|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Snipes wrote: |
And people need to acknowledge that in his prime, Lebron teamed up with 2 HOFers and at that time BOTH top 5 players in the league. ALONG with a bunch of premiere veterans for $1.2mill to FINALLY win a ring. |
Chris Bosh was never a top 5 player.
He made one all-NBA second team in his career, four years before he joined the Heat. He received MVP votes in only two seasons in his career, finishing 7th and 12th.
I’d say the year before he joined the Heat he was a top 15 player. He was probably comparable to where, oh, Karl-Anthony Towns ranks in the league today.
But to your larger point: Sure, the Heat provided a strong supporting cast. How does it stack up against the supporting casts of MJ, Kobe, etc.? Like I said in other posts, if you are able to make a compelling analysis of that, you will be the first person who has done so.
Last edited by activeverb on Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: |
Let me as you this. What do you think should comprise such a framework? How about others on the board? Your feedback will be helpful. |
I thought your framework was using skillsets (scoring, rebounding, etc.) and then making a case for why some were more impactful than others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23912
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | | Treble Clef wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: |
I could make the basic argument that no player in the triangle offense has averaged more than 6 apg per game, to show you why Kobe's assist totals have been less than LeBron's. But, it would be more powerful if I could show you the position Kobe played in the Triangle and WHY that was so, which would require understanding some Triangle principles.
|
I think this analysis ignores the vast differences in the style of play between them. Kobe would call his own number and take the tough shot in situations that called for a pass. The triangle was not dictating that. It was because of Kobe's score first mentality and it's the reason a lot of people here will always prefer Kobe over LeBron other than the obvious fact that he was a lifelong Laker. It is also the reason Kobe's efficiency was not always the highest in the league.
You connect the triangle to lower assist numbers because you associate it with a shoot first shooting guard being the main ballhandler. Because that is what we saw with Jordan and Kobe. |
LeBron is a better passer and does look to pass more often than Kobe, especially in end of game situations. But you also have to look to who LeBron was passing too (usually open shooters), and you can understand Kobe's reluctance given how when he did pass in clutch situations (to Pau Gasol, Luke Walton), they fumbled and/or passed it back, and no shot was taken in time.
It would be foolish to ignore the offense, though. When Kobe was placed in an offense more similar to LeBron's first Cleveland stint, he put up a career high in assists in his 17th season. Unheard of up until that point. In fact he put up numerous 10+ assist games that season alone. Something he rarely did when he was in the Triangle.
The Triangle does a better job of distributing assist totals across the board for everyone, not just Kobe or Jordan. The Triangle involves all 5 people being able to pass, which is why it's hard to run but also why it's effective. A lot of the options out of the offense (e.g. blind pig or low post split), involve the big men making the assist. It's why Gasol and Odom's passing was so critical. A more LeBron style offense involves 4 or 5 out spacing (check out GoldenThroat's latest video on this for more), which allows him to drive, draw 2 defenders, and pass it out. Nobody in NBA history has been more adept as passing out of those situations in traffic, even cross court, than LeBron. But that means with less ball movement, he will rack up more assists. You will notice in many playoff game situations, Kobe did in fact average closer to 7-8 assists a game, when he was taking over more as needed.
Again, not to take anything away from LeBron. He is still the better facilitator and one of the best passers ever, maybe second or third to Magic and Nash. But to pin that on simply him averaging more assists than Kobe, or to say Kobe was not a good facilitator due to his assist numbers, or that Kobe was a selfish player due to his assist numbers, is a VAST oversimplification of the issue. |
I don't think any honest debate of Kobe vs LeBron discusses Kobe being selfish or not being a good facilitator. Kobe called his own number more often and took tougher shots and obviously a lot of people prefer his approach. However, the small jump in assists in 2013 does not come close to bridging the gap between him and LeBron in that area and regardless of system, LeBron was always going to have a lot more assists than Kobe.
They're very different players, which makes the debate interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Snipes wrote: |
And people need to acknowledge that in his prime, Lebron teamed up with 2 HOFers and at that time BOTH top 5 players in the league. ALONG with a bunch of premiere veterans for $1.2mill to FINALLY win a ring. |
Chris Bosh was never a top 5 player.
He made one all-NBA second team in his career, four years before he joined the Heat. He received MVP votes in only two seasons in his career, finishing 7th and 12th.
I’d say the year before he joined the Heat he was a top 15 player.
But to your larger point: Sure, the Heat provided a strong supporting cast. How does it stack up against the supporting casts of MJ, Kobe, etc.? Like I said in other posts, if you are able to make a compelling analysis of that, you will be the first person who has done so. |
Yep. This always boils down to (1) trashing Player A’s supporting cast and (2) inflating Player B’s supporting cast. I can remember back in the day seeing people claiming that Mo Williams was godlike (only a mild exaggeration). There is a legitimate argument for Kobe over Lebron, but this sort of argument is not impressive.
I expect that in years to come, regardless of where Lebron is ranked as a player, his most important achievement will be the empowerment of star players. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. Lebron showed everyone that he could dictate what he wanted, including the rosters of his teams. I can’t think of any other sports league in the world where the star players have so much power.
For example, Durant and Irving could meet up and decide to go make the Knicks relevant. Before Lebron, players didn’t exercise that sort of power. Guys like Kareem and Moses would sometimes force trades, but they didn’t dictate rosters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MustardJam
Starting Rotation
Joined: 13 Feb 2019
Posts: 226
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lebron has always been Westbrook on steroids with an actual basketball IQ. He's in a system designed to maximize his stats because he is the system. This is VERY good for personal stats but not the best for winning. Now, you may say Lebron has won and that is true because he is the greatest individual TALENT to ever play the game so the short coming can be overcome.
I've always wondered what if you switched Lebron and Kobe career wise since the start? I mean exact same teams and players year by year. I think Lebron would have 4 rings as of now. He would have the 3-peat and also the one they lost in the finals. However, I don't see him winning with the other Lakers teams. Just don't. He hasn't won without another closer and that Lakers team didn't have another star player other than Gasol. Lebron was never really able to play with big men.
Heat would likely 4-peat. No way they lose to the Mavericks and Wade, Kobe, and Bosh would be killer. I also see them beating that 73 Warriors team. The 3-1 comeback was damn impressive but the Warriors themselves weren't all that. They clearly ran out of steam due to pushing all out for the record. They almost lost to the Thunder AND they were severely hobbled injury wise as well in that finals. That gives Kobe 5 rings.
Obviously, this is all EXTREMELY hypothetical and i'm most likey quite bias in my alternative universe. Plus, Lebron needs a specific team around him and those second championship teams sure as hell were not the kind of team heneeded. However, when I look at it this is why I would put Kobe above Lebron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: |
Let me as you this. What do you think should comprise such a framework? How about others on the board? Your feedback will be helpful. |
I thought your framework was using skillsets (scoring, rebounding, etc.) and then making a case for why some were more impactful than others. |
That would be a part of it. That's the skills component. Maybe it would look something like this.
1. Individual Skills
a. Which skills are most important
2. Statistics
3. Function in their teams
a. Offense
b. Defense
3. Championships
4. Other awards/Allocades
5. Fact-checking & Proving/Disproving most common arguments
You could put "impact on the game" - but that is more era dependent.
I'm forgetting a lot of stuff. But feel free to add anything more I'm missing.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern.
Last edited by bfc1125roy on Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Treble Clef wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: | | Treble Clef wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: |
I could make the basic argument that no player in the triangle offense has averaged more than 6 apg per game, to show you why Kobe's assist totals have been less than LeBron's. But, it would be more powerful if I could show you the position Kobe played in the Triangle and WHY that was so, which would require understanding some Triangle principles.
|
I think this analysis ignores the vast differences in the style of play between them. Kobe would call his own number and take the tough shot in situations that called for a pass. The triangle was not dictating that. It was because of Kobe's score first mentality and it's the reason a lot of people here will always prefer Kobe over LeBron other than the obvious fact that he was a lifelong Laker. It is also the reason Kobe's efficiency was not always the highest in the league.
You connect the triangle to lower assist numbers because you associate it with a shoot first shooting guard being the main ballhandler. Because that is what we saw with Jordan and Kobe. |
LeBron is a better passer and does look to pass more often than Kobe, especially in end of game situations. But you also have to look to who LeBron was passing too (usually open shooters), and you can understand Kobe's reluctance given how when he did pass in clutch situations (to Pau Gasol, Luke Walton), they fumbled and/or passed it back, and no shot was taken in time.
