NBA 2019 - Now the Joy in My World is in Zion

[Relic]

11 hours ago, briantw said:

 

 

lol you dont deserve that title he brought you guys. 

[briantw]

5 hours ago, Relic said:

lol you dont deserve that title he brought you guys. 

And you won't deserve Durant this summer, but sometimes we get things we don't deserve.

And look, you seem to think I hate LeBron.  I don't.  I think he's the greatest player to ever play the game.  He's certainly the best player in Cavs history, and outside of some crazy luck that's unlikely to change.  He's going to get his jersey retired and probably a statue at the Q someday and he'll deserve both.  However, if you think I'm not going to enjoy watching him fail elsewhere after he spent an entire month last year throwing games to force the Cavs to make trades even though he already knew he was leaving, or after he flat out said he wasn't leaving again multiple times, or after he gave the Lakers the long-term security he never gave the Cavs even though the Lakers front office has been a dumpster fire for the past decade while the Cavs turned over every stone to add talent around him, I don't know what to tell you.  

I respect the dude for everything he did for the Cavs, but he ain't on the Cavs no more, so fuck him.  I was a Cavs fan before LeBron and I'll be a Cavs fan after LeBron, even if we suck forever.

[Relic]

58 minutes ago, briantw said:

And you won't deserve Durant this summer, but sometimes we get things we don't deserve.

 

Don't worry, we either won't get him or we do and he gets injured for the next three years. Either way, id rather just rebuild than mortgage the future on Durant and Kyrie (who i don;t want on my team, at all). 

 

And if LeBron had come to the Knicks and brought us a championship I'd never say a bad fucking word about him afterwards.  He IS the greatest player of our generation, one of the top 3 best ever, and having him on your squad for like 10 years is a fucking privilege. 

[Tywin et al.]

17 hours ago, briantw said:

 

 

I’m not sure I’d call the Cavs players the Big 3. Wade and Bosh were much better players than Kyrie and Love, and their supporting casts were also much better. It makes me wonder if that 2012 Heat team could have beaten the Warriors.

Also, since ya’ll got LeBron on your brains, is it fair at this point to say that he’s no longer the unanimous best player in the NBA anymore?

[briantw]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m not sure I’d call the Cavs players the Big 3. Wade and Bosh were much better players than Kyrie and Love, and their supporting casts were also much better. It makes me wonder if that 2012 Heat team could have beaten the Warriors.

Also, since ya’ll got LeBron on your brains, is it fair at this point to say that he’s no longer the unanimous best player in the NBA anymore?

I don't think Bosh was better than Kyrie.  I don't think he was better than Love either, at least offensively.  Defensively he definitely was, although Love wasn't nearly as bad on that end as he was made out to be since he was always the media scapegoat.

Wade was definitely the best of all of LeBron's teammates for those first two years in Miami, but give me Kyrie all day every day over Wade the final two years.  Dude was a broken shell of himself at that point, which is why LeBron bailed on him.

[Tywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, briantw said:

I don't think Bosh was better than Kyrie.  I don't think he was better than Love either, at least offensively.  Defensively he definitely was, although Love wasn't nearly as bad on that end as he was made out to be since he was always the media scapegoat.

Wade was definitely the best of all of LeBron's teammates for those first two years in Miami, but give me Kyrie all day every day over Wade the final two years.  Dude was a broken shell of himself at that point, which is why LeBron bailed on him.

Overall, Bosh was better than both Kyrie and Love. He was slightly behind both of them offensively, but he was the better all-around player and a much better defensive player (Kyrie and Love are meh to bad defenders).

Wade did start to break down at the end, but he was far better than Kyrie and Love in his prime. He’s probably the third best shooting guard ever (though Harden will pass him, even though he’s trash on the defensive end).

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m not sure I’d call the Cavs players the Big 3. Wade and Bosh were much better players than Kyrie and Love, and their supporting casts were also much better. It makes me wonder if that 2012 Heat team could have beaten the Warriors.

Also, since ya’ll got LeBron on your brains, is it fair at this point to say that he’s no longer the unanimous best player in the NBA anymore? 

You mean the Warriors 2016 team?  That would be interesting.  I agree that the 2012 Heat look like a better team than the 2016 Cavs.  Beyond the big 3 of each team, the 2012 Heat were much better, with Battier, Haslem, Anderson and Chalmers all capable of playing meaningful minutes effectively.  The same cannot be said of the 2016 Cavs. 

