The Indy Talks To Himself (NBA) Thread.

Perhaps more simply, I don’t think the quality of the “team/teammates” is fully independent from what the star is doing. “Better teammates” also often results in fewer numbers/points to go around, and the inverse is just as true.

 

If the Lakers make the playoffs and advance through some rounds, will this mean James' same performance would now be good?

 

Putting up 32 a night on a 60-win team is more meaningful than doing it on a 30-win team, which is how MVP voting has been forever. The Bucks/Warriors win 60 games because of Giannis and Curry, not because of their supporting casts.

If LeBron puts up 32 and 10 and they win a title, yes that’s obviously more meaningful, but he won’t, because AD will be back and putting up 27/11 himself.

 

It also wouldn’t be the same performance IMO; maybe the same points per game, but he’d almost certainly be defending better, turning it over less and doing other things better for them to actually be winning games. Surface stats lie in the NBA more than probably any other sport and are always viewed through the filter of winning; just looking at stats gets you results like Russ winning an MVP he doesn’t deserve.

 

Curry is a good example, because his shooting opens up the floor dramatically for the rest of his team and allows them to flourish in really easy situations in a way that will never be captured by points per game or FG%. Those stats in a vacuum aren’t telling you who the best players are.

Trae Young is the league’s second-leading scorer, ahead of Curry in both points and assists I’m sure; that doesn’t mean he’s “better” and would win a bunch of rings if you just swapped them.

 

Where have you been this entire time? Have you met my good friend Uni?

 

But the Lakers aren't that kind of bad. They're a .500 team and firmly in the play in game. And that's without LeBron James for 12 of their 38 games, without AD for 11 of the 38, and with an entirely new roster around them that hasn't been given any time to mesh yet. I don't think anyone is arguing they're a top tier team right now, but they're also not anywhere close to something like the 2010 Timberwolves who went 15-67.

 

It's just amazing how every argument can flipped backwards and still mean the same thing, when it comes to LeBron James. Almost as if there are a lot of bad arguments against him.

 

The example of Curry is HILARIOUS. The Warriors went 39-33 last season, and Curry received the 2nd most 1st place votes for MVP.

If the Warriors win 60 games because of Curry, why did they go 39-33 last season?

 

Despite the fact that you don’t need any bad or made up arguments to arrive at MJ>Lebron, a good chunk of the people that believe it do so anyway. Also doesn’t help that he’s a better guy than MJ but is just not very likeable at all.

 

If they didn’t, why are they 29-7 now? Jordan Poole?

This was all kind of beside my point anyway. In his first MVP season Curry scored 23 a game and was behind Russ in basically every surface-level statistical category. Does that mean Russ was better? Is Trae Young better now?

 

The argument makes no sense. It is circular. It means you can make any player bad just by putting them on a bad team... So it isn't really an individual measurement at all. Absolutely preposterous logic. Like saying Michael Jordan became a worse player by being on the Wizards.

 

Bron is turning the ball over less this season than he has in any season since his second year in his second stint in Cleveland (2015-2016).

Can't really speak to the defense. The whole team is bad defensively. But LeBron doesn't get credit for defense even when he plays it well (See 2020-21 season).

I agree that it can't just be stats, but the efficiency stats aren't the same thing. He's shooting a higher FT%, higher FG%, and higher 3pt% than usual. That all matters, but I haven't seen you acknowledge it in any of your posts.

 

Only circular if you believe the fallacy that individual performance and team/teammate performance are completely divorced from each other

 

If they were 39-33 with Curry last season, and they are 29-7 with him so far this season, doesn't that suggest that something other than Curry is making a difference? Curry is constant on both teams.

 

Oh, there are good arguments for Jordan, I think the two are way closer than many on either side wish to admit. That's how the bad arguments can creep in, as they are trying to find clear daylight where perhaps there is not much to find. They are very different players. Makes it tough.

 

Let's say I get put on a team with both Lebron James and Michael Jordan. Did I just become a better basketball player? By your logic, yes.

 

They were 15-50 without Curry the year before, so who do you think is making the biggest difference? It’s not Andrew Wiggins

 

I would like an explanation for how Curry got 2nd in MVP voting last year despite being on a 39-33 team. What were his advanced stats? His PER was 26.37, lower than LeBron this season. What was his WS/48 min?

Why is it preposterous to say LeBron deserves consideration for MVP this season (I haven't said that) but Curry can get the 2nd most 1st place votes last season?

 

Your stats got better because you now have a ton of open 3s, which is why Mo Williams made an All-Star team and Mario Chalmers looked good for a minute before promptly being out of the league once LeBron left