By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:

Of course it would depend on the team.  No player has EVER won a,championship alone.  The 96 Bulls were absurdly stacked not just in general but relative to their time.

But the officiating trends have changed.  However, this is nothing new.  The greatest teams are built for their time. Warriors would struggle in 96.  Bulls would struggle in 65 through 69.  It's the nature of the beast.  Times change.  The warriors are an excellent shooting team built for a league that supports that in the regular season.  But that's the problem:  the play is closer to the 90s in the playoffs.

All I'm saying is don't just dismiss the current teams cause they are tailored to their day.  The Bulls were the same.  And please, don't forget that the Bulls were not at all representative of the league.  They were stacked.

Bulls would struggle in 1965-1969 ... lol .... they'd wreck that league most any modern decent team would. 

The Showtime Lakers were stacked, the 90s Bulls were just beastly defensively but after Jordan/Pippen they were not that deep offensively. They had the best player ever who was also probably the best clutch player ever. That makes all the difference. 

Warriors don't even really have the single season best W-L when factoring in playoffs. 

Infact not only are the 96 Bulls better when factoring in playoffs, so are the 97 Bulls and even the 92 Bulls are quite close. 

There's no regular season trophy, Golden State did not have the best season ever. 

You are severely underestimating the skill of teams from the mid to late sixties and the differences of the rules.  There was no 3 point line to spread the floor, looser officiating (FAR LOOSER), no flagrant fouls, far stricter carrying calls.  The game was radically different.  Players from that era were extraordinarily athletic, incredibly tough, and had extraordinary endurance cause that's what the league demanded.  That's what the league created.  I'm not saying they wouldn't be a good team, but the Lakers and Celtics and 76ers (from 67 with Wilt) would give them a lot of real trouble.  The centers of that era were exceptionally strong and athletic, capable of guarding the paint from numerous threats.  And fewer teams means the tallent was compressed.  It would be a huge adjustment to take the 96 bulls and fling them into 67 basketball.  

Not saying they wouldn't be a great team, but it would take a LOT of adjustments to reach that 72 and 10 dominance 



Around the Network

I wouldn't care if the Warriors won 82 games. No ring, what a joke.

Also, look at their playoffs and regular season record:

Regular season: 73-9
Playoffs: 15-10

For real? You lost more games in the playoffs than in the entire regular season? I'd rather be OKC/TOR right now than GSW. Sure, OKC choked, but they didn't choke IN THE FINALS.

"Historical team" my ass. Lmao one day the threes they jacked up would miss- today was the day. Cleveland deserves the title- haven't had any luck for so long



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Woke up early in the morning for this game and honestly it was kinda disappointing.
So many terrible performances, mostly Warriors players, but Cavs didn't impress me either. Meh game.



Nuvendil said:
Soundwave said:

Bulls would struggle in 1965-1969 ... lol .... they'd wreck that league most any modern decent team would. 

The Showtime Lakers were stacked, the 90s Bulls were just beastly defensively but after Jordan/Pippen they were not that deep offensively. They had the best player ever who was also probably the best clutch player ever. That makes all the difference. 

Warriors don't even really have the single season best W-L when factoring in playoffs. 

Infact not only are the 96 Bulls better when factoring in playoffs, so are the 97 Bulls and even the 92 Bulls are quite close. 

There's no regular season trophy, Golden State did not have the best season ever. 

You are severely underestimating the skill of teams from the mid to late sixties and the differences of the rules.  There was no 3 point line to spread the floor, looser officiating (FAR LOOSER), no flagrant fouls, far stricter carrying calls.  The game was radically different.  Players from that era were extraordinarily athletic, incredibly tough, and had extraordinary endurance cause that's what the league demanded.  That's what the league created.  I'm not saying they wouldn't be a good team, but the Lakers and Celtics and 76ers (from 67 with Wilt) would give them a lot of real trouble.  The centers of that era were exceptionally strong and athletic, capable of guarding the paint from numerous threats.  And fewer teams means the tallent was compressed.  It would be a huge adjustment to take the 96 bulls and fling them into 67 basketball.  

Not saying they wouldn't be a great team, but it would take a LOT of adjustments to reach that 72 and 10 dominance 

And half the teams in the league had rosters with a bunch of 6-3 white dudes. Any good post-ABA 80s/90s/2000s team would wreck the the NBA in the 60s. 

The 60s deserves respect for setting the foundation for proper basketball, but as far as being able to match up with modern teams, they'd get slaughtered. The weakest player on a modern would be decent/good back then because the pool of competetive players is so much better today so is the development of players, Bill Russell didn't even start playing until he was 13 and they didn't even have a proper basketball hoop in his neighborhood. 

A 3 point line of lack thereof is not magically going to keep a 1960s player from being able to stay in front of Michael Jordan or prevent him from getting basically the majority of shots that he wants. Or a Shaquille O' Neal. Or Kobe Bryant. Or LeBron James. They'd all wreck that era. 



Wow. I still can't believe it. Greatest comeback in sports history!!

LeBron is still the best player in the league & that isn't changing anytime soon. Curry terrible game sums up his Finals performance, some folks wanted to put him top 20 All Time. Lmfao.

Irving with the game winner, Loves best game of the series couldn't have come at a better time. Green balled out though. Barnes & Klay no shows.

LeBron is top five at least, IMO top 3 All Time, which is hard to dispute.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:

You are severely underestimating the skill of teams from the mid to late sixties and the differences of the rules.  There was no 3 point line to spread the floor, looser officiating (FAR LOOSER), no flagrant fouls, far stricter carrying calls.  The game was radically different.  Players from that era were extraordinarily athletic, incredibly tough, and had extraordinary endurance cause that's what the league demanded.  That's what the league created.  I'm not saying they wouldn't be a good team, but the Lakers and Celtics and 76ers (from 67 with Wilt) would give them a lot of real trouble.  The centers of that era were exceptionally strong and athletic, capable of guarding the paint from numerous threats.  And fewer teams means the tallent was compressed.  It would be a huge adjustment to take the 96 bulls and fling them into 67 basketball.  

Not saying they wouldn't be a great team, but it would take a LOT of adjustments to reach that 72 and 10 dominance 

And half the teams in the league had rosters with a bunch of 6-3 white dudes. Any good post-ABA 80s/90s/2000s team would wreck the the NBA in the 60s. 

The 60s deserves respect for setting the foundation for proper basketball, but as far as being able to match up with modern teams, they'd get slaughtered. The weakest player on a modern would be decent/good back then because the pool of competetive players is so much better today so is the development of players, Bill Russell didn't even start playing until he was 13 and they didn't even have a proper basketball hoop in his neighborhood. 

Oh yeah, nothing but 6'3" white boys in the mid to late 60s.  Nevermind Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, two of the greatest at their postition whose athleticism was legendary for decades after they retired.  Nevermind Willis Reed, a hall of fame center everyone respects.  Nevermind Nate Thurmond, another Hall of Fame center whose athleticism and extraordinary defensive tallent made him the only player besides Bill Russel that Wilt Chamberlain feared.  Wilt Chamberlain, who was a 7'1" 275 lb monster with a 48" vertical and could bench 500lb, who averaged over 50 points in a season, averaged more minutes one season than there are in a game (good luck finding ANY 90s center who could do that), and once lead the league in assists just to show off that he could.  

Nevermind Bob Petit, another Hall of Fame big man, who is legendary in his position with extraordinary athleticism and strength, strong on deffense and dominant on offense and still a force in 65. 

Nevermind Walt Bellamy,  ANOTHER Hall of Fame center who was an exceptional player on both ends who only missed out on MVP chances primarily cause he shared a league with players like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Oscar Robertson.  Oscar Robertson, who averaged a tripple double for a season, whose first FIVE seasons strung together are a tripple double, who is regarded by 99% of analysts as the greatest pointguard ever and the first great oversized guard. 

Oh, and nevermind Jerry Lucas, who despite being undersized to every other center/power forward listed above (he's in the hall of fame too, btw) still managed to get 7 all stars, an all star game MVP, 3 all NBA first teams and 2 all NBA second teams right smack in some of the best years of the other centers I mentioned.  He was also one of the best rebounders and most efficient scorers despite the inevitably stiff defense.

And those are just the hall of famers, sans Wayne Embry, nevermind all the others who were just kicking around in their shadows. 

And of course, all of that except Oscar is just centeres and/or big men.  And only hall of famers, nevermind players like LeRoy Ellis - a 6'11" center - or Luke Jackson - a 6'9" power forward - who were perfectly competent filler comparable to the filler players that are in every era, including the 90s, and who further trash the "all the centeres were undersized 6'5" white boys" nonsense. 

You're also discounting guards like Jerry West, who despite being undersized for his position at the time (yes, he was undersized) and built more for todays league (he had a 3 point shot before the 3 point shot was a thing) and sharing the primary scoring position evenly with Elgin freaking Baylor manages to have the 4th highest PPG average and be the second best overall shooting guard statistically in NBA history, capable of sharpshooting or driving the paint with incredible athleticism and is a player who sits squarely on the short list of players snubbed in terms of NBA MVP awards.  West, whose penultimate game includes 44 points (16 of 17 shots from the field, 12 of 12 free throw attempts) with 12 rebounds, 12 assists and (unofficially counted) 10 blocked shots.  Whose insane finals performance in 69 got him the MVP on the losing team. 

Nevermind Baylor, another player on the short list of most snubbed players when it comes to the MVP award, who holds the 3 highest PPG average, whose athleticism, speed, strength, and moves made him a force and was frankly showtime before Magic Johnson ever came to the Lakers.

Nevermind Hal Greer, another star guard (hall of fame, btw) who helped Wilt be the only player ever to defeat Bill Russel in the finals. 

Nevermind Sam Jones, another hall of famer shooting guard who was key in the absurd Bill Russell dynasty.  Whose averages are stunted primarily by being on a team of stars where spreading the scoring was key.

Speaking of that star studded team, let's not forget the other hall of famers on that team.  Like Bailey Howell, a hall of fame Small Forward.  Or John Havilicek, the leader in total points by a Celtic who the Celtics in the 60s regularly had coming off the gosh darn bench.  And of course, I'm not counting minor Hall of Famers like K.C Jones, Don Nelson, Tom Sanders.

But let's move beyond that team and look at some others.  Like Gus Johnson from the Bullets, a hall of fame forward who, again, had some strong stats when considering the people listed above (like Wilt, who dislocated Gus's dang shoulder on a clean block through sheer force) he went against for all that and was known for being exceptionally strong and quick and could jump out the roof.  Or Earl Monroe who came in in 67 for the Bullets and is a hall of fame guard. 

Or how about those 76ers with Billy Cunningham, a small forward/power forward combo in the hall of fame.  Or Chet Walker, another small forward in the hall of fame.  Yep, nothing but 6'3" white boys here either.

I could go on and on, pointing out all the little problems with your statement.  But let me just say it outright:  the mid to late 60s were very different but they had the make up of modern basketball and a slew of powerful athletes.  It was not a league of 6'3" white booys and 6'6" white centeres who got beat up by a tiny number of super stars.  Every team had a hall of fame player, several had multiples.  The average height of centers in this period was 6'10", which is why Walter Dukes (7'1"), Swede Halbrook (7'3"), and Mel Counts (7'0") aren't in the Hall of Fame and didn't get crazy stats.  They weren't all that weird, they were standard competition.  And guards ran the gambit from 6'2" to 6'5", small forwards were in line with what we see today.  Many of the players of that era would have found success later in the leage.  Shoot, some did.  Havlicek went on to lead the Celtics to two more rings in the mid seventies long after the Russell era.  Players played extremely hard and physical with no flagrant fouls and loose officiating. 

The fact is you pay lip service to respect for the 60s but all I see is disrespect from you and others who don't know their sports history worth a crap.  The mid to late 60s were not the 50s, the days of Mikan dominating the game through sheer height were long gone.  It was an athletic game, a rough game, and filled with tallent condensed into a meer 10 teams in 66-67 and only expanding to 14 in 68-69.  Meaning all these Hall of Famers and competent fillers were compressed into those teams and you had to face the likes of Russel, Wilt, Thurmond, West, Baylor, and Havlicek far more often than you would have to play Jordan in 95 or Lebron in 2015.  You couldn't pad your win record with canon fodder teams, there were only like two maybe three in the league at a time.   

In short, get your facts right.  The 6'3 white boy with 6'6 center myth is old and has always been wrong. 

Edit: And if you don't see how the 3 point line was the single most drastic change to the NBA post-50s, I don't know what you are thinking. It changed everything. In the 60s you could colapse on a guy like Jordan with extreme force and numbers because kicking it out to the outside was just kicking out to a lower percentage 2. With a 3, you HAVE to stay further out, it is required. The 3 changed the game in an exceptional way and made life for driving shooting guards a LOT easier.

Edit2:  Also, average player height in 65 to 69 was 6'6" and the average weight was ~206 pounds.  That's 1 inch shorter and 7 pounds lighter than the mid 90s, a negligible difference. Don't believe me, check here http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Edit3:  I won't argue against those players being good (the ones you edited in) in that era, they would be.  But they wouldn't "wreck that era".  Shaq being the absolute easiest one to say soundly he wouldn't.  Wilt was faster, stronger, with more endurance and better midrange game and pound for pound plain better and how many rings does he have from that era?  1. 



Soundwave said:
Nuvendil said:

You are severely underestimating the skill of teams from the mid to late sixties and the differences of the rules.  There was no 3 point line to spread the floor, looser officiating (FAR LOOSER), no flagrant fouls, far stricter carrying calls.  The game was radically different.  Players from that era were extraordinarily athletic, incredibly tough, and had extraordinary endurance cause that's what the league demanded.  That's what the league created.  I'm not saying they wouldn't be a good team, but the Lakers and Celtics and 76ers (from 67 with Wilt) would give them a lot of real trouble.  The centers of that era were exceptionally strong and athletic, capable of guarding the paint from numerous threats.  And fewer teams means the tallent was compressed.  It would be a huge adjustment to take the 96 bulls and fling them into 67 basketball.  

Not saying they wouldn't be a great team, but it would take a LOT of adjustments to reach that 72 and 10 dominance 

And half the teams in the league had rosters with a bunch of 6-3 white dudes. Any good post-ABA 80s/90s/2000s team would wreck the the NBA in the 60s. 

The 60s deserves respect for setting the foundation for proper basketball, but as far as being able to match up with modern teams, they'd get slaughtered. The weakest player on a modern would be decent/good back then because the pool of competetive players is so much better today so is the development of players, Bill Russell didn't even start playing until he was 13 and they didn't even have a proper basketball hoop in his neighborhood. 

A 3 point line of lack thereof is not magically going to keep a 1960s player from being able to stay in front of Michael Jordan or prevent him from getting basically the majority of shots that he wants. Or a Shaquille O' Neal. Or Kobe Bryant. Or LeBron James. They'd all wreck that era. 

I agree the 90s bulls would dominate the 60s. Can you imagine prime jordan was playing in the 60s? i dont see anyone can stop his post moves. Not the 60s, not today and probably ever 



To be clear, his isn't about downplaying the Bulls. It's about respecting those that came before and getting our facts straight. You want to say the Bulls are the greatest ever, fine. They have the stats to make that claim. But don't misrepresent and trash the older eras, especially the mid to late 60s. The game was different, but the idea that any old player from the modern era could go back and be a good player then? Don't make me freaking laugh.



Nuvendil said:
Soundwave said:

And half the teams in the league had rosters with a bunch of 6-3 white dudes. Any good post-ABA 80s/90s/2000s team would wreck the the NBA in the 60s. 

The 60s deserves respect for setting the foundation for proper basketball, but as far as being able to match up with modern teams, they'd get slaughtered. The weakest player on a modern would be decent/good back then because the pool of competetive players is so much better today so is the development of players, Bill Russell didn't even start playing until he was 13 and they didn't even have a proper basketball hoop in his neighborhood. 

Oh yeah, nothing but 6'3" white boys in the mid to late 60s.  Nevermind Bill Russel and Wilt Chamberlain, two of the greatest at their postition whose athleticism was legendary for decades after they retired.  Nevermind Willis Reed, a hall of fame center everyone respects.  Nevermind Nate Thurmond, another Hall of Fame center whose athleticism and extraordinary defensive tallent made him the only player besides Bill Russel that Wilt Chamberlain feared.  Wilt Chamberlain, who was a 7'1" 275 lb monster with a 48" vertical and could bench 500lb, who averaged over 50 points in a season, averaged more minutes one season than there are in a game (good luck finding ANY 90s center who could do that), and once lead the league in assists just to show off that he could.  

Nevermind Bob Petit, another Hall of Fame big man, who is legendary in his position with extraordinary athleticism and strength, strong on deffense and dominant on offense and still a force in 65. 

Nevermind Walt Bellamy,  ANOTHER Hall of Fame center who was an exceptional player on both ends who only missed out on MVP chances primarily cause he shared a league with players like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and Oscar Robertson.  Oscar Robertson, who averaged a tripple double for a season, whose first FIVE seasons strung together are a tripple double, who is regarded by 99% of analysts as the greatest pointguard ever and the first great oversized guard. 

Oh, and nevermind Jerry Lucas, who despite being undersized to every other center/power forward listed above (he's in the hall of fame too, btw) still managed to get 7 all stars, an all star game MVP, 3 all NBA first teams and 2 all NBA second teams right smack in some of the best years of the other centers I mentioned.  He was also one of the best rebounders and most efficient scorers despite the inevitably stiff defense.

And those are just the hall of famers, sans Wayne Embry, nevermind all the others who were just kicking around in their shadows. 

And of course, all of that except Oscar is just centeres and/or big men.  And only hall of famers, nevermind players like LeRoy Ellis - a 6'11" center - or Luke Jackson - a 6'9" power forward - who were perfectly competent filler comparable to the filler players that are in every era, including the 90s, and who further trash the "all the centeres were undersized 6'5" white boys" nonsense. 

You're also discounting guards like Jerry West, who despite being undersized for his position at the time (yes, he was undersized) and built more for todays league (he had a 3 point shot before the 3 point shot was a thing) and sharing the primary scoring position evenly with Elgin freaking Baylor manages to have the 4th highest PPG average and be the second best overall shooting guard statistically in NBA history, capable of sharpshooting or driving the paint with incredible athleticism and is a player who sits squarely on the short list of players snubbed in terms of NBA MVP awards.  West, whose penultimate game includes 44 points (16 of 17 shots from the field, 12 of 12 free throw attempts) with 12 rebounds, 12 assists and (unofficially counted) 10 blocked shots.  Whose insane finals performance in 69 got him the MVP on the losing team. 

Nevermind Baylor, another player on the short list of most snubbed players when it comes to the MVP award, who holds the 3 highest PPG average, whose athleticism, speed, strength, and moves made him a force and was frankly showtime before Magic Johnson ever came to the Lakers.

Nevermind Hal Greer, another star guard (hall of fame, btw) who helped Wilt be the only player ever to defeat Bill Russel in the finals. 

Nevermind Sam Jones, another hall of famer shooting guard who was key in the absurd Bill Russell dynasty.  Whose averages are stunted primarily by being on a team of stars where spreading the scoring was key.

Speaking of that star studded team, let's not forget the other hall of famers on that team.  Like Bailey Howell, a hall of fame Small Forward.  Or John Havilicek, the leader in total points by a Celtic who the Celtics in the 60s regularly had coming off the gosh darn bench.  And of course, I'm not counting minor Hall of Famers like K.C Jones, Don Nelson, Tom Sanders.

But let's move beyond that team and look at some others.  Like Gus Johnson from the Bullets, a hall of fame forward who, again, had some strong stats when considering the people listed above (like Wilt, who dislocated Gus's dang shoulder on a clean block through sheer force) he went against for all that and was known for being exceptionally strong and quick and could jump out the roof.  Or Earl Monroe who came in in 67 for the Bullets and is a hall of fame guard. 

Or how about those 76ers with Billy Cunningham, a small forward/power forward combo in the hall of fame.  Or Chet Walker, another small forward in the hall of fame.  Yep, nothing but 6'3" white boys here either.

I could go on and on, pointing out all the little problems with your statement.  But let me just say it outright:  the mid to late 60s were very different but they had the make up of modern basketball and a slew of powerful athletes.  It was not a league of 6'3" white booys and 6'6" white centeres who got beat up by a tiny number of super stars.  Every team had a hall of fame player, several had multiples.  The average height of centers in this period was 6'10", which is why Walter Dukes (7'1"), Swede Halbrook (7'3"), and Mel Counts (7'0") aren't in the Hall of Fame and didn't get crazy stats.  They weren't all that weird, they were standard competition.  And guards ran the gambit from 6'2" to 6'5", small forwards were in line with what we see today.  Many of the players of that era would have found success later in the leage.  Shoot, some did.  Havlicek went on to lead the Celtics to two more rings in the mid seventies long after the Russell era.  Players played extremely hard and physical with no flagrant fouls and loose officiating. 

The fact is you pay lip service to respect for the 60s but all I see is disrespect from you and others who don't know their sports history worth a crap.  The mid to late 60s were not the 50s, the days of Mikan dominating the game through sheer height were long gone.  It was an athletic game, a rough game, and filled with tallent condensed into a meer 10 teams in 66-67 and only expanding to 14 in 68-69.  Meaning all these Hall of Famers and competent fillers were compressed into those teams and you had to face the likes of Russel, Wilt, Thurmond, West, Baylor, and Havlicek far more often than you would have to play Jordan in 95 or Lebron in 2015.  You couldn't pad your win record with canon fodder teams, there were only like two maybe three in the league at a time.   

In short, get your facts right.  The 6'3 white boy with 6'6 center myth is old and has always been wrong. 

Edit: And if you don't see how the 3 point line was the single most drastic change to the NBA post-50s, I don't know what you are thinking. It changed everything. In the 60s you could colapse on a guy like Jordan with extreme force and numbers because kicking it out to the outside was just kicking out to a lower percentage 2. With a 3, you HAVE to stay further out, it is required. The 3 changed the game in an exceptional way and made life for driving shooting guards a LOT easier.

Edit2:  Also, average player height in 65 to 69 was 6'6" and the average weight was ~206 pounds.  That's 1 inch shorter and 7 pounds lighter than the mid 90s, a negligible difference. Don't believe me, check here http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Edit3:  I won't argue against those players being good (the ones you edited in) in that era, they would be.  But they wouldn't "wreck that era".  Shaq being the absolute easiest one to say soundly he wouldn't.  Wilt was faster, stronger, with more endurance and better midrange game and pound for pound plain better and how many rings does he have from that era?  1. 

There's only like two 7 footers in the entire league in 1968. 

The game was undeveloped at that point, Wilt and Russell seemed superhuman in that era because they were like basically the first players to be big and athletic. 

Jordan would average 40-50 ppg in the 60s, so would Shaq, so would LeBron, so would Kobe. Someone like Dwight Howard would probably be the 2nd or 3rd best player in the league. 

The players of the 60s were developed in the 1950s when basketball resources were laughably basic and the pool of players was small. It was a niche small sport that wasn't shown on TV at that time and a lot of the black community was segregated, playing in the NBA was not exactly a big goal for people in those days. A lot of those players worked jobs like as a substitute teacher in the summer time. 

It's only in the 70s were basketball starts to become a decent sized business and development of players beginning at the high school/college level really takes off, and with the end of segregation a lot more people actually had access to these schools and facilities that true modern basketball emerges IMO. 

The 60s were an important time for basketball development but in terms of going head to head with any modern good team, they would get waxed IMO and they would have no idea how to guard a player like Jordan or LeBron or Kobe or whoever. Even a player like Carmelo Anthony would probably dominate in that era.



t3mporary_126 said:
burninmylight said:

I had to listen to most of the game on radio due to car trouble and ditzy girlfriends. Did Kevin Love do anything at all?

He played good D on steph when the game was on the wire with cavs up by 3

Nuvendil said:
burninmylight said:

I had to listen to most of the game on radio due to car trouble and ditzy girlfriends. Did Kevin Love do anything at all?

He did 9 points, 3 assists,  and 14 rebounds.  Not sensational, but he worked on defense and grabbed several key rebounds.  He did what he had to.

Shadow8 said:
burninmylight said:

I had to listen to most of the game on radio due to car trouble and ditzy girlfriends. Did Kevin Love do anything at all?

He got a lot of key rebounds in the game, made a few shots too. Had double digit rebounds.

See, this is the way he should have been playing in Cleveland the past two years. Instead of  hanging out on the perimeter all the time, looking like a little lost kid at the fair, he should have been constantly crashing the boards and getting putbacks off of rebounds and starting breaks on the defensive end. I wonder just how much this ring really means to him, because there is no way he's coming back after these past two years.