feelosofer
#ninergang
If you're talking about scoring. Durant is better but Lebron is a better facilitator of an offense.
Max Kellerman: Lebron is a better offensive player than Kevin Durant
- Thread starter UpAndComing
- Start date
Brandon M.
City of Angels
yall nikkas got an 11 page thread on a max kellerman opinion 
Shutdown10
Pro
Lebron's stats are impressive over the years, but the question you guys need to ask yourself is would he able to average those numbers without being the main ball handler. Give him point guards like Westbrook and Steph and the scoring and assist totals are going down. His shooting would be exposed because his off ball game being not as potent. KD is putting up similar numbers sharing the rock and driving less, which is far more impressive to me. The fact that he still averages a fg percentage at 51% and 41% 3 point % with so few attempts dividing the shots between his self, steph, and klay is outstanding. This is all without him having to dominate the ball. He also average about 5 plus assist and 6 plus rebounds last season effortlessly. He could be a walking triple double if he wanted to be.
ajnapoleon
Veteran
Do people know Lebron about to be maybe 4 all time scoring by the end of this season
And lapped 2 guys that was drafted in 97 and Vince still playing
And about to pass dirk whose entire thing was scoring and he only 100 points behind him?
And the only non point to have 7k Asssit at this point?
I don’t see KD running a entire offense as a point
But I do agree KD is the better shooter but that’s about it
And lapped 2 guys that was drafted in 97 and Vince still playing
And about to pass dirk whose entire thing was scoring and he only 100 points behind him?
And the only non point to have 7k Asssit at this point?
I don’t see KD running a entire offense as a point
But I do agree KD is the better shooter but that’s about it
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
I specifically outlined to you, in detail, why his game doesn't translate over to the postseason. Why am I not surprised that you haven't been able to identify it when watching him play, but even when it's pointed out, repeatedly, you still can't (or don't want to) comprehend the frailty of his style of play; instead you'd rather be intellectually lazy by hiding behind stats as if they're a shield for your lack of understanding of the game at the most basic level.
Again, for the folks in the back -
"Over the last 4-5 seasons, Harden's been exposed in a playoff environment, over and over, and over, and over, and over again. Yet folk still couldn't see (or didn't want to acknowledge, in some cases) that his game was nothing more than slapstick; a farcical legerdemain act. Folk still couldn't see a player whose lack of skillset was covered up by eating off easy scoring opportunities and hamming for foul calls during the regular season. Folk still couldn't see a player whose slothful, gutless temperament was reflected by his tendency to take shortcuts and exhaust loopholes, on both ends of the floor. The postseason climate peeled back his game to its very core, exposing it to the rays of teams' game-planning, concentrated defensive schemes and the allowment of more contact."
"The problem with this is, it's been evident for a while now that he can get away with this con during the regular season, by manipulating shyt to go in his favor, and capitalizing on that through monopolizing the ball - it's only natural someone in his position (playing in the most box-score friendly system in modern NBA history) with his style of play can put up false readings of his ability if you go by his box score #s (which is one of the many reasons why the traditional box score needs to be abandoned altogether, because it's not a direct reflection of performance, skillset and impact)."
"You can't just look at the box score stats, and automatically come to a conclusion either way. This is the very reason why I want to get rid of the box score. Folk let it govern how they view the game far too much, that they can't think for themselves. But you're lying to yourself if you think his effectiveness doesn't decrease drastically in the playoffs, when he no longer can get into rhythm or maintain it with foul calls or spamming his name on easy scoring opportunities to get going and score at a regular rate. There's a reason why he has these all-time horrible collapses regularly in pivotal moments/games in the postseason. They're not just bad games that every star player has, they are outright terrible. And once you investigate further, you can see why."
"Of course, he's still going to have the odd high-scoring game where he puts up points, due to the volume of shots he takes and how much he dominates the ball. He's not going to score a low amount of points in every single playoff game. But his game will always rear its ugly head eventually. The moment teams limit his easy scoring opportunities (because defenses gameplan and focus more in the postseason) he struggles to score at a regular rate, his efficiency drops and he struggles to get back into rhythm because the refs are less likely to call those fake-ass fouls that he gets during the regular season. He's developed such a bad habit of looking for foul calls instead of looking to score that he can't break out of it in the playoffs, because his head and skillset won't let him."
How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge that his overreliance on foul-calls is far greater than every single high-volume scorer (and nearly every player, in general)? How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge that this affects his postseason performances more than every single high-volume scorer? How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge players who look to score are going to have greater performances than players who look to draw a foul? How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge high-volume scorers who look to score have greater skillsets and more ability, than high-volumne scorers who look to draw a foul?
The fact you're trying to generalize these players in this manner tells me you really don't know what you're talking about. And the funny thing with this is, Curry's still more efficient in the postseason, than Harden is in the regular season. Go figure.
Since I need to point out the obvious: I used his points scored and shooting percentage on actual field goals - eFG% = (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA, to show you his #s without the folds of free-throws (the points a player gets within the field of play is the rawest measure of scoring ability there is), in comparison to the best high-volume scorers in the game. A player who's that dependent on getting calls instead of trying to get buckets will never be able to score consistently in a playoff frame, in comparison to his peers -- this is why he's collapsed in every single postseason because once teams minimize the opportunities he has to draw fouls (in junction with officials allowing more contact) he doesn't have the ability/skillset to feed himself, like Curry, LeBron and Durant do.
Look at his efficiency in the postseason compared to the best high-volume scorers on actual field goals (excluding FT):
Harden - 19 ppg on 48 eFG%
Curry - 21.7 ppg on 56 eFG%
LeBron - 22 ppg on 53 eFG%
Durant - 21.6 ppg on 52 eFG%
He's scoring around three points less, on considerably lower efficiency in comparison to the aforementioned on points strictly from field goals, while dominating the ball more than both Curry and Durant.
Now, how the hell can you marginalize this argument down to "every player's numbers drop in the postseason" when there's a chasm between him and the three best scorers in the game, especially Curry, who's attempted more OTD volume 3s, and generally greater difficulty shots over the entirety of his postseason career?
Please explain how "free throw rate" is a clearer picture than comparing drives, free throw attempts, and time of possession?
It seems you can't contextualize shooting stats properly - TS% only adds weight to my argument, as I mentioned above, efficiency on actual field goals is more reflective of a player's scoring ability, when you start factoring in the volume of free throws and the percentage rate with TS% you start muddying the waters over a player's scoring ability. Especially for a player who attempts a far greater ratio of free throws v. FGA compared to someone who attempts a greater ratio of FGA v. free throws, since FTs are valued at 0.44, and since FTs naturally have higher completion rate v. FGA, it's typically going to favor a player who attempts more FTs. Now that's not to say free throws don't matter when it comes to evaluating scoring ability, it's just they don't matter anywhere near the same degree that FGA do.
TS% is merely a distraction when comparing the abilities of high-volume scorers; eFG% gives a clearer picture (not complete, but clearer) when comparing the abilities of high-volume scorers. Simply because not only are free throws less important than actual field goals when comparing the abilities of high-volume scorers, but every player is officiated differently.
Since I used Harden's '17 postseason as one of my reference points earlier, we'll use that in comparison to Curry:
Harden's '17 postseason - 28 ppg on 48 eFG% - percentage on field goals (2-pters and 3-pters) - 9.7 minutes time of possession
Curry's '17 postseason - 28 ppg on 60 eFG% - percentage on field goals (2-pters and 3-pters) - 5.8 minutes time of possession
As a side note of the 'time of possession' - now just imagine what Curry's box score numbers would look like if he was in a system that allowed him to dominate the ball for nearly DOUBLE the amount of time. See, these are the factors that are absent from the box score, because it doesn't tell you how long a player dominates the ball, the offensive system they play in, their personnel, or their style of play that allows them to accumulate the box score #s they do.
Context. Context. Context.
Harden's '17 postseason - 58 TS% - percentage on field goals and free throws (88% FT% on 10.5 attempts)
Curry's '17 postseason - 66 TS% - percentage on field goals and free throws (90% FT% on 6.7 attempts)
Notice the difference between the two shooting metrics when comparing both players?
How does this make any sense?
Since Billups took had a greater ratio of 3s v. 2s than the average player, you'd want to use eFG% to get a clearer reading of his efficiency (not standard FG% because obviously, it doesn't accommodate a player who shoots a higher volume of 3s), that's not comparable in theory or in principle to my argument of pointing out that eFG% is a better tool to use when comparing the scoring abilities of high-volume scorers - not TS% because it overvalues free throws in relation to scoring ability in this context.
Except you should care for context when discussing basketball (particularly when it comes to stats - which you don't even understand properly), else you'll continue to be none the wiser at understanding the game.
And this is why you'll never get it because you're too concerned with red herrings [#s in the box score], than actually trying to look at what's actually going on.
Last edited:
ajnapoleon
Veteran
I specifically outlined to you, in detail, why his game doesn't translate over to the postseason. Why am I not surprised that you haven't been able to identify it when watching him play, but even when it's pointed out, repeatedly, you still can't (or don't want to) comprehend the frailty of his style of play; instead you'd rather be intellectually lazy by hiding behind stats as if they're a shield for your lack of understanding of the game at the most basic level.
