RealGM

Mikeball wrote:My question is why is beating the Warriors who were just taken to 7 games by a very flawed Thunder team such a huge accomplishment?

I know they won 73 games but is that how we measure teams greatness?

The Raptors won 66 games and got swept in the 2nd round in the 2018 playoffs. No one regards that as a great team

If you look at Lebrons cast (no pun intended) and Stephs cast why is it so clear that Stephs was better ?

Obviously, Kyrie is better than Klay (Take the head case stuff out of it) and Kevin Love is better than Draymond Green (especially in a vacuum). So why is this looked at as Lebron overcoming such a huge obstacle.

Was Steph Currys supporting cast so much, if at all, better?

Colbinii wrote:

Mikeball wrote:My question is why is beating the Warriors who were just taken to 7 games by a very flawed Thunder team such a huge accomplishment?

The Thunder weren't flawed. They were arguably the 2nd best team that year behind GSW.

The Thunder team couldnt shoot well. They were extremely flawed having the worst shooting backcourt in the NBA.

I know they won 73 games but is that how we measure teams greatness?

Yeah, winning 73 games had never been done before.

The Raptors won 66 games and got swept in the 2nd round in the 2018 playoffs. No one regards that as a great team

They won 59 games. Google is hard, I know, but my 87 year old grandma uses it effectively.

OK my mistake. The 2015 Hawks who won 60 games or the 2016 Spurs who won 67 games. Use those are the examples.

And please calm down. This is a basketball forum no need to get so condescending.

If you look at Lebrons cast (no pun intended) and Stephs cast why is it so clear that Stephs was better ?

Obviously, Kyrie is better than Klay (Take the head case stuff out of it) and Kevin Love is better than Draymond Green (especially in a vacuum). So why is this looked at as Lebron overcoming such a huge obstacle.

1) Kevin Love was injured for part of the playoffs and was injured during the Finals, evidenced by him only playing in 6/7 NBA Finals games and 90 less minutes than Draymond.

2) Viewing players in a vacuum rather than their actual strengths and weaknesses allows you to have major blind-spots when assessing players at a high level. Kevin Love, in a vacuum, was a Top 5 player in 2014. However, he isn't a good defender. The way he played in 2014 wasn't scalable around other talents [whether that talent is Kyrie or LeBron] and Love started to compile injuries starting in 2015.

3) Kyrie has never shown to be a consistent ceiling raiser once he left LeBron James. He has never been back in the ECF without James, let alone Finals.

4) You fail to compare Iguodala, Barnes, Livingston and Barbosa to J.R., Thompson, Jefferson and Shumpert.

These casts are similar, while I preferred TT size in the Finals as a huge component to the Cavaliers winning, but let's not act like J.R. Smith wasn't a major headcase until he joined up with LeBron James.

Was Steph Currys supporting cast so much, if at all, better?

It wasn't much better--but it was better. It also fit better, with Draymond being an ATG defensive anchor and Klay being an elite two-way wing who is the 2nd greatest shooter ever.

For Cleveland, LeBron/Kyrie and LeBron/Love fit well, but there is a lot of overlap in Kyrie/Love, and as we all know, it is impossible for three 30%+ Usage players to co-exist without one of them sacrificing usage.

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of the LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

Mikeball wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

Mikeball wrote:My question is why is beating the Warriors who were just taken to 7 games by a very flawed Thunder team such a huge accomplishment?

The Thunder weren't flawed. They were arguably the 2nd best team that year behind GSW.

The Thunder team couldnt shoot well. They were extremely flawed having the worst shooting backcourt in the NBA.

I know they won 73 games but is that how we measure teams greatness?

Yeah, winning 73 games had never been done before.

The Raptors won 66 games and got swept in the 2nd round in the 2018 playoffs. No one regards that as a great team

They won 59 games. Google is hard, I know, but my 87 year old grandma uses it effectively.

OK my mistake. The 2015 Hawks who won 60 games or the 2016 Spurs who won 67 games. Use those are the examples.

And please calm down. This is a basketball forum no need to get so condescending.

If you look at Lebrons cast (no pun intended) and Stephs cast why is it so clear that Stephs was better ?

Obviously, Kyrie is better than Klay (Take the head case stuff out of it) and Kevin Love is better than Draymond Green (especially in a vacuum). So why is this looked at as Lebron overcoming such a huge obstacle.

1) Kevin Love was injured for part of the playoffs and was injured during the Finals, evidenced by him only playing in 6/7 NBA Finals games and 90 less minutes than Draymond.

2) Viewing players in a vacuum rather than their actual strengths and weaknesses allows you to have major blind-spots when assessing players at a high level. Kevin Love, in a vacuum, was a Top 5 player in 2014. However, he isn't a good defender. The way he played in 2014 wasn't scalable around other talents [whether that talent is Kyrie or LeBron] and Love started to compile injuries starting in 2015.

3) Kyrie has never shown to be a consistent ceiling raiser once he left LeBron James. He has never been back in the ECF without James, let alone Finals.

4) You fail to compare Iguodala, Barnes, Livingston and Barbosa to J.R., Thompson, Jefferson and Shumpert.

These casts are similar, while I preferred TT size in the Finals as a huge component to the Cavaliers winning, but let's not act like J.R. Smith wasn't a major headcase until he joined up with LeBron James.

Was Steph Currys supporting cast so much, if at all, better?

It wasn't much better--but it was better. It also fit better, with Draymond being an ATG defensive anchor and Klay being an elite two-way wing who is the 2nd greatest shooter ever.

For Cleveland, LeBron/Kyrie and LeBron/Love fit well, but there is a lot of overlap in Kyrie/Love, and as we all know, it is impossible for three 30%+ Usage players to co-exist without one of them sacrificing usage.

Isnt the better fit a part of Currys greatness. Like the fact that someone like Draymond who is so offensively limited can be a highly effective offensive player next to Curry mean the supporting cast really isnt that great. Because if not then player like Mo WIlliams, Delonte West and Jr Smith can not be viewed as "no help" since they fit Lebrons skillset well.

As a 2nd option Kyrie is way better than Klay.

I think many people just viewed this as a way more lopsided series than it shouldve been going in because
1)The Warriors went 73-9
2)The Cavs were a disappointment in the regular season.

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

Taj FTW wrote:Kevin Love missed a game with a concussion and then was horrible after. He averaged 8.5 pts and 6.8 rebounds on 36% FG%. He was clearly not himself. Factoring that in, the Dubs were obviously the better supporting cast.

Taj FTW wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of the LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

Really crazy stuff that LeBron was the GM of the team. I liked the part where.you provided sources on that instead of talking out of your ass.

Taj FTW wrote:

Mikeball wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

The Thunder team couldnt shoot well. They were extremely flawed having the worst shooting backcourt in the NBA.



Yeah, winning 73 games had never been done before.





OK my mistake. The 2015 Hawks who won 60 games or the 2016 Spurs who won 67 games. Use those are the examples.

And please calm down. This is a basketball forum no need to get so condescending.



1) Kevin Love was injured for part of the playoffs and was injured during the Finals, evidenced by him only playing in 6/7 NBA Finals games and 90 less minutes than Draymond.

2) Viewing players in a vacuum rather than their actual strengths and weaknesses allows you to have major blind-spots when assessing players at a high level. Kevin Love, in a vacuum, was a Top 5 player in 2014. However, he isn't a good defender. The way he played in 2014 wasn't scalable around other talents [whether that talent is Kyrie or LeBron] and Love started to compile injuries starting in 2015.

3) Kyrie has never shown to be a consistent ceiling raiser once he left LeBron James. He has never been back in the ECF without James, let alone Finals.

4) You fail to compare Iguodala, Barnes, Livingston and Barbosa to J.R., Thompson, Jefferson and Shumpert.

These casts are similar, while I preferred TT size in the Finals as a huge component to the Cavaliers winning, but let's not act like J.R. Smith wasn't a major headcase until he joined up with LeBron James.



It wasn't much better--but it was better. It also fit better, with Draymond being an ATG defensive anchor and Klay being an elite two-way wing who is the 2nd greatest shooter ever.

For Cleveland, LeBron/Kyrie and LeBron/Love fit well, but there is a lot of overlap in Kyrie/Love, and as we all know, it is impossible for three 30%+ Usage players to co-exist without one of them sacrificing usage.

Isnt the better fit a part of Currys greatness. Like the fact that someone like Draymond who is so offensively limited can be a highly effective offensive player next to Curry mean the supporting cast really isnt that great. Because if not then player like Mo WIlliams, Delonte West and Jr Smith can not be viewed as "no help" since they fit Lebrons skillset well.

As a 2nd option Kyrie is way better than Klay.

I think many people just viewed this as a way more lopsided series than it shouldve been going in because
1)The Warriors went 73-9
2)The Cavs were a disappointment in the regular season.

Defense is a thing FYI

Mikeball wrote:

Taj FTW wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of the LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

Really crazy stuff that LeBron was the GM of the team. I liked the part where.you provided sources on that instead of talking out of your ass.

Come on man. You know what he means.

Taj FTW wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of the LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

Really crazy stuff that LeBron was the GM of the team. I liked the part where.you provided sources on that instead of talking out of your ass.

Mikeball wrote:

Taj FTW wrote:

Mikeball wrote:
Isnt the better fit a part of Currys greatness. Like the fact that someone like Draymond who is so offensively limited can be a highly effective offensive player next to Curry mean the supporting cast really isnt that great. Because if not then player like Mo WIlliams, Delonte West and Jr Smith can not be viewed as "no help" since they fit Lebrons skillset well.

As a 2nd option Kyrie is way better than Klay.

I think many people just viewed this as a way more lopsided series than it shouldve been going in because
1)The Warriors went 73-9
2)The Cavs were a disappointment in the regular season.

Defense is a thing FYI

I get that but what made the 2016 Warriors special was their unprecedented offense

Taj FTW wrote:

Mikeball wrote:

Taj FTW wrote:Really crazy stuff that LeBron was the GM of the team. I liked the part where.you provided sources on that instead of talking out of your ass.

Come on man. You know what he means.

Sure, he's making claims without providing evidence.

Taj FTW wrote:

Mikeball wrote:

Taj FTW wrote:Defense is a thing FYI

I get that but what made the 2016 Warriors special was their unprecedented offense

Yeah, it wasn't their incredible defense either just lol at ignoring defense.

lessthanjake wrote:

Taj FTW wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of the LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

Really crazy stuff that LeBron was the GM of the team. I liked the part where.you provided sources on that instead of talking out of your ass.

Huh? I think you’re thinking about what I said way too literally and completely missing the point. Obviously LeBron wasn’t *actually* the GM of the team. But LeBron has undeniably been extremely instrumental in assembling the various teams he has gone to (the Heat, then the Cavs, and then the Lakers). There’s no denying that whatsoever—I don’t even think LeBron would deny it. And the result of what he has done has always been that his teams have tons of talent but the fit isn’t actually great. That was true in Miami—where LeBron and Wade mostly did your-turn-my-turn offense and Chris Bosh had to play a role he wasn’t very suited to. It was true in Cleveland—where Kevin Love had to play a role he really wasn’t suited to. And it was true in LA—where getting Westbrook was clearly an awful fit. The fact that these teams were frequently successful regardless of bad fit is a testament to LeBron’s ability as a player and the fact that sheer talent can sometimes overcome fit issues. But it doesn’t mean the fit was actually good. To be clear, it’s not clear to me that LeBron could’ve magically created a better situation than he did, because you can only get players that are available, and a high-talent-low-fit team can certainly be better than lower-talent-high-fit team. But I think it’d be silly to not acknowledge that that Cavaliers team was less than the sum of its parts, because of a lack of great fit.

Mikeball wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

I agree with most of this. The Cavs team was more talented but the Warriors fit better. I think a big reason why is Steph Currys off ball greatness. That style fits better than Lebrons on ball greatness.

I think the Cavs style fit Lebrons game well. So I slightly disagree with you on that.

You see new innovations but what do you mean by that? For me it just seems like these things work with a special talent like Curry

Mikeball wrote:

Colbinii wrote:

Mikeball wrote:My question is why is beating the Warriors who were just taken to 7 games by a very flawed Thunder team such a huge accomplishment?

The Thunder weren't flawed. They were arguably the 2nd best team that year behind GSW.

The Thunder team couldnt shoot well. They were extremely flawed having the worst shooting backcourt in the NBA.

I know they won 73 games but is that how we measure teams greatness?

Yeah, winning 73 games had never been done before.

The Raptors won 66 games and got swept in the 2nd round in the 2018 playoffs. No one regards that as a great team

They won 59 games. Google is hard, I know, but my 87 year old grandma uses it effectively.

OK my mistake. The 2015 Hawks who won 60 games or the 2016 Spurs who won 67 games. Use those are the examples.

And please calm down. This is a basketball forum no need to get so condescending.

If you look at Lebrons cast (no pun intended) and Stephs cast why is it so clear that Stephs was better ?

Obviously, Kyrie is better than Klay (Take the head case stuff out of it) and Kevin Love is better than Draymond Green (especially in a vacuum). So why is this looked at as Lebron overcoming such a huge obstacle.

1) Kevin Love was injured for part of the playoffs and was injured during the Finals, evidenced by him only playing in 6/7 NBA Finals games and 90 less minutes than Draymond.

2) Viewing players in a vacuum rather than their actual strengths and weaknesses allows you to have major blind-spots when assessing players at a high level. Kevin Love, in a vacuum, was a Top 5 player in 2014. However, he isn't a good defender. The way he played in 2014 wasn't scalable around other talents [whether that talent is Kyrie or LeBron] and Love started to compile injuries starting in 2015.

3) Kyrie has never shown to be a consistent ceiling raiser once he left LeBron James. He has never been back in the ECF without James, let alone Finals.

4) You fail to compare Iguodala, Barnes, Livingston and Barbosa to J.R., Thompson, Jefferson and Shumpert.

These casts are similar, while I preferred TT size in the Finals as a huge component to the Cavaliers winning, but let's not act like J.R. Smith wasn't a major headcase until he joined up with LeBron James.

Was Steph Currys supporting cast so much, if at all, better?

It wasn't much better--but it was better. It also fit better, with Draymond being an ATG defensive anchor and Klay being an elite two-way wing who is the 2nd greatest shooter ever.

For Cleveland, LeBron/Kyrie and LeBron/Love fit well, but there is a lot of overlap in Kyrie/Love, and as we all know, it is impossible for three 30%+ Usage players to co-exist without one of them sacrificing usage.

Isnt the better fit a part of Currys greatness. Like the fact that someone like Draymond who is so offensively limited can be a highly effective offensive player next to Curry mean the supporting cast really isnt that great. Because if not then player like Mo WIlliams, Delonte West and Jr Smith can not be viewed as "no help" since they fit Lebrons skillset well.

As a 2nd option Kyrie is way better than Klay.

I think many people just viewed this as a way more lopsided series than it shouldve been going in because
1)The Warriors went 73-9
2)The Cavs were a disappointment in the regular season.

lessthanjake wrote:

Mikeball wrote:

lessthanjake wrote:I think the Cavs supporting cast was actually pretty obviously more talented than the Warriors supporting cast, though the Warriors did have a bit more depth. The big thing was that the Warriors were playing a superior brand of basketball. They’d unlocked innovations on offense that have now been widely adopted. These innovations have unlocked a massive surge in offensive efficiency in the NBA, but back then it was mostly just the Warriors doing it (with the Rockets coming at it from a different angle, but with a much lesser team). That gave the Warriors a pretty big tactical advantage over the rest of the league, including the Cavaliers. LeBron being able to overcome that tactical advantage was definitely very impressive, even despite the fact that LeBron’s team was more talented. That’s how big a tactical advantage the Warriors had (as well as having the perfect star player in Steph to exploit that advantage). Another related thing is that the Warriors’ team was a better fit together. That Cleveland team had basically been the typical LeBron thing of trying to stack a team with two other significant stars that happen to be able to get on the team, and hoping for the best, rather than actually putting a team together with players whose talents fit together as well as possible. The lack of fit is, to a large extent, on LeBron, but the fact remains that LeBron the player had to overcome the flaws of LeBron the GM’s plans. I think if you ran that series 1,000 times, the Warriors definitely would win it more than 500 of those times, and certainly more than 500 if Steph hadn’t gotten injured earlier in the playoffs.

I agree with most of this. The Cavs team was more talented but the Warriors fit better. I think a big reason why is Steph Currys off ball greatness. That style fits better than Lebrons on ball greatness.

I think the Cavs style fit Lebrons game well. So I slightly disagree with you on that.

You see new innovations but what do you mean by that? For me it just seems like these things work with a special talent like Curry

When I refer to innovations, I mean the fact that shooting lots of threes is good and that shooting long threes can actually be a good strategy. Basically, think about how NBA basketball is played today compared to how it was generally played back in 2016. It’s super different, and the result is that offensive efficiency in the NBA is way higher than it ever was before. For instance, there’s like 10 teams whose offensive efficiency this year was higher than any team in NBA history had ever gotten before the last few years. Playing how teams play now is just objectively substantially better offensively. Even the 2016 Warriors didn’t quite play how teams play today, but they were definitely really innovative and getting closer to it than other teams. And that allowed them to extract a really big tactical advantage IMO. Of course, you’re right that Steph himself is a huge part of this. It’s not clear that the innovation would’ve happened at all without Steph—and it’s definitely not clear that the Warriors would’ve been the ones doing the innovating. So, to a large degree, Steph is the reason the Warriors had such a tactical advantage. But I don’t think he was all of it. After all, I think if Mark Jackson had stayed the Warriors’ coach, then the Warriors probably wouldn’t have unlocked things. It took having Steph and having a coach in Steve Kerr that was imaginative enough to innovate around Steph (and it didn’t hurt that Kerr was coming from Phoenix—which had to some extent started these offensive innovations a decade earlier).