Retro Player of the Year 2009-10 — Lebron James

[Lebronnygoat]

“LeBron’s offensive rating dropped a lot in the last 3 games, watch the games even the commentators note it” yea and Kobe can shoot -9.4rTS and -16.4rTS and still win games, in the -9.4rTS game the Lakers rose as an offense, and in the -16.4rTS game, they dropped by 5 ORTG points, which isn’t too bad for your star player having one of the worst offensive games of all time from a star… LeBron’s cast was so much worse than Kobe’s, how come you can’t admit LeBron’s best two games > Kobe’s best two games while the elimination game goes to LeBron. You’re literally only taking Kobe because of two games for this series and the narrative at the time. POY wise there’s no chance Kobe wins this, since by your logic, “go look at the analysts during this time, they clearly saw through LeBron having an injury”. Anyways, he was clearly hurt. Thus, the only real sample of LeBron we have is 7 games, and it’s not like the 2010 Cavs would have won the series if LeBron was a Kobe lvl player, meaning it’s irrelevant if he collapses and they lose, as LeBron would have to perform at heights higher than Kobe did, which wouldn’t make sense if you simply think Kobe is > LeBron.

[One_and_Done]

No you cite it as an excuse to rate the players you like higher or lower than you can actually argue for. Just like you invent BS like "the lakers would have been a 55-win team" when nothing that actually happened without Kobe suggests that.

I mean I cited a tonne of stuff that suggests exactly that, including various win records with and without Kobe. It's weird to argue otherwise, given Pau led a lesser Grizzlies team to 50ish wins in 3 straight years.

And by "50ish" you mean he led one 50-win team in 2004? Where's the math the Kobe-less Lakers were 5 wins better?

Well, the Lakers had a better team around Pau than Memphis did. One year Memphis starting 5 included Jake Tsakalidis/L.Wright & a washed Mighty Mouse/C.Atkins, at the 1 and 5. in contrast, the team starting around Pau would have been Odom, Bynum, Ariza, and Fisher, with Radmanovic, Farmer, and Walton off the bench. I prefer that alot more than the 06 Grizzlies support cast (who won 49 games).

[OhayoKD]

I mean I cited a tonne of stuff that suggests exactly that, including various win records with and without Kobe. It's weird to argue otherwise, given Pau led a lesser Grizzlies team to 50ish wins in 3 straight years.

And by "50ish" you mean he led one 50-win team in 2004? Where's the math the Kobe-less Lakers were 5 wins better?

Well, the Lakers had a better team around Pau than Memphis did. One year Memphis starting 5 included Jake Tsakalidis/L.Wright & a washed Mighty Mouse/C.Atkins, at the 1 and 5. in contrast, the team starting around Pau would have been Odom, Bynum, Ariza, and Fisher, with Radmanovic, Farmer, and Walton off the bench. I prefer that alot more than the 06 Grizzlies support cast (who won 49 games).

Did Memphis win 50 games that year?

[One_and_Done]

And by "50ish" you mean he led one 50-win team in 2004? Where's the math the Kobe-less Lakers were 5 wins better?

Well, the Lakers had a better team around Pau than Memphis did. One year Memphis starting 5 included Jake Tsakalidis/L.Wright & a washed Mighty Mouse/C.Atkins, at the 1 and 5. in contrast, the team starting around Pau would have been Odom, Bynum, Ariza, and Fisher, with Radmanovic, Farmer, and Walton off the bench. I prefer that alot more than the 06 Grizzlies support cast (who won 49 games).

Did Memphis win 50 games that year?

I said 50ish, and since they won 49 that tracks. I don't think it's much.of a stretch that a superior support cast around Pau wins 6 more games.

[lessthanjake]

You should consider watching basketball games instead of box-scores.

With all respect, you are talking to a poster known for doing historical games tracking work. Some people don't watch old games here, or just focus on very selected sample of players, but Djoker is certainly not one of them.

Thanks for standing up for me man!

Isn't he the one who mixed up Robert Horry and Michael FInley watching a 2007 Finals game and then excused it by saying he doesn't pay attention to role players?

There was also the thread calling Anderson Varejao “Big Z.” OhayoKD didn’t watch these games when they happened and demonstrably has very little contextual knowledge about them, and then occasionally pulls a YouTube video and does some random tracking of them while genuinely not even really knowing who almost any of the players on the court are. In a sense, that’s fine, since there’s not much else a younger basketball fan can really do—after all, without contemporaneously watching basketball in an era, it’s difficult to know much about the non-stars. But combining that with statements that “[y]ou should consider watching basketball gams instead of box-scores” is wild.

[lessthanjake]

Well, the Lakers had a better team around Pau than Memphis did. One year Memphis starting 5 included Jake Tsakalidis/L.Wright & a washed Mighty Mouse/C.Atkins, at the 1 and 5. in contrast, the team starting around Pau would have been Odom, Bynum, Ariza, and Fisher, with Radmanovic, Farmer, and Walton off the bench. I prefer that alot more than the 06 Grizzlies support cast (who won 49 games).

Did Memphis win 50 games that year?

I said 50ish, and since they won 49 that tracks. I don't think it's much.of a stretch that a superior support cast around Pau wins 6 more games.

The one time Pau Gasol’s Grizzlies *actually* won 50 games, Gasol was 23 years old and had a negative on-off. He didn’t lead them to 50 wins—he was more like a garden-variety good starter on the roster of a solid team. And even in that 49-win year where Gasol was actually arguably a star player, he wasn’t even the player with the best ON or best on-off on the team—Battier and Eddie Jones were both solidly ahead in both regards. Indeed, Gasol was 3rd on the team in EPM that year, and both Battier and Eddie Jones had solidly higher EPM that year than any non-Kobe, non-Gasol player did on the 2010 Lakers. So yeah, it’s really not at all difficult to think that the Grizzlies “supporting cast” that year was better than the Lakers’. And that’s a team that won 49 games, not 55.

And, of course, you ignore that the Gasol Grizzlies had the worst record in the NBA in Gasol’s last full year there (2007). And while Gasol missed a bunch of games that year, they played at a league-worst pace in the 59 games he played too, and actually had a worse net rating in games with Gasol than games without him. They then proceeded to play at an even worse 21-win pace in games with Gasol in the 2008 season before he got sent to the Lakers.

Prime Gasol was actually leading perhaps the worst team in the NBA right before he got sent to LA, and yet you’re trying to use the results of Gasol’s Grizzlies to suggest the Lakers would’ve been a 55-win team without Kobe?

[One_and_Done]

Did Memphis win 50 games that year?

I said 50ish, and since they won 49 that tracks. I don't think it's much.of a stretch that a superior support cast around Pau wins 6 more games.

The one time Pau Gasol’s Grizzlies *actually* won 50 games, Gasol was 23 years old and had a negative on-off. He didn’t lead them to 50 wins—he was more like a garden-variety good starter on the roster of a solid team. And even in that 49-win year where Gasol was actually arguably a star player, he wasn’t even the player with the best ON or best on-off on the team—Battier and Eddie Jones were both solidly ahead in both regards. Indeed, Gasol was 3rd on the team in EPM that year, and both Battier and Eddie Jones had solidly higher EPM that year than any non-Kobe, non-Gasol player did on the 2010 Lakers. So yeah, it’s really not at all difficult to think that the Grizzlies “supporting cast” that year was better than the Lakers’. And that’s a team that won 49 games, not 55.

And, of course, you ignore that the Gasol Grizzlies had the worst record in the NBA in Gasol’s last full year there (2007). And while Gasol missed a bunch of games that year, they played at a league-worst pace in the 59 games he played too, and actually had a worse net rating in games with Gasol than games without him. They then proceeded to play at an even worse 21-win pace in games with Gasol in the 2008 season before he got sent to the Lakers.

Prime Gasol was actually leading perhaps the worst team in the NBA right before he got sent to LA, and yet you’re trying to use the results of Gasol’s Grizzlies to suggest the Lakers would’ve been a 55-win team without Kobe?

I'm not sure which part is more wild; you nitpicking that Pau didn't win '50ish' games because they won 49, or you trying to call Pau overrated because of advanced stats in a discussion about Kobe who is the opposite of an advanced stats darling. Pau was the engine of that team, I don't care what the advanced stats say. The advanced stats in some years think Pau was better than Kobe.

With some reluctance, I will note that the Grizzlies did play pretty well when Pau was hurt in 05, but given everything else we saw from 04, 06, and then the team collapsing when Pau was out in 07, I think we can be pretty confident that was an unsustainable hot stretch where guys played over their heads. The rotation from 04 to 06 changed considerably, with Pau being the main constant. I know 3&D Battier can't carry a team because I actually watched his career, and because that's the nature of being a 3&D player. Your 07 narrative isn't sensible. Rather, Pau missed so many games that by the time he came back the season was over and the front office threw the towel in. Ditto 08.

[tone wone]

Yeah, I feel like people here are trying to sweep just how bad he was in those last 3 games under the rug. It was a genuinely awful performance and there's a reason it generated conspiracy theories. If he's even decent after Game 4, they win that series.

Do they?

I just don't see how a team starting a 37yr old Shaq and Antawn Jamison frontline going that far. Garnett and Rondohad pretty easily their best offensive series of the playoffs against CLE and this could be laid at the feet of Shaq, Jamison & Mo Williams. 3 out 5 starters were either extremely limited (Shaq) or flat out terrible defensively. And all 3 needed to be insulated and schemed around; but how do you hide 3 starters?

The focus on James' offense is understandable but it misses so much context of that series. Like the '09 ECFs, Clevelands roster was ripe for exploitation defensively against the team they ultimately lost to. While that Orlando series was razor thin this series against Boston was sneakily one-sided. You don't get your butt whipped TWICE at home unless you're outclassed or your opponent is especially equipped to attack your weaknesse

[OhayoKD]

With all respect, you are talking to a poster known for doing historical games tracking work. Some people don't watch old games here, or just focus on very selected sample of players, but Djoker is certainly not one of them.

Thanks for standing up for me man!

Isn't he the one who mixed up Robert Horry and Michael FInley watching a 2007 Finals game and then excused it by saying he doesn't pay attention to role players?

There was also the thread calling Anderson Varejao “Big Z.” OhayoKD didn’t watch these games when they happened and demonstrably has very little contextual knowledge about them

How does confusing a nickname from 15 years back prove I didn't watch Lebron James in 2009? Contextual understanding is not realising Charles Oakley was the Bulls primary rim-protector or thinking that Pippen was less of a ball-handler than the Bulls other PGs because your knowledge of players is based on positional listing on basketball reference. Confusing nicknames is normal. Thinking Lebron was initating offense every possession is the sort of fundemental misunderstanding that occurs when you either

A. haven't watches the games
B. have watched them so lazily you are in no position to be making claims like "the cavs offense was built around lebron more than chicago's offense was built around Jordan's"

I know the basketball contributions of role players on teams you "contemptuously watched" better than you do. That's what happens when you watch what actually happens on the court as opposed to basketball reference.

[tone wone]

Game 6 was better. Their best 2 games, LeBron wipes. LeBron takes elimination game and 2 best games, but there’s somehow this overwhelming gap? This series, nitpicked a few games, just overwrites the best playoff series vs best playoff series gap? The regular season massive gap? Please.

Because Lebron was worse than his box score averages in that series.

Wrong. He was vastly better than his box-score. Kobe was not. Lebron contested more shots for a lower opposing fg%, fouled less, lost his man less, took out far more defenders per assist, took out far more defenders outside of assists, scored more efficiently facing more defensive attention than any perimeter player ever, ontop of protecting the paint far more, sealing off opposing players for rebounds far more and running his team on both ends of the floor.

You should consider watching basketball games instead of box-scores.

There is no argument for Kobe Bryant vs Boston over Lebron James vs Boston besides him winning. And Lebron James did better in that department than Wade did.

He absolutely erased Pierce in this series defensively. And it meant nothing because Rondo and Garnett were having a time of their lives with Shaq/Jamison/Williams

Watch on YouTube

Game 1. The only close game of the series. Cleveland wins but you see all their issues defensively that ultimately sunk them

[ceoofkobefans]

No you cite it as an excuse to rate the players you like higher or lower than you can actually argue for. Just like you invent BS like "the lakers would have been a 55-win team" when nothing that actually happened without Kobe suggests that.

I mean I cited a tonne of stuff that suggests exactly that, including various win records with and without Kobe. It's weird to argue otherwise, given Pau led a lesser Grizzlies team to 50ish wins in 3 straight years.

And by "50ish" you mean he led one 50-win team in 2004? Where's the math the Kobe-less Lakers were 5 wins better?

Yea the lakers had a 53-56 win pace before Pau got there when bynum was out but I’m supposed to believe they get better or even stay the same without their best scorer playmaker and arguably best defender on the roster lmao

[OhayoKD]

I mean I cited a tonne of stuff that suggests exactly that, including various win records with and without Kobe. It's weird to argue otherwise, given Pau led a lesser Grizzlies team to 50ish wins in 3 straight years.

And by "50ish" you mean he led one 50-win team in 2004? Where's the math the Kobe-less Lakers were 5 wins better?

Yea the lakers had a 53-56 win pace before Pau got there when bynum was out but I’m supposed to believe they get better or even stay the same without their best scorer playmaker and arguably best defender on the roster lmao

You cooked, good job.

[One_and_Done]

I mean I cited a tonne of stuff that suggests exactly that, including various win records with and without Kobe. It's weird to argue otherwise, given Pau led a lesser Grizzlies team to 50ish wins in 3 straight years.

And by "50ish" you mean he led one 50-win team in 2004? Where's the math the Kobe-less Lakers were 5 wins better?

Yea the lakers had a 53-56 win pace before Pau got there when bynum was out but I’m supposed to believe they get better or even stay the same without their best scorer playmaker and arguably best defender on the roster lmao

That's just factually false stuff, which I have corrected like 5 times at this point. The Lakers in 08 were 11-9 in games with no Bynum or Pau. They were 24-11 with Bynum, then when he got hurt Pau came in and led them on a 22-5 run. The Lakers sans Pau/Bynum looked like a low to mid 40s win team... just like they looked from 05 to 07, and in the games from 00 to 07 without Shaq where Kobe led them to a 135-137 record.

[OhayoKD]

And by "50ish" you mean he led one 50-win team in 2004? Where's the math the Kobe-less Lakers were 5 wins better?

Yea the lakers had a 53-56 win pace before Pau got there when bynum was out but I’m supposed to believe they get better or even stay the same without their best scorer playmaker and arguably best defender on the roster lmao

That's just factually false stuff, which I have corrected like 5 times at this point. The Lakers in 08 were 11-9 in games with no Bynum or Pau. They were 24-11 with Bynum, then when he got hurt Pau came in and led them on a 22-5 run. The Lakers sans Pau/Bynum looked like a low to mid 40s win team... just like they looked from 05 to 07, and in the games from 00 to 07 without Shaq where Kobe led them to a 135-137 record.

how do the lakers being 24-11 with Kobe show they would have been 55-win without him?

[One_and_Done]

Yea the lakers had a 53-56 win pace before Pau got there when bynum was out but I’m supposed to believe they get better or even stay the same without their best scorer playmaker and arguably best defender on the roster lmao

That's just factually false stuff, which I have corrected like 5 times at this point. The Lakers in 08 were 11-9 in games with no Bynum or Pau. They were 24-11 with Bynum, then when he got hurt Pau came in and led them on a 22-5 run. The Lakers sans Pau/Bynum looked like a low to mid 40s win team... just like they looked from 05 to 07, and in the games from 00 to 07 without Shaq where Kobe led them to a 135-137 record.

how do the lakers being 24-11 with Kobe show they would have been 55-win without him?

Well they'd be replacing him with a guy who led the Lakers on a 22-5 run minus Bynum, and as you can see from the above splits Bynum was pretty important.

[OhayoKD]

That's just factually false stuff, which I have corrected like 5 times at this point. The Lakers in 08 were 11-9 in games with no Bynum or Pau. They were 24-11 with Bynum, then when he got hurt Pau came in and led them on a 22-5 run. The Lakers sans Pau/Bynum looked like a low to mid 40s win team... just like they looked from 05 to 07, and in the games from 00 to 07 without Shaq where Kobe led them to a 135-137 record.

how do the lakers being 24-11 with Kobe show they would have been 55-win without him?

Well they'd be replacing him with a guy who led the Lakers on a 22-5 run minus Bynum, and as you can see from the above splits Bynum was pretty important.

Was Kobe not on the team during that 22-5 run?

[jjgp111292]

LeBron suffered an elbow injury at the end of the year which made him take many games off until Chicago. He got enough rest from those weeks off to where he played at an all time level until game 5.
Game 5, LeBron’s injury came back, he had an all time low LeBron game. He literally shot left handed this game because it was so bad. A Twitter account was made about his injury even.
https://streamable.com/xqig6l
https://streamable.com/khh2lz
https://streamable.com/j5e8vj
We also see how bad LeBron plays when he’s not given enough rest, more rest = healthier LeBron = closer to full power LeBron
https://streamable.com/fdzv3w
https://streamable.com/85bsii
A +13 net rating team when LeBron plays with rest for the elbow, vs -13 with one night of rest. The only outlier you may look at is Chicago game 2, where, LeBron plays great with one night of rest, however, he just came off 7 nights in a row, interrupted by one game, so it is reasonable how he played, considering all the rest he had which can avoid the re injury.
LeBron vs Chicago clears any series Kobe has, and LeBron vs Boston was still better than Kobe vs Boston in 2010. It’s simply Kobe having that one series more over LeBron, simply due to LeBron being left clearly hindered. Regular season absolutely wipes Kobe, this is in contention for the GOAT offensive regular season. Kobe’s isn’t even in the top 30. Chicago series is also great - elite personnel for LeBron to face, and LeBron performed on goat level status, meanwhile 2010 Suns were mid defensively, and was way worse than LeBron.

For a few here, injuries are taken under consideration when it involves players other than LeBron, e.g., Curry and 2016, but for LeBron, he was “AWFUL,” (stated numerous times) “ABYSMAL,” had a “BREATHTAKING COLLAPSE,” etc.

LeBron didn’t have the luxury of not playing to his standards and having teammates defend/rebound make up for poor play.

Well you must be talking about other people cuz it ain't me doing that. I'm sorry I don't come armed with excuses for my favorite players I guess?

Regardless of the reason for the collapse, he sucked. Plain and simple. It's okay, nearly every all time great has that one series where they're bizarrely awful; LeBron doesn't need our pity

After a certain point, it's on you, and I don't think pre-2012 LeBron was as equipped to shrug off defenses taking away his comfort zone; in 2012 though, he'd dominate the finals even whilst having the worst outside shooting series of his career because he started picking apart OKC in the post and just LeBuldozing to the rim no matter what.

I still think LeBron is easily #1 this year, I just think it's silly seeing people now trying to handwave a Karl Malone/DRob-esque meltdown for arguments sake. You ain't gotta lie to kick it.

[lessthanjake]

I know the basketball contributions of role players on teams you "contemptuously watched" better than you do.

Lol, this is a 10/10, to be honest, especially with the misspelling.

[One_and_Done]

how do the lakers being 24-11 with Kobe show they would have been 55-win without him?

Well they'd be replacing him with a guy who led the Lakers on a 22-5 run minus Bynum, and as you can see from the above splits Bynum was pretty important.

Was Kobe not on the team during that 22-5 run?

Of course, he was the best player for it. But without Pau they'd likely be bobbling over 500.

For a moment, let's take a step back and forget all the data from games Kobe missed, advanced stats, etc. The Lakers roster in 09 had the following without Kobe:
- A big man who, despite playing much o his career on an unheralded Memphis team in a deep West, where the forward spot was stacked, made 6 all-star teams in his career and 4 all-nba teams. Doubtless that number would be much higher if he played his career in the East.
- An upcoming big who despite many injuries holding him back in terms of awards, would go on to make the all-nba 2nd team and an all-star team, and who was putting up 19-12 on a 52 win team (pace adjusted). This was just a few short years later, and while Bynum got better I think the biggest difference was his opportunity in 2012 vs 09. Bynum got the minutes and shots that usually went to Odom.
- Odom, a guy who was all-star calibre, and who would have made some teams if he stayed on Miami as Wade's Robin.
- Ariza. Unheralded at that time, but actually an elite 3&D player.
- Fisher, a solid to above average point guard.

That team has roughly 3 all-star calibre guys, an elite 3&D wing, and a solid 5th starter. It shouldn't be a tough sell that they can win over 50 games. They're above average at every position too, in some cases by a huge amount.

[lessthanjake]

I said 50ish, and since they won 49 that tracks. I don't think it's much.of a stretch that a superior support cast around Pau wins 6 more games.

The one time Pau Gasol’s Grizzlies *actually* won 50 games, Gasol was 23 years old and had a negative on-off. He didn’t lead them to 50 wins—he was more like a garden-variety good starter on the roster of a solid team. And even in that 49-win year where Gasol was actually arguably a star player, he wasn’t even the player with the best ON or best on-off on the team—Battier and Eddie Jones were both solidly ahead in both regards. Indeed, Gasol was 3rd on the team in EPM that year, and both Battier and Eddie Jones had solidly higher EPM that year than any non-Kobe, non-Gasol player did on the 2010 Lakers. So yeah, it’s really not at all difficult to think that the Grizzlies “supporting cast” that year was better than the Lakers’. And that’s a team that won 49 games, not 55.

And, of course, you ignore that the Gasol Grizzlies had the worst record in the NBA in Gasol’s last full year there (2007). And while Gasol missed a bunch of games that year, they played at a league-worst pace in the 59 games he played too, and actually had a worse net rating in games with Gasol than games without him. They then proceeded to play at an even worse 21-win pace in games with Gasol in the 2008 season before he got sent to the Lakers.

Prime Gasol was actually leading perhaps the worst team in the NBA right before he got sent to LA, and yet you’re trying to use the results of Gasol’s Grizzlies to suggest the Lakers would’ve been a 55-win team without Kobe?

I'm not sure which part is more wild; you nitpicking that Pau didn't win '50ish' games because they won 49, or you trying to call Pau overrated because of advanced stats in a discussion about Kobe who is the opposite of an advanced stats darling. Pau was the engine of that team, I don't care what the advanced stats say. The advanced stats in some years think Pau was better than Kobe.

With some reluctance, I will note that the Grizzlies did play pretty well when Pau was hurt in 05, but given everything else we saw from 04, 06, and then the team collapsing when Pau was out in 07, I think we can be pretty confident that was an unsustainable hot stretch where guys played over their heads. The rotation from 04 to 06 changed considerably, with Pau being the main constant. I know 3&D Battier can't carry a team because I actually watched his career, and because that's the nature of being a 3&D player. Your 07 narrative isn't sensible. Rather, Pau missed so many games that by the time he came back the season was over and the front office threw the towel in. Ditto 08.

Blaming the Grizzlies being awful with Pau in 2007 and 2008 on “the team collapsing when Pau was out in 07” is nonsense. For one thing, they were just as bad after Pau got back in 2007. You try to blame that on “the front office thr[owing] the towel in” but then basically just ignore that they were also awful with Pau in 2008 before he was traded. Are we expected to believe that the 2007 Grizzlies starting out the year badly without Pau somehow made them play awfully with Pau the rest of the 2007 season *and* the first half of the 2008 season? That’s just obviously silly. The reality is that with prime Gasol the Grizzlies were arguably the worst team in the league just before Gasol was sent to the Lakers.

They’d been much better in the prior three years, but that was a team that went 20-12 without Gasol in that timespan. They actually won at a better pace without Gasol in those years (51.3 win pace) than they did with Gasol (47.5 win pace). Your retort that this was just an “unsustainable hot streak” because they did badly without Gasol in 2007 is clearly not persuasive when they also did just as badly with Gasol in 2007 (and the first half of 2008). Obviously the team was just worse!

There’s really nothing in Gasol’s time with the Grizzlies that would suggest to us that Gasol could lead the Lakers to 55 wins without Kobe. He had just been leading arguably the worst team in the league, and prior to that his team was not a 55-win team and actually won at a higher pace without him than with him.