I watched a Youtube video yesterday: How come the "longevity" argument ONLY works for LeBron?.

[rmilia1]

The question is what’s better 6 golds and no silvers or 4 golds and 6 silvers? Also it’s a team sport so rings are not perfect metrics of individual greatness. Far from it as Karl Malone and so on show us

Sure agreed. But if you're talking rings and focusing on rings then how many you win is the only number that matters

Players compete for a ring every year they play. Not making it to the Finals doesn't change the fact you played for a title and lost. It just means your weren't good enough to be one of the last 2 teams standing

 

[Wamu]

That's not domination, that's longevity driven.

"Domination" is (1)1960-68 Wilt Chamberlain, (2)1987-98 Michael Jordan, (3)1980-91 Wayne Gretzky, (4)1991-00 Frank Thomas,(5) 1970-81 Kareem, and yes, LeBron from about 2008-13.

From 2014 to the present LeBron has not dominated. He's been consistently great yes, but not dominating.

Also FYI: Vegas gave the 2007 Cavs the 6th best odds of winning the Championship that year, while the 2018 Cavs had Kevin Love (who was an All Star that season) and three (3) players off the Bench who finished 7th, 10th and 12th respectively, in 6th MOY voting, so these weren't scrub teams regardless of what the LeMedia would like us to believe.

You are off yer rocker. Keep on keepin' on. Your so called comparisons are kinda silly.


1. Wit's obviously an time great but only one ring from 1960 to 68.

2. Remind me of MJ's playoff success from 1987 until he won his first ring a few season later. Zero rings from 1987 to 1990.

3. Not much into hockey

4. How many MVP's and World Series titles did Thomas win in those years?

5. One ring for KAJ those years

And LeBron was only in his prime from 2008 until 2013? Alrighty then.

All I can do is laugh because you're one very funny hater.