Is Lebron James still the best basketball player right now?

[junglejim]

math is hard, the meaning of subjective is hard, reading comprehension is hard, all these things are hard and beyond my ability to teach you.

so Take the information or don't im not going to sit around and argue with reactionary jordan fanatics.

You have a degree in Mathematics?

 

[SadBoi]

Yes, Bron is the best player in the NBA right now.

No, he’s not the GOAT just yet. If he continues to play like this level for three more years regardless of rings, he’s the GOAT. Imagine a 35 year old Bron averaging 25/8/8.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You have a degree in Mathematics?

No, but you don't need one, or at least I don't.

The explanation behind the metric makes obvious intuitive sense.

Spoiler: championships added explanation

The first step of the process is relating a player's regular-season win shares to his team's chances of winning a championship. Starting with when the league expanded to 27 teams in 1989-90 (in order to provide a large sample from a league of similar size), I looked at how frequently players with various win shares ended up winning the title. Here's how that looks.

As you can see, the relationship isn't linear. Going from one win share to five adds less likelihood of winning a championship than going from five to eight, or from eight to 10. Truly elite performance determines titles. What is linear is the relationship between win shares and the denominator in the odds of winning a championship (e.g. one out of two, one out of four, etc.). Using that relationship produces the best-fit line on the chart.

There's only one more step needed to go from win shares to championships added: We have to subtract out the odds of winning a title at random just by being on the end of the bench -- a little better than 3 percent in this sample. Subtracting this shows that anyone with fewer than four win shares hasn't actually improved his team's chances of winning the championship and further emphasizes the importance of quality over quantity.

 

[MVP]

Blog boys have gotten out of control man. It's basically the imaginary rings from years ago. Pure foolery.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

iI love it when people don't understand a stat and then just assume it's saying something crazy and absurd when it's really just quantifying something that is basic basketball knowledge.


Championships added just quantifies what we already know, a bunch of good players don’t make a champion, teams that win championships have exceptional players so that means the relationship between championships and how you perform isn’t linear. Certian levels of performance correlate more heavily to championships than other.

example
Scoring 18ppg vs scoring 23ppg vs scoring 28ppg


all are only separated by 5 points, but having a player that scores 23 vs 28 has a HUGE impact on on your chances of winning a championship,

while the difference between a player that scores 18 vs 23 has a smaller impact, despite being separated by the same amount of points.

 

[junglejim]

No, but you don't need one, or at least I don't.

The explanation behind the metric makes obvious intuitive sense.

Spoiler: championships added explanation

The first step of the process is relating a player's regular-season win shares to his team's chances of winning a championship. Starting with when the league expanded to 27 teams in 1989-90 (in order to provide a large sample from a league of similar size), I looked at how frequently players with various win shares ended up winning the title. Here's how that looks.

As you can see, the relationship isn't linear. Going from one win share to five adds less likelihood of winning a championship than going from five to eight, or from eight to 10. Truly elite performance determines titles. What is linear is the relationship between win shares and the denominator in the odds of winning a championship (e.g. one out of two, one out of four, etc.). Using that relationship produces the best-fit line on the chart.

There's only one more step needed to go from win shares to championships added: We have to subtract out the odds of winning a title at random just by being on the end of the bench -- a little better than 3 percent in this sample. Subtracting this shows that anyone with fewer than four win shares hasn't actually improved his team's chances of winning the championship and further emphasizes the importance of quality over quantity.

This literally gives no detail of how it is calculation.

If it as descriptive as you say, go do the recalc and send me your results.

 

[junglejim]

iI love it when people don't understand a stat and then just assume it's saying something crazy and absurd when it's really just quantifying something that is basic basketball knowledge.


Championships added just quantifies what we already know, a bunch of good players don’t make a champion, teams that win championships have exceptional players so that means the relationship between championships and how you perform isn’t linear. Certian levels of performance correlate more heavily to championships than other.

example
Scoring 18ppg vs scoring 23ppg vs scoring 28ppg


all are only separated by 5 points, but having a player that scores 23 vs 28 has a HUGE impact on on your chances of winning a championship,

while the difference between a player that scores 18 vs 23 has a smaller impact, despite being separated by the same amount of points.

You cant even tell me how to recalculate the damn stat, but we are sitting here arguing that hypothetical championships won is a better indicator of performance than actual championships won. Its truly unbelievable.

