The LeBron James Thread

[Scofield]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

You make some very good points (and explain them well) so it's cool, but I do think they are irrelevant for THIS discussion. They are relevant in general, but my comments are stemming from the thought that Lebron needed to leave the Cavs, and now needs to leave the Heat. The argument has been that based on the players around him, these would be the correct decisions for him (then and now).

Ah, ok. My mistake.

If we look back and see what the players were able to produce around him, and the break downs that you have provided, we may find that assuming nothing changes leaving one or both was the right choice. However a player making that decision, with that kind of talent, on teams that are that close, would not (should not) be thinking like this.

Not quite sure I follow but fair enough.

And even as fans, we shouldn't use this to predict the future so absolutely. Before this season started, who expected Leonard to be the finals MVP? Yet, if he played at a level we expected (which still is pretty good) the Spurs probably don't win... or at least are in a dog fight for 7 games. Nobody thinks Chalmers is a world beater, but most of us probably believe if he played at an average level for what he's shown in the past, the Heat would've had a chance at winning... not to mention Wade and Bosh.

I don't agree here. The past trends will get you the right answer most of the time but of course there will be times when outliers will totally warp the outcome. Leonard's MVP was more a testament to the Spurs machine than to Leonard himself. He played phenomenally but his output on offense was aided in no small part to how the Spurs create offense. Him playing at a level we expect was basically the Thunder series right? Well I think the spurs still take out Miami in 5-6 games in that case to. Instead of seeing 20 point blowouts the outcomes would probably have been in the 5-10 range. Bosh and Wade are what they are now. I've never understood this belief people had that their was this other gear they had to go to. Never saw any evidence for it.

The 09 Cavs team didn't have anyone step up outside of Lebron to take them over the hump... we now know that. The 10 Cavs is a bit of an unknown, and the 11 Cavs with an LBJ on the team is a complete unknown. Players have made names by stepping up in big situations. Battier, Miller, Ariza... Leonard. Green in spurts. Just pulling names off the top of my head but you get my point. It's hard to say there would NEVER be a player to step up enough to help get that team over the hump, considering Lebron is SO good, it wouldn't need to be much.

Again, my whole point isn't centered around what may happen or what could happen. The historical context tells us what's most likely to happen. And it's rarely wrong. Being placed in the best position to succeed is essential for role players. So predicting that say Spurs role players would be more likely to perform well than those Cavs players is easier because we know the Spurs put their players in much better situations to take advantage of their talent. In addition to not quite being talented enough those Cavs players were also DOA because of their coaching staff. In every case, down the line, accounting for talent, coaching and the system the Cavs were worse off than the opponents they lost to. That doesn't mean they were garbage, just not good enough to do something as hard as win a title.




Beginning of the sesaon, who felt this way? HUGE questions on how much Duncan could still contribute, already mentioned the solid but unknown Leonard, nobody knew what Diaw could bring. Patty Mills? It's easy to say this looking back.

Honestly I don't pay attention to what folks say before the season, there's nothing to use for evaluation. But after we actually points to track the picture was pretty clear for both teams.



Those teams weren't good enough to win. That's clear because... they didn't win.

But that doesn't mean the next year's team isn't good enough to win... before the season even started. In that case, I think being close is as good an indicator of their chances as any (before the season starts... but for those who don't think regular season success says much, then it's as good of an indication until the playoffs start). If this Heat team comes back next year with the EXACT same pieces, they will go into the season as favorite to at least win the Eastern Conference.

Miami being favored to be back in the Finals is more an indictment against their conference. If they were playing out west they probably don't get out of the second round this year and certainly wouldn't be favored to win the title next year.

10 char...... C.

[23]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Are we really going to pretend that she did it "unknowingly"?? lol

C'mon y'all.

She's a dirty B for doing that. I hope Cavs fans meet them at the airport and start throwing garbage at her.

My guess, just to mess with people. She knows her husband is that powerful.

LOL, it's hilarious isn't it?? It's like this league just sucks you in, and there's nothing you can do about it.

In all seriousness man

What the heck is wrong with you?

[Scofield]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

I think it depends what we mean by fundamental disadvantage. Mo Williams is not a second option I would select for LeBron James if given a free choice of anyone in the league. As such, having Mo in Cleveland as a second option in '09 instead of, say, Chris Bosh, would surely seem to reduce the chances of Cleveland winning.

I'm not quite sure I get what you're saying here.

However, I believe Cleveland's "reduced" chances (i.e. their chances with Mo Williams) were still quite viable. I do not assume Cleveland was good enough. I believe they were good enough. Again, on the contrary, I believe the worst mistake is often assuming that losing automatically means one was not good enough. Sometimes there's two teams more than capable of winning and a worthy competition occurs, with one team hitting some fortunate shots (or the other team missing some fortunate shots) that ultimately leads to a decision slanted one way or the other.

Again I go back to LBJs performance distorting reality. As great as he is, he's not an every day 38 8 8 player. That's not something you can pencil him in for every night. He hit the upper reaches of individual output, it was an anomaly for lack of a better word. That wasn't a "bounce here, bounce there" series. That was a team being kept in the thick of it by a superhuman effort from its best player. In the end, There's nothing "automatic" about the decision. You make the evaluation based on what's more likely. The more likely outcome was CLE losing.

Separately, I often feel hindsight can skew our thoughts negatively, but also positively. For instance, had the Detroit Pistons lost to the Los Angeles Lakers in 2004 (say, in 6 or 7 games of a competitive series), many of us would likely be sitting here talking about how Detroit never had a chance because they lacked a go-to superstar and historically, that put them at a fundamental disadvantage. In fact, that was the stance of many before that series took place (too many "good" players, nobody great). As we know, the Pistons did it, and now in hindsight, that entire squad finds itself on the right side of history, getting way more respect and "I knew they could do it because they were all great" angles than at any point prior to their matchup with L.A.

Historically teams like Det don't win titles. In the first place teams like them aren't built very often. But these "never had a chance" type tags need to stop. The question is again, what's most likely to happen. In any case that '04 series was/is atypical example. It is not representative of a usual series. There were significant factors that weren't generally known or recognized going in.

In short, sometimes we say things can't/won't/shouldn't happen... until they happen. Many said those Cavs couldn't have won with that roster. I felt they most certainly could have. Clearly, it is inherently a losing argument (since, you know, they lost) but I do not feel they went down because they simply had no chance of winning.

Again, no chance is an overstatement. Not likely to win is the accurate statement.

Well stated. Jason Terry is another player who comes to mind. If he'd been touch-and-go in the 2011 Finals and the Heat cruised, I think the accepted train of thought would have been, "Sorry, can't win an NBA championship when your second option is a short shooting guard coming off the bench." But get a guy to step up and make things happen (as Terry did) combined with numerous other fellers achieving at high levels (DeShawn Stevenson) and suddenly good things may happen.

Why is the generally accepted thought what you described? Because we have evidence that substantiates it. Only in rare cases is it not held true, that series was one of them.

Mo Williams didn't step up in the '09 Eastern Conference Finals for most of that series. In fact, he played well below his own established level for games 1-4. I believe Mo playing like Mo may have been enough to catapult that club to a Finals appearance. I even think a 43% shooting Mo may have been enough. Was the Cavs winning ever a sure thing? I believe not. But did they have a solid chance? I believe they did, absolutely.

Maybe I was too close but I never expected that from him. Not in the playoffs against the best. I've watch him play from high school on. Fair enough though. In case I haven't expressed it well enough, I think the defeat of those CLE teams and this latest spurs title were both predictable based on what we knew at the time.

10 char.......(

[Scofield]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Thing that bothers me most about the dumping on the Cavs roster after the fact, is it's just lazy really. There's too much "LeBron was never going to win with Mo Williams as his second best player" and not enough discussion of what LeBron as a player didn't do in those series. What Mike Brown didn't do as a coach. I believe with even Spo at the helm of that team they'd at least gotten to the Finals. The Cleveland offense broke down in those series to LeBron dribbling the air out of the ball for twenty seconds with everybody else standing around watching. A system focused on better ball movement would have done wonders for them, especially when you consider that despite that offensive system, Mo Williams still averaged 18 and 3 for them though he shot poorly at 37% from the field and 37% from three. Delonte averaged 14 per while shooting 44% from the field. Hard to come crashing down on the Cavs entirely when you've got Rashard Lewis shooting 48%, Pietrus shooting 47% and Turkoglu shooting 39% from three. Those dudes just went off and STILL almost lost the series.

You're right all those things should be taken into consideration. And combined, their why I had the Cavs losing. But as far as those Magic players go, I don't think they really went off. They weren't taking and making crazy contested shots. Many of them were open. They had those same kinds of streaks against LA in spots. Different animal though

[ProfessaPackMan]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

LOL, it's hilarious isn't it?? It's like this league just sucks you in, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Speak for yourself bruh.

Where do you buy your tinfoil hats from with all these "conspiracies"? Surprised you didn't blame this on the Illuminati yet.

[VDusen04]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

10 char.......(

Your means of answering inside my original quotes makes it difficult for me to address your post directly. Well played, hah. Maybe it'll help me keep things brief.

I agree that LeBron isn't normally a 38 and whatever guy. But I also don't believe Mo Williams at that point was a 36% shooter guy. Normally those fellers met in the middle, which is a part of why that team was so successful in 66 regular season wins and unblemished in the playoffs. I do not think Williams shot that poorly simply because Orlando was "the best", or something to that effect. Their defense surely contributed, but Williams had been successful against defenses of that sort prior (and he was great at times later in that series as well).

If all of this just comes down to what was likely versus what was not, I am not really sure where that puts us. I merely thought it was quite possible for Cleveland to reach the NBA Finals once again and perhaps compete for a ring depending who got hot. They lost, but I felt had some outcomes altered (a shot here, a defensive assignment there), the result could have differed without much else being different. Two losses by a total of three points doesn't tell me Mo wasn't capable. It tells me that however Cleveland was working things at the time, they were on the verge of succeeding.

[Scofield]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Your means of answering inside my original quotes makes it difficult for me to address your post directly. Well played, hah. Maybe it'll help me keep things brief.

I agree that LeBron isn't normally a 38 and whatever guy. But I also don't believe Mo Williams at that point was a 36% shooter guy. Normally those fellers met in the middle, which is a part of why that team was so successful in 66 regular season wins and unblemished in the playoffs. I do not think Williams shot that poorly simply because Orlando was "the best", or something to that effect. Their defense surely contributed, but Williams had been successful against defenses of that sort prior (and he was great at times later in that series as well).

If all of this just comes down to what was likely versus what was not, I am not really sure where that puts us. I merely thought it was quite possible for Cleveland to reach the NBA Finals once again and perhaps compete for a ring depending who got hot. They lost, but I felt had some outcomes altered (a shot here, a defensive assignment there), the result could have differed without much else being different. Two losses by a total of three points doesn't tell me Mo wasn't capable. It tells me that however Cleveland was working things at the time, they were on the verge of succeeding.

I'll chalk this up to agree to disagree bro. I respect where you're coming from though.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[wwharton]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Too bad replying in the quote makes it difficult to hit points... definitely makes it easier to read your replies. I'll try to bring the quote this way...

If we look back and see what the players were able to produce around him, and the break downs that you have provided, we may find that assuming nothing changes leaving one or both was the right choice. However a player making that decision, with that kind of talent, on teams that are that close, would not (should not) be thinking like this.

Not quite sure I follow but fair enough.

Basically, if we can assume that nothing changes from one year to the next, then your analysis would be extremely valid. But if I'm James, the best player in the league, and my team just won 60+ games back to back years and lost in the Conference Finals one year and then gave up the next, I wouldn't be thinking about statistical breakdowns. I'd be thinking I can do enough with this team to win.

With that said, I give him some benefit of the doubt bc of how awful the coaching and management of the Cavs were. Can't say the same about the Heat (and won't give him the benefit of the doubt there if he jumps ship).

And even as fans, we shouldn't use this to predict the future so absolutely. Before this season started, who expected Leonard to be the finals MVP? Yet, if he played at a level we expected (which still is pretty good) the Spurs probably don't win... or at least are in a dog fight for 7 games. Nobody thinks Chalmers is a world beater, but most of us probably believe if he played at an average level for what he's shown in the past, the Heat would've had a chance at winning... not to mention Wade and Bosh.

I don't agree here. The past trends will get you the right answer most of the time but of course there will be times when outliers will totally warp the outcome. Leonard's MVP was more a testament to the Spurs machine than to Leonard himself. He played phenomenally but his output on offense was aided in no small part to how the Spurs create offense. Him playing at a level we expect was basically the Thunder series right? Well I think the spurs still take out Miami in 5-6 games in that case to. Instead of seeing 20 point blowouts the outcomes would probably have been in the 5-10 range. Bosh and Wade are what they are now. I've never understood this belief people had that their was this other gear they had to go to. Never saw any evidence for it.

First, on Leonard, that kind of supports my point. The Cavs offense and coaching in general was horrible. But with that thought, if James had stayed and they change coaches you agree that a huge unknown would then need to be factored into your equation? That's what I mean... going forward, you can't assume without considering even the slight differences in management, individual player development and even all the changes in the teams around them. Also, his most important factor was the D he played on James that allowed the rest of the team to play the type of D they did overall. Trying to predict the chance the Spurs had of winning before the season or series, no one would have been able to factor in his impact on D.

As for the Heat players, Bosh did just about what he does. Last year his stats dropped more in the playoffs (and that's the year they won). Wade, on the other hand, had his stats drop dramatically in the Finals. Every other round, his stats were consistent with the regular season. So yes, he's older, but he didn't age that much in a few days from the Pacer series to the Spurs series.

The 09 Cavs team didn't have anyone step up outside of Lebron to take them over the hump... we now know that. The 10 Cavs is a bit of an unknown, and the 11 Cavs with an LBJ on the team is a complete unknown. Players have made names by stepping up in big situations. Battier, Miller, Ariza... Leonard. Green in spurts. Just pulling names off the top of my head but you get my point. It's hard to say there would NEVER be a player to step up enough to help get that team over the hump, considering Lebron is SO good, it wouldn't need to be much.

Again, my whole point isn't centered around what may happen or what could happen. The historical context tells us what's most likely to happen. And it's rarely wrong. Being placed in the best position to succeed is essential for role players. So predicting that say Spurs role players would be more likely to perform well than those Cavs players is easier because we know the Spurs put their players in much better situations to take advantage of their talent. In addition to not quite being talented enough those Cavs players were also DOA because of their coaching staff. In every case, down the line, accounting for talent, coaching and the system the Cavs were worse off than the opponents they lost to. That doesn't mean they were garbage, just not good enough to do something as hard as win a title.[/quote]

The wild card is James, who has proven to be good enough to force an outlier. But that's besides the point really. Many arguments made have been about the players, and that's what my argument focuses on. When we get to the management, coaching and system, you and I are in complete agreement.

Beginning of the sesaon, who felt this way? HUGE questions on how much Duncan could still contribute, already mentioned the solid but unknown Leonard, nobody knew what Diaw could bring. Patty Mills? It's easy to say this looking back.

Honestly I don't pay attention to what folks say before the season, there's nothing to use for evaluation. But after we actually points to track the picture was pretty clear for both teams.[/quote]

That makes this discussion kind of pointless. I love stats and love how you're using them here to evaluate these teams. But this discussion is about how Lebron made the right decision to leave Cleveland bc of his chances winning on the Cavs going into 2011... or even worse, "He'd never win in Cleveland." And now, whether he should leave Miami bc the Heat can't possibly win going into 2015.

My point is, as you put it, "there's nothing to use for evaluation." There's SOMETHING to use (and I'm sure you weren't being technical by saying "nothing") but not nearly enough. I use the example of the Cavs to say that based on the "nothing" the best guess was that the team was very much a contender... but after the fact people are saying they knew they never had a chance. Maybe one or two legitimately felt that way, but the masses didn't.

Those teams weren't good enough to win. That's clear because... they didn't win.

But that doesn't mean the next year's team isn't good enough to win... before the season even started. In that case, I think being close is as good an indicator of their chances as any (before the season starts... but for those who don't think regular season success says much, then it's as good of an indication until the playoffs start). If this Heat team comes back next year with the EXACT same pieces, they will go into the season as favorite to at least win the Eastern Conference.

Miami being favored to be back in the Finals is more an indictment against their conference. If they were playing out west they probably don't get out of the second round this year and certainly wouldn't be favored to win the title next year.

It doesn't matter why, the reality is that they would be favored and if not favored in the championship, not far off from 50/50. The point is, this is not a team lacking so much that the best player in the world needs to find another to continue his ring chase.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

I don't think Dirk had an All-Star when his team won it all.

EDIT: Yep he didn't and technically the Spurs only had 1 this year (Parker) although I get what you're saying.

This goes to my point about how great LeBron was though. The year Dallas won, they weren't expected to be contenders at all. They were a darkhorse.

After his third year, every single season LeBron was with the Cavs they were considered a contender, without any All-Star help for LeBron.

With no All-Star help, Dirk was still considered an elite player, but his team was not looked at as a championship team because Dirk wasn't viewed as being able to elevate his team to title type heights. That speaks to just how good LeBron was. To be able to elevate a team with no All-Stars to contendership status for 5+ years is amazing.

