Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 372 of 452 FirstFirst ... 272322362370371372373374382422 ... LastLast
Results 5,566 to 5,580 of 6768
  1. #5566
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    No itís the context that change one views to to paint a different picture. Itís like Kneeling on a guys neck until he dies. The lawyer paints a different picture to sway reality in defense. Thatís why I said you could have been a lawyer. Lol your trying very hard to twist reality to fit your narrative.
    The context is different for every player. If we're going to factor in context, that's going to naturally lead to using different criteria for different players.

  2. #5567
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I said there is a reason to hold LBJ to a higher standard of winning than other stars because he's been able to play with multiple stars throughout most of his prime. It's fine if you dont agree with me. I dont see why that bothers you so much though
    Multiple stars isnít better than having the most dominant big ever and great roll players.

    For instance

    Lebron
    Prime Shaq
    Prime Robert Horry

    Is so much better

    Than
    Lebron
    1 year after Prime Wade
    Prime Bosh

    Because there is only one ball and fit. Shaq and Bron do two totally different things where as Wade and Bron have so much overlap. Then Horry and Bosh are going to get 3rd wheel touches regardless.
    Also prime Shaq is so much better than declining Wade itís not even funny.

    Then add in being coached by Phil.

    Proof?

    Lebron and AD have had the best start for any Bron team up, they are the best star studded team heís been on and heís not even in his prime anymore. So upgrade Bron to prime Bron and AD to prime Shaq and nobody would have a shot.

    Throughout the talk of talent, you ignore fit and depth when it comes to Brons teams. Having one star in AD has been better than Wade+Bosh or KYRIE+Love, this from someone who watched Bron career.

  3. #5568
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,507
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    He was being sarcastic in response to another poster. Some of these guys are saying Kobe should only get a quarter credit for his rings. What that sort of thing shows is what I've been saying all along, which is that there is a strong bias here that is pro LBJ and anti Kobe. I definitely agree with you in terms of how credit should be partitioned for Kobe's titles
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Multiple stars isnít better than having the most dominant big ever and great roll players.

    For instance

    Lebron
    Prime Shaq
    Prime Robert Horry

    Is so much better

    Than
    Lebron
    1 year after Prime Wade
    Prime Bosh

    Because there is only one ball and fit. Shaq and Bron do two totally different things where as Wade and Bron have so much overlap. Then Horry and Bosh are going to get 3rd wheel touches regardless.
    Also prime Shaq is so much better than declining Wade itís not even funny.

    Then add in being coached by Phil.

    Proof?

    Lebron and AD have had the best start for any Bron team up, they are the best star studded team heís been on and heís not even in his prime anymore. So upgrade Bron to prime Bron and AD to prime Shaq and nobody would have a shot.

    Throughout the talk of talent, you ignore fit and depth when it comes to Brons teams. Having one star in AD has been better than Wade+Bosh or KYRIE+Love, this from someone who watched Bron career.
    Agreed. Give me 2 superstars and a bunch shooters/defenders like Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Fox and Grant. That early 2000s Lakers team was perfectly constructed.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  4. #5569
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    It's clear what you're doing, but I will note that this isn't some nitpicky thing that I'm doing when I make that distinction. The most talented team does not always win the title. I saw the the MIA/SAS series as a great accomplishment because (at least in my view) the less talented spurs team where able to beat the juggernaut talent through basketball fundamentals and execution. It's easy to look back on how guys performed and say "see Player X was declining, look at how he played", the issue there is that how any given player plays is fundamentally intertwined with his team and their opponent and so a player playing poorly during a stretch could be (1) due to them declining, (2) the system they're playing in, (3) their opponent, or (4) any combination of those factors. If Wade were to return to form in 2015 no one would've said "see, Wade was declining" we would've attributed the drop in play to some other factor. All of this is occurring in hindsight and it changes the narrative from what it was during that time (and we probably shouldn't do this).

    When I refer to how talented a team is, I am actually never referring to how good they are as a team. I'm referring to how good each player on the team is. I thought OKC was very talented throughout the entire time KD and Westbrook were together, but I didn't think very much of them as a basketball team because I thought they had horrible execution and played poor basketball (they go try on talent, but really had no business as contenders, at least in my view). I look at talent on a team based on the parts the team has, I look at the quality of the team based on how well those parts are assembled and how well they run. This isn't a nitpick point I make, it is one that I actually take very seriously.
    You thought OKC was very talented and yet you were arguing in here that they weren't that talented when they faced LeBron. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to dismiss the Spurs for being good and not talented, you must acknowledge LeBron defeated a very talented OKC team. You may think they weren't good, but they were very talented.

