Everything Except Leading Your Team to Rings is Subjective Bull...

[dankok8]

Seriously...

The purpose of the game is to win rings. That's why these guys play the game and work hard and train. The goal is to win.

When people say "Oh it's not just rings... Sometimes better players don't have the team to to win." that's true but let's not pretend like most people don't value rings more than anything else. I don't care what kind of basketball guru someone is that understands the game and dissects players' games, they won't have someone like TMac in their top 20. Or probably even top 50. Not because he wasn't skilled because he was as skilled as anyone but he didn't do anything with his teams.

Individual stats are nice but mean nothing without context. Scoring depends how much you hold the ball, how much you shoot. Efficiency depends on what shots you take. Rebounds can either come from tough boxouts or just uncontested pickups. Assists can be simply prods or amazing crosscourt missiles flying past defenders' heads. And guess what this context is very very limited. There are only so many advanced stats. Our memories are also limited and no amount of stats can actually break down any player's entire game so that we can adequately compare. PPG, RPG, PER are all very very crude measurements of performances, not perfect or even nearly perfect indicators of performance.

At the end what we have as player's legacy is what they achieved. How many titles they led their teams to. Everything else is background noise. A cacophony of useless stats, arguments, anecdotes, narratives etc. in other words bulls**t. It's hard to accept but it's the reality. How many times have you heard legends like Kobe (RIP) talk about MJ's PPG averages or his efficiency or any of his stats? What drove Kobe and I would venture 99% of NBA greats was the desire to win RINGS... he wanted to tie and surpass MJ. Nothing else matters except rings whether you like it or not.

[Thenameless]

Seriously...

The purpose of the game is to win rings.

So, what you're saying is that Bill Russell is the best or greatest of all time then. He's definitely up there, but I wouldn't have him at the top.

[Axe]

So, what you're saying is that Bill Russell is the best or greatest of all time then. He's definitely up there, but I wouldn't have him at the top.
Oh wow this probably sums it all up

[Airupthere]

So, what you're saying is that Bill Russell is the best or greatest of all time then. He's definitely up there, but I wouldn't have him at the top.

He’s up there. MJ, KAJ and Bill. How you want to stack them up would depend on your bias. Then you have second tier like Magic and Bird. Then the rest, Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe. The authenticity of what these greats put into the game. How raw they played their games. Then people try to squeeze in Lebron who relied a lot on recruits to win. Forcing the formation of teams. Lebron who is statistically vain that it ruins the whole thing.

[Marchesk]

So Robert Horry's career >>>>>>> Barkley and K. Malone's?

[Axe]

So Robert Horry's career >>>>>>> Barkley and K. Malone's?
:roll:

[3ball]

So Robert Horry's career >>>>>>> Barkley and K. Malone's?

OP title says "leading" your team to rings

[ArbitraryWater]

OP having an identity crisis over LeBron's 4th.

[AirBonner]

Op is 3ball

[StrongLurk]

Hey OP, maybe just maybe, the only thing that should be judged in a team sport is the TEAM.

That's how college basketball is 95% of the time, about the team.

The NBA in the 80's and onward made the decision to live or die on marketing individual players instead of teams and the NBA fanbase has now become the most toxic and ignorant fanbase of any major sport.

No one talks about teams AT ALL when discussing the NBA. In fact, the "team" only exists in NBA discussions to build up or tear down certain select superstars and it's just toxic as hell. Too many stans actively rooting for a player but also rooting against that players teammates on EVER outshining the player they stan.

[Axe]

Hey OP, maybe just maybe, the only thing that should be judged in a team sport is the TEAM.

That's how college basketball is 95% of the time, about the team.

The NBA in the 80's and onward made the decision to live or die on marketing individual players instead of teams and the NBA fanbase has now become the most toxic and ignorant fanbase of any major sport.

No one talks about teams AT ALL when discussing the NBA.
I guess that makes a lot of sense

[8Ball]

Seriously...

The purpose of the game is to win rings. That's why these guys play the game and work hard and train. The goal is to win.

When people say "Oh it's not just rings... Sometimes better players don't have the team to to win." that's true but let's not pretend like most people don't value rings more than anything else. I don't care what kind of basketball guru someone is that understands the game and dissects players' games, they won't have someone like TMac in their top 20. Or probably even top 50. Not because he wasn't skilled because he was as skilled as anyone but he didn't do anything with his teams.

Individual stats are nice but mean nothing without context. Scoring depends how much you hold the ball, how much you shoot. Efficiency depends on what shots you take. Rebounds can either come from tough boxouts or just uncontested pickups. Assists can be simply prods or amazing crosscourt missiles flying past defenders' heads. And guess what this context is very very limited. There are only so many advanced stats. Our memories are also limited and no amount of stats can actually break down any player's entire game so that we can adequately compare. PPG, RPG, PER are all very very crude measurements of performances, not perfect or even nearly perfect indicators of performance.

At the end what we have as player's legacy is what they achieved. How many titles they led their teams to. Everything else is background noise. A cacophony of useless stats, arguments, anecdotes, narratives etc. in other words bulls**t. It's hard to accept but it's the reality. How many times have you heard legends like Kobe (RIP) talk about MJ's PPG averages or his efficiency or any of his stats? What drove Kobe and I would venture 99% of NBA greats was the desire to win RINGS... he wanted to tie and surpass MJ. Nothing else matters except rings whether you like it or not.

Compare teams if you want to compare championships.

Compare individual accomplishments if you want to compare individual players.

End of story.

[MaxPlayer]

Chauncey Billups > Patrick Ewing

[8Ball]

Isiah Thomas led his team to 2 rings.

Guess he is a better player than Karl Malone.

Said no one ever.

[iamgine]

Seriously...

The purpose of the game is to win rings. That's why these guys play the game and work hard and train. The goal is to win.

When people say "Oh it's not just rings... Sometimes better players don't have the team to to win." that's true but let's not pretend like most people don't value rings more than anything else. I don't care what kind of basketball guru someone is that understands the game and dissects players' games, they won't have someone like TMac in their top 20. Or probably even top 50. Not because he wasn't skilled because he was as skilled as anyone but he didn't do anything with his teams.

Individual stats are nice but mean nothing without context. Scoring depends how much you hold the ball, how much you shoot. Efficiency depends on what shots you take. Rebounds can either come from tough boxouts or just uncontested pickups. Assists can be simply prods or amazing crosscourt missiles flying past defenders' heads. And guess what this context is very very limited. There are only so many advanced stats. Our memories are also limited and no amount of stats can actually break down any player's entire game so that we can adequately compare. PPG, RPG, PER are all very very crude measurements of performances, not perfect or even nearly perfect indicators of performance.

At the end what we have as player's legacy is what they achieved. How many titles they led their teams to. Everything else is background noise. A cacophony of useless stats, arguments, anecdotes, narratives etc. in other words bulls**t. It's hard to accept but it's the reality. How many times have you heard legends like Kobe (RIP) talk about MJ's PPG averages or his efficiency or any of his stats? What drove Kobe and I would venture 99% of NBA greats was the desire to win RINGS... he wanted to tie and surpass MJ. Nothing else matters except rings whether you like it or not.
Depends. Even making the NBA is a huge achievement in itself. If your grandpa is Pete Maravich or Allen Iverson, you'd be in huge awe of him despite he never winning a ring. I bet many people hold Iverson to higher regard than, say, Rick Barry who won a ring.

The goal of any competition is to win, but legacy is a different thing.

[3ball]

Hey OP, maybe just maybe, the only thing that should be judged in a team sport is the TEAM.

That's how college basketball is 95% of the time, about the team.

The NBA in the 80's and onward made the decision to live or die on marketing individual players instead of teams and the NBA fanbase has now become the most toxic and ignorant fanbase of any major sport.

No one talks about teams AT ALL when discussing the NBA. In fact, the "team" only exists in NBA discussions to build up or tear down certain select superstars and it's just toxic as hell. Too many stans actively rooting for a player but also rooting against that players teammates on EVER outshining the player they stan.


No one discusses "team" because everyone is team-hopping and winning via talent assemblage, not developing a unique team brand, pace and identity like previous eras (organic)

And Lebron caused the talent-based winning trend with his "decision".. so he reduced basketball by removing the best brand from the league (organic) and replaced it with AAU-style recruiting and talent-based winning (weaker basketball).. certainly the organic teams of prior eras would demolish today's hodge-podge of short-term mercenary teamwork.

But the reality is that Jordan started the trend towards individual marketing because he was viewed as a 1-man show with superior individual production rate/dominance than anyone ever.. that's when the league started focusing on the name on the back of the jersey, instead of the front

[MaxPlayer]

Depends. Even making the NBA is a huge achievement in itself. If your grandpa is Pete Maravich or Allen Iverson, you'd be in huge awe of him despite he never winning a ring. I bet many people hold Iverson to higher regard than, say, Rick Barry who won a ring.

The goal of any competition is to win, but legacy is a different thing.

GTFOH with this nuance

[dankok8]

Hey OP, maybe just maybe, the only thing that should be judged in a team sport is the TEAM.

That's how college basketball is 95% of the time, about the team.

The NBA in the 80's and onward made the decision to live or die on marketing individual players instead of teams and the NBA fanbase has now become the most toxic and ignorant fanbase of any major sport.

No one talks about teams AT ALL when discussing the NBA. In fact, the "team" only exists in NBA discussions to build up or tear down certain select superstars and it's just toxic as hell. Too many stans actively rooting for a player but also rooting against that players teammates on EVER outshining the player they stan.

I agree. There should be more comparisons of teams than individuals.

As for everyone mentioning Bill Russell, yes he should be GOAT but he isn't because 90% of the NBA fanbase arbitrarily decided to dismiss his era as weak. Every player can only play in their own era. Admittedly the style changes are huge. I would never say that if you put Bill Russell in a time machine he'd be GOAT today. Heck even if he grew up in the modern era with modern medicine, nutrition, training, tactics etc. he still probably wouldn't be GOAT because I don't think the 2020 NBA can have a defensive center with nearly as much impact as in the 60's. Simply because today the game is much more spaced and more happens on the perimeter where Russell couldn't impact the game. But if that's people's logic to dismiss Russell then why even debate the GOAT? In 2050 there will be a 4-point shot or something and everyone in this era will be long obsolete. To me it's stupid logic.

You're the GOAT if you're the most dominant relative to the era you play in. And dominance is reflected in championships. That's it.

[TheGoatest]

Today on this forum I learned that Dennis Johnson and Chauncey Billups > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, Elgin Baylor, Chris Paul and James Harden

I also learned that Willis Reed > Moses Malone, Julius Erving, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki

[Thenameless]

Today on this forum I learned that Dennis Johnson and Chauncey Billups > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, Elgin Baylor, Chris Paul and James Harden

I also learned that Willis Reed > Moses Malone, Julius Erving, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki

Glad to see you know your stuff. Moses Malone and Oscar Robertson were particularly good during their time.

[light]

Not all rings are equal and some were easier to win than others.

All rings from 1991 to 1998 were relative cake.

2020 ring, 2016 ring and 2013 ring were probably the three most difficult rings to win in history.

For 2016 and 2013 the competition level was so astronomically high - as a result they are both legendary 7 game series - probably the two greatest finals series of all time.

For 2020 the circumstances made it very difficult for the players.

[TheGoatest]

You want to know what real subjective bullshit is?

Using conjecture, opinion-based terms like "eye test", "lacks killer instinct" and "his game is ugly" to counter hard facts like 7.5K career playoff points when no one else in history has even 6K, 13 All-NBA 1st teams when no one else in history has even 12 and 16 25ppg seasons when no one else in history has even 13.

[SouBeachTalents]

Winning championships is still way too reliant on circumstances outside of a players control; the era they play in, the roster around them, injuries to them or their opponent, or even whether a single shot goes in or not.

And the funny thing is, no matter how ring obsessed fans have become, analyzing basketball like it's golf or tennis, we still see Oscar, West & Dr. J all unanimously in the top 15, and none of them ever led a single team to an NBA championship.

Sorry OP, you can try to list players by how many rings they "led" their team to in an attempt to determine who's better, but basketball is much more nuanced than that. I'd say the fact you have Jordan ranked ahead of Russell is absolute proof that even how many titles a player leads their team to is subjective after all

[light]

"Everything Except Leading Your Team to Rings is Subjective Bull..."

That in itself is subjective.

[sdot_thadon]

I agree. There should be more comparisons of teams than individuals.

As for everyone mentioning Bill Russell, yes he should be GOAT but he isn't because 90% of the NBA fanbase arbitrarily decided to dismiss his era as weak.

So 2 sentences into your 1st reply, you completely destroy your own op by basically saying even championships are subjective? Good to know.

[Airupthere]

You want to know what real subjective bullshit is?

Using conjecture, opinion-based terms like "eye test", "lacks killer instinct" and "his game is ugly" to counter hard facts like 7.5K career playoff points when no one else in history has even 6K, 13 All-NBA 1st teams when no one else in history has even 12 and 16 25ppg seasons when no one else in history has even 13.

People watch games, not stat sheets. Numbers while being factual should be looked at with context. Otherwise, one would think Wilt will average the same rebounds per game in today's league.

Players can statpad during the first 3 quarters and have horrendous numbers in the 4th during all of his finals. And yet people can take the numbers from the whole game to justify that that person played great when he continually comes up short in the most important, crucial moments of the game.

Greatness is manifested in the toughest situations and you have to witness them with your eyes. Everything matters, body language, will to win, killer instinct, leadership. You see those when you watch games. You see those who wilt during pressure and let his teammates take over and take the toughest shots.

Horrible acting/flopping can be seen while watching games, you can see how absurd they are through replays. And yet they don't show up in the statssheet. Bad footwork can be seen but they won't come out of the stats sheet.

[ImKobe]

You want to know what real subjective bullshit is?

Using conjecture, opinion-based terms like "eye test", "lacks killer instinct" and "his game is ugly" to counter hard facts like 7.5K career playoff points when no one else in history has even 6K, 13 All-NBA 1st teams when no one else in history has even 12 and 16 25ppg seasons when no one else in history has even 13.

Anyone can google stats, but eye test and style of play can tell you a lot when it comes to comparing players. Also, the longevity records are very impressive, but you had shorter 1st rounds up until the early 2000s, and players who dominated in the post-season (MJ's Bulls, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Warriors) get punished by sweeping/beating their opponents in less games as well. Karl Malone is 2nd all-time in scoring, but does anyone really consider him one of the 5 (maybe even 10) best scorers ever?


People watch games, not stat sheets. Numbers while being factual should be looked at with context. Otherwise, one would think Wilt will average the same rebounds per game in today's league.

Players can statpad during the first 3 quarters and have horrendous numbers in the 4th during all of his finals. And yet people can take the numbers from the whole game to justify that that person played great when he continually comes up short in the most important, crucial moments of the game.


100% agree. Harden's the best example of this. You look at his Playoff numbers with the Rockets and think he did a decent job (albeit his efficiency dropped almost every season), but they don't really show you all the chokes he had in the biggest games of those series.

[MaxPlayer]

Whichever metric puts the player I stan in the best light is obviously the most important.

[TheGoatest]

Anyone can google stats, but eye test and style of play can tell you a lot when it comes to comparing players. Also, the longevity records are very impressive, but you had shorter 1st rounds up until the early 2000s, and players who dominated in the post-season (MJ's Bulls, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, Warriors) get punished by sweeping/beating their opponents in less games as well. Karl Malone is 2nd all-time in scoring, but does anyone really consider him one of the 5 (maybe even 10) best scorers ever?


Stats exist so that you have empirical evidence instead of my word vs yours bullshit. You think LeBron's game is ugly? Okay. I think LeBron's game is beautiful. What are you going to use to prove me wrong? Point to fellow haters who share your opinion? I can point to others who feel the same way I do. Where is that going to get us in the end?

And LeBron's playoff numbers are so far ahead of everyone else, none of the stuff you wrote matters. Especially not when it comes to Jordan, who only would've had a 1st round that was best out 7 instead of best out of 5. If his numbers are a victim, then what about Kareem, who for the most of his career only played in an era where there were only 3 playoff series and not 4? But even if you compensate for that, even Kareem would still be well short of LeBron's 7.5k career playoff points, a number that will grow further this year.

I also find it hilarious how LeBron's 2011-12 ring was called an asterisk ring because it was a shortened season even though all playoff series were still best of 7, yet all of Jordan's rings are not only not called asterisks because he had a best out of 5 series in each of them, but apparently should be a benefit for his legacy?

[MaxPlayer]

You want to know what real subjective bullshit is?

Using conjecture, opinion-based terms like "eye test", "lacks killer instinct" and "his game is ugly" to counter hard facts like 7.5K career playoff points when no one else in history has even 6K, 13 All-NBA 1st teams when no one else in history has even 12 and 16 25ppg seasons when no one else in history has even 13.

Haha so much this. I love when people trot out "the eye test" as an argument, like they're fukking a scout or something.

[ImKobe]

Stats exist so that you have empirical evidence instead of my word vs yours bullshit. You think LeBron's game is ugly? Okay. I think LeBron's game is beautiful. What are you going to use to prove me wrong? Point to fellow haters who share your opinion? I can point to others who feel the same way I do. Where is that going to get us in the end?

And LeBron's playoff numbers are so far ahead of everyone else, none of the stuff you wrote matters. Especially not when it comes to Jordan, who only would've had a 1st round that was best out 7 instead of best out of 5. If his numbers are a victim, then what about Kareem, who for the most of his career only played in an era where there were only 3 playoff series and not 4? But even if you compensate for that, even Kareem would still be well short of LeBron's 7.5k career playoff points, a number that will grow further this year.

I also find it hilarious how LeBron's 2011-12 ring was called an asterisk ring because it was a shortened season even though all playoff series were still best of 7, yet all of Jordan's rings are not only not called asterisks because he had a best out of 5 series in each of them, but apparently should be a benefit for his legacy?

I agree on the first point, though stats don't really get you anywhere either if you're not debating or arguing in good faith, either side can pick stats that favor their guy but neither's going to give it up, it's why I don't bother with those debates anymore.

What do you mean it doesn't matter? Longevity numbers should be taken in context. For example, the NFL is going from 16 to 17 Regular Season games. Would you not take that extra game into account when a player inevitably breaks records of those who played just 16? Guess what, same thing happened with the NBA Playoffs in the 2000s, right as Lebron came into the league. That's a minimum of 1 extra Playoff game EVERY year, which at minimum is 13 extra games for Jordan & an extra 434 points to add to his Playoff career totals if we go by his average ppg at 33.4, but obviously the first round series against the Cavs would have likely gone 7 and who knows how many other teams could have won 1 out of 2 at home to change a 3-game sweep to a 5-game series as well.

I mean, there's no benefit to Jordan having a BO5 first round when talking about longevity records, less games = less potential points to pad your totals.

[Airupthere]

Stats exist so that you have empirical evidence instead of my word vs yours bullshit. You think LeBron's game is ugly? Okay. I think LeBron's game is beautiful. What are you going to use to prove me wrong? Point to fellow haters who share your opinion? I can point to others who feel the same way I do. Where is that going to get us in the end?

And LeBron's playoff numbers are so far ahead of everyone else, none of the stuff you wrote matters. Especially not when it comes to Jordan, who only would've had a 1st round that was best out 7 instead of best out of 5. If his numbers are a victim, then what about Kareem, who for the most of his career only played in an era where there were only 3 playoff series and not 4? But even if you compensate for that, even Kareem would still be well short of LeBron's 7.5k career playoff points, a number that will grow further this year.

I also find it hilarious how LeBron's 2011-12 ring was called an asterisk ring because it was a shortened season even though all playoff series were still best of 7, yet all of Jordan's rings are not only not called asterisks because he had a best out of 5 series in each of them, but apparently should be a benefit for his legacy?

So you see Lebron's feet scrambling and looking lost in the post and you think that is beautiful basketball? How is that subjective? You see Lebron flop horrendously, acting at it's finest during crucial moments in the playoffs and you act like he doesn't do that. Crabwalk is ugly, even for someone not playing basketball.

If you watch a game and see a player defer in the dying moments of crucial games, those don't stand out in accumulated stats. They get forgotten and diluted into everything when looking at just the stat totals.

[Airupthere]

Haha so much this. I love when people trot out "the eye test" as an argument, like they're fukking a scout or something.

Would you draft someone just looking at the stats? Completely just the stats?

[ThiccBoi]

Would you draft someone just looking at the stats? Completely just the stats?

Would you draft someone by just watching a few of their college games?

[Airupthere]

Would you draft someone by just watching a few of their college games?

Did I say that? I said numbers but with context. But one of you stans is saying stats are the be all and end all.

[k0kakw0rld]

Someone needs to remind OP that only 31 players have earned NBA Finals MVP honours out of the 4,509 players
total number of players to have played in the NBA.

It's not easy to win. You understand only one team can win out of 30 each year right?

[dankok8]

Today on this forum I learned that Dennis Johnson and Chauncey Billups > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Patrick Ewing, Elgin Baylor, Chris Paul and James Harden

I also learned that Willis Reed > Moses Malone, Julius Erving, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki

No you didn't. Ensemble titles on teams like the 1970 and 1973 Knicks, 1979 Sonics, 2004 Pistons and 2014 Spurs don't give anyone credit as a first option.

I will make a thread on this.


I'd say the fact you have Jordan ranked ahead of Russell is absolute proof that even how many titles a player leads their team to is subjective after all

Who said I have MJ over Russell?

Anyways...

Winning is the only purpose of basketball. We can argue circumstances till we're blue in the face. Who's the best player at their peak/prime is a different discussion from GOAT altogether and I find it more interesting personally. However GOAT is about having the most accomplishments. In tennis it's the number of grand slams, in soccer it's World Cups, in the NHL it's Stanley Cups, in the NFL it's Superbowls and guess what... in basketball it's Larry O'Brien Trophies. It's just how it is.

You LeStans want Lebron to be the GOAT? Luckily for you most of the public denounces Bill Russell and pretends MJ led his team to the most titles. If Lebron can tie him at 6 he will probably overtake him due to longevity. With 7 he will cement it. It's just how it is. You know what 3ball is most scared of? Lebron continuing to win titles. He doesn't care about passing Kareem's record or joining the 40/10/10 club or whatever and most people don't. Those are nice talking points but not the bottom line. Even Stephen A, Skip Bayless etc. who said Lebron can never pass MJ in their eyes. If Lebron wins 7 it's over. It will be almost unanimous. But now with 4... nah. If Lebron retired today he'd be a top 5 player all time but his case for GOAT is still very very weak because of just 4 rings. It's how it is.

(I'm saying how most people look at it... Not necessarily me personally.)

[tanibanana]

It is always about context... to people who are sane and no bias in discussing basketball. You can't just say Bill is over Michael because of winning. You can't also just say LeBron is not at par with Michael just because he has 6 Finals losses.. We weigh everything in the right context, like Dirk's lone championship is better than Durant's two, or Wilts 4-MVPs is better than Kareem's 6-MVPs, or Oscars Trip-Dubs, are better than Westrooks Trip-Dubs, or Kawhis 2-DPOYs is better than Gobert 2-DPOYs, and so on...

[colts19]

Depends. Even making the NBA is a huge achievement in itself. If your grandpa is Pete Maravich or Allen Iverson, you'd be in huge awe of him despite he never winning a ring. I bet many people hold Iverson to higher regard than, say, Rick Barry who won a ring.

The goal of any competition is to win, but legacy is a different thing.

Those people would be idiots. Rick Barry was better by a lot.

[TheGoatest]

What do you mean it doesn't matter? Longevity numbers should be taken in context. For example, the NFL is going from 16 to 17 Regular Season games. Would you not take that extra game into account when a player inevitably breaks records of those who played just 16? Guess what, same thing happened with the NBA Playoffs in the 2000s, right as Lebron came into the league. That's a minimum of 1 extra Playoff game EVERY year, which at minimum is 13 extra games for Jordan & an extra 434 points to add to his Playoff career totals if we go by his average ppg at 33.4, but obviously the first round series against the Cavs would have likely gone 7 and who knows how many other teams could have won 1 out of 2 at home to change a 3-game sweep to a 5-game series as well.

I mean, there's no benefit to Jordan having a BO5 first round when talking about longevity records, less games = less potential points to pad your totals.

I already mentioned that if you add 500 playoff points to Jordan and 1000 points to Kareem, LeBron would still be comfortably ahead, and even more ahead after this season.


So you see Lebron's feet scrambling and looking lost in the post and you think that is beautiful basketball? How is that subjective? You see Lebron flop horrendously, acting at it's finest during crucial moments in the playoffs and you act like he doesn't do that. Crabwalk is ugly, even for someone not playing basketball.

If you watch a game and see a player defer in the dying moments of crucial games, those don't stand out in accumulated stats. They get forgotten and diluted into everything when looking at just the stat totals.

You can keep up with your hater slogans, but this is what LeBron being "lost in the post" gets him:

https://images2.imagebam.com/cf/cd/63/6b0f771368116335.png

Meanwhile, keep praising this as "crafty" instead of what it is - dirty:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/41617774edf5372dfa32a4f001e46569/tumblr_mihnxr995H1r47wsdo1_500.gif

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/10/5d/15105d21d0b84b4ad90e96120cfd0003.jpg


No you didn't. Ensemble titles on teams like the 1970 and 1973 Knicks, 1979 Sonics, 2004 Pistons and 2014 Spurs don't give anyone credit as a first option.


Except the Bulls teams were an ensemble team as well, which is proven in the years 1994 and 1995, where they had the same results with Horace Grant minus Jordan and with Jordan minus Horace Grant the following season.

[Airupthere]

I already mentioned that if you add 500 playoff points to Jordan and 1000 points to Kareem, LeBron would still be comfortably ahead, and even more ahead after this season.



You can keep up with your hater slogans, but this is what LeBron being "lost in the post" gets him:

https://images2.imagebam.com/cf/cd/63/6b0f771368116335.png

Meanwhile, keep praising this as "crafty" instead of what it is - dirty:

https://64.media.tumblr.com/41617774edf5372dfa32a4f001e46569/tumblr_mihnxr995H1r47wsdo1_500.gif

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/10/5d/15105d21d0b84b4ad90e96120cfd0003.jpg



Except the Bulls teams were an ensemble team as well, which is proven in the years 1994 and 1995, where they had the same results with Horace Grant minus Jordan and with Jordan minus Horace Grant the following season.

I see the asterisk. That is important to have for last year's season. This year's as well. It's a practice league. So Lebron is only learning the post this late in his career during an exhibition league? Very lebronesque. Is he going to want to be tutored again by Hakeem? Also, he's going to lead the post this year because no one does it now. It's a 3 chucking exhibition league.

:oldlol: As for that MJ play, meh. I don't blindly support that shit. There a lot of other players in the game.

[Axe]

No you didn't. Ensemble titles on teams like the 1970 and 1973 Knicks, 1979 Sonics, 2004 Pistons and 2014 Spurs don't give anyone credit as a first option.

I will make a thread on this.


Who said I have MJ over Russell?

Anyways...

Winning is the only purpose of basketball. We can argue circumstances till we're blue in the face. Who's the best player at their peak/prime is a different discussion from GOAT altogether and I find it more interesting personally. However GOAT is about having the most accomplishments. In tennis it's the number of grand slams, in soccer it's World Cups, in the NHL it's Stanley Cups, in the NFL it's Superbowls and guess what... in basketball it's Larry O'Brien Trophies. It's just how it is.

You LeStans want Lebron to be the GOAT? Luckily for you most of the public denounces Bill Russell and pretends MJ led his team to the most titles. If Lebron can tie him at 6 he will probably overtake him due to longevity. With 7 he will cement it. It's just how it is. You know what 3ball is most scared of? Lebron continuing to win titles. He doesn't care about passing Kareem's record or joining the 40/10/10 club or whatever and most people don't. Those are nice talking points but not the bottom line. Even Stephen A, Skip Bayless etc. who said Lebron can never pass MJ in their eyes. If Lebron wins 7 it's over. It will be almost unanimous. But now with 4... nah. If Lebron retired today he'd be a top 5 player all time but his case for GOAT is still very very weak because of just 4 rings. It's how it is.

(I'm saying how most people look at it... Not necessarily me personally.)
Lol 3ball is retarded and totally unhinged. There's a big reason why he's being clowned all over in this board. Even some of his disciples like tpols and the welfarefan have turned on against him after he made his hilarious take on curry and the warriors.

[Axe]

I already mentioned that if you add 500 playoff points to Jordan and 1000 points to Kareem, LeBron would still be comfortably ahead, and even more ahead after this season.
Stats are only one thing. Excluding the finals, you do realize he wouldn't be able to pad up his stats in the postseason if not either of three; for good teams he played for, mediocre conference rivals and injuries to opposing players?

[SATAN]

It's pretty obvious why OP made this ridiculous thread. LeBron is the best to ever do it. Deal with it.

[Gudo]

Stats are only one thing. Excluding the finals, you do realize he wouldn't be able to pad up his stats in the postseason if not either of three; for good teams he played for, mediocre conference rivals and injuries to opposing players?

In boxing there is a concensus goat, that’s sugar ray robinson. Even so, you will still find lists that have ali or somebody else at number 1. And that is an individual sport where its supposed to be the easiest to compare boxers. Also, boxing generally has stayed unchanged over decades so it is easier to compare across eras.

In basketball, the officiating and how the game is played has changed by a lot. I personally dont even know how to regard bill russell who played in an era where basketball was so different. He has the accolades but I just don’t have a good feel of how he translates across eras as a player. Debates like this would be harder to settle.

[Axe]

In boxing there is a concensus goat, that’s sugar ray robinson. Even so, you will still find lists that have ali or somebody else at number 1. And that is an individual sport where its supposed to be the easiest to compare boxers. Also, boxing generally has stayed unchanged over decades so it is easier to compare across eras.
Yep, boxing is different because like you said, it's an individual sport. Although i wasn't comparing stats with what i said earlier.


In basketball, the officiating and how the game is played has changed by a lot. I personally dont even know how to regard bill russell who played in an era where basketball was so different. He has the accolades but I just don’t have a good feel of how he translates across eras as a player. Debates like this would be harder to settle.
Yes, it's hard. That's why at times it is better to look at their success as a team because one thing's for sure; they were dominant during their era, regardless of competition, league rules, playoff formats, field goal modes, etc.

[MaxPlayer]

In boxing there is a concensus goat, that’s sugar ray robinson.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for this? If I had to guess a "consensus" GOAT boxer, it would be Muhammad Ali.