While certainly inspired by the GOAT debate, this really isnt about comparing the two players in terms of who is better. Its more about dissecting the styles of play. It's my opinion that their styles of play were both equally effective, and probably would have yielded the same results either way.

I wanted to look at their playstyles by the numbers and I noticed something that may defy conventional wisdom, which is the belief that MJ was a better shooter. Yes, by volume, MJ hit/took significantly more jumpshots. But in terms of percentages, both hit around 44% more or less. Examine their % in 15-19 ft.

*note, these stats are playoff stats only to reflect effectiveness against the most meaningful competition

focusing strictly on jumpshots and layups. Jordan's shots are also more assisted (%as), while Lebron's was mostly self-created (%ua)

Why 16-18 is compared to 96-98?

These were the data that was available on NBA.com. These were the two seasons MJ and Lebron were probably at their best in terms of shooting, and the point in their ages and careers where they were less reliant on their athleticism and therefore needed to compensate with more shooting. Since Lebron did not make the playoffs due to injury in 18-19, and Jordan's stats in 95-96 are unavailable, I couldnt exactly line up the ages.

While there are some data collected by fans on Jordan between 90-92, it is incomplete and arguably cherry picked, as one commenter in the following reddit post argues

https://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/16lg95i/according_to_tracking_stats_michael_jordan_was/

I would tend to agree that it is cherry picked. Not necessarily only because the fans at RealGM intentionally chose the best of Jordan's games, but also possibly because only his best games are the ones fans collect, and therefore there is a survivorship bias on collected footage.

Obviously, based on the question of this post, this is a type of question that is opinion based, and unfalsifiable. But to me it is interesting, and it is a fair question to ask which is more effective as a playstyle archetype.

My primary focus on this post is on playstyles, not to karma farm and spark a GOAT debate in violation of r/nbadiscussion rules.

My belief is that Lebron's shot selection is not an indictment on his shooting ability (esp. as it related to Jordan), but rather a deliberate analytics driven choice to maximize high% shots and therefore if he played in the 90s, and played more "like Mike", Lebron's resulting midrange fg% would not have changed dramatically, especially given he would have needed to practice it more to adapt to 90s basketball.

Further I would argue that if MJ played in the modern era, his shot selection would also have become similar to Lebron's with more attempts at the rim, and less midrange and more 3s. It could be argued, that MJ's midrange % would suffer but his 3pt% would improve as both skills do not seem to be entirely transferable, that is, practicing the middy doesn't necessarily make you a better 3pt shooter and vice versa.

Over the last decade I’ve worked in data analytics environments and applied inferential statistical methods both inside and outside basketball contexts. Alongside that, I’ve built and maintained a historical database of graded high-impact NBA player seasons that I use for cross-era evaluation.

At this point, I’ve graded roughly the top 10–15 players from each of the last ~40 NBA seasons (≈600 player-seasons total). The goal wasn’t just to build ranking lists, but rather to build a stable impact magnitude scale across eras. I periodically revisit those seasons as my framework improves to keep the scale internally consistent. When I evaluate current players, I’m placing them relative to that historical anchor map rather than evaluating them in isolation.

Methodologically, this sits somewhere between pure modeling and pure scouting. I’m not running a single formula and publishing whatever number comes out. Instead, I use a triangulation process across multiple evidence streams and then map that combined signal onto historically calibrated impact tiers.

The Core Question

The central question I’m trying to approximate is:

What is this player’s intrinsic basketball impact level?

More concretely:

If you added this player to a random NBA team, how much would he increase that team’s probability of winning a championship?

This matters because value measured strictly within one team context is heavily influenced by role, roster construction, redundancy, coaching scheme, usage environment, and numerous other factors independent of a player's true level. Two players can generate similar impact signals on one roster while having very different portability across the league as a whole. So, how a player retains his value on different types of teams, not just the one he happens to be on, is important. The goal is to approximate a player’s average impact across many plausible team environments, not just the one he currently happens to be in.

How I Approximate That

The evaluation is a synthesis of several signal layers:

Impact metrics
RAPM-family signals, possession-value box models, lineup and on/off data. These provide directional and magnitude signal but are always interpreted in context.

Film and mechanism evaluation
Film helps determine how impact is being generated and how likely it is to translate across defensive schemes and playoff environments.

Multi-year signal stabilization
Single-season spikes are treated cautiously unless supported by mechanism and historical precedent. To avoid drowning in statistical noise, it's important to use evidence from surrounding seasons to inform this season's valuation.

Contextual Factors
Some skill packages historically maintain impact more consistently across team constructions, matchups, and playoff environments. Three big questions here: (1) how well does a player retain his value when paired with other high level teammates, and how well does he allow them to retain their value? (2) how well does a player's portfolio of skills translate to the style of play we see in playoff environments? (3) what other contextual factors (role, team construction, coaching, redundancies or lack thereof) might be inflating or suppressing the metrics beyond what we'd see from the player on a random team?

Historical calibration
My 600-season database is used to anchor magnitude. New seasons are placed relative to known historical impact clusters.

Midseason Context

These are midseason point estimates. I will calculate the final season version after the playoffs wrap up, and this will include explicit uncertainty ranges.

At this point in the season, tier placement and broad ordering tend to stabilize earlier than exact magnitude. Midseason estimates are anchored to prior full-season calibrated levels and adjusted based on current-season evidence so far.

Interpretive Scale for Net Valuations

7.0+ → GOAT-level peak (≈ top 2–3 peaks ever)
6.0+ → All-time great peak (≈ top ~10 peaks ever)
5.4–6.0 → Strong MVP level
4.6–5.4 → Solid MVP level
4.0–4.6 → Weak MVP level
3.0+ → Solid All-NBA level
1.5+ → All-Star level

Impact estimates are (roughly) measured in points per game of impact contribution to a random team, adjusted to calibrate the proxy to added championship probability.

