Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 282 of 494 FirstFirst ... 182232272280281282283284292332382 ... LastLast
Results 4,216 to 4,230 of 7398
  1. #4216
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    No, because you quoted this
    No, because I responded to this... https://forums.prosportsdaily.com/sh...5#post33386015

  2. #4217
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    You quoted a different post and are now quoting something from like 3 months back that still doesn't break down the win loss records lol... What is this?

  3. #4218
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,711
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First, Oh, so now you're saying that LeBron's Cleveland teams were head and shoulders above the competition too? You're saying that Kyrie and Love were better relative to the rest of the league than Kareem and Worthy? Make your case.

    Second, Good question. I looked, the rest of the Western conference featured a 60 win team a whopping 0 times.

    Heck, in 1984, not a single other Western conference team even had 50 wins. In 1985, 86, and 87, only 1 other Western team each season had 50 wins.

    So the Lakers had 60+ wins 6 times during the decade and the rest of their conference did it 0 times.

    But back to your point, if the Lakers were so much better than the rest of the West, how come their win totals weren't inflated?

    As I just showed, they were. Not a single other team could crack 60 wins and LA did it 6 times. Heck, they were so far better than every other Western conference team that they were the #1 seed in the playoffs every season of the 80's except 1982.

    And to answer your question about LeBron's competition. LeBron actually faced 2 60+ win teams after he went to Miami (and he would have faced 3 if not for the lockout shortened season since the Bulls were on pace for 60+ wins that season).

    If you're trying to prove that Magic's Lakers weren't head and shoulders above their competition, wins and losses was a terrible way to do it.

    At this point I'm sure you're going to talk about how there being less teams in the 80's meant less bad teams to accumulate empty wins against, and that is the reason everyone's wins were deflated as a result. And there is truth to that. But when judging whether the Lakers were better than their competition, the amount of wins is not nearly as important as the fact that the Lakers always had more wins.
    This was his response to that post of yours ASKING about the records. This started the conversation about the records because YOU used it in defense at one point. You mentioned the records and he actually provided them for everyone to see.

    It's actually been happening over and over and over on repeat where you make claims and Valade counters them by providing actual numbers/data/stats only for you to play ignorant about what had been said previously or even accuse him of making things up.

  4. #4219
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,513
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    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.
    You just answered your own question. Why ditch them? Because they weren't good enough to win. He was there for 8 seasons and for 8 seasons they failed to put enough talent around him to win.

    You just said yourself you thought he was the best player in the league at the time. Well if the guy you think is better than any other player doesn't win, that's because the other inferior players to him have superior teams around them. That's basic logic.


    As for him going to Miami, I agree. It was a total weak move. I hated it at the time and I still think it's a weak move today. But I understand why he left Cleveland.

    But that has nothing to do with his basketball skill. He was still as good as he ever was. It's not like his ability to shoot suddenly became worse. Or his dribbling or passing abilities. He was always as good as he ever was. So maybe your list is heavily predicated on accolades and team success as opposed to their actual skill. But you have also railed against how untalented you think LeBron is. But that and him going to the Heat should have nothing to do with each other.

    It's why I think what KD did was the weakest move I can imagine. But it didn't change my evaluation of his skills or how good a basketball player he was. He was the same skill wise. That's why despite me hating the move and thinking it's weak as hell, I still have him rated so highly, because of his basketball skill.

    So maybe we're arguing two different things. You about how great his career was, and me about how great a player he was. Because if you're talking about his skill, it wouldn't matter if he teamed up with Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan and Shaq at the same time. How good he was is how good he was.

  5. #4220
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Jerry West was a complete stud, yet is ranked on some people's lists, barely top 20 because of his losing NBA Finals record. Do you see where I am going with this?

    A good number of these same people rank LeBron just under Jordan and say team accomplishments shouldn't hold so much baring on where a player is ranked All-Time.

  6. #4221
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    Jerry West was a complete stud, yet is ranked on some people's lists, barely top 20 because of his losing NBA Finals record. Do you see where I am going with this?

    A good number of these same people rank LeBron just under Jordan and say team accomplishments shouldn't hold so much baring on where a player is ranked All-Time.
    I'm sure some lists have Jerry West barely top 20. But pretty much every list I've seen has him higher than that, and they rarely mention his losing finals record (other than to say he shouldn't be judged by it).

    Even ESPN's most recent "Top 74" list, which skewed heavily towards modern players, had Jerry West 16th and their Top 100 all-time list from 3 years ago had him 13th.

    I don't think there is as much disrespect towards Jerry West as you are implying, most lists have him in the early to mid teens all-time.

  7. #4222
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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.
    Again with the hate? Does it always have to be about hate if people don't agree with your line of thought?
    And how old do you think I am?

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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.
    Nope, the premise is not that he is better, the premise is that you consider him to be better because he's closer to the present and conscientiously you assume that every athlete today must be better than the ones before. But you cannot really compute in your conscience why that is. The reason is not that he is better. It is because sports science and technology have come to life. There was no sports science back then, there hardly was radio or tv coverage, now they know what kind of vibrations your leg bones make when you conclude your jump.

    The advantages that Lebron enjoys today do not make him a better player, they make him a healthier player. A "better" comparison can only be done when you assume their peak. Peak does not care about longevity, peak is peak, it's a one off in the chart.

    Training for months before a season starts, having the best medical equipment available and all these comforts do not make your shooting form better, do not make you develop a finger roll, a post move or teach you how to box out. Those are completely irrevelant. But when in your mind you think that more athletic = better by default, then you need to get this into your head, that the kind of athleticism you are looking for is an era thing and the more athletic players of the 60s and 70s would have looked much more athletic in the 80s, 90s, 00s and today. That's just the way it is, that's what training and doing something like sports for a living does to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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).
    Check the Draft Combine numbers. They show some tendencies and there was a report that said that since they kept record (not sure if it was early 2000s or mid 90s), the players on average have recorded worse sprint times and bench press. If you have a quick look for bench press numbers you'll see that it was the norm to have 10 players or so with 20+ while now nobody reaches 20. Three players actually since 2012 have bench pressed 20 or more. Usually is just 20. From 2000 to 2005 it's 22 players for example.

    But maybe these numbers are stupid, who would have guessed you would eventually come to agree with this?

    Why even bother measuring something as static as a bench press for a sign of strength when you can measure a % of shot attempts that could either be contested or uncontested, off balance or spot up etc and draw a far better conclusion using statistics?


    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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.
    He has not learned how to dribble today, if we're being consistent then we have to assume that he'd not learn how to dribble properly like a Bob Cousy with that one handed silly slap bounce in the 60s.
    He did not learn how to be a post player until he was 10+ years in the league. The average life span of an NBA player back then probably was 10 seasons long to begin with, so yeah, that's an entire career without being able to pull off a prety important, yet basic move.


    I do not discount athleticism, in fact I envy it and I appreciate it. It's also something I rate for centers, especially if they have post moves (aka Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Moses Malone etc). But if it's not paired with skill, then it's almost irrelevant. You can defeat athleticism in any era bar this one. You pretend as if it's not the case because athleticism wasn't a thing until the 80s with the Dr J fro or whatever, but truth is, athleticism has been part of the game since the mid 50s at least. Bill Russell and Gus Johnson for example are two extremely underrated athletic players from the old times. Gus Johnson in particular could have very well resembled a Charles Barkley in the 60s. But he was skilled, he wasn't a shorter version of Darryl Dawkins. You would think that he couldn't jump high, that he wasn't strong or whatever, but this guy would be one of the most athletic players in today's game even.

    Guys like Chet the Jet Walker and Connie Hawkins, also two very athletic players. Highly skilled as well.

    What you have now is a higher number of athletic players, as player selection is different and talent pool is larger. But even back in the day, the most athletic players, who I repeat, also were very skilled, could not dominate the game due to their athleticism. If all they had was athleticism, they'd play garbage minutes.


    You may find the story of Earl Lloyd a good history lesson and an appreciation for context.

    He was one of the first, if not first, black athletes in the NBA, coming from the Harlem Globetrotters. He was as athletic as it gets, I mean compared to the other guys he was like Wilt vs high school kids.

    He was 6ft6 and 225 lbs in his prime iirc, a very athletic player who was a tireless defensive player that could get to the basket with ease. But he wasn't really that great a scorer if you check his numbers. First of all, he wasn't great at the fundamentals of the sport. He was purely athletic and could finish, assuming he was allowed to reach the basket. But he wasn't find it easy to get past his marker, he had trouble getting to the drive lane and he was a poor shooter. And I'm assuming that he was also marked harder and the officials probably weren't as strict with his defenders due to social reasons. The defenses back then weren't brutal and the skill level of the rest of the league probably wasn't really that great when you compared pros with amateurs. The gap began to dramatically increase by the end of that decade.

    So while Earl Lloyd had the potential to be a 'franchise player' back in the first days, he wasn't a great player and is mostly remembered as a pioneer for non-basketball reasons. But he was probably the most athletic player in the league until Elgin Baylor came and he was supposed to be great at basketball and he actually had good court awareness, vision, knowledge of the game, as he had shown with the Harlem team. And he even became a coach later and also served as an assistant GM iirc being in charge of recruitment.

    I'm pretty confident in saying that if this guy was born 70 years later, he'd be crushing it in the NBA now with the way it's played. Now take of this story whatever you want, do your own research on him and then apply it wherever you may find necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    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.
    Except I'm not that guy and you should stop saying this every time hoping that your lack of arguments, reasoning and basketball knowledge will somehow be ignored by saying a silly catchy thing that wasn't implied.

  8. #4223
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Oh I was just naming the top talent of the supporting casts to save time, Iíd absolutely LOVE to list more because it only helps my argument.

    That 06 Heat team was filled with vets and quality role players like Gary Payton, Jason Williams, Udonis Haslem and Antoine Walker.

    The 07 Spurs also featured Bruce Bowen, Michael Finley, Robert Horry, and Brent Barry.

    The 08 Celtics had Rajon Rondo, Sam Cassell, Tony Allen, and James Posey.


    Compare those groups to LeBronís cast like Drew Gooden, Delonte West, Ricky Davis and Daniel Gibson.


    Not only are those championship teams supporting casts vastly more talented even down to the 10th and 11th player, they are also far more experienced and feature way more championship level experience than the teams LeBron had.


    As for coaching, Do we even really want to get into the difference between Pop and Phil Jackson and Mike Brown?

    Thank you for helping my argument.
    The thing that makes coaches successful for the most part is the situations they find themselves in. Had Mike Brown won a few chips with LeBron, he would be hailed a s top five coach of All-Time. Had Phil lost with Jordan for the most part, he would be seen as a failure for the most part.

    It's the very same reason coaches are the first ones to get fired when the team is underachieving. A coach cannot be blamed if said player just happens to underperform on the biggest stage. Had Jordan wet the bed in some crucial playoff moments, that should be seen as a flaw and or slight on his character and would therefore have no bearing on Phil's ability to coach. Is that not accurate?

  9. #4224
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'm sure some lists have Jerry West barely top 20. But pretty much every list I've seen has him higher than that, and they rarely mention his losing finals record (other than to say he shouldn't be judged by it).

    Even ESPN's most recent "Top 74" list, which skewed heavily towards modern players, had Jerry West 16th and their Top 100 all-time list from 3 years ago had him 13th.

    I don't think there is as much disrespect towards Jerry West as you are implying, most lists have him in the early to mid teens all-time.
    Personally, I have him ranked at 12 above Oscar. I am not sure as to why people rank Oscar so high. Even Charles Barkley had him ranked in this top five lol.

    I have seen a lot of lists on the internet without even mention of West in their top 20 and these very same guys were defending their ranking for LeBron at number 2 lol. I don't really see how you cannot have one without the other and expect to maintain any shred of respectability in terms of consistency.

    I mean, if you want to talk about supremely talented dudes with underwhelming supporting casts in respect to their NBA Finals competition, you can't have that discussion without Jerry West. He was also saddled with the Westbrook of his day in Elgin Baylor if you want my honest opinion. Even in his older years, when he finally got help with Wilt and Elgin off the team, look what he and Wilt accomplished together. Imagine what they could have done their whole careers like that. Also, assuming Wilt was not as ball dominant as he was early on in his career.

  10. #4225
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,513
    I'll extend an olive branch:

    I do think NYKalltheway knows basketball. I like that he is so interested in older players. I wish more people appreciated older NBA players.

    But your reverence of older players goes too far in that you cannot seem to praise them without criticizing current players and this has resulted in you have a massive basketball blind spot towards new players, particularly LeBron James.

    I think you lose a lot of your objectivity whenever you talk about them.

    I also think that you unfairly lump together anyone who doesn't think current players and LeBron are inferior as all having this same, populist, lack of appreciation for basketball history.

    That is not true. The entire time we have been having this argument I have been editing NBA2K20's all-time rosters to play an all-time season. I love reading and watching old players. I could name pretty much the top 15-20 players for every franchise from before 2005.

    Not everyone who appreciates LeBron James' greatness is some ignorant fan who only cares about popularity.

  11. #4226
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Thats your story and your sticking to it. Did you still miss the point That Lebron needed a good coach or a prime vet teammate like the others had? Sticking players together dont work. I think the Howard, Nash, Artest, Pau, Kobe, Mike D proved that. Especially when they are over the hill. A guy rated in top 5 with the majority got a ruined Legacy? lol. The only thing keeping Lebron from being the goat is the number of rings.
    The thing keeping him out of being the GOAT, is the fact that he is simply not the best basketball player.

    If it were all based on rings, Russell would be GOAT on most lists and Hondo would be top ten.

  12. #4227
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    34,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Romeo Naes View Post
    Personally, I have him ranked at 12 above Oscar. I am not sure as to why people rank Oscar so high. Even Charles Barkley had him ranked in this top five lol.

    I have seen a lot of lists on the internet without even mention of West in their top 20 and these very same guys were defending their ranking for LeBron at number 2 lol. I don't really see how you cannot have one without the other and expect to maintain any shred of respectability in terms of consistency.

    I mean, if you want to talk about supremely talented dudes with underwhelming supporting casts in respect to their NBA Finals competition, you can't have that discussion without Jerry West. He was also saddled with the Westbrook of his day in Elgin Baylor if you want my honest opinion. Even in his older years, when he finally got help with Wilt and Elgin off the team, look what he and Wilt accomplished together. Imagine what they could have done their whole careers like that. Also, assuming Wilt was not as ball dominant as he was early on in his career.
    Well not everyone who has LeBron #2 rates West so low. There are plenty who appreciate Jerry West for how good he was and LeBron for how good he is.

    For instance, my "top 11" players of all-time features: 2 players from the 60's, 1 from the 70's, 2 from the 80's, 2 from the 90's, 3 from the 00's, and 1 from the 10's.

    I feature more players from the 60's than from today. Even looking at that breakdown, seems like an even spread of players across all eras.

    So who is more biased, the guy including all eras or the guy who is adamant we cannot include anyone from the present era?

  13. #4228
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'll extend an olive branch:

    I do think NYKalltheway knows basketball. I like that he is so interested in older players. I wish more people appreciated older NBA players.

    But your reverence of older players goes too far in that you cannot seem to praise them without criticizing current players and this has resulted in you have a massive basketball blind spot towards new players, particularly LeBron James.

    I think you lose a lot of your objectivity whenever you talk about them.

    I also think that you unfairly lump together anyone who doesn't think current players and LeBron are inferior as all having this same, populist, lack of appreciation for basketball history.

    That is not true. The entire time we have been having this argument I have been editing NBA2K20's all-time rosters to play an all-time season. I love reading and watching old players. I could name pretty much the top 15-20 players for every franchise from before 2005.

    Not everyone who appreciates LeBron James' greatness is some ignorant fan who only cares about popularity.
    Yes, people who talk smack online should do their research and learn the game more. Some of these guys don't even know who Dr. J was lol. I appreciate LeBron, just don't think he is worthy of top five. It's a lot harder to build something from the ground up than it is to maintain status quo especially when you have the blue print already drawn out for you. People say it is harder to accomplish what Jordan did in today's game because of "evolution" lmao. If anything it is easier because of the simple fact that there is a proven model of success to follow. The person who comes along and finally does snatch that GOAT title from Jordan, will be able to expand upon that blue print and exceed what Jordan did.
    Last edited by Romeo Naes; 05-16-2020 at 03:59 PM.

  14. #4229
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    487
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Well not everyone who has LeBron #2 rates West so low. There are plenty who appreciate Jerry West for how good he was and LeBron for how good he is.

    For instance, my "top 11" players of all-time features: 2 players from the 60's, 1 from the 70's, 2 from the 80's, 2 from the 90's, 3 from the 00's, and 1 from the 10's.

    I feature more players from the 60's than from today. Even looking at that breakdown, seems like an even spread of players across all eras.

    So who is more biased, the guy including all eras or the guy who is adamant we cannot include anyone from the present era?
    I think most people include the same collection of players in their top 11 for the most part. Big O while he was great, does not deserve to be there imho. some LeBron stuper fans like to include him to show their "consistency" in regards to statistical achievement. They do not realize however, when you take his numbers on a per 100 basis, they are not all that impressive and his PER and WS/48 are not all that either especially when you factor in post season. I think that even more so, all of Westbrook's stat padding and emphasis on triple doubles have exposed this and guys like him even more so.
    Last edited by Romeo Naes; 05-16-2020 at 04:02 PM.

  15. #4230
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,851
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    You just answered your own question. Why ditch them? Because they weren't good enough to win. He was there for 8 seasons and for 8 seasons they failed to put enough talent around him to win.

    You just said yourself you thought he was the best player in the league at the time. Well if the guy you think is better than any other player doesn't win, that's because the other inferior players to him have superior teams around them. That's basic logic.

    As for him going to Miami, I agree. It was a total weak move. I hated it at the time and I still think it's a weak move today. But I understand why he left Cleveland.

    But that has nothing to do with his basketball skill. He was still as good as he ever was. It's not like his ability to shoot suddenly became worse. Or his dribbling or passing abilities. He was always as good as he ever was. So maybe your list is heavily predicated on accolades and team success as opposed to their actual skill. But you have also railed against how untalented you think LeBron is. But that and him going to the Heat should have nothing to do with each other.

    It's why I think what KD did was the weakest move I can imagine. But it didn't change my evaluation of his skills or how good a basketball player he was. He was the same skill wise. That's why despite me hating the move and thinking it's weak as hell, I still have him rated so highly, because of his basketball skill.

    So maybe we're arguing two different things. You about how great his career was, and me about how great a player he was. Because if you're talking about his skill, it wouldn't matter if he teamed up with Chris Paul, Dwyane Wade, Tim Duncan and Shaq at the same time. How good he was is how good he was.
    I'm actually arguing both. While I acknowledge and have stated multiple times that the 2010s belong to him, he is overrated in the all time stage. He has benefited from a weaker conference and overall weaker era. That is his constant. No other highly rated player has remained in a weak era that got even weaker, except the ones that have come after him (such as Durant, Curry and potentially Leonard). It doesn't make them bad players, but it makes their competition weak. And manipulating that even further, to make a weak competition weaker to inflate your legacy for NBA Finals appearances is just history fraud to me. I cannot take his legacy seriously when it's tainted with all these "decisions", transfers and his whole attitude. He's not a legend in my book. A legend doesn't have to be the best either, for me Reggie Miller is a legend, but if he's a top 50 player ever it's up for debate. With Lebron it's no contest, but he's not a lock for a top 10 spot. All of his legacy is pumped by asterisks like no other star ever. And he has brought this 'unfairness' to himself by following the path he did.

    If he didn't like Cleveland, he could have asked for a trade. I'm pretty sure many teams would have liked that. But he was a hypocrite, saying to them that he'd stay and that his life is in Ohio and that he loves the team and city and all that nonsense. He did betray them. Unlike Shaq who never hid the fact that Orlando wasn't big enough for him.

    I'd also want him out of Cleveland, but that had to do with me not liking Cleveland because of my uncle supporting them since the 80s and it made sense for me to not like them

    The proper thing to do was to say that he wanted out. Tell their FO and ownership that he wanted to be traded to some place else, I'm pretty sure they'd appreciate it more than they appreciated the "decision".


    This is the same guy that in June 2010 proclaimed to the world that Cleveland has the edge to keep him:
    In an interview scheduled to air on CNN Friday night, Larry King asked James whether the Cavaliers have an edge to retain the Ohio native.

    "Absolutely," James said. "Because ... this city, these fans, I mean, have given me a lot in these seven years. And, you know, for me, it's comfortable.

    "So, I've got a lot of memories here. And so it does have an edge."


    A month later he said this, on his televised Decision show:

    In this fall... this is very tough... in this fall I'm going to take my talents to South Beach and join the Miami Heat. I feel like it's going to give me the best opportunity to win and to win for multiple years, and not only just to win in the regular season or just to win five games in a row or three games in a row, I want to be able to win championships. And I feel like I can compete down there.

    Is this the most defeatist back to back MVP winner ever or what?

    If you feel you are the best, you don't go to the 2nd best guy's team to "feel you can compete" there, right after another top 5 FA had pledged to join him.

    At a later stage we learned that this was orchestrated since the 2008 Olympics, which is why I mentioned before the following things that made Lebron James an uncompetive wimp that gave up every time:
    - Wade wins the league. He's the first guy of their draft class to lead a team to a championship. [By the way these guys were the #1, #5 and #6 picks of the best draft class of their generation and the #2 pick was irrelevant (Milicic)]. In fact, Lebron only became the 2nd player to achieve it without another lottery pick from their class in 2016 since the 2012 and 2013 included all three of them.

    - The new Team USA, with stars from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 draft class went to the World Championship and lost to Greece (European champions at the time, but with no NBA players) in the semi finals. And they failed to leave their mark. In fact, Carmelo Anthony was the only one that stood out from a roster that included Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Joe Johnson, Chris Bosh, Antwan Jamison, Kirk Hinrich and some others like Shane Battier, Brad Miller and Elton Brand.
    Melo was the only guy who made it to the All-Tournament team and Lebron who was hyped as the next Jordan was viewed as a very poor imitation in the eyes of the world, shooting 55% from the free throw line, barely being a top 20 scorer (per game) in the tournament with 14 points with Melo and Wade ahead of him with 19-20 points and just a 33.33% 3 PT%, in a FIBA court whose dimensions were closer to the NCAA standards than the NBA standards.
    He was underwhelming.

    - 2008 Olympics. The same core wanted to redeem itself so they were called the "Redeem Team". Not all were included but Lebron, Melo, Paul, Wade, Bosh and Howard were chosen along with Kobe, Kidd, Boozer, Deron Williams, Michael Redd and Tayshaun Prince.
    Spain had their number but Kobe responded with his mamba bites, whilst Wade was once more the bigger threat. Once again, Lebron was not a top 3 performer for Team USA and more and more people were concerned about his career from there on.

    - 2009 and 2010 Playoffs. Two big losses there with Lebron clearly giving up, especially in 2010.

    All of these things had lead Lebron to a defeatist stance and he wanted a mental boost. He joined the best player of his draft class. The guy who was the better than him at Team USA, the guy that won an NBA ring and was the 2nd most integral player in winning an Olympic Gold medal for him.

    For me, this discounts the rings that Lebron has from Miami by a large margin. He went to a place where the guy running the show was a winner, like he needed that kind of security. I get that it's not easy not having someone to to defer to, but this move exposed how fragile Lebron was. And the 2011 defeat just enhanced that view, especially after mocking Dirk with the coughing and being a sore loser right after.

    Now, had Lebron stayed in Cleveland and Bosh came to play with him, no one could have nor would have said anything negative. They'd say "okay, now he finally has help". Maybe he'd do better, maybe not. Nobody said that Lebron had to join New York or the Nets to prove a point. In fact, both Chicago and New York after Bosh moved to Miami and Wade committed to stay would have been more obvious choices. Play with Rose and a solid core, play with Amare and a group of youngsters, stay in Cleveland and attract more talent or move to Miami with the person the world want you to beat since he's got your number all decade long plus another franchise player like Chris Bosh. I just cannot get over this fact and how people can hype someone up and talk about numbers and stats and records and Finals appearances and legacies. This is like playing a game on 'Very Easy' mode and then saying that you are far better than someone struggling to pull something off in 'Very Hard' mode because you won more often.

Posting Permissions

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