Ben Taylor’s Greatest Offensive Players Series

[Professor Emeritus]

Imo only 2009, 2012, 2016, 2018 Bron could have done that.

I think Golden State's defense was too smart to let 2009 or 2012 Bron do it. 2009 Bron wasn't efficient enough from outside or the post yet and his defense still needed to grow, and 2012 Bron was gaining but he only pulled Boston Game 6 once when he needed that shyt for three straight games.

2013 Bron was superior to 2012 Bron in every way, so not sure how you left that out.

 

[fifth column]

"Entire offense" was too much, but in those last three games Bron took 81 shots, 26 trips to the line, scored 109 points, and dealt out 30 assists.

That's putting up 2006 Kobe-level scoring and 2006 Nash-level distribution simultaneously while being guarded by two of the best in the game.


And then on the other end he managed 9 steals (peak AI averages) and 9 blocks (peak Dwight Howard averages) while switching everything and guarding everyone too.

He showed out no doubt for the comeback. Offensively Kyrie was balling alongside

 

[ISO]

I think Golden State's defense was too smart to let 2009 or 2012 Bron do it. 2009 Bron wasn't efficient enough from outside or the post yet and his defense still needed to grow, and 2012 Bron was gaining but he only pulled Boston Game 6 once when he needed that shyt for three straight games.

2013 Bron was superior to 2012 Bron in every way, so not sure how you left that out.

He was better in the playoffs in 2012 and won the championship decisively. Considering the fact he struggled for a good portion of the San Antonio series in 2013—no I don’t think he would have done that with that version of himself. Two of his career defining Herculean efforts prior to 2016 were in 2012.



In my opinion 2009 Bron was his most athletic version and he didn’t press he played off pure instinct and to me it was the best he ever looked as a shooter overall which is probably an unpopular opinion.

• 40% on long twos (499 attempts, only 24% assisted)
• 78% FT RS (9.4 attempts, highest FT%, second highest attempts in career), 75% FT PS (14.2 attempts (!), career high attempts and makes, drained clutch free throws with game on the line to force OT in game 4 of Orlando series)
• 34% on threes, this % is lower than other seasons but it has to be considered it was at a good volume and he took many unassisted threes and was taking bombs, his scatter plot is kind of tough to read on B-R but there's like 10-12 made threes from 27-36 feet out, confidently drained contested straight away three against Orlando off the catch in game 2 for the win.

That postseason he did 35/9/7 on 62% TS, 37.4 PER (!), .399 WS/48 (!), 17.5 box +/- (!)

7:3 assist to turnover ratio with a 36.4% usage that’s nuts

In the playoffs wasn’t nobody stopping that shyt pace adjust that shyt to modern day or imagine that Bron going downhill with the tempo and spacing that would come years later

If he had even a young AD in the front court to matchup with D12 and Pau later he had won the damn championship. Imagine this version of LeBron alongside Kyrie just saying fukk it we're taking over.

 

[ISO]

I'd also add 2017 Bron to the list don't see why he wouldn't be able to do it as well let's not forget


Bron was really Hercules from 2015-2018

 

[Professor Emeritus]

He was better in the playoffs in 2012 and won the championship decisively.

2012 Bron couldn't hit threes for shyt the whole postseason. His shot-making, shot selection, and defensive awareness also took a step up from 2012 to 2013. That 2012 version of Bron was incredible, an all-time great, and 2012 Game 6 was one of the greatest performances ever. But 2013 Bron was more polished and more consistent.

Considering the fact he struggled for a good portion of the San Antonio series in 2013—no I don’t think he would have done that with that version of himself. Two of his career defining Herculean efforts prior to 2016 were in 2012.

Bron only "struggled" for the first three games of the 2013 Finals, and Game 2 wasn't even that bad considering that he basically took his foot off the gas because they were dominating San Antonio so completely that the game was over early in the 4th. Same as 2016, he took off in the second half of the series once he had broken down their defense.

