Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by SupremeCommander:



I don't think I said he had low basketball IQ. I think I said I wanted him to keep his head in the game. Which means I want to see him not commit unforced turnovers. What I'm talking about is Wilson hanging out in the deep corner and backing out of bounds with no one on him at all, which happened and was without question one of the worst plays I've seen from a Knick this year. Frankly, I don't care about Kobe or Pierce and how their superstardom gets them calls and no-calls. Stinks we didn't get a call, but that happens. What I do care about is Wilson improving focus, which I think will/should happen, and as I said before, his progress in limiting the terrible play is something I'll pay attention to next year

Geez, you'd think I crucified the guy given these responses. I sing the dudes praises, but levy one legitimate criticism...

How bout this, tell me why I shouldn't be concerned by a perceived lack of concentration from Wilson Chandler? I mean, I'm not the only one on this board with that impression

Now, that's where I am trying to figure out. You mentioned incidents that you PERCEIVED where because his "head wasn't in the game", I gave you examples where all-star players who have acclodes thrust upon them are guilty of the same infractions and you dismiss them. Also, you indicated that we didn't get the call which is off-topic because if you read what I said those players were called for such infractions. Get your head into this discussion. You didn't justify your assumptions clearly. This may come as a shock to you but every player will commit a turnover in their career if they play long enough. They're human not robots.

Why I say your point doesn't carry weight is that among the Knicks that average more than 30 minutes, Chandler has the lowest turnover rate only to Hughes who played far less games than Chandler and until his injury was pacing hard to pass him. So basically upon starters and Nate, he has the lowest turnovers per game. Which is very interesting since he leads all Knicks in games played this season. I can't take credit for this nugget, D'Antoni actually commented about his low turnovers this season last month. So is Lee's head into the game? Duhon? I guess we can both argue that Harrington's head isn't to the game since he leads the Knicks in turnovers and silly plays.

When you compare his turnovers to the rest of the league among qualified starters he is in the middle of the pack towards low turnover numbers. Lebron nearly averages 3 turnovers per game but the ball is in hands a lot more. Yet his assist/turnover rate is only 1.5 more than Chandler's. Which means why everyone celebrates Lebron for being a great passer, he still turnovers the ball a lot. Are we going to say that Lebron's head is not in the game or he just commits a lot of turnovers, silly or otherwise. That's the problem with perception, it's not really perception if it is really an assumption.

BTW, for all you Gallinari is such a "court vision" guy and high BB IQ. You would be interested to know that while Gallinari didn't turnover the ball much when played, only .54. He still average more turnovers than assists per game (.5). Leaving him with a -.04 assist/turnover ratio. I can understand his scoring being low but for the hype surrounding his court vision and high BB IQ and the ability to set up his teammates, that stat is ridiculous. I don't care if he played one minute per game or just one game. I know some people hate stats but sometimes they pierce this so called "perception"

Dude, I don't even know where to begin. So, let's revisit this thread.

I said in my first post:
(1) Chandler's potential could be as a 35-40 MPG starter in the L
(2) I want to see consistency from him
(3) I don't want to see him commit the bad play

Then misterearl makes a claim about "low basketball IQ"

Then you base your argument off an incoherent topic (your argument, was inferred by me because you have a propensity to write things that don't make sense. Great grammar, punctuation, but follow no rational logical flow) directed at me, "^This is why fans are respected by players but past and present as well as NBA executives" seem complimentary. Then it's followed with, "It is really curious about how some fans think and what are behind their thoughts." So, the passive aggressiveness really shines here (and as we'll see later, devolves to just being mean.

As for your point about Kobe and Pierce, how about noting how incredulous it is that you compare Wilson Chandler to Kobe and Pierce? The NBA is a stars league. We all know that perennial All-Stars gets calls time and time again. It probably could be mentioned that in their case, a high basketball IQ requires exploiting the rules, because we all know the rules don't apply to them in the same way they do to Wilson Chandler.

Then, I follow that post up by saying I don't care about Kobe or Pierce because their inclusion in this "discussion" is insane. You're comparing 30-year-old perennial all-stars to a 21-year-old "rookie"? That's insane, dude. No matter how you slice it, you're comparing apples to filet mignon. I restated my point, again, because clearly you and earl like to put words into my mouth instead of responding to the text as it appears. Then, I follow it up with a reasonable request to answer a question why I should be concerned with HIS PERCEIVED LACK OF CONCENTRATION--WHICH IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH BASKETBALL IQ

Then, Bip comes in with some common sense (audience: praise be to Christ). Your argument is a "worthless argument" because you aren't arguing anything; youa re simply disagreeing. A difference of OPINIONS. You're making argumentative statements to criticize me. (What's your point Phare, please, tell me.) Bip then proceeds to point out that Wilson Chandler is 21-years-old and is stupid because he's 21. Anyone who's been through that stage of their life will agree about how stupid they were at 21. Hell, I was a moron at that age, maybe still, but the difference is I realize this now as opposed to at 21 when I thought I knew everything.

And Bip's way of putting things, I agree with. That's MY point, Wilson Chandler's future has nothing to do with basketball IQ (WHICH, BY THE WAY, I NEVER, EVER SAID HE HAD A LOW BASKETBALL IQ) or a lack of talent, but as his development as a man, and how seriously he takes improving. Anyway,

"Also, you indicated that we didn't get the call which is off-topic because if you read what I said those players were called for such infractions. Get your head into this discussion." Well excuse me, um, sir (I mean, really, how I am responding to you in decent tones at this point is beyond my comprehension), if I knew what the hell you meant by, "This is why fans are respected by players but past and present as well as NBA executives" maybe I would have had the necessary energy for reading comprehension. Again, "This may come as a shock to you but every player will commit a turnover in their career if they play long enough. They're human not robots," How I'm maintaining the higher ground is a testament to how I was raised or something, because, well, I'll let the readers interpret your tone.

The difference between Wilson Chandler and the other guys is that the offense doesn't truly flow through him. He should have a lower turnover rate. As I recall though, he got his minutes yanked in December and February because, well, HE WASN'T COMING THROUGH. And doesn't it make sense that a guy like Duhon would have more turnovers because, well, HE HANDLES THE BALL? And doesn't it make sense that Lee would have more turnovers because HE PLAYS IN THE POST?

I agree that Chandler's turnover rate is superb. But what does that say about the mistakes he did make? Part of the reason I think he'll be a good starter is because of his efficiency. One of the (only) flags I see is WHEN those turnovers occurred, which was a major criticism of your boy, Kobe Bryant, when he first came into the league.

Again, let's re-read what I ORIGINALLY SAID:

Posted by SupremeCommander:
Hopefully he continues to grow. So far all indicators show him becoming more efficient. I don't think he'll ever be a star. But could he be a 35-40 MPG starter in this league for a decade+? I think it's possible

So, then, You decide to compare LeBron James' stats to Wilson Chandler's Are you serious? Are you serious? Are you serious?

What does, "BTW, for all you Gallinari is such a 'court vision' guy and high BB IQ" mean? And "You would be interested to know that while Gallinari didn't turnover the ball much when played, only .54. He still average more turnovers than assists per game (.5). Leaving him with a -.04 assist/turnover ratio" don't ever presume to know what I'm interested in unless I say so. Yes, you've made me feel quite cordial.

What does this "I can understand his scoring being low but for the hype surrounding his court vision and high BB IQ and the ability to set up his teammates, that stat is ridiculous. I don't care if he played one minute per game or just one game. I know some people hate stats but sometimes they pierce this so called 'perception'" have to do with ANYTHING??? Seriously, dude, stick to your, um, argument.

What SupremeCommander learned today:
(1) Pharezone was not hugged as a child
(2) Pharezone has no clear argument
(3) Pharezone needs to read what he writes before he posts it
(4) Bip was right and this "argument" is worthless
(5) This "argument" is worthless because I'm just being attacked, no alternate hypothesis is being offered
(6) Valid comparisons for Wilson Chandler are apparently LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Paul Pierce
(7) I learned a little bit more about patience

PHAREZONE, WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING???

I think your OPINION differs from my OPINION, and the only way you could figure to discredit my opinion was to bully. Bravo, um, sir

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by SupremeCommander:



I don't think I said he had low basketball IQ. I think I said I wanted him to keep his head in the game. Which means I want to see him not commit unforced turnovers. What I'm talking about is Wilson hanging out in the deep corner and backing out of bounds with no one on him at all, which happened and was without question one of the worst plays I've seen from a Knick this year. Frankly, I don't care about Kobe or Pierce and how their superstardom gets them calls and no-calls. Stinks we didn't get a call, but that happens. What I do care about is Wilson improving focus, which I think will/should happen, and as I said before, his progress in limiting the terrible play is something I'll pay attention to next year

Geez, you'd think I crucified the guy given these responses. I sing the dudes praises, but levy one legitimate criticism...

How bout this, tell me why I shouldn't be concerned by a perceived lack of concentration from Wilson Chandler? I mean, I'm not the only one on this board with that impression

Now, that's where I am trying to figure out. You mentioned incidents that you PERCEIVED where because his "head wasn't in the game", I gave you examples where all-star players who have acclodes thrust upon them are guilty of the same infractions and you dismiss them. Also, you indicated that we didn't get the call which is off-topic because if you read what I said those players were called for such infractions. Get your head into this discussion. You didn't justify your assumptions clearly. This may come as a shock to you but every player will commit a turnover in their career if they play long enough. They're human not robots.

Why I say your point doesn't carry weight is that among the Knicks that average more than 30 minutes, Chandler has the lowest turnover rate only to Hughes who played far less games than Chandler and until his injury was pacing hard to pass him. So basically upon starters and Nate, he has the lowest turnovers per game. Which is very interesting since he leads all Knicks in games played this season. I can't take credit for this nugget, D'Antoni actually commented about his low turnovers this season last month. So is Lee's head into the game? Duhon? I guess we can both argue that Harrington's head isn't to the game since he leads the Knicks in turnovers and silly plays.

When you compare his turnovers to the rest of the league among qualified starters he is in the middle of the pack towards low turnover numbers. Lebron nearly averages 3 turnovers per game but the ball is in hands a lot more. Yet his assist/turnover rate is only 1.5 more than Chandler's. Which means why everyone celebrates Lebron for being a great passer, he still turnovers the ball a lot. Are we going to say that Lebron's head is not in the game or he just commits a lot of turnovers, silly or otherwise. That's the problem with perception, it's not really perception if it is really an assumption.

BTW, for all you Gallinari is such a "court vision" guy and high BB IQ. You would be interested to know that while Gallinari didn't turnover the ball much when played, only .54. He still average more turnovers than assists per game (.5). Leaving him with a -.04 assist/turnover ratio. I can understand his scoring being low but for the hype surrounding his court vision and high BB IQ and the ability to set up his teammates, that stat is ridiculous. I don't care if he played one minute per game or just one game. I know some people hate stats but sometimes they pierce this so called "perception"

Dude, I don't even know where to begin. So, let's revisit this thread.

I said in my first post:
(1) Chandler's potential could be as a 35-40 MPG starter in the L
(2) I want to see consistency from him
(3) I don't want to see him commit the bad play

Then misterearl makes a claim about "low basketball IQ"

Then you base your argument off an incoherent topic (your argument, was inferred by me because you have a propensity to write things that don't make sense. Great grammar, punctuation, but follow no rational logical flow) directed at me, "^This is why fans are respected by players but past and present as well as NBA executives" seem complimentary. Then it's followed with, "It is really curious about how some fans think and what are behind their thoughts." So, the passive aggressiveness really shines here (and as we'll see later, devolves to just being mean.

As for your point about Kobe and Pierce, how about noting how incredulous it is that you compare Wilson Chandler to Kobe and Pierce? The NBA is a stars league. We all know that perennial All-Stars gets calls time and time again. It probably could be mentioned that in their case, a high basketball IQ requires exploiting the rules, because we all know the rules don't apply to them in the same way they do to Wilson Chandler.

Then, I follow that post up by saying I don't care about Kobe or Pierce because their inclusion in this "discussion" is insane. You're comparing 30-year-old perennial all-stars to a 21-year-old "rookie"? That's insane, dude. No matter how you slice it, you're comparing apples to filet mignon. I restated my point, again, because clearly you and earl like to put words into my mouth instead of responding to the text as it appears. Then, I follow it up with a reasonable request to answer a question why I should be concerned with HIS PERCEIVED LACK OF CONCENTRATION--WHICH IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH BASKETBALL IQ

Then, Bip comes in with some common sense (audience: praise be to Christ). Your argument is a "worthless argument" because you aren't arguing anything; youa re simply disagreeing. A difference of OPINIONS. You're making argumentative statements to criticize me. (What's your point Phare, please, tell me.) Bip then proceeds to point out that Wilson Chandler is 21-years-old and is stupid because he's 21. Anyone who's been through that stage of their life will agree about how stupid they were at 21. Hell, I was a moron at that age, maybe still, but the difference is I realize this now as opposed to at 21 when I thought I knew everything.

And Bip's way of putting things, I agree with. That's MY point, Wilson Chandler's future has nothing to do with basketball IQ (WHICH, BY THE WAY, I NEVER, EVER SAID HE HAD A LOW BASKETBALL IQ) or a lack of talent, but as his development as a man, and how seriously he takes improving. Anyway,

"Also, you indicated that we didn't get the call which is off-topic because if you read what I said those players were called for such infractions. Get your head into this discussion." Well excuse me, um, sir (I mean, really, how I am responding to you in decent tones at this point is beyond my comprehension), if I knew what the hell you meant by, "This is why fans are respected by players but past and present as well as NBA executives" maybe I would have had the necessary energy for reading comprehension. Again, "This may come as a shock to you but every player will commit a turnover in their career if they play long enough. They're human not robots," How I'm maintaining the higher ground is a testament to how I was raised or something, because, well, I'll let the readers interpret your tone.

The difference between Wilson Chandler and the other guys is that the offense doesn't truly flow through him. He should have a lower turnover rate. As I recall though, he got his minutes yanked in December and February because, well, HE WASN'T COMING THROUGH. And doesn't it make sense that a guy like Duhon would have more turnovers because, well, HE HANDLES THE BALL? And doesn't it make sense that Lee would have more turnovers because HE PLAYS IN THE POST?

I agree that Chandler's turnover rate is superb. But what does that say about the mistakes he did make? Part of the reason I think he'll be a good starter is because of his efficiency. One of the (only) flags I see is WHEN those turnovers occurred, which was a major criticism of your boy, Kobe Bryant, when he first came into the league.

Again, let's re-read what I ORIGINALLY SAID:

Posted by SupremeCommander:
Hopefully he continues to grow. So far all indicators show him becoming more efficient. I don't think he'll ever be a star. But could he be a 35-40 MPG starter in this league for a decade+? I think it's possible

So, then, You decide to compare LeBron James' stats to Wilson Chandler's Are you serious? Are you serious? Are you serious?

What does, "BTW, for all you Gallinari is such a 'court vision' guy and high BB IQ" mean? And "You would be interested to know that while Gallinari didn't turnover the ball much when played, only .54. He still average more turnovers than assists per game (.5). Leaving him with a -.04 assist/turnover ratio" don't ever presume to know what I'm interested in unless I say so. Yes, you've made me feel quite cordial.

What does this "I can understand his scoring being low but for the hype surrounding his court vision and high BB IQ and the ability to set up his teammates, that stat is ridiculous. I don't care if he played one minute per game or just one game. I know some people hate stats but sometimes they pierce this so called 'perception'" have to do with ANYTHING??? Seriously, dude, stick to your, um, argument.

What SupremeCommander learned today:
(1) Pharezone was not hugged as a child
(2) Pharezone has no clear argument
(3) Pharezone needs to read what he writes before he posts it
(4) Bip was right and this "argument" is worthless
(5) This "argument" is worthless because I'm just being attacked, no alternate hypothesis is being offered
(6) Valid comparisons for Wilson Chandler are apparently LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Paul Pierce
(7) I learned a little bit more about patience

PHAREZONE, WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING???

I think your OPINION differs from my OPINION, and the only way you could figure to discredit my opinion was to bully. Bravo, um, sir

What are you trying to say? Are you saying that I'm stupid because I'm black? Racist hatter!

I'm not bullying. I was having a discussion with you about a Knick on a Knick forum. Sorry if you took it another way. You certainly have the right to your opinion. Didn't mean to indicate otherwise. It's a forum for discussion.

I'm sorry but I counter your argument with fact. I stated that his turnovers are lowest among Knick starters and then illustrated where they ranked league wide. If you don't put weight in fact then that's another matter. I'm still trying to understand how one can "perceived" anything when fact states otherwise. It's not rational.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Bip, I don't know what you are talking about.

But Marty Blake asked the same question a couple of years ago about how scouting is done. I know Charles Barkley and Kenny Anderson had similar discussions.

Maybe that's why D Wade wears eyeglasses and bow ties. Maybe, people would perceive differently. But he can't fool anyone.

Don't worry, nobody ever understands what I'm saying. But regardless I think you and I are on the same page.

Sometimes perception can play to your advantage. I'm relatively short, black, "athletic looking", I have a baby face that makes people think I'm in my 20's and I have a handle that makes me look like I know what I'm doing. I go to gyms around Boston and everyone immedately does the following:

1.) Plays off me because they are afraid I'm going to go by them
2.) Gives me the jumper until I prove myself because the perception is that most guys that fit my profile can't shoot
3.) Force me left, because the perception is that most guys that fit my profile rely on their quickness and don't work on the subtle parts of the game

In reality

1.) I'm old and can't go by anyone. I still have a quick dribble and crossover so everyone thinks I have blazing speed. The reality is I use my quick crossover but never go anywhere because I'm old, slow, lazy and really just like standing outside and shooting jumpers.
2.) My strength is my jumper. You should actually make me go to the rim because I can't finish anymore. But if you give me the 15 footers that everyone seems okay with giving me I'm going to hit them. I may even switch it up and shoot left handed to prove a point I have a good jumper because I have a high basketball IQ. I realized everyone was playing off me so I figured it out and worked on that part of my game.
3.) I do everything lefthanded except shoot. I am good with my lefthand because I have a high basketball IQ. I realized at a young age that everyone gave me the left hand so I figured it out and worked on that part of my game.

First impressions are often wrong but it doesn't mean we have to fall victim to them. My game nowadays has a close resemblance to a 45 year old white man that has played ball in his driveway alone all his life, but people still treat me like I'm Tim Hardaway. gotta love perception

Posted by sebstar:

Damn, ya'll writing novels out here.

Labeling whites as "smart" and Blacks as "athletic" has been a conscious and unconscious trick used to ease the psyche of the overwhelming white fan base. It was predominately used to explain the dominance of blacks more than anything --- 'they're not outworking or out thinking whites, they were just born more athletic.'

Its gotten better over the years, but its legacy still remains. Hence, why you see the low-IQ label so easily attached to black players with seemingly no rhyme or reason, and why blacks "cant play" thinking positions like quarterback, or find proper representation in management and coaching positions in all sports.

Supreme Commander started it

Posted by franco12:

Posted by Bippity10:


I've lived that perception and I believe it's there. Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and even Nate Robinson have worked harder on their games and their bodies than David Lee ever will, and yet David Lee is considered to be the tireless worker.

Bip- what makes you think Lee hasn't worked on his game or his body? Is it cause he's not ripped or something?

I don't think anyone ever questioned the work ethic of either Jordan or Bryant. You throw Nate in- and with Lee we've seen him improve different parts of his game dramatically each off season.

Yet the one thing Nate needs to work on- i.e., his temper- hasn't improved since he got in the league. He's emotional, but he's unrestrained. If he worked as hard as Lee- and it would probably be different work like meditation to improve his focus- then I don't think we'd have seen the crap he pulled the other night against Chris Paul.

And as far as David's body- not every person can benefit and bulk out the same way. Why was Reggie Miller so skinny? Why couldn't he 'bulk up'?

Franco, when did I criticize David Lee's work ethic, or say he hasn't worked on his game or body. I just think these guys have worked harder than he has. It's not a criticism of Lee. Of course David Lee is a hard worker. But he hasn't worked as hard on his game as those that I mentioned. Jordan and Bryant are two of the greatest players of our generation because they outworked EVERYONE! Nate Robinson is 4 foot 6 and capable of scoring 20 any night, because he has outworked most. This isn't an endorsement of his game. I actually prefer Lee over Nate. The discussion was about perception. When you hear blue collar and hard worker on the Knicks, David's name is normally attached. I personally think it's accurate. I think he is a hard worker. But a guy that is in his mid 20's and still doesn't have a go to move offensively probably isn't as hard a worker as some other players. But perception tells us he is.