It would be foolish to ignore the offense, though. When Kobe was placed in an offense more similar to LeBron's first Cleveland stint, he put up a career high in assists in his 17th season. Unheard of up until that point. In fact he put up numerous 10+ assist games that season alone. Something he rarely did when he was in the Triangle.
The Triangle does a better job of distributing assist totals across the board for everyone, not just Kobe or Jordan. The Triangle involves all 5 people being able to pass, which is why it's hard to run but also why it's effective. A lot of the options out of the offense (e.g. blind pig or low post split), involve the big men making the assist. It's why Gasol and Odom's passing was so critical. A more LeBron style offense involves 4 or 5 out spacing (check out GoldenThroat's latest video on this for more), which allows him to drive, draw 2 defenders, and pass it out. Nobody in NBA history has been more adept as passing out of those situations in traffic, even cross court, than LeBron. But that means with less ball movement, he will rack up more assists. You will notice in many playoff game situations, Kobe did in fact average closer to 7-8 assists a game, when he was taking over more as needed.
Again, not to take anything away from LeBron. He is still the better facilitator and one of the best passers ever, maybe second or third to Magic and Nash. But to pin that on simply him averaging more assists than Kobe, or to say Kobe was not a good facilitator due to his assist numbers, or that Kobe was a selfish player due to his assist numbers, is a VAST oversimplification of the issue. |
I don't think any honest debate of Kobe vs LeBron discusses Kobe being selfish or not being a good facilitator. Kobe called his own number more often and took tougher shots and obviously a lot of people prefer his approach. However, the small jump in assists in 2013 does not come close to bridging the gap between him and LeBron in that area and regardless of system, LeBron was always going to have a lot more assists than Kobe.
They're very different players, which makes the debate interesting. |
Not sure if I agree about that. I think if you put Kobe in place of Harden on this Rockets team, for example, he probably averages 38/8/6 or something like that. That is entirely hypothetical though.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Snipes wrote: |
And people need to acknowledge that in his prime, Lebron teamed up with 2 HOFers and at that time BOTH top 5 players in the league. ALONG with a bunch of premiere veterans for $1.2mill to FINALLY win a ring. |
Chris Bosh was never a top 5 player.
He made one all-NBA second team in his career, four years before he joined the Heat. He received MVP votes in only two seasons in his career, finishing 7th and 12th.
I’d say the year before he joined the Heat he was a top 15 player.
But to your larger point: Sure, the Heat provided a strong supporting cast. How does it stack up against the supporting casts of MJ, Kobe, etc.? Like I said in other posts, if you are able to make a compelling analysis of that, you will be the first person who has done so. |
Yep. This always boils down to (1) trashing Player A’s supporting cast and (2) inflating Player B’s supporting cast. I can remember back in the day seeing people claiming that Mo Williams was godlike (only a mild exaggeration). There is a legitimate argument for Kobe over Lebron, but this sort of argument is not impressive.
I expect that in years to come, regardless of where Lebron is ranked as a player, his most important achievement will be the empowerment of star players. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. Lebron showed everyone that he could dictate what he wanted, including the rosters of his teams. I can’t think of any other sports league in the world where the star players have so much power.
For example, Durant and Irving could meet up and decide to go make the Knicks relevant. Before Lebron, players didn’t exercise that sort of power. Guys like Kareem and Moses would sometimes force trades, but they didn’t dictate rosters. |
Well, supporting casts are highly relevant, if championships are a part of the equation, as is "making your teammates better." I also do believe LeBron's supporting cast tends to get downplayed, while Kobe's is generally overplayed. Generally being the key identifier here. That's not to say one is trash and the other is god-like.
The most common argument I hear for LeBron is (that's not stats) "he took trash teams to the finals a million times." The most common argument I hear against Kobe is "he got carried by Shaq for 3 of them so they don't count." We've seen that one in this very thread. Both are untrue, IMO. But a lot of common arguments don't have much of a basis. This is just cherrypicking one for LeBron and one against Kobe.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Snipes wrote: |
And people need to acknowledge that in his prime, Lebron teamed up with 2 HOFers and at that time BOTH top 5 players in the league. ALONG with a bunch of premiere veterans for $1.2mill to FINALLY win a ring. |
Chris Bosh was never a top 5 player.