Personally, I am much more disappointed that we never got to see a real Spurs vs Warriors playoff series.  That 2014 Spurs team was just fantastic.  Unfortunately, Danny Green has never looked that good again, and Parker/Duncan/Ginobili were all getting old by the time the Warriors really arrived in 2015. 

[Tywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

You mean the Warriors 2016 team?  That would be interesting.  I agree that the 2012 Heat look like a better team than the 2016 Cavs.  Beyond the big 3 of each team, the 2012 Heat were much better, with Battier, Haslem, Anderson and Chalmers all capable of playing meaningful minutes effectively.  The same cannot be said of the 2016 Cavs. 

Personally, I am much more disappointed that we never got to see a real Spurs vs Warriors playoff series.  That 2014 Spurs team was just fantastic.  Unfortunately, Danny Green has never looked that good again, and Parker/Duncan/Ginobili were all getting old by the time the Warriors really arrived in 2015. 

Yeah, I should have clarified I meant the pre-Durant Warriors. The Warriors with Durant might be the best team ever, though they looked terrible last night (but Klay was out, and people often forget how important he is, especially with Green’s defensive decline).

Regarding the Spurs, I still wonder what would have happened if Kawhi didn’t get hurt. It was only one half of a game, but the Spurs were crushing the Warriors. I also think the Spurs were the blueprint for the Warriors. Kerr, IMO, took their system and applied it to better shooters.   

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m not sure I’d call the Cavs players the Big 3. Wade and Bosh were much better players than Kyrie and Love, and their supporting casts were also much better. It makes me wonder if that 2012 Heat team could have beaten the Warriors.

Also, since ya’ll got LeBron on your brains, is it fair at this point to say that he’s no longer the unanimous best player in the NBA anymore?

I wouldn't call that Cavs team a Big 3 either. To me, "Big 3" doesn't just mean whoever the three best players are on a team, or even necessarily having three All-Stars on a team. I think a Big 3 is when you have three players that each would be the number one player on a solid-to-good team who are all together. LeBron/Wade/Bosh absolutely fits the bill, Lebron/Love/Kyrie does not. Love and Kyrie are both very good players, but we've seen plenty of proof that Love isn't able to elevate a team to good by himself. Kyrie might have the talent, although this Celtics season would belie that. And its not just the toxic leadership, I think there's a solid argument that Horford is having a better season than Kyrie and is the actual team leader.

As for best current player, I've yet to see evidence that when LeBron is trying he's not the best. Granted, having the attitude that it's okay to dog it on defense because the team sucks is a knock against any player, but I don't think that speaks to actual talent levels. I'm sure it's not unanimous, but I don't think LeBron has ever been considered the unanimous best player because there are always contrarians. In 2011 people were so desperate to ignore how good LeBron was that Derrick Rose won the MVP.

[Proudfeet]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

In 2011 people were so desperate to ignore how good LeBron was that Derrick Rose won the MVP.

Well, Rose was on a rookie contract then. That could possibly make him more valuable on a per dollar basis. 

I'm just kidding. I think I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again. The MVP is a pageant. Its a popularity contest. Its not a coronation for the best player. People can't even agree on what "valuable" means most of the time. 

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Regarding the Spurs, I still wonder what would have happened if Kawhi didn’t get hurt. It was only one half of a game, but the Spurs were crushing the Warriors. I also think the Spurs were the blueprint for the Warriors. Kerr, IMO, took their system and applied it to better shooters.   

If that series were the finals, I'd think Zaza deserves finals MVP. I think he deserves the MVP for last season too, he completely shut Kawhi down and crushed the Spurs. 

[Maithanet]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

As for best current player, I've yet to see evidence that when LeBron is trying he's not the best. Granted, having the attitude that it's okay to dog it on defense because the team sucks is a knock against any player, but I don't think that speaks to actual talent levels. I'm sure it's not unanimous, but I don't think LeBron has ever been considered the unanimous best player because there are always contrarians. In 2011 people were so desperate to ignore how good LeBron was that Derrick Rose won the MVP. 

The problem is that if Lebron is only the best in the postseason, and his team won't make the postseason partially because he's dogging it on defense, then can he really be the best? It's not like he's dominating the regular season and his team is just too terrible to make it.  A big part of the reason we don't get to see Playoff Lebron is because of Lebron's shortcomings. 

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Regarding the Spurs, I still wonder what would have happened if Kawhi didn’t get hurt. It was only one half of a game, but the Spurs were crushing the Warriors. I also think the Spurs were the blueprint for the Warriors. Kerr, IMO, took their system and applied it to better shooters.   

It was definitely unfortunate that Kawhi got hurt in that 2017 series.  But Duncan was already gone by then, which meant that the tenor of the team was totally different than the awesome 2014 squad. 

[briantw]

45 minutes ago, Fez said:

I wouldn't call that Cavs team a Big 3 either. To me, "Big 3" doesn't just mean whoever the three best players are on a team, or even necessarily having three All-Stars on a team. I think a Big 3 is when you have three players that each would be the number one player on a solid-to-good team who are all together. LeBron/Wade/Bosh absolutely fits the bill, Lebron/Love/Kyrie does not. Love and Kyrie are both very good players, but we've seen plenty of proof that Love isn't able to elevate a team to good by himself. Kyrie might have the talent, although this Celtics season would belie that. And its not just the toxic leadership, I think there's a solid argument that Horford is having a better season than Kyrie and is the actual team leader.

As for best current player, I've yet to see evidence that when LeBron is trying he's not the best. Granted, having the attitude that it's okay to dog it on defense because the team sucks is a knock against any player, but I don't think that speaks to actual talent levels. I'm sure it's not unanimous, but I don't think LeBron has ever been considered the unanimous best player because there are always contrarians. In 2011 people were so desperate to ignore how good LeBron was that Derrick Rose won the MVP.

I mean, I'd argue Bosh never proved anything without another star either.  He made the playoffs a few times, but unlike Love he was in the East when the East was total garbage and he was an easy first round exit.  Love took a West team to .500 one year and missed the playoffs in the West, but pretty sure that would have been enough in the East.

And give me Kyrie over Bosh every time in a game that matters.  Kyrie is crazy clutch.  Bosh is a choker.

[Jaime L]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I wouldn't call that Cavs team a Big 3 either. To me, "Big 3" doesn't just mean whoever the three best players are on a team, or even necessarily having three All-Stars on a team. I think a Big 3 is when you have three players that each would be the number one player on a solid-to-good team who are all together. LeBron/Wade/Bosh absolutely fits the bill, Lebron/Love/Kyrie does not. Love and Kyrie are both very good players, but we've seen plenty of proof that Love isn't able to elevate a team to good by himself. Kyrie might have the talent, although this Celtics season would belie that. And its not just the toxic leadership, I think there's a solid argument that Horford is having a better season than Kyrie and is the actual team leader.

I dunno. I think if you define big 3 so narrowly, there's basically been none in history. Jordan/Pippen/Rodman would not be one. Neither would Bird/McHale/Parrish.  Maybe Magic/Kareem/Worthy though not sure how good a team with just Worthy on it would be. Heck would Durant/Steph/Klay even qualify? Not sure you could build a playoff team if Klay is your only star. Heck this year has shown even Lebron can't necessarily will a team to the playoffs in the West if he's the only star. 

I think of "Big 3" as do you have 3 of the 20 best players in the league on your roster? So yeah in my mind having 3 All-Stars is a "Big 3". You're still insanely loaded compared to the rest of the league.

That said, I do feel like there's a subjective element to it. I mean take team like Philly. They basically have 3 All Stars but they're all so young and flawed ATM and the fit is strange so I'm kinda meh on thinking of them that way. 

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

I dunno. I think if you define big 3 so narrowly, there's basically been none in history. Jordan/Pippen/Rodman would not be one. Neither would Bird/McHale/Parrish.  Maybe Magic/Kareem/Worthy though not sure how good a team with just Worthy on it would be. Heck would Durant/Steph/Klay even qualify? Not sure you could build a playoff team if Klay is your only star. Heck this year has shown even Lebron can't necessarily will a team to the playoffs in the West if he's the only star.

You also have to see a big dropoff between the 3rd and 4th best player.  The Warriors aren't a big 3 because they have Cousins and Green, and either one of them is capable of being the best player on the court on a good night.  That also somewhat applies to the Sixers, since the dropoff between the top 3 and Harris really isn't that dramatic either (in addition to the aukward fit making the team seem less talented than it is).   

I have no problem calling either Lebron/Wade/Bosh or Lebron/Irving/Love a Big 3. 

[Fez]

38 minutes ago, Jaime L said:

I dunno. I think if you define big 3 so narrowly, there's basically been none in history. Jordan/Pippen/Rodman would not be one. Neither would Bird/McHale/Parrish.  Maybe Magic/Kareem/Worthy though not sure how good a team with just Worthy on it would be. Heck would Durant/Steph/Klay even qualify? Not sure you could build a playoff team if Klay is your only star. Heck this year has shown even Lebron can't necessarily will a team to the playoffs in the West if he's the only star. 

I think of "Big 3" as do you have 3 of the 20 best players in the league on your roster? So yeah in my mind having 3 All-Stars is a "Big 3". You're still insanely loaded compared to the rest of the league.

That said, I do feel like there's a subjective element to it. I mean take team like Philly. They basically have 3 All Stars but they're all so young and flawed ATM and the fit is strange so I'm kinda meh on thinking of them that way. 

I think the key phrase is that I used "solid-to-good" not "great." If you can consistently power a team to 7th or 8th seed by yourself, I think that's enough (and isn't something Love does, for instance). I think all the players you mentioned could do it; if LeBron hadn't gotten hurt I think he would've done it too. Also, I think the assumption is that you basically have a team of replacement-level guys with you; some of LeBron's teammates this year seem quite a bit below that.

[Maithanet]

So I'm not following the NBA rumor mill about Durant at all.  But is there any chance he goes back to OKC?  Could OKC pay him and keep Westbrook, George and Adams?  Because personally I'd love to see it.  I generally root for small market teams, and Westbrook/George both have a game that is fun to watch. 

[briantw]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I think the key phrase is that I used "solid-to-good" not "great." If you can consistently power a team to 7th or 8th seed by yourself, I think that's enough (and isn't something Love does, for instance). I think all the players you mentioned could do it; if LeBron hadn't gotten hurt I think he would've done it too. Also, I think the assumption is that you basically have a team of replacement-level guys with you; some of LeBron's teammates this year seem quite a bit below that.

Honestly, based on how the Cavs have played with Love back, I think there's a good chance they could have made the playoffs this year if he didn't miss half the season (and, to be fair, the team held him out far longer than they needed to because they were tanking).  He missed like fifty games this year, but the Cavs are 5-2 in the games he's played since returning from injury, and one of the losses was his first game back where he played six minutes.  

Love, to me, seems good enough to carry a team to about a .500 record, and that's enough to make the playoffs in the East.

[Relic]

1 hour ago, briantw said:

Honestly, based on how the Cavs have played with Love back, I think there's a good chance they could have made the playoffs this year if he didn't miss half the season (and, to be fair, the team held him out far longer than they needed to because they were tanking).  He missed like fifty games this year, but the Cavs are 5-2 in the games he's played since returning from injury, and one of the losses was his first game back where he played six minutes.  

Love, to me, seems good enough to carry a team to about a .500 record, and that's enough to make the playoffs in the East.

Lol, what? They beat the Suns, the Griz, and the Knicks twice. HUGE wins, HUGE!!

[briantw]

11 minutes ago, Relic said:

Lol, what? They beat the Suns, the Griz, and the Knicks twice. HUGE wins, HUGE!!

And wins are wins.  You spend a lot of the season playing shitty teams.  You beat most of them and upset a few good teams and suddenly you're around .500.

I'm not saying the dude would win the East, but I think that, if he plays the entire year, the Cavs are probably close to a .500 team and a potential first round playoff exit.  The team looks lost without him, but with him they look reasonably competent.  In the East, that can be enough to make the postseason if things break right.

[Tywin et al.]

6 hours ago, Fez said:

As for best current player, I've yet to see evidence that when LeBron is trying he's not the best. Granted, having the attitude that it's okay to dog it on defense because the team sucks is a knock against any player, but I don't think that speaks to actual talent levels. I'm sure it's not unanimous, but I don't think LeBron has ever been considered the unanimous best player because there are always contrarians. In 2011 people were so desperate to ignore how good LeBron was that Derrick Rose won the MVP.

I think the bigger issue is I've yet to see anyone I can point to and say that he's definitively better than LeBron.

Durant? He might be better now, but there's no way you can put him above LeBron due to what he did.

AD? He might be the most talented player, but he's often hurt and has no success in the playoffs.

Kawhi? He's the most well rounded player, but that doesn't make him the best.

Giannis? He might leapfrog them all in time, but he still has to win something first.

Curry? His A game might be as good as anyone's, but he's too small and average on the defensive side.

Harden? Harden is the best offensive player in the game, but he's a disaster on the other end.

 

Those are the guys that should be considered, but each of their resumes has holes in it to be called the best right now. 

(If Giannis ever gets a decent outside shot, game over man)