In my opinion 2009 Bron was his most athletic version and he didn’t press he played off pure instinct and to me it was the best he ever looked as a shooter overall which is probably an unpopular opinion.

• 40% on long twos (499 attempts, only 24% assisted)
• 78% FT RS (9.4 attempts, highest FT%, second highest attempts in career), 75% FT PS (14.2 attempts (!), career high attempts and makes, drained clutch free throws with game on the line to force OT in game 4 of Orlando series)
• 34% on threes, this % is lower than other seasons but it has to be considered it was at a good volume and he took many unassisted threes and was taking bombs, his scatter plot is kind of tough to read on B-R but there's like 10-12 made threes from 27-36 feet out, confidently drained contested straight away three against Orlando off the catch in game 2 for the win.

That postseason he did 35/9/7 on 62% TS, 37.4 PER (!), .399 WS/48 (!), 17.5 box +/- (!)

7:3 assist to turnover ratio with a 36.4% usage that’s nuts

In the playoffs wasn’t nobody stopping that shyt pace adjust that shyt to modern day or imagine that Bron going downhill with the tempo and spacing that would come years later

If he had even a young AD in the front court to matchup with D12 and Pau later he had won the damn championship. Imagine this version of LeBron alongside Kyrie just saying fukk it we're taking over.

I just don't think the defenses and coaching he was facing in 2009 were at the same level as what he beat in 2012, 2013, and 2016. He was getting those 2009 points in a more rudimentary way, he didn't do nearly as much to take apart the defense as he did facing the Celtics, Spurs, and Warriors.

And, like I said, his defense was much better 2012-2016 too.

 

[ISO]

2012 Bron couldn't hit threes for shyt the whole postseason. His shot-making, shot selection, and defensive awareness also took a step up from 2012 to 2013. That 2012 version of Bron was incredible, an all-time great, and 2012 Game 6 was one of the greatest performances ever. But 2013 Bron was more polished and more consistent.






Bron only "struggled" for the first three games of the 2013 Finals, and Game 2 wasn't even that bad considering that he basically took his foot off the gas because they were dominating San Antonio so completely that the game was over early in the 4th. Same as 2016, he took off in the second half of the series once he had broken down their defense.







I just don't think the defenses and coaching he was facing in 2009 were at the same level as what he beat in 2012, 2013, and 2016. He was getting those 2009 points in a more rudimentary way, he didn't do nearly as much to take apart the defense as he did facing the Celtics, Spurs, and Warriors.

And, like I said, his defense was much better 2012-2016 too.

As far as putting the team on his back a la 2016 which is the discussion point he did that more in 2012 than in 2013. It was also a more adverse run because of D-Wade's knee drainage and Chris Bosh's abdominal strain. 2012 LBJ was so dominant he didn't have to shoot where as in 2013 the Spurs game plan of giving him air space was working. He redeemed himself by having a monster 4Q in game 6+Ray Allen's shot and closing it out in game 7 spraying jumpers all over the place. But on some "put the team on his back" shyt the 2012 Bron showed that more+ 2013 Heat were also the better team because they added Ray Allen+small ball becomes a bigger part of Miami with Bosh and Battier downsizing more. Ultimately, 2012 Bron had more a chip on his shoulder and would be more likely to go ape shyt like 2016.

Shumpert was just on a podcast talking about how the 2012 version was the best LeBron because after they lost the championship from his perspective he and Wade stopped shooting threes and were "big as shyt" going downhill


Also, the 2012 version was better defensively, all his defensive analytics were superior and that was the year he should have won DPoY and they gave it to fukking Tyson Chandler which in retrospect is a lot worse than the year Marc Gasol won it. The 2012 version played excellent defense on Carmelo Anthony, Paul Pierce, Kevin Durant and spent a good amount of time on David West and KG as well. At this point LeBron is in his defensive prime its a wash comparing his defense in both these consecutive seasons.

