Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 496 of 549 FirstFirst ... 396446486494495496497498506546 ... LastLast
Results 7,426 to 7,440 of 8229
  1. #7426
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I don't know about double team data, but in terms of warping the floor and creating more opportunities for your team. Here are their numbers:

    Kobe's peak adjusted Box Creation is 11.8 per 100 possessions (think of it as Kobe creates 11.8 scoring opportunities for his teammates due to a combination of his presence on the court and his passing).

    LeBron's adjusted peak Box Creation is 16.1 per 100 possessions. He also has another season of 15.1 per 100.

    LeBron simply creates more opportunities for his teammates than does Kobe. This is per backpicks.com Box Creation. The data itself is behind a paywall unfortunately, but I was able to get a buddy who has a subscription to send me the numbers. But you can read about the Box Creation stat if on the website for free if you want to go there.
    Cool thanks for sending this over. I'll read into how this is computed. I've been wanting to take a look at this since we discussed it over the summer.

  2. #7427
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,078
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Sure, but that wouldnt necessarily make LBJ harder to guard. What made kobe so hard to guard was that kobe had so many ways he could score that it made it incredibly difficult to prepare for him.
    Kobe played more like guard since he is infact a true guard. He was more acrobatic. But saying which one warp the floor more is like asking which one was more effective Shaq or Hakeem.

  3. #7428
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,078
    To answer your question Kobe was harder to guard for SG/SF since his mind was set on scoring and for a stretch he was the best sg in the game. Lebron mind is not set on scoring so he is more likey to make a pass when pressed. So base on each player mindset towards the game you can get Lebron to give up the ball faster where as Kobe would look for another way. Lebron onthe other hand also a hand full to strong for smaller players quick for big ones and because he was a willing passer you just could not play him to shoot.
    Last edited by ldawg; 09-21-2020 at 08:46 PM.

  4. #7429
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,270
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Kobe played more like guard since he is infact a true guard. He was more acrobatic. But saying which one warp the floor more is like asking which one was more effective Shaq or Hakeem.
    Are you talking overall or offensively? Offensively Shaq is the best big man of all-time and his impact is rivaled or surpassed only by the greatest of perimeter offensive engines like MJ.

  5. #7430
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,078
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Are you talking overall or offensively? Offensively Shaq is the best big man of all-time and his impact is rivaled or surpassed only by the greatest of perimeter offensive engines like MJ.
    On offense. Kobe took it personal you cant guard me. The gap between them is very small skill wise. Lebron is also stronger Kobe just had that i am going to score on you so over the years he had some personal battles. Its really not an advantage however in a team sport. Kyrie can break your ankle more than Lebron to so you have to put it in perspective. Would one say Kyrie is better than Lebron overall because he has better handles.
    Last edited by ldawg; 09-22-2020 at 08:27 AM.

  6. #7431
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,078
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Are you talking overall or offensively? Offensively Shaq is the best big man of all-time and his impact is rivaled or surpassed only by the greatest of perimeter offensive engines like MJ.
    Exactly while Hakeem had more skills Shaq brought something you canít teach size. Notice how I always say Davis is the most skilled big man I have ever seen. At the same time heís not the best and most impactful big man I have seen. It have parts of Kobe game where he was better than Lebron. If you want a sg and your choices are Lebron or Kobe you go with Kobe. If you want a player that does a little bit more you go with Lebron. It just depends on the team your trying to build.
    Last edited by ldawg; 09-22-2020 at 01:40 PM.

  7. #7432
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    16,512
    If you want the guy who is going to make your team have more points and the other team have less points, no matter what team heís on, you go with a Lebron. If you want your team to have less points and the other team to have more points, you go with Kobe. Itís that simple.

  8. #7433
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,270
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Exactly while Hakeem had more skills Shaq brought something you canít teach size. Notice how I always say Davis is the most skilled big man I have ever seen. At the same time heís not the best and most impactful big man I have seen. It have parts of Kobe game where he was better than Lebron. If you want a sg and your choices are Lebron or Kobe you go with Kobe. If you want a player that does a little bit more you go with Lebron. It just depends on the team your trying to build.
    Oh, I'm not one of those who thinks that LeBron is better at literally every basketball skill than Kobe. Kobe is absolutely better at several skills than LeBron. But we are measuring impact on winning. LeBron just, on average, positively impacts your team more. Sure, there are certain team constructions where Kobe would be the better option, but not nearly as many team constructions as there are where LeBron is the better option.

  9. #7434
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,479
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Well LBJ always shoots a good percentage, but my recollection of that series is that he passed on a decent amount of mid range jumpers, which he probably should've taken, and if he had taken and made them I do think that would've changed that series considerably. It certainly wasn't LBJ's fault they lost, but I do think he could've done a lot more if his mid range game was better at the time.
    Cool. Bosh and Wade went ghost and the bench got murdered by the Spurs bench and even you admit that they werenít going to win regardless of Lebron but tell me again how titles are the end all/be all with top end talent.

  10. #7435
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    115,342
    daily check in....................... its still lebron by 1 billion miles.

