Seems like you need more to do. Bron has you rattled.
Good to know he has someone rustled, though, cause it ain’t the Dubs. Ugh.
On to next year....
***NBA Playoffs: Finals Thread***
- Thread starter JimboBBN
- Start date
Seems like you need more to do. Bron has you rattled.
Good to know he has someone rustled, though, cause it ain’t the Dubs. Ugh.
On to next year....
I disagree. Stats don’t tell the whole story. There is a gap between LeBron and KD as players.
Yep...with even more attention paid to him Lebron also has a better shooting %.
Wat? LeBron is clearly ahead in every all-in-one measure of offensive output (and defense, if you're interested). Through each of their age 29/11th seasons:
- Offensive Win Shares: Lebron 117.0, Durant 92.4.
- OBPM: Lebron 7.4, Durant 4.8.
- PER (which is mostly offense): Lebron 27.8, Durant 25.3.
- OWS: LeBron 11.0, Durant 7.5.
- OBPM: LeBron 7.6, Durant 5.0.
- PER: LeBron 28.6, Durant 26.0.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
Team A is putting a whoopin on Team B. Does anything more need to be said?
Other than maybe 1 min combined gametime, the Warriors led for the rest of the game after they took the lead in the 3rd Q
Other than maybe 1 min combined gametime, the Warriors led for the rest of the game after they took the lead in the 3rd Q
"A whoopin'" Even though Team B has had a lead in 2 games with less than 3 minutes left?
I’m not sure I agree with this. As I posted earlier, LeBron is so good, I don’t think the Warriors could beat him without KD. They needed every bit of Durant last night to win a nail biter.
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
Imagine if he’d stayed at OKC though, hypothetically speaking. GS already won a title prior to KDs arrival, they add an MVP to their roster full of superstars. Yawn.
Imagine if OKC had Harden and Durant... 2 of the 3 best players in the league. They let both of those guys get away.
And then he beat then the very next year. Last nights game was anything but yawn. It was entertaining the whole way through
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
anon_0astpxev9h4gk
Well-Known Member
Was a very entertaining game, I just wish LeBron had a solid guard or wing. JR Smith is so ****ing terrible, and I’ve always thought George Hill was overrated. Getting Hood and Nance Jr really didn’t pay off either. If they had a solid G/SF like Leonard or PG13 I’d like their chances a bit more. LeBron is giving 110% and it just isn’t enough. That’s why I consider it boring, and low key unfair.
Blocking shots has nothing to do with offense. Who implied it does? When I mentioned it, it was separate from the 'offensive efficiency' remarks. I was speaking to the argument that the Cavs or Warriors would be better/worse if the two players switched, so I tossed in some additional stats (ignoring rebounds because that's a garbage stat). Ultimately, both teams (chemistry issues aside) would stay the same. Maybe you'd see a couple game difference in the W/L columns, but that's it.
I was referring to their shooting numbers when I said 'offensive efficiency'. The calculations behind those advanced stats are far from established science, especially any Win Share calculations. Either way, their shooting efficiency is virtually the same, as I said, they just go about it in different ways (outside vs. inside). Heck those advanced stats are virtually the same. You'd see very little, if any on-court performance differences based on those numbers, that's how close they are.
Lastly, comparing the first 11 years of their careers doesn't have a ton of relevance to the argument that I was responding to, which hypothesized what would happen if they switched this season/playoffs. I made my post after looking at their numbers this year, their 11th year, the totality of their careers, in addition to their numbers through 11.
In a world where you have almost every piece of information imaginable a quick search away, you choose to say something so incredible wrong and easy to disprove. I bet you like to be spanked.
- By any reasonable interpretation of your post, you clearly did. But I'll accept your reinterpretation and move on.
- There's a lot more to "offensive efficiency" than shooting numbers, as you clearly acknowledged in your post by also mentioning assist, turnovers, and (as we already covered) blocks.
- I also posted this season's numbers. The first 11 years thing was to compare apples to apples since LeBron is post-peak and Durant is mid-peak, but fine to disregard them.
1. Then your reading comprehension is poor. I'm sorry. Either way, there was no reinterpretation.
2. And there is more to offensive efficiency than algorithms that attempt to spit out an 'offensive efficiency' number, like PER or WS, etc. Glad we agree.
3. Right, and their numbers this year are staggeringly close, like I said and covered with the intentional use of "virtually equal". I didn't say "exactly the same" because that's not a reasonable standard. No players are exactly the same (well maybe some, but it's unlikely). The argument was only this year. Nobody was arguing who had the better first 11 years of their career or who has had the better career. So apples-to-apples comparisons, which we both looked at weren't relevant, anyway.
Yea, everyone except his haters can see the disadvantage he’s at. Hell even if he still had Kyrie, I think this would be a completely different series.
She could set a mean pick, though.
She's good for an easy 20 rebounds...a game
True...my team on the wrong side, but game 1 and 3 for sure could go either way, and even Game 2 was interesting into the 4th.
I think that is fair, but what do you think this exact same team could do if they went through an entire camp together with no roster upheaval during the season......and added the 8th pick in the draft?
No question they win last night with a healthy Kyrie. He's exactly what they needed in the 4th when Lebron was not close to himself.
- You wrote a paragraph on "offensive efficiency" and cited shooting percentages, types of shots, assists, turnovers, and... blocked shots. You had no offsetting language indicating blocked shots were not a part of "offensive efficiency." Relax, I don't think you ever thought that blocked shots were about offense; it was an aside about your writing (and my reasonable interpretation point stands).
- Yes, we agree that offensive efficiency encompasses a number of things. See 3.
- Their numbers this year are pretty close (I would not say "staggeringly" so, but let's not dwell on nits), but, in addition to the shooting variances you identified (I think in Durant's favor), there is one huge difference: playmaking. This is observable via numbers (assist rates: LeBron 44.4%, Durant 25.5% despite LeBron playing with objectively inferior teammates) and the eye test.
LeBron's assist rate (apparently mandatory acknowledgement that no stats are perfect) of 44.4% was 5th in the entire NBA behind Westbrook, JJ Barea (lol), Harden, and Wall. Durant's was 59th, slightly behind MarShon Brooks and ahead of DeMar DeRozan. LeBron played a different role in Cleveland's offense this year than Durant played in GSW's. And Durant has never shown he has the ability to be the lead playmaker on this team. Your post seems to attempt to downplay this by offhandedly offsetting assists with blocks and turnovers: "Bron gets more assists, KD blocks more shots and doesn't turn the ball over as often." I think it's actually a pretty big difference between them, and I'll throw in an appeal to authority by pointing out that damn near every analyst agrees that LeBron is a cut above for the same reason (Duncan, Pelton, Lowe, Haralabob, O'Conner, etc...).
TL
R - LeBron is clearly (if moderately) better than Durant, and the biggest gap between them is playmaking.In any event, good discussion and enjoy the NBA Finals!
No doubt. I have a half-baked theory that 90% of what we think of as "clutch" is really a referendum on fatigue. Anecdotal evidence: everything we've learned about rest over the last decade, and Robert Horry always seemed fresh in the 4th quarter.
This is a little off topic, but I'd like to point out something about assists and rebounds that I don't think a lot of people realize. They're largely static numbers from year-to-year at the team level. That means that a team averaging 20 assists per game will average about 20 assists per game whether they bring in a great PG or some crappy PG who can't pass (shooters might indeed impact assist numbers more than passers). The assists just get redistributed. There are always exceptions, of course, but the rule is that assists stay flat, only typically fluctuating up or down by about 1, year-to-year, at the team level.
Example: In his first two seasons back with the Cavs, LeBron averaged 7 assists per game. In his last two, 9. Great numbers, especially for a Forward. In these past 4 seasons, the Cavs have averaged 21 or 22 assists per game. During the seasons LeBron was away, they hovered around 20. There's not much difference there, and those Cavs teams while LeBron was in Miami were pretty bad. So, we could say rather conclusively that LeBron's gaudy assist numbers aren't adding much value to the team. Basically, he's just keeping his teammates from getting their own assists, not generating additional ones. In fact, given his scoring prowess, he might help the team the most by playing less 'Point Forward' and getting himself on the receiving end of more passes leading to buckets.
Really, the offensive efficiency argument comes down to getting buckets. If LeBron left the team and they replaced him with a reserve (Hood?), the team would almost certainly pick up the slack in assists. They'd definitely struggle to pick up the slack in scoring, though. The same argument holds true for rebounds. Team rebounds and assists are more dependent on coaching styles than personnel, so looking at those numbers (instead of ratios or %'s), can really skew the perception of the value a player adds to his team. A lot of advanced stats like PER and WS are comparative in nature. Well, if that comparison says a SF getting 9 assists vs. 4 turnovers per game is creating more wins than a SF dropping 5 dimes vs. 2 turnovers, it might be fundamentally flawed.
Example: In his first two seasons back with the Cavs, LeBron averaged 7 assists per game. In his last two, 9. Great numbers, especially for a Forward. In these past 4 seasons, the Cavs have averaged 21 or 22 assists per game. During the seasons LeBron was away, they hovered around 20. There's not much difference there, and those Cavs teams while LeBron was in Miami were pretty bad. So, we could say rather conclusively that LeBron's gaudy assist numbers aren't adding much value to the team. Basically, he's just keeping his teammates from getting their own assists, not generating additional ones. In fact, given his scoring prowess, he might help the team the most by playing less 'Point Forward' and getting himself on the receiving end of more passes leading to buckets.
Really, the offensive efficiency argument comes down to getting buckets. If LeBron left the team and they replaced him with a reserve (Hood?), the team would almost certainly pick up the slack in assists. They'd definitely struggle to pick up the slack in scoring, though. The same argument holds true for rebounds. Team rebounds and assists are more dependent on coaching styles than personnel, so looking at those numbers (instead of ratios or %'s), can really skew the perception of the value a player adds to his team. A lot of advanced stats like PER and WS are comparative in nature. Well, if that comparison says a SF getting 9 assists vs. 4 turnovers per game is creating more wins than a SF dropping 5 dimes vs. 2 turnovers, it might be fundamentally flawed.
The last point gets back to the original argument - what happens if Durant and LeBron switched teams this year? ESPN's RPM, flawed as it is, attempts to strip out the effect of teammates and opponents to answer the very question asked here. Offensive RPM: LeBron 5.66, Durant 4.06. But why?
- You wrote a paragraph on "offensive efficiency" and cited shooting percentages, types of shots, assists, turnovers, and... blocked shots. You had no offsetting language indicating blocked shots were not a part of "offensive efficiency." Relax, I don't think you ever thought that blocked shots were about offense; it was an aside about your writing (and my reasonable interpretation point stands).
- Yes, we agree that offensive efficiency encompasses a number of things. See 3.
- Their numbers this year are pretty close (I would not say "staggeringly" so, but let's not dwell on nits), but, in addition to the shooting variances you identified (I think in Durant's favor), there is one huge difference: playmaking. This is observable via numbers (assist rates: LeBron 44.4%, Durant 25.5% despite LeBron playing with objectively inferior teammates) and the eye test.
LeBron's assist rate (apparently mandatory acknowledgement that no stats are perfect) of 44.4% was 5th in the entire NBA behind Westbrook, JJ Barea (lol), Harden, and Wall. Durant's was 59th, slightly behind MarShon Brooks and ahead of DeMar DeRozan. LeBron played a different role in Cleveland's offense this year than Durant played in GSW's. And Durant has never shown he has the ability to be the lead playmaker on this team. Your post seems to attempt to downplay this by offhandedly offsetting assists with blocks and turnovers: "Bron gets more assists, KD blocks more shots and doesn't turn the ball over as often." I think it's actually a pretty big difference between them, and I'll throw in an appeal to authority by pointing out that damn near every analyst agrees that LeBron is a cut above for the same reason (Duncan, Pelton, Lowe, Haralabob, O'Conner, etc...).
TL
In any event, good discussion and enjoy the NBA Finals!
I didn't write a paragraph on offensive efficiency. I wrote a paragraph comparing two players that happened to begin with a sentence about offensive efficiency. Two different things.
edit: I'm glad you went into the assists argument because it aligns with my post above about the relative value of assists. The short version of it is that if LeBron broke his leg in practice before game 4, the Cavs would still average the same number of assists as a team without him as they averaged with him. They'd lose by 40, but the assists wouldn't change drastically. Which brings into question the very value of an assist.
Last edited:
I'm one who doesn't have a big belief in clutch, but that's an interesting analogy.
Fatigue is a good point. Remember when Carmelo was considered one of the best clutch players in the league early in his career? When he started getting older, especially with his apparent lack of conditioning, he never seemed to get the same late game shots to drop that he was downing when he was young and spry. A lot of the clutch guys you'd think of were physically dominant, too. Except Bird, he's just an enigma.
Opportunity also has a lot to do with it. After all, basically every player known as a great clutch shooter missed way, way more game tying/winning shots than they made in their careers.
Last edited:
Going by memory, but thought a couple years ago I saw a stat that Lebron was something like 5-11 on GW shots in the playoffs. He has since made a few, though might have also missed 1-2.
I do agree, though, we are often shown the makes by the immortals like MJ and Kobe, but they definitely miss their share....especially Kobe.
I didn't write a paragraph on offensive efficiency. I wrote a paragraph comparing two players that happened to begin with a sentence about offensive efficiency. Two different things.
edit: I'm glad you went into the assists argument because it aligns with my post above about the relative value of assists. The short version of it is that if LeBron broke his leg in practice before game 4, the Cavs would still average the same number of assists as a team without him as they averaged with him. They'd lose by 40, but the assists wouldn't change drastically. Which brings into question the very value of an assist.
Interesting point, but I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater: there is most certainly value in creating good shots for teammates. Assists are not perfect for a lot of the reasons you state (and more that cut in the other direction - that so-called hockey assists and other plays that really unlock the value of a good offensive possession are not captured in assists). They're interesting shorthand, however, and where the differences are so stark I'd argue it's fine to rely on them as indicators of direction (Player A a better playmaker than Player B) if not magnitude.
But there are #s available that attempt to capture the value of playmaking. RPM, box plus minus, adjusted plus minus, etc... All of these are imperfect, but when they all point in the same direction they're probably onto something. Also worth noting the debate within Warriors NBA Twitter/podcasting/Reddit/blogging re: Durant's value to the team as compared to Curry's (a debate which went nuclear during the Rockets series). Basically, Durant seems to provide less value to his team than Curry. It's probably a combination of noise, roster construction, and effects that are hard to capture with traditional numbers, like gravity and playmaking. Again, this points in the same direction as all the other advanced stats, and seems to convincingly suggest that LeBron is clearly if only moderately a cut above Durant.
Finally, this is where the often unreliable eyeball test has some value. There's a highlight reel of LeBron passes from this very NBA Finals that are just amazing passes that few other players in NBA history could pull off (difficult angles and perfect placement). Many of them led to missed open 3s (ah, assists, you suck again!). I'd be hard pressed to believe you can watch Durant and LeBron and conclude that Durant is on LeBron's level as a playmaker.
In sum, you raise some interesting points on the limits of analysis, but you're throwing away good in the search for perfect. The overwhelming evidence (traditional box scores, advanced stats, the weight of expert opinion, the eyeball test (aka "come on, man!")) is that LeBron is a better offensive player than Durant by virtue of vastly superior playmaking.
Sorry but the team with KD and Curry together will always win. Don’t fool yourself.
Gotta love people who give their opinions as though they are fact.
Durant does alright in the assist department, but you're right, his best passes aren't on the same level as LeBron's best passes. But what's the value of those couple passes per game LeBron executes that nobody else does? Is he creating offense or redistributing stats? How many of those possessions that end in a highlight LeBron assist would have ended with points being scored, regardless? That cuts into the value. How many times does he throw the ball away while trying to execute tough passes? That cuts into the value, too.
It's tricky to evaluate players against each other in team sports. I wish I could just say Durant at 29 would beat LeBron at 29 in a one-on-one game and be done with it, but it's unfortunately more complex than that and we'll probably never reach a satisfactory answer.
She might even take away the nickname The Big O from Oscar Robertson.
Kobe!
Last word, but it occurred to me that the very phenomenon you're describing with assists occurs with scoring. This is because in both instances you're measuring something relatively small - marginal gains in a world with a high base level of performance (and with assists its compounded by lots of noise, for all the reasons we discussed). But really what we want to measure is impact on winning, right? Because whether Cleveland gets 90% of the assists when LeBron sits is interesting (although not very meaningful), we know that the marginal difference in his playmaking versus, say, Jeff Green's, makes a gargantuan difference in winning games. That marginal difference is captured in team efficiency stats.
That also leads to another interesting facet about Durant. He's unquestionably great at creating his own shot. But again we care about winning; on the offensive end, that's easily simplified to impact on points per possession. The whole debate within the Warriors community (again, highly recommended if you can find a good writer or podcast on it) boils down to whether Durant's ability to hit difficult shots is better for the team's offense than running the offense through Curry. It may seem counterintuitive to suggest that running the offense through Curry is better than running it through Durant - Durant is better at creating and making difficult shots - but it's easy explained through the extreme hypothetical. What if Curry's gravity was enough to pull 4 defenders onto him full time? The answer is that the Warriors would have the best offense in NBA history by a mile despite Curry not hitting a single shot and probably turning the ball over more than anyone else ever. (this also helps explain why the Westbrook offense is not very efficient despite his historical numbers and usage. See also Iverson, Allen) (and, yes, difficult shot making also has value, especially against great defenses)
So when measuring "offensive efficiency," the key is total team impact on the offensive end of the floor. That's precisely what RMP, box plus minus, advanced plus minus, etc... are trying to capture. Perfect? Of course not. But when they align with the eye test, every expert, and every other stat, the answer should be clear.
(all this is not to crap on Durant, who is amazing, but to frame the debate properly)
So you honestly think an average player like Green added to Klay and Lebron could actually beat KD, Love and Curry?? The reason the Warriors are unbeatable is because of the combination on Curry and KD.
Not a fan of any pro sports. However I will watch sometimes during playoffs, with the exception of the NFL.
