It's a wonder sometimes why I'm into sports as much as I am. Most times, sports are looked at from a black-and-white perspective. They're numbers-dominated, especially now in the fantasy-sports era, which leaves us with the good and the bad, the winners and the losers. However, for as much as most sports analysts and commentators like to look at things from this black-and-white vantage point, I think they often times look past the many shades of grey when analyzing a particular, sport, team, or player.
Every year, especially now with the Internet and 24-hour news networks, many seemingly obsess over the concepts of legacies and how certain teams and players would rank among the very best throughout the history of the sport. The glaring problem with such comparisons and analyses is the fact sports have consistently changed over time, so it'd be virtually impossible to accurately conclude on whether a particular team or player would be less, just as, or more dominant during a different era. There are also the unknown factors which make such comparisons and analyses excruciatingly difficult. When the Atlanta Braves went on their long playoff run in the '90s and '00s but only came away with one World Series title, many asked how history should judge them. Should we be more impressed that a team was able to make the playoffs for 14 consecutive seasons or more disappointed that they only came away with one World Series title? How do they stack up against the great teams of the past? Can they still be considered a dynasty? The fact is some teams are more built toward just making the postseason than winning it all. Some teams don't have as much money to spend on free agents in the off-season than others. Some teams have better luck with injuries throughout the 162-game regular season schedule and playoffs than others do. So why do teams, like these Atlanta Braves, have to be seen as a major success or disappointment? Historically speaking, 14 consecutive playoff appearances is the most ever for a team, and that includes 8 straight championship series appearances, which again is a record. While, as sports fans, we like to judge players and teams by the number of championships they won, at season's end, there's only one team that can be rewarded as champions. That leaves 29-31 teams, many of whom are quite good, going home without a championship ring. Dan Marino, John Stockton, Ken Griffey Jr., Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Barry Sanders, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, and many other Hall of Fame players, some of the very best during their time, never won a championship. Does this detract from their image in the sport at the time? From their success? While I imagine all of them would have said they'd have preferred one championship ring over all the individual accolades they received, in my mind, it still doesn't detract from their success on the field/court. The question then would be, is the only way we can judge the very best in a team sport by the number of championships they win? Don't we also have to look at other factors? Such as the caliber of talent on the teams for whom they played and if there were any dominant teams in their league at the time. Wilt Chamberlain only came away with two championship rings, but that's mainly because Bill Russell and his Boston Celtics dominated during that time. It's easy for us to judge athletes whom compete against one another in individual sports or competitions, but it becomes far trickier when attempting to judge athletes involved in team sports.
That brings me to LeBron James. Following the Cleveland Cavaliers' Game 6 loss in the NBA Finals last night to the Golden State Warriors, which closed out the series, the black-and-white perspectives have been rather ubiquitous on television, the radio, and online. Roughly half the commentators have called James the best player in the world, said that he provided maybe the best Finals performance in the league's history, and he can't be fairly judged for his teams' fairly consistent failings in the NBA Finals. The other 50% of commentators have gone the opposite route and said that while James may very well be the best player of his generation, his 2-4 record in the NBA Finals cannot be ignored, and when he retires, his legacy could very well be lacking due to an insufficient record in the Finals.
First of all, it'd be unfair to write James' legacy before he calls it quits, since he likely has at least 5 more years left in him (of his prime). Secondly, it's again tricky to compare James to Michael Jordan, because the two played in different times, were surrounded by different talent, and competed against different types of players. However, at the same time, Jordan's Chicago Bulls were 6-0 in the NBA Finals, whereas LeBron James' Cleveland Cavaliers and Miami Heat were a combined 2-4. The easy route to take would be to say Michael Jordan was a better postseason leader and player than James, given the two's records. However, things are rarely that simple and I think we'd be best off to wait until James retires to garner a better overall picture of the situation when comparing the two stars. Regardless of James' final numbers, though, the fact of the matter remains his Cleveland Cavaliers and Miami Heat will never have squared off against Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls in the regular season or postseason, so comparing the teams themselves or how they would have fared against one another seems kind of silly. So, for the time being, all we can fairly analyze as far as LeBron James is concerned is his performance in the playoffs this year. However, even that's more complicated than many seem to be claiming.
I'll admit it, I for one was pulling for LeBron James to lead the Cavaliers to a championship this year. The city of Cleveland has been without a championship for 50 years (since the Cleveland Browns if you can believe that). James returned to his old team to place a halt to that title drought, and given the Cavs' unfortunate luck with injuries, in losing stars Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving, James leading his team to a title seemed all the more unfathomable, and with that, all the more incredible. But when standing back to evaluate James' performance this postseason, while I partially agree with basketball analysts that his performance was one of the greatest ever, I partially disagree as well.
Personally, I felt sorry for LeBron James this postseason. Losing Kevin Love wasn't seen to be a huge letdown for the team, since Tristan Thompson was a far better defender, and Love hadn't yet built a solid chemistry with his teammates. However, when Cleveland lost point guard Kyrie Irving, that was the big blow. Not only can Irving dominate with his shooting at times, he's the point guard, the general on the court, the man largely there to direct the team and get others involved, to create a solid flow and rhythm to the offense. The Cavaliers went from the "Big 3" to the "Big 1," and even James wasn't fully healthy. This placed a tremendous amount of pressure on James, not only to put up his typical numbers, but to also try and fill the void left by Love and especially Irving. This led James trying to do much at times, which led him to force things more than is typical, and his shooting percentage dropped significantly as a result. Numbers wise, experts could go different ways when analyzing them. For the entire playoffs, LeBron James averaged 30.1 points, 11.3 rebounds, and 8.5 assists per game, not to mention an additional 1.7 steals and 1.1 blocks per contest. In the ten years James has made the playoffs, that was the highest average he's had in both rebounds and assists, and his fourth highest average in points. Looking at the other side of things, however, James shot just 41.7% from the field (his 3rd worst, 47.3% average), 22.7% from 3-point range (his all-time worst, 31.8% average), and 73.1% from the foul line (tied for his all-time worst, 75.2% average). He averaged 27.2 shot attempts per game, which was 5.4 more than his previous high of 21.8 in the 2011-2012 season and 6.4 more than his all-time playoff average. He also turned the ball over 4.1 times per game, which is his third worst posting of his playoff career to this point. So, numbers wise, I'm not quite as impressed with James' output as a lot of other analysts and think they may be overstating his performance a bit on that front. However, I also think they're partially accurate, not based on the numbers, but based on what was seen beyond the numbers. Never in my life did I see a team in the NBA Finals so dependent on one player. With Irving gone, James often times took control of the point guard duties. If he wasn't scoring himself, he was often times the main distributor. So in one manner or another, Cleveland's scoring likely went through James. He was also solid defensively, as he made some key blocks and steals, and often times found a way to keep his team close, with a chance to win at game's end. However, more times than not, his teammates didn't answer their calls, and perhaps partially due to a lack of trust for them, James forced things more than he typically would, and his offensive efficiency suffered as a result.
At the end of the day, the Cleveland Cavaliers lost to the Golden State Warriors in six games, LeBron James' overall NBA Finals record is 2-4, and in all likelihood, fairly or not, he'll be judged for that. Even so, let's place things into their proper perspective. LeBron James isn't Michael Jordan, he's not playing in the same time and against the same competition as Jordan, his career is far from over, and we should hold off on these comparisons until he retires. Also, James' playoff performance, from an offensive efficiency standpoint, wasn't even the best of his career, let alone of all-time. However, never before have I seen one man place a team fully on his back and almost carry them to a championship like he did this year. Numbers may not lie, but they may not tell the whole story either.
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/1966/seasontype/3/lebron-james
Every year, especially now with the Internet and 24-hour news networks, many seemingly obsess over the concepts of legacies and how certain teams and players would rank among the very best throughout the history of the sport. The glaring problem with such comparisons and analyses is the fact sports have consistently changed over time, so it'd be virtually impossible to accurately conclude on whether a particular team or player would be less, just as, or more dominant during a different era. There are also the unknown factors which make such comparisons and analyses excruciatingly difficult. When the Atlanta Braves went on their long playoff run in the '90s and '00s but only came away with one World Series title, many asked how history should judge them. Should we be more impressed that a team was able to make the playoffs for 14 consecutive seasons or more disappointed that they only came away with one World Series title? How do they stack up against the great teams of the past? Can they still be considered a dynasty? The fact is some teams are more built toward just making the postseason than winning it all. Some teams don't have as much money to spend on free agents in the off-season than others. Some teams have better luck with injuries throughout the 162-game regular season schedule and playoffs than others do. So why do teams, like these Atlanta Braves, have to be seen as a major success or disappointment? Historically speaking, 14 consecutive playoff appearances is the most ever for a team, and that includes 8 straight championship series appearances, which again is a record. While, as sports fans, we like to judge players and teams by the number of championships they won, at season's end, there's only one team that can be rewarded as champions. That leaves 29-31 teams, many of whom are quite good, going home without a championship ring. Dan Marino, John Stockton, Ken Griffey Jr., Jim Kelly, Bruce Smith, LaDanian Tomlinson, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Barry Sanders, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, and many other Hall of Fame players, some of the very best during their time, never won a championship. Does this detract from their image in the sport at the time? From their success? While I imagine all of them would have said they'd have preferred one championship ring over all the individual accolades they received, in my mind, it still doesn't detract from their success on the field/court. The question then would be, is the only way we can judge the very best in a team sport by the number of championships they win? Don't we also have to look at other factors? Such as the caliber of talent on the teams for whom they played and if there were any dominant teams in their league at the time. Wilt Chamberlain only came away with two championship rings, but that's mainly because Bill Russell and his Boston Celtics dominated during that time. It's easy for us to judge athletes whom compete against one another in individual sports or competitions, but it becomes far trickier when attempting to judge athletes involved in team sports.
That brings me to LeBron James. Following the Cleveland Cavaliers' Game 6 loss in the NBA Finals last night to the Golden State Warriors, which closed out the series, the black-and-white perspectives have been rather ubiquitous on television, the radio, and online. Roughly half the commentators have called James the best player in the world, said that he provided maybe the best Finals performance in the league's history, and he can't be fairly judged for his teams' fairly consistent failings in the NBA Finals. The other 50% of commentators have gone the opposite route and said that while James may very well be the best player of his generation, his 2-4 record in the NBA Finals cannot be ignored, and when he retires, his legacy could very well be lacking due to an insufficient record in the Finals.
First of all, it'd be unfair to write James' legacy before he calls it quits, since he likely has at least 5 more years left in him (of his prime). Secondly, it's again tricky to compare James to Michael Jordan, because the two played in different times, were surrounded by different talent, and competed against different types of players. However, at the same time, Jordan's Chicago Bulls were 6-0 in the NBA Finals, whereas LeBron James' Cleveland Cavaliers and Miami Heat were a combined 2-4. The easy route to take would be to say Michael Jordan was a better postseason leader and player than James, given the two's records. However, things are rarely that simple and I think we'd be best off to wait until James retires to garner a better overall picture of the situation when comparing the two stars. Regardless of James' final numbers, though, the fact of the matter remains his Cleveland Cavaliers and Miami Heat will never have squared off against Michael Jordan's Chicago Bulls in the regular season or postseason, so comparing the teams themselves or how they would have fared against one another seems kind of silly. So, for the time being, all we can fairly analyze as far as LeBron James is concerned is his performance in the playoffs this year. However, even that's more complicated than many seem to be claiming.
I'll admit it, I for one was pulling for LeBron James to lead the Cavaliers to a championship this year. The city of Cleveland has been without a championship for 50 years (since the Cleveland Browns if you can believe that). James returned to his old team to place a halt to that title drought, and given the Cavs' unfortunate luck with injuries, in losing stars Kevin Love and Kyrie Irving, James leading his team to a title seemed all the more unfathomable, and with that, all the more incredible. But when standing back to evaluate James' performance this postseason, while I partially agree with basketball analysts that his performance was one of the greatest ever, I partially disagree as well.
Personally, I felt sorry for LeBron James this postseason. Losing Kevin Love wasn't seen to be a huge letdown for the team, since Tristan Thompson was a far better defender, and Love hadn't yet built a solid chemistry with his teammates. However, when Cleveland lost point guard Kyrie Irving, that was the big blow. Not only can Irving dominate with his shooting at times, he's the point guard, the general on the court, the man largely there to direct the team and get others involved, to create a solid flow and rhythm to the offense. The Cavaliers went from the "Big 3" to the "Big 1," and even James wasn't fully healthy. This placed a tremendous amount of pressure on James, not only to put up his typical numbers, but to also try and fill the void left by Love and especially Irving. This led James trying to do much at times, which led him to force things more than is typical, and his shooting percentage dropped significantly as a result. Numbers wise, experts could go different ways when analyzing them. For the entire playoffs, LeBron James averaged 30.1 points, 11.3 rebounds, and 8.5 assists per game, not to mention an additional 1.7 steals and 1.1 blocks per contest. In the ten years James has made the playoffs, that was the highest average he's had in both rebounds and assists, and his fourth highest average in points. Looking at the other side of things, however, James shot just 41.7% from the field (his 3rd worst, 47.3% average), 22.7% from 3-point range (his all-time worst, 31.8% average), and 73.1% from the foul line (tied for his all-time worst, 75.2% average). He averaged 27.2 shot attempts per game, which was 5.4 more than his previous high of 21.8 in the 2011-2012 season and 6.4 more than his all-time playoff average. He also turned the ball over 4.1 times per game, which is his third worst posting of his playoff career to this point. So, numbers wise, I'm not quite as impressed with James' output as a lot of other analysts and think they may be overstating his performance a bit on that front. However, I also think they're partially accurate, not based on the numbers, but based on what was seen beyond the numbers. Never in my life did I see a team in the NBA Finals so dependent on one player. With Irving gone, James often times took control of the point guard duties. If he wasn't scoring himself, he was often times the main distributor. So in one manner or another, Cleveland's scoring likely went through James. He was also solid defensively, as he made some key blocks and steals, and often times found a way to keep his team close, with a chance to win at game's end. However, more times than not, his teammates didn't answer their calls, and perhaps partially due to a lack of trust for them, James forced things more than he typically would, and his offensive efficiency suffered as a result.
At the end of the day, the Cleveland Cavaliers lost to the Golden State Warriors in six games, LeBron James' overall NBA Finals record is 2-4, and in all likelihood, fairly or not, he'll be judged for that. Even so, let's place things into their proper perspective. LeBron James isn't Michael Jordan, he's not playing in the same time and against the same competition as Jordan, his career is far from over, and we should hold off on these comparisons until he retires. Also, James' playoff performance, from an offensive efficiency standpoint, wasn't even the best of his career, let alone of all-time. However, never before have I seen one man place a team fully on his back and almost carry them to a championship like he did this year. Numbers may not lie, but they may not tell the whole story either.
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/1966/seasontype/3/lebron-james
Comments
Post a Comment