Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 432 of 508 FirstFirst ... 332382422430431432433434442482 ... LastLast
Results 6,466 to 6,480 of 7611
  1. #6466
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    He also was in one of the rarest positions ever next to a peak Shaq is the point people make in context with the rings then in the same way (and then in 04 a just about leaving prime version, he had a few good years and won as the 2 with a young Wade though). I think they contributed some but it just furthers my point because again he had Shaq, there was options he just chose to take on that defense himself moreso. It did take him not having peak Shaq in great conditions as the #1 to force him into that role and show he had some flaws still in doing so.

    He was still a great player but his role/context is different just like the injuries to role players and so on factor into context too and add some attention (but don't change the overall point or issues exposed over those years and the dropping in efficiency not just once but in the multiple ways shown as attention added for various reasons including injuries). The overall context is what makes the first 3 different than the last 2 (sure each of those first 3's had varying levels but none were him as that same guy yet nor like top 10 ATG level yet leading the way as I have been saying).
    Look dude, we just disagree on this. I understand your position, but on my end, efficiency isn't going to factor that much into how I'm ranking a player (because in most cases the in-game impact isn't going to be particularly notable), whereas this factor seems to be a critical thing for you, so it makes sense that we're going to disagree. I've already stated that it makes sense for his first title to not count on the same level as the others, but I disagree that the other two are all that different from his latter two. The latter teams were far, far deeper and had more overall talent than the shaq/kobe lakers (at least I thought so).

    Other posters who pick LBJ have echoed the same sentiment as well (about how his titles should be wieghed), so I think it would be hard to argue this is me being biased here. For me it's about whether someone is a true #1 or not and that's all that really matters. I'm holding this same principle now for LBJ so it's not some weird double standard. If LBJ wins a title while still being an elite superstar (i.e., a true #1) I would count these titles just the same as his other titles even though he's not the clear #1 at this point and this will become more the case in the next year or two but as long as he's a true#1, that's all I really care about.

  2. #6467
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    What do you mean by that? The comparison was to Gasol (not being a superstar) and Pippen in general when shared earlier. You already said he was more ball dominant than Gasol though I think more recently kinda going against being able to use them and just haven't seen the explanation how you can compare (similar to Bosh). I also just pointed out how in 2014 Love had more touches than Lebron and I have broken down that situation enough.

    We can't do this for a lot of the people you have compared so far with stats and sometimes even Love has more touches in the years you have propped but you have used stats when convenient is the point. It is a double standard. I am not saying you can't have the idea it needs to be accounted for it just contradicts some of your past posts/arguments using stats in this way then (because you pick and choose when you can use them not based on this standard/breakdown normally except for Lebron).
    My point has been that LBJ has the ball more than most superstars typically do and so he's going to put up inflated numbers in comparison to them. That's going to be true of guys who have the ball to the extent that LBJ has. When we look at Harden's numbers, we know that they come with a grain of salt because of how much he has the ball. The same applies to LBJ (just to a lesser extent, because Harden has become an extreme). I agree that superstars have inflated numbers, but there are those who have the ball a lot more than others, and for those guys, their numbers are going to be inflated in comparison to their peers so we can't just make a straight comparison of numbers. We have to account for that. For superstars who don't fall into this category, this is less of an issue (and so sure, it should still be accounted for, but it's not usually going to be as much of a factor for them). It's usually going to apply more to guards and/or playmakers who have the ball a lot more than everyone else. Hence, why I dont really bother with this for big men. At any rate, LBJ falls into the category of playmaker (as you've noted) so this is going to apply to him more than to someone like Kobe or KD and if we want to make that comparison, this needs to be taken into account.

  3. #6468
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I'm not even arguing that LBJ shouldn't have the ball more than a lot of guys, but that is also going to lead to him having inflated numbers compared to those other guys. I'm really not sure why this is in the least bit controversial. This is a point that just about any objective person should agree with.
    Because in these discussions inflated carries a negative connotation.

    Yes, LeBron has the ball more than Kobe in general (though there are years where Kobe has the ball more), but even when that happened LeBron was more efficient, so you cannot knock LeBron for having better stats simply because he had the ball more because he had the ball more and was more efficient than Kobe whole doing it.

    What that means is LeBron should have had the ball more than Kobe, because he was more efficient when he had the ball.

  4. #6469
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    So is kobe stats inflated to that of Ray Allen, Manu, etc? Why do you always discredit Lebron and priase Kobe for doing the same thing? Dude everyone know Kobe was not ready to lead at that time too. Kobe was a player that stuck to himself. The rape thing even further his isolation and was work in progress. Kobe would keep shooting while missing and taking tough shots vs letting the game come to him. Why do you think Kobe got labled a ball hog? Why do you think it was said he would stunt Russell, Randle etc growth? Was kobe stats also inflated by trying to reach career averages on a nightly bases? Its not like Kobe would be good with 15ppg as long as the team won right? So what exactly do you mean by inflated stats? Dude its common Knowledge Kobe was trying to be like MJ or better and was not just playing in a system in flow and stumbled on those stats. Dude was going to get his numbers.
    All stars have inflated numbers because they get more opportunities, my point was that some have the ball more than others (and LBJ falls into this category) and so he's going to have more inflated numbers than a lot of other superstars. You also really don't understand kobe if you think that he wasn't willing to do whatever it took to win. Kobe sacrificed his numbers playing on the lakers and alongside shaq in order to win. He could've gone to go play on a bad team and won like 7 consecutive scoring titles and put up insane numbers (like most great players do their first 5-7 seasons in the league before having an elite team).

  5. #6470
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Look dude, we just disagree on this. I understand your position, but on my end, efficiency isn't going to factor that much into how I'm ranking a player (because in most cases the in-game impact isn't going to be particularly notable), whereas this factor seems to be a critical thing for you, so it makes sense that we're going to disagree. I've already stated that it makes sense for his first title to not count on the same level as the others, but I disagree that the other two are all that different from his latter two. The latter teams were far, far deeper and had more overall talent than the shaq/kobe lakers (at least I thought so).

    Other posters who pick LBJ have echoed the same sentiment as well (about how his titles should be wieghed), so I think it would be hard to argue this is me being biased here. For me it's about whether someone is a true #1 or not and that's all that really matters. I'm holding this same principle now for LBJ so it's not some weird double standard. If LBJ wins a title while still being an elite superstar (i.e., a true #1) I would count these titles just the same as his other titles even though he's not the clear #1 at this point and this will become more the case in the next year or two but as long as he's a true#1, that's all I really care about.
    Iím assuming if you rank any of Bronís Lakers titles through the lens of ďnot a clear #1Ē you say the same about Kobeís first 3 titles?

  6. #6471
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkieMark48 View Post
    I wonder If I could use the argument that Peyton Manning/Drew Brees/Tom Brady (ect) stats are inflated bc they were allowed to throw more bc they were great at throwing the football?
    Absolutely you can and absolutely they do have inflated numbers because of that (at least in comparison to guys who came before them where the pass was not emphasized as much).

  7. #6472
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Iím assuming if you rank any of Bronís Lakers titles through the lens of ďnot a clear #1Ē you say the same about Kobeís first 3 titles?
    Of course.

  8. #6473
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    All stars have inflated numbers because they get more opportunities, my point was that some have the ball more than others (and LBJ falls into this category) and so he's going to have more inflated numbers than a lot of other superstars. You also really don't understand kobe if you think that he wasn't willing to do whatever it took to win. Kobe sacrificed his numbers playing on the lakers and alongside shaq in order to win. He could've gone to go play on a bad team and won like 7 consecutive scoring titles and put up insane numbers (like most great players do their first 5-7 seasons in the league before having an elite team).
    Kobe would rather sacrifice stats to win than be on a bad team scoring a ton? Is that why Shaq left and Kobe was putting up monster numbers on a bad team? The exact opposite of what you are arguing happened lol

  9. #6474
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Of course.
    I also assume you think the Bron title teams that you called more talented and deeper than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers would defeat them?

  10. #6475
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I also assume you think the Bron title teams that you called more talented and deeper than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers would defeat them?
    No, I don't think they would, but this is more because I don't think that the heat played a particularly winning style of basketball and because I don't think they would match up well against the lakers...I thought the 00 blazers and the 02 kings were overall more talented than the lakers as well.

  11. #6476
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Kobe would rather sacrifice stats to win than be on a bad team scoring a ton? Is that why Shaq left and Kobe was putting up monster numbers on a bad team? The exact opposite of what you are arguing happened lol
    Well shaq demanded a trade and they had personal issues. Note also that this stint lasted 3 years and Kobe was very clearly not happy about it. Once the team became more competitive, his numbers once again took a dip and he made the necessary sacrifices to his output to ensure that he worked well with Pau. If you look at Kobe's numbers with shaq and with Pau, they're actually pretty similar, suggesting that he was sacrificing his output to win. If he was on a bad team all those years, we would've likely seen more exaggerated versions of 06 Kobe for most of the early to mid 2000s (because he was a decent amount more athletic during these years). But Kobe wasn't about that and wasn't happy doing that and not being competitive for a title. If Kobe was about his numbers, he would've been perfectly happy being a respectable team and going out in the 1st or 2nd round, all while putting up incredible numbers, but that wasn't the case and we know that it wasn't the case.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 06-19-2020 at 11:18 AM.

  12. #6477
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Well shaq demanded a trade and they had personal issues. Note also that this stint lasted 3 years and Kobe was very clearly not happy about it. Once the team became more competitive, his numbers once again took a dip and he made the necessary sacrifices to his output to ensure that he worked well with Pau. If you look at Kobe's numbers with shaq and with Pau, they're actually pretty similar, suggesting that he was sacrificing his output to win. If he was on a bad team all those years, we would've likely seen more exaggerated versions of 06 Kobe for most of the early to mid 2000s (because he was a decent amount more athletic during these years). But Kobe wasn't about that and wasn't happy doing that and not being competitive for a title. If Kobe was about his numbers, he would've been perfectly happy being a respectable team and going out in the 1st or 2nd round, all while putting up incredible numbers, but that wasn't the case and we know that it wasn't the case.
    So we only got to see 3 years of Kobeís inflated stats? Ok, but LeBronís stats are still better than Kobeís stats, even during Kobeís inflated years. So LeBronís inflated stats > Kobeís inflated stats.

  13. #6478
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So we only got to see 3 years of Kobeís inflated stats? Ok, but LeBronís stats are still better than Kobeís stats, even during Kobeís inflated years. So LeBronís inflated stats > Kobeís inflated stats.
    Well one, Kobe was playing hurt for a good chunk of the 05 season, so we really only got to see 2 seasons of Kobe, but he was past his peak athleticism at this point. Also, as I've been mentioning, LBJ has the ball more and so he has more opportunity to put up numbers. I would like to see the amount of time they each spent with the ball in their hands (particularly in the half court) during these years. Remember, my position is that all superstars put up inflate numbers (even when they are sacrificing to win), but that this is more true of someone like LBJ than of someone like Kobe, KD, KL and a few other guys.

  14. #6479
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Well one, Kobe was playing hurt for a good chunk of the 05 season, so we really only got to see 2 seasons of Kobe, but he was past his peak athleticism at this point. Also, as I've been mentioning, LBJ has the ball more and so he has more opportunity to put up numbers. I would like to see the amount of time they each spent with the ball in their hands (particularly in the half court) during these years. Remember, my position is that all superstars put up inflate numbers (even when they are sacrificing to win), but that this is more true of someone like LBJ than of someone like Kobe, KD, KL and a few other guys.
    Well LeBronís highest USG% is 33% and Kobeís from that time is 38%. But beyond that, Kobe had the ball in his hands a lot during that time, so if you want to claim LeBron had the ball in his hands drastically more than Kobe did those years, itís incumbent on you to prove it since youíre making the claim.

    Otherwise, this comes off as excuses.

  15. #6480
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,969
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well LeBronís highest USG% is 33% and Kobeís from that time is 38%. But beyond that, Kobe had the ball in his hands a lot during that time, so if you want to claim LeBron had the ball in his hands drastically more than Kobe did those years, itís incumbent on you to prove it since youíre making the claim.

    Otherwise, this comes off as excuses.
    Yeah, but USG% isn't a great indicator of what I'm referring to. There isn't data on this, unfortunately (I think the earliest we see this data is from 2014). Kobe did have the ball in his hands a decent amount, I agree with that, but having seen both Kobe and LBJ play for the lakers in almost all of their games as lakers, I can say that LBJ seems to have the ball a lot more. Kobe played in the triangle offense and although he broke from it often, that was still the majority of the possessions what the team was implementing (at least it seemed like that), whereas for LBJ the offense is often to let LBJ himself create. It's pretty reasonable that someone in the latter situation will naturally have the ball more than someone in the former situation. When we look at the amount of time LBJ has the ball, it's usually on par with other pgs, which suggest he has it an awful lot, because he's not the guy who brings it up the court the majority of the time (so pgs have inflated numbers on this stat because they almost always bring it up and thats' going to add a decent amount of seconds to their average possession of time with the ball).

Posting Permissions

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