The Indy Talks To Himself (NBA) Thread.

I. Didn't. [uck fay]ing. Say. It. Did.

 

That's still a major gist of the argument. You don't seem to realize the fact that one has to address the different angles, then, the LeBron as #1 folks have concocted, if you are unwilling to accept this premise.

 

This is a great read:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id...-michael-jordan-why-goat-debate-different-now

For anyone looking to dismiss it as blindly favoring LeBron, it doesn't really favor either player significantly.

 

Why do I give a shit if he retired three times? And, what made Jackson legendary, the top 10 all timers who got him rings or his Zen stuff? Or, what about the guy who didn't even make the playoffs three times? The twists and turns are endless. The younger folks who didn't see Jordan at his apex will want their guy and the older folks who have seen both generally go with Jordan.

As for me, I'm still going with the guy who accomplished more in a shorter amount of time and never faltered when he got to the final stage, as well as the guy to my subjective eye who I would pick first on my team or give the ball to make a play if my life depended on it. I've seen James fold or fade in certain situations. I can't ever remember Jordan doing so. Mentally, James has gotten stronger over the years, for sure, but I still see noted differences in their killer mentality, especially at their physical primes. Perhaps you just weren't around for the Jordan years or whatever, but I've never quite seen this aspect in a player before or since.

So, no, James most assuredly does not have the better legacy right now.

 

So you agree that great finals performances, even in losses, are legacy enhancers? That carrying an undermanned team to the finals is a legacy enhancer, even if you lose in the finals?

If so, then I'm not sure why you replied to my initial post in the first place. You're the one who quoted it and replied.

There are a ton of people who hold LeBron's finals losses against him (I'd venture a guess that you are one of them, but I don't care enough to go back and find proof). It's absurd. Hopefully we can squash that sentiment, once and for all, today.

 

English please? You lost me after the 6 rings still being a major gist of the argument.

 

Great performances are helpful, but losses matter when you are getting to rarified air of discussing the GOAT. People will laud Butler's performance this Finals because he played well, mostly. But, no one is really discussing him as the GOAT, so he gets judged accordingly. James, however, is being pushed as the best, so he gets judged on the relevant criteria when making this discussion. Not a single rational person is going to have him lower than, say, 3rd all-time when he's done, so this idea he's being unfairly dogged in his legacy for Finals losses is silly. He's already gotten the credit. We are simply arguing on a higher plane.

 

It's written in English, mofo. The point was the 6 rings is still the gist of the Jordan argument and has been for years. However, if the James people are going to throw these other qualifiers since they can't claim the same number of rings, then they have to be countered as to why those don't make James the best.

 

It was poorly written.

New qualifiers matter when they are things that have never been done by anyone, ever. Winning Finals MVP on 3 different teams has never been done by anyone, ever. A quick list of the all time greats and the coaches/teammates with whom they won titles will show you, very quickly, that LeBron winning titles with 3 different coaches (who have NEVER won anything without him) is historically significant.

If you want to counter those points, you should continue to counter them with "6 rings." That's the actual counter. Instead, we are getting "lowest rated Finals in NBA history" or whatever garbage ssmiff is spouting about [uck fay]ing TV ratings. Again, it's embarrassing. Just stick to the "6 rings." It was the argument you and your ilk pushed years ago when LeBron started challenging MJ's legacy. MJ has done nothing new since, so the argument on your side shouldn't be changing.

 

Isn't this the sort of article always written in the immediate afterglow? I mean, I remember all these articles last year about how Kawhi was now the best player and going to dominate, etc. We'll probably have to wait for some perspective.

 

https://www.thebiglead.com/posts/mi...uggle-azone-defense-lebron-james-01e7dr8y7zvk

 

Also, LOL at holding LeBron missing the playoffs against him.

The Bulls made the playoffs in Jordan's second season with a 30-52 record, and Jordan missed like, 80% of the season. That's a .366 win percentage lmao

LeBron missed the playoffs in his second season with a 42-40 (winning) record and in his first with a 35-47 record. And that was on the [uck fay]ing Cleveland Cavaliers.

 

Maybe you should read the article and find out?

The article talks a LOT about the past and relatively little about last night. Just read it. It's worth it.

 

I would also say that coming back from down 3-1 against a team that was 73-9 and 39-2 at home is more impressive than any victory in Jordan's entire career

 

Now Ssmiff is the group's spokesperson or are you simply picking the ones whom are convenient to your argument? The six rings is sufficient, but the new arguments are the ones being displayed by you here, like the different teams deal. So, if you are going to make the argument, then wouldn't it be realistic to address the argument? TV ratings isn't a real factor in the overall discussions, it's merely a strawman you feel is easily defeated in your quest.

Is that [uck fay]ing clear enough for you, since your comprehension seems to be failing today?

 

The espn article I posted highlights this take as well. It shows the still shot of the GS Warriors defense on LeBron at the end of game 1 in the 2017-2018 finals:



That defense was not legal in Jordan's era. And yet, somehow, people still critique LeBron for making the right basketball play and passing the ball when the other team triple/quadruple teams him in big moments.

 

"But Kyrie hit the shot!"

Is LeBron the GOAT, Nashvol11?

 

I read most of it. It's length suggested you probably wrote it, until I got to the conclusion, where it, essentially, said Jordan was still the top dog. I don't disagree James has had an amazing career, as a player who is top 2 ever is going to have. There's only one guy better, in my opinion. When you look at it in this fashion, instead of the pissy everyone-is-trying-to-bring-him-down fashion you do, it's not quite as bad as you think it is.

 

The "TV Ratings" criterion is just an example of the type of abstract, subjective, meaningless arguments MJ fans have begun to throw out there as they see the "6 rings" argument start to fall into question. Here, use one of these instead:

- "Never needed a game 7"
- "He always took the shot"
- "He was a fiercer competitor"
- "He had the killer instinct"
- "He was more clutch" (The article I posted actually points out how people remember MJ as being more clutch despite the numbers proving that LeBron is more clutch)
- "Didn't leave his team to create a super team"
- "MJ didn't have the born traits of athleticism, size and frame"
- "Jordan never quit on his teammates" (except the two times he retired early)

And the most recent time constraints are probably the worst. "Jordan did it in less seasons" is such a moronic argument as to almost be higher on the preposterous list than the TV ratings.

The list goes on and on and on.

 

good lord, if you asked me, i'd say MJ. i definitely don't care enough to write eleventy billion posts crying about somebody disagreeing