Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 341 of 451 FirstFirst ... 241291331339340341342343351391441 ... LastLast
Results 5,101 to 5,115 of 6757
  1. #5101
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Thank you! Someone who gets this point. It's really not that complicated.
    I've been saying this for 100+ pages here and for at least 10 years. Nobody seems to get it, as if it's some complicated idea.

    This is like saying that someone who is a CEO of a midtier company by his mid 30s is more successful than someone who's escalated to deputy CEO of a Dow Jones top 30 company by the same time. The competition is different and it's harder to reach that level when there's 100 others trying to do the same compared to having to go past 3-4 others.

    This applies to why and how some greats don't have rings. Not being the top dog in your era doesn't mean you're not as good as others in different situations. It's all relative. A guy like Barkley could have had 5 rings in the 2000s but that's irrelevant to people because they are inconsistent and it inconvenients them to think outside the box when comparing player situations across eras.
    Last edited by NYKalltheway; 05-26-2020 at 01:32 AM.

  2. #5102
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    111,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    You can delete all the posts you want (which you do quite often rather than man up to being wrong), but you said there was no chance the season would return. That was what you said. You can change it now and delete whatever posts you want, but it's absolutely laughable that you could be so certain and then run away when youre wrong


    lol delete posts? where? you are grasping at nothing now kid... dont be mad because everyone thinks you are a clueless troll who brings nothing to the table.

  3. #5103
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    111,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    Guys, this is nothing new. Go back over the whole thread and thereís countless examples of getting off course to try to prove that Lebron isnít as good as Kobe or not a Top 5 or whatever. Big Moves is a Lakers homer defending his guy and itís devolved into absurdity.

    Even if at the end of the day Kobe is ranked consensusly higher (which Kobe canít change his legacy but Lebron can), heís using some ridiculous arguments to get there and totally contradicting himself time and time again.
    this... its always the same thing with him... he is a clueless laker fan who hates lebron but has hypocritical takes all the time.

  4. #5104
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    No way man. We just spent several pages talking about playing with guys during their primes and how that is important. By your logic, the most talented laker team was the 96 lakers, because they had 5 all star caliber players on it in shaq, kobe, jones, van exel and Ceballos. The talent on the OKC team was nowhere near developed at that point. No one really thought Harden would turn into the type of player he ended up becoming and Westbrook was still super raw. You're talking about potential that players had but that they had far from realized. That's a much different thing. That's also very unfair. It's like if Ingram and Lonzo Ball turn into perineal all-stars and then I turn around and say "oh LBJ couldn't lead a team of two superstar players to the playoffs". They weren't that at the time that they were teammates with LBJ, just like none of those OKC players were great players during that time.
    Except the problem with your post is that all the Thunder players were receiving recognition at that time for how talented they were.

    Kevin Durant was All-NBA 1st team and finished 2nd in MVP voting
    Russell Westbrook was All-NBA 2nd team and finished 12th in MVP voting
    James Harden was 6th man of the year
    Serge Ibaka was All-Defensive 1st team and finished 2nd in DPOY voting

    They were considered the one of the most talented young teams of all-time by that point. If you want to separate greatness with talent. Their talent was undeniable. Are you really trying to argue they werenít that talented a team?

  5. #5105
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    111,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Thank you! Someone who gets this point. It's really not that complicated.
    agreeing with the only other person in this thread doesnt make it better... its you and the ny guy against 50 people yet were the bias ones lol

  6. #5106
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    It's not that they don't count. They're nice accomplishments, but he wasn't a superstar any more. He certainly wasn't one in 2014 (he was probably not even in the top 30 at that point, he might've been, but that's far from someone who youre going to tout as being a super talent).

    Again, you're missing the point. No, those heat teams were not better than those laker or Celtic teams. However, the difference between those laker and Celtic teams and their competition was less than the difference between the heat teams and their competition (when we're looking at the talent level) and it's not that close either. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that LBJ has to be held to a higher standard. If LBJ and Larry Bird swapped places then I would be holding Bird to that same standard and I would say LBJ's 3 titles are fine as is and he doesn't need to win more.
    Like I said. You have to do mental gymnastics. I completely get your point. Iím saying itís so wrong.

    Which team from 1984-1988 was as talented as the 2013-2014 Spurs or the 2012 Thunder?

    Because if the Celtics and Lakers are better than the Heat, it the Heat were better relative to the competition, youíre saying the teams the Celtics and the Lakers faced were better than the teams the Heat faced.

    So which teams from those years were better?
    Last edited by valade16; 05-26-2020 at 01:37 AM.

  7. #5107
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,794
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    agreeing with the only other person in this thread doesnt make it better... its you and the ny guy against 50 people yet were the bias ones lol
    There's like 3-4 people actually and "your side" is like 7 guys on a loop at best.

