Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 351 of 452 FirstFirst ... 251301341349350351352353361401451 ... LastLast
Results 5,251 to 5,265 of 6768
  1. #5251
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Probably because he compromised less than before. Again, it makes sense that Wade would decline because of injuries and age. makes no sense why Bosh would decline. The dude was in his 20s and had no real injuries. Bosh perked right back up once LBJ left thou. Probably not a coincidence.
    Again, it's the mark of a hater to just assume the negative. Your assumption is it must be LeBron.

    But if he compromised less how come:

    LeBron took less shots and FTs in 13 and 14? 18.8 FG a game and 8.3 FTs a game (26.9 PPG) in 11 and 12 compared to 17.7 FG a game and 7.3 FTs a game (27.0 PPG) in 13 and 14? Same is true of playoffs (19.9 FG and 8.9 FTs 11 and 12 to 18 FG and 7.8 FT in 13 and 14).

    So LeBron compromised less by... shooting less?

  2. #5252
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Well good thing you weren't a GM, because that Spurs team wouldn't have put up much of a fight against the lakers. Far more talented spurs teams than the 14 spurs faired far, far worst than the 2000 blazers teams. You know, teams with Duncan, Parker, and Ginoboli in the primes of their careers. Somehow though, the far older versions of those players would have been preferable to the guys who ended up giving the lakers their second biggest challenge. If you say so man.
    Actually, it sucks for the Blazers I wasn't a GM. Those Spurs teams managed to win a title while the unbeatable juggernaught 00's Blazers didn't.

    And to which of these Duncan, Parker, Ginobili teams in the primes of their careers are you referring? Never once did prime Duncan, Manu and Parker face the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

    It's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about at this point. When do you think Parker and Manu were in their prime?

  3. #5253
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Why isn't that true of a team like the Spurs, I bet each could have done more if on their own team too? Great built teams not reliant on a star will often be more based in the team movement than a Shaq/MJ/Lebron and both Blazers/Spurs had this happen. Valade has pointed out the accolades for some on that Spurs team though so we can go by that too. You haven't given a single valid reason they were better other than saying it is true and they were just taking lesser roles (which is true of any group coming together from carrying teams and so on).

    The spurs top talent was as good/better than Portland though. Duncan/Manu/Parker/Kawhi is more overall top talent in the league. I think Knicks or Bust laid out where they were all ranked by many at the time as well. Not stats or accolades but multiple other rankings. Let me guess, the rankings of players in the league is wrong just like stats/accolades. Again can you give any legitimate reasoning why the standard changed so much?
    Yep, Manu's whooping 10 pts a game while being featured on that team should be impressive. Same with Duncan's staggering 15 a night. These are the guys who are getting touted as being part of a super talented, elite core. The blazers were spreading it around among a bunch of guys. The spurs still featured Manu and Duncan quite prominently. Let's not forget however, that none of this actually matters or is relevant to the main point...which was that the heat were far more talented than the rest of the league during their run and as a result underperformed given that they only won 2 titles.

  4. #5254
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Actually, it sucks for the Blazers I wasn't a GM. Those Spurs teams managed to win a title while the unbeatable juggernaught 00's Blazers didn't.

    And to which of these Duncan, Parker, Ginobili teams in the primes of their careers are you referring? Never once did prime Duncan, Manu and Parker face the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.

    It's pretty obvious you don't know what you're talking about at this point. When do you think Parker and Manu were in their prime?
    The blazers were older at that point and that was their only real push. What exactly did that core of the spurs follow up their 14 title run with? Oh that's right, they got upset by the young clipper team in the first round (despite KL turning into a star). Yep, that spurs team was a real powerhouse.

    The spurs were beat in 04 (sure maybe Parker and manu weren't in their primes). How about when they got beat by the Kobe/Pau lakers in 08 (very, very easily...I mean this was a walk in the park)? Pretty sure that the 2000 blazers team would've fared better (it would've been pretty hard to fare worst). This spurs team was vastly more talented than the 13 or 14 spurs and they were embarrassed by an actual contender, yet somehow the 14 spurs team was this super talented ball club. Really???
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-26-2020 at 02:46 PM.

  5. #5255
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    10,392
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yep, Manu's whooping 10 pts a game while being featured on that team should be impressive. Same with Duncan's staggering 15 a night. These are the guys who are getting touted as being part of a super talented, elite core. The blazers were spreading it around among a bunch of guys. The spurs still featured Manu and Duncan quite prominently. Let's not forget however, that none of this actually matters or is relevant to the main point...which was that the heat were far more talented than the rest of the league during their run and as a result underperformed given that they only won 2 titles.
    I have pointed it out but Steve Smith/Pippen and so on also weren't scoring in bunches either lol. This is what I mean so inconsistent over and over with changing standards.

    The issue is people have pointed out stats, accolades, player rankings, all of our eye tests clearly disagree and the only thing you can push is an inconsistent narrative of top talent. That is it and despite all the context/data/opinions/stats and so on shared by many you keep ignoring all of it and making points that don't work 3 posts later as you flip flop on how you judge talent to push your narrative. Per 100 possessions Duncan/Manu/Parker were all scoring more pts than any player on 2000 Portland. Your narrative only works if we agree on ignoring all of the above for your insane view on "talent"

  6. #5256
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    3,932
    I love how this guy just blames LeBron for everything. here's what I know: LeBron goes to Miami, they start winning. leBron goes to Cleveland, they start winning. LeBron goes to the Lakers, they start winning. Dude, just STFU. You have typed the most junk on here the past week and the substance behind it is beyond lacking.

  7. #5257
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    After all that in conclusion itís Lebron. If you have to put so much effort in to dilute Lebron to prop up another I think itís self explanatory.

  8. #5258
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Well, they got beat in 04 (sure maybe Parker and manu weren't in their primes). How about when they got beat by the Kobe/Pau lakers in 08 (very, very easily...I mean this was a walk in the park)? Pretty sure that the 2000 blazers team would've faired better (it would've been pretty hard to faire worst).
    How generous of you to admit that a 21 year old Parker and a 2nd year Manu scoring 12 PPG "maybe" weren't in their primes

    But yes, they did lose to the 08 Lakers, the year after winning the title I might add (in fact, they had just won 3 titles in 5 years). Though it is fair to point out outside of Duncan, Manu and Parker, their primary contributors were 36 year old Bruce Bowen, 36 year old Brent Barry, 34 year old Michael Finley and 37 year old Robert Horry.

  9. #5259
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,848
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    So how many rings does Pippen have?
    Pippen gets to keep all 6 because that makes Jordan's have less value. PSD math.

  10. #5260
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    I have pointed it out but Steve Smith/Pippen and so on also weren't scoring in bunches either lol. This is what I mean so inconsistent over and over with changing standards.

    The issue is people have pointed out stats, accolades, player rankings, all of our eye tests clearly disagree and the only thing you can push is an inconsistent narrative of top talent. That is it and despite all the context/data/opinions/stats and so on shared by many you keep ignoring all of it and making points that don't work 3 posts later as you flip flop on how you judge talent to push your narrative. Per 100 possessions Duncan/Manu/Parker were all scoring more pts than any player on 2000 Portland. Your narrative only works if we agree on ignoring all of the above for your insane view on "talent"
    Steve smith was averaging 18 a game the year before. When accounting for how the game slowed down during this time and the defensive rules, that's actually going to be far better than the spurs leading scorer. Pippen was still outscoring Manu, despite Manu having a far larger role and that said differences in scoring that occurred during those eras.

  11. #5261
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The blazers were older at that point and that was their only real push. What exactly did that core of the spurs follow up their 14 title run with? Oh that's right, they got upset by the young clipper team in the first round (despite KL turning into a star). Yep, that spurs team was a real powerhouse.

    The spurs were beat in 04 (sure maybe Parker and manu weren't in their primes). How about when they got beat by the Kobe/Pau lakers in 08 (very, very easily...I mean this was a walk in the park)? Pretty sure that the 2000 blazers team would've fared better (it would've been pretty hard to fare worst). This spurs team was vastly more talented than the 13 or 14 spurs and they were embarrassed by an actual contender, yet somehow the 14 spurs team was this super talented ball club. Really???
    Again, it's a mark of someone's hatred when they won't give the other team their full due. You talk about what the Spurs did after 2014, but what about before?

    2012 WCF
    2013 Finals
    2014 Champions

    And then in 2015 they were upset by the Clippers, however in 2016 they won 67 games and in 2017 they went to the WCFs and won 61 games.

    So 2 trips to the Finals, a title and another WCF finals trip? You know who else's resume is the exact same? The Celtics big 3. I guess they sucked too right? Or is there some reason them doing the exact same things as the Spurs means they were way better?

  12. #5262
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    33,689
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    Pippen gets to keep all 6 because that makes Jordan's have less value. PSD math.
    Yeah, PSD is sure known for it's Jordan hate

    Are you forgetting we literally had to introduce the "Jordan Rule" into All-Time Redrafts because of how highly people viewed him?

  13. #5263
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    How generous of you to admit that a 21 year old Parker and a 2nd year Manu scoring 12 PPG "maybe" weren't in their primes

    But yes, they did lose to the 08 Lakers, the year after winning the title I might add (in fact, they had just won 3 titles in 5 years). Though it is fair to point out outside of Duncan, Manu and Parker, their primary contributors were 36 year old Bruce Bowen, 36 year old Brent Barry, 34 year old Michael Finley and 37 year old Robert Horry.
    Not really relevant. That was probably their best year as a trio and even if that's not the case, this team was vastly better than the 14 team (especially as far as talent goes), yet they were embarrassed by the lakers (who had just really come together and were still figuring out how to play championship basketball). It's also worth noting that the powerhouse 2014 spurs followed up their title by getting ousted in the first round by a young clippers team (despite KL becoming a star and this team being more talented than the 14 team, as a result).

  14. #5264
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Again, it's a mark of someone's hatred when they won't give the other team their full due. You talk about what the Spurs did after 2014, but what about before?

    2012 WCF
    2013 Finals
    2014 Champions

    And then in 2015 they were upset by the Clippers, however in 2016 they won 67 games and in 2017 they went to the WCFs and won 61 games.

    So 2 trips to the Finals, a title and another WCF finals trip? You know who else's resume is the exact same? The Celtics big 3. I guess they sucked too right? Or is there some reason them doing the exact same things as the Spurs means they were way better?
    Yep, once Duncan retired they had a much better run (showing that he was a role player during this stretch). That was a much different team though (they now had LA and KL had turned into an elite player). The Celtics were better than this version of the spurs, yes. There is that whole thing you keep ignoring which is that the spurs really weren't that talented of a team during this stretch. Everyone of Boston's big 3 >> than the spurs best player during the 14 title run. I won't even get into Rondo and some of the bench guys. But yes, the Celtics were not just better, they were vastly superior to this spurs team.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-26-2020 at 03:01 PM.

  15. #5265
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    3,857
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Just to let you know, the bolded is the textbook remark of a hater. Everything is wrong but my opinion! Like I said, your bias is starting to show.

    Also, it's a measure of your bias to keep talking about how Duncan didn't even make the All-Star team in 2014 and then never once mention he was All-NBA and All-Defensive 1st team in 2013.

    I'm confused, do All-NBA and All-Star teams matter? Because with the Blazers the Lakers were clearly more talented based on All-NBA and All-Star players but with them it's "oh all those Blazers used to be All-Stars" and then with the Spurs suddenly that no longer matters.


    So for the last time, do we use All-NBA and All-Star teams to measure talent or not?
    Big Moves03 was right tho and you where wrong. Want what you wrong about? Duncan didnít make the all nab team in 2014. In fact he only made 1 all NBA 3rd team and 1 second all defense team for the rest of his career. Duncan was still a effective player but he had 16 seasons playing at a higher level in his career.

    Duncan in 02 was his highest scoring and highest rebounding season. All NBA and All defense. #2 in MVP. In the playoffs he had his highest points per game and second highest rebounds per game. Itís the only time he averaged 4 blocks a game in his career.

    The team to finally eliminate Duncan had a Kareem Abdul-Jabbar type player. A #2 non alpha player was able to lead the way with 26 points per game along with 5 rebounds and 5 assist. This player scored the most points and played the most mins with the highest GmSC on the team.

    Duncan did win one game tho in the series.

Posting Permissions

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