Series Thread: WCF: Golden State Warriors vs San Antonio Spurs

[The Q]

Not true. Wolves were in complete control of that situation and had offers on the table from other teams.

Disagree.

The Cavs had all the leverage and caved.

 

[The Q]

Just stop. This has been hashed out before. Even if it wasn't Love. Someone else was coming. That's why the Wiggins signing was held up for so long. Bottom line is, Lebron wasn't going back to the Cavs unless he had another star coming to add to himself and Kyrie.

Except this is false because he agreed to go there before anything was even close to done.

 

[The Q]

It wasn't a blatantly false statement. As I said, that's already been hashed out and whether it was Love or someone else, there was another star coming. As Heatles pointed out, the only other team involved was the Warriors and Jerry West nixed that.

The Wolves were trying to get as much as they could and that's why Wiggins was left twisting in the wind for so long.

There was a turnover of 11 players when Lebron came to the Cavs. He didn't join the Cavs team that won 33 games.

How many of those guys were there BEFORE lebron signed.

 

[LAD]

I agree, but then you have to keep in the context of other failures. Why should the failure only be counted if it occurred in the Finals. If LeBron loses to the Celtics, he gets a pass... but if he loses to the Warriors... that becomes part of a tiebreaker for his legacy? Illogical.



I feel like I have to say this every other day. I do not think that LeBron is the goat. I'm not making any arugment in defense of LeBron. You and I actually agree, I think, on the top-5 and the order for the most part. This isn't about LeBron, no matter how much you want to believe that it is. We could easily take LeBron completely out of the conversation and still have an interesting discussion on what Finals records really indicate in terms of a players legacy.



Again, I don't think that's the reason. Its not the fact that he never lost in the Finals... .its the fact that he dominated the league for 6 straight seasons (ignorning the 95 for a moment). If he would've lost in the Finals before that or after that... it would've only added to his legacy... because he still had that run of dominance unlike anything we've seen since the early Celtics.

There's also the fact that his numbers are way better than any of those guys.

I think the point you're missing is this:

If becoming the champion is the ultimate goal then the Finals being that stage where that is possible has to be the measuring stick. We don't count how many times a great player gets his team into the playoffs, but rather, what his team does once they're there.

We recognize MJ as the GOAT because on the biggest stage in basketball he is undefeated. The fact that he did that 6 times is remarkable- especially when we consider how much it takes to win in this league.

Having said that, for the purpose of comparison of greats one can't brag about Finals appearances that didn't result in a title, IMO. So, if we're going to discount the 4 losses & only count the wins then how can one brag about making 7 straight Finals? My point is you can't have one without the other - and I think that's how most people see it.

I see the argument of his run of dominance similar to how people see the Dubs 73-9 season. While it's a nice accomplishment many don't think it tops the MJ's Bulls era because they didn't win it all. Same thing in this scenario. With more losses on the biggest stage than any of the other greats, how is he next in line to be the GOAT?

 

[The Q]

I think the point you're missing is this:

If becoming the champion is the ultimate goal then the Finals being that stage where that is possible has to be the measuring stick. We don't count how many times a great player gets his team into the playoffs, but rather, what his team does once they're there.

We recognize MJ as the GOAT because on the biggest stage in basketball he is undefeated. The fact that he did that 6 times is remarkable- especially when we consider how much it takes to win in this league.

Having said that, for the purpose of comparison of greats one can't brag about Finals appearances that didn't result in a title, IMO. So, if we're going to discount the 4 losses & only count the wins then how can one brag about making 7 straight Finals? My point is you can't have one without the other - and I think that's how most people see it.

I see the argument of his run of dominance similar to how people see the Dubs 73-9 season. While it's a nice accomplishment many don't think it tops the MJ's Bulls era because they didn't win it all. Same thing in this scenario. With more losses on the biggest stage than any of the other greats, how is he next in line to be the GOAT?

Which is why Kareem is historically underrated.

Half the dude's career seasons ended with him in the finals. Which is insane.

 

[LAD]

Which is why Kareem is historically underrated.

Half the dude's career seasons ended with him in the finals. Which is insane.

It's possible he's underrated, but in this league winning titles is the most important thing. It comes before ALL individual accolades.

 

[The Q]

It's possible he's underrated, but in this league winning titles is the most important thing. It comes before ALL individual accolades.

What sport isn't about winning titles?

yet arguably the best player in baseball history has zero titles.

 

[tlance]

No it doesn't. Not at all. It's the tiebreaker. If you take the statistics of the all time greats that Lebron is in the conversation with and post them without names. It's very difficult to tell them apart. So, when ranking them, a tiebreaker becomes necessary and rings and finals records are the tiebreakers.

Kareem went to 10 finals and was 6-4. Yet, he ranks behind MJ on the all time list. The reason? Because he lost 4 times.

Lebron at 3-5 is assuming the Warriors win, obviously. But even 4-4 doesn't measure up to 6-0, 6-4 or 5-4. You can try to make all of the excuses you want about why Lebron's rings and finals record shouldn't count against him, but they do, just like they do against Magic and Kareem. Those things matter. They always have and they always will.

In some ways, Lebron is lucky to be ranked where he is considering his finals record is also worse than Kobe and Timmy, who both get ranked below Lebron despite being all time greats and future first ballot HoF'ers themselves.

That isn't why Kareem is behind Jordan though. That may be your opinion, but by the best reason.

He was not the best player on his own team for the majority of his championships won. When Kareem was the best player in the league, he only won 1 ring.

 

[tlance]

I think the point you're missing is this:

If becoming the champion is the ultimate goal then the Finals being that stage where that is possible has to be the measuring stick. We don't count how many times a great player gets his team into the playoffs, but rather, what his team does once they're there.

We recognize MJ as the GOAT because on the biggest stage in basketball he is undefeated. The fact that he did that 6 times is remarkable- especially when we consider how much it takes to win in this league.

Having said that, for the purpose of comparison of greats one can't brag about Finals appearances that didn't result in a title, IMO. So, if we're going to discount the 4 losses & only count the wins then how can one brag about making 7 straight Finals? My point is you can't have one without the other - and I think that's how most people see it.

I see the argument of his run of dominance similar to how people see the Dubs 73-9 season. While it's a nice accomplishment many don't think it tops the MJ's Bulls era because they didn't win it all. Same thing in this scenario. With more losses on the biggest stage than any of the other greats, how is he next in line to be the GOAT?

He isn't necessarily next in line. First, I do not think he will win this year. Second, if he does, I think it moves him past Kareem and Magic and close to MJ. He does not necessarily surpass him, ever.

i agree with @trojanfan12 that rings should be used as tiebreakers. I disagree that Finals losses are bad. I also think that who you lose to absolutely matters. Losing to a phenomenal team like the current Warriors or the 2014 Spurs should never be held against anybody. Losing to an inferior squad like the 2011 Mavericks perhaps could be.

 

[The Q]

He isn't necessarily next in line. First, I do not think he will win this year. Second, if he does, I think it moves him past Kareem and Magic and close to MJ. He does not necessarily surpass him, ever.

i agree with @trojanfan12 that rings should be used as tiebreakers. I disagree that Finals losses are bad. I also think that who you lose to absolutely matters. Losing to a phenomenal team like the current Warriors or the 2014 Spurs should never be held against anybody. Losing to an inferior squad like the 2011 Mavericks perhaps could be.

Dragging the 07 Cavs to the finals, and not getting swept should be given some serious weight too. That team was almost expansion team bad. Daniel Gibson was like its 2nd best player lol.

Beating GS last year is a more impressive finals win than anyone MJ beat. And it's probably not that close.

 

[tlance]

Dragging the 07 Cavs to the finals, and not getting swept should be given some serious weight too. That team was almost expansion team bad. Daniel Gibson was like its 2nd best player lol.

Beating GS last year is a more impressive finals win than anyone MJ beat. And it's probably not that close.

Agreed. I also think he deserves serious credit for 2015 where he perhaps should have won Finals MVP and that he is playing with house money this year. Nobody should be able to beat the Warriors.

 

[The Q]

Agreed. I also think he deserves serious credit for 2015 where he perhaps should have won Finals MVP and that he is playing with house money this year. Nobody should be able to beat the Warriors.

He probably beats Golden St in b2b years if Shumpter hits that open 3 at the end of game 1. Even with just Irving they probably win that series, forget if he had Irving and Love.

 

[LAD]

He isn't necessarily next in line. First, I do not think he will win this year. Second, if he does, I think it moves him past Kareem and Magic and close to MJ. He does not necessarily surpass him, ever.

i agree with @trojanfan12 that rings should be used as tiebreakers. I disagree that Finals losses are bad. I also think that who you lose to absolutely matters. Losing to a phenomenal team like the current Warriors or the 2014 Spurs should never be held against anybody. Losing to an inferior squad like the 2011 Mavericks perhaps could be.

I agree with several of your points here.

One thing I want to clarify is I personally don't judge his Finals losses as good or bad. I only look at the end result overall.

 

[LAD]

He probably beats Golden St in b2b years if Shumpter hits that open 3 at the end of game 1. Even with just Irving they probably win that series, forget if he had Irving and Love.

Are you talking about the 2015 Finals? How does Shumper hitting a jumper in game 1 change the outcome of that series unless it's game 7?

 

[Heatles84]

Are you talking about the 2015 Finals? How does Shumper hitting a jumper in game 1 change the outcome of that series unless it's game 7?

Yeah I hate that whole narrative of a how a series would be determined if one thing happened in game 1. If the Dubs lose game 1 of that series, who's to say they don't come out with a different mindset in game 2 (which they lost that one in '15).

 

[LAD]

Yeah I hate that whole narrative of a how a series would be determined if one thing happened in game 1. If the Dubs lose game 1 of that series, who's to say they don't come out with a different mindset in game 2 (which they lost that one in '15).

Exactly. They lost 2 games in that series- consecutive games as a matter of fact. But there isn't much that will make me believe that one shot from a role player in game 1 would've meant Cavs win that series. That is a very far reach IMO.

 

[gordontrue]

Yeah I hate that whole narrative of a how a series would be determined if one thing happened in game 1. If the Dubs lose game 1 of that series, who's to say they don't come out with a different mindset in game 2 (which they lost that one in '15).

Yeah that's fair, but I think part of the thought here is that Kyrie wouldn't have been injured if the game doesn't go to overtime.

But yeah, who knows what would've happened. All we know is what did happen... Warriors won the title.

 

[CitySushi]

So Warrior/Spurs thread turns into Cavs talk? Sounds about right.

 

[DorianRo]

So Warrior/Spurs thread turns into Cavs talk? Sounds about right.

May as well have Lebron/Cavs fans have their days. In a month or so they are gonna be sorely depressed after the bootybanging the Warriors are going to provide them in the finals

 

[Heatles84]

May as well have Lebron/Cavs fans have their days. In a month or so they are gonna be sorely depressed after the bootybanging the Warriors are going to provide them in the finals

Can you describe this bootybanging in more vivid detail? Don't hold anything back. Get creative.