It's about time you put some respect on Temetrius Jamel Morant's name
fukk espn: What’s your current top 10 going into the NBA season?
- Thread starter Morethan1
- Start date
Giannis
Curry
Tatum
Brown
Embiid
Jokic
Luka
Lebron
Durant
Draymond
Curry
Tatum
Brown
Embiid
Jokic
Luka
Lebron
Durant
Draymond
I AM WARHOL
Veteran
I fukk with Ja. Was my dark house mvp pick last year. Still ain’t better than Trae tho. I will say he has higher upside tho cause his physical tools. He could take another leap if that jumper is consistent. He’s a dog. If he does this more often I’ll have to move him above my boy. But you know Trae got a 50-10 in him on the way
IIVI
Superstar
Zion prediction looking good 
Still confident in my KAT prediction. T-Wolves are a team that needs to hit their stride and you'll see some terrific basketball.
Embiid
Still confident in my KAT prediction. T-Wolves are a team that needs to hit their stride and you'll see some terrific basketball.
Embiid
FukkaPaidEmail
Retired Hoodrat whisperer
It's about time you put some respect on Temetrius Jamel Morant's name
I was wrong .LeBron casually led the league in scoring at 37, while still giving you his career average in rebounds and assists.
LeBron is still the best all around and most versatile player in the NBA
No one combines the size, strength, speed, vision, scoring ability and consistency that man gives you on a night in, night out basis.
He's still top 2 or 3 in the NBA, period.
If AD remains healthy this season, he'll be a top 5 player. Who he kicks out of the top 10, I don't know
We're gonna have to have a discussion sooner rather than later.
We're gonna have to have a discussion sooner rather than later.
Interesting word choice there, discussion, when every single one of you nikkas that clutched your pearls at this post haven’t came up with a SINGLE retort to anything I said.
You can’t and I know you can’t. Y’all think we’re talking about the Lakers when we’re talking about LEBRON. All of you use TEAM sucess when judging individual players and it’s the stupidest thing in the NBA fandom. It’s why rings constantly get brought up, why people erroneously conflate player impact with winning games and why we sit here and discuss MJ vs LeBron all day even though LeBron is clearly a better all around player.
Y’all think the TEAM’s successes or failures are how you judge a player, and that’s why you people think a 38 year old that just scored 30.2 PPG on 53% shooting has “fallen off”, because you’re judging him by his team’s failures.
I’m used to that though. I’ve made many seemingly spicy comments on my channel, have had tens of millions of people view those comments and have YET to be corrected on any analysis I’ve made in my career.
Not ONCE.
I does this analysis shyt, that’s why y’all test me so frequently on this board even though I’m Coli Class of ‘22
I’m always waiting for that discussion homie.
I been waiting 4 days nikka, where y’all at
I debunked your whole shyt and you didn't even bothering responding to me (it's not the first time either). Stop trying to fake it in front of folks.
The problem with you is, you don't quite understand hoops.
You run to the box score and make up a narrative that aligns with your confirmation bias.
Team success does matter, no matter which way you wanna slice it. You're only saying this because Bron hasn't been winning over the last 2-3 seasons; you'd be singing a different tune if the Lakers had won a championship and/or went deep into the playoffs recently. You'd be using it in your arguments to prop him up over his peers. Save this vague ass MJ v. Bron / rings talk for the next man. These tired ass talking points that you're using are only to cover up for the fact you can't debate past some surface level Casual discourse.
Players should be ranked on their current ability to impact winning and perform in high-stakes moments, therefore, winning should be part of the equation when comparing players. Whether you want to admit it or not, Bron isn't the same player he once was, and that's okay. That doesn't dilute his all-time ranking, it just means he's not as highly ranked currently in the game. I get you're a stan, but you have to learn to separate the two.
For the millionth time - the game isn't played in the box score.
Just because he averaged 30 ppg doesn't mean he's better than someone who averaged fewer x-amount of points on similar efficiency. And just because he averages a specific amount of points doesn't mean his game hasn't declined either. He averaged more points last season than he did at any point during his Miami tenure, but nobody in their right mind would argue he was a better player in 2021-22 than he was in Miami.
This is why the appropriate context needs to be applied.
