MVP Rankings 1.0

[JimMurray]

Who is better has nothing to do with who is the most valuable player.

The MVP goes to the most outstanding player. LBJ contributes the most to his team. Kobe is primarily as a scorer- which he's supposed to be. LBJ's position requires him to put up better overall numbers than a 2 guard would. It's really dumb to compare two completely different players directly. That's not how you decide an MVP. That's how you have an endless, and meaningless debate.

Thats basically what I've been saying since page 10. This is also why the Lebron is better because of his stats arguments don't work.

[INKtastic]

I have league pass, and the Cavs are my 2nd most watched team. Thats why you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that the Cavs don't run "Lelso" 85% of the time.

if the cavs ran LeIso 85% of the time, he'd have a heck of a lot more than 19.6 shot attempts.

[Bgil]

2010
Lebron 39.5%
Kobe 51.5%

please think though what you are saying.

51.5% of 4.1 = 2.1
39.5% of 8.0 = 3.6

Kobe has the better post players, LeBron sets up more layups and dunk. So to correct your own conclusion

No, the conclusion is that Lebron makes his teammates more perimeter oriented and doesn't adjust to the strengths of his teammates as well. Only percentage is relevant here. This is even more clear by taking it to the extreme: imagine LBJ averaged 100 assists per game on the same percentages... he's still doing more to encourage jumpshooting as opposed to cutting to the basket i.e. the team is still just as perimeter oriented.


As for having better post players, that's irrelevant because Kobe was getting similar numbers (to 2009) when he had Kwame, Mihm, Odom, Cook, Vlad, and Walton as his frontcourt.

We can assume this also means LeBron is getting more would-be assists that turn into fouls under the basket and numerous other good things that come with providing dunks and layups over lower percentage shots.

As for the rest, LeBron isn't finding open jump shooters, he's finding open 3 point specialists.
Mo Williams. In Milwaukee he was .385 from 3. He's now at .443.
Anthony Parker. In Milwaukee he was .390 from 3. He's now leading the league at .500

Wow, they went out and bought some three point specialists to fit in with Lebron's game instead of him changing his game to fit in with the talent they already had... how does that address my point? Oh yeah, it doesn't... they still turned Z into a 7 foot 3 inch outside shooter. Hate to break it to you but if Z played for the Lakers he'd be in the post a lot more than he is in Cleveland even if it meant sacrificing part of Kobe's game to do so.

And I believe it's because of the selection of players for the comparison. As I said in that thread

Which is partially b.s. because we know that Damon Jones and Wally (among others) weren't "clearly in decline". Let's not forget that Wally was traded midseason and the difference between his play in Seattle and Cleveland could not be more striking. Freethrow percentages for a lot of Lakers also went through the floor (Odom, Kwame etc.) and they were still able to ball out.

Sometimes i wonder if Kobe fans even watch LeBron play or just watch sportscenter highlights. They don't run LeIso all the time, it's primarly an end of quarter, late game offense. He plays quite a bit off the ball the rest of the time. He doesn't bring the ball up the court all of the time either, it's primarily done in the same situations.

While that's (partially) technically correct it misses the point. When Lebron is "off the ball" he's usually just standing there doing nothing. Kobe's doing far more off the ball to get himself shots and be part of plays for others than Lebron could even dream of doing. Hell, watch a Jazz game sometime and you'll see WORKING off the ball as opposed to Lebron's just doing nothing.

so carrying more of the load, more of the responsibility, is going to get written off as "inflated stats". Never mind the vastly superior efficiency?

Lebron only takes 25% of his teams shots. Therefore, increasing the efficiency of the other 75% is usually MUCH more important than increasing the efficiency of Lebron's 25%. So if Lebron could play his C game (decreasing his fg% by say 3-5 percent) to allow most of his teammates to play their A games (increasing their percentages 3-5 percent) he would actually be playing better basketball.

i'm now pretty confused. What exactly is the criteria again that says Kobe is better? He was clearly better than LeBron during LeBron's rookie year. But since then, how do you determine better?

stats: LeBron dominates Kobe statistically since then
wins: LeBron has won 10 more games than Kobe since then
playoff stats: LeBron dominates Kobe even more in playoff stats. He's statistically the 2nd best playoff player in league history.
playoff wins: since then LeBron has won 37 playoff games, Kobe has won 35. Both have won at total of 7 playoff series in 4 playoff appearances.

That's just cherry picking.
Lebron has 10 more wins in a conference that is usually much weaker than Kobe's conference.
Lebron dominates in the playoffs but has only played 4 teams that would have made the playoffs in the Western Conference (Pistons 2x, Celtics, Spurs) and got destroyed in 3 of those series.

In addition, Kobe's still a better closer, scorer, and arguably a better man to man defender. The man can score anywhere and anyhow. Broken finger? Use the left hand. Lebron's up there, but I'd still take a healthy Kobe over a healthy LeBron in terms of guarding the other team's best perimeter player.

Lebron is not a great man defender. I would say he's about average for an athletic SF.

[JimMurray]

if the cavs ran LeIso 85% of the time, he'd have a heck of a lot more than 19.6 shot attempts.

I don't understand why your playing stupid? Lelso doesn't mean Lebron shoots every time....it means he's the primary ball handler for every possession. Furthermore, since you're so hung up on stats (PER whore), let me ask you this.

Do you believe PER is a rating of how good a player is, or how efficient a player is.

Furthermore...what do you understand PER to mean?

Lastly, do you believe that a higher PER presupposes that said player is better than everybody with a lower PER?

I'll tell you what I understand it to mean, and what the greater basketball community understands it to mean. Efficiency is a trait measurable numerically through the use of tangible statistics taken out of box scores. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. It doesn't account for the degree of difficulty of shots, and it doesn't account for subtleties inherent in setting up things for later.

Example. There is a rhythm to Kobe's game that works like clockwork. He starts off aggressive, pushing the issue, setting the tempo for how he wants everyone else to play for the rest of the game. You'll find that Kobe throws out a lot of heat checks and sets the tone for the opposing defense to make sure that they know that Kobe can, and will shoot the ball from ANYWHERE on the court. Once this is established and the defense understands there is no one way to defend Kobe today, for quarters two and three he gets to the same spots he was shooting in the first quarter and finds his teammates in their A game positions and runs the offense. Come the fourth quarter when everyone has been adequately involved, forcing the Defense to worry about everybody, thats when Kobe goes into closer mode and puts teams away.

Playing this way has clear pros and cons...number one...it's not the most efficiently INDIVIDUAL way to play, but it makes your TEAMMATES WAY MORE EFFICIENT, making it the best way to win ball games. I don't think you'd argue with me that the degree of shots that Kobe takes are off the charts compared to Lebron. If Kobe had his preference, he'd hang out in the post all game and be as efficient as you want him to be...but it's just not conducive to winning.

Just like in baseball, when you're pitching, you don't just keep pounding the strike zone, because eventually someone's going to square you up and get you out of there (Just like Orlando in the ECF). You set up pitches, throw high and tight (not a strike) to win the outside corner...you do different things to mix it up to keep the hitter thinking about as many things as possible to ensure that he doesn't get comfortable. Sometimes you deliberately throw a ball. It's the same in any competitive sport......Statistics and box scores NEVER tell the whole truth.

Dan Marino is the most statistically accomplished quarterback in NFL history, but he's maybe the 6th best quarterback of all time behind Montana, Elway, Manning, Favre, and Staubach. The fact that Lebron has a higher PER does not presuppose that he is better than Kobe. The fact that Melo is leading the league in scoring does not presuppose that he is a better scorer than Kobe and Lebron. As far as all around game, and player you would want to win one game where your life is on the line....the majority take Kobe. That's just how it is.

[Deuce33]

if the cavs ran LeIso 85% of the time, he'd have a heck of a lot more than 19.6 shot attempts.

I don't understand why your playing stupid? Lelso doesn't mean Lebron shoots every time....it means he's the primary ball handler for every possession. Furthermore, since you're so hung up on stats (PER whore), let me ask you this.

Do you believe PER is a rating of how good a player is, or how efficient a player is.

Furthermore...what do you understand PER to mean?

Lastly, do you believe that a higher PER presupposes that said player is better than everybody with a lower PER?

I'll tell you what I understand it to mean, and what the greater basketball community understands it to mean. Efficiency is a trait measurable numerically through the use of tangible statistics taken out of box scores. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything else. It doesn't account for the degree of difficulty of shots, and it doesn't account for subtleties inherent in setting up things for later.

Example. There is a rhythm to Kobe's game that works like clockwork. He starts off aggressive, pushing the issue, setting the tempo for how he wants everyone else to play for the rest of the game. You'll find that Kobe throws out a lot of heat checks and sets the tone for the opposing defense to make sure that they know that Kobe can, and will shoot the ball from ANYWHERE on the court. Once this is established and the defense understands there is no one way to defend Kobe today, for quarters two and three he gets to the same spots he was shooting in the first quarter and finds his teammates in their A game positions and runs the offense. Come the fourth quarter when everyone has been adequately involved, forcing the Defense to worry about everybody, thats when Kobe goes into closer mode and puts teams away.

Playing this way has clear pros and cons...number one...it's not the most efficiently INDIVIDUAL way to play, but it makes your TEAMMATES WAY MORE EFFICIENT, making it the best way to win ball games. I don't think you'd argue with me that the degree of shots that Kobe takes are off the charts compared to Lebron. If Kobe had his preference, he'd hang out in the post all game and be as efficient as you want him to be...but it's just not conducive to winning.

Just like in baseball, when you're pitching, you don't just keep pounding the strike zone, because eventually someone's going to square you up and get you out of there (Just like Orlando in the ECF). You set up pitches, throw high and tight (not a strike) to win the outside corner...you do different things to mix it up to keep the hitter thinking about as many things as possible to ensure that he doesn't get comfortable. Sometimes you deliberately throw a ball. It's the same in any competitive sport......Statistics and box scores NEVER tell the whole truth.

Dan Marino is the most statistically accomplished quarterback in NFL history, but he's maybe the 6th best quarterback of all time behind Montana, Elway, Manning, Favre, and Staubach. The fact that Lebron has a higher PER does not presuppose that he is better than Kobe. The fact that Melo is leading the league in scoring does not presuppose that he is a better scorer than Kobe and Lebron. As far as all around game, and player you would want to win one game where your life is on the line....the majority take Kobe. That's just how it is.

Damn JimMurry that was a really good post. I think what you just explained in your post is what alot of Laker fans have been trying to "express" for a long time now, it's just alot of us couldn't explain it that well lol.

[YLSKillaCam]

Good post, Jim Murray.

[LebronsCavs]

Good post, Jim Murray.

lol I actually that it was a sub par post, there was plenty wrong with it.

[ROballer]

Good post, Jim Murray.

lol I actually that it was a sub par post, there was plenty wrong with it.

yeah right...listen,why don't you go make another thread about how good the lakers supporting cast is and how bad kobe is ....you're good at that/NOT

[LebronsCavs]

Good post, Jim Murray.

lol I actually that it was a sub par post, there was plenty wrong with it.

yeah right...listen,why don't you go make another thread about how good the lakers supporting cast is and how bad kobe is ....you're good at that/NOT

typical Kobe fan boy. I never once said Kobe was bad. Do you not think he has a great supporting cast? Name me a superstar in the last 15 years with a better supporting cast.

[JimMurray]

Good post, Jim Murray.

lol I actually that it was a sub par post, there was plenty wrong with it.

It's pretty much a nightmare post for Lebron fans....because what do you say to that. Most Lebron supporters hang there hat on Per, win-shares (the greatest statistical farce of my generation), eFG%, blah, blah blah. This forces you to consider that there just might be something deeper to basketball than statistical formulas that were invented in 2003. Furthermore, it's not like Lebron is blowing Kobe out of the water with his stats. Kobe's numbers are tip top for the position he plays, Lebrons stats are tops in the league.

Statistics certainly have there place, namely as a starting point for these kinds of arguments. But if you place all your eggs in one basket, at the end of the day you are left deeply disappointed. Clearly, when the opinions of so many with empirical evidence favor the guy with worse numbers, basketball is a more complicated game than box scores. Because I know none of you will ever sit there and tell me that Marreese Speights is better than Steve Nash, Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, Kevin Garnett, or Paul Pierce...simply because he has a higher PER.

[JimMurray]

typical Kobe fan boy. I never once said Kobe was bad. Do you not think he has a great supporting cast? Name me a superstar in the last 15 years with a better supporting cast.

Nobody is arguing the fact that the Lakers have the best supporting cast in the League. I will give props to Lebron in one area however. His shooting has improved dramatically over last season.

Riddle me this Batman....

Could that be because contrary to popular belief (in Cleveland), he actually has a pretty damn good supporting cast himself in relation to his competition in the East? Actually, don't answer that. I already know what your going to say and it revolves around the increased work that Lebron put in over the off-season...it has nothing to do with the off-season additions made over the summer.

[INKtastic]

Wow, they went out and bought some three point specialists to fit in with Lebron's game instead of him changing his game to fit in with the talent they already had... how does that address my point? Oh yeah, it doesn't... they still turned Z into a 7 foot 3 inch outside shooter. Hate to break it to you but if Z played for the Lakers he'd be in the post a lot more than he is in Cleveland even if it meant sacrificing part of Kobe's game to do so.

The season before LeBron arrived, 66% of Z's shots were jumpers and he was an all star. This year 65% of his shots are jumpers. LeBron didn't turn Z into a jump shooter, the pick and pop is Z's bread and butter.

[LebronsCavs]

typical Kobe fan boy. I never once said Kobe was bad. Do you not think he has a great supporting cast? Name me a superstar in the last 15 years with a better supporting cast.

Nobody is arguing the fact that the Lakers have the best supporting cast in the League. I will give props to Lebron in one area however. His shooting has improved dramatically over last season.

Riddle me this Batman....

Could that be because contrary to popular belief (in Cleveland), he actually has a pretty damn good supporting cast himself in relation to his competition in the East? Actually, don't answer that. I already know what your going to say and it revolves around the increased work that Lebron put in over the off-season...it has nothing to do with the off-season additions made over the summer.

Actually the supporting cast has gotten worse IMO. With Z declining and Delonte out/not the same as he was last year (arguably the Cavs 2nd best player last season). People forget what Delonte brings to the table. He does a bit of everything and usually guards the opponents best 2 guard/pg/

[INKtastic]

and the problems with your long post are

1 - you claim that Kobe in the post is going to be as efficient as LeBron, yet we've already established that he played in the post while Gasol was out and even then he wasn't as efficient as LeBron.

2 - you claim LeBron isn't playing to his players strengths because he gets lots of perimeter assists while acknowledging they have 3 point specialists on the team. You don't set up Mo Williams and Delonte West for a layup, you set them up for a 3 pointer.

3 - you claim these 3 points specialists are replacing players LeBron couldn't adapt to. Wrong, they replaced players like eric snow, who couldn't shoot from anywhere. Larry Hughes, who isn't a post player. Ben Wallace, who can't consistently make a dunk.

4 - you claim Damon Jones and Wally weren't on the decline. Damon shot .417 from 3 in 08, wally shot .411 from 3 in 09. Nothing wrong with either of those percentages, both are above their career averages. but where are they now?

5 - the east vs west argument is irrelevant, LeBron's cavs consistently have better winning percentages vs the west than Kobe's lakers. Such as last year going 26-4 vs the west.

6 - in a later post you acknowledge the lakers have the better supporting cast. Yet Cleveland is the team who won the most games last year and Cleveland is the team with the better record vs the west.

[YLSKillaCam]

and the problems with your long post are

1 - you claim that Kobe in the post is going to be as efficient as LeBron, yet we've already established that he played in the post while Gasol was out and even then he wasn't as efficient as LeBron.

2 - you claim LeBron isn't playing to his players strengths because he gets lots of perimeter assists while acknowledging they have 3 point specialists on the team. You don't set up Mo Williams and Delonte West for a layup, you set them up for a 3 pointer.

3 - you claim these 3 points specialists are replacing players LeBron couldn't adapt to. Wrong, they replaced players like eric snow, who couldn't shoot from anywhere. Larry Hughes, who isn't a post player. Ben Wallace, who can't consistently make a dunk.

4 - you claim Damon Jones and Wally weren't on the decline. Damon shot .417 from 3 in 08, wally shot .411 from 3 in 09. Nothing wrong with either of those percentages, both are above their career averages. but where are they now?

5 - the east vs west argument is irrelevant, LeBron's cavs consistently have better winning percentages vs the west than Kobe's lakers. Such as last year going 26-4 vs the west.

6 - in a later post you acknowledge the lakers have the better supporting cast. Yet Cleveland is the team who won the most games last year and Cleveland is the team with the better record vs the west.

1. Kobe would have been more efficient than Lebron had the sample size been larger and Gasol stayed out. Once Kobe's 3PT % regressed to the mean throughout an entire season, he would've been more efficient that Lebron. That much is clear.

2. I wouldn't word it the same way as Jim, but it is clear to me that Lebron is clearly inferior to Kobe in setting up post players. Lebron is great at the drive and dish, but not so great at getting big men easy buckets. The Cavs would be much stronger if Lebron utilized his post options better.

3. Each of the three has either been considered one of the best defenders in the league or an all star or both. Sad the excuses for Lebron's failures always end up on his teammates and never on himself. Part of being a MVP is making due with what you have. Lebron has a great team, especially for the East.

4. They are scapegoats for the Cavs failures. Can't blame it on Lebron, can we?

5. Apparently you don't understand how sample size can skew percentages.

6. Championship....

[YLSKillaCam]

As a break from the Lebron/Kobe debate, this dude says he can beat both Kobe and Lebron. Talking mad stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6f_sAkmFGg

[INKtastic]

1 - this is simply wrong. Kobe's inside scoring is not more efficient that LeBron's inside scoring. Doing it longer isn't going to change any percentages.

3 - what does being a top defender have to do with ability to score in the post? And when were Larry Hughes or Eric Snow all stars?

4 - what failures?

5 - I have a math degree, sample size doesn't skew percentages at all, it simply changes the margin of error. A smaller sample size is just as likely to show a lower percentage within the margin of error as it is a higher percentage. Also, last year Cleveland didn't just have a better winning season vs the west than LA< they also had a better winning season against the east (.769 vs .700). Where is the skewing in favor of the the lower sample size you think happens? Cleveland was basically better in every situation than LA except for the single case of playing Orlando.

And the issue of sample size is why I've said a few times to wait until the lakers have played more road games before trying to project out a final record.

[An Unbiased Fan]

As of today:

1) Kobe
2) Lebron
3) Dirk
4) Melo
5) Nash

[YLSKillaCam]

1 - this is simply wrong. Kobe's inside scoring is not more efficient that LeBron's inside scoring. Doing it longer isn't going to change any percentages.

3 - what does being a top defender have to do with ability to score in the post? And when were Larry Hughes or Eric Snow all stars?

4 - what failures?

5 - I have a math degree, sample size doesn't skew percentages at all, it simply changes the margin of error. A smaller sample size is just as likely to show a lower percentage within the margin of error as it is a higher percentage.

1. Efficiency is not determined simply by how well one scores inside. As the percentages regressed to the mean, Kobe would've again been a better shooter than Lebron from midrange and long range thus making him more efficient overall.

3. I said they were top defender or all stars OR both (Ben Wallace). Their post play notwithstanding, LBJ had good players with him (Although, i'll give you a pass on Hughes).

4. you know...getting swept, being beaten in six...generally getting everyone hyped up and then failing to meet expectations once they are set.

5. You know what I mean. It is misleading. Say the Lakers and Cavs have 10 games. The Lakers play all 10 against Western Conference teams winning 9 while the Cavs play only one against western conference teams winning 1. Cavs winning percentage in this scenario: 100%, lakers 90%. Can you really conclude the Lakers are worse against Western Conference teams from this? Didn't think so.

[INKtastic]

1 - kobe is no longer teh better shooter from long range - that changed mid season last year. LeBron has passed him, no regression tot he mean is going to change that.

3 - good players, but not good post scorers

5 - except that's not what happens. Cleveland plays 30 against the west, LA plays 53, cleveland does better against the west. Cleveland plays 52 vs the east, LA plays 30 against the east, Cleveland does better. This has been pretty consistent the last several years with the exception of the cavs injury riddled season of 08.