As for the working on the body thing. I don't care how his body looks and I really don't know what effort he puts into the weightroom. But judging by the changes in his body so far in his career I'm willing to bet that he doesn't work as hard in the weightroom as the guys I mentioned.

Just my opinion.

Bonding

But there is also another series of personal bias at work. It has nothing to do with color but could simply be the bias towards the next "new" thing. Or the simple show of emotion.

When Maciej Lampe was selected late in the first round the sympathetic Knicks fans in attendance gave him a standing ovation. He responded in kind, acknowledged the reception and a bond was formed.

When the problemmatic Latrell Sprewell hit his first jumper in The Garden, and demonstrated an endless well of energy the fans responded and lapped up his every gesture after a fierce dunk. A bond was formed.

On the other hand, the always aloof Patrick Ewing rarely connected, except for a few memorable playoffs gestures.. John Starks was the crowd favorite.

Gallinari is demonstrative and wears his emotions on his sleeve. The fist pumps and primal shouts will only become more pronounced as he gains confidence.

On the other hand, Chandler is always cool, even after dunking in someone's grill. How he grows in terms of emoting is anyone's guess. If he averages 18 and 8 next season it won't matter.

This is New York and people love the theatrical. They adored the way Mark Messier would melt into tears. Lou Gehrig? Fuggedaboudit. New Yorkers love to FEEL the emotion because we invest so much emotion ourselves.

Except when it comes to ARod. All bets are off. The press despise his phony ratt bastid act, no matter what he hits. Or do they?

But hey, it sells newspapers.

Anyway, back to Chandler, one of his biggest problems was his foul rate. He's not out of the woods just yet, but he went from getting in foul trouble often earlier this year, to racking up the fouls, but not necessarily be in foul trouble.

That might have been the biggest reason he didn't really emerge out of the gate

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by franco12:

Posted by Bippity10:


I've lived that perception and I believe it's there. Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant and even Nate Robinson have worked harder on their games and their bodies than David Lee ever will, and yet David Lee is considered to be the tireless worker.

Bip- what makes you think Lee hasn't worked on his game or his body? Is it cause he's not ripped or something?

I don't think anyone ever questioned the work ethic of either Jordan or Bryant. You throw Nate in- and with Lee we've seen him improve different parts of his game dramatically each off season.

Yet the one thing Nate needs to work on- i.e., his temper- hasn't improved since he got in the league. He's emotional, but he's unrestrained. If he worked as hard as Lee- and it would probably be different work like meditation to improve his focus- then I don't think we'd have seen the crap he pulled the other night against Chris Paul.

And as far as David's body- not every person can benefit and bulk out the same way. Why was Reggie Miller so skinny? Why couldn't he 'bulk up'?

Franco, when did I criticize David Lee's work ethic, or say he hasn't worked on his game or body. I just think these guys have worked harder than he has. It's not a criticism of Lee. Of course David Lee is a hard worker. But he hasn't worked as hard on his game as those that I mentioned. Jordan and Bryant are two of the greatest players of our generation because they outworked EVERYONE! Nate Robinson is 4 foot 6 and capable of scoring 20 any night, because he has outworked most. This isn't an endorsement of his game. I actually prefer Lee over Nate. The discussion was about perception. When you hear blue collar and hard worker on the Knicks, David's name is normally attached. I personally think it's accurate. I think he is a hard worker. But a guy that is in his mid 20's and still doesn't have a go to move offensively probably isn't as hard a worker as some other players. But perception tells us he is.

As for the working on the body thing. I don't care how his body looks and I really don't know what effort he puts into the weightroom. But judging by the changes in his body so far in his career I'm willing to bet that he doesn't work as hard in the weightroom as the guys I mentioned.

Just my opinion.

Wait- but aren't you saying that Nate has worked on his game more than Lee? I don't think you can say that. Yes, Nate is a midget playing a tall man's game. But he is also quicker than everyone else- hence his ability to get places. Think of someone like Joe Morris in the NFL who could hide behind line man.

I'm not taking anything away from Nate. I'm just questioning how you can say Nate has outworked Lee. They're both physically gifted. I just think you can't discount Lee's improvement on things like his FT shooting and range.

Jordan and Kobe are on a different plane- both in terms of pure gift from god physical ability and will - mental strength if you like.