drza wrote:Doctor MJ wrote:I really don't get the whole "winnable" perspective on why LeBron's getting blamed for the upset lost. What exactly was LeBron supposed to do that he didn't do in that series?
I understand the argument of the super-LeBron-focused offense having a low ceiling, and for that you can use the loss to a not-that-impressive Magic team, but that's not the same argument as this one, and it's an argument that's been well discussed in these pages.
I also think it's just bizarre to argue against LeBron, playing with a supporting cast that would dropoff an insane amount without him, for not getting quite to the finals as part of arguing for Kareem when we saw Kareem teams do considerably worse in the middle of his prime. Obviously Kareem had weak supporting casts, but just as obviously Kareem wasn't having anywhere near the lift on those teams as LeBron was having in Cleveland in '09.
I'm jumping in here because I think this gets to the heart of several of the posts I've made about LeBron, and his comparisons to Duncan and Garnett, in this project. It ties into the concepts of "lift" (usually a +/- approach), "dominance" (usually a box scores approach) and now "portability", and "stylistic ceilings", and how each of us believes that a player's impact is affected by team circumstances.
I made the case in a previous post that Garnett ('04) and Duncan ('03) exhibited similar degrees of lift to LeBron ('09) over those seasons, for teams of similar caliber. Whether you agree with that stance or not, for the sake of argument pretend for the next few minutes that you do.
My follow-up argument then deals with the portability and stylistic ceiling issues. Because by every box score and eye test that we have, LeBron '09 performed in the playoffs to the maximum capacity of what we can expect from his type of player. He produced maximum volume scoring on maximum scoring efficiency, passed as well as a volume scoring wing could be expected to, rebounded as well as a wing could be expected to, produced maximum PER or Win Shares or Game Scores or whatever box score stat is your cup of tea. As you put it in your post, what else could LeBron have possibly done to win that series?
And the answer is, I don't think he COULD have done any more to win that series. But the follow-up question to that is...was there nothing more that LeBron could have done because the Magic were just too good to be defeated with a cast the caliber of the Cavs?
Or was it that there was nothing else LeBron could have done, because of stylistic limitations to what a player like LeBron can provide?See, to me the 2009 Magic weren't this juggernaut that no one could have beaten with a cast the caliber of the Cavs. But I think the LeBron-led '09 Cavs could have played that series against the Magic 10 times, and lost at least 8 times out of 10. Because I think the Magic were built to expose the subtle areas in which LeBron's stylistic weaknesses hurt him when compared to some of these other all-time greats. The '09 Cavs were built to take advantage of LeBron's awesome strengths, but to do so at their talent level (which is admittedly relatively low) they had to be built a certain way. The team concentrated the non-LeBron personnel into big interior players (Varejao, Ilgauskas, Ben Wallace) and shooters (Mo Williams, Delonte West, Wally Szczerbiak, Boobie Gibson, Sasha Pavlovic). They also had a couple of lesser PFs on the squad in Joe Smith and JJ Hickson. The Bigs beat up on opponents inside, helped them win the battle of the boards and maintain a strong defensive focus. The shooters just had to knock down shots that LeBron created for them.
And with this formula, the Cavs could beat up on 90% of the league. But they were essentially a gimmick team, because if an opponent was able to disrupt either of the two main support branches (the shooters or the bigs) the Cavs would immediately go from a 60+ win contender to an outgunned LeBron. The Magic weren't a juggernaut, but Howard's ability to maintain the post alone allowed them to play two big stretch-3/4 type forwards. This absolutely screwed the Cavs, because it meant that they couldn't play their usual 2 centers simultaneously because none of them could guard Lewis or Turkoglu. Joe Smith could sub in, but he wasn't big enough for the Cavs to maintain their usual strong defense and rebounding nor was he a good enough shooter to stretch the Magic. They couldn't stop the Magic defensively, so the strategy became to try to outscore them with another shooter on the court at all times. This maximized LeBron's scoring effectiveness, but in this style the Magic was just the better team. Much like the '07 Warriors were built to expose the weaknesses in the 67-win but somewhat gimmicky Mavs, the '09 Magic were the kryptonite to the Cavs.
But this is where I question LeBron's stylistic ceiling, because many of the other greats under consideration wouldn't have had to rely quite as much on the gimmicks to win with those Cavs. The dominant bigs under discussion would have been able to maintain the Cavs excellent defense and strong rebounding without the need for two centers on the court, which would have allowed the Cavs to deploy a more traditional approach against the Mavs and likely beat them because the talent differential on the two teams really wasn't high. Thus, as I argued a few threads back, I think with a similar caliber cast you'd have seen many of the super-elite bigs under consideration thus far (Hakeem, Garnett, Duncan, etc.) beat those Magic.
And importantly, moving beyond the specifics of the '09 Magic, I don't think you COULD formulate a team of the caliber of the '09 Magic but built however you like, that would just own a team of the caliber of the '09 Cavs but led by Duncan or Garnett. Again, stylistically, the big men's ability to impact the game in SO many ways with and without the ball would make their teams more adaptable even with similar caliber teammates.
Which brings me back to the point where I left off above, and I tell you that you no longer have to pretend that you believe that Duncan '03 and Garnett '04 lifted their teams to a similar degree that LeBron did to the '09 Cavs. If you truly believe that LeBron lifted his squad to a level they couldn't match, then perhaps you still vote for him. But for me, I don't believe that. I believe that both Garnett and Duncan lead a cast like that '09 Cavs to a top-3 seed in the East...as I said before, maybe they don't win 66 games, but they're a contender. And in the postseason, maybe Duncan and KG don't match LeBron '09 in box score dominance...but with the big men in place I think the team is just as strong, and better equipped to make a legitimate run at a title because the squad can be strong in the areas that a title team needs to without it being a gimmick.
LeBron in '09 may have been as good as it is possible for a player of his type to be. But I question whether his type of player can be as good as the best of a dominant big man. I think both Garnett and Duncan are great enough as Bigs to just be more inherently valuable on championship-level teams than LeBron at his best. They have more portability, no ceiling on their impact, and when comparing the best-of-the-best I think this puts both of their peaks higher than LeBron's.