He made one all-NBA second team in his career, four years before he joined the Heat. He received MVP votes in only two seasons in his career, finishing 7th and 12th.
I’d say the year before he joined the Heat he was a top 15 player.
But to your larger point: Sure, the Heat provided a strong supporting cast. How does it stack up against the supporting casts of MJ, Kobe, etc.? Like I said in other posts, if you are able to make a compelling analysis of that, you will be the first person who has done so. |
Yep. This always boils down to (1) trashing Player A’s supporting cast and (2) inflating Player B’s supporting cast. I can remember back in the day seeing people claiming that Mo Williams was godlike (only a mild exaggeration). There is a legitimate argument for Kobe over Lebron, but this sort of argument is not impressive.
I expect that in years to come, regardless of where Lebron is ranked as a player, his most important achievement will be the empowerment of star players. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. Lebron showed everyone that he could dictate what he wanted, including the rosters of his teams. I can’t think of any other sports league in the world where the star players have so much power.
For example, Durant and Irving could meet up and decide to go make the Knicks relevant. Before Lebron, players didn’t exercise that sort of power. Guys like Kareem and Moses would sometimes force trades, but they didn’t dictate rosters. |
I agree with you. Lebron ushered in an entirely new era of star power. Rather than cross their fingers and hope GMs put a good team around them, modern stars are forming the teams they want to be on.
In just a few short years, we've moved past the point where a lot of people were outraged that Lebron joined with Wade and Bosh to a lot of people accepting that's just a normal thing superstars do. My guess is 10 years from now, new fans will have trouble understanding why Lebron joining Bosh and Wade was even controversial.
Last edited by activeverb on Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Snipes wrote: |
And people need to acknowledge that in his prime, Lebron teamed up with 2 HOFers and at that time BOTH top 5 players in the league. ALONG with a bunch of premiere veterans for $1.2mill to FINALLY win a ring. |
Chris Bosh was never a top 5 player.
He made one all-NBA second team in his career, four years before he joined the Heat. He received MVP votes in only two seasons in his career, finishing 7th and 12th.
I’d say the year before he joined the Heat he was a top 15 player.
But to your larger point: Sure, the Heat provided a strong supporting cast. How does it stack up against the supporting casts of MJ, Kobe, etc.? Like I said in other posts, if you are able to make a compelling analysis of that, you will be the first person who has done so. |
Yep. This always boils down to (1) trashing Player A’s supporting cast and (2) inflating Player B’s supporting cast. I can remember back in the day seeing people claiming that Mo Williams was godlike (only a mild exaggeration). There is a legitimate argument for Kobe over Lebron, but this sort of argument is not impressive.
I expect that in years to come, regardless of where Lebron is ranked as a player, his most important achievement will be the empowerment of star players. This may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. Lebron showed everyone that he could dictate what he wanted, including the rosters of his teams. I can’t think of any other sports league in the world where the star players have so much power.
For example, Durant and Irving could meet up and decide to go make the Knicks relevant. Before Lebron, players didn’t exercise that sort of power. Guys like Kareem and Moses would sometimes force trades, but they didn’t dictate rosters. |
I agree with you. Lebron ushered in an entirely new era of star power. Rather than cross their fingers and hope GMs put a good team around them, modern stars are forming the teams they want to be on. |
Players are realizing more than ever that this league is superstar driven. That gives superstars a lot of leverage. And quite frankly I am in support of them exercising it, they've earned it by being the best.
If you haven't, I recommend you watch "High Flying Bird" on Netflix. It's a short film that covers this concept in the context of a fake NBA lockout. Has some excerpts from real NBA players too. Great watch.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: |
Well, supporting casts are highly relevant, if championships are a part of the equation, as is "making your teammates better." |
People generally don't factor in the quality of a players' teammates, or the quality of his opponents, because they can't figure out a way to do it that others will agree with. If you can figure out a system to measure the quality of a player's teammates that impresses anyone, more power to you.
Ditto for "making your teammates better." That's just a cliche that people throw around; mostly people just decide a player they like makes his teammates better without trying to justify the claim in a meaningful way. Again, if you can figure out a way to measure if and how much players "improved" playing with a star, more power to you. I think that one is impossible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: |
Well, supporting casts are highly relevant, if championships are a part of the equation, as is "making your teammates better." |
People generally don't factor in the quality of a players' teammates, or the quality of his opponents, because they can't figure out a way to do it that others will agree with. If you can figure out a system to measure the quality of a player's teammates that impresses anyone, more power to you.
Ditto for "making your teammates better." That's just a cliche that people throw around; mostly people just decide a player they like makes his teammates better without trying to justify the claim in a meaningful way. Again, if you can figure out a way to measure if and how much players "improved" playing with a star, more power to you. I think that one is impossible. |
I would do it by examining the defensive attention the star attracted and the opportunities it created for their teammates. Defensively, you would have to look at how they helped cover for other players deficiencies on that end of the floor. Another way I like to do it is to see if there was a significant decline in the player's performance after playing with the star, that is not attributable to other factors like a major injury, age, reduced minutes, etc.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bfc1125roy wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | bfc1125roy wrote: |
Well, supporting casts are highly relevant, if championships are a part of the equation, as is "making your teammates better." |
People generally don't factor in the quality of a players' teammates, or the quality of his opponents, because they can't figure out a way to do it that others will agree with. If you can figure out a system to measure the quality of a player's teammates that impresses anyone, more power to you.
Ditto for "making your teammates better." That's just a cliche that people throw around; mostly people just decide a player they like makes his teammates better without trying to justify the claim in a meaningful way. Again, if you can figure out a way to measure if and how much players "improved" playing with a star, more power to you. I think that one is impossible. |
I would do it by examining the defensive attention the star attracted and the opportunities it created for their teammates. Defensively, you would have to look at how they helped cover for other players deficiencies on that end of the floor. Another way I like to do it is to see if there was a significant decline in the player's performance after playing with the star, that is not attributable to other factors like a major injury, age, reduced minutes, etc. |
If you can figure out a way to persuasively determine/measure those things, more power to you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LAL1947
Star Player
Joined: 26 Dec 2018
Posts: 1855
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | If you can figure out a way to persuasively determine/measure those things, more power to you |
In all my years of perusing the interwebs, I have found no more powerful or persuasive a measure than the simple "greater-than" symbol, a mathematical symbol that denotes an inequality between two values. The widely adopted form of two equal-length strokes connecting in an acute angle at the right, >, has been found in documents dated as far back as the 1560s. In typical mathematical usage, the greater-than sign is typically placed between the two values being compared and signals that the first number is greater than the second number. In sporting usage, the greater-than sign is typically placed between the players being compared and signals that the player listed first is greater than the player that follows. Here is an example:
MJ > Kobe > LeBron. The end.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LAL1947 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | If you can figure out a way to persuasively determine/measure those things, more power to you |
In all my years of perusing the interwebs, I have found no more powerful or persuasive a measure than the simple "greater-than" symbol, a mathematical symbol that denotes an inequality between two values. The widely adopted form of two equal-length strokes connecting in an acute angle at the right, >, has been found in documents dated as far back as the 1560s. In typical mathematical usage, the greater-than sign is typically placed between the two values being compared and signals that the first number is greater than the second number. In sporting usage, the greater-than sign is typically placed between the players being compared and signals that the player listed first is greater than the player that follows. Here is an example:
MJ > Kobe > LeBron. The end.
|
I agree with you completely, with one small modification:
MJ > Kobe > LeBron. Case closed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miggz23
Star Player
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 6820
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MustardJam wrote: |
I've always wondered what if you switched Lebron and Kobe career wise since the start? I mean exact same teams and players year by year. I think Lebron would have 4 rings as of now. He would have the 3-peat and also the one they lost in the finals. However, I don't see him winning with the other Lakers teams. Just don't. He hasn't won without another closer and that Lakers team didn't have another star player other than Gasol. Lebron was never really able to play with big men.
