Eugene:

Let me repeat myself, because you seemed to miss the point the first time around:

Morey took over in 2007.

Since 2007, the Rockets have won one playoff series and had a stretch during which they missed the playoffs for three straight years.

Their lone playoff series win came in 2009–six years ago–and the best player on that roster (Yao Ming) was not acquired by Morey. Since Morey has been in charge, he has yet to draft, acquire or develop a number one option who led the team past the first round.

Morey’s bold pronouncements can be found in many places, including the New York Times article to which I alluded (the one focusing on how Battier supposedly knew how to shut down Kobe Bryant). Morey also called Harden a “foundational player,” a comment that raised eyebrows because no one is even sure exactly what that means–but it does seem like a foundational player or a franchise player should win a playoff series at some point. Who knows, maybe year three of the Harden experiment will actually produce a first round win!

So far, Hollinger took over a championship contender, made some moves that have yet to yield tangible results and the team fell from the WCF to first round fodder. I think that they will not go very far this year and you think that my prediction is a farce. April and May should be interesting.

Ryan:

LeBron has been in the league for a decade. We have plenty of facts. We know that he is one of the greatest players of all-time. We also know that he has said and done some things that are strange for a player of that status, things that the players I cited in my article would not/did not do.

Of course LeBron was the primary reason his teams won. However, he is 2-3 in the NBA Finals. Russell went 11-1 in the Finals. Abdul-Jabbar went 6-4. Magic went 5-4. Jordan went 6-0. Kobe went 5-2.

LeBron’s resume looks great compared to almost anyone who ever played but it does not look so great compared to those guys.

Chris:

LeBron is up there with the all-time greats. That is why I am comparing him with the all-time greats. When he is compared to that group, he falls short in some ways. That does not mean that I don’t think he is an all-time great.

Squidward:

Cleveland had enough in 2010 to post the best record in the league, earn home court advantage and have game five at home, where the Cavs had been virtually unbeatable. I sat in press row for that game and I can tell you that LeBron’s complete lack of effort and total disengagement astonished all of us who had watched him firsthand throughout the season and the playoffs. None of us, including people who had covered the league for a long time, had ever seen a player that great look that completely disinterested. It was not just about stats (although LeBron’s stats were awful), it was about how he just stood around and looked like he did not care. We had all seen LeBron play hard and dominate, which made it that much more jarring when he just loped around like he did not care at all.

Swampy:

If I don’t like LeBron James then why did I just write an article for this very site saying that he deserves this season’s MVP? Why did I open this article by saying that he is one of the greatest players of all-time?

Within the space provided, I cited a lot of very relevant evidence and I have added to that evidence here in the comments section. When I wrote the article, I assumed that my audience was familiar with the 2010, 2011 and 2014 playoffs. Perhaps that was a false assumption.

LeBron would indeed be picked very highly even among the 50 greatest players–but would he be picked ahead of Russell, Abdul-Jabbar, Magic, Jordan or Kobe? That is what this article is about. I am not comparing LeBron to Curry or Harden, as some people do. I think that those comparisons are silly. Ten years from now, people are going to look back on that and laugh. I am comparing LeBron to the very best of the best. I think that LeBron does not quite measure up to those guys, for the reasons that I listed.

I understand that you and other commenters may be fans of LeBron or some other particular players–but I am analyzing the players and the teams, not just writing only good things about ones I like and only bad things about ones I don’t like.

Cokemichael:

If you read the first paragraph of my article then you know that I am not in the “anti-LeBron” camp. I am in the “LeBron is one of the greatest players of all-time but he has had some bizarre playoff moments that most of the other greatest players did not have” camp.

Astro:

The “evidence of this ever occurring” is plain to anyone who watched the series. Heck, even if you didn’t watch the series you can get a sense of what happened by looking at the stats. During the series, Terry, a role player, scored more points on fewer shots than James, in addition to taking it to LeBron one on one in games five and six as described in this ESPN article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nba/columns/story?id=6655990

My article is not about liking James or not liking James. I think that James is the best player in the NBA and that he has been for at least the past six years. I think that he deserves this season’s MVP more than any other player. I also think that he has had some bizarre, puzzling and subpar playoff performances. He seems to quit at times. Some people have suggested that James is not actually quitting but that when the other team’s strategy surprises him he takes a step back and tries to figure out what is happening. That may be true but he is the best player on the floor and his team needs for him to attack at all times.

A big moment for James, by his own admission, is when Dwyane Wade told him that he had to accept the responsibility of being the best player on the court at all times: http://20secondtimeout.blogspot.com/2014/02/lebron-james-explains-how-dwyane-wade.html

For whatever reason, Russell, Abdul-Jabbar, Magic, Jordan and Bryant seemed to intuitively understand this. Even now, James still seems to not get it at times (“chill mode”).

Ryan:

In this article I cited several examples, not just one:

1) 2010 Boston series
2) 2011 Dallas series
3) 2014 San Antonio series
4) Leaving Miami because he thinks he needs more help (Russell, Magic, Jordan and Kobe never did that; Kareem left Milwaukee for personal reasons more than because of feeling he needed more help on the court)
5) Starting out the 2015 season in “chill mode,” which would be foreign words to Russell and the others.

If you can find a Jordan “stinker” in his prime that cost his team a series, let me know.

Magic led the Lakers in assists, rebounds and steals while shooting .560 from the field in the 1984 Finals. One Kevin McHale quip does not tell the whole story of that series. It obviously was not the high point of Magic’s career but it also cannot be compared to LeBron’s aforementioned playoff duds.

Check out this ESPN article titled “Kawhi Leonard wreaking havoc on LeBron”: http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/91407/kawhi-leonard-wreaking-havoc-on-lebron

Regarding Kobe’s game seven performance in the 2010 Finals, he led both teams with 15 rebounds and he scored 10 fourth quarter points to seal the win. He, like many other players in that defensive-minded series, shot a poor percentage but he had a major impact on the outcome (winning the Finals MVP) and he certainly showed more energy than LeBron did in the games/series that I mentioned in my article.

I provided plenty of facts and examples in the article. You just chose to ignore them or do not know the history well enough to appreciate what I wrote.

I am not “pouring on LeBron for no reason.” I stated at the outset that he deserved the MVPs he won and that I think he deserves this year’s MVP as well. I don’t understand why people even bother comparing him to Curry or Harden. LeBron’s only competition is the dozen or so greatest players of all-time. LeBron is so great that it puzzles me when he seems to not play hard or when he permits lesser players to outplay him. I greatly respect his talent and accomplishments, which is why I find some of his words and actions puzzling–hence the title and theme of this piece.

Marc:

You are quite right on all counts. Bird and the Celtics were a championship team at the height of their powers, while the 1986 Bulls had Jordan (coming off of foot surgery) and not much else. In 2010, James had the best team in the regular season and he enjoyed home court advantage for game five. The team that wins game five wins the series about 80% of the time–and in the biggest game of the series, he completely disappeared.

Johnno:

This is the relevant quote from my article: “Russell, Abdul-Jabbar, Johnson, Jordan and Bryant did not always win (though Russell came close, with 11 championships in 13 seasons) but they were rarely, if ever, the reason that their teams lost.”

Jordan was not the reason that the Bulls lost to the Pistons. His numbers, effort and effectiveness did not plummet the way that LeBron James’ numbers, effort and effectiveness plummeted versus San Antonio in the 2007 Finals, Boston in the 2010 playoffs and Dallas in the 2011 Finals.

Magic was in the last full season of his career (and likely already had HIV, which would be diagnosed just a few months later) when the Lakers lost to the Bulls. Yes, Magic was outplayed by the younger MJ and Pippen but it’s not like Magic was terrible in that series or that he was the primary reason that the Lakers lost.

I said that Russell and the others were “rarely, if ever, the reason that their teams lost.” I stand by that. Even if we agree that you were right about Magic in 1991, one time in a career that included five titles counts as “rarely.” James has been the reason his team lost in at least three playoff series during his prime. That is not “rarely.”

Eugene:

Also, the best player on the last Houston team to win a playoff series–Yao Ming–was already a Rocket when Morey arrived. So, nearly a decade of “stat head” wizardry in Houston has yet to produce a single playoff series win led by players who Morey acquired. If Morey were an “old school” GM who relied on the “eye test” then the media would be killing him for his bold pronouncements that have not been backed up by results. Instead, we keep hearing how brilliant his plan is and how well he has positioned the Rockets to contend but after the Rockets lose we always hear that the Rockets are actually positioned to contend “next year”–but “next year” has yet to arrive. Who knows, maybe the great Harden will shoot .450 from the field in a playoff series and the Rockets will actually make it past the first round for the first time with a Morey-created roster.

Eugene:

Morey arrived in Houston in 2007 as a much ballyhooed “stat head.” Supposedly, he could use “advanced basketball statistics” to do wondrous things like teach Shane Battier how to shut down Kobe Bryant (after that NYT article came out, Bryant led the Lakers to a 4-0 regular season sweep of the Rockets in 2009 while averaging 28.3 ppg on .530 FG shooting) and build a championship team by uncovering value that GMs who don’t use “advanced basketball stats” will miss. Since Morey arrived, the Rockets have won one playoff series in seven years. They also missed the playoffs three years in a row before acquiring Harden, who is such an incredible “stat head” discovery that he has led the Rockets to back to back first round losses. If Morey were not a media darling, someone might point out that the emperor in fact has no clothes. The New York Knicks are indisputably one of the worst run franchises in pro basketball and during Morey’s tenure in Houston the Knicks have won the same number of playoff series as the Rockets have. Of course, Houston is better than New York this season but in terms of advancing in the playoffs for the past seven years Houston has been nothing special.

Hollinger took over a team that had Marc Gasol, Zach Randolph, Mike Conley and Tony Allen. Those players rank 1-3 and sixth on the team in minutes played per game this season. The core of Memphis’ team was in place when Hollinger arrived. Hollinger traded away Gay and chased off Coach Hollins. The core of the team that was there before Hollinger arrived, coached by the coach he ran off, reached the WCF. The moves that Hollinger made resulted in a team that lost in the first round last year.

We all understand that any given team, even the top seed, has less than a 50% chance of winning the championship. Most of us, other than you, realize that in general the second seeded team would be considered more likely to win the championship than the teams seeded 3-8. Depending on matchups and other factors, there would be some seasons in which the second seeded team might even be considered the favorite. Memphis is certainly pumped up by many media members as a legit championship contender. I think that the Grizzlies have a fatal flaw and that this flaw will be their downfall. If Memphis shoots a great percentage from the three point line but loses anyway then I was wrong. If Memphis wins the championship then I was wrong regardless of how well or how poorly the Grizzlies shoot–but if the second seed in the West loses before the WCF while shooting a poor percentage from the field/from three point range then I was right. We’ll see what happens.

If “zero analysis” is required to explain why a given team might lose then what is the point of writing any article about sports or making any predictions? More to the point, why do you read any such articles, let alone comment about them?

The only person in this thread who has “completely flipped” is you, with your colorful and exaggerated outrage, your “auto correct” errors and your inability to understand the point of writing any article analyzing a given team’s strengths and weaknesses.

Eugene:

Morey and Hollinger very openly identify themselves as “stat heads.” Morey and his media supporters assert that using “advanced basketball statistics” confers some kind of tangible advantage. Hollinger believes likewise about his proprietary PER stat. Therefore, it is fair to look at Houston and Memphis respectively and wonder what, if any, tangible advantage has been demonstrated. Morey has been in Houston for years and all he and his “advanced basketball statistics” have produced are first round losses. Hollinger has not been in Memphis that long but he took over a Western Conference Finalist and led them to a first round loss last year. It will be interesting to see how those teams do in this year’s playoffs.

Regarding the other teams, even though they have been mentioned in some quarters as “stat head” friendly organizations most of the key decisions they made did not require “advanced basketball statistics.” Supposedly, “advanced basketball statistics” enable someone to identify hidden value that is not revealed by the “eye test” or regular statistics. You do not need “advanced basketball statistics” to figure out that James, Wade and Bosh would be a strong trio. The same goes for Pierce, Garnett and Allen and for San Antonio’s crew as well. Dallas supposedly found some value in using five man on/off court numbers to influence their substitution patterns but anyone who saw the Lakers’ awful screen/roll defense would know–from the derided “eye test”–that Barea would be a tough matchup for the Lakers.

Eugene:

What exactly have the “stat heads” accomplished in the NBA? The Heat supposedly used “stat heads” but it doesn’t take special math to conclude that signing LeBron James and Chris Bosh would be smart. Every team in the league that had cap room tried to do the same thing. The Celtics supposedly used “stat heads” but, again, the main thing that they did is put together three future Hall of Famers. Dallas may have gotten some mileage out of using on court/off court data for various five man units but it did not really take advanced math to figure out that the Lakers could not contain Barea in screen/roll situations. The Spurs supposedly use “stat heads” but, again, it does not take advanced math to figure out that putting together three future HoFers is a good thing.

Morey is perhaps the most celebrated “stat head.” So far, after many years of trying and after many articles singing his praises, he has built a team that has lost in the first round two years in a row. If being a “stat head” has conferred an advantage to him this advantage has not shown up in the playoffs. Hollinger is also a celebrated “stat head.” He took over a team that made it to the WCF and led it to a first round exit last year. I think that Memphis is heading for a first or second round departure this year as well, so we will see how that turns out.

Eugene:

I’ll whisper back: “So what?” Under Hollinger, the Grizzlies fired a successful coach and then lost in the first round after advancing to the Western Conference Finals the previous year. They are having a good regular season in 2014-15 but we will see what kind of playoff run they put together without being able to consistently make a shot outside of 15 feet.

Express34Texas:

Given the available “choices,” I stand by the statement that last year OKC would have rather played Memphis than most if not all of the alternative teams. There is a formula to beat Memphis. Some of the games might be slugfests, Memphis may sneak in some wins but Memphis is also going to have multiple games in a playoff series in which the Grizzlies struggle to score 90 points. You say the series was close because it went seven games but all three of Memphis’ wins came in overtime while OKC had several blowout wins. OKC was clearly the superior team.

Eugene:

I am just glad that you found a six year old who helped you fix that pesky “auto correct” issue that only seemed to affect your device.

It is good to know that an article explaining why the second seed in the West will not win the title is “farcical” but also that a hypothetical article explaining why the first seed in the East will beat the eighth seed would be “boring.” So, basically, no matter what is posted here you know that you won’t like it.

Please keep commenting, because every court needs a jester 🙂

Joe:

I respectfully disagree that any team in the West could win. Yes, injuries can be a factor, so I suppose from that standpoint if you take out the best players on seven of the teams then the remaining team will probably win but if the playoff teams are reasonably healthy (meaning that they don’t suffer significant injuries beyond the ones that have already happened) I would take a combo platter of Golden State-San Antonio-Oklahoma City (not necessarily in that order but those three teams) over, say, a combo platter of Memphis-Houston-Dallas. Golden State has been the best team over the course of the entire regular season, which is not everything but which also should not be completely dismissed. The Spurs are the defending champions and a proven postseason performer. Oklahoma City is a wild card team that may not even make the cut (though I think that OKC will grab the eighth spot) but has two of the best five players in the league. Memphis will struggle to score 90 points at times, Harden is an unreliable playoff performer and Dallas is still figuring out how to incorporate Rondo.

I understand how odds work and that any given team has way less than a 50% chance of winning but my job is to analyze what happens on the court and figure out what makes each team/player tick. I have heard/read a lot about how Memphis is supposedly built for the postseason but I disagree with that contention and this article was just about explaining why I disagree with that contention. That seems pretty straightforward but for some reason there seems to be some misunderstanding about what I intended to do with this article.

Joe:

It will be interesting to compare my playoff series predictions with yours when that time comes. Since you are an expert in the field your predictions should be far more accurate than mine.

Eugene:

“Farcical,” “shameless” and “deficient” ability to read! Wow!