[Scofield]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Fair enough, I hear you. FTR, I don't think he should leave Miami either but the team does need obvious improvement. Thankfully only the roster needs it. Everything else is already good to go.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

[ThreeKing]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Speak for yourself bruh.

Where do you buy your tinfoil hats from with all these "conspiracies"? Surprised you didn't blame this on the Illuminati yet.

LOL, no need to get all greasy, "bruh".

It's all fun.

[wwharton]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Fair enough, I hear you. FTR, I don't think he should leave Miami either but the team does need obvious improvement. Thankfully only the roster needs it. Everything else is already good to go.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

Good discussion though. Might be cool to create a thread for what you were talking about, and see what other teams can be seen as examples.

[ojandpizza]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

I think this whole discussion has sorta drifted into two different arguments. 1.) how good/bad the Cleveland teams were, which includes LeBron. 2.) how good/bad his supporting cast was, which does not include LeBron... Either way both are tied together.

I understand you can't look at the team without LeBron, because the team obviously included LeBron. And I understand his play in turn made those guys around him much better than what they had been individually. But individually you still need pieces to seriously be a contender.

Individually you need another threat offensively. Not just to score but to create for others, to at least be somewhat problematic for a defense. Mo wasn't that regardless of if he scored 10 points or 20 points. He wasn't consistent enough to garner much attention, and his play under Brown was iso or spot up. He shot far too many 3's and his percentages dropped against good defenses, teams like Orlando and Boston. He's a prototypical 6th man, who had a great run (by his standards) in Cleveland. But he just never should have been a starting PG/2nd option scorer.

They also didn't have a playmaker. Nobody who could break down a defense and make plays. Even off the bench, they were all players who could benefit from LeBron, but couldn't do the reverse of that and make things easier for him. With Daniel freakin' Gibson as the 6th/7th man it definitely didn't help matters. Sadly for Cleveland he had about as many big playoff games as Mo did. Also sadly for Cleveland their bench didn't get any better the deeper it went. Pretty horrible depth, even in those later years. Gibson, Pavlovic, Joe Smith, and a shell of himself Ben Wallace. You couldn't even afford to leave LeBron out of a game for more than a couple minutes.

Anytime they faced a good defensive team they became so stagnant that more than half their possessions ended in "LeBron bail us out".. You can blame it on too much of LeBron, you can blame it on horrible offensive coaching, on an average starting line up, whatever you want to point the finger towards it doesn't matter, it still had the same negative effect on the team. And there was still no one else besides LeBron who could consistently go and make something happen.

Worst of all is Cleveland was just a poorly built team. Like mentioned before they didn't really add a legit "2nd option", and even the serviceable options they did have, Mo and Jamison, they were far too streaky to consistently be a threat. They never landed a playmaker, the "help" they added in Shaq and Jamison hurt their defensive rotations that help make them a 66 win team the season before. Shaq clogged the lane and wasn't mobile enough to be effective on defense, rebounding, or in the right positions to benefit from LeBron. If I remember correctly LeBron was publicly upset with Big Z not getting in enough during that last playoff run. Below average coach as well.

I also think it greatly depends on what you consider a "contender". Is a contender a team that can put themselves in a position to make the finals, or is a contender a team that you expect to win it all? Like I've said before, I didn't think those Cleveland teams were nearly as bad as the credit they're given, but I also never considered them capable of winning it all. I knew that if everything came together they would have a shot at making the finals, but I didn't ever expect them to be in serious contention for the championship.

I didn't trust Brown as a coach, I didn't trust Mo as a 2nd scorer, and I hated the signing of a streaky shooting stretch 4 that brought little to nothing else offensively and arguably made them worse defensively.. But I did believe in LeBron, I loved West's pesky defense, I liked the addition of Parker, and the energy Andy brought as a starter in 09 and off the bench in 2010.

For someone who expected them to win it all, I could see their frustration with the team. I could see why those guys get the hate and criticism.. But for me the team did about what I expected them to do each year. So from my perspective his supporting cast was never garbage, it was just never good enough for me to believe they had a shot to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boltman]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

So LeBron opted out this morning.

I honestly don't know what that exactly means lol.



Sent from my GS4 using TT

[NDAlum]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Oh snap!!!!!!!

Popcorn being popped


Sent from my iPhone 5