The MIA Heat Show Thread

[DaKCMan AP]

LA will be dethroned. The LAC Lake Show will be dead. So it's time to create a thread to follow the new dynasty.

Going on tour starting this October.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Ah yes, win shares. A stat devised by baseball men to account for the various contributions of 25 man rosters over 162 games, bastardized by hacks and applied to rosters consisting of 12 men (generally only 6-8) playing 82 games.

If you have something better to measure the value of these players, I'm open to it. But you don't.

I honestly couldn't possibly care less about how many win shares LBJ has accounted for. Bill James, the man that was the impetus behind the stat, has himself stated that it's a terribly flawed stat in that it's self-driving, but I'm sure you already knew that. And again, that's in the game that it was actually designed to measure.

No, you wouldn't care. Because it destroys your entire argument.

Your position is that a team that added Chris Bosh and Mike Miller instead of Michael Beasley and Quentin Richardson is actually 2 games worse for those additions. That's really all that needs to be said.

No, my position is that a Heat team without LeBron James would be a hell of a lot worse. That's not exactly a difficult claim to make, either.

[KC_Connection]

You could use Hollinger's VORP or Wins added, but that even makes LeBron look better than he does with win shares.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...%3fsort%3dVORP

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

No, my position is that a Heat team without LeBron James would be a hell of a lot worse. That's not exactly a difficult claim to make, either.

Your position was that the Heat probably wouldn't have won 35 games through today. Again, a pace worse than last year's squad with far less talent.

And if you're looking for a clean little number to 'objectively measure the value of a player'...just stop watching. At that point, sports become little more than strat-o-matic nonsense.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

You could use Hollinger's VORP, but that even makes LeBron look better than he does with win shares.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holli...%3fsort%3dVORP

HEY! Value over replacement player....another stolen baseball stat.

Wake me when the NBA boys actually come up with an idea of their own.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Your position was that the Heat probably wouldn't have won 35 games through today. Again, a pace worse than last year's squad with far less talent.

According to every statistical measure of value we have available to us, no, the Heat wouldn't even have 35 wins without LeBron James. He's that good a player.

And if you're looking for a clean little number to 'objectively measure the value of a player'...just stop watching. At that point, sports become little more than strat-o-matic nonsense.

It's still better than just making biased claims based on absolutely no evidence like you're doing.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

HEY! Value over replacement player....another stolen baseball stat.

Wake me when the NBA boys actually come up with an idea of their own.

Now you're really grasping for straws.

[KC_Connection]

Really, it's still amazing to me that people refuse to admit how good LeBron James is. And it's not just this forum...it's basketball fans all over the place. He may not be MJ, but he's pretty damn close.

[Buck]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

According to every statistical measure of value we have available to us, no, the Heat wouldn't even have 35 wins without LeBron James. He's that good a player.

Keep proving you are reeruned.

If they didn't have James they could have 2 or maybe 3 other good players who would make up your stupid win stat.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Really, it's still amazing to me that people refuse to admit how good LeBron James is. And it's not just this forum...it's basketball fans all over the place. He may not be MJ, but he's pretty damn close.

Please stop with this sort of idiocy.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Buck

Keep proving you are reeruned.

If they didn't have James they could have 2 or maybe 3 other good players who would make up your stupid win stat.

No, it doesn't work like that. He contributes that much more than any player that could replace him for his 40 minutes a game. Take James off this Heat team and they aren't much better the Hawks.

Please stop with this sort of idiocy.

The idiocy is people denying his greatness because they dislike him and want to see him fail.

I dislike him and want to see him fail as well, but that isn't going to blind me to the facts.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

The idiocy is people denying his greatness because they dislike him and want to see him fail.

I dislike him and want to see him fail as well, but that isn't going to blind me to the facts.

No, the idiocy is putting him up there with the Birds/Jordans/Magics/Russells/Chamberlains of the world.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

No, the idiocy is putting him up there with the Birds/Jordans/Magics/Russells/Chamberlains of the world.

He'll well on pace statistically to be just as good as those guys.

You'll probably make some weak argument that he doesn't have any championships, but I shouldn't have to remind anybody that MJ didn't win until he was 28 (or until an actual good team was constructed around him).

[KevB]

I don't think anybody is saying that he isn't a really good/great player. He's a bad fit on this team, period. You almost have to remove him (or Wade), and replace them with good players at PG and C. That would be a better Heat team than the one currently constructed, and I don't think there's much debate. Wade would be more productive without LBJ, as would Bosh. They would have added a solid, defensive minded center and a point guard that could consistently knock down shots and spread the floor (assuming the addition of the PG and C).

You could also argue that spending some of that money on a bench would be vitally important. Look at the teams with the best records this season, and for the most part you have really strong second units. The Heat are garbage on their second unit.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

He'll well on pace statistically to be just as good as those guys.

You'll probably make some weak argument that he doesn't have any championships, but I shouldn't have to remind anybody that MJ didn't win until he was 28 (or until an actual good team was constructed around him).

First, in a league as dominated by the elite players as the NBA, the "championships" argument is certainly a hell of a lot stronger than statistics arguments.

Second, Jordan was 21 as a rookie, compared to James, who was 19. To match the Jordan scenario (who is not the player I'd be looking to match, since I'd be looking at the likes of Magic, Bird and Russell, who all won in their first two years), James needs to win this year, so I'm not sure why you'd use this as an argument on your side of the discussion.

Third, Jordan didn't win until the better teams collapsed, which kept him from amassing more championships. Jordan never beat the Celtics or Lakers great teams, and he only beat the Pistons after they were finished (I'll leave the arguments about "why" to other threads/people). Where are those great teams stopping James?

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

First, the "championships" argument is certainly a hell of a lot stronger than statistics arguments.

No, it isn't. Championships are team-based. Robert Horry has seven of them and they aren't because he was a great player.

Second, Jordan was 21 as a rookie, compared to James, who was 19. To match the Jordan scenario (who is not the player I'd be looking to match, since I'd be looking at the likes of Magic, Bird and Russell, who all won in their first two years), James needs to win this year. Care to play the odds on that one?

No, because LeBron James is still going to the best player of his era (post 2003) whether he wins a championship this year or not.

Third, Jordan didn't win until the better teams collapsed, which kept him from amassing more championships. Jordan never beat the Celtics or Lakers great teams, and he only beat the Pistons after they were finished (I'll leave the arguments about "why" to other threads/people). Where are those great teams stopping James?

So now we're just going to ignore the great Lakers and Spurs dynasties of the last decade, too?


I can't believe I'm getting into an argument with a guy, who by his own criteria for greatness, would have been criticizing Michael Jordan for not being good enough in 1991.