The 'legacy' BS - LeBron and others

[Heatles84]

The 'why', IMO, does for the most part go to the 6-0 included in the resume.
Reason being, how many people have seen/remember most of the great players throughout the decades?
Jordan is easily the most current, unless someone is trying to argue for LeBron or Kobe, which rarely happens.

Thing that makes Jordan number 1 for me is that you knew his Bulls were going to win the title from 96-98. There was zero doubt in most people's mind - and this was at a time when the NBA was at a very competitive level all around.

Outside of the Lakers early 2000 teams, I don't think I've ever felt so confident in determining another reason. That's one of the reasons I consider Jordan to be the GOAT.

 

[lebron23james]

Here's the thing. The Cavs won so the narrative is about how LeBron is now for sure a top 5 all timer, defining moment, etc. etc. Fine.

But if Kyrie misses that last 3 and Steph makes his, the Warriors win. Nothing to do with LeBron but then the narrative is "2-5, he sucks, can't win the big series". How is he worse or better just because Kyrie makes a shot and Steph misses one?

Same thing with his time in Miami, if Ray Allen misses that now iconic shot to ice that Finals, how does that change how we view LeBron? Should it?

So say lebron put up his same great numbers, but had better team performances, and is now 7-7 in the finals with his same exact stats....Is he now better than Jordan? See how that works

 

[tlance]

Thing that makes Jordan number 1 for me is that you knew his Bulls were going to win the title from 96-98. There was zero doubt in most people's mind - and this was at a time when the NBA was at a very competitive level all around.

Outside of the Lakers early 2000 teams, I don't think I've ever felt so confident in determining another reason. That's one of the reasons I consider Jordan to be the GOAT.

But, that was about more than just Jordan. The Bulls had a perfectly constructed roster given their star players' talents.

What I find most interesting though is that we are all saying it is Jordan, but for different reasons.

 

[tlance]

So say lebron put up his same great numbers, but had better team performances, and is now 7-7 in the finals with his same exact stats....Is he now better than Jordan? See how that works

In my opinion it should not change a thing. In reality, it would change everything though. I think many would rank him ahead of Jordan if he had 7 rings AND 7 finals MVPs. He would have to be the best player on the team to get full credit for the rings.

 

[Heatles84]

But, that was about more than just Jordan. The Bulls had a perfectly constructed roster given their star players' talents.

What I find most interesting though is that we are all saying it is Jordan, but for different reasons.

Agree to a point. It was the tired argument that I resented when Lebron going down to Miami and how he had to team up with other stars. It was a back and forth argument where no one could really answer who's the last all-star to win the title on their own. Lebron was never going to win in Cleveland had he stayed the whole time. If he never left, we'd still be asking when he was going to get a ring.

Jordan certainly did have help. But he was the catalyst for those great Bulls teams.

 

[GNG]

He is NOT top 5 all-time...Next argument please.

Most experts think he is.

 

[GNG]

Agree to a point. It was the tired argument that I resented when Lebron going down to Miami and how he had to team up with other stars. It was a back and forth argument where no one could really answer who's the last all-star to win the title on their own. Lebron was never going to win in Cleveland had he stayed the whole time. If he never left, we'd still be asking when he was going to get a ring.

Jordan certainly did have help. But he was the catalyst for those great Bulls teams.

Jordan was the catalyst but he had a great supporting cast.

 

[tlance]

Agree to a point. It was the tired argument that I resented when Lebron going down to Miami and how he had to team up with other stars. It was a back and forth argument where no one could really answer who's the last all-star to win the title on their own. Lebron was never going to win in Cleveland had he stayed the whole time. If he never left, we'd still be asking when he was going to get a ring.

Jordan certainly did have help. But he was the catalyst for those great Bulls teams.

No question. the ultimate double standard. Players are judged by ring counts, then looked down upon when they try to improve their situation via free agency.

Not only do you have to be great, but you have to be fortunate enough to land in the perfect spot. It takes a lot to go right to win a title. 1 superstar is not enough, no matter how good.

 

[Heatles84]

Jordan was the catalyst but he had a great supporting cast.

Most title teams do have good supporting casts.

 

[GNG]

Most title teams do have good supporting casts.

We were discussing Jordan.

 

[Wamu]

We were discussing Jordan.

Which one...Eddie, DeAndre or Adonis?

 

[msgkings322]

No question. the ultimate double standard. Players are judged by ring counts, then looked down upon when they try to improve their situation via free agency.

Not only do you have to be great, but you have to be fortunate enough to land in the perfect spot. It takes a lot to go right to win a title. 1 superstar is not enough, no matter how good.

The 1994 Rockets did it with one superstar, and the 2004 Pistons with none

Kobe won a title with Pau Gasol as the second best player, was he a superstar?

 

[msgkings322]

So say lebron put up his same great numbers, but had better team performances, and is now 7-7 in the finals with his same exact stats....Is he now better than Jordan? See how that works

See post #3, you are as dumb as Shanemansj

 

[lebron23james]

See post #3, you are as dumb as Shanemansj

I was just responding to what you said in your OP, i don't have time to go through and read the entire thread or everything you added later

Also that is just how it is, nba players are judged on winning or losing finals...

 

[msgkings322]

I was just responding to what you said in your OP, i don't have time to go through and read the entire thread or everything you added later

Also that is just how it is, nba players are judged on winning or losing finals...

You and Shanemans both misunderstood the OP

My point is not everyone uses rings as the criterion, otherwise Kevin Love >> Karl Malone and Charles Barkley. The ones who place so much value on something out of the star's control (like Ray Allen making a miracle shot) are wrong IMO.

I'm making the case why they are wrong. LeBron's greatness would stand even if he was 1-7 in the Finals.

 

[tlance]

The 1994 Rockets did it with one superstar, and the 2004 Pistons with none

Kobe won a title with Pau Gasol as the second best player, was he a superstar?

I agree. I think when building a team, you have to shoot for a superstar and at least a second star player. That does not mean every title team fits that mold, but most do.

i also think these examples take away somewhat from the idea that ring volume is the most important factor in determining individual greatness.

 

[lebron23james]

You and Shanemans both misunderstood the OP

My point is not everyone uses rings as the criterion, otherwise Kevin Love >> Karl Malone and Charles Barkley. The ones who place so much value on something out of the star's control (like Ray Allen making a miracle shot) are wrong IMO.

I'm making the case why they are wrong. LeBron's greatness would stand even if he was 1-7 in the Finals.

Yeah, i actually agreed with u i thought you were making a different point

 

[Across The Field]

The 1994 Rockets did it with one superstar, and the 2004 Pistons with none

Kobe won a title with Pau Gasol as the second best player, was he a superstar?

93-94 was one of the worst NBA seasons I can recall in terms of overall talent. Houston beat NY in the Finals, whose second best player was probably John Starks. It was a battle of amazing centers and then a bunch of role players.

The 04 Pistons had no all-time great superstars, but their starting 5 was all-star caliber across the board, which you can't say for most teams. They also played unbelievable defense.

Was Gasol a superstar? Hell yes he was. ROY, 6x all-star, 4x all-NBA. He's a lifetime double-double average guy and was one of the top post players in the league for most of the 2000s. Outside of Tim Duncan, it's difficult to find another big man who has been as consistently good as Pau in the last 15 years.

 

[gordontrue]

The Warriors are not the only team to fail to win a title this year. 28 other teams also failed.

Why should failure only count if you make it to the Finals?

 

[Shanemansj13]

The Warriors are not the only team to fail to win a title this year. 28 other teams also failed.

Why should failure only count if you make it to the Finals?

That is true but the Warriors were expected to win it all and favorites by far. I guess it is more of a failure, but still a failure for the other 28 teams like you said.