Is Lebron the best shooter out of the top 10 GOAT?

[iamgine]

This past season he's doing 41% 3pt on 5 attempts per game.

[RRR3]

Definitely not but I also have Curry in my top 10. He’s definitely in the higher end of the top 10 though just because a ton of the top 10 were non shooting centers (Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Russell, Duncan who is basically a center)

[Naero]

Good luck arguing anyone other than Bird. Only Curry would have a cogent case over him, but he's not a consensus top-ten GOAT at the moment.

[kawhileonard2]

No he has a losing record in the finals and lost with HCA.

[RRR3]

Good luck arguing anyone other than Bird. Only Curry would have a cogent case over him, but he's not a consensus top-ten GOAT at the moment.
Bird is certainly better at midrange and free throws but he really wasn't that impressive at 3s. Sure that's because of when he played but I don't like giving guys skills they didn't have in a comparison of skills. He shot 3s at a very low volume and was only good at them for part of his career (and generally poor in the playoffs, even on low volume). The 3pt line was absolutely not guarded the same way it is now when he played either.

[StrongLurk]

Definitely not but I also have Curry in my top 10. He’s definitely in the higher end of the top 10 though just because a ton of the top 10 were non shooting centers (Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq, Russell, Duncan who is basically a center)

Curry hasn't proven himself top 10 all time.

MJ, Kobe, and Bird are better shooters than Lebron.

[RRR3]

Curry hasn't proven himself top 10 all time.

MJ, Kobe, and Bird are better shooters than Lebron.
He has if you're paying attention. MJ's shooting was unimpressive, dude did not get guarded and still was dreadful from 3... WE DONE WITH THE 90s!!!!

[John8204]

https://malteranalytics.github.io/assets/images/2020-01-28-kobe/image1.png

https://grantland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/grant_r_alllebronshots11.jpg

It's Bird or Kobe

[Axe]

https://malteranalytics.github.io/assets/images/2020-01-28-kobe/image1.png

https://grantland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/grant_r_alllebronshots11.jpg

It's Bird or Kobe
Too many missed shots for the mamba tho.

[RRR3]

https://malteranalytics.github.io/assets/images/2020-01-28-kobe/image1.png

https://grantland.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/grant_r_alllebronshots11.jpg

It's Bird or Kobe
Why would you compare Kobe's career to LeBron from just 2009-13? :roll:

[warriorfan]

https://malteranalytics.github.io/assets/images/2020-01-28-kobe/image1.png

It's Bird or Kobe

That is an art piece

[John8204]

Why would you compare Kobe's career to LeBron from just 2009-13? :roll:

Because that's what exists....Kobe shot everywhere yeah he missed his percentages might not have been great, but best doesn't just mean how well you shoot but where you can shoot and how often you do it.

[RRR3]

Because that's what exists....Kobe shot everywhere yeah he missed his percentages might not have been great, but best doesn't just mean how well you shoot but where you can shoot and how often you do it.
Shooting from everywhere isn't really a feather in your cap unless you're good from everywhere you shoot. Kobe wasn't. Better in more areas than LeBron sure, but LeBron was better in the areas that are the biggest key to efficiency, so he was generally more effective. Regardless, Curry is top 10 and shits on both of them as a shooter.

[John8204]

Shooting from everywhere isn't really a feather in your cap unless you're good from everywhere you shoot. Kobe wasn't. Better in more areas than LeBron sure, but LeBron was better in the areas that are the biggest key to efficiency, so he was generally more effective. Regardless, Curry is top 10 and shits on both of them as a shooter.


Well then the GOAT shooter is Wilt its either the guy that shoots the most or score the most. Lebron just feels like a compromise choice.

[mr4speed]

Bird is certainly better at midrange and free throws but he really wasn't that impressive at 3s. Sure that's because of when he played but I don't like giving guys skills they didn't have in a comparison of skills. He shot 3s at a very low volume and was only good at them for part of his career (and generally poor in the playoffs, even on low volume). The 3pt line was absolutely not guarded the same way it is now when he played either.

Lebron has played 21 seasons and had only 2 seasons of shooting the 3 at 40%. Bird played 12 seasons and had 6 seasons of shooting the 3 at 40%. Lebron for his career is at 34.8% and Bird for his career is at 37.6%. Bird created the 50-40-90 club and Lebron has never had a 50-40-90 season. Bird won three 3 point shootouts. Bird grew up without a 3 point line. The answer is Bird over Lebron and Curry over Bird IMO.

[tpols]

Bird and Curry are clearly way better. MJ and Kobe are as well but not to that degree. This is an absurd thread.

[j3lademaster]

It’s tough to put a 74% career ft shooter in any kind of “top shooter” list. It doesn’t mean he can’t put the ball in the basket, just means he isn’t an elite shooter.

[PeroAntic]

Lebron has played 21 seasons and had only 2 seasons of shooting the 3 at 40%. Bird played 12 seasons and had 6 seasons of shooting the 3 at 40%. Lebron for his career is at 34.8% and Bird for his career is at 37.6%. Bird created the 50-40-90 club and Lebron has never had a 50-40-90 season. Bird won three 3 point shootouts. Bird grew up without a 3 point line. The answer is Bird over Lebron and Curry over Bird IMO.

/thread

[Kblaze8855]

Bird is certainly better at midrange and free throws but he really wasn't that impressive at 3s. Sure that's because of when he played but I don't like giving guys skills they didn't have in a comparison of skills.



Bird was a better shooter than Lebron from everywhere. The era throws off the numbers but you don’t need to give him “If he came up today” credits. If he came up today his numbers would be improved but his skill wouldn’t need to change to do it.

He wouldn’t have to become a better shooter. He’d just be told to shoot a lot more and it would offset his percentage ruining bullshit shots.

Bird was a Jordan type who would need to change his focus and work on outside shooting more.

Straight day one transition.

Young Bird who barely shot any would be a great 3 point shooter with absolutely no adjustment. Just….being asked to do it. No additional skills needed.

[TheBranStan]

Bird and Curry are clearly way better. MJ and Kobe are as well but not to that degree. This is an absurd thread.

Smooth brain detected.

[Duffy Pratt]

Bird shot low volume from three. How many of his misses were end of quarter heaves or desparation shots? LeBron doesn’t take those shots, because they ruin your numbers.

[StrongLurk]

Again Curry is not top 10 all time unless you completely devalue everything before the 90's. If you do, then sure Curry is top 10 all time (since 1990).

Curry's 2 MVPs, 1 FMVP, and 4 all-nba first teams is NOT enough for top 10 all time. Not a good defender either.

These are the top ten players all time (not in order) - MJ, Lebron, Kareem, Bill Russell, Wilt, Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Bird, Kobe.

[RRR3]

Bird was a better shooter than Lebron from everywhere. The era throws off the numbers but you don’t need to give him “If he came up today” credits. If he came up today his numbers would be improved but his skill wouldn’t need to change to do it.

He wouldn’t have to become a better shooter. He’d just be told to shoot a lot more and it would offset his percentage ruining bullshit shots.

Bird was a Jordan type who would need to change his focus and work on outside shooting more.

Straight day one transition.

Young Bird who barely shot any would be a great 3 point shooter with absolutely no adjustment. Just….being asked to do it. No additional skills needed.
If he shot more without working on it, his percentage would go down. This is common sense. Considering his percentages weren't much better than LeBron's since he added a 3 to his game on much lower volume I'm gonna call bs. Sure he probably is better if he works on it, but then we're making Bird a different player than he was. It's like saying LeBron would have been a dominant power forward post guy if he played in the 60s.

[Neal Romer]

No, Lebron is not the best shooter among top 10 GOATs.


Lebron23 is the best shooter among top 10 GOATs

[HoopsNY]

If he shot more without working on it, his percentage would go down. This is common sense. Considering his percentages weren't much better than LeBron's since he added a 3 to his game on much lower volume I'm gonna call bs. Sure he probably is better if he works on it, but then we're making Bird a different player than he was. It's like saying LeBron would have been a dominant power forward post guy if he played in the 60s.

If he shot more, his percentage likely doesn't go down at all. How is it common sense when Bird's percentages went up as a result of him shooting more? And are you really comparing LeBron as a three point shooter to Larry Bird?

[RRR3]

If he shot more, his percentage likely doesn't go down at all. How is it common sense when Bird's percentages went up as a result of him shooting more? And are you really comparing LeBron as a three point shooter to Larry Bird?
Yeah, Bird wasn't a particularly impressive 3PT shooter, we have the data, and you're gonna be hard pressed to convince me he was guarded like today's players were considering the footage I've seen of 80s ball where the 3PT line isn't even being guarded. It does look like Bird is being guarded more than usual for the time, but it's certainly nothing like elite shooters today are guarded like, more similar to the way someone like LeBron (a streaky shooter who is more of a threat slashing) is guarded.

Your percentages do go down as you shoot more, who told you otherwise? Why do you think it's easier for Kyle Anderson to shoot well from 3 than it is for someone like Jordan Clarkson? Do you actually think Anderson is a better shooter? I don't doubt Bird shit on LeBron from midrange, FT% would indicate this is likely, but the 3PT data simply isn't impressive for Bird. While I am sure this is a function of when he played, we are comparing Bird as is, not a hypothetical Bird.

[HoopsNY]

Yeah, Bird wasn't a particularly impressive 3PT shooter, we have the data, and you're gonna be hard pressed to convince me he was guarded like today's players were considering the footage I've seen of 80s ball where the 3PT line isn't even being guarded. It does look like Bird is being guarded more than usual for the time, but it's certainly nothing like elite shooters today are guarded like, more similar to the way someone like LeBron (a streaky shooter who is more of a threat slashing) is guarded.

Bird shot 38% for his career, but even that number is skewed. He came into the league when the 3 pointer was in its first season. In Bird's first 5 seasons of play, he only averaged 1.1 attempts per game, and shot only 31%.

The remainder of his career, which spans 8 seasons, he more than doubled his attempts (2.6 3PA), and shot it at a 40% clip. This has been the literal trend of the league since 1980, really. The more teams were shooting, the higher the percentages generally became. In 1983, for example, the league shot 23% on barely 2 attempts. By '93, the league had 4x their attempts and shot it at nearly a 34% clip. That's not by coincidence.


Your percentages do go down as you shoot more, who told you otherwise? Why do you think it's easier for Kyle Anderson to shoot well from 3 than it is for someone like Jordan Clarkson? Do you actually think Anderson is a better shooter? I don't doubt Bird shit on LeBron from midrange, FT% would indicate this is likely, but the 3PT data simply isn't impressive for Bird. While I am sure this is a function of when he played, we are comparing Bird as is, not a hypothetical Bird.

The data told me otherwise. It's the trend seemingly a majority of the time and it doesn't come as a surprise where even today's players often experience the same. You keep mentioning Bird not being impressive like he didn't shoot 38% for his career from the distance, or like he didn't win three straight 3pt competitions. How many did LeBron win?

Here's another fun fact, once Bird's volume picked up, from '85-'92, when attempting 4+ threes in a game, Bird shot 41% from three point range. He also put up nearly 30/10/8/2 on 50/40/90 splits during such games. You think Bird was known as an assassin for no apparent reason? These are the all time greats we're speaking about here.

If that's not impressive then I honestly don't know what is.

[HoopsNY]

Yeah, Bird wasn't a particularly impressive 3PT shooter, we have the data, and you're gonna be hard pressed to convince me he was guarded like today's players were considering the footage I've seen of 80s ball where the 3PT line isn't even being guarded. It does look like Bird is being guarded more than usual for the time, but it's certainly nothing like elite shooters today are guarded like, more similar to the way someone like LeBron (a streaky shooter who is more of a threat slashing) is guarded.

Your percentages do go down as you shoot more, who told you otherwise? Why do you think it's easier for Kyle Anderson to shoot well from 3 than it is for someone like Jordan Clarkson? Do you actually think Anderson is a better shooter? I don't doubt Bird shit on LeBron from midrange, FT% would indicate this is likely, but the 3PT data simply isn't impressive for Bird. While I am sure this is a function of when he played, we are comparing Bird as is, not a hypothetical Bird.

It's also interesting you mentioned Bird not being guarded like streaky shooters today, inclusive of LeBron, so I just looked it up.

LeBron attempted 5.1 3PA this season, 4.4 of them were either open (4-6 feet to the nearest defender), or wide open (6+ feet to nearest defender). So basically, nearly 90% of the time he was open.

[RRR3]

Bird shot 38% for his career, but even that number is skewed. He came into the league when the 3 pointer was in its first season. In Bird's first 5 seasons of play, he only averaged 1.1 attempts per game, and shot only 31%.

The remainder of his career, which spans 8 seasons, he more than doubled his attempts (2.6 3PA), and shot it at a 40% clip. This has been the literal trend of the league since 1980, really. The more teams were shooting, the higher the percentages generally became. In 1983, for example, the league shot 23% on barely 2 attempts. By '93, the league had 4x their attempts and shot it at nearly a 34% clip. That's not by coincidence.



The data told me otherwise. It's the trend seemingly a majority of the time and it doesn't come as a surprise where even today's players often experience the same. You keep mentioning Bird not being impressive like he didn't shoot 38% for his career from the distance, or like he didn't win three straight 3pt competitions. How many did LeBron win?

Here's another fun fact, once Bird's volume picked up, from '85-'92, when attempting 4+ threes in a game, Bird shot 41% from three point range. He also put up nearly 30/10/8/2 on 50/40/90 splits during such games. You think Bird was known as an assassin for no apparent reason? These are the all time greats we're speaking about here.

If that's not impressive then I honestly don't know what is.
2.8 3PA is extremely low volume compared to today's NBA. When you're more selective with your shots, it's easier to shoot a higher percentage. LeBron is often taking pullup threes off the dribble or in transition, players simply did not play like that when Bird was around. LeBron has at times taken as many as 8 threes a game, you are very much underrating how little Bird shot 3s. He also shot a dismal 32.1% from 3 in the playoffs, not very impressive.

I'm not sure where you're getting that 4+ number, the most 3PA Bird ever had was 3.3. He shot 3s about as much as DeMar DeRozan does, and DeRozan is considered a guy who doesn't take 3s.

[HoopsNY]

2.8 3PA is extremely low volume compared to today's NBA. When you're more selective with your shots, it's easier to shoot a higher percentage. LeBron is often taking pullup threes off the dribble or in transition, players simply did not play like that when Bird was around. LeBron has at times taken as many as 8 threes a game, you are very much underrating how little Bird shot 3s. He also shot a dismal 32.1% from 3 in the playoffs, not very impressive.

I'm not sure where you're getting that 4+ number, the most 3PA Bird ever had was 3.3. He shot 3s about as much as DeMar DeRozan does, and DeRozan is considered a guy who doesn't take 3s.

You're not focusing on what it is that I'm actually saying. I addressed your argument about data. My point was that with more shooting generally comes better performances. The data supports that, and in Bird's case, it does as well. The point wasn't merely about 2.8 attempts. It was what he did relative to his years with lower volume.

I'm sure LeBron has games where he took 8 or more threes as well as you've mentioned. From the time period I mentioned before, Bird did too. In fact, during such games where Bird took 8 or more, he shot 46% from the distance.

The 4+ number isn't the entire season numbers. It's filtering for the games where he took 4 or more threes, between 1985-1992. Bird had a lot of such games and the results were impressive.

You can't honestly look at the overall attempts and compare them. It's not a fair comparison without context, especially when you just drew a comparison to DeMar DeRozan of all people.

[Soundwave]

Nah he's not.

[RRR3]

You're not focusing on what it is that I'm actually saying. I addressed your argument about data. My point was that with more shooting generally comes better performances. The data supports that, and in Bird's case, it does as well. The point wasn't merely about 2.8 attempts. It was what he did relative to his years with lower volume.

I'm sure LeBron has games where he took 8 or more threes as well as you've mentioned. From the time period I mentioned before, Bird did too. In fact, during such games where Bird took 8 or more, he shot 46% from the distance.

The 4+ number isn't the entire season numbers. It's filtering for the games where he took 4 or more threes, between 1985-1992. Bird had a lot of such games and the results were impressive.

You can't honestly look at the overall attempts and compare them. It's not a fair comparison without context, especially when you just drew a comparison to DeMar DeRozan of all people.
The context is that 3PTers weren't a big part of the game back then. You can pretend Bird was some deadly 3PT shooter by modern standards if you want, but the data doesn't support it. As for the the "games where he took 4 or more" percentage, that's the same shit 3ball does to pretend MJ was an elite 3PT shooter. it's a small sample size, and affected because some of those games were likely games in which they started out hitting their first 2 and thus took more. DeRozan is a fair comparison volume wise, 3s were really not a big part of Bird's game at all. LeBron had a season where 37% of his shots were 3s, Bird's absolute BEST was barely more than half that.

[warriorfan]

The context is that 3PTers weren't a big part of the game back then. You can pretend Bird was some deadly 3PT shooter by modern standards if you want, but the data doesn't support it. As for the the "games where he took 4 or more" percentage, that's the same shit 3ball does to pretend MJ was an elite 3PT shooter. it's a small sample size, and affected because some of those games were likely games in which they started out hitting their first 2 and thus took more. DeRozan is a fair comparison volume wise, 3s were really not a big part of Bird's game at all. LeBron had a season where 37% of his shots were 3s, Bird's absolute BEST was barely more than half that.

Sometimes you need to use judgement when interpreting raw data and try to identify other influences for a more accurate analysis.

[bison]

:facepalm:

Lebron is a career 35% 3PT shooter. and sure that might be better than anyone on the top 10 list not named curry, but that’s because as it’s been pointed 3pt shooting wasn’t considered a major and necessary skill up until the last two decades. Plus many of the all time greats were big men. But why are we assuming ‘shooting’ just means 3 point shooting? Overall shooting wise, MJ, bird and Kobe are all >>>> lebron

[Bush4Ever]

Bird's 3pt+ over his career was 127 and Lebron's was probably about 100 over his best decade long stretch (97 for his career).

That's largely because Bird played in a substantially worse era for three-point shooting, but his midrange and FT shooting abilities make an overwhelmingly strong case that if he played today, he would be a profoundly deadly shooter (maybe not as much from midrange, however).

It wouldn't be the same degree of difference from his peers as he had in the 80s (+27 3pt+ is essentially where Curry peaked in the modern era), but it would be miles beyond Lebron as a pure shooter from distance.

Taking pure shooting ability over the career span, he's much closer to the Kobe/MJ level as a pure shooter-shooter than Bird's level. An analysis that makes cross-era comparisons while refusing to evaluate players relative to peers (and insisting on absolute standards) is a little strange.

[iamgine]

An analysis that makes cross-era comparisons while refusing to evaluate players relative to peers (and insisting on absolute standards) is a little strange.

Well because that would mean George Mikan was better than Shaq while in actuality Mikan was worse than Al Jefferson

[RRR3]

Bird's 3pt+ over his career was 127 and Lebron's was probably about 100 over his best decade long stretch (97 for his career).

That's largely because Bird played in a substantially worse era for three-point shooting, but his midrange and FT shooting abilities make an overwhelmingly strong case that if he played today, he would be a profoundly deadly shooter (maybe not as much from midrange, however).

It wouldn't be the same degree of difference from his peers as he had in the 80s (+27 3pt+ is essentially where Curry peaked in the modern era), but it would be miles beyond Lebron as a pure shooter from distance.

Taking pure shooting ability over the career span, he's much closer to the Kobe/MJ level as a pure shooter-shooter than Bird's level. An analysis that makes cross-era comparisons while refusing to evaluate players relative to peers (and insisting on absolute standards) is a little strange.
Not if we're just saying who was the best shooter, the question wasn't "best shooter relative to era". Shooting has improved massively, that's just a fact. I'd still definitely say Bird is a better overall shooter than LeBron, but it's certainly ebatable if we're talking exclusively 3s. Bird wasn't some deadly 3PT shooter by modern standards.

[Bush4Ever]

Well because that would mean George Mikan was better than Shaq while in actuality Mikan was worse than Al Jefferson

No it doesn't, because any serious person considers both the *depth* of competition along with the degree of dominance.

Bird's 3pt+ for his career is actually higher than Curry's (by eight points), but no one would really claim Bird was a better three-point shooter because his peers within-era were radically worse than Curry's at hitting threes.

What degree of dominance differences might exist, the talent pool in Shaq's era was probably literally 1000x the size of Mikan's.

You have to consider them in tandem.


Not if we're just saying who was the best shooter, the question wasn't "best shooter relative to era". Shooting has improved massively, that's just a fact. I'd still definitely say Bird is a better overall shooter than LeBron, but it's certainly ebatable if we're talking exclusively 3s. Bird wasn't some deadly 3PT shooter by modern standards.

So to get to an answer of Lebron, we basically have to exclude everything except threes, *and also* judge shooting ability in absolute terms, rather than relative terms or even some combination?

Congrats to Lebron for being born much later in history and not being a complete wreck at shooting threes?

People can have whatever methodology they want, but that doesn't have much face validity to me, and I would imagine most fans.

[RRR3]

No it doesn't, because any serious person considers both the *depth* of competition along with the degree of dominance.

Bird's 3pt+ for his career is actually higher than Curry's (by eight points), but no one would really claim Bird was a better three-point shooter because his peers within-era were radically worse than Curry's at hitting threes.

What degree of dominance differences might exist, the talent pool in Shaq's era was probably literally 1000x the size of Mikan's.

You have to consider them in tandem.



So to get to an answer of Lebron, we basically have to exclude everything except threes, *and also* judge shooting ability in absolute terms, rather than relative terms or even some combination?

Congrats to Lebron for being born much later in history and not being a complete wreck at shooting threes?

People can have whatever methodology they want, but that doesn't have much face validity to me, and I would imagine most fans.
I never said LeBron was a better shooter, I was just pointing out Bird being talked about as some godly shooter in the modern sense doesn't really hold up to reality. I'm sure Bird could adjust and learn to shoot 3s well on high volume, but I also think the same is true of a lot of guys who were objectively bad 3PT shooters back in the day. Alex English for instance is probably at least a competent 3PT shooter if he played today. That doesn't mean we should pretend he was when he playded if we're comparing what he did on the court to someone else. If you dropped current LeBron right now into 1985 he is absolutely one of the very best 3PT shooters in the league. Bird was one of the few who were actually efficient out there even at the low volume. Don Buse was 10th in the league in 1985 at 35.6%, and he only took 1.3 a game. LeBron just did 41.0% at 5.1 per game.

[iamgine]

What degree of dominance differences might exist, the talent pool in Shaq's era was probably literally 1000x the size of Mikan's.


Well the talent pool in Embiid's era is also 1000x the size of Wilt's and Kareem's.

[Bush4Ever]

I never said LeBron was a better shooter, I was just pointing out Bird being talked about as some godly shooter in the modern sense doesn't really hold up to reality.

He's talked about as some Godly shooter, because he was a hyper-elite shooter in his era, and all-time level by any standard from the line.

If you are making the point JJ Reddick made to "Mad Dog" on ESPN, that's perfectly true, but also pretty irrelevant with how players are usually evaluated in sports across eras.

If Bird isn't a great shooter, then Babe Ruth isn't a top 1,000 baseball player and Jesse Owens isn't a top 10,000 sprinter, etc...

Isaac Newton isn't top 10,000 in math/physics knowledge, etc...

[beasted]

This is truly laughable. LeBron has always been a mediocre FT shooter which I feel is the quintessential litmus for being a good shooter.

If you literally cannot shoot well unguarded what use are you as a shooter.?

[iamgine]

Jesse Owens isn't a top 10,000 sprinter

Correct, he's not.

He's a top 5 greatest sprinter though.

[Bush4Ever]

Well the talent pool in Embiid's era is also 1000x the size of Wilt's and Kareem's.

No, the gaps between Mikan and Shaq are *significantly* more severe than between the modern era and Wilt/Kareem.

Just in terms of face validity and gut feeling, don't you think Shaq would make Mikan look substantially more foolish defensively than Embiid would make either Wilt or Kareem look defensively, even with the three in play?

Mikan would literally not make a roster, and maybe not even significant D-1 rosters. Wilt would absolutely be on roster, although his offensive game would be obsolete, his rebounding/defense could absolutely represent in 2024.

[Bush4Ever]

This is truly laughable. LeBron has always been a mediocre FT shooter which I feel is the quintessential litmus for being a good shooter.

If you literally cannot shoot well unguarded what use are you as a shooter.?

The old rule used to be if you were a good FT shooter, you probably were a good regular shooter, but might not be (since you have all the time in the world to line up the shot...that you wouldn't get in regular game shots), but if you were a bad or average FT shooter, you definitely weren't a good regular shooter.

I mean, the guy is below average on threes (TS+ 97) and FTs (FT+ 97) during his career.

IDK what some people in this thread are talking about. Lebron is extremely efficient, but he's efficient almost entirely as a function of getting abnormal amounts of easy at-rim shots, and being abnormally good at converting them (and drawing fouls to some degree). He basically "holds the fort and that's it" everywhere else.

[RRR3]

This is truly laughable. LeBron has always been a mediocre FT shooter which I feel is the quintessential litmus for being a good shooter.

If you literally cannot shoot well unguarded what use are you as a shooter.?
It's not true but it's less laughable when you realize how bad most of the top 10 is at shooting. Assuming you have Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Russell and Duncan in your top 10 (almost everyone does), LeBron is at worst the 4th best shooter in the top 10. I think a lot of people would rank LeBron over Magic as a shooter too despite the difference in FT ability.

[iamgine]

No, the gaps between Mikan and Shaq are *significantly* more severe than between the modern era and Wilt/Kareem.

More severe sure but still there's a huge difference. I don't think that can be denied.

