there's 3 gifs in the previous post above this one that show MJ with mid-range form at HALFCOURT distance - MJ probably didn't start using wnba form until full court shots).

And it's well-known that mid-range form makes shots better against contests than the wnba 3-point form that most nba players use.. Only guys like MJ or Allen were actually as advanced as they're supposed to be as NBA shooters.. Mid-range form at 3-point distance is why I've said many times that Jordan would be shooting turnaround fadeaways from three in today's game... this idea that you need to dumb down long distance shots to a wnba style and strength level is absurd, aka set shot and loft style that can't handle contests as well.

[3ba11]

.
in addition to the high elevation off the ground and lower arc shown to Peja in the previous post (mid-range form at 3-point distance), the goat off-guard sill had the catch-and-shoot game and high arc on set shots - notice the big hands and control of release:


https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-11-2019/9CWCwD.gif


of course there's also his great FT shooting and the last shot vs Russell that showed his follow through

[RogueBorg]

Those were under sized shooting guards.

Dumars is taller than you by a foot...at least.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

So that means he would shoot better than 36.4% in the regular season and better than 39% in the playoffs, since those were his percentages when he had 3+ attempts in his own era.. So he would be one of the better 3-point shooters in the league - and we're assuming prime Jordan is just thrown into today's game and he started working really hard at threes (so he would still have his goat drop-step power off 2 feet, footwork, and everything else that he already had - basically, if we just added today's spaced-out beginner format to Jordan's existing game, he would average 50 like everyone says he would)


None of this follows from what I argued. Best we can say is that there’s good reason to believe he’d be a good three point shooter, based on a few seasons within his career where he took it seriously. Anything else is pure speculation.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

.

that type of form is better suited for mid-range only because players cannot pull off their mid-range form at 3-point distance - so they don't elevate as much from 3-point distance, while their lower strength at that distance forces a more loft-type set shot and higher arc - it's more of a woman's shot that you see in the wnba game..

Otoh, Jordan is one of the only guys along with say Ray Allen, that could maintain their mid-range form at 3-point distance (high elevation and option for line-drive arc if desired).. Very few shooters have this strength & athletic ability and Allen was one of the more athletic great shooters ever, just like Jordan.. As Jordan showed many times, it was completely standard for his talent level to extend his mid-range form to 3-point range (shown above in 2 gifs - and btw, there's 3 gifs in the previous post above this one that show MJ with mid-range form at HALFCOURT distance - MJ probably didn't start using wnba form until full court shots).

And it's well-known that mid-range form makes shots better against contests than the wnba 3-point form that most nba players use.. Only guys like MJ or Allen were actually as advanced as they're supposed to be as NBA shooters.. Mid-range form at 3-point distance

Thanks for the essay, but it’s probably safe to assume he’d have a higher shot arc in todays game from longer ranges.



why I've said many times that Jordan would be shooting turnaround fadeaways from three in today's game...


HOF quote lol.

[sdot_thadon]

.
mid-range form at 3-point distance


https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-30-2023/MTftwE.gif

https://i.makeagif.com/media/11-30-2023/0ckXZC.gif







that type of form is better suited for mid-range only because players cannot pull off their mid-range form at 3-point distance - so they don't elevate as much from 3-point distance, while their lower strength at that distance forces a more loft-type set shot and higher arc - it's more of a woman's shot that you see in the wnba game..

Otoh, Jordan is one of the only guys along with say Ray Allen, that could maintain their mid-range form at 3-point distance (high elevation and option for line-drive arc if desired).. Very few shooters have this strength & athletic ability and Allen was one of the more athletic great shooters ever, just like Jordan.. As Jordan showed many times, it was completely standard for his talent level to extend his mid-range form to 3-point range (shown above in 2 gifs - and btw, there's 3 gifs in the previous post above this one that show MJ with mid-range form at HALFCOURT distance - MJ probably didn't start using wnba form until full court shots).

And it's well-known that mid-range form makes shots better against contests than the wnba 3-point form that most nba players use.. Only guys like MJ or Allen were actually as advanced as they're supposed to be as NBA shooters.. Mid-range form at 3-point distance is why I've said many times that Jordan would be shooting turnaround fadeaways from three in today's game... this idea that you need to dumb down long distance shots to a wnba style and strength level is absurd, aka set shot and loft style that can't handle contests as well.

And in all this he basically becomes Kobe Bryant. Shooting a handful of 3s a game at 36-38% most likely and that's if we're absolutely certain he improves rather than shoot what weve seen him shoot. Those 5 or 6 attempts come at let's say 38% rather than his normal 50ish% Does his fg% drop into the high 40s percentage wise like a good Kobe Bryant year? What about the nights it's just not working, does he keep.shooting? In turn does that drop his holy PER to a lower tier? You might have just made Mj decidedly worse than your favorite player.

[3ba11]

And in all this he basically becomes Kobe Bryant. Shooting a handful of 3s a game at 36-38% most likely and that's if we're absolutely certain he improves rather than shoot what weve seen him shoot.





MJ was already at 36-39% in his era, so we know he would be better today with practice, and therefore one of the better 3-point shooters in the league.

Again, we already know that he shot 36-39% when he had 3+ attempts - this was over a big sample - so again, he already shot 36-39% without practice, so we know he would shoot 40% or better with practice in today's game (see thread title).. it's quite simple and even peja agrees with me

[3ba11]

.
Playoff series where MJ had 3+ attempts (highlighted below - regular line only) - 39% on 135 total attempts


https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-18-2023/rNUkaK.gif



3-POINT EFFICIENCY FOR ALL REGULAR SEASON GAMES WHERE MJ HAD 3+ ATTEMPTS


1985..... 4-18
1986...... 3-6
1987...... 5-22
1988...... 1-3
1989...... 16-49
1990...... 75-187
1991...... 11-30
1992...... 13-39
1993...... 68-185
__________________________
total....... 196-539 (36.4%)


CONCLUSION: - there's no record of MJ shooting poorly at 3+ attempts - there's only record of him shooting 36-39% without practice, so we can be certain that he would shoot 40% or better with practice in today's game

[3ba11]

None of this follows from what I argued. Best we can say is that there’s good reason to believe he’d be a good three point shooter, based on a few seasons within his career where he took it seriously. Anything else is pure speculation.


he didn't "take it seriously" in 90' or 93' - he simply decided that he would take a couple more attempts than he normally does each game but it wasn't him "taking it seriously".. And as expected, his great form did better at the superior rhythm/volume..

and those 2 seasons aren't the only evidence - we have a sample of 539 attempts from 85-93' for games where he took 3+ attempts, and he shot 36.4% in those games, or 39% in the playoffs for series where he had 3+ attempts (regular line only) - see the stats in previous post above.. And regular line is all that matters - the long 2's/shortened line numbers are irrelevant.

Again, since he was clearly a 36-39% shooter at 3+ attempts without practice, we can be certain that he would shoot 40% or better with practice (see thread title).

[hateraid]

If this is the case Drexler would have shot 50% with practice

[red1]

would probably shoot 1 for 9 tbh

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

he didn't "take it seriously" in 90' or 93' - he simply decided that he would take a couple more attempts than he normally does each game but it wasn't him "taking it seriously".. And as expected, his great form did better at the superior rhythm/volume..

and those 2 seasons aren't the only evidence - we have a sample of 539 attempts from 85-93' for games where he took 3+ attempts, and he shot 36.4% in those games, or 39% in the playoffs for series where he had 3+ attempts (regular line only) - see the stats in previous post above.. And regular line is all that matters - the long 2's/shortened line numbers are irrelevant.

Again, since he was clearly a 36-39% shooter at 3+ attempts without practice, we can be certain that he would shoot 40% or better with practice (see thread title).


Sure, you can believe these things, backed up by a small N…but it doesn’t make them any less speculative, no matter how “clear” you state it is. It also doesn’t completely explain away the handful of seasons he hovered near an attempt a game at anemic rates. We have some clues in both directions, and ultimately good reason to think he’d be a solid long-range shooter had he been brought up today. That’s the extent of it.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

.
Playoff series where MJ had 3+ attempts (highlighted below - regular line only) - 39% on 135 total attempts


https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-18-2023/rNUkaK.gif



3-POINT EFFICIENCY FOR ALL REGULAR SEASON GAMES WHERE MJ HAD 3+ ATTEMPTS


1985..... 4-18
1986...... 3-6
1987...... 5-22
1988...... 1-3
1989...... 16-49
1990...... 75-187
1991...... 11-30
1992...... 13-39
1993...... 68-185
__________________________
total....... 196-539 (36.4%)


CONCLUSION: - there's no record of MJ shooting poorly at 3+ attempts - there's only record of him shooting 36-39% without practice, so we can be certain that he would shoot 40% or better with practice in today's game

The shortened line should’ve helped his %’s, so omitting them is obfuscatory. You are left with two playoff runs.

Again, by all means, place complete confidence in your cherry-picked sample.

[8Ball]

Jordan shot 30% from 3 without WNBA line.

That's westbrook level.

[Axe]

Sure, you can believe these things, backed up by a small N…but it doesn’t make them any less speculative, no matter how “clear” you state it is. It also doesn’t completely explain away the handful of seasons he hovered near an attempt a game at anemic rates. We have some clues in both directions, and ultimately good reason to think he’d be a solid long-range shooter had he been brought up today. That’s the extent of it.


The shortened line should’ve helped his %’s, so omitting them is obfuscatory. You are left with two playoff runs.

