2018 NBA Playoffs

[kskate2]

Not this time. Big Al isn't even out there. If it gets within 12 points you will see Brad bring him back

 

[Federberg]

They're making a good fist of a fight back

 

[kskate2]

It's still a 20 pt lead w/ the bench warmers in

 

[Federberg]

don't know why they're even bothering taking 3s now. They should just be running down the clock and posting up surely?

 

[Federberg]

that was crushing. Great play from the Celtics. Love watching them play

 

[kskate2]

don't know why they're even bothering taking 3s now. They should just be running down the clock and posting up surely?

Bench players want to post on the scorecard in any game they actually get to play

 

[Federberg]

Bench players want to post on the scorecard in any game they actually get to play

Understood

 

[DarthFed]

I'm really not. I just get frustrated about the narrative I hear so often. Forget about MJ. I'm just looking at what I've been watching over the last few years and I just find there's a bit of a bias. I actually love watching Lebron play. As I think I've said many times the guy is phenomenal

But what exactly is the bias? The LeBron > MJ crowd are mostly commentators trying to get people talking (similar to McEnroe with his sensationalism) and also some ex-opponents and teammates of Jordan that are bitter.

Aside from that LeBron has pretty much been the undisputed best player in the world for at least a decade now. You talk to some people and it isn't close even today when the guy is possibly the oldest 33 year old athlete in history. Games like this actually show why in a roundabout way, if he isn't phenomenal he's often been on teams that have no prayer. His team is outgunned vs. Boston, they were also outgunned against Indy and Toronto. I think most would say the team this year would be lucky to win 30 games if you replace him with an average forward. Ultimately this is a team game and you can't simply count rings IMO to determine who is best. If you did then Kobe = Magic and is greater than LeBron and Bill Russell would make MJ look like a scrub. The last time LeBron was outplayed in a playoff series by anyone was in the 2011 finals.

If you think he's overrated you can say it, no one here will bite your head off as you know (well maybe BS haha). I know you are a big Steph fan and that's cool. Again if you think Curry > LeBron that's fine. Me personally when it comes to LeBron, I think he's literally the only player in the league that automatically makes any team a legit contender. Put him on the Nets or anyone else and they are suddenly a threat to reach at least the finals.

 

[Federberg]

But what exactly is the bias? The LeBron > MJ crowd are mostly commentators trying to get people talking (similar to McEnroe with his sensationalism) and also some ex-opponents and teammates of Jordan that are bitter.

Aside from that LeBron has pretty much been the undisputed best player in the world for at least a decade now. You talk to some people and it isn't close even today when the guy is possibly the oldest 33 year old athlete in history. Games like this actually show why in a roundabout way, if he isn't phenomenal he's often been on teams that have no prayer. His team is outgunned vs. Boston, they were also outgunned against Indy and Toronto. I think most would say the team this year would be lucky to win 30 games if you replace him with an average forward. Ultimately this is a team game and you can't simply count rings IMO to determine who is best. If you did then Kobe = Magic and is greater than LeBron and Bill Russell would make MJ look like a scrub. The last time LeBron was outplayed in a playoff series by anyone was in the 2011 finals.

If you think he's overrated you can say it, no one here will bite your head off as you know (well maybe BS haha). I know you are a big Steph fan and that's cool. Again if you think Curry > LeBron that's fine. Me personally when it comes to LeBron, I think he's literally the only player in the league that automatically makes any team a legit contender. Put him on the Nets or anyone else and they are suddenly a threat to reach at least the finals.

Lol! You know me better than that. Why would I be worried about having my head bitten off. Bring it on! But in all seriousness most of the bias I see comes from the pundits I'll admit to that - at least where Lebron is concerned. I actually like watching the guy play but - and I'm sure folks on here must realise this about me by now - I loathe whiny passive aggressive people, and it's clear to me that Lebron tries to manage his narrative in a way few other athletes do (there's one tennis player that does this to some extent in my view but I'm not going to start a war here ). I recall a comment he made when GSW was wiping them out last year - something to the effect of his numbers were great. This leads me to my frustration with the comparisons to MJ, I don't believe MJ was trying to pad his stats, the dude just wanted to win! Anyway - and this is extreme but work with me here - there does seem to be a bit of Santoroism sometimes with Lebron arguments. If you stick around long enough and you're decent you'll get volume numbers, that doesn't make you the best. So for example total points scored while useful is not clarifying to me. PPG has to be the measure when you've clocked in a minimum agreed number of years. The subtle point I'm trying to make here is that it's not just rings to me. Otherwise as you say, someone like Horry would be higher up in the pantheon. I have basketball obsessed friends whose faces scrunch up when people try to argue Lebron's case, they don't even accept he's better than Magic. For the record, I'm a fan of the NBA, I've been watching the NBA for years, albeit not as avidly as I watched the NFL in the past. I've been following the NFL for decades. But I don't presume to argue points too strongly in American sports. It would be weird to me if you folks across the pond tried to have serious debates with me about the premier league for instance so I try to make that concession.

But... and this is the main bit I don't understand so much. Yes I am a Steph Curry fan, not blindly though. Take your argument dismissing his finals performances, and the loss to the Cavs a couple of years ago. I'm absolutely astonished that you didn't even remember that he had had an MCL issue. The guy was not back to full fitness. GSW had stupidly mortgaged their season to get the season win record and kept playing full minutes for their best player even when no 1 seed had been locked down. It's pretty clear to me from what I saw at the time that a combination of not being back to full fitness and exhaustion meant his performance was sub-optimal. But let's go to your point anyway. Let's see how Steph stacks up against Lebron and KD...

Lebron
Regular season 27.15
Playoffs 28.62
diff 1.47
Finals 27.71
diff 0.56

KD
Regular season 27.12
Playoffs 28.69
diff 1.57
Finals 32.9
diff 5.78

Steph
Regular season 23.09
Playoffs 26.11
diff 3.02
Finals 24.89
diff 1.8

His delta in the playoffs and finals is in no way inferior to KD's or Lebron's. Quite the opposite, but there's this narrative that he hides. The guy is not a stat stuffer, he plays for the team to win. You only have to see how he himself suggested coming on after some minutes during his recent return as he didn't want to disrupt the flow. He seems to be exactly the sort of individual who would step aside to create the conditions for other players to have MVP performances because it stands a better chance of helping the team win.

I think the dismissal of Curry's greatness is a function of an American tendency to focus on stats and miss the obvious. Forgive me for presuming to say this, but hear me out, it's why there's even a debate about Lebron vs MJ in my view. The argument that if one were starting a team one would build around KD in preference to Steph misses out on one of the fundamental things about team sports. Who you build your team around. Is KD a better two way player? Absolutely! But would a team built around KD actually fare better than a team built around Steph in the real world. I'm not so sure. The argument that GSW has been built to fit specifically around Steph is superficially compelling but it ignores the personalities involved. KD is not a leader, doesn't want to be and probably would never want to be. But Steph like Lebron is a natural. He's a guy who takes responsibility, it's in his DNA. It's not clear to me that wouldn't apply in a new situation. Anyway I could argue on, but the real world is calling me...

 

[DarthFed]

Lol! You know me better than that. Why would I be worried about having my head bitten off. Bring it on! But in all seriousness most of the bias I see comes from the pundits I'll admit to that - at least where Lebron is concerned. I actually like watching the guy play but - and I'm sure folks on here must realise this about me by now - I loathe whiny passive aggressive people, and it's clear to me that Lebron tries to manage his narrative in a way few other athletes do (there's one tennis player that does this to some extent in my view but I'm not going to start a war here ). I recall a comment he made when GSW was wiping them out last year - something to the effect of his numbers were great. This leads me to my frustration with the comparisons to MJ, I don't believe MJ was trying to pad his stats, the dude just wanted to win! Anyway - and this is extreme but work with me here - there does seem to be a bit of Santoroism sometimes with Lebron arguments. If you stick around long enough and you're decent you'll get volume numbers, that doesn't make you the best. So for example total points scored while useful is not clarifying to me. PPG has to be the measure when you've clocked in a minimum agreed number of years. The subtle point I'm trying to make here is that it's not just rings to me. Otherwise as you say, someone like Horry would be higher up in the pantheon. I have basketball obsessed friends whose faces scrunch up when people try to argue Lebron's case, they don't even accept he's better than Magic. For the record, I'm a fan of the NBA, I've been watching the NBA for years, albeit not as avidly as I watched the NFL in the past. I've been following the NFL for decades. But I don't presume to argue points too strongly in American sports. It would be weird to me if you folks across the pond tried to have serious debates with me about the premier league for instance so I try to make that concession.

But... and this is the main bit I don't understand so much. Yes I am a Steph Curry fan, not blindly though. Take your argument dismissing his finals performances, and the loss to the Cavs a couple of years ago. I'm absolutely astonished that you didn't even remember that he had had an MCL issue. The guy was not back to full fitness. GSW had stupidly mortgaged their season to get the season win record and kept playing full minutes for their best player even when no 1 seed had been locked down. It's pretty clear to me from what I saw at the time that a combination of not being back to full fitness and exhaustion meant his performance was sub-optimal. But let's go to your point anyway. Let's see how Steph stacks up against Lebron and KD...

Lebron
Regular season 27.15
Playoffs 28.62
diff 1.47
Finals 27.71
diff 0.56

KD
Regular season 27.12
Playoffs 28.69
diff 1.57
Finals 32.9
diff 5.78

Steph
Regular season 23.09
Playoffs 26.11
diff 3.02
Finals 24.89
diff 1.8

His delta in the playoffs and finals is in no way inferior to KD's or Lebron's. Quite the opposite, but there's this narrative that he hides. The guy is not a stat stuffer, he plays for the team to win. You only have to see how he himself suggested coming on after some minutes during his recent return as he didn't want to disrupt the flow. He seems to be exactly the sort of individual who would step aside to create the conditions for other players to have MVP performances because it stands a better chance of helping the team win.

I think the dismissal of Curry's greatness is a function of an American tendency to focus on stats and miss the obvious. Forgive me for presuming to say this, but hear me out, it's why there's even a debate about Lebron vs MJ in my view. The argument that if one were starting a team one would build around KD in preference to Steph misses out on one of the fundamental things about team sports. Who you build your team around. Is KD a better two way player? Absolutely! But would a team built around KD actually fare better than a team built around Steph in the real world. I'm not so sure. The argument that GSW has been built to fit specifically around Steph is superficially compelling but it ignores the personalities involved. KD is not a leader, doesn't want to be and probably would never want to be. But Steph like Lebron is a natural. He's a guy who takes responsibility, it's in his DNA. It's not clear to me that wouldn't apply in a new situation. Anyway I could argue on, but the real world is calling me...

I know you won't hold back brotha but the last couple posts before this just seemed you were beating around the bush. I agree with a lot of the above but there are a few things that I don't which is fine. First among them is that LeBron is definitely not a stat stuffer, he does what he does in the flow of the game unlike someone like Westbrook. LeBron's stats aren't just decent, they are historic especially considering he has played 15 years in the league.

It is very misleading to only look at points per game when talking about scoring ability. That is a hollow stat, to me it's important to look at how they are getting their points. I remember back in 2006 that Kobe put up 35 per game on 27 shots, LeBron put up 31.5 on 23 shots and D-Wade put up 27 on 19 shots. I caught a lot of shit back then for saying the latter two had better years than Kobe, part of that was that they were more all around players as well by that point but the main thing was scoring efficiency. LeBron is a 27, 7.5, 7.2 player for his career with extremely efficient scoring, that is more than just decent or good. But ultimately the only decent argument he will have on Jordan is longevity and that isn't anywhere near enough. Jordan's career is pretty impeccable even with a relative lack of longevity. But it isn't PPG that makes him greater than LeBron, it's the fact that once he won he never lost again (not counting the year he came back at the end and they lost to the Magic). Jordan just didn't allow his team to lose and that separates him even from a guy that resembles and plays like a Cyborg and can control the game in more ways than MJ

I remembered that Steph was hurt in the playoffs but he had been back for awhile and had played pretty well before the finals. Part of it is that the 2016 finals was similar to 2015 for him performance-wise so how much was injury and how much was just underperforming? It's fine btw, he had a great finals last year and many great players struggle their first couple finals including LeBron.

I don't think it's crazy to suggest Magic is still ahead of LeBron, the lowest anyone can realistically place James is #6 and I see him as high as #3. I don't think there's any doubt when all is said and done he will be considered top 3 with MJ and Kareem. But if you hear people say Kobe is better or a few others...well maybe don't listen too much. As I said before, and AP and KS can probably attest, LeBron is one of the most despised athlete in this country. A lot of it has to do with perceived threat to MJ, a lot just due to him being hyped straight out of high school and probably some still regarding the Decision. I mean if you go on an ESPN article about the guy you will see what I mean.

I think most would take KD if they don't know the team. He is just more versatile and dominant as a scorer and better all around. I get your argument for Curry but KD kind of got the short end of the stick for many years being teammates with Russ. KD is an alpha dog who was not allowed to do his thing due to a teammate who thought he was the #1 option. And now KD and Curry are both on the same crazy stacked team.

 

[Federberg]

That's a very good point about PPG. What's the metric for scoring efficiency? Is that collected?

 

[DarthFed]

True shooting % or points per shot is probably the best measure. But I find the overall best player performance measure is PER (Player efficiency rating) but that is of course flawed and seems to favor current players a little too heavily in large part due to the 3 point line not being in play until about 1980 and now it's a three point happy league. Also the elimination of handcheck rules undoubtedly helped players score more efficiently.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndic...-players-remaining-in-the-postseason.amp.html

 

[Federberg]

True shooting % or points per shot is probably the best measure. But I find the overall best player performance measure is PER (Player efficiency rating) but that is of course flawed and seems to favor current players a little too heavily in large part due to the 3 point line not being in play until about 1980 and now it's a three point happy league. Also the elimination of handcheck rules undoubtedly helped players score more efficiently.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndic...-players-remaining-in-the-postseason.amp.html

interesting. But here's a question... does the fact that Westbrook ranks higher with this metric than the likes of Harden, Curry and Wade lessen it's credibility? I'm asking before truly studying the algorithm, if it's easily explained from that then apologies in advance

 

[the AntiPusher]

I know you won't hold back brotha but the last couple posts before this just seemed you were beating around the bush. I agree with a lot of the above but there are a few things that I don't which is fine. First among them is that LeBron is definitely not a stat stuffer, he does what he does in the flow of the game unlike someone like Westbrook. LeBron's stats aren't just decent, they are historic especially considering he has played 15 years in the league.

It is very misleading to only look at points per game when talking about scoring ability. That is a hollow stat, to me it's important to look at how they are getting their points. I remember back in 2006 that Kobe put up 35 per game on 27 shots, LeBron put up 31.5 on 23 shots and D-Wade put up 27 on 19 shots. I caught a lot of shit back then for saying the latter two had better years than Kobe, part of that was that they were more all around players as well by that point but the main thing was scoring efficiency. LeBron is a 27, 7.5, 7.2 player for his career with extremely efficient scoring, that is more than just decent or good. But ultimately the only decent argument he will have on Jordan is longevity and that isn't anywhere near enough. Jordan's career is pretty impeccable even with a relative lack of longevity. But it isn't PPG that makes him greater than LeBron, it's the fact that once he won he never lost again (not counting the year he came back at the end and they lost to the Magic). Jordan just didn't allow his team to lose and that separates him even from a guy that resembles and plays like a Cyborg and can control the game in more ways than MJ

I remembered that Steph was hurt in the playoffs but he had been back for awhile and had played pretty well before the finals. Part of it is that the 2016 finals was similar to 2015 for him performance-wise so how much was injury and how much was just underperforming? It's fine btw, he had a great finals last year and many great players struggle their first couple finals including LeBron.

I don't think it's crazy to suggest Magic is still ahead of LeBron, the lowest anyone can realistically place James is #6 and I see him as high as #3. I don't think there's any doubt when all is said and done he will be considered top 3 with MJ and Kareem. But if you hear people say Kobe is better or a few others...well maybe don't listen too much. As I said before, and AP and KS can probably attest, LeBron is one of the most despised athlete in this country. A lot of it has to do with perceived threat to MJ, a lot just due to him being hyped straight out of high school and probably some still regarding the Decision. I mean if you go on an ESPN article about the guy you will see what I mean.

I think most would take KD if they don't know the team. He is just more versatile and dominant as a scorer and better all around. I get your argument for Curry but KD kind of got the short end of the stick for many years being teammates with Russ. KD is an alpha dog who was not allowed to do his thing due to a teammate who thought he was the #1 option. And now KD and Curry are both on the same crazy stacked team.

Lebron is just like every other athlete since Jordan, He is unfairly scrutinized. Michael has been made into a sorta DemiGod which is really left to be unfair to others..Darth, truthfully, Lebron is in a very similar position as Rafa.

 

[DarthFed]

Lebron is just like every other athlete since Jordan, He is unfairly scrutinized. Michael has been made into a sorta DemiGod which is really left to be unfair to others..Darth, truthfully, Lebron is in a very similar position as Rafa.

I agree to a point. If there was no MJ I think LeBron would be appreciated a lot more. Or the flip side is what if LeBron came first and their careers were the same? Would everyone concede GOAT to Jordan then? Maybe but I think it'd be begrudgingly by many because in that hypothetical it's probably LeBron who may be more loved than MJ. But I appreciate Bron even if he isn't MJ, he's pretty damn close in all reality. He hasn't played with Phil Jackson or even Scotty Pippen (Wade was way past his prime after two years together) And if he jumps to Philly I have a feeling he will be leading a couple more teams to rings.

The question is can he get past these Celtics. I hate to say it but I've been underestimating them throughout. They are basically a carbon copy of the early-mid 2000 Pistons. No great players but they're all very good, play hard, great defense and great coach (Larry Brown was a very good coach too). If Horford can continue to abuse Love then I think Celts can win. I'm sure LeBron will wake up after that disaster yesterday. Ultimately I think winner of the game tomorrow wins the series.

 

[DarthFed]

interesting. But here's a question... does the fact that Westbrook ranks higher with this metric than the likes of Harden, Curry and Wade lessen it's credibility? I'm asking before truly studying the algorithm, if it's easily explained from that then apologies in advance

Yeah it is flawed, and it favors ball-dominant players (usage %) pretty heavily which is another reason you see so many current players. I love CP3 but he is not the 6th best player ever lol. It's more a good measure of players in the past 15 years. It's crazy impressive that MJ is ahead of LeBron given the difference in usage %.

 

[Federberg]

Yeah it is flawed, and it favors ball-dominant players (usage %) pretty heavily which is another reason you see so many current players. I love CP3 but he is not the 6th best player ever lol. It's more a good measure of players in the past 15 years. It's crazy impressive that MJ is ahead of LeBron given the difference in usage %.

It would be great to see a very simple metric. Shots achieved divided by shots attempted. Nothing fancy...

 

[DarthFed]

Also have to add AP that I think a lot of it has to do with the hype he received from high school on. Everyone wanted him to fall flat, you may remember back in 2002/2003 when most of Sportscenter was on LeBron as a high school senior. It drove me nuts like everyone else, I wanted to see the kid fail because I was fed up with it. Then they randomly nationally televised one of his games on a Friday night and I begrudgingly watched. And if you saw him...you knew right away at worse this was going to be a mega superstar in the NBA. He basically was an NBA all star in high school. But that's an element that people outside the US might not be aware of, they may know he was hyped but you'd have had to been here to really experience it.

 

[DarthFed]

It would be great to see a very simple metric. Shots achieved divided by shots attempted. Nothing fancy...

True shooting % factors in the 3's and also two free throw attempts count as a shot whereas an and 1 doesn't count as an additional shot. Points per shot is a great measure too but in theory if a guy shoots 20 shots and scores 30 points you may automatically assume he did great but if he took 30 free throws that'd change things (extreme example I know)

Guys like KD and Curry have an outrageous true shooting %. LeBron's true shooting % is very high as well but it's his actual FG % that's most impressive. He doesn't shoot the 3 nearly as well as KD and Curry and he's also far worse at the line.

Just looked this up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_shooting_percentage

Weird that it is .44 for each free throw. Anyone know why? Maybe that article explains. But if you get fouled and go to the line and shoot 2 or 3 to me that's the same as 1 shot attempt.

EDIT: I guess it has to do with and 1's (not an additional shot attempt) and times where players get fouled shooting a 3. Basically it's not totally accurate.

 

[Federberg]

True shooting % factors in the 3's and also two free throw attempts count as a shot whereas an and 1 doesn't count as an additional shot. Points per shot is a great measure too but in theory if a guy shoots 20 shots and scores 30 points you may automatically assume he did great but if he took 30 free throws that'd change things (extreme example I know)

Guys like KD and Curry have an outrageous true shooting %. LeBron's true shooting % is very high as well but it's his actual FG % that's most impressive. He doesn't shoot the 3 nearly as well as KD and Curry and he's also far worse at the line.

Just looked this up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_shooting_percentage

Weird that it is .44 for each free throw. Anyone know why? Maybe that article explains. But if you get fouled and go to the line and shoot 2 or 3 to me that's the same as 1 shot attempt.

EDIT: I guess it has to do with and 1's (not an additional shot attempt) and times where players get fouled shooting a 3. Basically it's not totally accurate.

It seems to me that some sort of combination of PPG and true shooting percentage might do the trick. After all if someone scores well that's a good thing under almost any circumstance. And multiplying by true shooting percentage should clean out the bad ones