Heat would likely 4-peat. No way they lose to the Mavericks and Wade, Kobe, and Bosh would be killer. I also see them beating that 73 Warriors team. The 3-1 comeback was damn impressive but the Warriors themselves weren't all that. They clearly ran out of steam due to pushing all out for the record. They almost lost to the Thunder AND they were severely hobbled injury wise as well in that finals. That gives Kobe 5 rings.
Obviously, this is all EXTREMELY hypothetical and i'm most likey quite bias in my alternative universe. Plus, Lebron needs a specific team around him and those second championship teams sure as hell were not the kind of team heneeded. However, when I look at it this is why I would put Kobe above Lebron. |
In a perfect world maybe... But one thing you're not accounting for that separates the two is durability. Also I think Kobe is the worst guy next Wade. I just don't see those two guys working well together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| miggz23 wrote: | | MustardJam wrote: |
I've always wondered what if you switched Lebron and Kobe career wise since the start? I mean exact same teams and players year by year. I think Lebron would have 4 rings as of now. He would have the 3-peat and also the one they lost in the finals. However, I don't see him winning with the other Lakers teams. Just don't. He hasn't won without another closer and that Lakers team didn't have another star player other than Gasol. Lebron was never really able to play with big men.
Heat would likely 4-peat. No way they lose to the Mavericks and Wade, Kobe, and Bosh would be killer. I also see them beating that 73 Warriors team. The 3-1 comeback was damn impressive but the Warriors themselves weren't all that. They clearly ran out of steam due to pushing all out for the record. They almost lost to the Thunder AND they were severely hobbled injury wise as well in that finals. That gives Kobe 5 rings.
Obviously, this is all EXTREMELY hypothetical and i'm most likey quite bias in my alternative universe. Plus, Lebron needs a specific team around him and those second championship teams sure as hell were not the kind of team heneeded. However, when I look at it this is why I would put Kobe above Lebron. |
In a perfect world maybe... But one thing you're not accounting for that separates the two is durability. Also I think Kobe is the worst guy next Wade. I just don't see those two guys working well together. |
To be fair, people said the same thing about LeBron and Wade not working well together before we watched the Heat play. Complaints about "both of them need the ball in their hands" were made far too often.
All of us, including myself, are guilty of overanalyzing if players will "fit" together. Lot of times, if the coach, culture, and overall basketball IQ is solid enough, things tend to work themselves out.
I would pay to see Kobe and Wade play together on an NBA team. You'd get two lockdown perimeter defenders and guys who could get you 40 on any night. I can't say if they would beat the 2011 Mavs if you replaced LeBron with Kobe (that Mavericks team was very, very solid), but I don't think that pairing would combust, either.
What would have been really unfair, IMO, is if we had Kobe and LeBron on the same team. Oh boy. We haven't really had the 2 best players in the NBA on the same team since Shaq and Kobe.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | LAL1947 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | If you can figure out a way to persuasively determine/measure those things, more power to you |
In all my years of perusing the interwebs, I have found no more powerful or persuasive a measure than the simple "greater-than" symbol, a mathematical symbol that denotes an inequality between two values. The widely adopted form of two equal-length strokes connecting in an acute angle at the right, >, has been found in documents dated as far back as the 1560s. In typical mathematical usage, the greater-than sign is typically placed between the two values being compared and signals that the first number is greater than the second number. In sporting usage, the greater-than sign is typically placed between the players being compared and signals that the player listed first is greater than the player that follows. Here is an example:
MJ > Kobe > LeBron. The end.
|
I agree with you completely, with one small modification:
MJ > Kobe > LeBron. Case closed. |
I think you guys are right, one tiny change
MJ > Kobe > LeBron. It's decided. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batguano
Star Player
Joined: 19 Mar 2015
Posts: 2260
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Snipes wrote: |
And people need to acknowledge that in his prime, Lebron teamed up with 2 HOFers and at that time BOTH top 5 players in the league. ALONG with a bunch of premiere veterans for $1.2mill to FINALLY win a ring. |
Chris Bosh was never a top 5 player.
He made one all-NBA second team in his career, four years before he joined the Heat. He received MVP votes in only two seasons in his career, finishing 7th and 12th.
I’d say the year before he joined the Heat he was a top 15 player. He was probably comparable to where, oh, Karl-Anthony Towns ranks in the league today.
