To the LeBron haters

[flyerhawk]

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.

But you didn't answer my question. Why do seasons where a player didn't get to the finals not count against them?

Your standard literally discredits LBJ for taking a bag of scrubs to the finals with Cleveland rather than getting ousted in the first round.

Heck your standard means losing in the finals is worse than having a losing record.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

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

Hold on, everyone here seems to know the answer, so why don't you tell me where I place lebron!

 

[LAD]

But you didn't answer my question. Why do seasons where a player didn't get to the finals not count against them?

Your standard literally discredits LBJ for taking a bag of scrubs to the finals with Cleveland rather than getting ousted in the first round.

Heck your standard means losing in the finals is worse than having a losing record.

No. You're moving the goal posts more & more each time. This debate originally started as winning vs. losing in the Finals as a comparison amongst great players. Of course the results change one way or another if you continue to change the debate by adding or subtracting supporting factors.

Who cares about who was playing on his losing teams? When did anyone here saying anything about that? Kobe took a bunch of scrubs to the playoffs more than once, but do you see any Laker fans here asking for credit for that even though he didn't win a championship those years?

People try to make this a personal attack on LBJ, when in fact we're just stating facts. It is a fact that he lost more times than he's won. It's also a fact that other greats (with the exception of a couple) have won more than he has on the biggest stage. Why is it so hard for some to just say you know what - that is undisputable & move on? Instead there's the constant desire to give reason after reason (also seen as excuses to most of us) on why he lost. We're not debating "why" he's lost because those details aren't added to the history books.

Also, I said I'd rather have a winning record. Not sure how that equates to losing in the Finals is worse than having a losing record. I'm pretty sure I've been clear about wins vs. losses.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Hold on, everyone here seems to know the answer, so why don't you tell me where I place lebron!

I would place him in the top ten, but not in the top five. The top five for me would be

Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul Jabaar
Magic Johnson
Kobe Bryant
Michael Jordan

and honestly my next five under consideration

Larry Bird
Bill Walton
May be LeBron, but there are some old timers that I can't remember right now that could bump
LeBron down to the top 20. I now wait for being crucified

 

[gordontrue]

I would place him in the top ten, but not in the top five. The top five for me would be

Bill Russell
Kareem Abdul Jabaar
Magic Johnson
Kobe Bryant
Michael Jordan

and honestly my next five under consideration

Larry Bird
Bill Walton
May be LeBron, but there are some old timers that I can't remember right now that could bump
LeBron down to the top 20. I now wait for being crucified

Bill Walton over LeBron James

I have no words

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Bill Walton over LeBron James

I have no words

I am glad that we agree - I knew that would piss off a few people

 

[flyerhawk]

No. You're moving the goal posts more & more each time. This debate originally started as winning vs. losing in the Finals as a comparison amongst great players. Of course the results change one way or another if you continue to change the debate by adding or subtracting supporting factors.

No, the debate was about how important results in the Finals should be in measuring greatness. I find finals winning percentage to be a capricious measuring stick that means nothing because it punishes a great player who took a bad team to higher level than he should.

Who cares about who was playing on his losing teams? When did anyone here saying anything about that? Kobe took a bunch of scrubs to the playoffs more than once, but do you see any Laker fans here asking for credit for that even though he didn't win a championship those years?

You are using an argument that because Lebron took a bad team to the finals rather than losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs entirely, that should be held against him. It is an absolutely absurd argument.

People try to make this a personal attack on LBJ, when in fact we're just stating facts. It is a fact that he lost more times than he's won. It's also a fact that other greats (with the exception of a couple) have won more than he has on the biggest stage. Why is it so hard for some to just say you know what - that is undisputable & move on? Instead there's the constant desire to give reason after reason (also seen as excuses to most of us) on why he lost. We're not debating "why" he's lost because those details aren't added to the history books.

It is indisputable that he has won fewer championships that the people he is compared to. I'm fine with people using that as a measuring stick to determine greatness.

Also, I said I'd rather have a winning record. Not sure how that equates to losing in the Finals is worse than having a losing record. I'm pretty sure I've been clear about wins vs. losses.

Because you are arguing that a player who gets to the NBA finals and loses should be measured more negatively than a player who misses the playoffs entirely.

Michael Jordan missed the finals 9 times in his career. Why don't those seasons count in your record?

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

I am glad that we agree - I knew that would piss off a few people

Careful. Some people get offended on here when your opinion doesn't match theirs.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Careful. Some people get offended on here when your opinion doesn't match theirs.

I have noticed - Was you ever on ESPN message boards? The Kobe Kids were the same way at the time about Kobe - In fact they were worse - to the point that many used to call them the KLF's which was short for Kobe Loving - F***** - Eventually ESPN banned the term as offensive

 

[Gman]

Can't we all agree that LeBron is the #1 loser of all time?

 

[True Lakers Fan]

My reason for placing Bill Walton over LeBron though is because I believe he was a better Team player and defender. I think in a team with Bill Walton and Larry Bird - LeBron would bet his ass whupped

 

[CitySushi]

Some pure comedy in here.

 

[larryjohn]

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.

Imagine if MJ would have pulled 3 of his weak Bulls teams to the finals in 3 of his first seasons -- and they lost. (instead of missing playoffs or going out in the 1st round)

Some people would hold that against him -- they would think that if he was 6-3 in the Finals -- he would be viewed as a worse player from legacy point of view.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

Can't we all agree that LeBron is the #1 loser of all time?

No, because he really is a top ten player of all time - I just can't go along with top five because there were too many over the last five decades that deserves some respect and consideration to diss them like that.

 

[CitySushi]

Can't we all agree that LeBron is the #1 loser of all time?

Wouldn't that be the great Jerry West? 1-8 all time in NBA finals.

 

[Gooch1034]

No, the debate was about how important results in the Finals should be in measuring greatness. I find finals winning percentage to be a capricious measuring stick that means nothing because it punishes a great player who took a bad team to higher level than he should.



You are using an argument that because Lebron took a bad team to the finals rather than losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs entirely, that should be held against him. It is an absolutely absurd argument.


It is indisputable that he has won fewer championships that the people he is compared to. I'm fine with people using that as a measuring stick to determine greatness.



Because you are arguing that a player who gets to the NBA finals and loses should be measured more negatively than a player who misses the playoffs entirely.

Michael Jordan missed the finals 9 times in his career. Why don't those seasons count in your record?

I think it says something about how many times Lebron got so "close" to winning the championship yet failed. Getting that many tries is a positive thing but negative when compared to others who won more championships. Not making the finals or the playoffs is a bigger negative than losing in the finals but at the same time, they both have the same results...not winning a championship.

 

[LAD]

No, the debate was about how important results in the Finals should be in measuring greatness. I find finals winning percentage to be a capricious measuring stick that means nothing because it punishes a great player who took a bad team to higher level than he should.



You are using an argument that because Lebron took a bad team to the finals rather than losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs entirely, that should be held against him. It is an absolutely absurd argument.


It is indisputable that he has won fewer championships that the people he is compared to. I'm fine with people using that as a measuring stick to determine greatness.



Because you are arguing that a player who gets to the NBA finals and loses should be measured more negatively than a player who misses the playoffs entirely.

Michael Jordan missed the finals 9 times in his career. Why don't those seasons count in your record?

First off let me clarify my point - for the last time. I NEVER debated whether LBJ taking a bad team to the Finals vs. losing in the 1st round or missing the playoffs entirely should be held against him. That is where you're mistaken. I simply said that compared to OTHER GREAT players he has a losing record on the biggest stage.

Also let me clarify another point. I NEVER compared LBJ's losing record in the Finals to other players who have missed the playoffs entirely. Again, you are continuously moving the goal posts. What I did was compared his Finals record to other greats Finals records.
If we start adding other factors such as how many times a player has missed the playoffs or only made it to the first round, etc. then we're in a sense mudding the waters. Reason being is because there are different factors to each players careers - such as # of seasons played, # of games played, # of seasons said player was considered "a great player". At that point the sample sizes vary which makes it an unfair comparison.
IMO this reasoning also applies to some degree to the argument of "his lack of having good team mates". Although, one might be able to argue this excuse doesn't apply to LBJ since he personally picked his super teams - which also coincides with when he started winning.

Regarding MJ not making the Finals 9 times in his career - is that a stat that is kept on EVERY player? No. You know why? Because EVERY player in the league has not made the playoffs and also not made the Finals. So, lets stick to what makes sense here - which is all time greats & how they've fared when playing on the big stage, when all the marbles are on the table.

I just don't get it sometimes. On one hand people want to argue that he's a top 3 player of all time, but then when debates like this come about all of a sudden he's being unfairly judged - even though it's the exact same way other great players are/haven been judged. LBJ seems to be the only player that can be given all the glory when his team wins but somehow off the hook when he loses. Can't have it both ways.

 

[LAD]

Imagine if MJ would have pulled 3 of his weak Bulls teams to the finals in 3 of his first seasons -- and they lost. (instead of missing playoffs or going out in the 1st round)

Some people would hold that against him -- they would think that if he was 6-3 in the Finals -- he would be viewed as a worse player from legacy point of view.

Exactly. I think the standards are different for LBJ than any other great player.

 

[LAD]

I think it says something about how many times Lebron got so "close" to winning the championship yet failed. Getting that many tries is a positive thing but negative when compared to others who won more championships. Not making the finals or the playoffs is a bigger negative than losing in the finals but at the same time, they both have the same results...not winning a championship.

Bingo! The end result is the only thing that should matter IMO.

 

[Gman]

Wouldn't that be the great Jerry West? 1-8 all time in NBA finals.

As long as I can include LeBron in the suckitude analysis... I can agree that they both suck.