LeBron -- great or just very good?

[elementally morale]

To me, LeBron as a great player is a very tough sell. He is a very good player but I fail to see greatness. He is by far the best player I've seen who manages not to be great at the same time.

Based on how good he is, I'd have him in my top 5 players ever. Based on how great he is, nowhere near top 50. I don't know how he does it. He plays great like 90% of the time, but fails to be great most of the time he plays well -- he just plays very well and that's it. And then when it comes to very important games, you just never know what you're gonna get. Sometimes, he comes out with a masterful performance. At other times, very pedestrian. Instead of being the unquestionable leader, in tough situations he is like an X-factor. There is a chance he will play well... there is a chance he will look like someone who doesn't even care.

Karl Malone was similar. Slightly worse as an overall player, but very similar in playing very good while lacking greatness.

[Electric Slide]

Based on how good he is, I'd have him in my top 5 players ever. Based on how great he is, nowhere near top 50.
What the **** is the difference?

[Chicago Ted]

I agree.
His statlines are grat but his game doen't give off the sensation of dominance or that 'everything is possible with this guy', at least not very often.
That's why i have a lot of problems of putting him ahead of Bird in the all time SF list, even if he wins more or with better averages.

[SacJB Shady]

Great in the regular season but can't finish. Even if he does this year, it will take a semi miracle. He doesn't close. When the game gets tough, he has no go2 shot. He will do his thing throughout the game with his size and speed, but when the defense gets too tight at the end, he can't adjust.

[kennethgriffin]

i would say his stats and accomplishments are top 12 all time


and his actual level of play is around top 30-40 all time


hes the biggest overachiver in nba history. never seen a guy succeed so much with so little


for a guy who cant shoot a mid range jumper, cant go left, cant hit clutch shots, cant play big when it counts to have 4 mvps, 1 finals mvp and 1 title is very impressive

[monkeypox]

He may be this generations Wilt Chamberlain.

[toooo]

Great in the regular season but can't finish. Even if he does this year, it will take a semi miracle. He doesn't close. When the game gets tough, he has no go2 shot. He will do his thing throughout the game with his size and speed, but when the defense gets too tight at the end, he can't adjust.

Are you a Spurs fan now?:facepalm

[elementally morale]

What the **** is the difference?

You are very good if you play very good in 8 out of 10 games. The problem is you just don't know what you will get the other two. You don't even know if you are going to see effort on his part at all.

You are great if you play a lot better when it counts the most. If you step your game up a notch. Reggie Miller is a good example. He was not nearly as good as LeBron but Reggie was great. You could cheer for him in tough situations.

As good as LeBron is, I can't see any signs of greatness. It's just not in him. He is going to play very very good basketball next year, too. The year after that. And so forth. But as for greatness... his greatness is a marketing campaign and not much more.

I have no problem with people having him in their top 10 or even top 5 based on how well he plays 80-85% of the time. But greatness is a different issue.

[jstern]

Many great players don't perform miracles all the time. Sometimes you also have to give the other team credit. The Spurs are very good. I would say he's definitely not Jordan, or Bird, or Magic great in the way they take over. Perhaps that's what you meant. But he's more than just a very good player. Kobe almost always performs below standards in the NBA Finals, is he a very good player or is he a great player?

[Ai2death]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1675259-comedy-troupe-spoofs-lebron-james-flopping-problem

[elementally morale]

Many great players don't perform miracles all the time. Sometimes you also have to give the other team credit. The Spurs are very good. I would say he's definitely not Jordan, or Bird, or Magic great in the way they take over. Perhaps that's what you meant. But he's more than just a very good player. Kobe almost always performs below standards in the NBA Finals, is he a very good player or is he a great player?

It's not a Finals only thing. On the one hand it is a 'step it up whenever your team needs it' on the other it's a 'leave it all out on the floor' thing. Plus the aura around you that you simply won't let your team lose. LeBron has neither. Sure, some of the time he does step his game up in tough situations... but at other times he looks disinterested.

I don't hate the guy. Sure, I'm not a fan but I have nothing against his game. I find it a bit boring but that's it. I found Shaq's game boring to an extent, too. But I recognized his greatness as it was not to be missed.

[bdreason]

Plenty of great players didn't win a single championship. Was Charles Barkley a great player?

[SacJB Shady]

Are you a Spurs fan now?:facepalm


for this year

[0000000]

Obviously great. There isn't much difference between Jordan, Magic, Kobe and LeBron as people make it out to be. LeBron is one of the greatest ever.

[LeBird]

Magic lost in the finals 4 times (won 5 of 9). Bird lost twice (won 3 of 5). Would anyone say they aren't 'great' players? This Spurs is a fantastic team run by one of the greatest coaches of all time. They're not going to be pushovers.

[kobeef24]

for this week

FIFY

[elementally morale]

Plenty of great players didn't win a single championship. Was Charles Barkley a great player?

Yes. But Karl Malone was not a great player to me, although he was very very good. He may have been better than Barkley but certainly nowhere near as great.

Am I the only one seeing (or imaginig) this difference?

[elementally morale]

Magic lost in the finals 4 times (won 5 of 9). Bird lost twice (won 3 of 5). Would anyone say they aren't 'great' players? This Spurs is a fantastic team run by one of the greatest coaches of all time. They're not going to be pushovers.


The two examples I used for greatness were Reggie Miller and Charles Barkley. And how many rings do they have combined? Exactly.

Rings don't make anyone great. His performance does -- or does not.

[KG215]

To me, LeBron as a great player is a very tough sell. He is a very good player but I fail to see greatness. He is by far the best player I've seen who manages not to be great at the same time.

Based on how good he is, I'd have him in my top 5 players ever. Based on how great he is, nowhere near top 50. I don't know how he does it. He plays great like 90% of the time, but fails to be great most of the time he plays well -- he just plays very well and that's it. And then when it comes to very important games, you just never know what you're gonna get. Sometimes, he comes out with a masterful performance. At other times, very pedestrian. Instead of being the unquestionable leader, in tough situations he is like an X-factor. There is a chance he will play well... there is a chance he will look like someone who doesn't even care.

Karl Malone was similar. Slightly worse as an overall player, but very similar in playing very good while lacking greatness.
Yeah, as confusing as some of this was to read, I actually get what you're saying (I think) and feel the same way.

I was prepared for some epic shit from LeBron in these playoffs. He finally go the "no rings" monkey off his back last year with an incredible playoff run, and followed it up with a regular season this year that had people losing their minds; and justifiably so in my opinion. I honestly thought this year, he was really, really close to peak Jordan.

So the playoffs start, and he doesn't really do anything memorable against the Bucks. But they were a 38 win team, and the entire Heat team more-or-less coasted that series. It was understandable. And, given the injuries the Bulls had, and the fact they weren't all that good to begin with, I was even somewhat excusing of his sub-par performance against them. Then he was really, really good against the Pacers but, like you said, not great.

He had some great games stats wise against the Pacers, but he didn't have a game that people will be talking about even a year or two from now, never mind 10+ years from now. Yes, he had the 30-10-10 triple-double in game 1 and made the game winning shot. But he scored like 10 points in the 1st quarter, then had a really long stretch spanning the entire 2nd quarter and a good chunk of the 3rd where he was sort of "just there", and the game-winning shot was a lay-up. And he was on the verge of having on of "those" games in game 2. He just took over in the second half for a stretch and was scoring at will, and it looked like the heat were going to take a 2-0 series lead. Then he had those two crucial turnovers at the end of the game and the Pacers won.

And now, here we are 5 games into the Finals, and he's yet to have anything remotely close to an unforgettable game. Again, the standard has been set very, very high based on his playoff run last year and regular season this year. So we're talking about players like Jordan, Shaq, Bird, Magic, Hakeem, Kareem, etc. Guys that had revered and multiple dominant playoff runs at their peak. And, like in game 1 of the ECF, he put up a "meh" triple-double. He was passive offensively all game, but at least dominated on the boards and got teammates involved. But his one really good game was a 33-11-4 performance where he tacked on 9 points in garbage time, and wasn't even the player on his team closing the game in 4th quarter.

Bottomline, during this three year run at his peak, he's consistently underwhelmed in the Finals. 2011 he was great up until the Finals, before performing a disappearing act. 2012 he was great from the 1st round through the Finals; and this year he's just been consistently well below his standards from start to (near) finish. And it's not that he's been bad, that's not what I'm saying. It's just, like you said, he hasn't been great, and now it's starting to look like the 2012 Finals is going to be the outlier of his 4 Finals appearances. That shouldn't be the case with someone who has his talent and physical gifts. The one good Finals performance shouldn't be the one that looks like the "odd man out".

I don't know, maybe I and a few others just have ridiculously high standards for him. Maybe this is just who he is. An incredibly talented player who's unbelievably good most of the time, but one that is also capable of completely disappearing in big games and in crucial moments.

[Mr. Jabbar]

I agree with OP. Everything is spot on. Its what lebron irradiates, what fans perceive, and no boxscore can tell you that story, well, maybe some finals boxscores :lol

[LeBird]

The two examples I used for greatness were Reggie Miller and Charles Barkley. And how many rings do they have combined? Exactly.

Rings don't make anyone great. His performance does -- or does not.

Doesn't matter, by the rationale that they didn't win they failed - they had bad performances in losing games too. It is not like Jordan performed in every match and was responsible for every win in a finals either, even with his 6/6 finals record. He got lucky winning when others got hot too. And he probably never had a match-up like this Spurs in his run.

Players are imperfect, deal with it.

[kobeef24]

We've all seen LeBron be great in the regular season and in 2012, but I do have to agree with you to an extent. There are times where he just seems invisible out there and just doesn't have the same impact on games. But if LeBron comes and and wins these next 2 games then he can definitely turn this year around. He's capable of greatness, but it's just not always there.

[bdreason]

Yes. But Karl Malone was not a great player to me, although he was very very good. He may have been better than Barkley but certainly nowhere near as great.

Am I the only one seeing (or imaginig) this difference?



Karl Malone wasn't a great player? :confusedshrug:




And I think you're forgetting about all the great players who have tasted defeat. Magic lost in the Finals multiple times. Bird lost in the Finals multiple times. Wilt lost in the Finals multiple times. Kareem lost in the Finals multiple times.


I don't know if LeBron will ever elevate his career to the level of all those players, but only time will tell. He could easily lose this Finals, and still go on to win 3-4 more rings.

[KG215]

Doesn't matter, by the rationale that they didn't win they failed - they had bad performances in losing games too. It is not like Jordan performed in every match and was responsible for every win in a finals either, even with his 6/6 finals record. He got lucky winning when others got hot too. And he probably never had a match-up like this Spurs in his run.

Players are imperfect, deal with it.
What do you mean by the bold?

[elementally morale]

Players are imperfect, deal with it.

I'm dealing with it fine, thanks.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I don't root againt James. As for me, he may go on and win the next 10 rings -- as long as it's entertaining basketball, visible effort, drama, great plays, clutch performances and so on.

But. This Heat team was very close to losing to the Celtics (good job good effort). They are close to losing to a not historically great Spurs team. They lost to the Mavericks... a team they should have easily beaten. And LeBron was subpar in many of these games. He lacked the intensity. Greatness.

He is lucky they were able to beat Boston last year (and he was great in those last two games). Had they lost to the Celtics, he would have lost 50% of his fame within 48 minutes. The next 48 minutes are the same. And the ones after that just as well.

It's time for him to show greatness. Not 'good play'. A kind of overall dominance from start to finish. He may go 8 of 23 and still be great. I'm not talking about some stats.

[elementally morale]

Karl Malone wasn't a great player?

To me he was not. Stockton however, was. And Malone was probably the better player of the two. John Starks, playing against the Bulls... he was great. Baron Davis during the series the Warriors beat the Mavs was great. LeBron on his average day is better than Baron Davis ever was. But I've never seen LeBron play as great a series as Baron has.

[WeGetRing2012]

Magic lost in the finals 4 times (won 5 of 9). Bird lost twice (won 3 of 5). Would anyone say they aren't 'great' players? This Spurs is a fantastic team run by one of the greatest coaches of all time. They're not going to be pushovers.

:lol The greatest rivalry in basketball. Good example...

[LeBird]

What do you mean by the bold?

I mean a team as well put together and arguably as good as them. The Bulls were clearly the best team in an era where there was no real threat to them.

I'm dealing with it fine, thanks.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, as I don't root againt James. As for me, he may go on and win the next 10 rings -- as long as it's entertaining basketball, visible effort, drama, great plays, clutch performances and so on.

But. This Heat team was very close to losing to the Celtics (good job good effort). They are close to losing to a not historically great Spurs team. They lost to the Mavericks... a team they should have easily beaten. And LeBron was subpar in many of these games. He lacked the intensity. Greatness.

He is lucky they were able to beat Boston last year (and he was great in those last two games). Had they lost to the Celtics, he would have lost 50% of his fame within 48 minutes. The next 48 minutes are the same. And the ones after that just as well.

It's time for him to show greatness. Not 'good play'. A kind of overall dominance from start to finish. He may go 8 of 23 and still be great. I'm not talking about some stats.

The point is that if people want to comb over the legends of the past as much as they're doing for Lebron now you'll find plenty to doubt them on as well.

That's the nature of the beast: older players' bad plays are forgotten. Magic wasn't just considered underpar but an outright choker. Jordan was seen a lot like Lebron (great stats, but not a winner) until his team came together.

Those Lakers lost to inferior teams like the Rockets. Or the Celtics to the Bucks. Hey, shit happens.

[LeBird]

To me he was not. Stockton however, was. And Malone was probably the better player of the two. John Starks, playing against the Bulls... he was great. Baron Davis during the series the Warriors beat the Mavs was great. LeBron on his average day is better than Baron Davis ever was. But I've never seen LeBron play as great a series as Baron has.

Haha, but the above is nonsense. Can you not see you are not applying the same standards and being fair? If all it took was a series here and there for Baron or Starks to be 'great' then last year should have put all that talk for Lebron to bed.

[PizzamanIRL]

He needs to stop moaning to the refs. The refs won't change their decision because you're unhappy with them. At least twice in the 4th quarter he didn't get back on transition because he was too busy complaining to the refs. They didn't blow their whistle so stop ****ing moaning and get back on defense.

[coin24]

Where are all the Lebron stans telling us he's on par with MJ?:lol :facepalm
Or that Lebron needs more help:roll:

I couldn't agree more, Lebron is a good player, but not an all time great. Watching him play is underwhelming due to the fact that he does have the potential but just doesn't seem to care. As long as he gets his stats:facepalm

[elementally morale]

Haha, but the above is nonsense. Can you not see you are not applying the same standards and being fair? If all it took was a series here and there for Baron or Starks to be 'great' then last year should have put all that talk for Lebron to bed.

Being great is subjective. You have to be better than your very self to become great. My grandpa ran a marathon at age 78. It took him 5 and a half hours -- not a very good time. But his effort was great. Sure, I don't use the same standard for my grandpa and for the world champ from Kenya.

Starks was not a very good player by NBA standards. But he played great many times. Most importantly: he tried leaving everything out there. He gave it his all. His play was electrifying even in defeat. That's the kind of stuff I'm talking of, not 'being very good'.

We all know there weren't 10 players who were better players than LeBron James. It makes no sense arguing LeBron is not a very very good player, as he obviously is. Just not great to me.

[Shade8780]

I have him in the top 15. He's one of the most talented players of all time, top 5 skill-wise, but like OP said, he doesn't have that winning, dominating force in him that can win big games. I think he could probably win another championship, but I don't see him cracking the top 10 ever if he loses this Finals series. Then again, LeBron could come out and drop 40 points on the Spurs next game and end up winning Game 7, but the chances are slim. I think it's still too early to judge whether he's great or very good yet as the series isn't over. Wait till it ends and then we can talk.

