Remember, Jordan never beat a superteam

[Gus Hemmingway]

The best team Jordan ever beat had a 10ppg 2nd option


LeBron beat the 2012 Thunder superteam, 2013 Spurs, 2016 Warriors (GOAT team) and the 2015 Hawks (4 all-stars)


All of them were better than the best team Jordan faced

[TheCorporation]

True story. He was held WINLESS by Larry Bird. 0 for 6.

You can see his sadness in this photo. MJ knows he was always spanked by Papa Bird:

https://i.postimg.cc/VN80vLNV/Bird-and-MJ.jpg

Even Kerr knows LeBron was better:

https://i.postimg.cc/52pLFfYT/Ker_levell.jpg

[coin24]

Remember, OP has never had sex

[Bronbron23]

The best team Jordan ever beat had a 10ppg 2nd option


LeBron beat the 2012 Thunder superteam, 2013 Spurs, 2016 Warriors (GOAT team) and the 2015 Hawks (4 all-stars)


All of them were better than the best team Jordan faced

Neither were super teams. Okc were puppies and never won shit. Warriors were great but I'd hardly call steph, klay and dray a super team. They were very good and just played smarter than everyone else.

[RRR3]

Neither were super teams. Okc were puppies and never won shit. Warriors were great but I'd hardly call steph, klay and dray a super team. They were very good and just played smarter than everyone else.
They won 73 games and had 3 All-NBA players what the **** else would you call them?

[Bronbron23]

They won 73 games and had 3 All-NBA players what the **** else would you call them?

A really great regular season team. Before kd they weren't a super team or a dynasty or anything like that. They had one asterisk chip and an epic meltdown. That hardly makes you a super team.

[Kiddlovesnets]

If the 18 Warriors are considered a super team, then we can add two more superteams to the list: 93 Suns and 96 SuperSonics. And yes MJ beat them both, which is why you don’t know these are superteams. See this thread for info:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?487295-If-the-18-Warriors-are-a-superteam-how-about-93-Suns-amp-96-Supersonics

[scuzzy]

If the 18 Warriors are considered a super team, then we can add two more superteams to the list: 93 Suns and 96 SuperSonics. And yes MJ beat them both, which is why you don’t know these are superteams. See this thread for info:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?487295-If-the-18-Warriors-are-a-superteam-how-about-93-Suns-amp-96-Supersonics
Suns and Sonics superteams cores that were together for years, yet only capable of making a Finals once.


Some legit 90's superteams of 0 championship Duo's in Kemp/Payton - Barkley/Johnson :oldlol:

[Axe]

2015 hawks which never made the ecf again? Lol

[Kiddlovesnets]

Suns and Sonics superteams cores that were together for years, yet only capable of making a Finals once.


Some legit 90's superteams of 0 championship Duo's in Kemp/Payton - Barkley/Johnson :oldlol:

Yeah they won 0 title because they had to face MJ the GOAT. Replace MJ by Lebron and they would easily have 1-2 titles, maybe even in 8-1 fashion. Then we will be hearing how MJ wouldn’t be able to beat these superteams.

[scuzzy]

That hardly makes you a super team.
4 players go on to the 2016 Olympics that summer is a superteam. (Curry opted out at last second)

Cut it anyway you want, more roster spots from the same team go to the Olympics than any previous in history. One that was roster filled long before your alleged 2016 reg season "anomaly".

[scuzzy]

Yeah they won 0 title because they had to face MJ the GOAT. Replace MJ by Lebron and they would easily have 1-2 titles, maybe even in 8-1 fashion. Then we will be hearing how MJ wouldn’t be able to beat these superteams.
Nope they were getting long dicked in early round long before facing Bulls, years before they faced MJ and years afterwards as well.

Stockton and Malone, seven 1st round exits together. 17 playoffs, faced Bulls twice. 15 early strikeouts. Nothing to do with MJ. The original trash bros

[SATAN]

lol@downplaying that Warriors squad. They were incredible.

[Bronbron23]

lol@downplaying that Warriors squad. They were incredible.

Not downplaying them they were a great team. They played the game the way it was meant to be played. I dont consider dray and klay super stars though. Steph was obviously. I consider super teams teams with at least 2 super stars. Mj and pip. Rod was the icing. Magic and Kareem worthy was the icing. Kd and steph both klay and dray were the icing. Brons heat obviously and this years lakers. 2000 lakers. You get the point.

[Bronbron23]

4 players go on to the 2016 Olympics that summer is a superteam. (Curry opted out at last second)

Cut it anyway you want, more roster spots from the same team go to the Olympics than any previous in history. One that was roster filled long before your alleged 2016 reg season "anomaly".

Depends on what you consider a super team. I consider it being a team with multiple superstars. Dray and klay aren't superstars. The kd warriors were a super team.

[Axe]

Not downplaying them they were a great team. They played the game the way it was meant to be played. I dont consider dray and klay super stars though. Steph was obviously. I consider super teams teams with at least 2 super stars. Mj and pip. Rod was the icing. Magic and Kareem worthy was the icing. Kd and steph both klay and dray were the icing. Brons heat obviously and this years lakers. 2000 lakers. You get the point.
But 3ball wouldn't agree that pip is a 'super star'

[AnaheimLakers24]

and you never lost your virginity

[MadDog]

lol@downplaying that Warriors squad. They were incredible.

Yeah incredible at giving away series. The GOAT shooter aka the Warriors best player got outplayed by LeBron's sidekick. Nobody denies they weren't a really good team, but Golden State only became a juggernaut when Durant joined.


Nope they were getting long dicked in early round long before facing Bulls, years before they faced MJ and years afterwards as well.

Stockton and Malone, seven 1st round exits together. 17 playoffs, 15 early strikeouts. Nothing to do with MJ. The original trash bros

Yet knowing they made b2b finals, you'll still call them "plumbers". In one run Utah swept a 60 win team with 4 ALL STARS. Beat Duncan/Robinson's Spurs. And eliminated Barkley, Drexler and Hakeem's Rockets. Yeah man "trash bros". Fukking idiot :oldlol:

[ELITEpower23]

If the 18 Warriors are considered a super team, then we can add two more superteams to the list: 93 Suns and 96 SuperSonics. And yes MJ beat them both, which is why you don’t know these are superteams. See this thread for info:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?487295-If-the-18-Warriors-are-a-superteam-how-about-93-Suns-amp-96-Supersonics

Ah yes, the 1 Finals and zero rings in 20 years "90s superteams"

How could we ever forget?

[Bronbron23]

Depends on what you consider a super team. I consider it being a team with multiple superstars. Dray and klay aren't superstars. The kd warriors were a super team.


But 3ball wouldn't agree that pip is a 'super star'

Yeah well 3ball is wrong. Pip was definitely a superstar. At least for those chips anyway. He was a late bloomer and injuries got him towards the end so he didn't have as many superstar years as some but he was definitely a superstar for most of the 90's

[ELITEpower23]

Depends on what you consider a super team. I consider it being a team with multiple superstars. Dray and klay aren't superstars. The kd warriors were a super team.

KD > Barkley/Payton
Curry > KJ/Kemp
Klay > Majerle/Shrempf
Draymond > 4th option Suns/Sonics

That was easily debunked.

[Axe]

Yeah well 3ball is wrong. Pip was definitely a superstar. At least for those chips anyway. He was a late bloomer and injuries got him towards the end so he didn't have as many superstar years as some but he was definitely a superstar for most of the 90's
He calls him a role player :oldlol:

[Bronbron23]

KD > Barkley/Payton
Curry > KJ/Kemp
Klay > Majerle/Shrempf
Draymond > 4th option Suns/Sonics

That was easily debunked.

Kd isn't better than barkley. Ita debatable at the very least. I dont argue the rest. Either way klay and dray aren't superstars. Thats not even an argument

[SATAN]

Kd isn't better than barkley. Ita debatable at the very least. I dont argue the rest. Either way klay and dray aren't superstars. Thats not even an argument

What are you even saying?

[Mauzah]

Remember, the Bulls WERE the superteam.

[Kiddlovesnets]

Ah yes, the 1 Finals and zero rings in 20 years "90s superteams"

How could we ever forget?

The warriors would have 0 ring if they were playing against MJ’s Bulls in the 90s, while the Suns, SuperSonics and the Jazz would easily have 2-3 titles if playing against Lebron’s Cavs and Heat.

[ELITEpower23]

The warriors would have 0 ring if they were playing against MJ’s Bulls in the 90s, while the Suns, SuperSonics and the Jazz would easily have 2-3 titles if playing against Lebron’s Cavs and Heat.

Why are you quoting MJ as the reason these "1 Finals superteams" only made 1 Finals in 20 years when MJ himself only made it to six? What happened the other 14 years? Using MJ as the reason doesn't even make any sense. I mean for crying out loud, at the least, have you forgotten 1994 and 1995? 1999? 1990?

[ELITEpower23]

Kd isn't better than barkley. Ita debatable at the very least. I dont argue the rest. Either way klay and dray aren't superstars. Thats not even an argument

KD isn't better than Barkley? Well perhaps you could be right but that is definitely debatable. What we know for sure is that they are close in all time ranking either way you slice this one.

[FireDavidKahn]

A really great regular season team. Before kd they weren't a super team or a dynasty or anything like that. They had one asterisk chip and an epic meltdown. That hardly makes you a super team.

They had been to 2 straight Finals and won one and only lost one of them because LeBron had the greatest play off series of all time.

Yes they damn were a dynasty before KD joined them.

[ELITEpower23]

They had been to 2 straight Finals and won one and only lost one of them because LeBron had the greatest play off series of all time.

Yes they damn were a dynasty before KD joined them.

Without a doubt they were.

We are to believe that the 93 Suns and 96 Sonics that made 1 Finals in 20 years and zero wins is a superteam, but the 16 Warriors that had made 2 Finals at that time (in a row) and also won a chip, were not?

Some people are just living in full denial. It's good thing people like us are around to spread truth and logic.

[light]

How ever did they manage to beat Terry Porter and Buck Williams or John Starks and Anthony Mason?

Phew! The 90's were tough.

[Baller789]

They had been to 2 straight Finals and won one and only lost one of them because LeBron had the greatest play off series of all time.

Yes they damn were a dynasty before KD joined them.

They were already a dynasty because they made 2 straight finals and won 1?

By your logic every team that made the finals and won at least one is a "dynasty".

Oh how standards have fallen.

:facepalm

[dankok8]

Who beat a superteam without a superteam of their own? Surely you don't count the 2016 Finals when the Cavs 2nd option totally outplayed the Warriors 1st option. GS were a superteam in the regular season but they played nothing like it in the playoffs.

[Axe]

They had been to 2 straight Finals and won one and only lost one of them because LeBron had the greatest play off series of all time.

Yes they damn were a dynasty before KD joined them.
2011 and 2012 miami heat are?

[Axe]

Who beat a superteam without a superteam of their own? Surely you don't count the 2016 Finals when the Cavs 2nd option totally outplayed the Warriors 1st option. GS were a superteam in the regular season but they played nothing like it in the playoffs.
A gsw team that came back from a 1-3 deficit in the conference finals, only to blow a 3-1 lead in the finals.

History is so weird when you think of it.

[dankok8]

A gsw team that came back from a 1-3 deficit in the conference finals, only to blow a 3-1 lead in the finals.

History is so weird when you think of it.

Coming back from a 3-1 lead makes for a nice narrative but at the end it's a series win. Golden State played nothing like a superteam in those playoffs. That's the bottom line. Unless we are gonna say that OKC and Cleveland were also superteams in which case who cares... The 2016 Cavs didn't have inferior talent to the 2016 Warriors. And they were preseason favorites to win the title.

[TheGoatest]

Unanimous MVP/scoring leader
All-defensive 1st teamer/All-NBA 2nd teamer
All-NBA 3rd teamer

on a record 73 win team?

Not a superteam? :roll: LeBron haters getting too desparate

[Axe]

Coming back from a 3-1 lead makes for a nice narrative but at the end it's a series win. Golden State played nothing like a superteam in those playoffs. That's the bottom line. Unless we are gonna say that OKC and Cleveland were also superteams in which case who cares... The 2016 Cavs didn't have inferior talent to the 2016 Warriors. And they were preseason favorites to win the title.
They used and burned all that energy for their 73-win campaign

And ty lue was a very lucky man to have coached lebron; otherwise, he'd be worthless tbh. His record in cleveland without him pretty much tells about that.

[TheGoatest]

LeBron haters must be confusing the 73-win Warriors with the 2007 67-win Mavericks, who lost in the first round like their hero MJ did 3 times. THEY were a regular season-only team. The 2016 Warriors made the finals. But if the 2016 Warriors weren't a super team because of their record in the playoffs, I'm just curious what the LeBron haters have to say about the 2013 Spurs, who had a 12-2 playoff record before the 2013 finals?

If the 2016 Warriors were only a regular season team, then the 2013 Spurs were the complete opposite:

Tim Duncan load-managed 13 games
Tony Parker load-managed 16 games
Manu Ginobili load-managed 22 games
Kawhi Leonard load-managed 24 games

And despite this they still won 58 games that season. They were saving themselves for the playoffs completely, and Finals MVP LeBron still beat them in an all-time great game 7 performance.

You can't have it both ways. Whether you focus on the regular season (2016 Warriors), or the playoffs (2013 Spurs), LeBron beat a super team. But in reality, they're both super teams. Along with the 2012 Thunder:

Durant - All-NBA 1st team, 2nd in MVP voting, leading scorer
Westbrook - All-NBA 2nd team
Harden - 6th man of the year, averaged 26 ppg next season as the 1st option
Ibaka - All-defensive 1st team, handful of votes away from DPOY

LeBron beat 3 certified super teams. Jordan didn't beat a single one. The closest one was the '96 Sonics, but they were still clearly worse than whichever team you consider the worst between 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs and 2016 Warriors.

[Axe]

LeBron haters must be confusing the 73-win Warriors with the 2007 67-win Mavericks, who lost in the first round like their hero MJ did 3 times.
So anyone who dislikes or hates bran is already dubbed a baldan stan? Why?


But if the 2016 Warriors weren't a super team because of their record in the playoffs, I'm just curious what the LeBron haters have to say about the 2013 Spurs, who had a 12-2 playoff record before the 2013 finals?
I'm not one of those who think that the 2016 warriors aren't a super-team especially when they broke a lot of league records during that season but if people were to use your logic about the 2013 spurs, then the 2017 cavs should also be considered a super-team even if they only had 51 wins in the rs because they went 12-1 in the postseason before their third rematch against gs while winning a chip in the preceding year and making the finals three-straight times already.


If the 2016 Warriors were only a regular season team, then the 2013 Spurs were the complete opposite:

Tim Duncan load-managed 13 games
Tony Parker load-managed 16 games
Manu Ginobili load-managed 22 games
Kawhi Leonard load-managed 24 games

And despite this they still won 58 games that season. They were saving themselves for the playoffs completely, and Finals MVP LeBron still beat them in an all-time great game 7 performance.
You don't act like coach pop is a good coach, do you? They have a roster of postseason veterans but they still took that massive favorite heat team to seven games before bowing out. Also, some kudos should be given to ray allen and chris bosh in game six of that series. Their clutch efforts allowed the heat to stay alive for a game seven.

Meanwhile, the warriors were heavily expected to win the title that year because they had an exceptional season. But they obviously didn't live up to it when it completely mattered the most.


You can't have it both ways. Whether you focus on the regular season (2016 Warriors), or the playoffs (2013 Spurs), LeBron beat a super team. But in reality, they're both super teams. Along with the 2012 Thunder:

Durant - All-NBA 1st team, 2nd in MVP voting, leading scorer
Westbrook - All-NBA 2nd team
Harden - 6th man of the year, averaged 26 ppg next season as the 1st option
Ibaka - All-defensive 1st team, handful of votes away from DPOY
That team looked very good on-paper but were they really a super-team? They never even made b2b finals trips nor had any consecutive top seeds in the west. Also they only had one western title since their relocation to okc more than a decade ago and don't forget that season was shortened to 66 games due to lockout too.


LeBron beat 3 certified super teams. Jordan didn't beat a single one. The closest one was the '96 Sonics, but they were still clearly worse than whichever team you consider the worst between 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs and 2016 Warriors.
By that logic, this is like saying the celtics dynasty from the 60s have weak rings because they dominated a lot during their time. Or shaq's lakers have worthless rings because they three-peated once. Btw, how are you supposed to beat a super-team if you're one of them?

[TheGoatest]

I'm not one of those who think that the 2016 warriors aren't a super-team especially when they broke a lot of league records during that season but if people were to use your logic about the 2013 spurs, then the 2017 cavs should also be considered a super-team even if they only had 51 wins in the rs because they went 12-1 in the postseason before their third rematch against gs while winning a chip in the preceding year and making the finals three-straight times already.

I'm not using the Spurs 12-2 record as any proof as whether to they were a super team or not, I just love pointing out the hypocrisy in how the haters say the 2016 Warriors were a "regular season only" team (even though they made the finals), whereas the 2013 Spurs were dominant in the playoffs. So which counts when it comes to determining a super team - the regular season or the playoffs? Can't have it both ways. Even though the 2013 Spurs and the 2016 Warriors were great in both the regular season and the playoffs.

Yes, LeBron really needed Bosh's and Ray Allen's 0 points combined in 49 minutes of game 7 to win the championship. :oldlol:
If you're going to point out what happened in game 6, then well, LeBron hit a clutch 3 pointer before Ray Allen's 3 pointer.


You don't act like coach pop is a good coach, do you? They have a roster of postseason veterans but they still took that massive favorite heat team to seven games before bowing out. Also, some kudos should be given to ray allen and chris bosh in game six of that series. Their clutch efforts allowed the heat to stay alive for a game seven.


Holy shit, you're right. I forgot to add Pop.

So LeBron went against:

Duncan
Parker
Manu
Kawhi
and an all-time great coach in Pop

And still beat this super team in an all-time great game 7 performance while lifting the Finals MVP trophy.


Meanwhile, the warriors were heavily expected to win the title that year because they had an exceptional season. But they obviously didn't live up to it when it completely mattered the most.

Their only obstacle in the playoffs were the Durant-Wesbtrook Thunder. Who were a near-super team themselves. And the Warriors did end up beating them.

And It's not that the Warriors didn't live up to it, it's that this happened:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/d8/1a/8bd81a50eb70b4f479f5a77d891c133d.jpg

LeBron had to do something that has never happened not just any finals series, but any playoff series ever to just barely beat the 73-win Warriors in 7. Think about it, even all those random 3-0 first round sweeps that lasted only 3 games in the 80s and 90s never had a player lead both teams in all categories, yet LeBron did it in a finals series that lasted 7 games.


That team looked very good on-paper but were they really a super-team?

Yes. Really.


They never even made b2b finals trips nor had any consecutive top seeds in the west. Also they only had one western title since their relocation to okc more than a decade ago and don't forget that season was shortened to 66 games due to lockout too.

They didn't make more finals because they let go of Harden left after they lost. So we'll never know how good they would've been, all we know is that this is how good they were their last season together:

Durant - All-NBA 1st team, 2nd in MVP voting, leading scorer
Westbrook - All-NBA 2nd team
Harden - 6th man of the year, averaged 26 ppg next season as the 1st option
Ibaka - All-defensive 1st team, handful of votes away from DPOY

Don't forget, that 66-game season still had a full, 16-game playoffs following it. Unlike the Jordan-era 15-game playoffs, or the pre-1980s eras 8 game playoffs.

And what do you know, we have another "can't have it both ways" situation here: You mentioned that the Heat were the favorites in the 2013 finals. But the Thunder were the favorites in the 2012 finals. So if the 2013 Spurs not being the favorites doesn't make them a super team, then what exactly does the 2012's Thunder status as the favorites over the monster, ultra super team trio of LeBron-Wade-Bosh make them?

[Axe]

I'm not using the Spurs 12-2 record as any proof as whether to they were a super team or not, I just love pointing out the hypocrisy in how the haters say the 2016 Warriors were a "regular season only" team (even though they made the finals), whereas the 2013 Spurs were dominant in the playoffs. So which counts when it comes to determining a super team - the regular season or the playoffs? Can't have it both ways. Even though the 2013 Spurs and the 2016 Warriors were great in both the regular season and the playoffs.
They were both great teams either way but tbh, there are lots of other conference champions with similar runs as well before reaching and falling in the finals. The warriors, in particular, were already a dynasty in the making before the 2016 finals ended.


Yes, LeBron really needed Bosh's and Ray Allen's 0 points combined in 49 minutes of game 7 to win the championship. :oldlol:
If you're going to point out what happened in game 6, then well, LeBron hit a clutch 3 pointer before Ray Allen's 3 pointer.
Is your reaction with banal sarcasm really that necessary in an attempt to deflect the point i made earlier? :oldlol:

Lebron performed greatly, yes, but aside from ray allen's three i was also talking about bosh's key block against danny green's three that would have sent that game into another overtime. You didn't need to bring up some of their shortcomings just to show that he did all the carrying for them. They had some crucial contributions at least.


Holy shit, you're right. I forgot to add Pop.

So LeBron went against:

Duncan
Parker
Manu
Kawhi
and an all-time great coach in Pop

And still beat this super team in an all-time great game 7 performance while lifting the Finals MVP trophy.
The very same team that swept the cavs in '07 sans kawhi. What do you expect?


Their only obstacle in the playoffs were the Durant-Wesbtrook Thunder. Who were a near-super team themselves. And the Warriors did end up beating them.

And It's not that the Warriors didn't live up to it, it's that this happened:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/d8/1a/8bd81a50eb70b4f479f5a77d891c133d.jpg

LeBron had to do something that has never happened not just any finals series, but any playoff series ever to just barely beat the 73-win Warriors in 7. Think about it, even all those random 3-0 first round sweeps that lasted only 3 games in the 80s and 90s never had a player lead both teams in all categories, yet LeBron did it in a finals series that lasted 7 games.
Obviously, that's the most spectacular performance lebron ever had in the postseason. Only the warriors took them to seven games (after they almost got ripped by okc) that year but dub stans and his haters will just whine then point out about how dray went missing in g5 after he got suspended for flagrant foul and then curry's injury, which i don't know if it's true. But anyway, i don't care about that since i still cherish that moment they beat them.

However, since he was leading a party to the finals filled with bunch of scrubs not named love and irving, of course lebron will come out to be prominent as usual because he was the finals veteran there. Like i said, even lue as their head coach was a scrub and it's given that the disparity between him and most of his teammates is just great. He didn't have a teammate there as useful or good back then like ad is right now. So he had to shoulder most of the load.


They didn't make more finals because they let go of Harden left after they lost. So we'll never know how good they would've been, all we know is that this is how good they were their last season together:

Durant - All-NBA 1st team, 2nd in MVP voting, leading scorer
Westbrook - All-NBA 2nd team
Harden - 6th man of the year, averaged 26 ppg next season as the 1st option
Ibaka - All-defensive 1st team, handful of votes away from DPOY
We may never know but regardless, in okc's first season without harden still saw them win 60 games in the rs. Unfortunately, westbrook went out in the first round against his rockets so their postseason just ended prematurely against the grizzlies in the wcsf.


Don't forget, that 66-game season still had a full, 16-game playoffs following it. Unlike the Jordan-era 15-game playoffs, or the pre-1980s eras 8 game playoffs.
So titles obtained under the past playoff formats wouldn't count just for that reason alone? Talk about some spoiled double standards, dude. :confusedshrug:

[Axe]

And what do you know, we have another "can't have it both ways" situation here: You mentioned that the Heat were the favorites in the 2013 finals. But the Thunder were the favorites in the 2012 finals. So if the 2013 Spurs not being the favorites doesn't make them a super team, then what exactly does the 2012's Thunder status as the favorites over the monster, ultra super team trio of LeBron-Wade-Bosh make them?
You mean the thunder were the favorites when they faced there because the whole league saw the heat triumvirate lose against dirk or jason terry-led mavs in the trio's first year together? :oldlol:

[Hey Yo]

Neither were super teams. Okc were puppies and never won shit. Warriors were great but I'd hardly call steph, klay and dray a super team. They were very good and just played smarter than everyone else.
They kicked veteran ass with a record of 12-3 to get to the Finals.

Are you suggesting that the West was overrated? OKC had no business being in the Finals with their 2 All-NBA players (3x reigning scoring champ), 6MOY and runner up DPOY who also was All-Defensive first team? They sucked and just got lucky? Is that what you're saying??

[8Ball]

LeBron beating a 73 win team really rankles the Jordanites.

- 73>72 so the best regular season team of all time is no longer a Jordan team.

- Then LeBron goes God mode in game 5 6 7 against a team better than Jordan's 96 Bulls.

That's the bottom line. Those 2 facts hurt Jordanites the most. That's why they keep whining about how 2016 Warriors weren't a super team.

Other facts Jordanites don't like:

LeBron beat a team with 3 All NBA players in 2016. First time ever a team had 3 all nba players.

Curry was unanimous mvp and LeBron rekt him and made him look small.

[TheGoatest]

They were both great teams either way but tbh, there are lots of other conference champions with similar runs as well before reaching and falling in the finals. The warriors, in particular, were already a dynasty in the making before the 2016 finals ended.

Just out of curiosity name those "lots" of finals-losing teams who you consider to be as good as the 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs and 2016 Warriors. Those 3 are probably the greatest 3 teams ever beaten in a finals.


Is your reaction with banal sarcasm really that necessary in an attempt to deflect the point i made earlier?

Lebron performed greatly, yes, but aside from ray allen's three i was also talking about bosh's key block against danny green's three that would have sent that game into another overtime. You didn't need to bring up some of their shortcomings just to show that he did all the carrying for them. They had some crucial contributions at least.

Yeah, and Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Sam Cassell, Vernon Maxwell, Mario Elie and Otis Thorpe had some contributions on the 1994 Rockets. That doesn't mean that Hakeem didn't carry them to the title.


The very same team that swept the cavs in '07 sans kawhi. What do you expect?

I agree. The 2007 Spurs were the biggest favorites to win the finals in history against the worst finals-making supporting cast for a team ever.


Obviously, that's the most spectacular performance lebron ever had in the postseason. Only the warriors took them to seven games (after they almost got ripped by okc) that year but dub stans and his haters will just whine then point out about how dray went missing in g5 after he got suspended for flagrant foul and then curry's injury, which i don't know if it's true. But anyway, i don't care about that since i still cherish that moment they beat them.

However, since he was leading a party to the finals filled with bunch of scrubs not named love and irving, of course lebron will come out to be prominent as usual because he was the finals veteran there. Like i said, even lue as their head coach was a scrub and it's given that the disparity between him and most of his teammates is just great. He didn't have a teammate there as useful or good back then like ad is right now. So he had to shoulder most of the load.

The point that I was trying to make is that the fact that the Warriors lost to arguably the greatest finals performance ever doesn't not make them a super team. They still made the finals and were 2 possesions away from winning the finals. And if the Warriors do end up winning the 2016 title, we wouldn't be arguing whether they were a super team or not, but whether they are the greatest team ever or not. Obviously, 73-9 doesn't look as good without the title, but it's hard to win a title against a historic performance like LeBron had in those finals. For any team, not just those Warriors.


We may never know but regardless, in okc's first season without harden still saw them win 60 games in the rs. Unfortunately, westbrook went out in the first round against his rockets so their postseason just ended prematurely against the grizzlies in the wcsf.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to argue. They were still contenders in the seasons following Harden's departure, so they were obviously a super team with Harden that season in 2012.


So titles obtained under the past playoff formats wouldn't count just for that reason alone? Talk about some spoiled double standards, dude.

I didn't say that. You on the other hand were trying to downplay LeBron's 2012 title because it was 66 games. But if we were trying to put asterisks on titles because of the number of games that were played, I would say that the title where you had to play more playoff games outweighs the one where you had to play more regular season games.


You mean the thunder were the favorites when they faced there because the whole league saw the heat triumvirate lose against dirk or jason terry-led mavs in the trio's first year together?

You can laugh at the reasons why the Thunder were the favorites going into the 2012, but the fact is that they WERE the favorites. Both among sports analysts as well as Vegas bookies.

[dankok8]

I don't see any of MJ's Bulls title teams losing to the 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs or 2016 Warriors. Only the 2016 Warriors can be argued as a superteam because of their regular season but in the playoffs they played nothing like it. They weren't dominant. IMO a lot of teams the Bulls faced in the 90's were in better form in the playoffs than the 2016 Warriors.

Just because Lebron plays 7 games against some of these teams doesn't make them great teams. You can easily argue that the reason those series went 7 in the first place is Lebron's subpar play early in the series. In 2013 for instance Lebron had 18, 17 and 15 points in the first three games. In 2016 if Lebron went 40 points back to back in Game 1 and 2 maybe Cavs win the series in 5 games. It would be more impressive than winning in 7 games but not according to some of you with your twisted logic.

Lebron's play at times left very little margin for error... Jordan is the kind of guy who usually dominated in the first two games to take a 2-0 lead and it's smooth sailing from there. The Bulls win in 6 and people just dismiss it as weak competition. Hmm... all things being equal I'll take the guy who doesn't let the series get to Game 7. People can hate on Jordan and prop up Pippen all they want but the 90's Bulls weren't the most talented team of all time... not by a long shot.

Discussing competition is fools' gold anyway. No one can ever definitively prove if the 1996 Sonics were a better playoff team than the 2016 Warriors. You just can't prove things like that. There is no objectivity in these kind of arguments. Achievements are objective.

[Axe]

Just out of curiosity name those "lots" of finals-losing teams who you consider to be as good as the 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs and 2016 Warriors. Those 3 are probably the greatest 3 teams ever beaten in a finals.
2019 warriors were heavy favorites that went 12-4 in their conference (versus 12-5 of the 2016 team), despite injuries to cousins, durant, iggy and shooting woes from the splash bros before kawhi and the raptors crushed their hopes for a three-peat in the finals but klay got injured as well. Still, they were a team of five all-stars from the preceding season even if they were older.

2015 cavs went 12-2 in the east postseason even with injuries to love during the first-round and then saw them lead gs 2-1 even if kyrie became injured for g1 of the finals. That team had a shot at a chip, tbh if not for shitty injuries but they still swept two teams in the process. Also were favorites initially.

2008 lakers had a better postseason run (12-3) before their 11th rematch against the celtics in the finals and were title favorites, despite not having having the hca due to having the inferior record of the two during the rs. It was kobe's fifth trip to the finals too.

1989 lakers were two-time defending champions that went 11-0 in the first three rounds of the postseason until they were ultimately swept by the pistons in the finals. This was their 8th finals berth in 10 years.

And so on. There are other teams but these are what came into my mind.


Yeah, and Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Sam Cassell, Vernon Maxwell, Mario Elie and Otis Thorpe had some contributions on the 1994 Rockets. That doesn't mean that Hakeem didn't carry them to the title.
Well why do you think they would hand him the fmvp if you think he didn't? :confusedshrug:

Basketball is a team sport, not individual.


I agree. The 2007 Spurs were the biggest favorites to win the finals in history against the worst finals-making supporting cast for a team ever.
Fair enough. In baldan's case tho, it was the 1986 celtics and he faced them on an 8th seed bulls team. Ofc, yall clown him because it happened in the first round and he went 1-9 there until pippen came.


The point that I was trying to make is that the fact that the Warriors lost to arguably the greatest finals performance ever doesn't not make them a super team. They still made the finals and were 2 possesions away from winning the finals. And if the Warriors do end up winning the 2016 title, we wouldn't be arguing whether they were a super team or not, but whether they are the greatest team ever or not. Obviously, 73-9 doesn't look as good without the title, but it's hard to win a title against a historic performance like LeBron had in those finals. For any team, not just those Warriors.
Like i said, you do realize that lebron had to play at that level because he didn't have any teammate who's almost as good as he is, right? Because if that were the case, it wouldn't have taken seven games just to beat them, even if their rivals were stacked af. The warriors also choked big time.


Yes, that's what I'm trying to argue. They were still contenders in the seasons following Harden's departure, so they were obviously a super team with Harden that season in 2012.
It would have been compelling if they didn't let go of harden and they made another trip to the finals in the following year but we never got to see that at all so the fact still remains that the thunder only made the finals once in the last 10 years. It could have been two if they didn't choke to gs in the 2016 wcf.


I didn't say that. You on the other hand were trying to downplay LeBron's 2012 title because it was 66 games. But if we were trying to put asterisks on titles because of the number of games that were played, I would say that the title where you had to play more playoff games outweighs the one where you had to play more regular season games.
Lmao what? Ffs where did you even get that idea from? :oldlol:

I didn't mention that just to downplay his second ring. I was only saying that because the outcome for the thunder (which you consider a superteam) could be possibly different instead if 82 games were played in the season as usual. You know, injuries, suspensions or excuses to/from the players that will keep them from playing in the remainder of the season.


You can laugh at the reasons why the Thunder were the favorites going into the 2012, but the fact is that they WERE the favorites. Both among sports analysts as well as Vegas bookies.
So it means they were rooting for the heat to lose as well, even if they were kinda stacked too.

[Bronbron23]

They had been to 2 straight Finals and won one and only lost one of them because LeBron had the greatest play off series of all time.

Yes they damn were a dynasty before KD joined them.

How can you be a dynasty with one asterisk chip dude? They were on no way a dynasty

[Bronbron23]

What are you even saying?

Im saying kd isn't any better than barkley. Barkley would have 2 chips too if he joined the warriors so i don't even really hold that in KD's favor. If you look at straight impact theres no way in hell you can say kd is better.

[Axe]

I didn't mention that just to downplay his second ring. I was only saying that because the outcome for the thunder (which you consider a superteam) could be possibly different instead if 82 games were played in the season as usual. You know, injuries, suspensions or excuses to/from the players that will keep them from playing in the remainder of the season.
Correction here: first ring

[dankok8]

I think KD vs. Barkley comparison in terms of who is the better player can go either way. I can see an argument for both. However all time it's KD. Winning rings does matter. Barkley will always lack that ring which validates his career.

[bullettooth]

Remember, OP has never had sex

Has this been discussed yet?

[Smoke117]

I think KD vs. Barkley comparison in terms of who is the better player can go either way. I can see an argument for both. However all time it's KD. Winning rings does matter. Barkley will always lack that ring which validates his career.

lol Rings don't mean shit in a debate between who is higher all time between Barkley and Durant. It's clearly Barkley. If he had taken off and joined the Blazers, Knicks, Sonics, Jazz, or Spurs and still lost rings might mean something...but he didn't.

[Bronbron23]

I think KD vs. Barkley comparison in terms of who is the better player can go either way. I can see an argument for both. However all time it's KD. Winning rings does matter. Barkley will always lack that ring which validates his career.

I'd usually agree with that but its so hard to do that with kd given the way he won his rings.

[dankok8]

lol Rings don't mean shit in a debate between who is higher all time between Barkley and Durant. It's clearly Barkley. If he had taken off and joined the Blazers, Knicks, Sonics, Jazz, or Spurs and still lost rings might mean something...but he didn't.


I'd usually agree with that but its so hard to do that with kd given the way he won his rings.

Honestly those are nice arguments in theory but people forget these kinds of narratives. When they both retire people most of whom either haven't seen them or simply don't care about colluding etc. will say 2 > 0 ... Then they'll see KD put up GOAT stats in the Finals and that's that. It will be over before it began.

And that's all assuming KD doesn't collude his way to more rings. He could end up top 10 all time... :lol

[3ball]

.
3 elite 1st options = super-team

Curry's Warriors never had this but the Cavs did, which is why the Cavs were favored heading into the 15' and 16' seasons

So Lebron beat a 73-win team, not a super-team.. lebron is the only guy with a super-team from 11-16'

[TheGoatest]

2019 warriors were heavy favorites that went 12-4 in their conference (versus 12-5 of the 2016 team), despite injuries to cousins, durant, iggy and shooting woes from the splash bros before kawhi and the raptors crushed their hopes for a three-peat in the finals but klay got injured as well. Still, they were a team of five all-stars from the preceding season even if they were older.

2015 cavs went 12-2 in the east postseason even with injuries to love during the first-round and then saw them lead gs 2-1 even if kyrie became injured for g1 of the finals. That team had a shot at a chip, tbh if not for shitty injuries but they still swept two teams in the process. Also were favorites initially.

2008 lakers had a better postseason run (12-3) before their 11th rematch against the celtics in the finals and were title favorites, despite not having having the hca due to having the inferior record of the two during the rs. It was kobe's fifth trip to the finals too.

1989 lakers were two-time defending champions that went 11-0 in the first three rounds of the postseason until they were ultimately swept by the pistons in the finals. This was their 8th finals berth in 10 years.

And so on. There are other teams but these are what came into my mind.

All those teams would get washed by the 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs and 2016 Warriors - assuming the 1989 Lakers don't have Byron Scott and are missing Magic for half of the series like they did in the '89 finals against the Pistons. And assuming the 2019 Warriors don't have Durant and Klay.

The 2015 Cavs with Delly as their #2 option on offense? Are you serious? :roll:



Well why do you think they would hand him the fmvp if you think he didn't? :confusedshrug:

Basketball is a team sport, not individual.

The point is that LeBron carried those 2016 Cavs (4-23 record without him in the 27 games he missed between 2014 and 2018) to the title as much as any player carried any team. And most definitely more than Jordan carried any of those Bulls teams (55 wins in 1993-94 without him).


Like i said, you do realize that lebron had to play at that level because he didn't have any teammate who's almost as good as he is, right? Because if that were the case, it wouldn't have taken seven games just to beat them, even if their rivals were stacked af. The warriors also choked big time.

The 2016 finals weren't like the Clippers-Nuggets series. The Warriors didn't blow huge leads in games 5, 6 and 7 like the Clippers. Post game 4, the series was more about the Cavs turning it around and LeBron playing at a level no player has played in the finals ever than it was about Warriors choking. They were still a super team, but were just outmatched by LeBron's insanely high level of play.


It would have been compelling if they didn't let go of harden and they made another trip to the finals in the following year but we never got to see that at all so the fact still remains that the thunder only made the finals once in the last 10 years. It could have been two if they didn't choke to gs in the 2016 wcf.

You keep repeating the same thing: The Thunder didn't make the finals after Harden left them. We know.
I'll keep repeating the same thing: The 2012 Thunder, the last season Harden was with them were definitely a super team


Lmao what? Ffs where did you even get that idea from? :oldlol:

I didn't mention that just to downplay his second ring. I was only saying that because the outcome for the thunder (which you consider a superteam) could be possibly different instead if 82 games were played in the season as usual. You know, injuries, suspensions or excuses to/from the players that will keep them from playing in the remainder of the season.

Injuries can come because of a lack of rest, and the condensed 2011-12 season had fewer days of rest than an ordinary season.
But I don't see what your point is, considering the 2012 Thunder didn't have a player miss a game throughout the 2012 playoffs. The Heat, on the other hand suffered an injury setback after Chris Bosh had to miss the second round and half of the conference finals.


So it means they were rooting for the heat to lose as well, even if they were kinda stacked too.

Vegas bookies don't root for any team, or have any emotional attachment or hatred towards to the teams. The 2012 Thunder were the favorites going into the 2012 finals because they were objectively seen as the better team, and the team that had the highest chance of winning the finals.

[dbugz]

The best team Jordan ever beat had a 10ppg 2nd option


LeBron beat the 2012 Thunder superteam, 2013 Spurs, 2016 Warriors (GOAT team) and the 2015 Hawks (4 all-stars)


All of them were better than the best team Jordan faced

MJ's team is the superteam. They're way too good.

[Axe]

All those teams would get washed by the 2012 Thunder, 2013 Spurs and 2016 Warriors - assuming the 1989 Lakers don't have Byron Scott and are missing Magic for half of the series like they did in the '89 finals against the Pistons. And assuming the 2019 Warriors don't have Durant and Klay.

The 2015 Cavs with Delly as their #2 option on offense? Are you serious? :roll:
Whatever suits your agenda here lmao.

It's quite obvious you're just dubbing them as superteams and probably thinking they're the best because those are the western teams that lebron beat before he got his fourth chip against the heat this year. The others can't count or can't be said as good as them because the "goat" apparently never defeated them in the first place. Again, applying some spoiled double standards here i see.

I think i could give the spurs and warriors a pass because they are perennial title contenders which he faced b2b in the finals but if we are going to follow your logic again, then the 2020 heat must be a superteam too because he defeated them in six games. Also the 2011 mavs as well had the heat trio defeated them back then.


The point is that LeBron carried those 2016 Cavs (4-23 record without him in the 27 games he missed between 2014 and 2018) to the title as much as any player carried any team. And most definitely more than Jordan carried any of those Bulls teams (55 wins in 1993-94 without him).
Like i said, it was mostly because the party he was leading during that time were mostly filled with bunch of scrubs, including their head coach ty lue.

That cavs team actually went several overhauls before he left them once again two years ago. In his last season with them, the team acquired players who were former all-stars like d-rose, d-wade, kyle korver and isaiah thomas, alongside some role players but they couldn't even get the rhythm together in the rs because some of them are washed or rusty and lue was very incompetent. The hype about the change was all for nothing. Even if they were revamped, they were struggling to win games against even weak teams so cleveland ended up trading most of those guys but they've won just 50 games which was only good for the east 4th seed in 2018.

Now if only he had somebody as good before like ad or butler are now, then that team would have stood a chance in their fourth rematch against golden state, which would most likely not end up in a sweep.


The 2016 finals weren't like the Clippers-Nuggets series. The Warriors didn't blow huge leads in games 5, 6 and 7 like the Clippers. Post game 4, the series was more about the Cavs turning it around and LeBron playing at a level no player has played in the finals ever than it was about Warriors choking. They were still a super team, but were just outmatched by LeBron's insanely high level of play.
I never suggested earlier that they were like kawhi's clippers who were complete but recently choked a 3-1 lead in the wcsf against windhorst big time, now did i?

But come on now. You can't keep on overlooking the fact that the warriors blew a 3-1 lead because they were missing their donkey in game 5 due to flagrant foul. Then it only kept getting worse for them, as bogut was lost for the remainder of the series with a season-ending injury, which downsized the warriors' impeccable defense. Curry then fouled out before game 6 concluded. The gerbil was probably frustrated upon realizing that the series will go to game seven which became inevitable.

All that for their woes while lebron and co. thrived on to make an epic comeback, with game 5 being the unanimous catalyst. They couldn't just do anything to stop him at that point but who knows what would have happened if not for the distractions that set back their opponents. Who cares tho.

[Axe]

You keep repeating the same thing: The Thunder didn't make the finals after Harden left them. We know.
I'll keep repeating the same thing: The 2012 Thunder, the last season Harden was with them were definitely a super team
Well, it just goes on and on tbh but the fact that i said earlier still remains; that team was only good for one finals run before harden's departure. This world is truly full of 'what ifs' but that's what happened.


Injuries can come because of a lack of rest, and the condensed 2011-12 season had fewer days of rest than an ordinary season.
But I don't see what your point is, considering the 2012 Thunder didn't have a player miss a game throughout the 2012 playoffs. The Heat, on the other hand suffered an injury setback after Chris Bosh had to miss the second round and half of the conference finals.
I concur but you do realize that thunder roster were mostly filled with young, healthy squads that were just making their finals debut with the exception of fisher, mohammed and perkins, right?

Besides, if you don't consider the two months as additional rests for these teams (the period bet. late october, which is the usual regular season start, to late december), despite having tight schedules when the lockout season started, then i don't know what it is.


Vegas bookies don't root for any team, or have any emotional attachment or hatred towards to the teams. The 2012 Thunder were the favorites going into the 2012 finals because they were objectively seen as the better team, and the team that had the highest chance of winning the finals.
Meh, who the hell cares about these bets. They're overrated. Anything can possibly happen in the series, whether it'd be injuries, suspensions or fouls to key players which can influence how the series will go on. They're not reliable all the time, so why would people follow them? The team with better determination will often dominate, even if the competition can be lopsided at times.