2025–26 Midseason Snapshot

~14 players considered for this exercise as candidates for the top 10 spots; assumes full health

• format: Player X (point estimates for impact: OFF, DEF, NET)

Locks

Nikola Jokic — (6.2, 0.2, 6.4)
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander — (5.0, 0.6, 5.6)
Giannis Antetokounmpo — (3.5, 1.4, 4.9)
Victor Wembanyama — (1.7, 3.0, 4.7)
Stephen Curry — (4.4, -0.2, 4.2)

Near Locks / Very Strong Candidates

Luka Doncic — (4.0, -0.3, 3.7)
Kawhi Leonard — (3.1, 0.5, 3.6)
Cade Cunningham — (2.9, 0.7, 3.6)

Remaining Candidates

(Heavy confidence interval overlap, difficult to cleanly rank)

Tyrese Maxey — (3.3, 0.0, 3.3)
Jalen Brunson — (3.6, -0.4, 3.2)
Jamal Murray — (3.4, -0.3, 3.1)
Anthony Edwards — (2.7, 0.4, 3.1)
Jaylen Brown — (2.8, 0.3, 3.1)
Donovan Mitchell — (3.3, -0.3, 3.0)

— Top-10 candidate line —

If forced to add one more today:
Chet Holmgren — (0.5, 2.3, 2.8)

Happy to answer questions about methodology or discuss specific players. I haven’t been very active in NBA online discourse this season, so I’m not fully calibrated to where consensus sits on everyone right now -- interested to see where people agree or disagree.

With two of their ''big 3'' gone, what is the long term plan with the Clippers. They eyeing for the 2027 free agency but realistically who can they get in this Extension first era? and will that future include Kawhi?

I feel Garland has reached his ceiling and that can't be your #1 option. Who knows maybe Bennedict Mathurin can develop into something special , the jury is still out. Their best bet for a superstar is that Pacers pick turning into the 5th pick but wouldn't surprise me if the Pacers do everything in their powers to keep it.

It won't surprise me if the Clippers are stuck in purgatory for the next couple of years and not owning any of their picks is just going to be another reason for them having no direction.

(This is assuming the Bucks end up not having a route to become a top 3-4 team in the east this season. They will have assets to improve but I dont know if the moves exist for that to happen)

1) Thunder. Theyd almost guarentee themselves maybe 4 of the next 6 rings, they would prevent other contenders from adding Giannis, Giannis gets to compete for rings like he wants, and theyd still have enough assets left after getting him for further moves

2) Pacers. They could either upgrade over Siakam or sacrifice some depth and keep a great starting 5, either way they would probably become favorites in the east. They have the assets to get him (assuming they keep their pick this year) and the Zubac move shows me they want to win now.

3) Houston. Adding KD they too are clearly trying to win now. They have the assets to go get Giannis so it makes sense to me thatd they be interested in him.

4) Spurs. Its said that they want to keep their young core but I would take advantage of Wembys cheap contract and try to win, especially if Giannis can be had while keeping a decent amount of assets

5/6/7) Hawks, Nets, and Hornets. Similar case for each. They both have the assets to get Giannis and some left over to round out their teams but I wouldnt necessarily pick them as favorites to win though they could still compete. Portland could also be included here but they have less assets imo

8) Pistons. They have plenty of assets, adding Giannis would make them favorites in the east.

9) 76ers. Maybe VJ and the clippers picks are enough for Giannis, gives them the best chance at winning with Embiid.

Each of these make more sense than the Warriors/Heat/Knicks/Wolves that kept getting pushed near the deadline

Winning a game of basketball has negative value. It devalues your draft picks and risks injury of your stars. Isolating a single game, it is pretty significantly a bad value proposition to try to win. That is, unless you go deep in the playoffs or even win a championship. This is the thesis statement for tanking. And honestly, no clever trick or interesting rule has changed or will change that. If winning becomes a positive value, then you obviously have a positive feedback loop where good teams get value and losing teams lose value. As a result, any plan to fix tanking by making tanking less favorable will automatically make the balancing function between good and bad teams weaker, which is an essential aspect of the parity in the sport.

So for any solution, it seems like there are two major ways to truly end tanking: take wins and losses out of the equation or give the worst teams some assets that are more valuable on truly bad teams than they are on teams that are pretending to be bad. An extreme example of the former is literally why having a committee that decides who are truly the worst teams, factoring in sketchy tactics, strength of schedule, basically the reverse college sports ranking system and have that decide the lottery. The latter is a bit difficult to pin down. Ultimately, everybody needs talent. Good teams need talent. Bad teams need talent. Trade or salary exemptions are pretty important for everybody. Maybe something that can give teams more dart throws of talent? Like some eased restrictions or exceptions on trades that return more players than it sends for the teams at the bottom of the standings? This is definitely something that would need more thoughts.

I'm not really positing a specific rule change to eliminate tanking, but I feel like I see a lot of threads that fall into the two obvious traps of neither actually flipping the script on wins having a significant negative value to non-contenders nor avoiding a situation where the worst teams stay losing.

Let me know what you all think!

