Greatest losers in Grand Slams (ATP)

[Fintft]

This was a while back but Ilie Nastase was the greateast looser at Wimbledon, during the boycott.

His president, Nicolae Ceausescu, ordered him to break the players’ boycott of Wimbledon in 1973. It cost him $5,000 and life membership of the All England Club. For someone who earned more than $2m in purses over a long career and had an open disregard for authority, it was probably a bearable slight.

Tennis Bad Boys: "Nasty" Ilie Nastase, Leader of the Pack

Ilie Nastase permanently etched the template for tennis bad boys, setting the standard against which all are measured today. His exploits on and off the court are legendary...

bleacherreport.com

Ilie Nastase permanently etched the template for tennis bad boys, setting the standard against which all are measured today. His exploits on and off the court are legendary.

He was an enigma then and remains one to this day. His nickname in some circles was the “Bucharest Buffoon.”

Ultimately, Nastase felt compelled to entertain. He wanted to please fans sitting in the stands by making them sit up and pay attention to the action on the court.

To do that, he often mixed in unorthodox and unpredictable shots that dazzled and mystified fans and very often his opponents.

Much like today’s Frenchman, Fabrice "the Magician" Santoro, Nastase was a “sorcerer with the racket,” exhibiting panache and style.

Spontaneous and creative, he loved to cause maximum pain and difficulty for his opponent, often placing the ball just beyond his reach with the right touch and degree of spin.

He is remembered most of all, however, for his frequently bizarre and objectionable behavior on court. He could be lighthearted and joking, but was often abrasive and rude.

He would walk off the court, many times subject to fines, suspensions, and even disqualifications. At times it appeared that Nastase just did not know where to draw the line or when to quit.

At times, though, his volatile will would deteriorate and invite defeat because he lost his ability to concentrate.

His play has been described as gifted and mesmerizing, with delicate touch and placement the core of his game.

But his on- and off-court antics are what drew people to him and inspired players to follow in his footsteps. He remains at the pinnacle of the tennis bad boys. . .Nasty Nastase. .

 

[crimson87]

Ray Allen saved lechokes legacy and JJ Barea locked him down. Ultimate stat padder though.

 

[thrust]

This was a while back but Ilie Nastase was the greateast looser at Wimbledon, during the boycott.

His president, Nicolae Ceausescu, ordered him to break the players’ boycott of Wimbledon in 1973. It cost him $5,000 and life membership of the All England Club. For someone who earned more than $2m in purses over a long career and had an open disregard for authority, it was probably a bearable slight.

Tennis Bad Boys: "Nasty" Ilie Nastase, Leader of the Pack

Ilie Nastase permanently etched the template for tennis bad boys, setting the standard against which all are measured today. His exploits on and off the court are legendary...

bleacherreport.com

Ilie Nastase permanently etched the template for tennis bad boys, setting the standard against which all are measured today. His exploits on and off the court are legendary.

He was an enigma then and remains one to this day. His nickname in some circles was the “Bucharest Buffoon.”

Ultimately, Nastase felt compelled to entertain. He wanted to please fans sitting in the stands by making them sit up and pay attention to the action on the court.

To do that, he often mixed in unorthodox and unpredictable shots that dazzled and mystified fans and very often his opponents.

Much like today’s Frenchman, Fabrice "the Magician" Santoro, Nastase was a “sorcerer with the racket,” exhibiting panache and style.

Spontaneous and creative, he loved to cause maximum pain and difficulty for his opponent, often placing the ball just beyond his reach with the right touch and degree of spin.

He is remembered most of all, however, for his frequently bizarre and objectionable behavior on court. He could be lighthearted and joking, but was often abrasive and rude.

He would walk off the court, many times subject to fines, suspensions, and even disqualifications. At times it appeared that Nastase just did not know where to draw the line or when to quit.

At times, though, his volatile will would deteriorate and invite defeat because he lost his ability to concentrate.

His play has been described as gifted and mesmerizing, with delicate touch and placement the core of his game.

But his on- and off-court antics are what drew people to him and inspired players to follow in his footsteps. He remains at the pinnacle of the tennis bad boys. . .Nasty Nastase. .

Compared to Nastase, Kyrgios is a Boy Scout. Ille was a total scumbag.

 

[TheFifthSet]

He was really bad in Game 1 I remember. This is the great flaw in the LeBron matrix, at least before that unbelievable 09 playoffs, you could pack the paint and help aggressively and, just like Spurs 07, if you had elite defense LeBron couldn’t do what he wanted. His 35% jump shooting metrics are ultimately what prevented him from being truly unstoppable. Still, I think you’re underrating him a bit, considering that he was genuinely brilliant in game 5 and 7, and in game 6 he basically powered through defensive coverage constantly. If you look at stats across his career he always picks things up from games 4-7 and this series was no different (as was the one vs Detroit in 2006, I might add)

We have to remember that was 23 yr old Bron in his 5th year and the Cavs STILL didn’t have a ball handler or secondary playmaker outside of Delonte West… who had awful TO numbers and couldn’t get anywhere either, so the entire playmaking load fell on him. This isn’t excusing shooting 35% for the series or whatever it was, but I weight the elimination game performances extremely highly and he killed it. 2010 was the bad performance imo.

Anyway, this isn’t exactly MJ vs the 86 Celtics stuff, but it helps his case compared to Kobe. As for Jordan - I think that argument is sadly ending in MJ’s favor.

Fair enough. I just think “horrendously bad” and “very good” basically cancel out with regards to impact on the final outcomes. The Cavs were in both games 1 and 2, but LeBron objectively shot at a historically anemic rate and turned the ball over as much as Harden at his worst. They lost G1 by 4 points despite the 2-18, and were leading early in G2 and kept it close until halftime despite a 3-13 from Bron in the first half. That’s a period of six quarters that were extremely close on aggregate and ended up swinging the series where LeBron absolutely could not buy a bucket. He then has a workmanlike games 3 and 4 where the rest of the team more than pulled their weight and win by double digits in both. I’d honestly only concede G7 as a particularly stand-out performance. And the Celts, if you recall, were struggling mightily in the lead-up to those finals and think a healthy Bynum would’ve made the finals a pick ‘em lol.

 

[The Guru]

Lol anywhere outside top 2 is outrageous

The disrespect to KAJ and Russ is outrageous. That top 4 seems pretty unimpeachable to me but I'd listen to cases for Wilt, Duncan, Shaq, Mikan and to the shock of the uninformed KG

 

[TheFifthSet]

The disrespect to KAJ and Russ is outrageous. That top 4 seems pretty unimpeachable to me but I'd listen to cases for Wilt, Duncan, Shaq, Mikan and to the shock of the uninformed KG

Don’t agree KG has a good case for Top 6-7 (the lack of shot creation/middling efficiency harms him) but do think he’s dreadfully underrated. His elite passing and incredible motor/essentially perfect defensive rotations (best I’ve seen) are the types of skills that fly under the radar in favour of gaudy scoring and high stock totals (where he was also no slouch, mind you).

I think you’d enjoy Ben Taylor’s write-up on him. A place in the Top 10 isn’t out of the question, as crazy as that sounds to most fans. His supporting cast before he reached Boston was criminal.

 

[Kralingen]

The disrespect to KAJ and Russ is outrageous. That top 4 seems pretty unimpeachable to me but I'd listen to cases for Wilt, Duncan, Shaq, Mikan and to the shock of the uninformed KG

You’d love to put Bron outside the top 5 wouldn’t you

 

[The Guru]

Don’t agree KG has a good case for Top 6-7 (the lack of shot creation/middling efficiency harms him) but do think he’s dreadfully underrated. His elite passing and incredible motor/essentially perfect defensive rotations (best I’ve seen) are the types of skills that fly under the radar in favour of gaudy scoring and high stock totals (where he was also no slouch, mind you).

I think you’d enjoy Ben Taylor’s write-up on him. A place in the Top 10 isn’t out of the question, as crazy as that sounds to most fans. His supporting cast before he reached Boston was criminal.

I think you can go even higher than that with KG and make a very strong case for him. Yes the obvious weakness on KG is self creation (though we are still talking about a guy averaging over 20 PPG on plus efficiency with no one to create for him, no one to take attention off him, horrible spacing in the slowest and worst offensive period in NBA history) but he does literally everything else at a ridiculous level and we place way too much emphasis on scoring anyways. In the databall era the players in the tier 1 of impact footprint are KG, Steph, and LeBron and unlike Steph KG has the longevity to go with the peak. What he has going for him (Steph does too) that LeBron doesn't is how translatable his impact is across any situation. There are zero team contexts where KG is a bad fit. He fits seamlessly next to any team construction due to his amazingly versatile skillset on both sides of the floor. KG is able to provide his enormous impact while not sucking away impact from his teammates which is an enormously rare skill for players in this tier so as someone who values ceiling raising over floor raising (which is what leads to championships more often than not) it's not hard to make a case for him at a place that seems absolutely nuts. I don't quite go that far. I have him at 6 on my list but I think you could squint and put him higher.

I've seen it. His stuff is very well done.

 

[RS]

This Basketball stuff seems interesting. I don't follow the sport but I do know names and have read some GOAT debates on it.

 

[The Guru]

You’d love to put Bron outside the top 5 wouldn’t you

No I have him in it and I think you'd have to really squint and stretch to get him out of it imo. I think the narrative that he's obviously top two is just dumb though. Basketball's not like football or hockey where it's super obvious that it's Brady and Gretzky the case for GOAT is very strong for multiple guys. I think LeBron's case is the worst of the 4 but I can see why people make it.

 

[Kralingen]

No I have him in it and I think you'd have to really squint and stretch to get him out of it imo. I think the narrative that he's obviously top two is just dumb though. Basketball's not like football or hockey where it's super obvious that it's Brady and Gretzky the case for GOAT is very strong for multiple guys. I think LeBron's case is the worst of the 4 but I can see why people make it.

As much as I fanboy for him I agree with this, the top 2 anointing is an underhanded tactic that is disrespectful to KAJ. Similarly, how to approach the ultimate winner debate - Russell compared to Jordan - is torturously difficult as both were essentially game breaking forces in the specific era and game constructions they lived in. There’s also an argument that a dominant big man will always have more value than the similarly dominant wing or smaller guard due to defensive impact, which to an extent is indisputable imo. Kareem also had a weird career where his 70s prime was unheralded due to wack rosters around him and ABA stuff which centers his image more around the 80s.

So to most people, not even solely casuals, I do think the majority of his case is just, “it was MJ then Kobe then Bron”. Kareem and Russell (and as you said, KG/Shaq) suffer due to the simple fact that big men can’t have the ball and lead the offense as much as perimeter players. For example you have actual people who think Kobe was better than Shaq in the 3 lakers titles despite this being not even close to the case.

with all that said I think LeBOAT still probably wins out due to his unbelievably versatile profile and generational playmaking even in the deadball era (compared to KAJ’s lightning fast paced era) but I really like Kareem’s case.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1609029293618724865

 

[Kralingen]

This Basketball stuff seems interesting. I don't follow the sport but I do know names and have read some GOAT debates on it.

Most beautiful sport in the world played on two feet.

 

[ffw2]

Most beautiful sport in the world played on two feet.

Do you feel that tennis message boards are better suited to trollery?

 

[Deleted member 780630]

Going by a "value added" perspective (e.g. Ben Taylor's CORP model), it's hard to argue Lebron out of the top 2. Top tier peak, top tier consistency, plus top tier longevity puts him in territory that only Kareem can also touch. Jordan and Russell lose out on that due to lack of longevity, but if we focus more on primes, they can come out ahead as well. There's a possibility Russell is the most valuable ever given there is evidence for him being such an outlier relative to his era, but still too much uncertainty regarding the 60s. Any of those four can be argued GOAT, just depends on your criteria.

 

[RS]

Most beautiful sport in the world played on two feet.

I think the world wide popularity of it is as a sport underrated.

 

[duaneeo]

USO - Has to be Borg after losing 4 finals. Djokovic has 3 USO's. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned with guys with 0 titles.

When a supposed HC GOAT has twice as many losses than wins in USO finals, he deserves to be mentioned with a guy with 0 titles...more so considering the losses are to 5 different players.

 

[The Guru]

Going by a "value added" perspective (e.g. Ben Taylor's CORP model), it's hard to argue Lebron out of the top 2. Top tier peak, top tier consistency, plus top tier longevity puts him in territory that only Kareem can also touch. Jordan and Russell lose out on that due to lack of longevity, but if we focus more on primes, they can come out ahead as well. There's a possibility Russell is the most valuable ever given there is evidence for him being such an outlier relative to his era, but still too much uncertainty regarding the 60s. Any of those four can be argued GOAT, just depends on your criteria.

The case for Jordan and Russ from a CORP perspective is that they peaked higher and from Russ's perspective his era adjusted longevity was as good as you could ask for.

 

[The Guru]

As much as I fanboy for him I agree with this, the top 2 anointing is an underhanded tactic that is disrespectful to KAJ. Similarly, how to approach the ultimate winner debate - Russell compared to Jordan - is torturously difficult as both were essentially game breaking forces in the specific era and game constructions they lived in. There’s also an argument that a dominant big man will always have more value than the similarly dominant wing or smaller guard due to defensive impact, which to an extent is indisputable imo. Kareem also had a weird career where his 70s prime was unheralded due to wack rosters around him and ABA stuff which centers his image more around the 80s.

So to most people, not even solely casuals, I do think the majority of his case is just, “it was MJ then Kobe then Bron”. Kareem and Russell (and as you said, KG/Shaq) suffer due to the simple fact that big men can’t have the ball and lead the offense as much as perimeter players. For example you have actual people who think Kobe was better than Shaq in the 3 lakers titles despite this being not even close to the case.

with all that said I think LeBOAT still probably wins out due to his unbelievably versatile profile and generational playmaking even in the deadball era (compared to KAJ’s lightning fast paced era) but I really like Kareem’s case.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1609029293618724865

You can say the opposite about offense though. Perimeter guys are generally much more valuable offensively though there are exceptions to both of course. Guys like Kidd and Wade provided a ton defensively and Jokic and Shaq are legitimate top 10 all time offensive candidates.

Yeah anyone who thinks Kobe was better on the threepeat Lakers should have their license to hold basketball opinions removed its not even remotely close.

See I agree with the generational playmaking part but not the versatility part and that's what I think of as LeBron's greatest weakness. He really only can maximize his game in one way playing the helio LeBron ball around specific team constructions which makes hims what I call an "impact vampire" where the data overestimates his impact because the team construction is built to maximize him which hurts the other players from a plus minus perspective (though it makes the team better overall). I put a lot of value on guys who can fit next to other stars better and the best examples of that are guys like KG and Steph who can fit flawlessly into any system and still deliver huge results. I view KAJ and Jordan as in the middle of the scale here and Russ on the high end and LeBron on the low end and that's mainly what puts him lowest for me. I view Jordan's raw impact as the highest and that's enough to put him over Russ so I go 1. MJ 2. Russ 3. KAJ 4. Bron though more and more nowadays I find myself drawn to the Russ at 1 argument and I think I'll probably be a convert soon.

 

[Kralingen]

You can say the opposite about offense though. Perimeter guys are generally much more valuable offensively though there are exceptions to both of course. Guys like Kidd and Wade provided a ton defensively and Jokic and Shaq are legitimate top 10 all time offensive candidates.

Yeah anyone who thinks Kobe was better on the threepeat Lakers should have their license to hold basketball opinions removed its not even remotely close.

See I agree with the generational playmaking part but not the versatility part and that's what I think of as LeBron's greatest weakness. He really only can maximize his game in one way playing the helio LeBron ball around specific team constructions which makes hims what I call an "impact vampire" where the data overestimates his impact because the team construction is built to maximize him which hurts the other players from a plus minus perspective (though it makes the team better overall). I put a lot of value on guys who can fit next to other stars better and the best examples of that are guys like KG and Steph who can fit flawlessly into any system and still deliver huge results. I view KAJ and Jordan as in the middle of the scale here and Russ on the high end and LeBron on the low end and that's mainly what puts him lowest for me. I view Jordan's raw impact as the highest and that's enough to put him over Russ so I go 1. MJ 2. Russ 3. KAJ 4. Bron though more and more nowadays I find myself drawn to the Russ at 1 argument and I think I'll probably be a convert soon.

Ah, the scalability piece. Assuming that this is even a relevant talking point (if you look at the financial realities of basketball, I'd argue it isn't, as no situation would ever exist in NBA history where these fantasy teams with 4-5 different stars were on the same team), alright, let's talk about it.

Here is a usage rate chart using a few years of a player's prime (I appreciate that usage rate is not the utmost best measure of heliocentrism, but on the other hand, it measures number of shots and number of 'passes leading to a shot', and is at least a good barometer for ball hogging)

in no order, these players are: LeBron, Kobe, Jordan, Curry, Giannis, Kyrie, and Durant - widely accepted as the best non-center offensive players of the modern game ...

Can you point out the heliocentric usage rate of LeBron, who can only play LeBronBall? Surely his would stick out like a sore thumb, no?

player A: 28.9 - 32.6 - 30.1 - 30.9 - 30.4 - 33.6 - 34.7 - 30.8 - 31.2
player B: 38.5 - 38.2 - 33.9 - 32.0 - 33.6 - 32.8 - 31.6 - 34.7 - 33.2
player C: 31.8 - 30.6 - 31.3 - 29.6 - 32.9 - 29.0 - 30.6 - 30.3 - 31.1
player D: 33.7 - 33.3 - 31.4 - 31.9 - 30.1 - 30.9 - 32.2 - 31.3 - 29.9
player E: 22.3 - 28.1 - 31.1 - 32.0 - 37.3 - 32.2 - 34.6 - 38.3
player F: 31.7 - 30.4 - 32.9 - 29.0 - 31.6 - 38.7 - 33.5 - 31.3 - 32.2
player G: 30.2 - 28.1 - 26.1 - 29.5 - 30.8 - 31.0 - 29.6 - 32.6 - 30.4

(note - Magic, Bird, and KAJ all have usages in the 20s which is honestly very impressive and speaks to Bird/Magic being better than they appear stat wise)

So the ball dominant 'impact vampire' and the 'amazingly scalable' superstar end up having similar usage impacts. plus, in 2022 alone - Doncic, Harden, Trae, Embiid, Beal and Mitchell have all posted higher usage rates than LeBron ever did. I think in today's pace and space he would be borderline unstoppable (there is a clear demarcation between post 2015 and pre 2015 NBA stat wise)

There's no argument from me that Bron is not a perfect fit next to every superstar ever, but this is a gross underrating of his capabilities.

#1 - LeBron is one of the few players in NBA history who is equally as brilliant as a PnR ball handler and roller. He can be a legitimate lob threat in the roll, playmake like no one else in NBA history when coming down hill, and constantly occupy defenders in the paint as a roller... and alternatively i should not have to explain how good he is as the PnR ball handler. This opens up all sorts of possibilities such as slips, fake screens, and matchup hunting basically at will with LeBron on the court.
#2- Bron is scalable in the sense that he has positional versatility - he can be a secondary rim protector and even in a pinch play a small ball 5 as we've seen. You don't want him as a POA defender or chasing guys around screens (admittedly a weakness of his) but he can switch onto anyone and is a strong team defender in any scheme, especially an aggressive blitz one.
#3 - He is the best transition player ever and can manufacture points almost at will by simply pushing the ball, a trait that helps any team
#4 - while his outside shooting is a weakness, a ton of that is due to taking unassisted bail out 3s as a primary ball handler. We saw in Miami how efficient he was on 3s

#5 - and this is most important. What is so bad about being ball dominant when you're as good as LeBron? He can get literally anyone good looks. I'd have to go back to 1990 Lakers with Magic to find a championship team where he wouldn't be the best option as a primary ball handler and initiator. If you put him with MJ, Kobe, or KD he will be able to get them better shots and single coverage. If you put him with Giannis, Shaq, AD, Duncan, he will feed them easy buckets and give them wide open looks underneath. If you put him with Steph, Kyrie, or CP3 he will play off them and cut. He is very underrated in these off ball elements because you see it rarely, but even if he wasn't ... the ability to floor raise with a bench squad is also immensely valuable as we saw in Miami - the stints with Battier and Birdman were actually what blew open games vs. the Pacers and Spurs.

 

[The Guru]

Ah, the scalability piece. Assuming that this is even a relevant talking point (if you look at the financial realities of basketball, I'd argue it isn't, as no situation would ever exist in NBA history where these fantasy teams with 4-5 different stars were on the same team), alright, let's talk about it.

Here is a usage rate chart using a few years of a player's prime (I appreciate that usage rate is not the utmost best measure of heliocentrism, but on the other hand, it measures number of shots and number of 'passes leading to a shot', and is at least a good barometer for ball hogging)

in no order, these players are: LeBron, Kobe, Jordan, Curry, Giannis, Kyrie, and Durant - widely accepted as the best non-center offensive players of the modern game ...

Can you point out the heliocentric usage rate of LeBron, who can only play LeBronBall? Surely his would stick out like a sore thumb, no?

player A: 28.9 - 32.6 - 30.1 - 30.9 - 30.4 - 33.6 - 34.7 - 30.8 - 31.2
player B: 38.5 - 38.2 - 33.9 - 32.0 - 33.6 - 32.8 - 31.6 - 34.7 - 33.2
player C: 31.8 - 30.6 - 31.3 - 29.6 - 32.9 - 29.0 - 30.6 - 30.3 - 31.1
player D: 33.7 - 33.3 - 31.4 - 31.9 - 30.1 - 30.9 - 32.2 - 31.3 - 29.9
player E: 22.3 - 28.1 - 31.1 - 32.0 - 37.3 - 32.2 - 34.6 - 38.3
player F: 31.7 - 30.4 - 32.9 - 29.0 - 31.6 - 38.7 - 33.5 - 31.3 - 32.2
player G: 30.2 - 28.1 - 26.1 - 29.5 - 30.8 - 31.0 - 29.6 - 32.6 - 30.4

(note - Magic, Bird, and KAJ all have usages in the 20s which is honestly very impressive and speaks to Bird/Magic being better than they appear stat wise)

So the ball dominant 'impact vampire' and the 'amazingly scalable' superstar end up having similar usage impacts. plus, in 2022 alone - Doncic, Harden, Trae, Embiid, Beal and Mitchell have all posted higher usage rates than LeBron ever did. I think in today's pace and space he would be borderline unstoppable (there is a clear demarcation between post 2015 and pre 2015 NBA stat wise)

There's no argument from me that Bron is not a perfect fit next to every superstar ever, but this is a gross underrating of his capabilities.

#1 - LeBron is one of the few players in NBA history who is equally as brilliant as a PnR ball handler and roller. He can be a legitimate lob threat in the roll, playmake like no one else in NBA history when coming down hill, and constantly occupy defenders in the paint as a roller... and alternatively i should not have to explain how good he is as the PnR ball handler. This opens up all sorts of possibilities such as slips, fake screens, and matchup hunting basically at will with LeBron on the court.
#2- Bron is scalable in the sense that he has positional versatility - he can be a secondary rim protector and even in a pinch play a small ball 5 as we've seen. You don't want him as a POA defender or chasing guys around screens (admittedly a weakness of his) but he can switch onto anyone and is a strong team defender in any scheme, especially an aggressive blitz one.
#3 - He is the best transition player ever and can manufacture points almost at will by simply pushing the ball, a trait that helps any team
#4 - while his outside shooting is a weakness, a ton of that is due to taking unassisted bail out 3s as a primary ball handler. We saw in Miami how efficient he was on 3s

#5 - and this is most important. What is so bad about being ball dominant when you're as good as LeBron? He can get literally anyone good looks. I'd have to go back to 1990 Lakers with Magic to find a championship team where he wouldn't be the best option as a primary ball handler and initiator. If you put him with MJ, Kobe, or KD he will be able to get them better shots and single coverage. If you put him with Giannis, Shaq, AD, Duncan, he will feed them easy buckets and give them wide open looks underneath. If you put him with Steph, Kyrie, or CP3 he will play off them and cut. He is very underrated in these off ball elements because you see it rarely, but even if he wasn't ... the ability to floor raise with a bench squad is also immensely valuable as we saw in Miami - the stints with Battier and Birdman were actually what blew open games vs. the Pacers and Spurs.

See I think this argument is super disingenuous. Scalability is a relevant thing on literally any relevant team. A team with LeBron and Draymond and scrubs already has massive fit and scalability issues it doesn't need to be a 5 all star team.

Yeah usage rate is pretty crap stat. Offensive load is better but event that has its flaws but we can really just watch the games and it's immediately obvious. A great sign of that is Magic having a low usage despite being very ball dominant.

LeBron is not the only guy who has this issue I share very much the same concerns with Trae and Doncic and even more so with Harden.

LeBron never sets screen and has never been regularly utilized as a roller so while I agree in principal that he could do it he never was willing to so it's irrelevant. LeBron has never really done anything off the ball and that's exactly the problem. He's played next to other on ball stars his coaches have tried to implement other systems and he just doesn't do that stuff even though I agree if he did he'd likely be able do it well. But he doesn't and he never has.

Agreed he has solid defensive portability. He provided great rim protection for a wing at his peak and could guard most 2-4s effectively.

This is an argument for a skill that he possesses not an argument for how he fits well with other players. Literally every player is more effecient in transition the goal is always to play in transition so a scalable skill related to that would be outlet passing (never a particular strength of his).

LeBron took the least 3s of his career in Miami and was only slightly more efficient which is pretty much exactly what you would expect on lesser volume. His best years as a shooter were late in his career not in Miami I just don't really agree with this point at all. He's an ok shooter but it's not like he's a movement shooter or anything so again the offball value is limited.

This is your best argument. And I agree to an extent. LeBronball is very effective. The issue is I think it stunts the ability of other players on his team and it builds the team in such a way that it will really struggle when he's off the court. Let's say if you take LeBron and add him to a team of bums he makes them +10 points better and if you add Russ to them he makes them +9 better. LeBron's better case closed right? No. Because let's say you add LeBron and Barkley to a team and Russ and Barkley to a team. I think the LeBron Barkley team is maybe +13 better and the Russ Barkley team is +15 better and that's more relevant because that's much more likely to be a championship level team. Obviously numbers are made up but that's the idea I'm getting at. Also I think it's not necessarily clear LeBron floor raises better than Russ anyway.

 

[NoleFam]

When a supposed HC GOAT has twice as many losses than wins in USO finals, he deserves to be mentioned with a guy with 0 titles...more so considering the losses are to 5 different players.

What a ridiculous and ludicrous point of view. In no scenario should a 3 time champion be listed with a group of guys who never won once. He can lose 10 finals and he will still be multiple levels above them.

 

[Fiero425]

What a ridiculous and ludicrous point of view. In no scenario should a 3 time champion be listed with a group of guys who never won once. He can lose 10 finals and he will still be multiple levels above them.

I'm gobsmacked! The desperation to drag this man down is relentless, & embarassing to see and hear just about everyday! Lendl made 8 straight USO finals winning 3! It seems as if most were more impressed by his making the 8 finals over winning his 3! I, of course think it's ridiculous, but that kind of strange thinking can't be helped!

 

[NoleFam]

I'm gobsmacked! The desperation to drag this man down is relentless, & embarassing to see and hear just about everyday! Lendl made 8 straight USO finals winning 3! It seems as if most were more impressed by his making the 8 finals over winning his 3! I, of course think it's ridiculous, but that kind of strange thinking can't be helped!

Coming from this poster, we know he's latching onto this point of view to have a go at Djokovic based on his history. Lol.

 

[TheFifthSet]

See I think this argument is super disingenuous. Scalability is a relevant thing on literally any relevant team. A team with LeBron and Draymond and scrubs already has massive fit and scalability issues it doesn't need to be a 5 all star team.

Yeah usage rate is pretty crap stat. Offensive load is better but event that has its flaws but we can really just watch the games and it's immediately obvious. A great sign of that is Magic having a low usage despite being very ball dominant.

LeBron is not the only guy who has this issue I share very much the same concerns with Trae and Doncic and even more so with Harden.

LeBron never sets screen and has never been regularly utilized as a roller so while I agree in principal that he could do it he never was willing to so it's irrelevant. LeBron has never really done anything off the ball and that's exactly the problem. He's played next to other on ball stars his coaches have tried to implement other systems and he just doesn't do that stuff even though I agree if he did he'd likely be able do it well. But he doesn't and he never has.

Agreed he has solid defensive portability. He provided great rim protection for a wing at his peak and could guard most 2-4s effectively.

This is an argument for a skill that he possesses not an argument for how he fits well with other players. Literally every player is more effecient in transition the goal is always to play in transition so a scalable skill related to that would be outlet passing (never a particular strength of his).

LeBron took the least 3s of his career in Miami and was only slightly more efficient which is pretty much exactly what you would expect on lesser volume. His best years as a shooter were late in his career not in Miami I just don't really agree with this point at all. He's an ok shooter but it's not like he's a movement shooter or anything so again the offball value is limited.

This is your best argument. And I agree to an extent. LeBronball is very effective. The issue is I think it stunts the ability of other players on his team and it builds the team in such a way that it will really struggle when he's off the court. Let's say if you take LeBron and add him to a team of bums he makes them +10 points better and if you add Russ to them he makes them +9 better. LeBron's better case closed right? No. Because let's say you add LeBron and Barkley to a team and Russ and Barkley to a team. I think the LeBron Barkley team is maybe +13 better and the Russ Barkley team is +15 better and that's more relevant because that's much more likely to be a championship level team. Obviously numbers are made up but that's the idea I'm getting at. Also I think it's not necessarily clear LeBron floor raises better than Russ anyway.

Ah, the scalability piece. Assuming that this is even a relevant talking point (if you look at the financial realities of basketball, I'd argue it isn't, as no situation would ever exist in NBA history where these fantasy teams with 4-5 different stars were on the same team), alright, let's talk about it.

Here is a usage rate chart using a few years of a player's prime (I appreciate that usage rate is not the utmost best measure of heliocentrism, but on the other hand, it measures number of shots and number of 'passes leading to a shot', and is at least a good barometer for ball hogging)

in no order, these players are: LeBron, Kobe, Jordan, Curry, Giannis, Kyrie, and Durant - widely accepted as the best non-center offensive players of the modern game ...

Can you point out the heliocentric usage rate of LeBron, who can only play LeBronBall? Surely his would stick out like a sore thumb, no?

player A: 28.9 - 32.6 - 30.1 - 30.9 - 30.4 - 33.6 - 34.7 - 30.8 - 31.2
player B: 38.5 - 38.2 - 33.9 - 32.0 - 33.6 - 32.8 - 31.6 - 34.7 - 33.2
player C: 31.8 - 30.6 - 31.3 - 29.6 - 32.9 - 29.0 - 30.6 - 30.3 - 31.1
player D: 33.7 - 33.3 - 31.4 - 31.9 - 30.1 - 30.9 - 32.2 - 31.3 - 29.9
player E: 22.3 - 28.1 - 31.1 - 32.0 - 37.3 - 32.2 - 34.6 - 38.3
player F: 31.7 - 30.4 - 32.9 - 29.0 - 31.6 - 38.7 - 33.5 - 31.3 - 32.2
player G: 30.2 - 28.1 - 26.1 - 29.5 - 30.8 - 31.0 - 29.6 - 32.6 - 30.4

(note - Magic, Bird, and KAJ all have usages in the 20s which is honestly very impressive and speaks to Bird/Magic being better than they appear stat wise)

So the ball dominant 'impact vampire' and the 'amazingly scalable' superstar end up having similar usage impacts. plus, in 2022 alone - Doncic, Harden, Trae, Embiid, Beal and Mitchell have all posted higher usage rates than LeBron ever did. I think in today's pace and space he would be borderline unstoppable (there is a clear demarcation between post 2015 and pre 2015 NBA stat wise)

There's no argument from me that Bron is not a perfect fit next to every superstar ever, but this is a gross underrating of his capabilities.

#1 - LeBron is one of the few players in NBA history who is equally as brilliant as a PnR ball handler and roller. He can be a legitimate lob threat in the roll, playmake like no one else in NBA history when coming down hill, and constantly occupy defenders in the paint as a roller... and alternatively i should not have to explain how good he is as the PnR ball handler. This opens up all sorts of possibilities such as slips, fake screens, and matchup hunting basically at will with LeBron on the court.
#2- Bron is scalable in the sense that he has positional versatility - he can be a secondary rim protector and even in a pinch play a small ball 5 as we've seen. You don't want him as a POA defender or chasing guys around screens (admittedly a weakness of his) but he can switch onto anyone and is a strong team defender in any scheme, especially an aggressive blitz one.
#3 - He is the best transition player ever and can manufacture points almost at will by simply pushing the ball, a trait that helps any team
#4 - while his outside shooting is a weakness, a ton of that is due to taking unassisted bail out 3s as a primary ball handler. We saw in Miami how efficient he was on 3s

#5 - and this is most important. What is so bad about being ball dominant when you're as good as LeBron? He can get literally anyone good looks. I'd have to go back to 1990 Lakers with Magic to find a championship team where he wouldn't be the best option as a primary ball handler and initiator. If you put him with MJ, Kobe, or KD he will be able to get them better shots and single coverage. If you put him with Giannis, Shaq, AD, Duncan, he will feed them easy buckets and give them wide open looks underneath. If you put him with Steph, Kyrie, or CP3 he will play off them and cut. He is very underrated in these off ball elements because you see it rarely, but even if he wasn't ... the ability to floor raise with a bench squad is also immensely valuable as we saw in Miami - the stints with Battier and Birdman were actually what blew open games vs. the Pacers and Spurs.

Good back-and-forth here, lots of nice points raised. If I may interject with some of my own disagreements:

- While I too have some minor quibbles with LeBron’s scalability, let’s at least acknowledge him as the GOAT floor-raiser, the Russ comp ain’t fair lol. No version of Russ leads the ‘08-‘09 and ‘09-‘10 Cavs to 66 and 61 wins, respectively. Those Cavs teams fielded league-best offences with LeBron on the floor.

- As TG pointed out, LeBron’s 3pt #’s were barely above league average in that four year period (102.5 3pt+, with 100 being average), and dipped to about 100 in the playoffs. Bron actually dialed back the volume in his best % years and I think the few bail-out threes he took are balanced out by the space perimeter defenders were giving him behind the line…Pop (in)famously allowed LeBron’s man to sag off him and give him long 2’s/3’s in the playoffs, this wasn’t uncommon.

- Usage rate =/= ball dominance. Jordan had huge usg rates but rarely held on to the ball and could play off ball pretty well

- LeBron’s scalability is really only a point against him when he’s compared to Jordan and Kareem. It’s not enough to place him below Duncan (who, due to his limited court vision and long-range shooting game, wasn’t as scalable as some think), Wilt, Magic or Bird. I remain convinced that Jordan, Bron, Kareem and Russ are Top 4 and everyone else is playing for scraps.

 

[RS]

Like the Basketball stuff

Sadly I don't follow or have ever followed to have a chat unlike a few other sports.

 

[Mustard]

Roland Garros - Guillermo Coria. For one reason - the 2004 final against Gaston Gaudio, where Coria had 6:0, 6:3 and 4:4 with 40:15 on his serve in the third, when that long point happened which Coria should have won. He got broken, lost the third 4:6 and started the chokefest and the cramping. Lost the fourth 1:6,

6-0, 6-3, 4-4 and 40-0 on serve to Coria.

And I believe Coria was a break up 5 times in the fifth set, served for the title twice, and had 2 championship points that he missed the line by a fraction with attempted winners.

 

[Mustard]

This was a while back but Ilie Nastase was the greateast looser at Wimbledon, during the boycott.

His president, Nicolae Ceausescu, ordered him to break the players’ boycott of Wimbledon in 1973. It cost him $5,000 and life membership of the All England Club. For someone who earned more than $2m in purses over a long career and had an open disregard for authority, it was probably a bearable slight.

Uh? You mean the ATP, right? They are the ones who fined Nastase (and Taylor and Keldie) for scabbing. The All England Club were against the strike. What's the point in being in the players' union, the ATP, if you are going to break a strike called to defend the rights of players to refuse Davis Cup without being banned from major tournaments?

 

[Fintft]

Uh? You mean the ATP, right? They are the ones who fined Nastase (and Taylor and Keldie) for scabbing. The All England Club were against the strike. What's the point in being in the players' union, the ATP, if you are going to break a strike called to defend the rights of players to refuse Davis Cup without being banned from major tournaments?

On top of it, he didn't win it.

 

[Mustard]

On top of it, he didn't win it.

Yep. 81 of the 85(?) ATP players boycotted and Nastase still didn't win it. Lost to Sandy Mayer.

 

[Fiero425]

Yep. 81 of the 85(?) ATP players boycotted and Nastase still didn't win it. Lost to Sandy Mayer.

As skilled as Nastase was, he had no major weapons back then! His serve improved as he got older feeling he needed the free points that aces would give him! He was a cagey player who could place the ball anywhere on the court with touch and feel that's still unmatched by any player to this day! His major problem was he didn't hit the ball hard enough; esp. to compete against the likes of Borg who defeated him at Wimbledon and the USO w/ little difficulty! A comparable player would be Safin except Marat could pound the ball with power and touch!

 

[Fintft]

As skilled as Nastase was, he had no major weapons back then! His serve improved as he got older feeling he needed the free points that aces would give him! He was a cagey player who could place the ball anywhere on the court with touch and feel that's still unmatched by any player to this day! His major problem was he didn't hit the ball hard enough; esp. to compete against the likes of Borg who defeated him at Wimbledon and the USO w/ little difficulty! A comperable player would be Safin except Marat could pound the ball with power and touch!

It's rather Roger and Johnny Mac that remind me of Nastase

 

[mike danny]

Who are the greatest losers in Grand Slam tournaments in men's singles?

By saying greatest losers, that means an ATG or a very good tennis player who lost the most on a particular Grand Slam tournament - most finals/semi finals, who underachieved or who choked.

Here's my list:

Australian Open - Andy Murray. I think this should be everyone's pick here. An all time great who reached 5 finals (2010, 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016) and lost every single one of them - against Federer once and four times against Djokovic. Also lost in semi finals in 2012 against Novak.

Roland Garros - Guillermo Coria. For one reason - the 2004 final against Gaston Gaudio, where Coria had 6:0, 6:3 and 4:4 with 40:15 on his serve in the third, when that long point happened which Coria should have won. He got broken, lost the third 4:6 and started the chokefest and the cramping. Lost the fourth 1:6, and after medical timeout in the deciding set he came back, got a break and had to serve out at 5:4 for the title. Got broken easily, but broke Gaudio back and had 2 match points after deuces on his serve at 6:5. Failed, lost three games in a row and lost the final. After that, it seems like he never fully fullfilled his potential, as many were saying he would win multiple Grand Slam titles (was 22 in that final). Prior to this final he lost in 2003 in semi finals against a nobody if one can say so, dutchman Martin Verkerk.

Wimbledon - Andy Roddick. This one if tough, but my pick is Andy as he is one of the greatest servers ever and he lost 3 Wimbledon finals against Roger Federer (2004, 2005 and 2009), with the last one being in the epic 5 sets in which Andy just didn't capitalize his chances. He lost 2nd and 3rd set in a close tie break (6:8 and 5:7), but in second set he had 6:2 lead in tie break and 4 set points for 2:0 lead in sets, which he failed to convert. In the final set, Roddick had 2 break points on the result 8:8 and 15:40, but also failed to convert them. No other break points happened untill 14:15 on Roddick serve, when Federer took the first given opportunity and broke Roddick for final result 14:16 and record breaking 15th Grand Slam title. In that game, Andy had 40:30 and adv, but lost the game and the match. Andy also lost in semi finals in 2003 against Federer.

US Open - Novak Djokovic. This one should also be on everyone's list, I guess. The Serb lost 6 finals there (2007, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2021) with the last one being the toughest - Medvedev denied him of the famous Calendar Year Grand Slam, as he won the other 3 slams in 2021. The finals he lost were against Federer, Nadal twice, Murray, Wawrinka and Medvedev. He has 3 titles there, with one being 2011 after saving match points against Federer in semi finals, but he had to do much better with 6 more finals and 3 more semi finals, lost in 2008 against Federer, 2009 against Federer and 2014 against Nishikori.

Who are your picks?

Can it be possible at the USO for Zverev to put himself in there?

 

[The Guru]

Good back-and-forth here, lots of nice points raised. If I may interject with some of my own disagreements:

- While I too have some minor quibbles with LeBron’s scalability, let’s at least acknowledge him as the GOAT floor-raiser, the Russ comp ain’t fair lol. No version of Russ leads the ‘08-‘09 and ‘09-‘10 Cavs to 66 and 61 wins, respectively. Those Cavs teams fielded league-best offences with LeBron on the floor.

- As TG pointed out, LeBron’s 3pt #’s were barely above league average in that four year period (102.5 3pt+, with 100 being average), and dipped to about 100 in the playoffs. Bron actually dialed back the volume in his best % years and I think the few bail-out threes he took are balanced out by the space perimeter defenders were giving him behind the line…Pop (in)famously allowed LeBron’s man to sag off him and give him long 2’s/3’s in the playoffs, this wasn’t uncommon.

- Usage rate =/= ball dominance. Jordan had huge usg rates but rarely held on to the ball and could play off ball pretty well

- LeBron’s scalability is really only a point against him when he’s compared to Jordan and Kareem. It’s not enough to place him below Duncan (who, due to his limited court vision and long-range shooting game, wasn’t as scalable as some think), Wilt, Magic or Bird. I remain convinced that Jordan, Bron, Kareem and Russ are Top 4 and everyone else is playing for scraps.

Glad you're entering the discussion this is a fun one.

Just because LeBron's game is more naturally geared towards floor raising doesn't mean he's necessarily the best at it. Just like LeBron automatically took what would've been average offenses to tops in the league peak Russ is doing the same thing to league average defenses.

Yep agreed

100% usage rate doesn't measure ball dominance it measures who's finishing the possession.

And Russ? Right? I think Russ is probably the most scalable of the top 4 which I agree is pretty locked in. I'd listen to cases for Shaq, KG, Hakeem, and Duncan but they all have more obvious flaws that keep them out. For Shaq only good but not great defense. For KG only good but not great volume scoring and bigger playoff dip. For Hakeem limited playmaking and efficiency as a scorer. For Duncan again limited playmaking and efficiency.

 

[AO13]

Can it be possible at the USO for Zverev to put himself in there?

He has a strong case for it, true. A choke parade that was.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Glad you're entering the discussion this is a fun one.

Just because LeBron's game is more naturally geared towards floor raising doesn't mean he's necessarily the best at it. Just like LeBron automatically took what would've been average offenses to tops in the league peak Russ is doing the same thing to league average defenses.

Yep agreed

100% usage rate doesn't measure ball dominance it measures who's finishing the possession.

And Russ? Right? I think Russ is probably the most scalable of the top 4 which I agree is pretty locked in. I'd listen to cases for Shaq, KG, Hakeem, and Duncan but they all have more obvious flaws that keep them out. For Shaq only good but not great defense. For KG only good but not great volume scoring and bigger playoff dip. For Hakeem limited playmaking and efficiency as a scorer. For Duncan again limited playmaking and efficiency.

Oh, derp. I thought you meant Russell Westbrook.