08 Celtics BARELY beat the 08 Cavs

[DMAVS41]

How do you explain that team going 0-7 without LeBron? The massive drop off once he leaves the court?

It's really not hard to see that was mediocre help, at best... capable defenses and zero offensive threats.

Who was the best player on the 37 win Hawks? Was that team now also not pretty bad?

Yea...I don't get this.

It doesn't matter if it's starters or bench.

It's a great stat for looking at supporting cast help. How does a team perform with and without it's star player?

The Bulls killed teams both with and without Rose....

Just look at with Lebron and with Rose if you want....the Bulls were way better. They outscored teams by close to 9 points per 100 while the Cavs outscored teams by less than 3 or whatever it was.

They actually think Rose is roughly 6 points better per 100 possessions than Lebron? That that was the difference in these "similar" teams? Rose?

Even for tpols....that is absurdly dumb.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yea...I agree....they weren't complete shit.


Actually those on/off stats are relevant. It tells you how the team was able to perform without Lebron/Rose on the court.

I'm not gonna say that LeBron's Cleveland teams were top heavy or anything, but they've always been reliant on their starters. So in this case, we only get valid info depending on whether the starters were playing.

Simple on/off stats are practically rendered useless here.

The fact that the Bulls were much better both with Rose on the court and without Rose on the court than the Cavs were with/without Lebron is extremely telling.

Your assertion doesn't make sense.

The Bulls comparison is between you and tpols. I'm not saying Rose's help is or wasn't better, but the way you're arguing and using these stats leaves too much room for error.

[knicksman]

They were having first time jitters just like gsw this season. We all knew what bos is capable once the pressure is off like what they did in 2010 with a better cle and bran.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

How do you explain that team going 0-7 without LeBron? The massive drop off once he leaves the court?

It's really not hard to see that was mediocre help, at best... capable defenses and zero offensive threats.

Who was the best player on the 37 win Hawks? Was that team now also not pretty bad?

Atlanta had dozens of injuries in the regular season, and actually had all of their starters healthy in the playoffs. So that 37 win stuff is peanut butter and jelly. Fluff if you will.

I think the Cavs' strong suit was their defense and rebounding. Not a great cast by any means, just better than average though. Not sure why people on here are acting like LeBron played with Kwame Brown and Smush Parker.

[DMAVS41]

Using on/off stats with one of the best starters, on a team that's top heavy and relies heavily on their starters won't tell you anything.

I'm not gonna say that LeBron's Cleveland teams were top heavy or anything, but they've always been reliant on their starters. So in this case, we only get valid info depending on whether the starters were playing.

Simple on/off stats are practically rendered useless here.



The Bulls comparison is between you and tpols. I'm not saying Rose's help is or wasn't better, but the way you're arguing and using these stats leaves too much room for error.

Don't follow your logic. Of course context is needed, but on/off stats are a pretty good indicator of help.

See...if the Cavs were actually great with Lebron...but were still shit without him...I'd factor that in.

But they weren't very good with him....and were terrible without him.

That is a lot different.

Context is always needed...hence why you don't just look at only one thing.


A perfect example of this is the 11 Mavs. They were -5.4 points per 100 without Dirk...so okay...we look at that and one might say they weren't a good supporting cast on their own....and there is some truth to that.

However, when you look at it and see that the Mavs raped teams to the tune of 10.6 points per 100 with Dirk on the court....you realize that while they weren't great without Dirk...the pieces all fit together very well with him out there.

See? Context.

With Rose in 11...they were great both with and without. Good evidence it was rock solid help.

In 08...the Cavs were barely above break even with Lebron....and really poor without him. Good evidence his help wasn't very good.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Don't follow your logic. Of course context is needed, but on/off stats are a pretty good indicator of help.

See...if the Cavs were actually great with Lebron...but were still shit without him...I'd factor that in.

But you're missing the point.

LeBron's off/on court stats could include bench players. Look at the names you just listed. That's not a very deep team...by any means.

I want to know how well the Cavs' core did. The guys who actually rebounded and played defense. Without that, it's a stat that doesn't tell me anything. Or at least anything I didn't already know.

With Rose in 11...they were great both with and without. Good evidence it was rock solid help.

I'm not comparing LeBron to Rose here, or the differences in help.

I think we can all agree from top to bottom, the Bulls were superior. Does tpols disagree with that or something?

In 08...the Cavs were barely above break even with Lebron....and really poor without him. Good evidence his help wasn't very good.

That also tells us that with LeBron on the court, even while playing like absolute trash, his teams were still competing (and took the best team to a 7th game). Was it with him on the court? Yeah...but I never said that without him they'd be good or great. Again that was never my argument.

[DMAVS41]

But you're missing the point.

LeBron's off/on court stats could include bench players. Look at the names you just listed. That's not a very deep team...by any means.

I want to know how well the Cavs' core did. The guys who actually rebounded and played defense. Without that, it's a stat that doesn't tell me anything. Or at least anything I didn't already know.



I'm not comparing LeBron to Rose here, or the differences in help.

I think we can all agree from top to bottom, the Bulls were superior. Does tpols disagree with that or something?



That also tells us that with LeBron on the court, even while playing like absolute trash, his teams were still competing (and took the best team to a 7th game). Was it with him on the court? Yeah...but I never said that without him they'd be good or great. Again that was never my argument.

I'm just not following you here. On/off doesn't matter for what you are talking about. It's about how a team actually performs with and with the player in question.

How well did the core do? They did enough to win 45 games and barely outscore teams on the whole....you still have to play bench guys in the playoffs...

I get your point, but lets not act like the Cavs "core" was anything more than average players.

If you look at that team...45 wins...not great with lebron...pretty poor without him. then just look at the individual talent...it's blatantly obvious it wasn't a very good team.

And you are talking about a playoff series....and at that...really like 4 games max. That isn't enough to extrapolate a bunch of reliable conclusions.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'm just not following you here. On/off doesn't matter for what you are talking about. It's about how a team actually performs with and with the player in question.

Off the court stats don't include bench players' production?

News to me.

How well did the core do? They did enough to win 45 games and barely outscore teams on the whole....you still have to play bench guys in the playoffs...

If you look at that team...45 wins...not great with lebron...pretty poor without him. then just look at the individual talent...it's blatantly obvious it wasn't a very good team.

I assume you're talking about Wallace/West/Varejao/Szczerbiak...because those guys missed a substantial amount of time in the regular season, while Wallace and Szczerbiak came midway thru a trade. Their "45 games" won does them a huge disservice.

I preach context all the time, and applying it here is no different.

And you are talking about a playoff series....and at that...really like 4 games max. That isn't enough to extrapolate a bunch of reliable conclusions.

Well that isn't including the team they beat before Boston. But yeah. More than enough of a sample to judge how good they were post trades/when healthy.

[ArbitraryWater]

Atlanta had dozens of injuries in the regular season, and actually had all of their starters healthy in the playoffs. So that 37 win stuff is peanut butter and jelly. Fluff if you will.

I think the Cavs' strong suit was their defense and rebounding. Not a great cast by any means, just better than average though. Not sure why people on here are acting like LeBron played with Kwame Brown and Smush Parker.

I'm sure LeBron would have loved to play with Odom, a nice 2nd option.. Brown and Smush get clowned alot, probably too much due to their names.. statistically Smush was alot better than any guard help LeBron had the past 2 finals (Wade was dog shit in 2014, and when you actually erase his game 4+game 5 late stat padding, his stats ****ing resemble those of Smush), main factor is, these guys weren't out there bricking shot after shot... knew their role, remained efficient with limited touches, Brown was also one of the better post defenders... Smush's 06 line actually ready very nicely.

Also, to your other posts, lets not act like Szerbiak and a broken down Wallace were world beaters here

I think the on/off shows its validity in the fact that the team couldn't win a single game out of 7 without LeBron, no?

[DMAVS41]

Off the court stats don't include bench players' production?

News to me.



I assume you're talking about Wallace/West/Varejao/Szczerbiak...because those guys missed a substantial amount of time in the regular season, while Wallace and Szczerbiak came midway thru a trade. Their "45 games" won does them a huge disservice.

I preach context all the time, and applying it here is no different.



Well that isn't including the team they beat before Boston. But yeah. More than enough of a sample to judge how good they were post trades/when healthy.

What do you mean it doesn't include bench?

It simply shows you how a team performs with and without a player...it's of course not the end all be all.

You make it sound like a didn't just write a response to you detailing how you have to look at each individual situation...

And I earlier brought up the injuries/trades...

I earlier also said that, in the Boston series, Lebron "potentially" had ehough help to win that series. I'd probably just say "he did" have enough help, but Boston was clearly playing down to their opponents at that time.

Also not sure about the Wizards series mention. I'd expect a Lebron led team of that caliber to win in 6.

Just don't see any other way but to get to a spot of saying that Cavs team was a good, but not great supporting cast...that wasn't championship caliber.

While also saying Lebron played a terrible first 2 games, really good last 3 games, but overall a poor series.

I just can't move off that knowing the evidence and the value of the individual players on that team....

I know you aren't doing it, but comparing that team to the Bulls...or Lebron's overall performance in that series to Rose in 11...just no.

Lebron clearly had worse help on both sides of the ball...and also clearly faced a much tougher defense to boot. Just not comparable supporting casts at all.

Which is what this really was about....I never once said the 08 Cavs were a terrible team with Lebron or Lebron didn't have a chance to beat the Celtics with them.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

What do you mean it doesn't include bench?

It simply shows you how a team performs with and without a player...it's of course not the end all be all.

I earlier also said that, in the Boston series, Lebron "potentially" had ehough help to win that series. I'd probably just say "he did" have enough help, but Boston was clearly playing down to their opponents at that time.

I know you aren't doing it, but comparing that team to the Bulls...or Lebron's overall performance in that series to Rose in 11...just no.

Lebron clearly had worse help on both sides of the ball...and also clearly faced a much tougher defense to boot. Just not comparable supporting casts at all.

Which is what this really was about....I never once said the 08 Cavs were a terrible team with Lebron or Lebron didn't have a chance to beat the Celtics with them.

That's fairly obvious.

What I'm saying is while using these stats, wouldn't we be remiss not to point out their sustained injuries, trades, and lack of depth...something the Cavs have always had issues with?

Seems like you're keen on using this on/off stuff, but refuse to apply context with it.

I can agree that LeBron "potentially" had enough help, and that Boston probably took them as lightweight. I would also agree with the Bulls being a far better team. As for Rose and LeBron? Hell, I'd take the 2006 version over 2011 Rose even.

BTW my first post wasn't addressing you specifically. Was just kinda throwing it out there...

[DMAVS41]

That's fairly obvious.

What I'm saying is while using these on/off court stats, wouldn't we be remiss not to point out their sustained injuries, trades, and lack of depth...something the Cavs have always had issues with?

Seems like you're keen on using this on/off stuff, but refuse to apply context with it.

I can agree that LeBron "potentially" had enough help, and that Boston probably took them as lightweight. I would also agree with the Bulls being the far better team. As for Rose and LeBron? Hell, I'd take the 2006 version over 2011 Rose even. :oldlol

My first post wasn't addressing you specifically BTW. Was just kinda throwing it out there...

Yea...I think we agree here.

I wasn't solely using on/off anyway...and I brought up the injuries as well. But I'm also not going crazy over a team of players like the 08 Cavs had...they weren't anything other than an alright supporting cast.

I feel like this is getting confused because of that Bulls comparison. I have no issue with someone saying the 08 Cavs weren't a team full of scrubs with no chance to win....because I don't think that at all.

What I do think, however, is that they were nowhere near as good as the 11 Bulls for a variety of reasons.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'm sure LeBron would have loved to play with Odom, a nice 2nd option.. Brown and Smush get clowned alot, probably too much due to their names.. statistically Smush was alot better than any guard help LeBron had the past 2 finals (Wade was dog shit in 2014, and when you actually erase his game 4+game 5 late stat padding, his stats ****ing resemble those of Smush), main factor is, these guys weren't out there bricking shot after shot... knew their role, remained efficient with limited touches, Brown was also one of the better post defenders... Smush's 06 line actually ready very nicely.

He really wasn't. There's a reason why after the Heat picked up his contract, he spent the rest of his basketball career in China. The guy is a scrub and a complete headcase. Kwame "don't pass me the ball because I'm afraid I'll lose it" Brown in the same boat with him.

For your sake, I hope a statistical comparison between Smush and Wade is just that...because Wade's knowledge and intangibles absolutely shit on him. Most people would take a hobbled, one-legged Wade over that clown.

Also, to your other posts, lets not act like Szerbiak and a broken down Wallace were world beaters here

Both healthy in the playoffs, and both more than enough to take the Celtics to a close 7th game despite LeBron stinking like a smelly diaper.

I think the on/off shows its validity in the fact that the team couldn't win a single game out of 7 without LeBron, no?

Read the last post I just sent to DMAVS. Long as we use some kinda perspective, then I guess it's alright? You guys don't seem to be doing that though.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yea...I think we agree here.

I wasn't solely using on/off anyway...and I brought up the injuries as well. But I'm also not going crazy over a team of players like the 08 Cavs had...they weren't anything other than an alright supporting cast.

I feel like this is getting confused because of that Bulls comparison. I have no issue with someone saying the 08 Cavs weren't a team full of scrubs with no chance to win....because I don't think that at all.

What I do think, however, is that they were nowhere near as good as the 11 Bulls for a variety of reasons.

We agree more than you think, my friend.

[DMAVS41]

We agree more than you think, my friend.

Yea, but you are fun to argue with because you make sense and offer valid points.