  8. #5108
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Guys, LeBronís rings donít count because the Heat were too good. But also compared to other great teams they sucked.

    And they actually think thatís objective

  9. #5109
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    What? KD won the MVP that year, they were 25 and Ibaka was 24 and back to back top 5 DPOY voting. They were more talented by then too.

    Alright let me do this though. Blake was considered better than any of them individually at the time too then, so does that mean you expect Clippers to win with CP3/Blake should they have matched up (the "too young" thunder beat this team to then lose to spurs)? You seem to have a very warped view on how to view teams in general, even if we did agree on the talent levels and so on (which I still think you are way off base) this is still a major problem in looking at teams. I don't think this makes very much sense so can you specifically break it down what makes a team better in your eyes because I doubt you would actually think this Clippers team was despite the top talent?
    KD was developing into a great player. Westbrook and Harden weren't anywhere near what they ended up becoming though and Ibaka has always been a solid role player. As for the clippers, I think they could beat that OKC team. They knocked off the spurs, who you guys seem to be considering super talented and they were the defending champs (and were actually more talented at that point because KL was closer to reaching his tar level play in 2015 than in 2014).

    What makes a team better than another team is a complex topic that requires its own thread. As far as talent, I'm basically looking at how strong the top guys on the team are, coupled with their depth. However, I give a disproportionate amount of weight to the top players on the roster.

  10. #5110
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,794
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Guys, LeBronís rings donít count because the Heat were too good. But also compared to other great teams they sucked.

    And they actually think thatís objective
    Being objective is one thing, being childish and silly like you are being everytime you have no answer to the application of context is another, which has been the norm here.

    No one says they don't count. But their value, relative to rings in the 80s or 00s is not as great. Three rings on vastly superior teams is not enough to equate it with the 3 rings Bird won. It pales in comparison. It's like having an NBA team play in China and you tell me that winning 8/9 games is the same as winning 8/13 games, just because both teams won 8 games. The second team was disastrous in comparison and lost to inferior competition a lot.

  11. #5111
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Being objective is one thing, being childish and silly like you are being everytime you have no answer to the application of context is another, which has been the norm here.

    No one says they don't count. But their value, relative to rings in the 80s or 00s is not as great. Three rings on vastly superior teams is not enough to equate it with the 3 rings Bird won. It pales in comparison. It's like having an NBA team play in China and you tell me that winning 8/9 games is the same as winning 8/13 games, just because both teams won 8 games. The second team was disastrous in comparison and lost to inferior competition a lot.
    Iíve had an answer. The answer is the 80ís was not this amazing Basketball version of Mount Olympus you think it was. Your response has been to repeat the same ďbut the 80ís was so deep the worst teams were equivalent to modern All-Star squadsĒ nonsens youíve been spouting for the past 50 pages.
    Last edited by valade16; 05-26-2020 at 01:45 AM.

  12. #5112
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Like I said. You have to do mental gymnastics. I completely get your point. Iím saying itís so wrong.

    Which team from 1984-1988 was as talented as the 2013-2014 Spurs or the 2012 Thunder?

    Because if the Celtics and Lakers are better than the Heat, it the Heat were better relative to the competition, youíre saying the teams the Celtics and the Lakers faced were better than the teams the Heat faced.

    So which teams from those years were better?
    The lakers and the Celtics faced each other so they would count as each other's competition and yes they were each better than the okc 2012 team and the 2014 spurs. The 88 pistons come to mind as well as do the 86 rockets, as do some of the Sixers teams. Again, back then you could stack your teams because there were fewer teams in the league and so the top teams had a lot of all-star level talent. This wasn't really possible for a while and then LBJ, Wade and Bosh orchestrated playing together and it created an artifically talented team that wouldnt normally materialize under the environment at the time. As a result, they were far more talented than everyone else for those 4 years.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-26-2020 at 01:49 AM.

  13. #5113
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    8,971
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Guys, LeBronís rings donít count because the Heat were too good. But also compared to other great teams they sucked.

    And they actually think thatís objective
    Who said LBJ's titles don't count? And who said they sucked compared to other great teams?

  14. #5114
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The lakers and the Celtics faced each other so they would count as each other's competition and yes they were each better than the okc 2012 team and the 2014 spurs. The 88 pistons come to mind as well as do the 86 rockets, as do some of the Sixers teams. Again, back then you could stack your teams because there were fewer teams in the league and so the top teams had a lot of all-star level talent.
    Do you actually think those teams outside the Celtics/Lakers were better?

    Do you think the 86 Rockets, the 88 Pistons, and the 84-88 76ers were more talented than the 12 Thunder, the 13 Spurs and the 14 Spurs?

  15. #5115
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Who said LBJ's titles don't count? And who said they sucked compared to other great teams?
    My apologies, itís not that LeBronís rings donít count, itís that they donít count as much as anyone elseís. Well now you sound real fair...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •