Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 378 of 451 FirstFirst ... 278328368376377378379380388428 ... LastLast
Results 5,656 to 5,670 of 6762
  1. #5656
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    The same way it worked with Kobe it would of worked if you landed a coach that was good at managing.
    Kobe played in a system that was based on passing and ball movement. LBJ has never effectively played in a system of any kind. It's a myth that LBJ makes all of his teammates better. He makes spot up shooters who are generally not very effective players better. He does not make his star teammates better and they usually perform worst than without him and I believe there is an ESPN article out there on this showing the data to back it up (this article only gets to the tip of the iceberg though).

  2. #5657
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Nah, LBJ had Wade for at least part of his prime. At least 2 years of his prime.
    Nah, he didnít. Championship Wade was much faster and quicker and better than any Wade Bron played with

  3. #5658
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    Statistically, no. Kobe never had the overwhelming advantage over his peers. Though I though we agreed it wasn't all about stats. Then LeBron would not be the clear cut past 2013 as well. It's about if it was debatable or not. Go look up all the polls from 03-10 and tell me where Kobe ranks for the most part on them in relation to his peers. from 06-08 it was the general consensus that he was the best. If not, tell me who was those years starting from 06-08. I'm waiting.



    Talk about feelings and you are now assuming bias on me lol. I could easily say the same of you. As I said, it's debatable between the two. Many NBA greats have come out and questioned how LeBron managed to finagle himself into the GOAT debate and said that it's wasn't even clear cut he was even past Kobe. https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/...21kadvnvwpyrmm I have no agenda bro. Much to your chagrin. Most of the basketball heads I respect and converse with don't have LeBron top five. Again, check out Bruce Blitz's top ten. He was a huge LeBron supported who recently recanted on his ways of seeing the game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUFrOd4yVDQ Some really good stuff in this list.



    I've been all over the internet and I've seen a lot of people who are non-bias and most don't have LeBron top five. I would argue quite the opposite in fact, that most of the casual fans are bias and influenced by media and droves of Bron fans who tell them they are crazy not to have him top five and act like they are haters if not. It's all good. Not a popular opinion around here I get that. I've been to plenty of sites and YouTube channels where it's more excepted he is not top five so it's all good, you guys are not gonna influence me into changing my opinion anytime soon. I have though about it and am confident where I stand. It's quite funny you say I am finding ways to argue Kobe over him, when I have said repeatedly that I have to problem with people slightly putting him ahead of Kobe lol. Just not either of them in the top five. LeBron still has time though. I'm honestly leaning Kobe in here mostly for arguments sake and because you guys are so gung-ho LeBron. Like I said, I could go either way and I like honing my debating skills so please keep on brining it on. You guys should be making arguments for the guys I clearly put over LeBron like Jordan, Kareem, Russell, Magic, Bird, Duncan, and Shaq honestly. Guys like Kobe, Wilt, Hakeem, could go either way for me in relation to LeBron. If only you knew how many Kobe stans I have had to school over the years who had him top five and or number two all time next to Jordan. I could easily argue that it's just easier to fit me into a narrative that I must be pro Kobe and anti LeBron to justify your love and bias for him. See how that works?



    I'm just trying to show you guys that it's not a forgone conclusion. Just because a lot of you on this site feel that way, it's clearly not how the rest of the world feels. That ranker poll was lol btw. Iverson at number 12. Come on man. It's just a popularity contest. Six was too high for Kobe anyways and Durant at number 22. Wow. How many old school basketball heads would use ranker anyways. Seems like a lot of newer millennials would be up on that. Judging by the results as well. Total garbage. I also don't pride myself on sharing popular opinions of the "casual fan" either. I can think for myself and back up what I say. Unlike most of the LeBron supporters on here who can't even hold a simple convo. Not throwing you in that mix at all. you have been more than obliging.
    It is not just all about stats, you have this weird thing of constantly assuming wrong about the approach. It's part of the reason I at this point see bias because you don't even have genuine conversations you just jump to assumptions over and over about my rankings and what I use etc. then argue against things I am not using (on top of all the obvious context issues that have been pointed out or only applied one way). Why don't you share whatever you think is proof he was that good because searching for polls isn't how I judge. The issue is Kobe in the playoffs at that time hadn't done anything as the man until 08. He was falling off individually from RS and so on while Duncan was still leading his team to a title in 07/Dirk was coming up and by 08 Lebron had lead his team to a finals while playing very good individually in playoffs as the guy himself. I do agree he was right in that mix but it wasn't levels above other players or anything like we saw from Lebron for a span. Having the stats helps show your dominance, it isn't necessary but Kobe doesn't hit multiple requirements it would take to be considered clearly above the rest at that time imo. Kobe won best player ESPY in 08 and 10, does that count as a poll at the time lol?
    https://www.si.com/nba/2020/05/20/be...er-alive-2000s
    Alright there is SI ranking each year, not that I agree but they have him on top once. I think Kobe was right there as a I said but there was no point it was ever as clear as the gap between Lebron and KD/Curry as individual players.

    I talk about it because you keep saying about what ifs and so on unrelated to what happen trying to bring him down without actually looking at what did happen and how good he played etc. I also agree many people dislike Lebron no doubt and there will always be rankings mixed in. I mean when people actually break down reasoning and so on without the weird games being done over and over in this thread to diminish some incredible individual accomplishments by Lebron.

    I know there are stans of tons of guys and I am all fine debating but alot of the circling going on is not good faith debating trying to downgrade great teams and so on. You can say whatever you want but can you back it up outside when I was not sober where I have constantly tried to ignore actual context and push the what ifs or downgrade good teams like you or others have? I will wait if I have been doing that in the same manner but that is the main issue. Pretending GS wasn't great or that Spurs team was the level big moves has and so on isn't real debate.

    To most people who are making logical arguments and being reasonably consistent not just looking to downgrade and think the worst of hypothetical and so on regularly most do say Lebron. It has been a chunk of Lakers posters and NYK who often does this arguing against all the fans of other teams and so on which is often the norm. Like I have said before I am aware there are tons of homers/haters for all fans so there is never going to be 100%consensus. I mean when people actually breakdown how guys played individually not just count rings, use actual context not hypothetical you wish would happen, not downgrade clearly great teams and so on that is when they end up choosing Lebron. We see it all over the forum the ones who don't are often going to such extremes. It isn't that everyone thinks it, it is that most knowledgeable people capable of breaking things down in a genuine manner all regularly come to the same conclusions/can back them up like myself/Valade have done exposing some of the major hypocrisy in the thread from a few posters (way more NYK/Big Moves than you btw). My goal isn't to make everyone rate them the same but when I see clear issues in peoples context they lay out or arguments I will definitely call them out. Pippen is better than Love/Cousins and just because it helps the Lebron debate for someone doesn't make it a legit point or one that shouldn't be confronted.
    Last edited by mngopher35; 05-28-2020 at 12:03 PM.

  4. #5659
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,171
    Quote Originally Posted by McAllen Tx View Post
    I've been staying away from this thread because I thought it was pointless. Too many differences in their careers to compare the 2 IMO.

    I just got tired of seeing all the pro LBJ guys only giving one sided arguments. They point out blemishes on Kobe's resume but leave out the ones on LBJs. To me it should be put everything on the table from both players or none from either.
    The reverse is happening with those I am quoting. I was just pointing out who it is/team association, not saying it is bad for you to be here or anything like that it just goes with what he was saying.

    I agree we should look at full context and not play the games many have been when taking an overall look. How many people have been responding to NYK/Big Moves though? My guess is people are adding the context they keep leaving out only one way often (or try and wildly change, like Spurs not being great).

  5. #5660
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The things is, you need to prove that you're the best and you don't prove that by having great numbers and losing. We can't actually directly measure who is better because there isn't a direct thing to look at (like a blood test or an X-ray) so we're gathering evidence to support our assessments. Performance in the game provides one level of assessment, but it's limited because most elite superstars can put up incredible numbers, but this will often come at the expense of playing winning basketball so it becomes a tradeoff between statistics and learning to play with your teammates to win. In the example you provided, LBJ and Kobe wouldn't be putting up the numbers they have nor would they have similar roles so the assessment would necessarily be different. So it's not the case that nothing changes in your example, their roles change.

    My assessment is based on roles. Different assessment for different roles. That's very typical across many domains (and is actually typical in the most jobs). The criteria by which you are judged in one role changes quite often in a different role. I'll give you an example, in college, you are assessed based on your grades and that is considered the most important factor for assessment, but in most graduate programs (e.g., masters, Ph.D) grades become inconsequential and no one really cares about that anymore; it becomes almost entirely about research and writing. However, you typically need good grades to get into a graduate program. In the NBA, individual numbers matter to become a superstar, but once you're a superstar, it becomes much more about winning titles and far less about your individual production.
    How do you address the league fixing games. Did the refs play a part in who wins? I hate to say it but itís a legit question. Can winning really determine the best player since I consist of other factors. Point out before Lebron in the finals with an injured team stood no chance. Was he the best player in the series? Personally I donít think Lebron and Wade was a good mix but they made it work.

  6. #5661
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The things is, you need to prove that you're the best and you don't prove that by having great numbers and losing. We can't actually directly measure who is better because there isn't a direct thing to look at (like a blood test or an X-ray) so we're gathering evidence to support our assessments. Performance in the game provides one level of assessment, but it's limited because most elite superstars can put up incredible numbers, but this will often come at the expense of playing winning basketball so it becomes a tradeoff between statistics and learning to play with your teammates to win. In the example you provided, LBJ and Kobe wouldn't be putting up the numbers they have nor would they have similar roles so the assessment would necessarily be different. So it's not the case that nothing changes in your example, their roles change.

    My assessment is based on roles. Different assessment for different roles. That's very typical across many domains (and is actually typical in the most jobs). The criteria by which you are judged in one role changes quite often in a different role. I'll give you an example, in college, you are assessed based on your grades and that is considered the most important factor for assessment, but in most graduate programs (e.g., masters, Ph.D) grades become inconsequential and no one really cares about that anymore; it becomes almost entirely about research and writing. However, you typically need good grades to get into a graduate program. In the NBA, individual numbers matter to become a superstar, but once you're a superstar, it becomes much more about winning titles and far less about your individual production.
    Yes but I can give Kobe worse teamates and make him never win a ring. Me switching Kobeís team around him is the difference between him winning rings or not. Has nothing to do with his play or skill level. Teamates are the only reason one player is better than another when you look at it. That makes no sense.

  7. #5662
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Not just that, but most of these posters don't get that LBJ plays in an LBJ system where everything is based on LBJ handling the ball and creating for himself or others. This would not work well with shaq and shaq would not stand for this (and rightfully so). Alongside Shaq, LBJ would unlikely be able to go into his LBJ-style of play, at least not while shaq was in the game.
    Yes but you canít dismiss the fact that he can win this way where as Kobe canít and would be able to be efficient enough to do what Bron does. Kobe canít play this way or replicate what Bron does.

  8. #5663
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Kobe played in a system that was based on passing and ball movement. LBJ has never effectively played in a system of any kind. It's a myth that LBJ makes all of his teammates better. He makes spot up shooters who are generally not very effective players better. He does not make his star teammates better and they usually perform worst than without him and I believe there is an ESPN article out there on this showing the data to back it up (this article only gets to the tip of the iceberg though).
    Kobe still shot the ball more than Lebron every year other than his firs two while coming off the bench. So it doesnít really work

  9. #5664
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,795
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Cavs messed up trading Carlos Boozer
    They lost him, they didn't really trade him.

  10. #5665
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Nah, he didnít. Championship Wade was much faster and quicker and better than any Wade Bron played with
    Shaq in Orlando was also much quicker and faster than Shaq with Kobe (and that shaq was also in much better shape). Wade was a in a much different role in 06 than with LBJ so not really clear that he was better pre LBJ since Wade's play with LBJ was directly impacted by LBJ's style of play. We don't really know how Wade would've played if LBJ wasn't there or if LBJ wasn't as ball dominant. Wade was still putting up elite numbers for 2-3 years into his stint with LBJ, especially for playing alongside such a ball dominant player. Now I know the numbers don't tell the whole story, but from the eye test, he definitely looked like himself for at least the first 2 years and a good chunk of the 3rd.

