The NBA Thread.

The article literally points to the many ways that "everyone-is-trying-to-bring-him-down." The exchange with TMac and Pippen is a perfect example.

For that author, LeBron hasn't quite topped MJ. For me, he has. He may not get to 6 rings like Jordan (or maybe he will, at which time, there will be no debating), but Jordan never did it without Pippen and Phil, and he never came up against anything even closely resembling the juggernaut that were the Warriors for a 5 year span.

 

fwiw there will still be debate and it will be legitimate

 

Shouldn't you be in the Soccer thread posting, repeatedly, with yourself in Italian about Serie A?

 

How is it moronic, except in Indy-world, to say it's more impressive to accomplish more in less time. In fact, what the [uck fay] are you talking about? Moronic? How [uck fay]ing stupid is that argument? Did you really register it in your head this wasn't even resembling a common sense argument? Good lord, you have got to be kidding.

[uck fay]ing hell. I'm done on that brand of goddam moronic idiocy. I've already wasted more time than I intended towards your LeBron Tiger Beat turn on this board. Good luck.

 

I could tell you one place i've never been, that you have

 

In a Batman suit at a bar failing to hit on Catwoman?

Inside of a beautiful woman?

 

In NBA Finals history, players who have led their team in points, rebounds, and assists for a Finals series:

LeBron - 7 times
Duncan - 1 time
Magic - 1 time
Jimmy Butler - 1 time

 

I'd say he's the GOAT. Jordan might have burned brighter at times the same way there have probably been QBs better than Brady, but LeBron has had the best career. And I'm not sure anyone has ever burned brighter than LeBron in the '16 Finals, even with the numbers Jordan put up against Portland.

 

Is LeBron could score more, he wouldn't need to lead them in assists, imo.

If LeBron would actually pass to his teammates, someone else might have the opportunity to lead them in scoring, jmo.

 

Duke bias, imo. Opinion invalid.

 

Neither of which are true, as you post from the car with Sabanocchio

 

I was close to calling him the GOAT after the '16 Finals win. To come back from 3-1 down was so historically great, and to do it against a team that was head and shoulders above anything MJ ever had to face in the Finals just made it that much better. But he was still only at 3 total, and the 2011 flop was still a relatively recent memory.

This 4th title gets him over the hump for me. Like IP said earlier, there can be no question that LeBron is the ingredient that leads to titles. He's done it with too many different coaches and supporting casts, at this point. He takes players/teams/coaches who can't consistently win playoff series, and turns them into championship teams, almost immediately upon his arrival. That, mixed with the sustained greatness as the best player in the world for so long despite so many people trying to take it away from him any chance they can, gets him over the hump. He's the GOAT.

 

Wilt.

 

MJ is GOAT.

I actually like LeBron more.

 

There are so many reasons. This whole "did it in a shorter period of time" is just another example in the long list of BS people are making up to try to maintain MJ's legacy over LeBron.

First, titles are based on so many other factors and circumstances than a single player on a single team, so putting so much weight on the exact number of titles has always been stupid. I've always just humored the opinion because I chose to play the long game, assuming LeBron would get close to 6 if not match it. If 6 rings is the end all, the Russell is the GOAT and Kareem is tied with Jordan.

But we don't say that because we understand that other factors and circumstances play a big role in who wins a championship, especially in a sport like basketball where so much emphasis is placed on the abilities of a few players. For example, Russell won titles back when there were only 8 teams in the league. As such, his titles lose some of their value/meaning, to a degree.

Does anyone say "Dirk is not an all time great because it took him until year 13 to win a title?" Of course not. Because people understand that all sorts of outside factors and circumstances play into whether and when a player wins a title.

LeBron James has no control over the fact that the greatest NBA basketball team ever assembled fell right in the middle of his prime. Plug those Warriors teams into either the first or second 3-peat of Jordan, and Jordan doesn't have his 6 rings.

LeBron has no control over Cleveland's inability to put anything close to a championship roster around him for the first 7 years of his career. Compare that 07 Cavs roster that Bron carried to the Finals to any MJ championship roster. It's mind blowing.

LeBron has no control over his 2nd and 3rd best players getting injured for the 2016 Finals. Does MJ win all of his titles if he loses Pippen for an entire Finals series, let alone Pippen and the third best play on any of those teams? We will never know for sure, but you can pretty safely assume that the answer is no.

Other factors and circumstances matter for winning a title at it's base, let alone winning multiple consecutively or in a certain amount of time. Because of this, putting a time stamp on it doesn't really make much sense.

Second, the only reason this point gets brought up in the first place is to downplay LeBron's epic longevity. If you switch the narrative from "6 rings" to "6 rings in shorter career" (since, again, MJ never played for the Wizards, according to revisionist history), you effectively neuter anything LeBron does for the rest of his career, which is a ridiculous approach. The second part of "MJ did it in a shorter period of time" is "but couldn't maintain his success for as long as LeBron has." Bron has titles and Finals MVP's in years 9, 10, 13, and 17. You could pretty easily make the argument that one player winning multiple titles in succession is less impressive than another player winning the same number of titles over a longer period of time. The latter better demonstrates sustained, long term greatness against an array of different factors and circumstances, especially when you consider the otherworldly performances that still took place in years 14 and 15, and the fact that he was in the finals for 9 out of the 10 seasons surrounding his titles.

 

I feel extremely confident that if you plug any of Jordan's finals opponents in for the GS Warriors the 4 years between 2014-2015 and 2017-2018, and take away injuries, LeBron has at least 1 more title, but probably has 3 more.

Alternatively, plug those last 3 years of Warriors into either of MJ's 3-peats, and I don't even feel confident that he wins 1 title. I don't think it's even debatable that 1 would be the absolute ceiling.

That's why the time stamp thing is stupid. Individual players can't control when all time great dynasties are going to pop up, when devastating injuries are going to occur, or when their teams are going to fail to surround them with any talent.

 

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...xt-los-angeles-lakers-miami-heat-all-30-teams

The Warriors at 6, Nets at 10, Heat at 9 and Jazz at 13 all seem too low, and the Nuggets at 4, Mavericks at 5, and Celtics/76ers at 7 and 8 seem too high.

The Nuggets were a 2 point game 7 victory away from getting knocked out in the first round by the Jazz. Seems odd, then, to put the Nuggets 4th and the Jazz all the way down at 13th.

The Warriors still have the same core (Steph, Klay, Draymond) that set the NBA single season wins record a number of years ago. Add the #2 pick to that, and I'm not sure how you put them anywhere lower than 4th.

The Nets made the playoffs this year without KD and with Kyrie missing time. How can you possibly rank them 5th in the East going into next year?

The Heat just beat the Bucks and the Celtics, yet somehow fall lower than them (and the 76ers) on this list. They're also thought to be a top free agent destination going into next season, and Bam Adebayo seems to have taken his next step in his career progression. Why are they so low?

Mavs have the most exciting young player in the league, but I'm not sure how you rank them above rosters with bona fide champions like the Warriors and the Nets.

76ers and Celtics seem like 2 teams that are what they are. Based on this year's performance, I don't know how you put them above the Heat or the Nets, let alone some of the teams out West.

 

Excellent.

 

https://theundefeated.com/features/its-time-to-end-the-lebron-james-michael-jordan-debate/

Okay, I gotta get some work done.

 

Before I regret getting sucked back in, I did find this statistic interesting in the never ending debate.

All-Star Games by Teammates:

Jordan - 11 (6 players)
James - 44 (14 players)

I'll wait for the impassioned 5 paragraph response. I can only hope Indy doesn't break the keyboard of his computer as he angrily types out his breakdown.