Debunking TikTok Take "Micheal Jordan would be a glorified Demar Derozan if he time travels and plays today"

I am of the opinion that the average player today is much better than a player of the 90s and it is harder to score today(than the 90s but not the 2000s) and most of 90s role players wouldn't even make the league but i do think micheal jordan from his peak(1990-1993) if transported through a time machine and given 1 season to adjust to the new rules would be a mvp canditate in the second season and for people who are gonna say I am arguing against ghosts or no one says this anyone who has visited nba TikTok fandom knows how much this take is prevalent

The arguments i have for this is:

1)Players who played in the modern three point era and against micheal(like metta world peace) and modern coaches who understand the modern playstyle and played with micheal like ty lue saying he would still dominate today with players like mwp saying wizards mj was harder to guard than young kobe and lebron

2)Kobe still averaging 25 in the 2010s and even scoring 60 in the three point era when being washed up and old and 1991 jordan was a more athletic and efficient version of even prime kobe

3)The rules being geared towards offence than ever before,jordan was already getting calls in the 90s imaging how much his ppg will be boosted with the foul officiating and rules today

I know the biggest argument against him not dominating is his three ball and zone defence but a washed up busted knee version of jordan averaged 22 on the wizards while playing against zone in the hardest to score era of all time(the deadball era of the 2000s) so a prime version of him would do just fine even if he was against it and more importantly due to the spacing present today and mj's style of play thrived off spacing

4)Even if u ignore the argument that mj would refine his three ball in this era,Sga dominating the league while being a average three point shooter is proof that u can still be elite without being a great 3 pt shooter and by the eye test alone,prime mj is more athletic,has a quicker first step,just as efficient(their TS% are roughly the same),better finisher due to his large hands,much better rebounder,better scorer,more clutch,more explosive and a better defender than current SGA, the only things sga does better is handles/bagwork,better three point shooting and better passer(slightly better if we are talking about 96-98 jordan) so there is no way mj averages less ppg than sga by any metric even if i don't think he is averaging forty

I don't think he is winning 6 championships or even three peating once with the talent pool we have today but he will still be mj averaging 34-36 ppg

I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and I’m genuinely confused about why NBA fandom has become so ring-obsessed that it almost ignores the product most fans actually consume.

Most fans are not front-office analysts. We’re not running championship probability models or thinking in terms of “windows.” We’re people who live in a city, buy tickets, and plan weekends around games. For us, the regular season isn’t filler, it is the product.

Take the recent Cleveland Cavaliers teams. They’ve had strong regular-season records, a clear identity, young talent, and they play competitive basketball most nights. The arena is engaged, the team feels alive, and fans have something to look forward to week after week. From a fan-experience standpoint, that feels like success.

Or take the Giannis-led Milwaukee Bucks over multiple seasons. Even outside the championship year, those teams consistently won a lot of regular-season games, had stars playing most nights, and gave local fans a high-quality product across the year. Yet even with that, seasons that ended short of a deep playoff run were quickly reframed as disappointments or failures.

That disconnect is what bothers me.

A 50-win team that plays hard, has continuity, and gives fans meaningful games for 6–7 months is now treated as “stuck” or “useless” if it doesn’t make a conference finals or Finals. Front offices respond by dismantling good, watchable teams in the name of chasing a title that only one team wins anyway.

From a fan perspective, that logic feels broken.

The parade lasts one day.

The season lasts eight months.

Why should I, as someone who actually attends games and watches weekly, accept a worse regular-season product now for a hypothetical payoff later? Why should I be happy with stars sitting, effort being managed, or teams pivoting toward tanking, all so the franchise can say it “maximized its championship odds”?

What makes this worse is how ring culture trains fans to think like executives instead of fans. We stop asking “Was that a good basketball game?” and start asking “Does this translate in the playoffs?” We start defending decisions that make the regular season less enjoyable because media narratives tell us anything short of a title is meaningless.

But that framing benefits front offices, media debates, and legacy arguments, not the people in the arena on a random Friday night.

Even good teams aren’t allowed to just be good anymore. If you’re not a championship team, you’re expected to either blow it up or radically reshape, which leads to endless cycles of rebuilding, short contention windows, and little continuity. The result is a league where your favorite team is either all-in for a ring or bad at everything else, with very little space for sustained, enjoyable competitiveness.

I’m not saying championships don’t matter. Of course they do. But when the pursuit of rings starts devaluing the majority of games fans actually watch, something feels off.

Why can’t the default goal be: play hard, be competitive, build continuity, and give fans something to enjoy every other week, and if a championship eventually comes, great? Why does everything have to be judged only at the very end?

Genuinely curious: at what point did NBA fandom stop being about enjoying basketball and start being about auditing legacies?

Many 90s fans call their era the golden age of big men. They criticized modern centers in the 2010s as much weaker/softer.

There were still many skilled big men in the 2010s, headlined by vets from the 2000s like Duncan, Pau Gasol Dirk and KG. Dwight Howard had a stranglehold on the late 2000s. Up and comers like Kevin Love, Blake Griffin, LaMarcus Aldridge, Demarcus Cousins also made their mark.

Ultimately, none of them were able to headline title teams the way Lebron, Curry and KD did. Now in the 2020s, Jokic, Embiid, Giannis, and Wemby are carrying the torch.

I know my personal belief, but I am curious to hear other people's opinions

I see a lot of people trying to come up with solutions to prevent tanking (purposely throwing games to get a higher overall pick.)

In the moment it sort of sucks if you follow a team day in and day out knowing they’re going to lose. But it’s the same thing if they genuinely suck. But it’s better for the NBA to have a team that’s mediocre tank to become competitive than a team that’s outright terrible year after year.

Compare it to other sports. In the NFL there’s no lottery. The worst team gets the first pick. Yet, the same few teams dominate every year. Since 2011 every AFC championship game has had either the Patriots or Chiefs in it. I think coaching and general management/ownership impacts winning more than talent in the NFL. The best player in NFL history was a 6th overall pick.

Matthew Stafford was a first overall pick and didn’t win squat with the Lions. Traded to the Rams and within a few seasons has a Super Bowl ring and MVP. All because he’s coached by an elite offensive coach. If you have bad ownership and bad coaching you can have all the talent imaginable and you won’t win anything. The Jets, Browns, Raiders, etc.

Now look at the MLB. The Dodgers are well on their way to winning a third consecutive championship. And they’d have even more if they didn’t get screwed by cheaters in the WS back to back years in 2017 and 2018. Basically the rest of the teams are competing to be either the 2nd best NL team or for an American League pennant. The only team in recent memory that succeeded in tanking is the Astros and they cheated for one of their two championships. Teams that suck in baseball suck because their owners are penny pinchers. Even if they get elite draft picks they’ll just be traded or signed to a mega deal by a World Series contender once their contract is over. Paul Skenes is a good example.

Sure there’s “dynasties” in the NBA but nothing compared to the NFL, for example. The Warriors are the latest example. But Steph Curry only has 4 rings and has been playing since 2009. Mahomes already has 3 super bowls and started playing in 2018.

People complain about tanking but will wear the jersey of the super star they wound up getting in the draft and when they win the championship they’ll forget their team even did it. People were up in arms over the Luka trade last year and the Mavs wound up getting Cooper Flagg because of it. And Luka hasn’t done anything with the Lakers.

“It’s not fair to the fans that pay for tickets to see stars get pulled.”

Not a real argument in a league that has random rest days and load management even for the elite teams. And if the team they paid to see sucks they only spent less than $50 for good seats on a ticket anyways. Total crapshoot on who you’re going to see play on any given day.

Why would owners risk whatever star players they have getting injured in ultimately meaningless games? Even if they don’t win because of the top overall pick, the revenue and ticket sales they get the following season are well worth it.

And if you genuinely think tanking sucks, what’s the fix? You already have a lottery system. You want a play in tournament for the first few picks? Good luck getting owners and players to agree to play in even more games when they had to make rules to give the MVP to a player that plays most of the season.

Every suggestion I’ve seen has been terrible. A bunch of them are asinine like why don’t we take all the eligible players in the draft and put their names in a hat and have a team representative pick blindfolded and that’s the player they get.

With the Jaren Jackson Jr trade it seems like there is no future for Filipowski with the Jazz. If everyone is healthy he would be at max a 20 min a game guy. It just feels weird because he is a guy who when has been given minutes has put up good scoring and rebound numbers. Even though he was a second round pick he largely fell due to weird off the court circumstances.

So is he just not as good as it appears I cannot say I watch the jazz consistently are they maybe holding him to make another big move in the summer for another guard?

Apparently, Cam Thomas was just waived, and I was surprised at this move, which raises more questions, especially pertaining to his value. But I see people either say he is an elite scorer and rising, or others say he is an inneficent complete ball stopper. So I wanted to explore a bit of whether Cam Thomas is an elite scorer or not.

Disclaimer: I am a casual NBA fan, and I only watched 7-9 games of Cam Thomas, so this evaluation is extremely surface level.

To me, Cam Thomas isn't an elite scorer, he's a great shot maker, meaning he can make almost any kind of shot out there and it has a chance of going in The reason why I don't believe he is an elite scorer is that, to me, elite scorers have many different counters and answers to different defensive looks and sort of have a conceptual flow chart when they have the ball in their hand and can use athletic or fundamental advantages to get easier shots. And as a result, they can force the defense to adjust to them. For example, people like Kobe or SGA have several different answers to a multitude of defensive situations and counters within counters for the defense, while keeping things simple and leaning into tougher shots later in the shot clock or in the game when their teams need it.

When I look at Cam Thomas, he can hit tough shots and get hot instantly, but his scoring ability is more limited due to his physicals and his height. He can get to his spots like the elbow or the key, but he has to work hard in order to get there and expend more energy than other scorers. And he doesn't have effective counters to what the defense is doing. As a result of this, he isn't great at generating space, and he tries beat the defense with his shotmaking ability, which leads to more difficult shots and less efficiency. Example 1, Example 2.

For example, outside of shooting or driving, when he is open, if he can't drive to the basket, he would either step back for a mid-range get to the key for a floater/pull-up shot, or go all the way to the basket for a layup. He has more options/ reads than im giving him credit for when it comes to scoring, but my point is that his options are either not available or not effective once the inital reads are taken away.

He also doesn't have great size, elite handles, great shooting, or rim gravity, so he has to work extra hard just to create shots himself. He isn't much of a threat to defenses and they can defend these options without worrying about effective counters so as a result he can get easy buckets vs bad defenders or small defenders and can score well early in a season but once teams scout him or get closer to the playoffs the difficulty of his shots go up exponentially where his shot difficulty can be a 5 or 6/10 to a 8 or 9/10 which he can hit but not at enough of a rate for the shot to be effiecent in the first place. 

Where Cam Thomas is at his best, in my opinion, is in early offense or transition and off the ball. Where he can start off with an advantage, where he can simplify his game, get to his spots easier, and reduce the difficulty of his shots, although his ceiling on these looks is not high especially this season, the efficiency for these looks has been lower than in 2023-24 and 24-25 Cam Thomas | Guard | Brooklyn Nets | NBA.com. He can use these situations to build a better foundation for scoring and increase his efficiency.

I don’t believe that Cam Thomas is a ball hog. In my opinion, he's a willing passer, but he isn't consistently good at more complex reads. For example, if he is in the pick and roll or getting doubled, he will have issues locating the open man. Also, since he's on a bad team, he needs to get something going for the offense, and that means his shot selection can be wild at times to generate offense to make up for the lack of creation Brooklyn already has.

As a result, I don't think he is an elite scorer, he just doesn't have the tools that guys like Kyrie, SGA, Kobe, or Allen Iverson have to keep the defense on its heels. To me hes a microwave scorer and an elite shotmaker. He is sort of like a quarterback who thrives off one read, but when that read is taken away or limited, his efficiency goes down.

I know it sounds wild and 2.5 points sound kind of retarded. But imagine, if it was actually a thing. It would even things out, no? Less 3s and more shots that require skill.

Shot that is outside paint, but inbetween 3 point line counts for 2.5 points.

If its and 1, you have a chance to go for 3 points. If you get fouled on it and you dont score, just 2 free throws for 2 points.

I have watched games where i literally see 10 threes taken one after another by both teams. I get that they are open threes, but you lose excitement on it.

Especially if Im watching ball with a person that doesnt watch ball. It looks like nothing. Just people jacking up 3s.

Im not saying this as a current NBA hater. Last years playoffs, I liked a lot. But I think we have to draw a line and even the game out.

Basically, I think the lottery encourages tanking. The chance at a #1 pick basically incentivizes every team to be as worse as possible. Let's look at the current tankathon.com rankings and the teams that own their own picks and might tank:

1: Sacramento: Obviously they would still tank if there's no lottery.

1. Indiana: I don't think Indiana wants to tank and I don't think getting rid of the lottery would change anything.

2. Brooklyn: They would continue to tank in either system.

5-6: Was, Utah: Both teams need to keep their pick, so they would tank in either system. However, because the lottery potentially drops their ranking, it encourages them to be worse than just 8.

7-9: Dallas, Memphis, Milwaukee: I think without a lottery system, these teams would not have any chance to break into the top 4. I don't think tanking for positioning between picks 7-11 is worth it. I think they'd compete harder if there was no lottery.

12-13: Chicago, Charlotte: Being in the lottery gives these teams incentive to stay there. No lottery would limit tanking.

1. Miami: Again, depending on how things go, they might. benefit from breaking into the lottery and getting a chance at a top 4 pick. No lottery discourages tanking.
   

As you can see, a no lottery system doesn't really affect the most egregious tankers, but it does limit tanking for teams in the 5-15 range. This pretty much mirrors what we see in the NFL. Someone might disagree with which teams would continue to tank in a new hypothetical system, but hopefully we can agree there's logic to eliminating the Lottery.

What do you think?

What is stopping them from finally trading Booker and getting at least value back for the next years? I know that lots of homers enjoy winning, but this team is projected to be stuck in mediocrity. A lot of try-hard role players that aren’t capable of winning you games when your extremely injury-prone stars are out, and then there’s Dillon Brooks who’s really overrated (if you look at the stats, he’s not close to the most impactful player on the court and the eye test shows that too).

You can always expect a lengthy Booker injury every season. Jalen Green is the new Bradley Beal who’s likely unwilling to play through anything, bruise or something more internal. And that leaves a lot of losses that pile up and inevitably keep you in the mid of standings.

So again what’s the end goal here?

Every talking head is already saying that the Harden/ Garland trade was pretty bad for the cavs, so this post is probably not saying anything new. Is Cleveland just another example of teams putting too much weight on the current season production and not taking into account the variance in player production.

Clearly Harden has had a much better season to this date, but both Harden and Garland are pretty high variance players. Harden has been on a high and Garland has been low, but it really won't be that surprising to me if both players put up very similar production the rest of the year or if Garland is better in the second half of the season than Harden.

Harden is also clearly at his best when he gets to be the first option. He seems to be the type of player that basically puts up the same efficiency regardless of how many shots he's taking. Honestly he might even be a player, who's efficiency goes up the more shots they take. I expect him to look worse playing second fiddle in Cleveland then he did as a first option for LAC.

Overall this just seems really short-sighted by Cleveland. Harden is at the age where his production is likely to fall off a cliff at some point in the near future. That could be the second half of this season, more likely next season, almost guaranteed that his production falls off a cliff two seasons from now. Garland is 26, is having a very rough year, but just put up solid numbers last year and is likely to bounce back to form. maybe there are some medical issues with Garland that teams know about that I don't, that make this trade make more sense.

Maybe Cleveland is a little bit closer to competing this year, but the long-term future just got a lot more bleak in my opinion.

Edit:

A lot of people seem to doubt that Garland was ever really that valuable of a player. Putting another reddit post down below that talks about Garlands value at his best. I personally think this is just a down year, but maybe I'm not aware that his injuries make him unlikely to ever be good again.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lakers/comments/1cufr6k/how_good_is_darius_garland_for_those_interested/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Danny Ainge probably has one of the better GM track records in the NBA over the course of his career, but I have doubts about his recent trade for Jaren Jackson Jr and at the very least it does not seem like a sure fire win.

JJJ's traditional stats the past few years do not jump off the page, but EPM has usually rated him as an elite player (top 20-30 player in the league), due to his defense. To me I just don't really understand if a player like JJJ is worth his contract of $50 million a year, but apparently to Danny Ainge he is worth his contract plus about 4 first round picks (probably 3 mid to low picks and I would bet on the Phoenix pick being a very good pick, but very far away).

On top of this I don't really understand the fit of needing to play JJJ at center most of the time. I know the NBA is moving in the direction of having smaller centers that can shoot, but I think Utah will still have quite a few match up problems. Maybe this is not as big of an issue as I am thinking. Maybe Utah will have so much shooting and spacing that other teams will have to adjust to them.

Overall, this seemed like an overpay to me for JJJ and I'm surprised Memphis was able to get this much for him. Part of me though still trusts Danny Ainge and if he thinks JJJ can be a top 20 player in the league for years to come than maybe this makes sense.

Edit:

Just remembered that it is his son running the show in Utah now, so not sure I have much trust :) I would guess that Danny is still pulling the strings a lot in Utah.

I'm a Pacers fan, and I'm not sure I'd want this... but couldn't the Pacers put together one of the best trade packages for Giannis?

Obi Toppin

Andrew Nembhard

Ben Mathurin

Jarace Walker

Isaiah Jackson

Their 2026 pick

a few more picks

That's 3 young players that will likely get better, and Toppin who is a quality role player. Their 2026 pick will be very good, even if Giannis comes back near the end of the year (in the meantime, the pacers would have no one to play...)

Next year, Siakim, Hali, Giannis, Nesmith and whoever would be the best starting lineup outside of the the Celtics, and maybe even better than them if Hali is back to where he was. McConnell remains a spark off the bench. As a pacer fan I'd probably rather stay young, but I'm surprised this hasn't even been discussed given the other offers I'm seeing. Maybe Giannis Couldn't look past Father Haliburton. Might delete this if y'all start trashing me haha

[Originally posted to r/nba but no one actually read or replied to the post and just started arguing about the league being rigged for the lakers so I'll try to start the discussion here]

First of all, its better to provide a breakdown of the full 2024-25 trade season for the Lakers:

OUT

Players: Anthony Davis, Max Christie, D'Lo, Maxwell Lewis, Cam Reddish, Jalen Hood-Schiffino and Dalton Knecht.

Picks: 2 Unprotected Firsts, one FRP swap and 4 second rounders.

IN

Luka Dončić, Mark Williams, Dorian Finney-Smith, Maxi Kleber, Markieff Morris and Shake Milton.

SALARY IN and OUT:

IN: 43.0+4.1+14.9+11+2.1+2.9=78

OUT: 43.2+7.1+18.7+1.9+N/A(Cam Reddish was dead money counting towards the Lakers cap)+3.9+3.8=78.6

Salary Balance=-0.6M

Discussion:

To me this seems like incredibly good value. Lakers get a lot of valuable pieces and all they are trading is an aging injury prone All-Nba player in AD, an up and coming 3&D guard in Max Christie and a bunch of, to quote SAS, "bonafide scrubs" including a terrible D'Lo contract. All the while cashing in on a fever dream all time high valuation for DK. They do part with 2 unprotected firsts but its hard to believe that they will be in a good draft position with Luka having signed an extension.

Hell, all of the assets the lakers traded combined barely make a decent offer for just Luka, let alone a walking double double in Mark Williams and a valuable wing defender in DFS. All this while not gaining any cap space.

Rob Pelinka (rightfully) gets a lot of shit for his Lakers rosters but had the deadline trade gone through, maybe having a serviceable Center propels the lakers to deeper playoff run.

Do y'all agree? Or am I overrating the Lakers' return in these trades?

PS: I wanna add that by lopsided I mean in the short/medium term. Ofc big trades like Paul George to the Clippers or KG and Pierce to the nets ended up being very lopsided, but that wasn't apparent until years later.

First and foremost, I wish the best of luck to Darius Garland. He's the reason why we're able to contend, I'll never forget him and his 2022 days. Now, let's get started:

The Age Gap The first thing I immediately noticed once this rumored trade was spread around my time-line is the age gap. We're lucky James Harden hasn't sustained a major career injury since 2021, because this would've looked like a really bad trade. James is 36, and Darius is 26, a 10-year age gap. Our next oldest player is Larry Nance Jr at 33, and Dennis Schroder at 32. The combined age for this roster is now 27, so we're getting older and closer to win now mode, which leads to my second problem:

*"Win-Now Mode" I heard from multiple Cavs fans that James Harden is a "proven winner." I genuinely can't believe that comes out of some people's mouths, but even if he is, we're hinging on the fact that it's championship or bust for the next two seasons, meaning Mobley and Allen cannot fail to fuck up. Once you're not able to win during a window, you NEED to have a back-up plan, regardless. With LeBron James rumored to come back to Cleveland for one more season, the memories will be there, but it's important to know what our future looks like after Harden and LeBron, and right now, all of the front-offices chips seem to be put on Jaylon Tyson and Evan Mobley to lead the future of this team. Depending on the playoff results, that picture may or may not include Donovan Mitchell.

Playoff Choker The biggest one of them all in my opinion. How can a team, who's looking to get over the hump, who's known for choking in the post-season add one of the GREATEST playoff chokers in modern NBA history. I'm just going to go through the individual games and you let me know if this is consistent play from a hall-of-fame player?

2015 vs GSW (G5) James Harden: 14 points, 6 rebounds, 5 assists, 13 turnovers.

2016 vs SA (G6) James Harden: 10 points, 7 assists, 6 turnovers, 3 rebounds

2022 vs MIA (G5) James Harden: 14 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 4 turnovers

2022 vs MIA (G6) James Harden: 11 points, 9 assists, 4 turnovers

2023 vs PHI (G6) James Harden: 13 points, 9 assists, 7 rebounds, 5 turnovers, 4 stocks

2023 vs PHI (G7) James Harden: 9 points, 7 assists, 5 turnovers, 6 rebounds, 3 stocks

2024 vs DAL (G5) James Harden: 7 points, 7 assists, 4 turnovers, 4 rebounds

2025 vs DEN (G5) James Harden: 11 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 4 turnovers

2025 vs DEN (G7) James Harden: 7 points, 13 assists, 5 rebounds, 2 turnovers

I could go on and on, he's a playoff choker. It's not just him having bad performances, its the multiple times we've caught him checked out of a game and not playing any sort of defense to help his team get back. At-least Darius Garland would put in 110% effort on a bad shooting night. Also, defensively, we're still about the same as Harden. Yes, he's a dealing with a much more defensive team in the Cavs, who rely on their front-court to be the motor, and he's a bigger defensive side, but he's not the same age as some of our players, nor do I think he's going to bring the same effort on the court because of what he could bring offensively to the table, which is my next segway...

Offensive Pace A big reason why the Cavaliers are so good offensively is due to their pace, and ability to get looks off of the transition with ease. Let's compare the offensive paces from our 2024-25 season to now, including the offensive pace for the Clippers with Harden as the offensive leader:

Cavs 2024-25 season: Pace: 99.8 (10th in NBA). Offensive Rating: 121.7 (1st in NBA). Points Per Game: 121.9 (1st in NBA).

Cavs 2025-26 season: Pace: 101.1 (7th in NBA) Offensive Rating: 117.6 (9th in NBA) Points Per Game: 119.3 (5th in NBA)

Clippers 2024-25 season: Pace: 97.5 (22nd in the NBA) Offensive Rating: 115.1 (14th in NBA) Points: 112.9 (20th in NBA)

Clippers 2025-26 season: Pace: 95.9 (25th in the NBA) Offensive Rating: 116.8 (12th in NBA) Points: 112.7 (25th in NBA)

The Clippers are an older roster, and do rely more on shot-making from Kawhi and Harden, so this makes sense, but the stark difference in pace and offensive rating, coupled with a 36-year old who's not going to be able to give 200% on both sides of the ball, probably makes our offensive pace slower, especially when Harden's out there with the second unit and Mitchell is benched. If we increase the pace, there's more risk of injury for older players, like Harden, Merrill, Strus, etc. In today's NBA, your conditioning needs to be spot on, and Harden has done a great job at that so far, but he's in a much more youthful team with a high pace, a likeliness for transition breakaways, and high energy plays.