I am surprised that my little article inspired such a passionate response from you but I do appreciate the humor in such an over the top reaction.

I cannot wait to hear your response to my playoff preview article. I suspect that it will be along the lines of, “It is pointless to predict the outcome of a series because, no matter what you say, half of the teams will win and half of the teams will lose. You actually think that it is insightful to predict such outcomes. That is sad.”

Tony:

Thanks for posting those odds.

Since the oddsmakers have Memphis as one of the top six teams, it would seem like an article discussing the Grizzlies’ main flaw might be of some interest to basketball fans 🙂

I just have to thank Eugene for the dual comic relief of misused words (“inherited stacked”) and mystifying numbers (including the gem that since no team has a better than 20% chance of winning it is foolish to write about the strengths and weaknesses of any team or make any predictions about how any team might fare). Entertaining stuff!

What argument did I change?

According to you, no team has a better than 20% chance of winning, so any article explaining why one particular team will not win is “farcical.”

I think that my view goes against conventional wisdom and will be proven correct.

Eugene:

Do you mean “inherently” stacked? I didn’t “inherit” my prediction.

You said that any pick against one particular team has at least an 80% chance of being right. There are eight playoff teams in the West and eight in the East. If you think that no team has a better than 20% chance of winning (which is just the logical implication of your statement) then you think that the winning probabilities of each of the teams are distributed between 0 and 20%. So, you did not directly say that the winning probabilities are all equal but you did say that they are distributed in a small range.

I think that the conventional wisdom that the Grizzlies are well built for the playoffs is mistaken and I provided logical reasons for taking this position. Since you disagree so vehemently, it would be interesting to see you make a cogent counterargument that consists of something more than ad hominem remarks.

Eugene:

By your way of reasoning, any article that attempts to analyze the strengths/weaknesses of a given playoff team is “farcical.”

What is your “non-biased” prediction for the West playoffs?

The Grizzlies did some things well and that is why they did not get swept but they had to work very hard to win the games that they won and they got blown out in several of the games that they lost. It is hard to win four games in a playoff series when you are often struggling to score just 90 points. If you watched the series you could see that OKC was the superior team and OKC proved this in the final game.

Yes, I think that OKC would much prefer to face a Memphis team that cannot shoot than, say, a Spurs team with championship pedigree and no major weaknesses or a Golden State team that can both score and defend. Not all eight West playoff teams are built equally. If all the teams are equal and any attempt to analyze their strengths/weaknesses is pointless then why should anyone write anything about the NBA? More to the point, if that is how you feel then why do you read articles about the NBA? You give the impression of someone who just likes to throw insults for the sake of throwing insults without adding any insight to the conversation. How do you think that Memphis can overcome the lack of outside shooting that ultimately has hurt them in the playoffs in recent years? It is one thing to say that I am “beating a strawman” but quite a different thing to actually come up with logic to support your harsh words.

Joe:

If you think that every team in the West (or East) has exactly the same 1/8 chance of winning a championship then I am sure that there are some Las Vegas bookies who would love to speak with you and help part you from your money.

It is true that no one team likely has a better than 50% chance of winning the title–but some teams have a better chance than others and it is interesting to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each team in advance to try to figure out which teams have the best chance and why.

While you might be able to make a legit argument against each team in the West, I am not sure that you can make a legit argument for every team in the West. Do you see the distinction? Some of these teams have more factors in their favor and are more likely to win. A healthy Spurs team has arguably the best coach, plus three former Finals MVPs and a well rounded roster with no glaring weaknesses (other than, perhaps, age at some positions). A healthy OKC team has arguably two of the five best players in the league. Golden State has an explosive offense and an underrated, mobile defense. In contrast, it is more difficult to see teams like Houston, the Clippers and the Mavericks winning three series in the West. Houston has no track record of getting out of the first round, the Clippers seem to wear down in the postseason and the Mavs have some chemistry issues.

I don’t think that all of these teams are as evenly matched as some people think and I believe that Memphis’ lack of outside shooting is going to be a problem against several of the teams that will finish below the Grizzlies in the standings.