Again, by all means, place complete confidence in your cherry-picked sample.
Op ran again. :pimp:

[Phoenix]

Speculation aside, I'm not convinced MJ actually 'needs' to be a volume 3pt shooter in todays era. Out of the 6 players averaging 30( I'm throwing in SGA and Giannis at 29.9 here), only two ( Luka and De'Aaron Fox) make more than 3 per game. If I had to guess he'd probably take 5 threes a night and make between 1.5 and 2 attempts on average. I just don't see him jacking up 8-10 attempts. His mix of midrange, catch and shoots, drives, post-ups and being an 83-85% from the line ( and he'll live there under todays rules) will translate more than fine.

My lone serious contribution to the thread. Not getting sucked into pages of MJ discourse( or Lebron). Boring ass topics at this point....

[Full Court]

Jordan shot 30% from 3 without WNBA line.

That's westbrook level.

And STILL got 10 scoring titles and 6 FMVP. :lol

Try harder, Leslie.

[3ba11]

The shortened line should’ve helped his %’s, so omitting them is obfuscatory. You are left with two playoff runs.

Again, by all means, place complete confidence in your cherry-picked sample.


From the shortened line, Jordan shot 40.4% on 3.3 attempts in the 95-97' regular seasons, which would drastically improve the 36.4% number that he shot from the regular line at 3+ attempts.. However, we're evaluating Jordan's ability to play in today's game, so only the regular line matters - his long 2 percentage (the shortened line) doesn't matter at all because that isn't where today's players shoot 3's from..

So once again, we see you arguing just for the point of arguing without any actual point - the shortened line was excluded specifically for accuracy, yet you're bringing it up and starting a debate about it to waste time.. This is why I stopped debating you in the Nuggets' defense thread.

[3ba11]

Sure, you can believe these things, backed up by a small N…but it doesn’t make them any less speculative, no matter how “clear” you state it is. It also doesn’t completely explain away the handful of seasons he hovered near an attempt a game at anemic rates. We have some clues in both directions, and ultimately good reason to think he’d be a solid long-range shooter had he been brought up today. That’s the extent of it.


I'm making an assumption that Jordan would shoot well at today's volume based on a record of MJ doing exactly that, while you're assuming something that there's no record of - there's no record of MJ shooting below today's standard at 3+ attempts, so to assume that he would is the deluded conclusion, while the logical conclusion goes by the data that shows him always shooting well at 3+ attempts.

So the data-based conclusion is that he would shoot well at today's volumes, while the deluded and fabricated conclusion is that he wouldn't, since there's no data that says so.

And Jordan is on video saying that he "didn't want to be good at threes' and it's common knowledge and widely reported that Jordan never practiced threes, while the ENTIRE ERA didn't practice threes or take them seriously, or view threes as an important part of the game.. So you're just bs'ing again by pretending that Jordan or the era did infact take threes seriously - that's exactly opposite of the common knowledge and obvious historical record..

It's also a historical fact that the reason Jordan took 1 three per game most years was because he didn't want to shoot threes AT ALL and only took them when he was forced at the end of shot clocks, aka bailout threes - Jordan only took bailout volume most years and always shot well when he was above bailout volume.. That's why I've always said that Curry would shoot poorly too if he was only allowed to take 1 highly-contested "bailout" three per game - he might shoot worse than MJ did on those bailouts because MJ was the better contested-shooter.. It's also widely-understood based on empirical evidence/historical record and also player testimony that good shooters will shoot better with increased volume because shooters do infact get in "rhythm".. For skilled shooters, that's a real thing and that's the reason MJ always shot well at 3+ attempts.

[FKAri]

Since I made varsity without practice. I woulda been an NBA star with practice.

btw did you know I dunked on Zach Randolph? His brother too!

[tontoz]

So Jordan decided to shoot 3s regularly in games but didn't bother to practice them beforehand? Cool story bro

[Phoenix]

Since I made varsity without practice. I woulda been an NBA star with practice.

btw did you know I dunked on Zach Randolph? His brother too!

:oldlol:

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

From the shortened line, Jordan shot 40.4% on 3.3 attempts in the 95-97' regular seasons, which would drastically improve the 36.4% number that he shot from the regular line at 3+ attempts..

Indeed, so it makes zero sense to ignore a handful of series where he shot WORSE from a SHORTER distance.

Do you understand how that works?



MHowever, we're evaluating Jordan's ability to play in today's game, so only the regular line matters -


The shortened line should’ve flatly helped his percentages, full-stop. Unfortunately, this does indeed create a no-win scenario for Jordan; shooting well wouldn’t help his cause much, but shooting poorly absolutely hurts him lol. Just how it is, and not sure how this is even remotely disputable.

In the end, once again, you’re left with two playoff runs that you stake all your rubles on. If that’s enough for you to make granular predictions, Godspeed.

Given how confident you are at prognostication, you must be a rich man, betting on sports and all.



his long 2 percentage (the shortened line) doesn't matter at all because that isn't where today's players shoot 3's from..


This is understood. Regardless, the shot was treated as a three-point shot and defended thusly. It should’ve boosted his %’s; it didn’t. This is a mark against him.




So once again, we see you arguing just for the point of arguing without any actual point -


The point couldn’t possibly be more succinct: Jordan probably would’ve shot well from behind the line today, had he taken it seriously — and that’s the most we can say.

Nothing about this is certain, and there’s scant evidence to suggest he’d be one of the best three-point shooters in the game. Pure assumptions.



the shortened line was excluded specifically for accuracy, yet you're bringing it up and starting a debate about it to waste time..


Once more: the line being shortened should’ve helped Jordan’s percentages. I acknowledge including it may ring “unfair”; it’s excluded in the regular seasons where he shot WELL, after all. But there’s no other way to approach it because a shortened line should (and did) have a unidirectional impact on %’s…

…thus it’s actually quite easy to infer Jordan’s numbers would’ve likely been as bad or worse had the line been in its normal place. That’s the ironic thing: you dismiss the easy inferences out of hand, while embracing the out-of-Pluto ones like Jordan being a certain elite 3PT shooter and taking turnaround fadeaway threes LOL.



This is why I stopped debating you in the Nuggets' defense thread.

As a matter of fact, it’s because there were about 100 backlogged points you could not address, including dozens point-plank, yes-or-no questions/challenges.

Several of these points pertained to LeBron’s impact on teammates, where you were stumped and caught on innumerable things (touting Vincent as an MJ success story when he was anything but, and improved immediately upon getting traded…ignoring the 15-20 instances of LeBron improving teammate production, etc), or to you lying without pause (claiming “no one” called KCP, Gordon and Brown good defenders before the title; umpteen receipts were produced to debunk that), and so on.

These are three points among a literal hundred or so that you, rather than taking the knee on, eventually chose to run from, at one juncture or another. It got so bad that you progressed to actually changing the content you were quoting (my posts) to make it less easier to respond to—imagine that lol…doctoring quoted posts because they hurt you that badly.

Anyway, that is the “historical record” you so often speak of. Commiserations on how insecure it still makes you feel. Here is the link for when you feel strong-and-brave one day, and respond with a new assortment of scripts developed many years after I stop posting:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?512720-How-did-Nuggets-play-great-defense-w-out-great-defenders-Individual-D-is-overrated/page72

Have fun!




I'm making an assumption that Jordan would shoot well at today's volume based on a record of MJ doing exactly that,


You’re going several steps further by making far more specific predictions and with far more certitude than can be supported.



while you're assuming something that there's no record of -


There’s a record of Jordan shooting poorly at high volumes from shorter distances. The logical assumption, all else remaining equal, is that those percentage probably wouldn’t have been through the roof had he been forced to take a step or two BACKWARD, particularly since the mid-and-long-range two’s were his bread-and-butter. Thus it’s obfuscatory to omit those numbers. If you can make the assumption based on scant data that Jordan would be pushing 40%+ today, it takes far less of a leap of faith to surmise that it’s likely Jordan’s 31% on 3 attempts in the playoffs from ‘95-‘97 don’t turn respectable with a normal line, again especially considering his typical hot zones/shot diet.

Can’t get much simpler than this.



while the logical conclusion goes by the data that shows him always shooting well at 3+ attempts.


And even the salience of this, your strongest point, hinges on us accepting the specious premise that 3+ attempts are the only valid starting point.

24% on an attempt and a half is completely inadmissible? How about 4 other seasons at +1 attempts, where he averaged 27-28%? Were these ALL bail-outs?

I’m willing to give Jordan the benefit of the doubt by believing he’d be a competent long-range shooter today, or at least better than his mediocre career percentages (even relative to era). Everything else is pure fan-fic.





And Jordan is on video saying that he "didn't want to be good at threes' and it's common knowledge and widely reported that Jordan never practiced threes, while the ENTIRE ERA didn't practice threes or take them seriously, or view threes as an important part of the game.. So you're just bs'ing again by pretending that Jordan or the era did infact take threes seriously - that's exactly opposite of the common knowledge and obvious historical record..


Cool, never said he took them seriously by todays standards or anything close to that. He did, however, integrate them into his game for a few years and did better than one should’ve expected based on his lower-attempt % seasons. That’s a credit to him.



It's also a historical fact that the reason Jordan took 1 three per game most years was because he didn't want to shoot threes AT ALL and only took them when he was forced at the end of shot clocks, aka bailout threes - Jordan only took bailout volume most years and always shot well when he was above bailout volume..


His average degree of shot difficulty was likely higher, yes. Please feel free to pore over his attempts to prove the much more ambitious claim you’re making, which is that he “only” took bailouts. I’ll be waiting. Play-by-play evidence will be nice.

[3ba11]

Since I made varsity without practice. I woulda been an NBA star with practice.

btw did you know I dunked on Zach Randolph? His brother too!


which one

[Axe]

Andrew ducking peja again as usual. :lebronamazed:

[3ba11]

There’s a record of Jordan shooting poorly at high volumes from shorter distances.





Nope - there isn't - he shot 40.4% in the 1995-1997 regular seasons, so the main sample shows him shooting 40.4% over 3 seasons, whereas you're simply referring to a few playoff series.






Jordan probably would’ve shot well from behind the line today, had he taken it seriously





^^^ The data confirms this - MJ only well at today's volumes over a meaningful sample.

Specifically, he shot 36-39% at 3+ attempts for his entire regular season and playoff career..

Since MJ shot 36-39% at today's volumes without practice, he would shoot 40% with practice.






there’s scant evidence to suggest he’d be one of the best three-point shooters in the game.





there's plenty of evidence that MJ would be a 40% three-point shooter such as him shooting 36-39% at today's volumes without practice and also his goat shooting form, and also his record of becoming the greatest 2-point shooter ever - this was a product of the times, aka he became the goat 2-point shooter because 2-point shooting was the main thing back then.






These are three points among a literal hundred or so that you, rather than taking the knee on, eventually chose to run from, at one juncture or another.






you never made any points - who cares if some teammates did okay alongside Lebron when so many did not and he has a career of bad fits with many guys?..

Whereas Jordan doesn't have a long list of teammates that had weak fits or underperformed alongside him - he was an expert jumpshooter that was elite off-ball and on-ball, so he fit with everyone, whereas Lebron is only elite on-ball and therefore reduces many guys to spot-up shooter... it's bball 101








As a matter of fact, it’s because there were about 100 backlogged points you could not address, including dozens point-plank, yes-or-no questions/challenges.





you couldn't address the basic facts that so many players cratered alongside lebron with weak fits and played far below their career highs (capacity) regarding PPG or APG and overall role - Jordan doesn't have bad fits with many teammates, nor did he have many teammates playing far below capacity alongside him.

Ultimately, Lebron's lack of elite jumpshooting and reliance on ball-domination yields inferior teammate fits, teammate development, strategic capacity/coaching, and zero #1 offenses - accordingly, he has weaker teams (perennial underdogs regardless of cast) and lower team ceilings/Finals records compared to superior ball players like MJ, Kobe, Bird or Curry.






even the salience of this, your strongest point, hinges on us accepting the specious premise that 3+ attempts are the only valid starting point.





the logical starting point would be like 4-6 attempts but MJ started shooting well at just 3+ attempts - once he hit 3 attempts, he always shot well from 3







24% on an attempt and a half is completely inadmissible? How about 4 other seasons at +1 attempts, where he averaged 27-28%? Were these ALL bail-outs?

His average degree of shot difficulty was likely higher, yes. Please feel free to pore over his attempts to prove the much more ambitious claim you’re making, which is that he “only” took bailouts. I’ll be waiting. Play-by-play evidence will be nice.


entire TEAMS would only take bailout threes... entire TEAMS would try not to shoot threes and only take them when the shot clock is winding down and they're forced to take them.

Jordan was exactly like this - it was a typical mentality that MANY players had.

There were zero plays to get MJ a 3-point look - that wasn't the triangle offense.. He only took bailout threes because he didn't want to take the shot and didn't want to be good at the shot - he thought it was a bad shot just like the entire era thought it was a bad shot.

Here's a 12 minute video of MJ taking only bailout threes - do you think the author of the video sought out all of the bailout threes in Jordan's career? Or were they easy to find because those were the only kind that he took?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzbrBUFB4Y&t=02m14s


Jordan also shot 39% from three for the 91-93' Playoffs - that's a meaningful sample of the biggest games of his career.. And the 2nd three-peat showed the greatest jumpshooting display ever by leading the league in scoring for 3 straight seasons on nearly all jumpers.. he had 750 made jumpers in 1997 and this was nearly twice as many as Curry's high season

[Axe]

No pip?

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Nope - there isn't - he shot 40.4% in the 1995-1997 regular seasons, so the main sample shows him shooting 40.4% over 3 seasons, whereas you're simply referring to a few playoff series.


Another pretty brutal own goal. You used a "few playoff series" to aid in your case. Now, a sample containing 10 playoff series is inadmissible?

Lmao. Try again, with some consistency this time.



^^^ The data confirms this - MJ only well at today's volumes over a meaningful sample.

Specifically, he shot 36-39% at 3+ attempts for his entire regular season and playoff career..

Since MJ shot 36-39% at today's volumes without practice, he would shoot 40% with practice.


There is a huge logical leap between the plain fact that Jordan shot well in some seasons and the conclusion that he'd border on being a marksman in today's era. It can very easily be argued that Jordan was feeling his shot in his higher-attempt years and rode the wave to a respectable shooting average in the year, where he might've eased his hand off the trigger if he wasn't shooting well.


'89-'90 is actually a good example of this: he started off the first quarter of the year averaging a modest 2.5 attempts on 40% and then appeared emboldened and titrated up his attempts. This can very easily be argued to be a hot-hand bias, where Jordan may have abandoned the shot if he wasn't doing well with it, which lines up well with the big year-to-year fluctuation in attempts (1.2 in '89, 3.0 in '90, 1.1 in '91, 2.9 in '93)...unless Jordan was directionlessly manic with his shot diet, my guess is as good as any.

Point is that the data set is far too inconclusive to pencil Jordan in for anything lofty. You simply don't know. You can scream from the rooftops that you do...but you'll still be just an incoherent dude on a rooftop.



there's plenty of evidence that MJ would be a 40% three-point shooter such as him shooting 36-39% at today's volumes without practice and also his goat shooting form, and also his record of becoming the greatest 2-point shooter ever - this was a product of the times, aka he became the goat 2-point shooter because 2-point shooting was the main thing back then.


None of this is evidence, and he never shot "at today's volumes" (??) with the normal line even in his higher attempt seasons. At his highest, 12.5% of his attempts were threes under those parameters -- very, very well below today's marks for shooting guards. Even late-career Butler, who has been chided for not getting with the times (not that I agree), has attempted a higher % of threes.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

you never made any points - who cares if some teammates did okay alongside Lebron when so many did not and he has a career of bad fits with many guys?..


Verifiably wrong. I made a series of points which directly refuted every single claim you made, one-by-one, plainly and without any side-stepping.

You stated unequivocally that LeBron craters every teammates APG’s. False:




You’re also completely wrong about every teammates assists dropping with LeBron…even just through eyeballing I can see that McInnis, Gooden and Boozer improved, from his first three seasons in the league. This took a literal 1 minute of eye-balling on basketball reference. Apparently Kuzma’s assists also improved under LeBron (fact-checked RRR3’s statement: yes, his both his raw and per-minute assists improved. As did Russell’s).

So that’s 5 examples accrued in 2 minutes, when you said nobody has done it, with zero caveats originally thrown it. You’re a confirmed, pathological liar.


You then pivoted to:


Mo, Wade, Bosh, Kyrie, Love, Hughes, Ingram, Jamison, Westbrook

Pretty much any all-star that he ever played with

He craters good players, which hurts his team's capacity.. The role players are neither here nor there - some go up, some go down, but the good players always go down and no one ever grew alongside him

No one grew from single-digit rookie into meaningful producer in 20 years - so good players can't play to capacity or grow into good players.. With teammates playing below capacity and unable to grow, it's clear that lebron isn't anywhere near #2.. he's just an AAU-style guy and never evolved out of it


Which was addressed with:


…so you lied?

You said every teammate. I listed 5 in 2 minutes, casually scrolling bbref on my phone.

Now the pivot is to “star teammates”, even spamming multiple player-types, while leaving out that
many of them played their best under LeBron (Williams), and then declined after he left. So, Williams’ assists declined…but he was a better player on the whole…and somehow this is bad?

Or we have Kyrie, who played the best post season ball of his career under Bron, never comjng close in three attempts without him?

Pathetic and entertaining stuff.

Anyway, I go through each example of “cratering”. You can respond to each one, point-by-point as I do with you.



Each example covered. Which specific point is incorrect with each one?

For example, why is Jamison dropping 1.5 points on his per-36 but raising his efg indicative of a cratering when he plays with LeBron, while going from 22ppg on a 38 win team to 14 on the best offence in the league not a cratering?

Could it be that high-volume players on crappy teams see declines when they join good teams?

Any specifics I get wrong, here or elsewhere?

On the topic of players improving under LeBron, you clearly stated there were none, and then “not many”. This was addressed too:


Off the top of my head: Kyrie, Williams, AD, Chalmers, Korver, Andersen, Mozgov all maintained their production or downright flourished with LeBron.

The likes of McGee and Howard maintained or bettered their per-minute production.

Wade flourished with LeBron up until the ‘11 finals…the loss was due to LeBron’s underperformance, not a bad fit. After that, unsurprisingly, the 29 year old 6’4 slasher without an outside shot began to run into injuries and declined organically as a player.

Smith and West both improved dramatically.

Boozer’s numbers improved. Kuzma’s raw numbers improved the first year, while the advanced stats difference amounts to little more than a rounding error.

Ilgausakas saw a small drop in PPG’s (but still within “capacity”, LOL) while dramatically improving his efficiency.




His advanced stat improvement is easily explainable: he maintained his scoring load while posting his two most efficient seasons with LeBron…went from second most efficient season in ‘09-‘10 (16.7 points per 36 on 58 TS%) to second least efficient in ‘10-‘11 (16.3 points per 36 on 50%)…so he didn’t just become a spot-up shooter. His scoring load remained the same or improved (17 points per 36 on 2.7 turnovers in 07-08, 18.3 per 36 on 2.3). Only his efficiency improved as well.

His statistical profile changed, but he clearly got better as a player. Per-36 assists were 1.1 higher as a Buck (1.6 if comparing the last two Buck seasons with the the LeBron seasons) but the scoring load improved, the efficiency improved (and then fell off dramatically), and the turnovers improved.

It isn’t some ethereal thing.



4.6 per 36 playing with LeBron, 6.2 the two years preceding that.

However, in those two last Buck years (the ones he made an initial leap as a player), his per 36 scoring and turnover numbers were: 17 ppg, 54% TS, 2.8 turnovers

With LeBron they were: 17.6 ppg, 59% TS, 2.4 turnovers

Very clearly a better-utilized player that fit well with LeBron. Easy to rack up raw numbers on a 26 win Buck team.




The ‘09-‘10 Heat were 28th in assists per game. His high assists and accommodating drop when paired with LeBron were plainly a function of being the teams sole effective playmaker in 09-10, as well as teaming up with a shot-creator that has a low assisted % on his buckets.

I listed over a dozen high-profile teammates. You then responded by claiming I only listed “three”, and ran from those examples for the rest of the thread.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

You have also argued Curry and Kobe “grow their teammates statistics”:



^^^ The underlined doesn't happen for expert jumpshooters like Kobe, Curry or MJ because teammates saw their stats grow alongside them and reach capacity (career highs), while Lebron's teammates never played anywhere near capacity alongside him in reduced spot-up roles, and they certainly never grew over any sustained period.



Which was addressed using a multitude of specific examples of before-and-afters:



Specifics? Context, with roster construction factored in?

The Warriors acquired Durant and shed many of their rotation pieces in the process (Barnes, Ezeli, Speights, Bogut Barbosa)…yet Curry and Durant’s per-game averages dropped by a combined 7.9 points LOL (w/Durant’s at some 77% “capacity” if using his career high as the baseline, as you frequently do with MJ’s teammates).

Which means…both declined under the criteria most sacred to you…and yet absolutely nobody questioned their fit.

So…more credence to the tried-and-true line of thinking that there being only one ball will bring about diminishing returns for high-usage players, even if they’re a good “fit”?

Interesting. So, we’ve covered Durant; who else is left, for Curry?

Because Green and Klay have played alongside him their entire careers, so there’s no before-and-after. Which other high usage players we talking?

Cousins? Sure, he was coming back from injury….didn’t stop you from including Thomas, Rose and other injured players in your LeBron teammate sample.

Wiggins? I guess he about meets your cherry-picked criteria, but his raw stats still dropped while his main point of improvement was the thing you don’t care to give LeBron credit for when his teammates see upticks: efficiency.

That’s about it. Who am I missing?


—

Now on to Kobe…are you even gonna pretend that you followed hoops around that time? The early 2000 championship-winning Lakers consisted of two heavy-usage monsters and reams of quality role players that didn’t need to score 15 to impact a game; Fox, Horry, Fisher, Grant, Harper etc. Coupled with Shaq and Kobe’s inside-out game, and this was exactly the sort of roster construction which complements two touch-hungry players that need the ball.

Who’s left from that time period? Rice, Malone, Payton…which again demonstrates the uncontroversial (what should be “intuitive”, as you like to say) one ball principle: all of them, by your standards, “cratered” playing next to two high-usage stars.

Rice, last year with the Hornets: 22.6ppg
Rice, first year with the Lakers: 17.5ppg
Rice, in their championship year (second season on the crew) : 15.9ppg

LOL. So, are you now going to invoke injuries and age?

But…I thought those were “excuses”.


Moving on…

Malone, 02-03: 20.6ppg
Malone, 03-04: 13.2ppg

He was older, went from an average team to a great one, and had tons of mileage?

By 3ball standards, any added context is an excuse.

And finally…

Payton, 02-03: 20.4ppg
Payton, 03-04: 14.6ppg

Peja’s rationale: Age, change in role, diminishing returns from being on a team with three other high-volume individuals, numbers declined even further in 05-06 indicating Kobe isn’t to blame…

3ball’s rationale: he cratered, no excuses!

Among higher usage players, who’s left after this? Dwight? We know how that went.

Jamison? Per you, 36 year old Antawn got old…but curiously, 37 year old Shaq wasn’t old in Cleveland. So that can’t be an excuse for his PPG halving, right?

Nash? Please LOL.

Butler? Blossomed after LA.

….so we’re left with Gasol, Odom and Shaq...with neither of the first two needing loads of shots to be effective on other teams.


In conclusion: what a shock! Your own criteria takes a basketball-sized dump on your head.

Teams with three shot-gobblers (the 2000 Lakers, ‘04 Lakers, ‘10’s Heat/‘16-‘18 Warriors/‘14-‘18 Cavs) are likelier to see a decrease in certain individual players “capacities”, REGARDLESS OF FIT…

…because there’s still just one ball…

…while this applies less to differently-constructed teams (the ‘00-‘02 Lakers, 90’s Bulls, and so on)…that only had one or two.

Even LeBron isn’t such a “capacity limiter” for star players if he only has one high-volume player at his disposal…what happened in ‘19-‘20? Davis actually saw a slight increase in his scoring and they won a title. If there were an additional star player added, per-game #’s likely drop all across the board yet they’d be pre-season title-favourites and you’d complain about “capacities” regardless of the outcome.

Again, this is precisely why panic-listing listing per-game numbers is simple-minded. There’s a reason there’s never been three 25ppg scorers on one team. The ‘17 Warriors came the closest, but even they didn’t get over the line. No matter how good a team fits, it is an inevitability that once a certain threshold of high-volume players is reached, there will be skill and statistical redundancies. With four of them on one team, it’s next-to-impossible to avoid that. With three (Heat, Warriors, Cavs) it’s unlikely. With two (‘00-‘03 Lakers) it’s possible but not assured….

…that’s just how any sport with a clock works. Unless the extra players add time to the clock or possessions to the game, there’s no way to avoid this.

This is why the Bulls were such a well-constructed team. In addition to having great individual players, their roster meshed because there were few skill redundancies. They had an all-time great shot-created (Jordan), an elite transition mate to pair him with (Pippen), elite defence both in the back court (Pippen, Harper) and front court (Grant, Rodman, Longley), shooters (Armstrong, Paxson, Kerr), offensive glue guys, who could pass (Kukoc) league-best rebounding and great passing.

They could take the best offensive player of all time off their team and still be average-to-slightly-above offensively).

I know, I know: your response will consist of one snippet from this block of text and basically no response to any of the specific points. And that’s okay! Wouldn’t still be here if that were a deal-breaker


You also made the specific claim that “no one” thought KCP, Gordon or Brown were good defenders before they won a title. This was addressed, and left untouched literally over a dozen times:



Addressed, with no response on your end:



Everyone thought Caldwell-Pope was a great defender. That was why I was so buzzed the Nuggets got him. Here is Vogel campaigning for him to make the all-defensive team, in 2021:

https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/...defensive-team

Here’s another media piece:

https://www.nbcsportswashington.com/...efense/196072/

And another one floating him making an all-D team, in 2016:

https://www.detroitbadboys.com/platf...ach-candidates

I’m the last person you need to convince that puff pieces aren’t trump cards. But the idea that no one thought he was a good defender is plainly false. Everyone watching saw him as a plus defender.

Similar praise has been given to Brown:

https://www.nba.com/nets/news/featur...ned-by-defense


Who has been heralded as a stout defender with good awareness and quick hands long before joining the Nuggets.


The recognition Gordon is receiving is fairly recent (and slightly overblown, I’d say: he’s a very good defender but not DPOY-worthy), but he always had the physical tools to be a defensive menace. His latent defensive talents being utilized better in Denver doesn’t mean the capabilities weren’t there to begin with.



^No matter how many times this specific lie was brought to your attention, you refused to cop to it, thinking I would stop posting the example if you did…lol, sorry, not happening. In any event, my offer to prove me wrong still stands:

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Also, you haven’t taken me up on my offer to verify my Nuggets prediction….you accused me of “being wrong” about a team I predicted to beat the Lakers on another forum. I can verify I wasn’t.

Either define a reasonable standard of proof for me to meet, or kindly admit you were completely bullshitting about me “being wrong” about something I predicted myself.

If you can’t, give me a standard of proof we both agree on, and the bet terms can be a 6 month break from ISH.

If you win, I leave until the New Year.

When I win, you leave until the New Year.

Let’s see if you have any balls at all. You made a false claim about me. I’d be happy to put it to the test.


I can submit my proof to any of Blaze, AW, tpols, RRR3, Shawk, or Axe (or perhaps tpols/someone of your choosing and RRR3/someone of mine, to cancel out potential biases. Both have to agree, to settle it).

Would be happy to self-doxx another account on another forum if it means getting you out of here.

The simple alternative, again, is just to say you were wrong. There’s your out. Either is fine.



Then there’s the many times I refuted your lies about LeBron cratered the following players:


Addressed. If you can’t deal with the “excuses”, don’t list the players. I’m giving you specific explanations and providing context. Disagree? Fine. Don’t want to respond to them? Fine. But you’ll keep getting them when you post your tired talking points. Too bad:


I sift through practically each one, making specific points for whether they cratered and how much of the decline (if there was any) can be pinned on LeBron. I will keep quoting it until you bother to go through each example (all of whom were players you chose), and refute the specific points made. I don’t care how stubborn or repetitive it sounds, and hand-waving it won’t discourage me:

Hughes:

22ppg on mediocre efficiency on an average team, in a contract year after many seasons of bottom-tier efficiency. Finally gets a hefty payday, immediately returns to chucking and keeps chucking even after leaving LeBron-ball (unless this is the basketball equivalent of “ruined for other men”, I don’t see why Hughes wouldn’t go back to balling on another team). Ends his career with one of the lowest TS %’s out of any double-digit scorer from that epoch.

