LeBron’s Chances of Winning More Championships are Slim to None

The NBA treated us this year to “The Decision – Part Deux” and we got loads of entertainment.  LeBron and the general media took his every step and gesture as a defender takes his jab step waiting to see if he will take a locomotive drive or pass to an outside bound player for a dagger three pointer.  Instead he launched a feathery jumper, defying Thomas Wolfe, saying “LeBron Can Go Home Again”.   So after a week of waiting for LeBron, the clogged, NBA free agent rolls were treated to LeBron’s  unclogging act and free agents signed fast and furious.  Melo stayed home.  Pau Gasol moved on to Chicago.   Luol Deng moved to Miami.  Lance Stephenson abandoned the Pacers.  And while dallying with the Rockets, Chris Bosh went back to Miami for the big money.  (Of all the players that mattered, why didn’t Bosh go to the Spurs for less money where he could win many future championships?).

A month later, Lebron James reappeared 20 pounds lighter and with the expected Kevin Love acquisition bound for another championship level threesome.

But no one asked the pivotal question.  With 40,000 (40K) minutes played in the NBA as a wing player and point forward can he win another championship?  Or will LeBron overstay his welcome and face the unmitigating taunting from some future star dropping a ton of points on him in the future like the young Larry Bird when he dropped 42 points to 6 vs. Dr J or Kobe when he dropped 42 on Michael Jordan in the first half of a game?

We took a deep dive into LeBron’s playing data vs historical norms for NBA small forwards.  Outside of Scottie Pippen, no player has played point forward remotely close to his minutes in the NBA in their career.   And Pippen played point forward for a much shorter period than LeBron as he was not the main ball handler in Houston or Portland, his teams after the Chicago Bulls.

Among today’s active players (table below), LeBron James is number 12 in minutes played.  Not one of the players in front of him plays more than 30 minutes a game today and several of them do not start for their respective teams.   LeBron may be one of the top 5 active players a year from now!

Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Ray Allen, Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki  may hang it up in a season.  And LeBron will likely surpass  Andre Miller, Vince Carter and Jason Terry in minutes played as their incremental minutes dwindle.  Teams don’t build around top 5 active minutes players.  LeBron has played 8,000 more minutes than Dwayne Wade!!!  In 2 more seasons that gap is likely to grow past 10,000 minutes.

 

Active NBA Leaders Career Minutes Played
Rank	Player	Starter Minutes – Likely Retire – Position	Reg Season Minutes	Playoff Minutes	Total Minutes	age	total seasons	career average minutes
1	Kobe Bryant	N – U – SG	45,567	8,641	54,208	35	18	3,012
2	Kevin Garnett	N – Y – PF	48,910	5,283	54,193	38	19	2,852
3	Ray Allen	N – Y – SG	46,344	6,064	52,408	39	19	2,758
4	Tim Duncan	Y – Y – PF	43,605	8,902	52,507	38	17	3,089
5	Paul Pierce	Y – U – SF	42,458	5,776	48,234	36	16	3,015
6	Dirk Nowitzki	Y – U – PF	42,603	5,544	48,147	36	16	3,009
7	Shawn Marion	Y – U – SF	38,996	3,812	42,808	36	15	2,854
8	Steve Nash	N – Y – PG	38,069	4,289	42,358	40	18	2,353
9	Vince Carter	N – U – SG	39,240	2,551	41,791	37	16	2,612
10	Andre Miller	Y – U – SF	38,554	1,893	40,447	38	15	2,696
11	Jason Terry	N – U – PG	36,956	3,265	40,221	36	15	2,681
12	LeBron James	Y – U – SF	33,276	6,717	39,993	29	11	3,636
13	Joe Johnson	35,692	3,143	38,835	33	13	2,987
14	Elton Brand	Y – U – PF	34,199	1,139	36,714	35	15	2,448
15	Rashard Lewis	Y – U – PF	33,541	2,829	36,370	34	16	2,273
16	Pau Gasol	Y – U – PF	32,230	4,053	36,283	34	13	2,791

All the players in front of LeBron had significant minutes decline the immediate season after crossing 40K minutes of 12% on average from their career averages and many of them in this last season have seen absolute decline from career averages ranging from 10-40% not including Steve Nash and Kobe Bryant who lost much of their seasons to injury.

LeBron has averaged a whopping 3,600 minutes a game for 11 seasons something that iron men peers like Joe Johnson or Kobe Bryant have not.  LeBron can break down slowly declining in minutes, or he could have a precipitous injury leading to a large decline in average minutes for the remainder of his career.  Allen Iverson and Luol Deng are players that were ironmen for periods in their career and then had breakdowns where their playing time declined by 30% on average and they never came back in terms of game minutes from their injuries.  Larry Johnson once played 3,700 minutes in a season including playoffs and by the time he was 27 never played more than 2,700 minutes in a season again.  Minimally, we would expect LeBron’s minutes to drop by 12%.   This is shown on the table below.

	Active NBA Leaders Career Change in Minutes post 40,000 minutes
Rank	Player	Total Minutes	total seasons	career average minutes	avg total seasonal MP after 40K	seasons 40+ MP	change MP first season after 40k MP	%change	change MP last season after 40K MP	%change
1	Kobe Bryant	54,208	18	3,012	2558	5	120	4%	2658	88%
2	Kevin Garnett	54,193	19	2,852	2223	6	556	19%	1219	43%
3	Ray Allen	52,408	19	2,758	2626	4	-71	-3%	883	32%
4	Tim Duncan	52,507	17	3,089	2547	4	282	9%	280	9%
5	Paul Pierce	48,234	16	3,015	2716	3	699	23%	676	22%
6	Dirk Nowitzki	48,147	16	3,009	2537	3	430	14%	-119	-4%
8	Steve Nash	42,358	18	2,353	1001	2	334	14%	1648	70%
12	LeBron James	39,993	11	3,636
	Average							12%		36%

Last year, Miami won 54 games and got to the NBA finals with LeBron playing a whopping 3,650 minutes.   If LeBron were to cut his minutes by the average 12% to 3,250 minutes (8-9 games missed) how many games would the new Cleveland Cavaliers be able to win in 2014-2015 after going 34-49 in 2013-2014. Even assuming the Cleveland team with all three players and a rookie coach are as good as Miami was on average last year with Eric Spoelstra coaching (not necessarily true), because of the high career unavailabilty of Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving and diminished playing time for LeBron, this team would be expected to finish worse than Miami’s record from last year. Probably at least 5 games worse.

The numbers from this era of basketball tell a part of the story about LeBron’s quest for new success in Cleveland.   But what about compared to other all time great small forwards who have played pro basketball.   How have they fared after their 40K minute played?  Reflecting on the success of the top 11 all time NBA small forwards in terms of minutes played, not one has won a championship as the team leading scorer after playing their 40K minute.  This is shown on the table below.

This considers such all time greats as Paul Pierce, John Havlicek and Scottie Pippen.   Even the great Michael Jordan won his last championship during the season he surpassed 40K minutes played.  Havlicek won as a supporting cast member to all star teammates Dave Cowens, Paul Silas and Charlie Scott.  Outside of Havlicek, it seems winning championships after 40K minutes is the provenance of big men like Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Tim Duncan, who also won championships as the supporting cast for other stars like Magic Johnson or Tony Parker.

All Time NBA Small Forwards Championships Post 40K Mins
Rank	Player	Reg Season Minutes	Playoff Minutes	Total Minutes	total seasons	career average minutes / season	Championships after 40K minutes leading scorer category
1	John Havlicek*	46,471	5,838	52,309	16	3,269	0
2	Scottie Pippen*	41,069	8,105	49,174	17	2,893	0
3	Paul Pierce	42,458	5,749	48,207	16	3,013	0
4	Shawn Marion	38,996	3,812	42,808	15	2,854	0
5	Michael Finley	37,996	4,654	42,650	15	2,843	0
6	Larry Bird*	34,443	6,886	41,329	13	3,179	0
7	Alex English*	38,063	2,565	40,628	15	2,709	0
8	Dominique Wilkins*	38,113	2,275	40,388	17	2,376	0
9	LeBron James	33,276	6,717	39,993	11	3,636	na
10	Elgin Baylor*	33,863	5,510	39,373	14	2,812	0
11	Adrian Dantley*	34,151	2,515	38,917	15	2,594	0

This season will beg many questions.  How many coaches will look to give a beating to the much lauded new NBA coach David Blatt and set the NBA pecking order.  Speaking of Blatt, no NBA Rookie coach has won an NBA championship since Pat Riley who took over an NBA championship team from 2 years prior.  And Riley had a background like no other as the son of a pro athlete whose high school beat Kareem Abdul Jabbar’s Power Memorial in the New York State championships.  He later played for the winningest coach in college basketball history and for an NBA championship team.  He was also an assistant coach when the Lakers won a championship.  All credentials Blatt does not possess.

What about LeBron’s weight loss?  That may help his career durability, but many NBA big men will have less to fear from a 220 pound LeBron barreling down the lane than a 250 pound LeBron.  It seems LeBron is trying to become Kobe.  But LeBron has logged far more miles on his body as a point forward than Kobe who has played primarily on passing/endurance friendly teams.  It may be too little too late.

Can the Cavaliers get to the finals much less win a championship this year, playing with a new coach and an often injured Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love who average between them 60 games a season in their career and neither have been to the playoffs much less played on a winning team.

Can the 36 year old Shawn Marion, the player with the 4^th most active minutes in the NBA provide meaningful support for LeBron?  How many people will look to get revenge on LeBron who will not have NBA all time greats Chris Bosh and Dwayne Wade alongside him going into this season?   How many rebounds will Kevin Love get playing on a team that makes more shots in a conference that plays on average with 10% fewer possessions.  Is one Kevin Love who plays 70% of the games better than Chris Bosh, the Birdman and Udonis Haslem (10 boards per 36 minute players) combined?  In a race against time, this team may mature in 2-3 seasons, but by then LeBron may have played his 46^th or 49^th thousandth minute.  Not the numbers that win championships.

If Federer Isn’t the Best of His Era, How Can He Be the Best of All Time?

Simulation Metrics for All Time Greats

Tennis Grand Slam winners have played more than 3,000 matches between each other.  Pantheonists, the 16 greatest tennis players of all time, have played more than 1,400 matches against each other while winning 70% of the available grand slam titles of the Open era.  We crunched the numbers and created two metrics to measure the overall greatness during a career for Pantheonists.  In reviewing the data, we normalized it by considering only matches where players were younger than 31 (there are only a few slam winners over this age) or if there was less than 5 years of age between the players, such as with Sampras and Agassi, we included that data into their later years.

Results are below which show that on a winning percentage vs. other all time greats, Roger Federer ranks #14 on the SITDON scale.  Rafael Nadal’s #1 ranking is built entirely on his dominance over Federer and we consider there to be insufficient data to rank him #1.  We believe that we will need to see Nadal’s performance over the next few years vs. other rising players to clearly see where he ranks among the all time greats, but he has a fantastic start and it is clear that we are now in the midst of the “Nadal” era overshadowing Federer’s era with his defeat of Federer at Grand Slam finals on every surface the last time they played.

On a cumulative quality of slams all surface ranking, Federer ranks #10 all time.  Federer’s all surface slam does little to influence his overall ranking as there was only one other single slam winner in the quarterfinals of his French Open victory.  Assuming Federer does not change stylistically i.e. adapt a kamikaze net rush style at all costs approach like McEnroe, Rafter, Edberg and Sampras in their later years, we don’t anticipate he will win another slam without injuries or upsets to his central competitors.  Nadal is on course to surpass both Borg and McEnroe from a cumulative quality point of view on his next slam victory and may surpass Sampras with 2 or 3 more slams.  We consider this a difficult task since Nadal is the same age as Wilander at the time he won his last slam and one year younger than Borg when he retired.

Our two metrics are SITDON, the Secada Index of Tennis Dominance with Overt Normalization, and SATERICCON, the Secada Absolute Tennis Era Relative Influence and Championship Competitiveness Over Normalization.  SITDON looks at career winning percentage before the player turns 31 to determine how they did vs. other all time greats.  We consider this to be an excellent substitute for weeks at number 1 ranking and number of slams won.  From our point of view, SITDON is the equivalent of baseball ERA which tells you week in, week out, what was the consistency of that player.  However, SITDON is far more granular as it only looks at the statistics in matches between all time greats, like pitching against Reggie Jackson or Barry Bonds and does not include the equivalent of baseball’s bum of the month.

SATERICCON, measures individual greatness at any point in time.  Though SITDON measures overall career performance, SATERICCON answers the question, in a tournament of the greatest players, who would win those tournaments?   Historically, who was the greatest at the instant when it mattered.   It is a complementary statistic to our Slam Triple metric yet it considers the cumulative value of winning a number of slams which may be less competitive vs. winning a few ultra-competitive slams.  So it answers the question, if you won a slam in the ultra competitive 1987-1993 period, how would that translate into playing in slams in the far less competitive, A32 era and vice versa.

Normalization is the process of looking at data, in this case, 1,400 plus match results and selecting the good data while throwing out the bad.  Though not a perfect process we erred on the side of conservatism in determining when a player was at or near their peak.   In this case we included all data for players from the time they began playing pro tournaments to their 31^st birthday.  Long-playing champions such as Connors, Lendl, Sampras and Agassi are rewarded by both metrics for their longevity.  They are more than just champions for tennis, they are part of the fabric of the sport, tennis DNA.

SITDON has 4 advantages over other measures.   (1) it eliminates factors that others say make era comparison indeterminate such as equipment,  fitness or seedings.  All that matters is the results between top players, (2) it makes it easier to evaluate how age, mileage and style impact the outcome of a match and (3) it refines overall win record and overall match record to only those matches between the greatest players of eras at their peak.   (4) It eliminates computer ranking which is frequently subverted for business to incentify players to play more with higher risk of injury.

SITDON is an absolute measure of competitiveness between Pantheonists in the same era.  Federer’s total match record vs. Pantheonists ranks him 15^th all time in number of matches and with normalization, he ranks 14^th out of 16 in winning percentage vs. Pantheonists  as well.  John Newcombe  takes the last spot as all of his wins over Laver and Rosewall are eliminated via normalization i.e. they were all over 30 when he played them.  Even without normalization i.e. elimination of matches vs. Pantheonists far from their peak, Federer finishes near last in the Pantheon.