 

[MVP]

iI love it when people don't understand a stat and then just assume it's saying something crazy and absurd when it's really just quantifying something that is basic basketball knowledge.


Championships added just quantifies what we already know, a bunch of good players don’t make a champion, teams that win championships have exceptional players so that means the relationship between championships and how you perform isn’t linear. Certian levels of performance correlate more heavily to championships than other.

example
Scoring 18ppg vs scoring 23ppg vs scoring 28ppg


all are only separated by 5 points, but having a player that scores 23 vs 28 has a HUGE impact on on your chances of winning a championship,

while the difference between a player that scores 18 vs 23 has a smaller impact, despite being separated by the same amount of points.

So MJ's 33/6/6 playoff averages while with the Bulls has less impact than the 28/8/7 playoff averages of Bron? That's what you're saying? Or just show the math even if it's ridiculous.

Also Bron with NO hand checking is a better option than MJ as well? Man what?!

 

[junglejim]

So MJ's 33/6/6 playoff averages while with the Bulls has less impact than the 28/8/7 playoff averages of Bron? That's what you're saying? Or just show the math even if it's ridiculous.

Also Bron with NO hand checking is a better option than MJ as well? Man what?!

No the stat is basically saying that Lebron is responsible for more hypothetical championships because he has done it for a longer period of time. Like the article shows those Jordan championships runs being responsible for more hypothetical win shares.

It also completely negates competition faced in each conference on the finals as well. The stat appears to leave that relatively unaddressed as well as quality of teammates played with.

 

[wavycrocket]

We were joking in the thread a few weeks ago about “Bron Math” and “Championships added”....

ESPN actually goes out and makes Bron math and championships added

Unreal. NT still got influence

 

[MVP]

We were joking in the thread a few weeks ago about “Bron Math” and “Championships added”....

ESPN actually goes out and makes Bron math and championships added

Unreal. NT still got influence

Do you know how silly I feel for clowning Xtralebronstan now @leavemeglazzies for those imaginary chips from years ago. Who knew it would actually be legitimate. I'd like to see how many rings my main men Jerry West and Elgin Baylor got with this fuzzy math.

 

[MVP]

.

 

[MVP]

We were joking in the thread a few weeks ago about “Bron Math” and “Championships added”....

ESPN actually goes out and makes Bron math and championships added

Unreal. NT still got influence

Do you know how silly I feel for clowning Xtralebronstan now @leavemeglazzies for those imaginary chips from years ago. Who knew it would actually be legitimate. I'd like to see how many rings my main men Jerry West and Elgin Baylor got with this fuzzy math.

 

[Lovetohate3000]

To stay on topic .
I still think kd is just as good if not better in 2018 . Whatever gap there is is splitting hairs and it's been like that for a few years now.
Nothing I've seen has changed my mind .

 

[MVP]

KD is still the best player. And he's going to prove it again.

 

[junglejim]

To stay on topic .
I still think kd is just as good if not better in 2018 . Whatever gap there is is splitting hairs and it's been like that for a few years now.
Nothing I've seen has changed my mind .

Both are playing at an elite level, but I have to give the edge to Lebron right now just based on what he is doing with the teammates he has.

KD was basically the Warriors offense in the fourth quarter for the first couple series before Steph got back though.

 

[MVP]

The competition thing is really something that gets glaringly overlooked by all these slupers of these Finals appearances. I just looked and since Lebron went to Miami there have been 105 all NBA selections (1st, 2nd, & 3rd teams) The East has had a whopping 31 (including Bron), 24 (w/o Bron and of those 24, 5 were his teammates in those 7 seasons. That means that only 19 out of 105 (18%) of the East has been all NBA caliber in this run. That's pathetic.

 

[junglejim]

The competition thing is really something that gets glaringly overlooked by all these slupers of these Finals appearances. I just looked and since Lebron went to Miami there have been 105 all NBA selections (1st, 2nd, & 3rd teams) The East has had a whopping 31 (including Bron), 24 (w/o Bron and of those 24, 5 were his teammates in those 7 seasons. That means that only 19 out of 105 (18%) of the East has been all NBA caliber in this run. That's pathetic.

Yeah, but hypothetical win shares cover that in its statistic and ESPN says the league is 12% better than MJ days. 12%!!!!!!!!

 

[SadBoi]

KD better? KD ain’t never been better at any point in his career much like Kobe ain’t been better than Tin Duncan in his career. It’s currently still the LeBron era and was the Duncan/Bron era until Duncan retired.

Y’all Blogboyz keep making up facts and fake news to fit y’all narratives.

 

[tekthemaestro]

No the stat is basically saying that Lebron is responsible for more hypothetical championships because he has done it for a longer period of time. Like the article shows those Jordan championships runs being responsible for more hypothetical win shares.

It also completely negates competition faced in each conference on the finals as well. The stat appears to leave that relatively unaddressed as well as quality of teammates played with.

math that doesnt line up with reality isnt good math. period. you cant be ACTUALLY responsible for HYPOTHETICAL results. so whatever this article was supposed to prove.... it didnt. it just shows dudes cant find anything in REALITY to say why lebrons career is on par with jordans.

KD better? KD ain’t never been better at any point in his career much like Kobe ain’t been better than Tin Duncan in his career. It’s currently still the LeBron era and was the Duncan/Bron era until Duncan retired.

Y’all Blogboyz keep making up facts and fake news to fit y’all narratives.

.....hold on. it was the duncan era? is this a joke? you must mean duncan yoyos. and yea those yoyos had a great run but that era is over. cuz CERTAINLY you dont mean tim duncan was the best player in the league for an era. thats definitely not what im reading.

duncan was a great player in his role. but you telling me if you had to put a team together with either kobe or duncan in 2000-2008 time frame you're gonna choose duncan? nah you gotta get out of here G

 

[MVP]

By contrast in MJ's 2 3 peat run (91-93) and (96-98] the East actually had slightly more all NBA selections than the West (46 vs 44) you take MJ and Pip out they still have 35 outta the 90 selections (39%) literally DOUBLE what the East has been through being Bron's run.

And just for ****s and giggles I'll do Kobe's competition in his 7 Finals outta 10 years. Me thinks it's going to be even uglier for the 'Kang'. That whole plumbers and family men narrative seems to apply to one guy.

 

[dland24]

That’s simply not true. None of those teams were special, and it sounds like you didn’t watch any of them.

The Warriors of the last two seasons were. The first matchup, eh.

When you look at the Jazz, the Sonics, the Lakers, and even the Suns (ya’ll prob don’t even know KJ!) and those Blazers were no joke also.... you can’t say Jordan didn’t go at better comp with a straight face. And he beat them all.

OKC and Dallas get WASHED by any of those teams. I’ll give Pop the benefit of the doubt but his last two finals teams prob get the biz too (that ‘07 team was on point). I honestly don’t even buy the Warriors in a more physical era. Love that Draymond thinks he’s a tough guy, would see him crying in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s though.

Agree with this post until you started talking about Draymond. While he might not seem like a "tough guy" in the 80s and 90s compared to players that actually played there...the "crying" that you mention wouldnt be the case back then. An overwhelming amount of fouls, technicals, flagrants that are called by today's officials wouldnt have been called in the 80s or 90s...and thus, no crying.

 

[wavycrocket]

math that doesnt line up with reality isnt good math. period. you cant be ACTUALLY responsible for HYPOTHETICAL results. so whatever this article was supposed to prove.... it didnt. it just shows dudes cant find anything in REALITY to say why lebrons career is on par with jordans.



.....hold on. it was the duncan era? is this a joke? you must mean duncan yoyos. and yea those yoyos had a great run but that era is over. cuz CERTAINLY you dont mean tim duncan was the best player in the league for an era. thats definitely not what im reading.

duncan was a great player in his role. but you telling me if you had to put a team together with either kobe or duncan in 2000-2008 time frame you're gonna choose duncan? nah you gotta get out of here G

I mean....from 99-07 Duncan won 4 Chips, 3Finals MVPs and 2 League MVPS.....(Back 2 Back)

He also never missed the playoffs and his 03 Finals is the greatest “do it yourself” probably ever.

So yeah. Duncan had an era. He shared it with Shaq.

 

[dland24]

math is hard, the meaning of subjective is hard, reading comprehension is hard, all these things are hard and beyond my ability to teach you.

so Take the information or don't im not going to sit around and argue with reactionary jordan fanatics.

This is easily one of the most biased and ridiculous articles I have ever read in my life. Making up statistical measures and assigning player value to said made up statistic? LMAO

 

[Deleted member 37467]

This man really said Duncan was great in his role?

I'm outta here, man, I'll catch you guys later.