Ingram:

Negligible drop in BPM and WS playing with LeBron, a decent improvement in TS% on increased volume. He did indeed make a seismic leap the following year, but I've talked about that. His shooting form improved and he went from being a poor free-throw shooter to one of the best in the league. The increase in efg% (again, attributable to the ample work he put in changing his shot) was modest in comparison.


Jamison:

Jamison went from one of the worst teams in the league to one of the best teams in the league, and his ppg understandably dropped by 4.5...per-36 it was an even smaller gap, 19.0-17.5.
Meanwhile, his efficiency on shots LeBron can actually wield some influence over increased dramatically...the efg% improved by a lot and he did not decline as a player. The only thing that actually got worse was his FREE THROW SHOOTING.


After LeBron left, his efficiency from the floor dropped precipitously once more. The drop in load is a completely normal thing that happens almost every time a low/mid-efficiency high-volume player leaves a shitty team for a good/great one. I mean it literally happened to Jamison two other ****ing times.


02-03 - 22ppg as a starter on the 38 win Warriors03-04 - 15ppg as a 6th man on the 52 win Mavs that had the #1 offence

11-12 - 17ppg on the bottom-feeding Cavs 12-13 - 9ppg on the 45 win Lakers


This means Nash, Dirk and Kobe must’ve cratered Jamison too

Clarkson:

53 games with the Lakers in 17-18: 15ppg on 45/32/80, .532 TS%

28 games with the Cavs in 17-18: 13ppg on 46/41/81, .565 TS%
Played poorly in the playoffs, and was humble enough (in subsequent interviews) to blame it on his own immaturity, not fit or team dynamics.

Isaiah Thomas:

A new low has been reached and I'm not just talking about the manlet.

Thomas was recovering from an injury and didn't even play until the new year. He was a 29 year old 5'8 guard. Even if he were fully healthy and playing with Magic Johnson or Jokic or whoever, the clock was ticking.

Sure enough, he floundered with Denver right after and every other team he ever played for. This would make sense as an example if his form improved upon leaving Bron. It didn’t. He was one of the worst players in the league after leaving.

Kuzma:

Kuzma's advanced stats have stayed remarkably consistent in his time as a pro. Let's go over all of the ones you just listed


WS/48
Year 1: .077 (pre-LeBron)
Year 2: .065 (with LeBron)
Year 3: .063 (with LeBron)
Year 4: .080 (with LeBron)
Year 5: .044 (after LeBron)
Year 6: .019 (after LeBron)

BPM:

Year 1: -0.7
Year 2: -1.4
Year 3: -2.6
Year 4: -0.6
Year 5: -0.2
Year 6: -1.7

PER:


Year 1: 14.2
Year 2: 14.0
Year 3: 12.2
Year 4: 12.7
Year 5: 15.2
Year 6: 14.3


VORP:

Year 1: 0.8
Year 2: 0.4
Year 3: -0.2
Yeah 4: 0.8
Year 5: -0.2
Year 6: -0.6


Any difference between the years can be chalked up to rounding errors, and have not been sustained in either direction. LeBron did not limit his growth one iota.


See how ‘18-‘19 Kuzma (2nd/3rd option on a 37 win team) matches up with ‘22-‘23 Kuzma (third option on a 35 win team).

Hang on, I already did it for you:

19/6/3 on 98 TS+, .065 WS/48, -1.4 BPM (1st year with LeBron)
vs.

21/7/4 on 94 TS+, .019 WS/48, -1.7 BPM (2nd year without LeBron)

Is he a tangibly better player now, than in his first year playing with LeBron? Yay or nay?

Might as well hold it against Jordan for “limiting” Kukoc to 13ppg on a championship winner when he averaged 19 the next year on a gutted team. It’s an equally deranged example

That leaves us with…Hood, another guy that has never shot above league average in a full season (with or without LeBron) and…an old, diminished Westbrook.

Somehow those guys qualify as foolproof evidence, but an entire rotation (the ‘14-‘15 Heat) turning into G-Leaguers overnight, without their per-game averages improving much as a whole is treated as unimportant.

Once you start to actually broach the points I’ve made (without paraphrasing, or distortion, or deflection) I will stop doing so and we can progress further (read: you can embarrass yourself, but in new ways).


^Yet another example of a post I had to quote repeatedly, over ten times even, because you simply refused to answer, falsely assuming I’d tire out - another thing you were hopelessly wrong about.

I mean there quite literally hundreds of lies exposed in the thread, from the banal (“Kerr averaged twice the WS/48 on the Bulls as Allen did on the Heat”) to the more elaborate ones (the complete misunderstanding of Win Shares and other metrics come to mind). It’s all there for anyone with eyes to sift through, with the last 15ish of my posts being purely dedicated to reviving things you never responded to.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

So yeah, let’s keep re-litigating that matter. I’m here for it. In the meantime, here is the link to the thread, in case I missed anything:


http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?512720-How-did-Nuggets-play-great-defense-w-out-great-defenders-Individual-D-is-overrated/page72


Feel free to revive it, I’ll be waiting.



Ultimately, Lebron's lack of elite jumpshooting and reliance on ball-domination yields inferior teammate fits, teammate development, strategic capacity/coaching, and zero #1 offenses - accordingly, he has weaker teams (perennial underdogs regardless of cast) and lower team ceilings/Finals records compared to superior ball players like MJ, Kobe, Bird or Curry.


Every single example from the thread of an “inferior teammate fit” — without exception — was addressed. Every single one. You can name a player, and I can effortlessly link you to a series of points I made for that example, which you never responded to.

List the players and I’ll happily re-link you, for the 10th, 20th or whatever time, the response I had for each player—glad to restart this. Won’t hold my breath about any of the specific points being addressed, but we can keep going in circles.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

the logical starting point would be like 4-6 attempts but MJ started shooting well at just 3+ attempts - once he hit 3 attempts, he always shot well from 3


This was already addressed — why is 3 attempts a maximally revelatory indicator, while the 1-1.5 attempt seasons get binned?

There are large degrees sandwiched between “completely revealing” and “completely non-revealing”, and you haven’t argued why only 3+ attempt seasons should be taken totally at face value.

In any event, he’s had a whopping two such seasons with a regular line: he shot 37.4% in one and 35.2% in another.

For the playoffs, it’s even more of a mixed bag: even if you INCLUDE the shortened-line seasons of 3+ attempts…which should, in theory, BENEFIT Jordan…he ends up shooting an even 33% over 5 playoff runs. That’s bang-average, even for his time.

I’ll repeat myself: this is including the shortened-line seasons, which should have HELPED his %’s. He still ends up looking fairly pedestrian.



entire TEAMS would only take bailout threes... entire TEAMS would try not to shoot threes and only take them when the shot clock is winding down and they're forced to take them.



This is getting embarrassing even for you, lol.

Even if Jordan was keeping with the style of the league, he should still be expected to create consistent separation from the field if he were such a great shooter…that’s exactly why one relativizes by using league averages as a baseline with which to gauge individual performances…


…and Jordan did not.

His 3pt+ was 95 for his career.

Unfair to include his early years, you say?

fine, noted: let’s start from ‘89-‘90 and go to ‘97-‘98; doesn’t get much more favourable than that, does it?

Lol. Jordan’s 3pt+ is a whopping 101. Barely over league average.

Your argument is gonezo.



Jordan also shot 39% from three for the 91-93' Playoffs - that's a meaningful sample of the biggest games of his career..


There’s really no way to make heads or tails of such a sample (especially given how arbitrary the starting point is). There is simply too much variance to make definitive predictions about how Jordan would’ve fared as a shooter today.

How can we reason this?

Because, for the umpteenth time, we can include the sample of games WITH the shortened line in the playoffs which, AGAIN, should’ve helped Jordan’s percentages.

And yet…in the 5 year sample of playoff runs with 3+ attempts..he ended up shooting 33%. With. A. Shortened. Line. Included.

Why was this so? It was treated as a three point shot and the distance was particularly favourable to Jordan, a renowned long-two shooter. Yet he still shot below league average.

Why? Did the shot suddenly become more difficult, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Would he have shot better with a LONGER line, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Or was this just a simple case of variance, and we can’t opine with anything remotely resembling certainty on how he would’ve shot today?

I’m basically giving you the answer here, like a teacher gift-wrapping a remedial student 10 hints on a multiple-choice test question.



Here's a 12 minute video of MJ taking only bailout threes - do you think the author of the video sought out all of the bailout threes in Jordan's career? Or were they easy to find because those were the only kind that he took?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzbrBUFB4Y&t=02m14s



…firstly…no, not all of these were bailouts and he had good looks on many. An open or semi-open shot can still be a quality shot even with time running out.

Secondly, and more germane to the point…this is a highlight reel. Of course the higher-difficulty shots will typically be prioritized. That applies to every player. It’s not a highlight reel if the shots aren’t highlight-worthy. That’s sort of how these things work.

Patently obvious as it is, it bears mentioning that Jordan’s most famous three-point shooting rampage (G1 of the ‘92 finals) was notably absent from that cherry-picked portion of the reel…it came directly before where you chose to start…despite the fact that he set a finals record.

So, very clearly, the section of the reel you characteristically cherry-picked was meant to demonstrate Jordan’s chops as a “bad shot” maker…but not all of them were even bad shots. That you treat a highlight reel as an accurate representation of an average shot is a fascinating glimpse into your thought process…but let’s move on, shall we?

League 3pt-shooting was 34% across Jordan’s career, and 35% from the stretch of years where he was semi-serious about the shot. Your attempt to portray it as purely a hail-mary shot has been roundly debunked. In some years it was mostly a bail-out, however the shot evolved, in concert with Jordan’s implementation of it.

[3ba11]

No pip?


No Pip = Kobe > MJ since he didn't need Pip or playmaking help

(unless you consider Derek Fisher's 3 APG to be good playmaking)

So your famous "no pip" saying is defeated by logic since I know you don't think Kobe > MJ, thereby nullifying your saying

carry on

unless you think Kobe > MJ.... so do you infact think Kobe > MJ, and therefore > Lebron too, aka Kobe GOAT)?

[1987_Lakers]

peja destroying 3ball again

[3ba11]

You then pivoted to:






I didn't pivot to anything - you just did - the post that you responded to stated that Lebron has a long list of bad fits and teammates playing far below capacity, and also zero young player development into meaningful producers, yet you avoided these issues by derailing to arguments about APG.. It's clear as day from the beginning of your response that you did exactly this.

Your derail won't be responded to and instead I'll keep hammering the point that you were avoiding about how Lebron had many bad fits, weak chemistry and zero teammate development, while Jordan didn't have many bad fits, chemistry and developed many single-digit rookies to meaningful producers.

It's bball 101 anyway - everyone knows that ball-domination is suboptimal compared to ball movement.. Again, it's basketball 101.. Now if Lebron was able to have a greater championship frequency despite this deficit then he would be greater than Jordan.. But unfortunately, his MVP or championship frequency are half of Jordan's despite having 5 teams with 2+ all-stars (zero for Jordan) and a 34 to 9 advantage in top 5 lottery pick teammates..

So Lebron is clearly inferior for winning less despite having much more.. These inferior results are due to the inferior brand of ball yielded by his non-expert-jumpshoting and ball-dominant skilset, which routinely underperforms favored talent - he almost always loses with preseason favorites, or falls to underdog - this is a clear-cut historical record of his brand underperforming favored talent on a consistent and nearly-always basis.

The rest of your post is a derail, so I won't be responding to it since you can't respond to the point that Lebron has a long list of players that cratered alongside him and played below capacity with weak fits and disappointment, along with zero young player development, while Jordan doesn't have a material record of these things like Lebron does..

You even lied and cliamed that I said there were no players that improved under Lebron - that isn't what I said - I said that no one improved from low-producer like single digits to meaningful producer - who cares if a player can produce a "Delly" if he can't produce a meaningful producer like a "Klay" or "Pippen".. Lebron has zero young player development into meaningful producers in 21 years because he imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win - and the term "imposing spot-up roles" means reducing the APG of most teammates and increasing their assisted rate, aka play-finishing.

again, your post was a derail from the post you were responding to, so I won't address anything other than Lebron's big record of teammate cratering, bad fits, and zero young player development.. Anything else is a derail and addressed in the Nuggets defense thread.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

I didn't pivot to anything - you just did - the post that you responded to stated that Lebron has a long list of bad fits and teammates playing far below capacity,


As stated, every player you listed was addressed, and I gave over a dozen counter-examples, none of which were responded to. You can feel free to do so now, if you feel brave and powerful.



and also zero young player development into meaningful producers, yet you avoided these issues by derailing to arguments about APG..


…that was…literally you…you weren’t satisfied with West, for instance, improving as a whole under LeBron so you hyper-fixated on APG. One of many examples. You also humorously cited several individual APG’s dropping under LeBron even though the teams total assists trended upward…thus unironically prioritizing individual decreases over team increases. Total lunacy lmao.

This was pointed out several times throughout the thread. I responded to the assists pablum after it was brought up, one example being:



You’re also completely wrong about every teammates assists dropping with LeBron…even just through eyeballing I can see that McInnis, Gooden and Boozer improved, from his first three seasons in the league. This took a literal 1 minute of eye-balling on basketball reference. Apparently Kuzma’s assists also improved under LeBron (fact-checked RRR3’s statement: yes, his both his raw and per-minute assists improved. As did Russell’s).

So that’s 5 examples accrued in 2 minutes, when you said nobody has done it, with zero caveats originally thrown it. You’re a confirmed, pathological liar.

I can understand someone lying, but lying when the receipts are right there?


You made a claim, in no uncertain terms and with no caveats offered. It turned out to be unequivocally wrong.

Please demonstrate how exactly **I** pivoted here. A paper trail will be appreciated.


Let’s keep going:



It's clear as day from the beginning of your response that you did exactly this.


The exact opposite is clear.



Your derail won't be responded to and instead I'll keep hammering the point that you were avoiding about how Lebron had many bad fits, weak chemistry and zero teammate development,


None of the examples were ignored, in fact you’re literally ignoring the quoted posts that respond to them.

What did I ignore? Give me a specific post with a specific point that I ignored. Mind you, disagreeing with my response isn’t me “ignoring it”.



while Jordan didn't have many bad fits, chemistry and developed many single-digit rookies to meaningful producers.


Why would I need to lie and disparage another great player in order to give LeBron a boost? That’s the sort of stuff you and your inbred ilk do.



It's bball 101 anyway - everyone knows that ball-domination is suboptimal compared to ball movement.. Again, it's basketball 101.. Now if Lebron was able to have a greater championship frequency despite this deficit then he would be greater than Jordan.. But unfortunately, his MVP or championship frequency are half of Jordan's despite having 5 teams with 2+ all-stars (zero for Jordan) and a 34 to 9 advantage in top 5 lottery pick teammates..


None of these diversionary generalities are a response to any specific thing I’ve said, they’re just examples of you huffing your own farts per usual.




So Lebron is clearly inferior for winning less despite having much more.. These inferior results are due to the inferior brand of ball yielded by his non-expert-jumpshoting and ball-dominant skilset, which routinely underperforms favored talent - he almost always loses with preseason favorites, or falls to underdog - this is a clear-cut historical record of his brand underperforming favored talent on a consistent and nearly-always basis.



Ditto for this quote bubble. All irrelevancies.



The rest of your post is a derail, so I won't be responding to it since you can't respond to the point that Lebron has a long list of players that cratered alongside him


Every single example from the thread was responded to, without fail. You can literally name a player and I can link you a post from the thread. Many of them are in front of your nose, but you’re too terrified to even touch em lmao.




You even lied and cliamed that I said there were no players that improved under Lebron - that isn't what I said - I said that no one improved from low-producer like single digits to meaningful producer - who cares if a player can produce a "Delly" if he can't produce a meaningful producer like a "Klay" or "Pippen"..


Uh, you’re referring to this post:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?512720-How-did-Nuggets-play-great-defense-w-out-great-defenders-Individual-D-is-overrated&p=14809431&viewfull=1#post14809431

Yes?

If so, it’s right at the top of the post:


Lebron craters everyone's PPG, APG and role (increases their assisted rate, aka spot-up role) - this hurts a teammates ability to play to capacity OR grow

So, how did I mischaracterize your position? The bottom of your post was a separate, disparate point. At the top you stated outright that LeBron craters everyone’s “PPG, APG and role”.

Doesn’t get much clearer. You referring to separate monologues or post-box clarifications when cornered won’t change that.




Lebron has zero young player development into meaningful producers in 21 years because he imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win - and the term "imposing spot-up roles" means reducing the APG of most teammates and increasing their assisted rate, aka play-finishing.



Addressed many times. LeBron’s teams almost invariably saw marked increases in assists, and then saw a corresponding drop-off after he left (one notable example: the Heat went from 11th in ‘13-‘14 to 30th in ‘14-‘15).



again, your post was a derail from the post you were responding to,


Nope, and I also responded to all the points made about Jordan’s shooting.


Anything else is a derail and addressed in the Nuggets defense thread.

Nothing was addressed on your end, nearly everything was ignored, and the receipts are there. This will keep getting stuffed in your face.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Also, if you’re concerned about your precious thread being derailed, I am fine with you taking the L on the previous thread and focusing on thread-specific points. See below:


This was already addressed — why is 3 attempts a maximally revelatory indicator, while the 1-1.5 attempt seasons get binned?

There are large degrees sandwiched between “completely revealing” and “completely non-revealing”, and you haven’t argued why only 3+ attempt seasons should be taken totally at face value.

In any event, he’s had a whopping two such seasons with a regular line: he shot 37.4% in one and 35.2% in another.

For the playoffs, it’s even more of a mixed bag: even if you INCLUDE the shortened-line seasons of 3+ attempts…which should, in theory, BENEFIT Jordan…he ends up shooting an even 33% over 5 playoff runs. That’s bang-average, even for his time.

I’ll repeat myself: this is including the shortened-line seasons, which should have HELPED his %’s. He still ends up looking fairly pedestrian.




This is getting embarrassing even for you, lol.

Even if Jordan was keeping with the style of the league, he should still be expected to create consistent separation from the field if he were such a great shooter…that’s exactly why one relativizes by using league averages as a baseline with which to gauge individual performances…


…and Jordan did not.

His 3pt+ was 95 for his career.

Unfair to include his early years, you say?

fine, noted: let’s start from ‘89-‘90 and go to ‘97-‘98; doesn’t get much more favourable than that, does it?

Lol. Jordan’s 3pt+ is a whopping 101. Barely over league average.

Your argument is gonezo.



There’s really no way to make heads or tails of such a sample (especially given how arbitrary the starting point is). There is simply too much variance to make definitive predictions about how Jordan would’ve fared as a shooter today.

How can we reason this?

Because, for the umpteenth time, we can include the sample of games WITH the shortened line in the playoffs which, AGAIN, should’ve helped Jordan’s percentages.

And yet…in the 5 year sample of playoff runs with 3+ attempts..he ended up shooting 33%. With. A. Shortened. Line. Included.

Why was this so? It was treated as a three point shot and the distance was particularly favourable to Jordan, a renowned long-two shooter. Yet he still shot below league average.

Why? Did the shot suddenly become more difficult, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Would he have shot better with a LONGER line, despite all evidence to the contrary?

Or was this just a simple case of variance, and we can’t opine with anything remotely resembling certainty on how he would’ve shot today?

I’m basically giving you the answer here, like a teacher gift-wrapping a remedial student 10 hints on a multiple-choice test question.




…firstly…no, not all of these were bailouts and he had good looks on many. An open or semi-open shot can still be a quality shot even with time running out.

Secondly, and more germane to the point…this is a highlight reel. Of course the higher-difficulty shots will typically be prioritized. That applies to every player. It’s not a highlight reel if the shots aren’t highlight-worthy. That’s sort of how these things work.

Patently obvious as it is, it bears mentioning that Jordan’s most famous three-point shooting rampage (G1 of the ‘92 finals) was notably absent from that cherry-picked portion of the reel…it came directly before where you chose to start…despite the fact that he set a finals record.

So, very clearly, the section of the reel you characteristically cherry-picked was meant to demonstrate Jordan’s chops as a “bad shot” maker…but not all of them were even bad shots. That you treat a highlight reel as an accurate representation of an average shot is a fascinating glimpse into your thought process…but let’s move on, shall we?

League 3pt-shooting was 34% across Jordan’s career, and 35% from the stretch of years where he was semi-serious about the shot. Your attempt to portray it as purely a hail-mary shot has been roundly debunked. In some years it was mostly a bail-out, however the shot evolved, in concert with Jordan’s implementation of it.

[3ba11]

you didn't respond to anything peja - you literally derailed to team assists when i brought up how Lebron reduces most teammates' assists, which of course limits the assist-ceiling of the team and prevents growth into high-assist teams that Jordan's teams grew into.. Jordan was a highly-assisted off-ball player and therefore increased his teammates' assists, while Lebron has a low assisted rate for his size/position (he isn't a frequent assist target), which decreases his teammates' assist capacity and the team's ability to grow into a high-assist team.. The rest of your post were similar derails to avoid the issue of Lebron having a long list of player craterings, massively-horrible fits and chemistry, and zero young player development, while MJ doesn't have a long list of these things and barely any examples of them at all.. He generally had good chemistry and teammate development, while Lebron is highly inconsistent in these areas due to his lack of expert jumpshooting and abnormal ball-dominance for size/position, which imposes spot-up roles (decreases teammate APG/playmaking and increasing their assisted rate/play-finishing).

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

you didn't respond to anything peja -


Every point was responded to, including each individual example of players LeBron supposedly cratered. No generalities required.

Like I said, go ahead and list players LeBron “cratered” and it’ll take all of 2 minutes to link you to my responses to each player. No new ground to tread. You tan and will keep running.



you literally derailed to team assists when i brought up how Lebron reduces most teammates' assists



…but improves team assists greatly. Sort of important considering basketball is a team game, and not a series of 1-on-q match-up’s.



, which of course limits the assist-ceiling of the team and prevents growth into high-assist teams


That was also addressed:


Answered your question:


You’re projecting so, so hard, noballs.

I never run from questions, no matter how much they’re massaged to sound like gotchas.

On the rare chance I do happen to miss one, you can remind me and emphasize its importance. You won’t ever have to ask 6-7+ times like I do with you, on at least a dozen subjects.

This one was already answered but let’s go through it again:

- partially because there’s only one ball
- partially because many of these teammates are coming into new roles (some of which involve going from #1-3 options on poor teams to one where taking a backseat is expected)
- partially because LeBron is overly ball-dominant (though not even close to the degree you state)…something I’ve always maintained (if you think I’m lying or “conceding”…let’s make the same bet, different claim? Would be happy to prove it).
- and partially because such a high # of his *own* buckets are unassisted, approximately 10% higher than Jordan’s, though with his slightly higher career efficiency it doesn’t hurt the team

So, there it is, I’ve spelled it out for you once more. That’s why many of LeBron’s teammates often see dips in their assist rates, although this is secondary to the more important factor, which is that his teams assist rates improve tremendously when he joins, and then drop to league-worst rates when he leaves.


Far more nuanced than that.

See below, and tell me what I got wrong:



Firstly:


Per-36, on the Sonics: 13-3-9, 55% TS
Per-36 on the Bulls: 14-4-9, 53% TS


Sounds like a marginal improvement, at best.

Second:

Are you even aware of what happened in the next year?

Let me educate you:


Collins and some of his Bulls teammates quickly grew unhappy with Vincent, who saw a reduction in role and playing time the following year. His per-36 assists DROPPED to 7.1, or even worse than pre-Seattle days.

This was the period where Jordan took over as point guard. He grew so obsessed with his assist totals that, per Roland Lazenby, the league intervened by preventing the scorekeepers from giving him info.


Vincent then gets traded to Orlando at the end of ‘89, and has a career year, posting highs in points while improving from the previous year in every single metric across the board:

ppg/rpg/apg
spg/bpg/tpg

Points/rebounds/assists per 36
Steals/blocks/turnovers per 36

PER, WS, WS/48, OBPM, DPBM, overall BPM, TS%, VORP


Improved, after leaving Jordan, in every significant traditional AND advanced metric.

Great, fair and totally reflective example.


TL;DR - whatever improvements there were, they were primarily raw improvements rather than per-minute. They were also short-lived, as Vincent regressed the previous year, then improved the year after, on another team.

Not a Jordan success story, I’m sorry to say.






Vincent did not. He saw more playing time and a minor increase in per-minute assists, which promptly dropped to sub-Seattle levels the following year, ALSO UNDER JORDAN.

Then they shipped him off and they improved.

Not a Jordan success story.

Pippen decreased by about an assist a game when Jordan left, but the Bulls stayed level — went from 6th to 7th from ‘92-‘93 to ‘93-‘94.

Far cry from a whole team going from 11th to 30th.

Who cares about an individual players assists dropping when the Bulls as a whole didn’t drop?

You are unironically arguing individuals matter more than teams, LOL.





Addressed:


02-03 Cavs: 18th
03-04 Cavs: 8th (rookie year)

09-10 Cavs: 6th (dropped to 20th the following year)

10-11 Heat: 21st (an improvement from 26th)

13-14 Heat: 11th (dropped to 30th the following year despite adding Dragic, McRoberts and Deng)

14-15 Cavs: 10th (huge improvement from 20th)

17-18 Cavs: 10th (dropped to 29th the following year)

18-19 Lakers: 11th (dropped from 7th the previous year)

Now, Jordan:

83-84 Bulls: 16th
84-85: Bulls: 20th (rookie year)

92-93 Bulls: 6th (dropped one measly spot the following year)

95-96 Bulls: 5th (from 10th the previous year)

As you can see, it’s very much a mixed bag.


Armstrong, Pippen, Paxson, Grant, Kukoc, Harper, Vincent and most of their bigs were adept passers that were the products of smart drafting and trades, none of whom were black holes in other systems. Partial credit goes to Jordan and their equal-opportunity offence, and partial credit goes to the supporting cast and organization.

That LeBron-ball isnt without faults or fit issues doesn’t excuse the ridiculous exaggerations aimed at his impact, all of which has been shown here.





Indeed.

Very off-base to think team growth under LeBron (and subsequent cratering when he leaves) overrides this-or-that individual total decreasing.

Makes sense.


See bolded in particular.




that Jordan's teams grew into.. Jordan was a highly-assisted off-ball player and therefore increased his teammates' assists, while Lebron has a low assisted rate for his size/position (he isn't a frequent assist target), which decreases his teammates' assist capacity and the team's ability to grow into a high-assist team.. The rest of your post were similar derails to avoid the issue of Lebron having a long list of player craterings, massively-horrible fits and chemistry, and zero young player development, while MJ doesn't have a long list of these things and barely any examples of them at all.. He generally had good chemistry and teammate development, while Lebron is highly inconsistent in these areas due to his lack of expert jumpshooting and abnormal ball-dominance for size/position, which imposes spot-up roles (decreases teammate APG/playmaking and increasing their assisted rate/play-finishing).

Cool, I believe Jordan is the GOAT too. This has nothing to do with not giving LeBron a fair shake.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Another post, if you wish to stay on thread topic:



Another pretty brutal own goal. You used a "few playoff series" to aid in your case. Now, a sample containing 10 playoff series is inadmissible?

Lmao. Try again, with some consistency this time.



There is a huge logical leap between the plain fact that Jordan shot well in some seasons and the conclusion that he'd border on being a marksman in today's era. It can very easily be argued that Jordan was feeling his shot in his higher-attempt years and rode the wave to a respectable shooting average in the year, where he might've eased his hand off the trigger if he wasn't shooting well.


'89-'90 is actually a good example of this: he started off the first quarter of the year averaging a modest 2.5 attempts on 40% and then appeared emboldened and titrated up his attempts. This can very easily be argued to be a hot-hand bias, where Jordan may have abandoned the shot if he wasn't doing well with it, which lines up well with the big year-to-year fluctuation in attempts (1.2 in '89, 3.0 in '90, 1.1 in '91, 2.9 in '93)...unless Jordan was directionlessly manic with his shot diet, my guess is as good as any.

Point is that the data set is far too inconclusive to pencil Jordan in for anything lofty. You simply don't know. You can scream from the rooftops that you do...but you'll still be just an incoherent dude on a rooftop.



None of this is evidence, and he never shot "at today's volumes" (??) with the normal line even in his higher attempt seasons. At his highest, 12.5% of his attempts were threes under those parameters -- very, very well below today's marks for shooting guards. Even late-career Butler, who has been chided for not getting with the times (not that I agree), has attempted a higher % of threes.


:)

[Axe]

Op getting massively bodybagged in his own thread.

[3ba11]

Every point was responded to, including each individual example of players LeBron supposedly cratered. No generalities required.

Like I said, go ahead and list players LeBron “cratered” and it’ll take all of 2 minutes to link you to my responses to each player. No new ground to tread. You tan and will keep running.




