New Impact Metric: MAMBA

[tsherkin]

more evidence that harden was robbed of mvp in 2019.. almost like averaging 36ppg and being 8 points ahead of the second place scorer means something

Volume alone means only so much. And defense is a thing.

Also, the 2019 Bucks won 7 more games than the Rockets, and Giannis WAS a 28/12/5/6 guy on 64.4% TS himself, 2nd in the DPOY race and all that.

"Robbed" is a big word, which is violently inappropriate. One can make an argument that Harden should have won the MVP that year, but "robbed" is very much not an accurate description.

Harden was a good defender in 2019 and 2020.

Harden was not a good enough defender that we are in a comparison with someone who was 2nd in the DPOY vote and obviously superior by a large margin to Harden's own defensive contribution, so it's moot.

[ShotCreator]

Volume alone means only so much. And defense is a thing.

Also, the 2019 Bucks won 7 more games than the Rockets, and Giannis WAS a 28/12/5/6 guy on 64.4% TS himself, 2nd in the DPOY race and all that.

"Robbed" is a big word, which is violently inappropriate. One can make an argument that Harden should have won the MVP that year, but "robbed" is very much not an accurate description.

Harden was a good defender in 2019 and 2020.

Harden was not a good enough defender that we are in a comparison with someone who was 2nd in the DPOY vote and obviously superior by a large margin to Harden's own defensive contribution, so it's moot.

Fair enough. But I just wanted to at least add that. You will never find a guy who can be #1 in a loaded league like 2019 and 2020(I mean seriously look at the prime overlaps in this stretch) and be a bad defender.

I don't say that as evidence on its own, I watched Harden play really consistently good defense for a couple years straight, but it is an indicator.

As far as MVP, Giannis and Harden were close enough that Giannis wasn't a bad wrong pick. I think it's close but clear for Harden, but I'm high on Harden. If a god or objective superior intelligence came down and said Giannis was equal to him or slightly better it wouldn't shock me but... I think Harden was into something truly special there.

[tsherkin]

Fair enough. But I just wanted to at least add that. You will never find a guy who can be #1 in a loaded league like 2019 and 2020(I mean seriously look at the prime overlaps in this stretch) and be a bad defender.

I don't know that I agree with that, and Harden has definitely not been a good defender on the balance of his career. But he was definitely aggressive in the passing lanes. And he CAN play good defense.

As far as MVP, Giannis and Harden were close enough that Giannis wasn't a bad wrong pick. I think it's close but clear for Harden, but I'm high on Harden. If a god or objective superior intelligence came down and said Giannis was equal to him or slightly better it wouldn't shock me but... I think Harden was into something truly special there.

I don't think it's clear for either of them, but those were clearly the two that year. And neither would be a bad choice, no doubt.

[jjgp111292]

2017 had 2 much better rs players and 1 better rs player who actually won the MVP

I do think Kawhi had a better case but Hardens case for 2017 is much better than 2019...

I was referring to Lebron and Steph who were far more valuable in the regular season. Kawhi you could argue but he missed a bunch of games and it didn't help him the team did okay when he did.

Factoring in general voting patterns, Steph was never gonna get the vote based on his new teammate so it's a moot point, and the Cavs underachieved a pretty great deal that regular season, specifically in the second half as some of LeBron's leadership shenanigans reared their ugly head. We can talk about plus-minus and all that theoretical stuff but the results aren't passing the smell test.

Rejecting a case built on...box-score watching is box-score watching? Westbrook had a worse constructed roster, showcased significantly more impact up until that point in the rs and the playoffs including 2017, and had a case as the league's lead creator and had an outlier shooting year having been the thunder's MVP without that in 2016.

Harden had no case for being robbed. He was worse and would have lost even if Westbrook didn't have the triple double. The MVP race was over when he hit the buzzer-beater vs Denver and just like in 2016 Westbrook was clearly better in the playoffs.

Project elsewhere.

I mistook you for the other guy, but regardless my point stands, as I think Harden performed better, got better results, and in general think giving the MVP to a 6th seed just because his team sucked without him is hogwash; same reason I don't like '22 Jokic and even '88 Jordan would require a lot of caveats before I believe it wasn't a premature crowning from thirsty media.

[OhayoKD]

I do think Kawhi had a better case but Hardens case for 2017 is much better than 2019...

I was referring to Lebron and Steph who were far more valuable in the regular season. Kawhi you could argue but he missed a bunch of games and it didn't help him the team did okay when he did.

Factoring in general voting patterns, Steph was never gonna get the vote based on his new teammate so it's a moot point

Voting patterns are moot to the current conversation.
,

and the Cavs underachieved a pretty great deal that regular season, specifically in the second half as some of LeBron's leadership shenanigans reared their ugly head. We can talk about plus-minus and all that theoretical stuff but the results aren't passing the smell test.

Do you enjoy words he opposite of how they're supposed to be used? First "Reductive" in the 1998 thread. Now "theoretical". The cavs winning at a 57 win-pace with Lebron is not "theoretical", it's actual. As is them going winless when he didn't play.

You know what's theoretical? Your "sniff test", which is really just you going off a player's PPG... Something something Box-score watching...

You're going to have specify what shenanigans you're talking about. Lebron's off-court decisions tend to correlate with winning. Even if alleged "Lebron fans" try to turn them into negatives so they can justify placing him over inferior more toxic players.

Rejecting a case built on...box-score watching is box-score watching? Westbrook had a worse constructed roster, showcased significantly more impact up until that point in the rs and the playoffs including 2017, and had a case as the league's lead creator and had an outlier shooting year having been the thunder's MVP without that in 2016.

Harden had no case for being robbed. He was worse and would have lost even if Westbrook didn't have the triple double. The MVP race was over when he hit the buzzer-beater vs Denver and just like in 2016 Westbrook was clearly better in the playoffs.

Project elsewhere.

I mistook you for the other guy, but regardless my point stands, as I think Harden performed better,[/quote[
He performed better via box-score watching. Westbrook performed better making teams win.

l think giving the MVP to a 6th seed just because his team sucked without him is hogwash; same reason I don't like '22 Jokic and even '88 Jordan would require a lot of caveats before I believe it wasn't a premature crowning from thirsty media.

But giving it to the 3rd seed is fine. Even when two teams win upwards of 10 more games. Arbitrary standard is arbitrary. If you want to use the value in valuable Harden was 4th behind the player who he lost to. If you want to go by team success, Harden would be 3rd.

Harden had no business winning the 2017 MVP, just like he had no business winning the 2015 MVP, or the 2019 MVP, or the 2020 MVP. 2019 is the only non-winning year one could seriously argue he was top 2 in the RS. And he certainly wasn't top 1.

[jjgp111292]

Do you enjoy words he opposite of how they're supposed to be used? First "Reductive" in the 1998 thread. Now "theoretical". The cavs winning at a 57 win-pace with Lebron is not "theoretical", it's actual. As is them going winless when he didn't play.

You know what's theoretical? Your "sniff test", which is really just you going off a player's PPG... Something something Box-score watching...

You're going to have specify what shenanigans you're talking about. Lebron's off-court decisions tend to correlate with winning. Even if alleged "Lebron fans" try to turn them into negatives so they can justify placing him over inferior more toxic players.

What does PPG have to do with the Cavs going 11-15 to finish the season while LeBron publicly bitches about his roster and coasts on defense?????? I think the actual results matter more than "They had a 57-win SRS"

I mistook you for the other guy, but regardless my point stands, as I think Harden performed better,[/quote[
He performed better via box-score watching. Westbrook performed better making teams win.

l think giving the MVP to a 6th seed just because his team sucked without him is hogwash; same reason I don't like '22 Jokic and even '88 Jordan would require a lot of caveats before I believe it wasn't a premature crowning from thirsty media.

But giving it to the 3rd seed is fine. Even when two teams win upwards of 10 more games. Arbitrary standard is arbitrary. If you want to use the value in valuable Harden was 4th behind the player who he lost to. If you want to go by team success, Harden would be 3rd.

Harden had no business winning the 2017 MVP, just like he had no business winning the 2015 MVP, or the 2019 MVP, or the 2020 MVP. 2019 is the only non-winning year one could seriously argue he was top 2 in the RS. And he certainly wasn't top 1.

1) We're talking about MVP, which...correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a voter-decided award, is it not? I think MVP criteria is nebulous and a mix of performance, narrative, and results. It's why I side eye people who talk about how MJ, Shaq, LeBron should have more MVPs based on championships or something. Folks telling me MJ deserved it in '93 when his team underachieved while he was playing chuckball? Or Mr. Heal on Company Time? Or LeCoast? Only MVPs I think are true robberies are '97 and '17, and while I disagree with 05, 06, and maybe 11 I'm not mad at the choices either...and even though i just said I hate 22, honestly that's a muddy enough field that I can see how Jokic's performance is enough to stand out (better than just tossing it to Devin Booker because he led the best team in scoring for sure) and 23 when he really sould've won kinda evens it out in hindsight so whatever.

I already said Kawhi had a better case than Harden anyway, so not quite sure why you're bringing up the Spurs (the other superior team) and I think Steph having a former MVP in his prime as his teammate makes it harder to say he really deserves it over the field. So yes, I think the guy who had a pretty amazing season, finished top 3, and got the Rockets to massively exceed expectations (on paper that was a "Team that's exciting to watch but wins 42 games") had a pretty strong case.

Also, questioning me being a LeBron fan (when all you have to do is look through my post history before the last year to verify that) just because I have the audacity to be critical of him is cute If anything, the standom is why some of those things irk me lmao

[OhayoKD]

Do you enjoy words he opposite of how they're supposed to be used? First "Reductive" in the 1998 thread. Now "theoretical". The cavs winning at a 57 win-pace with Lebron is not "theoretical", it's actual. As is them going winless when he didn't play.

You know what's theoretical? Your "sniff test", which is really just you going off a player's PPG... Something something Box-score watching...

You're going to have specify what shenanigans you're talking about. Lebron's off-court decisions tend to correlate with winning. Even if alleged "Lebron fans" try to turn them into negatives so they can justify placing him over inferior more toxic players.

What does PPG have to do with the Cavs going 11-15 to finish the season while LeBron publicly bitches about his roster and coasts on defense?????? I think the actual results matter more than "They had a 57-win SRS"

I'm not using SRS, I'm using their "actual results" of 51-23 in the 74 games Lebron James played basketball for the Cleveland Cavaliers. In which Lebron, coasting on defense, saw the cavs improve dramatically defensively. Perhaps you should ask your "sniff test" why the Cavs defense turned awful when Lebron left.

Lebron "publicly bitching about his roster" produces wins and championships and finals appearances for his teams, including the, at this point, incompetently ran cleveland cavaliers. I also don't know why it matters they went "11-15" over a cherrypicked stretch of the season with a lock on the 1 seed and home-court secured until the finals.

What I do know is that by actual results the Cavs went from winless to winning more than twice as much as they lost when Lebron played games. What in the world has Harden done at any point in his career suggesting he could replicate that?

[jjgp111292]

Do you enjoy words he opposite of how they're supposed to be used? First "Reductive" in the 1998 thread. Now "theoretical". The cavs winning at a 57 win-pace with Lebron is not "theoretical", it's actual. As is them going winless when he didn't play.

You know what's theoretical? Your "sniff test", which is really just you going off a player's PPG... Something something Box-score watching...

You're going to have specify what shenanigans you're talking about. Lebron's off-court decisions tend to correlate with winning. Even if alleged "Lebron fans" try to turn them into negatives so they can justify placing him over inferior more toxic players.

What does PPG have to do with the Cavs going 11-15 to finish the season while LeBron publicly bitches about his roster and coasts on defense?????? I think the actual results matter more than "They had a 57-win SRS"

I'm not using SRS, I'm using their "actual results" of 51-23 in the 74 games Lebron James played basketball for the Cleveland Cavaliers. In which Lebron, coasting on defense, saw the cavs improve dramatically defensively. Perhaps you should ask your "sniff test" why the Cavs defense turned awful when Lebron left.

Lebron "publicly bitching about his roster" produces wins and championships and finals appearances for his teams, including the, at this point, incompetently ran cleveland cavaliers. I also don't know why it matters they went "11-15" over a cherrypicked stretch of the season with a lock on the 1 seed and home-court secured until the finals.

What I do know is that by actual results the Cavs went from winless to winning more than twice as much as they lost when Lebron played games. What in the world has Harden done at any point in his career suggesting he could replicate that?

The Cavs didn't secure the 1-seed though. Their late season collapse caused them to go from comfortably number 1 to a 2-seed, all while LeBron played all but one game. So yes, I think the Cavs going below .500 for a whole ass 25 games and losing home court under LeBron's thumb means something. I don't think James Harden at any point in his career was better than 2006-18 LeBron, but the question wasn't who was a better player, but who deserved that year's MVP.

As I said in my edit:

1) We're talking about MVP, which...correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a voter-decided award, is it not? The various factors of what goes into an MVP vote are pretty important to a "Who should've won MVP" discussion." I think MVP criteria is nebulous and a mix of performance, narrative, and results. It's why I side eye people who talk about how MJ, Shaq, LeBron should have more MVPs based on championships or something. Folks telling me MJ deserved it in '93 when his team underachieved while he was playing chuckball? Or Mr. Heal on Company Time? Or LeCoast? Only MVPs I think are true robberies are '97 and '17, and while I disagree with '01, 05, 06, and maybe 11 I'm not mad at the choices either...and even though i just said I hate 22, honestly that's a muddy enough field that I can see how Jokic's performance is enough to stand out (better than just tossing it to Devin Booker because he led the best team in scoring for sure) and 23 when he really sould've won kinda evens it out in hindsight so whatever.

I already said Kawhi had a better case than Harden anyway, so not quite sure why you're bringing up the Spurs (the other superior team) and I think Steph having a former MVP in his prime as his teammate makes it harder to say he really deserves it over the field. So yes, I think the guy who had a pretty amazing season, finished top 3, and got the Rockets to massively exceed expectations (on paper that was a "Team that's exciting to watch but wins 42 games") had a pretty strong case.

Also, questioning me being a LeBron fan (when all you have to do is look through my post history before the last year to verify that) just because I have the audacity to be critical of him is cute If anything, the standom is why some of those things irk me lmao

[OhayoKD]

What does PPG have to do with the Cavs going 11-15 to finish the season while LeBron publicly bitches about his roster and coasts on defense?????? I think the actual results matter more than "They had a 57-win SRS"

I'm not using SRS, I'm using their "actual results" of 51-23 in the 74 games Lebron James played basketball for the Cleveland Cavaliers. In which Lebron, coasting on defense, saw the cavs improve dramatically defensively. Perhaps you should ask your "sniff test" why the Cavs defense turned awful when Lebron left.

Lebron "publicly bitching about his roster" produces wins and championships and finals appearances for his teams, including the, at this point, incompetently ran cleveland cavaliers. I also don't know why it matters they went "11-15" over a cherrypicked stretch of the season with a lock on the 1 seed and home-court secured until the finals.

What I do know is that by actual results the Cavs went from winless to winning more than twice as much as they lost when Lebron played games. What in the world has Harden done at any point in his career suggesting he could replicate that?

The Cavs didn't secure the 1-seed though. Their late season collapse caused them to go from comfortably number 1 to a 2-seed, all while LeBron played all but one game. So yes, I think the Cavs going below .500 for a whole ass 25 games and losing home court under LeBron's thumb means something. I don't think James Harden at any point in his career was better than 2006-18 LeBron, but the question wasn't who was a better player, but who deserved that year's MVP.

Actually fair enough. I forgot the 2017 Celtics existed in no small part to Cleveland rendering their home-court meaningless in the postseason. If seeding is important to you for mostly narrative whatever that's legitimate enough. Not that 3rd seed Harden is a natural beneficiary.

1) We're talking about MVP, which...correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a voter-decided award, is it not?

We're discussing who "should" have won which implies a disregard for what voters would have done. Why do we care who they considered off-limits?

I think MVP criteria is nebulous and a mix of performance, narrative, and results. It's why I side eye people who talk about how MJ, Shaq, LeBron should have more MVPs based on championships or something.

For MJ it's because of his points per game, for Shaq it's because of people conveniently forgetting duncan was more deserving, and for Lebron it's because he actually plays the best in the regular-season significantly more than a shooting-guard he's an MVP down on. The championships are a convenient post-hoc justification but they aren't what actually motivates it.

I already said Kawhi had a better case than Harden anyway, so not quite sure why you're bringing up the Spurs (the other superior team) and I think Steph having a former MVP in his prime as his teammate makes it harder to say he really deserves it over the field.

He also had the warriors go at a 70-win pace without said former MVP...

So yes, I think the guy who had a pretty amazing season, finished top 3, and got the Rockets to massively exceed expectations (on paper that was a "Team that's exciting to watch but wins 42 games") had a pretty strong case.

Westbrook's team overperformed expectations more, improved his team more, and was better at the actual thing called basketball. Also, since how you finish seems to mean alot to you, he rendered "would he average a triple double" moot by going supernova at the end of the season at the end of a bunch of games to secure a bunch of wins to get the Thunder into the playoffs.

Westbrook was the better player and had the better narrative. Harden wasn't robbed of ****.

Also, questioning me being a LeBron fan (when all you have to do is look through my post history before the last year to verify that) just because I have the audacity to be critical of him is cute If anything, the standom is why some of those things irk me lmao

[/quote]
You have the audacity to criticize him but lack said audacity to criticize a certain shooting guard when he deserves it more and then start complaining whenever anyone is mean to him:
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=115743595#p115743595

Lebron off-the-court "shenanigans" correlates with team improvement far more than Jordan off-the-court ones, but you've only ever used it as an argument against the basketball-goodness of the former. Constantly applying double standards against Lebron is why I'm sorting your fandom as "alleged".

[jjgp111292]

I'm sorry I can actually be critical of my favorite player...and I never said MJ's leadership was always sterling, did I? Me criticizing LeBron's leadership IN THE 2017 SEASON SPECIFICALLY wasn't intended to be some referendum entire career, simply that, in the 2017 season, LeBron's public throwing of teammates under the bus probably didn't help them specifically. I don't know what in the hell his Gm record (and LeGM sure hasn't done the Lakers any favors and he committed malpractice against himself worthy of Clippers Doc Rivers in the aftermath of the season we're discussing but that's neither here nor there...) or anything else has to do with his behavior that year. LeBron's leadership as a whole, has a pretty good track record, as there's enough people who speak positively about their experience with him that it's clear that as a whole he's pretty good, but that doesn't mean there isn't stuff worth calling out. See how I can acknowledge positive testimony from his teammates even alongside the negative anecdotes and public behavior?

I'm speaking up about the MJ criticism because regardless of my player allegiance, if I see something I find to be ridiculous, I'll call it out, and the paradigm on this board has shifted from overly praising of MJ to critical of him in the way you only see from Gen Zers on TikTok. If you notice, I damn near avoid the general board because the hate of LeBron is so Skip Bayless-level ridiculous that it's not worth engaging in. and I'd like tosee what was always a good source of discussion, particularly about LeBron, not devolve into mudifhgts because one or two people turn into Bizarro-verse bledredwine when you suggest MJ mght be better at him at some things (and frankly, I'm tapped out from defending Bron on the other message board I post on. Hell a month ago I was switching between tabs arguing why I put MJ higher than LeBron on here while pointing out MJ's shortcomings as a leader, creator and defender compared to lebron over there ). Like sorry, you''re not gonna do this with a guy that was posting in the LeBron Thread when it was called "LeBron, Cleveland vs. Miami" just because he doesn't engage in the deifying stuff.

[OhayoKD]

I'm speaking up about the MJ criticism .

"The criticism"
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2417587

What exactly did you find ridiculous about this besides the concept of people looking at Jordan's contribution beyond box-score watching.

Diplomatic bledredwine is still bledredwine all the same.

critical of him in the way you only see from Gen Zers on TikTok.

And by that you mean actually substantiating or verifying takes with reality?

Because if you find that too ridiculous or alien, it's not a matter of discussion anymore; it's a matter of education. And if "Gen Z and tiktok" has to do the educating, y'all should just be grateful we're doing it.

Like sorry, you''re not gonna do this with a guy that was posting in the LeBron Thread when it was called "LeBron, Cleveland vs. Miami" just because he doesn't engage in the deifying stuff.

60-20 > 50-27 isn't deification. It's subtraction. Inventing stories about "off-ball impact" so you can say a worse player is a "ceiling-raiser". Now that's worship.

[OhayoKD]

This warranted it's own note.

(and LeGM sure hasn't done the Lakers any favors and he committed malpractice against himself worthy of Clippers Doc Rivers in the aftermath of the season we're discussing but that's neither here nor there...)

LeGM got the Lakers Anthony Davis and Phil Handy and every single firing attibuted LeGM has led to more wins with the successor. If you are unironically trying to argue LeGM has been a negative for the Lakers, you should probably stop trying to input off-court considerations at all.

[EmpireFalls]

Why does every lessthanjake thread have to turn into this weird Curry > LeBron debate. I don’t even think he brings it up himself most of the time but I think I’ve seen that RAPM post copy and pasted like 50 times at this point

[NBA4Lyfe]

This warranted it's own note.

(and LeGM sure hasn't done the Lakers any favors and he committed malpractice against himself worthy of Clippers Doc Rivers in the aftermath of the season we're discussing but that's neither here nor there...)

LeGM got the Lakers Anthony Davis and Phil Handy and every single firing attibuted LeGM has led to more wins with the successor. If you are unironically trying to argue LeGM has been a negative for the Lakers, you should probably stop trying to input off-court considerations at all.

LeBron lakers tenure has largely been a disappointment. Not sure how that is even arguable

But you are the same poster who says harden was not a good a defender in 2018 and 2020, so I already know you are a narrative follower like the rest of the nba fanbase

[OhayoKD]

This warranted it's own note.

(and LeGM sure hasn't done the Lakers any favors and he committed malpractice against himself worthy of Clippers Doc Rivers in the aftermath of the season we're discussing but that's neither here nor there...)

LeGM got the Lakers Anthony Davis and Phil Handy and every single firing attibuted LeGM has led to more wins with the successor. If you are unironically trying to argue LeGM has been a negative for the Lakers, you should probably stop trying to input off-court considerations at all.

LeBron lakers tenure has largely been a disappointment. Not sure how that is even arguable

Nor sure why you're replying if you're going to talk to yourself. Explain to me how LeGM was a negative for the Lakers when he got them AD and Phil Handy and each firing coincided with the team improving. What's the argument the FO would have performed better without Lebron's involvement?

[lessthanjake]

This warranted it's own note.

(and LeGM sure hasn't done the Lakers any favors and he committed malpractice against himself worthy of Clippers Doc Rivers in the aftermath of the season we're discussing but that's neither here nor there...)

LeGM got the Lakers Anthony Davis and Phil Handy and every single firing attibuted LeGM has led to more wins with the successor. If you are unironically trying to argue LeGM has been a negative for the Lakers, you should probably stop trying to input off-court considerations at all.

LeBron lakers tenure has largely been a disappointment. Not sure how that is even arguable

But you are the same poster who says harden was not a good a defender in 2018 and 2020, so I already know you are a narrative follower like the rest of the nba fanbase

To be fair, I dunno that I’d call anyone’s tenure on a team a disappointment if they won a title there. I think it’s probably fair to call most other individual seasons he’s had there a disappointment (probably with the exception of 2023, where the RS was fairly disappointing but they made the WCF, so it was a pretty decent year), but the 2020 title changes the conclusion about the Lakers tenure as a whole IMO.

Relatedly, I think if you count bringing in Anthony Davis as LeBron’s doing, then that probably more than counteracts the other bad decisions on its own, since AD was a very crucial part of the team winning a title. That said, I’m not sure the Lakers really needed the influence of “LeGM” to try to get Anthony Davis. He wanted out of the Pelicans and the Lakers are basically always going to make a big splash for a player like that. I’m certain that playing with LeBron was a big part of AD’s decision to actually go there, but star players simply wanting to play with other star players is not really about the decision-making of the star player whose team the other player is going to, unless it’s something that the team wouldn’t otherwise seriously consider doing except that that guy demanded it. I don’t really see the Lakers getting Anthony Davis as being that sort of scenario, but I also didn’t pay constant attention to the day-to-day Lakers news.

[NBA4Lyfe]

This warranted it's own note.

LeGM got the Lakers Anthony Davis and Phil Handy and every single firing attibuted LeGM has led to more wins with the successor. If you are unironically trying to argue LeGM has been a negative for the Lakers, you should probably stop trying to input off-court considerations at all.

LeBron lakers tenure has largely been a disappointment. Not sure how that is even arguable

Nor sure why you're replying if you're going to talk to yourself. Explain to me how LeGM was a negative for the Lakers when he got them AD and Phil Handy and each firing coincided with the team improving. What's the argument the FO would have performed better without Lebron's involvement?

how many players and coaches have been traded and fired from the team since Bron been on the lakers.. it started with magic stepping down, kaj want nothing to do with the lakers while they are comprimised by klutch sports

every year the lakers are in the play-in outside of the fluke bubble ring

[capfan33]

LeBron lakers tenure has largely been a disappointment. Not sure how that is even arguable

Nor sure why you're replying if you're going to talk to yourself. Explain to me how LeGM was a negative for the Lakers when he got them AD and Phil Handy and each firing coincided with the team improving. What's the argument the FO would have performed better without Lebron's involvement?

how many players and coaches have been traded and fired from the team since Bron been on the lakers.. it started with magic stepping down, kaj want nothing to do with the lakers while they are comprimised by klutch sports

every year the lakers are in the play-in outside of the fluke bubble ring

Not really worth responding to, but Kareem is like 80 and hasn't been heavily involved in the NBA for over a decade lol, he's got other things he'd rather do at this point of his life. I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with Lebron/Klutch.

And as we saw with the Tyronn Lue situation, Lebron doesn't have as much control over the Lakers front office as a lot of people seem to think he does. Ditto with Caruso. And I doubt he was the one pushing for blowing up the roster after 2021.

[OhayoKD]

LeBron lakers tenure has largely been a disappointment. Not sure how that is even arguable

Nor sure why you're replying if you're going to talk to yourself. Explain to me how LeGM was a negative for the Lakers when he got them AD and Phil Handy and each firing coincided with the team improving. What's the argument the FO would have performed better without Lebron's involvement?

how many players and coaches have been traded and fired from the team since Bron been on the lakers.

If you are attributing Lebron with the credit/blame for all the lakers fo moves, that would mean, Lebron's firings improved the team.


A Lebron-run lakers team would have also signed ty lue.

[OhayoKD]

This warranted it's own note.

LeGM got the Lakers Anthony Davis and Phil Handy and every single firing attibuted LeGM has led to more wins with the successor. If you are unironically trying to argue LeGM has been a negative for the Lakers, you should probably stop trying to input off-court considerations at all.

LeBron lakers tenure has largely been a disappointment. Not sure how that is even arguable

But you are the same poster who says harden was not a good a defender in 2018 and 2020, so I already know you are a narrative follower like the rest of the nba fanbase

To be fair, I dunno that I’d call anyone’s tenure on a team a disappointment if they won a title there. I think it’s probably fair to call most other individual seasons he’s had there a disappointment (probably with the exception of 2023, where the RS was fairly disappointing but they made the WCF, so it was a pretty decent year), but the 2020 title changes the conclusion about the Lakers tenure as a whole IMO.

Relatedly, I think if you count bringing in Anthony Davis as LeBron’s doing, then that probably more than counteracts the other bad decisions on its own, since AD was a very crucial part of the team winning a title.

And what are the bad decisions our being counteracted here? Coach-changes led to the teams improving

Lebron borderline tampering to get AD is well documented and initially Boston was the team people expected to get him. Lebron forcing the FO to trade for Westbrook seems little more than people assuming Lebron controls what the FO does, blatantly ignoring that Lebron was unable to make the FO pay Ty Lue enough. Just like he was unable to make the cavs trade hickson for amare stoudimire potentially gaining them an extra championship.

Outside of bizarrely deciding change is inherently a negative decision or exclusively attributing decisions deemed as negative to Lebron, there's not much of an argument as LeGM as a net negative.