Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 281 of 513 FirstFirst ... 181231271279280281282283291331381 ... LastLast
Results 4,201 to 4,215 of 7686
  1. #4201
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You hate LeBron so much now you're trying to do 2 for 2 player swaps to justify how bad it was?

    Why are you trying to swap both Duncan and Manu for LeBron and Big Z? First, Manu is better than Big Z so that just helps my point.

    Second, if you swapped Duncan and LeBron, LeBron most certainly wins a ring or two in San Antonio.

    Parker, Manu, LeBron with Popovich and a surrounding roster of accomplished vets? Yeah, at the very least that's a lot better than what he had in Cleveland.

    As for the Pistons, we were talking about the teams that beat LeBron in the playoffs. The only Pistons team that beat him was their big 5 lineup of: Billups, Hamilton, Prince, Sheed, Big Ben. Sheed was 31 at the time, so no he was not breaking down. The teams you're referencing for Detroit, I agree, weren't that great. That's also why LeBron beat them twice in the playoffs.

    Which again, I think the reason you didn't use that 2006 team is because you agree it was far more talented top to bottom than the Cavs.

    As for the 81 Rockets.

    First, their championship appearance was definitely a fluke as they never made it to even the WCF in any of the other seasons they were a team.

    Second, they faced the Lakers in the 1st round in a best of 3 series with Magic coming off an injury which even the coach at the time said divided the team. You already knew that

    Third, they would have been an ECF contender in the same way LeBron's team was: a superstar that doesn't have a good enough team to win it all.

    Fourth, and this is where your hypocrisy shows. Earlier you said that back in the day, it took multiple superstars to contend. Yet here is a team with literally 1 superstar going all the way to the Finals and pushing the Celtics to 6 games. So, were they genuine contenders or not? If so, I guess we can talk about the help other superstars had without saying they needed them because the league was so stacked.


    But that isn't even that big a concern to me. In fact, I actually know the Rockets teams your talking about. I know them better than you. You forgot Rudy Tomjanovich by the way. Were they good players? Certainly. Are they so vastly more talented and superior to players from today? Certainly not.

    But I'm sure you're about to talk about how Robert Reid is better than LeBron James.

    Remove Duncan and you think you have championships in San Antonio? I don't smoke, but I might start puffing whatever you are.

    Sure, you want 2006, we can do that, but isn't that unfair on Lebron who was 3 years in? Still, his team wasn't as bad as you make it sound. But no one would hold losing in 2006 or even in 2007 against him, just like no one bothers about the 2007 sweep. Apparently no one bothers about the 2018 sweep either.

    I didn't forget Rudy Tomjanovich, I just omitted his name. And they weren't a fluke, this is what you don't seem to grasp. Competition was so intense that it was an open race. What changed that was the Lakers transforming into possibly the greatest team ever in the same decade. The rest of the teams out West maintained their level. Had they posed a challenge to the Lakers they'd be talked about as being one of the greatest teams ever as well. Do you really expect a Conference to have "best ever" competition in order to make it appear as it was challenging enough? I find a 5 team competition far better than a 2 team competition. Guess what happens when two teams compete and what happens when there's 5 or more teams.

    Also guess which odds change when you have a Best of Three (or Five) series as opposed to Best of Seven.

    You are someone who is very likely to say that a season had no great teams because no team won more than 60 wins, like the second half of the 70s. Which years somehow are praised for their parity, yet someone like you would come up and say that it was because they all sucked, how can no team win 60 games if they were any good, amiright?

    And no, I'm not going to say that Robert Reid is better than Lebron James but he probably was better than Larry Hughes. But overall, not ranked as high as Larry Hughes was ranked compared to his peers. This may be a complex and puzzling matter, so I'll let it sink in before I go on.

  2. #4202
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,889
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Aaaaaaaand I never said that. Stop making a fool out of yourself by putting words I didn't say appear as they came from me.

    You were the one who said that his team was bad, not me. I just mentioned some of his teammates. Had Marshall played for the Pistons or Celtics you'd be saying look at who these guys have from the bench while Lebron has Hickson and Gibson...


    P.S:
    Oscar Robertson aged 32 in the 70s = great addition that means that a sophomore has had an amazing team early on.
    A random NBA player aged 32 in the 00s = who cares, he's too old anyway...

    Well done for consistency
    You called LeBron's Cavs team superior to the rest of the East, so yeah you did say that. Not putting any words in your mouth, you are spewing this garbage all yourself.

    As for consistency: Big O was an All-Star at 32. Donyell Marshall wasn't even a starter by that point. You also said a 32 year old Sheed was "older and breaking down", so you're every bit as inconsistent as I am.

    Difference is my inconsistency isn't based on whether it makes LeBron look worse or better, which is all yours is consistent on.

  3. #4203
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Fifth Bolded: As for the article you're referencing. You've been spending this whole time talking about how we can't use W/L records at face value, particularly if they're in different conferences. That article uses W/L records to determine the probability the Cavs should have won

    The article is basically saying "Because the Cavs had the best record in the league, they were favorites to win". And that's your evidence? As you point out, the East was far weaker than the West (which was true in reverse for the 80's and Magic but that's never a point against him), so of course the top team from the East was going to feast on the worse conference.

    But if Cleveland should have won in 2009 and 2010, somebody really should have told Las Vegas, because the preseason odds for the Cavs in 2009 were tied for 4th behind the Lakers, Spurs and Celtics, and were 2nd behind the Lakers in 2010.

    So go ahead and tell me which of the 2009 Lakers, 2009 Spurs, 2009 Celtics, and 2010 Lakers he should have beaten.


    But this goes back to my point about your hypocrisy. You will do or say anything to make LeBron look bad. First it was don't use W/L records when it makes him look good and now that it makes him look bad, well now we can use W/L records to simulate probabilities.

    I'd have more respect for you if you just admitted you hate LeBron at this point. We all already know it. There's no more point lying to everyone.

    Thank you for clearing out how ridiculous your W-L argument is even if it is in this indirect manner.

  4. #4204
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You called LeBron's Cavs team superior to the rest of the East, so yeah you did say that. Not putting any words in your mouth, you are spewing this garbage all yourself.

    As for consistency: Big O was an All-Star at 32. Donyell Marshall wasn't even a starter by that point. You also said a 32 year old Sheed was "older and breaking down", so you're every bit as inconsistent as I am.

    Difference is my inconsistency isn't based on whether it makes LeBron look worse or better, which is all yours is consistent on.
    Was the 2009 and 2010 superior to other East teams or no? Wasn't Lebron the MVP because he was in those #1 seed teams? How can a bad team be #1 twice in a row? Okay, you can argue once is a fluke. You can argue once in the NBA Finals is a fluke. But twice in a row, after the fluke? Come on, the team was simply better than its competition. But playoffs is about the superstars and their mental toughness as well as the team quality. Lebron didn't have it. He also didn't have it in 2011, despite having two other superstars.

    I said that in 2008 they couldn't compete against the Celtics, but that was the only real threat they had since Lebron became a potential threat to the championship, which was in 2007. I've never expected him to win by 2006 and didn't have such a demand, nor do I looking back say that he choked or whatever.

    How am I inconsistent?

    You claim that veterans are of great help (I agree, but not with their actual basketball but mostly due to the mental toughness they provide), you claimed that Oscar was a life changer, I said that he only had 2 solid seasons left in the tank at age 32 and I merely mentioned Marshall as a counter to some of the names you mentioned, such as Brent Barry. Switch the two and the result doesn't change.

    The only inconsistencies I have is in the length of the posts that I get to reply to you with

  5. #4205
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,889
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Remove Duncan and you think you have championships in San Antonio? I don't smoke, but I might start puffing whatever you are.

    Sure, you want 2006, we can do that, but isn't that unfair on Lebron who was 3 years in? Still, his team wasn't as bad as you make it sound. But no one would hold losing in 2006 or even in 2007 against him, just like no one bothers about the 2007 sweep. Apparently no one bothers about the 2018 sweep either.

    I didn't forget Rudy Tomjanovich, I just omitted his name. And they weren't a fluke, this is what you don't seem to grasp. Competition was so intense that it was an open race. What changed that was the Lakers transforming into possibly the greatest team ever in the same decade. The rest of the teams out West maintained their level. Had they posed a challenge to the Lakers they'd be talked about as being one of the greatest teams ever as well. Do you really expect a Conference to have "best ever" competition in order to make it appear as it was challenging enough? I find a 5 team competition far better than a 2 team competition. Guess what happens when two teams compete and what happens when there's 5 or more teams.