[KG215]

I mean a team as well put together and arguably as good as them. The Bulls were clearly the best team in an era where there was no real threat to them.

The same could be said about the Heat in that I think they were pretty clearly considered the best team in the league. And I don't see how these Spurs, with a well-past their prime Duncan and Ginobili, should be considered any better than teams like the '93 Suns, '92 Blazers, or even the Sonics or Jazz teams the Bulls beat in the second 3-peat.

The Spurs were a 58-win 6.67 SRS team this year.

'91 Lakers: 58 wins; 6.73 SRS
'92 Blazers: 57 wins; 6.94 SRS
'93 Suns: 62 wins; 6.27 SRS
'96 Sonics: 64 wins; 7.39 SRS
'97 Jazz: 64 wins; 7.97 SRS
'98 Jazz: 62 wins; 5.73 SRS

The Spurs are very good, and deep. They've also got a great coach. But I wouldn't say they're better than some of the teams Jordan's Bulls beat in the Finals. Maybe if this was a few years ago, and Duncan and Ginobili were closer to their prime with similar depth backing them up, sure; but the 2013 Spurs would be doing good to get out of the West some of those years.

[elementally morale]

Jordan was seen a lot like Lebron (great stats, but not a winner) until his team came together.

No. MJ was said to be a selfish ballhog, who will never win anything because he doesn't understand the concept of 'team'. Nobody ever questioned MJ to be great. LeBron on the other hand does understand teamplay from the very beginning. But he is nowhere near as great as MJ was -- and I'm talking about pre-rings MJ.

[LeBird]

The same could be said about the Heat in that I think they were pretty clearly considered the best team in the league. And I don't see how these Spurs, with a well-past their prime Duncan and Ginobili, should be considered any better than teams like the '93 Suns, '92 Blazers, or even the Sonics or Jazz teams the Bulls beat in the second 3-peat.

The Spurs were a 58-win 6.67 SRS team this year.

'91 Lakers: 58 wins; 6.73 SRS
'92 Blazers: 57 wins; 6.94 SRS
'93 Suns: 62 wins; 6.27 SRS
'96 Sonics: 64 wins; 7.39 SRS
'97 Jazz: 64 wins; 7.97 SRS
'98 Jazz: 62 wins; 5.73 SRS

The Spurs are very good, and deep. They've also got a great coach. But I wouldn't say they're better than some of the teams Jordan's Bulls beat in the Finals. Maybe if this was a few years ago, and Duncan and Ginobili were closer to their prime with similar depth backing them up, sure; but the 2013 Spurs would be doing good to get out of the West some of those years.

The Spurs team are better than any team (I am not talking about a single year or two but a sustained effort) than any team the Bulls faced.

While I agree with you that the Miami team is the best in terms of talent, it is a poorly constructed team to deal with the playoffs. It is an awesome regular season team but one that has obvious and very exploitable weaknesses (particularly in size). Their weaknesses and lack of cover make it even harder for them to face a team like the Spurs who have got something for everything (a very good all-round team) even if they won't have the kinds of regular seasons Miami will have.

The SRS is heavily dependent on the talent of the era. For comparison's sake in this regard it is poor.


No. MJ was said to be a selfish ballhog, who will never win anything because he doesn't understand the concept of 'team'. Nobody ever questioned MJ to be great. LeBron on the other hand does understand teamplay from the very beginning. But he is nowhere near as great as MJ was -- and I'm talking about pre-rings MJ.

No, they said that basically verbatim. Except then it was whether he would end up like Elgin Baylor.

[K Xerxes]

What are you on about? 'Based on how great he is, nowhere near top 50.'

LeBron James could retire today and he'd be one of the 50 greatest ever. When we compare Lebron to anyone, it's the top 10 all time greats. Those are the standards he has to reach, and he has failed to reach those standards in the playoffs. So far.

I know it's easy to make a conclusion now, but we do have 2 games left for him to make somwhat of a stamp on these finals. Funnily enough, LeBron probably plays his best basketball when his team is down or in intense pressure situations, particularly in these last two years. So there's a still a chance he shows us that something.

But, I agree, for a 'by far the best player in the planet', he has been incredibly underwhelming, and it has made me second guess his top 10 credentials. When I once thought he was sure fire to leap frog Duncan/Shaq/Kobe at some point in the near future after he racks up his titles... now I'm not sure where 1/4 in the finals leaves him. I actually thought that even if the Heat don't win, it wouldn't be down to LeBron. But it is partly down to him.

What an enigma. I've never seen anything like him.

[KG215]

The Spurs team are better than any team (I am not talking about a single year or two but a sustained effort) than any team the Bulls faced.
The Bulls beat better teams in the Finals than this Spurs teams. I'm not sure that's even debatable. And I don't see what sustained effort (I assume you're talking about them winning 4 rings in the Duncan era and being a contender almost every year) has to do with this Spurs team this year. This isn't the same Spurs team. It's deeper than some of their championship teams, but they don't have the same high-end star power. Duncan and Ginobili are shells of their former selves for the most part. Parker is the only one of their "Big 3" that's still in his prime.

Miami beating this current Spurs team wouldn't and shouldn't be considered more impressive because of their past success. They last won a championship 6 seasons ago.

[LeBird]

The Bulls beat better teams in the Finals than this Spurs teams. I'm not even sure that's debatable. And I don't see what sustained effort (I assume you're talking about them winning 4 rings in the Duncan era and being a contender almost every year) has to do with this Spurs team this year. This isn't the same Spurs team. It's deeper than some of their championship teams, but they don't have the same high-end star power. Duncan and Ginobili are shells of their former selves for the most part. Parker is the only one of their "Big 3" that's still in his prime.

Miami beating this current Spurs team wouldn't and shouldn't be considered more impressive because of their past success. They last won a championship 6 seasons ago.

You don't need high-end star power. This is a team game. You just need guys to step up here and there. The two teams that have given the Heat the biggest problems lack high-end stars and the Heat are at the top of the heap when it comes to stars.

Last year the Spurs were on an incredible run and only stopped by a high-flying Thunder. This year, even though they're older, they're even better - more complete. They've been perennial contenders. It is not really debatable. At a push I'd say Jazz, and even then the Bulls not only had better stars they had a much better put-together team.

[elementally morale]

What are you on about? 'Based on how great he is, nowhere near top 50.'

I also said 'based on how good he is I'd have him in my top 5'. To me, being great is not a higher form of being good. A higher form of being good is being very good or very very good. And LeBron is very very good.

Greatness is another issue.

[aspire]

if. Miami lose this, can that please mean I never have to hear a shit comparison of James to Jordan/Kobe etc etc
Does Magic Johnson have shares in LJ?! The way he carries on about him, dude, no one on the planet can stop him? SPURS JUST DID

[KG215]

You don't need high-end star power. This is a team game. You just need guys to step up here and there. The two teams that have given the Heat the biggest problems lack high-end stars and the Heat are at the top of the heap when it comes to stars.

Last year the Spurs were on an incredible run and only stopped by a high-flying Thunder. This year, even though they're older, they're even better - more complete. They've been perennial contenders. It is not really debatable. At a push I'd say Jazz, and even then the Bulls not only had better stars they had a much better put-together team.
So you expect me to believe this Spurs team is better than every team Jordan's Bulls beat in the Finals, save maybe the Jazz? And it's not even debatable? This Spurs team is clear-cut better than the '92 Blazers, '93 Suns, and '96 Sonics? And MAYBE a push with the '97 and '98 Jazz, worst?

[All Net]

People love to flip flop anytime he loses..

[K Xerxes]

I also said 'based on how good he is I'd have him in my top 5'. To me, being great is not a higher form of being good. A higher form of being good is being very good or very very good. And LeBron is very very good.

Greatness is another issue.

I don't understand the distinction you're making. What do 'very very good' and 'great' exactly?

LeBron is great, he just hasn't demonstrated that top 10 level of greatness in the playoffs. He sure as hell did in 2012 though, which is basically his only saving grace at the moment.

[ripthekik]

People love to flip flop anytime he loses..
I have been the most consistent. I stick to what I say.

[elementally morale]

I don't understand the distinction you're making. What do 'very very good' and 'great' exactly?

LeBron is great, he just hasn't demonstrated that top 10 level of greatness in the playoffs. He sure as hell did in 2012 though, which is basically his only saving grace at the moment.

Take a 5'8 guy. Dunking a basketball for him is a great achievement. LeBron can abviously dunk a lot better than said person. However, him not taking part in the dunking contest despite saying he would is not really great. So who is the better dunker? The 5'8 guy or LeBron? LeBron is. But who is greater when it comes to dunking? The 5'8 guy in my eyes.

You are (doing) great if you can excced from time to time what you seem capable of. See Reggie Miller or Joh Starks. You are not great if you almost never exceed what you are seemingly capable of and often don't come even close to that in pressure situations. See Karl Malone.

[elementally morale]

People love to flip flop anytime he loses..

Are you sure I'm among those people? Isn't it a better idea to actually read the thread you are about to post in?

[KungFuJoe]

The reason why Lebron isn't great isn't because he has bad games. Even the best have bad games.

But he doesn't just have bad games...he just plain disappears for entire 4th quarters. Maybe you could have said 2011 was a fluke. But, it's happening again in 2013. Even if Miami somehow ends up winning, no one can deny that Lebron is actually being carried this series.

And it's also the way he "looks" in these bad games. He plays like a nervous scrub. Doesn't play defense, jumpers are all over the place, he misses layups, and he throws the ball out of bounds.

He was god awful AGAIN in Game 5 in the 4th. Barely contributed anywhere and had two pretty bad turnovers. And Parker lit him up as well.

Parker is 100x the 4th quarter player Lebron is.

[LeBird]

So you expect me to believe this Spurs team is better than every team Jordan's Bulls beat in the Finals, save maybe the Jazz? And it's not even debatable? This Spurs team is clear-cut better than the '92 Blazers, '93 Suns, and '96 Sonics? And MAYBE a push with the '97 and '98 Jazz, worst?

Whether they are better than any of those teams in simple one-year terms is debatable (although I'd still lean to no). What isn't debatable was something else.

You seemed to have missed this part in my previous post:

The Spurs team are better than any team (I am not talking about a single year or two but a sustained effort) than any team the Bulls faced.

**Actually, I should probably amend that to include the Lakers, technically, even though due to injuries the Lakers weren't fighting on an equal front.

[K Xerxes]

Take a 5'8 guy. Dunking a basketball for him is a great achievement. LeBron can abviously dunk a lot better than said person. However, him not taking part in the dunking contest despite saying he would is not really great. So who is the better dunker? The 5'8 guy or LeBron? LeBron is. But who is greater when it comes to dunking? The 5'8 guy in my eyes.

You are (doing) great if you can excced from time to time what you seem capable of. See Reggie Miller or Joh Starks. You are not great if you almost never exceed what you are seemingly capable of and often don't come even close to that in pressure situations. See Karl Malone.

What an odd definition of greatness. Are you saying John Starks is greater than LeBron?

[elementally morale]

What an odd definition of greatness. Are you saying John Starks is greater than LeBron?

I wouldn't say that. But I'd say Charles Barkley is greater. And he is nowhere near as good.

[LeBird]

The reason why Lebron isn't great isn't because he has bad games. Even the best have bad games.

But he doesn't just have bad games...he just plain disappears for entire 4th quarters. Maybe you could have said 2011 was a fluke. But, it's happening again in 2013. Even if Miami somehow ends up winning, no one can deny that Lebron is actually being carried this series.

And it's also the way he "looks" in these bad games. He plays like a nervous scrub. Doesn't play defense, jumpers are all over the place, he misses layups, and he throws the ball out of bounds.

He was god awful AGAIN in Game 5 in the 4th. Barely contributed anywhere and had two pretty bad turnovers. And Parker lit him up as well.

Parker is 100x the 4th quarter player Lebron is.

2011 is nothing like 2013. He isn't dominating, but unlike in 2011 no one else is either. In fact, he has been the most dominant.

But he isn't held to the same standards. Parker is being hyped up but he has done less than Lebron and less for his team in comparison to what Lebron has done for his. If Lebron was playing at Parker-like levels there'd be threads dedicated to ridiculing him for needing so much help.

[All Net]

Are you sure I'm among those people? Isn't it a better idea to actually read the thread you are about to post in?

Wasn't talking about you but a lot on here do..

[outbreak]

Espn here showed a bunch of LeBron clips saying he didn't get help or some such when he made a big push. Watching the game live it seemed Wade and allen did alot more and I barely noticed LeBron scoring his easy baskets

[Kblaze8855]

Since he became a great player(second season) hes made 8 of 9 playoffs, won 4 of 9 MVPs, made 4 of 9 finals, made 8 of 9 all nba first teams, made 5 of 9 all D teams, and led his team to a title while putting up 30/10/6. Hes won 66, 61, 56, 58, 56(full season equal), and 66 games the last 6 years and in two of them he was resting at the end of seasons they could have pushed near 70 wins.

Hes pretty much having Kareems career so far. One less MVP through 10 years....2 more finals(I suspect he wont have a Magic type drop in his lap though).

He might literally make 8 finals and win....however many rings. 2-5?

If its "just" 2 hes had Wilt chamberlains career and if its 1....hes had a better career than Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and other unquestioned great players.

So no. The case for him being great is not hard to make.

[Ass Dan]

To me, LeBron as a great player is a very tough sell. He is a very good player but I fail to see greatness. He is by far the best player I've seen who manages not to be great at the same time.

Based on how good he is, I'd have him in my top 5 players ever. Based on how great he is, nowhere near top 50. I don't know how he does it. He plays great like 90% of the time, but fails to be great most of the time he plays well -- he just plays very well and that's it. And then when it comes to very important games, you just never know what you're gonna get. Sometimes, he comes out with a masterful performance. At other times, very pedestrian. Instead of being the unquestionable leader, in tough situations he is like an X-factor. There is a chance he will play well... there is a chance he will look like someone who doesn't even care.

Karl Malone was similar. Slightly worse as an overall player, but very similar in playing very good while lacking greatness.

Karl Malone and LeBron James similarities end at body type (and maybe the fact Malone filled the lane hard earlier in his career).

LeBron's game is 1000X more complete than the Mail Dude's and his skillset is vastly superior.

That being said...

I have to agree with much of the OP(and I am not one of these Laker heads who shits on LeBron at the behest of Kobe's legacy, I am a Laker fan who is very lukewarm towards Kobe).

LeBron has looked like the following throughout this series:

-Passive with the ball in his hands (even tonight down ten under three minutes he was slowly dribbling around 30 feet from the hoop). He had BORIS FATASS F*CKING DIAW on him for much of the fourth quarter and he didn't want to try to or frankly couldn't get to the rim???

Here is how bad it is, this is an actual conversation I had with an British guy in HB on Saturday night.

British Guy: "So I've been watching your basketball mate trying to learn about this game."
Me: "Yeah and..."
BG: " I don't f*cking get it, why is there no sense of urgency with these players, one game San Antonio wins big and then the next Miami wins big on the same court? Do these guys not care it is the Finals? Shouldn't they be going all out and giving it the large one?"

Me: "uh, uh ummm..."

This observation basically sums up LeBron's body language and seemingly his approach to this entire series.

-Slow on the attack. Waits too long to penetrate, waits too long to do a post move and waits too to pass on the penetrate and pitch. He allows the defense to get into position and challenge. When he goes up quick, attacks quick, and dishes quick he is impossible to guard.

-Shaky on defense. Getting beat, missing box outs, playing defense with his hands. He has only played help defense well. Except for tonight (when Parker lit him up) he's basically been guarding the weak link on defense.

-Inability to finish. At the rim he is flipping his palm up and opting for layup instead of dunking (and missing this frequently), he is waiting and thinking about open shots too long, instead of just letting it rip, and he is just plain sloppy with the ball.


We may hear that he is hurt after all is said and done, but right now, he is nothing special.

Sad, this was his time.

[DMV2]

In terms of skills, he's good at a lot of things, can do a lot of things but he is not great at them. There's not one area in his game that you can say he is truly great at.

Jumper and midrange? Above average.
Post game? Below average.
Passing? Above average.
Man defense? Above average. He's good at bulldozing defenders though.
Help defender? Great
Transition/uptempo Great.
Free throw? Poor

[To4]

James is a great player no doubt about that, he just need to have that killer instinct..

[dh144498]

he's not great, but he is very good.
Historically, he will not be remembered in the NBA future because he doesn't have greatness. His numbers don't transcend anything.

[Darius]

You really need to define what you mean by "great".

It seems by "good" you refer to a player's skill level + athleticism.

Your "great" however, is ambiguous.

For example (everyone's favorite example), is Kobe "great" because instead of facilitating he shoots 7 for 22 in the Finals Gm 6 vs. the Celts?

Was he "great" because he tried but failed? Or does the failing make him not "great"?

Give some more parameters of what "great" is.

[sdot_thadon]

I think fans as a whole just want too much. I mean the way everyone loses their damn minds from game to game results with this guy says it all. He's held to an unprecedented standard really, no great before him ever had such demands of their careers. Greatness isn't even a question, but it's in the eye of the beholder perhaps. There is only one Mj he's an anomaly, the guy that did everything they said you couldn't do and still won. Inspired an entire generation of knockoffs thinking the way to win is 25+fga per game. Revolutionized the game for the next era. All those Mj inspired wings that followed were inferior to Lebron. If you really are a fan of the game, then you'll appreciate him for what he is. He's the next evolution of the game. Where you can be the best player on earth and still play a team game.

[jzek]

Very good.

Great is someone like Jordan or Shaq who dominates night in and night out.

[upside24]

You are very good if you play very good in 8 out of 10 games. The problem is you just don't know what you will get the other two. You don't even know if you are going to see effort on his part at all.

You are great if you play a lot better when it counts the most. If you step your game up a notch. Reggie Miller is a good example. He was not nearly as good as LeBron but Reggie was great. You could cheer for him in tough situations.

As good as LeBron is, I can't see any signs of greatness. It's just not in him. He is going to play very very good basketball next year, too. The year after that. And so forth. But as for greatness... his greatness is a marketing campaign and not much more.

I have no problem with people having him in their top 10 or even top 5 based on how well he plays 80-85% of the time. But greatness is a different issue.
Great post. Not just good.

[dh144498]

Great post. Not just good.

:oldlol:

:applause:

[Artillery]

To me, LeBron as a great player is a very tough sell. He is a very good player but I fail to see greatness. He is by far the best player I've seen who manages not to be great at the same time.

Based on how good he is, I'd have him in my top 5 players ever. Based on how great he is, nowhere near top 50. I don't know how he does it. He plays great like 90% of the time, but fails to be great most of the time he plays well -- he just plays very well and that's it. And then when it comes to very important games, you just never know what you're gonna get. Sometimes, he comes out with a masterful performance. At other times, very pedestrian. Instead of being the unquestionable leader, in tough situations he is like an X-factor. There is a chance he will play well... there is a chance he will look like someone who doesn't even care.

Karl Malone was similar. Slightly worse as an overall player, but very similar in playing very good while lacking greatness.

Kobe sucks in the Finals too. I don't see you trashing him. Kirby's lucky he had the most dominant big man of all-time to do the heavy lifting for the majority of his championships.

[dh144498]

Kobe sucks in the Finals too. I don't see you trashing him. Kirby's lucky he had the most dominant big man of all-time to do the heavy lifting for the majority of his championships.

you like Lebron, we get it. But Kobe's much better than Lebron and never shies away, so he doesn't quite fit in this thread.

[DG#8]

skill side great but lack of heart&emotions, too rational guy to me

[tpols]

I feel what ops saying.. lebrons ability is quite possibly best ever but his heart/will/determination are below average compared to a lot of other greats.

Rondo actually has some of the best greatness as oP defines it. He never backs down and scraps. Always root for him despite hating the celtics

[Goldrush25]

Arguing semantics. Great, very good? They could be used as synonyms.

There's no objective scale to delinate very good from great.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Arguing semantics. Great, very good? They could be used as synonyms.

There's no objective scale to delinate very good from great.

Absolutely correct, which is strange coming from an LSU corndog.
True nonetheless.

Give us some guidelines:
All-time Great = top-25 all time.
Great = 26-50 all time
Very Good = 51 - 100 all time.

etc etc

If you use my guideline above, I would call Lebron an All-Time Great.

[Goldrush25]

Absolutely correct, which is strange coming from an LSU corndog.
True nonetheless.

Give us some guidelines:
All-time Great = top-25 all time.
Great = 26-50 all time
Very Good = 51 - 100 all time.

etc etc

If you use my guideline above, I would call Lebron an All-Time Great.

Right.

And I just rep LSU because I grew up in BR. I'm actually a University of Washington alum.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Right.

And I just rep LSU because I grew up in BR. I'm actually a University of Washington alum.

I'm a Tenn Vol fan, so I had to bust on the LSU fan.
That said, I much prefer LSU over the likes of Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and a few others.

One day I will go to a game at LSU since its supposed to be a great venue. Also want to go see UW...supposed to be beautiful campus.

[Clifton]

He is by far the best player I've seen who manages not to be great at the same time.
I see what you're saying, and I think I agree, partially.

I do think you're going a bit overboard though. The fact is, a lot of players' legacies owe a lot to revisionist history. Only MJ actually was that good. Bird and Magic both had several ineffective playoff series, and Finals series. (And the greatest teammates any player has ever been gifted with.) Barkley shot his team out of several series; Malone failed to deliver numerous times. David Robinson had empty stats accusations until Duncan helped him redeem himself. Oscar, Kobe, and Wilt are often dismissed as ballhogs / chuckers / selfish players who couldn't win on their own. Shaq took quite a while to advance deep into the playoffs, and only did it with another top 5 player. He was lazy, had a bad attitude, seldom in great shape. Kareem has been knocked as a mediocre teammate who slacked on the boards. Russell is often dismissed for his great teams, lack of competition, and offensive averageness. Duncan has had a great system his whole life, and has never really had to carry a team on offense.

There are great players and there are great competitors. Being a great player is more important, I'd say. There are a lot of great competitors who simply never were paired with a great player and so never had a chance on the big stage. Jason Terry and Manu are great competitors, but they're not as good, or as great, as a guy like Lebron, or even Malone, or even someone like Drexler. Greatness is necessary; competitiveness and drive are the luxury that get you over the hump.

There is nothing Kevin Durant can do, for example, to ever be better or greater than Lebron. No matter how much more clutch he is, how much more fiery and competitive, he's still not as great.

[poido123]

Lebron teases you with great, a bit like a mirage in the desert. Looks great from afar, but as you move closer, it disappears.

[Mr. Jabbar]

Lebron teases you with great, a bit like a mirage in the desert. Looks great from afar, but as you move closer, it disappears.

:roll:

[Mr Exlax]

I say great. Get him a good coach and a second option that actually compliments his game. Every player is only as good as the team around him. I'm not a big fan of this Heat team though. Not the way it's built. They rely too much on one player to me. No matter how great, he shouldn't be leading in rebounds, points and assists and then being the defensive anchor on the other end. Unless he's a Center, but then I would imagine he's not gonna be the facilitator for the offense. It's just bad for him. He's so good that he masks holes for your team until you come across a good coach in a series that can expose all the flaws in the team.

[KG215]

I say great. Get him a good coach and a second option that actually compliments his game.
:confusedshrug:

But LeBron chose his own second option.

[dh144498]

I say great. Get him a good coach and a second option that actually compliments his game. Every player is only as good as the team around him. I'm not a big fan of this Heat team though. Not the way it's built. They rely too much on one player to me. No matter how great, he shouldn't be leading in rebounds, points and assists and then being the defensive anchor on the other end. Unless he's a Center, but then I would imagine he's not gonna be the facilitator for the offense. It's just bad for him. He's so good that he masks holes for your team until you come across a good coach in a series that can expose all the flaws in the team.

why don't we just give lebron every single superstar in the league? He has already been gifted 2 and he turned them into role players.

[Clifton]

Lebron teases you with great, a bit like a mirage in the desert. Looks great from afar, but as you move closer, it disappears.
No, it gives you 25/8/7 and contends for a title every season, no matter what his team looks like. That's something only a few guys in history can give you.

What we're basically hating on Lebron for here is not being MJ. Give Lebron teammates like McHale/Parish/DJ, or like Worthy/Kareem, or Pippen, and a coach like Riley/Auerbach/Jackson, and he'd have a resume at least as strong as Magic and Bird do; and the only players with better overall resumes than those two are MJ and Kareem.

I think Lebron still has a chance to be the 3rd greatest ever, with an argument for 2nd. But certain things need to go right for him. Have you seen what Rick Carlisle has done throughout his career, getting the most out of players and maximizing their talent? What he did for Dirk, turning him from a wandering jumpshooter to one of the greatest midrange and post offensive threats of all time? If he gets the same opportunity to maximize and regulate Lebron's game, he'll win a title every year.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

No, it gives you 25/8/7 and contends for a title every season, no matter what his team looks like. That's something only a few guys in history can give you.

What we're basically hating on Lebron for here is not being MJ. Give Lebron teammates like McHale/Parish/DJ, or like Worthy/Kareem, or Pippen, and a coach like Riley/Auerbach/Jackson, and he'd have a resume at least as strong as Magic and Bird do; and the only players with better overall resumes than those two are MJ and Kareem.

I think Lebron still has a chance to be the 3rd greatest ever, with an argument for 2nd. But certain things need to go right for him. Have you seen what Rick Carlisle has done throughout his career, getting the most out of players and maximizing their talent? What he did for Dirk, turning him from a wandering jumpshooter to one of the greatest midrange and post offensive threats of all time? If he gets the same opportunity to maximize and regulate Lebron's game, he'll win a title every year.

I agree with you in principal, but lets not talk about "teammates".
He has TWO studs on his team, both in their primes, and both may be HOF locks (one certainly is). They were recently ranked the 6th and 18th best players in the game. Further he has one of the all-time great shooters coming off the BENCH.
Lets not pretend he is not surrounded with PLENTY of talent:
Lets not forget: "not 1, not 2, not 3, etc etc

[Clifton]

I agree with you in principal, but lets not talk about "teammates".
He has TWO studs on his team, both in their primes, and both may be HOF locks (one certainly is). They were recently ranked the 6th and 18th best players in the game. Further he has one of the all-time great shooters coming off the BENCH.
Lets not pretend he is not surrounded with PLENTY of talent:
Lets not forget: "not 1, not 2, not 3, etc etc
Yes, he does have a very good team. And he's made the Finals 3 years in a row, won once, maybe won twice.

He's done what he had to, but he's not excelled that and all-out dominated. Again, we can say that he should have won all 3, but to my mind, the only guy who ever showed that he won each and every single time he was supposed to is MJ. A more knowledgeable historian can correct me if I'm wrong.

And of course Wade at 30 and Bosh aren't as good as the players MJ, Bird, and Magic had. (methinks his competition at the top isn't as strong either, of course.)

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Yes, he does have a very good team. And he's made the Finals 3 years in a row, won once, maybe won twice.

He's done what he had to, but he's not excelled that and all-out dominated. Again, we can say that he should have won all 3, but to my mind, the only guy who ever showed that he won each and every single time he was supposed to is MJ. A more knowledgeable historian can correct me if I'm wrong.

And of course Wade at 30 and Bosh aren't as good as the players MJ, Bird, and Magic had. (methinks his competition at the top isn't as strong either, of course.)

Wade at 30 is considered the 6th best player in the world.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9144675/#nbarank-player-ratings-16-20

Kobe won 2 in a row with an aging Gasol and ODOM as the 3rd best player.

Lebron can still win this series and still be the Finals MVP. I would not be surprised if both happened. Wade is playing very very well. Ray Allen is playing great. This is a long way from over.

[Carbine]

I see what you're saying, and I think I agree, partially.

I do think you're going a bit overboard though. The fact is, a lot of players' legacies owe a lot to revisionist history. Only MJ actually was that good. Bird and Magic both had several ineffective playoff series, and Finals series. (And the greatest teammates any player has ever been gifted with.) Barkley shot his team out of several series; Malone failed to deliver numerous times. David Robinson had empty stats accusations until Duncan helped him redeem himself. Oscar, Kobe, and Wilt are often dismissed as ballhogs / chuckers / selfish players who couldn't win on their own. Shaq took quite a while to advance deep into the playoffs, and only did it with another top 5 player. He was lazy, had a bad attitude, seldom in great shape. Kareem has been knocked as a mediocre teammate who slacked on the boards. Russell is often dismissed for his great teams, lack of competition, and offensive averageness. Duncan has had a great system his whole life, and has never really had to carry a team on offense.

There are great players and there are great competitors. Being a great player is more important, I'd say. There are a lot of great competitors who simply never were paired with a great player and so never had a chance on the big stage. Jason Terry and Manu are great competitors, but they're not as good, or as great, as a guy like Lebron, or even Malone, or even someone like Drexler. Greatness is necessary; competitiveness and drive are the luxury that get you over the hump.

There is nothing Kevin Durant can do, for example, to ever be better or greater than Lebron. No matter how much more clutch he is, how much more fiery and competitive, he's still not as great.

Well that's just not true. Go study the 1999 Spurs, or the 2003 Spurs.

[Carbine]

LeBron is great. He's the best player in the world, one of the five best players I've seen on an individual basis... the expectations for him are absurd, unlike anything I've ever seen. He's not allowed to have a bad game, or bad series....otherwise he gets absolutely killed and has his greatness questioned.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

LeBron is great. He's the best player in the world, one of the five best players I've seen on an individual basis... the expectations for him are absurd, unlike anything I've ever seen. He's not allowed to have a bad game, or bad series....otherwise he gets absolutely killed and has his greatness questioned.

If you shoot 36% and avg SIX turnovers per game in the Finals, then you deserved to get killed and have your greatness questioned.

If you disappeared in every 4th quarter in the Finals, then you deserved to get killed and have your greatness questioned.

[Carbine]

He deserves flake for 2011, he didn't perform well at all.... it will forever be a taint on his resume..... but nobody is perfect. Basically everyone has blemishes on their resume.

Kobe "quit" in game 7 vs. the Suns.
Game 7 blunder
2004 Finals

Bird has had some bad series/bad moments.

"Magic Tragic Johnson"

At the end of the day he'll never be Jordan. He'll never be Magic.

He'll only be LeBron James, the best player of his era and depending on how many titles, might be argued as the GOAT or a |just" a top 10 player.

[Ai2death]

If you shoot 36% and avg SIX turnovers per game in the Finals, then you deserved to get killed and have your greatness questioned.

If you disappeared in every 4th quarter in the Finals, then you deserved to get killed and have your greatness questioned.

If you flop like a biatch and you're 6'8 250lbs then you are not great, you are a biatch.

Dude is good, but not great... can he turn it around? only time will tell

[Rondo]

He's an exceptional talent. There's no more than a handful of players in the history of the game whose talent exceeds LeBron's. Depends how you determine "greatness". In American sports it seems to be how much you win.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

If you flop like a biatch and you're 6'8 250lbs then you are not great, you are a biatch.

Dude is good, but not great... can he turn it around? only time will tell

Serious question: do you think Lebron is top 25 all time?

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

He deserves flake for 2011, he didn't perform well at all.... it will forever be a taint on his resume..... but nobody is perfect. Basically everyone has blemishes on their resume.

Kobe "quit" in game 7 vs. the Suns.
Game 7 blunder
2004 Finals

Bird has had some bad series/bad moments.

"Magic Tragic Johnson"

At the end of the day he'll never be Jordan. He'll never be Magic.

He'll only be LeBron James, the best player of his era and depending on how many titles, might be argued as the GOAT or a |just" a top 10 player.

I think you will agree that not one of the guys you mentioned wet their pants in the Finals like Lebron did.....TWICE

[Kellogs4toniee]

I say great. Get him a good coach and a second option that actually compliments his game. Every player is only as good as the team around him. I'm not a big fan of this Heat team though. Not the way it's built. They rely too much on one player to me. No matter how great, he shouldn't be leading in rebounds, points and assists and then being the defensive anchor on the other end. Unless he's a Center, but then I would imagine he's not gonna be the facilitator for the offense. It's just bad for him. He's so good that he masks holes for your team until you come across a good coach in a series that can expose all the flaws in the team.


Excuses excuses excuses. He CHOSE his second and third option, knowing full well the power he would have in catering this team to his needs. This team is entirely molded based on Lebron.

People forget how ridiculous they were in the regular season, when no one was mentioning the flaws of the team. All of a sudden they have a hiccup and it's he's doing too much? Here's a thought, if you want to be the King and an all-time great how about you work around the flaws and play at the very least up to your regular season levels. You don't think Riley, Sloan, Poppovich game planned to exploit any possible weaknesses during there finals series against Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem? Your in your prime, your posting records in the regular season, this team is entirely built around you now... time to step up.

Granted he hasn't played bad, but def not up to the standards. It's just ridiculous when people are still coming back with "get him this, get him that, he needs this, he needs a better coach, he needs this type of player." FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS THIS TEAM HAS CATERED AND BEEN BUILT SPECIFICALLY FOR HIM. No more excuses.

[DCL]

super talent with some heart issues.

would like to see more swings from him when he's challenged.

despite winning or losing, he should be giving people the impression that this mothafugga left it all out there and played like he refused to lose. but that element is sometimes missing, and that's one of the elements that defines true greatness.

comes back to ISH's favorite two words: street hunger.

[RedBaller]

1st post whoa

I feel you OP.

LeBron is probably top 10 all time at the end of his career, but even in these past 10 years, there are only a few moments that I can think of where he was truly heroic.

Statistically and resume wise, LeBron has a shot at being the GOAT if he can snag some more rings, but his game doesn't really wow you. I've seen LeBron live a few times and watched him on TV just as often, very rarely am I left walking away saying "Damn! LeBron is a beast!" That's why a lot of the story lines are about obscure stats that aren't really amazing to watch, but amazing to reflect on. Like when he had that streak of shooting 60% from the field or when he went X games without a foul.

I think instead of using the word "great" you should use the term "heroic"

LeBron doesn't have many "heroic" moments in his career, which makes sense given that's how he plays. LeBron will more often than not make the right play, but when it comes time for heroics we seldom see him. I can only think of 2 or 3 times he was truly heroic (Detroit and Boston last year).

It seems like the "great" you are defining in this thread is more heroics. We are accustomed to seeing our GOATs also have many heroic moments to help define their career. Things like Hakeem shitting on The Admiral and Ewing. Kobe's late game heroics earning him the clutch reputation he has even if the stats don't back it. Jordan's flu-game. Magic starting at center. Bird dropping 60. Reggie against the Knicks etc. etc.

LeBron is one of the best players we've ever seen, but he is so willing to defer that we don't see the amount of heroics that other very very good players have. For all of his statistical achievements, there are lesser players that have had many greater, heroic moments.

[OldSchoolBBall]

The Spurs team are better than any team (I am not talking about a single year or two but a sustained effort) than any team the Bulls faced..

Yeah...you're a moron. :oldlol:

[KG215]

Yeah...you're a moron. :oldlol:
I mean you could argue they are as good or better than one or two of the teams Jordan beat in the Finals (probably have the best case over the '91 Lakers). But to claim they're just flatout better than all of them? :oldlol:

[IGOTGAME]

Yeah...you're a moron. :oldlol:
This. Actually, I'm curious as to what team isn't better than this Spurs team? 91 lakers? This Spurs team isn't even healthy, their best player is limping through the entire series...

[KG215]

This. Actually, I'm curious as to what team isn't better than this Spurs team? 91 lakers? This Spurs team isn't even healthy, their best player is limping through the entire series...
I do think this Spurs team would give the '91 Lakers a run for their money and possibly beat them.

I'll link the thread, but I watched the '91 Finals last year and made some notes. Mike Fratello was one of the commentators and, at one point, he said most considered the balance of power to be in the West that year. He noted that the Blazers were actually considered the best team in the NBA that season, and the Lakers beating them in the WCF was an upset. He also said something along the lines of people thinking the Lakers might even beat the Bulls since they had just beaten the team most were picking to win it all; sounded kind of similar to everyone picking OKC to win last year right after the WCF because they had just beat the team with the best record and were blitzing their way through the playoffs.

In both instances that kind of looks silly in hindsight because in 2012 and 1991 the Heat and Bulls had by far the best player in the league, and a very good supporting cast for that player. And I don't know if the things Fratello was saying really was popular opinion at the time, or if he was just talking about of his ass.

And the Lakers were a bit like the Spurs this year in that they still had some great players, but they were at the end of or past their prime. Worthy and Byron Scott were hobbled and they even missed a game (game 5) in the series. So I could definitely seen an argument for the 2013 Spurs being better than 1991 Lakers. As for the other 5 teams Jordan beat in the Finals, though, it'd take some serious convincing for me to believe this version of the Spurs was clear-cut better.

Here's the thread...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275571

[Solid Snake]

Replace the word "great" in every post in this thread with the word "clutch," and I just summed up Elementally School's idea in one sentence.

[The Iron Fist]

There are a couple of misconceptions about lebron. People always say hes the most talented, or the most skilled. Both are completely false. He has the most physical ability, but far from the most talented or skilled. There is a huge difference in being talented and skilled and being born with incredible physical ability. He can do amazing things with what hes blessed with, but when push comes to shove, more often than not, he'll fold mentally. That to me, is why hes not a great player. Very good, but missing the mark when it comes to greatness. There is no complete and perfect player, in any sport. Everyone has their flaws. Lebron is no different. His flaw however, has been put on the biggest stage of the NBA and has exposed him.

[LeBird]

Yeah...you're a moron. :oldlol:


I mean you could argue they are as good or better than one or two of the teams Jordan beat in the Finals (probably have the best case over the '91 Lakers). But to claim they're just flatout better than all of them? :oldlol:

Which team? None of them managed a sustained effort in the Bulls winning era bar the Jazz. Either you can't read or you don't know jack about basketball.

[I.R.Beast]

I agree.
His statlines are grat but his game doen't give off the sensation of dominance or that 'everything is possible with this guy', at least not very often.
That's why i have a lot of problems of putting him ahead of Bird in the all time SF list, even if he wins more or with better averages.
Couldnt agree more. The boxscores indicates greatness but the performance lacks the impact. You don't really the the Big impact points the 10 straight points in key moments etc... He just has the steady game....

[KG215]

Which team? None of them managed a sustained effort in the Bulls winning era bar the Jazz. Either you can't read or you don't know jack about basketball.
I think I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by "sustained effort". Are you implying the Spurs success over the last decade or so somehow makes this team even better?

[PickernRoller]

LeBird going full retard.

Never, EVER, go full retard!.

[LeBird]

I think I'm just misunderstanding what you mean by "sustained effort". Are you implying the Spurs success over the last decade or so somehow makes this team even better?

Of course it does. A team that still has its championship winning components, that are still playing at a high level, that have added complimentary players and who are being drilled by one of the GOAT coaches undoubtedly makes a difference.

Across all sports, experience matters and a culture of winning is a huge component of success. If you replaced the Spurs with basically a clone of the same team but without that experience then they'd never make it this far. This current Spurs team is one game from beating a stacked Heat team. One that is definitely better than those teams the Bulls faced.

I mean you bring up Portland...they should never be in the same sentence as this Miami or Spurs. They're just a good team from that era that had a short spike.

[KG215]

Of course it does. A team that still has its championship winning components, that are still playing at a high level, that have added complimentary players and who are being drilled by one of the GOAT coaches undoubtedly makes a difference.

Across all sports, experience matters and a culture of winning is a huge component of success. If you replaced the Spurs with basically a clone of the same team but without that experience then they'd never make it this far. This current Spurs team is one game from beating a stacked Heat team. One that is definitely better than those teams the Bulls faced.

I mean you bring up Portland...they should never be in the same sentence as thus Miami or Spurs. They're just a team from that era that had a short spike.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. So a team that didn't have "sustained effort" and a short spike can't be as good as team that did have "sustained effort"? Get the f**k outta here with that nonsense.

[KobeClutchAsFK]

Of course it does. A team that still has its championship winning components, that are still playing at a high level, that have added complimentary players and who are being drilled by one of the GOAT coaches undoubtedly makes a difference.

Across all sports, experience matters and a culture of winning is a huge component of success. If you replaced the Spurs with basically a clone of the same team but without that experience then they'd never make it this far. This current Spurs team is one game from beating a stacked Heat team. One that is definitely better than those teams the Bulls faced.

I mean you bring up Portland...they should never be in the same sentence as this Miami or Spurs. They're just a good team from that era that had a short spike.

:biggums:

[KG215]

Also, what defines "sustained effort" in your opinion? Because it's not like the teams Jordan played and beat in the Finals were one year flash-in-the pan flukes. The '91 Lakers actually share some similarities with this Spurs team in that they still had some top-notch players with a championship pedigree on their last legs. They just didn't have the legendary coach there to back them anymore.

But let's look at the other teams:

Blazers
1990: 59-23, lost in the Finals
1991: 63-19, lost in the WCF
1992: 57-25, lost in the Finals

Suns
1992: 53-29, lost in the 2nd round
1993: 62-20, lost in the Finals
1994: 56-26, lost in the 2nd round
1995: 59-23, lost in the 2nd round

And the Suns also had some players leftover in '93 from a team that made back-to-back WCF in '88 and '89.

Sonics
1993: 55-27, lost in the WCF
1994: 63-19, lost in the 1st round
1995: 57-25, lost in the 1st round
1996: 64-18, lost in the Finals
1997: 57-25, lost in the 2nd round
1998: 61-21, lost in the 2nd round


And you pointed out the Jazz who made 3 WCF and the Finals 2 other times in a 7-year span. I mean you're acting like just because the teams Jordan beat in the Finals didn't win a championship at any other time, they can't be as good as an older Spurs team. But the fact of the matter is that those teams were good, consistent playoff teams at the time. This notion that just because some of them had "short spikes" of success, so they can't be as good as the 2013 Spurs is absurd logic.

Do you think this Spurs team would have beaten any of Jordan's Bulls teams? Because all of those teams but the '91 Lakers pushed them to 6-games; and in some instances, lost very close games that could've pushed the series in their favor. It's not like the Bulls were sweeping all of them or winning easy 5 game series.

[KyleKong]

i would say his stats and accomplishments are top 12 all time


and his actual level of play is around top 30-40 all time


hes the biggest overachiver in nba history. never seen a guy succeed so much with so little


for a guy who cant shoot a mid range jumper, cant go left, cant hit clutch shots, cant play big when it counts to have 4 mvps, 1 finals mvp and 1 title is very impressive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd4YgudTcnM

[AirFederer]

super talent with some heart issues.

would like to see more swings from him when he's challenged.

despite winning or losing, he should be giving people the impression that this mothafugga left it all out there and played like he refused to lose. but that element is sometimes missing, and that's one of the elements that defines true greatness.

comes back to ISH's favorite two words: street hunger.

This.

Unbelieveable talent. Excellent court vision, the perfect NBA body.
As the great player that he surely is, he has some issues.

He doesn`t seem to have that desperate hunger to win. He`s okay as long as his stats are nice it seems at times. Like he would rather rack up assists in the Finals than take it strong to the hole, and take over himself. Sometimes that is necessary. Lead by example doesn`t come naturally for him.

He`s also afraid of contact. When touched he often flops or calls for a foul, whining. With his body I cannot understand why he doesn`t play more off the ball, get positioned down low, one drop step and dunk :pimp:

He needs to develop a go to post move and utilize it. Ne needs to take those shots given to him. He needs to know when to go for the assist and when to take over, and impose himself on the game.

He also seems flat foted oustside of uncontested fast breaks, like he has a very average to feet jump. This surprises me. Both Kobe and MJ would go relentlessly to the hole, take contact.

Lebron often seems passive or disinterested. In game 5 he was invisible for long stretches.

He has not answered his critics so far this series, obviosly. He needs to deliver more in game 6. He needs to back up his talk.

[Jacks3]

Wonder what what people will say after he gets his second straight Championship...

[OldSchoolBBall]

Which team? None of them managed a sustained effort in the Bulls winning era bar the Jazz. Either you can't read or you don't know jack about basketball.

You clearly don't know jack about basketball if you think that this team is better than every team Jordan beat during their 6 title years. Off the top of my head, the '91 Pistons, '92 Blazers and Cavs, '93 Knicks/Suns/Cavs, '96 Magic/Sonics, '97 Jazz, and '98 Pacers/Jazz would all beat this San Antonio team. Jordan's Bulls would MURDER this SA team in 5 or 6 games.

If Manu/Duncan were 2007 Manu/Duncan, that may be a different story. But they're not.

[Blue&Orange]

Wonder what what people will say after he gets his second straight Championship...
:lol

refs + Chalmers, Battier and Miller going crazy from 3pt land and again this year getting carried and only showing up in garbage time when spurs bench is playing doesn't equal Lebron "getting" a championship.

IF we go down that road, soon it will be, let's talk about how Horry "got" those championships.


It's hilarious how stans still think Lebron legacy isn't tarnished already.

[Kevin_Gamble]

Plenty of great players didn't win a single championship. Was Charles Barkley a great player?

No, he was a grab my stats and check out player.

[Jacks3]

:lol



IF we go down that road, soon it will be, let's talk about how Horry "got" those championships.


:roll:

[plowking]

Very good.

Great is someone like Jordan or Shaq who dominates night in and night out.

Lebron does exactly that.

He may just be the most consistent player of all time.

[Asukal]

Of course it does. A team that still has its championship winning components, that are still playing at a high level, that have added complimentary players and who are being drilled by one of the GOAT coaches undoubtedly makes a difference.

Across all sports, experience matters and a culture of winning is a huge component of success. If you replaced the Spurs with basically a clone of the same team but without that experience then they'd never make it this far. This current Spurs team is one game from beating a stacked Heat team. One that is definitely better than those teams the Bulls faced.

I mean you bring up Portland...they should never be in the same sentence as this Miami or Spurs. They're just a good team from that era that had a short spike.

:biggums:

You and your obvious agenda to disparage Jordan. :facepalm

It is fine if you think Bird is GOAT but what you are doing right now is Kobe stan level of stupidity... :facepalm

[Asukal]

Lebron does exactly that.

He may just be the most consistent player of all time.

Consistently bad in the finals? :confusedshrug:

[pauk]

Well... considering nobody has accomplished overall more (not even Jordan) at Lebrons current age and considering nobody but Jordan has somewhat accomplished more than Lebron in these 9 seasons i would say Lebron is not great or very good.... he just sucks.......

[pauk]

Consistently bad in the finals? :confusedshrug:

What is bad? These last two Finals runs he averaged ~26-10-7... do you expect a 40 point quadruple double each time he is in Finals or something?

Ofcourse... he is not as good as Danny Green.... but.... who was?

[plowking]

Consistently bad in the finals? :confusedshrug:

Not as consistent as your poor posting.

[KG215]

What is bad? These last two Finals runs he averaged ~26-10-7... do you expect a 40 point quadruple double each time he is in Finals or something?

Ofcourse... he is not as good as Danny Green.... but.... who was?
If you think he's been anything other than just decent in these Finals (he's certainly not been anything close to great), then you really are as delusional as I thought.

[KG215]

:biggums:

You and your obvious agenda to disparage Jordan. :facepalm

It is fine if you think Bird is GOAT but what you are doing right now is Kobe stan level of stupidity... :facepalm
I'm pretty sure he's just making that "sustained effort" shit up. I've never heard anyone say something like that in regards to why a team is great.

[Asukal]

Stay consistently mad flop king stans. :roll:

[BoutPractice]

Anyone who's pulled off games like G7 against Detroit and G6 against Boston is most definitely "great". Only a few players in history have been able to almost single-handedly win playoff games, and LeBron is one of them.

Is he always great when it counts? Far from it. Has he shown the ability to be? Absolutely.

[ripthekik]

damn, plowking getting on pauk's level :oldlol:

lebron has been absolutely awful this finals.. he has been MIA in games 3 and 5. The rest? he played pretty average. He's just statpadded like crazy so guys like you can quote his stats, but anyone that watches the games knows he has absolutely no influence. 1/10 at the 2nd half while guarded by Diaw? any explanation? His teammates didn't do enough?

Dude has look shook multiple times this playoffs and finals, it's almost embarrassing.

[LeBird]

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. So a team that didn't have "sustained effort" and a short spike can't be as good as team that did have "sustained effort"? Get the f**k outta here with that nonsense.

Great retort. A sustained effort means that it was an actual team that challenged for more than a year or two. If OKC go away and never challenge then they aren't considered a great team.

The 90s were filled with this kind of team.


Also, what defines "sustained effort" in your opinion? Because it's not like the teams Jordan played and beat in the Finals were one year flash-in-the pan flukes. The '91 Lakers actually share some similarities with this Spurs team in that they still had some top-notch players with a championship pedigree on their last legs. They just didn't have the legendary coach there to back them anymore.

But let's look at the other teams:

Blazers
1990: 59-23, lost in the Finals
1991: 63-19, lost in the WCF
1992: 57-25, lost in the Finals

Suns
1992: 53-29, lost in the 2nd round
1993: 62-20, lost in the Finals
1994: 56-26, lost in the 2nd round
1995: 59-23, lost in the 2nd round

And the Suns also had some players leftover in '93 from a team that made back-to-back WCF in '88 and '89.

Sonics
1993: 55-27, lost in the WCF
1994: 63-19, lost in the 1st round
1995: 57-25, lost in the 1st round
1996: 64-18, lost in the Finals
1997: 57-25, lost in the 2nd round
1998: 61-21, lost in the 2nd round


And you pointed out the Jazz who made 3 WCF and the Finals 2 other times in a 7-year span. I mean you're acting like just because the teams Jordan beat in the Finals didn't win a championship at any other time, they can't be as good as an older Spurs team. But the fact of the matter is that those teams were good, consistent playoff teams at the time. This notion that just because some of them had "short spikes" of success, so they can't be as good as the 2013 Spurs is absurd logic.


I'm glad you took the time to look at the records themselves to see why they were NOT great sides or worthy of being compared to these Spurs.

The only team that had a sustained title-challenging effort were the Jazz and many think they were even better in the 80s. As aforesaid; I'd say Lakers at a stretch but the finals that Jordan beat them they were a shadow of their previous team and two of their important components were injured.



Do you think this Spurs team would have beaten any of Jordan's Bulls teams? Because all of those teams but the '91 Lakers pushed them to 6-games; and in some instances, lost very close games that could've pushed the series in their favor. It's not like the Bulls were sweeping all of them or winning easy 5 game series.

I am not sure, I would say the Bulls would be favourites. But that isn't the point: it was that they were better than the teams the Bulls tended to face in the finals.

The initial discussion was about how bad it would have been for Lebron's reputation or 'greatness' to lose to these Spurs but the reality is that this Spurs team is the best of its generation. Even this older version of it is a formidable team.

And as I also said (I'm beginning to think you can't or don't read), I said that I would say it is debatable whether if those single teams would beat this Spurs team or not. What I said is NOT debatable is that in general that Spurs have been a far more notable adversary for Lebron than any of those 90s teams were for Jordan. In terms of legacy talk, it is less damaging to lose to such a team.

[TheMan]

Great retort. A sustained effort means that it was an actual team that challenged for more than a year or two. If OKC go away and never challenge then they aren't considered a great team.

The 90s were filled with this kind of team.



I'm glad you took the time to look at the records themselves to see why they were NOT great sides or worthy of being compared to these Spurs.

The only team that had a sustained title-challenging effort were the Jazz and many think they were even better in the 80s. As aforesaid; I'd say Lakers at a stretch but the finals that Jordan beat them they were a shadow of their previous team and two of their important components were injured.



I am not sure, I would say the Bulls would be favourites. But that isn't the point: it was that they were better than the teams the Bulls tended to face in the finals.

The initial discussion was about how bad it would have been for Lebron's reputation or 'greatness' to lose to these Spurs but the reality is that this Spurs team is the best of its generation. Even this older version of it is a formidable team.

And as I also said (I'm beginning to think you can't or don't read), I said that I would say it is debatable whether if those single teams would beat this Spurs team or not. What I said is NOT debatable is that in general that Spurs have been a far more notable adversary for Lebron than any of those 90s teams were for Jordan. In terms of legacy talk, it is less damaging to lose to such a team.
Yea because Jordan >>> El BJ

Gotta come heavy or not at all if you want to beat the GOAT:rockon:

[TheMan]

Amazing that El BJ stans are actually arguing in this thread that their mancrush isn't underperforming:facepalm

[LeBird]

Yea because Jordan >>> El BJ

While that's true; it is not because of that in this discussion.

What would be worse for legacy? Bird losing to the Lakers or losing to the Rockets in the 80s?

It is undoubtedly the latter, even if for that one year the Rockets beat the Lakers and had a great run.

[bluechox2]

lebron actually is a great 2nd option, he needs someone else to set the stage for him, wade used to do it, has tried really hard in this series but hasnt met the threshold yet

[sportjames23]

Great retort. A sustained effort means that it was an actual team that challenged for more than a year or two. If OKC go away and never challenge then they aren't considered a great team.

The 90s were filled with this kind of team.



I'm glad you took the time to look at the records themselves to see why they were NOT great sides or worthy of being compared to these Spurs.

The only team that had a sustained title-challenging effort were the Jazz and many think they were even better in the 80s. As aforesaid; I'd say Lakers at a stretch but the finals that Jordan beat them they were a shadow of their previous team and two of their important components were injured.



I am not sure, I would say the Bulls would be favourites. But that isn't the point: it was that they were better than the teams the Bulls tended to face in the finals.

The initial discussion was about how bad it would have been for Lebron's reputation or 'greatness' to lose to these Spurs but the reality is that this Spurs team is the best of its generation. Even this older version of it is a formidable team.

And as I also said (I'm beginning to think you can't or don't read), I said that I would say it is debatable whether if those single teams would beat this Spurs team or not. What I said is NOT debatable is that in general that Spurs have been a far more notable adversary for Lebron than any of those 90s teams were for Jordan. In terms of legacy talk, it is less damaging to lose to such a team.


Damn, you're pathetic.

This is one of the worst Spurs teams to have made the Finals, barely getting by an underachieving Heat team, and you say they're a better adversary than the teams the Bulls faced in the Finals back in the 90s?

Fvck, your Jordan hate has made you foolish.

[LeBird]

Damn, you're pathetic.

This is one of the worst Spurs teams to have made the Finals, barely getting by an underachieving Heat team, and you say they're a better adversary than the teams the Bulls faced in the Finals back in the 90s?

Fvck, your Jordan hate has made you foolish.

This Heat team that made the 2nd longest winning streak in NBA history, 66 wins, which was supposed to win without a hitch, is losing to this 'poor Spurs team'.

This is the negative side-effect of Jordan, morons like the above can't recognise a well-constructed unit based on team play.

[sportjames23]

No, he was a grab my stats and check out player.


You seriously think this about Sir Charles? :biggums:

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Allow me to conclude this thread:

Even the Lebron haters would agree that Lebron is top 25 all time, correct?
After all, he has 1 fMVP and 3 league MVPs and has been named All-NBA and All-Defense multiple times. Correct?

Thus, if he is top 25 all time, then he MUST be deemed "Great", even by the haters. Dayum, even if he was merely top-50, he MUST be deemed "Great".

End thread. You are welcome.

[TheMan]

Lebron teases you with great, a bit like a mirage in the desert. Looks great from afar, but as you move closer, it disappears.
:applause:

[KG215]

Great retort. A sustained effort means that it was an actual team that challenged for more than a year or two. If OKC go away and never challenge then they aren't considered a great team.

The 90s were filled with this kind of team.



I'm glad you took the time to look at the records themselves to see why they were NOT great sides or worthy of being compared to these Spurs.

The only team that had a sustained title-challenging effort were the Jazz and many think they were even better in the 80s. As aforesaid; I'd say Lakers at a stretch but the finals that Jordan beat them they were a shadow of their previous team and two of their important components were injured.



I am not sure, I would say the Bulls would be favourites. But that isn't the point: it was that they were better than the teams the Bulls tended to face in the finals.

The initial discussion was about how bad it would have been for Lebron's reputation or 'greatness' to lose to these Spurs but the reality is that this Spurs team is the best of its generation. Even this older version of it is a formidable team.

And as I also said (I'm beginning to think you can't or don't read), I said that I would say it is debatable whether if those single teams would beat this Spurs team or not. What I said is NOT debatable is that in general that Spurs have been a far more notable adversary for Lebron than any of those 90s teams were for Jordan. In terms of legacy talk, it is less damaging to lose to such a team.
:facepalm

First off, thank you for questioning my reading ability. You never clarified what you meant by "sustained effort", so I had no clue what you were implying. So I can just as easily say you do a terrible job of conveying your point. If "sustained effort" was something I heard more frequently in basketball discussion, I might've known what you meant.

As for losing to this team being less damaging to his legacy, that would be fine and all if he hadn't just pulled a major disappearing act in the Finals just 2 years ago and was currently sitting a 1-for-3 all-time in the Finals. Given that he hasn't even come remotely close to even flirting with greatness in this series, and that he has been nothing more than below average (by his standards), losing this series would do damage to his legacy.

And it would be more damaging than, say, had Jordan won in '91 and 92, but lost in '93, even though that Suns team didn't have the same "sustained effort" thing going for them like the Spurs.

[LeBird]

:facepalm

First off, thank you for questioning my reading ability. You never clarified what you meant by "sustained effort", so I had no clue what you were implying. So I can just as easily say you do a terrible job of conveying your point. If "sustained effort" was something I heard more frequently in basketball discussion, I might've known what you meant.

Read my posts, I clearly did.


As for losing to this team being less damaging to his legacy, that would be fine and all if he hadn't just pulled a major disappearing act in the Finals just 2 years ago and was currently sitting a 1-for-3 all-time in the Finals. Given that he hasn't even come remotely close to even flirting with greatness in this series, and that he has been nothing more than below average (by his standards), losing this series would do damage to his legacy.


He didn't play well in one final, the other final he had no business being there in the first place. That he even got there is notable.

Last year he dominated from start to finish. It isn't about him performing or not.

Even in this series, Lebron is the best player based on all facets of attacking and defending.

22/11/7 2.2 steals and 1 block per match. He is the leader or up there in basically every category. His shooting is below his usual standard but even Jordan has had a worse finals shooting performance. His defending would be too much to ask of any player not named Lebron James - he is marking both Duncan and Parker in games for crying out loud.

This isn't a case of a player not performing. He may not have performed to the standards of last year but this Spurs team is better than the OKC of last year and, even worse, they're a far better match-up in terms of personnel and size.


And it would be more damaging than, say, had Jordan won in '91 and 92, but lost in '93, even though that Suns team didn't have the same "sustained effort" thing going for them like the Spurs.

Um, what? I am not even sure what you're trying to convey here.

To sum up my posting here: Lebron is not the only player to lose a finals and as long as he finishes up with 4-5 rings he'll end up where he was going to end up anyway - in the GOAT discussion. His failings being fresh, especially in this highly publicised era, will be forgiven/forgotten in time...just as other greats' failings were.

[KG215]

This comparison is directly to Jordan, no? Jordan never had a Finals series as bad as LeBron in 2011 or even what he's done through 5 games of the 2013 Finals. It's not just that his efficiency is down. It's that he's been extremely passive most of the series, and has let a team basically employ the "we dare you to shoot" defensive strategy, and it's shaken him on the offensive end a few games. And he's had games where his defense wasn't anything to write home about, too. I don't care what the raw defensive stats say, there's been games where his on-ball defense has been very bad, and his all-around defensive performance wasn't all that good, either.

So yes, if LeBron loses this series, but still goes on to win another 3-4 rings, he would not be in the GOAT discussion when the consensus GOAT was 6-for-6 in the Finals and never came close to laying as big of an egg as LeBron did in 2011, nor did he have another poor (especially by all-time great standards) Finals like LeBron is having right now. Top 5 wouldn't be out of the question, but losing this series would effectively put to bed any GOAT discussions going forward.

[LeBird]

This comparison is directly to Jordan, no? Jordan never had a Finals series as bad as LeBron in 2011 or even what he's done through 5 games of the 2013 Finals. It's not just that his efficiency is down. It's that he's been extremely passive most of the series, and has let a team basically employ the "we dare you to shoot" defensive strategy, and it's shaken him on the offensive end a few games. And he's had games where his defense wasn't anything to write home about, too. I don't care what the raw defensive stats say, there's been games where his on-ball defense has been very bad, and his all-around defensive performance wasn't all that good, either.


I brought up Bird, Magic and Jordan and different ways they 'failed' or weren't as good to illustrate that those guys weren't perfect either. This wasn't a direct assault on Jordan, but even he has his shortcomings.

Jordan may have performed well in finals; but he did so in the weakest era in the last 30-40 years. Or if you don't agree; Jordan didn't turn his teams around or provide a net positive the way James can do with his teams - as easily depicted by his effect with the Cavs.

I like to believe in the sports I follow that I know a great deal...but the reality is if I knew as much or were as good as the players I tend to criticise then I'd have been a much better player myself. If Lebron is having trouble, it might have to do with the fact that the Spurs are employing good tactics against him. It could be that too much is being asked of him (in fact, they are doing that). There can be a myriad of reasons. Or, there could be none. Stats are facts: things that actually happened. Yes, they need context; but on the whole would you still disagree that he has been the best single player of the series?



So yes, if LeBron loses this series, but still goes on to win another 3-4 rings, he would not be in the GOAT discussion when the consensus GOAT was 6-for-6 in the Finals and never came close to laying as big of an egg as LeBron did in 2011, nor did he have another poor (especially by all-time great standards) Finals like LeBron is having right now. Top 5 wouldn't be out of the question, but losing this series would effectively put to bed any GOAT discussions going forward.

Yes, but that consensus GOAT has media-spin and an army of fanboys who pick arbitrary stats and facts to prop him up. Lebron will have those too. I mean, who the **** do people think they're kidding when they cite Jordan's title count when Bill Russell exists?

If Jordan can be considered GOAT, so too can Lebron. They may have different shortcomings, but they also have different strengths.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Jordan may have performed well in finals; but he did so in the weakest era in the last 30-40 years.

Err, no. '99-'08 and '73-'79 were both worse than the 90's, and significantly worse than '90-'93. Most knowledgeable analysts put the early-mid 00's and mid-late 70's as the low points of the NBA from a level of play perspective.

[Haymaker]

Lebron is an extremely gifted player, and yes he will be regarded as on of the greats of his era. But "The Decision" will always tarnish his reputation as having to take a shortcut to win a ring.

[guy]

So yes, if LeBron loses this series, but still goes on to win another 3-4 rings, he would not be in the GOAT discussion when the consensus GOAT was 6-for-6 in the Finals and never came close to laying as big of an egg as LeBron did in 2011, nor did he have another poor (especially by all-time great standards) Finals like LeBron is having right now. Top 5 wouldn't be out of the question, but losing this series would effectively put to bed any GOAT discussions going forward.

No it wouldn't. It would in my eyes, but for the general public it wouldn't for the same reason 2011 didn't. But I think the bigger point is how can anyone keep assuming he's going to achieve that level of success as a result of his dominance when it matters most when he's historically inconsistent when it matters most and he has these type of failures? After last year, alot of people were acting like it was a given he would get to 4-7 rings and get in that discussion. How can people continue to make this assumption given this tendency that he can't seem to fully get over, and being already 28 and 10 seasons deep?

[KG215]

I brought up Bird, Magic and Jordan and different ways they 'failed' or weren't as good to illustrate that those guys weren't perfect either. This wasn't a direct assault on Jordan, but even he has his shortcomings.

Jordan may have performed well in finals; but he did so in the weakest era in the last 30-40 years. Or if you don't agree; Jordan didn't turn his teams around or provide a net positive the way James can do with his teams - as easily depicted by his effect with the Cavs.
Nevermind that the Jordan era is better than the current NBA; are you also implying it was weaker than the 1970's, too? Come on.


I like to believe in the sports I follow that I know a great deal...but the reality is if I knew as much or were as good as the players I tend to criticise then I'd have been a much better player myself. If Lebron is having trouble, it might have to do with the fact that the Spurs are employing good tactics against him. It could be that too much is being asked of him (in fact, they are doing that). There can be a myriad of reasons. Or, there could be none. Stats are facts: things that actually happened. Yes, they need context; but on the whole would you still disagree that he has been the best single player of the series?
Has he been the best player of the series? That's debatable since Wade has outplayed him the last 2 games, and Parker and Manu outplayed him last game, too. The only game I think you can definitively say LeBron was the best player on the floor was game 1, and Parker was in the debate for that game as well.

But even if he is, what does that mean when you put it into context? Because he's certainly been far from great. I'm not going to just give him a pass for being the best player in a series when his measuring stick is "great" at this point in his career, while he's been far from great.


Yes, but that consensus GOAT has media-spin and an army of fanboys who pick arbitrary stats and facts to prop him up. Lebron will have those too. I mean, who the **** do people think they're kidding when they cite Jordan's title count when Bill Russell exists?
You're just looking for something that's either, a.) not there, or b.) contrived nonsense that doesn't really apply. Media-spin aside, Jordan played at a level in the Finals in his peak years that LeBron has yet to reach in his peak years. And, as a whole, Jordan was a better playoff performer than LeBron.

Sitting at 1-for-4 in the Finals entering his age 11th season, with one embarrassingly bad Finals disappearing act, and another where he was much closer to average than great would be damn near impossible to overcome if the measuring stick is Jordan. If not, fine, then maybe LeBron can still end his career in the GOAT discussion.


If Jordan can be considered GOAT, so too can Lebron. They may have different shortcomings, but they also have different strengths.
Jordan, by the end of his career and even up to about the same point in his career as LeBron is right now, didn't have the shortcomings LeBron had. Stop making excuses for LeBron and stop looking for bullshit excuses to downplay how great Jordan was. Jordan dominated the better part of an entire decade and won 6 championships. He put up monster stats on the biggest stage at his peak.

[LeBird]

Err, no. '99-'08 and '73-'79 were both worse than the 90's, and significantly worse than '90-'93. Most knowledgeable analysts put the early-mid 00's and mid-late 70's as the low points of the NBA from a level of play perspective.

I'd agree, for certain period in the 70s and a few years in the 00s were probably as equally weak. Disagree on 90-93. Not that much stronger, frankly. That Bulls era was definitely the weakest for a dynastic team.

[KG215]

I'd agree, for certain period in the 70s and a few years in the 00s were probably as equally weak. Disagree on 90-93. Not that much stronger, frankly. That Bulls era was definitely the weakest for a dynastic team.
So what? They still won 6 championships in 8 years. Ignoring the notion that it was some historically weak era. There were plenty of great players on very good teams challenging in their respective conferences at the time; and Jordan and his teams dominated them.

[OldSchoolBBall]

I'd agree, for certain period in the 70s and a few years in the 00s were probably as equally weak. Disagree on 90-93. Not that much stronger, frankly. That Bulls era was definitely the weakest for a dynastic team.

You're out of your mind if you don't think that '90-'93 was FAR superior to '73-'79 and '99-present (over '99-'07 EASILY). :roll:

[LeBird]

Nevermind that the Jordan era is better than the current NBA; are you also implying it was weaker than the 1970's, too? Come on.

70s I can agree. Now? No. Not to make it sound like it's the golden days now.


Has he been the best player of the series? That's debatable since Wade has outplayed him the last 2 games, and Parker and Manu outplayed him last game, too. The only game I think you can definitively say LeBron was the best player on the floor was game 1, and Parker was in the debate for that game as well.


Who cares, 2 games is 2 games. I am talking about the 5 until now. You don't have to be the best in any one game. If you're the 2nd best in 5 games and other guys have a turn at the 1st best then overall you're ahead. Who is better when all games considered? Let's be honest: Lebron.


But even if he is, what does that mean when you put it into context? Because he's certainly been far from great. I'm not going to just give him a pass for being the best player in a series when his measuring stick is "great" at this point in his career, while he's been far from great.


You put it into context: this is a dogfight with one team gaining the upper hand in one game and losing it in another. The games are full of constant streaks. No one has been consistent. And yet, Lebron has been the most consistent.

If being the best player in the NBA finals is not a 'pass mark' then you need to rethink your pass mark.



You're just looking for something that's either, a.) not there, or b.) contrived nonsense that doesn't really apply. Media-spin aside, Jordan played at a level in the Finals at his peak years that LeBron has yet to reach in his peak years. And, as a whole, Jordan was a better playoff performer than LeBron.


Jordan's finals were great. That was not what I was referring to. I am referring to the hyping up of his number of rings (which he would have won less of in another era) and certain facets of his legacy (6-for-6) to push him ahead.

But you can't draw lines - players/fans/media will create their own heroes. Heck, the NBA finals MVP is CALLED the Bill Russell award and he won 11 titles. It poops on Jordan's claim. So there is no need for Lebron to meet Jordan's feats because Jordan didn't meet Russell's.

People will redefine greatness as they've always done.


Sitting at 1-for-4 in the Finals entering his age 11th season, with one embarrassingly bad Finals disappearing act, and another where he was much closer to average than great would be damn near impossible to overcome if the measuring stick is Jordan. If not, fine, then maybe LeBron can still end his career in the GOAT discussion.


Jordan, by the end of his career and even up to about the same point in his career as LeBron is right now, didn't have the shortcomings LeBron had. Stop making excuses for LeBron and stop looking for bullshit excuses to downplay how great Jordan was. Jordan dominated the better part of an entire decade and won 6 championships. He put up monster stats on the biggest stage at his peak.

Jordan won titles in a much weaker era, when his team was far better than the opposition, with the best coach who constructed the best team.

Lebron might have stars in his team; but its a frankenstein team which still has to be carried by Lebron to be effective. Again, different contexts. Lebron doesn't have to do what Jordan did to be great, he can do it his own way - as Wilt did for himself, same with Russell, KAJ, Bird and Magic.

[LeBird]

You're out of your mind if you don't think that '90-'93 was FAR superior to '73-'79 and '99-present (over '99-'07 EASILY). :roll:

Right back atcha.


So what? They still won 6 championships in 8 years. Ignoring the notion that it was some historically weak era. There were plenty of great players on very good teams challenging in their respective conferences at the time; and Jordan and his teams dominated them.

Because he had by far the better teams. Even without him they were title contenders. Which other NBA team during that era could do that if you took away their best player? None. Case closed.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

You're out of your mind if you don't think that '90-'93 was FAR superior to '73-'79 and '99-present (over '99-'07 EASILY). :roll:

I may be mistaken, but I believe there was significant league expansion and, thereby, talent dilution, immediately prior to '90-'93.
Heat, TWolves, Magic all entered shortly before '90 ('88 -'89), thereby diluting talent, imo.

Likewise, Raptors & Gizz entered in '95, while also allowing high school kids to enter shortly thereafter, thus further weakening of the league, imo.

'90s sucked.

[KG215]

70s I can agree. Now? No. Not to make it sound like it's the golden days now.

No, the 1990's NBA was absolutely stronger than the current NBA. There were more elite/all-time great caliber players then, in their peak, than there are right now. If guys like Kobe, Duncan, and Dirk were still in their prime, fine, but they aren't. Look at the best players in the league after LeBron. While I think Duran would hold-up and, at his peak, be at least a top 5 player in the league in almost every era, we're talking about guys like Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, pas their prime Kobe and Wade, Tony Parker, and Russell Westbrook being the next best players in the league. There is nothing significantly stronger about this era than the 1990's. It's just weaker, period.


You put it into context: this is a dogfight with one team gaining the upper hand in one game and losing it in another. The games are full of constant streaks. No one has been consistent. And yet, Lebron has been the most consistent.

If being the best player in the NBA finals is not a 'pass mark' then you need to rethink your pass mark.
You're right, I'll give LeBron's so-so play by other all-time greats standards a pass, because he's been the most consistent player in a series with a ton of inconsistency.



Jordan's finals were great. That was not what I was referring to. I am referring to the hyping up of his number of rings (which he would have won less of in another era) and certain facets of his legacy (6-for-6) to push him ahead.


But you can't draw lines - players/fans/media will create their own heroes. Heck, the NBA finals MVP is CALLED the Bill Russell award and he won 11 titles. It poops on Jordan's claim. So there is no need for Lebron to meet Jordan's feats because Jordan didn't meet Russell's.
Russell is the one player I think actually has just as strong case for GOAT as Jordan. LeBron doesn't meet either of their standards yet.


People will redefine greatness as they've always done.
Yet, you go on to say this.


Jordan won titles in a much weaker era, when his team was far better than the opposition, with the best coach who constructed the best team.
You're trying to redefine Jordan's greatness by wrongly accusing him of playing in a "much" weaker era. And let's pretend it was a "much weaker era", that holds little weight when a guy wins 6 rings in that era. It's not like he sort of got lucky by a watered down league and managed to get just 2 or 3 rings. He won 6, and was great more often than not in all 6 playoff runs.


Lebron might have stars in his team; but its a frankenstein team which still has to be carried by Lebron to be affective. Again, different contexts.
The bottom-line is this. You can make-up all the excuses you want for LeBron having to carry an unfair load. He chose this team. He's been consistently underwhelming 2 of the last 3 years on the games biggest stage. That's what he's being knocked for, and that's why I can't think of any objective argument for him still being in the GOAT discussion if he loses this series and still goes on to win 3-5 rings.

[LeBird]

I may be mistaken, but I believe there was significant league expansion and, thereby, talent dilution, immediately prior to '90-'93.
Heat, TWolves, Magic all entered shortly before '90 ('88 -'89), thereby diluting talent, imo.

Likewise, Raptors & Gizz entered in '95, while also allowing high school kids to enter shortly thereafter, thus further weakening of the league, imo.

'90s sucked.

There were 4 expansion teams in 88-89 and another 2 in 95. What more, the great players in the great teams of the 80s grew old, got injured or retired. The league nose-dived during the Bulls era and the early 90s were hardly that much different to the mid-to-late 90s.

The quality of play also deteriorated dramatically as all the attention focused on Jordan's physical and individual (but exceptional) play, which killed the team-orientated play Magic and Bird brought to the fore in the 80s.

[KG215]

Right back atcha.



Because he had by far the better teams. Even without him they were title contenders. Which other NBA team during that era could do that if you took away their best player? None. Case closed.
No, they weren't. Losing the second round (questionable call or not) does not equal title contenders. They were still a very good team. Pippen was peaking. They added Kukoc and Kerr. They weren't legit title contenders in 1994.

[LeBird]

No, they weren't. Losing the second round (questionable call or not) does not equal title contenders. They were still a very good team. Pippen was peaking. They added Kukoc and Kerr. They weren't legit title contenders in 1994.

Excuse me, they were title-contenders and should have won that game and based on the play (if you watched) were definitely good enough to win.

Again: no other team during the 90s could have lost their best player (and none had a player as good as Jordan to boot) and still done all that - they only dropped 2 games from the season before.

[Charlie Sheen]

Yes. But Karl Malone was not a great player to me, although he was very very good. He may have been better than Barkley but certainly nowhere near as great.

Am I the only one seeing (or imaginig) this difference?

The mailman left a very different impression on me, and that's because he was ripping the heart out of my teams in the western conference playoffs.

[LeBird]

No, the 1990's NBA was absolutely stronger than the current NBA. There were more elite/all-time great caliber players then, in their peak, than there are right now. If guys like Kobe, Duncan, and Dirk were still in their prime, fine, but they aren't. Look at the best players in the league after LeBron. While I think Duran would hold-up and, at his peak, be at least a top 5 player in the league in almost every era, we're talking about guys like Chris Paul, Carmelo Anthony, pas their prime Kobe and Wade, Tony Parker, and Russell Westbrook being the next best players in the league. There is nothing significantly stronger about this era than the 1990's. It's just weaker, period.

Nah, not even. You're also taking a whole decade and comparing it with just this one year.


You're right, I'll give LeBron's so-so play by other all-time greats standards a pass, because he's been the most consistent player in a series with a ton of inconsistency.


Do I have to repost his stats again? They're on par with a Magic 1980.

You seem to miss the point: every finals performance doesn't have to be one of the greatest of all time. You act like anything short of that means he has failed. No. He has done well. Can he do better? Sure, but it doesn't mean he hasn't done well at all and has hence failed.



Russell is the one player I think actually has just as strong case for GOAT as Jordan. LeBron doesn't meet either of their standards yet.


Irrelevant. If you think Russell's achievements are the standard then Jordan too shouldn't be in the discussion. If you're going to create such a strict standard at least be consistent.

So, obviously, what you need to do to become the 'GOAT' is a fluid concept.


Yet, you go on to say this.

You're trying to redefine Jordan's greatness by wrongly accusing him of playing in a "much" weaker era. And let's pretend it was a "much weaker era", that holds little weight when a guy wins 6 rings in that era. It's not like he sort of got lucky by a watered down league and managed to get just 2 or 3 rings. He won 6, and was great more often than not in all 6 playoff runs.

How does it matter that I think that? The whole point is that people disagree; you're the one acting like there is only one standard.

But to your point: if Jordan plays in a tougher era and only wins 3 titles then his legacy changes. Context matters.


The bottom-line is this. You can make-up all the excuses you want for LeBron having to carry an unfair load. He chose this team. He's been consistently underwhelming 2 of the last 3 years on the games biggest stage. That's what he's being knocked for, and that's why I can't think of any objective argument for him still being in the GOAT discussion if he loses this series and still goes on to win 3-5 rings.

It doesn't matter that he chose this team. He isn't supposed to be its GM and coach, as well as its best player on both ends.

I mean, do you read what you're writing? This is an impossibly high standard you're setting that no one has reached. Even your Jordan has flaws, you just ignore them in his case.

[KG215]

Excuse me, they were title-contenders and should have won that game and based on the play (if you watched) were definitely good enough to win.

Again: no other team during the 90s could have had their best player (and none had a player as good as Jordan to boot) and still done all that - they only dropped 2 games from the season before.
This has turned into a go-to argument for LeBron stans and it's ridiculous to just assume, because they were only 2 games worse and got screwed in a game in the 2nd round, that team was legitimately still a title contender.

What do you think Miami's regular season would've been this year without LeBron? Is there anyway they still don't win 50-55 games in a weak conference? Wade was playing VERY good basketball during the 27-game win-streak until he hurt his knee. But if he's healthy, is there anyway that team doesn't, sans-LeBron, doesn't at least make the 2nd round?

My problem is that you keep bringing up how much better Jordan's team was than everyone else's in the 90's. Can the same thing not be said about LeBron's Miami teams? What other championshp contenders come close to not only matching their top-end talent (LeBron, Wade, and Bosh), but also can match their depth at the same time?

[KG215]

Nah, not even. You're also taking a whole decade and comparing it with just this one year.
Excuse me, the last 3-5 years haven't been anything special.




Do I have to repost his stats again? They're on par with a Magic 1980.
That was rookie Magic. This is supposed to be LeBron at his peak.


You seem to miss the point: every finals performance doesn't have to be one of the greatest of all time. You act like anything short of that means he has failed. No. He has done well. Can he do better? Sure, but it doesn't mean he hasn't done well at all and has hence failed.
Didn't say it does. But LeBron's Finals performance in 2011 and, as is, in 2013 aren't even that good in comparison to the standards he set. I'm not saying be "all-time great" good in every Finals; but he's at the absolute peak of his career, and he performed well below his ability in 2011 and is doing the same thing again right now. It's not as bad as 2011, but it's still nothing to write-home about for a player of his ability and caliber.



It doesn't matter that he chose this team. He isn't supposed to be its GM and coach, as well as its best player on both ends.

I mean, do you read what you're writing? This is an impossibly high standard you're setting that no one has reached. Even your Jordan has flaws, you just ignore them in his case.
And the GM has done a very good job of building a deep, veteran-laden team around him by year 3. They've got great top-end talent and very solid role players. No other contender can match them in either regard. OKC has the top-end talent but not the depth and the Spurs have the depth but not the top-end talent.

I'm not setting an impossibly high standard. All I'm wanting is for LeBron to be better than below average in the Finals. I'm not ignoring Jordan's flaws, either. They just weren't as big as LeBron's.

[Mr Exlax]

This has turned into a go-to argument for LeBron stans and it's ridiculous to just assume, because they were only 2 games worse and got screwed in a game in the 2nd round, that team was legitimately still a title contender.

What do you think Miami's regular season would've been this year without LeBron? Is there anyway they still don't win 50-55 games in a weak conference? Wade was playing VERY good basketball during the 27-game win-streak until he hurt his knee. But if he's healthy, is there anyway that team doesn't, sans-LeBron, doesn't at least make the 2nd round?

My problem is that you keep bringing up how much better Jordan's team was than everyone else's in the 90's. Can the same thing not be said about LeBron's Miami teams? What other championshp contenders come close to not only matching their top-end talent (LeBron, Wade, and Bosh), but also can match their depth at the same time?

Didn't read everything before, but I think Miami would still be a playoff team, but not a championship caliber team. First round exit team without Lebron. Dwade got most of his buckets because Lebron was the focal point of the defense. Then we also have to take into consideration that Lebron is the leading rebounder, the facilitator and then the defensive anchor. If he had rolled his ankle I think this team would be in shambles. That's not a good team make up to me. It's one thing to be the best player on the team and it's another thing to be the team. He's got talent around him finally, but doesn't really have help if you follow me.

[LeBird]

This has turned into a go-to argument for LeBron stans and it's ridiculous to just assume, because they were only 2 games worse and got screwed in a game in the 2nd round, that team was legitimately still a title contender.

Or should I flip that? The Jordan stans deny it because it means that despite the hero-ball his team could have been better with someone else.


What do you think Miami's regular season would've been this year without LeBron? Is there anyway they still don't win 50-55 games in a weak conference? Wade was playing VERY good basketball during the 27-game win-streak until he hurt his knee. But if he's healthy, is there anyway that team doesn't, sans-LeBron, doesn't at least make the 2nd round?


Who knows? Miami lack height severely and without Lebron they're even worse. When Lebron is out of action for a year and his team go 2 games worse you can make the same argument. Till then, that's Jordan's cross to bear.


My problem is that you keep bringing up how much better Jordan's team was than everyone else's in the 90's. Can the same thing not be said about LeBron's Miami teams? What other championshp contenders come close to not only matching their top-end talent (LeBron, Wade, and Bosh), but also can match their depth at the same time?

I said myself that this Miami team is very star-studded. But you have to agree that it is a pathetically constructed team. The ONLY reason it looks functional is because they have a freak of a player who can play any role on the team offensively and defensively, and at a very high standard.

Jordan's teams had two great perimeter defenders, a great player near the post. It had Jordan, arguably the greatest scorer of all time, as well as Pippen who is one of the best all-round players of all time and an MVP caliber player itself. It had fantastic players off the bench (e.g. Kukoc) and had terrific 3-point shooters to spread the court. The only thing that could have made them better is if Rodman was a real offensive threat but they had enough firepower that it didn't matter - his rebounding was far more important anyway.

So not only did Jordan have a fantastically talented team - especially in comparison to its opposition - but it was very well constructed and did not have the glaring weaknesses this Miami side has. That's not Lebron's fault, however, and the team coming together the way it did was not to Jordan's credit either.

[Mr Exlax]

Or should I flip that? The Jordan stans deny it because it means that despite the hero-ball his team could have been better with someone else.



Who knows? Miami lack height severely and without Lebron they're even worse. When Lebron is out of action for a year and his team go 2 games worse you can make the same argument. Till then, that's Jordan's cross to bear.



I said myself that this Miami team is very star-studded. But you have to agree that it is a pathetically constructed team. The ONLY reason it looks functional is because they have a freak of a player who can play any role on the team offensively and defensively, and at a very high standard.

Jordan's teams had two great perimeter defenders, a great player near the post. It had Jordan, arguably the greatest scorer of all time, as well as Pippen who is one of the best all-round players of all time and an MVP caliber player itself. It had fantastic players off the bench (e.g. Kukoc) and had terrific 3-point shooters to spread the court. The only thing that could have made them better is if Rodman was a real offensive threat but they had enough firepower that it didn't matter - his rebounding was far more important anyway.

So not only did Jordan have a fantastically talented team - especially in comparison to its opposition - but it was very well constructed and did not have the glaring weaknesses this Miami side has. That's not Lebron's fault, however, and the team coming together the way it did was not to Jordan's credit either.

You are either a genius or you're in my head. Which is it? :coleman:

[OG LeeTSkeeT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hofst6YUktQ

[KG215]

*Note to self. Never get in argument about a player with a poster whose username includes some sort of dedication to said player.

I can't be the only one that has watched LeBron this year and thought, "He's still great, but there's going to be too much damage done to ever be in the GOAT discussion if he loses this Finals series given his level of play now, and in 2011."

[LeBird]

Excuse me, the last 3-5 years haven't been anything special.

If I can pick a composite of the last 3-5 years of the teams and players then I pick them over what was available in the 90s. The Bulls are the best team from both eras but there is a drop off after them in their era, compared to what comes next after Miami in their era.


That was rookie Magic. This is supposed to be LeBron at his peak.


You're arguing semantics. All things considered he is probably having as good or better finals performance than Dirk in 2011, Kobe in 2010 or Duncan 2005.

Again, it doesn't have to be the absolute best of Lebron or its a fail mark. Use your common sense, stop being flippant.


Didn't say it does. But LeBron's Finals performance in 2011 and, as is, in 2013 aren't even that good in comparison to the standards he set. I'm not saying be "all-time great" good in every Finals; but he's at the absolute peak of his career, and he performed well below his ability in 2011 and is doing the same thing again right now. It's not as bad as 2011, but it's still nothing to write-home about for a player of his ability and caliber.


:lol The standards he set? So if he doesn't have the finals he had last year or better in every finals he is failing? Do you know how terrible that logic is?

If a player plays 5 finals and gets a rating out of 10, what's the difference between him performing:

7/10, 7.2/10, 7.4/10, 7.8/10, 8/10

vs

8/10, 7.8/10, 7.4/10, 7.2/10, 7/10

?

By your logic the first guy is 'great' because he keeps improving on the standard he has set whilst the second guy has regressed (irrespective of context) when in reality they played identical in finals just at different times in their careers.



And the GM has done a very good job of building a deep, veteran-laden team around him by year 3. About as well as reasonably possible in this era, anyway. They've got great top-end talent and very solid role players. No other contender can match them in either regard. OKC has the top-end talent but not the depth and the Spurs have the depth but not the top-end talent.


It is a poor team which requires Lebron to change-up his game basically on a series-by-series basis. SF one series, PG another series or PF when they lack size. Which other star has had to deal with this much responsibility? You gotta feel sorry for him...especially that now that his bum teammate who slept through but the last two games of the finals (erm, read playoffs) gets a pass for basically doing what he did in those two games.


I'm not setting an impossibly high standard. All I'm wanting is for LeBron to be better than below average in the Finals. I'm not ignoring Jordan's flaws, either. They just weren't as big as LeBron's.

If Lebron is below average...then basically every player in this series is a failure.

[LeBird]

*Note to self. Never get in argument about a player with a poster whose username includes some sort of dedication to said player.

I can't be the only one that has watched LeBron this year and thought, "He's still great, but there's going to be too much damage done to ever be in the GOAT discussion if he loses this Finals series given his level of play now, and in 2011."

Bird is my favourite player, Lebron isn't. Just an interesting hybrid for a username I thought. But it doesn't matter. I can appreciate a player even if I don't like him (Jordan) or am indifferent to him (Lebron).

I don't think you're intentionally demeaning him either I just think you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

[KG215]

You're arguing semantics. All things considered he is probably having as good or better finals performance than Dirk in 2011, Kobe in 2011 or Duncan 2005.

Again, it doesn't have to be the absolute best of Lebron or its a fail mark. Use your common sense, stop being flippant.
It's not that it's

:lol The standards he set? So if he doesn't have the finals he had last year or better in every finals he is failing? Do you know how terrible that logic is?

By your logic the first guy is 'great' because he keeps improving on the standard he has set whilst the second guy has regressed (irrespective of context) when in reality they played identical in finals just at different times in their careers.

If Lebron is below average...then basically every player in this series is a failure.
You're completely missing my point. It's not that he's just playing below his standards, it's how far below them he has played in 2 of the last 3 Finals. I'm not trying to imply that he should be putting up something absurd like 35-10-8 in this series, but the 22 PPG on 43% shooting, coupled with the passiveness and taking himself out of the game on offense because his jumper isn't falling is not a good look.

The numbers don't even tell the story because, on paper, the raw numbers don't look bad this year. His impact isn't living up to those numbers, though. He's been far too passive for long stretches, his defense has suffered at times (possibly because of his inability to make much of an impact on the offensive end), and his overall impact hasn't come close to what he should be capable of at this point in his carer. There hasn't even been a game where he's stepped-up and took over in crunch time. Basically, he's not passing the eye test right now. He's got two games to change that and, if he does, I'll give him the credit he deserves. And I'm not saying that means he has to go out and put up 45-10-10 each game, but he has to do something considerably better than what he's been doing most of this series.

I can give him a pass for his 2007 Finals. That was understandable to some degree. But if we're talking about being in the GOAT discussion, this Finals coupled with his 2011 Finals isn't going to cut-it. Not even if he goes on to finish with 3-5 rings in his career like you stated earlier. That's my opinion.

And while I strongly disagree about the 90's being as weak as you claim (even with expansion, the championship contending teams of that era were every bit as strong or stronger than championship contenders of the last 5 years or so), I will say you're right in that this Heat team does have more flaws than Jordan's Bulls. Part of the problem is that LeBron and Wade are not a good fit, and Bosh has slowly been relegated to spot-up shooting duties. That blame falls mostly with the coach.

[Jacks3]

Which other star has had to deal with this much responsibility? You gotta feel sorry for him...especially that now that his bum teammate who slept through but the last two games of the finals (erm, read playoffs) gets a pass for basically doing what he did in those two games.




:applause: :applause: :applause:

[KG215]

Didn't read everything before, but I think Miami would still be a playoff team, but not a championship caliber team. First round exit team without Lebron. Dwade got most of his buckets because Lebron was the focal point of the defense. Then we also have to take into consideration that Lebron is the leading rebounder, the facilitator and then the defensive anchor. If he had rolled his ankle I think this team would be in shambles. That's not a good team make up to me. It's one thing to be the best player on the team and it's another thing to be the team. He's got talent around him finally, but doesn't really have help if you follow me.
I can get on board with that. I still feel like some people are quick to dismiss the amount of help he has relative to the rest of the league. I understand he shoulders a lot of responsibility, but I do think Wade and Bosh would co-exist well-enough to win around 50 games in the East (partially because of how weak it is) and maybe even get out of the first round. I don't think they'd go any further, though.

They do have flaws (no true inside presence, although it'd be interesting to see if Bosh got back to being close to the same player he was in Toronto without LeBron) and almost any amount of postseason success would hinge on Wade staying healthy, which is obviously not something he's very capable of.

[chips93]

Anyone who's pulled off games like G7 against Detroit and G6 against Boston is most definitely "great". Only a few players in history have been able to almost single-handedly win playoff games, and LeBron is one of them.

Is he always great when it counts? Far from it. Has he shown the ability to be? Absolutely.

this

lebron has had plenty of big games in big moments.

does he consistently have big games in big moments? no not really, but thats what seperates him from the all-time greats.

[Mr Exlax]

I can get on board with that. I still feel like some people are quick to dismiss the amount of help he has relative to the rest of the league. I understand he shoulders a lot of responsibility, but I do think Wade and Bosh would co-exist well-enough to win around 50 games in the East (partially because of how weak it is) and maybe even get out of the first round. I don't think they'd go any further, though.

They do have flaws (no true inside presence, although it'd be interesting to see if Bosh got back to being close to the same player he was in Toronto without LeBron) and almost any amount of postseason success would hinge on Wade staying healthy, which is obviously not something he's very capable of.

The thing about it though is that half of his help doesn't compliment him at all IMO. Him and Wade were doomed from the start. They are the same player just with different bodies. That's not complimentary. That's talent, but not help. And then Wade and Bosh haven't lived up to their part of the bargain as well. Wade gets a pass from me cause he's been hurt, but Bosh has really really let me down. I expected so much more from him. Being the third option was a big part of it I'm sure, but damn he gotta come on with it. Then we take into consideration the coaching and then who they're going up against. San Antonio Spurs and Greg "Da Goat' Poppavich. The only way Miami won last season is because they went against an even more limited coach than Spo IMO. Oh and i'll throw it out there that Lebron has only let me down in Game 3. Games 1&2 I saw the defense that Pop used and there was no way Lebron was gonna have a good offensive game. Game 3 though damn. They gave him room for the jumper. He didn't kill them. That's all on him. That is his fault. I've seen alltime greats mess up first hand though. It happens.

[9erempiree]

He's very good.

[Legends66NBA7]

James is indeed a great player. I think when people question his greatness, it is because he's under that big microscope and always will have high expectations. Sure, some of it's definitely deserved criticism, since there are times he sets himself up to be ridiculed over and over again. The rest would be over the top nonsense and giving him unreasonable expectations.

:oldlol: @ Starks and Miller performances at any time being great than James against selective moments without looking at it in the whole picture. How about we check the 94 Game 7 Finals of Starks and 00 Game 1 Finals of Miller too ? :confusedshrug:

As for Malone, yeah, he's very overrated. His playoff performance drops immensely, gets too many passes for his failures, lost to great/good/and teams he wasn't supposed to lose too. James clearly superior to him though in terms of greatness and what they can be the best at.


Serious question: do you think Lebron is top 25 all time?

I'm pretty sure he would be, if not higher. I couldn't think of 25 names to be over him on arbitrary all-time list. Would you ?


Lebron does exactly that.

He may just be the most consistent player of all time.

No, he is not.

[Mass Debator]

The thing that makes Lebron struggle the most is diversity. No one can guard Lebron 1-on-1 but with a collective effort from a few individuals, Lebron becomes uncomfortable out there.

We've seen Spurs put Leonard, Green, Diaw, and even Splitter on Lebron.
The Mavericks put Marion, Stevenson, and Kidd on him with Terry whispering dirt in his ear on every jump shot.

Right when Lebron has figured out what to do against a certain player and becomes comfortable, the coach switches a new player on him. Sure there is a semi-zone going on but I think Lebron looks uncomfortable because he's confused on what to do. He then relies on his best skill...his passing.

Spurs also don't turn the ball over enough to ignite Lebron's greatest offensive strength in transition buckets. OKC lacked in this department. And Wade trying to outshine him too doesn't help his cause for confidence.

He's a great player probably end up top 10 all-time, but not in the same breath as Jordan.

[Rubio2Gasol]

I can get on board with that. I still feel like some people are quick to dismiss the amount of help he has relative to the rest of the league. I understand he shoulders a lot of responsibility, but I do think Wade and Bosh would co-exist well-enough to win around 50 games in the East (partially because of how weak it is) and maybe even get out of the first round. I don't think they'd go any further, though.

They do have flaws (no true inside presence, although it'd be interesting to see if Bosh got back to being close to the same player he was in Toronto without LeBron) and almost any amount of postseason success would hinge on Wade staying healthy, which is obviously not something he's very capable of.

In reality - his help isn't spectacular. But that's not because they aren't talented....take him out the team they still get to the ECF - maybe even the finals. It's because Wade and him is a difficult match which neither have shown a desire to figure out and Bosh has been an odd man out shooting jumpers....and now he's stopped making them and it looks really bad.

The team was built to maximize him statistically - he's their main rebounder - main assist man - main scorer and everyone else is basically a role player. They sacrifice length for shooting because without shooting it's very easy to defend him.

So when people say he has no help - it's a product of the team being built around him more than anything.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

James is indeed a great player. I think when people question his greatness, it is because he's under that big microscope and always will have high expectations. Sure, some of it's definitely deserved criticism, since there are times he sets himself up to be ridiculed over and over again. The rest would be over the top nonsense and giving him unreasonable expectations.

:oldlol: @ Starks and Miller performances at any time being great than James against selective moments without looking at it in the whole picture. How about we check the 94 Game 7 Finals of Starks and 00 Game 1 Finals of Miller too ? :confusedshrug:

As for Malone, yeah, he's very overrated. His playoff performance drops immensely, gets too many passes for his failures, lost to great/good/and teams he wasn't supposed to lose too. James clearly superior to him though in terms of greatness and what they can be the best at.



I'm pretty sure he would be, if not higher. I couldn't think of 25 names to be over him on arbitrary all-time list. Would you ?



No, he is not.



Yes, I would say he is top 25 and, therefore, "great".

[Legends66NBA7]

Yes, I would say he is top 25 and, therefore, "great".

Yeah, I read later on in the thread on your stance. Although, I think he's higher than that.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Yeah, I read later on in the thread on your stance. Although, I think he's higher than that.

Yeah, my point was that even if you are a hater, you have to agree that he is top 25...or even top 50...and therefore "great". To be one of the 50 greatest of all time means "greatest". Silly thread. Of course he is "great".

[KG215]

For the record, as is, I consider LeBron at least a top 15 player all-time player, regardless of how this series plays out. My whole argument is predicated on him still having the ability to be in the GOAT discussion if they lose this series coupled with his performance not being that good. Of course who your GOAT is could completely change that, but mine is Jordan and it would take a pretty improbable run over the next 5-7 years for me to consider LeBron as good as Jordan. If he does it, though, I'll happily change my stance.

[#number6ix#]

Lebron is a great player but he has a tendency to play to his weaknesses like he's trying to prove a point or something... He also has been playin like shit in these finals, I notice multiple times where he looked scared... He gets in his head and over thinks instead of just balling... He's weird

[Asukal]

Can't believe this... People are actually defending Lebron's performance in these finals series. :facepalm

Watch the games, he is invisible in crunch time, he has very low impact when the pressure is on. His stats aren't that bad on paper, but stats don't tell the whole story. He is supposed to be the best player in the game, the player that will someday be the GOAT according to his stans, yet when all is said and done where was he when his team needed him the most? :confusedshrug:

Stans like Lebird keeps on saying Jordan played and won in a watered down era, if that is the case then why didn't Kareem win more than one in the watered down 70's? Jordan didn't win in the 80's but he didn't have enough help then, still he posted his best stats in the 80's and a lot of playoff moments worthy of an all time great.

[DatAsh]

The Spurs team are better than any team (I am not talking about a single year or two but a sustained effort) than any team the Bulls faced.



This is an odd statement. I think most people would agree that the 92' Blazers, 93' Suns, 96' Sonics, and the 97' Jazz were all better teams than this current Spurs team.

If anything, this Spurs team is one of the weaker teams to come out of the west in recent memory. This isn't even the best team Lebron's faced in the finals.

[daily]

*Note to self. Never get in argument about a player with a poster whose username includes some sort of dedication to said player.


Which is why I'll never get in a Kiwane Garris argument with you

[MetsPackers]

excellent analysis

[RRR3]

OP body bagged by Bron Valjean

[K Xerxes]

That's why you wait until the END of the playoffs before you make conclusions on overall greatness and legacy. It always happens, people are made to look like fools and yet they never learn...

[Redoks]

@OP

Do you consider Lebron as an all time great now?

[Indian guy]

:oldlol: @ this opportunistic cu nt. Made to look like a complete fool for the 2nd year in a row. Last year, after a miracle Laker victory against OKC late regular season via a bunch of terrible hero shots from Kobe, he made this big thread about how Kobe is the best "ugly game winner" in the league - as in, the uglier or tougher a game is, the better Kobe will be. How he is better than anyone at winning those games because of his toughness and how godly he is in the clutch and blah blah blah. All after that 1 fluke ass regular season victory. I just cringed reading it because it was such a front-running thread. Kobe had struggled in the clutch all year that season, yet as soon as he had a rare good finish, this front-runner was instantly on this board to spew his garbage. Which is why I loved it when he was made to look like a complete fool in the playoffs, when Kobe literally gagged away 2 games against OKC in the WCS. Just gave those games away with horrendous 4th qtr play with Lakers holding comfortable leads both times. You won't find anything like that from any other superstar in NBA history - where they just flat out give the opposition the game TWICE in a playoff series. All too predictably, OP didn't show his face again for a long time.

But like any front-runner, he was back to pile on his boy's biggest adversary(LeBron) while he was down. The same 'ol front-running garbage as the last time, hating on an all-time great by merely calling him "very very good" but not "great". A player who didn't do everything to assure victory, apparently. 2 games later....:oldlol:

Just stay in your hole for good now and don't return, bitch.

[Calabis]

Great player....simple

But are we going to act like Lebron hitting wide open shots is amazing? Spurs didn't even attempt to disrupt his shots. Overrating the moment welcome to media nation.

[Trollsmasher]

Op is an oportunistic *******

[tmacattack33]

Great player....simple

But are we going to act like Lebron hitting wide open shots is amazing? Spurs didn't even attempt to disrupt his shots. Overrating the moment welcome to media nation.

Yeah and the reason they gave him a cushion is because they were too scared of his drive. They wouldn't do that to any random nba player.

So, yes, due to the fact that you can't guard him up close because he will burn you, and the fact that he now makes his jump shot, he is in fact a true BEAST and legend of a basketball player.

[Andrei89]

i would say his stats and accomplishments are top 12 all time


and his actual level of play is around top 30-40 all time


hes the biggest overachiver in nba history. never seen a guy succeed so much with so little


for a guy who cant shoot a mid range jumper, cant go left, cant hit clutch shots, cant play big when it counts to have 4 mvps, 1 finals mvp and 1 title is very impressive

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[madmax]

LMAO at this thread:roll:
bitchmade OP won't show his face here now for a while, I can bet on this:lol

[Calabis]

Yeah and the reason they gave him a cushion is because they were too scared of his drive. They wouldn't do that to any random nba player.

So, yes, due to the fact that you can't guard him up close because he will burn you, and the fact that he now makes his jump shot, he is in fact a true BEAST and legend of a basketball player.

Sorry they didn't do that in prior games...not to the extent of what they did last night. And yeah he went on runs in some of those games...but he also had some subpar moments in them too. Sorry, I rather have him work for that layup,instead of sitting around like a pregame shoot around saving energy.

Either way great game by a great player.

[LBJ 23]

Great

[Knoe Itawl]

:oldlol: @ this opportunistic cu nt. Made to look like a complete fool for the 2nd year in a row. Last year, after a miracle Laker victory against OKC late regular season via a bunch of terrible hero shots from Kobe, he made this big thread about how Kobe is the best "ugly game winner" in the league - as in, the uglier or tougher a game is, the better Kobe will be. How he is better than anyone at winning those games because of his toughness and how godly he is in the clutch and blah blah blah. All after that 1 fluke ass regular season victory. I just cringed reading it because it was such a front-running thread. Kobe had struggled in the clutch all year that season, yet as soon as he had a rare good finish, this front-runner was instantly on this board to spew his garbage. Which is why I loved it when he was made to look like a complete fool in the playoffs, when Kobe literally gagged away 2 games against OKC in the WCS. Just gave those games away with horrendous 4th qtr play with Lakers holding comfortable leads both times. You won't find anything like that from any other superstar in NBA history - where they just flat out give the opposition the game TWICE in a playoff series. All too predictably, OP didn't show his face again for a long time.

But like any front-runner, he was back to pile on his boy's biggest adversary(LeBron) while he was down. The same 'ol front-running garbage as the last time, hating on an all-time great by merely calling him "very very good" but not "great". A player who didn't do everything to assure victory, apparently. 2 games later....:oldlol:

Just stay in your hole for good now and don't return, bitch.

I like elementally, and find him to be a mostly even handed poster but I can't argue with some of this. This was a horrible thread.

[HurricaneKid]

This has turned into a go-to argument for LeBron stans...


What do you think Miami's regular season would've been this year without LeBron? Is there anyway they still don't win 50-55 games in a weak conference? Wade was playing VERY good basketball during the 27-game win-streak until he hurt his knee. But if he's healthy, is there anyway that team doesn't, sans-LeBron, doesn't at least make the 2nd round?


And this is a go-to for LeBron haters. And its a weak position. What we know is that without LeBron on the floor Miami was not only outscored, but handily. Their scoring metrics with him off the floor are VERY close to those of Toronto. I think the data suggests they would struggle to make the playoffs, even in the East.

[rhythmic]

There isn't a worse poster on this board then Indian Guy, hell; on any forum I have ever read.

Guy is that douche bag you would just love to punch in the face. Every time I read his posts, I cringe. Just hard to imagine how a person can be so stupid.

[dh144498]

hitting wide open shots does not make you great all of a sudden. Lebron is still just very good, not great, but very good.

[RRR3]

hitting wide open shots does not make you great all of a sudden. Lebron is still just very good, not great, but very good.
I guess there are no great players in the league now. I guess the man who has the 3rd highest ppg ever, 4 mvps and 2 FMvps is a scrub

[tazb]

On pace to be the G.O.A.T. so I would say very good.

[dh144498]

I guess there are no great players in the league now. I guess the man who has the 3rd highest ppg ever, 4 mvps and 2 FMvps is a scrub

you sound like a mindless child who just lost his candy. When did I say he's a scrub?

[Hands of Iron]

I guess there are no great players in the league now. I guess the man who has the 3rd highest ppg ever, 4 mvps and 2 FMvps is a scrub

I'm in awe of some of the shit I'm reading on here today, and it's a reminder me of why I stopped posting to begin with. Aside from the obscene resume he already has, he's building a reputation as a big game performer.

35.4 PPG, 11.4 RPG, 5.2 APG, 52.2% FG in Miami's five Elimination Games over the last two championship runs.

[RRR3]

you sound like a mindless child who just lost his candy. When did I say he's a scrub?
And lyou sound lIke a mad kobetard

[dh144498]

And lyou sound lIke a mad kobetard

ok you definitely won that argument by putting words into my mouth and calling me a kobetard.

:applause:

if you disagree with me, prove me wrong instead of calling out names.

where do these kids come from...

[RRR3]

you sound like a mindless child who just lost his candy. When did I say he's a scrub?
What the hell do you think you sound like?
You do nothing but discredit and minimize every positive thing LeBron does, while greatly exaggerating anything he does that is remotely bad. Do you honestly think anyone takes you seriously?
How many ever players are better than LeBron? The lowest anyone seems to rank him is what 11th-15th all time? Have there only been 10-14 "great" players? You cant honestly think he isn't great, he's been great for years.

[Mr Exlax]

ok you definitely won that argument by putting words into my mouth and calling me a kobetard.

:applause:

if you disagree with me, prove me wrong instead of calling out names.

where do these kids come from...

I can't front, I always thought you were a mad kobetard. Who's your favorite player?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

[QUOTE=rhythmic

[dh144498]

I can't front, I always thought you were a mad kobetard. Who's your favorite player?

i don't have 1 favorite player. I like a bunch.

[Mr Exlax]

i don't have 1 favorite player. I like a bunch.

I got this exact same response from a different guy. He later admitted that he was a Kobetard. No biggie though. I never see you talk about anybody else other than Lebron and Kobe, but hey it's whatever.

[dh144498]

I got this exact same response from a different guy. He later admitted that he was a Kobetard. No biggie though. I never see you talk about anybody else other than Lebron and Kobe, but hey it's whatever.

i've made several threads regarding Bird and MJ, but yeah no biggie, just assume i'm a kobetard and do selective reading.

[Hands of Iron]

Folks should really enjoy the guy while he's here live and in the flesh. He's a one-of-a-kind talent, let's stop with the petulant butt hurt over how it affects the imaginary GOAT List in regards to other favorites. My guys are Olajuwon and Bird, he'll probably rate above both if he doesn't already. Who cares.