Note:  though cumulative career statistics matter on an absolute basis, there is a danger in quoting mid-career statistics average or percentile statistics for tennis players as they are surely to decline in the second half of a career.  Nadal and Federer’s percentages and averages are surely to decline as has every Pantheonist before them as they play longer and deeper into the latter half of their careers.

SITDON measures what would happen if Pantheonists were to play one singles match against each other, SATERICCON measures what would happen if Pantheonists were to play a succession of matches against each other.   SATERICCON’s basis is to determine who was greatest when the greatest all played each other assuming a winner of an all time great tourney would be indicated by past performance.

To create this measure, we use analytic methodology and then we consider ancient and present competitive folklore.  Larry Holmes was undefeated in his first 44 bouts beating an old Muhammad Ali in 15 rounds.  Ali defeated 6 heavyweight champs in or near their prime.  Experts consider Ali a greater champion.  Michael Jordan’s Bulls became champs after beating Isiah Thomas’ Detroit Pistons (at their prime) who had beaten the Celtics and Lakers before them.    Olajuwon’s Rockets won the championship when Jordan semi-retired and the Bulls and Pistons were long past their glory.  They disappeared when Jordan returned.  Jordan’s Bulls are considered greater than the Rockets.

In the Trojan war, Achilles retired briefly over compensation issues, in the interim period Hector laid waste the Greeks slaying far more than Achilles that year and nearly destroying their navy, almost altering history.  But when Achilles came out of retirement, everyone well knew who would win, it was destiny.  Our methodology borrows heavily from this philosophy and the Highlander series.  When the Highlander defeats another Highlander he gains the power of that Highlander and all their previous victims.   Likewise in the Volsunga Saga of Nordic and Germanic literature, if you defeat a dragon and eat it’s heart you gain it’s power.  When measuring greatness, history has always looked at the quality of your victories over the quantity. In SATERICCON, when you defeat another slam champ or the person who defeated them in the slam, you gain their power rating as a cumulative score.

We measure the overall difficulty of winning a grand slam championship by the quality of the field at the quarterfinal stage of the tournament.  We consider the number of grand slams won by the other quarterfinalists, excluding the winner and score the slam as having the value of difficulty assigned by all quarterfinalists.   So for example, Pete Sampras’ first Wimbledon championship had Jim Courier, Boris Becker, Mats Wilander, Stefan Edberg, Goran Ivanisevic and Andre Agassi in the quarterfinals.  The cumulative score of that win is a 28 which is the number of career slams by those players.  In Federer’s first US Open victory, Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt and Andre Agassi were quarterfinalists .  Those players won 11 grand slams between them and Federer’s score is an 11.  However, to come up with a true “normalized” measure of greatness, we only measure players who were at or near their peak in skills and athleticism, so Federer’s score was reduced to 3 by eliminating Agassi who was already 33 at the time of this tournament.  Every player was impacted by this measure as almost each player had an all time great long past their prime in the quarterfinals of one or more of their championships.

The impact of normalization on Federer’s record is far greater since he has played  so few Pantheonists and is dominated by Nadal, the only other Pantheon player in his era.  Without normalization, based on his wins over a 33 year old Agassi, Federer would move past Becker and Wilander on the all time list but that would only get him to #8 all time on an all surface basis.  It was important to use the cumulative score of grandslam wins vs the average score as it balances out the dearth of grand slam champs Federer defeated per tournament but gives him extra points for his cumulative slam wins.  (On an average Slam victory Q-Rating score basis, Federer would rank near last.)  This study does not address what would have happened if Lendl had given up his Quixotic quest for a Wimbledon title and won 2 more French Opens, what would have happened if McEnroe had not taken a break during his career or what would have happened should Jimmy Connors have been allowed to play the French Open in 1974.  All these players ranked ahead of Federer in SITDON and SATERICCON rating.

To create the metric for competitiveness of grand slam victory, we used Federer as the baseline for all other players since so many journalists and talking heads rank Federer as #1 we gave Federer’s cumulative score a 1 and then graded the other players on a scale relative to Federer.  Though several other players have won a Slam Triple, Federer has never been able to do it which questions his ability to win a tournament of all time greats.  Though our SATERICCON rating does not say Pete Sampras is 2.37 more likely to win an average slam than Federer (though we think it is positively indicative), it does say he is far more likely to win a slam 2.37 times more difficult than Federer.

We also eliminated the Australian Open from consideration because it had little relevance in tennis until it became the first slam on the calendar in 1987.  Players like Orantes never played the Australian Open and Borg and Nastase played in it once.  Next, The toughest tournaments of all time on each surface and the winners.