    As for Wade, thinking he was declining is not hindsight. It was the sentiment at the time:

    https://www.sbnation.com/2014/6/17/5...uture-nba-2014

    "Dwyane Wade's decline is the Heat's biggest problem. This wasn't the first sign of a decline in Wade's play. It'd been happening for the better part of the last two seasons."

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/m...of-dwyane-wade

    The Sobering Decline of Dwyane Wade. His fall from grace has been sudden, and depressing to witness.

    So the idea that we're now looking back saying Wade wasn't that good is incorrect. Even at the time everyone was pointing out how Wade had declined and wasn't the same.


    As for San Antonio, you're making it out like San Antonio wasn't considered a great team at the time, which is more revisionist history. Like I said, They led the league in wins in 2012 and made the WCF, they were 3rd in wins in 2013 and made the Finals and they led the league in wins in 2014. They were not some plucky underdog story:

    https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/...regular-season

    Power Rankings to start the playoffs: Spurs 1st

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-into-playoffs

    Power Rankings to start the playoffs: Spurs 2nd (behind OKC)

    They were even predicted to be a top team before the season:

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...summer-edition

    Preseason Power Ranking: Spurs 2nd

    https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/10...ngs-miami-heat

    Preseason Power Ranking: Spurs 3rd



    They were a championship level squad and losing to them was no black mark.



    As for Kobe, what's so hard to believe? His accomplishments speak for themselves, but in terms of actual impact and how impactful a player was on the court, many players were better. His numbers are just not that great outside scoring, and even then it's mostly a result of low efficiency compared to his peers. That's why I just can't say he's one of the 15 most impactful/talented players to ever play the game.


    Point is: you are trying to dance around SA being good by saying they aren't talented and dance around OKC being talented by saying they aren't good. It's hypocritical. And it's why people accuse you of being a hater, because you become contradictory anytime you judge LeBron.

  5. #5570
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I'm saying that when comparing Kobe to other players' finals performance, the more appropriate comparison is the WCF for 3-4 of his championship runs because that's what the toughest series was. During his time with shaq, the toughest series was always in the WCF (so that's what should be compared); in 04 it could go either way, but for that year it's fair to examine hist finals performance because the pistons were a legitimate finals opponent; same in 09, as the nuggets might've been a tougher opponent than Orlando, but Orlando was at least a reasonable finals opponent). In 2010, it's completely fair to look at the finals. For LBJ, it's not appropriate to compare his playoff performances to players from the west, because he's playing mostly against teams who would miss the playoffs in the west or be easy outs in the 1st round (so it's really only the finals that's relevant). Since everything runs through LBJ, his performance will always be inflated compared to any star, but at least taking the aforementioned context into account will allow for a more direct comparison.

    Really, if we want to get a gauge of how any player played in the biggest stage in the playoffs, we need to look at the series where they went up against their best opponent. For some, that will be the Finals, for others it will be some other playoff round. Because the east was absolutely horrible from about 2000-2018 or so, this type of comparison should always be restricted to the finals, and probably to the WCF in most years for players from the West. We usually examine the finals because we assume that this was the toughest matchup that year, but that's not always the case (especially for teams from the west).
    Either way you slice it Bron outperforms Kobe in the playoffs finals against hardest competition. Compare Lebrons finals to Kobeís western con finals then. Only helps my argument. And if Bron is doing better against tougher competition than Kobe is against weaker finals opponents because they are in the east, then that also strengthens my argument. Either way Lebron dominates Kobe in the playoffs and finals. Kobe played with the most dominant player in history so he has more rings but heís has been a worse player in the playoffs and finals. Lebron has undoubtedly Been better than him.

  6. #5571
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,507
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You thought OKC was very talented and yet you were arguing in here that they weren't that talented when they faced LeBron. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to dismiss the Spurs for being good and not talented, you must acknowledge LeBron defeated a very talented OKC team. You may think they weren't good, but they were very talented.

    As for Wade, thinking he was declining is not hindsight. It was the sentiment at the time:

    https://www.sbnation.com/2014/6/17/5...uture-nba-2014

    "Dwyane Wade's decline is the Heat's biggest problem. This wasn't the first sign of a decline in Wade's play. It'd been happening for the better part of the last two seasons."

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/m...of-dwyane-wade

    The Sobering Decline of Dwyane Wade. His fall from grace has been sudden, and depressing to witness.

    So the idea that we're now looking back saying Wade wasn't that good is incorrect. Even at the time everyone was pointing out how Wade had declined and wasn't the same.


    As for San Antonio, you're making it out like San Antonio wasn't considered a great team at the time, which is more revisionist history. Like I said, They led the league in wins in 2012 and made the WCF, they were 3rd in wins in 2013 and made the Finals and they led the league in wins in 2014. They were not some plucky underdog story:

    https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/...regular-season

    Power Rankings to start the playoffs: Spurs 1st

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-into-playoffs

    Power Rankings to start the playoffs: Spurs 2nd (behind OKC)

    They were even predicted to be a top team before the season:

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...summer-edition

    Preseason Power Ranking: Spurs 2nd

    https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/10...ngs-miami-heat

    Preseason Power Ranking: Spurs 3rd



    They were a championship level squad and losing to them was no black mark.



    As for Kobe, what's so hard to believe? His accomplishments speak for themselves, but in terms of actual impact and how impactful a player was on the court, many players were better. His numbers are just not that great outside scoring, and even then it's mostly a result of low efficiency compared to his peers. That's why I just can't say he's one of the 15 most impactful/talented players to ever play the game.


    Point is: you are trying to dance around SA being good by saying they aren't talented and dance around OKC being talented by saying they aren't good. It's hypocritical. And it's why people accuse you of being a hater, because you become contradictory anytime you judge LeBron.
    All the lists are WRONG! Didn't he already bust me on this?


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  7. #5572
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    15,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I've addressed this sort of thing many times before and directly to you. I'll say it again, you don't necessarily have to win to become a superstar or a borderline superstar (which is what I would have considered Love during his time in Minny or at least well on his way to that). For me though, once a player is solidified as an elite superstar, which both Kobe and LBJ were/are, then titles matter for me, because a player of their caliber can put up incredible numbers if that's what they really want to do. At that stage, the real trick is finding ways to win. At the stage Kevin Love was at, he wasn't yet held to that standard. C'mon dude, we've been over this several times and you should know my position on this at this point.
    That is to inconsistent. Doesnít make any sense at all.

  8. #5573
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The context is different for every player. If we're going to factor in context, that's going to naturally lead to using different criteria for different players.
    Sure itís different for everyone. No one was placed in the exact same situation. Thing is you only bend the bar one direction for your player.

  9. #5574
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    https://www.espn.com/nba/playoffs/20...formances-ever Number of players had great play off performances.

  10. #5575
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You thought OKC was very talented and yet you were arguing in here that they weren't that talented when they faced LeBron. You can't have it both ways. If you are going to dismiss the Spurs for being good and not talented, you must acknowledge LeBron defeated a very talented OKC team. You may think they weren't good, but they were very talented.

    As for Wade, thinking he was declining is not hindsight. It was the sentiment at the time:

    https://www.sbnation.com/2014/6/17/5...uture-nba-2014

    "Dwyane Wade's decline is the Heat's biggest problem. This wasn't the first sign of a decline in Wade's play. It'd been happening for the better part of the last two seasons."

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/m...of-dwyane-wade

    The Sobering Decline of Dwyane Wade. His fall from grace has been sudden, and depressing to witness.

    So the idea that we're now looking back saying Wade wasn't that good is incorrect. Even at the time everyone was pointing out how Wade had declined and wasn't the same.


    As for San Antonio, you're making it out like San Antonio wasn't considered a great team at the time, which is more revisionist history. Like I said, They led the league in wins in 2012 and made the WCF, they were 3rd in wins in 2013 and made the Finals and they led the league in wins in 2014. They were not some plucky underdog story:

    https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/4/...regular-season

    Power Rankings to start the playoffs: Spurs 1st

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-into-playoffs

    Power Rankings to start the playoffs: Spurs 2nd (behind OKC)

    They were even predicted to be a top team before the season:

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...summer-edition

    Preseason Power Ranking: Spurs 2nd

    https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/10...ngs-miami-heat

    Preseason Power Ranking: Spurs 3rd



    They were a championship level squad and losing to them was no black mark.



    As for Kobe, what's so hard to believe? His accomplishments speak for themselves, but in terms of actual impact and how impactful a player was on the court, many players were better. His numbers are just not that great outside scoring, and even then it's mostly a result of low efficiency compared to his peers. That's why I just can't say he's one of the 15 most impactful/talented players to ever play the game.


    Point is: you are trying to dance around SA being good by saying they aren't talented and dance around OKC being talented by saying they aren't good. It's hypocritical. And it's why people accuse you of being a hater, because you become contradictory anytime you judge LeBron.
    My reference to OKC being talented was more on the average of their time together. When they played Miami, I wouldn't consider them to be as talented as they were later because KD and Westbrook weren't as developed in 2012 as they were in later years (this also doesn't mean that I don't think they were talented, they weren't as talented as they later were and not as talented as Miami). I see where the misunderstanding is coming from, because I'm not specifying and you're assuming. When OKC faced Miami, the potential was there, but the talent disparity was pretty large because OKC were very far from what they eventually became.

    As for Wade, look at the date on those articles. They are coming after the fact or during the deep playoff run. Now if those articles had been written a year earlier, then that's a little different. It's easy to say "you're declining" after a bad performance and those types of articles often come out and are controversial at the time. It's only when they eventually end up being right that we reference them and say "see, the guy was declining". Going into the season, Miami was the odds on favorite to win the title so the decline must not have been considered strong enough to knock them off as the favorites.

    I wouldn't necessarily call a team with those numbers a "great team". On the other hand, I never said that they weren't a worthy championship caliber team nor did I imply that they weren't very good. Not being super talented is a lot different than not being a good team. It also isn't hypocritical at all and I think it actually reflects bad faith on your part to say that. These are meaningful labels and they are commonly used to describe teams. "They are very talented but don't know how to win", e.g., "The talent isn't quite there, but they execute at a high level".

    As for Kobe, if you're serious about the #17 ranking well then it shows a very clear bias there, which is what I've been saying all along.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-27-2020 at 02:00 PM.

  11. #5576
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    That is to inconsistent. Doesnít make any sense at all.
    Doesn't make sense that a player becomes a superstar by playing incredible basketball, but that among superstars they should be assessed based on winning? That's a pretty straightforward idea. Whether you agree with that or not is different, but there is absolutely nothing inconsistent about that.

  12. #5577
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Either way you slice it Bron outperforms Kobe in the playoffs finals against hardest competition. Compare Lebrons finals to Kobeís western con finals then. Only helps my argument. And if Bron is doing better against tougher competition than Kobe is against weaker finals opponents because they are in the east, then that also strengthens my argument. Either way Lebron dominates Kobe in the playoffs and finals. Kobe played with the most dominant player in history so he has more rings but heís has been a worse player in the playoffs and finals. Lebron has undoubtedly Been better than him.
    Not when we account for the fact that LBJ's numbers are going to be inflated because he's dominating the ball so much. The entire system is LBJ having the ball. Kobe also played with that dominant player before he was in his prime and so it's not quite the advantage that you're making it out to be.

  13. #5578
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Sure itís different for everyone. No one was placed in the exact same situation. Thing is you only bend the bar one direction for your player.
    That's because many of my posts are about refuting why the numbers that you guys like to throw out are not nearly as meaningful as you guys like to make them sound.

  14. #5579
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,136
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Multiple stars isnít better than having the most dominant big ever and great roll players.

    For instance

    Lebron
    Prime Shaq
    Prime Robert Horry

    Is so much better

    Than
    Lebron
    1 year after Prime Wade
    Prime Bosh

    Because there is only one ball and fit. Shaq and Bron do two totally different things where as Wade and Bron have so much overlap. Then Horry and Bosh are going to get 3rd wheel touches regardless.
    Also prime Shaq is so much better than declining Wade itís not even funny.

    Then add in being coached by Phil.

    Proof?

    Lebron and AD have had the best start for any Bron team up, they are the best star studded team heís been on and heís not even in his prime anymore. So upgrade Bron to prime Bron and AD to prime Shaq and nobody would have a shot.

    Throughout the talk of talent, you ignore fit and depth when it comes to Brons teams. Having one star in AD has been better than Wade+Bosh or KYRIE+Love, this from someone who watched Bron career.
    Problem is that Kobe and Sahq only played about 2-4 years together where both were stars (and only about 2 of those involved prime shaq). Let's see what happens this year and then we will have more context. No excuses either way, since you've already come out and said that this is the best LBJ team he has ever had and you guys have argued that present LBJ is better than prime Kobe (and the analytics support this; which is laughable and should call them into question for any reasonable person, but that's a different issue altogether), so I'm definitely expecting a title this year or there will be a lot of questions to answer on here.

  15. #5580
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    My reference to OKC being talented was more on the average of their time together. When they played Miami, I wouldn't consider them to be as talented as they were later because KD and Westbrook weren't as developed in 2012 as they were in later years (this also doesn't mean that I don't think they were talented, they weren't as talented as they later were and not as talented as Miami). I see where the misunderstanding is coming from, because I'm not specifying and you're assuming. When OKC faced Miami, the potential was there, but the talent disparity was pretty large because OKC were very far from what they eventually became.

    As for Wade, look at the date on those articles. They are coming after the fact or during the deep playoff run. Now if those articles had been written a year earlier, then that's a little different. It's easy to say "you're declining" after a bad performance and those types of articles often come out and are controversial at the time. It's only when they eventually end up being right that we reference them and say "see, the guy was declining". Going into the season, Miami was the odds on favorite to win the title so the decline must not have been considered strong enough to knock them off as the favorites.

    I wouldn't necessarily call a team with those numbers a "great team". On the other hand, I never said that they weren't a worthy championship caliber team nor did I imply that they weren't very good. Not being super talented is a lot different than not being a good team. It also isn't hypocritical at all and I think it actually reflects bad faith on your part to say that. These are meaningful labels and they are commonly used to describe teams. "They are very talented but don't know how to win", e.g., "The talent isn't quite there, but they execute at a high level".

    As for Kobe, if you're serious about the #17 ranking well then it shows a very clear bias there, which is what I've been saying all along.
    First Bolded: Two things. One: You're admitting a single year can have a big different on a team by saying OKC wasn't nearly as talented when facing Miami as in 2013 or 2014. If that's the case, you have to stop saying SA wasn't that great because the next year they lost in the 1st round. If one year can make that big a difference to OKC, it can make one to SA.

    But more importantly: It's odd of you to say OKC became more talented after they faced Miami in 2012 considering that was the last year Harden played for them. To be clear: You're saying the Thunder became more talented after losing Harden? Not many people would agree with you there.

    Second Bolded: So if there were articles from before after the series you'd believe them? OK:

    https://www.si.com/nba/2013/05/31/dw...-playoffs-2013

    From 2013: Wade's failure to measure up to his own shadow has proven to be altogether problematic for Miami

    https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/...-game-6-easter

    From 2013: the Heat were going to need both Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade to snap out of the funk that has engulfed him

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...inals/2382875/

    What happened to Heat's Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade?


    But something tells me you'll find a reason to discredit these articles as well...

    Third Bolded: So far as I can tell, the only reason you have split it up between great and talented is so you can knock LeBron despite losing to an admittedly great team. You're acting like it's a terrible thing to lose to a great team; it isn't. A great team is great because of how good it is. You don't get to say "well because the great team isn't talented, that somehow means their less". No, they are great.

    I don't get to say "Kobe/Shaq lost to an untalented Spurs team in 2003 (because by your logic with OKC and SA vs Bron, Parker and Manu were not developed and D-Rob was too old), so even though that team was great, it's inexcusable for Kobe/Shaq to have lost. They were a great team, saying Kobe/Shaq were clearly more talented and should have won doesn't mean losing to them was inexcusable. The Spurs were a great team, regardless of their talent.

    Fourth Bolded: Well now isn't that interesting. You've been arguing this whole time that just because someone has LeBron ranked lower than most think it doesn't mean they're biased and now that I have Kobe ranked lower than you think I'm biased?

    So you're saying just because I rank Kobe lower than you I'm biased? Why doesn't that logic apply to you and Bron?

Posting Permissions

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