  11. #5666
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,019
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Yes but I can give Kobe worse teamates and make him never win a ring. Me switching Kobeís team around him is the difference between him winning rings or not. Has nothing to do with his play or skill level. Teamates are the only reason one player is better than another when you look at it. That makes no sense.
    This is 100% correct.

  12. #5667
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Yes but I can give Kobe worse teamates and make him never win a ring. Me switching Kobeís team around him is the difference between him winning rings or not. Has nothing to do with his play or skill level. Teamates are the only reason one player is better than another when you look at it. That makes no sense.
    I mean if you extend it to an extreme. Most elite superstars are able to eventually get teammates that are good enough to make them the team a contender and that's where we can make the assessment about wining. Sure, if Kobe and LBJ played on absolutely horrible, horrible teams their entire careers, then it would be a different type of assessment but that didn't happen for either of them

  13. #5668
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Shaq in Orlando was also much quicker and faster than Shaq with Kobe (and that shaq was also in much better shape). Wade was a in a much different role in 06 than with LBJ so not really clear that he was better pre LBJ since Wade's play with LBJ was directly impacted by LBJ's style of play. We don't really know how Wade would've played if LBJ wasn't there or if LBJ wasn't as ball dominant. Wade was still putting up elite numbers for 2-3 years into his stint with LBJ, especially for playing alongside such a ball dominant player. Now I know the numbers don't tell the whole story, but from the eye test, he definitely looked like himself for at least the first 2 years and a good chunk of the 3rd.
    Shag was stronger in la and was a full grown man. He did not peak in Orlando he peaked in LA.

    Style of play has nothing to do with why Lebron and Wade was not the perfect match. If you paired Kobe with Kidd it would affect Kidd more than it would of affected someone like Jermaine OíNeal. Wade and lebron did not shoot the ball well and they were known for going to the rack. Your basically asking them to go away from what made them great to begin with.
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-28-2020 at 12:40 PM.

  14. #5669
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Kobe still shot the ball more than Lebron every year other than his firs two while coming off the bench. So it doesnít really work
    It's not about shutting the ball, it's about how often LBJ has the ball in his hands and is dominating the offense. Just from a fit perspective, LBJ and Shaq are not a great fit. Shaq would likely clog the paint some and make it harder for LBJ to get to the rim and Shaq can't spread the floor. Bosh was actually an excellent fit for playing with LBJ because he could spread the floor and take the defense away from the rim and was a very good catch and shoot option from the mid range. LBJ would be most effective with someone like Bosh or dirk as a big man or maybe AD or KG or even Duncan because they had far greater ability to spread the floor than Shaq. With Shaq, there's really no reason to guard him beyond 10 feet from the basket.

  15. #5670
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Yes but you canít dismiss the fact that he can win this way where as Kobe canít and would be able to be efficient enough to do what Bron does. Kobe canít play this way or replicate what Bron does.
    Bro, the difference in their efficiency amounts to 1.12 shots per game that kobe misses more than LBJ. This is completely ignoring that Kobe played 7 years in an era where it was much harder to score than now and that his last 90 or so games of his career he was a shell of the player he used to be. Ignoring all of that and not adjusting differences in fg% (which is absolutely necessary to make an efficiency comparison), once we factor in the differences in ft%, we're looking at about half a shot more per game that Kobe misses than LBJ (again this is ignoring any adjustments that have to be made to account for differences in the rules during those first 7 years of Kobe's career and the last 90 games or so of Kobe's career being played after the achilles injury or the likely larger lower percentage shots that kobe was forced to take late in the clock, as LBJ seems to avoid taking these when possible). The efficiency argument is mostly trivial if not entirely negligible (not even clear it would favor LBJ once these other factors are accounted for, but either way any differences would likely be mostly meaningless).
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-28-2020 at 01:09 PM.

Posting Permissions

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