Luka has turned Porzingins into Channing Frye.

[Shogon]

:roll:

[warriorfan]

I get what you are alluding too but neither Bosh or Love suffered a huge ACL injury the season before joining him.

[Shogon]

Oh in reality I couldn't care less and I certainly don't believe that... I just enjoy the trolling.

[warriorfan]

Fair enough

[AlternativeAcc.]

Poor zingus cant handle the extra attention ala kevin love. Some guys just aren't cutout for the spotlight

[SpaceJam2]

Poor zingus cant handle the extra attention ala kevin love. Some guys just aren't cutout for the spotlight

Some guys just wanna chill, they don't want to compete

MJ was the same, failed under the brightest lights at 1-9 before ol Pippen showed him how to win

[kentatm]

Luka has turned Porzingins into Channing Frye

:durantunimpressed:

You were here back when ISH is #1 was a legit claim. Now here you are vomiting all over the board like all the other schmoes.

https://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Epic_6c72c7_1026597.gif

[scuzzy]

Clearly Porzingis is the Mavs MVP since healthy Luka didn't acquire them a playoff bid last year


This is how it works, no?

[NBAGOAT]

Clearly Porzingis is the Mavs MVP since healthy Luka didn't acquire them a playoff bid last year


This is how it works, no?

:lol this is a good one

[Gatorade Sax]

He did block 5 shots today though..so there’s that. But you’re correct, his offense is piss poor at the moment. I haven’t watched a bunch of mavs games, admittedly, but he seems to still be putting up at least some shots?

Whether they land or not is another story.

[DMAVS41]

Channing Frye that can also protect the paint, post up, and make some mid-range shots?

Sounds like a pretty impactful player to me.

[chocolatethunder]

I know this post is a joke but Porzingis

[FultzNationRISE]

[QUOTE=chocolatethunder]I know this post is a joke but Porzingis

[brooks_thompson]

I'm not too keen on giving him a pass for the ACL unless its concerning shooting percentages. In the games I've seen him, he's always been the same guy...get ball, launch shot; if contested, fade. He's never had a go to post move or fadeaway from the post, never been a great pick and roll player.

People love that unicorn label but they seem to overlook the reality that he's nothing special offensively. He admittedly needs to improve his shooting percentages, but as long as he does that he can still provide the majority of the value of his contract on the defensive end.

Tl;dr if he can stabilize into shooting consistently, then the Mavs are still in a great place. Luka may be carrying some of Porzingis' weight, but that's great for both the Mavs and Porzingis. Doncic has been so good I no longer worry about the Porzingis contract killing them in the long run.

[Bronbron23]

:roll:
Id say his injury turned him more into channing frye more than anything. He still dosnt look very explosive. It may take awhile to get it back if he does at all. Some guys dont come fully back from that injury.

[DMAVS41]

[QUOTE=chocolatethunder]I know this post is a joke but Porzingis

[Bronbron23]

By Bron ball...do you mean winning multiple titles as the best player while elevating somewhat mediocre casts at times?

I mean, at some point criticizing Luka for having this Mavericks team as the best offense in the league seems a little crazy.

You can not like the style, but not liking the style doesn't somehow make it worse.
Dude all of lebron's championship teams were very good. Especially miami where he actually didnt play "bron ball" as much and conformed more to spols system.

And yeah 3 chips is still great but if he had of been willing to sacrifice stats and his ego and play for a great coach in a system like in miami he would of won way more. Teams lead by ball dominant stars hasnt lead to many chips through out the years. Bron in 16 is the only one i can think of.

[FKAri]

And yeah 3 chips is still great but if he had of been willing to sacrifice stats and his ego and play for a great coach in a system like in miami he would of won way more. Teams lead by ball dominant stars hasnt lead to many chips through out the years. Bron in 16 is the only one i can think of.
While, true theoretically there are no seasons where he lost the chip because of "Bron ball". He hasn't been on the kinds of team where his failure to step back into a lesser role held the team back.

[DMAVS41]

Dude all of lebron's championship teams were very good. Especially miami where he actually didnt play "bron ball" as much and conformed more to spols system.

And yeah 3 chips is still great but if he had of been willing to sacrifice stats and his ego and play for a great coach in a system like in miami he would of won way more. Teams lead by ball dominant stars hasnt lead to many chips through out the years. Bron in 16 is the only one i can think of.

What championship teams, outside a few outliers, weren't very good in the way you are talking?

Maybe 94 Rockets / 03 Spurs / 11 Mavs...what else?

Almost all the other championships won in the modern era are populated with multiple all-nba players or players of that caliber at least with very good coaching/supporting casts relative to the competition.

[Haymaker]

True. Like getting to the finals for almost a decade and winning some is a bad thing. In fact, Luka is playing more like an hybrid of Lebron and Harden.

[QUOTE=FultzNationRISE]It

[AlternativeAcc.]

Dude all of lebron's championship teams were very good. Especially miami where he actually didnt play "bron ball" as much and conformed more to spols system.

And yeah 3 chips is still great but if he had of been willing to sacrifice stats and his ego and play for a great coach in a system like in miami he would of won way more. Teams lead by ball dominant stars hasnt lead to many chips through out the years. Bron in 16 is the only one i can think of.
You have no idea what you're talking about, regurgitating 3balls lazy takes is embarrasing to say the least

[DMAVS41]

While, true theoretically there are no seasons where he lost the chip because of "Bron ball". He hasn't been on the kinds of team where his failure to step back into a lesser role held the team back.

What is funny...is that the main criticism of Lebron, rightfully so imo, is that he didn't play aggressive enough in the 2011 Finals.

It could be the case that not playing "Lebron ball" cost him a title...whereas I can't think of a title he lost either because of playing "Lebron ball"...

[RRR3]

What is funny...is that the main criticism of Lebron, rightfully so imo, is that he didn't play aggressive enough in the 2011 Finals.

It could be the case that not playing "Lebron ball" cost him a title...whereas I can't think of a title he lost either because of playing "Lebron ball"...
LeBron haters (who are almost always Kobetards, it seems) are usually very stupid. The reasons for LeBron losing in the finals has either been lack of defense (2014, 2017), being hopelessly outmatched (2007, 2015, 2018), or his own choking (2011). It’s never been because of “LeBron ball”.

[DMAVS41]

LeBron haters (who are almost always Kobetards, it seems) are usually very stupid. The reasons for LeBron losing in the finals has either been lack of defense (2014, 2017), being hopelessly outmatched (2007, 2015, 2018), or his own choking (2011). It’s never been because of “LeBron ball”.

The funniest thing to me, is the stuff like...well, Magic played that way and won, but he had super teams...

And then they turn around and call Kobe/Shaq not a superteam. Where you get, at worst, 2 of the best 15 players of all-time on the same team...with one of them at his peak (which was probably top 5 ever) with one of the best coaches ever and solid veteran supporting casts...and honestly nothing special in terms of competition....certainly nothing of note in the Finals that is for sure.

But, they won because of mid-range/defense...but Magic/Lebron won because of unfairly stacking the deck.

How someone can be so blinded is beyond me.

[Bronbron23]

What championship teams, outside a few outliers, weren't very good in the way you are talking?

Maybe 94 Rockets / 03 Spurs / 11 Mavs...what else?

Almost all the other championships won in the modern era are populated with multiple all-nba players or players of that caliber at least with very good coaching/supporting casts relative to the competition.
I didnt say any championship teams weren't very good. They were all good. Either i spoke wrong or you misunderstood.

[Bronbron23]

You have no idea what you're talking about, regurgitating 3balls lazy takes is embarrasing to say the least
I understand just fine. hat am i wrong about?

[pastis]

If you would have watched more than the 2min game highlights, you will see that porzingis just cant post up and is right now not even able to make the pnr.
The only criticism i have with doncic are the 3s. He takes imo too much

[superduper]

I understand just fine. hat am i wrong about?

Absolutely nothing dude's just fuming at the truth.

[Hey Yo]

Channing Frye that can also protect the paint, post up, and make some mid-range shots?

Sounds like a pretty impactful player to me.
Krist doesn't post up. He absolutely is not feared by the smaller defender of getting backed down and bullied for an easy 2.

[Micku]

The funniest thing to me, is the stuff like...well, Magic played that way and won, but he had super teams...

And then they turn around and call Kobe/Shaq not a superteam. Where you get, at worst, 2 of the best 15 players of all-time on the same team...with one of them at his peak (which was probably top 5 ever) with one of the best coaches ever and solid veteran supporting casts...and honestly nothing special in terms of competition....certainly nothing of note in the Finals that is for sure.

But, they won because of mid-range/defense...but Magic/Lebron won because of unfairly stacking the deck.

How someone can be so blinded is beyond me.

I disagree to a point.

I never considered Shaq/Kobe to be a superteam. I always considered a superteam to be 3 or more superstars. And with throughout their championship run, I don't think they had a more talented roster than their 98 team. Shaq, Eddie Jones, teen Kobe, Nick Van Exel, with Elden Campbell coming off the bench. And still with Robert Horry, Rick Fox, young Fisher.
They had four all-stars, and the most talent in the league and still lost.

With Shaq/Kobe, they were the one and two punch. When they got Gary Payton and Karl Malone, they seemed more like a superteam. But Gary Payton didn't fit.They were old, sure, but Karl Malone was good within the triangel.

And the teams did challenge them. Not with star talent, but with overall good team. None for the east tho except for the Pistons. I guess you can argue the Pacers, but that was before Kobe became a star.

With Magic Lakers, they did stacked the deck. But so did other top teams eventually. 76ers, Celts, Pistons eventually. And back then, the West sucked. Really no competition other than Rockets pulling out the upset every now and then. But with Magic's team, he could give the ball to Kareem and let him do work or have Michael Cooper take point a couple of times. It depends on which season we are talking about to discuss in fully of Lakers use of Magic. But if I can recall, could be wrong, but it was never "lets sacrifice our game to fit with Magic". It was more like, Magic will try to find you in the best spot. He just always had the talent to do it effectively with to win.

[SpaceJam2]

You have no idea what you're talking about, regurgitating 3balls lazy takes is embarrasing to say the least

Thats because he IS 3ball

[Bronbron23]

Thats because he IS 3ball ive argued with dude many times so if im 3ball than 3ball is crazyier than yall think because hes on here having full out arguments with himself.

Not that i care what a loser who posts 60 lebron related topics a day thinks but ill prove it to yall

Mj wouldn't have won 6 rings without pippen
Mj wouldn't have won 6 rings without phil
Mj was a jerk

Now would 3ball say any of that?

[SpaceJam2]

ive argued with dude many times so if im 3ball than 3ball is crazyier than yall think because hes on here having full out arguments with himself.

Not that i care what a loser who posts 60 lebron related topics a day thinks but ill prove it to yall

Mj wouldn't have won 6 rings without pippen
Mj wouldn't have won 6 rings without phil
Mj was a jerk

Now would 3ball say any of that?

This is just sad :(

It's so obvious you are 3ball

[Bronbron23]

This is just sad :(

It's so obvious you are 3ball
Bruh your the last guy that should be calling anyone sad. Dont make me get warriorfan to call your pathetic ass out again :facepalm

[DMAVS41]

Krist doesn't post up. He absolutely is not feared by the smaller defender of getting backed down and bullied for an easy 2.

He's been very loose with the ball this year, but he's absolutely capable of catching it on the wing / mid-post...turning and shooting. He's not Dirk or something, but I imagine it will get better and better.

[SpaceJam2]

Bruh your the last guy that should be calling anyone sad. Dont make me get warriorfan to call your pathetic ass out again :facepalm

100% 1ball confirmed :lol

Time to make another one

3ball
bronbron23
mr feeny
90s goat
overdrive
shaquille o neal
knicksman
duncan21formvp
etc.

sheesh man...Stop it. Get some help.

[DMAVS41]

I disagree to a point.

I never considered Shaq/Kobe to be a superteam. I always considered a superteam to be 3 or more superstars. And with throughout their championship run, I don't think they had a more talented roster than their 98 team. Shaq, Eddie Jones, teen Kobe, Nick Van Exel, with Elden Campbell coming off the bench. And still with Robert Horry, Rick Fox, young Fisher.
They had four all-stars, and the most talent in the league and still lost.

With Shaq/Kobe, they were the one and two punch. When they got Gary Payton and Karl Malone, they seemed more like a superteam. But Gary Payton didn't fit.They were old, sure, but Karl Malone was good within the triangel.

And the teams did challenge them. Not with star talent, but with overall good team. None for the east tho except for the Pistons. I guess you can argue the Pacers, but that was before Kobe became a star.

With Magic Lakers, they did stacked the deck. But so did other top teams eventually. 76ers, Celts, Pistons eventually. And back then, the West sucked. Really no competition other than Rockets pulling out the upset every now and then. But with Magic's team, he could give the ball to Kareem and let him do work or have Michael Cooper take point a couple of times. It depends on which season we are talking about to discuss in fully of Lakers use of Magic. But if I can recall, could be wrong, but it was never "lets sacrifice our game to fit with Magic". It was more like, Magic will try to find you in the best spot. He just always had the talent to do it effectively with to win.

This is just semantics to me.

I don't see how Kobe/Shaq/Fisher functionally is any different than a big 3 of some sort.

Like, how is Pierce/KG/Ray significantly better than that when Shaq at his peak was just so dominant?

And then what was the real competition? Nothing even approaching what two top 15 players of all-time have in terms of expected value.

[Bronbron23]

100% 1ball confirmed :lol

Time to make another one

3ball
bronbron23
mr feeny
90s goat
overdrive
shaquille o neal
knicksman
duncan21formvp
etc.

sheesh man...Stop it. Get some help. whatever dude call me whoever you want if it makes you feel better. I was actually a little worried for you after warriorfan exsposed you the way he did. After seeing how many posts you made it was painfully clear that you have mental health issues and that this forum is pretty much tour entire life. I dont want to ruin that for you anymore than warriorfan already did.

[FireDavidKahn]

While, true theoretically there are no seasons where he lost the chip because of "Bron ball". He hasn't been on the kinds of team where his failure to step back into a lesser role held the team back.

All this "bron ball" talk and no one is actually looking at Dallas' roster. Luka has literally 0 to do with Kristaps shooting 39% and after that his next "best" option is Tim Hardaway.

People are seriously suggesting that the ball needs to be in Luka's hand less and more in the hands of people like Hardaway and those that do need to stop watching the NBA

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[DMAVS41]

All this "bron ball" talk and no one is actually looking at Dallas' roster. Luka has literally 0 to do with Kristaps shooting 39% and after that his next "best" option is Tim Hardaway.

People are seriously suggesting that the ball needs to be in Luka's hand less and more in the hands of people like Hardaway and those that do need to stop watching the NBA

:roll: :roll: :roll:

I have made this point now about 20 times over the last couple weeks since this started.

And, nobody, can even begin to name the guy they think should be running the offense more often.

This is the dumbest take ever on here...the guy leading the best offense in the league while winning way more games than expected...is a problem because of reduced numbers for another player that is straight up missing wide-open shots half the time.

:facepalm

[Bronbron23]

All this "bron ball" talk and no one is actually looking at Dallas' roster. Luka has literally 0 to do with Kristaps shooting 39% and after that his next "best" option is Tim Hardaway.

People are seriously suggesting that the ball needs to be in Luka's hand less and more in the hands of people like Hardaway and those that do need to stop watching the NBA

:roll: :roll: :roll:
I dont think anyone is saying the ball shoukd be in his hands less. They're just saying that one of the reasons for his crazy stats is the fact that hes a ball dominant player aka bron ball. Fact is dallas isnt good enough to win it all no matter how luka plays so he might as well do what hes doing.

[DMAVS41]

I dont think anyone is saying the ball shoukd be in his hands less. They're just saying that one of the reasons for his crazy stats is the fact that hes a ball dominant player aka bron ball. Fact is dallas isnt good enough to win it all no matter how luka plays so he might as well do what hes doing.

Right, but when that production leads to the best offense and a lot of wins...what is the point of saying he's not as good as his stats?

[Bronbron23]

Right, but when that production leads to the best offense and a lot of wins...what is the point of saying he's not as good as his stats?
I wouldn't really word it that way because in relation to the rest of nba hes definitely as good as his stats. I think when people say that they mean that in relation to historical greats his stats are a little inflated because of the rules, pace of play and the fact that he plays a "bron ball" style of play.

[Manny98]

I wouldn't really word it that way because in relation to the rest of nba hes definitely as good as his stats. I think when people say that they mean that in relation to historical greats his stats are a little inflated because of the rules, pace of play and the fact that he plays a "bron ball" style of play.
Luka playing "bron ball" style of play leads to the best offense in the NBA, interesting i thought LeBron ball was cancerous and doesn't work

[Bronbron23]

Luka playing "bron ball" style of play leads to the best offense in the NBA, interesting i thought LeBron ball was cancerous and doesn't work
I never said either of those. Hes won a chip with "bron ball" and it was one of the greatest chips ever in my opinion. All ive said is it dosnt maximize winning and that not many people can win that way. Bron gets away with it because hes one of the greatest players ever.

[DMAVS41]

I wouldn't really word it that way because in relation to the rest of nba hes definitely as good as his stats. I think when people say that they mean that in relation to historical greats his stats are a little inflated because of the rules, pace of play and the fact that he plays a "bron ball" style of play.

His stats are clearly inflated based on the rules and pace. That isn't my point though.

My point is that using "Lebron Ball" as a dig against a player seems a little odd when the results are the best offense in the league and winning way more than expected so far.

That is what I don't understand.

[Bronbron23]

His stats are clearly inflated based on the rules and pace. That isn't my point though.

My point is that using "Lebron Ball" as a dig against a player seems a little odd when the results are the best offense in the league and winning way more than expected so far.

That is what I don't understand.
Who used bron ball as a dig though? And ive never said you cant have alot of regular season wins or the best regular season offence with bron ball. I just said its very hard to win a chip that way. Nobody has ever done it besides bron and even he has only done it once.

[DMAVS41]

Who used bron ball as a dig though? And ive never said you cant have alot of regular season wins or the best regular season offence with bron ball. I just said its very hard to win a chip that way. Nobody has ever done it besides bron and even he has only done it once.

It is being used as a dig in this very thread talking about turning a player into Frye...diminishing Bosh/Love...etc. It is used as a dig all the time.

I don't even know what people mean by it though...that is the problem.

What players play "Bron Ball"????

What players should have won titles, but didn't because of their style?

[Doranku]

His stats are clearly inflated based on the rules and pace. That isn't my point though.

My point is that using "Lebron Ball" as a dig against a player seems a little odd when the results are the best offense in the league and winning way more than expected so far.

That is what I don't understand.

I don't understand why people are saying Luka plays "Bran ball", he plays more like Harden than LeBron.

[DMAVS41]

I don't understand why people are saying Luka plays "Bran ball", he plays more like Harden than LeBron.

For sure.

What I would like to know though...is what teams have lost titles that should have won playing "Bron Ball"?

That is honestly confusing me more than the other stuff.

[Shogon]

What I don't understand is how this thread made it 4 pages when I clearly said I was trolling in the third post in this thread. That's the thing about ISH... even when you ADMIT that you're trolling, people still just start losing their shit and arguing with one another. :roll:

[Bronbron23]

It is being used as a dig in this very thread talking about turning a player into Frye...diminishing Bosh/Love...etc. It is used as a dig all the time.

I don't even know what people mean by it though...that is the problem.

What players play "Bron Ball"????

What players should have won titles, but didn't because of their style?
I cant speak for everyone but "bron ball" to me is just being a on ball dominant player. Its basically a player that has the ball in his hands almost all of the time and theyre pretty much responsible for doing everything. They almost never move off the ball and They dont really play within a system because they pretty much are the system. Lebron for most of his career is an example of this. Miami was the exception and coincidently was when he had his less stats but most chips. Harden, okc westbrook and now luka play a similar style.

Then you have players that still have the ball a fair amount but they play more within a system. Steph, miami bron, hakeem,duncan, mj, bird, kobe magic ect. Kobe could go off the rails from the triangle at times but for the most part he played within the system.

As far as players that didnt win titles because of there ball dominant style its hard to say because its impossible to prove. All i know for sure is that players who have played within a system have won a whole lot of rings and players that play a more ball dominant style dont win any.

[chocolatethunder]

By Bron ball...do you mean winning multiple titles as the best player while elevating somewhat mediocre casts at times?

I mean, at some point criticizing Luka for having this Mavericks team as the best offense in the league seems a little crazy.

You can not like the style, but not liking the style doesn't somehow make it worse.
lol chill did you read everything I said or are just sitting around waiting to be triggered
I mean that he

[DMAVS41]

I cant speak for everyone but "bron ball" to me is just being a on ball dominant player. Its basically a player that has the ball in his hands almost all of the time and theyre pretty much responsible for doing everything. They almost never move off the ball and They dont really play within a system because they pretty much are the system. Lebron for most of his career is an example of this. Miami was the exception and coincidently was when he had his less stats but most chips. Harden, okc westbrook and now luka play a similar style.

Then you have players that still have the ball a fair amount but they play more within a system. Steph, miami bron, hakeem,duncan, mj, bird, kobe magic ect. Kobe could go off the rails from the triangle at times but for the most part he played within the system.

As far as players that didnt win titles because of there ball dominant style its hard to say because its impossible to prove. All i know for sure is that players who have played within a system have won a whole lot of rings and players that play a more ball dominant style dont win any.

I get what people kind of mean by it, but you earlier said it doesn't win as much.

So I'd like to know what players/teams didn't win because of the style they played...doesn't even have to be "Lebron Ball" like you earlier claimed...

Because what you are describing above is more about just having better players with Lebron. I'm also not sure what you are talking about Miami...the one year Lebron really played differently in terms of sharing...was 2011...and they didn't win. IIRC he scored under 25 ppg in the playoffs.

But, again, of course he did a little less overall on Miami than his first stint in Cleveland...he had better help.

Do you really not see my confusion? You are ignoring the biggest driving factor of winning...teammates...and arguing that it was the style...you are just missing the real issue.

But, again, what teams failed to win because of style...I'd really like to know.

[chocolatethunder]

I get what people kind of mean by it, but you earlier said it doesn't win as much.

So I'd like to know what players/teams didn't win because of the style they played...doesn't even have to be "Lebron Ball" like you earlier claimed...

Because what you are describing above is more about just having better players with Lebron. I'm also not sure what you are talking about Miami...the one year Lebron really played differently in terms of sharing...was 2011...and they didn't win. IIRC he scored under 25 ppg in the playoffs.

But, again, of course he did a little less overall on Miami than his first stint in Cleveland...he had better help.

Do you really not see my confusion? You are ignoring the biggest driving factor of winning...teammates...and arguing that it was the style...you are just missing the real issue.

But, again, what teams failed to win because of style...I'd really like to know.
Pretty sure

[RRR3]

[QUOTE=chocolatethunder]Pretty sure

[DMAVS41]

Pretty sure “lebron ball” has a 3-5 finals record idk and one of the wins was gifted by the refs and an epic meltdown by Dallas and the other was Kyrie carrying them. Not to mention Ray Allen. What are you on about exactly? Luka rocks and I’m glad he’s on the Mavs. He’s dominating the ball a little but as I said I’m not super concerned as long as Carlisle is the coach.

I'm trying to understand this viewpoint that what Luka is currently doing or what Lebron did during his first stint on the Cavs...is playing a style that doesn't win as much.

Like, if Luka was doing this with other capable playmakers and scorers...I'd have a problem I think, but with this team or Lebron's early Cavs teams? Nah...just pretending there is a problem rather than being honest about the help.

It seems to me...the teams with the best players usually win and guys tend to do more or less depending on what kind of help they have.

Not sure what is confusing based on my position...what is confusing to me is where all these teams are that would have won if their star played a different style.

Even with Lebron...the only real year one can point to is 2011, but even then it kind of works against that point because Lebron didn't play "Lebron Ball" really...certainly not in the Finals.

So, again, I'm simply asking what these teams are.

And, hard to take you seriously when you talk about Kyrie carrying Lebron...when we know that isn't true. Lebron wins with Wade/Bosh not producing much...people like you claim he diminished them. He then turns around and Kyrie flourishes and they win...and you say Kyrie carried him. It is the definition of a no-win situation...

[Bronbron23]

I get what people kind of mean by it, but you earlier said it doesn't win as much.

So I'd like to know what players/teams didn't win because of the style they played...doesn't even have to be "Lebron Ball" like you earlier claimed...

Because what you are describing above is more about just having better players with Lebron. I'm also not sure what you are talking about Miami...the one year Lebron really played differently in terms of sharing...was 2011...and they didn't win. IIRC he scored under 25 ppg in the playoffs.

But, again, of course he did a little less overall on Miami than his first stint in Cleveland...he had better help.

Do you really not see my confusion? You are ignoring the biggest driving factor of winning...teammates...and arguing that it was the style...you are just missing the real issue.

But, again, what teams failed to win because of style...I'd really like to know.
I already agreed that teammates were a big factor so ill try to take the more help part out of it.
2018 playoffs okc vs jazz
Okc had the better team but lost to the lesser team that moved the ball more.

2017 playoffs okc vs houston
Yes both stars are ball dominant but at that time harden was less ball dominant than westbrook was. okc had the better or at least as good of a team and yet they still lost to the team that moved the ball more.

2016 playoffs rockets vs warriors
Warriors didn't even have steph this series and they still beat harden and the rockets.

2009 playoffs orlando vs cavs
These teams were pretty evenly matched up. Id actually say cavs were a little better just because bron is a goat level player and howard isnt anything close to that.

2011 and 2014 finals
Yes lebron played more in a system in miami than anywhere but he never really fully committed to spols system. This was well documented and caused some issues between him and spols and even him and pat. Both of those finals lebron lost to less talented teams that had a system the emphasized movement more.

I may be missing one or 2 more. Now can you name any teams with a ball dominant system that beat a team with as good or better talent that had a movement system? 2016 finals is all that comes to mind but im not sure the warriors were ever more talented. They're recored was as much of a product of there system as it was there players. Thats what happens when you have great players in a great system.

[DMAVS41]

Ok, I'll give you my thoughts one by one.

1. I kind of agree, but it was a pretty evenly matched series and the Jazz had a higher SRS going into it. In addition, Paul George was dealing with a hip issue iirc. So, kind of agree that they style hurt them, but...we are talking winning titles really..and the Thunder had no chance to win a title and simply lost a 50-50 series.

2. 17 Rockets were clearly a better team. Everything supports this. They won more games and better metrics across the board. In addition, Harden plays the style you say wins less. So, no, I can't agree with this at all.

3. Just no, those Rockets weren't that good yet. You aren't understanding how good that Warriors team actually was....even with a limited Steph for a game or two or whatever he played. Even worse for your argument, Harden didn't play the style he does now. The Rockets have gotten better, not worse, since he's upped his ball dominance. Beyond reaching to claim the Rockets should have beaten those Warriors.

4. I mean, I think this just depends on how one views guys like Mo/Jamison. I think you could make the argument that Lebron caused his teammates to play poorly, but I think everyone over-rates that Cavs team based on winning a lot, but didn't pay attention to really not having reliable players for the playoffs.

5. 2011...I definitely agree it was a team that should have won in the Heat, but the problem is that the Heat didn't play "Lebron Ball" at all...so it is hard to argue that Lebron's ball dominance caused them to lose when they didn't even play it. :confusedshrug:

6. 2014...kind of, but the Spurs were better all year and Wade/Bosh were nowhere near their peaks, but I can see one making the argument. The problem is that both guys in Wade/Bosh never really looked any better than they did at that point...and they just weren't as impactful as the names suggest at the time.


So, you listed a few series...most of which had no chance to even win the title...talking about just a few playoff series here and there. It isn't like upsets can't happen either...I'm not arguing that.

Just that...titles are almost always won and lost based on the help superstars have. And in the one clear case of the better help losing...the team in question didn't play the style you are arguing against.

I don't know man...just seems like a lot of effort to pretend that supporting casts aren't the driving factor for winning.

Especially when I can turn around and say certain teams lost because of style as favorites in the opposite way as well. Lakers in 03 and 04, Mavericks in 06 and 07, Warriors in 16...etc. Also, while not favorites in 12 and 13...the Thunder / Spurs both lost against Lebron ball.

And you'll say...yea, but Lebron had a superteam...he had a better team than those guys. And I'll say...yea, but Kobe/Shaq was better than everyone else. Durant Warriors were better than everyone else. Kobe/Pau was actually pretty clearly better than everyone else...at least in 09...and on and on and on.

Like, what is consistent? Seems to me that what is pretty consistent is that the best players with the best help usually win most titles.

[stalkerforlife]

Bran ball is not successful for the team; it's for Bran's stats.

There's a reason he needed to hop around a horrid conference building super teams.

Be serious.

[Micku]

This is just semantics to me.

I don't see how Kobe/Shaq/Fisher functionally is any different than a big 3 of some sort.

Like, how is Pierce/KG/Ray significantly better than that when Shaq at his peak was just so dominant?

And then what was the real competition? Nothing even approaching what two top 15 players of all-time have in terms of expected value.

I can tell you the difference at least from what I seen. They usually have to be all-stars. And be one of the best players in their positions.

Nobody ever referred to Shaq/Kobe lakers to have a big 3. It was always Shaq/Kobe. Then the role players. But Fisher was a significant part of being a role player.

I also don't think the Celts big 3 could beat the Laker when Shaq was so dominant and Kobe becoming a star. But they could give them a run for their money perhaps. Like the Kings 02 did or the Spurs 03. It's also depends on the prime of the talent and how they fit with one another.

Because when OKC had KD/Westbrook, they were talented. But I think the Celts big 3 could beat them. And the Lakers in 04 when they had Karl Malone, Shaq, Kobe, and Gary Payton. They were old, but still a superteam. They were celebrating this whole thing. Shaq dubbing them the fantastic four (also note no Fisher haha). But again, they were old. That's how it's usually done.

Sometimes the Superteams don't dominant an era like expected, and there are some levels of superteams. Like Big 3 Celts was not as big as a deal as Miami big 3. And that was not as big as deal as whatever the Warriors when KD joined.

Everyone probably has their own opinion of what a superteam is I guess tho. Like the Rockets in 96-97. Barkley doesn't think it was a superteam, Cylde Drexler did.

And to your point of "And then what was the real competition? Nothing even approaching what two top 15 players of all-time have in terms of expected value." I mean....we saw the competition. They win 3. Dominated in 2001. But in 2000 and 2002, they were some tough ones. They should've lost in 2002.

In terms of expected value, well they always had it since 97ish. They were expected to reach the finals in 98, but lost to the Jazz. Again in 99, but lost to the Spurs. They always lost to teams with less talent. It happens. But perhaps this is getting off topic a little bit.

Going back to the topic with LeBron ball. I agree to a point with Bronbron23. I think that LeBron ball doesn't maximize the "star" talent, but it depends on the talent that you have. With a bunch of role players, go for it. Stars that are good catch and shoot and off the ball movement, go for it. With stars that need the ball in their hand to be effective, then that's when it gets a little difficult. You'll get the awkwardness and predictability like you did with the Miami Heat in the first year. They took turns. Now, at times that's fine because they had the talent to do it, but it disrupts the offense as well.

Wade or LeBron would just stand around while the other has the ball, and neither are catch and shoot players. They worked better being involved more into the offense, when one was cutting, setting screens, or gearing up for a post up. They adapted more horns playsets. And Wade played more off the ball.

But regardless of the first year awkwardness, they still got to the finals. They just lost there.

That's what part of the reason why Phil Jackson and Tex Winter like the triangle so much, along with the spacing. It's so that everyone can get involved within the offense. If I can recall, they said said if they at least get a chance to touch and do something with the ball to get a rhythm, then they might give more of an effort on defense. Here is another quote with him saying that it gets players involved:
[quote]

[Bronbron23]

Ok, I'll give you my thoughts one by one.

1. I kind of agree, but it was a pretty evenly matched series and the Jazz had a higher SRS going into it. In addition, Paul George was dealing with a hip issue iirc. So, kind of agree that they style hurt them, but...we are talking winning titles really..and the Thunder had no chance to win a title and simply lost a 50-50 series.

2. 17 Rockets were clearly a better team. Everything supports this. They won more games and better metrics across the board. In addition, Harden plays the style you say wins less. So, no, I can't agree with this at all.

3. Just no, those Rockets weren't that good yet. You aren't understanding how good that Warriors team actually was....even with a limited Steph for a game or two or whatever he played. Even worse for your argument, Harden didn't play the style he does now. The Rockets have gotten better, not worse, since he's upped his ball dominance. Beyond reaching to claim the Rockets should have beaten those Warriors.

4. I mean, I think this just depends on how one views guys like Mo/Jamison. I think you could make the argument that Lebron caused his teammates to play poorly, but I think everyone over-rates that Cavs team based on winning a lot, but didn't pay attention to really not having reliable players for the playoffs.

5. 2011...I definitely agree it was a team that should have won in the Heat, but the problem is that the Heat didn't play "Lebron Ball" at all...so it is hard to argue that Lebron's ball dominance caused them to lose when they didn't even play it. :confusedshrug:

6. 2014...kind of, but the Spurs were better all year and Wade/Bosh were nowhere near their peaks, but I can see one making the argument. The problem is that both guys in Wade/Bosh never really looked any better than they did at that point...and they just weren't as impactful as the names suggest at the time.


So, you listed a few series...most of which had no chance to even win the title...talking about just a few playoff series here and there. It isn't like upsets can't happen either...I'm not arguing that.

Just that...titles are almost always won and lost based on the help superstars have. And in the one clear case of the better help losing...the team in question didn't play the style you are arguing against.

I don't know man...just seems like a lot of effort to pretend that supporting casts aren't the driving factor for winning.

Especially when I can turn around and say certain teams lost because of style as favorites in the opposite way as well. Lakers in 03 and 04, Mavericks in 06 and 07, Warriors in 16...etc. Also, while not favorites in 12 and 13...the Thunder / Spurs both lost against Lebron ball.

And you'll say...yea, but Lebron had a superteam...he had a better team than those guys. And I'll say...yea, but Kobe/Shaq was better than everyone else. Durant Warriors were better than everyone else. Kobe/Pau was actually pretty clearly better than everyone else...at least in 09...and on and on and on.

Like, what is consistent? Seems to me that what is pretty consistent is that the best players with the best help usually win most titles.
So the problem with alot of your argument here is that your using srs and team wins but your initial argument was teams with better players win. Things like team wins and srs can be just products of good team play as much as talent.

1. Okc definitely had the better players. The jazz srs or whatever else only proves that they were the better team not that they had more talent.

2. Yes the rockets were the better "team" but they didnt have more talent. It was pretty even though ill give you that but There team wins and better metrics are only a reflection of there team play success. And yeah harden was one of the names mentioned as a bron baller but he didnt play it as much before 2018. At the teime Westbrook played it alot more. Either way okc shouldn't have got crushed they way they did.

3 steph was pretty much out the whole series not a game or 2. And yes i realize how good they were but why were they so good? Its because they probably have the best system in the nba other than maybe greg pops. Even with steph out they beat harden easily. Rockets clearly had the best player and even with a better bench teams with the best player especially an all time great one usually win those match ups.
And yeah harden didnt play bron ball as much then but the rockets still played it way more than the warriors did. And yeah the rockets have got better since harden has played way more bron ball but getting better players as you say probably had something to do with that. Chris paul and westbrook even as fellow bron ballers are pretty damn good.

4. Cleveland clearly had the most talent. Bron one was better than 5he magics best players combined. Cavs shouldn't have lost that series.

5 and 6. I acknowledge that bron didnt play it as much in miami but he still did play it. That was one of the major problems between him spols and Reilly at the time. Bron didnt want to play team ball he wanted to play his natural style. The heat clearly had the better teams but lost to teams that played much better team ball.

Yes i only listed a few series but other than lebron there isnt a huge history of bron ballers. Harden and westbrook in the last few years and now luka. You can maybe throw chris paul and dantoni nash in there but they didnt look to score as much. So yes its a small sample size but so far it hasnt looked to be a good recipe for winning. Maybe luka will prove me wrong but i dont think he will.

This era has more "bron" ballers than any and the league talent wise is pretty even. Actually the bron ball teams probably are the most talented. Lakers and rockets each have 2 mvp type players. Id be willing to bet though that neither will win anytime soon. They'll lose to a clippers team with a banged up kawhi because the clippers will have the better system. The other factors that ive brought up in other posts like mid range and defence will make a difference too.

[DMAVS41]

Ah, but no...we could value players differently. Saying the Thunder clearly had better players, for example, ignores Russ not being anywhere near his peak level...and PG's injury....and how much Melo sucked. This is my point...Gobert/Mitchell/Rubio/Favors/Ingles/Crowder, imo, is just a better core group of players than what the Thunder had. You do this with the Heat, for example, in 13 and 14...again...you should educate yourself on the actual levels of Wade/Bosh back then. You can't go off of names...you have to go off how good a player actually was.

Dude, the Rockets won with the style you claim is limited, and lost with the style you claim is better. That makes my point, not yours. Ever since Harden started this...the Rockets have won more...both in the regular season and the playoffs.

The Cavs had Lebron...and not much else. Generally single star teams with mediocre role players don't make the finals a lot or win many titles. But, like I said...you could make that argument. However, we are really talking about titles...and in no way were the 09 and 10 Cavs meeting the historical criteria needed to win titles.

But again, you picked out random playoff series...when we are talking about winning titles....and I could go back and do the reverse. Upsets happen...teams with better players both win and lose with different styles. Never have I disputed that...I'm just trying to show you how limited your argument really is when it almost always comes down to teammates.

Like I keep saying...just seems that what really matters is the teams with the better players. I never said they win every time...just that it is clearly the main factor.

[DMAVS41]

I can tell you the difference at least from what I seen. They usually have to be all-stars. And be one of the best players in their positions.

Nobody ever referred to Shaq/Kobe lakers to have a big 3. It was always Shaq/Kobe. Then the role players. But Fisher was a significant part of being a role player.

I also don't think the Celts big 3 could beat the Laker when Shaq was so dominant and Kobe becoming a star. But they could give them a run for their money perhaps. Like the Kings 02 did or the Spurs 03. It's also depends on the prime of the talent and how they fit with one another.

Because when OKC had KD/Westbrook, they were talented. But I think the Celts big 3 could beat them. And the Lakers in 04 when they had Karl Malone, Shaq, Kobe, and Gary Payton. They were old, but still a superteam. They were celebrating this whole thing. Shaq dubbing them the fantastic four (also note no Fisher haha). But again, they were old. That's how it's usually done.

Sometimes the Superteams don't dominant an era like expected, and there are some levels of superteams. Like Big 3 Celts was not as big as a deal as Miami big 3. And that was not as big as deal as whatever the Warriors when KD joined.

Everyone probably has their own opinion of what a superteam is I guess tho. Like the Rockets in 96-97. Barkley doesn't think it was a superteam, Cylde Drexler did.

And to your point of "And then what was the real competition? Nothing even approaching what two top 15 players of all-time have in terms of expected value." I mean....we saw the competition. They win 3. Dominated in 2001. But in 2000 and 2002, they were some tough ones. They should've lost in 2002.

In terms of expected value, well they always had it since 97ish. They were expected to reach the finals in 98, but lost to the Jazz. Again in 99, but lost to the Spurs. They always lost to teams with less talent. It happens. But perhaps this is getting off topic a little bit.

Going back to the topic with LeBron ball. I agree to a point with Bronbron23. I think that LeBron ball doesn't maximize the "star" talent, but it depends on the talent that you have. With a bunch of role players, go for it. Stars that are good catch and shoot and off the ball movement, go for it. With stars that need the ball in their hand to be effective, then that's when it gets a little difficult. You'll get the awkwardness and predictability like you did with the Miami Heat in the first year. They took turns. Now, at times that's fine because they had the talent to do it, but it disrupts the offense as well.

Wade or LeBron would just stand around while the other has the ball, and neither are catch and shoot players. They worked better being involved more into the offense, when one was cutting, setting screens, or gearing up for a post up. They adapted more horns playsets. And Wade played more off the ball.

But regardless of the first year awkwardness, they still got to the finals. They just lost there.

That's what part of the reason why Phil Jackson and Tex Winter like the triangle so much, along with the spacing. It's so that everyone can get involved within the offense. If I can recall, they said said if they at least get a chance to touch and do something with the ball to get a rhythm, then they might give more of an effort on defense. Here is another quote with him saying that it gets players involved:

https://dailyknicks.com/2016/08/12/knicks-phil-jackson-explains-use-of-triangle-offense/


Overall, LeBron ball or playing in a system, it just depends on what type of talent you have and what you could do to max it out. You can successful with a lot of systems if you have the talent. Like what James Harden is doing right now. IMO, that's less entertaining to watch than "LeBron ball" or that's "LeBron ball" on steroids. What is aesthetically pleasing to look at is subjective tho.

I don't care what someone calls it...what I care about is how good it is. And peak Shaq is not worth just some "all-star" designation...it isn't getting even close to his value.

The Mavericks in 03, for example, had a really good team...a team that I think would have won the title if Dirk didn't get hurt in the WCF. Had Finley/Nash...you could argue that made the Mavs have a big 3.

But, anyone with a brain, would have traded Finley/Nash for Duncan that year...and the Mavs would have torched the league...

That is why I say it is semantics. You aren't valuing the all-time greats properly by equating them to "all-stars"...

And, yes...I completely agree that certain players maximize superstar talent more. Guys like Dirk/Curry/Bird are going to allow other players to play closer to their optimal level given they can make such a big impact without dominating the ball.

The problem is...a guy like Jordan doesn't allow other players to play their optimal role either in a big 3 in the sense we are talking about either though...and he's likely the GOAT. You give MJ...Kyrie/Love...and there is no way Love is playing at his optimal level...does that make Jordan worse for some reason? Maybe, but I think that is really nit picking as every star player has certain types of teams that would do better or worse based on their style of play.

[Bronbron23]

Ah, but no...we could value players differently. Saying the Thunder clearly had better players, for example, ignores Russ not being anywhere near his peak level...and PG's injury....and how much Melo sucked. This is my point...Gobert/Mitchell/Rubio/Favors/Ingles/Crowder, imo, is just a better core group of players than what the Thunder had. You do this with the Heat, for example, in 13 and 14...again...you should educate yourself on the actual levels of Wade/Bosh back then. You can't go off of names...you have to go off how good a player actually was.

Dude, the Rockets won with the style you claim is limited, and lost with the style you claim is better. That makes my point, not yours. Ever since Harden started this...the Rockets have won more...both in the regular season and the playoffs.

The Cavs had Lebron...and not much else. Generally single star teams with mediocre role players don't make the finals a lot or win many titles. But, like I said...you could make that argument. However, we are really talking about titles...and in no way were the 09 and 10 Cavs meeting the historical criteria needed to win titles.

But again, you picked out random playoff series...when we are talking about winning titles....and I could go back and do the reverse. Upsets happen...teams with better players both win and lose with different styles. Never have I disputed that...I'm just trying to show you how limited your argument really is when it almost always comes down to teammates.

Like I keep saying...just seems that what really matters is the teams with the better players. I never said they win every time...just that it is clearly the main factor.
Well i guess were gonna have to agree to disagree. I hear what your saying though you make good points

[DMAVS41]

Well i guess were gonna have to agree to disagree. I hear what your saying though you make good points

You do as well.

I think we probably ultimately agree, but perhaps value guys a bit differently...which is expected.

I just want to make it clear that I do think Lebron can limit the ceiling of certain teams...and that style of play absolutely can as well.

The problem, for me, is that I also think other styles can limit the ceiling of certain types of teams...and I don't see that being mentioned that often.

What I tend to see...is kind of reverse engineering why teams lost/won after the fact when, to me at least, it almost always comes down to which team has the best players...however, the margins for error are bigger/smaller depending on the years and that makes some of these points more relevant or less relevant based on those talent gaps.

[Bronbron23]

You do as well.

I think we probably ultimately agree, but perhaps value guys a bit differently...which is expected.

I just want to make it clear that I do think Lebron can limit the ceiling of certain teams...and that style of play absolutely can as well.

The problem, for me, is that I also think other styles can limit the ceiling of certain types of teams...and I don't see that being mentioned that often.

What I tend to see...is kind of reverse engineering why teams lost/won after the fact when, to me at least, it almost always comes down to which team has the best players...however, the margins for error are bigger/smaller depending on the years and that makes some of these points more relevant or less relevant based on those talent gaps.
Yeah i hear u and agree that theres many strong factors like the ones you mention. Theres probably no way to really know because theres to many mitigating factors to choose one as the most important. youd basically have to clone a team and get one to play "bron ball" and the other to play a more ball moving cutting system like the warriors.
Good discussion though. Its nice for a change having a debate without all the trolling and name calling.

[Micku]

I don't care what someone calls it...what I care about is how good it is. And peak Shaq is not worth just some "all-star" designation...it isn't getting even close to his value.

The Mavericks in 03, for example, had a really good team...a team that I think would have won the title if Dirk didn't get hurt in the WCF. Had Finley/Nash...you could argue that made the Mavs have a big 3.

But, anyone with a brain, would have traded Finley/Nash for Duncan that year...and the Mavs would have torched the league...

That is why I say it is semantics. You aren't valuing the all-time greats properly by equating them to "all-stars"...

And, yes...I completely agree that certain players maximize superstar talent more. Guys like Dirk/Curry/Bird are going to allow other players to play closer to their optimal level given they can make such a big impact without dominating the ball.

The problem is...a guy like Jordan doesn't allow other players to play their optimal role either in a big 3 in the sense we are talking about either though...and he's likely the GOAT. You give MJ...Kyrie/Love...and there is no way Love is playing at his optimal level...does that make Jordan worse for some reason? Maybe, but I think that is really nit picking as every star player has certain types of teams that would do better or worse based on their style of play.

I agree with you when it comes to valuing the player. That's why I did the whole analogy with the recent big 3. Celts big 3 isn't as big as a deal as with Miami big 3 because they were teaming up 2 of the top 3-5 players at the time with another top 15 player. Then the Warriors was just overkill.

As you mentioned, Mavs had a big 3 too back in the day with Nash, Finley and Dirk. But they were trade Nash and Finley for Duncan if possible. That shows the level of impact of a player. Even if you are all-star. So, guys like BJ Armstrong don't hold a candle in terms of level of performance to Patrick Ewing. Or Mo Williams to a D-Wade or CP3.

And the Lakers when they got Dwight Howard as well in 13. Injuries and they could never get a right system in place for wins except when Kobe started to be the main ball handler.

And we totally agree on the Lebron ball and play styles I think. Like Curry and KD looked better together than Westbrook and KD. But GSW were also stacked, with Klay Thompson and Draymond so that helps as well. Guys like MJ would be affect other stars too like you mentioned. I feel like he would have more of a problem with Love/Kyrie than he would with a Pippen plus a Hakeem/AD/Duncan type. It depends on a few things tho. It depends on the coach, the pace, play styles of course. As you said, it doesn't really make MJ a lesser of a player. He would still have the talent and the ability to win, but not being able to optimize the team could be a issue. Just depends on the competition and how the team is set up.

[Micku]

Yeah i hear u and agree that theres many strong factors like the ones you mention. Theres probably no way to really know because theres to many mitigating factors to choose one as the most important. youd basically have to clone a team and get one to play "bron ball" and the other to play a more ball moving cutting system like the warriors.
Good discussion though. Its nice for a change having a debate without all the trolling and name calling.

Yeah dude. It's always great to have a real b-ball debate than trolling. Trolling is funny and fun at times, but it's cool to have a good b-ball discussion too.

And a lot of what with debate is a little bit hypothetical. Like remember when cp3 and Harden first got together and ppl were a bit baffled how they would fit together?

It worked.

Similar to Westbrook and Harden, but not as good with team they had in 18 imo so far.

I do feel that the GSW warriors hybrid offense and Pop Spurs motion offense is a better way to play if you have stars. Both styles used a mixture of the triangle, which Phil Jackson mentioned a while back. It's less reliant on play calling and allowed players more freedom, but still with some rules in place. It just depends on the team IQ and ability to read the offense.

You can see Pop trying to teach the motion offense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpwi0lgMzRY

Steve Kerr explaining how you have to adjust your system depending on what you have in the roster. And explaining how he incorporate the triangle in his system because of the number guys that could space the floor and pass the ball:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MIlznstac

In Miami, they used a lot of horns sets where two players are at the high post. Pass to one of them and they will cut, do a flex play where they would cross screen for another player to shoot the ball or create a mismatch for iso play, or they would do a double screen or a single screen for the ball handler. Spo label his offense "pace and space". But it's to really accommodate the small ball he had on his roster. So, spread out the offense and create enough spacing with shooters and bam. With LeBron and D-Wade, you can see how this would be great for their play.

Spo had them do whatever they want tho if they get a stop on defense. He thought that this would encourage them to play better defense cuz then they can freeflow.

This is different from LeBron ball that they had in the 1st time with the Cavs. Just give it to LeBron and have him drive and kick or score. They probably had no choice in the matter tho. But I dunno.

[Bronbron23]

Yeah dude. It's always great to have a real b-ball debate than trolling. Trolling is funny and fun at times, but it's cool to have a good b-ball discussion too.

And a lot of what with debate is a little bit hypothetical. Like remember when cp3 and Harden first got together and ppl were a bit baffled how they would fit together?

It worked.

Similar to Westbrook and Harden, but not as good with team they had in 18 imo so far.

I do feel that the GSW warriors hybrid offense and Pop Spurs motion offense is a better way to play if you have stars. Both styles used a mixture of the triangle, which Phil Jackson mentioned a while back. It's less reliant on play calling and allowed players more freedom, but still with some rules in place. It just depends on the team IQ and ability to read the offense.

You can see Pop trying to teach the motion offense:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpwi0lgMzRY

Steve Kerr explaining how you have to adjust your system depending on what you have in the roster. And explaining how he incorporate the triangle in his system because of the number guys that could space the floor and pass the ball:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MIlznstac

In Miami, they used a lot of horns sets where two players are at the high post. Pass to one of them and they will cut, do a flex play where they would cross screen for another player to shoot the ball or create a mismatch for iso play, or they would do a double screen or a single screen for the ball handler. Spo label his offense "pace and space". But it's to really accommodate the small ball he had on his roster. So, spread out the offense and create enough spacing with shooters and bam. With LeBron and D-Wade, you can see how this would be great for their play.

Spo had them do whatever they want tho if they get a stop on defense. He thought that this would encourage them to play better defense cuz then they can freeflow.

This is different from LeBron ball that they had in the 1st time with the Cavs. Just give it to LeBron and have him drive and kick or score. They probably had no choice in the matter tho. But I dunno.
Yeah most of the scenarios in arguments here are hypothetical. And i was definitely one of the people that didnt think harden and paul would work. Kinda crazy how they took warriors to 7 and had them beat if not for cp3 getting hurt. I never understood why they could give the kd warriors a go but bron couldn't even come close. I guess the boxing analogy of styles makes fights could apply.

I actually was hoping when bron left Cleveland both times that he would go to spurs. I feel like he could of won more than mj with pop but again who knows.

It will be interesting to watch luka over the next 15 years. I actually really do like him. I just feel like greek is gonna improve his offence game over the next 2 or 3 years and go absolutely nuts. If he dosnt though once kawhi declines (which looks like is already happening) its fair game. A few players will have a chance. Luka probably having the best chance given kristaps gets back to where he was and they add a coupe more solid role players.

[DMAVS41]

Yeah most of the scenarios in arguments here are hypothetical. And i was definitely one of the people that didnt think harden and paul would work. Kinda crazy how they took warriors to 7 and had them beat if not for cp3 getting hurt. I never understood why they could give the kd warriors a go but bron couldn't even come close. I guess the boxing analogy of styles makes fights could apply.

I actually was hoping when bron left Cleveland both times that he would go to spurs. I feel like he could of won more than mj with pop but again who knows.

It will be interesting to watch luka over the next 15 years. I actually really do like him. I just feel like greek is gonna improve his offence game over the next 2 or 3 years and go absolutely nuts. If he dosnt though once kawhi declines (which looks like is already happening) its fair game. A few players will have a chance. Luka probably having the best chance given kristaps gets back to where he was and they add a coupe more solid role players.

Yea, and not making an easy question too complicated.

The Rockets came much closer because they actually played defense and had a number of players to make life difficult on the Warriors.

The Rockets had a really good defense while the Cavs had one of the worst in the league.

The Cavs scored better against the Warriors than the Rockets did, they just got absolutely lit up...again, because they didn't have any good defenders really.

That is pretty much what I was getting at with the "better players" stuff and style stuff. It isn't like Lebron's teams with a lot of talent weren't great offensively. They pretty much always are...but when talking about Love/Kyrie/JR...etc....who is playing defense? Even if you fault Lebron in large ways for that...there is no version of those Cavs teams that are going to be any better than a little above average on defense...but most likely worse than average.

So, one might initially think that Lebron/Love/Kyrie is just clearly "better players" than Harden/CP3/Tucker or whatever...and in some ways that is true, but you can't build a team or evaluate a team just off of the offensive ability. The Cavs would have traded Love for Tucker/Ariza for sure...and they might have won in 17 if they had them...even though Love is going to hold more value in the "better players" analysis.

[Shogon]

Bump.

[FKAri]

And Porzingis has turned Luka into Lebron :eek:

Porzingis is amazing:applause:

[DoctorP]

There may be some truth to this. Luka is the man but maybe Porzingis is not the best fit, you see the difference in stats.

Porzingis value now trending up as the chemistry issue is EXPOSED

[And1AllDay]

Bump.

:eek: :eek:

Channing Fryzingis is freed from LukaShackles

[~primetime~]

mfs writing novels in here wtf

Some of you putting more work into posts than actual sports journalists do for a salary :lol

[DMAVS41]

There may be some truth to this. Luka is the man but maybe Porzingis is not the best fit, you see the difference in stats.

Porzingis value now trending up as the chemistry issue is EXPOSED

Is the goal to maximize the stats of KP or have the best offense possible?

Like, and I really am curious, is having the best offense in the league so far just not good enough for the Mavericks?

What is a fair expectation for them?

[kentatm]

Is the goal to maximize the stats of KP or have the best offense possible?

Like, and I really am curious, is having the best offense in the league so far just not good enough for the Mavericks?

What is a fair expectation for them?

If KP starts drilling his jumpers on the reg like he did tonight and Luka comes back the same as before the ankle injury the league is ****ed. The role players have bought in and KP is figuring out how to work within RC's flow offense.

I'm not even sure I would make a trade if I were the Mavs unless it was something ridiculous that should never be turned down. They haven't meshed this well together since right before they made the Rondo trade.

[kentatm]

There may be some truth to this. Luka is the man but maybe Porzingis is not the best fit, you see the difference in stats.

Porzingis value now trending up as the chemistry issue is EXPOSED

:oldlol:

KP is still taking his shots within the offense. He isn't forcing anything tryign to get his. The only differences between now and the start of the season is he is starting to hit his jumpers w/more regularity and is more confident cutting to the hoop and crashing the boards. He still has been mediocre to poor when trying to post up so Dallas isn't going to be running the offense through him in Luka's absence.

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

Is the goal to maximize the stats of KP or have the best offense possible?

Like, and I really am curious, is having the best offense in the league so far just not good enough for the Mavericks?

What is a fair expectation for them?

Their offense with Luka on the bench is already the best in the league (114.4 ORTG right there with the Rockets who are #2 behind Dallas) but im sure u already knew that.

And now they just hung 120 on the #1 defense on the road

they dont have to prioritize schemes hiding Luka defensively now either. All plus defenders outside of Seth and Hardaway

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

:oldlol:

KP is still taking his shots within the offense. He isn't forcing anything tryign to get his. The only differences between now and the start of the season is he is starting to hit his jumpers w/more regularity and is more confident cutting to the hoop and crashing the boards. He still has been mediocre to poor when trying to post up so Dallas isn't going to be running the offense through him in Luka's absence.

KP was never a back to the basket player. They used him horribly

he doesnt have the low center of gravity to be a dominant back to the basket playe

they need to use him like Ralph Sampson and how the Knicks played him when they were 14-6 to start their last healthy KP season. Hes much more faceup

[DoctorP]

Is the goal to maximize the stats of KP or have the best offense possible?

Like, and I really am curious, is having the best offense in the league so far just not good enough for the Mavericks?

What is a fair expectation for them?

The question becomes, can the Mavs find more success with a different piece and maybe even get a second piece to go along with it? Porzingis is an expensive piece, is he efficient enough in this system for the money?

[DMAVS41]

If KP starts drilling his jumpers on the reg like he did tonight and Luka comes back the same as before the ankle injury the league is ****ed. The role players have bought in and KP is figuring out how to work within RC's flow offense.

I'm not even sure I would make a trade if I were the Mavs unless it was something ridiculous that should never be turned down. They haven't meshed this well together since right before they made the Rondo trade.

Completely agree.

I thought we should for sure try to make a move with Lee's expiring and THJ or something, but now? I mean...what this team is doing is pretty insane...and there is no reason to mess with the chemistry unless it is a move that is impossible to turn down.

Obviously though, if talking about truly contending...a great defensive wing that could hit 3's like Covington would be really nice to get. The defense is probably like 10 percent away from where you'd want it to be. Adding a floor spacing great wing defender would be awesome.

[DMAVS41]

The question becomes, can the Mavs find more success with a different piece and maybe even get a second piece to go along with it? Porzingis is an expensive piece, is he efficient enough in this system for the money?

He's coming back off a major injury.

He provides elite floor spacing and is great at protecting the rim...he allows all the other players on the team to play their optimal roles on both ends really.

At his age...what player is even remotely realistic at his price tag????

Again, the Mavericks have the best offense in the league. Why are people questioning this fit?

[DMAVS41]

Their offense with Luka on the bench is already the best in the league (114.4 ORTG right there with the Rockets who are #2 behind Dallas) but im sure u already knew that.

And now they just hung 120 on the #1 defense on the road

they dont have to prioritize schemes hiding Luka defensively now either. All plus defenders outside of Seth and Hardaway

So you think the Mavericks should trade Luka?

It amazes me that people still confuse regular season games with winning in the playoffs. What would be a nice additiion...would be a guy like ROCO...you add someone like him and the potential of this team in the playoffs goes up quite a bit imo.