The championship "impact" myth of ball-dominators

[3ball]

teams that use a 1-ball-dominator approach (nash-ball, cp3-ball, harden-ball, lebron-ball) fall off more when they lose that ball-dominator than teams that move the ball more.

But teams that move the ball more have higher ceilings and win more in general with or without the star player (see the current raptors, the spurs without duncan, etc)

So many people erroneously think that a team falling off a cliff without a ball-dominator means the ball-dominator impacts championship odds more, without realizing that the ceiling of ball-dominator teams generally falls below championship level..

Ultimately, a ball-dominator whose team falls off without him isn't impacting championship odds more because the team's ceiling is inherently lower with the 1 ball-dominator approach, but most people don't realize this and overrate the impact of ball-dominators

^^^ The argument above kills the idea that Lebron adds to championship value more, and I'd like to hear counter-arguments - what are they

[SpaceJam2]

And for the record...Kobe is a NEGATIVE in playoff DBPM (-0.3) and has a higher DRtg than Jordan and LeBron

Defensive Playoff Statistics (Kobe/MJ fans may want to look away)

DefRtg
LBJ: 102
MJ: 104
Kobe: 106

DBPM
LBJ: 3.2
MJ: 2.1
Kobe: -0.3 :lol

DWS
LBJ: 15.9
MJ: 12.4
Kobe: 7.3

LBJ is ranked 1st in all
Kobe is ranked last in all

LBJ > MJ > Kobe

Defensively

Next

[STATUTORY]

So many people erroneously think that a team falling off a cliff without a ball-dominator means the ball-dominator impacts championship odds more, without realizing that the ceiling of ball-dominator teams generally falls below championship level..





that's the dagger right there. But Bran stans are too low iq to actually comprehend the point

[Marchesk]

And for the record...Kobe is a NEGATIVE in playoff DBPM (-0.3) and has a higher DRtg than Jordan and LeBron

Defensive Playoff Statistics (Kobe/MJ fans may want to look away)

DefRtg
LBJ: 102
MJ: 104
Kobe: 106

DBPM
LBJ: 3.2
MJ: 2.1
Kobe: -0.3 :lol

DWS
LBJ: 15.9
MJ: 12.4
Kobe: 7.3

LBJ is ranked 1st in all
Kobe is ranked last in all

LBJ > MJ > Kobe

Defensively

Next

So that should mean Lebron has the most rings?

[SouBeachTalents]

So that should mean Lebron has the most rings?
This coming from a Wilt stan :lol

[SpaceJam2]

So that should mean Lebron has the most rings?

He's the best defender of the 3. Leaps and bounds, as proven by non biased, individual, factual data.

Not every player was lucky enough to face 10.7 ppg #2 options in the Finals

See: 1998 Utah Jazz in Finals
Jeff Hornacek
#2 option
10.7 ppg

:(

Anything else chico?

[knicksman]

what lebron fans dont realize is that impact is just not gross impact but net impact. gross impact - impact lost by teammates due to playing with you = net impact. Just like income is not just gross income but gross income - expenses = net income. Kobe might have less gross impact but he doesnt reduce his teammates so his net impact is almost the same as his gross impact. With lebron, he reduces his teammates so his net impact is lesser than kobe. Thats why he needs more to win.

[Trollsmasher]

teams that use a 1-ball-dominator approach (nash-ball, cp3-ball, harden-ball, lebron-ball) fall off more when they lose that ball-dominator than teams that move the ball more.

But teams that move the ball more have higher ceilings and win more in general with or without the star player (see the current raptors, the spurs without duncan, etc)

So many people erroneously think that a team falling off a cliff without a ball-dominator means the ball-dominator impacts championship odds more, without realizing that the ceiling of ball-dominator teams generally falls below championship level..

Ultimately, a ball-dominator whose team falls off without him isn't impacting championship odds more because the team's ceiling is inherently lower with the 1 ball-dominator approach, but most people don't realize this and overrate the impact of ball-dominators

^^^ The argument above kills the idea that Lebron adds to championship value more, and I'd like to hear counter-arguments - what are they
your postulate does not quantify an impact of a single player on a ball moving team - not surprising - in this scenario the player is a substance, the team is an unsaturated predicate and only together they form a saturated proposition

ergo a single player on a ball sharing team has 0 impact on their own since we can't even think of that single player as an actual fact, a cenopythagorean secondness so to speak

on the other hand the ball-dominating player still has a certain impact that is higher than 0 and is thus an actual fact on his own and therefore the ball-dominating player > non-ball dominating player

therefore LeBron>MJ

[Marchesk]

your postulate does not quantify an impact of a single player on a ball moving team - not surprising - in this scenario the player is a substance, the team is an unsaturated predicate and only together they form a saturated proposition

ergo a single player on a ball sharing team has 0 impact on their own since we can't even think of that single player as an actual fact, a cenopythagorean secondness so to speak

on the other hand the ball-dominating player still has a certian impact that is higher than 0 and therefore ball-dominating player > non-ball dominating player

therefore LeBron>MJ


https://cdn3.whatculture.com/images/2016/09/9929efba001da5b3-600x338.jpg

[Ainosterhaspie]

If a team succeeds when the great player leaves its probably because they've got really good players and coaching. If they suck when the great player leaves, it's probably because they've got bad players and coaching. It's not complicated.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Top heavy teams that lose their best ball handler, passer, scorer, and decision maker struggle when they don't play?

Teams with more talent and depth that lose a player who isn't the best at these skills don't struggle as much?

That's your point... that's what you feel like is ground-breaking and worthy of a thread...


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[3ball]

If a team succeeds when the great player leaves its probably because they've got really good players and/or brand. If they suck when the great player leaves, it's probably because they've got bad players and/or brand. It's not complicated.


replace the word "coaching" for "brand" in your post above, and I think you've got it! (I did it for you above)





If a team succeeds when the great player leaves its probably because they've got really good players and/or brand. If they suck when the great player leaves, it's probably because they've got bad players and/or brand. It's not complicated.


We all know the ball-dominator approach turns teammates into spot-up shooters, so why would we think it develops young teammates or teams into champions (increases championship odds the most)?.. :biggums:

Ultimately, the brand falls short of championship ceiling because turning teammates into spot-up shooters doesn't develop young teammates/teams into champions, and therefore needs ready-made stars to win - lebron simply avoided the career-losing fate of his fellow ball-dominators by team-hopping for the ready-made stars and extra talent the style needs to win.

So the ball-dominator brand falls short of championship ceiling, which means it doesn't add the most to championship odds.. Stat-bots like Morey aren't aware of this and says a bunch of erroneous shit as a result.

[3ball]

Top heavy teams that lose their best ball handler, passer, scorer, and decision maker struggle when they don't play?

Teams with more talent and depth that lose a player who isn't the best at these skills don't struggle as much?

That's your point... that's what you feel like is ground-breaking and worthy of a thread...


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
if a brand turns teammates into spot-up shooters, why would we think it develops teammates or teams into champions (increases championship odds the most)?

The lack of development means the style needs ready-made stars to win - lebron simply avoided the career-losing fate of his fellow ball-dominators by team-hopping for the ready-made stars and extra talent the style needs to win.

Ultimately, the ball-dominator brand falls short of championship ceiling (needs ready-made stars and extra talent to win), which means it doesn't add the most to championship odds.. Stat-bots like Morey aren't aware of this and says a bunch of erroneous shit as a result.
.

[ArbitraryWater]

your postulate does not quantify an impact of a single player on a ball moving team - not surprising - in this scenario the player is a substance, the team is an unsaturated predicate and only together they form a saturated proposition

ergo a single player on a ball sharing team has 0 impact on their own since we can't even think of that single player as an actual fact, a cenopythagorean secondness so to speak

on the other hand the ball-dominating player still has a certain impact that is higher than 0 and is thus an actual fact on his own and therefore the ball-dominating player > non-ball dominating player

therefore LeBron>MJ

OP wrecked.

IQ of the LeBron fam too high.

[3ball]

your postulate does not quantify an impact of a single player on a ball moving team - not surprising - in this scenario the player is a substance, the team is an unsaturated predicate and only together they form a saturated proposition

ergo a single player on a ball sharing team has 0 impact on their own since we can't even think of that single player as an actual fact, a cenopythagorean secondness so to speak

on the other hand the ball-dominating player still has a certain impact that is higher than 0 and is thus an actual fact on his own and therefore the ball-dominating player > non-ball dominating player

therefore LeBron>MJ

Speak English and I'll respond, otherwise...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

your postulate does not quantify an impact of a single player on a ball moving team - not surprising - in this scenario the player is a substance, the team is an unsaturated predicate and only together they form a saturated proposition

ergo a single player on a ball sharing team has 0 impact on their own since we can't even think of that single player as an actual fact, a cenopythagorean secondness so to speak

on the other hand the ball-dominating player still has a certain impact that is higher than 0 and is thus an actual fact on his own and therefore the ball-dominating player > non-ball dominating player

therefore LeBron>MJ

Somebody ate a thesaurus today.

[3ball]

Thread Cliffs:

if a brand turns teammates into spot-up shooters, why would we think it develops teammates or teams into champions (increases championship odds the most)?

The lack of development means the style needs ready-made stars to win - lebron simply avoided the career-losing fate of his fellow ball-dominators by team-hopping for the ready-made stars and extra talent the style needs to win.

Ultimately, the ball-dominator brand falls short of championship ceiling (needs team-hopping for ready-made stars to win, aka can't develop an existing team), which means it doesn't add the most to championship odds... Stat-bots like Morey aren't aware of this and say a bunch of ignorant shit as a result.
.

[Young X]

What players did Paul and Nash turn into spot up shooters?

[StrongLurk]

your postulate does not quantify an impact of a single player on a ball moving team - not surprising - in this scenario the player is a substance, the team is an unsaturated predicate and only together they form a saturated proposition

ergo a single player on a ball sharing team has 0 impact on their own since we can't even think of that single player as an actual fact, a cenopythagorean secondness so to speak

on the other hand the ball-dominating player still has a certain impact that is higher than 0 and is thus an actual fact on his own and therefore the ball-dominating player > non-ball dominating player

therefore LeBron>MJ

GOAT-level post :roll: