To the LeBron haters

[flyerhawk]

Once again, if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, they're completely wrong, right?

Fuck me, you must be a republican!

Really? So where do I have lebron all time then if you want to make that assumption?

So where do you place Lebron on the all time great list?

 

[trojanfan12]

I have absolutely no problem with anyone saying that MJ is the GOAT. I am willing to entertain arguments that KAJ or Magic are the GOAT. I also think Lebron is in that conversation.

Exactly. Lebron is in the conversation. The GOAT conversation seems to, almost exclusively, come down to MJ, Kareem, Magic and Lebron. That shows that Lebron isn't just an all time great...he's one of the 4 best ever.

Great teams require more than one great player. So I personally don't believe that championships define individual greatness. I'm fine with others thinking that but I don't. Not in basketball and certainly not in any other team sport.

Absolutely they do. That's why rings/finals record is a tiebreaker. If it's anything more than a tiebreaker, the ridiculous "Robert Horry arguments" start to have a little credibility. The one thing I would say re: basketball vs. other team sports, is that 1 player can have much more impact on a team than in other team sports.

You can put Lebron on any other team in the league and, at the least, that team becomes a playoff team. Can't really say that about any other sport.

 

[flyerhawk]

Exactly. Lebron is in the conversation. The all time great/GOAT conversation seems to, almost exclusively, come down to MJ, Kareem, Magic and Lebron. That shows that Lebron isn't just an all time great...he's one of the 4 best ever.

I think we've always been on the same page with this.

Absolutely they are. That's why rings/finals record is a tiebreaker. If it's anything more than a tiebreaker, the ridiculous "Robert Horry arguments" start to have a little credibility. The one thing I would say re: basketball vs. other team sports, is that 1 player can have much more impact on a team than in other team sports.

You can put Lebron on any other team in the league and, at the least, that team becomes a playoff team. Can't really say that about any other sport.

There is no question that basketball is the team sport closest to being defined by a single player. But even basketball isn't as you point out.

Lebron could take any team in the league and get them to the playoffs. You are certainly right about that. Heck Westbrook single handedly took the Warriors to the playoffs last year.

 

[LAD]

So you'd rather be the 2016 Knicks than the 2016 Warriors because the Knicks won't be remembered for losing in the finals?

Come on....

You still haven't quite comprehended the point. The Warriors have a WINNING record in the Finals. In the past 3 seasons that they've had to play against LBJ they are 2-1, yes? THAT is what we're talking about. Whether or not you WIN MORE THAN YOU LOSE in the Finals. SMH

 

[StanMarsh51]

You still haven't quite comprehended the point. The Warriors have a WINNING record in the Finals. In the past 3 seasons that they've had to play against LBJ they are 2-1, yes? THAT is what we're talking about. Whether or not you WIN MORE THAN YOU LOSE in the Finals. SMH

Why is record that seemingly the ultimate factor for someone's legacy?

Would you rather have your team be 3-5 in the finals or 2-0 for example? Gimme the team with more rings anyday, regardless of losses.


When you're agreeing with someone who'd rather be the 2016 Knicks than 2016 Warriors because the Knicks won't be remembered for losing in the finals, you know the point is shit...

 

[LAD]

Their record in the Finals was 5-4 and 3-2.

aaaaaand those would be winning records, yes?

 

[LAD]

See, this is more of that trying to change the discussion you Lebron fans are trying to do.

We all know Lebron is an all-time great player. No one is disputing that Lebron is an all-time great player. It's literally the reason he's even in the discussion. He played great in the series. Well, guess what? That's something else he has in common with the other all time greats. They played great in theirs too.

It's about the finals record which is the tiebreaker that separates the all-time greats and that is used to rank them. Lebron comes up short on that tiebreaker. Which is why most have him ranked somewhere in the 3rd thru 5th range all time.

Not sure you can explain it any better than this...

 

[gordontrue]

See, this is more of that trying to change the discussion you Lebron fans are trying to do.

We all know Lebron is an all-time great player. No one is disputing that Lebron is an all-time great player. It's literally the reason he's even in the discussion. He played great in the series. Well, guess what? That's something else he has in common with the other all time greats. They played great in theirs too.

It's about the finals record which is the tiebreaker that separates the all-time greats and that is used to rank them. Lebron comes up short on that tiebreaker. Which is why most have him ranked somewhere in the 3rd thru 5th range all time.

No, Finals record is not the tiebreaker. Rings is. Rings makes sense as a tiebreaker. Finals record as a tiebreaker is borderline retarded.

Anyway, the result is still the same, LeBron comes up short compared to some of the other top greats.

 

[flyerhawk]

We all know Lebron is an all-time great player. No one is disputing that Lebron is an all-time great player. It's literally the reason he's even in the discussion. He played great in the series. Well, guess what? That's something else he has in common with the other all time greats. They played great in theirs too.

Pretty absolute statement. KAJ had a 12/5/2 stat line in 26 minutes in his last finals victory. Is that really great play? Or was he pretty much a role player at that point?

 

[flyerhawk]

No, Finals record is not the tiebreaker. Rings is. Rings makes sense as a tiebreaker. Finals record as a tiebreaker is borderline retarded.

Somehow 3-0 is better than 3-6. Not sure how but that's the weird logic we are dealing with.

 

[LAD]

Why is record that seemingly the ultimate factor for someone's legacy?

Would you rather have your team be 3-5 in the finals or 2-0 for example? Gimme the team with more rings anyday, regardless of losses.


When you're agreeing with someone who'd rather be the 2016 Knicks than 2016 Warriors because the Knicks won't be remembered for losing in the finals, you know the point is shit...

Here we go again.

@trojanfan12 already explain why. He's being considered as "one of the best ever". Just his stats isn't enough when the other greats have MORE WINS. And wins/losses is important because it is the POINT of playing games.

 

[LAD]

Somehow 3-0 is better than 3-6. Not sure how but that's the weird logic we are dealing with.

Because there isn't a prize for "# of times a player makes the playoffs and/or Finals". The prize only comes with WINS.

 

[LAD]

Would you rather have your team be 3-5 in the finals or 2-0 for example?

Again, I'd rather have the winning record. I'm not sure how one can brag about making the Finals 8 times if they've lost more times than they've won because just making the Finals isn't the ultimate goal. Maybe to some that is logical, but it just isn't to me.

 

[flyerhawk]

Because there isn't a prize for "# of times a player makes the playoffs and/or Finals". The prize only comes with WINS.

And failing to reach the playoffs isn't somehow better than losing in the playoffs. Losing twice to the team that won more games in a 3 year span than any other basketball team in history somehow has become a black mark on James' career.

It doesn't make sense.

If you want to say that 6 wins is better than 3 wins, that makes sense. But winning percentage in the finals is an utterly meaningless stat.

 

[LAD]

No, Finals record is not the tiebreaker. Rings is. Rings makes sense as a tiebreaker. Finals record as a tiebreaker is borderline retarded.

Anyway, the result is still the same, LeBron comes up short compared to some of the other top greats.

Well, having a losing record in the Finals would probably mean one would fall short of those who have winning records.

 

[flyerhawk]

Again, I'd rather have the winning record. I'm not sure how one can brag about making the Finals 8 times if they've lost more times than they've won because just making the Finals isn't the ultimate goal. Maybe to some that is logical, but it just isn't to me.

If you ask ANY basketball player would they take a 3-5 record over a 2-0 record in the finals and 99.9% of them would take the 3-5 record. That is just a ridiculous standard meant SOLELY to diminish James' career.

The seasons where a player didn't make the finals still count you know. So if you want to use winning percentages then Michael Jordan was 6-9. KAJ was 6-14. That at least makes a little sense.

 

[LAD]

And failing to reach the playoffs isn't somehow better than losing in the playoffs. Losing twice to the team that won more games in a 3 year span than any other basketball team in history somehow has become a black mark on James' career.

It doesn't make sense.

If you want to say that 6 wins is better than 3 wins, that makes sense. But winning percentage in the finals is an utterly meaningless stat.

The problem here is most seem to think this point only applies to LBJ. It's been said many times that Magic losing in the Finals has been held against them too - he just happens to have more wins than losses. And so it would appear that because LBJ has more losses than wins that somehow that stat should just be forgotten in his case.

 

[LAD]

If you ask ANY basketball player would they take a 3-5 record over a 2-0 record in the finals and 99.9% of them would take the 3-5 record. That is just a ridiculous standard meant SOLELY to diminish James' career.

The seasons where a player didn't make the finals still count you know. So if you want to use winning percentages then Michael Jordan was 6-9. KAJ was 6-14. That at least makes a little sense.

Diminish his record? I'm not sure that is something any of us created - he DID play in those games. And, might I add he DID create his super team in order to get rings in the first place. You all have to simply take the bad WITH the good just like all the other players before him did.

But IMO as an all time great I'd rather be remembered for winning more times than not when on the biggest stage. Some players also feel like if the expectation was a title and they lose then it was all for not.

 

[flyerhawk]

The problem here is most seem to think this point only applies to LBJ. It's been said many times that Magic losing in the Finals has been held against them too - he just happens to have more wins than losses. And so it would appear that because LBJ has more losses than wins that somehow that stat should just be forgotten in his case.

Why do the seasons where they don't make the finals not count?

 

[LAD]

Why do the seasons where they don't make the finals not count?

I would say because the Finals is the ultimate stage & in most cases great players have managed to win more times than not when getting there. Also, the point has been made in the role Finals wins/championships play when trying to differentiate between greats.