…but improves team assists greatly. Sort of important considering basketball is a team game, and not a series of 1-on-q match-up’s.



That was also addressed:






See bolded in particular.




Cool, I believe Jordan is the GOAT too. This has nothing to do with not giving LeBron a fair shake.


Fair shake?

you mean like when he took the top 2 franchise players in the conference and put them on his team?

that kind of fair shake?

he gets credit for a Finals streak but that streak began after he joined the top 2 franchise players in the conference - it's absurd to give him credit for winning the conference after that and he showed how much overkill it was in 15' or 18' when he was able to make it through the weak conference with a normal 2-star team instead of his original super-team.. so without the "decision" to stack the deck, lebron-ball would've continued to be a 1-trick pony like Iverson, Westbrook, CP3 or other ball-dominators.

so there's no need to give Lebron a fair shake - he ruined that by stacking the deck... The most revealing thing is how he goes 1/4 with AD, Love and Wade (except the Allen miracle), so he can't get anywhere near a 3-peat or 6 chips with any lineup, even those that he hand-picks - if a player can't get anywhere near a 3-peat or 6 chips even with lineups that he hand-selects, then he's obviously nowhere near Jordan.. Now if he's a perennial underdog and loser in the Finals as well with these hand-picked teams, then he clearly has a weak brand of ball that underachieves favored talent and that's what the preseason odds, Finals odds and results show.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Fair shake?

you mean like when he took the top 2 franchise players in the conference and put them on his team?

that kind of fair shake?

he gets credit for a Finals streak but that streak began after he joined the top 2 franchise players in the conference - it's absurd to give him credit for winning the conference after that and he showed how much overkill it was in 15' or 18' when he was able to make it through the weak conference with a normal 2-star team instead of his original super-team.. so without the "decision" to stack the deck, lebron-ball would've continued to be a 1-trick pony like Iverson, Westbrook, CP3 or other ball-dominators.

so there's no need to give Lebron a fair shake - he ruined that by stacking the deck and the revealing thing is how he goes 1/4 with AD, Love and Wade (except the Allen miracle), so he can't get anywhere near a 3-peat or 6 chips with any lineup, even those that he hand-picks - if a player can't get anywhere near a 3-peat or 6 chips even with lineups that he hand-selects, then he's obviously nowhere near Jordan.. Now if he's a perennial underdog and loser in the Finals as well with these hand-picked teams, then he clearly has a weak brand of ball that underachieves favored talent and that's what the preseason odds, Finals odds and results show.

Mm, yes, run from my points some more please. Amusing how you can only respond to the quote bubble that has a go at you, and which isn’t aimed at making specific, substantive points.

For those viewing at home, that’s a clear evasion. All of these generalities were responded to many times over in the other thread. Should I produce receipts for that too? Just ask me. Will you respond to them?

[1987_Lakers]

Fair shake?

you mean like when he took the top 2 franchise players in the conference and put them on his team?

that kind of fair shake?

he gets credit for a Finals streak but that streak began after he joined the top 2 franchise players in the conference - it's absurd to give him credit for winning the conference after that and he showed how much overkill it was in 15' or 18' when he was able to make it through the weak conference with a normal 2-star team instead of his original super-team.. so without the "decision" to stack the deck, lebron-ball would've continued to be a 1-trick pony like Iverson, Westbrook, CP3 or other ball-dominators.

so there's no need to give Lebron a fair shake - he ruined that by stacking the deck... The most revealing thing is how he goes 1/4 with AD, Love and Wade (except the Allen miracle), so he can't get anywhere near a 3-peat or 6 chips with any lineup, even those that he hand-picks - if a player can't get anywhere near a 3-peat or 6 chips even with lineups that he hand-selects, then he's obviously nowhere near Jordan.. Now if he's a perennial underdog and loser in the Finals as well with these hand-picked teams, then he clearly has a weak brand of ball that underachieves favored talent and that's what the preseason odds, Finals odds and results show.

This guy shits on LeBron for playing on a "super team" while at the same time having Larry Bird as his #2 player of all time, a guy who played on a loaded roster most of his career, yet never even repeated as champion.

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

This guy shits on LeBron for playing on a "super team" while at the same time having Larry Bird as his #2 player of all time, a guy who played on a loaded roster most of his career, yet never even repeated as champion.


Who was it that compiled 3balls ever-fluctuating all-time lists over the years? The only constants seemed to be Jordan at 1 and LeBron in the lower single-digits or worse, lol. Everyone else has been in constant flux.

[3ba11]

Mm, yes, run from my points some more please. Amusing how you can only respond to the quote bubble that has a go at you, and which isn’t aimed at making specific, substantive points.

For those viewing at home, that’s a clear evasion. All of these generalities were responded to many times over in the other thread. Should I produce receipts for that too? Just ask me. Will you respond to them?


no one reads your long drivel that doesn't address why so many guys crater alongside Lebron and have bad fits and zero young player development..

if you can't address things succinctly, then you're wrong.. This is true in life and on this forum.. In this case, there's nothing to address - only Lebron has a material record of bad fits, cratering numerous teammates, and zero young player development, not Jordan - it's historical record so there's no way to refute it.. the stats are what they are and your excuses for them mean little especially for a large sample and many examples that we have.

but carry on and i'll keep ignoring your long sweet nothings just like everyone else is and keep repeating the truth about Lebron's history of weak fits, chemistry and zero young player development into meaningful producers in 21 years because.. wait for it.... his skillset imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win (can't win organically).

ultimately, if a player cannot get anywhere near 3-peat or 6 chips regardless of cast and even with his own hand-picked casts, then he's objectively nowhere near MJ... he went 1/4 with AD, Love and Wade (except the Allen miracle), so he isn't capable of a 3-peat or 6 chips with any lineup, aka objectively inferior to MJ

[3ba11]

This guy shits on LeBron for playing on a "super team" while at the same time having Larry Bird as his #2 player of all time, a guy who played on a loaded roster most of his career, yet never even repeated as champion.


What was the record of the Celtics in the year before Bird got there, and then Bird's first year?

So Bird lifted a lottery cast to champion in just his 2nd season, while Lebron needed 3 seasons to develop a veteran, high seed before entering the 06' Playoffs.. Then his Year 6 and 7 organic juggernauts lost as the favorite in 2009 and 2010 because Lebron became a 12 turnover per game player in clutch-time of the 09' ECF (last 5 within 5), which lost 3 fourth quarter leads, and he was also dominated by Dwight in the critical Game 4 OT.. Of course, the 2010 upset loss was one of the most embarrassing ever for any player and their fans - Lebron averaged 21 on 34% for the last 3 games to lose a 2-1 lead.

So clearly, Lebron doesn't compare to Bird.. Even when lebron had super-team casts, he was never competitive with all-time teams the way Bird was - Bird was never beaten by record amount like Lebron in 2014, 2017, and swept in 2023

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

no one reads your long drivel

Wrong, seems like many people both read and derive some entertainment from it.



that doesn't address why so many guys crater alongside Lebron and have bad fits and zero young player development..


It’s all addressed, right in front of you. You can list all the players LeBron supposedly cratered and we can re-start the process of you hiding from the inevitable debunking.



if you can't address things succinctly, then you're wrong..


How does one pick apart hundreds of falsehoods, one-by-one, in a succinct fashion without adducing evidence or statistics?

Not my fault you’ve given me so much material to work with.

Anywho, you haven’t been able to point out a single falsehood I’ve spouted, whether succinctly or elaborately.




In this case, there's nothing to address - only Lebron has a material record of bad fits, cratering numerous teammates, and zero young player development, not Jordan - it's historical record so there's no way to refute it.. the stats are what they are and your excuses for them mean little especially for a large sample and many examples that we have.


Thankfully, my examinations included both stats and context.

Which player have I erred on, and how? Can you quote which one I’ve missed the mark on (I’ve devoted paragraphs to each player you mentioned), and explain a single error I’ve made?



but carry on


I will.



and i'll keep ignoring your long sweet nothings


Kind of. It sounds like your ego will still be sufficiently roused to reply with paragraphs of your own.



just like everyone else is and keep repeating the truth


Great, I will keep popping my head in to debunk your false claims. If you choose to engage with the debunkings honestly, all the better.



and zero young player development into meaningful producers in 21 years because.. wait for it.... his skillset imposes spot-up roles that stall young players, thereby needing ready-made stars to win (can't win organically).


Yawn, these lazy slightly reworded paste-jobs would hit a little harder were it not for you basically admitting you’ve cocooned yourself from my posts.

[Phoenix]

Who was it that compiled 3balls ever-fluctuating all-time lists over the years? The only constants seemed to be Jordan at 1 and LeBron in the lower single-digits or worse, lol. Everyone else has been in constant flux.

Allow me...

https://i.postimg.cc/xddkw47g/3nutball2.gif

https://i.postimg.cc/HLPJdt1m/3nutball3.gif

[SATAN]

:roll::roll::roll:

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Allow me...

https://i.postimg.cc/xddkw47g/3nutball2.gif

https://i.postimg.cc/HLPJdt1m/3nutball3.gif

:roll: … I see him more like a Cable Guy-type but this’ll do too :roll: :roll:

[Axe]

Op aka andrew getting destroyed all over again. It's been a while since he last posted itt.

[SATAN]

LeBron shot 60% from 3 in the IST. :lebronamazed:

He's 41% on the season. :lebronamazed:

:oldlol:

[beau_boy04]

it doesn't matter. MJ didn't need the 3 pts to be the top scorer and best player of all-time.

[SATAN]

it doesn't matter. MJ didn't need the 3 pts to be the top scorer and best player of all-time.

No, just Pippen.

[Axe]

Op really ran again. :roll: