RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #3

[ThaRegul8r]

.

[Outside]

So by your logic, LeBron built a franchise that took down the 73 win Warriors. He should get extra credit then, right?

You also say that those players can only operate arround him. Then if they're 100% dependent on him, you have to give him solo credit for the win vs the Warriors, and for making it to the other two finals.

Wow that's an incredible achievment. He's the only player in NBA history you'd give 100% credit for a championship, right?

Please don't twist my argument into something it's not. I didn't say LeBron bears sole responsibility for making the Cavs reliant on him, that the other Cavs can only operate around him, or that the rest of the Cavs are 100% dependent on him. The Cavs being reliant on him to be successful doesn't mean that he is the only one who does anything that matters. Stop with this 100% nonsense, because that's not what I said.

Two points:

-- As I said in my prior post, the Cavs are built to rely on LeBron (which I don't think is in dispute), they aren't very successful when he doesn't play (which I don't think is in dispute), and my argument is that LeBron bears responsibility for the team being built to rely on him. You can disagree with that last statement, but I didn't get into determining how much responsibility is LeBron's versus other parties. The question Trex asked was whether LeBron bears any responsibility, and I said he does.

-- An ancillary point is that a team built to rely on a great individual player, no matter how great that all-time player is, has a lower ceiling compared to a a team of lesser but excellent players playing together as a unit. In other words, excellent team play is better than the best individual play.

LeBron certainly deserves credit for winning in 2016. The Warriors didn't play well enough to overcome the individual greatness of LeBron and Kyrie that year. But as great as their performances were, they could have been overcome, but the Warriors didn't play well enough to do it.

[ThaRegul8r]

Okay, the post directly above distorted the page for some reason.

[drza]

Hey Outside...I think the spoiler tags are messed up in your post, and it's going to mess up the whole page. Can you edit to fix it?

[Outside]

Okay, the post directly above distorted the board for some reason.

I saw that but fixed it. I tried to include prior posts as a spoiler, and for whatever reason, that seemed to screw things up. So I just took that part out, and now it's behaving properly.

[Texas Chuck]

[
Were KG's teammates worse than DRob's in the '90s?

I've lived through too many arguments built around just how bad the 05-07 Wolves supporting casts were that I'm not interested in rehashing it.

But I did want to speak to David Robinson because I think he and KG have some interesting parallels. Both guys were far and away the best players on their team until KG went to Boston and became (after 08) a first among equals essentially and Robinson quickly became Robin to Duncan's Batman. And both had less than star studded supporting casts outside of that brilliant 04 Cassell campaign.

And yes Robinson's teams won more in the RS than KG's tho when you factor in the competition level of the West during those stretches the gap closes a bit. And both players got a bit of a bad rap as playoff disappointments. Both guys forced to be number 1 offensive options when ideally both guys are probably #2 offensive options while anchoring the defense.

But my take is that Robinson is a better floor raiser because as a true defensive anchor/rim protector his defensive impact is considerably higher than KG's. And while Robinson is the more efficient scorer, I would suggest KG was the better overall offensive player. But not so good as to make his team truly elite at that end the way Robinson could for the Spurs defense.

Spurs were middle of the pack defensively the year prior to Robinson. Immediately 3rd, then 1st the next 2 years, and 2 and 3 in years following that. He was a total game changer that gave the team a defensive foundation to build on.

But KG is a player who does so many things well, and the things he does well are additive, rather than redundant. Essentially you KG to almost any team and he increases their level by almost his full individual level because of the things he provides in terms of rebounding, passing, floor spacing, ability to guard out on the floor, guard in the post, his defensive communication out on the court, etc....

So KG not being able to do what Lebron or Robinson or Dirk did with weak casts to me is more a sign of him not being as dominant on one side of the ball or the other as those guys so he can't lift a floor quite as high. But his ability to turn a good team into a championship level team is up there with the very best players we've ever seen. And it doesn't really matter who is already on the team, you can slide KG in and he makes the team considerably better.

[Outside]

Hey Outside...I think the spoiler tags are messed up in your post, and it's going to mess up the whole page. Can you edit to fix it?

Done. That was really weird. I guess spoiler tags have a secret superpower.

[Texas Chuck]

Two points:

-- As I said in my prior post, the Cavs are built to rely on LeBron (which I don't think is in dispute), they aren't very successful when he doesn't play (which I don't think is in dispute), and my argument is that LeBron bears responsibility for the team being built to rely on him. You can disagree with that last statement, but I didn't get into determining how much responsibility is LeBron's versus other parties. The question Trex asked was whether LeBron bears any responsibility, and I said he does.

-- An ancillary point is that a team built to rely on a great individual player, no matter how great that all-time player is, has a lower ceiling compared to a a team of lesser but excellent players playing together as a unit. In other words, excellent team play is better than the best individual play.

LeBron certainly deserves credit for winning in 2016. The Warriors didn't play well enough to overcome the individual greatness of LeBron and Kyrie that year. But as great as their performances were, they could have been overcome, but the Warriors didn't play well enough to do it.

I mostly fall on the other side of this argument--I don't hold Lebron nearly as responsible as some others, but you make some really good points in this post. And I agree completely about team basketball being superior to individual basketball. And its a reflection of just how good Lebron is individually to have had the team success he has enjoyed doing so much of the heavy lifting almost outside a team concept. And its ironic because I consider Lebron both a very unselfish and very intelligent basketball player.

I guess I feel like he's doing what is best for the team as constructed playing the way he is, but maybe that's wrong and I could see it if Lebron took a different approach?

[trex_8063]

...

I have a question. Do you know any examples of players who didn't translate well from late 50s to mid-60s? This is not an attack, I want to see some good examples of your theory. Even if you don't know anyone like that, it doesn't mean that your point is wrong. Don't think this is my agenda, I just want to deep further into interesting point you made.

Wanted to come back to this question with some examples. I don't feel it's much of a derail, as it directly deals with the strength of the league during the front half of Russell's career (which obviously has bearing on his career itself).

It's a little murky, because I'm not suggesting some night/day difference that occurred at midnight on New Year's Eve 1959. I'm not even suggesting a massive difference between '60/'61 and '58/'59. But I do think think there is a substantial difference between '57 (Russell's rookie year) and the mid-late 1960's.
I'm on record in other places suggesting that the NBA and the game of basketball itself changed more in the 15-17 years between the immediately pre-shotclock era when Mikan was dominating, and the end of the of the 1960's (when Russell's career was ending), than it has in the nearly half-century since.
But that change didn't happen overnight one night in the early 60's; it was small-to-moderate incremental changes year after year (which added up to a mountainous transformation).

I'm elaborating on this point so that it's clear that one cannot just look and say, "here's a guy who was excellent in '59 and also excellent in '60; therefore what I'm suggesting must be total crap." Not a big enough span of time to encompass the kind of league change I'm referring to, and I'm also of the opinion that it's by the mid or mid-late 60's that the league was really becoming legitimately competitive.


However, the obvious "mud in the water" here is that change in the league is not the only confounding factor when trying to compare how players fared in the late 50's vs the mid 60's........age is obviously a major factor making it difficult to draw conclusions in many cases. If a guy was dominant in '57 (at age 27), but no good by '64 (age 34), does that really tell us much?.....

Bill Sharman is clearly declining in effectiveness as we enter the 1960's; but he was 33 in '60, 34 in his final season in '61. Don't feel we can conclude anything from him.

Dolph Schayes is consistently declining throughout the 60's, and pretty sharply after '61. However, he's 33 years old going into the '62 season (and had some injury troubles that year besides); is 35 when he retires in 1964. Don't know that we can draw any real conclusions from his decline either.

Bob Cousy shows a little decline each year going into the 60's; doesn't get too noticeable until '62 (more so in his final season '63; though he's 34 years old at that point). I don't feel like age should effect his style of play TOO much: he didn't rely on elite athleticism to shot set shots or his runners in the lane, nor his playmaking. He was trying (a little late to the game, as it were) to develop a jump-shot by late in his career, and certainly having young legs help there, as well as defensively. But otherwise.......somewhat hard to say how big a factor age was in his decline (not doubt it was some of it), and how much was simply that the game's changes were outpacing his ability or willingness to adapt. I admit that grudgingly, as I'm frequently one of his biggest champions on this forum. Still, there's definitely a limited amount we can infer from this.

Cliff Hagan's decline can likely be at least partly explained by age, too.


Paul Arizin is sort of an intermediate example, perhaps? He is clearly declining as we progress into the 1960's. Hard to say how much age was a factor; he was "only" 33 when he retired in 1962, though, and his final season was WELL below his prior standards.


The best example I can think of for someone who declined as the game "progressed" into the 1960's is Tom Heinsohn. From '62 (likely his peak) to '65 (his final season) he is progressively less effective, one year after the other. To my knowledge there is no major injury contributing to this, and this takes place almost entirely in his late 20's (he's 30 years old when he retires, had basically become just an average player by then). I have no other explanation other than he simply couldn't improve at the same rate the rest of the league was.

Jack Twyman is another good example: Jack has probably his two best seasons in '60 and '61....and then just becomes progressively less effective, each year worse than the one before it for the rest of his career until his retirement in 1966, just shy of his 32nd birthday (having been basically a mediocre to fair/average player his last two seasons); he was only 27 years old when he "begins to decline". Again, no injury to explain this.

Kenny Sears may be a decent example, too, though I'm not sure that there wasn't some relevant injury involved in '61 (though I don't think so). But he falls off fairly quickly in the 1960's.
Ditto Ray Felix (unsure about injury).

Frank Ramsey appears to dwindle somewhat in effectiveness pretty straight away in the 1960's ahead of any expected age-related decline (is only 28 in '60), and no injury to blame.


So idk, there are a few examples.

[MisterHibachi]

I'm debating between Shaq and LeBron for this spot. I think their peaks are comparable, but LeBron has a clear edge in prime impact. LeBron's been ATG level from 09-17, that's 9 years of best player in the league play. At first glance, Shaq has 93-05, but his post 04 years don't really compare to LeBron's prime. Not too familiar with early Shaq, does someone have an opinion on pre-00 Shaq? Why was he swept out of the playoffs so many times? And still undecided on how to treat his missed games. I don't like the ElGee/SSB route of disregarding missed RS games, but he did show up for the playoffs every time.

[Outside]

Two points:

-- As I said in my prior post, the Cavs are built to rely on LeBron (which I don't think is in dispute), they aren't very successful when he doesn't play (which I don't think is in dispute), and my argument is that LeBron bears responsibility for the team being built to rely on him. You can disagree with that last statement, but I didn't get into determining how much responsibility is LeBron's versus other parties. The question Trex asked was whether LeBron bears any responsibility, and I said he does.

-- An ancillary point is that a team built to rely on a great individual player, no matter how great that all-time player is, has a lower ceiling compared to a a team of lesser but excellent players playing together as a unit. In other words, excellent team play is better than the best individual play.

LeBron certainly deserves credit for winning in 2016. The Warriors didn't play well enough to overcome the individual greatness of LeBron and Kyrie that year. But as great as their performances were, they could have been overcome, but the Warriors didn't play well enough to do it.

I mostly fall on the other side of this argument--I don't hold Lebron nearly as responsible as some others, but you make some really good points in this post. And I agree completely about team basketball being superior to individual basketball. And its a reflection of just how good Lebron is individually to have had the team success he has enjoyed doing so much of the heavy lifting almost outside a team concept. And its ironic because I consider Lebron both a very unselfish and very intelligent basketball player.

I guess I feel like he's doing what is best for the team as constructed playing the way he is, but maybe that's wrong and I could see it if Lebron took a different approach?

You bring up several interesting points.

And its a reflection of just how good Lebron is individually to have had the team success he has enjoyed doing so much of the heavy lifting almost outside a team concept.

I agree. Many people have said that LeBron getting the 2007 Cavs to the finals might be his greatest achievement. You look at that roster and wonder how they ever beat the Pistons, but it's really quite obvious -- through LeBron's greatness. He is a great, great player. The 2011 finals were an aberration -- he played poorly, no way around it -- but every other time he's lost, it's taken a great team to beat him.

One thing I don't like about getting into these discussions about LeBron is that when I bring up the limitations of relying on his individual play, I inevitably come across as a LeBron basher. It doesn't matter that I say over and over that he's a great player. This time, I even prefaced my argument by saying that I have him at number 8 on my ATL. But apparently for someone who considers him the GOAT, it's all heresy.

And its ironic because I consider Lebron both a very unselfish and very intelligent basketball player.

He's incredibly intelligent. I've heard on multiple occasions that he has something like a photographic memory for basketball plays, and several coaches have said that coming out of a timeout, he can figure out right away what the opponent is running and tells his teammates. He obviously relies on his physical ability and honed skill, but his greatest asset is applying that ability and skill intelligently. For all I know, he can even beat Rondo at Connect 4 (ha!).

As for being unselfish, that's part of the dichotomy that is LeBron. He's a willing passer, he does a lot to set up his teammates and help them to be successful, and he's happy to let Kyrie take some of the load. He loves making a lob pass to Tristan Thompson or a kickout to Love or JR at the three-point line.

Where the selfishness comes in is that he believes the path to winning is through relying on him as an individual player, and he requires that he be the one in control. On the Warriors, great players like Steph and KD excel within the system, while on the Cavs, the system is based on LeBron.

I guess I feel like he's doing what is best for the team as constructed playing the way he is, but maybe that's wrong and I could see it if Lebron took a different approach?

He can do it, and I've seen him do it. In one case, it was in an exceptional circumstance -- on Team USA. The dude played flat-out great team ball. But he obviously had other great teammates around him, much different than on an individual NBA team.

But I also saw him do it on the Heat. I thought 2012-13 was LeBron at his greatest, using his individual talent within a team system. He was at the peak of his powers physically, and Riley and Spoelstra challenged him to be great within their system. I loved that team defensively. I thought he had turned a corner from relying on those selfish tendencies to becoming part of something truly great. But it didn't last.

At this point, I don't think he'll go back to that. I think this LeBron is the one we'll see from here on out.

[MisterHibachi]

Two points:

-- As I said in my prior post, the Cavs are built to rely on LeBron (which I don't think is in dispute), they aren't very successful when he doesn't play (which I don't think is in dispute), and my argument is that LeBron bears responsibility for the team being built to rely on him. You can disagree with that last statement, but I didn't get into determining how much responsibility is LeBron's versus other parties. The question Trex asked was whether LeBron bears any responsibility, and I said he does.

-- An ancillary point is that a team built to rely on a great individual player, no matter how great that all-time player is, has a lower ceiling compared to a a team of lesser but excellent players playing together as a unit. In other words, excellent team play is better than the best individual play.

LeBron certainly deserves credit for winning in 2016. The Warriors didn't play well enough to overcome the individual greatness of LeBron and Kyrie that year. But as great as their performances were, they could have been overcome, but the Warriors didn't play well enough to do it.

I mostly fall on the other side of this argument--I don't hold Lebron nearly as responsible as some others, but you make some really good points in this post. And I agree completely about team basketball being superior to individual basketball. And its a reflection of just how good Lebron is individually to have had the team success he has enjoyed doing so much of the heavy lifting almost outside a team concept. And its ironic because I consider Lebron both a very unselfish and very intelligent basketball player.

I guess I feel like he's doing what is best for the team as constructed playing the way he is, but maybe that's wrong and I could see it if Lebron took a different approach?

You bring up several interesting points.

And its a reflection of just how good Lebron is individually to have had the team success he has enjoyed doing so much of the heavy lifting almost outside a team concept.

I agree. Many people have said that LeBron getting the 2007 Cavs to the finals might be his greatest achievement. You look at that roster and wonder how they ever beat the Pistons, but it's really quite obvious -- through LeBron's greatness. He is a great, great player. The 2011 finals were an aberration -- he played poorly, no way around it -- but every other time he's lost, it's taken a great team to beat him.

One thing I don't like about getting into these discussions about LeBron is that when I bring up the limitations of relying on his individual play, I inevitably come across as a LeBron basher. It doesn't matter that I say over and over that he's a great player. This time, I even prefaced my argument by saying that I have him at number 8 on my ATL. But apparently for someone who considers him the GOAT, it's all heresy.

And its ironic because I consider Lebron both a very unselfish and very intelligent basketball player.

He's incredibly intelligent. I've heard on multiple occasions that he has something like a photographic memory for basketball plays, and several coaches have said that coming out of a timeout, he can figure out right away what the opponent is running and tells his teammates. He obviously relies on his physical ability and honed skill, but his greatest asset is applying that ability and skill intelligently. For all I know, he can even beat Rondo at Connect 4 (ha!).

As for being unselfish, that's part of the dichotomy that is LeBron. He's a willing passer, he does a lot to set up his teammates and help them to be successful, and he's happy to let Kyrie take some of the load. He loves making a lob pass to Tristan Thompson or a kickout to Love or JR at the three-point line.

Where the selfishness comes in is that he believes the path to winning is through relying on him as an individual player, and he requires that he be the one in control. On the Warriors, great players like Steph and KD excel within the system, while on the Cavs, the system is based on LeBron.

I guess I feel like he's doing what is best for the team as constructed playing the way he is, but maybe that's wrong and I could see it if Lebron took a different approach?

He can do it, and I've seen him do it. In one case, it was in an exceptional circumstance -- on Team USA. The dude played flat-out great team ball. But he obviously had other great teammates around him, much different than on an individual NBA team.

But I also saw him do it on the Heat. I thought 2012-13 was LeBron at his greatest, using his individual talent within a team system. He was at the peak of his powers physically, and Riley and Spoelstra challenged him to be great within their system. I loved that team defensively. I thought he had turned a corner from relying on those selfish tendencies to becoming part of something truly great. But it didn't last.

At this point, I don't think he'll go back to that. I think this LeBron is the one we'll see from here on out.

To play in a "system" like the Warriors you need multiple playmakers. Cavs don't have that. They have Kyrie, who's had more usage than he deserves frankly. Whenever LeBron's had capable playmakers and decision makers, he's been more than willing to play off ball. Heck, he was an incredible pick and roll partner with freaking Delly. I saw the Cavs try to pigeon hole Shump into a playmaking role this year, it was terrible. I don't buy this 'my way or the highway' attitude you're trying to ascribe to LeBron. He's more than proven himself as an off ball player.

[Texas Chuck]

The 2011 finals were an aberration -- he played poorly, no way around it -- but every other time he's lost, it's taken a great team to beat him.

Can't show my little Mavs some love? But regardless of how great or not they were those Mavs were interestingly enough considering the topic the very definition of team-based play. (outside of the Spurs teams Lebron faced in 2013 and 2014---and to further bolster the point of team basketball the team the Heat had the least trouble with was by far the most talented team they faced in the Finals the 2012 Thunder who clearly had a sum less than the total of their parts.) Yeah they were led by Dirk playing at an incredible level, but clearly his play without question elevated those around him. Tho perhaps a bit ironically, the Mavs were totally dreadful with him off the court just like the Cavs have been without Lebron. The offense was totally dependent on Dirk to succeed.

One thing I don't like about getting into these discussions about LeBron is that when I bring up the limitations of relying on his individual play, I inevitably come across as a LeBron basher.

Oh I for one definitely don't read your posts as Lebron bashing. Or Doc, who has expressed similar ideas in the past. I definitely think its a topic that deserves attention regardless of how much stock one puts into it.

[JordansBulls]

Official 1st place vote:

His resume is outstanding and only comparable to the likes of Jordan, Kareem
5x NBA Champion
Rookie of the year
3x Finals MVP (T-2nd most with Magic and Shaq,Lebron)
2x MVP
15x all star
15x All-NBA Team (T-1st most with Kareem and Kobe)
15x All-Defensive Team (most in NBA history)
Career records are also outstanding and he's on the top of numerous playoff records as well
Longevity that rivals Kareem (look at his last 4 playoff run prior to 2016), and he was still an amazing defensive presence in the league up until age 39.
Anchor of one of the greatest dynasty in the modern era of sports
Duncan's teams always had a winning record on the road, and won 50 games in every season but 1999 simply because there were only 50 games.
Put up a PER of at least 20 in 18 of his 19 seasons!
When you take into consideration the team success, personal success, longevity, and the fact that he played for one team his whole career to me he's the greatest draft pick in NBA history.

2nd vote: Lebron James

Who are you actually voting for 1st? Is it Duncan? I don't see in the post.

[ThaRegul8r]

Official 1st place vote:

His resume is outstanding and only comparable to the likes of Jordan, Kareem
5x NBA Champion
Rookie of the year
3x Finals MVP (T-2nd most with Magic and Shaq,Lebron)
2x MVP
15x all star
15x All-NBA Team (T-1st most with Kareem and Kobe)
15x All-Defensive Team (most in NBA history)
Career records are also outstanding and he's on the top of numerous playoff records as well
Longevity that rivals Kareem (look at his last 4 playoff run prior to 2016), and he was still an amazing defensive presence in the league up until age 39.
Anchor of one of the greatest dynasty in the modern era of sports
Duncan's teams always had a winning record on the road, and won 50 games in every season but 1999 simply because there were only 50 games.
Put up a PER of at least 20 in 18 of his 19 seasons!
When you take into consideration the team success, personal success, longevity, and the fact that he played for one team his whole career to me he's the greatest draft pick in NBA history.

2nd vote: Lebron James

Who are you actually voting for 1st? Is it Duncan? I don't see in the post.

Actually, it is in the post, as underlined. But 5-time NBA champion, 3-time Finals MVP, 15-time All-Star, All-NBA, and All-Defense, Kareem-type longevity, and 20 PER in 18 of 19 seasons is obviously Duncan.

[THKNKG]

There are a few besides Duncan I'm looking at for this spot, or the ones behind it - Lebron and Russell are the next two, with KG and Wilt shortly after. Lebron clearly has higher peak impact than Duncan, but ITO cumulative impact, Duncan still has him beat. It's harder with Russell vs. Lebron, though. Any thoughts on Russell vs. Lebron?

[kayess]

Question to any/all:

Does Lebron, in your opinion, bear any of the blame for the fact that his team (even a presumably "good" cast) falls off a cliff any time he's not on the court? And if so, why?

I mean some of those old casts in Cleveland 1.0 it's obvious: those were just crummy casts.

But in Cleveland 2.0, where he has K.Love and Kyrie, and reasonable depth (though lacking in interior presence, especially defensively), they still seem to utterly drown without him.
Is it somehow [even partially, perhaps?] his fault? Or is this squarely on the the supporting cast? I mean, these are grown men, they're professionals (and almost exclusively veterans, too), should they be considered responsible for themselves?

Thoughts on this?

I do believe LeBron deserves blame for the current Cavs being so dependent on him.

I've explained this on other threads, so please excuse me if it seems like a repeat, because it is. I also want to say up front that I think LeBron is a tremendous player, and I have him at 8 on my all-time list. Others may consider it terrible to have him that low, but I have him in an elite group at the top of all players in NBA history, and while people can differ on who they put at 1-3 versus who they put at 7-10, just being in that top 10 group is a tremendous honor.

Back to your question.

LeBron in his second stint with the Cavs exerts the most power over a franchise of any player in history in any sport. He came back to Cleveland only after he got concessions from Dan Gilbert in every area that he (LeBron) wanted. A promise to spare no expense to get players necessary to compete for a championship. Get Kevin Love. Sign James Jones and Mike Miller. Sign two straight 1+1 contracts so he could opt out and leave after each season if he didn't like how things were going. Replace David Blatt with favored assistant Tyronn Lue. Leave for two weeks in the middle of the season to go to Miami to rest and recharge. Overpay Tristan Thompson (5 years, $82 million, the same as Draymond Green) and JR Smith (4 years, $57 million) because they're represented by LeBron's high school friend, Rich Paul.

Part of all that is that he got the Cavs to construct the roster around him. He is the primary ballhandler and playmaker. Other players' roles are established by how they fit around him. Roster changes are made to bring in players to space the floor around him, so that he has more room to operate when he drives. The offense is structured around him driving and scoring or driving and kicking to a perimeter shooter or to someone like Tristan Thompson on the interior. The defense is set up to minimize his individual responsibilities so that he can be a roving help defender or just rest to save himself for offense. The Cavs are created completely in his image, to serve his talents in the way that he wants.

This is different than his first stint in Cleveland, where LeBron was the star player who did the best with the roster he had but didn't have the power to control the makeup of the roster or the offense or defense the team ran. In Miami, he was first among the superfriends, especially by the end with Wade's decline, but Pat Riley was the most powerful figure in the franchise, and he and Eric Spoelstra decided what offense and defense to run and how best to use LeBron's talents in that system.

Gaining power over the franchise was a key reason why he left Miami and returned to Cleveland. He'd never have that power in Miami, and with the Cavs' descent into suckatude after he left, he had a golden opportunity to exert power when he came back.

All that leads to a team that is designed to operate around him, but it also leads to a team that is terrible when he's not on the court. You look at the roster and say that a team with Kyrie, Love, Thompson, and a bunch of three-point shooters should be pretty good without LeBron, but they apparently don't know what to do when he's not on the court. The fact that they are so dependent on LeBron is by LeBron's design, so yes, he bears most of the responsibility for that.

The analogy I've used is a table. The Warriors, for example, are like a table with four legs; if you remove one of the legs, you can shift the stuff on the table around and the table still stands. The Cavs, on the other hand, are a pedestal table; if you remove the pedestal, the table falls no matter what you do. It's an overly simplistic analogy, but I do think there is a ring of truth to it. LeBron is the one who decided he wanted to be the pedestal that the Cavs were built on, and part of that deal is that the table doesn't hold up without the pedestal.

Is that why Curry has the greatest difference on the team's NetRTG, BY FAR, of those 4 legs? Because he's equal in value to the 3 others?

I'm not going to argue your points on LeBron, because it's
(1) tired, and
(2) complex (who else exactly was available on the market for a trade at the time he was going back? Could the Cavs have built a Warriors-like team with the assets they had in 2014? - none of these things factor into your narrative, but sure, let's take all that as a given and accept that it's all selfish LeBron's fault that the Cavs are so dependent on him.) - but your over-romanticized (implied) description of the Warriors as some team that's beyond the sum of their parts PURELY because of the style they play is a distortion of the truth.

The Warriors are able to empower this "everyone can make a decision" style of ball because Curry makes everyone else's decision easier. Without him, most of them would be far less effective... and guess what, when the going got tough, did the Warriors flash go with the type of ball implied by your table analogy? No. They spammed Curry and Durant PNRs and Curry/Durant ISOs when it got tough (and it ONLY got tough because LeBron was playing out of his damned mind, and Kyrie was flashing some GOAT-level shotmaking. The Cav's shooters IIRC shot below average, even on wide open looks).

The table analogy does not work at all here, and I feel like your agenda is backfiring because you're actually taking away from what the Warriors are by mis-characterizing them as something they're not - the Warriors are the GOAT team because they were a GOAT-level team driven by Curry's outlier level shooting, 2 way players who can make plays/defend at an above average level at every position, a great system and culture to house them in, AND they added a redundancy, a valve, a fail-safe in Durant. It's that simple.

[kayess]

I mostly fall on the other side of this argument--I don't hold Lebron nearly as responsible as some others, but you make some really good points in this post. And I agree completely about team basketball being superior to individual basketball. And its a reflection of just how good Lebron is individually to have had the team success he has enjoyed doing so much of the heavy lifting almost outside a team concept. And its ironic because I consider Lebron both a very unselfish and very intelligent basketball player.

I guess I feel like he's doing what is best for the team as constructed playing the way he is, but maybe that's wrong and I could see it if Lebron took a different approach?

You bring up several interesting points.

And its a reflection of just how good Lebron is individually to have had the team success he has enjoyed doing so much of the heavy lifting almost outside a team concept.

I agree. Many people have said that LeBron getting the 2007 Cavs to the finals might be his greatest achievement. You look at that roster and wonder how they ever beat the Pistons, but it's really quite obvious -- through LeBron's greatness. He is a great, great player. The 2011 finals were an aberration -- he played poorly, no way around it -- but every other time he's lost, it's taken a great team to beat him.

One thing I don't like about getting into these discussions about LeBron is that when I bring up the limitations of relying on his individual play, I inevitably come across as a LeBron basher. It doesn't matter that I say over and over that he's a great player. This time, I even prefaced my argument by saying that I have him at number 8 on my ATL. But apparently for someone who considers him the GOAT, it's all heresy.

And its ironic because I consider Lebron both a very unselfish and very intelligent basketball player.

He's incredibly intelligent. I've heard on multiple occasions that he has something like a photographic memory for basketball plays, and several coaches have said that coming out of a timeout, he can figure out right away what the opponent is running and tells his teammates. He obviously relies on his physical ability and honed skill, but his greatest asset is applying that ability and skill intelligently. For all I know, he can even beat Rondo at Connect 4 (ha!).

As for being unselfish, that's part of the dichotomy that is LeBron. He's a willing passer, he does a lot to set up his teammates and help them to be successful, and he's happy to let Kyrie take some of the load. He loves making a lob pass to Tristan Thompson or a kickout to Love or JR at the three-point line.

Where the selfishness comes in is that he believes the path to winning is through relying on him as an individual player, and he requires that he be the one in control. On the Warriors, great players like Steph and KD excel within the system, while on the Cavs, the system is based on LeBron.

I guess I feel like he's doing what is best for the team as constructed playing the way he is, but maybe that's wrong and I could see it if Lebron took a different approach?

He can do it, and I've seen him do it. In one case, it was in an exceptional circumstance -- on Team USA. The dude played flat-out great team ball. But he obviously had other great teammates around him, much different than on an individual NBA team.

But I also saw him do it on the Heat. I thought 2012-13 was LeBron at his greatest, using his individual talent within a team system. He was at the peak of his powers physically, and Riley and Spoelstra challenged him to be great within their system. I loved that team defensively. I thought he had turned a corner from relying on those selfish tendencies to becoming part of something truly great. But it didn't last.

At this point, I don't think he'll go back to that. I think this LeBron is the one we'll see from here on out.

To play in a "system" like the Warriors you need multiple playmakers. Cavs don't have that. They have Kyrie, who's had more usage than he deserves frankly. Whenever LeBron's had capable playmakers and decision makers, he's been more than willing to play off ball. Heck, he was an incredible pick and roll partner with freaking Delly. I saw the Cavs try to pigeon hole Shump into a playmaking role this year, it was terrible. I don't buy this 'my way or the highway' attitude you're trying to ascribe to LeBron. He's more than proven himself as an off ball player.

This point - that LeBron has been willing to defer to a capable playmaker when he's around one - is so often brought up in the LeBron thread that when it's used outside of it and it falls on deaf ears, I can't help but be skeptical and ask: are we just deluding ourselves into seeing something that's not there? Or is it people who cannot reconcile this with their pre-conceived notion of LeBron?

Then I remember stretches where Kyrie would get benched and Delly would make the right play on the PNR, how Bron+Delly on/off is damned good on O and all these, not even 2 years ago, and I realize I'm glad I'm not crazy.

[kayess]

Vote: Who deserves the #3 spot? My contenders:

Kareem: I would need to be convinced that his impact simply wasn't that good. I think we can say it's been established that he could do most of what Walton was doing - which begs the question why he didn't do it more often. Was it suboptimal given his supporting cast? The lack of a great coach? I don't know, at the moment, because this is the prong that I feel the past cases built on WOWY haven't touched on yet.

Duncan: Again - the L5 leader stuff sounds... kooky, but if it holds true, that would mean his expected championship count continues to accumulate even after he's done playing. On top of his already ridiculous longevity and great peak, what else is there? Maybe the GOAT career value, even if not the GOAT player.

LeBron: His case is based on his amazing impact across vastly different team contexts, and the recent run has smoked any "why does he marginalize Love like he did with Bosh" talks. So I would have to believe his impact at peak level isn't good enough, he doesn't have enough high level minutes (He's at ~55k... but how much was pre June 2 2008

Did you catch that Kareem has already been voted in at #2?

Oops - I didn't! Editing original post to comply with the voting rules.

[Cyrusman122000]

Official 1st place vote: Tim Duncan

His resume is outstanding and only comparable to the likes of Jordan, Kareem
5x NBA Champion
Rookie of the year
3x Finals MVP (T-2nd most with Magic and Shaq,Lebron)
2x MVP
15x all star
15x All-NBA Team (T-1st most with Kareem and Kobe)
15x All-Defensive Team (most in NBA history)
Career records are also outstanding and he's on the top of numerous playoff records as well
Longevity that rivals Kareem (look at his last 4 playoff run prior to 2016), and he was still an amazing defensive presence in the league up until age 39.
Anchor of one of the greatest dynasty in the modern era of sports
Duncan's teams always had a winning record on the road, and won 50 games in every season but 1999 simply because there were only 50 games.
Put up a PER of at least 20 in 18 of his 19 seasons!
When you take into consideration the team success, personal success, longevity, and the fact that he played for one team his whole career to me he's the greatest draft pick in NBA history.

2nd vote: Lebron James