  11. #7436
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    Cool. Bosh and Wade went ghost and the bench got murdered by the Spurs bench and even you admit that they werenít going to win regardless of Lebron but tell me again how titles are the end all/be all with top end talent.
    No, I do think the heat could've won that series. I simply said it wasn't all LBJ's fault that they didnt win. It's never one player's fault just like it's never one player who wins. I also didnt say that titles are the end all/be all. I said that they are critical in distinguishing among the top tier players in the history of the league. You guys who like to ignore titles would have a stronger case in the LBJ scenario if he didn't play close to the past decade of his prime (i.e., the entirety of his prime) with a bevy of superstars, which frankly no one has had the luxury of having).

    The type of argument that you guys like to make would be fitting if LBJ played his entire career on a horrible team, but he didnt so that logic doesn't really fit. I've said from the start that a superstar can put up insane numbers whenever they want (e.g., Harden is doing that now but that style of play will never, ever, ever lead to a title...Harden can win a title, but not playing like that, not unless he's in a KD type situation and even then it would be hard with that style of play) and so that's why simply looking at numbers isn't really useful for distinguishing among super stars and titles absolutely matter and carry a lot of weight (much more than the numbers (of course this is assuming that a player is elite), imo).

    Again, if a guy played his entire career on bad teams, then sure, maybe titles aren't the best metric for that player (but it would still count against him either way because we wouldnt know if that player has what it takes to actually win in the truest sense). However, none of this is relevant or applicable here, because LBJ has had incredible help at historic levels for his entire prime (not sure any superstar can really say that in the modern NBA). To his credit, LBJ's prime lasted a long time and he's not too far off from that level now, but he's had an enormous amount of help during that time so there's no reason why we shouldn't hold him to the same standards of winning that we've held other stars. This idea that titles aren't that important is more of a newer concept (at least within the last 5 years or so), meaning that everyone before LBJ was held to a critical standard of winning and now we somehow relax that standard because the guy we want to push hasn't met that criteria?? Sorry, but that's not going to fly with me, especially given that he's had incredible help (note that this argument holds with or without kobe in the equation, although kobe was held to the traditional standard of winning for a superstar as all those before him).

  12. #7437
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    daily check in....................... its still lebron by 1 billion miles.
    Whatever gets you through the night my man

  13. #7438
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Central VA
    Posts
    12,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    No, I do think the heat could've won that series. I simply said it wasn't all LBJ's fault that they didnt win. It's never one player's fault just like it's never one player who wins. I also didnt say that titles are the end all/be all. I said that they are critical in distinguishing among the top tier players in the history of the league. You guys who like to ignore titles would have a stronger case in the LBJ scenario if he didn't play close to the past decade of his prime (i.e., the entirety of his prime) with a bevy of superstars, which frankly no one has had the luxury of having).

    The type of argument that you guys like to make would be fitting if LBJ played his entire career on a horrible team, but he didnt so that logic doesn't really fit. I've said from the start that a superstar can put up insane numbers whenever they want (e.g., Harden is doing that now but that style of play will never, ever, ever lead to a title...Harden can win a title, but not playing like that, not unless he's in a KD type situation and even then it would be hard with that style of play) and so that's why simply looking at numbers isn't really useful for distinguishing among super stars and titles absolutely matter and carry a lot of weight (much more than the numbers (of course this is assuming that a player is elite), imo).

    Again, if a guy played his entire career on bad teams, then sure, maybe titles aren't the best metric for that player (but it would still count against him either way because we wouldnt know if that player has what it takes to actually win in the truest sense). However, none of this is relevant or applicable here, because LBJ has had incredible help at historic levels for his entire prime (not sure any superstar can really say that in the modern NBA). To his credit, LBJ's prime lasted a long time and he's not too far off from that level now, but he's had an enormous amount of help during that time so there's no reason why we shouldn't hold him to the same standards of winning that we've held other stars. This idea that titles aren't that important is more of a newer concept (at least within the last 5 years or so), meaning that everyone before LBJ was held to a critical standard of winning and now we somehow relax that standard because the guy we want to push hasn't met that criteria?? Sorry, but that's not going to fly with me, especially given that he's had incredible help (note that this argument holds with or without kobe in the equation, although kobe was held to the traditional standard of winning for a superstar as all those before him).
    3 Championships with 3 finals MVPs should meet any "winning" criteria necessary. Birds got 3 with 2 and youre saying Lebron needs another championship to surpass him.
    YOU JUST MADE THE LIST!!!!!

    HAPPY RUSSEV DAY!!!

    2019 PSD Fantasy Nascar Champion

  14. #7439
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,270
    Whatís ironic is he says we canít use numbers because guys like Harden can put up huge numbers but will never lead a team to a title when the numbers actually show why he canít lead a team to a title. He has one of the largest regular season to postseason drops of any superstar, and his efficiency plummets as well.

    Another case of the statistician not knowing anything about numbers.

  15. #7440
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkieMark48 View Post
    3 Championships with 3 finals MVPs should meet any "winning" criteria necessary. Birds got 3 with 2 and youre saying Lebron needs another championship to surpass him.
    Yes, he meets the criteria to be considered with the most elite, but just not to be in the top 3 like many of the posters on here want to put him in, imo. This is a personal preference of course, but I don't really put that much weight in Finals MVPs, especially because it's based on a very small sample size. When I'm weighting players titles, I basically look at whether a player is a superstar and is filling that role on their team when they lead a team to title. For what it's worth, I don't think it's unreasonable to have LBJ ahead of Bird, I personally do not, because I think Bird was much rougher for the defense to guard than LBJ, which I think has a far greater impact than any metrics we have at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •