People who don't have Jordan as GOAT: What metric(s) would make you change your mind?

[falcolombardi]

I dunno. We dont see the same drop offs with every lead initiator stars, nor do we see every "system offense" work well with their star on the bench

When other stars teams struggle to score a single point with him on bench it always is proof of their impact and how much they carry their teams

It seemingly is only When lebron teams struggle without him that the alternative explanations come

Ive been saying this for years. Lebron teams don't run real systems. The roles players do not have real roles outside of waiting for a kickout from Lebron. So when Lebron sits everyone has to start playing differently. And of course everyone struggles.

The reason the Bulls role players and co-star held up so well without Jordan is because they run a real system. The role players have well defined roles that actually empower them as decision makers and creators. They don't just sit around waiting for Jordan to kick the ball out to them.

I dont think is a coincidence that lebron teams who had a quality floor general as wade held up better than those with skilled scorers but weaker floor generals as kyrie or mo williams

Someone like kyrie is supremely talented but if left to his own devices he will start chucking isolations and freeze out teammates. He is a offense only guy and like many gunners that offense impact will be questionable if he starts to gun too much

Pair him with love who doesnt have the best defensive or off ball value aside from spacing and i am not surprised that pairing struggled to lift cavs floor despite raising its "ceiling" as co stars

Well to be fair Love was never allowed to actually play to his strengths so of course his effectiveness and impact, in general, had dropped. Pair Love with a Michael Jordan, or Kobe Bryant, and he becomes much more effective and consistent as he's allowed to work in the post. Those guys have the mid range and off ball skills thay Love in the post won't hinder them the way it does Lebron.

In bulls case like you say there was a floor general in pippen who could lead the offense smartly and reasonably effectively when jordan sat while provinding all his other thinghs.[/quote

Replace pippen with kyrie and i am sure the jordan-less bulls with that kyrie would struggle too.

Kyrie may not be the floor general Pippen was. However, Kyrie is the guy that will put up 28ppg in the finals. Kyrie is the guy who will outplay Steph and hit all the big shots. Imagine if Jordan had a co-star that outplayed Charles Barkley or Karl Malone in the NBA Finals while hitting most of the big shots. And then imagine Jordan fans pretending that didn't happen.

Just compare kyrie few stints as a lead option with pippen few ones and one was a much better "floor raiser"

I think characterizing Pippen as a floor raiser and Kyrie as a ceiling raiser is pretty accurate. Both are borderline superstars who provided a ton of value to their teams. And I think its important to remember that in 2018 as the lead option Kyrie's team was almost a shue in for the NBA Finals had he not gotten injured.

And I think its important to remember that in 2018 as the lead option Kyrie's team was almost a shue in for the NBA Finals had he not gotten injured

That team literally did better without him (2018) than with him (2019) and remained excellent the year after (2020)

I already agreed he can put a ton of ppg. But if left as a first option his impact will be diminished from his decision making.

Pippen is also easily as good or better of a "ceiling raiser". Thanks to having monster impact without needing to be the focus of the offense

[Stalwart]

I dunno. We dont see the same drop offs with every lead initiator stars, nor do we see every "system offense" work well with their star on the bench

When other stars teams struggle to score a single point with him on bench it always is proof of their impact and how much they carry their teams

It seemingly is only When lebron teams struggle without him that the alternative explanations come

Ive been saying this for years. Lebron teams don't run real systems. The roles players do not have real roles outside of waiting for a kickout from Lebron. So when Lebron sits everyone has to start playing differently. And of course everyone struggles.

The reason the Bulls role players and co-star held up so well without Jordan is because they run a real system. The role players have well defined roles that actually empower them as decision makers and creators. They don't just sit around waiting for Jordan to kick the ball out to them.

I dont think is a coincidence that lebron teams who had a quality floor general as wade held up better than those with skilled scorers but weaker floor generals as kyrie or mo williams

Someone like kyrie is supremely talented but if left to his own devices he will start chucking isolations and freeze out teammates. He is a offense only guy and like many gunners that offense impact will be questionable if he starts to gun too much

Pair him with love who doesnt have the best defensive or off ball value aside from spacing and i am not surprised that pairing struggled to lift cavs floor despite raising its "ceiling" as co stars

Well to be fair Love was never allowed to actually play to his strengths so of course his effectiveness and impact, in general, had dropped. Pair Love with a Michael Jordan, or Kobe Bryant, and he becomes much more effective and consistent as he's allowed to work in the post. Those guys have the mid range and off ball skills thay Love in the post won't hinder them the way it does Lebron.

In bulls case like you say there was a floor general in pippen who could lead the offense smartly and reasonably effectively when jordan sat while provinding all his other thinghs.[/quote

Replace pippen with kyrie and i am sure the jordan-less bulls with that kyrie would struggle too.

Kyrie may not be the floor general Pippen was. However, Kyrie is the guy that will put up 28ppg in the finals. Kyrie is the guy who will outplay Steph and hit all the big shots. Imagine if Jordan had a co-star that outplayed Charles Barkley or Karl Malone in the NBA Finals while hitting most of the big shots. And then imagine Jordan fans pretending that didn't happen.

Just compare kyrie few stints as a lead option with pippen few ones and one was a much better "floor raiser"

I think characterizing Pippen as a floor raiser and Kyrie as a ceiling raiser is pretty accurate. Both are borderline superstars who provided a ton of value to their teams. And I think its important to remember that in 2018 as the lead option Kyrie's team was almost a shue in for the NBA Finals had he not gotten injured.

And I think its important to remember that in 2018 as the lead option Kyrie's team was almost a shue in for the NBA Finals had he not gotten injured

That team literally did better without him (2018) than with him (2019) and remained excellent the year after (2020)

I already agreed he can put a ton of ppg. But if left as a first option his impact will be diminished from his decision making.

Pippen is also easily as good or better of a "ceiling raiser". Thanks to having monster impact without needing to be the focus of the offense

Are you suggesting that the 2018 Celtics wouldn't have been overwhelming favorites if they had Kyrie as their lead option in the playoffs?

[magicman1978]

. And because the team doesn't run nor practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence .

I think this is utter rubbish honestly. Sorry. I don't want to be rude, but nobody can seriously think that Spo or Lue or Brown or Vogel or any other Lebron coach just wrote off the non-Lebron minutes and didn't have systems in place.

I'm sorry, but picking out one sentence from my post and declaring it rubbish without contextualizing it is also rubbish - not to be rude....

None of the guys you mentioned are particularly great offensive coaches that come close to touch Tex Winters in that regards. None of those teams had a player as capable of a facilitator as Pippen. None of those teams aside from the Heat really adhered to an offensive system that wasn't fully reliant on LeBron (and I would argue the Heat would have been better had they been more reliant on LeBron and his offensive on/off numbers would have been even better that the incredible numbers they already were). The "you are what you do every day" concept applies here. Practicing and playing certain way everyday is much different than occasionally practicing and occasionally playing a certain way.

[magicman1978]

This is extremely bizarre reasoning for why teams without [Insert Star Here] do poorly without him compared to [Insert Star Here].

Players like Dirk, Nash, LeBron, Curry and CP3 have historic drop-offs when they are not on the court offensively. This whole notion that the team suffers more without one of these guys compared to other players is conjecture and built upon thoughtless beliefs to prop up certain players and justify why a team with a certain player [Say LeBron for Example] does better in the post-season than [Say Jordan led offenses].

Instead of contextualizing the actual rosters, how they are constructed and the overall talent level of the rosters, people are resorting to basic rhetoric without thinking objectively.

Let's look at LeBron--closer and objectively. We can all agree the 2013 season was one where the offense was the least "LeBron Ball" [Whatever the **** this means] yet his Offensive On/Off was at +11.9. Yet in 2014, LeBrons offensive On/Off was only +9.0 even with Wade playing less in 2014 than 2013.

Somehow, some way, A First Ballot HoF coach in Spoelstra couldn't figure out how to use line-ups with Wade/Bosh without LeBron?

Really?

What about "The Point Guard" whisperer MDA? He somehow couldn't get Dragic line-ups or Barbosa-led line-ups to produce anything close to NBA level offenses with Nash off the court? Well, clearly any argument around MDA propping up Point Guards must be dead then, right?

Don Nelson couldn't figure out how to run offenses without Dirk on the court?

Save me the time of day and think.

Super star players have super star impact. Who would have thought? What level of impact depends on several factors and there are specific ones being discussed in this scenario. For example, having a superstar facilitator running an offense designed by one of the greatest offensive minds, may minimize the impact of losing a superstar.

Boy, this place is going downhill - we used to be able to have discussions on the player comparison board without people insulting each other. I guess those days have been long gone.

This whole discussion was around the ability of supporting players to hold the fort down with their best player out. With Pippen and Love used as examples. My point was, that Pippen was more capable of holding the fort down because he was the primary facilitator whether Jordan was on or off. He ran the same offensve with Jordan on or off. His team practiced the same offense year round and in game situations. He would be more capable of jumping in and holding the fort. If you swapped Love or Kyrie and Pippen, do you believe Pippen can come in and hold the fort for Cleveland like he did in Chicago with his inability to shoot from outside or break down a defense off the dribble? Maybe he does a bit better, but he wouldn't be able to hold down the fort to the level he did with Chicago.

[falcolombardi]

Ive been saying this for years. Lebron teams don't run real systems. The roles players do not have real roles outside of waiting for a kickout from Lebron. So when Lebron sits everyone has to start playing differently. And of course everyone struggles.

The reason the Bulls role players and co-star held up so well without Jordan is because they run a real system. The role players have well defined roles that actually empower them as decision makers and creators. They don't just sit around waiting for Jordan to kick the ball out to them.



Well to be fair Love was never allowed to actually play to his strengths so of course his effectiveness and impact, in general, had dropped. Pair Love with a Michael Jordan, or Kobe Bryant, and he becomes much more effective and consistent as he's allowed to work in the post. Those guys have the mid range and off ball skills thay Love in the post won't hinder them the way it does Lebron.



Kyrie may not be the floor general Pippen was. However, Kyrie is the guy that will put up 28ppg in the finals. Kyrie is the guy who will outplay Steph and hit all the big shots. Imagine if Jordan had a co-star that outplayed Charles Barkley or Karl Malone in the NBA Finals while hitting most of the big shots. And then imagine Jordan fans pretending that didn't happen.



I think characterizing Pippen as a floor raiser and Kyrie as a ceiling raiser is pretty accurate. Both are borderline superstars who provided a ton of value to their teams. And I think its important to remember that in 2018 as the lead option Kyrie's team was almost a shue in for the NBA Finals had he not gotten injured.

And I think its important to remember that in 2018 as the lead option Kyrie's team was almost a shue in for the NBA Finals had he not gotten injured

That team literally did better without him (2018) than with him (2019) and remained excellent the year after (2020)

I already agreed he can put a ton of ppg. But if left as a first option his impact will be diminished from his decision making.

Pippen is also easily as good or better of a "ceiling raiser". Thanks to having monster impact without needing to be the focus of the offense

Are you suggesting that the 2018 Celtics wouldn't have been overwhelming favorites if they had Kyrie as their lead option in the playoffs?

Considering how hard they got wrecked -with- kyrie the year after by a team -worse- than the 18 warriors?

No, i dont think so?

[Stalwart]

That team literally did better without him (2018) than with him (2019) and remained excellent the year after (2020)

I already agreed he can put a ton of ppg. But if left as a first option his impact will be diminished from his decision making.

Pippen is also easily as good or better of a "ceiling raiser". Thanks to having monster impact without needing to be the focus of the offense

Are you suggesting that the 2018 Celtics wouldn't have been overwhelming favorites if they had Kyrie as their lead option in the playoffs?

Considering how hard they got wrecked -with- kyrie the year after by a team better than the 19 bucks?

No, i dont think so?

Yeah, you're just being dishonest imo. Good day.

[Colbinii]

Are you suggesting that the 2018 Celtics wouldn't have been overwhelming favorites if they had Kyrie as their lead option in the playoffs?

Considering how hard they got wrecked -with- kyrie the year after by a team better than the 19 bucks?

No, i dont think so?

Yeah, you're just being dishonest imo. Good day.

Seriously--This Falcombardi and his logical takes. What a troll! Blasphemy! His rhetoric is a mind drain!

[Texas Chuck]

. And because the team doesn't run nor practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence .

I think this is utter rubbish honestly. Sorry. I don't want to be rude, but nobody can seriously think that Spo or Lue or Brown or Vogel or any other Lebron coach just wrote off the non-Lebron minutes and didn't have systems in place.

I'm sorry, but picking out one sentence from my post and declaring it rubbish without contextualizing it is also rubbish - not to be rude....

None of the guys you mentioned are particularly great offensive coaches that come close to touch Tex Winters in that regards. None of those teams had a player as capable of a facilitator as Pippen. None of those teams aside from the Heat really adhered to an offensive system that wasn't fully reliant on LeBron (and I would argue the Heat would have been better had they been more reliant on LeBron and his offensive on/off numbers would have been even better that the incredible numbers they already were). The "you are what you do every day" concept applies here. Practicing and playing certain way everyday is much different than occasionally practicing and occasionally playing a certain way.

I try and only quote the relevant part of the post I am responding to so as to not clutter up the board -- simple etiquette.

Quoting it all here so you don't deflect again though I really shouldn't have to.... Odd also that you say people are insulting you personally when all I did was say your argument was rubbish. It is rubbish. It doesn't make you rubbish. If I thought you weren't worthy of a response, I wouldn't have. I simply think you can't defend that position, nothing more. No need for any of this to be personal.

And you stated they didn't run or practice a system to deal with his absence. Your words. I strongly disagree. We can argue how good it was or wasn't. But what I took issue with is them not having a plan. And expect people to push back when you state something that suggests coaches aren't doing their jobs. I mean seriously?

I think you exaggerated. And what you meant was Tex/Phil had a better plan and you feel Pippen a better person to execute it. Which is something we can debate. But its not on me to guess what you mean originally when you instead post that Lebron's teams simply didn't bother when he was off the court, something utterly preposterous to suggest.

[70sFan]

Are you suggesting that the 2018 Celtics wouldn't have been overwhelming favorites if they had Kyrie as their lead option in the playoffs?

Considering how hard they got wrecked -with- kyrie the year after by a team better than the 19 bucks?

No, i dont think so?

Yeah, you're just being dishonest imo. Good day.

You should stop judging other posters honesty and focus on actual arguments instead...

[Bidofo]

Looks like we have some NBA coaches on RealGM the way some talk about what goes on during team practices lol

[Stalwart]

Considering how hard they got wrecked -with- kyrie the year after by a team better than the 19 bucks?

No, i dont think so?

Yeah, you're just being dishonest imo. Good day.

You should stop judging other posters honesty and focus on actual arguments instead...

The argument is dishonest in my opinion. So I choose not to focus on it but instead call it what it is.

[AEnigma]

Honest assessment of basketball is when points per game + winning.

[70sFan]

Yeah, you're just being dishonest imo. Good day.

You should stop judging other posters honesty and focus on actual arguments instead...

The argument is dishonest in my opinion. So I choose not to focus on it but instead call it what it is.

It's not dishonest, all the evidences we have show that Kyrie hurt his team in Boston. They finished the season 11-7 without him and made the ECF, barely losing it. Then when Kyrie came back in 2017/18, Celtics played at 45 wins pace with him and 66 wins pace without him. This time he was available in the playoffs and they got destroyed by Milawukee, while Kyrie played absolutely horrible. Of course they got even better in 2020, again barely losing ECF.

It doesn't mean that Kyrie is a bad player, but this Celtics experiment didn't work out well at all. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Celtics were better without Kyrie than with him. You may disagree with that, because there are reasonable arguments for that, but don't act like you have to be dishonest to believe in something that is backed up with a lot of evidences.

[Cavsfansince84]

It's not dishonest, all the evidences we have show that Kyrie hurt his team in Boston. They finished the season 11-7 without him and made the ECF, barely losing it. Then when Kyrie came back in 2017/18, Celtics played at 45 wins pace with him and 66 wins pace without him. This time he was available in the playoffs and they got destroyed by Milawukee, while Kyrie played absolutely horrible. Of course they got even better in 2020, again barely losing ECF.

It doesn't mean that Kyrie is a bad player, but this Celtics experiment didn't work out well at all. There are plenty of reasons to believe that Celtics were better without Kyrie than with him. You may disagree with that, because there are reasonable arguments for that, but don't act like you have to be dishonest to believe in something that is backed up with a lot of evidences.

I think this is a very accurate portrayal of him with the Celtics. Kyrie is just not mentally cut out to lead teams. He can flourish as a #2(though he has to think of himself as a co #1 in order for this to work) but he doesn't work as the de facto leader of any team. We saw this in Cleveland even before LeBron showed up. Something about his personality tends to grate on his teammates which gets amplified when a team lets him think he's the guy.

[magicman1978]

I think this is utter rubbish honestly. Sorry. I don't want to be rude, but nobody can seriously think that Spo or Lue or Brown or Vogel or any other Lebron coach just wrote off the non-Lebron minutes and didn't have systems in place.

I'm sorry, but picking out one sentence from my post and declaring it rubbish without contextualizing it is also rubbish - not to be rude....

None of the guys you mentioned are particularly great offensive coaches that come close to touch Tex Winters in that regards. None of those teams had a player as capable of a facilitator as Pippen. None of those teams aside from the Heat really adhered to an offensive system that wasn't fully reliant on LeBron (and I would argue the Heat would have been better had they been more reliant on LeBron and his offensive on/off numbers would have been even better that the incredible numbers they already were). The "you are what you do every day" concept applies here. Practicing and playing certain way everyday is much different than occasionally practicing and occasionally playing a certain way.

I try and only quote the relevant part of the post I am responding to so as to not clutter up the board -- simple etiquette.

Quoting it all here so you don't deflect again though I really shouldn't have to.... Odd also that you say people are insulting you personally when all I did was say your argument was rubbish. It is rubbish. It doesn't make you rubbish. If I thought you weren't worthy of a response, I wouldn't have. I simply think you can't defend that position, nothing more. No need for any of this to be personal.

And you stated they didn't run or practice a system to deal with his absence. Your words. I strongly disagree. We can argue how good it was or wasn't. But what I took issue with is them not having a plan. And expect people to push back when you state something that suggests coaches aren't doing their jobs. I mean seriously?

I think you exaggerated. And what you meant was Tex/Phil had a better plan and you feel Pippen a better person to execute it. Which is something we can debate. But its not on me to guess what you mean originally when you instead post that Lebron's teams simply didn't bother when he was off the court, something utterly preposterous to suggest.

Picking out and responding to one sentence leaves out the context and intent of the post. So you can take one sentence that maybe doesn't say exactly what someone wants to say - because not everyone proof reads a post on a message board - and conclude that I don't think LeBron's teams ever practiced for him to be off the court. But I would hope that in the context of the entire post - you would maybe be able to see what I way saying (or ask rather than claim my argument to be rubbish), especially since I said this in my very post on the subject:

"There wasn't as much practice or game time situations for them to be able to run a really effective offense, minus LeBron."

The intent of the statement you quoted was that they don't run nor practice that offense as their primary system like the Bulls did with their offense. Not that they literally didn't practice for those situations (which would be asinine). So excuse me for being a bit offended that you decided to pick out on sentence out of context to say my argument is rubbish. There can be personal insults and insults about someone's argument (this site, especially the player comparison site used to be a sharing of ideas, rather than insulting someone's argument) - sorry, If I misspoke again and said that anyone personally insulted me. I will proof read future posts so my statements are 100% clear.

[penbeast0]

1 poster formally warned, two informally.

If we can't get back to debating content rather than name calling and posting about name calling, I'm going to close this thread and possibly take further action.

penbeast0

[Texas Chuck]

[ They struggle with him off because he is a supremely talented player who can't be replaced in his role, by anyone else in the league or even history of the game. And because the team doesn't run nor practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence (primarily in the comparison to how well they do vs Jordan's teams who had years of experience running and practicing that system). Are either of those statements incorrect?

I appreciate the response. I am going back though and pulling just the pertinent portion of your post again. This is the context from which your quote was pulled. You made two statements:

1. Lebron can't be replaced --- this seems obvious and we all agree so no need to quote, right?
2. The team doesn't run or practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence. --- this does feel worthy of dispute. His coaches know he wasn't going to play 48 minutes and despite him being super durable up until recent years, they weren't going to not try and win any games he missed.

I don't think I took you out of context. I think you went too far. Which is why I pushed back against it. Colbini went a step further and pointed out some other elite offensive anchors whose teams really struggled when they were off the court. Take my boy Dirk in 2011. Dirk missed 9 games that year and the Mavs offense was putrid. Just utterly awful. And remember this was a championship team loaded with veterans and coached by Rick Carlisle, a coach nobody would ever accuse of not having an offensive plan. This can happen.

I think its a credit to Pippen and the Bulls how well they managed Mike off the court. But I don't think we can say that Lebron is the only system and thus his teams cratered with him off the court because of lack of a plan for dealing with it. Of course they had plans.

That's all. And for my money this board is great when we can attack each other's positions(not the poster, their takes) and make sure people can defend their positions--or in this case maybe simply clarify it. Goodness knows my positions over the years have gotten stronger because Owly or drza or Doc or tsherkin or Outside or 70s or lombardi or...... have held me accountable when I post something.

[magicman1978]

[ They struggle with him off because he is a supremely talented player who can't be replaced in his role, by anyone else in the league or even history of the game. And because the team doesn't run nor practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence (primarily in the comparison to how well they do vs Jordan's teams who had years of experience running and practicing that system). Are either of those statements incorrect?

I appreciate the response. I am going back though and pulling just the pertinent portion of your post again. This is the context from which your quote was pulled. You made two statements:

1. Lebron can't be replaced --- this seems obvious and we all agree so no need to quote, right?
2. The team doesn't run or practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence. --- this does feel worthy of dispute. His coaches know he wasn't going to play 48 minutes and despite him being super durable up until recent years, they weren't going to not try and win any games he missed.

I don't think I took you out of context.

I already addressed #2 in my first post on the topic and in my latest reply:

"The intent of the statement you quoted was that they don't run nor practice that offense as their primary system like the Bulls did with their offense. Not that they literally didn't practice for those situations"

Something you do day in and day out as Option A is going to be more effective than what you do with Option B when Option A isn't available. Also, this is not meant to be some sort of statement about Jordan vs LeBron, but about assessing the quality of their supporting cast when that individual is off the court. Do you not think that the Bulls, and Pippen, were setup to be more successful with Jordan off since Pippen was already the lead initiator for the offense, even with Jordan on the court, and they ran the same offense even with Jordan off? The triangle offense created opportunities for Jordan's teammates - it wasn't reliant on Jordan to create. Who on the Cavs in 2017 for example was going to fill in in LeBron's role? Kyrie? He doesn't know how to run an offense. What option was there to run the offense other than Kyrie? Love isn't going to be in a good position to be successful in that situation.

[Texas Chuck]

Do you not think that the Bulls, and Pippen, were setup to be more successful with Jordan off since Pippen was already the lead initiator for the offense, even with Jordan on the court, and they ran the same offense even with Jordan off?

I do think they were. Though less because of The Triangle and more about the personnel. But I appreciate and respect the clarification. Obviously I wouldn't have said any of what you just posted was a rubbish argument. And I'll worse on a less combative way of taking issue with a post in the future.

[OhayoKD]

[ They struggle with him off because he is a supremely talented player who can't be replaced in his role, by anyone else in the league or even history of the game. And because the team doesn't run nor practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence (primarily in the comparison to how well they do vs Jordan's teams who had years of experience running and practicing that system). Are either of those statements incorrect?

I appreciate the response. I am going back though and pulling just the pertinent portion of your post again. This is the context from which your quote was pulled. You made two statements:

1. Lebron can't be replaced --- this seems obvious and we all agree so no need to quote, right?
2. The team doesn't run or practice a system that would put his teammates in a better position to deal with his absence. --- this does feel worthy of dispute. His coaches know he wasn't going to play 48 minutes and despite him being super durable up until recent years, they weren't going to not try and win any games he missed.

I don't think I took you out of context. I think you went too far. Which is why I pushed back against it. Colbini went a step further and pointed out some other elite offensive anchors whose teams really struggled when they were off the court. Take my boy Dirk in 2011. Dirk missed 9 games that year and the Mavs offense was putrid. Just utterly awful. And remember this was a championship team loaded with veterans and coached by Rick Carlisle, a coach nobody would ever accuse of not having an offensive plan. This can happen.

I think its a credit to Pippen and the Bulls how well they managed Mike off the court. But I don't think we can say that Lebron is the only system and thus his teams cratered with him off the court because of lack of a plan for dealing with it. Of course they had plans.

That's all. And for my money this board is great when we can attack each other's positions(not the poster, their takes) and make sure people can defend their positions--or in this case maybe simply clarify it. Goodness knows my positions over the years have gotten stronger because Owly or drza or Doc or tsherkin or Outside or 70s or lombardi or...... have held me accountable when I post something.

Not to trample on your last paragraph which i think is worth reading and considering...but i'd like to see an explanation from people putting this down to system regardling Lebron's fairly results without good relative to era 3 point shooting (2012, 2020, 2015, ect)