Why LeBron James to the Boston Celtics is the best choice for both Boston and for LeBron

The best case scenario for the Boston Celtics this off season is getting LeBron James.

The best case scenario for LeBron James this off season is going to the Boston Celtics.

They are perfect for each other. They need to make this happen - even if it means trading Kyrie Irving.

Let's start with why it is perfect for Boston:

The Aging Superstar with Up-And-Coming Talent is Proven Success.

Adding LeBron to Tatum, Hayward, Horford, and those other young players would turn Boston into a dynasty. They would undoubtedly win several rings and continue to contend after LeBron declines/retires. Look at these examples: Kareem and Magic. David Robinson and Tim Duncan. Duncan and Kawhi Leonard. The nearing-the-end-of-their-prime superstar paired with young talent is a proven recipe for success.

LeBron fits perfectly with Boston's Tatum, Horford, and Hayward.

Brad Stevens will surely be starting are Horford, Hayward, and Tatum. LeBron as the forth starter would make this team perhaps the most versatile team of all time. LeBron can play that "point-foward" roll of bringing the ball up and initiating the offense, thus allowing you to start a defensive player like Marcus Smart or a center like Morris or Baynes. Or, LeBron could play off the ball, allowing Stevens to start a point guard like Kyrie, Brown, or Rozier. Ultimately, these four main players gives Brad Steven's the freedom to plug in and rotate players however he wants; regardless of position.

Kyrie's contract is perfect if you have to move him

Kyrie does not have a no trade clause. He also only has one more year left on his contract. This makes moving him easy. Here's a question I've heard: Are the Celtics better off starting Brown or Rozier than Irving anyway? The fact that this is even a legitimate question makes moving Kyrie for LeBron an easy choice. Kyrie's bad defense makes him a borderline starter on this Celtics team with player like Jaylen Brown and Terry Rozier that are already better on defense, getting better on offense, and play the same position. With LeBron James instead of Kyrie, you've upgraded on both sides of the ball.

Winning Championships

Winning championships is what both parties want, so let's now transition into why Boston is perfect for LeBron.

LeBron has never played for a great coach.

Besides the obvious "best chance to win rings," there are other perfect benefits to joining Boston for LeBron. The first one is playing for Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens. LeBron pretty much had to bring an entire new culture to Cleveland to make the Cavaliers a contender. LeBron had to help the front office, the coaching, and also carry a huge load as a player. That sounds exhausting. Finishing his career with Boston would mean being able to focus on being a player, and at most a "coach on the court" where he helps Stevens carry out the game plan. All the other stuff would be covered at a high level. Stevens would be far and away the best coach LeBron has ever played for. And Danny Ainge is one of the best general managers in the league. Stevens would make a great system that includes LeBron and worry about the parts of the game like when to call time-outs, leaving LeBron free to focus more on being the best player he can be.

LeBron would be "the guy" at first and then transition like Kareem and Duncan.

LeBron would be joining a team without any MVPs and, if they did end up trading Kyire, a team without any championship experience. LeBron could to go Boston and LEAD them to a ring in the next year or two. Then, as he gets older, watch the other Celtics step up and carry more and more of the load. And then, like the Lakers did for Kareem and the Spurs did for Duncan, LeBron could still be contending for championships at 40 years old because his team being able to carry a lot more of the load.

Defense Wins Championships.

Plain and simple. Boston was the best defensive team in the NBA last year - especially after Kyrie Irving got hurt. All the greats had great defenses. Michael Jordan had Pippen and Rodman. Kobe had defensive-player-of-the-year Metta World Peace for his last ring, and Shaq for his first ones. The Warriors are a great defensive team. The Celtics would immediately become the best defensive team LeBron has ever been on.

Stay in the East

This is a lesser reason but a good reason none-the-less. If LeBron were to go West, he would have to go through Golden State before the finals. He would have to go through Houston (if he didn't join them). Other teams like the Jazz are one piece away from being very good. You think the East is worse than the West now? Imagine if LeBron left it. That would destroy the balance of the conferences. LeBron staying in the East keeps the conferences closer in strength and makes for a better finals.

In conclusion, LeBron and Boston are perfect for each other - regardless if they to give up Kyrie in order to make it work. If Boston's goal is to become a dynasty and win championships, their best move it to bring in LeBron. He completes their starting line up and brings a perfect balance of experience to their young core. LeBron would benefit greatly from Brad Stevens and the Celtics front office. He'd be joining the number one rated defense. He would have as high a chance as anywhere (except joining the Warriors) to win championships, all while not having to join up with any other current MVPs. He would set himself up to transition from carrying a team to just being a part of the team like Kareem and Duncan as he gets older. And with the cherry on top being able to stay in the East.

Three Reasons: Why Rafael Nadal Is Better Than Roger Federer.

Even if you completely disregard injuries!

“Who is better in head-to-head matchups?”

In tennis, because you play one-vs-one, head to head victories are more impressive than in team sports like football or basketball. In tennis, you cannot shift responsibility to teammates for wins or loses. The fact that Nadal gets the better of Federer more often than not is a huge tell:

Nadal is 9-5 against Federer in majors.
Nadal is 4-3 against Federer in majors if you don’t count Clay courts.
Nadal is 5-0, then, against Federer at the French Open.
Nadal is 23-15 all-time against Federer is all tennis tournaments.

“But Federer has won 20 majors and Nadal just 17…”

Although 20 majors is very impressive, context also matters.

Federer was born at a lucky time. 12 of his 20 majors came during weak competition between 2003-2007. Federer started his professional career in 1999. Pete Sampras retired in 2002. Federer finally won his first major in late 2003 and then won 11 more of his 20 in the subsequent four years (04-07). The 2^nd best tennis player in the world during that time was Andy Roddick. Here are the 12 majors Federer won during that span (and who he beat in the finals):

• 2003 Wimbledon over Mark Philippoussis.
• 2004 Australian Open over Marat Safin.
• 2004 Wimbledon over Andy Roddick.
• 2004 US Open over Lleyton Hewitt.
• 2005 Wimbledon over Andy Roddick (2nd time).
• 2005 US Open over old Andre Agassi (Agassi's last final’s appearance)
• 2006 Australian Open over Marcos Baghdatis
• 2006 Wimbledon over young Rafael Nadal (20 years old)
• 2006 US Open over Andy Roddick (3rd time)
• 2007 Australian Open over Fernando Gonzalez
• 2007 Wimbledon over Rafael Nadal (21 years old.)*
• 2007 US Open over young Novak Djokovic (Novak's 1st final appearance)

*This was that 5 set match Federer barely won. Nadal
would come back the next year to beat Federer at Wimbledon.

As you can see, Federer took advantage of a time that was the tail-end of Pete Sampras and Andre Aggassi and the very beginning of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray to win a majority of his majors. Over Federer’s 19 year career (1999-current), more than half of his majors came between the years 2004-2007. While you can't blame him for taken advantage of bad competition, his accomplishments do have their accompanying context. It is very telling that Federer never won a major in his first four years, won over half his majors in the next four years, and then only won eight majors over the next eleven years. Federer was only 26 after 2007, so not-being-in-his-prime is not what caused the decline in winning. It was Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, and other decent tennis players getting into their primes. The competition got harder. And since the competition got harder, aka since 2008, Nadal has actually won more majors (14) than Federer (8).

“Isn't Nadal a clay court specialist?”

Nadal, while dominating Clay, also has done very well on all other surfaces. Nadal has won six majors off clay (four on hard court and two on grass). Where Federer has only won one major on clay court. So if you think about it, considering that grass and hard court are very similar and clay is much different: Federer is more the specialist than Nadal. Federer struggles mightily on clay courts where Nadal has been impressive on all courts. Nadal has bested Federer on both Grass (2008 Wimbledon finals) and hard court (Australian Open finals). Federer, on the other hand, has never come close to beating Nadal on clay.

(Side Note: Nadal has a gold medal in Olympics: Men's Singles. Federer does not.)

In conclusion, since 2008 when Nadal started his prime, he has won more majors than Federer (14 majors to Federer’s 8). Nadal is significantly better on both grass/hard courts than Federer is on clay (so who's really the specialist?). And Nadal simply beats Federer more often than not when they play against each other (on or off clay courts!). Therefore, I must concluded that Nadal is the better overall tennis player. Federer’s overall stats, while impressive, are also inflated because of his taking advantage of weak competition from 2004-2007. Nadal’s overall stats, which are not far behind Federer’s, were harder earned against the better competition from 2008-on.