[RRR3]

The old rule used to be if you were a good FT shooter, you probably were a good regular shooter, but might not be (since you have all the time in the world to line up the shot...that you wouldn't get in regular game shots), but if you were a bad or average FT shooter, you definitely weren't a good regular shooter.

I mean, the guy is below average on threes (TS+ 97) and FTs (FT+ 97) during his career.

IDK what some people in this thread are talking about. Lebron is extremely efficient, but he's efficient almost entirely as a function of getting abnormal amounts of easy at-rim shots, and being abnormally good at converting them (and drawing fouls to some degree). He basically "holds the fort and that's it" everywhere else.
Being a mediocre shooter puts you in the higher end of the top 10. Most of the top 10 were dreadful shooters. Bird and Curry are really the only guys arguably in the top 10 who were elite shooters for their eras.

[Bush4Ever]

More severe sure but still there's a huge difference. I don't think that can be denied.

Sure. But so are the within-era outputs. In sum at least.

Embiid isn't in the top 250 in total points, total rebounds, and barely (178) in total blocks, with zero rings and zero major playoff team accomplishment.

It's a pair of sliding scales: the less deep the talent pool, the more relatively dominant you should be to hold a certain rank. The deeper the pool, the less relatively dominant you need to be.

I don't think there is a perfect metric to combine those ideas, but I think thoughtful and knowledgeable fans will generally be oriented in the right direction if they attempt to be objective.

[iamgine]

Sure. But so are the within-era outputs. In sum at least.

Embiid isn't in the top 250 in total points, total rebounds, and barely (178) in total blocks, with zero rings and zero major playoff team accomplishment.

It's a pair of sliding scales: the less deep the talent pool, the more relatively dominant you should be to hold a certain rank. The deeper the pool, the less relatively dominant you need to be.

Embiid is pretty dominant today. In a much much deeper pool, he's one of the best player. I don't think that can be denied.

[Bush4Ever]

Embiid is pretty dominant today. In a much much deeper pool, he's one of the best player. I don't think that can be denied.

He's certainly dominant on a per-game/minute basis.

In terms of summed value, not to the top. He's just injured too much, and hasn't taken advantage of the times he's been healthy to get his team over the hump in the playoffs.

That's not shameful or anything, but you aren't adding value if you aren't playing. For a frame of reference, Embiid has played in fewer games during his entire career than Kareem did with the *Bucks*.

But I agree if you took a healthy/peaked Embiid and matched him against a healthy/peaked [pretty much any center in history], he's going to hold his own or better, or at least approximately so. You can count the amount of comprehensive offensive talents as good or better than him at center on one hand.

[iamgine]

He's certainly dominant on a per-game/minute basis.

In terms of summed value, not to the top. He's just injured too much, and hasn't taken advantage of the times he's been healthy to get his team over the hump in the playoffs.

That's not shameful or anything, but you aren't adding value if you aren't playing. For a frame of reference, Embiid has played in fewer games during his entire career than Kareem did with the *Bucks*.

But I agree if you took a healthy/peaked Embiid and matched him against a healthy/peaked [pretty much any center in history], he's going to hold his own or better, or at least approximately so. You can count the amount of comprehensive offensive talents as good or better than him at center on one hand.

Ok so what's this nonsense about Mikan's talent pool.

[HoopsNY]

The context is that 3PTers weren't a big part of the game back then. You can pretend Bird was some deadly 3PT shooter by modern standards if you want, but the data doesn't support it. As for the the "games where he took 4 or more" percentage, that's the same shit 3ball does to pretend MJ was an elite 3PT shooter. it's a small sample size, and affected because some of those games were likely games in which they started out hitting their first 2 and thus took more. DeRozan is a fair comparison volume wise, 3s were really not a big part of Bird's game at all. LeBron had a season where 37% of his shots were 3s, Bird's absolute BEST was barely more than half that.

The data does support. Between '85-'92, Bird's volume increased from 1 attempt a game to 3 per game. During that time, he shot 40% with 3 attempts as opposed to 1 attempt.

Bird had 148 games in those years where he attempted 4 or more attempts. In such games, he shot 41% from 3.

Secondly, don't compare me to 3ball. The difference between MJ and Bird is that Bird shot nearly 38% for his career with no shortened line, won three consecutive three point competitions to MJ's one putrid performance, and was actually considered an elite three point shooter by his peers.

Lastly, if you're not going to consider Bird then no one else from that era really gets the nod. But in doing so, you're basically a bit hypocritical because you want to use the numbers (on low volume) when it works for you, but you completely dismiss it when it's against you.

[RRR3]

The data does support. Between '85-'92, Bird's volume increased from 1 attempt a game to 3 per game. During that time, he shot 40% with 3 attempts as opposed to 1 attempt.

Bird had 148 games in those years where he attempted 4 or more attempts. In such games, he shot 41% from 3.

Secondly, don't compare me to 3ball. The difference between MJ and Bird is that Bird shot nearly 38% for his career with no shortened line, won three consecutive three point competitions to MJ's one putrid performance, and was actually considered an elite three point shooter by his peers.

Lastly, if you're not going to consider Bird then no one else from that era really gets the nod. But in doing so, you're basically a bit hypocritical because you want to use the numbers (on low volume) when it works for you, but you completely dismiss it when it's against you.
If you read my other posts in the thread I have said Bird>LeBron as an overall shooter I’m just challenging the notion he was definitively better at 3s. I consider you a solid poster so wasn’t trying to imply you’re on 3balls level just was pointing out you were doing something he does that I find a bit silly due to it lacking context.

[warriorfan]

If you read my other posts in the thread I have said Bird>LeBron as an overall shooter I’m just challenging the notion he was definitively better at 3s. I consider you a solid poster so wasn’t trying to imply you’re on 3balls level just was pointing out you were doing something he does that I find a bit silly due to it lacking context.

He was actually trying to add context.


Bringing up increased efficiency linked with increased volume of 4 or more attempts is establishing context to the statistics

[HoopsNY]

If you read my other posts in the thread I have said Bird>LeBron as an overall shooter I’m just challenging the notion he was definitively better at 3s. I consider you a solid poster so wasn’t trying to imply you’re on 3balls level just was pointing out you were doing something he does that I find a bit silly due to it lacking context.

Yea I get what you're trying to say. I just think it's pretty crazy, lol.

LeBron has played 21 seasons. Because he had 2 seasons where he shot the ball at a 40% clip isn't necessarily indicative of his overall ability. I think Bird shooting 40% from '85-'92 is more indicative of his ability, especially when it spans the majority of his career.

I also think if you're going to be consistent, then the conversation isn't really one that can be had at all. You can't omit Bird's performance when his volume increased, his games where he took 4 or more threes, or his games where he took 5, 6, 7, or 8 threes, his three point competition performances, but then say "well look at his playoff games." It's either you look at the entire picture or not at all, because the three pointer was in its infancy.

Btw, look at his games from '85-'92 when Bird took...

>4 threes: 41% (147 games)
>5 threes: 42.5% (82 games)
>6 threes: 43% (50 games)
>7 threes: 44% (22 games)
>8 threes: 46% (12 games)

[HoopsNY]

He was actually trying to add context.


Bringing up increased efficiency linked with increased volume of 4 or more attempts is establishing context to the statistics

Bingo. If you're going to compare eras, you HAVE to use context.

[mr4speed]

Yea I get what you're trying to say. I just think it's pretty crazy, lol.

LeBron has played 21 seasons. Because he had 2 seasons where he shot the ball at a 40% clip isn't necessarily indicative of his overall ability. I think Bird shooting 40% from '85-'92 is more indicative of his ability, especially when it spans the majority of his career.

I also think if you're going to be consistent, then the conversation isn't really one that can be had at all. You can't omit Bird's performance when his volume increased, his games where he took 4 or more threes, or his games where he took 5, 6, 7, or 8 threes, his three point competition performances, but then say "well look at his playoff games." It's either you look at the entire picture or not at all, because the three pointer was in its infancy.

Btw, look at his games from '85-'92 when Bird took...

>4 threes: 41% (147 games)
>5 threes: 42.5% (82 games)
>6 threes: 43% (50 games)
>7 threes: 44% (22 games)
>8 threes: 46% (12 games)

Great post!!! Thank you for adding context and your research. ( end of thread)

[beasted]

It's not true but it's less laughable when you realize how bad most of the top 10 is at shooting. Assuming you have Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Russell and Duncan in your top 10 (almost everyone does), LeBron is at worst the 4th best shooter in the top 10. I think a lot of people would rank LeBron over Magic as a shooter too despite the difference in FT ability.

Why are we bringing non-shooters into the category to try and muddy the comparison?

LeBron as a shooter is mediocre and got slightly better with age. Reminds me a lot of Kidd.