To the LeBron haters

[Wamu]

Well, you know sometimes a person throws shit up in the air and hope it sticks, but I don't hate LeBron. He is one of the best players in the NBA and certainly the best since Kareem and Magic - but I don't gauge greatness by stats only, because stats only does not always give a person a complete picture. I don't gauge a person by greatness by championships alone either because that does not give a complete picture by itself either.

If LeBron comes to Los Angeles this year, I do believe the Lakers will be contenders and possibly win - Winning is good - I would love to beat Boston to a title and even that score to 17-17. T

That being said, I think the stats combined with # of championships is what tells the picture and that combination is why Tim Duncan with average stats ends up in the discussion - Took less money and worked closely with the Spurs to bring in players that would take them back to the finals. Accepted a lessor role to lengthen his career. Outstanding leadership that brought him back to the finals time after time. Athletic wise - LeBron is once in a generation, but mentally - Tim Duncan did all of the things to have one hell of a career and in the terms of greatness was better then Kobe. LeBron has not done all of the things like Tim Duncan. So while I do understand what the player fans that support LeBron are saying - I respectfully do not agree with them that LeBron is the best ever. The best ever cannot be measured by stats game states alone. Championships, awards, leadhership, and etc also count

You know I really wanna disagree w/ you only for the sake of an argument. But I can't. And while I'm not a LeBron fan damn right there's no doubt I wouldn't mind him playing for the Celtics next year. Of course that ain't gonna happen. But how funny would it be to see Kyrie's reaction?

 

[Wamu]

Yes You would - and we would to about the Celtics - No rivalry has ever been like the Lakers and Celtics - Come on now

Dammit you're right.

 

[LAD]

The goal in sports is to win championships, regardless of how many times you try.



Your logic is essentially the equivalent of saying that gambling $1 to win $10 is better than gambling $200 to win $1,000, because gambling $1 to win $10 looks better looks better as a ratio, even though you walk away with less $ (in this case, rings).

No, your gambling analogy isn't equivalent to what I'm saying.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

The goal in sports is to win championships, regardless of how many times you try.



Your logic is essentially the equivalent of saying that gambling $1 to win $10 is better than gambling $200 to win $1,000, because gambling $1 to win $10 looks better looks better as a ratio, even though you walk away with less $ (in this case, rings).

Either way - LeBron is in the top ten players of all time, but I'm not convinced he belongs in the top 5 of all time quite yet and while I don't hold his losing record against him per se, his championship total is relevant to the discussion because many other players did better and in many cases they did won more championships by sacrificing their points per game and other stats. The stats by themselves is not what will define a player - other wise Neither Bill Walton nor Larry Bird are in that discussion. Their stats were nothing to looking at until you realized they had a system for winning championships and they succeeded.

 

[True Lakers Fan]

You know I really wanna disagree w/ you only for the sake of an argument. But I can't. And while I'm not a LeBron fan damn right there's no doubt I wouldn't mind him playing for the Celtics next year. Of course that ain't gonna happen. But how funny would it be to see Kyrie's reaction?

Yeah, he might have a problem with that -but the Celtics would go to the finals

 

[Wamu]

Yeah, he might have a problem with that -but the Celtics would go to the finals

Not enough for me for the Celtics to just get to the Finals. I'm greedy. I want them to raise another banner.

 

[flyerhawk]

The reason being is because it's a stat - and those are the things used in debates my friend. Again, it can't just be excluded because it's a negative. A Finals record directly relates to how many times a player achieved their ultimate goal. IMO that is a pretty huge supporting factor.

It's a team stat.

If Michael Jordan were 6-3 instead of 6-0 absolutely no one would change their opinion of MJ.

 

[LAD]

It's a team stat.

If Michael Jordan were 6-3 instead of 6-0 absolutely no one would change their opinion of MJ.

probably not because that is still a winning record.

 

[flyerhawk]

probably not because that is still a winning record.

Right. Back to 6-7 is worse than 2-0. Gotcha.

 

[StanMarsh51]

No, your gambling analogy isn't equivalent to what I'm saying.

Sure it is...you're saying less rings are always OK if you have a better winning %.

That's the equivalent of saying winning less $ is always OK if you have a better gambling winning %.



It's the same logic...replace rings with money and they're not different at all.

 

[tlance]

I said I'd rather have a WINNING RECORD- you were the one that ran with it & added numbers.

And again, Yes a Finals records in fact DOES tell us how many times they ACHEIVED their goal because it includes the # of wins. Including how many times they didn't make it wouldn't be necessary to get that data.

Right.

But, the problem with Finals record is that it unfairly punishes for second place finishes. Finishing 2nd is better than finishing lower than second, is it not?

Every team that fails to win the championship lost. There is only 1 winner. Number of rings fully captures that total. Finals record is just a made up stat to penalize people who got close and failed. Failing close to the goal isn't worse than failing earlier.

 

[tlance]

EXACTLY. This is the point though, right? If he didn't have the losing record in comparison to the GOAT having a perfect record in the Finals then would there really be a debate? But one can't honestly say it shouldn't be considered in this context, right?

It's exactly as @trojanfan12 has mentioned several times - it's used as a tie breaker when comparing greats that have very similar resumes.

Problem is, people aren't using it as a tie breaker. They are using to push LeBron beneath players his resume is clearly superior to. Even then, I think it is a pretty crappy tie breaker.

You know what is a good one though?

Finals MVPs.

It solves a couple major flaws in the total rings won argument.

Flaw 1) the Shaq/Kobe problem: this is when a team is led by two superstars more or less sharing the load equally (yes, I know Shaq was clearly the man for title # 1).

Flaw 2) the Warrior dilemma: in this one, you have a great team that could win 4 or possibly more rings. They are great. If they get 6, does Curry or KD deserve consideration alongside MJ? The easy answer is no, because KD and Curry are likely to each win an MVP or two, and Klay and Dray are capable of sniping one as well.

If a team is balanced enough that the MVP isn't an obvious choice, then an individual's ring count should not be viewed the same as MJ's 6 or LeBron's 3, who each won 100% of available Finals MVPs.

 

[trojanfan12]

Kareem and Magic were on the all time great teams.

Magic and Kareem may have been on all time great teams, but they also faced all time great teams in the Celtics.

I don't know if I'd consider the Bad Boys Pistons all time great, but they were damn good.

 

[tlance]

Magic and Kareem may have been on all time great teams, but they also faced all time great teams in the Celtics.

I don't know if I'd consider the Bad Boys Pistons all time great, but they were damn good.

I agree the Celtics were great. Talent wise though, they didn't measure up to the Lakers, IMO. Where the best showtime Laker team deserves consideration for GOAT, I don't think the '86 Celtics were quite on that level. Close, but not there.

 

[trojanfan12]

I agree the Celtics were great. Talent wise though, they didn't measure up to the Lakers, IMO. Where the best showtime Laker team deserves consideration for GOAT, I don't think the '86 Celtics were quite on that level. Close, but not there.

Well, it goes without saying that the Lakers were better. I mean, they're the Lakers.

Amirite @Wamu?

 

[LAD]

Right. Back to 6-7 is worse than 2-0. Gotcha.

No, back to "winning record" as my point.

 

[LAD]

Right.

But, the problem with Finals record is that it unfairly punishes for second place finishes. Finishing 2nd is better than finishing lower than second, is it not?

Every team that fails to win the championship lost. There is only 1 winner. Number of rings fully captures that total. Finals record is just a made up stat to penalize people who got close and failed. Failing close to the goal isn't worse than failing earlier.

Yes, that is correct there is only 1 winner, which is why I don't understand the argument of there being levels of losing. Meaning, why is it better to lose in the Finals vs. the 1st round of the playoffs if the goal is to win a title? IMO the winner in the Finals is the only winner, period.
Not sure I agree with your reasoning of why Finals stats are recorded.

 

[LAD]

Problem is, people aren't using it as a tie breaker. They are using to push LeBron beneath players his resume is clearly superior to. Even then, I think it is a pretty crappy tie breaker.

You know what is a good one though?

Finals MVPs.

It solves a couple major flaws in the total rings won argument.

Flaw 1) the Shaq/Kobe problem: this is when a team is led by two superstars more or less sharing the load equally (yes, I know Shaq was clearly the man for title # 1).

Flaw 2) the Warrior dilemma: in this one, you have a great team that could win 4 or possibly more rings. They are great. If they get 6, does Curry or KD deserve consideration alongside MJ? The easy answer is no, because KD and Curry are likely to each win an MVP or two, and Klay and Dray are capable of sniping one as well.

If a team is balanced enough that the MVP isn't an obvious choice, then an individual's ring count should not be viewed the same as MJ's 6 or LeBron's 3, who each won 100% of available Finals MVPs.

These are interesting points of view. But, I think if they start awarding the Finals MVP to a player on the losing team it would make your idea ineffective for the purpose of using as a tie breaker.

 

[flyerhawk]

No, back to "winning record" as my point.

So 2-0 is better than 6-7. What are you disagreeing with?

 

[LAD]

So 2-0 is better than 6-7. What are you disagreeing with?

My point is if a team is 2-0 that is a winning record vs. being 6-7. It's about the stat only. Not any supporting factors such as being 6-7 means you've made the Finals more times than if a team is 2-0.

When I see a 6-7 record that immediately tells me that team loses more than it wins. I'm not saying, gee they've made the Finals 13 times. Reason being is because winning is more important to me than the # of attempts that end up in losses.