What do you mean Bron was getting his points in a rudimentary way in 2009? U don't see a lot of those 1-2 dribble pull ups, hesi pull ups, triple threat pull ups, drifters, fadeaways out the standstill, step backs, stop and pops in his game anymore. From a ball handling and jump shooting perspective he was a bit smoother then and it was a more half court game with worse spacing. Atlanta had a fringe top 10 defense but Orlando was the number one overall defense that season with Dwight. To compare it to 2016 for example it was a lot more cerebral P&R ball or him playing as a small ball big man compared to more of a swingman game in 2009. The league changed and Bron game changed with different supporting casts but that shouldn't be held against 2009 Bron.

This athleticism, shot making, freedom, and swagger he played with is unfukkwitable...


Also, statistically 2009 was one of his greatest defensive seasons. The Cavs were -8.2 points worse per 100 possessions with him off the court on defense (!), he had a career-best 23 chase down blocks this was his best season as a shot blocker in general, he became an elite perimeter defender and started taking those matchups up and down positions. He was second in the DPoY race to only Dwight.

That whole season was a carry job. That team had no business winning 66 games no one could stop Bron at all. That version of Bron could definitely pull a 2016.

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

He's clearly excluding Wilt and Bill Russell because it poses a problem for Jordan stans. If rings are what counts most, Bill is the GOAT. If mindblowing stats are what counts, Wilt is the GOAT. If a combination of both and overall career is what counts, Kareem is arguably the GOAT.

By choosing 1977 as an arbitrary point to start making comparisons, Jordan is guaranteed to come out on top.

100%.

Love MJ but Wilt/Russell/Kareem REALLY throw a wrench into MJ GOAT talks. If you say MJ is the best wing player ever, that's logical.

Best overall player......all the arguments people use for MJ >> Bron can be used against MJ if we follow the same logic.

 

[fifth column]

100%.

Love MJ but Wilt/Russell/Kareem REALLY throw a wrench into MJ GOAT talks. If you say MJ is the best wing player ever, that's logical.

Best overall player......all the arguments people use for MJ >> Bron can be used against MJ if we follow the same logic.

I agree that if we combine Wilt/RussellKareem into one player then Jordan would have a problem it takes a lot of gymnastics to not make MJ the goat and it would be better if someone just comes along that is a no brainer

 

[murksiderock]

100%.

Love MJ but Wilt/Russell/Kareem REALLY throw a wrench into MJ GOAT talks. If you say MJ is the best wing player ever, that's logical.

Best overall player......all the arguments people use for MJ >> Bron can be used against MJ if we follow the same logic.

Facts...

I agree that if we combine Wilt/RussellKareem into one player then Jordan would have a problem it takes a lot of gymnastics to not make MJ the goat and it would be better if someone just comes along that is a no brainer

Bruh my thing is this, people use a lot of words but don't need to. You don't need gymnastics...

I have LeBron over Jordan because of the following reasons, I've stated in the past but I'll state it again here:

•even if one believes Mike peaked higher than Bron, it isnt definitive nor is there a massive gap in their peaks, though you could argue the higher peak both ways;

•Bron's prime was significantly longer;

•Bron was the more rounded, more complete basketball player;

•Bron was all of these things in a deeper, more talent-infused NBA than the one Mike played in. More positional competition (look at SG comp in Mike's era vs SF comp in Bron's), more team competition, stronger opponents in deep rounds, more sophisticated basketball on both ends of the floor...

This is all that needs to be said if I'm making a case for Bron. And no, I'm always clear that his case isn't definitive either but that's my problem with Mike Stans in general, there is no definitive greatest ever because none of these nikkas were playing in the same NBA!

Mike was definitively the greatest player of his era. There is a larger gap between Mike and the second/third best players of his era, than Bron and his closest peers, but there was an overall larger gap in skill and basketball sophistication too, the players in Bron's era were not only more skilled and athletic they are smarter on aggregate by leaps and bounds, so the gaps nullify themselves...

Overall I've always saud, there is no foolproof method to say who would do what, in whose era. An All-Timer would be an All-Timer in any era, but when comparing cross-era All-Timers, none of these nikkas played each other or in each other's NBA. It's only people who don't like LeBron, who carry this attitude that Mike is definitively greater, when objectively there's no honest way of making that conclusion versus guys who didnt play each other...

The Bron/Mike argument can and should go either way. Mike was not playing the aggregate level of teams and defenses and athleticism and talent and shooting and coaching Bron was playing. Mike STILL has a case as the greatest player ever, and he's still the consensus pick, but it isn't nor shouldn't be considered definitive...

 

[murksiderock]

People who favor Mike use incoherent arguments that they do not apply uniformly. The only thing you have to state for Mike's case is, in his era, he was the biggest winner, most dominant player, with the most well-rounded game overall. People don't just say that...

They use the championships won---->it isn't the most ever. They talk about his scoring---->its not the most ever, not cumulatively, not per game, he's not the most polished 3-level scorer. They talk about his total game---->leave out the differences between his era (minimal switching, lack of positional threats he was guarding, some of his poor habits, etc) and eras before or after his...

nikkas speak on Mike like a perfect basketball player and he wasn't. There were games deep in the playoffs he bricked and had help closing these series---->he didn't "choke", but he had bad shooting nights and he had moments as a chucker especially earlier Mike...

Even for his era he wasn't a sharpshooter. He could lose focus defensively on his man in a man-to-man defensive era, was a gambler, and he wasn't guarding this gauntlet of super talented, super athletic 2's. He struggled in some matchups. He was a really good passer and rebounder but there were plenty of players better at those, plenty of guys with greater court vision, etc...

My been has never been that people call Mike the GOAT, he obviously has a case. It's always been the "definitive" attitude, it's not definitive, he wasn't a perfect ball player...

 

[murksiderock]

On Russell, I'd also like to say this:

My attitude changed on him about 3 years ago when I deep dove into his career. I don't believe he has a case as the GOAT because ultimately I feel like his scoring punch and offensive prowess aren't elite enough on an All-Time scale. The game has always been wom by who scored more points than the other, great offense will always have more value than great defense, and it's not like there weren't offensively brilliant players in his era, he just wasn't on that level...

But Russell WAS a more talented offensive player than most give him credit for. A very cerebral and efficient passer, and he could score if called upon even if his bag was not as polished. Dominated the boards offensively just as he did defensively...

I'm one of tge few on here who scale my opinions/evaluations and standards uniformly. The same way I don't believe Mike wins 6 titles in the modern game, I feel about Russell, there's no other eras Bill wins 11 titles. It's not happening, the game just advances too much with each succeeding era...

There's no other era Mike wins 6 rings either...

But Russell to me seems the Evolutionary Duncan. A modern version of Russell os Duncan, and would have been viewed as such. Duncan's GOAT5 case is criminally under-supported, and I also think Russell still has a GOAT5 case...

 

[murksiderock]

That’s not an argument AGAINST MJ though. That’s an argument FOR Russell. With everyone else you can point out their weaknesses and reason that’s why X player is better. With Jordan we can’t really point out any weaknesses, we can only say that we may think another player is simply better.

Nah I think it's easy to make arguments against Mike without using another cross-era player, I just made some above...

 

[murksiderock]

A 3 game sample size in ‘02 where KG was playing with a much less talented team is negligible when discussing a player’s all time ranking. People have him ahead of Dirk because he’s a better basketball player.

You mean those Grizzlies’ teams that had 7-8 guys averaging double figures and were led by a HOF coach? To suggest that was some carry job by Pau is utterly ridiculous. That is massive revisionist history.

This is all the same tired old “he didn’t win with the garbage rosters/poorly run organization he had” narrative. Ben Taylor’s argument is actually substantive.

The only time Pau's Grizzlies had 7 double figure scorers were in '06 and he was coached by Fratello who is not in Springfield so no, I do not mean this made up Grizzlies team you're talking about ...

Incidentally you're shytting on yourself as that same '06 year Fratello's Grizz had 7 double figure scorers, KG's Wolves had 5, including two 20-point scorers, Garnett played in 76 games and elevated the Wolves to...............33 wins.

So you tell me how many double figure teammates Garnett needed, he had 4 double figure teammates and played almost every game that year. How many more double figure scoring teammates would've sufficed to win more than 33 fukking games?

Garnett is a touch overrated. We do a lot of finger pointing and skillset talking instead looking at what he did have and the results he pulled from it...

 

[fifth column]

Facts...

Bruh my thing is this, people use a lot of words but don't need to. You don't need gymnastics...

I have LeBron over Jordan because of the following reasons, I've stated in the past but I'll state it again here:

•even if one believes Mike peaked higher than Bron, it isnt definitive nor is there a massive gap in their peaks, though you could argue the higher peak both ways;

•Bron's prime was significantly longer;

•Bron was the more rounded, more complete basketball player;

•Bron was all of these things in a deeper, more talent-infused NBA than the one Mike played in. More positional competition (look at SG comp in Mike's era vs SF comp in Bron's), more team competition, stronger opponents in deep rounds, more sophisticated basketball on both ends of the floor...

This is all that needs to be said if I'm making a case for Bron. And no, I'm always clear that his case isn't definitive either but that's my problem with Mike Stans in general, there is no definitive greatest ever because none of these nikkas were playing in the same NBA!

Mike was definitively the greatest player of his era. There is a larger gap between Mike and the second/third best players of his era, than Bron and his closest peers, but there was an overall larger gap in skill and basketball sophistication too, the players in Bron's era were not only more skilled and athletic they are smarter on aggregate by leaps and bounds, so the gaps nullify themselves...

Overall I've always saud, there is no foolproof method to say who would do what, in whose era. An All-Timer would be an All-Timer in any era, but when comparing cross-era All-Timers, none of these nikkas played each other or in each other's NBA. It's only people who don't like LeBron, who carry this attitude that Mike is definitively greater, when objectively there's no honest way of making that conclusion versus guys who didnt play each other...

The Bron/Mike argument can and should go either way. Mike was not playing the aggregate level of teams and defenses and athleticism and talent and shooting and coaching Bron was playing. Mike STILL has a case as the greatest player ever, and he's still the consensus pick, but it isn't nor shouldn't be considered definitive...

Lebron is your guy so I can’t knock you for all your subjective analysis. It’s almost a waste of time to say MJ did this and that so I rather look at it from a bird’s eye view.

If Lebron had MJ’s stats/accolades/accomplishments and MJ had Lebron’s stats/accolades/accomplishments you would be typing up 1 sentence posts saying Bron is the goat. Instead we have y’all Bron stans dedicating novels of subjective analysis in Bron’s favor to no avail.

Just say that Lebron is your goat and favorite all time player breh. Your post read like someone who started watching basketball in 2003 - present so it’s hard to take your breakdown of MJ’s era seriously.

Lebron just didn’t have the juice to get to MJ’s level but he’s still an all timer. At least he’s still squeezing though so

 

[IsThatBrothaMouzone?]

Resume = MJ over Bron if we're just talking those two.

Versatility = I'd probably take Bron as he can (I think) be used in more ways

If we drop Bron back in the 80s, he's Magic Johnson but maybe scores a few more points. Peak Bron is Karl Malone-sized playing point. He'd be All-NBA and MVP caliber. Most of the centers weighed less than Miami Bron.

Jordan in today's game would also be unfukkwitable. No real good comp....Basically imagine if peak Russell Westbrook could shoot, had better hoops IQ and was bigger/taller. He'd be All-NBA and MVP caliber just the same.