The Cavs without Lebron

[tlance]

Nash had an all star caliber season the season before. Kobe and Dwight may have been an awful pairing, but they were still superstar players.

Agree. Not saying it was the Lakers fault, but he broke as soon as he hit LA.

 

[trojanfan12]

Agree. Not saying it was the Lakers fault, but he broke as soon as he hit LA.

Yeah, I honestly think that a lot of it was the pressure of the spotlight. Being "the man" in LA is a lot different than being "the man" in Orlando.

 

[Kold]

Starks a star? No way. He was a good player.

All of those teams you mentioned had 2 stars, and Pippen was better than their best guy in most cases. Malone is the only one that is almost surely better. Ewing and Barkley were comparable to Pip in star status. Stockton, Payton, Drexler, and Zo all somewhat below.

If you get into depth and benches, they might have had slightly more, by it didn't matter.

All this brings me back to my original point. Talent was not as concentrated on a few teams like it is today, so the best player (Jordan) always won. If Jordan played in an era when his main competitors had 4 of the top 12 players in the league, that might have been different. Jordan never faced a team like that. If he had, he probably would not have been 6-0 in the Finals.

But if Jordan plays in that type of era, for hypothetical purposes, the Bulls would be bolstered as well with that type of talent, thus meaning Jordan likely dominates anyways. This may be one that I'll agree to disagree on, but while we didn't have teams that were stacked back then, Jordan's teams were not stacked, or even deep. I guess where we disagree is the fact that I think it's a harder road to winning, when the league, or conference is more evened out, with no stacked teams, as opposed to being THE team in a conference and only having to worry about the Finals

 

[tlance]

But if Jordan plays in that type of era, for hypothetical purposes, the Bulls would be bolstered as well with that type of talent, thus meaning Jordan likely dominates anyways. This may be one that I'll agree to disagree on, but while we didn't have teams that were stacked back then, Jordan's teams were not stacked, or even deep. I guess where we disagree is the fact that I think it's a harder road to winning, when the league, or conference is more evened out, with no stacked teams, as opposed to being THE team in a conference and only having to worry about the Finals

Maybe, maybe not.

All I am saying is that it is a matter of opinion. 6-0 is not the end all be all that some make it out to be. It proves that the Bulls were the dominant team of the 90s. It does not prove that MJ is untouchable atop the GOAT list, but many argue that it does. It is the 6 that is impressive. The 0 doesn't do much for me.

 

[gordontrue]

It is the 6 that is impressive. The 0 doesn't do much for me.

 

[larryjohn]

Starks a star? No way. He was a good player.

...

Starks wasn't drafted and came out of the CBA. (D-League equivalent back in the late '80s.)

Hard to believe someone could come out of the D-League ... and become an All-Star.

 

[tlance]

Starks wasn't drafted and came out of the CBA. (D-League equivalent back in the late '80s.)

Hard to believe someone could come out of the D-League ... and become an All-Star.

Starks had a nice career, but if he was a star, then so were Horace Grant and Toni Kukoc.

 

[lebron23james]

How did the Showtime Lakers do when Magic didn't play?

In basketball, one player can make all the difference, even when there are other all-star caliber players on the team.

A teams record without it's best player doesn't matter when that player is only missing a game or 2 here and there.

I'd expect that if the Cavs were faced with losing Lebron for a significant period of time, they would adjust how they played, make some tweaks to their system, etc. and they would still make the playoffs if they were to lose him for the rest of the season.

I'd also bet that, in that type of situation, Lue wouldn't experiment with lineups as much as he does when Lebron only sits for a game. He'd pick a rotation and stick to it for consistencies sake.

Pretty much exactly what i was saying

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Pretty much exactly what i was saying

4-20 is ridiculously bad though

 

[lebron23james]

4-20 is ridiculously bad though

I will save it as an excuse if we don't win...

 

[trojanfan12]

Pretty much exactly what i was saying

The problem is that 24 games is getting to be a pretty big sample size and 4-20 is bad. Real bad. At some point, just out of professional pride, you'd think they'd step up.

Of course if they were forced to play without Lebron for an extended period they would adjust how they play and win a few more games. But they aren't winning any titles and look like they'd do well just to make the playoffs.

 

[tlance]

The problem is that 24 games is getting to be a pretty big sample size and 4-20 is bad. Real bad. At some point, just out of professional pride, you'd think they'd step up.

Of course if they were forced to play without Lebron for an extended period they would adjust how they play and win a few more games. But they aren't winning any titles and look like they'd do well just to make the playoffs.

These numbers are evidence of what i have been saying all along.

Kyrie is a very good player. So is Love. But, those guys are on the same level as players like Cousins, Melo, etc. They post elite numbers, but they have deficiencies in their games that limit their actual contribution to winning. They are valuable for sure, but LeBron James carries the Cavs. This stat is why the team jumping to join superstars talk is pretty silly.

If Kyrie is considered a superstar, he has LeBron James to thank for it. Wade was a superstar. Kyrie is merely a good player.

 

[trojanfan12]

Wade was a superstar. Kyrie is merely a good player.

You are gonna be in soooo much trouble when Wiggy see's this.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Melo's time is over. The dude is wide open and chokes....

 

[larryjohn]

Melo's time is over. The dude is wide open and chokes....

Apparently DWill will wear #31 for Cavs.

 

[lebron23james]

These numbers are evidence of what i have been saying all along.

Kyrie is a very good player. So is Love. But, those guys are on the same level as players like Cousins, Melo, etc. They post elite numbers, but they have deficiencies in their games that limit their actual contribution to winning. They are valuable for sure, but LeBron James carries the Cavs. This stat is why the team jumping to join superstars talk is pretty silly.

If Kyrie is considered a superstar, he has LeBron James to thank for it. Wade was a superstar. Kyrie is merely a good player.

If i cared enough i would have to dig deeper into the #'s. We know 9 of the games kevin love and or kyrie were out. How many were other players out like smith or shumpert? How many of these games were road games vs home games?

Kyrie is on the path to being a superstar. He was only 23 last year in winning his first championship. I expect he will keep improving. Love on the other hand is probably as good as he is going to get. I have seen on a lot of sports show debate on Kyrie being the future mvp of the league. If you ask the GS warriors, they were quick to point out how great kyrie was as well, when asked about lebron.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Kyrie is on the path to being a superstar. He was only 23 last year in winning his first championship. I expect he will keep improving. Love on the other hand is probably as good as he is going to get. I have seen on a lot of sports show debate on Kyrie being the future mvp of the league. If you ask the GS warriors, they were quick to point out how great kyrie was as well, when asked about lebron.

Nowhere close. Kyrie might possibly be a top 5 player in the future but he'll never have MVP status.

 

[tlance]

You are gonna be in soooo much trouble when Wiggy see's this.

It is all good. Won't see his response anyway.

 

[MHSL82]

A direct quote from ESPN:

"Coming into Monday night, the 76ers and Brooklyn Nets were tied for the worst record in the league at 7-22, a paltry .241 winning percentage. Meanwhile, the Cleveland Cavaliers rested LeBron James for the second night of a back-to-back after he had played 40 minutes on Christmas Day. The Cavs were summarily waxed 106-90 by the Detroit Pistons.

What’s the correlation between the cellar-dwelling Sixers and Nets and the defending champs? The loss dropped Cleveland’s record to just 4-18 in games in which James didn’t play since the start of the 2014-15 season, when he returned for a second stint with the franchise. That’s a winning percentage of just .182.

That’s right. Without James, the Cavs play worse than the worst teams in the league."

So can we please put this "Cavs are a super team" to rest?

If the James-less Cavaliers had 82 games to play with each other, they'd be better than .182, perhaps better than .241...

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Just saying. How can a team be considered a 'super team' when it heavily relies on one single player?

Let me put it this way then: The Cavaliers are the NBA champions and nothing else matters as far as what you call them. Every team is one player away from being a horrible team. You think the Warriors will get to the finals this year without Kevin Durant? They unloaded two good players in order to sign Durant, so they would be severely diminished and yet everyone thought they was a super-team

Perhaps the Spurs win again - I wouldn't go to sleep on them