tOfficial 2015 NBA Draft/Free Agency Thread

[TurnUpTheHeat]

I think you were confused. The measurement was being used because they BOTH have Finals records. Very simple.

I'm not confused at all.
They do both have Finals records as well as records in rounds leading up to the Finals.
I was told to exclude the other rounds because only what happens on the 'biggest stage' is remembered and the determining factor in these discussions.

Then, I brought up the Eli/Peyton thing as well as the Barkley/Malone thing as evidence that championships is just one part of the equation, and not the only factor in measuring greatness.

Also, since nobody ever said that James was equal or better then Jordan, the discussion can't be based on stats to counter it. There's nothing to counter.

The debate was why is it worse to lose in a later round then earlier round.
Even in that discussion, there is no clear answer because each circumstance is different.

 

[LAD]

I'm not confused at all.
They do both have Finals records as well as records in rounds leading up to the Finals.
I was told to exclude the other rounds because only what happens on the 'biggest stage' is remembered and the determining factor in these discussions.

Then, I brought up the Eli/Peyton thing as well as the Barkley/Malone thing as evidence that championships is just one part of the equation, and not the only factor in measuring greatness.

Also, since nobody ever said that James was equal or better then Jordan, the discussion can't be based on stats to counter it. There's nothing to counter.

The debate was why is it worse to lose in a later round then earlier round.
Even in that discussion, there is no clear answer because each circumstance is different.

I think as was discussed before that including earlier rounds doesn't really measure their greatness because there are so many different circumstances around each individual series. But, I saw the Finals debate as a way to measure performance leading up to a championship.

For me, I have the most trouble trying to understand your stance on concentrating mostly on why LBJ's record is a losing one on that stage, yet not giving MJ's record the same consideration. For example....LBJ lost because of adversity in relation to his help being hurt and unable to contribute as needed and the fact that he should get a pass because he lost when in deed that was the expectation. But the other side to that coin should be MJ won despite the adversity he faced.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think as was discussed before that including earlier rounds doesn't really measure their greatness because there are so many different circumstances around each individual series. But, I saw the Finals debate as a way to measure performance leading up to a championship.

For me, I have the most trouble trying to understand your stance on concentrating mostly on why LBJ's record is a losing one on that stage, yet not giving MJ's record the same consideration. For example....LBJ lost because of adversity in relation to his help being hurt and unable to contribute as needed and the fact that he should get a pass because he lost when in deed that was the expectation. But the other side to that coin should be MJ won despite the adversity he faced.

Honestly, I think that there are 2 things leading the "give Lebron a pass" stuff.

One is immediacy. We are currently watching Lebron try to win titles. His trip to the finals with Cleveland the first time is recent enough to for folks to remember that he didn't have much in the way of help and we just saw him go to the finals with a team hampered by injuries. Because of that, it's easy to make excuses for him.

The other is the "if you tried, you're a winner" mentality that people have today. Back in Magic and MJ's day, if you tried and lost, you fucking lost.....period. There was no "well, you tried real hard, so you're a winner in my book." It was "You lost, get better and maybe you'll win next time. Now quit crying and go practice"

In 15-20 years, after Lebron has been retired for awhile, if he hasn't won any more titles, all people will remember is that he was 2-4 in the finals. Just like with Magic, no one will care about why he lost 4 times, they'll only care that he lost 4 times.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

I think as was discussed before that including earlier rounds doesn't really measure their greatness because there are so many different circumstances around each individual series. But, I saw the Finals debate as a way to measure performance leading up to a championship.

For me, I have the most trouble trying to understand your stance on concentrating mostly on why LBJ's record is a losing one on that stage, yet not giving MJ's record the same consideration. For example....LBJ lost because of adversity in relation to his help being hurt and unable to contribute as needed and the fact that he should get a pass because he lost when in deed that was the expectation. But the other side to that coin should be MJ won despite the adversity he faced.

Honestly, I think that there are 2 things leading the "give Lebron a pass" stuff.

One is immediacy. We are currently watching Lebron try to win titles. His trip to the finals with Cleveland the first time is recent enough to for folks to remember that he didn't have much in the way of help and we just saw him go to the finals with a team hampered by injuries. Because of that, it's easy to make excuses for him.

The other is the "if you tried, you're a winner" mentality that people have today. Back in Magic and MJ's day, if you tried and lost, you fucking lost.....period. There was no "well, you tried real hard, so you're a winner in my book." It was "You lost, get better and maybe you'll win next time. Now quit crying and go practice"

In 15-20 years, after Lebron has been retired for awhile, if he hasn't won any more titles, all people will remember is that he was 2-4 in the finals. Just like with Magic, no one will care about why he lost 4 times, they'll only care that he lost 4 times.

I certainly am not pro Lebron, nor making excuses, nor giving free passes.

His record is his record.

My reasoning for not holding it that much against him is because in 3 of the 4 losses I would have been much surprised if he would have won vs him losing with the main reason being the opponent was just that much better.

I do agree with Trojans great point that James losses are much more recent and that down the road people will just look at numbers vs discussing/remembering/analyzing why he lost.

 

[gordontrue]

Honestly, I think that there are 2 things leading the "give Lebron a pass" stuff.

One is immediacy. We are currently watching Lebron try to win titles. His trip to the finals with Cleveland the first time is recent enough to for folks to remember that he didn't have much in the way of help and we just saw him go to the finals with a team hampered by injuries. Because of that, it's easy to make excuses for him.

The other is the "if you tried, you're a winner" mentality that people have today. Back in Magic and MJ's day, if you tried and lost, you fucking lost.....period. There was no "well, you tried real hard, so you're a winner in my book." It was "You lost, get better and maybe you'll win next time. Now quit crying and go practice"

In 15-20 years, after Lebron has been retired for awhile, if he hasn't won any more titles, all people will remember is that he was 2-4 in the finals. Just like with Magic, no one will care about why he lost 4 times, they'll only care that he lost 4 times.

I agree that a loss is a loss and that any perceived talent disparity will be largely forgotten as time passes. But so will the losses in general.

I don't think people do talk about the Finals losses of the great players. People don't talk/think about Chamberlain losing 4 times, or Magic losing 4 times, or West losing 7 times. They remember the championships they won, the great plays they made.


The only exception is the Malone's, Barkley, and Ewings of the world... and of course Jordan.... who stand out because of the undefeated/completely-defeated record.

As you said, recency effects things... and I think it is also causing people to make a bigger deal out of recent Finals losses than what they will be seen long-term, IMO.

 

[LAD]

I don't think people do talk about the Finals losses of the great players. People don't talk/think about Chamberlain losing 4 times, or Magic losing 4 times, or West losing 7 times. They remember the championships they won, the great plays they made.
.

I agree with ya Gordon. In fact I think the main thing people will be discussing regarding this recent Finals is how much of a beast LBJ was and that freaking great performance on an individual basis. It's sad that will over shadow the performance of the team that actually won.

 

[LAD]

I certainly am not pro Lebron, nor making excuses, nor giving free passes.

His record is his record.

My reasoning for not holding it that much against him is because in 3 of the 4 losses I would have been much surprised if he would have won vs him losing with the main reason being the opponent was just that much better.

I do agree with Trojans great point that James losses are much more recent and that down the road people will just look at numbers vs discussing/remembering/analyzing why he lost.

See again you're losing me when you say you don't hold it against him. I don't even know what that means in terms of basketball and his record. Do you somehow in your own mind not acknowledge he has 4 losses in the Finals?

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

See again you're losing me when you say you don't hold it against him. I don't even know what that means in terms of basketball and his record. Do you somehow in your own mind not acknowledge he has 4 losses in the Finals?

 

[LAD]

View attachment 18344

 

[Black Adam]

he's punting...

ah yes, no knowledge of football, i forgot...

see why i said it's communism now...?

 

[trojanfan12]

I agree that a loss is a loss and that any perceived talent disparity will be largely forgotten as time passes. But so will the losses in general.

I don't think people do talk about the Finals losses of the great players. People don't talk/think about Chamberlain losing 4 times, or Magic losing 4 times, or West losing 7 times. They remember the championships they won, the great plays they made.


The only exception is the Malone's, Barkley, and Ewings of the world... and of course Jordan.... who stand out because of the undefeated/completely-defeated record.

As you said, recency effects things... and I think it is also causing people to make a bigger deal out of recent Finals losses than what they will be seen long-term, IMO.

For the most part, you're correct. However, the losses do get mentioned when the discussion becomes about who is the GOAT. Then, the trump card becomes "MJ was 6-0. Magic and the others weren't." No one says, "well Magic and Kareem each went to 9 finals, so they should be considered the GOAT."

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

For the most part, you're correct. However, the losses do get mentioned when the discussion becomes about who is the GOAT. Then, the trump card becomes "MJ was 6-0. Magic and the others weren't." No one says, "well Magic and Kareem each went to 9 finals, so they should be considered the GOAT."

I'm obviously in different discussions then, because there is a clear cut #1 IMO which is Jordan, and it's based on more then just his record in the Finals.

I will say his 6-0 def works in his favor in those conversations.


So, how many here would say James was #1 if he was currently 6-0 vs 2-4?
Is the rest of his game/resume enough to elevate him over Jordan and the rest?

 

[LAD]

he's punting...

ah yes, no knowledge of football, i forgot...

see why i said it's communism now...?

Well I figured out he's punting...I do remember that much from football but can't connect how that applies to my last post. Maybe I'm slow.... This is also why I didn't want to discuss anything that had to do with football.

 

[LAD]

So, how many here would say James was #1 if he was currently 6-0 vs 2-4?
Is the rest of his game/resume enough to elevate him over Jordan and the rest?

Not many and No. But how many here would say he has 4 wins rather than say he's 2-4? I mean why even have a record if you're only going to count half (obviously the good half) of the data?

 

[LAD]

Not many and No. But how many here would say he has 4 wins rather than say he's 2-4? I mean why even have a record if you're only going to count half (obviously the good half) of the data?

OOps, meant 2 wins, not 4

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

Not many and No. But how many here would say he has 4 wins rather than say he's 2-4? I mean why even have a record if you're only going to count half (obviously the good half) of the data?

I don't remember anyone here, ever (unless is was a typo) saying that James was anything but 2-4 since this latest loss.

Not holding against him certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that I don't view it as a heavily weighted negative against him because I, nor anyone I know (including Cavs fans) thought he would win.

 

[LAD]

I don't remember anyone here, ever (unless is was a typo) saying that James was anything but 2-4 since this latest loss.

Not holding against him certainly doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that I don't view it as a heavily weighted negative against him because I, nor anyone I know (including Cavs fans) thought he would win.

Whew, finally! Thank you for clarifying your version of not holding it against him. I was seriously trying to understand it from your perspective.

Fans are free to form opinions as they wish. As a non-fan of LBJ it doesn't really matter to me if he wins or loses...unless he's playing against one of my teams then of course I want him to lose. But for me there is no "deep dive" into why he lost and why it shouldn't count negatively.

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

So, to change subjects, who wants to start their Christmas NBA day with N.O. @ Miami?

 

[Black Adam]

So, to change subjects, who wants to start their Christmas NBA day with N.O. @ Miami?

Brow vs. your boys? might not be a bad one to take in...

 

[LAD]

Brow vs. your boys? might not be a bad one to take in...

Read another article this morning about whether or not Kobe is gonna retire after this season. What do you think? Can you see him taking on a lesser role in terms of leading the team and giving up being the #1 & #2 options on offense?