I've told you this before, but as remarkable as his game has aged, a good portion of his offensive possessions last season came during low-stakes moments, meaning when he was scoring, it wasn't during the competitive flow of the game; i.e. when the Lakers were down by double-digits, or against second units, or when the contest of the game wasn't hanging in the balance. It's the reason why the Lakers barely won 30 games.
My nxgga, you need to get your head outta your own shyt.
I say this respectfully, but you have some of the most Casual analysis I've come across. It's painfully obvious you don't know the game like that, and you've likely convinced yourself what you're saying is true to keep up appearances, even when someone has checked your shyt (which I did in this very thread and you didn't respond).
I see what the problem is.
Gil, I had you on ignore up until a few days before I came to Japan. We had some older beef when I first joined this site, and I figured it was better if I didn't see what you had to say. Here is the evidence:
I took you off ignore because I kept seeing you dapping shyt in that other thread we were chopping it up in with CantStop. As you can see, you and I have something of a tenuous relationship on this board.
I made the post I made in THIS thread WAY before I un-ignored you, so I literally didn't see your response when it was made. I've been in the air, and vlogging while I'm in Tokyo my dude. This is why y'all haven't seen me posting in the Laker game threads recently, and I'm only here now because I finished my tat and can now edit my videos.
What makes it worse is your double post, responding to my comment TWICE. Since I didn't see the first response, I assumed that was your *only* response to what I wrote. Because I wouldn't expect a nikka to be so goofy as to respond to something I said twice.
But now you have my attention.
And you have fukked up.
I'm about to get medieval on your ass.
First of all, I've forgotten more basketball games than you've ever watched. Nikka, I am a legit hooper in real life (or rather, I was), and had offers to play pro basketball overseas before my injury derailed my hooping career, and careened me into YouTube. Prior to that, I lived, breathed and ate basketball, and I still do, to a certain extent. I just don't play anymore, but I watch every game I can.
I was literally on the tattoo table, in a different country, on a different time schedule, getting an excruciating tattoo done, and was STILL watching the Lakers get smacked by the Nuggets LIVE:
One thing you WILL NOT do is question whether or not I understand hoops
nikka, you talk about motion offense, I RAN IT. You watch game winners, I SHOT EM.
So you can miss me with this bullshyt, 'cause I'm on camera actually hooping regulation ball, from 2003 to 2013. Knock it THE fukk off.
This is one of the stupidest arguments you people parrot on this board, and it's only ever done because you literally cannot refute numbers.
The issue with this talking point, is I ACTUALLY WATCH BASKETBALL. Religiously.
I only ever point to the numbers because in a debate ONLINE, I cannot show you anything else. I can talk about what I SAW until I'm blue in the face, but the one thing I've noticed since I've become an online personality, is that people respect evidence, especially hard evidence that cannot be altered in some fashion.
I have literally spent MONTHS arguing with this bytch ass nikka Civic about the shape of the Earth, and this mofo refuses to accept anything but hard evidence for semi-abstract concepts. What I'm saying is, I will only ever talk numbers when a point HAS to be proven.
My ENTIRE thing is to follow the evidence, where ever that takes me. I have a track record on this board, and my channel that proves this. Saying I have a narrative is hilarious and ludicrous-- I literally stated Nikola is a player I will not argue against, in favor of LeBron. That is CONSISTENCY nikka, fukk outta here!
And the only reason you are saying team success matters IN A FUKKING DISCUSSION ABOUT WHO IS THE BEST PLAYER, is because it benefits your terrible, borderline obsessive talking points for Curry.
I have been saying the same thing about LeBron since 2006, when my favorite player was still Mike Bibby-- LeBron is the best player in the game. The eye test matches his numbers. It's been irrefutable for the past 16 years, family. Nobody can do what he does, and for this long. All these players that got named are at least 6 years younger than him, with far less miles, and he's STILL outshining 99% of that list. That's just facts.
LeBron is a better passer than everyone on that list, including Nikola who is probably the second best passer in the NBA: what numbers support that argument? Joker clearly averages more assists than Bron, so how am I using numbers to justify that? I literally cannot.
You see why this is nonsensical? How can an argument that can be REFUTED by numbers be BASED on numbers?
Stupid.
Winning can only happen when the rest of the team plays a part, my nikka. That's what YOU ARE NOT GETTING, and is entirely why your argument falls flat. LeBron could average 55 PPG (something no one in the history of the sport has ever done) and that STILL wouldn't be enough for the Lakers to beat another cohesive team, because the league averages over 100 PPG, meaning his team needs to account for more than 40-50 points.
LeBron could lose every single game out of 82, but if he's scoring 55 PPG, he's the best player in the NBA, period. Because that's all we're talking about.
Your argument is that because OTHER PLAYERS put Curry, Giannis, and Tatum in a position to succeed, they should be considered better players than Bron. That logic is fukking insane.
A player cannot impact a game if the rest of the team gives them nothing to impact.
You know as well as I do the Lakers' problem is not LeBron. It's the TEAM. You put Bron on any contender, they'll still be contenders and probably the favorites. Put Curry, Jokic, Giannis, or Durant on the Lakers, and they remain the same team, or in some cases, get worse, since Bron is the Lakers' true point guard, and Giannis, Joker, nor Durant could handle those duties.
That's rich coming from the nikka that can't accept Curry is nowhere near the player LeBron is, and never will be.
I haven't stated anything about Bron still being 2013 Miami, or even 2018 Bron. My point is that Bron is still the measuring stick for the league. He's still the best player driving to the basket, right now, and in history. He's still the best passer in the game. He's averaging 30 (last year) and 25 this year, as a 37/38 year old. Y'all not ready for the real conversation, which is LeBron's team is making him look worse than his actual performance.
This year, the nikka can't hit a shot, but he's jackin because his team can't shoot, so he feel like he need to. Last year? Bron was water from three. He shot 36% on 8 attempts per game. But because THIS team is actually the worst shooting team in league history so far, he's altering his game to compensate. He's wrong to do this, but the point I'm making is the team is having an effect.
What Curry do when his guys were banged up in 2020?
Oh, missed the play-in, at the hands of LeBron no less. But your argument is going to be that Curry didn't have his guys right?
Exactly
When Bron puts up numbers due to lack of scoring from his teammates, he's stat padding, getting numbers in garbage time, or anything else to diminish his accomplishments at this stage of his career.
When he's not scoring, he's washed up, lost a step, "not the same player he once was", etc. The nikka can't do right from doing wrong.
When Curry did the SAME shyt in 2020, what you say about him? Were those numbers empty? Was he not the same player? You forget Curry has the luxury of having competency around him.
Take him off that team, and put him on LAL. He'd be JAG. Put Bron on the Warriors, and they're a different team, but still clearly successful. That's why he's the better player.
This is a strawman. That's not even my fukking argument, you goddamn clown.
I laid out a case against every player people think should be ahead of Bron on a top 10 list. In nearly every single point, I spoke about how LeBron matches up against them in every aspect of the game. It wasn't just PPG, it was assists, rebounding, defense, win shares, etc.
If you're not better than LeBron in more statistics than he is better at than you, you're not a better basketball player than him. I'm sorry you don't like actual evidence, but that's all we got.
You cannot look at Player A, see they're averaging 30/8/9 and look at Player B put up 21/4/5 and say they're better than Player A because their TEAM record is better.
You literally have nothing to justify that. If there is no evidence to support your claim, your claim is FALSE. Period. Those are arguments based on feelings, and bytches, morons and the religious argue with feelings. You have no evidence to back your claim up.
And that's the problem with your reading comprehension-- I made the case with MULTIPLE pieces of evidence, genius.
2022 Bron had less steals, less assists, less games played, more turnovers, less efficient from 2 and 3, and shot a worse FG% than 2013 Bron, who scored a similar amount of points (27 vs 30) but had better teammates and coaching.
So you see, my argument STILL HOLDS.
Just like you holding this L
You don't watch hoops like that, otherwise, I would've seen you in threads discussing the game, but you only post about Bron-Lakers. You treat the NBA as a vessel for your Bron fandom, as it it were a comic-book and he's the superhero; everything else is just background contrast to put him center frame.
For starters, box score numbers aren't the only statistics out there, and they were only ever created to show a generalization of the game. They were never intended to create a detailed account of what happened, after all, the traditional box score was created during the sport's infancy, where there wasn't a great understanding of the game.
Now, you have all kinds of different stats, situational and specific, that account for a greater reflection of what's happening on the floor.
I've seen you constantly highlight FG%, but that is an outdated measurement, and doesn't account for actual efficiency. eFG%, for instance, weighs up two-point shots and three-point shots in a relative manner to get a direct efficiency on points per shot. You've got TS% which takes into account two-point shots, three-point shots and freethrows. You've got contested/uncontested rebounds, which show if a player's rebound activity is from actually competing for boards against opposition players, or if they're rebounds where the opposition isn't even in the vicinity.
You have all these other stats which are more appropriate measurements of the game; there are many stats out there, and the box score stats are the least meaningful ones. And for the record, you can refute numbers, particularly if those numbers aren't contextualized properly, which you have a habit of not practicing.
There's a difference between empirical/factual evidence of the shape of the Earth, and stats for basketball. There is no alternative to the Earth's shape, there is, however, many ways in which you can weigh up impact in basketball. As I need to keep reiterating to you, box score stats are an outdated scale on what's happening on the floor. There are an infinite amount of actions that happen in a game that aren't recorded in the traditional box score, and just because they're recorded in the box score doesn't mean they're actions more important or impactful as ones that aren't.
Take this for instance:
x-player gets accredited with a rebound on a possession
y-player gets accredited with nothing on a possession
Now, all x-player did during that possession was grab an [uncontested] rebound where literally no opposition player was within 12ft of him, but y-player stayed on the ball-handler's hip for the large majority of the possession, fighting through multiple screens, cutting off the ball-handler from driving down the lane, and then forcing him to pick up the ball, throwing an errant pass to a player in the corner, with the shotclock winding down, forcing him into a rushed shot which barely grazed rim. While in the process of the shot, y-player sprints to the opposite elbow to box out the closest man to the ball on the rebound opportunity.
Why is it you put all this weight into a box score stat rebound, when x-player didn't really do anything of significance and importance during that possession, yet y-player was the one who had the most impact?
Take this for instance:
x-player gets accredited with an assist on a possession
y-player gets accredited with nothing on a possession
Now, y-player runs off two screens to shake loose of his defender, gets the ball and breaks down another defender, goes baseline, forcing a further two opposition players to flood his space, and throws a cross-court pass to x-player behind the arc, who throws a simple pass to a teammate within proximity, in the corner, who makes the shot.
Why is it you put all this weight into a box score stat assist, when y-player's actions was what actually created the field goal?
If your thing is to follow the evidence, than you wouldn't be using box score stats in the manner that you do. You'd use other stats instead, and you'd use those stats in junction with the accompanying tape. It's painfully obvious that because you only post about Bron, and you treat him as if he's the protagonist in this narrative of fiction, that you aren't paying attention to other players/teams.
I couldn't give a fukk about your channel. It means nothing to me. Why do you keep bringing it up as if it has currency on this board?
Please, nxgga, do not talk about obsession when you only post about Bron. Do not stab yourself with your own sword of self-awareness (lack thereof).
Team success matters, otherwise, anyone could say any player is better than any player, regardless of their contributions to winning/losing. The objective of the game is to win, therefore, the players that perform to that standard and affect the game to where they put their team in a position to win should be ranked higher than ones that aren't, in general. It's one of the many things that should be weighed up when comparing players. Players that perform in high-stakes moments to carry their respective team deep into the playoffs should be valued as such, and players that don't, do not have that added to their value.
You're speaking like it shouldn't matter, at all, which is patently ridiculous, and you're only arguing that because Bron is no longer in that position. If he won the title last season, you'd be using that in argument for where he ranked.
It is NOT irrefutable.
There are a handful of players that have been better than Bron over the past 2-3 seasons, both in ability and what they've proven (both during the regular season and playoffs). The problem is, you've put him on this pedestal where your confirmation bias won't allow you to see anyone who's not only matched him, but surpassed him. You're using his longevity as an extra weight, when that has no bearing on current player rankings.
It doesn't matter how long he's done it for, all it matters is the now, and how he compares. He doesn't get extra points for having extra mileage or being at the top for longer than anyone else (that only matters in an all-time context, but not when you compare who's the best today).
In one breath, you're hanging your argument on "hard evidence" of the box score stats, and that nobody can refute them, but in the next breath, you're gone against that logic by saying Bron is a better passer than anyone else on that list despite the fact he doesn't average the most assists.LeBron is a better passer than everyone on that list, including Nikola who is probably the second best passer in the NBA: what numbers support that argument? Joker clearly averages more assists than Bron, so how am I using numbers to justify that? I literally cannot.
You see why this is nonsensical? How can an argument that can be REFUTED by numbers be BASED on numbers?
Stupid.
Please show me these numbers where you believe he's the best passer? I wanna see "hard evidence" that you use for other arguments to support Bron's case. I wanna see the numbers.
Luka and Jokic average more assists than Bron, therefore, they are better at passing. You can't refute the numbers.
I can tell you've never had anyone really check you on your shyt. You're ability to debate and make coherent points is non-existent.
If Bron were to average that amount of points and his team lost every game, it would be an obvious case of him padding his scoring numbers. It would be a case of him staying in the frontcourt for the entirety of the game, cherry-picking, and never crossing half-court to get back on defense, and therefore, he wouldn't be the best player in the league, he just be someone who was shamelessly stat-padding.
I make this literal deduction to show you that nothing is ever created equal.
Just because x-player averages 20 points and y-player averages 20 points, both on similar efficiency doesn't mean they're equal scorers. x-player could be scoring the majority of his points in the half-court against set defenses, leading the league in clutch scoring efficiency, and y-player could be scoring the majority of his points on the break or against scrambled defenses.
Just because Bron is averaging how many points doesn't = him being that level of a scorer.
As you keep ignoring, the Lakers were not a competitive team last season, so a good portion of Bron's possessions were during the flow of the game where opposition teams didn't have their full-strength lineups on the floor and/or periods in which the opposition teams eased up after being up by double-digits. Bron was not primarily scoring in back-and-forth sequences against the best lineups with the Lakers being competitive.
There's also the point of what a player is doing to elevate those around him, which waters can be murky when evaluating, but it's something that Bron hasn't been renown for over the last 2-3 seasons, and his reluctance to defend consistently and not embrace a system on offense (to help others play to their strengths) has been a key factor in that.
What's really insane is that you somehow have removed the success a player has with his team from any player rankings. That's what is fukking insane.
You're choosing to believe that other players can't possibly be better than Bron, that it's solely because they have better teammates. You're choosing to believe that other players can't possibly be put in better positions to perform through the efforts of those top-ranked players. Just look at how Wiggins is performing since he went to GS, and how he was perceived when he was in Minnesota. The difference is night and day, and that's largely down to Steph. Look at all the players who've gone to GS and played the best ball of their careers.
If Wiggins was traded to LA instead, he would be this caliber of player that we're now seeing? Most probably not. He wouldn't even get remotely the same time on-the-ball, and he wouldn't get the same space and easy scoring opportunities playing alongside Bron.
If you're not taking your team to the playoffs, and making deep postseason runs (an environment that exposes all flaws), than how can you have an argument for being a better player than someone else who regularly does, in general manner of speaking? Do you not think a player's performance in the playoffs should be valued, at all, when defenses are at their highest concentration, your tank is on its reserves, you're being schemed for, and you're playing the best lineups due to shortened rotations?
We've seen how Harden's play drops off in the playoffs - do you not take that into account when ranking him? Do you not think that players that can elevate their play and show up in those high-stakes moments during the playoffs should be ranked higher? Do you believe players who prove they can perform at an elite level right through the regular season and postseason don't have greater cases for players that don't?
Does that not matter to you?
Last edited:
The Lakers would be a better team with Jokic and Giannis (and an argument can be made for KD too), only because the structuring of the team either matches or closely resembles Bron position and role. If you could restructure the team with the same amount of talent, than the Lakers would be better with Steph too.
Conversely, you put Bron on the Nuggets instead of Jokic, they're not winning 50 games last season. You put Bron on the Warriors instead of Steph and they're not winning the championship last season.
It's a reductive way to compare players, anyway. You can't cross-match players to different teams in that manner to state anything of worth.
I've already debunked all your nonsense about Steph, and you didn't even bother responding in the end.
Steph is the better player currently, and no amount of hyperbolizing of Bron's play is going to change that. And so he should be, Bron is near the end of his career and isn't the player he once was; there's no shame in not being better than arguably a top-10 player ever, who's still in relatively peak condition/form (which Bron is not in). There'll come a time where Steph's prime years are over, and other players who be better than him too.
Nothing lasts forever.
But your point is because Bron's averaging x-amount of points, it means he's better than players who aren't averaging the same amount of points, when Bron, himself, didn't average the same amount of points in Miami. Otherwise, what was the point in bringing up you believing he led the league in scoring when talking about who's the best? What is it you're possibly saying by bringing up his ppg? Is he a better player than the rest because he averages more points?
You keep on bringing up his age as if that's somehow relevant. It doesn't mean a cotdamn thing. Players are ranked irrespective of their age; you don't get extra points just because you can do something at a younger or older age to the majority. Your argument about Bron's ranking is almost entirely made up of fanaticism and hero worship, rather than anything that is objective and of reason. You keep on highlighting what Bron has done in the league, how long he's done it for, his age, and all these other factors which have little to no relevance when ranking players.
We're not talking about where Bron sits all-time. We're talking about where he sits in today's league. They're two completely different things.
You mean the season when Draymond was playing banged up for most of the year (due to the mileage he put up over the last half a decade), Klay out for the entire season, and Steph had G-League caliber teammates? How is that even remotely the same thing? Just look at how bad the Warriors were when Steph wasn't on the floor in 2021 -What Curry do when his guys were banged up in 2020?
Oh, missed the play-in, at the hands of LeBron no less. But your argument is going to be that Curry didn't have his guys right?
Exactly
When Bron puts up numbers due to lack of scoring from his teammates, he's stat padding, getting numbers in garbage time, or anything else to diminish his accomplishments at this stage of his career.
When he's not scoring, he's washed up, lost a step, "not the same player he once was", etc. The nikka can't do right from doing wrong.
When Curry did the SAME shyt in 2020, what you say about him? Were those numbers empty? Was he not the same player? You forget Curry has the luxury of having competency around him.
"The 2021 Warriors are the worst team in the NBA when Steph isn't on the court. And those numbers are still inflated, because Steph is already carrying the majority of the Wiseman minutes, and playing against the other team's best players. If we take Steph off this team, we may be looking at, far and away, the worst team in basketball.
Worse Than 2020?
The 2021 Warriors are 1-7 without Steph. This is perhaps unsurprising--the 2020 Warriors went 14-46 without him. What probably is surprising though, is that this team might be even worse:
- Warriors with Steph: 114 Off Rating (13th), +2.1 Net (10th)
- 2021 W/o Steph: 102.2 Off Rating (30th), -8.9 Net (30th)
- 2020 Warriors: 105.2 Off Rating (30th), -8.6 Net (30th)"
Why not bring up Steph did last season, where both Klay and Dray were out for half the season, and were shells of their former selves when they did return, and yet Steph still managed to carry the team to a top-record and led them to another title? If Bron is as great as you think he is, why couldn't he do the same? He's a better player than Steph, right?
The fact of the matter is, Steph makes his teammates better and makes more out of his situation than Bron currently does. Until Bron proves he can get back to the stage/level, than there's no use trying to compare whatever Steph didn't do a few years ago, when he proved last season he could still lead a team to a championship. You're speaking like Steph is still in the same position that Bron has been over the last 2-3 years. Of course, if Steph wasn't leading his team to the top, and was loitering around in the lottery, that would affect his ranking.
It's pointless bringing up whatever it is you think he didn't do two seasons ago, when he showed what he's capable of last season. If Bron turned it around this season in the same manner, than we'd recalibrate the rankings to account for that. That's how it works.
It's an entirely different situation too. Steph was 32 during that season, so it was less about his game falling off, and more about the situation of the team, whereas Bron is closing in on 40, so he's not going to get the same benefit of the doubt, because he's not at that stage of his career where he can just turn it back on the following season.
Except that wasn't "every aspect of the game".
You just used box score stats. Not only are those measurements red herrings, but they're only about 1/10000000000000th of all the aspects of the game. You don't even know what Win Shares are, let alone have the capacity to contextualize them properly. Or are you going to tell me Bron's 7.5 Win Shares matches up with Jokic's 15.2 Win Shares (more than double) last season? Defense? You mean the the non-existent defense he was playing last season because of his age and need to conserve energy for offense?
Who do you think you're fooling? Yourself?
You went through and cherry-picked surface level stats that don't accurately reflect impact, and you manipulated them to put Bron in a better light.
Let's take this for example -
"The only metric Giannis beats LeBron is total rebounds per game (11.6 to 8.2), which he should, because he's a seven footer and not a perimeter player, even though he wants to be and spends a significant amount of time out there. LeBron beats him in points, assists, free throws, steals and has a similar number of blocks (1.1 to 1.4). You really cannot make a case for Giannis being better than LeBron offensively, and you have to turn to the defensive side, which I would give the nod to Giannis. At its absolute worst, this is a barely even matchup."
What you're doing here is attributing one point per box score stat, and using the logic of Bron beating him in "points, assists, free throws and steals" that therefore means he's tallied more points by averaging higher numbers in each box score stats criteria. This is how I'd expect someone who's of an adolescent age to argue about the game. You say that's a straw man argument, but here you are actually using the fact that Bron averaged more points than Giannis in the argument that he's the better player.
Notice how your complete ignorance of any corresponding context is displayed in all it's ugliness on this matter too:
Giannis - 29.9 PPG on 63 TS%
Bron - 30.3 PPG on 62 TS%
Their scoring is essentially identical on a surface level.
Even if you were to dumb this down to "Lebron beating him in points", it's patently ridiculous to stress this when there's a minimal difference between their respective PPG and efficiency last season. You had the nerve to say they had a similar amount of blocks to prop up Bron averaging fewer, but didn't do the same for them averaging similar amount of points, assists and steals. How the fukk are you gonna make such a big deal out of a marginal difference that Bron gives up in blocks, but then act like it's not the same for what Giannis gives up in other areas?
You even added the caveat of Giannis being a "seven footer and not a perimeter player" that he should be averaging more rebounds than Bron, to dilute the fact he was averaging more rebounds, but didn't apply the same logic to Bron averaging more assists because he's a perimeter player who has a higher time of possession.
It's completely dishonest analysis, and anyone who operates in this manner shouldn't be trusted discussing hoops.
This is because you don't get hoops.
You need to start actually watching games and start looking at statistics which are more accurate of on-court impact, and not box score stats that were created simply for giving a general overlook of the game. Furthermore, being better in more statistics, regardless if they're in the box score or not is inconsequential. That's not how the game works. It's not a competition of who can be better at more statistics; it's a competition of who can impact the game more.
If you're using points, rebounds, assists etc to compare players on a tally, than you're only fooling yourself. Nobody else.
Only respond to my posts once you're willingly to acknowledge this error in your judgement.
Last edited:
Lemme just end this by putting the final nail in your coffin.
- Here you are saying that this current version of Bron isn't as good as he was in Miami
- Here you saying "if you're not better than LeBron in more statistics than he is better than you, you're not a better basketball player than him".
2013-14 Bron:
27 PPG
6.9 rebounds
6.3 assists
1.6 steals
0.3 blocks
37 minutes per game
2021-22 Bron:
30 PPG
8.2 rebounds
6.2 assists
1.3 steals
1.1 blocks
37 minutes per game.
Quite clearly, going by your methodology of being better in more statistics = being the better player, that Bron was better a player last season than he was during his last season in Miami.
In fact, you'll find that his box score stats were overall greater last season than the majority of his seasons over the last decade.
You still how stuck your logic has become?
And here's another one -
2020-21 Giannis:
28 PPG
11 rebounds
6 assists
1.2 steals
1.2 blocks
2020-21 Bron:
25 ppg
7.7 rebounds
7.8 assists
1.1 steals
0.6 blocks
Giannis has him beat in every box score stat, except for assists, which is marginal.
Again, quite clearly, going by your methodology of being better in more statistics = being the better player, that Giannis was a better player that Bron that season, yet why do you believe that Bron is still the superior player? Did Giannis somehow get worse and Bron get better since 2021? If you believe Bron is the better player now, why wasn't Giannis better than him in '21?
And here's yet another one -
2020-21 Luka:
27.7 PPG
8 rebounds
8.6 assists
1.0 steals
0.5 blocks
2020-21 Bron:
25 ppg
7.7 rebounds
7.8 assists
1.1 steals
0.6 blocks
Luka has him beat in every box score stat, except for blocks and steals, which are near-identical.
Again, quite clearly, going by your methodology of being better in more statistics = being the better player, that Luka was a better player that Bron that season, yet why do you believe that Bron is still the superior player? Did Luka somehow get worse and Bron get better since 2021? If you believe Bron is the better player now, why wasn't Luka better than him in '21?