    Also guess which odds change when you have a Best of Three (or Five) series as opposed to Best of Seven.

    You are someone who is very likely to say that a season had no great teams because no team won more than 60 wins, like the second half of the 70s. Which years somehow are praised for their parity, yet someone like you would come up and say that it was because they all sucked, how can no team win 60 games if they were any good, amiright?

    And no, I'm not going to say that Robert Reid is better than Lebron James but he probably was better than Larry Hughes. But overall, not ranked as high as Larry Hughes was ranked compared to his peers. This may be a complex and puzzling matter, so I'll let it sink in before I go on.
    First Bolded: And replace him with LeBron James, they definitely win one. No need to smoke whatever I'm smoking, whatever you've got is clearly more powerful than anything I've tried.

    Second Bolded: Thank you for finally admitting Magic's team was completely stacked relative to the rest of the West, even if it is in this indirect manner.

    Third Bolded: Certainly not. I don't believe you have to win 60 games to be a great team. There were several great teams from that time period. The Bullets, Sonics, Blazers for a couple years. They are great teams. But they are not Top 10 greatest team ever teams.

    Fourth Bolded: Nothing puzzling about it at all. Everyone from back then is better than everyone from today, but we can't use that when discussing players because it's all relative. I got the concept. It's laughably stupid. But I understand it.

    If the All Decade 2010s team joined a team and went back and played in the 60's/70's/80's/90's they would get swept by the 1973 76ers because hey, even though the they only won 9 games that season, you can't go by W/L records because the league was so talented back then, and even though Fred Carter and John Block were not that good relative to the rest of the league at the time, they were still better than everyone playing today.

    Obviously there is some slight exaggeration there, but honestly, not by much. That's genuinely how you think. Which is why I say you don't know anything about basketball. You come at it from the frame of mind that players today are on average far inferior to players that came before. This is stupidity.

  6. #4206
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,889
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Was the 2009 and 2010 superior to other East teams or no? Wasn't Lebron the MVP because he was in those #1 seed teams? How can a bad team be #1 twice in a row? Okay, you can argue once is a fluke. You can argue once in the NBA Finals is a fluke. But twice in a row, after the fluke? Come on, the team was simply better than its competition. But playoffs is about the superstars and their mental toughness as well as the team quality. Lebron didn't have it. He also didn't have it in 2011, despite having two other superstars.

    I said that in 2008 they couldn't compete against the Celtics, but that was the only real threat they had since Lebron became a potential threat to the championship, which was in 2007. I've never expected him to win by 2006 and didn't have such a demand, nor do I looking back say that he choked or whatever.

    How am I inconsistent?

    You claim that veterans are of great help (I agree, but not with their actual basketball but mostly due to the mental toughness they provide), you claimed that Oscar was a life changer, I said that he only had 2 solid seasons left in the tank at age 32 and I merely mentioned Marshall as a counter to some of the names you mentioned, such as Brent Barry. Switch the two and the result doesn't change.

    The only inconsistencies I have is in the length of the posts that I get to reply to you with
    Were those 2009 and 2010 teams superior to the rest of the East or no? Actually no. The Celtics Big 3 were a superior team.

    And you aren't getting it. LeBron was MVP because A. He was clearly the best player on the planet, and B. because he managed to take those Cavs teams and make them the #1 seed.

    You are using ispo factor logic. "The Cavs must have been a good team because they were the #1 seed, and if they were the #1 seed that means they were good".

    No, LeBron's Cavs should not have lost to Dwight's Magic in 09. But every other loss during that time was to a clearly superior team that was a champion (Pistons, Celtics).

    You want to act like this is the worst thing on earth and LeBron sucks because he couldn't take those Cavs teams to a championship. It's ridiculous. I don't see you ripping on Dr. J because he couldn't win a title in Philly until he got Moses.

  7. #4207
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Did I say that all of them are better than every current player?

    Lebron was for 8 years by the way, let's not forget about the Cleveland situation.

    How many times did the Lakers have 60+ win seasons? How many 60+ win seasons did other teams in the league have in the 80s?

    If the gap was as great as you suggest, shouldn't this be a perennial situation and they should be closer to their 69 win record or exceed 70 wins? I mean they played teams out West 5 and 6 times per season, why weren't their Win record inflated?

    Did Lebron face a lot of competition in his 8 year stretch reaching the Finals?
    Do you think it is possible this post brought the win loss talk up?

  8. #4208
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Were those 2009 and 2010 teams superior to the rest of the East or no? Actually no. The Celtics Big 3 were a superior team.

    And you aren't getting it. LeBron was MVP because A. He was clearly the best player on the planet, and B. because he managed to take those Cavs teams and make them the #1 seed.

    You are using ispo factor logic. "The Cavs must have been a good team because they were the #1 seed, and if they were the #1 seed that means they were good".

    No, LeBron's Cavs should not have lost to Dwight's Magic in 09. But every other loss during that time was to a clearly superior team that was a champion (Pistons, Celtics).

    You want to act like this is the worst thing on earth and LeBron sucks because he couldn't take those Cavs teams to a championship. It's ridiculous. I don't see you ripping on Dr. J because he couldn't win a title in Philly until he got Moses.
    It also isn't like that was an epic individual failure, it only exposes his supporting cast more.

    Lebron put up 38/8/8 on great efficiency that series individually. If Mo Williams was the 2nd option shooting 37.5% and Delonte West was their 3rd best scorer. Seriously the cast we are talking about included delonte west as the 3rd option scorer in the ECF to a 37.5% player who never made an all star game except when he was next to Lebron that year.

  9. #4209
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Second Bolded: Thank you for finally admitting Magic's team was completely stacked relative to the rest of the West, even if it is in this indirect manner.
    I never said that they weren't stacked. You repeatedly said that their rivals sucked *** because they weren't as good as one of the GOAT teams. I only defended that position, I never said that the Lakers were a bad team in the 80s or that their rivals were as good as them. So, thanks for proving you missed yet another point. I lost count, apparently you think you're the numbers guy here, but it's about the 12th or 13th point that you miss. Maybe you should check on those figures.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    If the All Decade 2010s team joined a team and went back and played in the 60's/70's/80's/90's they would get swept by the 1973 76ers because hey, even though the they only won 9 games that season, you can't go by W/L records because the league was so talented back then, and even though Fred Carter and John Block were not that good relative to the rest of the league at the time, they were still better than everyone playing today.
    Erm, no? And stop putting words in my mouth. That's the 100th time you did that, probably more than once per post.

    What I keep saying is very simple and it's too simple even for someone like yourself who has systematic trouble of getting what someone else is telling him.

    You (plural) keep saying that if Lebron wins a ring, or because he won a ring in 2016, as well as two (out of four, but let's ignore two choke jobs as the greatest team in the league) or whatever else, he'd be GOAT or a lock for #2 of all time and whatnot. I keep refuting this by saying that competition is not taken into account, that rings do not matter especially without context, the difference in eras and NBA rules is completely ignored and that the superstars of today are not as good as the ones that we had in previous generations.

    Now from all that, all you got was that since I said that superstars in the past are better than the modern ones that by default it means that every scrub from the 70s would have a field day today. Which is completely missing the point and making a stupid remark just because you cannot really tackle my argument, since there's no reason to bother to tackle something you know perfectly well is valid.

    Lebron James in particular is a product of the 2000s. You claim that he'd be just as great in the 60s. I'd agree if I were stupid. Because if I were stupid I'd imagine a 6ft9 trailer playing with guys who aren't physically strong. But you ignore that Lebron is the way he is because he is a modern era player, not because he's "better". The only way you could possibly do such a what if, is by going the other way round. You cannot say Lebron in the 60s. The only way you can possibly level the playing field and have a fair comparison, argument or discussion is by saying player X (i.e. Elgin Baylor or Bailey Howell) given the same development, the same time playing basketball, the same incentives to play the game (they had part time jobs back then), the same dedication to athleticism and professionalism, the same nutrition, medical care and whatnot. Heck, even the floor isn't the same which used to kill the kness, now it's as soft as cotton in comparison. Then you see that this player's skills are actually superior to Lebron's and if he was in Lebron's place, he'd probably have a bigger impact in the game of basketball. And of course it goes vice versa. If you "send" Lebron back in time, he does not possess the same body, he's not as strong and athletic and he's not as safe from injuries. And his career won't last this long.

