All-Season Player of the Year Discussion thread

[Texas Chuck]

Feel like we aren't giving Lebron near enough love itt. Curry obviously deserves to be at the top and Harden and Paul had amazing years but we are sleeping a bit on Mr. James. Curry had the best season, but that guy in Cleveland isn't ready to concede best player in the world just yet.

[Dr Spaceman]

Feel like we aren't giving Lebron near enough love itt. Curry obviously deserves to be at the top and Harden and Paul had amazing years but we are sleeping a bit on Mr. James. Curry had the best season, but that guy in Cleveland isn't ready to concede best player in the world just yet.

Hmm. From my understanding we are actually ranking the best "seasons" here, and not best players, especially as Doc made a recent allusion to Wilt '69. So I agree in general that people including myself have underestimated him, I don't think there's any reason yet to see him as on Curry's level, unless of course your point is just to say, "LeBron still could dominate the finals and upset GSW", in which case I can agree with the premise.

Here's the thing though: I actually think Curry's playoffs have been more impressive than LeBron's. He's demonstrated pretty supreme BBIQ by recognizing his team needs him to be more scorer than playmaker right now, and his ridiculous shooting hasn't even shown a hint of being slowable. I get that LeBron is better defensively and has a much wider range of skills, but for the first time I'm looking at someone who does a few things so damn well that it basically overpowers any other argument in my mind.

I'm basically at the point now where I'm not even hesitating for a second in calling Curry the best player in the world, all else be damned. I don't know why James would hold that crown over him other than legacy.

I actually think Davis looked better in rd 1 than James has looked so far too, but who knows if he could've held up going deep especially against a team like Memphis. I also don't really see how James could've gained any ground against Paul or Harden in these playoffs, both of whom were great in their own right. I mean LBron has gotten far, but it's not like we should be especially wowed by this performance in comparison to the other guys.

Barring a catastrophic meltdown, Curry will be my #1, and LeBron could reach #2 if he plays as such a level in the Finals that convinces me he is an actual better basketball player than Curry (seems unlikely right now). Here is the ultimate feather in Curry's cap for me: I don't know if I can imagine a team as good as current GSW ever being built around LeBron. Not joking. James is carrying a group of scrubs to the Finals with little help, but we already knew he could do that. There's sufficient doubt in my mind as to whether he could lead something GOAT-level as far as I'm concerned.

[Texas Chuck]

Dr S.

I'm not arguing Lebron over Curry for #1 this season as I stated in my post. Curry absolutely deserves his spot at the apex. But I think Lebron absolutely has a case over Paul and Harden who are dominating a lot of the discussion. I think its just human nature to take Lebron for granted when we are seeing new guys raise their games so much.

And I appreciate your perspective on saying Curry is playing the best right now so he is the best player in the world. And that's totally a fine perspective. I tend to give the incumbent credit until I feel like someone has really knocked off his crown. Tho I will admit that I certainly took the opportunity to call Dirk the best player in the world in 2011 especially in the playoffs, but I really knew it was still Lebron even as Dirk was outplaying him down the stretch and into the playoffs. But that was pure homerism on my part.

I'm stunned that you think Lebron couldn't lead an all-time great squad. Obviously in his career except for the first 2 years in Miami we have only seen him have to do massive carry jobs. But his game translates beautifully to playing with better players. Look at him on the Olympic teams for instance. I think his ability to do so many different things and play nearly every position and his willingness to defend and share the ball make him a fit on every team from the worst to the best.

[Dr Spaceman]

I'm stunned that you think Lebron couldn't lead an all-time great squad. Obviously in his career except for the first 2 years in Miami we have only seen him have to do massive carry jobs. But his game translates beautifully to playing with better players. Look at him on the Olympic teams for instance. I think his ability to do so many different things and play nearly every position and his willingness to defend and share the ball make him a fit on every team from the worst to the best.

Hmm. I'm gonna re-frame my stance a little bit, because I was trying to get a very precise point across and it's possible the way I delivered it dulled it a bit.

When people see Curry as a guy who's not that far ahead of the field offensively, I tend to think they're focusing on the stuff he produces rather than the way he produces that stuff, which is going to lead to him being criminally underrated. If people are going to say 25 points from his style of play is the same as 25 points from Harden's, that's their belief, but I'm definitely not so relativistic. Harden's a great example, because in Houston the offense has explicitly been geared toward generating the best possible looks from 3. Setting up corner 3 point looks (and at-rim attempts) is really, really hard to do, and as complex and beautiful as teams like the Spurs, Clips, and Rockets look, a ton of that is basically just stuff to set up these specific shots. When you want something badly, and someone else knows you want it, you have to work really really hard to get it.

Curry turns all this on its head, because his pull-up 3s are essentially the same (or greater!) EV as those precious corner threes other teams scrounge for. Curry can pull up from 26 feet in the first few seconds of the shot clock, and that's as good a look for the offense as another team getting a wide open corner 3. Curry is a mistake the universe spat out and broke the paradigm of basketball. Really, never have we seen a player who can generate such high-percentage (for him!) looks with such ease.

And I'm not saying James is going to join a champ team and hold them back or sink them or something. I'm saying that using James to the maximum of his abilities puts a lower ceiling on a team than Curry. James does the same thing tons of perimeter scorers do, he just does it a lot better. But he transforms your offense in such a way that his attacking is the primary way of generating shots, and no matter how good you are I think this has definite limits. This was most clear in Miami, where the fit was worse, but healthy Cleveland was still not really as good as they should be on offense. There's actually a ton of noise right now about how this high PNR/ISO James is less about necessity and more about him just seeing this as the way he wants to play basketball. Zach Lowe has been saying this since December. That's all well and good, but when you're deliberately playing with other super talented scorers there has to be a better way to make things work than just LeBron attacking off the dribble all the damn time. It puts the onus on guys like Love to "fit in, not fit out" and puts the breaks on what should be a better flowing team. The Miami version of LeBron is obviously a much more scalable version- but even there the fit was a struggle and all indications are he didn't like that and wants to play his way.

Curry is just an utterly unique offensive player, and GSW can have far more creativity with his skills at their disposal than other teams have. Watch the film from game 2 and how HOU utterly lost their minds every time Curry set a screen off the ball. It's nuts. And look, outside Klay Thompson that team does not have many talented offensive players. They're far, far better than we should expect them to be on offense, and when margins like that exist I want to look for something special that sets them apart, and all indicators point to Curry's bizarreness. There's evidence all over the place that GSW's #2 offense would be like #20 without Curry, and when Curry is on the floor the team is so damn over the top that he doesn't even need to play 4th quarters. James has played on teams that are frankly more talented than the Warriors and has never approached something like this at all. You can point to fit, but doesn't that implicate LeBron as much as anyone else?

Fundamentally the point I've been making all season is this: Curry's individual offense is at a level of brilliance that only the very very best offensive players have reached. We're looking at a team that is essentially using the 90s Bulls formula- have the most dominant offensive force in the league and surround him with a bunch of dudes that can defend and fill in the gaps. Its unreasonable how good he is, and the specific way this team dominates is very, very different from anything we've ever seen.

[trex_8063]

Actually, I'm w/ trex on the RS vs. PS debate. I don't weigh the playoffs nearly as heavily as some do, its a sample size issue as well as game planning to me.

Okay, but I don't think it's ever wise to chalk performance down to game planning, because that implies the player doesn't have a diverse enough skill set, or that what the player does well is largely stoppable. At least in my opinion.

Although it appears the playoff vs. rs comment is what people have latched on to, that was really just a sort of "oh by the way..." comment tacked on to the end of my criteria. I was more interested in thoughts/discussion regarding my comments on player application and replaceability. That stuff strikes me as very relevant to current player evaluation trends here on the PC forum. And at first (I'm so self-absorbed) I thought that's what the bolded part was replying to.

fwiw, my comments come from a concern (which I've thought a lot on) that we (here in the PC forum) can have a tendency to overvalue the relative "greatness" of role players, and perhaps undervalue perceived "stars" if their impact data is not strong enough.

And when I (at first) thought you were responding to me with those comments, my inclination was to point out that role players typically don't have a diverse skill-set: they tend to do 1 or 2 things---things which happen to be vital components of a successful team---and do them very very well. They then may be mediocre to poor in most other aspects. But because the role that is asked of them is so specific, and so exactly catered to what they do WELL......they often end up exhibiting larger than expected impact.
Stars, otoh, are generally expected to have a much more diverse skill-set (and generally DO have a more diverse skill-set), and are often asked to "do whatever it takes" to get your team the win (and they will carry the blame if unsuccessful).
Sometimes the job is just too big (for players who are more "All-Stars" or "borderline superstars", but whom are asked to take on superstar-level responsibilities), and/or too vague for all but the very creme de la creme.....and consequently I think perhaps perceived impact suffers as a result. But these are still, imo, better overall players than the role players who show marginally better impact data.

[bondom34]

Actually, I'm w/ trex on the RS vs. PS debate. I don't weigh the playoffs nearly as heavily as some do, its a sample size issue as well as game planning to me.

Okay, but I don't think it's ever wise to chalk performance down to game planning, because that implies the player doesn't have a diverse enough skill set, or that what the player does well is largely stoppable. At least in my opinion.

Generally my policy is to develop an evaluation of the player during the season and then make adjustments based on what happens in the playoffs. Guys won't generally make huge jumps based on playoff play unless what they do clearly shows that my regular season picture of them was wrong.

The main thing I mean is that RS is different in that you aren't playing the same team every other day 4-7 times. Its entirely easier to gameplan for a guy in the PS than RS, and it can effect guys. Really though, the sample size is the bigger problem imo.

[Texas Chuck]

fwiw, my comments come from a concern (which I've thought a lot on) that we (here in the PC forum) can have a tendency to overvalue the relative "greatness" of role players, and perhaps undervalue perceived "stars" if their impact data is not strong enough.

And when I (at first) thought you were responding to me with those comments, my inclination was to point out that role players typically don't have a diverse skill-set: they tend to do 1 or 2 things---things which happen to be vital components of a successful team---and do them very very well. They then may be mediocre to poor in most other aspects. But because the role that is asked of them is so specific, and so exactly catered to what they do WELL......they often end up exhibiting larger than expected impact.
Stars, otoh, are generally expected to have a much more diverse skill-set (and generally DO have a more diverse skill-set), and are often asked to "do whatever it takes" to get your team the win (and they will carry the blame if unsuccessful).
Sometimes the job is just too big (for players who are more "All-Stars" or "borderline superstars", but whom are asked to take on superstar-level responsibilities), and/or too vague for all but the very creme de la creme.....and consequently I think perhaps perceived impact suffers as a result. But these are still, imo, better overall players than the role players who show marginally better impact data.

Co-sign 100%. I and-1'd your post but I feel like this is an important enough concept that I wanted to verbalize a little more how much I agree with what is being said here.

[Doctor MJ]

Actually, I'm w/ trex on the RS vs. PS debate. I don't weigh the playoffs nearly as heavily as some do, its a sample size issue as well as game planning to me.

Okay, but I don't think it's ever wise to chalk performance down to game planning, because that implies the player doesn't have a diverse enough skill set, or that what the player does well is largely stoppable. At least in my opinion.

Generally my policy is to develop an evaluation of the player during the season and then make adjustments based on what happens in the playoffs. Guys won't generally make huge jumps based on playoff play unless what they do clearly shows that my regular season picture of them was wrong.

The main thing I mean is that RS is different in that you aren't playing the same team every other day 4-7 times. Its entirely easier to gameplan for a guy in the PS than RS, and it can effect guys. Really though, the sample size is the bigger problem imo.

Good stuff here from both of you, and I'm really not word that either of you are "doing it wrong". The thing I'll say is:

To me the real judgment of what a player is, is in what he can do after people have had the opportunity to game plan like this for him. I'm leery of getting caught up fetishizing small sample sizes, but if it's literally true to say "Player X is a better regular season player but Player Y is a better playoff player", then to me Player Y is the better player. Do you disagree with that?

[PaulieWal]

"Player X is a better regular season player but Player Y is a better playoff player", then to me Player Y is the better player. Do you disagree with that?

If that's the case year in, year out and Player X is always disappointing in the playoffs then yes, I would agree with you.

[MO12msu]

Good stuff here from both of you, and I'm really not word that either of you are "doing it wrong". The thing I'll say is:

To me the real judgment of what a player is, is in what he can do after people have had the opportunity to game plan like this for him. I'm leery of getting caught up fetishizing small sample sizes, but if it's literally true to say "Player X is a better regular season player but Player Y is a better playoff player", then to me Player Y is the better player. Do you disagree with that?

Can we really say that player Y is a better playoff performer than player X if they didn't face the same competition though? Maybe if we see a pattern over multiple seasons and a multitude of opponents, but I'm not sure it would really make sense to draw a conclusion like that if we're looking at strictly performance over one season. Especially when the competition that teams face in the postseason is so dissimilar unless they run through a common opponent.

[Texas Chuck]

Spoiler:

Hmm. I'm gonna re-frame my stance a little bit, because I was trying to get a very precise point across and it's possible the way I delivered it dulled it a bit.

When people see Curry as a guy who's not that far ahead of the field offensively, I tend to think they're focusing on the stuff he produces rather than the way he produces that stuff, which is going to lead to him being criminally underrated. If people are going to say 25 points from his style of play is the same as 25 points from Harden's, that's their belief, but I'm definitely not so relativistic. Harden's a great example, because in Houston the offense has explicitly been geared toward generating the best possible looks from 3. Setting up corner 3 point looks (and at-rim attempts) is really, really hard to do, and as complex and beautiful as teams like the Spurs, Clips, and Rockets look, a ton of that is basically just stuff to set up these specific shots. When you want something badly, and someone else knows you want it, you have to work really really hard to get it.

Curry turns all this on its head, because his pull-up 3s are essentially the same (or greater!) EV as those precious corner threes other teams scrounge for. Curry can pull up from 26 feet in the first few seconds of the shot clock, and that's as good a look for the offense as another team getting a wide open corner 3. Curry is a mistake the universe spat out and broke the paradigm of basketball. Really, never have we seen a player who can generate such high-percentage (for him!) looks with such ease.

And I'm not saying James is going to join a champ team and hold them back or sink them or something. I'm saying that using James to the maximum of his abilities puts a lower ceiling on a team than Curry. James does the same thing tons of perimeter scorers do, he just does it a lot better. But he transforms your offense in such a way that his attacking is the primary way of generating shots, and no matter how good you are I think this has definite limits. This was most clear in Miami, where the fit was worse, but healthy Cleveland was still not really as good as they should be on offense. There's actually a ton of noise right now about how this high PNR/ISO James is less about necessity and more about him just seeing this as the way he wants to play basketball. Zach Lowe has been saying this since December. That's all well and good, but when you're deliberately playing with other super talented scorers there has to be a better way to make things work than just LeBron attacking off the dribble all the damn time. It puts the onus on guys like Love to "fit in, not fit out" and puts the breaks on what should be a better flowing team. The Miami version of LeBron is obviously a much more scalable version- but even there the fit was a struggle and all indications are he didn't like that and wants to play his way.

Curry is just an utterly unique offensive player, and GSW can have far more creativity with his skills at their disposal than other teams have. Watch the film from game 2 and how HOU utterly lost their minds every time Curry set a screen off the ball. It's nuts. And look, outside Klay Thompson that team does not have many talented offensive players. They're far, far better than we should expect them to be on offense, and when margins like that exist I want to look for something special that sets them apart, and all indicators point to Curry's bizarreness. There's evidence all over the place that GSW's #2 offense would be like #20 without Curry, and when Curry is on the floor the team is so damn over the top that he doesn't even need to play 4th quarters. James has played on teams that are frankly more talented than the Warriors and has never approached something like this at all. You can point to fit, but doesn't that implicate LeBron as much as anyone else?

Fundamentally the point I've been making all season is this: Curry's individual offense is at a level of brilliance that only the very very best offensive players have reached. We're looking at a team that is essentially using the 90s Bulls formula- have the most dominant offensive force in the league and surround him with a bunch of dudes that can defend and fill in the gaps. Its unreasonable how good he is, and the specific way this team dominates is very, very different from anything we've ever seen.

I appreciate the response. I hope you weren't directing some of the Curry stuff at me specifically because I don't recall having ever been a critic of his offensive impact. But I guess I'm a little slower to assume that his impact has some scaling impact so far beyond what a Lebron led team would be capable of. Warriors this year had a 111 otrg which is really quite good. Guess what Cleveland had this year? 111 And I'd argue that the Warriors are built and coached much more to Curry's strengths than the Cavs are to Lebrons.

I guess I need more evidence before I'm ready to concede this. In theory some of what you say may well be correct about the "superior" way to run an offense, but Lebron may well be so great as to overcome doing things the "wrong" way. And what you describe about Curry and the Warriors is essentially the same formula Dallas used in 2011---get a bunch of guys who can defend and shoot the 3 and let your one-of-a-kind offensive player make the offense work. I guess I'm just not seeing the Warriors as being that unique or revolutionary. An incredible team to be sure, but they aren't reinventing basketball here either.

[Doctor MJ]

Good stuff here from both of you, and I'm really not word that either of you are "doing it wrong". The thing I'll say is:

To me the real judgment of what a player is, is in what he can do after people have had the opportunity to game plan like this for him. I'm leery of getting caught up fetishizing small sample sizes, but if it's literally true to say "Player X is a better regular season player but Player Y is a better playoff player", then to me Player Y is the better player. Do you disagree with that?

Can we really say that player Y is a better playoff performer than player X if they didn't face the same competition though? Maybe if we see a pattern over multiple seasons and a multitude of opponents, but I'm not sure it would really make sense to draw a conclusion like that if we're looking at strictly performance over one season. Especially when the competition that teams face in the postseason is so dissimilar unless they run through a common opponent.

We never know anything for sure, and you're right, the structure of the playoffs makes things more difficult. It may be I've had a tendency to overreact to the playoffs. Since that's the norm, I should probably assume it.

But what I will say is that my Top 5 hasn't changed since the start of the playoffs. It still can change, but I don't make changes lightly.

[bondom34]

Okay, but I don't think it's ever wise to chalk performance down to game planning, because that implies the player doesn't have a diverse enough skill set, or that what the player does well is largely stoppable. At least in my opinion.

Generally my policy is to develop an evaluation of the player during the season and then make adjustments based on what happens in the playoffs. Guys won't generally make huge jumps based on playoff play unless what they do clearly shows that my regular season picture of them was wrong.

The main thing I mean is that RS is different in that you aren't playing the same team every other day 4-7 times. Its entirely easier to gameplan for a guy in the PS than RS, and it can effect guys. Really though, the sample size is the bigger problem imo.

Good stuff here from both of you, and I'm really not word that either of you are "doing it wrong". The thing I'll say is:

To me the real judgment of what a player is, is in what he can do after people have had the opportunity to game plan like this for him. I'm leery of getting caught up fetishizing small sample sizes, but if it's literally true to say "Player X is a better regular season player but Player Y is a better playoff player", then to me Player Y is the better player. Do you disagree with that?

I think I'm with what Paulie said, if its a consistent issue, I may agree. That said, it would still depend if player Y could actually be good enough to get me to the PO. If not, then its still X obviously.

[kayess]

Hmm. I'm gonna re-frame my stance a little bit, because I was trying to get a very precise point across and it's possible the way I delivered it dulled it a bit.

I'm going to preface this by saying I genuinely think you're one of the absolute best posters on the board, but I feel that some of your posts come off as "going against the grain just for the sake of it". I remember you being high on LBJ's offense before, and to come from that to him not being able to lead a GOAT offense / team is pretty interesting. Of course I always read your posts anyways because you always elaborate so well.

Curry turns all this on its head, because his pull-up 3s are essentially the same (or greater!) EV as those precious corner threes other teams scrounge for. Curry can pull up from 26 feet in the first few seconds of the shot clock, and that's as good a look for the offense as another team getting a wide open corner 3. Curry is a mistake the universe spat out and broke the paradigm of basketball. Really, never have we seen a player who can generate such high-percentage (for him!) looks with such ease.

Spoiler:

I'd love to see those numbers because idk if the ones I looked up are accurate. 82games has this:

42.5% on corner threes at 118 ORTG (shouldn't it be 127.5 though? 42.5% on 3s means an EV of 1.275 PPP, and over 100 poss that's 127.5 - am I missing something here?),
38.8% on straightaway threes at 105 ORTG
*Curry is at 2.0/5.2 on pull-up 3s - that's 38.5% per game

I don't get why there's a 10 point ORTG difference with just a 4% difference, but I think if these hold we can definitively say it's not the same.

And I'm not saying James is going to join a champ team and hold them back or sink them or something. I'm saying that using James to the maximum of his abilities puts a lower ceiling on a team than Curry. James does the same thing tons of perimeter scorers do, he just does it a lot better. But he transforms your offense in such a way that his attacking is the primary way of generating shots, and no matter how good you are I think this has definite limits. This was most clear in Miami, where the fit was worse, but healthy Cleveland was still not really as good as they should be on offense. There's actually a ton of noise right now about how this high PNR/ISO James is less about necessity and more about him just seeing this as the way he wants to play basketball. Zach Lowe has been saying this since December. That's all well and good, but when you're deliberately playing with other super talented scorers there has to be a better way to make things work than just LeBron attacking off the dribble all the damn time. It puts the onus on guys like Love to "fit in, not fit out" and puts the breaks on what should be a better flowing team. The Miami version of LeBron is obviously a much more scalable version- but even there the fit was a struggle and all indications are he didn't like that and wants to play his way.

Spoiler:

See, this is the kind of thing I'd absolutely 100% believe if I hadn't read SSB's posts on LeBron's evolution as an offensive player. Despite the fact that as time went on, Wade's playmaking abilities grew worse, LeBron played more and more off-ball - leading to the Heat breaking the EFG% record twice. Of the four factors taken into account by ORTG, they only lagged behind in OREB%, and again, that was a strategic move that took into account the limitations of their personnel, and the style of defense they wanted to play (which was similarly limited by the former).

Kyrie isn't on the same level as even Wade as a playmaker. If he could find LeBron on those off-ball cuts or hit the roll man 90% of the time on PNRs, I think it's valid to suppose that LeBron would recognize that letting Kyrie have the ball more is the correct move. Case-in-point, Wade might be a worse fit next to LeBron, but the Heat's best 2 man lineups was Wade-LeBron by a landslide, iirc. They could find each other on cuts when the other was holding the ball, make the correct decision on PNRs, etc. That was how Wade made up for his (relative to Kyrie) inferior shooting, among other things that made the fit worse.

I get your point that Curry turns the "hunt for the best possible 3" paradigm all on its head because his pull-up 3 is amazing. And seriously, that's awesome! I love watching Curry randomly pull-up from outside the gym while incredulous defenders do everything they can to bother the shot - only for Curry to swish that **** anyway. But I don't get why that's empirically superior to "attacking off the dribble all the damn time" if the latter creates even better looks.

Curry is just an utterly unique offensive player, and GSW can have far more creativity with his skills at their disposal than other teams have. Watch the film from game 2 and how HOU utterly lost their minds every time Curry set a screen off the ball. It's nuts. And look, outside Klay Thompson that team does not have many talented offensive players. They're far, far better than we should expect them to be on offense, and when margins like that exist I want to look for something special that sets them apart, and all indicators point to Curry's bizarreness. There's evidence all over the place that GSW's #2 offense would be like #20 without Curry, and when Curry is on the floor the team is so damn over the top that he doesn't even need to play 4th quarters. James has played on teams that are frankly more talented than the Warriors and has never approached something like this at all. You can point to fit, but doesn't that implicate LeBron as much as anyone else?

Spoiler:

Which teams did you think were more talented offensively? There's a similar narrative when viewing the Heat and the Warriors - people thinking they were these unbeatable juggernauts with epic supporting casts, but upon closer inspection, fell apart without their star - and I don't think that the talent gap is significant either way (if there is one). Give 2014 LeBron an upgraded version of 2009's supporting cast and it's not unthinkable that they do even better than the 9 SRS Cavs with Mo freaking Williams as the second best player.

If by implicate you mean "because he wanted to play with them in the first place and didn't realize how they'd clash", sure. But once they got together everyone started doing what was best for the team, and I think they all deserve credit for that.

Fundamentally the point I've been making all season is this: Curry's individual offense is at a level of brilliance that only the very very best offensive players have reached. We're looking at a team that is essentially using the 90s Bulls formula- have the most dominant offensive force in the league and surround him with a bunch of dudes that can defend and fill in the gaps. Its unreasonable how good he is, and the specific way this team dominates is very, very different from anything we've ever seen.

Spoiler:

I know it's not what you meant, but it just comes off as this being a preference of style. With Curry vs. Harden, sure I can understand - Curry has shown better results, and has done A LOT more with just a good bit more talent around him, than Harden. You say in one sentence that they're essentially using the 90s Bulls formula, and then go on to say that the specific way the team dominates is very very different from anything we've ever seen.

FYI, we've seen that formula work for LeBron, too - with worse fit.

To conclude, I just thought the the past 2-3 seasons would've convinced anyone that LeBron's no "jack of all trades and master of none" when it came to adapting to teams. Everything you just said could've applied to 2009 LeBron, sure, but not 2013-onwards LeBron, who has consistently fine tuned his game to start living in the post, getting easy buckets off of cuts (which he isn't getting anymore because no one on the Cavs can find him on those), and working off the ball more. We've seen an immense amount of data/games played that has shown he's willing to adapt everything about his game and approach if necessary:

2012: Adjusts to decreased athleticism and the loss the previous year to get all his points "within the flow of the system" as IG2 would put it
2013: Plays more off-ball, improves his jumper, playmaking out of the post, etc. etc.
2014: Even more fine-tuning here. He's making well-timed off ball cuts and his jumper stayed wet until the Finals

I just don't see where the evidence for the following is:

1) Him playing that way because that's what he wants
2) The ceiling on his teams have been due to him

I'll end by saying that absolutely none of this is to say LeBron is superior to Curry on O, though. This is more "why I think your criticisms of LeBron don't necessarily apply", rather than "why I think your criticisms of LeBron don't necessarily apply, thus LeBron > Curry on O"

[bondom34]

Good stuff here from both of you, and I'm really not word that either of you are "doing it wrong". The thing I'll say is:

To me the real judgment of what a player is, is in what he can do after people have had the opportunity to game plan like this for him. I'm leery of getting caught up fetishizing small sample sizes, but if it's literally true to say "Player X is a better regular season player but Player Y is a better playoff player", then to me Player Y is the better player. Do you disagree with that?

Can we really say that player Y is a better playoff performer than player X if they didn't face the same competition though? Maybe if we see a pattern over multiple seasons and a multitude of opponents, but I'm not sure it would really make sense to draw a conclusion like that if we're looking at strictly performance over one season. Especially when the competition that teams face in the postseason is so dissimilar unless they run through a common opponent.

We never know anything for sure, and you're right, the structure of the playoffs makes things more difficult. It may be I've had a tendency to overreact to the playoffs. Since that's the norm, I should probably assume it.

But what I will say is that my Top 5 hasn't changed since the start of the playoffs. It still can change, but I don't make changes lightly.

This is pretty much where I stand as well Doc. My thoughts are sort of (and don't get me wrong but its the example because its easy and I'm too lazy myself to think harder on a holiday weekend), but I'd say this much at least:
If there are 2 players, X and Y, and I have X ahead of Y, where X's team makes the postseason, and Y's doesn't, I won't flip them just because the postseason player plays poorly once he's there. But if for example multiple guys make the postseason, there has to be something pretty worthwhile for me to flip my order around. I was one last year who admittedly voted Durant as 1 based largely on RS results. For this year, I still have Lebron at my 4 spot, and he's going to need to really push to get to 2, he could take 3 only b/c Paul is done.

[SideshowBob]

Adjusted for HCA and SOS:

Warriors Postseason (12 G)

+9.4 SRS, +6.7 Offense, -3.6 Defense

Cavaliers Postseason (12 G)

+9.9 SRS, +7.1 Offense, -3.9 Defense

[SideshowBob]

Tonight's game will obviously do wonders for GS's numbers.

[RSCD3_]

Still Harden is my Number two unless lebron has a series like he did vs the spurs last year and the Cavs push it to 6. Well acutally thats a baseline, if he goes Orlando Magic 2009 mode and they lose a tight 5 game series he'll be number two, if he struggles with his shot a little but still plays good and they push it to 7 that works too.But if he continues his level of play and they get rolled im not going to have him over harden since harden had the better RS.

[Clyde Frazier]

40 pts on 19 shots for curry tonight! shades of 2011 dirk against OKC... unreal

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/golden-stat ... 015052310/

[SideshowBob]

Adjusted for HCA and SOS:

Warriors Postseason (12 G)

+9.4 SRS, +6.7 Offense, -3.6 Defense

Cavaliers Postseason (12 G)

+9.9 SRS, +7.1 Offense, -3.9 Defense

Warriors Postseason (13 G)

+11.9 SRS, +7.2 Offense, -5.4 Defense