But to your larger point: Sure, the Heat provided a strong supporting cast. How does it stack up against the supporting casts of MJ, Kobe, etc.? Like I said in other posts, if you are able to make a compelling analysis of that, you will be the first person who has done so. |
The season before he joined the Heat Chris Bosh was #4 in PER behind LeBron, Wade, and Durant.
A stat that Kobe detractors and LeBron lovers love to talk about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the truth about Bosh is probably somewhere in between what people are saying.
The thing about those Heat teams is that they were designed to beat the Celtics, a team that invented ICE PnR defense and overloaded the strong side paint with bigs. Two elite slashers (LeBron, Wade) along with Bosh stretching the floor was pretty much the winning combination there. When LeBron finally developed the most efficient low post game in the NBA in his second season there, it was a wrap.
With Bosh, he pulled Garnett out to the corner 3 spot. He was good enough of a shooter to where the Celtics lost KG's rim protection. At that point, it was up to an aging Paul Pierce to rotate and contain drives, which we all know he's not going to do very much of. The Heat understood the Celtics defensive rotations and constructed their team accordingly.
In contrast, when the Lakers played the Celtics, yes they were a younger team, but also they wanted to stop Kobe from attacking the rim. So they sent Perkins and Garnett to help off every drive. Who were they leaving? Gasol? Gladly. Odom? You bet. If those two stuck Lakers around in the paint, it was easy to "defend both." If they were hanging out at the 3 point line, the Celtics were fine with them shooting that.
It's why I was so keen on trading Bynum for Bosh when those rumors started (lol yes long time ago). It would have been helpful in a similar regard.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batguano wrote: |
The season before he joined the Heat Chris Bosh was #4 in PER behind LeBron, Wade, and Durant. |
So you rank players by PER?
That surprises me. I wouldn't think that efficiency would be your primary benchmark for players.
But that's your business. I don't rank players by PER. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Batguano wrote: |
The season before he joined the Heat Chris Bosh was #4 in PER behind LeBron, Wade, and Durant. |
So you rank players by PER?
That surprises me. I wouldn't think that efficiency would be your primary benchmark for players.
But that's your business. I don't rank players by PER. |
Just for fun, we're talking about 2010
1. Kobe
2. LeBron
3. DWade
4. Dirk
5. Durant?
6. Bosh?
7. Amare?
8. D.Rose?
9. Blake?
10. Westbrook?
LaMarcus?
Steph prob not yet
Was Bosh top 5? I think close to it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bfc1125roy
Starting Rotation
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 682
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Batguano wrote: |
The season before he joined the Heat Chris Bosh was #4 in PER behind LeBron, Wade, and Durant. |
So you rank players by PER?
That surprises me. I wouldn't think that efficiency would be your primary benchmark for players.
But that's your business. I don't rank players by PER. |
Just for fun, we're talking about 2010
1. Kobe
2. LeBron
3. DWade
4. Dirk
5. Durant?
6. Bosh?
7. Amare?
8. D.Rose?
9. Blake?
10. Westbrook?
LaMarcus?
Steph prob not yet
Was Bosh top 5? I think close to it |
I'd agree with the top 3. But I think you're forgetting a few key players. Dwight Howard was IMO, top 5 at the time and one of the best defensive players we'd seen since Ben Wallace. Carmelo Anthony was very talented, too. You could maybe put one of the Spurs guys in the top 10. Some might argue Nash too because of how well they played that year.
Either way, highly subjective.
_________________
(bleep) David Stern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | So you rank players by PER?
That surprises me. I wouldn't think that efficiency would be your primary benchmark for players.
But that's your business. I don't rank players by PER. |
This was the first time I had heard anyone cite PER in a discussion in a long time, possibly years. I've seen PER tossed into a discussion along with a bunch of the modern metrics, but PER is the flip phone of basketball metrics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | So you rank players by PER?
That surprises me. I wouldn't think that efficiency would be your primary benchmark for players.
But that's your business. I don't rank players by PER. |
This was the first time I had heard anyone cite PER in a discussion in a long time, possibly years. I've seen PER tossed into a discussion along with a bunch of the modern metrics, but PER is the flip phone of basketball metrics. |
I found it pretty weird too. Can't remember the last time I heard someone make a case for ranking players by PER -- probably has been years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
