Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 340 of 452 FirstFirst ... 240290330338339340341342350390440 ... LastLast
Results 5,086 to 5,100 of 6768
  1. #5086
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,139
    Lets say Lebron wins 2 more rings as a #2 to Davis or who ever its still going to be spun in context that Kobe winning as #2 to Shaq is better.

  2. #5087
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    It's funny, CP3/Blake are likely considered more talented than the spurs team. Would anyone be scared of playing those clippers despite the "talent"?

    It's pretty ridiculous the levels we are going to downgrade that Spurs team now. Like they weren't as talented as multiple teams in the league based on this crazy look yet they made back to back finals and won once. How? Pure luck I guess because they aren't talented.
    Itís also weird to argue the Spurs has 1 All-Star caliber player in Tony Parker when the very prior year Tim Duncan was All-NBA 1st team and All-Defensive 1st team.

  3. #5088
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,139
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    It's funny, CP3/Blake are likely considered more talented than the spurs team. Would anyone be scared of playing those clippers despite the "talent"?

    It's pretty ridiculous the levels we are going to downgrade that Spurs team now. Like they weren't as talented as multiple teams in the league based on this crazy look yet they made back to back finals and won once. How? Pure luck I guess because they aren't talented.
    Maybe because no high flying acrobatic highlights and the low key attitude have them fly below the radar.

  4. #5089
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,245
    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.

  5. #5090
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First. You said there was NO excuse for a top 5 player to lose to a less talented team. Apparently there is an excuse, winning enough to make up for it.

    Second, Bird won enough to make up for it? He has 3 titles, as many as LeBron.

    Third, you are very inconsistent with your criteria for what makes a team talented. You contest the Lakers were more talented than the Piston, but they featured 2 All-NBA 1st Team players and the Pistons has 1 All-Star. So if a 1 All-Star Pistons team can be more talented than a team with multiple All-NBA 1st team players, why couldnít the 1 All-Star Spurs?

    Fourth, The 15/16 Cavs weíre now drastically more talented than the rest of the league? The Warriors has more All-NBA players and more All-Stars than the Cavs...

    Fifth, If youíre going to crap on the Spurs talent in 14 because they had 1 All-Star, Does LeBron get credit for beating the stacked 2013 Spurs? Duncan made the All-NBA 1st team and Parker made the All-NBA 2nd team, the Heat didnít even have 2 players on the 1st and 2nd teams (Wade made the 3rd team).

    Sixth, So did the Spurs get massively worse from 13 to 14? Did Duncan go from All-NBA 1st team (and All-Def. 1st team) to an old washed up role player in the span of a year? How did the Spurs actually win more games in 14 if they got so much worse?

    It seems like you completely change your criteria simply to criticize LeBron. Either way, your dislike for LeBron is becoming increasingly apparent.
    There's no excuse for a top 5 player all-time to lose to far less talented team, yes. Yes, they can make up for it if they win enough (it's not as if it's impossible to redeem yourself). Second, you keep missing the part about comparing the competition the players are going up against. Yes, Bird has as many titles as LBJ. LBJ also had more talent, relative to his competition. I've now said this multiple times. The more talent you have around you relative to your competition, the more you will be expected to win (i.e., the bar will be higher). The bar is higher for LBJ because he had more talent around relative to the rest of the league compared to the guys who we're comparing him to.

    We haven't really quantified what makes a team talented so it's not really fair to say that im being inconsistent. It's fair to say that you're not following what criteria im using. I'll tell you what criteria im not using, and that's whether guys are on an all-NBA team of some sort. And no, I dont think the spurs got much less talented from 13 to 14, I didn't think much of them in either year, at least as far as their talent went.

    I actually have no dislike for LBJ whatsoever and I've been consistent in saying that LBJ is held to a higher standard of winning than other players (e.g., Bird) because of the level of talent he's had compared to his completion versus those other players and the competition they went up against. To draw on an analogy here, if someone is given a million dollars to invest, they will be expected to make a bigger profit than someone is is given a quarter of that, especially if those million dollars were given to someone when the dollar was stronger.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-26-2020 at 01:03 AM.

  6. #5091
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Itís also weird to argue the Spurs has 1 All-Star caliber player in Tony Parker when the very prior year Tim Duncan was All-NBA 1st team and All-Defensive 1st team.
    Yep, duncan was gifted a few of those because the league liked him (it happens to a lot of older greats, that doesn't mean theyre still producing at that level), but he certainly didn't have either of accolades those in 2014, so it's a moot point...and yes, a year can make a massive difference in performance when youre in your late 30s.

  7. #5092
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    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.
    There is nothing inconsistent about it. I have been very explicit about the fact that the criteria should be different for LBJ because he's played with elite talent throughout most of his prime and for most of those years he had the most talented team. So yes, when you have that advantage you will be held to a higher standard when it comes to winning than someone like Larry Bird. You just don't care about winning for some reason.

  8. #5093
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Lets say Lebron wins 2 more rings as a #2 to Davis or who ever its still going to be spun in context that Kobe winning as #2 to Shaq is better.
    It depends on the level of play LBJ is at. If he's still a super star and that happens that would carry a lot of weight. If he's more of a true #2, then that would carry less weight.

  9. #5094
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I just edited but they beat KD/West/Ibaka who many would argue is more talented then so the league still had them. The issue is you view this in a weird way where the better teams are worse if you view their top players as more talented (without reasoning/context/backing).

    Overall that Spurs group around Parker (Duncan/Manu/Kawhi) is better than the one around Lebron (Wade/Bosh/Allen). You wanna go further I take Danny Green next on either team. The overall talent/ability/context of a team matters a lot more than this idea of "talent" based on ones ability to score in volume while ignoring the rest of the game.
    Nah, that OKC team was far too young. As for the spurs, Wade and Bosh were still better than any of the guys you listed and they were better than Parker as well. The spurs played better basketball, but that's a different topic altogether.

  10. #5095
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,840
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    As I already explained, youíre complaining the Heat had a full house and the Celtics only had a 3 of a kind but the rest of the league only had a pair. They were still far more talented than the rest of the East, hence why they went to 4 straight Finals from 84-87. Thatís the exact same length of time of comparable dominance as LeBron.
    Nope, way off comparison.

    If you want to stick to this kind of comparison then the Celtics had a full house or four of a kind in some seasons, but their competition also had a full house or three of a kind.

    The Heat had a four of a kind and full house against teams with two pairs at best and in the second Cavs stint they even played against teams that wouls lose to ace highs while having a three of a kind.

    The problem those stacked Lebron teams had was that their Ace or..King was sometimes bust.

  11. #5096
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,670
    So now Duncanís All-NBA teams donít count because they were gifted to him?

    And I donít dislike LeBron, he just has to do more than others to get the same recognition.



    $20 bucks says if I say the 12-13 Heat were better than the 86 Celtics or 87 Lakers heíll disagree, but then continue to knock LeBron because his supporting cast is so good lol.

  12. #5097
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Yeah itís weird that Big Moves wants to separate talent and Greatness and then not admit the Thunder were every bit as talented as the Heat. They were inexperienced sure, but they had 3 MVP caliber talents on the team.

    The year they lost to the Heat in the Finals they had an All-NBA 1st Team, All-NBA 2nd team, All-Defense 1st team, and the 6th Man of the Year.

    If weíre just talking talent, that OKC team was extremely talented.
    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.

  13. #5098
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So now Duncanís All-NBA teams donít count because they were gifted to him?

    And I donít dislike LeBron, he just has to do more than others to get the same recognition.



    $20 bucks says if I say the 12-13 Heat were better than the 86 Celtics or 87 Lakers heíll disagree, but then continue to knock LeBron because his supporting cast is so good lol.
    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.

  14. #5099
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,124
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Nope, way off comparison.

    If you want to stick to this kind of comparison then the Celtics had a full house or four of a kind in some seasons, but their competition also had a full house or three of a kind.

    The Heat had a four of a kind and full house against teams with two pairs at best and in the second Cavs stint they even played against teams that wouls lose to ace highs while having a three of a kind.

    The problem those stacked Lebron teams had was that their Ace or..King was sometimes bust.
    Thank you! Someone who gets this point. It's really not that complicated.

  15. #5100
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Nah, that OKC team was far too young. As for the spurs, Wade and Bosh were still better than any of the guys you listed and they were better than Parker as well. The spurs played better basketball, but that's a different topic altogether.
    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?

Posting Permissions

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