What's the argument for 2013 LeBron over 2009 LeBron?

[TheGOATRises007]

During the peaks project, it's usually 2013 LeBron that gets chosen as Lebron's peak.

I'm not saying it's unequivocally wrong, but I'm curious with the people here who value data so much, how do you pick it over 2009 LeBron?

What's the actual argument(for those who pick 2013 LeBron) over 2009 LeBron?

[Cavsfansince84]

The actual argument is usually that he had filled out his skillset more by 2013 despite losing some athleticism and had also become better defensively. Also better 3 pt shooter. Same as when people choose 2016, 2017 or 2018.

[AEnigma]

1. Championship.
2. More reliable shooting.
3. While 2009 is pretty impeccable in isolation, surrounding disappointments may suggest that Lebron could still be “figured out” in a way that has not been true since 2011. I am not sure exactly how much I buy into that specifically, but as someone who places a lot of value into player experience, it does make me feel 2012- Lebron has some additional element of adaptability to him as a smarter playmaker, defender, leader, communicator, etc. (all of which plays to 2016-18 peak arguments as well).

[TheGOATRises007]

The actual argument is usually that he had filled out his skillset more by 2013 despite losing some athleticism and had also become better defensively. Also better 3 pt shooter. Same as when people choose 2016, 2017 or 2018.

I get that argument, but there's a good amount of posters on here who heavily value data.

And yet I've also seen them pick 2013 or other seasons over 2009 when 2009 trumps each season purely by the analytics.

[1993Playoffs]

For me his regular season is arguably as good. But his playoffs are clearly worse than 09/17

[OhayoKD]

The actual argument is usually that he had filled out his skillset more by 2013 despite losing some athleticism and had also become better defensively. Also better 3 pt shooter. Same as when people choose 2016, 2017 or 2018.

I get that argument, but there's a good amount of posters on here who heavily value data.

And yet I've also seen them pick 2013 or other seasons over 2009 when 2009 trumps each season purely by the analytics.

An argument would be that Miami Lebron's "analytics" are suppressed as a product of situation releative to his cleveland self(before and after) due to

-> playing with a similar player as a co-star
-> Playing a position up(shown to hurt the rapm of wings)
-> the "with" or "on" is undersold due to star teammate injuries affecting(stating in the 2012 playoffs with wade needing to get his knees operated and wade missing a bunch of games)
-> playoff opponents were better than their rs suggested by psrs or surrounding srs/performance(12 thunder, 13 spurs)

That said, matter of factly stating the heavier less atheltic lebron was a better defender than his 24 year old self is dubious given 2009 was the year he had the highest motor and played his best man d.

[OhayoKD]

For me his regular season is arguably as good. But his playoffs are clearly worse than 09/17

From a performance perspective? Not really(regarding 2009) lol.

[1993Playoffs]

For me his regular season is arguably as good. But his playoffs are clearly worse than 09/17

From a performance perspective? Not really(regarding 2009) lol.

What makes 13 that much worse in the regular season?

[Doctor MJ]

During the peaks project, it's usually 2013 LeBron that gets chosen as Lebron's peak.

I'm not saying it's unequivocally wrong, but I'm curious with the people here who value data so much, how do you pick it over 2009 LeBron?

What's the actual argument(for those who pick 2013 LeBron) over 2009 LeBron?

2009 was LeBron at his most impactful, but he grew as a player in the subsequent years and become a more adaptable, more resilient performer.

[TheGOATRises007]

During the peaks project, it's usually 2013 LeBron that gets chosen as Lebron's peak.

I'm not saying it's unequivocally wrong, but I'm curious with the people here who value data so much, how do you pick it over 2009 LeBron?

What's the actual argument(for those who pick 2013 LeBron) over 2009 LeBron?

2009 was LeBron at his most impactful, but he grew as a player in the subsequent years and become a more adaptable,

more resilient performer.

I agree with the bolded bit for later years.

But that doesn't really apply to 2009 though. He played better in each playoff round of 2009 than in 2013.

[OhayoKD]

For me his regular season is arguably as good. But his playoffs are clearly worse than 09/17

From a performance perspective? Not really(regarding 2009) lol.

What makes 13 that much worse in the regular season?

Higher turnover rate despite much lower offensive involvement, significantly worse motor which results in not nearly the same effect as a man defender(possibly a consequence of being played suboptimal as a rim-protector) but still.

2013 is still great, but the Cavs were significantly better by SRS, posted the best 4th quarter rating in nba history, on the back of Lebron having statistically the msot valuable non big defensive year since Pippen, and having an offensive season that was hands down the most productive ever and having an argument most efficient ever(best turnover economy ever with little doubt), with corroborated 40-winish wowy, +20 on/off, amid the best rapm stretches of Lebron's career. Oh and he also did all this facing significantly more defensive attention than Miami Lebron did.

2009 is just a better performance and people arguing otherwise are either PER-watching or over-complicating things. There's an argument 2013 Lebron was capable of 2009 things in an optimal situation, but the raw performance isn't a serious argument I think, and Lebron was physically a different player when he was played at power forward at Miami than when he was a Small Forward in Cleveland.

[lessthanjake]

It’s basically just that (1) people conceptualize his skill set more generally in 2013 as having been better than in 2009 (i.e. better shooter, better post player, etc.); and (2) he found more team success in 2013 than in 2009, which arguably validates point #1 as being important (though, of course, he was on completely different teams). Of course, on the other side of things, the stats in general would suggest he was a better player in 2009. I think people here are data-driven, but not single-mindedly so—and therefore the other stuff does have an influence on peoples’ views. Which I think is perfectly reasonable, especially when we take into account that the sample sizes in single-season data aren’t really large enough for us to have confidence that they’re a fully accurate representation of how good the player was at the time.

[Colbinii]

But that doesn't really apply to 2009 though. He played better in each playoff round of 2009 than in 2013.

But those are small sample sizes.

2009 LeBron is the most impactful player we have ever seen in reality while 2013 LeBron is the most impactful player we have ever seen in theory.

[SeattleJazzFan]

2013 LeBron was A LOT more efficient. 64% TS to 59%.

[Dutchball97]

A big factor to me is that 2009 LeBron was more impactful because he was in a situation where he could be more impactful and not because he was clearly a better player than he'd be in subsequent years.

[Djoker]

Given what happened to Lebron in the playoffs in surrounding years, 2009 starts looking like a pretty massive outlier in terms of postseason performance. And it makes sense considering it is just 14 games.

Knowing what we know which is that both Lebron's skillset (outside shooting, post game) and mentality grew over the years, it's not difficult to make an argument that 2013 Lebron was better despite having inferior box score and impact stats.

[Colbinii]

Given what happened to Lebron in the playoffs in surrounding years, 2009 starts looking like a pretty massive outlier in terms of postseason performance. And it makes sense considering it is just 14 games.

Knowing what we know which is that both Lebron's skillset (outside shooting, post game) and mentality grew over the years, it's not difficult to make an argument that 2013 Lebron was better despite having inferior box score and impact stats.

Is it really that big of an Outlier? 2008 and 2010 were both > 10 BPM Playoff runs where the Cavaliers and LeBron James had their playoff run cut short against a defense which was in the Regular Season Sub-100 DRTG when Garnett was on the court and Sub-102 Drtg in the Post-Season.

LeBron shooting 48% on his Mid-range Shots in 2009 isn't any more of an Outlier than LeBron shooting 26% on Mid-range shots in 2008.

[LA Bird]

Short answer: Rings
Long answer: Rings

Many people can't accept the possibility of a GOAT level player peaking in a non title season so they created the narrative that LeBron turned from some raw offensive player who got exposed in the playoffs into a skilled shooter with a resilient post game to justify his later championship success. But let's look at the facts:

• 13 LeBron dropped 5.5% TS in the playoffs (2nd worst of career) while 09 LeBron improved by 2.7% TS in the playoffs. Unless resiliency is just a buzzword for rings, 09 LeBron's scoring efficiency was objectively more resilient in the playoffs.

• 12 LeBron shot 25.9% from three in the playoffs and 3-16 in the Finals, winning his first title with some of the worst outside shooting of his career. 16 LeBron shot 30.9% from three in RS, 34.0% in PO. 09 LeBron wasn't a great shooter but he wasn't bad either. This idea that LeBron started winning rings later because he learnt how to shoot makes for a nice comeback storyline after 2011 but it is just a myth.

• 17 LeBron has a stronger case over 13 LeBron than 13 LeBron over 09 LeBron if we use the same arguments of offensive completeness. 17 LeBron averaged 33 ppg and 8 apg on 65% TS with 41% 3pt shooting while leading GOAT postseason offenses both overall and in terms of on/off. Why then do 13 LeBron supporters not pick 17 as his peak? (Hint: Rings again)

• 10 LeBron was actually on pace for another GOAT level statistical playoffs run like 09 LeBron before the last 3 games against the Celtics. In other words, in the 25 game sample across 09/10 playoffs, there is a 22 game stretch of GOAT level play and a 3 game stretch of subpar play and those dismissing 09 LeBron as a fluke want us to ignore 88% of the games because they are all outliers. Does that sound logical at all?

09 LeBron is the only season ever where the argument against it comes not from what he did that season but two seasons later. To put into perspective how ridiculous that is, imagine arguing against 67 as Wilt's peak by bringing up his problems in the 69 season. Realistically, the only thing you can nitpick about 09 LeBron is his 3pt shooting but he was more unstoppable with a mediocre 3 than a more complete 13 LeBron anyway so why does it matter? Honestly, some of the arguments for 13 LeBron over 09 LeBron (mentality, skillset) sounds like the same ones Kobe fans used to argue for him over LeBron.

[magicman1978]

I don't know if 13 is better than 09, but 13 LeBron definitely went up against better defenses. I feel like Chicago, Indiana, and San Antonio had a combo of elite primary defenders and excellent rim protectors that 09 LeBron didn't have to deal with. Orlando was the #1 defense in 09, but I don't they had a primary defender who matched up well against LeBron.

[Cavsfansince84]

I think there's different & valid reasons for looking at 09, 12, 13 and 16-18 LeBron all as peak years. Whether you are favoring the rs or the ps, his overall skillset, his level of athleticism/motor, defense, bbiq, outside shooting, etc. Then you also have to factor in how the league changed from 09 to 2018 in terms of pace, rts%, defense and style of play. I think LeBron as a rs player peaked in the 09-13 years almost without a doubt. It's just hard imo to dismiss how his game had advanced in so many ways to where he had the runs he did in 16-18. So no easy clear cut answer and never will be I think.