2017-18 NBA Thread

[Tim]

How can you leave Cleveland out when LeBron has beaten the Warriors sans KD?

[MrCrowesGarden]

I pose the question thinking you have to do your best to go star for star with Golden State, which is why I took New Orleans and Houston to give you four (if you want to say you're not sure what Boogie will be, that's fair). I realize Lebron is a superduperstar, but my thought was AD+Boogie (and Jrue to a lesser extent) > Lebron and Love.

[Socnorb11]

How can you leave Cleveland out when LeBron has beaten the Warriors sans KD?

No way you leave Cleveland out. I'm not sure what else Lebron has to do to prove that he, almost by himself, can lead a team to the finals. No other player in the NBA has shown the ability to do that.

[33anda3rd]

I'd leave LeBron out because in combining two teams to beat the Dubs you have to play your best basketball on both ends of the floor and Cleveland was defense-optional all season and while LeBron was awesome this year it was arguably his worst defensive season, with last year being the second worst, so there's a bit of a trend there. Everything I would gain from adding LeBron on offense, and especially in leadership and intelligence, I'd lose on defense and everywhere else from not having any other player to add from that team. Adding LeBron to a lot of teams might make them Finals teams (including teams like Philly and Miami) but I don't think adding Cleveland to another team, even if it's just LeBron and Love, makes another team good enough to beat the Dubs in a 7-game series. Especially on defense. That's why I picked two teams who I could combine to run very deep and switch on screen plays on both ends for a full 48 minutes.

I'd ask: how can you do this and not take the Celtics so you get Stevens as head coach and Ainge as GM? Broncos, you yourself said you'd take Stevens over Giannis if you were building a franchise so I assume this is a thing you can get behind. You're also in the "Well Houston is 2-2 with the Dubs so they must be....." camp, and BOS is up 3-2 on LeBron so I'd guess you like Boston more than LeBron, no?

Re "Well Houston is 2-2 with the Dubs right now, so.....", that's fair enough, but if they played this series 50 times how many is Houston legitimately good for winning it? 5? How often have you seen the Dubs score 12 points in a playoffs fourth quarter? How often have you seen them have as many mental breakdowns as they did two nights ago? Did they do that because Houston is some kind of juggernaut ready to take over the Best Team In The League mantle, or did the Dubs just have a bad 15 minutes? Houston is good enough that they can win by a few when Golden State plays its worst basketball for 15 minutes at the end and 4 minutes at the beginning of a game, and Houston is good enough that they can beat the Dubs when PJT and Gordon can't miss, but if we run this series 50 times the Dubs win at least 45 of them.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Everything I would gain from adding LeBron on offense, and especially in leadership and intelligence, I'd lose on defense and everywhere else from not having any other player to add from that team.

It baffles me that people can still think this.

[33anda3rd]

Everything I would gain from adding LeBron on offense, and especially in leadership and intelligence, I'd lose on defense and everywhere else from not having any other player to add from that team.

It baffles me that people can still think this.

How so? I mean, if you're talking about combining two teams, would you rather have:
1. LeBron and maybe Love but almost certainly no other Cavs.
2. All those awesome Celtics two-way guys + Stevens.
3. Kawhi + a few other Spurs.

If it's "add one player", sure, I'll take LeBron. But I wouldn't take LeBron alone over Smart + Rozier + Kyrie + Hayward + Horford + Tatum + Marcus Morris. Or Kawhi + LMA + Danny Green + Gay + a couple other Spurs rotation guys. LeBron can't do it all alone. He tries, bless him, and he's the greatest, but he's only won three rings in eight trips to the Finals, and has fallen to teams like the Spurs and Dubs and Mavs.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Everything I would gain from adding LeBron on offense, and especially in leadership and intelligence, I'd lose on defense and everywhere else from not having any other player to add from that team.

It baffles me that people can still think this.

How so? I mean, if you're talking about combining two teams, would you rather have:
1. LeBron and maybe Love but almost certainly no other Cavs.
2. All those awesome Celtics two-way guys + Stevens.
3. Kawhi + a few other Spurs.

If it's "add one player", sure, I'll take LeBron. But I wouldn't take LeBron alone over Smart + Rozier + Kyrie + Hayward + Horford + Tatum + Marcus Morris. Or Kawhi + LMA + Danny Green + Gay + a couple other Spurs rotation guys. LeBron can't do it all alone. He tries, bless him, and he's the greatest, but he's only won three rings in eight trips to the Finals, and has fallen to teams like the Spurs and Dubs and Mavs.

The answer is 1 and it is not particularly close. The answer to the question of 'which 2 teams do you combine to beat the Warriors' is asking the question 'which team do you add LeBron to in order to beat the Warriors', although LeBron's supporting cast does get a bit of a bum rap at times. The idea that guys like Smart, Marcus Morris, and Rudy Gay are so much better than the Korvers, Thompsons, and Smiths to make up for LeBron v. other team's star is silly.

[thrill]

Everything I would gain from adding LeBron on offense, and especially in leadership and intelligence, I'd lose on defense and everywhere else from not having any other player to add from that team.

It baffles me that people can still think this.

How so? I mean, if you're talking about combining two teams, would you rather have:
1. LeBron and maybe Love but almost certainly no other Cavs.
2. All those awesome Celtics two-way guys + Stevens.
3. Kawhi + a few other Spurs.

If it's "add one player", sure, I'll take LeBron. But I wouldn't take LeBron alone over Smart + Rozier + Kyrie + Hayward + Horford + Tatum + Marcus Morris. Or Kawhi + LMA + Danny Green + Gay + a couple other Spurs rotation guys. LeBron can't do it all alone. He tries, bless him, and he's the greatest, but he's only won three rings in eight trips to the Finals, and has fallen to teams like the Spurs and Dubs and Mavs.

The answer is 1 and it is not particularly close. The answer to the question of 'which 2 teams do you combine to beat the Warriors' is asking the question 'which team do you add LeBron to in order to beat the Warriors', although LeBron's supporting cast does get a bit of a bum rap at times. The idea that guys like Smart, Marcus Morris, and Rudy Gay are so much better than the Korvers, Thompsons, and Smiths to make up for LeBron v. other team's star is silly.

Correct.

[Socnorb11]

I'd ask: how can you do this and not take the Celtics so you get Stevens as head coach and Ainge as GM? Broncos, you yourself said you'd take Stevens over Giannis if you were building a franchise so I assume this is a thing you can get behind. You're also in the "Well Houston is 2-2 with the Dubs so they must be....." camp, and BOS is up 3-2 on LeBron so I'd guess you like Boston more than LeBron, no?

I actually considered this, only because of the Stevens factor.

Boston, as a team, is probably better than Cleveland. I think the point is that you don't need an entire team to combine with Houston. Honestly, Lebron alone probably puts them over the top (easily, in my opinion). Teams aren't winning championships because they have 8 or 9 great players. Teams are winning championships because they have 2 or 3 elite players, and a good supporting cast. For my money, Harden and Lebron are the 2 best players in the NBA right now (it's debatable, granted). Put Love, Capela and Chris Paul around them? Guys like Ariza and Korver are plenty good coming off the bench, relative to what Golden State has.

Houston won the season series with GS, 2 games to 1 (I know, regular season... blah blah blah). The 1 loss was a game that Harden didn't play in. Houston also won the Western Conference by 7 games. They're also likely to take the Warriors to 7 games in the current series, and could win it. If GS is better than Houston, it's not by much......... and it's fairly easy to make a case that they're pretty much dead even. You can make all sorts of excuses for GS (had a bad quarter, made mental mistakes, etc. etc. etc.), but much of that is because Houston is damn good, and GS is having to work their asses off on both ends of the floor....... which is something that they're not used to. Results matter.


Edit: Also, what TT said.

[thrill]

The most consistently overrated thing in sports is coaching. The media needs a narrative. Fans need an avatar.