How Did the Lakers Sans LeBron and AD Beat the Celtics in Boston?
We are told by many media members (also known as LeBron James' public relations staff) that the L.A. Lakers lack talent and can only win games if the 39 year old James plays at a superhuman level. There is no doubt that James is a Pantheon level player, and there is no doubt that the way he is playing at his advanced age is impressive and unprecedented--but is James correct to declare himself "The Greatest Player of All-Time" and is it true that the Lakers are helpless without James?
One game is the ultimate small sample size theater, but we can still learn something from each game. On Thursday night, the L.A. Lakers trudged into Boston without not only James but also Anthony Davis, who joined James on the NBA's 75th Anniversary Team and joins James on the 2024 Western Conference All-Star team as well. Surely the shorthanded Lakers--who have been worse than mediocre for most of this season (other than winning the inaugural NBA Cup) even with James and Davis--would collapse against the mighty, league-leading Celtics.
Not so fast my friend, as Lee Corso says.
The Lakers jumped out to an 11 point first quarter lead and never trailed in the second half en route to a 114-105 win. All five Laker starters plus bench player Rui Hachimura scored in double figures, led by Austin Reaves' game-high 32 points. The Lakers shot 19-36 (.528) from three point range, and they only committed seven turnovers. The Lakers rank 15th in the league in three point field goal percentage (.365), and they rank 21st in turnovers per game (14.3).
In contrast, the Celtics shot just 16-48 (.333) from three point range, and they coughed up 15 turnovers. The Celtics rank fourth in the league in three point field goal percentage (.380) while leading the league in three pointers made and three pointers attempted, and they rank sixth in turnovers per game (12.5). MVP candidate and 2024 All-Star Jayson Tatum paced the Celtics with 23 points on 8-21 field goal shooting. Kristaps Porzingis and Sam Houser each scored 17 points. Jaylen Brown, who last summer signed the richest contract in NBA history and is a 2024 All-Star, managed just eight points on 4-12 field goal shooting.
The words "aberration" and "regression to the mean" come to my mind. The Lakers are not as good as they looked, nor are the Celtics as bad as they looked. Nevertheless, it is instructive to consider why the Lakers looked so good and why the Celtics looked so bad.
The three point shot is considered the most efficient shot by "stat gurus," but it is also a high variance shot. When the treys are going down, you can look like the Lakers did last night or like Gilbert Arenas looked when some media members--including the vampire who for the past several years has made a living by praising James and using anonymous sources to slander Russell Westbrook--touted Arenas as an MVP candidate; when the long balls fall short, you can look like the Celtics looked.
A .400 three point shooter is more efficient statistically than a .550 two point shooter--but if that .550 two point shooter has a steady diet of high percentage shots in the paint then his numbers are not going to vary much from game to game. In contrast, that .400 three point shooter may go 6-10 one game and 2-10 the next game. Where are the missing points coming from during those 2-10 games? The 2018 Daryl Morey/Mike D'Antoni/James Harden Houston Rockets are still looking for those missing points after missing 27 straight three pointers while going down in flames versus Golden State in game seven.
Celtics other than Tatum and Houser shot 6-29 (.207) from three point range versus the Lakers. Davis and James are the Lakers' two best defensive players, and without Davis the Lakers have no shotblocking (they blocked just two shots versus the Celtics). I am not sure who is going to beat the Celtics in the 2024 NBA playoffs, but if the Celtics fail to win the championship despite having the league's best record their downfall will probably be a game seven during which they miss a ton of three pointers while being unwilling or unable to make up those missing points. The Celtics should lean more on their defense and on attacking the paint on offense instead of this foolish quest to jack up 50 three point shots per game. They have the most talented starting five in the NBA, and they are setting themselves up to shoot themselves into a devastating playoff loss against a team that is less talented but more resilient, more gritty, and less stubborn about shooting three pointers.
All of that being said, Thursday's result did not happen just because the Celtics missed a lot of three pointers. The Lakers played well at both ends of the court, and that must confound the "experts" who view the Lakers as James, Davis, and a bunch of dudes who could not play dead in a cowboy movie. Why did the Lakers' supporting players perform so well versus the Celtics?
The reality--and this is something that I have written about throughout James' stellar career--is that James often plays in a way that maximizes his personal statistics but does not necessarily maximize his team's winning chances. On the surface, that may seem like nonsensical "hate." I am not ignoring the indisputable facts that (1) James has been the best player on four championship teams and (2) James has authored some incredibly clutch playoff performances. There is no doubt that James has had a major impact on winning for each of the three franchises that employed him, as reflected by the fact that he led each franchise to at least one championship. Nevertheless, one cannot escape the impression that James is very conscious of his statistics and of how to shape narratives. Sometimes, he puts up big numbers after the outcome is no longer in doubt; always, he controls the ball and decides who will shoot the ball, which means he controls his points, his assists, and everyone's field goal percentage.
James makes many great decisions. I am not questioning his basketball IQ--far from it. My point is that Bill Russell used his genius level basketball IQ to figure out how to maximize the likelihood that his Boston Celtics would win, and Russell did not care how many points he scored or how many triple doubles he amassed. In contrast, after James quit versus Boston in game five of their 2010 playoff series he bristled at questions about his performance, and he petulantly stated that he had spoiled fans with his greatness. I covered that game in person, and I covered that press conference as well. I was flabbergasted by James' performance and by his excuses. I cannot imagine Russell (or Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant) uttering such words after such a bad performance. For Russell, Johnson, Jordan, and Bryant, the game is about doing whatever it takes to win championships--no excuses. For James, the game is often about maintaining the narrative of his greatness. After that devastating 2010 game five loss to the Celtics, James' first thought was not that his league-leading 61-21 team was facing playoff elimination; his first thought was how to spin his performance in a way that did not reflect negatively on his greatness, and he did that by directing attention away from how he played versus Boston and toward how he had played overall in previous years. Whether or not it is a valid point to say that James had few bad games, that is not the way that the greatest of the great think about when they fall short of the high standard they set for themselves. I recall Jerry Rice saying that if he caught 15 passes and dropped one he only thought about the dropped pass; in the same situation, James would say, "I caught 15 out of 16 and I spoiled the fans by setting so many records over the years."
In short, James' talent often lifts his teams, but it also can suffocate his teammates. The Lakers played free and loose without James controlling the ball, and several players showed that they are capable of creating their own shots and playing solid defense. Does that mean the Lakers are better without James? Of course not. Those players are not conditioned mentally or physically to play that way for 82 games. However, the Lakers would benefit if James consistently played in a way that focused less on narrative and more on team success.
Labels: Anthony Davis, Boston Celtics, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, L.A. Lakers, LeBron James
posted by David Friedman @ 3:08 AM
40 Comments:
The “I spoil people with my play” remark from James is one of the most narcissistic things a professional athlete has ever said. He should have been universally criticized for those remarks but predictably, he wasn’t.
James and his fanboys/apologists in the media use the most strained, tortured logic to prove that he doesn’t have enough help or an adequate supporting cast when all the facts suggest otherwise.
The 2011 Finals were fascinating for so many reasons but one of the most important storylines was completely forgotten. Caron Butler, the starting small forward and arguably second best player for the Mavericks, missed the entire postseason to knee surgery. The Mavericks didn’t make any excuses and they certainly didn’t have the media making any excuses for them. They simply played hard with what they had and won the championship against LeBron’s heavily favored super team. If Dirk Nowitzki can lead a team to a championship with Jason Terry as the second option then LeBron should have won every Finals he played in where he had Dwyane Wade or Kyrie Irving as his second option.
Hello David,
Regarding James, one gets the sense that he is "checked out" so to speak. I think he feels his legacy is basically secure, especially ever since he won the historic 2016 championship, and that he can rest on his laurels in Los Angeles and focus on his wealth and celebrity. I think he *is* more than a bit insecure about his overall finals record but recognizes that rectifying that issue (like say, competing two more championships for a 6 - 6 even draw) would take more effort than he was willing to show while he was still in his prime. James seems to feel that he can rest his case with the 2016 championship, 4 FMVPs, and titles with three different franchises.
I think that once he retires he is liable to be disappointed with the results. Memories fade quick these days. It didn't take long so to speak for people to debate if *Michael Jordan* could compete in the current NBA. LeBron's legacy has many more glaring holes than Jordan's, so I assume the moment the next generational player starts winning multiple championships we will start hearing about the plumbers and firemen James was blessed to comparatively compete against and the cycle will continue.
Keith:
I think that it is possible that at this stage of LeBron's career he cannot be "checked in" for a full season. I agree that LeBron believes his legacy is secure; he has stated that repeatedly in no uncertain terms.
As someone who is old enough to have followed Michael Jordan's entire NBA career as it unfolded, it is amazing how quickly we reached the point that so many fans and commentators seek to chip away at his legacy in a way that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago or even more recently than that.
Perhaps we should not be too surprised. In "Wait Till Next Year," William Goldman--who co-wrote the book with Mike Lupica--described this tendency to chip away at even legendary careers. William Goldman described it as a battle "to the death," and he said that few legends survive with their statuses intact.
I like the blog overall, but I have to point out some respectful disagreements with your assessment of LeBron if you don't mind :).
I agree that LeBron has narcissistic/controlling tendencies, and that has sort of contributed to pretty much every regular season in the back half of his career being a drama-filled rollercoaster. But I completely disagree that his teams play "freer" when he isn't playing. His teams have consistently struggled mightily in his absence, even more so than when other star players from other teams sit out. Of course, some of that over his career could be team construction suited to his skillset (like the teammates who can catch and shoot but not do anything else, i.e the 2nd Cleveland run). I think in the modern, "post-superteam" NBA there's so much skill/talent on every team now that on any given night you can get an upset like we saw the other night, especially with the 3 variance.
Regarding the "narrative obsession" comment - It is true that if he knows he's going to lose/fail, he will try to get ahead of the narrative (2010, 2014, 2018 come to mind). Jordan/Kobe/other greats were not wired that way, but I'm not sure that it makes that much of a material difference in terms of impact on winning, rather they were just less obnoxious losers. Conversely I think it's a big stretch to say that he enters any playoff series thinking about stats vs trying to lock in 100% on victory. He's won basically every playoff series post 2011 Finals where his team wasn't a big betting dog going in, and he's won his last 6 game 7s. Several comebacks from either down 3-2 or 3-1. I don't think he gets enough credit for how competitive/clutch he is.
As a lifetime Lakers fan -- who admitted on 20secondtimeout to losing a lot of my fandom once we brought James onboard -- I can sum up Lebron James thusly -- He does not hold himself accountable. This is the root of everything. Whether it's blame shifting on teammates, coaches, organizations, the media, the NBA, the refs -- accountability never falls on James' shoulders, at least not in James' narrative. Instead, coaches lose jobs. Teammates get destroyed in the media and then traded away. Organizations get held hostage to make shortsighted trades. The NBA and refs get ridiculed with passive aggressive tweets and postgame comments. (Remember when Lebron called the play-in games BS after Silver and the NBA implemented them? Funny how Bron wouldn't have made the playoffs the last couple of years without it...). And when all else fails, when the going gets tough, instead of man up, this dude packs his bags and leaves for greener pastures.
How is any of this considered GOAT behavior?
That is the stark difference between him and the other pantheon level players. David, you undoubtedly have more historical basketball knowledge than me, but I can't think of any other player in your pantheon that has had so many excuses, despite constantly stacking the deck in his favor.
Lebron has only made elite players worse (other than Kyrie Irving). Bosh went from all-NBA and a top 15 player in the NBA at that time, to the "root of all Miami's issues" within one season of joining up with Lebron. Kevin Love went from second team all-NBA and top 3 in advanced metrics, to the "root of all of Cleveland's issues" within one season. Westbrook went from averaging a triple double, to becoming the "root of all of Los Angeles' issues" within one season. Before Westbrook, Anthony Davis went from an MVP candidate, to...you get the idea.
Whenever the GOAT debate is brought up and sycophants bring up James in the discussion, I can't help but chuckle. The GOAT debate is asinine anyway, but how hard so many in the mainstream media beat their chest for Bron -- a career flopper, complainer, quitter, and front-runner -- is pathetic.
Jordan got hammered by the Pistons for years, until he finally overcame them. Bryant got embarrassed by the Celtics in the finals, and came back two years later and beat them with a broken index finger on his shooting hand...(not a fake injury. Not only did the avulsion fracture take out his index finger, but him taping his index finger to his middle finger, actually caused arthritis in the knuckle of his middle finger. Pictures of his hand post playing career show some truly mangled digits -- this isn't some "phantom" broken hand that never had a medical exam or surgery follow up).
Lebron quit against those same Celtics (as you mentioned) and then fled a month later to Miami joining up with a top 3 player and a top 15 player. KD gets (rightfully) murdered for going to the Warriors, but where's the ridicule for James' nearly as weak move?
Jerry West went up against the first super team for 8 years losing every single time in the finals -- and kept fighting until he at last overcame them. I'd put West's solo ring above all four of Lebron's.
James nightly shows us who he really is. An example the other night serves as a microcosm. Lebron got hit in the face on a somewhat routine foul by Dillon Brooks. He then proceeded to lay on the ground face first for a few minutes rolling around as if in pain. Selling the flagrant. The flagrant was issued, and Lebron was...surprise surprise, perfectly fine.
Kobe Bryant had his nose BROKEN in an all-star game by Dwyane Wade (no flagrant called) and walked over to the sideline to get the blood taken care of. A trip to the doctor later that evening revealed that he actually did break his nose. Two nights later, sporting a protective mask, he dropped 40 on Wade.
Counting stats and pseudo-efficiency and all that aside -- give me Bryant over James Every. Single. Time.
Robert:
I have written extensively about LeBron since his career began, and I covered dozens of his games in person, so the facts supporting my position are laid out here in many articles.
LeBron is one of the greatest players of all-time. I disagree with the popular notion that he is either THE greatest or in the top three. Again, I have explained in detail my position on LeBron.
Most teams struggle without their star players. After LeBron left Cleveland the first time, the Cavaliers chose to gut their roster, so of course they struggled. Sometimes, LeBron's teams struggle when he misses games because his teams have a LeBron-centric offense that cannot function well without him, which is not smart for many reasons. Phil Jackson's teams ran the Triangle, which enabled them to function even with the star players on the bench or out of action--but LeBron insists that everything revolves around him, which does not give his teammates freedom to be the best version of themselves. Of course, LeBron is so talented that his teams can sometimes overcome these drawbacks, even to the extent of winning championships.
I guess my point is, you are criticizing him both ways. If his team succeeds without him, he was holding his team back, and now they are playing more freely. If they fail without him, it’s because the team is too reliant on his style.
Personally I have LeBron at 2/3 all time. You can put Bill Russell behind both MJ and LeBron or ahead of both. No one other than MJ/Russell has been the best player on a championship team more times than LeBron. And if we take championships out of it, there’s no one in NBA history that has a more impressive career. So to me it’s impossible for him to not be top 3, but everyone has different criteria.
Jordan:
I agree with you in general about LeBron's lack of personal accountability, and I agree with you specifically about taking Kobe over LeBron. As you know, I have explored both themes in depth in multiple articles.
Robert:
No, that is not what I am saying.
As Jordan mentioned, LeBron refrains from taking personal responsibility. According to his narrative, when his teams win he is the primary reason, but when his teams lose it is everyone's fault but his. The LeBron narrative for this season specifically is that LeBron is doing everything that he can for the Lakers to win but he just does not have enough help--which is funny considering that he has a Top 75 player of all-time who is an MVP candidate this season, plus a solid collection of supporting players. After the Westbrook trade, we were told that LeBron has the perfect supporting cast. It is fascinating how terrible that supporting cast is considered to be now.
If the GOAT is determined by ring counting, then Russell wins in a landslide. He played over 20 seasons of organized ball--high school, college, Olympics, NBA--and his team won the championship almost every season.
LeBron has hopped from team to team, and he has built (or attempted to build) custom super-teams in Miami, Cleveland, and now L.A. (by teaming up with Top 75 players Davis and Westbrook, though he quickly soured on Westbrook). If you are going to "count" his four championships as supposedly meaning more than the six championships won by Kareem and the five championships won by Magic then you also need to count how many times LeBron has lost in the Finals. If LeBron is the GOAT, then his personally constructed super-teams should have done better than 4-6 in the Finals.
I am not going to go too much further here because I have explored all of this in greater detail elsewhere, but look at LeBron's head to head playoff record versus Duncan, Durant, Curry, and Kawhi for starters. Are you really sure that LeBron did better against those guys than (in chronological order) Baylor, Wilt, Robertson, West, Dr. J, Bird, or Magic would have done in similar circumstances?
Lastly, LeBron is playing in an era with little rim protection. How would he have fared in an era with dominant seven footers protecting the paint, forcing him to rely on his jumper? LeBron's teams have not done great against physical squads like Duncan's Spurs, the Pierce-KG-Allen Celtics, etc.
Kobe won back to back titles and made three straight Finals appearances with Pau as his sidekick, Lamar Odom as the third option, Derek Fisher as the starting pg, and Shannon Brown--who could not even get on the court in Cleveland because LeBron's first Cleveland team was so deep--as a key rotation player. Be honest: how many titles do you think that LeBron wins with Kobe's 2007-2010 supporting cast? Remember, Pau was a one-time All-Star who had not won a playoff game before joining forces with Kobe; Pau was not an MVP candidate pre-Kobe the way that Davis was pre-LeBron.
I realize that LeBron has been so pumped up by his media buddies that calling him top 5-10 sounds like "hate," but I have detailed the evidence supporting my evaluation (not just in this little comment, but in thousands of words spread out over two decades).
A lot to unpack here. You said that it isn't what you were saying, but I will use 2 verbatim references from this very thread, and you can help me understand haha.
why they played well with him off the floor:
"In short, James' talent often lifts his teams, but it also can suffocate his teammates. The Lakers played free and loose without James controlling the ball, and several players showed that they are capable of creating their own shots and playing solid defense."
And why they struggle when he's off the floor:
"but LeBron insists that everything revolves around him, which does not give his teammates freedom to be the best version of themselves"
I cannot imagine a more direct contradiction. To everything else that you said -
I agree with the narrative stuff as I previously stated. He was statpadding the 2014 Finals in every blowout game. I don't think he "faked" his injury in 2018, but the way it was presented deserved an eyeroll. I don't disagree with his maturity/accountability issues especially early in his career before the Dallas series.
I think the LeBron "no help" thing is a strawman. Of course he has had talented teams throughout his career, but he has still been an underdog in 7 Finals. There has to be a middle ground between context and excuse. W.R.T to the finals losses - He completely blew the 2011 Finals, and like you mentioned he was terrible in game 5 against Boston in 2010. So he deserves criticism for those seasons because those were 2 legitimate chances to win a championship and he didn't deliver. But let's be honest - the 2007, 2015 and 2018 Finals were a complete joke in terms of (available) supporting cast. The Cavs had beaten a 73-9 Warriors team in 2016, before that same team, who kept their 5 best players, with their 3 best players in their 20s/prime, added KEVIN DURANT. So that leaves 2014 as the only debatable one imo. The Spurs were favored and better, but I think LeBron does deserve some criticism for the series not being competitive at all.
I also think it's dishonest to suggest that someone who has had a top 75 career (like Westbrook) is a top 75 caliber player for his entire career. Or that Dwyane Wade in 2014 was the same player in 2009, or even 2012.
Anthony Davis was an amazing player before LeBron and remains an amazing player, no doubt. I no longer consider LeBron to be the best player in the NBA (clearly Jokic), and haven't since his injury in 2021. So I'm not grading him against the GOAT curve at this point, but rather the age 38-39-40 curve, which he is passing with ease. He has still been around a top 5-10 player since the Solomon Hill incident which is largely unprecedented in NBA history. He managed to at least make a deep playoff run last year, and win the IST this year. His glory days are very likely over.
As far as Kobe goes:
He's certainly an all-time great 3-level scorer, and I will buy that his value slightly increases in the playoffs when tough shotmaking is at a premium. But I think he was considerably overrated in the context of being a top 5 player. Unlike all of the other top 10 players, he didn't possess the physical gifts to generate high quality shots. LeBron is a far more efficient scorer than Kobe - it may not be as aesthetically pleasing, but difficulty is not equivalent to value. He was a decent playmaker, but not great, and he was a decent defender, but also not great (I default to statistics when it comes to evaluating defense, rather than the media awards from untrained eyes).
He is not in my top 10 players of all time, because I simply don't think that he was the same caliber of player as players like Jordan, LeBron, Kareem, Russell, peak Magic, peak Bird, peak Shaq, peak Olajuwon. I actually think Steph Curry is a better player as well because of his otherworldly skill, although he was a late bloomer and I don't totally respect the 2017 and 2018 championships.
I also believe that you are severely underrating Kobe's supporting cast. First off, I believe that Pau Gasol should have won 2010 Finals MVP, he completely outplayed KG in that series and Kobe really struggled to score efficiently, much like 2008.
You also have to account for the talent pool of the era - you can try to compare casts in a vacuum, but I would argue that the 2009 Lakers had easily the best roster outside the best player, for the year 2009. Gasol was a top 15 player, Bynum and Odom were top 50, and Ariza was a very high level role player. They essentially replaced Ariza with Artest the following year. Derek Fisher was also a very good role player. The 2009 Lakers I think are one of the best teams of the 21st century, and of course Kobe deserves a lot of credit for that, but it is acting in bad faith imo to completely subvert the narrative and pretend that he is the one who did not have any help.
Lastly, the team-hopping/"loyalty" factor: I know it's been swept under the rug, but Kobe for years had an infamous beef with Shaq, giving "him or me" ultimatums repeatedly (this is well documented), and he also demanded a trade in 2007. LeBron has honored every contract he's ever signed, and like anyone else in America, took a better opportunity when it came up. Someone mentioned how he "held franchises hostage" - yes, for championships that he delivered at every stop.
We talked about LeBron quitting in 2010, but I remember Kobe refusing to shoot the ball in the 2H of G7 against the Suns, blowing a 3-1 lead, and pouting because the Lakers had blown his 50 point game 6. So much for Mamba Mentality.
Robert:
I don't understand the contradiction that you think you found. I acknowledged that LeBron's sheer talent often lifts his team while noting that the way that he applies his talent can, at times, hold his teammates back. As Jordan said, every great player who has played with LeBron saw his stats go down (with the possible exception, at times, of Kyrie Irving).
LeBron's insistence to run everything all the time sometimes leaves his team in the lurch when he does not play or is not engaged (such as in the 2010 playoffs). In the recent win against the Celtics, the Lakers showed that--at least in the small sample size of one game--they can overcome those negatives. That does not mean that the negatives don't exist.
I don't pay attention to the betting line underdog. The line is set based on the public's expectations and is designed to, ideally, have the betting amounts split as close to 50-50 as possible. If LeBron is the GOAT then he had more than enough support to do better than 4-6 in the Finals, and to not lose to Boston in 2010.
Westbrook carried the Wizards to the playoffs before joining the Lakers, and he has played well as both starter and reserve since leaving the Lakers. The Lakers (LeBron) misused Westbrook, and then scapegoated him.
I agree and have previously stated that for the 38-39-40 age cohort what LeBron is doing is unprecedented.
Robert:
I don't have Kobe in the top five, but I rank him higher than LeBron in the top 10.
Kobe and LeBron played different positions with different roles in different offenses. Saying that LeBron is more efficient than Kobe based purely on numbers is like saying that Tyson Chandler is one of the most efficient scorers ever based on TS%, although I suspect that as someone who relies on such numbers you may actually think that about Chandler.
Kobe was an elite playmaker, as I explained in detail in many articles. Kobe was an elite defender as well (pre-Achilles injury, of course). The All-Defensive Teams were voted on by coaches, not media members. I don't know what defensive statistics you rely on, but people who understand statistics know that there are not reliable individual defensive metrics.
I'd take Kareem and Russell over Kobe without question, and Jordan as well. As I've mentioned before, I am not going to rank my Pantheon 1-14, but there are some rankings that are obvious from my perspective.
There is no way I would take Curry over Kobe. Curry is too small, his body breaks down, and he is not elite defensively.
The notion that Gasol should have won the Finals MVP is so ludicrous only a "stat guru" would say it or believe it. I refuted that notion, in depth, in coverage of the series. I am curious if you watched the games, or just looked at a spreadsheet. If you watched the games, how did Gasol get so many open, high percentage shots? Did he magically develop skills that he never showed before or after playing with Kobe? Or did you notice the entire Boston defense tilted toward Kobe, leaving Gasol more open than he had ever been before or since?
The 2009 Lakers sans Kobe would have struggled to make the playoffs.
Yes, Fisher was a good role player--but he was the starting pg for back to back champions. Where would you rank him among Western Conference starting pgs circa 2008-2010?
Kobe wanted Shaq to work as hard as he did. That was the "beef." Shaq left, and won one ring with Wade. Kobe stayed, and made three Finals--and won two titles--with Pau Gasol, who no one thought of as an All-NBA player (let alone an HoFer) until he teamed up with Kobe.
I discussed Kobe's alleged refusal to shoot many times. Here is one example: http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2006/05/to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot.html
Your recollection of what Kobe did or did not do is wrong, and you ignored (or don't know about) similar statistical performances that were not given the same scrutiny/criticism, including games by Tim Duncan and LeBron James.
Maybe I misinterpreted your comments- I'm just saying, it's theoretically possible if LeBron's team is struggling without LeBron, it's because the cast isn't that great. It's possible that if they win a game without him, that they still aren't that great, but they had a lucky shooting night. It's also of course possible that the reverse arguments are true. It just can't be 100% blame LeBron and move the goalposts depending on the result.
Re LeBron's star teammates:
Kevin Love's stats went down, but he didn't become worse in terms of impact on winning. He never particularly drove winning before or after LeBron, because the NBA evolution moved against him. With that said he's a good player, and some of his best advanced metric seasons came with LeBron, especially the latter 2 years when he improved his physical shape/defense. So basically, Kevin Love was injured the first year, they won the championship the 2nd year, and he submitted 2 very good seasons after that - hardly any meat left on that bone.
Bosh was similar. He also never drove winning before or after, but he was clearly the 2nd best player by the end of the Heat run. To his credit, he adapted his game to become a really good defensive player because that's what the team needed. It's unfortunate that his career was cut short by the medical issues.
Davis has not suffered at all from a schematic standpoint in terms of playing with LeBron. If anything it's helped him, as a world-class playmaker with a world-class finisher is a very synergetic relationship. If Davis's stats have gone down at all, it's because he doesn't possess the same juice with all the injuries he's suffered.
Kyrie never played better basketball than when he was next to LeBron James. They complemented each other extremely well.
Wade was the one who was most affected negatively because of the overlap in skillsets. Wade still remained an elite player until his injury before the 13 playoffs. He was never the same player after that.
I can't count Westbrook in this discussion because even if he is playing better this season with a better fit, I don't think he's even close at the moment to the level of player that any the guys I mentioned when LeBron played with them. I think he's just a solid backup point guard. I hold him in very high regard with respect to his career, he was my choice for MVP in 2017, but his game did not age gracefully at all.
And I'm not saying LeBron is the GOAT, or better than MJ. But he is much closer to MJ to me than he is to Kobe. But that's just my opinion. Thank you for allowing my comments :), I will continue to monitor the blog, good day.
No, I don't think that about Tyson Chandler. I think that if 2 guys score a similar amount of points, and one takes less possessions to do so, that that player is a more efficient scorer.
I strongly disagree with your assessment of the 09-10 Lakers and Gasol. I'm not sure what to add rather than that. I am a statistics major, guilty as charged, but of course I'm aware that a statistic is only as good as what it's measuring. If a couple bounces go the other way in that G7, we are talking about a terrible Kobe Finals performance, despite the Lakers completely owning the interior in that series.
I haven't mentioned Tim Duncan thus far, so I'm not sure why you brought him up.
I also talked about several LeBron postseason disappointments/failures, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. This is my last post on this topic ha, thanks for the discussion.
Part 1 of 2
@Robert
Kobe played his prime during literally the slowest paced, best defensive decade in NBA history. From 2000 to 2010, teams averaged 96 points per game. Compare that to this year (115 ppg) or MJ’s prime (105 ppg). That’s on average. Scoring “efficiently” is a nice idea, and smart teams do employ hunting for efficient shots, but the whole concept is wildly overblown. Efficiency doesn’t matter when your back is against the wall. Embiid, Harden…Lebron, all disappear in crunch time, where force of will is really what determines who wins and who loses.
The only player other than MJ to lead the entire league and playoffs in scoring for back-to-back-to-back finals appearances is Bryant. Furthermore, during Shaq and Kobe’s 5 playoffs together (when Bryant was a starter) – they both averaged around 26 ppg across those 5 runs. Kobe also led the playoffs (and the Lakers) in fourth quarter scoring during their 3peat. So, being “carried” is the furthest thing from the truth.
Another fun fact, no other player in NBA history has faced and beaten more 50-win teams in the playoffs. Bryant faced a 50-win team in the playoffs for 87% of his career. MJ’s at 75%. Bron’s at 50%. So, those 10 finals appearances coming out of the historically weak east…aren’t all that impressive. Bron faced teams in the playoffs with losing records! Since coming out West, Bron’s only legit made the playoffs once.
During Kobe’s second back-to-back-to-back finals runs, Kobe had to go through Duncan’s Spurs, Dirk’s Mavs, Nash/Marion/Amare Suns, KD/Westbrook/Harden Thunder, Melo/AI Nuggets, Yao/T-Mac Rockets and that’s not even mentioning pretty good teams like the Deron Williams/Boozer Jazz or the BRoy/Aldridge Blazers. He then went on to beat the absolutely stacked Celtics teams with 3 HoFers (and potentially a fourth with Rondo) and MVP-level Dwight’s Magic.
You can argue that Bryant wasn’t deserving of all of his first and second and third team all defensive selections (he’s second all time to only Tim Duncan in terms of selections). Carrying the main offensive load, it’s true that Bryant’s effort level on defense would come and go throughout the season. But, in a critical moment, no other guard from 2000-2010 was better than Bryant or could be counted on like Bryant to get a stop or shut down the other team’s best wing. The same cannot be said about Lebron.
It's funny you have all of those other guys ahead of Bryant, when all of them won with another MVP-level player next to them. Pippen finished 3rd in MVP voting the year MJ was playing baseball. Magic played with Kareem. Shaq won his with Wade (another top 3 MVP guy) and Kobe. Lebron played with Wade and AD (and a host of all-stars. It’s crazy how many Olympians Bron has played with as well…). Steph Curry has played on stacked teams for the past 8 seasons, including with Kevin Durant on the most stacked team of all time. Sure, Kobe played with Shaq for his first three peat, but no one you mentioned ever went out and proved they could do it without another top 75 player – other than Kobe.
The 2009 and 2010 Lakers were not the best team in the league. Lol. At best, I’ll give you that they were comparable to Lebron’s Cavs during that same stretch (who won the most regular season games both seasons). Bynum and Odom were not top 50 players. Bynum was hurt when they made the finals in 08. He played in 65 games the next season and 54 games in 2010. In the 2009 playoffs, Bynum averaged 6 ppg and 4 rpg. He upped that to 7.5 and 7.5 in 2010. Odom is a better player than he was given credit for, but top 50 is a stretch. He had the ability to be a top 50 player easily. But, never could put the mental aspect all together.
Part 2 of 2
Maybe you didn’t watch the finals in 2010. Because if you did, there is no way you’d consider Gasol the Lakers best player during that run. Yes, he came up big and Metta hit a big shot, but Bryant closed out game 7 with sheer force of will and led the entire playoffs in scoring (and 4th quarter scoring as well). Kobe scored 10 points, grabbed 4 boards, and dished 1 assist in the fourth quarter to lead the team to victory. Remember…he did all of this with an avulsion fracture on his right index finger on his shooting hand. Mamba Mentality indeed.
Bron wore a cast after being eliminated from the playoffs and told everyone he played with “basically” a broken hand. Never had surgery, never heard about it again the following season.
Speaking of casts…the Cavs had the 3rd and 7th best defenses and were second in the NBA in 3-point % both seasons. The Cavs had size (Shaq, Big Z, Ben Wallace, JJ Hickson, Andersen Varejao, Joe Smith), shooting (Daniel Gibson, Szczerbiak, Pavlovic, Williams, West, Parker), and some decent secondary/tertiary scorers (Williams, Antawn Jameson). The Lakers had Pau, Odom, Bynum, Fisher, Ariza/Metta, Walton, Farmar, Vujecic, Shannon Brown, and Radmanovic. I will concede these rosters are fairly even.
Only one of the two was able to win two chips, while beating both teams the other guy lost to.
Which is why Lebron was like, I need to join up with Wade and Bosh and a stacked Miami team. It’s so funny that you say Kobe played on stacked teams, but not a single guy on his team was selected to the 75 greatest players list. Bron went and joined two! And only could match Bryant’s two chips.
Yes, Pau had a couple of all-star selections and 1 all-NBA selection after he and Kobe parted ways, while Bynum had one all-star selection the year after they won the second chip – and then basically fell off the face of the earth. But, as much as I love Pau Gasol, love his game, love his personality – he’s not as good as Wade. In fact, he’s probably comparable to Bosh, who was the third best player on those Heat teams.
You bring up Kobe “quitting” on the Lakers during a season in which his second best player was Lamar Odom or…checks notes…Smush Parker. The gameplan against the Suns was to forcefeed Kwame Brown in the post to tire out the Suns who were playing a historically small lineup. I can understand why he may have tried to prove a point. Not saying it’s right, but it’s a far cry from having the winningest team in the NBA, and then just not showing up for games 4-7. Or, being outplayed by Jason Terry in the finals.
Last point. Kobe and Shaq had beef. No question. They were both responsible for being immature during their time together. But, this narrative of Kobe forcing Shaq out has to stop. It was Jerry Buss who wanted Shaq gone. Shaq, as the highest paid player in the NBA, under contract for one more season, after having “healed on company time” the season before, screamed at Jerry Buss during a preseason game to pay him. Buss traded him a few weeks later. And that was 100% the right choice.
Ok, one more post - I admit the Bynum take was lazy, and it was a lapse of playing the name game. I'll cop to that. But I will still rest my entire case that the 2009/10 Lakers supporting was clearly superior to the Cavs during those seasons. The reason why the Cavs won more games those years in the RS, is because LeBron probably had 2 of the greatest RS of all time. They were absolutely terrible when he left. I respect Kobe, but to me he is just not on LeBron's level, or that all time upper echelon level. LeBron is a more efficient scorer, a much better playmaker, and at his peak, a much better defender. He's also more clutch, despite the lazy narrative of him not being the opposite. Easily the greatest elimination game player in NBA history. I could talk all day about it (clearly lol) but that's where I'm at, good day gentleman.
Jordan:
I agree for the most part with what you wrote, and I will not quibble on a few minor points of disagreement (mainly your wavering on how much Kobe deserved some of his All-Defensive Team selections).
Robert:
Thank you for conceding the Bynum point. Bynum was so overrated that it is almost comical. One well-known "stat guru" argued with a straight face that Bynum was more valuable than Kobe.
I saw those Cavs teams in person with a media credential dozens of times, and I saw those Lakers teams in person a handful of times. The Cavs were deep and well-constructed, with plenty of quality big men plus a number of good shooters. As I have mentioned many times, the Cavs were so deep that Shannon Brown could not even get on the court. I used to watch him playing pickup games with assistant coaches. Then, he went to Kobe's Lakers and became a key rotation player. So, your argument is reduced to either saying that Kobe made this guy much, much better than he was in Cleveland, or you have to concede that a key Lakers' rotation player was not in the Cavs' top 15. Those are the facts, and I observed these players firsthand while also talking to coaches, scouts, and other key people in the league at that time.
Go back and read my articles from 2007-08 about Kobe versus the Spurs and LeBron versus the Spurs. LeBron was not more efficient, at least not in the ways that matter for winning championships. It is not an accident that Kobe's teams went 5-2 in the Finals while LeBron's have gone 4-6. LeBron often plays in a way that augments his personal stats without necessarily contributing to winning. You are looking at LeBron's stats, while I am looking at the bigger picture.
We disagree about defense and we don't speak the same language or use the same numbers to evaluate defense.
Regarding playmaking, it depends what you mean. I am aware that LeBron averaged more assists than Kobe. So did Stephon Marbury, and many other players who were not better playmakers than Kobe. I don't rank playmakers based on apg averages, and I have written many articles about how inaccurate/unreliable assist numbers are, particularly for at least the past 20 years. By the way, do all of you people who rely so much on statistics care about how demonstrably inaccurate many of the statistics are?
Anyway, Kobe served both the Jordan and Pippen roles in the Lakers' Triangle Offense: he was the primary scorer, and the primary facilitator. Kobe ran highly efficient offenses that won championships, and he also carried two atrocious teams to the playoffs. Kobe reached the Western Conference playoffs with Kwame Brown as his starting center and Smush Parker as his starting point guard. Kobe made that motley crew look like a functional NBA team.
To get more technical, Kobe could make any pass: post feed, cross court, bounce pass, chest pass, drive and kick, etc. More importantly, he knew how to use his scoring prowess to manipulate defenses to create scoring opportunities for sublime players like Shaq and ridiculous (by NBA standards) players who I will not call out by name.
NBA commentators who understand the game know these things. If you watched Kobe's games that were called by Hubie Brown or Jeff Van Gundy then you heard these things being pointed out.
LeBron is a very gifted passer. There is no doubt about that. However--and this gets back to one of my overarching points about LeBron--he wants to make the assist pass. That is not always a bad thing, but it can be a bad thing if the right pass for the team is the pass that leads to the assist pass. Marbury was notorious for insisting on making the assist pass. LeBron is not nearly as bad about this as Marbury--and he is a much better player than Marbury, obviously--but LeBron often does this. That is just part of the reason that I don't look at assist numbers as the main factor when ranking playmakers in general, or in this specific example of comparing LeBron and Kobe.
One last point: there are situations in which no matter how skilled a passer you are it is your responsibility as the best player and best scorer to take the shot. A great playmaker makes the right play INCLUDING when the right play is for him to shoot.
I'm back! I'll give you that Kobe was better against the Spurs. Even in the series the Heat won, LeBron wasn't at his best until the final 5 quarters. He was terrible in the 2007 Finals, although it wouldn't have mattered if he had played better in terms of changing the result of that series.
I absolutely detest assigning W/L records to individual players. You said that you ignore betting lines, but that's a way of pretending that every matchup b/w superstars/teams is a fair fight. This isn't tennis. It's tough to avoid that temptation because instinctively we don't want to separate the concept of individual greatness from team victory. But under this logic, you are suggesting that the great Jerry West "didn't play the right way", when in reality, he didn't have the right circumstances.
I respect that you covered those teams, but it's hard for me to see how the 09/10 Cavs were any different from the Giannis Bucks pre Jrue Holiday. Their RS success came from historically great play night in and night out from the best player in the league in his physical prime. Not because of their overall talent. Because opposing teams do not have the opportunity to create detailed gameplans in the RS, you don't have to be as versatile to have success, but we saw the lack of talent in both of those situations eventually prove problematic in the playoffs.
I would love to hear about what statistics you have a problem with. I, like you, am not a huge X/Y/Z points/assists/rebounds guy, because you can artificially manipulate those like you mentioned. I am however an impact statistics guy, especially when those statistics are predictive towards future success (and not just random numbers out of thin air).
The only issue I have with all-in-one metrics (that favor LeBron across the board) is that they capture RS information, when the RS game is quite different from the PS game. But, those stats are not "inaccurate", they just don't paint the whole picture. Having said that, there is indisputable evidence in my opinion that LeBron was a far superior RS player in 2009 to Kobe, and yet his team only won one more game. In my opinion, Kobe had a much better playoff cast - more versatile, more talent, and more size.
Kobe had an great basketball IQ like you mentioned, but LeBron is on another savant-like level. This is someone who came directly from high school and showed an elite understanding of the game immediately. His scoring handle is a bit iffy, but given his workload, his turnovers are pretty respectable, as his teams have had consistent low TO rates in the playoffs. His live-dribble point guard handle is absolutely remarkable for his size, not quite Magic Johnson, but a pretty good impression. This is the inverse of someone like Kevin Durant who has an excellent scoring handle with his dribble pull up game, but struggles to make the right plays as a "big guard".
I encourage you to watch this Thinking Basketball video on LeBron's playmaking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0TtkYVYJTo. I am not saying that Kobe wasn't a good passer, but there are levels, and LeBron is one of the greatest passers of all time.
LeBron is quite literally the best drive-and-kick player in NBA history. You mentioned Kobe setting others up, but LeBron is constantly using his downhill gravity to create open 3s and lobs.
On defense, Miami LeBron clears by a mile. 2016 and 2020 were also tremendous displays of defense. You mentioned not speaking the same language. That's a separate discussion that I'm willing to have but I'm running out of characters.
I would hope that I haven't presented myself as a pure stats guy. I have consumed NBA basketball regularly for the last 20 years. There is a boogyman like connotation attached to the word analytics, when all that word really means is information. I think the purpose of (quality) statistics is to separate the signal from the noise and enrich the understanding of what's happening :)
Robert:
I would be interested to know the analytical, objective basis for your statement that even if LeBron had played better in the 2007 Finals that would not have made a difference. You can find my game by game analysis on this site--and I covered games three and four in person--but just think about game one for a moment. The Spurs won 85-76 in a game during which LeBron had a game-high six turnovers while shooting 4-16 from the field. Six turnovers plus 12 missed shots are 18 empty possessions in a three possession game. Let's say that LeBron plays better and the Cavs win game one. Now they have homecourt advantage. The Cavs lost their two home games in the series by just three points and one point despite LeBron's inefficiency. What if LeBron played well enough for the Cavs to win game one on the road and games three and four at home? Now they need just one more win.
It is always interesting to me how people present a veneer of arguing based on objective facts, but upon close examination they are really just spinning their preferred narrative.
Ignoring betting lines does not mean I don't make my own assessment of who should be the favorite/underdog. I just don't rely on Vegas oddsmakers to do this for me, because--contrary to popular belief--the point spread is not a "prediction": it is set to balance the wagering, and thus is based not only on the merits of the teams but the subjective impressions of the bettors (which is one reason why the line moves; if the line were based only on the merits of the teams then it would not move unless a key player became injured or unavailable).
If you detest assigning wins and losses to individual players then why did you make the point at the start of this thread that you rank LeBron no worse than third all-time because he was the best player on more championship teams than anyone other than Russell and Jordan? If wins and losses should not be assigned to individual players then you just invalidated your own argument.
The 2007-2010 Cavs were talented, deep, and well-coached. This is all detailed in my articles from that time period. I don't think that my articles will convince you, though, and I am not going to try to persuade you here now.
Rick Barry once said that free throw percentage is the only pure stat. Every other number can be manipulated. That may be a bit extreme but not by much. Whether a tip or tap is counted as a rebound, a shot attempt, both, or neither is often subjective. Players can manipulate their field goal percentages based on taking or avoiding certain shots (Shane Battier admitted to not firing end of quarter full court flings until after the buzzer sounded because he wanted to preserve his FG%).
Also, go through my site and find the articles that I wrote about Chris Paul and assists. Chris Paul is credited with many assists that are not rule book assists (and this is probably true for other players as well).
Robert:
The so-called "advanced basketball statistics" are based on utilizing boxscore numbers in various ways. If the basic numbers are off then so are the "advanced" numbers.
There is no substitute for watching the game with an educated eye.
I don't dispute that LeBron is a great playmaker and a great passer (the two things are not the same, as I explained in my previous comment). I disagree with your contention that he is a markedly superior playmaker compared to Kobe.
LeBron had periods of his career when he was a great defender. Because of his size, he can guard power forwards and even some centers, which Kobe could not do. I would still take Kobe based on his ability to both lock down a top scorer (to the extent that can be done in the NBA) and play the roamer/helper role. Kobe was similar to Pippen in that respect, but Pippen was better defensively because (1) he was bigger than Kobe and (2) he did not have the same scoring load as Kobe so he could focus more on defense. LeBron did not consistently play defense the way that Kobe did. LeBron's chasedown blocks attracted attention--and one famous chasedown helped seal a title--but if you look at the numbers he was never a great shotblocker or rim protector. Julius Erving, an underrated defender, was a far superior shot blocker even though he was shorter than James.
If you want to argue that dialed in LeBron was a better defender than dialed in Kobe based on LeBron being at least two inches taller and 30 pounds heavier, I can accept that--but LeBron was not consistently dialed in, so if you are looking at their whole careers then I take Kobe.
I am all for utilizing information. Dan Rosenbaum and Dean Oliver are two analysts who use statistics in an intelligent way. Not coincidentally, they are candid about the limitations of statistics. There are many, many "stat gurus" who have no idea what they are talking about. Why do most "stat gurus" never speak about the quality of the underlying data, what is a statistically significant sample size, and what is the margin of error? I laugh every time I see one of these proprietary statistics declaring with absolute certainty that Player X has a statistical rating of 28.765 and thus he is demonstrably better than Player Y, who has a rating of 27.654. If you are truly a student of statistics and a consumer of relevant information, then I don't have to tell you how many errors infect such thinking.
My day job involves using litigation analytics. I am not a statistician by training, but I understand sample size and I understand the limits of analytics. In short, I know BS when I see it, and most of the "stat gurus" are spouting BS.
I do not care for box score/game score metrics so we are aligned there. But we can glean some insight by on/off numbers. Not everything, but some. How much better is your team per possession when you are on the floor vs off, adjusting for lineup combinations. That still doesn’t speak to situations where a player could be tactically misused, and therefore better than his impact, but it’s still a starting point. We even have the ability now w/ play information to track how efficient players are in certain actions, how effective they are at deterring shots around the rim, the shot quality they yield on isos, etc. Bball-Index does a great job creating “report card” player evaluations on diff skill serts based on hundreds/thousands of these interactions that happen across games/seasons.
I respect that you understand the difference b/w passing and playmaking because a lot of people don’t. LeBron in my opinion is also a superior playmaker to Kobe. He was for years in the playoffs, the most efficient half court decision maker in the NBA.
You misinterpreted my argument. My point is that if you aren't counting championships, there's basically no way LeBron isn't a top 3 player of all time. MVPS, longevity, epic playoff performances, finals runs, all stars, all-nbas, you name it. But under the caveman approach of ignoring team context and proceeding with ring counting, LeBron probably (in my opinion) still has a top 3 championship resume. He does not have as many as Kobe, Tim Duncan, Magic, or Kareem, but unlike all of those other players, he was the absolute clear driving force behind every single one of his championships (although AD deserves close to the same amount of credit for the one in 2020 I think). At the very least, it's harder to argue any of those players have better championship resumes when none of them had proven to be the best player in at least 4 different NBA Finals (and in LeBron's case, that number could very well be 5/6, but let's say 4 to be conservative).
Not every point that we are discussing can be explained in depth with a 4000 character limit so let me address the 2007 NBA Finals. You can say that you don't use betting odds to frame how a team might fare in a series, but the Spurs were nearly 5-1 favorites going in. That is one of the most lopsided prices of the last 20 years, outside of the KD Warriors years and the Shaq-Kobe years (further supporting how ridiculous the finals record argument is). Everyone can bemoan how that's just "a narrative", but Vegas isn't run by the "LeBron loving media". It's not exactly a prediction, but it's an objective, wisdom-of-the-crowd estimation. Anybody has the right to disprove that estimation and profit, but you'll almost certainly be better off following the mantra - don't outthink the room.
You are right that the games were close, and it is reasonable to assume that Cleveland could have won some of those games with better LeBron performances. But the rubber band effect in every sport is real - in-game, teams that are winning tend to play as a slightly worse version of themselves, and vice versa. If someone wins a game by 6 points, that doesn't mean you can turn around and say, "if I hit 4 more shots we would have won". To suggest that the Spurs were barely better than Cleveland, given a sweep, given a reasonable prior estimation of a lopsided betting line, is in my opinion a stretch. I will rest my entire case on the lack of talent of those 07-10 Cleveland teams, and if we can't get around that, that's fine.
But let's say that I'm just "twisting the narrative", even though I think have been fair thus far in terms of criticizing him for failing to capitalize on legitimate chances to win such as 2010 and 2011, and fair to call him out that he didn't play up to his standards in any of the Spurs Finals. Let's say the series was absolutely winnable, and LeBron blew it. We are somehow holding that 2007 Finals run against him when he quite clearly exceeded expectations given his age. Does 22 year old Kobe win that Finals in LeBron's case? I would go as far to say that any version of Kobe is drawing dead in that series. Of course I'm willing to hear the counter argument.
The best player that LeBron played with in his first Cleveland stint is Mo Williams. Someone brilliantly claimed that Kobe was able to win a championship without a top 75 NBA player of all time. What is the all time ranking of Mo Williams? He might be in my top 485. What is the all time ranking of Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who (I guess) was his best teammate in 2007? It is a complete farce imo to suggest that the Cavaliers were talented. I am way more open to the suggestion that LeBron's stats are overrated, because of how they came from a system which very likely wouldn't win a championship.
They may have had a better back end of the roster than most teams, which is useful in the RS. But it doesn't mean anything in the playoffs when everyone is only playing 7-8 guys anyway.
Robert:
I have often said that LeBron is the most puzzling truly great player of all-time. He has tremendous physical gifts plus a high basketball IQ, and he has worked hard to stay in top condition, which is enabling him to play at an unprecedented level for his age.
And yet...he has demonstrably quit in at least two big-time playoff series: 2010 versus Boston, 2011 versus Dallas. There is not another Pantheon-level player who has done that. He was not a great defender at the start of his career, but he became good and then great. He was a subpar shooter when he entered the league, but he improved in that regard. As Jordan has repeatedly noted in various comment threads, LeBron never takes personal responsibility and he has repeatedly either jumped teams or forced players/coaches out.
LeBron's greatness is undeniable; people who deny LeBron's greatness are being idiotic.
However, LeBron had the potential to accomplish even more than he did--and, in a team context, he has not accomplished more than, among others, Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, and Tim Duncan, each of whom won more championships with a better Finals winning percentage.
Some people acknowledge all of the above but still rank LeBron as the greatest ever based on saying that his overall level--from year one to now--is unprecedented: they argue that no one has played at an All-NBA level as long as LeBron has.
I rank players based on a combination of peak value and longevity, so based on my peak value assessment I don't rank LeBron number one and I don't rank him ahead of Kobe.
I don't think that it is crazy to say that LeBron is a greatest player of all-time candidate, even though I don't rank him that highly; what is crazy is to say that the discussion is limited to just LeBron and Jordan. That makes no sense to me. LeBron's peak value never surpassed Kobe's and it could be argued that it did not surpass Duncan's.
I respect your opinion, and I need to not get fired from my job so I'll leave it at this. I think there is strong statistical evidence, not based on stats that can be artificially manipulated, but rather those that reliably (imo) measure impact/skill, to suggest that peak LeBron is a better player than peak Kobe, by some margin. Not quite as good peak Jordan. He didn't have the championship success of Bill Russell or Jordan. I still maintain LeBron's 4 FMVPs should at least be enough to guarantee him a draw in the championship department vs all those players that you named. His longevity is better than everyone but Kareem, where I will call it pretty even. My Mount Rushmore is Jordan-LeBron-Kareem-Russell in that order.
I have not disagreed with any of your assessments of his intangibles. He failed to show up in 2010 and 2011, and he exhibits classic narcissistic personality traits. His controlling presence has likely undermined his team's chances in terms of optimal roster construction. I don't know if I factor that last part into his pure on-court ability, but perhaps it's fair to do so when it has practical consequences. You have also refrained from calling him unclutch which is quite refreshing and surprising ha. Maybe I will catch you on the next blog :)
Robert:
LeBron has locked up the longevity argument in pro basketball. No one has consistently played at that level for that long. Kareem hung around for his last couple years because (1) his team was still contending and (2) he wanted to earn more money because he had lost a small fortune due to being ripped off and losing possessions in a fire. Until Kareem was 38 or so he was still an elite player, but he dropped quickly after that, which has not happened to LeBron (yet).
This interesting conversation that we are having mirrors--but at a higher level and with a more respectful tone--conversations that I had with many other people during the era we are discussing. I don't think that either side will budge in such conversations, so I will just add that my take on Cleveland's roster in that era is based on (in no particular order) (1) overall depth (even if that depth is not as valuable in the playoffs, it helps you survive the regular season without wearing down your best player the way that the Lakers destroyed Kobe's Achilles), (2) roster balance (size, shooting, etc.), (3) very strong defensively and on the boards (combination of roster construction and coaching).
I would strongly argue that 2007 Kobe is not being swept by the 2007 Spurs if Kobe played with the Cavs. Kobe had a strong midrange game and proved in multiple playoff series that he could play much more efficiently against the Spurs than LeBron did. Kobe took the 2006 Suns to seven games with Kwame Brown and Smush Parker, so he is not getting swept in the 2007 NBA Finals with a Cavs team that was bigger, stronger, tougher, and smarter than his 2006 Lakers.
It is tough to directly compare straight out of high school LeBron with straight out of high school Kobe. LeBron was more physically developed, and he went to a team where he could immediately be the best player and play through his mistakes. Kobe went to a strong team where he had to earn playing time versus All-Stars and All-Star caliber players. Those different situations explain why early LeBron's individual numbers dwarf Kobe's. On the other hand, Kobe developed rapidly into a two-way player who was an All-NBA level performer for a three-peat champion (a feat that even peak LeBron never accomplished).
I am not disputing that the 2007 Spurs were legitimately the favorites over the Cavs. I picked the Spurs to win the series. You are correct that one cannot just look at the scoring margins alone and assume that if LeBron had done X then the Cavs would have won--but I was not arguing that per se; I was disagreeing with your sweeping statement that no matter what LeBron did the Cavs had no chance. The Cavs were underdogs, but they should not have been swept, and if LeBron had played better then they had a chance.
If basketball greatness is defined by figuring out how to do whatever is necessary to win championships, then Russell and Magic have to rank very highly. For over 20 years, Russell won at every level against all comers. I am not persuaded by the notion that he could not have replicated his accomplishments in other eras. He did for over 20 years, so he showed that he could adjust to a variety of circumstances. Magic has become underrated as time passes, and I am not sure exactly why (other than the general rule that ensuing generations don't learn about or remember the past). LeBron is way more athletically explosive than Magic, but I'd take Magic over LeBron without hesitation. LeBron is often searching for the narrative to prove his greatness or justify why his team didn't win; Magic just figured out how to win, and how to make his teammates feel valued instead of scapegoated.
Pt. 1 of 2
@Robert
If one was to build the ideal team around prime Lebron (09,10 were his best years) what would that be in your estimation?
For me, I agree with Danny Ferry’s roster-building. Lebron had a team full of shooters to take advantage of, as you noted, Lebron’s unmatched drive and kick playmaking (those team’s shot 40% from 3 both seasons). Defensive minded bigs excellent at setting crushing screens to get Lebron open to drive to the rim where he was unstoppable, and those that could guard the paint, cover on switches and grab offensive and defensive rebounds (Wallace, Varejao, Hickson). A secondary playmaking guard who was adept at scoring off ball and spotting up, but in a pinch could thrive as a playmaker during the times Lebron sat (Mo Williams). A third player that could drop 20+ in any given game, but also not need to be the focal point (Jameson, Shaq, Big Z, Mo).
In 08/09 and especially 09/10, that was the exact roster construction for Lebron. You talk about how efficient he was – he did win the MVP both seasons – and then in the next sentence negate the fact he literally had a roster tailored to enhance his exact strengths and cover for his weaknesses.
I brought up winning without a top 75 player, and forgot to mention that fact is specifically talking about winning back-to-back championships without a top 75 player. Regardless if that 09/10 Cavs team didn’t have another top 75 player (though it did have Shaq, but he was well past his prime), Lebron didn’t win. He didn’t even make the finals. So, not sure what your point is. He had the perfect team to win without another top 75 player, and he just wet the bed. Moving to Miami was his admission that he couldn’t carry a team perfectly designed around his talents. That he needed more help. Which is what Lebron is always saying. He needs more help. And he got it. Wade, who finished 3rd in MVP voting the year before, and Bosh, who was a 26 ppg scorer in his prime (who did carry teams to the playoffs, and even win some games, unlike Gasol).
Kobe didn't need that kind of help to win -- and proved it.
21-year old Bryant won a championship fitting in next to a prime Shaq. During that first championship run, Kobe Bryant scored 19 fourth quarter points in the last 2 minutes of games within 3 points. He shot 50% in those situations. For comparison, in those same situations, Shaq scored 2 points (both freethrows as he went 0-2 from the field). In fact, no other Laker scored more than 4 points in those situations. Bryant shot poorly in the Finals overall that year, as he played half of the games on a bum ankle (thanks to Rose’s dirty play). He also, famously, saved the Lakers when Shaq fouled out.
As a 22-year-old, Bryant averaged 28, 5 and 6 on 46% from the field. So, yeah, I’m beyond confident that Bryant would’ve at least taken one game off of Duncan in those finals. Afterall, Bryant dominated the Spurs throughout his career.
Pt. 2 of 2
@Robert
If you want to focus on numbers, cool. Lebron certainly has a lot of those. And they all look pretty as well. Lebron is definitely the all time stats king. He’s going to play the most games, and score the most points, and put up crazy counting stats that will most likely stand for a long long long time. But individual accolades and stats don't necessarily equate to winning. And in terms of the ultimate goal -- winning -- Lebron is behind several others. He's lost more than he's won.
For me, my GOAT, is someone who never went into “chill mode.” Someone who would play injured, rather then sit out a nationally televised game against his team’s rival. Someone who was driven and held himself accountable. Who actually elevated teammates to heights that they themselves would have been unable to do without him. A person who outworked everyone else. Someone who actually admitted failure throughout their life, and instead of seeking out an easier path, took it upon himself to rise above. Someone hungry to learn. Who, when faced with seemingly overwhelming odds, when things all went wrong, didn’t cower, but instead embraced the challenge and more times than not, succeeded.
None of what I just wrote describes Lebron. And therefore, for me, he’ll never be my GOAT and he’ll never be better than Russell, MJ, or Bryant in my eyes.
You keep comparing the 2009 Lakers to the 2011 Heat. I will give you that the 11 and 12 Heat had better casts, in a vacuum, than the 09 Lakers. Not the 13 Heat, who were already suffering from an injured Wade who struggled mightily in those playoffs, and certainly not the 14 Heat either.
The 2011 Cavs went 19-63. They won 44 less games than the 2010 Cavs. The 2015 Heat weren’t any good either, they missed the playoffs even after adding a legit good player in Goran Dragic (although Bosh missed the 2nd half of the season).
“Help” has to always be contextualized. How well equipped am I, given the strength of the opponent, to defeat my opponent based on my surrounding talent?
We don’t have to answer these questions in tennis or golf or chess. Unfortunately, it is critical in team sports when you are trying to isolate the team from the individual.
LeBron was an underdog in 7 of 10 Finals. Kobe’s teams were favored in 6 of 7 Finals. So either Kobe had more help (or certainly not less), or you are implying that oddsmakers think Kobe is way better than LeBron. If that’s your argument, I’ll just say, I definitely don’t think that is the case and let it rest there.
I’d rather have peak Shaq against the Pacers, 76ers and Nets than Kyrie Irving and Kevin Love against the Kevin Durant Warriors. It’s not rocket science.
Yes, I noted how Cleveland was built to maximize LeBron’s impact - I am not criticizing Danny Ferry for the way he put pieces together, but rather the organization for failing to surround him with anything close to championship level talent. Given the low talent level, it was probably the best they could have done. But it still would have been easily the lowest surrounding talent around a superstar to win a title, at least in my lifetime.
On those same lines, I disagree that LeBron was at his best in 2009/2010. He was at his RS best for sure. His stats were a career best, but I think 2012-2020 he was better, because he increased his skill level and learned to play in several different systems that each won championships.
You keep attacking a straw man because you think I care about LeBron’s X/Y/Z stats. I have already mentioned several times I do not. I do not disagree with the notion that LeBron is a narrative controller, and a narcissist, but that should not be mistaken as someone who is not similarly passionate about winning. It is impossible to have had the career that LeBron has had, winning 4 championships, making 10 finals, and remaining an elite player until age 40 basically, unless you commit 100% to the grind of pursuing greatness.
1 of 3
@anonymous
“Help has to be contextualized. How well equipped am I, given the strength of the opponent, to defeat my opponent based on my surrounding talent.”
Well said.
The 2009 Cavs faced a 39-43 Pistons, a 47-35 Hawks, and a 59-23 Orlando Magic.
The 2009 Lakers faced a 48-34 Jazz, a 53-29 Rockets, a 54-28 Nuggets, and beat the 59-23 Magic.
The 2010 Cavs faced a 41-41 Bulls, before losing to a 50-win Celtics team.
The 2010 Lakers faced 50-32 Thunder, a 53-29 Jazz, a 54-28 Suns, and beat that 50-win Celtics team.
Even if Bryant’s team was better (Bryant’s second best player was better than Lebron’s second best, but team fit was ideal for Bron and much less so for Bryant), Bryant faced much much tougher competition on his way to beating both the teams the MVP lost to…
I admitted that Kobe’s 09/10 rosters were comparable to Lebron’s. Top end talent, they were better, but the fit wasn’t nearly as clean, as Kobe had two 7-footers that clogged the paint, necessitating yet again for him to rely on his midrange game like he did when paired with Shaq (folks never take that into account when talking about “efficiency”, blah blah blah). To complicate matters, he only had one guy who shot better than league average from three that year (Farmar). Still, Kobe adapted to the roster that was given to him, for all seven of his Finals runs. He didn’t force the roster to adapt to him.
Despite the much tougher competition, Bryant's Lakers made the Finals in 09 and 10, something Lebron was unable to do. I truly believe if the two switched teams, Kobe would have still made the finals and won and Lebron still would not have...
Mostly because of what happened next. Bron went out and got two top 75 all time players to team up with him, declared they’d win 7 rings and then made it to the Finals as the favorites. Lebron finally had the help he needed, the help you say he didn’t have with the Cavs…and the dude wet the bed again! He got outplayed by Jason Terry – let alone how far and away better Dirk was in that series. This is one of the biggest indictments on Lebron and it somehow gets swept under the rug. Any other pantheon level player did what Bron did, and they’d get laughed out of the room. People hold Kobe’s 6-24 against him as some pox, even though the Lakers won that game and the championship! Lebron was the favorite and lost because he vanished -- and this is never brought up or talked about.
2 of 3
Context absolutely matters as you noted that the 2014 Heat had a Wade in severe decline. But then you bring up the 2011 Cavs with zero context. Lol. Not only was Lebron gone, but Mike Brown was replaced by Byron Scott, Danny Ferry was replaced by Chris Grant, and only five key members of the 2010 team remained: Anthony Parker, J.J. Hickson, Daniel Gibson, Antawn Jameson, and Anderson Varejao. Furthermore, Verajao was injured and missed 60 games.
Players no longer on the team in 2011: Lebron, Shaq, Big Z, Mo Williams, Delonte West, and Jamario Moon. When a team loses five of its best seven players, there’s going to be regression. When one of those players was the focal point and beneficiary of each roster move, the results are catastrophic. But thankfully, Lebron didn’t leave his hometown high and dry. The Cavs got some future draft capital…
The 2015 Heat lost Lebron for nothing, and then like you said, Bosh missed half the season and Wade missed 20 games. Shane Battier and Ray Allen were gone. Still, with a healthy Bosh, a diminished Wade, and Spo, they were a legit playoff team.
I don’t see the relevance of Lebron being an underdog in 7 of his 10 finals – other than to add another reason why he should not be considered the GOAT. Lol. You may want to check the math on that.
Yeah, KD Warriors, no problem him being the underdog. Same for his first finals run as a 22-year-old with a crap team.
But, Bron being an underdog on the Heat regardless of the season, is an indictment on him. Even with a diminished Wade, he still had a healthy Bosh, an excellent coach and a deep supporting cast that was ideally suited to his play style (defenders that could hit open threes), etc. A healthy Lebron + Kyrie + Love should not have been the underdogs to Curry, Draymond, and Klay. The only reason the Warriors beat the Cavs the year before, is because Irving and Love were both out. Him being an underdog to the Miami Heat in 2020 is an indictment as well. AD was a top 5 player then. They should have been the favorites. Really, it should be 3 out of 10 he was the underdog – but narrative…that he, Klutch, and ESPN continue to spin all these years later.
Maybe he just isn’t as good as you think (or the numbers) make him out to be.
3 of 3
We can either use stats and facts, or we can base this discussion around pure speculation. But please let’s not pick and choose which stats to highlight. The 09 Cavs won 67 games and the 10 Cavs won 61 games and both squads were the top seed and would have had homecourt throughout the playoffs. That 61-win team had the Celtics down 2-1, and then Lebron just disappeared. I don’t know what to tell you man. The team was good enough. Lebron just wasn’t.
“Lebron learned to play in several different systems.” What are you on about? Lol. Lebron has only ever played in one system. Sure, there’s been some tweaks, but he played the same system with the Heat, second stint Cavs, and Lakers as he’s always played. Lebron-centric. Wade had to change his game. Bosh and Love completely transformed their games to fit Lebron’s style. Even now, all these years later, Lebron doesn’t do anything differently other than jack a bunch more threes every game. He doesn’t move off ball at all. He’s added a post game over the years, but that is still predicated on him going one on one and everyone else just standing around for a kick-out.
I’m not knocking Lebron as an all time great. My point, and the mountain of evidence I’ve provided beyond my own opinion, is that he’s not on the same level as other all time greats who literally would do whatever it took to win, and in fact did win. Lebron load managed through his 30s, hopped teams to pursue easier paths to the Finals, and had an excuse for each failed finals – underdogs, not enough help, “broken hand”, horrible GM, awful coach, etc. etc.
He’s great. One of the best players ever. But not the greatest.
You said it yourself, context matters.
You suggesting that his teams should have been favored 7 out of 10 times in the Finals is absolutely absurd. I have nothing else to say. I wish you well haha, thanks for the discussion, it was like a trip down memory lane.
@anonymous,
How Lebron like of you! :)
Take care bud.
I see an active comment section and would like to post my 2 cents:
LeBron is a pantheon caliber player and the greatest player drafted this century, but I will never take the belief that he is the greatest ever seriously. I can understand why younger fans want to believe it, they missed out on witnessing arguably better players like Kobe/Duncan/Shaq and undoubtedly better players like Mike, but I’ve been watching the sport since right before he was drafted and remember way too many blemishes to entertain it
Never mind the stat padding that has gotten worse since 2017 and even worse in the playoffs. I believe once it became clear to LeBron that his goat case would never come from winning - and the league became softer and smaller - he became more aggressive about ending up with deceptive stat lines
Always drama with him teams despite the constant all star help that comes his way. It’s also bizarre seeing it for a 39 years old, like at some point a guy is no longer good enough to win as the guy and it’s totally okay for that to happen as early as 32 or 35. But I suspect it’s because the media wants him to match MJ in rings so he could be 60 and on life support and they’ll still beg for more help instead of admitting that he simply wasn’t better than Mike - and that isn’t even necessarily because of the ring count. He simply wasn’t as complete on both ends as Mike, wasn’t as good at his peak as Mike was at his peak, and did not dominate his peers the way Mike did
I scoff at people calling MJ’s era weak and propping up LeBron’s era. If it wasn’t for Mike we would probably have Karl Malone as a 5x+ scoring champ, 3-4x MVP, and 2x champion. That’s pretty comparable if not superior to Durant/Steph/Kawhi and he wasn’t even the best big from that era (Hakeem), he might not have even been the best power forward of that era (Barkley).
LeBron also had his best years in a weak big man era but the bigs were elite early in his career (Shaq/Duncan/KG/Dirk) and now (Giannis/Jokic/Embiid/AD) but at his peak it was basically just Dwight before he broke down in 2012. Jordan and Kobe had their best years in more competitive and talented periods where many of the best players were bigs. If Miami LeBron existed in the 00s and now I do not believe he would look anywhere near as dominant - also that 13 Heat team would struggle with teams anchored by elite bigs. Meanwhile I believe Jordan would have been as dominant if not more in later periods
I have my issues with today’s NBA but I’m glad to see dominant bigs and dynamic wings like SGA/Luka/Edwards/etc. reminds me of the 00s which was a flat out better decade of basketball than the 10s. But it’s annoying when people attribute LeBron as being part of this group when arguing that he’s facing better competition than Jordan, for the past few seasons he has been a has been trying to stay relevant by building super teams. He is lucky he peaked when he did because he could have easily ended up with just 1 or 2 rings despite having so many super teams and playing in such an underwhelming era of basketball
Anyway, regarding the ridiculous take that Pau should have won finals MVP… based off of what? Pau was an afterthought for the Celtics for most of the series and only contributed 18 points to Kobe’s 28. Kobe’s help defense especially vs Rondo played a bigger role on defense than Pau did. Even regarding rebounds Pau got so many easy rebounds because of Kobe’s gravity and by all accounts Kobe pushed him to be more aggressive. Ultimately it always goes back to Kobe.
And Steph over Kobe is a ridiculous take. There’s a few guards right now that could soon challenge him on the all time list and I’m not really convinced he’s better than Durant or Kawhi, either. He’s also not better than Giannis or Jokic who unlike Steph might one day rival/surpass Kobe when it’s all said and done. I consider Kobe top 4-5 so that’s high praise coming from me, I do hope both continue to win some championships and enter pantheon debates which they’re both (to me) a ring away
I think that a big reason why, to name two of the top three guards from the eighties, Michael Jordan and Isiah Thomas command every basketball fan's utmost respect is that they both FAILED at first and then learned from FAILURE before they finally grinded their teams, the teams that they both started with, to multiple championships.
Isiah is on the losing end of one of the most famous plays in NBA history ("Steal by Bird!"). Imagine his turmoil that summer. And then when his team finally made it past the Celtics in '88 they lost in Game 7 to the Lakers despite Isiah's forty-something points on a bum ankle. But Isiah learned from that and then led his team to two championships.
Jordan famously failed to make varsity while a sophomore in high school. To fast forward a bit, yeah, he has the record for most points in an NBA playoff game. But the Bulls got SWEPT nevertheless!
Then all those 50-something-point games against the Pistons but yet and still the Pistons were his nemesis regardless.
But then finally, after six years in the league, Jordan led his team to the championship and then to five more.
But after his first "retirement" Jordan basically FAILED at baseball. And then when he game back the Magic embarrassed him in the playoffs.
All these FAILURES that came before his championships are what make Jordan's first three-peat and then his second three-peat so compelling.
Isiah Thomas and Michael Jordan stand for the premise that repeated FAILURE is a necessary learning tool for becoming a true CHAMPION. (By "true champion" I mean someone that comes to a team and engineers that teams championships, e.g. Magic, Bird, Isiah, and Jordan.)
To switch gears for a moment, I don't think that all majors in tennis are exactly equal. I put Rafael Nadal's Wimbledon title in 2008 above any Wimbledon title won by a man since Mac beat Borg in '81. This because Nadal repeatedly FAILED in the effort to win Wimbledon. Nadal lost twice in a row to Roger Federer in the Wimbledon final. Even though he FAILED he got better every time. In their first final he got a set off Fed I think. Then the next year he took the final to the fifth set. I would argue that Nadal's defeat of Federer on Fed's preferred surface, grass--at the marquee tournament where Fed had won the previous five in a row and Fed was at the peak of his powers--is the signature accomplishment in all of male tennis since MacEnroe finally overcame Borg in their Wimbledon rematch in 1981.
Sorry for the sidetrack into tennis, but I'm bringing up Nadal to reinforce my point that when a champion becomes a champion after having overcome failure, that's what we sports fans truly admire. Thomas overcame the Celtics and the Lakers; Jordan overcame the Pistons. Much like Nadal overcoming Fed.
We love these guys (not so much Isiah but he nevertheless commands our respect) precisely because they stuck with it (their teams or grass) despite repeated failure but they eventually triumphed. I mean, Fed never even took Nadal to a fifth set at the French although they met there in the final several times.
Final point:
Conversely, this is why I, for one, despise Kevin Durant for not sticking it out with his original team after they were up 3-1 against the Warriors back in 2016. As with Isiah and Jordan, I think that basketball fans in general would respect Durant more if he'd only won ONE ring with the Thunder rather than taken the relative easy route to TWO rings.
Same Anonymous:
"Despise" is too strong a word. Durant does command respect. The man was the second-best player of the 2010s after Lebron. And, as you've pointed out, David, he was by far the best player on two championship teams. Nobody can take those two rings from Durant; he earned them. But I don't respect his two rings as much as I respect Isiah's two rings, or, for that matter, as much as I respect Nadal's two Wimbledon titles. It's like when Bob Costas described Jordan as "that rarest of athletes--the supremely talented overachiever" after the Bulls beat the Jazz in '98. Six-foot Isiah and "clay-court specialist" Nadal were also overachievers, if not "supremely talented." Although Nadal was "supremely talented" on clay and at the French.
But seems to me like Durant and Lebron with their six rings between them are supremely talented underachievers.
Post a Comment
<< Home