Quote:
Originally Posted by Banzai-
Yea ok sorry I put that poorly. The actual peak Lebron years Cavs did obviously have some title equity. What I'm saying is that, if the best player ever* couldn't do it with a multiple attempts at a time when the league was quite soft (as you said, weakest winners in a decade), I don't think it's too much a stretch to say that, in general, one superstar teams aren't going to win rings, and so when comparing, say, Durant to Curry, who would carry a bunch of scrubs to more wins isn't really important, because neither is going to win the ring (Real Cavs might have had real title equity but hypothetical Curry Cavs or Durant Cavs obviously didn't IMO)
Re: Durant v Curry on 2013 Heat, I'll have a think a bit more about it. Maybe you're right and Durant would be better. My main point is that that sort of situation IS the kind of situation where it's important who would be better, because small differences can be worth big % in ring equity. I think we actually agree on this just spoke past each other a tad.
*I'm actually narrowly on the MJ side of MJ vs Lebron but I definitely think Lebron's more well rounded game makes him better suited to carrying a bunch of scrubs, so for this train of thought I'll call Lebron the best
As a side note to this conversation-that 09-10 playoffs was the worst playoff year I can remember. I'm a Laker hater I will add, but their team was good that year. However, with the Celtics not beating them, we missed out on Lebron ***** slapping Kobe in the finals which we never got to have with their "peaks" somewhat coinciding. And even worse of it all Nash and the Suns played some excellent ball and couldn't beat them in the WCF. Just an abysmal year for Lakerhater.
/rant