LABron James Discussion: Triple Triple Doubles

@Anon Inam, I’d encourage you to read the site rules. This post violates at least one of them. Consider this a friendly heads up rather than a formal warning since you’re still new here.

 

Not to continue beating a horse that you've beaten badly, but how do similar stats in a win garner an A and a loss garner a C? Where did B go? When legendary becomes average, your evaluation is wrong.

I'll get back to this at some point, but the crux remains. You were more harsh and LeBron through three games than he deserved and I think you probably know that at this point.

 

Alright.


I've got a minute.

As I've said, the scoring is inconsistent on your grading. If you were a teacher, I'd be confused on your criteria for success. You've said previously he needs Herculean efforts in losses to earn an A and the main difference between his performances in wins/losses has been the win and the loss. Therefore you took him from an A to a C due to a loss, but if that's the case, he had an A performance on a less than Herculean effort.

It doesn't add up.

Except I had also shown stats that indicate his percentage around the rim was still in the high 60s and well within his career averages so a couple missed layups, while visually uncomfortable, were not outside the norm for LeBron and his percentages were still well in the "great" category. Also body language sounds like a cop out to me. I didn't see anything significantly different in his body language from games 1-3 compared to 4-6 at all. The only difference was his exclamation after the pass from Lance late against the Nuggets. Even then, he was demonstrative in other spots as well.

My quibble from the outset has been: 27/8/8 is a C and is "underwhelming". I've been consistent from the beginning. If that's "underwhelming" then what the hell are we looking at with these other bums?

First of all, his career average from outside is 34%.

Second of all, career average is 27/7/7 and his first three games were 27/8/8 so not quite the same, but very close.

Third of all, the most important note is that his career average and the work of an average player are two wildly different things. ^^Those numbers, while his average for his career, are not now and should never be classified as "underwhelming". That's honestly preposterous. When you lose sight of what you're seeing in LeBron, your argument loses water. I understand what you're saying and your argument, but you still keep clinging to this being a good take relative to his talent level and it's just not.

Fourth of all, the grading is so inconsistent! In a loss he had "just" 35/11/4, but he's back to a B-. Where's the 50 points? How was his body language?

So that would be underwhelming, then? You've consistently challenged me on my reading comprehension, but your inconsistent writing doesn't help much.

You take into account wins and losses in the micro, but you're okay glossing over key facts in order to support your argument. He's in his 16th season, eventually his numbers will decrease which makes his career numbers sort of an impossible bar to live up to. He's in a new city and a new offense with a team full of players he's never played with before, that's never happened for him in the NBA besides his rookie year. How do those factors not play a role in his evaluation?

How do you look at his career averages as a metric on evaluating his average, but then call for nuance from game to game?
How do you use the FTs against him, but then ignore that in those three games he was shooting 77% from the FT line which is 4% higher than his career average?
How do you keep ignoring that the only place in which his efficiency was really bad was his three point shooting as he was shooting 59% from the field besides that? Considering his efficiency is your only real point to cling to, that seems like a significant oversight in your argument.

So what are their grades? Grade everyone else in those first three games. I'd love to see you wiggle through their Bs and As while LeBron, the doing all the affecting you're talking about, is "underwhelming".

I'll stop exaggerating when you admit you were harder on LeBron because he's LeBron and you were hating a little. Had that been another player, Kobe or Randle or D'Angelo, would you have been so tough? Throw ridiculous at me all you want. I find your argument ridiculous and riddled with holes that you've yet to fill. It's tiresome arguing with someone that's skirting the truth of their own argument. Although the bolded paragraph above comes close to admitting you were harder on LeBron than you needed to be. I think you're realizing that.

Actually no, this is fun. It's been a while since I argued like this. Gets the juices flowing.

You've explained your logic the best you can, but it's just not quite there. I'm glad you're finally on board admitting you were harder on him than you had to be though. And I'm glad you backed away from your position. LeBron gets a solid B thus far and he's earned it from the very start. You've slowly but surely tip toed away from where you started, but I'm glad you got to a more logical place.

Now that we're in agreement.

 

At this point I'm just having fun.

 

Spoiler: Live shot of me at the office

 

*Glances at the length of your post. Compares it to therealdeal's post.*

 

Four score and seven paragraphs ago: