MikeyCanez
Sophomore
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 722
Alright, I am here for this, I'll try to go point by point to keep it easy:
1. I'm not sure what Shaq's maturity has to do with how good he was at basketball. But surely we aren't giving Kobe and Phil credit for turning Shaq into what he was? He was the best center in the league from the moment he stepped on the court and is the most dominant player of all time.
2. All-Star Games is a weird metric to use. Gasol averaged 20.4/8.9 with 1.9 blocks on 50% from the field and made an All-Star game. The next season he averaged 20.8/9.8 with 2.1 blocks on 53% shooting and didn't make an All-Star. Pau was already a stud before he got to LA, Kobe had not much to do with it.
3. I can appreciate that there is more nuance to the 07 Cavs team than just "they were horrible" and defensively they were well-above average. But we aren't going to run around giving flowers to Larry Hughes and Zydrunas Ilgauskas. Hughes' 22.8 per game came on 43%/28% from the floor for the Wizards that season. He was never a good offensive player and oh by the way, he got hurt in the Eastern Conference Finals that year and only played two games against San Antonio, so yeah, the team's were different. Ilgauskas made an All-Star game in an Eastern Conference where the next best choice was Jamaal Magloire and Tim Duncan ate him alive so badly in the Finals that he shot 35% from the field. These are the former All-Stars and All NBA Defensive Studs you are talking about. This "oh the Cavs were actually legit that year" take needs work if we are leaning on Larry Freaking Hughes and Ilgauskas.
4. I like that you pointed out that San Antonio was the No. 1 net team in the league and the No. 2 defensive team and then called them old and trash like two paragraphs later. Just one data point but the difference between the No. 1 and the No. 8 team in Net this year was Oklahoma City to Charlotte. You giving the Hornets a chance to give the Thunder a good series this year? **** no you aren't.
5. If not even the Great Mike Brown could help him, LeBron must not have been very good.
6. Longevity is a skill! Why does he not deserve credit for making an impact for longer? He's been playing at a high level for longer than any contemporary, including Kobe and Jordan and whomever else. Is it the most important factor? No, of course not, but it is a point on his ledger for sure.
7. I generally agree with the rest of what you said about stats and context, etc.
8. If you want to say LeBron is selfish and controlling and a prima donna, that's fine. I agree. Nearly every great player in the history of the league is like that. If you want to say he spent too much time meddling in front office affairs and took the easy route by going to Miami to play with Wade and Bosh, that's fine too. I agree. But none of that has anything to do with how good LeBron is at basketball.
I think debating "The Pantheon" is foolish because basketball is different in different eras and comparing Kareem to LeBron or Kobe is impossible because they played different positions in different leagues with different rules. But if you don't generally have him as one of the 4-5 best players of all time, I think it is because you dislike him so much that you don't want to give him credit where it is due.
In another lifetime, on another website, in another thread, we can have the debate about why I think Kobe is wildly overrated (an argument admittedly colored by hatred). But I think we can spare each other on that one for now.
