Michael Jordan is a hypocrite

[Vyle203]

Fun fact: Bill Russell was more effective at winning Championships(84.6%), than Michael Jordan was at hitting free throws(83.5%)

Now who's the GOAT!?













Hint: It's still Jordan, but suck it nonetheless, Russell haters.

 

[flyerhawk]

Point is, whether it was in the earlier rounds or the finals. Kobe faced opposition equal to or better than what Lebron has faced in the finals.

In fact, you could say that Kobe actually had a tougher road because he had to go through 2 great teams to get to the finals. Whereas Lebron didn't see any great teams until the finals.

So this crap about Lebron having a tougher road simply isn't true.

Lebron has faced a team that has won 67,73 and 67 games in the past 3 finals. They are arguably the greatest team ever assembled. Not sure how you can have a tougher road than that.

 

[trojanfan12]

Lebron has faced a team that has won 67,73 and 67 games in the past 3 finals. They are arguably the greatest team ever assembled. Not sure how you can have a tougher road than that.

Already explained how it's no tougher than Kobe's or MJ's.

 

[tlance]

No, the point was that Lebron had a tougher road. That's always been the implication when people start making excuses for Lebron being 3-5 in the finals. Lebroniacs always say "Well Kobe had far easier opponents in the finals."

The fact is, Kobe had to go through better teams to even get to the finals. Both players were challenged, Kobe's just came earlier because the West has been the stronger conference for quite about 20 years now.

I will say though, the excuses people want to make for Lebron's failures are pretty hilarious. He's the only superstar I see people actually make excuses for rather than just accept his record for what it is like we do everyone else.

I never said LeBron had a tougher road. I did say he had much tougher Finals' opponents. That is undeniable.

@gordontrue is 100% correct. Finals record is meaningless. You either win the ship or you don't. Losing in the first round makes you irrelevant. Aside from that, when you lose doesn't matter. Who you lose to does.

 

[trojanfan12]

@gordontrue is 100% correct. Finals record is meaningless. You either win the ship or you don't. Losing in the first round makes you irrelevant. Aside from that, when you lose doesn't matter. Who you lose to does.

And yet, virtually everyone uses rings and finals records to help rank the all time greats.

 

[tlance]

Already explained how it's no tougher than Kobe's or MJ's.

You couldn't be more wrong here.

Playing 4 teams on the level of the 90s Knicks/Jazz is absolutely easier than playing 1 team as good as the '17 Warriors. The Bulls were always better than every team they faced. Quantity does not trump quality.

 

[flyerhawk]

Already explained how it's no tougher than Kobe's or MJ's.

That is absolutely ridiculous. So because the Lakers occasionally had to play a really good team in the conference finals that means that they had a tougher path than the Cavs have trying to get through arguably the best team of all time?

 

[tlance]

And yet, virtually everyone uses rings and finals records to help rank the all time greats.

Do you really want to do this again?

Everyone does not use Finals record. Rings are an important piece though.

 

[trojanfan12]

You couldn't be more wrong here.

Playing 4 teams on the level of the 90s Knicks/Jazz is absolutely easier than playing 1 team as good as the '17 Warriors. The Bulls were always better than every team they faced. Quantity does not trump quality.

An opinion is not wrong. You really need to learn that.

I disagree. Going through 2 or 3 very good to great teams is the tougher road. It's more tough games that a team has to get through.

 

[flyerhawk]

You couldn't be more wrong here.

Playing 4 teams on the level of the 90s Knicks/Jazz is absolutely easier than playing 1 team as good as the '17 Warriors. The Bulls were always better than every team they faced. Quantity does not trump quality.

And the reality is that even if there are 3 really really good teams in a conference, the best team is only going to play one of them in the playoffs.

 

[trojanfan12]

That is absolutely ridiculous. So because the Lakers occasionally had to play a really good team in the conference finals that means that they had a tougher path than the Cavs have trying to get through arguably the best team of all time?

The Lakers had to go through 2-3 very good to great teams to get to the finals. Lebron has had to face 1 in the finals.

Going through 2-3 very good to great teams is a tougher road than facing 1.

Really not that difficult.

 

[trojanfan12]

And the reality is that even if there are 3 really really good teams in a conference, the best team is only going to play one of them in the playoffs.

Wrong.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread:

The 2002 Lakers went through the Blazers, Spurs and Kings to get to the Nets in the finals. Those Spurs and Kings team would beat any of Lebron's teams (one of them did) and the Blazers may have been able to.

If memory serves, the Lakers were the 3rd seed that season as well.

 

[trojanfan12]

Do you really want to do this again?

Everyone does not use Finals record. Rings are an important piece though.

Actually, they do. I'm not going to do this again because we've been through it and my opinion isn't going to change and neither is yours.

The difference is, I don't try to tell you that your opinion is wrong.

 

[flyerhawk]

The Lakers had to go through 2-3 very good to great teams to get to the finals. Lebron has had to face 1 in the finals.


Going through 2-3 very good to great teams i a tougher road than facing 1.

Really not that difficult.

Bullshit. Are you seriously arguing that the Lakers were playing great teams in the 1st round?

That is just absurd.

 

[flyerhawk]

Wrong.

As was pointed out earlier in the thread:

The 2002 Lakers went through the Blazers, Spurs and Kings to get to the Nets in the finals. Those Spurs and Kings team would beat any of Lebron's teams (one of them did) and the Blazers may have been able to.

If memory serves, the Lakers were the 3rd seed that season as well.

Those teams were so tough that they managed all of 1 win against the Lakers.

I can't argue with a counter factual. The Kings were so good they made all of zero finals. Heck they only made one conference final.

You are just making an argument that basketball was inherently better in the early 2000s. There is no evidence to support that claim.

 

[trojanfan12]

Bullshit. Are you seriously arguing that the Lakers were playing great teams in the 1st round?

That is just absurd.

Guess you didn't watch basketball back then.

That Trailblazers team won 50 games and had Rasheed Wallace and Scottie Pippen. So yeah, I'd say they were pretty good.

 

[trojanfan12]

Those teams were so tough that they managed all of 1 win against the Lakers.

I can't argue with a counter factual. The Kings were so good they made all of zero finals. Heck they only made one conference final.

You are just making an argument that basketball was inherently better in the early 2000s. There is no evidence to support that claim.

You can't argue because you have no argument.

That Kings team was the #1 seed and won 61 games. That Blazer team won 50 games, the Spurs also won 58 games'

Tell me more about the Lakers easy path.

 

[flyerhawk]

Guess you didn't watch basketball back then.

That Trailblazers team won 50 games and had Rasheed Wallace and Scottie Pippen. So yeah, I'd say they were pretty good.

Ah ok. So you are using the "basketball was better back then" argument. No point even trying to discuss this then.

 

[trojanfan12]

Ah ok. So you are using the "basketball was better back then" argument. No point even trying to discuss this then.

At what point did I say basketball was better back then. Questioning whether or not you watched isn't saying it was better.

Basically, I showed why the Lakers road to the finals was tougher and you have no answer, so you respond with a cop out on something I never said.

Facing 2-3 team tough teams is tougher than facing 1. Really no way past that.

 

[flyerhawk]

You can't argue because you have no argument.

That Kings team was the #1 seed and won 61 games. That Blazer team won 50 games, the Spurs also won 58 games'

Tell me more about the Lakers easy path.

Sure. So what? The Cavs beat the 60 win Hawks and 50 win Bulls team and then faced a 67 win team.

How many teams did the Lakers beat that had 65 or more wins?