The New Cavalier Curse

Prove there's a better leader in the NBA than LeBron James.

Wade, Kobe, Nash, Duncan, Chris Paul, Bosh are pretty damn good leaders.

Wade, Kobe, Nash, Duncan, Chris Paul, Bosh are pretty damn good leaders.

Okay, let's assume they somehow are good leaders, where's the proof they're better than LeBron?

Or better than Brian Scalabrine?

A point that seems to have been missed here is that a win is a stat, thus rendering the 'if they get good stats but don't win, it's pointless' argument irrelevant. I'm just saying.

Wade, Kobe, Nash, Duncan, Chris Paul, Bosh are pretty damn good leaders.

Okay, let's assume they somehow are good leaders, where's the proof they're better than LeBron?

Or better than Brian Scalabrine?

There is no proof bc it is only measured by ones opinion. I feel Kobe is the best leader in the NBA although but id like to say Lebron bcuz hes my favorite but I have to go with Kobe. I dont recall saying leadership can be measured if thats what youre implying.

A win is only a stat if you measure it, not if you consider the abstract concept of a "win" and ignore those meaningless things like who scored more points.

There is no proof bc it is only measured by ones opinion. I feel Kobe is the best leader in the NBA although but id like to say Lebron bcuz hes my favorite but I have to go with Kobe. I dont recall saying leadership can be measured if thats what youre implying.

If it can't be measured, how do you know it exists?

So youre saying I can give Lebron a value on paper for his leadership. I mean You could grade him on his leadership but thats not considered a stat.

Well, what relationship does leadership have with wins?

If you can't measure it, how do you know it has any relationship?

Bro It just does you dont have to get that deeply into it bc its simple. Great Leadership can make your other players play better. You cant just go out there and not communicate with your players. Trust me teams that dont communicate lack leadership and dont win. Leadership is the best way to bring out another players mental toughness. Leaders address the issues and help their teammates improve. It is important to wins. With good chemistry there is leadership.

Prove it.

This has NLSC HoF potential in the NBA debate futility categoy thanks to atlwarya lol

Prove it.

Look at the New Jersey Nets.

How do you know the Nets don't have the best leadership and chemistry in any sport ever?

Bro It just does you dont have to get that deeply into it bc its simple. Great Leadership can make your other players play better. You cant just go out there and not communicate with your players. Trust me teams that dont communicate lack leadership and dont win. Leadership is the best way to bring out another players mental toughness. Leaders address the issues and help their teammates improve. It is important to wins. With good chemistry there is leadership.

That's one heck of a circular argument. You keep saying "leader" and "leadership" and yet you have yet to define, nor outline, any aspects of how a player is a leader or provides leadership.

And why it's more important than making shots, getting rebounds, and not turning it over.

Leaders address the issues and help their teammates improve. You know tell their teammates what their doing right or wrong so they could do better. Im not going to "outline" it bc it only takes a couple of words to explain. Im seriously done this time guys. Call it watever you want but like i said this could go on 4ever. Besides i gotta get sum rest. If wanna cont debating fine. It just wont be with me.

So how do you know NBA players actually do that? How do you know their teammates even listen? And is that the only thing that's leadership?

And again, where's the connection with winning? How do we know the Nets aren't doing this after every play and huddling together at Devin Harris' house to examine game tape until 4 am, while the Lakers are actually ignoring each other and avoiding eye contact but pretend to be doing otherwise.

You cant just go out there and not communicate with your players. Trust me teams that dont communicate lack leadership and dont win. Leaders address the issues and help their teammates improve. With good chemistry there is leadership.

Shaq and Kobe from 2001-2002 disagree with their 2 rings.

(I think the 'cold war' only started in the their second championship)

atlwarya9 you are completely missing the entire point of what they are saying, and it hurts me to continue reading your posts.
You continue over and over to say "trust me", well this is a problem. When someone asks for proof of something, simply saying "trust me" doesn't prove anything at all, except that your statement is only your opinion, and not a fact. The nice thing about stats, and the majority of benji's arguements, is that the stats are factual proof, quantitative values that allow you to compare and contrast, and they make (usually) for quick resolutions.
One other thing. I know your trying to be a nice guy and all, but it's a straight slap in the face to say stuff such as "if you watch any basketball at all you know what i'm talking about". The people on this forum are fans of the NBA, not just the video game, as such I think at least some of them know what they're talking about. Even if you never watched a single game of proffesional basketball, with the knowledge that it is a team sport, anybody with half a brain could come on here and say leadership plays a role in making a winning team.
Bottom line is, as long as the Cavs don't get worse after the aquitions of these players, then it's all for the better. The only player of your list that I even remotely agree with your topic is Larry Hughes, I expected a bit more of him when he joined the Cavs, he had moments but overall didn't work out. For several reasons including injury and the death of his brother.

Good point shadowgrin but after 5 yrs together they knew each other on the court and thats good enough. And even if Shaq is arguing with or yelling at Kobe during a TO or huddle to stop shooting so much and pass him the ball then thats communication right there. It doesnt always have to be good. Sometimes critcism is necessary.