Again, for the folks in the back -
"Over the last 4-5 seasons, Harden's been exposed in a playoff environment, over and over, and over, and over, and over again. Yet folk still couldn't see (or didn't want to acknowledge, in some cases) that his game was nothing more than slapstick; a farcical legerdemain act. Folk still couldn't see a player whose lack of skillset was covered up by eating off easy scoring opportunities and hamming for foul calls during the regular season. Folk still couldn't see a player whose slothful, gutless temperament was reflected by his tendency to take shortcuts and exhaust loopholes, on both ends of the floor. The postseason climate peeled back his game to its very core, exposing it to the rays of teams' game-planning, concentrated defensive schemes and the allowment of more contact."
"The problem with this is, it's been evident for a while now that he can get away with this con during the regular season, by manipulating shyt to go in his favor, and capitalizing on that through monopolizing the ball - it's only natural someone in his position (playing in the most box-score friendly system in modern NBA history) with his style of play can put up false readings of his ability if you go by his box score #s (which is one of the many reasons why the traditional box score needs to be abandoned altogether, because it's not a direct reflection of performance, skillset and impact)."
"You can't just look at the box score stats, and automatically come to a conclusion either way. This is the very reason why I want to get rid of the box score. Folk let it govern how they view the game far too much, that they can't think for themselves. But you're lying to yourself if you think his effectiveness doesn't decrease drastically in the playoffs, when he no longer can get into rhythm or maintain it with foul calls or spamming his name on easy scoring opportunities to get going and score at a regular rate. There's a reason why he has these all-time horrible collapses regularly in pivotal moments/games in the postseason. They're not just bad games that every star player has, they are outright terrible. And once you investigate further, you can see why."
"Of course, he's still going to have the odd high-scoring game where he puts up points, due to the volume of shots he takes and how much he dominates the ball. He's not going to score a low amount of points in every single playoff game. But his game will always rear its ugly head eventually. The moment teams limit his easy scoring opportunities (because defenses gameplan and focus more in the postseason) he struggles to score at a regular rate, his efficiency drops and he struggles to get back into rhythm because the refs are less likely to call those fake-ass fouls that he gets during the regular season. He's developed such a bad habit of looking for foul calls instead of looking to score that he can't break out of it in the playoffs, because his head and skillset won't let him."
How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge that his overreliance on foul-calls is far greater than every single high-volume scorer (and nearly every player, in general)? How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge that this affects his postseason performances more than every single high-volume scorer? How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge players who look to score are going to have greater performances than players who look to draw a foul? How dishonest do you have to be to not acknowledge high-volume scorers who look to score have greater skillsets and more ability, than high-volumne scorers who look to draw a foul?
The fact you're trying to generalize these players in this manner tells me you really don't know what you're talking about. And the funny thing with this is, Curry's still more efficient in the postseason, than Harden is in the regular season. Go figure.
Since I need to point out the obvious: I used his points scored and shooting percentage on actual field goals - eFG% = (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA, to show you his #s without the folds of free-throws (the points a player gets within the field of play is the rawest measure of scoring ability there is), in comparison to the best high-volume scorers in the game. A player who's that dependent on getting calls instead of trying to get buckets will never be able to score consistently in a playoff frame, in comparison to his peers -- this is why he's collapsed in every single postseason because once teams minimize the opportunities he has to draw fouls (in junction with officials allowing more contact) he doesn't have the ability/skillset to feed himself, like Curry, LeBron and Durant do.
Look at his efficiency in the postseason compared to the best high-volume scorers on actual field goals (excluding FT):
Harden - 19 ppg on 48 eFG%
Curry - 21.7 ppg on 56 eFG%
LeBron - 22 ppg on 53 eFG%
Durant - 21.6 ppg on 52 eFG%
He's scoring around three points less, on considerably lower efficiency in comparison to the aforementioned on points strictly from field goals, while dominating the ball more than both Curry and Durant.
Now, how the hell can you marginalize this argument down to "every player's numbers drop in the postseason" when there's a chasm between him and the three best scorers in the game, especially Curry, who's attempted more OTD volume 3s, and generally greater difficulty shots over the entirety of his postseason career?
Please explain how "free throw rate" is a clearer picture than comparing drives, free throw attempts, and time of possession?
It seems you can't contextualize shooting stats properly - TS% only adds weight to my argument, as I mentioned above, efficiency on actual field goals is more reflective of a player's scoring ability, when you start factoring in the volume of free throws and the percentage rate with TS% you start muddying the waters over a player's scoring ability. Especially for a player who attempts a far greater ratio of free throws v. FGA compared to someone who attempts a greater ratio of FGA v. free throws, since FTs are valued at 0.44, and since FTs naturally have higher completion rate v. FGA, it's typically going to favor a player who attempts more FTs. Now that's not to say free throws don't matter when it comes to evaluating scoring ability, it's just they don't matter anywhere near the same degree that FGA do.
TS% is merely a distraction when comparing the abilities of high-volume scorers; eFG% gives a clearer picture (not complete, but clearer) when comparing the abilities of high-volume scorers. Simply because not only are free throws less important than actual field goals when comparing the abilities of high-volume scorers, but every player is officiated differently.
Since I used Harden's '17 postseason as one of my reference points earlier, we'll use that in comparison to Curry:
Harden's '17 postseason - 28 ppg on 48 eFG% - percentage on field goals (2-pters and 3-pters) - 9.7 minutes time of possession
Curry's '17 postseason - 28 ppg on 60 eFG% - percentage on field goals (2-pters and 3-pters) - 5.8 minutes time of possession
As a side note of the 'time of possession' - now just imagine what Curry's box score numbers would look like if he was in a system that allowed him to dominate the ball for nearly DOUBLE the amount of time. See, these are the factors that are absent from the box score, because it doesn't tell you how long a player dominates the ball, the offensive system they play in, their personnel, or their style of play that allows them to accumulate the box score #s they do.
Context. Context. Context.
Harden's '17 postseason - 58 TS% - percentage on field goals and free throws (88% FT% on 10.5 attempts)
Curry's '17 postseason - 66 TS% - percentage on field goals and free throws (90% FT% on 6.7 attempts)
Notice the difference between the two shooting metrics when comparing both players?
How does this make any sense?
Since Billups took had a greater ratio of 3s v. 2s than the average player, you'd want to use eFG% to get a clearer reading of his efficiency (not standard FG% because obviously, it doesn't accommodate a player who shoots a higher volume of 3s), that's not comparable in theory or in principle to my argument of pointing out that eFG% is a better tool to use when comparing the scoring abilities of high-volume scorers - not TS% because it overvalues free throws in relation to scoring ability in this context.
Except you should care for context when discussing basketball (particularly when it comes to stats - which you don't even understand properly), else you'll continue to be none the wiser at understanding the game.
And this is why you'll never get it because you're too concerned with red herrings [#s in the box score], than actually trying to look at what's actually going on.
you know whats so funny about this ether ..........
this is the type of info that Daryl Morey uses to get players he wants
who_better_than_me
Time to go!!
Shame on you for thinking you were actually deserving of an actual rebuttal.
You ain't shyt.
Me too...
Sunalmighty
Superstar
lebron is a better offensive player easily when you add in passing (offense includes passing)
if we're talking only scoring, durant is a better shooter but lebron scores more eff from the floor not including FT's (durant .539 efg vs lebron .540 efg)
Kevin Durant Stats | Basketball-Reference.com
LeBron James Stats | Basketball-Reference.com
The Devil's Advocate
Call me Dad
3:20
I know Durant is the most hated player right now, but come on Max
y'all really gotta start listening better.. this happens weekly on here, with nobody actually paying attention to his point
he said he's better at all aspects... he didn't say he was a better shooter or scorer or had a better skillset with scoring.. he specifically said offense makes up more than just shooting
so if you KD>Bron shooting
Bron>KD at every single other aspect of running and playing offense in the game of basketball
agree or disagree.. but get the point right before you start debating it
not just passing... ALL aspects... once the ball is in your teams hands, everything that can incorporate from passing, playcalling, getting your team in the right position, leadership, off ball movement, post up game, passing, setting picks, offensive rebounds, drawing fouls............. etc etc etc etcI see what Max is saying. He's including passing as well which overall would make Bron the best complete Offensive player
nikkas act like this 2k... pass rating, shooting rating = all offense
IllmaticDelta
Veteran
This has got to be the most hilarious take in the whole thread.
Lineups that LeBron has rode to the Finals:
Boobie-Sasha-Gooden-Z
Bibby-Wade-Bosh-Joel Anthony
Chalmers-Wade-Battier-Haslem
Chalmers-Wade-Bosh-Haslem
Chalmers-Wade-Rashard-Bosh
Delly-Shump-TT-Mosgov
Kyrie-JR-Love-TT
Hill-JR-Love-TT
6 different PGs, 4 different SGs, 6 different PFs, and 6 different centers, and NOTHING in common between them.
And that doesn't even count guys like Green, Korver, Jefferson, Turiaf, Hughes who started games in there too because the players available were so wack.
Lineups that Durant has rode to the Finals
Westbrook-Seflosha-Ibaka-Perkins
Curry-Klay-Draymond-Zaza
Curry-Klay-Looney-Draymond
Just a couple stacked lineups. And that's not even counting Harden and Iggy as super-subs good enough to basically be a 6th starter.
So if LeBron needs the "right pieces" to be effective, then why has he been effective with such a variety of lineups? And why has Durant only been effective with stacked teams?
