No one ever "counted" losses until Lebron

[StrongLurk]

It's something haters only apply to Lebron.

Every other player in history is given grace to develop and lose over and over, not even making the finals.

Yet people try to "count" Lebron's finals losses on his resume. No other player has this happen. Also, when did getting second place become a "black mark" on a players resume ?

I don't think there has even been worse sports discourse surrounding an athlete. The haters are in constant shambles, it's crazy ,\.

[3ba11]

It's something haters only apply to Lebron.

Every other player in history is given grace to develop and lose over and over, not even making the finals.

Yet people try to "count" Lebron's finals losses on his resume. No other player has this happen. Also, when did getting second place become a "black mark" on a players resume ?

I don't think there has even been worse sports discourse surrounding an athlete. The haters are in constant shambles, it's crazy ,\.

Since Lebron put the top 3 players in the East on 1 team, his team's performance against the West is all anyone cared about.

Essentially, everyone knew that Lebron manufactured his Eastern runs, so this is why they look at his Finals losses, in addition to him having the MOST finals losses of anyone in the modern era.. These are 2 good reasons to look at his losses (manufacturing Finals trips and having the most Finals losses).

The manufactured runs ultimately worked against him because the bigger sample of 10 Finals confirms that he has a lottery record against Finals teams (22-33)... He simply produces low team ceilings/Finals records and can't produce dominant champions or dynasties/great teams.

Btw, the "decision" to start stacking the deck was caused by the goat meltdown in 2010 as a -500 favorite, and then the historic upset in 2009 as a -700 favorite.. After a 3rd straight upset-loss in 2011, the oddsmakers made his veteran super-team an underdog to baby Westbrick in the 12' Finals.. Ultimately, Lebron has a flimsy title quality because he never won a title without a shortened season or teammate bailout. while also never winning with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player - he always needed franchise players at 2nd and 3rd option..

He also never beat a top player convincingly, aka no knockouts against great players/top 10 candidates - he barely beat Curry, Jokic and Duncan once via teammate bailout, and this one-off lies amongst a sea of record blowouts and sweeps.. He's 17-36 against the Nuggets, Spurs and Warriors in the playoffs, while never avenging upset losses to the Twoves, Mavs and Magic.

[Baller234]

Lebron boldly declared to the world that he was the greatest of all time.



Don't blame us for holding him to a higher standard.

[StrongLurk]

Since Lebron put the top 3 players in the East on 1 team, his team's performance against the West is all anyone cared about.

Essentially, everyone knew that Lebron manufactured his Eastern runs, so this is why they look at his Finals losses, in addition to him having the MOST finals losses of anyone in the modern era.. These are 2 good reasons to look at his losses (manufacturing Finals trips and having the most Finals losses).

The manufactured runs ultimately worked against him because the bigger sample of 10 Finals confirms that he has a lottery record against Finals teams (22-33)... He simply produces low team ceilings/Finals records and can't produce dominant champions or dynasties/great teams.

Btw, the "decision" to start stacking the deck was caused by the goat meltdown in 2010 as a -500 favorite, and then the historic upset in 2009 as a -700 favorite.. After a 3rd straight upset-loss in 2011, the oddsmakers made his veteran super-team an underdog to baby Westbrick in the 12' Finals.. Ultimately, Lebron has a flimsy title quality because he never won a title without a shortened season or teammate bailout. while also never winning with "normal" rosters of 1 franchise player - he always needed franchise players at 2nd and 3rd option..

He also never beat a top player convincingly, aka no knockouts against great players/top 10 candidates - he barely beat Curry, Jokic and Duncan once via teammate bailout, and this one-off lies amongst a sea of record blowouts and sweeps.. He's 17-36 against the Nuggets, Spurs and Warriors in the playoffs, while never avenging upset losses to the Twoves, Mavs and Magic.

Plenty of players have played on talented teams and literally no one "counts" losses on their "resume".

Every team except one loses every year. Only Lebron get's the loss "counted", no other players do. The haters are deranged.

[kawhileonard2]

He is the only one who switches teams and has a losing record in the finals of guys who have won league mvp.

[sdot_thadon]

It's something haters only apply to Lebron.

Every other player in history is given grace to develop and lose over and over, not even making the finals.

Yet people try to "count" Lebron's finals losses on his resume. No other player has this happen. Also, when did getting second place become a "black mark" on a players resume ?

I don't think there has even been worse sports discourse surrounding an athlete. The haters are in constant shambles, it's crazy ,\.

You're right. Man I never thought Lebron would end up goat watching him as a kid, but whether he is or not i know one thing for sure. They moved several goalposts that no one had an issue with for 60 odd years of basketball just to try and hold him out of that spot. That speaks louder than any of the incredible shit he's done,they changed the grading curve because he was too good. They damn sure didn't do that for Mj.

[StrongLurk]

You're right. Man I never thought Lebron would end up goat watching him as a kid, but whether he is or not i know one thing for sure. They moved several goalposts that no one had an issue with for 60 odd years of basketball just to try and hold him out of that spot. That speaks louder than any of the incredible shit he's done,they changed the grading curve because he was too good. They damn sure didn't do that for Mj.

Exactly.

[Kblaze8855]

Off the top of my head the first Reference I ever saw to how many times someone lost in the finals was in the book the NBA put out in 1996 for the 50 greatest and it went into detail how many times Jerry West lost before finally winning, but they mentioned it as a positive talking about perseverance and all that. I never heard it mention as a negative. In basketball at least. The Buffalo Bills got absolutely shit on for losing four straight Super Bowls though of course there was usually someone who would bring up how incredible it was to make four straight Super Bowls.

They’re lucky it wasn’t the meme era.

[sdot_thadon]

Off the top of my head the first Reference I ever saw to how many times someone lost in the finals was in the book the NBA put out in 1996 for the 50 greatest and it went into detail how many times Jerry West lost before finally winning, but they mentioned it as a positive talking about perseverance and all that. I never heard it mention as a negative. In basketball at least. The Buffalo Bills got absolutely shit on for losing four straight Super Bowls though of course there was usually someone who would bring up how incredible it was to make four straight Super Bowls.

They’re lucky it wasn’t the meme era.

Yeah West was regarded for his appearances and the fact of who he had to play. But he got one, thats the validation. The Bills? Hell yeah we fried them for.decades for that. But the difference between Lebron and the Bills is he won 4 times, with a couple being absolute all time classic finals moments. The Bills never chipped, so yeah they were losers in an all-time sense. Once you win, your losses didn't matter, you were a champion. They can never take that away from you its always been said. And to do it multiple times? Then you were an all-time great. There's specific criticisms only Lebron gets and its been weird af his whole career.

[Full Court]

Yeah West was regarded for his appearances and the fact of who he had to play. But he got one, thats the validation. The Bills? Hell yeah we fried them for.decades for that. But the difference between Lebron and the Bills is he won 4 times, with a couple being absolute all time classic finals moments. The Bills never chipped, so yeah they were losers in an all-time sense. Once you win, your losses didn't matter, you were a champion. They can never take that away from you its always been said. And to do it multiple times? Then you were an all-time great. There's specific criticisms only Lebron gets and its been weird af his whole career.

Yeah, because nobody's EVER choked as bad as he did in 2011.

Truth hurts.

[sdot_thadon]

Yeah, because nobody's EVER choked as bad as he did in 2011.

Truth hurts.

Nah actually we're talking shit that had nothing to do with 2011. Nice try, kiddo.

[beasted]

This is a stupid revisionist history thread. Nearly everyone overrated Bill for winning 11, and underrated Wilt for winning 2 while losing too many. Guys like Baylor who from a statistical domination should be top 25 easy peasy is often pushed down into the 30-40 range.

Quit yer yappin'. This is not "new" just because you don't like it.

[Full Court]

Nah actually we're talking shit that had nothing to do with 2011. Nice try, kiddo.

It's completely relevant - you just don't want to hear it. You're trying to make the case that Lebron shouldn't be "penalized" for losing because he won a few times. And you assert that criticism for losing means he's being held to a different standard. I merely pointed out that your case is silly.

Jordan dropping 63 points while losing to Bird isn't the same as dropping 8 points while losing to the underdog. Unless, of course, you're a low IQ Bronie fluffer.

[StrongLurk]

Yeah West was regarded for his appearances and the fact of who he had to play. But he got one, thats the validation. The Bills? Hell yeah we fried them for.decades for that. But the difference between Lebron and the Bills is he won 4 times, with a couple being absolute all time classic finals moments. The Bills never chipped, so yeah they were losers in an all-time sense. Once you win, your losses didn't matter, you were a champion. They can never take that away from you its always been said. And to do it multiple times? Then you were an all-time great. There's specific criticisms only Lebron gets and its been weird af his whole career.

Yep.

[Kblaze8855]

This is a stupid revisionist history thread. Nearly everyone overrated Bill for winning 11, and underrated Wilt for winning 2 while losing too many. Guys like Baylor who from a statistical domination should be top 25 easy peasy is often pushed down into the 30-40 range.

Quit yer yappin'. This is not "new" just because you don't like it.

Nah that part is definitely new. The people who actually remember Baylor always had him as elite. My stepdad sure did. The old guys never talked about finals record. Literally never. They might mention how many you won but how many you lost?

Never a real point till LeBron hit 2/5 and it became a thing on the internet.