Lebron's road to all his Finals

[nikster]

I think those data presented by him

1)cannot be a representation of the toughness of the path that separates the player form a title. I simply don't agree with his theory. Not even the slightest ,and I explained why.
2) data are presented in a bad way, especially "the average toughest matchup before finals" part.

I'm not an expert, but even as a profane you can tell that the bars regarding Lebron are way too "pronounced" and the bars regarding Magic,Mj and Duncan are too disadvantaged. This might have to do with his method and its results rather than mala fides, of course.

yeah, you have to be cautious.

For example,there's also a problem with the grouping
Hakeem and Garnett had few playoff runs that led to a title, you can't compare the average of 1 playoff run to the average of 5 or 6 items

The random fan will read as follows
"wow,Lebron had to face the toughest competition ever and magic,duncan,mj had a cakewalk to the finals"

Results like those can be easily misunderstood and the author doesn't do anything to prevent such an occurrence. Obviously his aim is to debunk the theory that Lebron never had to face tough opponents (I'm ok with that and I agree with him) but in doing so he puts other goat players in a bad light.

Every GOAT player had to face different adversities, bringing everything down to "the toughest opponent" is nearsighted

who cares about what the random fan would think? The average person doesn't know how to analyze or interpret data in a meaningful way, and would probably accept or dismiss the information based on if it told them what they wanted to hear.

The bars aren't too pronounced or disadvantaged (assuming the information was accurate), it reflects what it says it does: Title odds as a way to reflect the strength of toughest opponent. The rest is interpretation. Again, this is just one of many ways to look at "toughness" of a Finals win. You can and should also factor in the context, and many different types of analysis. Your disagreements would make more sense if someone claimed this was the end all.

If you really want to discuss the relevance of the data you can ask certain questions like:
1) Does Title odds correlate well with the toughness of opponent?
-This is the most important question, otherwise, the whole chart is meaningless. But I would say Yes, it is a pretty good predictor of toughness
2) Does having the toughest opponents correlate with having the toughest path to the final
-Again I would say yes. How strong of a correlation it is debatable Of course, there are other factors to take into account but it is a meaningful indicator. Sure, sometimes a team plays tougher early round opponents which could impact difficulty of the finals. But at the same time, an average of opponents doesnt necessarily give a good picture (Ex. playing 4 moderately tough opponents, vs facing 3 weak and 1 extremely strong opponent)
3) Is sample size sufficient for these players
-Depends on the player. But any statistic where you look at titles is going to lacking in sample size

So yeah, this data can be useful when used correctly.

First of all the (forgotten)aim of science is to convey clear information with clear intent,even to a general audience to avoid the "pettifogger" effect.We're in forum after all.
"Title odds as a way to reflect the strength of the toughest opponent"
what exactly is this study supposed to mean? What's his aim?
I was raising concerns about the conclusions you could draw from such a analysis.
For example he's saying,implicitly, that Lebron's playoff runs are more impressive than Jordan's or Duncan's only because the best team he faced was usually better than the best team TD and MJ faced?..while completely ignoring what it takes to beat stronger opponents in the earlier rounds.
Correlation what??
If my knee is more inflamed than yours after the first round there's nothing a "correlation" can do to convince me otherwise

Aside form that, Mj and Duncan never had a chance to face the Warriors so we're talking about "hot air".
If people want to defend Lebron from the usual attacks about the easiness of his overall playoff runs, the fact that he faced the toughest opponents ever in the finals doesnt alter the evidence that "the earlier rounds are easier for him" and thus "he's more ready to face toughest oppoenents"

Name any other metric to help determine the toughness of a finals run and ill be able to poke holes in it.

[andrewww]

I'd love to see what their post season +/- was for 2010 (which I assume is the metric you're using). Jamison had some good post seasons with the Wizards well before he was traded to the Cavs.

Who cares their plus minus, they were factors and teammates of his, they had been all-stars and were traded for/brought into CLE because of that...thats the entire point. LeBron has clearly had the best teammates in the history of the game over anyone else. Besides in that year no one was really getting past Boston's juggernaut anyway.

The bolded is a just a demonstrably and laughably false statement. Swap KD for LBJ and the Warriors sweep in 2017. Swap LBJ for Curry in 2015-16 and the Warriors sweep. Swap Leonard for LBJ and the Spurs win all of those match ups. Swap LBJ & Durant and OKC wins that Finals. Swap PP for LBJ and that Celtics team wins four chips in a row. The only time LBJ's team was as good as their opponents was the Heat/Dallas Finals.

Swap out Magic for LBJ and the showtime Lakers don't' miss a beat. Same with Bird and the Celtics.

The only team that might not have improved by swapping their best player for LBJ was Jordan's Bulls. That's it.

You couldnt be more wrong in your assumptions. Even though their career values to this point obviously favor Lebron, just because Lebron has had the superior career value in a vacuum doesnt mean he would necessarily fit better in each of those scenarios you name. For example, put Lebron on GSW and the primary ball handlers touch the ball less, there's less floor spacing, the offense becomes more Lebron-centric, etc.

[jbk1234]

Who cares their plus minus, they were factors and teammates of his, they had been all-stars and were traded for/brought into CLE because of that...thats the entire point. LeBron has clearly had the best teammates in the history of the game over anyone else. Besides in that year no one was really getting past Boston's juggernaut anyway.

The bolded is a just a demonstrably and laughably false statement. Swap KD for LBJ and the Warriors sweep in 2017. Swap LBJ for Curry in 2015-16 and the Warriors sweep. Swap Leonard for LBJ and the Spurs win all of those match ups. Swap LBJ & Durant and OKC wins that Finals. Swap PP for LBJ and that Celtics team wins four chips in a row. The only time LBJ's team was as good as their opponents was the Heat/Dallas Finals.

Swap out Magic for LBJ and the showtime Lakers don't' miss a beat. Same with Bird and the Celtics.

The only team that might not have improved by swapping their best player for LBJ was Jordan's Bulls. That's it.

You couldnt be more wrong in your assumptions. Even though their career values to this point obviously favor Lebron, just because Lebron has had the superior career value in a vacuum doesnt mean he would necessarily fit better in each of those scenarios you name. For example, put Lebron on GSW and the primary ball handlers touch the ball less, there's less floor spacing, the offense becomes more Lebron-centric, etc.

Any fit issues would be vastly outweighed by the talent differential. I mean the Warriors already threw away the old paradigm once when they switched to their death line up. If they hadn't taken Bogut off the floor in 2015, they might have lost that that series. But they found a way to get the five most talented players on the floor at once & the results speak for themselves.

[andrewww]

The bolded is a just a demonstrably and laughably false statement. Swap KD for LBJ and the Warriors sweep in 2017. Swap LBJ for Curry in 2015-16 and the Warriors sweep. Swap Leonard for LBJ and the Spurs win all of those match ups. Swap LBJ & Durant and OKC wins that Finals. Swap PP for LBJ and that Celtics team wins four chips in a row. The only time LBJ's team was as good as their opponents was the Heat/Dallas Finals.

Swap out Magic for LBJ and the showtime Lakers don't' miss a beat. Same with Bird and the Celtics.

The only team that might not have improved by swapping their best player for LBJ was Jordan's Bulls. That's it.

You couldnt be more wrong in your assumptions. Even though their career values to this point obviously favor Lebron, just because Lebron has had the superior career value in a vacuum doesnt mean he would necessarily fit better in each of those scenarios you name. For example, put Lebron on GSW and the primary ball handlers touch the ball less, there's less floor spacing, the offense becomes more Lebron-centric, etc.

Any fit issues would be vastly outweighed by the talent differential. I mean the Warriors already already threw away the old paradigm once when they switched to their death line up. If they hadn't taken Bogut off the floor in 2015, they might have lost that that series. But they found a way to get the five most talented players on the floor at once & the results speak for themselves.

The talent differential would apply if it wasnt a player of KD's caliber.

KD is literally the perfect player to fit in GSW's style of play. What Lebron is superior to KD at, wouldn't be as valuable on GSW because there would be an overlap of skill set. GSW didn't need more play makers when they had Barnes. They needed a forward who could hit 3s and score in the half court while creating his own shot, and playing off ball predominantly. Lebron has never shown the ability to be an off ball player at the level KD has. That's partially why Wade took a step back after losing in the 2011 Finals so that Lebron could do what he does best.

[mademan]

You couldnt be more wrong in your assumptions. Even though their career values to this point obviously favor Lebron, just because Lebron has had the superior career value in a vacuum doesnt mean he would necessarily fit better in each of those scenarios you name. For example, put Lebron on GSW and the primary ball handlers touch the ball less, there's less floor spacing, the offense becomes more Lebron-centric, etc.

Any fit issues would be vastly outweighed by the talent differential. I mean the Warriors already already threw away the old paradigm once when they switched to their death line up. If they hadn't taken Bogut off the floor in 2015, they might have lost that that series. But they found a way to get the five most talented players on the floor at once & the results speak for themselves.

The talent differential would apply if it wasnt a player of KD's caliber.

KD is literally the perfect player to fit in GSW's style of play. What Lebron is superior to KD at, wouldn't be as valuable on GSW because there would be an overlap of skill set. GSW didn't need more play makers when they had Barnes. They needed a forward who could hit 3s and score in the half court while creating his own shot, and playing off ball predominantly. Lebron has never shown the ability to be an off ball player at the level KD has. That's partially why Wade took a step back after losing in the 2011 Finals so that Lebron could do what he does best.

Youre right that the W's probably arent as good with Lebron in place of Curry in 2016 or Lebron in place of Durant in 2017. JBK's argument is still valid though; they absolutely crush the competition because neither of them are gonna lift the Cavs to be a challenge like Lebron did.

And I believe he was arguing against someone who just said Lebron's been on the best team forever, which is a ridiculous assertion.

[jason bourne]

It's a team game. For instance Bird's Celtics beating MJ's mid-80s trash Bulls was less impressive than for instance LeBron's Cavs beating Al Horford in 2015. Or look at who MJ beat in the east - Ewing, Barkley ???? were mostly alone on meh teams against MJ on a team that won 55 games without him.

LeBron certainly had easy roads to the finals recently, but people have MJ as GOAT who had easy roads all the way to his rings.
I have shown here
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=52420156#p52420156
that title odds have an insanely high correlation with the toughest opponent encountered relative to supporting cast and have basically no correlation with superstar performance. This should of course be obvious anyway since the variation in superstar-play (small oscillation around a large positive) is much smaller than the variation in the difference between opponent and supporting casts (could range from huge positive to huge negative)
Based on that analysis LeBron had relatively easy runs to the finals (not unusually easy though) but had the hardest road to rings among all GOAT level players.


(not including 2017, which was >3 for LeBron)

most impressive titles:


Just added this - toughest roads to finals:

LeBron's difficulty has been trending down as the east got worse - 0.3ish average over the last 5 years - same as Magic/Duncan, and negative the last 2 years

I already expressed my concerns about your analysis in the original thread but I noticed additional stuff...
your analysis is great but too biased in favour of the "toughest matchup" which you present in almost infinite sauces.
Beating the toughest is not the end of all ends.
1) I understand there's a high correlation between winning a ring and beating the toughest opponent available but you're doing a disservice to players like MJ, Duncan, Magic who often were anchoring the best teams in the NBA. this reduces the chances of meeting a tough team and increase the chances that "the toughest team they meet is less tough" than those met by other GOAT players
2) "The unhealthy obsession with the toughest": for example, the Spurs often faced great teams in the first round that gets buried by your analysis which only considers "the toughest matchups" and ignores even those slightly below "the toughest threshold" so to speak. What about an average of the 2nd or 3rd toughest teams in title seasons? Teams in initial rounds make an impact on a player's body and their ability to win a ring (not only because you face better teams but also because you play more games)

Your analysis depicts a disproportional situation where people like Mj, Kaj,Magic and Duncan look like players who were lucky to stroll to a title. This a clear example of data manipulation and data presentation done not properly

This isn't a clear example of data manipulation at all, I think you just don't like the results. Yes there are some concerns with the data, and you have to be cautious with how you interpret it, but those type of concerns will be with any data set. This is just one of many ways to analyze the difficulty

There prolly is data manipulation if we are comparing LeBron vs MJ. I don't think LeBron should be in the category yet because there are more recent players like Kobe and TD with the hardware and MVP awards that LeBron still has to beat. Kobe and TD played for one team their entire career. Sure, LeBron has made eight straight Finals appearances which is the best, but he doesn't have the rings and MVPs to go with it. I'll give him cred for improving his game to new heights. Then there is his cherry picking his teams which other greats didn't do as much as LeBron. It's a players league right now, but LeBron has manipulated his way to potential championship teams. The guy may have invented player collusion teams when he teamed up with Wade and Bosh. LeBron still has to show he can win it all when other top players such as KD, Chris Paul and Kyrie/Gordon Hayward are getting on already winning teams. Instead, he may be moving elsewhere via player collusion if the Cavs don't reach the Finals this year.

[andrewww]

Any fit issues would be vastly outweighed by the talent differential. I mean the Warriors already already threw away the old paradigm once when they switched to their death line up. If they hadn't taken Bogut off the floor in 2015, they might have lost that that series. But they found a way to get the five most talented players on the floor at once & the results speak for themselves.

The talent differential would apply if it wasnt a player of KD's caliber.

KD is literally the perfect player to fit in GSW's style of play. What Lebron is superior to KD at, wouldn't be as valuable on GSW because there would be an overlap of skill set. GSW didn't need more play makers when they had Barnes. They needed a forward who could hit 3s and score in the half court while creating his own shot, and playing off ball predominantly. Lebron has never shown the ability to be an off ball player at the level KD has. That's partially why Wade took a step back after losing in the 2011 Finals so that Lebron could do what he does best.

Youre right that the W's probably arent as good with Lebron in place of Curry in 2016 or Lebron in place of Durant in 2017. JBK's argument is still valid though; they absolutely crush the competition because neither of them are gonna lift the Cavs to be a challenge like Lebron did.

And I believe he was arguing against someone who just said Lebron's been on the best team forever, which is a ridiculous assertion.

His points on Lebron not being the best team forever is valid and one I agree with, but he took it too far to the other end of the spectrum in proving his point.

Also Lebron has most certainly had his fair share of all star talent on his teams, the fact that they didnt fit as optimally compared to say GSW or the Spurs is partially his own doing because he hand picked his own team and to a large degree, the players he played with. In each instance as an UFA in 2010 and 2014, he picked the best available team with cap space. Nothing wrong with that, but the double standard to those holding KD's move against him when he just basically beat Lebron at his own game... is pure and utter nonsense. Weren't the Heat trying to add Melo to their big 3 during the 2014 season? If Lebron is this competitor that KD supposedly isn't, he shouldve refused the notion of even entertaining having a big 4. Truth is, no player will ever object to more help.

[mademan]

The talent differential would apply if it wasnt a player of KD's caliber.

KD is literally the perfect player to fit in GSW's style of play. What Lebron is superior to KD at, wouldn't be as valuable on GSW because there would be an overlap of skill set. GSW didn't need more play makers when they had Barnes. They needed a forward who could hit 3s and score in the half court while creating his own shot, and playing off ball predominantly. Lebron has never shown the ability to be an off ball player at the level KD has. That's partially why Wade took a step back after losing in the 2011 Finals so that Lebron could do what he does best.

Youre right that the W's probably arent as good with Lebron in place of Curry in 2016 or Lebron in place of Durant in 2017. JBK's argument is still valid though; they absolutely crush the competition because neither of them are gonna lift the Cavs to be a challenge like Lebron did.

And I believe he was arguing against someone who just said Lebron's been on the best team forever, which is a ridiculous assertion.

His points on Lebron not being the best team forever is valid and one I agree with, but he took it too far to the other end of the spectrum in proving his point.

Also Lebron has most certainly had his fair share of all star talent on his teams, the fact that they didnt fit as optimally compared to say GSW or the Spurs is partially his own doing because he hand picked his own team and to a large degree, the players he played with. In each instance as an UFA in 2010 and 2014, he picked the best available team with cap space. Nothing wrong with that, but the double standard to those holding KD's move against him when he just basically beat Lebron at his own game... is pure and utter nonsense. Weren't the Heat trying to add Melo to their big 3 during the 2014 season? If Lebron is this competitor that KD supposedly isn't, he shouldve refused the notion of even entertaining having a big 4. Truth is, no player will ever object to more help.

Youre right it is hypocritical. Truth is, Lebron himself tried to make the best possible team; he just failed at it because 1) he's not a good judge of talent in general and 2) Wade broke down after only 2 seasons. Durant did the same thing, but he was smart enough to go to a team that already had a foundation; and he, being, imo, the most portable superstar ever, created the best team of all-time. I think they did the same thing (or tried to) and the only difference is the result; 1 great, but vulnerable team as opposed to 1 borderline unbeatable team who has one of the best cases for GOAT team.

I had no problem with what Lebron did and have no problem with what Durant did. Unfortunately though, all rationalizations are always post hoc. "Lebron's wasnt as bad because they struggled to win". Ultimately, if KD and the Warriors continue to win but face actual obstacles (as opposed to 16-1 playoff runs with a crapton of blowouts), I think most people will look back at KD the way we look back the decision

[phanman]

Ultimately, if KD and the Warriors continue to win but face actual obstacles (as opposed to 16-1 playoff runs with a crapton of blowouts), I think most people will look back at KD the way we look back the decision

Looking at it realistically, they'll probably have an easier time next year. The chemistry will be a little bit better and the kinks of what works and what doesn't has been worked out in the last season's championship run . The team got better over the off-season while the other contenders got worst or stayed the same. Their core 9 guys(starting L + Iggy, Shaun, McGee, and West) are all returning, and they swapped out Clark & McAdoo for Young, Casspi.

IT is an easier match-up for Klay in the finals for the Cavs. The Spurs still trot out two bigs in LMA and Gasol who will get run off the court and have Parker's injury. The Rockets play the same type of game as the Warriors and Curry has routinely outplayed Paul.

The wildcard here is OKC, but I just don't think they have enough to beat the Warriors. Especially with their own chemistry issues to work out with incorporating PG. That said I think they had the one of, if not the best off-season bringing in PG for Oladipo/Sabonis, signing Patterson to be the starting 4, resigning Roberson, and Felton who for all his faults is an upgrade over Payne, Cole or Semaj. If one thing is for certain, they'll be a menace defensively and their starting unit is lengthy with WB, Roberson, PG, Patterson and Adams.

[jbk1234]

Ultimately, if KD and the Warriors continue to win but face actual obstacles (as opposed to 16-1 playoff runs with a crapton of blowouts), I think most people will look back at KD the way we look back the decision

Looking at it realistically, they'll probably have an easier time next year. The chemistry will be a little bit better and the kinks of what works and what doesn't has been worked out in the last season's championship run . The team got better over the off-season while the other contenders got worst or stayed the same. Their core 9 guys(starting L + Iggy, Shaun, McGee, and West) are all returning, and they swapped out Clark & McAdoo for Young, Casspi.

IT is an easier match-up for Klay in the finals for the Cavs. The Spurs still trot out two bigs in LMA and Gasol who will get run off the court and have Parker's injury. The Rockets play the same type of game as the Warriors and Curry has routinely outplayed Paul.

The wildcard here is OKC, but I just don't think they have enough to beat the Warriors. Especially with their own chemistry issues to work out with incorporating PG. That said I think they had the one of, if not the best off-season bringing in PG for Oladipo/Sabonis, signing Patterson to be the starting 4, resigning Roberson, and Felton who for all his faults is an upgrade over Payne, Cole or Semaj. If one thing is for certain, they'll be a menace defensively and their starting unit is lengthy with WB, Roberson, PG, Patterson and Adams.

Absent an injury to either Curry or Durant, I just don't see it. That team is insanely good. The only time GS is vulnerable is when they're not focused because of how good they are. All of your best players need to have great games, in the same games, four games out of seven to beat them. There's just no margin for error. The only team that executes that well is the Spurs and the current Spurs are not as talented as their prior iterations.

[phanman]

Ultimately, if KD and the Warriors continue to win but face actual obstacles (as opposed to 16-1 playoff runs with a crapton of blowouts), I think most people will look back at KD the way we look back the decision

Looking at it realistically, they'll probably have an easier time next year. The chemistry will be a little bit better and the kinks of what works and what doesn't has been worked out in the last season's championship run . The team got better over the off-season while the other contenders got worst or stayed the same. Their core 9 guys(starting L + Iggy, Shaun, McGee, and West) are all returning, and they swapped out Clark & McAdoo for Young, Casspi.

IT is an easier match-up for Klay in the finals for the Cavs. The Spurs still trot out two bigs in LMA and Gasol who will get run off the court and have Parker's injury. The Rockets play the same type of game as the Warriors and Curry has routinely outplayed Paul.

The wildcard here is OKC, but I just don't think they have enough to beat the Warriors. Especially with their own chemistry issues to work out with incorporating PG. That said I think they had the one of, if not the best off-season bringing in PG for Oladipo/Sabonis, signing Patterson to be the starting 4, resigning Roberson, and Felton who for all his faults is an upgrade over Payne, Cole or Semaj. If one thing is for certain, they'll be a menace defensively and their starting unit is lengthy with WB, Roberson, PG, Patterson and Adams.

Absent an injury to either Curry or Durant, I just don't see it. That team is insanely good. The only time GS is vulnerable is when they're not focused because of how good they are. All of your best players need to have great games, in the same games, four games out of seven to beat them. There's just no margin for error. The only team that executes that well is the Spurs and the current Spurs are not as talented as their prior iterations.

Yeah that's what I mean.. its just not realistic to think that they'll fall 4/7 games vs any other team as currently constructed. Even the game they lost took an ATG performance by the Cavs in shattering the 3pt record with a 30pt TD from Bron, 40pt explosion by Kyrie and Love's 20pt performance.

[G35]

Looking at it realistically, they'll probably have an easier time next year. The chemistry will be a little bit better and the kinks of what works and what doesn't has been worked out in the last season's championship run . The team got better over the off-season while the other contenders got worst or stayed the same. Their core 9 guys(starting L + Iggy, Shaun, McGee, and West) are all returning, and they swapped out Clark & McAdoo for Young, Casspi.

IT is an easier match-up for Klay in the finals for the Cavs. The Spurs still trot out two bigs in LMA and Gasol who will get run off the court and have Parker's injury. The Rockets play the same type of game as the Warriors and Curry has routinely outplayed Paul.

The wildcard here is OKC, but I just don't think they have enough to beat the Warriors. Especially with their own chemistry issues to work out with incorporating PG. That said I think they had the one of, if not the best off-season bringing in PG for Oladipo/Sabonis, signing Patterson to be the starting 4, resigning Roberson, and Felton who for all his faults is an upgrade over Payne, Cole or Semaj. If one thing is for certain, they'll be a menace defensively and their starting unit is lengthy with WB, Roberson, PG, Patterson and Adams.

Absent an injury to either Curry or Durant, I just don't see it. That team is insanely good. The only time GS is vulnerable is when they're not focused because of how good they are. All of your best players need to have great games, in the same games, four games out of seven to beat them. There's just no margin for error. The only team that executes that well is the Spurs and the current Spurs are not as talented as their prior iterations.

Yeah that's what I mean.. its just not realistic to think that they'll fall 4/7 games vs any other team as currently constructed. Even the game they lost took an ATG performance by the Cavs in shattering the 3pt record with a 30pt TD from Bron, 40pt explosion by Kyrie and Love's 20pt performance.

So basically, this is a team that stacked the deck (Cleveland) vs a team that stacked the deck even better (Golden State). I don't see the problem, they both tried to do the same thing, its just one team is doing it better......

[jbk1234]

Absent an injury to either Curry or Durant, I just don't see it. That team is insanely good. The only time GS is vulnerable is when they're not focused because of how good they are. All of your best players need to have great games, in the same games, four games out of seven to beat them. There's just no margin for error. The only team that executes that well is the Spurs and the current Spurs are not as talented as their prior iterations.

Yeah that's what I mean.. its just not realistic to think that they'll fall 4/7 games vs any other team as currently constructed. Even the game they lost took an ATG performance by the Cavs in shattering the 3pt record with a 30pt TD from Bron, 40pt explosion by Kyrie and Love's 20pt performance.

So basically, this is a team that stacked the deck (Cleveland) vs a team that stacked the deck even better (Golden State). I don't see the problem, they both tried to do the same thing, its just one team is doing it better......

I don't think there's ever been a team that was as stacked as the Warriors. They changed the entire landscape of the league and the way the other 29 teams are planning for the future. No one thought the Cavs were unbeatable. If OKC or the Spurs made the Finals in 2015 or 2016 they might have been the favorites. There's no other team in the league that's going to be the favorites against GS.

[LivingLegend]

Duplicate

[phanman]

Absent an injury to either Curry or Durant, I just don't see it. That team is insanely good. The only time GS is vulnerable is when they're not focused because of how good they are. All of your best players need to have great games, in the same games, four games out of seven to beat them. There's just no margin for error. The only team that executes that well is the Spurs and the current Spurs are not as talented as their prior iterations.

Yeah that's what I mean.. its just not realistic to think that they'll fall 4/7 games vs any other team as currently constructed. Even the game they lost took an ATG performance by the Cavs in shattering the 3pt record with a 30pt TD from Bron, 40pt explosion by Kyrie and Love's 20pt performance.

So basically, this is a team that stacked the deck (Cleveland) vs a team that stacked the deck even better (Golden State). I don't see the problem, they both tried to do the same thing, its just one team is doing it better......

Well in a vacuum yes, but the way GS was able to do it, is what irks people. Cleveland for how talented they were, was at least beatable by up to 3 teams in the West with SA, OKC and GS. Perception of teams always play a role and that's why Bron switching teams back in 2014 to go back home didn't spark an outrage with the media/fans.

People aren't blaming GS for stacking the deck, I mean its the front offices job to do so, its always and will continue to be about Kevin Durant. Who single-handily ended competition amongst teams by joining the Warriors, thus pushing GS that much further ahead and eliminating another contender in the process.

[G35]

Yeah that's what I mean.. its just not realistic to think that they'll fall 4/7 games vs any other team as currently constructed. Even the game they lost took an ATG performance by the Cavs in shattering the 3pt record with a 30pt TD from Bron, 40pt explosion by Kyrie and Love's 20pt performance.

So basically, this is a team that stacked the deck (Cleveland) vs a team that stacked the deck even better (Golden State). I don't see the problem, they both tried to do the same thing, its just one team is doing it better......

I don't think there's ever been a team that was as stacked as the Warriors. They changed the entire landscape of the league and the way the other 29 teams are planning for the future. No one thought the Cavs were unbeatable. If OKC or the Spurs made the Finals in 2015 or 2016 they might have been the favorites. There's no other team in the league that's going to be the favorites against GS.

There's never been a star that had jumped from stacked team to stacked team like LeBron either.

There there also hasn't been a competence dominated by one player like LeBron as well. You can say its because LeBron is that good... or you can say there is a lack of competitors as well. Even Shaq and Kobe had teams that challenged them and they were suppose to be a dynasty.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using RealGM mobile app

[jbk1234]

So basically, this is a team that stacked the deck (Cleveland) vs a team that stacked the deck even better (Golden State). I don't see the problem, they both tried to do the same thing, its just one team is doing it better......

I don't think there's ever been a team that was as stacked as the Warriors. They changed the entire landscape of the league and the way the other 29 teams are planning for the future. No one thought the Cavs were unbeatable. If OKC or the Spurs made the Finals in 2015 or 2016 they might have been the favorites. There's no other team in the league that's going to be the favorites against GS.

There's never been a star that had jumped from stacked team to stacked team like LeBron either.

There there also hasn't been a competence dominated by one player like LeBron as well. You can say its because LeBron is that good... or you can say there is a lack of competitors as well. Even Shaq and Kobe had teams that challenged them and they were suppose to be a dynasty.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using RealGM mobile app

GS won 73 games before Durant joined them. The Heat were eliminated in the first round, in the East, before LBJ joined them. The Cavs were a lottery team. The situations aren't comparable and no amount of false comparisons will change that.

[Wallace_Wallace]

I don't think there's ever been a team that was as stacked as the Warriors. They changed the entire landscape of the league and the way the other 29 teams are planning for the future. No one thought the Cavs were unbeatable. If OKC or the Spurs made the Finals in 2015 or 2016 they might have been the favorites. There's no other team in the league that's going to be the favorites against GS.

There's never been a star that had jumped from stacked team to stacked team like LeBron either.

There there also hasn't been a competence dominated by one player like LeBron as well. You can say its because LeBron is that good... or you can say there is a lack of competitors as well. Even Shaq and Kobe had teams that challenged them and they were suppose to be a dynasty.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using RealGM mobile app

GS won 73 games before Durant joined them. The Heat were eliminated in the first round, in the East, before LBJ joined them. The Cavs were a lottery team. The situations aren't comparable and no amount of false comparisons will change that.

So if Chris Bosh wasn't going to sign with Heat in 2010, do you think Lebron will still run to South Beach and play with Wade?

Also, if PG/Westbrook/Lebron do sign with the Lakers next year and then trade Lonzo Ball for some established star, are they not stacking the deck? Or are they a lottery team that Lebron single handily turned around?

[codydaze]

Going into the 2017 playoffs... series wins against 50 win opponents. Just goes to show you that realgm has got it wrong all along..sure its a team game but a team like the Lakers was top heavy... no way a borderline top 10 talent has beaten the competition like Kobe has...was he just lucky? The sample size is much too big to just dismiss it as luck...

Kobe: 25
Jordan: 20
Duncan: 20
Shaq: 18
Kareem: 14
Magic: 13

LeBron: 11

That's no even true, including 2017 LeBron has beaten 13 of those. And 50 wins is an arbitrary line, that's just like saying how many 70 win teams they beaten;

Kobe, Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Kareem, Magic combined: 0

LeBron: 1

I guess you overlooked his words "going into the 2017 playoffs". That means his two wins against 50 win teams in the 2017 playoffs were not considered, so he was correct.

How many 70 win teams has Lebron been a part of? Oh, that's right, zero. Guess that's another +1 for Jordan.

Lebron didn't beat the Warriors 70+ win team, the league gifted that title to him by suspending Draymond Green for no reason, and Kyrie clinched the series while Lebron stood aside and watched in crunch time. Steph was also injured for those playoffs, as he proved by redeeming himself in this past year's Finals when they blew the Cavs off the court. When it was clear an injured Curry wasn't enough to give the Cavs the title, the league stepped in and took away the guy who was guarding Lebron on a very controversial suspension. But sure, I guess that shows how dominant Lebron is?

Right. Lebron and his triple double statline along with 2 steals and 3 blocks watched Kyrie clinch the series.

[jbk1234]

There's never been a star that had jumped from stacked team to stacked team like LeBron either.

There there also hasn't been a competence dominated by one player like LeBron as well. You can say its because LeBron is that good... or you can say there is a lack of competitors as well. Even Shaq and Kobe had teams that challenged them and they were suppose to be a dynasty.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using RealGM mobile app

GS won 73 games before Durant joined them. The Heat were eliminated in the first round, in the East, before LBJ joined them. The Cavs were a lottery team. The situations aren't comparable and no amount of false comparisons will change that.

So if Chris Bosh wasn't going to sign with Heat in 2010, do you think Lebron will still run to South Beach and play with Wade?

I don't know. The Heat still would've had Wade and the cap space that Bosh took up. I'm not sure there was a better option in 2010.

The point is they were a lot of unknowns in both instances and there were bumps in the road both in Miami and Cleveland that first year. The Heat won 58 games their first year which is good but not jaw dropping. The Cavs won 53 games and were the second seed in the East. The Cavs were the second seed last year. I just don't really see the situations as comparable.