    These are basic parameters that a child can compute, I don't get how it is so difficult to understand that skill is what matters and not physical characteristics, when you are comparing players of different eras. Basketball skill is the only constant since the 1940s, physical characteristics is something that has been on the rise until the 80s because the league started to become more professional but it sort of stagnated there. On average, players don't run faster than the 80s now, they are not stronger and they definitely aren't more skilled. What they do is jump higher, but is that because their vertical improved or their shoes have? I think they also have a greater wingspan which is the only thing steadily on the rise, whereas the speed and strength have declined.

    Athletes are not necessarily better these days, the conditions in which they participate are better as is the general environment. And more people are into sports than 50 years ago, because it wasn't considered a real job and not that many had hobbies of this sort. The 80s brought that and in some countries it was as late as the mid 90s.
    The 80s is the wrong decade to bash for this. I'd get it if you stuck your claim to the 60s and 70s, as a simplistic argument of this 2000s body product would dominate, but that's way too illogical to take into account. Even if you use Wilt Chamberlain as a counter example, the guy was 7ft tall and his size and strength mattered because he was that tall, not because he was big and strong. Many others were big and strong too and Wilt wasn't necessarily towering over everyone as his nouveau myth suggests. He was slightly above the average for centers in his time. And even if Lebron could end up somehow with the same proportions, athleticism and strength in the 60s and 70s, he'd be a PF. And the guy couldn't play in the post until he was 30... Yet even if you assume he'd be the main ball handler (let's ignore that he travels all the time in an era that it's barely called anymore), the dribbling requirements were weirded back then and calls more common. And no 3pt line, so he'd have to get to the paint. Which would be clogged. So yeah, even if you do a simplistic, illogical argument about Lebron in the 60s, he has nowhere near the same effect. Because if you're taking him as he is, then so could I. The results wouldn't have been that different. He'd be a good player and his legacy would depend on the team he'd be playing for. But he wouldn't have been the best player in the league, nowhere near. He isn't skilled enough.

  10. #4210
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Do you think it is possible this post brought the win loss talk up?
    Do you think it's possible I mentioned that because that was my intention to get Valade to realize how silly his argument was? And that was a reply to the W-L thing, not what brought it up.

  11. #4211
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Were those 2009 and 2010 teams superior to the rest of the East or no? Actually no. The Celtics Big 3 were a superior team.

    And you aren't getting it. LeBron was MVP because A. He was clearly the best player on the planet, and B. because he managed to take those Cavs teams and make them the #1 seed.

    You are using ispo factor logic. "The Cavs must have been a good team because they were the #1 seed, and if they were the #1 seed that means they were good".

    No, LeBron's Cavs should not have lost to Dwight's Magic in 09. But every other loss during that time was to a clearly superior team that was a champion (Pistons, Celtics).

    You want to act like this is the worst thing on earth and LeBron sucks because he couldn't take those Cavs teams to a championship. It's ridiculous. I don't see you ripping on Dr. J because he couldn't win a title in Philly until he got Moses.
    Again, you're isolating the losses and all that. I'm not the person saying he was a failure. I'm the guy saying he ditched them. I don't care that he lost, I never expected him to win and I was making fun of the Eastern Conference as that Cavs team got too many favorable to become that #1 seed and I was pretty sure they'd fail because the refs wouldn't be the same in important playoffs series. Yet, I still viewed him as the best player in the league and obviously wanted him to sign with the Knicks. The 2010 FA was partly one of the reasons I signed up in this place, because I felt that I'd find a place to talk about the "relevant" Knicks once more, with or without Lebron.

    But you keep missing the point. You are talking about how bad the Cavs were, I said they weren't so bad. I didn't say they had to win a championship. I said that he couldn't achieve that with the team that made him twice MVP and got the #1 seed twice in a row, ie the most favorable position to reach the NBA Finals. His team failed to achieve that twice in a row and he ditched them.

    Where I come in is saying that Lebron's legacy after the first Cleveland gig is exaggerated by the fact that he decided to conspire against competition with Wade and Bosh and eliminate as many threats as possible in order to ensure that he'd be in the Finals. And win "not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six...." That's him. Them actually, but no one is saying that Wade or Bosh is a top 5 or #2 or #1 player ever, so they're not my concern here.

    Why ditch a team that made you twice MVP in a row while they got the #1 seed twice in a row as well? Why team up with the #1 threat for another MVP award? Who does that?

    Actually recalled another very recent one which was Kevin Durant, ditching the WCF team for the team that beat him.

    So that leaves us with Shaq, Lebron and Durant. Shaq being the only one who didn't join a super team and without any discounts to chase a ring. I'm really eager to complete this list by the way, but I think that's about it.

  12. #4212
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Do you think it's possible I mentioned that because that was my intention to get Valade to realize how silly his argument was? And that was a reply to the W-L thing, not what brought it up.
    No, because you quoted this

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First, when have I ever said players from the 80ís sucked? I have said they all arenít better than every player from today, and maybe in your mind that equals they all suck.

    Second, yeah they werenít that much better relative to the league, itís just that for 10 years not a single team from their conference was ever as good as talented as them. Itís funny that youíre so mad at LeBronís team being better than his competitors for 4 years when Magicís was better than his competitors for 10.

    As for the tougher competition, they made the Finals 9 times in the decade. Sure sounds like they faced a ton of stuff competition

    Which doesn't do that at all and it was after that post of yours that he actually broke down the records.

  13. #4213
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    48,976
    Jedi mind trick


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  14. #4214
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,779
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Jedi mind trick


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Always works on us sheeple

  15. #4215
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,889
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I never said that they weren't stacked. You repeatedly said that their rivals sucked *** because they weren't as good as one of the GOAT teams. I only defended that position, I never said that the Lakers were a bad team in the 80s or that their rivals were as good as them. So, thanks for proving you missed yet another point. I lost count, apparently you think you're the numbers guy here, but it's about the 12th or 13th point that you miss. Maybe you should check on those figures.

    Erm, no? And stop putting words in my mouth. That's the 100th time you did that, probably more than once per post.

    What I keep saying is very simple and it's too simple even for someone like yourself who has systematic trouble of getting what someone else is telling him.

    You (plural) keep saying that if Lebron wins a ring, or because he won a ring in 2016, as well as two (out of four, but let's ignore two choke jobs as the greatest team in the league) or whatever else, he'd be GOAT or a lock for #2 of all time and whatnot. I keep refuting this by saying that competition is not taken into account, that rings do not matter especially without context, the difference in eras and NBA rules is completely ignored and that the superstars of today are not as good as the ones that we had in previous generations.

    Now from all that, all you got was that since I said that superstars in the past are better than the modern ones that by default it means that every scrub from the 70s would have a field day today. Which is completely missing the point and making a stupid remark just because you cannot really tackle my argument, since there's no reason to bother to tackle something you know perfectly well is valid.

    Lebron James in particular is a product of the 2000s. You claim that he'd be just as great in the 60s. I'd agree if I were stupid. Because if I were stupid I'd imagine a 6ft9 trailer playing with guys who aren't physically strong. But you ignore that Lebron is the way he is because he is a modern era player, not because he's "better". The only way you could possibly do such a what if, is by going the other way round. You cannot say Lebron in the 60s. The only way you can possibly level the playing field and have a fair comparison, argument or discussion is by saying player X (i.e. Elgin Baylor or Bailey Howell) given the same development, the same time playing basketball, the same incentives to play the game (they had part time jobs back then), the same dedication to athleticism and professionalism, the same nutrition, medical care and whatnot. Heck, even the floor isn't the same which used to kill the kness, now it's as soft as cotton in comparison. Then you see that this player's skills are actually superior to Lebron's and if he was in Lebron's place, he'd probably have a bigger impact in the game of basketball. And of course it goes vice versa. If you "send" Lebron back in time, he does not possess the same body, he's not as strong and athletic and he's not as safe from injuries. And his career won't last this long.

    These are basic parameters that a child can compute, I don't get how it is so difficult to understand that skill is what matters and not physical characteristics, when you are comparing players of different eras. Basketball skill is the only constant since the 1940s, physical characteristics is something that has been on the rise until the 80s because the league started to become more professional but it sort of stagnated there. On average, players don't run faster than the 80s now, they are not stronger and they definitely aren't more skilled. What they do is jump higher, but is that because their vertical improved or their shoes have? I think they also have a greater wingspan which is the only thing steadily on the rise, whereas the speed and strength have declined.

    Athletes are not necessarily better these days, the conditions in which they participate are better as is the general environment. And more people are into sports than 50 years ago, because it wasn't considered a real job and not that many had hobbies of this sort. The 80s brought that and in some countries it was as late as the mid 90s.
    The 80s is the wrong decade to bash for this. I'd get it if you stuck your claim to the 60s and 70s, as a simplistic argument of this 2000s body product would dominate, but that's way too illogical to take into account. Even if you use Wilt Chamberlain as a counter example, the guy was 7ft tall and his size and strength mattered because he was that tall, not because he was big and strong. Many others were big and strong too and Wilt wasn't necessarily towering over everyone as his nouveau myth suggests. He was slightly above the average for centers in his time. And even if Lebron could end up somehow with the same proportions, athleticism and strength in the 60s and 70s, he'd be a PF. And the guy couldn't play in the post until he was 30... Yet even if you assume he'd be the main ball handler (let's ignore that he travels all the time in an era that it's barely called anymore), the dribbling requirements were weirded back then and calls more common. And no 3pt line, so he'd have to get to the paint. Which would be clogged. So yeah, even if you do a simplistic, illogical argument about Lebron in the 60s, he has nowhere near the same effect. Because if you're taking him as he is, then so could I. The results wouldn't have been that different. He'd be a good player and his legacy would depend on the team he'd be playing for. But he wouldn't have been the best player in the league, nowhere near. He isn't skilled enough.

    First Bolded: I said their rivals weren't that good, not that they sucked ***. I was talking about in a historical context. Yeah, the 80's Nuggets were good team, but good meaning they'd be good but not great in any era.

    You are the one saying if we take literally any team from the 80's and put them in the 10's they'd be the new Warriors, winning every title left and right. All due respect to Alex English and company, no they would not be winning championships against the Spurs or Warriors.

    Second Bolded: Nowhere have I ever said that LeBron should be #2 if he wins X ring or that his ranking is predicated on the number of rings he has. Not once. You keep refuting it by asking us to take competition into account but then saying everything past 2006 sucks. All the players suck. All the teams suck. Everyone sucks. And we all see through it.

    Third Bolded: Case in point. The superstars of today are not as good as superstars of the past is just stupid. It's ignorant. It's a hate filled old man who despises younger people and change.

    Fourth Bolded: I love when people use this argument because it's a tacit admission that the guy they're arguing against is actually better. You're saying the only way it can be a fair comparison is if we give Elgin Baylor and players from the 60's the same advancements LeBron has today. I.e. you realize LeBron is better than Baylor currently but he wouldn't necessarily be better if Baylor had all the advantages LeBron enjoys today. OK, that may very well be true. But it's only a valid argument if you start from the premise that LeBron is currently better.

    Fifth Bolded: This is more stupidity. Just out and out stupidity. Players today are not stronger or faster than players back then? Absolute lunacy. Look at pictures of Gervin and English, they were bean poles. Jeff Van Gundy, Isiah Thomas and countless others all talk about the overall athleticism of today and how it's on another level. This isn't even in dispute in basketball circles (well, outside semi pro leagues in Greece apparently).

    Sixth Bolded: This again shows more of your hate for LeBron. Earlier you were just arguing that Baylor in today's game would have adapted physically to today's game, but now LeBron would not have adapted to the game of the 60's? You think he would have kept dribbling the same way if they kept calling him for travels? He'd never once start dribbling like they did in the 60's?

    But your comments about basketball skill and athleticism are the most telling. You completely discount how important athleticism is to being good at basketball. Also, even if Elgin Baylor had all the access to modern technology and training, he would never be as athletic as LeBron. The idea that all these old timers would be as athletic as LeBron if they played today is stupid.

    You're like the guy who tries to tell people Danny Ainge is better than LeBron because he's more skilled. It's just laughably ignorant.
    Last edited by valade16; 05-16-2020 at 03:25 PM.

Posting Permissions

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