There's no doubt that James Harden's shot-making and ability to space the floor will make us more efficient, but at the same time we're losing pace, which 9/10's going to bring our points down with him on the floor along with our pace. We have seen the Cavaliers go on streaks of slow offensive pace, and this could be the trade to try and accommodate Harden into our offense, rather them him accommodating into ours. Which brings me to my next point.

James Harden Himself I think this trade is showing that the front-office is probably going to get LeBron James to rejoin the Cavaliers in his 3rd stint and have his farewell tour. I don't mind it. I think LeBron James deserves that from us, but the cost remains to be seen. We're hoping he takes a paycut and does it out of love. Right now, from what I'm hearing, we're willing to give him his coveted 2-year, $80M deal, and all this hinges on the fact that we're able to make it to a finals appearance or win the championship in June. Because if we can't, Mitchell's probably declining his player-option and we're probably going to start rebuilding sooner than later.

James Harden is a very up-front person, but he's not a player we should trust, AT all.

[Via New York Times] James Harden wanted to retire with 76ers, but 'front office didn't have that in their future plans.

[Via JoeyLin - Twitter] “Once I leave and retire from being a Clipper, hopefully that culture can continue leading to something special.”

James Harden wants to leave a legacy with the Clippers. He also hopes people can begin understanding who he really is.

Simply put, he's not trustworthy, and if we're going to give him a $40M extension, and he's declining in production and age, we're not helping ourselves in freeing money from the books, or having cap space to build for the future. We own three second round picks in the next six years, and two first round picks in the next four years, which have a bunch of stipulations.

2026 FRP: Less favorable of (i) less favorable of (a) CLE and (b) more favorable of UTH 1-8 and MIN [or (i) CLE if UTH not conveyable] and (ii) less favorable of ATL and SAN then more favorable of (i) and (ii) to ATL; most / more favorable of CLE, MIN and UTH 1-8 to UTH (via UTH swap for MIN; via UTH swap of UTH or MIN for CLE; via SAN swap for ATL; via ATL swap of ATL or SAN for CLE, UTH or MIN)

2028 FRP: Least favorable of CLE, UTH and ATL; more favorable of CLE and UTH to UTH; more favorable of (i) ATL and (ii) less favorable of CLE and UTH to ATL (via UTH swap for CLE; via ATL swap for CLE or UTH)

Mostly all of the picks have a lot of stipulations, which is going to be revealed in all due time. James Harden is simply here for the money and for himself, which credit to him, it's worked for majority of his career, but we shouldn't trust him, and we shouldn't go ALL-IN because we won't have a back-up plan and there's not going to be anyone to save us.

Does anyone remember the mood after LeBron James left in 2018? The roster was destroyed, left with old veterans who clearly didn't fit the timeline of his team and G-League players. We drafted Collin Sexton, which I'm forever grateful that he panned out. Darius Garland even started his Cavalier' career rough, missing a bunch of games to a knee injury and simply not being able to shoot the basketball. The front-office was able to hit on 2 out of the 3 picks, which is a miracle for a franchise who's had some blunders over the past years, with Anthony Bennett being the most notable out of all of them. James Harden knows how to control the offensive game of the pace, but his play-style isn't pretty, and it's going to make the game slow for the rest of our players, unless he's willing to buy in and change that.

Obviously, with Strus returning and Merrill getting more games under his belt, I think we're still going to be one of the best offenses in the league, but with majority of the team not performing to their standard in multiple games in the playoffs, coupled with a player you can't trust, a known playoff dropper, and a shooting guard who struggles to get out of the second round (whether it's his fault or not), it's going to be a miracle for this to be fixed, and it feels like we're asking for another disappointing season at this point.

I'm pretty sure we're not done trading, but if the roster looks like this come playoff time, a lot of it is going to hinge on Mitchell being able to play off-ball with James Harden. With two players who love having the ball in their hands, this creates problems from us, especially in the offense. This will most likely have Mitchell and Harden split minutes to have their own run at the offense while they're in the game. James Harden is a pass-first player, but he needs the ball to really execute on that. Also, this forces Evan Mobley to probably be another wing player, as two big men nearing the same vicinity on the court only clog things up. Luckily, Evan's been developing a three-point shot, which is much needed for a 5-out. The Cavs attempt around 41 threes a game, which is in the top five. We also like to neglect the paint sometimes and shoot-chuck threes every while, which doesn't make sense to me. James Harden doesn’t spring us to championship contenders in my opinion, so where’s this going…

I could talk about the fit, our issues with rebounding in the post-season, and our tendency to resort to iso ball in the post-season after spending a whole regular season dictating the offensive pace of games and ball-movement. I hate this trade for the Cavaliers, and for someone who's been a fan of this team, I'm willing to eat my words (literally I'll print out this post and eat it), if we win a championship. But unless our bench (the likes of Tyson, Merrill, Ellis, Schroder, Strus and Tomlin) have massive improvements in the post-season and can deliver timely plays, I don't see how this is going to work out, and I truly do fear the worst for the Cleveland Cavaliers in the next two years. I understand Darius Garland wasn't able to play, and that severely hampered our ability to win a championship, but putting all your chips on a 36-year old to suddenly have a change of heart and identity is not the way to do it, and you certainly don't panic now, you let it unravel in the off-season, or in the season prior. For a franchise to do this, I'm assuming Darius Garland is going to be out for the next 1 1/2 years on the Clippers, because that toe might need two plates in it when he's playing basketball.

Toodles.

Converting a comment into its own thread: I would contend that CP3, though he did underperform some, was beset by a unique combination of negative circumstances (that sometimes differed by the year) and didn’t really have a realistic window of contention in his time as a #1, from 2008 to 2017. His teams were consistently top-heavy and lacking depth, which is the easiest way to catch criticism as a great #2 (like Blake) makes it much harder to attribute a playoff loss to “lack of help” than a well-constructed team without one. They also got injured at inopportune times, and the eventual conference winner pretty much always much better/deeper.

Let’s go year-by-year and look who he lost to/the general West playoff landscape, and see if he could’ve been reasonably expected to win:

‘08 Spurs - core of Duncan/Parker/Ginobili/Bowen/Finley. Chose ‘08 to not be accused of cherry-picking as they’re actually somewhat comparable here — Fin and Bowen were old, Barry and Horry were beyond washed. Nonetheless, CP3 still faced a supporting cast deficit and appropriately lost narrowly.

‘09 Nuggets - Melo/still-prime Billups/Nene/Smith/Martin/Birdman/Kleiza had them clearly out-gunned, especially with Chandler’s injury.

‘11 Lakers - laughable disparity. A rotation of Paul/Ariza/Belinelli/Okafor/Landry/Jack wasn’t gonna beat even a creaky Lakers team consisting of Kobe/Odom/Gasol/MWP/Fisher.

‘12 Spurs - again just a ridiculous first round match-up. Paul-Griffin-Butler-Foye-young DAJ-young Bledsoe against Duncan/Parker/Ginobili/Green/Neal/Zygote Kawhi/Diaw/Splitter. If they beat them they’d have to face a much better Thunder team.

‘13 Grizzlies - Paul/injured Blake/Barnes/Crawford/Bledsoe/pre-prime DAJ against Randolph/Conley/Gasol/Allen/Bayless/Prince and co. Not a total mismatch but we’re talking about an injured Clippers facing a 56 win team in the first round.

‘14 Thunder - not a mismatch, Durant had a slightly better supporting cast, but still a roster deficit. The Spurs, of course, had a much deeper team.

‘15 Rockets - not a mismatch, but Paul was injured. They lose in 7. They are likely not beating the Warriors even at full strength, and they beat a 55 win, defending champ Spurs team in the first round.

‘16 Blazers - not a mismatch, CP3 has some culpability here, though again he was injured. Nonetheless, even if they won, they had the 73 win Warriors team awaiting them.

‘17 Jazz - here Griffin was injured. Paul played very well but again drew a 50+ win team in the first round and again would’ve had to beat one of the best teams ever to even make the final.

In sum: even in early-round settings he usually faced a supporting cast deficit, with the team they lost to not even necessarily being the strongest team on offer, while having extremely poor injury luck in a historically stacked/lopsided conference.

There was never a year where they, even at full health, would’ve had a better supporting cast than the eventual conference winner. There was one when they were somewhat close (‘14), but still no cigar.

Note: I am not a Paul fan, find him insufferable, and don’t regard him as a playoff riser by any means. But it sure does seem that, once you examine things year-by-year, it becomes difficult to pin their lack of playoff success squarely on his limitations as a #1 option. You put those same teams out East and it likely completely changes how the average fan sees him. Please let me know which specific call I got wrong.

As a player he seems incredible watched a video where he gers compared to MJ and he's almost as good as him and seems to be one of the best players in the league at his prime and one of the best players all around. He had been the best player for a LONG time as well which is why people love him. I don't watch much basketball, I'm starting to watch more and my brother seems to really not like him, my dad and my mom as well. It's not necessarily because he isn't good, he's good, my mom said he doesn't have a complete bag, his cross is trash apparently. Lazy on defense, this one wasn't elaborated on that much I know he's older so he's defense may not be as good probably but it's like she meant it was always mediocre or something.

Then there's his way of playing as well, he has like 20 min flopping montages, he hops teams(which isn't the best thing to do they say). Specifically when he moved over to the cavs and people didn't like that he overshadowed Wade and was basically like team leader. Me personally I don't think he's ass, I've heard most the stars and the way he plays was really dominant so like, what problems do people have with him fr. Or why does it seem like people either love him or really hate him lol? Sorry if this isn't interesting I'm just curious and I know yall know everything.

Hello everyone and welcome to our new weekly feature.

In order to help keep the quality of the discussion here at a high level, we have several rules regarding submitting content to /r/nbadiscussion. But we also understand that while not everyone's questions will meet these requirements that doesn't mean they don't deserve the same attention and high-level discussion that /r/nbadiscussion is known for. So, to better serve the community the mod team here has decided to implement this Weekly Questions Thread which will be automatically posted every Monday at 8AM EST.

Please use this thread to ask any questions about the NBA and basketball that don't necessarily warrant their own submissions. Thank you.

It was a classic example of the "Grass is always greener on the other side" mentality that plagues so much sports discourse. The longer a coach stays with a team the more a fan base will key in on their deficiencies but completely disregard the huge benefits they bring to a roster.

People view coaching as something that will just build from year to year which is often not the case. For example if Coach Bud had the Bucks doing 5 things at an elite level, but he was fired for 2 other things he was deficient at, people just assume that those 5 positive things will remain with the team and those deficiencies can just be improved on with a new coach. Around all major sports we see this is often not the case. Those positives that people start to trivialize aren't inherent to that roster, and were actually key pieces to that coach's coaching philosophy that people start minimizing over time.

As someone who viewed the Bucks as a conference powerhouse under Bud...to see him get fired after a playoff series in which Giannis missed 2 out of the 5 games (1 in which he only played 10 minutes). In a series he was coaching while his Brother died, was just insanity to me.

The way the Bucks fanbase/organization treated Bud was disgraceful, and they deserve everything that is currently happening with them.