In search of Larry O'Brien: 2015 NBA Playoffs

[CLEstones]

No official word on Kyrie's injury, but reports said that GM David Griffin was waiting outside the Cavs locker room for Kyrie's agent and dad. That's never a good sign. Initial tests/physical said there were no ACL/MCL damage, but just trying to read his lips and face, it didn't look like that was a simple knee contusion. The feeling from a couple beat reporters this morning on twitter was that Kyrie is done for the Series... they are going to shut him down.

So if Kyrie is out, that means the Cavs are missing 3 starters. I think that's too much to over come, especially since Golden State runs 10 deep... and that's without David Lee seeing the floor.

[crashcarson15]

Cavs had two options to win the game at the end of regulation:

1. Let Kyrie take the last shot; he has the ability to either get to the basket or create his own shot.

2. Give the ball to LeBron 12-15 feet from the basket; he has the ability to either back Iguadola down or take a mid-range jump shot.

They did neither.

sports.

[NJTank]

Great game but Im scare about Irving I hop he is ok I am pulling for Cleveland three Jersey Boys.

[Davidellias]

If the Cavs win this series, then we can at the minimum start putting LeBron on MJ's level. Cause let's face it, Lebron's probably going to have to win this all by himself with the way his teammates are dropping like flies.

Speaking of which did MJ ever have a series in which he had to fight the team suffering an Injury bug?

[CLEstones]

Cavs had two options to win the game at the end of regulation:

1. Let Kyrie take the last shot; he has the ability to either get to the basket or create his own shot.

2. Give the ball to LeBron 12-15 feet from the basket; he has the ability to either back Iguadola down or take a mid-range jump shot.

They did neither.

sports.

That's been LeBron his entire career. LeBron does not like going to the lane... he always falls in low with his subpar jump shot, a jump shot that is pretty ugly to be honest. He never goes straight up through his body. He is always leaning or fading and its an extremely slow shot. Back on topic... LeBron is obsessed with making game winning jumpers, as he grew up seeing highlights on TV of game winners (Jordan, Iverson, Kobe). He never followed players who would go the rack and finish.

To be honest, I think the best case scenario in late game situations is to ALWAYS have the ball in Kyrie's hands. He can break down just about anyone in the league, he is one of the best finishers in the league, and has a great mid range to long range jump shot. Basically, I want the defense looking at Kyrie in an iso situation with them having to worry about what the hell LeBron is doing on the wing.

Unfortunately, it looks like Kyrie is done for the season.

[DS729]

If the Cavs win this series, then we can at the minimum start putting LeBron on MJ's level. Cause let's face it, Lebron's probably going to have to win this all by himself with the way his teammates are dropping like flies.

Speaking of which did MJ ever have a series in which he had to fight the team suffering an Injury bug?

Let's not and talk when he has at least 5.

[CLEstones]

If the Cavs win this series, then we can at the minimum start putting LeBron on MJ's level. Cause let's face it, Lebron's probably going to have to win this all by himself with the way his teammates are dropping like flies.

Speaking of which did MJ ever have a series in which he had to fight the team suffering an Injury bug?

Let's not and talk when he has at least 5.

I'm not saying LeBron is as good as Michael, but the whole "talk to me me when he has X amount of championships" is the worst argument in sports when it comes to comparing players.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Not in the NBA.

[CLEstones]

Not in the NBA.

In any sport.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I think number of Finals MVPs is a fair comparison.

Seriously, the Cavs have no business being here with these injuries, and if LeBron pulls it off it might be one of the most unlikely NBA accomplishments of all-time.

But 3-3 in the Finals is not a way to start the Jordan comparisons. Let LeBron play his career.

Plus, it's far more likely that LeBron is 2-4 in his first 6 Finals appearances. I know ESPN likes to skew stats by age and ignore Jordan's college career, or talk up milestones like "consecutive Finals appearances" instead of titles to fit a narrative and promote their product, but you can find just as many to skew it the other way.

And like I said, I prefer Finals MVPs.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Superstar NBA players have outsized influence on their teams compared to other major sports. They're one of five guys, often on the court for the vast majority of the game.

If you're THE guy on your team and you don't win a title, you're probably not as good as the other top guys who did.

There are exceptions, of course. If Irving and Love were 100 percent, this would be a different series. But 2-4 isn't a good championship record. At least not compared to 6-0.

[TheOldRoman]

In 2007 Lebron carried a crappy team to the Finals when they ran into a buzzsaw. Should we hold it against them that they made it that far? I mean, if Michael had lead the Bulls to the Finals in, say, 1987, the Bulls probably would have lost, too.

Even this year, the 1 seed Hawks were a paper tiger, the Bulls blew a few games and then gave up, and the rest of the East was flaming bags of poop. So the hobbled Cavs team made the Finals largely because there were no other good teams in the East. The only series in which they were challenged was in the second round. But if the Pacers from the last few years were there, the Celtics or the Magic from the late '00s, the Cavs likely lose. So in holding a Finals loss against him, we're blaming him for him flawed team making it that far in a way we wouldn't had the Bulls finished them off in five.

If you want to get really nitpicky, you can mention that the refs pretty much took over the 4th quarter of game two in 2012 and handed it to the Heat, which drastically changed that series. Or you could mention that if Popovich leaves Tim Duncan on the court in the last minute of game six the next year instead of wanting to keep him fresh for the trophy raising, the Heat lose that series. And you can certainly blame him for whatever happened to the Heat last year in the Finals. But I can't hold it against him if he loses in the Finals twice with mediocre/injury riddled Cavaliers teams.

[OnWis97]

If the Cavs win this series, then we can at the minimum start putting LeBron on MJ's level. Cause let's face it, Lebron's probably going to have to win this all by himself with the way his teammates are dropping like flies.

Speaking of which did MJ ever have a series in which he had to fight the team suffering an Injury bug?

Let's not and talk when he has at least 5.

I'm not saying LeBron is as good as Michael, but the whole "talk to me me when he has X amount of championships" is the worst argument in sports when it comes to comparing players.

I tend to agree. But for most, it's the only argument. He'll never be on Kobe's level much less Jordan's in the minds of most. Circumstances are irrelevant.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

LeBron is a special case, and he's always been.

Kobe was a critical piece of the early 2000s Lakers teams, of course, but also played with the best coach and center of a generation as well as a terrific bench.

Jordan also had Phil Jackson, as well as a great Scottie Pippin and terrific role players.

Duncan has been incredible, but so has Pop's coaching and team-building.

I agree that LeBron has had to do a lot on his own, but I think results also matter. The Bulls weren't always great, but Jordan made them so. Kobe picked up two more titles (almost three) as a centerpiece. Even Wade won a title with a declining Shaq and other guys.

LeBron's legacy will be interesting, and perhaps Chamberlainesque. He's clearly the best player, but unlucky in the Finals. And don't we see Chamberlain a notch below Russell and Abdul-Jabbar?

[OnWis97]

Superstar NBA players have outsized influence on their teams compared to other major sports. They're one of five guys, often on the court for the vast majority of the game.

If you're THE guy on your team and you don't win a title, you're probably not as good as the other top guys who did.

There are exceptions, of course. If Irving and Love were 100 percent, this would be a different series. But 2-4 isn't a good championship record. At least not compared to 6-0.

2-4 is a much better championship record than 2-0, in my opinion.

We really only talk about this for basketball players and Quarterbacks. If we talked this way for hockey, than Mark Messier would be considered better than Gretzky. Of course we don't because one hockey player cannot have the impact on a team that one basketball player can.

So it's true, basketball superstars have a bigger impact than anyone else. People like Ernie Banks, Barry Sanders, Pat LaFontaine, etc. get off pretty easy for not having titles. Emmitt Smith / Barry Sanders arguments almost never go to "Emmitt has 3 rings and Barry has none." Probably because any reasonable person would recognize that their circumstances were so different.

So we have Quarterbacks, who most definitely have the largest impact on the game but still don't play defense, block or catch passes. While nobody would argue that Brad Johnson is better than Dan Marino, Marino's place in most people's history is definitely negatively impacted by his lack of rings. I am not convinced it's fair, but we're talking hoops here...

Circumstances matter. The Spurs run was in large part made possible by a David Robinson injury. Without that the Spurs may have been stuck in "Jazz" mode for a few more years and Duncan, on some other team, would have how many titles? We'll never know. Do Hakeem's two rings mean he's better than Karl Malone? As far as I can tell the main difference is that Hakeem's teams peaked during Jordan's retirement while Malone's peaked during the two most unbeatable Bulls teams. Circumstances. And if Shaq does not want to be more marketable does everyone's second-favorite player, Kobe Bryant, have five titles now? Yeah, LeBron had to go find his supporting cast. They don't just come to you in Cleveland like they do in LA or Chicago. In Cleveland, he never had enough teammates for Phil Jackson to want to come and coach.

LeBron should have said right away "no offense to my home state but I am not playing there. I need to be in a big market." He'd probably have more titles now (and so would Phil Jackson) and nobody would be questioning them.

This series is over. So he's 2-4 in the finals. Looking at those losses:

• 2007: Getting that team to the finals may be his greatest feat. I don't think anyone blames him for that loss.
• 2011: This is probably the thing that will haunt him more than any other game/series. He finally had the best team. And he kinda died in that series.
• 2014: The Spurs were probably the better team. The LeBron haters could probably pile on about how if he was so good he'd have found a way (or the cramp thing)
• 2015: He's about the only player on his team not injured. A healthy Cavs team would have had a legitimate shot to win this series.

So I suppose some of the greats (Jordan and Kobe in particular) don't have any 2011 moments but I really struggle to believe that if LeBron retires with just two rings (which I think he will) that he's that far below Kobe and Jordan.

Was Clestones overstating it when he said that championships to decide who is a better player is the worst argument in pro sports? Yeah. But I definitely think it's overrated.

[OnWis97]

LeBron is a special case, and he's always been.

Kobe was a critical piece of the early 2000s Lakers teams, of course, but also played with the best coach and center of a generation as well as a terrific bench.

Jordan also had Phil Jackson, as well as a great Scottie Pippin and terrific role players.

Duncan has been incredible, but so has Pop's coaching and team-building.

I agree that LeBron has had to do a lot on his own, but I think results also matter. The Bulls weren't always great, but Jordan made them so. Kobe picked up two more titles (almost three) as a centerpiece. Even Wade won a title with a declining Shaq and other guys.

LeBron's legacy will be interesting, and perhaps Chamberlainesque. He's clearly the best player, but unlucky in the Finals. And don't we see Chamberlain a notch below Russell and Abdul-Jabbar?

You gave Phil some credit for Jordan and Kobe. I'd tend to go the other way. Phil has 10 championships but did he ever join a team that was not championship-ready?

Anyway, you are acknowledging that circumstances matter. And yeah, Jordan made the Bulls better. LeBron certainly has a history of making teams better as well.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I guess I'm taking the long view. It'll be sad if in 20 years we look at LeBron like we look at Wilt Chamberlain. He's the best player of his generation, but he might not have the rings he could have had he landed in different situations.

That said, if the Cavs come back together next year, we'll be having a different conversation. And this team is probably a year ahead of schedule anyway.

[alxy8s]

In 2007 Lebron carried a crappy team to the Finals when they ran into a buzzsaw. Should we hold it against them that they made it that far? I mean, if Michael had lead the Bulls to the Finals in, say, 1987, the Bulls probably would have lost, too.

This. It makes no sense to hold a Finals loss against a player while ignoring an earlier playoff exit for another.

James appears in the Finals 60% of the time he's in the playoffs. He had the worse team in 2007, 2013, 2014, and 2015 and the better team in 2011 and 2012. Of all the losses, only 2011 can really be considered his "fault." Maybe Kobe could have lent LeBron his KILLER INSTINCT™, since it was available after he was blamelessly swept in the second round.

[Rockstar Matt]

LeBron is a special case, and he's always been.

Kobe was a critical piece of the early 2000s Lakers teams, of course, but also played with the best coach and center of a generation as well as a terrific bench.

Jordan also had Phil Jackson, as well as a great Scottie Pippin and terrific role players.

Duncan has been incredible, but so has Pop's coaching and team-building.

I agree that LeBron has had to do a lot on his own, but I think results also matter. The Bulls weren't always great, but Jordan made them so. Kobe picked up two more titles (almost three) as a centerpiece. Even Wade won a title with a declining Shaq and other guys.

LeBron's legacy will be interesting, and perhaps Chamberlainesque. He's clearly the best player, but unlucky in the Finals. And don't we see Chamberlain a notch below Russell and Abdul-Jabbar?

You gave Phil some credit for Jordan and Kobe. I'd tend to go the other way. Phil has 10 championships but did he ever join a team that was not championship-ready?

Anyway, you are acknowledging that circumstances matter. And yeah, Jordan made the Bulls better. LeBron certainly has a history of making teams better as well.

Phil has 11. And Phil Jackson has coached teams that weren't championship ready (the 2005-2007 Lakers). Phil deserves a lot of credit because those championship team weren't champions until he became the coach. Jordan couldn't win a title until Phil came along. Kobe and Shaq couldn't win until Phil came along.

[See Red]

LeBron is a special case, and he's always been.

Kobe was a critical piece of the early 2000s Lakers teams, of course, but also played with the best coach and center of a generation as well as a terrific bench.

Jordan also had Phil Jackson, as well as a great Scottie Pippin and terrific role players.

Duncan has been incredible, but so has Pop's coaching and team-building.

I agree that LeBron has had to do a lot on his own, but I think results also matter. The Bulls weren't always great, but Jordan made them so. Kobe picked up two more titles (almost three) as a centerpiece. Even Wade won a title with a declining Shaq and other guys.

LeBron's legacy will be interesting, and perhaps Chamberlainesque. He's clearly the best player, but unlucky in the Finals. And don't we see Chamberlain a notch below Russell and Abdul-Jabbar?

You gave Phil some credit for Jordan and Kobe. I'd tend to go the other way. Phil has 10 championships but did he ever join a team that was not championship-ready?

Anyway, you are acknowledging that circumstances matter. And yeah, Jordan made the Bulls better. LeBron certainly has a history of making teams better as well.

The Bulls won 55 games in the first season of Jordan's "retirement" and had the fifth best record in the league. Jordan deserves the credit he gets, but he wasn't exactly a great player willing a mediocre team to championships -- those Bulls teams were pretty damn good. I don't think there's a single team Lebron has played on where you could remove him and expect them to have an actual change of competing for championships. Maybe his first year or so with Miami, but even then... Wade and Bosh with a bad supporting cast? I don't see it.

Plus, these players all played in completely different eras. What if Lebron played in an NBA where zone defenses were illegal? What if Jordan played in an NBA where you couldn't hand check? I don't know. In Jordan's day, defensive schemes were simpler and if you wanted to give help on a player, you had to double team -- a legit double team, no helping off of a poor shooter. With Lebron's passing ability, how great would he be if he just had to recognize a double team and if it didn't come, go to work, and if it did come, get the ball to where it came from? Also, Jordan never had to deal with anything like the Spurs.

I'll add, I don't know how great Jordan would have been in today's game -- he might've been just as great. But I think with Lebron's size, athleticism, and skill set, he's a safe bet to have been great in any generation.