Discussion in 'NBA Basketball Forum' started by TJL, Aug 4, 2017.
I'm pretty sure Lonzo has a kid named LeLa Ball...
We should do this again some time but with current NBA players.
My admiration for your wit!!!!
Interesting...but he's already topped a list that none of the other players listed have- best shooter this league has ever seen. And he's not even close to the end of his career (barring injury of course). What I think is even more interesting is this proclamation is coming from other players who are also on that list.
I think the other side of that coin is that his ability to stay at the top of league in terms of stats ranking DESPITE playing with Steph & Klay speaks volumes. Having mastered the art of sharing the load equally makes for remarkable basketball.
I don't think the emphasis of losing should be placed on the opponent, but rather on losing in general. IMO losing is losing no matter if it was expected or not.
In regard to Finals opponents: IMO there some important factors you failed to mention in regards to the teams Kobe/LBJ had to play in the Finals. Kobe had to play the original Big 3 TWICE with only himself and Gasol. That was a pretty lopsided scale and he actually won one. When LBJ faced the Big 3 and lost he teamed up with Bosh/Wade to create his own Big 3. Since doing so he's manage to be 1/3 of a Big 3 - I would argue not by coincidence.
In regards to Finals regards being overrated I think there's a couple of points that were left out here.
I think most people rate Finals losses higher/lower (depending on how you see this) because that is the Final stage before reaching the ultimate goal.
With that being said, 16 teams make the playoffs every season, but only 2 make the Finals. Those are very different odds. I haven't done the math but I'm willing to bet there are plenty of teams who have made the playoffs pretty consistently but don't have a Finals appearance - and those that have made the Finals haven't done it as consistently as they've made the playoffs.
Who did Lebron have on his team when he faced the Big 3 prior to going to Miami?
People remember finals losses more because they are more memorable. Losing in the finals is still a better achievement than winning 34 games in a season.
That's a lot of words to not say anything.
To be honest. I was using a PED.
So now you want to blame his team mates for him losing in the Finals? Didn't he play in those games? Exactly NOBODY is going to ask "who were his team mates" when they are looking at his w/l stats. So miss me with that lame argument.
Second, of course Finals are more memorable. What are you saying here that has a different meaning than what I already said? Nothing. Talk about using a lot of words to say nothing.....
And finally just because you didn't understand the comparison doesn't mean I wasn't saying anything.
I should not close the door on him, but I am quite certain that Kawhi Leonard is a better basketball player. I am equally certain that Curry will have a much better resume and therefor rate higher on all time lists because of all the winning. It is a flaw in the all time great debates, IMO. If Curry and Kawhi switched teams, I bet SA would not be a threat to GS.
It does matter though.
Losing to an all time great team is not the same as losing to the 2011 Mavericks or whatever year Kobe lost to the Pistons.
Personally, I am much more impressed by a win against a superior team (Cleveland in '16) than I am swayed by a loss to a great one.
Aside from those Mavericks and possibly the '12 Thunder, every team LeBron faced was at least as good if not better than those Celtic groups that were Kobe's toughest opponents.
I'm not sure I can agree with either of your assumptions. Here's why:
Steph is a PG. His job is to make others around him better. I think he's done an exceptional job with balancing that responsibility & being aggressive when needed. As some have pointed out, he's much more than just a great shooter. Do you think Kawhi's stock would rise if he had Steph on his team?
Curry is a HUGE asset to ANY team, as is Kawhi. But, they have different roles on their respective teams. As constructed today, of course GS would still have the advantage over SA if they switched teams. But that'd be the case no matter which player you insert onto the Warriors. They're not a team with just 1 or even 2 great players. They're a compilation of great players. When I say great I mean they're great in their specific roles on that team. It doesn't mean they can go somewhere else and lead, or that they're MVP material. It means they're a great piece that completes the puzzle.
And honestly, we don't know how that series would've ended had Kawhi been healthy. I can say I don't think it would've been a sweep in either direction, but I have confidence GS would've prevailed. I think as the series progressed GS would've eventually taken control. They were too deep not to, especially when SA only had Kawhi & LA as their #1 & #2. Also, what we saw in game 1 of that series we saw earlier in the season between these two teams. Kawhi was healthy AND GS won that game. Which is why many people were scratching their heads when some automatically thought SA would've won that series solely based on the first 3 quarters.
Ok, so it matters to fans for cosmetic reasons. And I can agree that it might mean something to some players when we think about rivalry aspects. But in the history books there is no meaning. It's either you won or you lost.
But the topic we are discussing is the impact of those losses on a player in the all time great discussion. That is where opponent matters.
Look. I am driving the train for Curry being a great player. He is the most skilled offensive player of all time IMO. Still though, his overall impact doesn't compare to a player like Kawhi who is a really good offensive player and an elite defender.
Of course they have different roles and responsibilities. I think 95% of people on here would still say Kawhi is the better overall player. Curry is in the middle of his prime years and Kawhi hasn't hit his yet.
Yet, despite all that, I will bet anything that Curry will rank higher on all time great lists when their careers are over because of the titles he has and the future titles he will get. That is my whole point. Team accomplishments count for more than they should. They matter, but they aren't the end all be all in rating individuals. Or at least they shouldn't be.
I still disagree...because I have yet to hear someone say they gave a player a specific rating based on losses because of the team said player lost to.
I think we're saying some of the same things. But, I think that team accomplishments should count for more than you'd like when we're talking about a TEAM sport. What you're saying here sounds a bit contradicting to me because without the team there wouldn't be any other stats to measure.
Not contradictory at all.
For example. Just about everybody (including me) has Magic ranked ahead of Bird. Was he really better? Or did he simply win more titles because he was on a better team?
History tends to remember the guy who won most. But, if the other player doesn't have the same caliber teammates, is it really fair to decide it that way? There are many factors outside of individuals' control that decide winning and losing. LeBron vs. the Warriors is just another example. He was the best player on the court the last 3 years. But the Warriors were clearly the better team.
That should not take away from LeBron's legacy whatsoever. Especially considering that a loss prior to the Finals against a team far weaker than Golden State wouldn't diminish his legacy one bit.
I hear ya, but just disagree.
Separate names with a comma.